In the example of a planet spinning on its axis forever, you appear to be saying you think there is a counter somewhere which will force the planet to stop when it reaches an infinite number of revolutions. There isn’t. And that’s Thomas’ argument.
This is off-topic but please indulge me.
I always find this an interesting question. Imelahn will answer for himself. But I will plow on until he finds time to step in. I won’t pretend to understand Relativity but irrespective of where observers are it is clear things are moving. Certainly Aristotle’s science was wrong. The point he was trying to make is that there are things which move naturally; that is, the motive principle for many of their acts lies within them and the source of this motive principle is their very nature, as determined by their form. And the form of all things is that interior principle which makes them both to be and to be what they are.This is off-topic but please indulge me.
Both of you are mixing concepts from Aristotle with modern science. As far as I’m aware, Aristotle thinks that his element earth wants to reach the center of planet Earth, which is his explanation for why objects fall. Modern science has shown that on the contrary, objects are acted upon, they are inert, hence the term inertia (and of course, the elements are not Aristotle’s water, earth, air and fire anyway). Aristotle also thinks there is a state of absolute rest, but modern science has shown that too is wrong, rest can only be relative to an observer, as Imelahn was careful to note.
One only has to look back through the thread to see that merging concepts from Aristotle with modern science in this way (while quietly ignoring his more obvious mistakes) results in a complicated patchwork which is, as the English say, neither use nor ornament.
Or, and this is the entire point of this post, am I missing something?
If you have a recent enough browser, you should be able to read it right there on line.(Just log in, and then go to MyJSTOR->Shelf. Scroll to the bottom the page and click on “READ”.)
Thanks for the prayers, he will need them.
Sorry, I re-read your question. I think I was sleeping when I first read it, so let me try again, and with less technical language.
I think Fr. Weisheipl was correct in pointing out that Aristotle taught that a motor conjunctus is not required in all natural motions such as the falling or rising of heavy and light bodies. For example, if you dropped a rock, Aristotle thought that once the rock left your hand, the rock need not have any physical external mover to keep falling or moving. The rock has a natural accident which he called gravity which acts as a formal active principle of the continual motion of the rock but not as an efficient cause of the continual motion. The efficient cause of the falling rock’s motion is God, the first mover, who is the first cause of the substantial form of the rock and its accidents and who also keeps the very being of the rock and everything about it in existence at all moments of its existence.
I believe other posters have pointed this out, but an accidental infinite regress series is linear in character and goes back in time. A member of this series need not actually exist in the here and now for some effect. For example, your great grandfather may have died before you were born from your parents. A per se series is vertical, every member of this series must exist in the here and now for the effect to actually exist in the here and now. If this per se series involved an infinite regress and which did not contain a first, at least outside the series, then how could you have an ultimate effect or final cause which effect is presumably the one your looking at here and now? An infinite series contains no first or last.
In the reply to objection 6 you quote above, Aquinas may be arguing that what you call an infinite sum is not actually an infinite sum. An actually infinite sum has no beginning or end terms. However, if we suppose days had no beginning, each new day is making an addition to this supposedly infinite number of days. How do you make an addition to an infinite sum?
I think we also may need to make a distinction between a physical conjoined mover, i.e., something created in the physical universe, and a metaphysical conjoined mover such as God. Take, for example, what St Thomas says here in ST,I,q.8, art.1, in the body of the article:
No, my point is it doesn’t make sense to have a metronome going forever without it having been in a first position
Why can’t there be an instantaneous motion going infinitely fast, for example. The per se vs accidental distinction does not lead to any claritySorry, I re-read your question. I think I was sleeping when I first read it, so let me try again, and with less technical language.
First of all, we need to understand the difference between essential and accidental cause, and the key idea for understanding that is dependence.
If the effect would cease immediately when the cause ceases, then that effect depends essentially (per se) on its cause cause. Otherwise, no.
The problem with an infinite series of essential causes is that an infinite series has no beginning. There is nothing on which the effects can depend. Hence, the effects would not be produced.
If, however, the effect we are considering is only accidentally dependent on its cause, there there is nothing preventing the effect from continuing on, even after the cause has gone out of existence.
We saw some examples: if I take cold iron, and place it in fire, the fire will change the iron from cold to hot. That change could not take place unless the iron were in the fire. Remove the iron from the fire, and heating immediately ceases: the effect (the change from cold to hot) depends essentially on the fire.
On the other hand, remove the iron and, for a time, the iron will remain hot. What is the cause of the heat in the iron? In a way, it is the fire, but now the situation is slightly different: the heat in the glowing iron does not depend on the fire. I could put the fire out, and the iron would stay hot (for a time). (If I could stop it from interacting with its environment somehow, it would stay hot indefinitely.) Hence, the heat depends now only accidentally on the fire.
That is the difference. Whether it helps us in proving something about the temporal beginning of the universe, is a different matter.
Instantaneous action (Aquinas does not actually employ the expression “instantaneous motion”) would be an example of essential (per se) cause. However, motion entails temporal succession, which includes a mix of both essential and accidental causes (similar to our iron example).
But is that part, at least, clear?
(Let’s tackle the problem of infinity once this part is cleared up.)
If you read the Third Way, you’ll see Aquinas mentions the second way as support. The First Way needs the Second as support too. In fact, why can’t there just be an infinity of physical causes and nothing else. God is not part of the physical action. So then the first way is dependent on the Third Way. That’s fine with me. But I don’t see how, if motion could always have been, why there could not be an infinity of God’s, one greater than the other, which acts instantaneously without time per se
Add odd numbers to all the even
Thanks for replying. Though my question wasn’t about science, or about Aristotle. It is specific to you and Imelahn. Both of you mix Aristotlean concepts with modern science, a bit of essence here, a bit of inertia there, a dab of potencia here, a dab of relativity there, which results in a complicated patchwork quilt which isn’t true to Aristotle or to modern science. You may not realize how complicated you make even the simplest of things by mixing the two systems ad hoc without any synthesis going on.
I can only answer for myself. There is nothing " ad hoc " about A/T philosophy. It applies to all of existence. Some claiming to represent the views of modern science have claimed that since Hume A/T philosophy is no longer relevant. I have merely pointed out that it is indeed relevant even for science. In addition, it contributes to a more clear understanding of Revelation itself. It further contributes to a better understanding of human psychology by rescuing culture from incorrect interpretation of human psychology and how man understands reality, saving him from various forms of idealism, skepticism, and solipsism.
Sorry but you’re still misunderstanding what I’m asking. My question had nothing to do with Thomas, nothing to do with Aristotle, and nothing to do with science. My question was aimed only at you Linus and you Imelahn, as you are the only two people I have ever met who make your own complicated ad hoc mash up of Aristotle with modern science. So again, my question is about neither Thomas nor Aristotle, neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons, neither the present nor the future, nor any powers, neither height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, except for your, Linus, personal mixing of Aristotle with modern science, and why you, Linus, only Linus, just Linus, no one but Linus, do it when it’s not being true to Aristotle or to modern science but just seems to complicate everything to no purpose.
I have to think about that one, but I don’t think it is possible. Motion means a change that entails passing through intermediate stages in a continuous way. It seems to me that the only kind of instantaneous “motion” that there can be would be something that does not pass through any intermediate steps.
But did you see how the impossibility of infinite regress is much easier to justify when we consider only per-se causes? When the per-se cause ceases, the effect also ceases at the same moment. Accidental causes do not have this property—their effects can continue on even when the causes have ceased.
Not exactly. I think that Aristotle’s principles—act/potency, substance/accident, matter/form, cause/effect, and so on—are still basically valid. Of course, his theory of four elements and the circular movement of the planets and so on has been superseded. We are aware of that.
That is correct. His theory is that heavy elements (water and especially earth) tend to downward movement. (The “light” elements—air and fire—tend to upward movement; they get mixed together, so to speak, because of the circular movement of the planets.) That theory has been superseded, as I mentioned, but his theory of causality—which does not depend on his cosmological theory—is not really undermined by the advent of Newtonian mechanics.
Oddly enough, it was not Aristotle who thought there was absolute rest, as you might expect, but Newton. Newton was well known (and heavily criticized later on) for advocating an absolute space and time. He even proposed experiments for detecting them (although he does not seem to have carried them out, because if he had, he would have had to abandon absolute space and time).
One only has to look back through the thread to see that merging concepts from Aristotle with modern science in this way (while quietly ignoring his more obvious mistakes) results in a complicated patchwork which is, as the English say, neither use nor ornament.
There is no problem in applying the perennially valid aspects of Aristotle’s thought to modern scientific advances. You just have to understand that Aristotle’s theory works on a different level, so to speak, from modern physics. (E.g., Aristotle’s “matter” and physical “matter” in modern physics are two very different concepts, and they should not be mixed up.)
You are obviously objecting to something I said in post #23, but I can’t see what it is specifically. Perhaps you could cite the offending paragraph?Sorry but you’re still misunderstanding what I’m asking. My question had nothing to do with Thomas, nothing to do with Aristotle, and nothing to do with science. My question was aimed only at you Linus and you Imelahn, as you are the only two people I have ever met who make your own complicated ad hoc mash up of Aristotle with modern science. So again, my question is about neither Thomas nor Aristotle, neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons, neither the present nor the future, nor any powers, neither height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, except for your, Linus, personal mixing of Aristotle with modern science, and why you, Linus, only Linus, just Linus, no one but Linus, do it when it’s not being true to Aristotle or to modern science but just seems to complicate everything to no purpose.
I’m going out to look at the mountains now. It calms me. I may be gone sometime.