Nature, matter-form, essence, existence, 4 causes & God

[Linusthe2nd]

The presentation on the following links explain the importance of all these, as contained in the Aristotelian/Thomistic concepts of the Philosophies of Nature and Metaphysics, in establishing a rational demonstration of the existence of the God of Christianity. The presentations are about 45 minutes in length.

youtube.com/watch?v=mgVh8aJPPN8

vimeo.com/60979789

Linus2nd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Perhaps I am mistaken, I thought this was the Philosophy Forum. Where are the philosophers or the anti-philosophers? Unfortunately it is impossible to translate the content of these links into a couple of " tweets. "

Linus2nd

 

[Skeptic92]

Ahh Edward Feser, such a good Philosopher. Do you have any of his books? I found Scholastic Metaphysics to be absolutely incredible, hard going but worth the effort and patience it took to read it and understand it.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Ahh Edward Feser, such a good Philosopher. Do you have any of his books? I found Scholastic Metaphysics to be absolutely incredible, hard going but worth the effort and patience it took to read it and understand it.

I have Aquinas which I liked very much. I have been debating about getting Scholastic Metaphysics. I follow his blogspot pretty closely. Did you watch the videos?

Linus2nd

 

[Skeptic92]

I have Aquinas which I liked very much. I have been debating about getting Scholastic Metaphysics. I follow his blogspot pretty closely. Did you watch the videos?

Linus2nd

I began to watch them, but I knew where he was going with it as they were fairly introductory compared to his book Scholastic Metaphysics. I’ve also been reading Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange God His Existence and His Nature recently which treats the topics more in depth
than Feser tends to. I would highly recommend getting Scholastic Metaphysics if you want a treatment of how Aristotelico-Thomistic Metaphysics relates to Analytical Metaphysics, and comes out a superior rational system.

I would also recommend Etienne Gilson for his treatment of the Act of Existence in Aquinas, and how that relates to Formal and Efficient Causality.

I’m starting my postgraduate studies soon; Scholastic Metaphysics, Natural Theology, and Epistemology just so happen to be my specialisms outside of Theology proper. It is however difficult to get into Theology proper without learning Latin; as all the best works of Scholastic Theology have yet to be translated.

 

[Bahman]

I really dislike his presentation. It is like reading his book for us.

 

[Skeptic92]

I really dislike his presentation. It is like reading his book for us.

Depends on learning style- I learn better from reading books and discussions, some people however learn better from lectures. I have saved both lectures for later watching.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

I began to watch them, but I knew where he was going with it as they were fairly introductory compared to his book Scholastic Metaphysics. I’ve also been reading Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange God His Existence and His Nature recently which treats the topics more in depth
than Feser tends to. I would highly recommend getting Scholastic Metaphysics if you want a treatment of how Aristotelico-Thomistic Metaphysics relates to Analytical Metaphysics, and comes out a superior rational system.

I would also recommend Etienne Gilson for his treatment of the Act of Existence in Aquinas, and how that relates to Formal and Efficient Causality.

I’m starting my postgraduate studies soon; Scholastic Metaphysics, Natural Theology, and Epistemology just so happen to be my specialisms outside of Theology proper. It is however difficult to get into Theology proper without learning Latin; as all the best works of Scholastic Theology have yet to be translated.

I have several books by Etienne Gilson. You can learn Latin in a relatively short time if you keep at it. You will need a good grammar and several good dictionaries. I have the Latin-English Dictionary of Thomas Aquinas and the Whte Latin Dictionary.

Quite a bit of Thomas has been translated. dhspriory.org/thomas/

An eitght volume translation of Aquinas’ Commentary on the Sentences of Peter Lombard is under way. Something every PhD in Philosophy should have.
logos.com/product/18419/aquinas-commentary-on-the-sentences-of-peter-lombard-english-and-latin

Linus2nd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

I really dislike his presentation. It is like reading his book for us.

Did you watch it? He was reading a presentation not a speech. He wanted to be accurate.

Linus2nd

 

[Skeptic92]

I have several books by Etienne Gilson. You can learn Latin in a relatively short time if you keep at it. You will need a good grammar and several good dictionaries. I have the Latin-English Dictionary of Thomas Aquinas and the Whte Latin Dictionary.

Quite a bit of Thomas has been translated. dhspriory.org/thomas/

An eitght volume translation of Aquinas’ Commentary on the Sentences of Peter Lombard is under way. Something every PhD in Philosophy should have.
logos.com/product/18419/aquinas-commentary-on-the-sentences-of-peter-lombard-english-and-latin

Linus2nd

I am currently taking a self-taught course using Orbergs Lingua Latina Per Se Illustrata (lingualatina.dk/wp/). It is for Classical Latin, but I’ve been told that learning Classical first is a good idea, and then move to Medieval.

I actually have the Commentary on the Sentences in Latin, I am watching the Aquinas’ Institutes Opera Omnia Project; as they are translating the same work and publishing it as a hardback

 

[Linusthe2nd]

I am currently taking a self-taught course using Orbergs Lingua Latina Per Se Illustrata (lingualatina.dk/wp/). It is for Classical Latin, but I’ve been told that learning Classical first is a good idea, and then move to Medieval.

I actually have the Commentary on the Sentences in Latin, I am watching the Aquinas’ Institutes Opera Omnia Project; as they are translating the same work and publishing it as a hardback

You are young, so keep up with the Latin. Just keep thinking of how much you will know ten years from now. I found that Thomistic Latin is faily simple, with the exception of a few idioms which are untranslateable. In a faily short time you will be able to sight read Thomas’ Latin.

Looks like the " translation project " is going to take awhile.

P.S. I got an e-mail from Feser ( I saved it like one would save a baseball signed by Babe Ruth ). I have a question about Thomas which has been nagging me for awhile. I won’t discuss it publically though, some folks would get the wrong idea.

Linus2nd

 

[Skeptic92]

You are young, so keep up with the Latin. Just keep thinking of how much you will know ten years from now. I found that Thomistic Latin is faily simple, with the exception of a few idioms which are untranslateable. In a faily short time you will be able to sight read Thomas’ Latin.

Looks like the " translation project " is going to take awhile.

P.S. I got an e-mail from Feser ( I saved it like one would save a baseball signed by Babe Ruth ). I have a question about Thomas which has been nagging me for awhile. I won’t discuss it publically though, some folks would get the wrong idea.

Linus2nd

Yeah; I thought I’d get a firm grasp of Classical as it isn’t just the Angelic Doctor that I’m going to read. I’m going to get works from Billuart, Pohle & Pruss, several more recent commentators, and the great Scholastic Doctors. Eventually I want to get to the point I can read the Catechism and Church Documents in the original Latin. I’ve heard, however, that they are far more difficult than the Scholastic Latin of the Philosophers and Theologians.

If you fancy discussing your question on St Thomas and Fesers reply; please feel free to message me!

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Surely we have more than two or three philosophers on this forum ?
Linus2nd

 

[Skeptic92]

I’m starting to think a “Scholastic Philosophy 101; Act and Potency” might be in order. If I get the time (translation; temptation to procrastinate) I might write one up; Philosophically Catholicism is on very firm grounds. The distinction between Act and Potency being central; it is also one of the things that distinguish the Thomist, Scotist, and Suarezian schools of Scholastic Philosophy. Alongside the Problem of Universals.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

I’m starting to think a “Scholastic Philosophy 101; Act and Potency” might be in order. If I get the time (translation; temptation to procrastinate) I might write one up; Philosophically Catholicism is on very firm grounds. The distinction between Act and Potency being central; it is also one of the things that distinguish the Thomist, Scotist, and Suarezian schools of Scholastic Philosophy. Alongside the Problem of Universals.

I’ve included a lot on that under my thread " The First Way Explained. " I think post 191 or there abouts discusses it. And I have discussed it else where but a separate thread would be good.

Linus2nd

 

[balto]

I’m starting to think a “Scholastic Philosophy 101; Act and Potency” might be in order. If I get the time (translation; temptation to procrastinate) I might write one up; Philosophically Catholicism is on very firm grounds. The distinction between Act and Potency being central; it is also one of the things that distinguish the Thomist, Scotist, and Suarezian schools of Scholastic Philosophy. Alongside the Problem of Universals.

That would be interesting. Actually, that was the big take-home message from Prof. Feser’s new book for me. It’s much easier to make sense out of and understand Aristotle’s four causes once you recognize how important the distinction between act and potency is. Everything else just seems to naturally flow from act/potency.

Linusthe2nd:

I have been debating about getting Scholastic Metaphysics.

You should get it. I think it was better than Aquinas, mostly because the subject matter was more fundamental. If I am remembering correctly, Aquinas takes a lot of the metaphysical premises as given, or at least does not argue for them with anywhere near the depth that Scholastic Metaphysics does, which is exactly what I needed.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

That would be interesting. Actually, that was the big take-home message from Prof. Feser’s new book for me. It’s much easier to make sense out of and understand Aristotle’s four causes once you recognize how important the distinction between act and potency is. Everything else just seems to naturally flow from act/potency.

You should get it. I think it was better than Aquinas, mostly because the subject matter was more fundamental. If I am remembering correctly, Aquinas takes a lot of the metaphysical premises as given, or at least does not argue for them with anywhere near the depth that Scholastic Metaphysics does, which is exactly what I needed.

Thanks B, I will try to find a local library first, since I have a pretty good grasp of the fundamentals, though explaning them is a different problem.

Linus2nd

 

[Skeptic92]

You should get it. I think it was better than Aquinas, mostly because the subject matter was more fundamental. If I am remembering correctly, Aquinas takes a lot of the metaphysical premises as given, or at least does not argue for them with anywhere near the depth that Scholastic Metaphysics does, which is exactly what I needed.

‘Should’ get it implies there is any choice in the matter. Any person insterested in Analytical Philosophy and traditional Thomism should necessarily get it; as necessary as all bachelors being unmarried men.

 

[Ion]

ESSENCE:
What a thing is. The internal principle whereby a thing is what it is and not something else. Sometimes essence is said to be the same thing as being, but being merely, affirming that a thing is, without specifying its perfections. Essence is not quite the same as nature, which adds to essence the notion of activity, i.e., nature is the essence in action. Or again essence is substance, but not all essences are substantial because accidents also have an essence. (Etym. Latin essentia, essence, being.)

I have to tell you now I am wrestling with this one.
Why do we need this definition first of all?

 

[Linusthe2nd]

ESSENCE:
What a thing is. The internal principle whereby a thing is what it is and not something else. Sometimes essence is said to be the same thing as being, but being merely, affirming that a thing is, without specifying its perfections. Essence is not quite the same as nature, which adds to essence the notion of activity, i.e., nature is the essence in action. Or again essence is substance, but not all essences are substantial because accidents also have an essence. (Etym. Latin essentia, essence, being.)

I have to tell you now I am wrestling with this one.
Why do we need this definition first of all?

We need them so we can talk about the things that exist in the world. It is true that the terms nature, essence, substance are somewhat interchangeable, even in Aristotle and Thomas. Here is how I explained it on another thread, " Re: What does, " the nature of a thing " mean?

"… it seems that nature, essence, substance are used similarly and at two levels of reality, the first being the ground or source all a beings structure, activities, powers, etc. The second being the " external " appearance that can be touched, seen, experienced. Each may be called a " quiddity, " but at different levels.
Man by definition is a rational animal. That is his quiddity, that is what he is. But the definition still applies whether we are talking about Second Substance ( nature, essence at the level of matter, form, and act ) or First Substance, the thing we see and expericne and lay hands on.
It is the same quiddity viewed from different perspectives.

From post # 12 thread above: " "Nature properly speaking is the essence (or substance) of things which have in themselves as such a principle of activity (Aristotle, “Metaphysics”, 1015a, 13). By a process of abstraction the mind arises from individual and concrete natures to those of species and genera. " Or stated differently, " Nature is the principle of motion/change and rest in those things which are natural ( as opposed to accidentally compounded or man made ). " ( Physics ).

But to be most precise it is the substantial form of a thing and its particular matter which is the primary source of all the properties, activities, powers, etc of an individual substance. But in practice " Nature " is used most often when considering the thing as it acts. While " Essence " and " Substance " are used mostly when considering a thing as a stable entity. We should be able to determine the precise meaning from the context.

Linus2nd

Linus2nd

---