How Aquinas confuses the First and Second way

[Linusthe2nd]

BlueH

Linus

I really don’t understand the point Linus.
For modern Physics to be unable to explain natural/violent motion it would have to agree with the system of such a way of thinking. Aristotle held that the elements fire and air naturally lifted, earth and water naturally descended.

Modern Physics doesn’t hold to such a way of thinking. If a hot gas rises it is only because colder air which surrounds it is more dense. Therefore, like a bubble in water, the colder air is, by gravity, pulled down under the hot gas (say a hot air balloon) and literally lifts the balloon up and displaces it from its former position.

It takes a transfer of energy to do this (that balloon has heavy propane tanks). Where does that energy come from? It likely comes from the difference in mass of the equal volumes of cold/hot air as they displace each other.

Energy=Force x distanceMoved. The Force is supplied by mass x acceleration. The mass has just been described. The acceleration force is that due to the attraction of the air to the earth (9.8 m/s/s).

So modern Physics does not really accept there is such a thing as “natural motion” as you put it. Anything made of matter (including particles on fire and air) is pulled to earth unless their is a countering force that pulls or pushes it the other way.

Aristotle/Aquinas seem mistaken on this point if they thought the elements of fire and air “naturally” rose. Its just relative displacement.

But what has the cow to do with things? And why cannot modern Physics explain it?

I don’t appeal to his authority Linus.
I appeal to his inferred principles because they work every time in the observable world for bodies at speeds significantly less than that of light.

Unlike some philosophic principles which keep searching for an alleged hidden reason to explain their, to date, gaps in the realm of instrumental causes of temporal motion.

BY “Newton” I am just using a shortcut to describe that new body of knowledge called modern Physics.

Well, if you refuse to be objective and reasonable in your argumentation, there isn’t much I or anyone else here can do. You seem to have your own preconceived notions, Scholastic Philosophy built largely on Aristotelianism is old fashioned and outdated and has been replaced by the New Scienc which followed Newton. You have a biased viewpoint. So why are you arguing? I am, on the other hand, willing to acknowledge the value of modern science but know that Scholastic Philosophy is highly valuable, even to science. I have asked you several times if you have read Feser or Thomas or Aristotle. You have not responded.

Linus2nd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

So which type of series is this?
upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d3/Newtons_cradle_animation_book_2.gif

Per Accidens. and such a motion may be infinite or finite. Looks like this one is finite.

Linus2nd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Above may be why you don’t often get convincingly far with your “arguments” Linus.
You rarely give your own personal views as directly applied to the specific discussion at hand. You seem to just throw in something generic from someone else - and don’t make it easy for others to engage your source (eg a book not freely available online) nor do you convenience your debaters by briefly summarising the argument of the author/commentator you recommend.

Then when people don’t seem to know what you are really on about you go all holier-than-thou “you haven’t read what I said or you have not studied it.” .

Anways, now that I have finally got somewhere with one of your typical opaque examples of the above we might continue a little…

First up, no I haven’t searched for your thread. It is you who are challenging my comments so if you haven’t got the time to briefly summarise your objection and source it adequately then I haven’t got time to read it.

WRT your quote from Newton’s Optiks (which I had to force out of you) that is interesting. I would have come back to you sooner if you sourced it correctly…the book does not appear to run to 540 pages (it doesn’t help that you didn’t mention the edition or the publisher). Nor does it help that you quoted/referred an article that you know no one here as easy access to … so you cannot be surprised when you get ignored on this point you are making.

However, after going through the copy of Optiks I do have access to (and a few commentary’s) I see you have cherry picked views on Newton’s quote and nothing is at all as clear cut as you have suggested above.

…continued…

The world does not have to bow to your sense of what things should be and not be available on the internet. Some things just aren’t that is all.

The value of my argumentation does not rest on your acceptance of them. If you do not want to read what I said elsewhere that is your problem, not mine.

I told you my source was Wallace’s book. And since your views are obviously biased, and since Wallace is a world renounded scholar of the highest order, we must reject your accusation of " cherry picking. " That is pretty cheeky if I may say.

Oh BTW, since you like things online check this out when you cool off. A short online course on the Philosophy of Nature by William A. Wallace, home.comcast.net/~icuweb/c02000.htm

Linus2nd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

…continued…

What I do agree with is that Newton considers the property of inertia in bodies to be a passive principle. Well that is pretty obvious really. A bit more interesting is that Newton hypothesised/mused (which is what his “queries” are) that inertia seems to be in potency to an activating principle. Its interesting because I hadn’t realised the Aristotelian matter/form analogy was so explicitly used of inertia in Newton’s mature speculating.

Amazing isn’t it. But you won’t hear anyone of the modern scientists refer to that, it would probably end their career.

The question of course is what does Newton mean by “By this principle alone there never could be any motion in the world.”

We can only surmise what Newton meant. However he recognized there must be a cause. And ultimately, as I have shown, it will be God who created the nature of the moving object and who created the nature and power of the generator of the motion - the agent ( whatever was the immediate cause of the inertia ) who projected the object.

Linus the interpretation you are taking is but one of a number of popularly debated views since Newton wrote this. Nor do I think it a mainstream or natural reading of query31 if further paragraphs in query31 are taken into account. I can see why your reading would appeal to Thomists seeking Aristotelian support in Newton.

There are only a limited number of possibilities. It has to be one of those I enumerated.

Indeed, when Newton wrote this he was accused by Leibnitz and others of re-introducing the agency of occult scholastic principles (eg Angels or God) back into “modern” Physics.

Who cares what Leibnitz said, he had his own anti-christianity views. He and many like him rejected Christianity.

I believe this was because Newton was in fact talking about a hidden “force at a distance” (ie attraction between objects without mechanical contiguity). Some thought he was speaking of God or angels. Many, including you by the sound of it, seem to have taken a similar view.

It has to be one of a limited number of possibilities.

Yet, the most likely thing Newton meant by “Some other principle” wrt local motion is simply what we now call “force” (eg gravity) acting invisibly over great distances of, in his day, empty space.
“Force”, as we understand it today, was pretty much a completely new and extremely strange concept when introduced at Newton’s time. Easily misunderstood as “occult” angelic instrumentality.

I think science is still much opposed to " attraction at a distance. " But why is that? If it isn’t gravity from some source unknown, then it has to be some other power unknown, perhaps electrical.

Just as Kochiras, a good spokesman of this “force” view, articulates on p150ff of his book:
books.google.co.nz/books?id=X5iGIMPcrAoC&pg=PA116&lpg=PA116&dq=%22The+vis+inertiae+is+a+passive+principle%22&source=bl&ots=G6ceMj5rsY&sig=PRXZ_rGVntRlgXWTOjW2QKY7RiY&hl=en&sa=X&ei=eUA6VPiuO8nd8AWw9ILYDQ&ved=0CB4Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22by%20this%20principle%20alone%22&f=false

"As the passage continues Newtyon calls these further principles “active principles” and he attributes a vast and diverse class of phenomena to them…’…such as are the cause of gravity…’ "

Linus you’ve jumped to God far too soon, Newton is still speaking of instrumental agents of motion which put passive inertia into act.

And at the end of the instrumental agents, you have god, who is pure act. You see, I know the philosophical principles. So I know the final answer.

Sure Newton eventually speaks of God but only when speaking of being-as-being not being-in-locomotion.

Being as being, pure act, is the ultimate cause of a being-in-motion.

Obviously beings in locomotion still need to have their being explained … but if we have to do that to find God in the First Way then the OPs thread topic is proven - the First and Second Ways are in fact mixed.

I said that the First Way was a special application of the efficient cause argument of the Second Way. It isn’t a big point. In both arguments we reach God.

One thing you haven’t commented on was my explanation of the cause of the " uniform motion " posited by Newton.

Linus2nd

 

[Richca]

But what sort of local motion are you assuming … uniform velocity or not? It makes a big difference for understanding Newton on this point.

Well, it doesn’t make a difference to Aquinas whether a body is in uniform motion, tri- motion, acceleration, deceleration, going right , left, forward or backwards; the body is in motion and undergoing change. Now the metaphysical and universal principle of motion in Thomistic metaphysics is that whatever is in process of change is being changed by something else. You need a mover or being in act and a being in potentiality as fire makes wood hot. In those beings where one part moves another part such as in animals where the soul moves the body, the source of this motion comes from another. The reason for this is that when the soul moves the body, this movement of the soul is a change, a motion, and thus, since motion is the act of a being in potency in so far as it is still in potency, this movement of the soul must come from another.

In commenting on Aristotle’s physics (I think it is his physics), Aquinas says that the movement of natural bodies [elemental bodies] are not born upward or downward as though moved by some external agent. External agent here is a physical mover. These are natural motions and the generating cause of their forms is their mover. So, according to Aristotle, not everything in the world need be moved by some external agent in the world, however, not without the first or unmoved mover who is the source of all motion. Earth moves downward because of certain active and passive qualities inherent in the nature of earth.

Accordingly, the hypothetical heavenly body in uniform motion, ( I say hypothetical because I have not seen any proof that there is such a body on this thread or on the internet, maybe there is, maybe there isn’t, at any rate its irrelevant to Aquinas’ first proof), could be something like the natural motions of the elemental bodies of Aristotle in which case an external physical mover would not be necessary. In this case, either God immediately or mediately through an angel would be the mover of this hypothetical body in uniform motion. A heavenly body in uniform motion if not moved by any physical external agent, would still need God to move it though he may do so through an angel. The heavenly body is still undergoing change and even if this is through its active and passive qualities somehow, this would involve a change in these powers which require an outside mover. No creature, either on the micro-quantum level or the macro galactic level nor human beings can move or put forth any act without God moving it to act.

The natural motion hypothesis is just one out of many possibilities. A heavenly body in uniform motion may have a number of intermediate movers we just don’t know about. If there is one thing we should learn from modern science, it is not what we know, but what we don’t know. Scientists speculate that we have knowledge of only 4% - 5% of the matter in the universe. The other 95% or so is invisible and unknown.

Another possible candidate that may be considered in some way or another to be a mover of a body in uniform motion is the nature of space itself. It is quite obvious that the heavenly bodies couldn’t move the way they do, i.e, without friction or very little friction, unless space was of such a nature. Without the nature of deep space, there would be no heavenly body in the hypothetical uniform motion.

Gravity could maybe be a candidate for this phenomenon of uniform motion. There are many variables, most unknown. The entire universe is in constant motion and change, maybe the human will is the only created thing that God moves immediately.

At any rate, the point of the first proof argument of St Thomas is that God is the first mover of the entire universe and not just some time in the past but at every instant of its existence. Indeed, if God created the universe and upholds everything in existence at every moment, every being, every activity, every power, every movement of second causes, how could he not be considered the first mover especially in the light of Holy Scripture?

Aquinas’ metaphysics of being should also be considered, I think, when reflecting on the first proof argument. Indeed, all five proofs should be considered together and forming some kind of whole. God is the first cause of all being in whatsoever way and manner of being or existence and being is his proper effect. Just as the form of water is the formal cause of all things water, so God’s form which is being or existence itself is the cause of all being.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Well, it doesn’t make a difference to Aquinas whether a body is in uniform motion, tri- motion, acceleration, deceleration, going right , left, forward or backwards; the body is in motion and undergoing change. Now the metaphysical and universal principle of motion in Thomistic metaphysics is that whatever is in process of change is being changed by something else. You need a mover or being in act and a being in potentiality as fire makes wood hot. In those beings where one part moves another part such as in animals where the soul moves the body, the source of this motion comes from another. The reason for this is that when the soul moves the body, this movement of the soul is a change, a motion, and thus, since motion is the act of a being in potency in so far as it is still in potency, this movement of the soul must come from another.

In commenting on Aristotle’s physics (I think it is his physics), Aquinas says that the movement of natural bodies [elemental bodies] are not born upward or downward as though moved by some external agent. External agent here is a physical mover. These are natural motions and the generating cause of their forms is their mover. So, according to Aristotle, not everything in the world need be moved by some external agent in the world, however, not without the first or unmoved mover who is the source of all motion. Earth moves downward because of certain active and passive qualities inherent in the nature of earth.

Accordingly, the hypothetical heavenly body in uniform motion, ( I say hypothetical because I have not seen any proof that there is such a body on this thread or on the internet, maybe there is, maybe there isn’t, at any rate its irrelevant to Aquinas’ first proof), could be something like the natural motions of the elemental bodies of Aristotle in which case an external physical mover would not be necessary. In this case, either God immediately or mediately through an angel would be the mover of this hypothetical body in uniform motion. A heavenly body in uniform motion if not moved by any physical external agent, would still need God to move it though he may do so through an angel. The heavenly body is still undergoing change and even if this is through its active and passive qualities somehow, this would involve a change in these powers which require an outside mover. No creature, either on the micro-quantum level or the macro galactic level nor human beings can move or put forth any act without God moving it to act.

The natural motion hypothesis is just one out of many possibilities. A heavenly body in uniform motion may have a number of intermediate movers we just don’t know about. If there is one thing we should learn from modern science, it is not what we know, but what we don’t know. Scientists speculate that we have knowledge of only 4% - 5% of the matter in the universe. The other 95% or so is invisible and unknown.

Another possible candidate that may be considered in some way or another to be a mover of a body in uniform motion is the nature of space itself. It is quite obvious that the heavenly bodies couldn’t move the way they do, i.e, without friction or very little friction, unless space was of such a nature. Without the nature of deep space, there would be no heavenly body in the hypothetical uniform motion.

Gravity could maybe be a candidate for this phenomenon of uniform motion. There are many variables, most unknown. The entire universe is in constant motion and change, maybe the human will is the only created thing that God moves immediately.

At any rate, the point of the first proof argument of St Thomas is that God is the first mover of the entire universe and not just some time in the past but at every instant of its existence. Indeed, if God created the universe and upholds everything in existence at every moment, every being, every activity, every power, every movement of second causes, how could he not be considered the first mover especially in the light of Holy Scripture?

Aquinas’ metaphysics of being should also be considered, I think, when reflecting on the first proof argument. Indeed, all five proofs should be considered together and forming some kind of whole. God is the first cause of all being in whatsoever way and manner of being or existence and being is his proper effect. Just as the form of water is the formal cause of all things water, so God’s form which is being or existence itself is the cause of all being.

Very good. In reference to your last paragraph, Thomas considered them as independent " proorfs, " though some Thomists today think differently. I myself think they each reach the Unmoved and Unmoveable Mover.

Linus2nd

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Well, if you refuse to be objective and reasonable in your argumentation, there isn’t much I or anyone else here can do. You seem to have your own preconceived notions, Scholastic Philosophy built largely on Aristotelianism is old fashioned and outdated and has been replaced by the New Scienc which followed Newton. You have a biased viewpoint. So why are you arguing? I am, on the other hand, willing to acknowledge the value of modern science but know that Scholastic Philosophy is highly valuable, even to science. I have asked you several times if you have read Feser or Thomas or Aristotle. You have not responded.

Linus2nd

What on earth are you on about Linus ?

I am trying to understand what you mean by “One final thing, Newton did not prove that every violent motion ( an inertial force for example) required the continual application of this force.”

I gave you an answer by replacing confusing philosophic concepts (like “violent” which I do not believe Newton would have bought into but I may be wrong) with an actual physical example of what I think you mean.

So what exactly is your problem with my reply?

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Amazing isn’t it. But you won’t hear anyone of the modern scientists refer to that, it would probably end their career.

We can only surmise what Newton meant. However he recognized there must be a cause. And ultimately, as I have shown, it will be God who created the nature of the moving object and who created the nature and power of the generator of the motion - the agent ( whatever was the immediate cause of the inertia ) who projected the object.

There are only a limited number of possibilities. It has to be one of those I enumerated.

Who cares what Leibnitz said, he had his own anti-christianity views. He and many like him rejected Christianity.

It has to be one of a limited number of possibilities.

I think science is still much opposed to " attraction at a distance. " But why is that? If it isn’t gravity from some source unknown, then it has to be some other power unknown, perhaps electrical.

And at the end of the instrumental agents, you have god, who is pure act. You see, I know the philosophical principles. So I know the final answer.

Being as being, pure act, is the ultimate cause of a being-in-motion.

I said that the First Way was a special application of the efficient cause argument of the Second Way. It isn’t a big point. In both arguments we reach God.

One thing you haven’t commented on was my explanation of the cause of the " uniform motion " posited by Newton.

Linus2nd

Linus instead of arguing with your ideal of what a “modern scientist” is perhaps you could simply deal to the arguments or comments on Newton I bring before you.

I have no problem speculating that inertia as a passive principle as did Newton.
I don’t care if that is career ending for “modern scientists” - why should I.

One thing you haven’t commented on was my explanation of the cause of the " uniform motion " posited by Newton.

I suppose I am saying I don’t agree with your understanding of Newton’s quote so there is not much I can say re the direction you want the discussion to move in - interesting though it may be in itself. I find it a bit like counting a herd of sheep by its legs and dividing by four.
I prefer just to count heads.

So lets discuss Newton’s quote more closely:
“By this principle alone [vis inertiae] there never could be any motion in the world. Some other principle was necessary for putting bodies into motion; and now they are in motion, some other principle is necessary for conserving the motion. …”
Newton didn’t actually identify what his hypothesised active principle wrt inertia was. He certainly didn’t say it was God from what I can see (and many other commentators hold this view). If anything he pointed in the direction of an invisible temporal agency (eh gravity).

WRT "my explanation of the cause of the “uniform motion " posited by Newton.”
can you show me where Newton actually posited this?
If you are referring to:*
“and now they are in motion, some other principle is necessary for conserving the motion”* then I believe you are mistaken.

He is not saying that “uniform motion” needs a cause in the way that you mean.
What I believe he is actually saying is that, despite these unassailable laws derived from the celestial planets, we actually never observe on earth such a thing because on earth all things runs down and lose energy and so motion.
Just as Newton states a few sentences later:
“Seeing therefore the variety of motion which we find in the world is always decreasing, there is a necessity of conserving and increasing it by active principles such as are the cause of gravity…”

So Newton does not seem to have a good grasp of friction principles, it is friction which causes the absence of uniform motion (it sucks energy out of the body and so slows it down) in everyday life. So of course an active principle is needed to maintain uniform motion when friction is present.

I stated this principle as a direct and necessary corollary of the first two Laws of Motion - which you rejected. Yet here above is Newton saying exactly what I stated:

Allow me to requote what I wrote on this important point (which you rejected as compatible with Newton’s Laws):

“We cannot say “whatever is moving is being moved by another” because that is only true of an object demonstrating continuously accelerating motion (or constant velocity in the face of friction).” (post #103)"

 

[Blue_Horizon]

The world does not have to bow to your sense of what things should be and not be available on the internet. Some things just aren’t that is all.
Linus2nd

Exactly - so don’t be surprised or angry, as you are below, when people ignore some of your points when they cannot validate or understand them because you essentially lock them out and you know you lock them out.

How can you influence people of reason here if you essentially want them to accept your views simply on uncheck-able authority and blinkered quotes. That’s a foolish thing for a person of reason to do - whether a reader or a poster .

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Well, it doesn’t make a difference to Aquinas whether a body is in uniform motion, tri- motion, acceleration, deceleration, going right , left, forward or backwards; the body is in motion and undergoing change.

Yes, that is the point I am making.
It does matter if one is speaking of a change called “local motion” which is the Way Aquinas attempts to start in the First Way.

Now the metaphysical and universal principle of motion in Thomistic metaphysics is that whatever is in process of change is being changed by something else.

That may or may not be true because temporal reality doesn’t seem to follow this more abstracted metaphysical principle. If we try to use it in the First Way it is lo longer the First Way which is meant to be based on visible “motion”.
That is the difficulty posed by the OP.

Accordingly, the hypothetical heavenly body in uniform motion, ( I say hypothetical because I have not seen any proof that there is such a body on this thread or on the internet, maybe there is, maybe there isn’t, at any rate its irrelevant to Aquinas’ first proof), could be something like the natural motions of the elemental bodies of Aristotle in which case an external physical mover would not be necessary. In this case, either God immediately or mediately through an angel would be the mover of this hypothetical body in uniform motion. A heavenly body in uniform motion if not moved by any physical external agent, would still need God to move it though he may do so through an angel. The heavenly body is still undergoing change and even if this is through its active and passive qualities somehow, this would involve a change in these powers which require an outside mover. No creature, either on the micro-quantum level or the macro galactic level nor human beings can move or put forth any act without God moving it to act.

The celestial bodies are not in uniform motion in a straight line.
Therefore they are accelerating.
Therefore an outside agent is needed to move them even by Newton.
Nobody has a problem with that.
And that instrumental agent is largely the gravity of the sun.

We are explaining the efficient causes of motion as originally noted by Aquinas “we observe some things are in motion”. Such instrumental cause/effect pairs of local motion may form a series of mover/moved links down all eternity as such appears to be “per accidens” - just like the ball-bearing example below.

To break from this infinite chain of local motion instrumental causality we must posit a non-local-motion cause-effect pair somewhere. A soul, an angel, a direct act of God moving a body. Or more simply a chemical reaction (propellant in a space ship) which begins without local motion. Then one can posit higher forms of “motion” in the series, maybe even validly calling the act of material existence a form of “motion” in a very metaphysical sense (how valid that is I am not sure).

Yet for all this Aristotle posits that a chain of local motion can go on forever into the past from what I understand.

So we can never be sure that a per accidens series has to somewhere have originated from a per se series. The instrumental causes of the local motion we now observe may have always been per accidens and been sourced from infinity (created or otherwise who knows).

So I don’t see how local motion can easily prove God’s existence unless we are working from the observation that some moving things exist which is pretty obvious. in which case lets drop the local motion and get to work on material existence - seems more honest a starting point .

 

[Linusthe2nd]

What on earth are you on about Linus ?

I am trying to understand what you mean by “One final thing, Newton did not prove that every violent motion ( an inertial force for example) required the continual application of this force.”

I was objecting principally to what you said in post # 103 where you said. " Now Newton showed that all observed sensible motion is either due to continuously applied sensible force (resulting in ongoing acceleration) or temporarily applied force (resulting in initial acceleration terminating in uniform velocity) no exceptions. "

Newton expressed no opinion about either of these, he refused to speculate in the body of his works. Further, I offered several possible explanations to both the initial cause of inertia and to the cause of Newton’s " uniform motion, " which was suggested by William A. Wallace and John A. Weisheiple. These are explanations based on philosophical reasoning, which are based on the thought of Aristotle and Thomas Aquinas. Richa, in post# 205 explains it very well.

I also objected to your post # 196 which seemed very disjointed and off the mark.

I gave you an answer by replacing confusing philosophic concepts (like “violent” which I do not believe Newton would have bought into but I may be wrong) with an actual physical example of what I think you mean.

So what exactly is your problem with my reply?

You don’t seem to understand Scholastic philosophical principles but you keep expressing adamant opinions on these principles. Violent motions, for example, are motions which are do to an external causality as opposed to natural motions which flow spontaneously from the very nature of a thing. All beings have natural motions, even inanimate beings. On the other hand, all beings can experience violent motions.

I can pick up a cat ant throw it. That is a violent motion. On the other hand, the cat’s heart beat is a natural motion.

Finally, a heavenly body ( which Newton assumed was a possible candidate of " uniform motion, " could be due to a number of causes. One it could be due to its nature. In which case one has to consider that its nature was such as could be amended or modified, which in turn is due to the generator of that nature, ultimately God. And the direct cause of the motion which caused the modification of its nature would be whatever gave it its original impetus. Once given the object moves under the influence of an impetus residing in its modified nature. So its uniform motion would be due to its nature, a modified nature.

Or the uniform motion could be due to gravity or some other unknown force.
And if not due to either of these, it must be due to the direct causality of some Angel or to God himself.

But there is a cause for both the inertial motion and for the uniform nature of that motion. And that is the point which modern science refuses to acknowledge and which it mistakenly assums was the opinion of Newton as well. But Newton did not hold the opinion that there was no cause of that inertial motion nor that there was no cause of its uniform motion. And I pointed you to a source where Newton expressed the fact that there were causes about which he refused to speculate. And he did not reject the possibility that it was due to the action of God.

I was just frustrated at your responses. I apologize for being so harsh in my response. Just frustration at not being able to get my points accross clearly. I will get to your posts 209,210 when I get time…

God Bless

Linus2nd

 

[balto]

Embarrassingly enough for me, Feser rejects that the principle of causality can have anything to do with the other three causes, as I’ve been arguing with Blue. He has a section on Scotus with regard to self motion where he introduces this discussion on motion. Scotus rejects quid movetur ab alio movetur, although he accepts the broader principle of causality. He does this based on human will’s ability to determine itself.

Scotus rejects this by adding in addition to efficient causes of motion, the idea of principles, or principiation. This turns out to be exactly what I’ve been arguing for in this thread. The principles flow from the things material and formal causes. And such principles can be self causing, especially with regard to human will.

Feser responds:

Although he does agree that a thing’s nature defines how a thing will move, he does not see this as an instance of efficient causality.

Sorry for the late response, I was a little busy over the last few days. I had kind of forgotten about Scholastic Metaphysics. I read it four months ago but I don’t think I understood these issues quite as well back then so I will have to give it another read at some point. Are you sure that you were arguing along with Scotus, because what you were saying makes sense to me? The nature itself may not be efficiently caused, since that is a type of formal cause that is eternally sustained in the divine Intellect, but can’t one regard the conjoining of the essence with an act of existence as an efficient cause of the thing in question? I think where Scotus goes wrong is in thinking that a self-mover is self-caused. It self moves because its formal cause defines its active potencies and then the nature is the efficient cause of its making these active potencies actual full-stop. But the whole nature as actualized itself has to be caused by God. That’s what I thought Aquinas was arguing.

 

[balto]

Oh is that all you mean.
This is not instrumental causality, when you start talking about the powers of a **nature **then you are really talking material cause (the unchanging medium underlying the change in question).
We are talking about being as being-in-motion not being-as-being.
This philosophic “crossover” is exactly what the OP of this thread is observing wrt the First Way.

What you are talking about is a sort of “remote efficient” cause but only in a secondary sense. Here the primary instrumental agent is material in motion (which does operate down to the molecular or even atomic level due to elasticity/compression in the stick as motion moves down it. However when you start talking about the essence or existence of atoms/molecules to be changed in that way…that is something else extraneous to instrumental causality wrt motion.

I think that is all I mean. Aquinas is trying to argue that you cannot have an infinite chain of instrumental causes, so God has to be the one that actualizes these essences or natures. Actually I started wondering over the course of this conversation whether the First Way is really about a chain of formal causes making material causes actual as you said, or something like that, and that it really does not involve efficient causes at all. The OP was asking a while back what the difference between the First and Second Ways is and this might be the relevant difference.

 

[utunumsint]

Sorry for the late response, I was a little busy over the last few days. I had kind of forgotten about Scholastic Metaphysics. I read it four months ago but I don’t think I understood these issues quite as well back then so I will have to give it another read at some point. Are you sure that you were arguing along with Scotus, because what you were saying makes sense to me? The nature itself may not be efficiently caused, since that is a type of formal cause that is eternally sustained in the divine Intellect, but can’t one regard the conjoining of the essence with an act of existence as an efficient cause of the thing in question? I think where Scotus goes wrong is in thinking that a self-mover is self-caused. It self moves because its formal cause defines its active potencies and then the nature is the efficient cause of its making these active potencies actual full-stop. But the whole nature as actualized itself has to be caused by God. That’s what I thought Aquinas was arguing.

Yes, I agree. I am often too quick to fall on my own sword.

God bless,
Ut

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Another possible candidate that may be considered in some way or another to be a mover of a body in uniform motion is the nature of space itself. It is quite obvious that the heavenly bodies couldn’t move the way they do, i.e, without friction or very little friction, unless space was of such a nature. Without the nature of deep space, there would be no heavenly body in the hypothetical uniform motion.

The heavenly bodies, according to modern Physics, are NOT in uniform motion (yes, maybe they travel at constant speed but not in a straight line so they are actually accelerating). But lets assume for the sake of your argument that we are talking about a massive asteroid perhaps…

From what I understand you are saying an asteroid, if it does travel at CV (constant velocity), it is only because of the “nature” of deep space (which is, allegedly, frictionless).

Here then we are then suggesting that eternal CV in space is an aberration or a rare “illusory contradiction” of nature (like an aeroplane which should fall down) because in fact all things changing place need to be moved by another?

But saying that “deep space” exists and has a “nature” and positive qualities(frictionless) is like saying that a privation exists in itself and has its own nature when the very opposite is true. The almost complete absence of atoms in deep space is hardly a “nature” but rather the absence of “nature” as you put it (ie bodies causing friction, energy loss and loss of CV accordingly).

What is really true is that in everyday-life we live in mover-moved where friction is always present as an additional, existing, positive force in every example of locomotion. Deep space is finally a place where this interfering force is absent for all intents and purposes.

The amazing thing is that Galileo and Newton analysed observable motion in the ubiquitous presence of friction and through mathematics, unlike Aristotle, discovered the true nature of what was going on re local motion even though they didn’t fully grasp the interference we call friction. Hence they came to an understanding of inertia and “conservation of momentum” but not quite the “conservation of energy” in collisions.

Yet demonstrations in space have vindicated their laws.

If Newtons laws do not work well on earth it is demonstrably due to friction loss. And the amount of friction lost in heat can be calculated exactly by the rate of loss of CV that should be observed. It matches experiments where the amount of heat generated consequent to friction can also be measured.

In short, heavy metal planes should not stay in the sky but always fall to the ground. Yet they do not contradict “nature” (the need for metal to fall) because other interfering properties of nature (life on a wing passing through air) keep it up.

Thus, all things set in motion should remain in constant motion but they don’t, they always run down. Yet this does not contradict “nature” (all things stay at rest or in constant motion) because other interfering principles of nature (friction) stop the motion.

Interestingly friction merely turns the invisible motion of a body into the invisible yet greater agitation of its atoms (heat).

We do not need to look to deep space to see this principle (conservation of energy) at work. Collisions at the molecular/atomic level also look to perfectly conserve energy and go on for ever.

Gravity could maybe be a candidate for this phenomenon of uniform motion. There are many variables, most unknown. The entire universe is in constant motion and change, maybe the human will is the only created thing that God moves immediately.

You will have to explain this point to me. Gravity by nature only causes acceleration not CV. If it does appear to cause CV (eg “terminal velocity” on earth in the presence of air) it is only because of a friction mechanism also operating which sucks out as much energy as gravity is putting into the falling body. Hence a net energy (name removed by moderator)ut of zero to the body in question which results in the constant velocity observed.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

I think that is all I mean. Aquinas is trying to argue that you cannot have an infinite chain of instrumental causes, so God has to be the one that actualizes these essences or natures. Actually I started wondering over the course of this conversation whether the First Way is really about a chain of formal causes making material causes actual as you said, or something like that, and that it really does not involve efficient causes at all. The OP was asking a while back what the difference between the First and Second Ways is and this might be the relevant difference.

I think you may be onto something.

In identifying material causes versus efficient causes I have always found the following rules of thumb helpful.
(a) in any given real-world example (and maybe conceptual ones as well) different changes can be going on at different levels.
(b) we have to be careful not to confuse the four tightly related causes of one particular change aspect of the object in question with the four tightly-related causes involved in other change aspects of the object in question at another level. This can be very difficult especially if there is causal linkage between these different changes at different levels of the same object in question. The material cause of one change may be the efficient cause of another.
(c) For a very specific change, the material cause can be identified because it is the whole underlying, continuous (from start to finish) substratum beneath the change that supports the change without itself being changed.
(d) matter/form is often a relative distinction not an absolute distinction in most examples.

That is why I find it hard to understand when people start saying the efficient cause of the rocket’s motion is the metal of the rocket and the propulsive materials whose very existence is sustained by an act of God.

To me, wrt to the very particular change we are focused on (ie the rockets change of place from on the ground to in the sky), all these other “causes” do not change wrt God sustaining them in existence. Before and after the motion they are sustained by God in existence just as they were before - no change there.

That to me suggests they are, prima facie, but abiding passive material causes so far as this change in motion is specifically in question.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

I was objecting principally to what you said in post # 103 where you said. " Now Newton showed that all observed sensible motion is either due to continuously applied sensible force (resulting in ongoing acceleration) or temporarily applied force (resulting in initial acceleration terminating in uniform velocity) no exceptions. "

Newton expressed no opinion about either of these, he refused to speculate in the body of his works. Further, I offered several possible explanations to both the initial cause of inertia and to the cause of Newton’s " uniform motion, " which was suggested by William A. Wallace and John A. Weisheiple. These are explanations based on philosophical reasoning, which are based on the thought of Aristotle and Thomas Aquinas. Richa, in post# 205 explains it very well.

I also objected to your post # 196 which seemed very disjointed and off the mark.

You don’t seem to understand Scholastic philosophical principles but you keep expressing adamant opinions on these principles. Violent motions, for example, are motions which are do to an external causality as opposed to natural motions which flow spontaneously from the very nature of a thing. All beings have natural motions, even inanimate beings. On the other hand, all beings can experience violent motions.

I can pick up a cat ant throw it. That is a violent motion. On the other hand, the cat’s heart beat is a natural motion.

Finally, a heavenly body ( which Newton assumed was a possible candidate of " uniform motion, " could be due to a number of causes. One it could be due to its nature. In which case one has to consider that its nature was such as could be amended or modified, which in turn is due to the generator of that nature, ultimately God. And the direct cause of the motion which caused the modification of its nature would be whatever gave it its original impetus. Once given the object moves under the influence of an impetus residing in its modified nature. So its uniform motion would be due to its nature, a modified nature.

Or the uniform motion could be due to gravity or some other unknown force.
And if not due to either of these, it must be due to the direct causality of some Angel or to God himself.

But there is a cause for both the inertial motion and for the uniform nature of that motion. And that is the point which modern science refuses to acknowledge and which it mistakenly assums was the opinion of Newton as well. But Newton did not hold the opinion that there was no cause of that inertial motion nor that there was no cause of its uniform motion. And I pointed you to a source where Newton expressed the fact that there were causes about which he refused to speculate. And he did not reject the possibility that it was due to the action of God.

I was just frustrated at your responses. I apologize for being so harsh in my response. Just frustration at not being able to get my points accross clearly. I will get to your posts 209,210 when I get time…

God Bless

Linus2nd

OK, fair enough, starting to understand your point there.
I am away until Monday - will come back then if there is still interest here.

 

[Richca]

Originally Posted by Richca

Observation: the moon is in motion.

Hypothesis 1: the moon is moving itself.
Hypothesis 2: nothing is moving the moon.
Hypothesis 3: the moon is moved by another.

Examination of hypothesis 1. In our observation of the world, the only beings that appear to move themselves from place to place are animate living things, namely, animals. The moon does not appear to be an animate living thing such as an animal. We can reasonably conclude that the moon is not moving itself.

Examination of hypothesis 2. If we accept that the moon is not moving itself and nothing is moving it, how can it be that the moon is in motion? Secondly, nothing is a non being, it does not exist; how can a non-being or what does not exist move anything?

Conclusion: the moon is moved by another.

Re H1:

Too easily dismissed I think. Why cannot there be life simpler than plant life as Aristotle was open to. We cannot expect the moon to be anything other than unusual (being extra terrestrial) so taking the “life” queue from small, complex terrestrial isn’t exactly fair! In this sense even molecules/atoms are alive. I think Aristotle would grant them souls if he had a microscope to see them.

 

[Richca]

Originally Posted by Richca
Well, it doesn’t make a difference to Aquinas whether a body is in uniform motion, tri- motion, acceleration, deceleration, going right , left, forward or backwards; the body is in motion and undergoing change.

Yes, that is the point I am making.

It does matter if one is speaking of a change called “local motion” which is the Way Aquinas attempts to start in the First Way.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

…