I answered that.Yes, irresistable forces cannot be overcome - thats true too.
The question is…how does one recognise whether the real world force I am dealing with is resistable or irresistable.
That’s a different sort of truth isnt it.
How can a meteor accelerate up to speed without being moved by another, and is its speed constant, and is the meteor undergoing a change while it is moving? You take so much for granted. You are left with the question, “if an object could move itself, the cause of the movement would be internal, intrinsic meaning movement was part of its nature,meaning” it wasn’t moved by another" This was my statement that I wanted you to answer. You just gave a partial quote.
Please reread my contributions. If this is what you think I said you’ve missed something.
Here, I think we need to be careful of terminology. It is true that a being (ens or on) that is only potential cannot be brought into act without the agency of a (different) being that is already in act.
No agent extrinsic to the meteor, I grant you. But the meteor has an active quality that keeps it moving constantly in one direction.
Its active quality (which I think best corresponds to the physical property of momentum), just as the animal’s faculties cause it to change position and move.
I didn’t say that the momentum changes. In fact, that would make the velocity non-constant (i.e., be an acceleration), right?
I didn’t say that rectilinear movement does not involve change. I said it involves a constant change in position (which consists in the spatial relations with other bodies). It must make some sort of change; otherwise velocity would not be measurable.
I think that Aristotle’s philosophical notions can, with careful thought, be separated from his strictly “physical” theories.
(I am not quite sure what you mean by “primary part;” that is certainly not Aquinas’ vocabulary.)
Motion is an “accidental change,” yes. But “action” (poiein) and “passion” (paschein) are listed among the categories. It seems to me that Aristotle considers them accidents.
How about the De anima, in which he talks about the different faculties of animals?
In the SCG, anyway, he seems to discard that idea (which is Avicenna’s): I am looking at Chapter 87. In any event, that idea is clearly outdated by what we know about the planets and similar objects nowadays. They are not organisms (and only organisms have souls), so they cannot have souls.
Fair enough. But I think if we realize that his theory of elements constitutes his primitive “physics,” I still think his metaphysical notions remain valid.
What “generating cause” do you mean? The Unmoved Mover? Or the notion of efficient cause?
Sometimes one has to be tautological in order, one hopes, to get a point across, but if a blind spot is suspected, all the tautology in the world is useless to remove the problem
This could not take place without the causal activity of God. This is for certain.
Infinite regress is possible if the beginning is singular. Read this for further explanation.
Agreed. Those are per accidens causes.
The point is whether all empirical examples of what Aristotle calls change do logically require a continuing separate mover (whether a separate whole or an internal part).
.Which comment really has little to do with the topic of this thread and certainly not the First Way from what I can see.
This is so basic I assumed we all know this.
Yes, I didnt think this needed to be spelled out. The “moved by another” may be a primary “part” rather than an external substance.
Well I certainly know what you mean here in colloquial english but this isn’t the way Aristotle would use those words methinks! An accident (“quality”) cannot be an originating agent that continually acts, as if a part, on the substance that is the substratum of that quality.
I dont think so. If you could provide an actual quote maybe we could exegete it? Ultimately I think the acting part in an animal needs to be grounded in the soul which would be considered a valid “part” while the muscles alone…maybe not.
Fair enough. However I don’t believe Aristotle would ever accept that an abiding accident of a substance could ever actively generate (“an active quality”) ongoing change in other accidents. Accidents are not “parts” of a being as far as I know.
As above, substances are obvious capable of receiving impressions and giving impressions to other beings. This is therefore an “accidental quality” … but this does not mean what you are trying to make it mean…the ability for an accident to be an internal and ongoing agent of act. But a substantial soul can act on a body because these are validly called parts of the whole animal. The soul is not an accident of the animal.
They can be distinguished, but there is always a relationship. As I mentioned with Ynotzap I don’t accept that metaphysical principles with temporal application are immune from a single falsifying empirical experiment.
I am afraid it is, it was a recent rereading of SGC in the light of this discussion that brought it to my attention. Cannot remember exactly where, but it was on his discussion of the First Way and his analysis of internal movers.
As above I dont accept this is what Aristotle actually says when speaking of interal parts moving other parts.
Water is not part of the stove, the water is external
This is interesting, but I do not believe this is analogous to a meteor being moved by an accident called “momentum” (inertia?).
Yes, a soul qualifies as an internal part - but unless you believe a meteor is like a heavenly body (composed of ether and a mineral soul according to Aristotle) this fails sorry.
Yes I agree action/passion are of course accidents because a substance is still the same substance regardless of whether it is the patient or agent of another.
OK, thats not my area of expertise. Can you quote something and lets exegete it a bit if possible.
I’ll find the quote, but I am 99% sure you are mistaken because I was very taken aback to see Aquinas was actually open to this ancient belief because he could not deny the philosophic principles that lead to this possible conclusion (amongst others). I discussed this somewhere on CAF two years ago with Linus2nd who was of the same opinion as yourself until I quoted Aquinas in SCG.
That’s not the point. The point is that this principle IS Aristotle and it has much bearing on understanding him when he speaks of motion, parts and agents of motion. For Aristotle if an external agent or internal part could not be discovered to explain motion he was quite happy to posit the existence of a soul - even a “mineral” one if the body in question was composed of the element aether.
Hmmnn. I thought you were deeply into Aristotle and his “explanation” of allegedly inherent elemental motion. “Cause generans” is his primary tool for trying to explain this. To me it leads nowhere.
I agree, there are however a few things in the area we are discussing that just dont divide evenly into the rest of his otherwise coherent system.
Here you go I found it:
To me you seem not to recognize the truth of universal principles in nature, in the cosmos. Yet you do, I assume recognize math principles in science and you recognize the ideal from the real in some circumstances. You do not recognize how using metaphysical principles are dealing with the ultimate causes and effects in the empirical world, and even in what you consider questionable, spiritual world, how these principles can be applied to both realities. How would you for example, prove the existence of God outside of faith? Are you saying that somehow Aquinas has missed the boat in using the Cosmological Argument ? Are you saying that there is no logical way to do this, in other words, Ontology is just a philosopher’s dream world, with not substantial basis? You are good at throwing ideas around, and I have to make recourse to a dictionary to make sure I understand you, and I think that other might too. I don’t concern myself with all the history, and the problems ,reason and understandings that Aristotle had, or even all that St,Thomas had, even though he agreed, and disagreed with Aristotle on some points. I try to understand the bottom line, and its application to finding the truth. I am convinced that we can find reasonable certainty about the objective truth concerning God, and through using these universal metaphysical principles, and so does the Church. Somethings are not known through empirical science, and can only be known through the proper application of our principles governing reason. It seems to be the inability to see the tree for the forest, or to see the universal principle for the particulars Aristotle’s problems I I leave to St,Thomas, and I notice Aristotle is your focus. Like I said it makes no difference to me. God is the Uncaused Cause, the Unmoved Mover the result of logical reasoning based on empirical knowledge, and universal principles using apriori and aposteriori reasoning, from cause to effect, and from effect to cause. Now you can involve yourself in the particulars, that’s your prerogative.The point is whether all empirical examples of what Aristotle calls change do logically require a continuing separate mover (whether a separate whole or an internal part).
I see no apriori logical argument that demands this in all cases - physical motion in space obviously demonstrating an acceptable contrary hypothesis.
Of course a pure metaphysician can personally define “change” in a tautological way such that such a mover must always be required. Or advance an interpretation of the contrary phenomenon that attempts to negate it.
This is called a “Black Swan” retort: Such happened when explorers reported the existence of black Swans back to Europe. This was rideculed by most as everybody knew that in all history there had never been a black swan. (This of course also contradicted a favourite syllogism of Aristotle: All swans are white. This is a swan. Therefore this swan is white.) These European “wise men” concluded that the explorers must be mistaken, these birds cannot be swans but look alikes
You attempted below this Black Swan take-down with Newton and meteors and the weakness of your criticism has been fairly clearly demonstrated.
Of course, like modern geo-centric astronomers the maths can be made to support the ancient views if made complicated enough. I shave with an Occam razor myself. And I believe that metaphysic principles that claim temporal application, like kings, are in fact accountable to the physical they claim to rule without querstion. IE they must be capable of physical falsifiability - and only one example is required to so falsify. Newton has credibly done this.
It is clear you still believe in the analogous philosophic attitude observed in medieval politics - the divine right of Kings who are beyond the criticism of their subjects.
I suggest that if you hold to a metaphysic principle that is physically non-falsifiable … then it is likely little more than a tautology at heart with no real world logical coercive force.
The Church teaches the existence of God can be known with certainty by reason alone.
.By “tautology” I mean the error in a proposition (with alleged universal application) whereby the subject is defined so as to already contain the predicate.
I used the first definition from Webster. (a) needless repetition of an idea in a different word. It was understood by me that you were criticizing the frequent use of this universal principle without any fore thought, or without any empirical explanation. I use these principals as a tool to discern some particular arguments to see if they are consistent with the truth of the principles with the strength of their universality. The principles themselves are the extraction (metaphysical) of the particulars (third degree) So you propose an hypothesis, I look for a possible contradiction in the hypothesis.
I have to disagree, yes they are always true, that’s their beauty. But they do say a lot abut actual reality. In the right application they can grant certitude in knowledge, in truth. Like every principle used in solving problems of an empirical nature. No advancement is possible without them. Scientists use these principles eg. of Math, or geometry. To determine what is or what isn’t , these principles are necessary. It also advances the knowledge that these truths have a source as Unchangeable of they are.
Relying on total tautology, I agree is not robust, but this wasn’t the case, (and I hope I didn’t mislead anyone) I offered empirical evidence by example of cause and effect
I do not understand your usage of the word induced, I always thought that universal principles were abstracted from objective empirical reality, when considered in the third degree. One needs to know what you mean by motion in a straight line. In the real world I have the conviction that nothing can travel in a straight line, since nothing in this physical world of ours that is physical can have a perfect relationship to another physical object, and there are also forces to disturb that relationship. Did I interpret your proposition in the right context, referring to physical motion, not motion as calculated by math principles, there is a difference, and we did cover that.?
Unfortunately in none of your contributions did I find a robust non apriori, non tautological expression of WIMIMBA. As I say I too offered empirical evidence…that it is acceptably observed not to hold in the case of rectilinear motion. As I say, to prove a metaphysical principle with empirical application false one only needs one good counter example.