Free agent is not contingent

  • Thread starter Thread starter STT
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
To me, it is not clear that how a free agent which is non-contingent has to be pure act. I am still wondering what do you mean with infinite
I explain it here:
That which is not created is eternal. What is eternal is that way either from being sustained eternally by an ontologically prior being or through its own essence. If its not the former, then the being is noncontingent. To be noncontingent is to be complete in being (as your nature explains your existence perfectly, meaning there is no room for external influences. That be so, it cannot have potentiality in any regard. But that requires complete actuality. Thus, the noncontingent being must be pure actuality). But the mind is most certainly not complete in being because we are lacking completness in knowledge, power, and comprehension. Thus, the mind is not noncontingent. There is no avoiding this conclusion unless you say that an externality makes you eternal, but that means you are not noncontingent, nor metaphysically simple, nor immutable, nor an uncaused cause. All the elements you need for your idea of free will.
The example in which a thief is not sure if he gets arrested or not. The situation is not certain. He has to decide and he is held responsible for his action if he gets arrested.
He deciedes with what little information he has by rationalizing the odds and measuring it against his purpose, ethics, and many more things. This is what we call thinking, as I said, and its always a rough process full of doubts. You never need complete information to go forward with a plan. Simply information measurements, and the rationization to go from one thing to another. If there is perfect indifference to the individual he chooses randomly or not at all. But these to are rationalized towards
 
Last edited:
That which is not created is eternal. What is eternal is that way either from being sustained eternally by an ontologically prior being or through its own essence. If its not the former, then the being is noncontingent.
Cool.
To be noncontingent is to be complete in being (as your nature explains your existence perfectly, meaning there is no room for external influences.
This is a part which I have problem with since non-contingent simply means that the existence is not due to another thing. It doesn’t say that it has to be complete. It doesn’t say that the on-contingent entity must not be under external influences either.
That be so, it cannot have potentiality in any regard. But that requires complete actuality. Thus, the noncontingent being must be pure actuality).
There is no potentiality in the mind’s substance.
But the mind is most certainly not complete in being because we are lacking completness in knowledge, power, and comprehension.
Mind does not need knowledge and power to be non-contingent. Why something which can exist on its own needs power and knowledge.
Thus, the mind is not noncontingent. There is no avoiding this conclusion unless you say that an externality makes you eternal, but that means you are not noncontingent, nor metaphysically simple, nor immutable, nor an uncaused cause. All the elements you need for your idea of free will.
Thus your conclusion does not follow.
 
He deciedes with what little information he has by rationalizing the odds and measuring it against his purpose, ethics, and many more things. This is what we call thinking, as I said, and its always a rough process full of doubts. You never need complete information to go forward with a plan. Simply information measurements, and the rationization to go from one thing to another. If there is perfect indifference to the individual he chooses randomly or not at all.
The complete information never exists but we have to move on. That is life. We freely choose and get the consequences.
 
Last edited:
This is a part which I have problem with since non-contingent simply means that the existence is not due to another thing. It doesn’t say that it has to be complete. It doesn’t say that the on-contingent entity must not be under external influences either
Right. So two things to this. The first is that to be noncontingent, we can agree, means that the keys to existing are within your nature and not anothers actions. Now, contrary to what Aristotle believed, prime matter or pure potentiality is nonbeing by definition. It is that which holds no actuality, but actuality is any aspect of attained existence. As such, prime matter is nonbeing. Why is that important? Because that fundementally means that actuality is one for one the exact same as existence. So any being which is not pure in actuality and therefore can be reduced to potentiality cannot be eternal through their own nature as that would require ever lasting being which is beginningless, and endless. But their being can have beginning, as it is not pure act and thus able to be caused, and it can have an end, as whatever act it does have can be reduced to potentiality oncemore. Thus, a being must be complete in being to be noncontingent.

Second, there is more to existence then simply the fact that one exists. There is the manner by which one exists. These two things are not disconnected however, for to exist is to exist, manner and all. Any property of the way you exist describes how you are existent at all over being non existent (as both are simple actualities in the end). For example, an immutable being is an eternal and infinite being, for both correspond to each other perfectly, as to be immutable is to hold no change and thus no potentiality, and an eternal and infinite being is simply the complete opposite of potentiality. Eternal being and infinite being must be the same too, as to be eternal is to be unending and unbeginning, but such is in correspondence to an infinite being who s(name removed by moderator)ly is actuality. Now, given that, we know the mind cannot be eternal for it is limited in faculty if it cannot hold memories, as you claim, and even if it did it still lacks in knowledge of all aspects of existence like a pure act being should. Now, to be limited is to be in correspondence with a temporariness over eternality, as to be eternal can only correspond with infinitude. Thus, one who is limited is not eternal without external assistance.
There is no potentiality in the mind’s substance.
Blatantly untrue. Do you know what potentiality is?
Mind does not need knowledge and power to be non-contingent. Why something which can exist on its own needs power and knowledge.
Because eternality can only correspond to infinitude in being.
 
Last edited:
Right. So two things to this. The first is that to be noncontingent, we can agree, means that the keys to existing are within your nature and not anothers actions. Now, contrary to what … But their being can have beginning, as it is not pure act and thus able to be caused, and it can have an end, as whatever act it does have can be reduced to potentiality oncemore. Thus, a being must be complete in being to be noncontingent.
Prime matter (what everything is made of) is “bare particles” according to Stanford pedia: Form vs. Matter (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy) so what you said related to actuality being the exact same as existence does not follow. I am a substance dualist by the way and not a hylomorphic dualist but I can follow you.
Second, there is more to existence then simply the fact that one exists. There is the manner by which one exists. These two things are not disconnected however, for to exist is to exist, manner and all. Any property of the way you exist describes how you are existent at all over being non existent (as both are simple actualities in the end). For example, an immutable being is an eternal and infinite being, for both correspond to each other perfectly, as to be immutable is to hold no change and thus no potentiality, and an eternal and infinite being is simply the complete opposite of potentiality. Eternal being and infinite being must be the same too, as to be eternal is to be unending and unbeginning, but such is in correspondence to an infinite being who s(name removed by moderator)ly is actuality. Now, given that, we know the mind cannot be eternal for it is limited in faculty if it cannot hold memories, as you claim, and even if it did it still lacks in knowledge of all aspects of existence like a pure act being should. Now, to be limited is to be in correspondence with a temporariness over eternality, as to be eternal can only correspond with infinitude. Thus, one who is limited is not eternal without external assistance.
Manner has nothing to do with existence.
Blatantly untrue. Do you know what potentiality is?
Yes, it means the capacity to be different or more complete according to Stanford Pedia: Aristotle’s Metaphysics (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy). That is true by fact, your very existence cannot have another form or be more complete. It is simple you, same as yesterday, and the day before, etc.
Because eternality can only correspond to infinitude in being.
What is infinity?
 
Prime matter (what everything is made of) is “bare particles” according to Stanford pedia: Form vs. Matter (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy) so what you said related to actuality being the exact same as existence does not follow.
Yes, something which is pure potentiality. Matter without form. But such things, as I’ve laid out are nonbeing by definition.
Manner has nothing to do with existence.
Yes it does. Consider how at this moment I have black hair. Once I become 30 or 40, I will have grayer hair. This is a change in existence, of course. Now consider if I have no hair at all. There is thus nonexistentence in my being, or otherwise none as potentiality. No, consider if all traits, attributes, and manifestations were also eraaed. What am I left with? Nothing but potentiality. If potentiality is prime matter which is nonbeing, then I no longer exist. As such, manner of existence is tied one for one with existence.
Yes, it means the capacity to be different or more complete according to Stanford Pedia: Aristotle’s Metaphysics (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy).
Okay, glad we’re on the same page then.
That is true by fact, your very existence cannot have another form or be more complete.
Sure it can be. I could be more powerful to exercise my will. I could know more about reality. I could understand more. All such things imply a limitation to my being, which of course also implies a completion which is logically attainable. As such, there is potentiality in my being.
What is infinity?
Infinity in metaphysics is when a being is pure actuality and devoid of potentiality.
 
Yes, something which is pure potentiality. Matter without form. But such things, as I’ve laid out are nonbeing by definition.
No. Prime matter is not nonbeing.
Yes it does. Consider how at this moment I have black hair. Once I become 30 or 40, I will have grayer hair. This is a change in existence, of course. Now consider if I have no hair at all. There is thus nonexistentence in my being, or otherwise none as potentiality. No, consider if all traits, attributes, and manifestations were also eraaed. What am I left with? Nothing but potentiality. If potentiality is prime matter which is nonbeing, then I no longer exist. As such, manner of existence is tied one for one with existence.
You are made of prime matter. Prime matter is not nothing.
Sure it can be. I could be more powerful to exercise my will. I could know more about reality. I could understand more. All such things imply a limitation to my being, which of course also implies a completion which is logically attainable. As such, there is potentiality in my being.
These are attribute of person. Not mind.
 
No. Prime matter is not nonbeing.
Prime matter is pure potentiality. Existence is an actuality. Therefore, prime matter is nonexistence. QED.
You are made of prime matter. Prime matter is not nothing.
Actualized prime matter, sure. But certainly not prime matter in and of itself.
These are attribute of person. Not mind.
STT, the mind is a being. If the mind doesn’t hold certain faculties, it is limited in being and thus holds potentiality. It doesn’t matter if it wouldn’t constitute as a mind any more to you. Just in the same way that a chair changing and being actualized into something else doesn’t indicate that it would still be a chair. That doesn’t mean the chair doesn’t have potentiality. This is the existence/essence contrast. Existence has potentiality unless its pure existence, and essence is simply the nature of a given being. Thus, the mind has potentiality.
 
Prime matter is pure potentiality. Existence is an actuality. Therefore, prime matter is nonexistence. QED.
If you add nothing to nothing you get nothing and not something.
Actualized prime matter, sure. But certainly not prime matter in and of itself.
What do you mean? Are you made of prime matter? How that could be nothing?
STT, the mind is a being. If the mind doesn’t hold certain faculties, it is limited in being and thus holds potentiality. It doesn’t matter if it wouldn’t constitute as a mind any more to you. Just in the same way that a chair changing and being actualized into something else doesn’t indicate that it would still be a chair. That doesn’t mean the chair doesn’t have potentiality. This is the existence/essence contrast. Existence has potentiality unless its pure existence, and essence is simply the nature of a given being. Thus, the mind has potentiality.
Mind also has some attributes but they are unchanging, ability to experience, decide, and cause.
 
If you add nothing to nothing you get nothing and not something.
Yes.
What do you mean? Are you made of prime matter? How that could be nothing?
Yes, our being comes from prime matter in the sense that before existence there was nonexistence and the actualization of nonexistence brings existence. Its a simple equation; all change is reduction of potency to act and act to potency. As such, nonbeing being potency may be reduced to act. As such, we come from nonbeing as a material cause in a sense, as it is transformed into a formal cause of existence.
Mind also has some attributes but they are unchanging, ability to experience, decide, and cause.
Once more I say unto you that the mind must change in state to produce different effects. This is an unavoidable truth. Second, oncemore I say unto you that a limitation in faculties is itself a show of potentiality. Further, a limitation in the subject of those faculties to which is held is a show of potentiality. As such, the mind is in potentiality.
 
Cool. So if you are made of things so-called prime matter then the prime matter cannot be nothing.
…no. There is a distinction between material cause, formal cause, and efficient cause. All change is a reduction of potency to act. Creation is a change. Therefore it follows this format too. 0 plus 0 is 0, but 0 plus 5 is not 0. In that same sense, so long as an actualized efficient cause is in place, the material cause may be potency, for potency is reducible to actuality, which is existence. Thus, the material cause of nonbeing may become the formal cause of being.
 
Last edited:
…no. There is a distinction between material cause, formal cause, and efficient cause.
I know the difference.
All change is a reduction of potency to act. Creation is a change. Therefore it follows this format too. 0 plus 0 is 0, but 0 plus 5 is not 0.
Yes, 0 is prime matter. What is 5?
In that same sense, so long as an actualized efficient cause is in place, the material cause may be potency, for potency is reducible to actuality, which is existence. Thus, the material cause of nonbeing may become the formal cause of being.
How the bold part could be true?
 
Yes, 0 is prime matter. What is 5?
The efficient cause.
How the bold part could be true?
Because if potentiality, by its very nature, can be actualized into something. For example, the pieces of wood of a table aren’t a table until its potency is actualized by a builder. In that same sense, pure actuality can bring actuality to rise from pure potentiality because potentiality can be actualized.
 
The efficient cause.
Then what do you mean with 5 plus 0 is not 0?
Because if potentiality, by its very nature, can be actualized into something. For example, the pieces of wood of a table aren’t a table until its potency is actualized by a builder. In that same sense, pure actuality can bring actuality to rise from pure potentiality because potentiality can be actualized.
Here you simply saying that God creates. That however is not an explanation for the bold part: Thus, the material cause of nonbeing may become the formal cause of being. since you are saying that wood may become form of a chair.
 
40.png
quaestio45:
Matter without form. But such things, as I’ve laid out are nonbeing by definition.
No. Prime matter is not nonbeing.
@quaestio45 is correct, here. “Prime matter” is matter without form. Since it has no form, it does not participate in ‘being’ for any entity.
You are made of prime matter. Prime matter is not nothing.
No. I think you misunderstand what “prime matter” is. Once it’s part of a being, it is no longer ‘prime matter’.
 
Thus, the material cause of nonbeing may become the formal cause of being. since you are saying that wood may become form of a chair.
Yes, because the wood is actualizing its potentiality in the same way nonbeing becomes being because nonbeing is potentiality and being is actuality. Thus, the bold is correct: the material cause of nonbeing may become the formal cause of being.
 
@quaestio45 is correct, here. “Prime matter” is matter without form . Since it has no form, it does not participate in ‘being’ for any entity.
He claim that prime matter is nothing which I disagree. Stanford Pedia says: As a completely indeterminate substratum, prime matter bears some similarities to what modern philosophy has called a “bare particular” (see Sider 2006), although, not being a particular, it may have more in common with so-called “gunk”.

Bare particular is defined in wiki as: In substance theory, a bare particular of an object is the element without which the object would not exist, that is, its substance, which exists independently from its properties, even if it is impossible for it to lack properties entirely. It is “bare” because it is considered without its properties and “particular” because it is not abstract. The properties that the substance has are said to inhere in the substance.

Gunk is defined in wiki as: In mereology, an area of philosophical logic, the term gunk applies to any whole whose parts all have further proper parts. That is, a gunky object is not made of indivisible atoms or simples . Because parthood is transitive, any part of gunk is itself gunk.

I don’t think any of these is nothing.
No. I think you misunderstand what “prime matter” is. Once it’s part of a being, it is no longer ‘prime matter’.
Are you suggesting that nothing once it become part of a being is not nothing anymore?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top