Per se VS. accidental?

[thinkandmull]

I think you’re trying to make a distinction without a difference. Can you give a quote from Aristotle where he says God moved things from the future?

I never said that. I said God moves the First Sphere as an object of desire, as a Final Cause.

Yes, God moves both as the First Efficient Cause and as the Ultimate Final Cause. That is, our God does, not Aristotle’s.

Only a tiny percentage of scientists would have any philosophical training. So I imagine most of them have never considered these categories.

Certainly. I don’t think anyone would who understood what you were talking about? I would imagine that 99.9999% of the people who were asked the question would be very surprised, they might even ask, " Wha’dy mean? " ’ Potency ’ just isn’t in the every day vocabulary of most folks, even scientists.

So you think they should know what you mean by ’ potency ’ but are ignorant of ’ substance? ’ I think science has everything to do with substance. Except for theoretical physicists they handle all kinds of substances every day. They may not reflect on it, but it is true nevertheless.

Linus2nd

You still have this idea that substance is matter. Science deals with matter, and matter have lots of potentials.

A final cause would cause things by brining things to itself. I read Aristotles physics lately, and I don’t see how you can say he didn’t believe in an Efficient Cause? But since God is in eternity may it this is all a distinction without a difference

 

[thinkandmull]

It appears to me that it would be both infinite time and finite time which is a contradiction. The idea that a particular motion moves instantaneously with a prior infinite number of movers is not reasonable nor is it consistent with observation. Time is the measure of motion. It takes the earth 24 hours to revolve once on its axis; 24 hours is not instantaneous. According to modern science, the movement of light which is supposedly the fastest moving phenomena is not instantaneous. It travels at a speed of 186,000 miles per second. This idea of instantaneous motion is not even supported by modern science especially if we considered that some particular motion depended on an infinite number of prior movers.

 

[thinkandmull]

It depends on what science we are talking about. If we discuss Aristotlelian/Thomistic philosophy and metaphysics, then substance has a lot to do with this science. If we are talking about modern physics, chemistry, etc., even though modern chemistry uses the concept of substance a lot, if I’m not mistaken, this concept of substance is not understood in the same sense as A/T. Chemistry understands substance in terms of molecules, atoms, protons, electrons, neutrons, etc.; something that can be directly observed, for example, under a microscope. Substance in A/T, is metaphysical, something we perceive and understand through the intellect and only indirectly observed by the senses.

What we can understand or gather through the use of our intellect though not directly observed by the senses, does not make this intellectual perception less real than what we see with our eyes. Do we see truth, or justice, or temperance, or prudence, or wisdom, or goodness, or evil with our senses? Not directly no, but that doesn’t mean they do not exist. We understand these ideas through our immaterial intellects.

The substance that is the subject of color is one thing. The substance that is changed in the Eucharest is obviously something else

 

[Linusthe2nd]

I never said that. I said God moves the First Sphere as an object of desire, as a Final Cause.

Yes, God moves both as the First Efficient Cause and as the Ultimate Final Cause. That is, our God does, not Aristotle’s.

Only a tiny percentage of scientists would have any philosophical training. So I imagine most of them have never considered these categories.

Certainly. I don’t think anyone would who understood what you were talking about? I would imagine that 99.9999% of the people who were asked the question would be very surprised, they might even ask, " Wha’dy mean? " ’ Potency ’ just isn’t in the every day vocabulary of most folks, even scientists.

So you think they should know what you mean by ’ potency ’ but are ignorant of ’ substance? ’ I think science has everything to do with substance. Except for theoretical physicists they handle all kinds of substances every day. They may not reflect on it, but it is true nevertheless.

Linus2nd

You still have this idea that substance is matter. Science deals with matter, and matter have lots of potentials.

Yes, the primary meaning of substance is that it is a body that exists in itself and not in another. That is matter. The question was not whether " matter has lots of potentials. " The question you asked was, " don’t you think most scientists know what act and potentcy was? " or words to that effect.

A final cause would cause things by brining things to itself. I read Aristotles physics lately, and I don’t see how you can say he didn’t believe in an Efficient Cause?

I never said Aristotle didn’t believe in efficient causes, I said that his God was not an efficient cause.

But since God is in eternity may it this is all a distinction without a difference

Have no idea what you mean. If you want me to keep responding, you need to get your facts straight, stop misquoting me.

Linus2nd

 

[thinkandmull]

I said “an Efficient Cause” so as to mean God by the capitals. Were does Aristotle say there is no main Efficient Cause?

But again, we think of that as before us, and the final as after. But maybe they are one and the same in reality, not two acts in God. You should dismiss what I wrote so easily Linus. On substance: you were the one who said that science should consider more than just matter in their business. I don’t see that as useful, except for their spiritual lives

 

[thinkandmull]

If motions always were than there is no Person behind the series in any time dimension, but always **along **side it. The Aquinas-Augustine example of a shoe imprinting eternally in sand is not sound because that imprint is necessary in that example. To say that the world always was and was from nothing seems to be a contradiction because the world was never nothing! You may say “well in principle it was”, but that is so far out there I don’t think we can actually say with confidence that this could be so

 

[Linusthe2nd]

If motions always were than there is no Person behind the series in any time dimension, but always **along **side it. The Aquinas-Augustine example of a shoe imprinting eternally in sand is not sound because that imprint is necessary in that example. To say that the world always was and was from nothing seems to be a contradiction because the world was never nothing! You may say “well in principle it was”, but that is so far out there I don’t think we can actually say with confidence that this could be so

Thomas thought it was possible and I have no problem imagining that God could create eternally. And if he did there would be no time which would be the beginning of the universe. This does not imply that there was ever a single eternal motion anywhere in the universe. Where did you get that idea? Thomas, following Aristotle, thought this was true of the Celestial Spheres, but that does not make it so. It is pretty clear that, at least as far as astronomy shows, that the universe undergoes some sort of evolutionary formation. That would seem to exclude any single eternal motion there.

Linus2nd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Richca;12873333:

Suppose instead of dominoes, you have electric bulbs. You wake up and by your bed a light goes on. That light was depended on the previous, and still is. You have an infinity of bulbs and they are all dependent on the one previous. Why is this not possible if eternal motion could always have been?

The bulb does not go on unless I turn it on and it is further necessary that the power plant turn on its power on first, which depends on someone firing up the plant, which depends on fuel being delivered to the plant, which depends on their being a plant built to handle and fire the fuel, etc., etc.

There could be an eternal motion. But can you point to one?

And again, you have more posts without saying how the first way is not about contingency…

The First Way does not say anything about contingency directly, it is about the cause of motion and change.

Linus2nd

 

[inocente]

O.K., I see what you are objecting to. But you are interpreting my treatment incorrectly. The piece you linked is substantially correct except on three points. First Aristotle’s Prime Mover did not act as an efficient cause, it did not apply force to the outer Celestial Sphere. The outer Celestial Sphere was moved by the Prime Mover as by a final cause. In other words, the outer Sphere was moved by the desire to imitate the perfection of the Prime Mover. The Prime Mover of Aristotle did nothing but " think " upon its own perfection.

Perhaps the professor who wrote the piece decided that subtle distinction required too much explanation for the level of the course.

Secondly, the " laws of the universe " are not simply " bold facts, " they have not always simply existed. Now you can argue that it isn’t the business of science to point out this obvious fact, but I would say that science could at least point out to the student that nothing in the universe happens without a cause and that there are other disciplines ( A/T philosophy, in their modern interpretation ) which may point to these causes.

You may be misunderstanding what is meant by physical law. A law doesn’t try to dictate reality, it simply says that in specified conditions a particular phenomenon is always seen to occur (after repeated observations by independent observers).

My objections have not been with science itself but with the unwarranted interpretations of science by some of their modern popularisers. In their interpretation, final cause, material cause and formal cause are rejected, and efficient cause has a limited, time sensitive application only.

In a free society, the interpreter chooses her own narrative, and readers decide whether to read her book. If she had to add explanations of how every philosopher under the sun might view something, you’d need a forklift truck to pick up her book.

It also rejects the principles of Aristotelian hylomorphism, substance, accident, nature and essence, and act and potency… All of these, it is my contention, can be useful to science. They are no threat to science at all. But they do tend to show that there is more to the world than science allows its students to imagine.

In a free society, scientists decide whether any given philosophy is useful or useless to their work. In the case of the notions you mention, if they can’t be tested against empirical evidence then they would obviously be inadmissible in science anyway.

Finally, Newtons Laws of Inertia illustrate my point. An arrow does not continue to move simply because of a scientific law of inertia, nor do heavenly bodies. They move because of an impetus applied to them by some efficient cause ( Aquinas illustrated this point by using the example of a thrown ball ), which acts as an accidental form or as an accidental modification to the arrow’s substantial form, its nature, in such a way that the arrow ( or heavenly body ) continues to move naturally under the influence of its nature. And the efficient cause of this nature is the generator of its form, whether man as an instrumental cause in the case of artifacts such as space ships and arrows or ultimately God as the generator of the forms of heavenly bodies.

Whether that’s how Thomas saw it I can’t say, but I think not as it undermines his unmoved mover (which would seem to be redundant once it’s got things started, as things then continue to move naturally all on their own-some according to your description).

Either way, I don’t agree that’s how Aristotle saw it. He thought the arrow’s “natural motion” is down, since that’s the nature of any object containing his element “earth”, and that making it move horizontally is an “unnatural motion” which requires an applied force, and once the force is removed the arrow returns to a state of rest. Comprehensively wrong.

Anyway, your description is complicated by having to learn a number of additional concepts (efficient cause, accidental form, substantial form, natures, etc.) while modern physics defines inertia much more simply as “the property of matter which causes it to resist any change to its motion”.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Perhaps the professor who wrote the piece decided that subtle distinction required too much explanation for the level of the course.

You may be misunderstanding what is meant by physical law. A law doesn’t try to dictate reality, it simply says that in specified conditions a particular phenomenon is always seen to occur (after repeated observations by independent observers).

In a free society, the interpreter chooses her own narrative, and readers decide whether to read her book. If she had to add explanations of how every philosopher under the sun might view something, you’d need a forklift truck to pick up her book.

In a free society, scientists decide whether any given philosophy is useful or useless to their work. In the case of the notions you mention, if they can’t be tested against empirical evidence then they would obviously be inadmissible in science anyway.

Whether that’s how Thomas saw it I can’t say, but I think not as it undermines his unmoved mover (which would seem to be redundant once it’s got things started, as things then continue to move naturally all on their own-some according to your description).

Either way, I don’t agree that’s how Aristotle saw it. He thought the arrow’s “natural motion” is down, since that’s the nature of any object containing his element “earth”, and that making it move horizontally is an “unnatural motion” which requires an applied force, and once the force is removed the arrow returns to a state of rest. Comprehensively wrong.

Anyway, your description is complicated by having to learn a number of additional concepts (efficient cause, accidental form, substantial form, natures, etc.) while modern physics defines inertia much more simply as “the property of matter which causes it to resist any change to its motion”.

Nice try. I guess, once again, we will just have to agree to disagree.

Linus2nd

 

[inocente]

Nice try. I guess, once again, we will just have to agree to disagree.

So where did you realize you made a boob and would have to withdraw?

 

[Linusthe2nd]

So where did you realize you made a boob and would have to withdraw?

I didn’t make a boob. It is very difficult to convince someone of something when they are constitutionally against the very thought of the idea. No sense in beating my head against a stone wall.

Linus2nd

 

[thinkandmull]

thinkandmull;12873502:

The bulb does not go on unless I turn it on and it is further necessary that the power plant turn on its power on first, which depends on someone firing up the plant, which depends on fuel being delivered to the plant, which depends on their being a plant built to handle and fire the fuel, etc., etc.

There could be an eternal motion. But can you point to one?

The First Way does not say anything about contingency directly, it is about the cause of motion and change.

Linus2nd

The First Way doesn’t establish any evidence that there is a God. If it is speaking of contingency, its only salvation, it simply dovetails the Third Way. I have clearly demonstrated this. . Yet a simple honest reading of it says that there can’t be an eternal universe with motion. Also, so far nobody has shown how a universe can pass through the infinite medium of time, and Aquinas failed miserably in trying to answer this, as I showed in my first post for all who have the courage to ponder. Finally, no one has shown how a universe can be **from **nothing and yet forever have been, or that contingency is consistent with eternity, God bless

 

[thinkandmull]

“Aristotle’s Prime Mover did not act as an efficient cause, it did not apply force to the outer Celestial Sphere”

I gave Aristotle’s works back to the library but I am pretty positive this is incorrect. At the end of his Physics he says that God lives through His presence encircling the universe.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

“Aristotle’s Prime Mover did not act as an efficient cause, it did not apply force to the outer Celestial Sphere”

I gave Aristotle’s works back to the library but I am pretty positive this is incorrect. At the end of his Physics he says that God lives through His presence encircling the universe.

You are in luck, his works are available on the Internet Classics Archives.

classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/physics.html

And you can read Aquinas’ commentaries on them here;

dhspriory.org/thomas/

Linus2nd

 

[thinkandmull]

So you don’t remember where you read that from Aristotle?

 

[Linusthe2nd]

So you don’t remember where you read that from Aristotle?

Try his Metaphysics, book 12 maybe.

Linus2nd

 

[thinkandmull]

Is final cause clearly distinguishable from efficient cause in this case?

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Is final cause clearly distinguishable from efficient cause in this case?

Aristotle was very clear about that. The spheres " love " God and desire to be perfect like him. It is this desire which moves them.

Linus2nd

 

[thinkandmull]

Final CAUSE is different than simply final END