Per se VS. accidental?

[Linusthe2nd]

No. An eternal domino series ending today is the same as a per se series **and ** the eternity of motion. You reject one and not the other

What have I rejected? All I said was that Thomas assumed the eternity of the world for the sake of argument. His first way proves the impossibility of an infinite number of per se movers. He didn’t mention anything at all about an the possibility of an infinite number of per accidens movers. He mentioned nothing about physics, he mentioned nothing about the Kalam argument. He spoke only about the necessity of a First Unmoved Mover which moved every thing else and this First Unmoved Mover could not have any potency and therefore must exist outside the universe of composed essences, moving them to be and to act. The First Way uses physical examples to get accross the idea of a reduction of potency to act in those things which change.

The first and more manifest way is the argument from motion. It is certain, and evident to our senses, that in the world some things are in motion. Now whatever is in motion is put in motion by another, for nothing can be in motion except it is in potentiality to that towards which it is in motion; whereas a thing moves inasmuch as it is in act. For motion is nothing else than the reduction of something from potentiality to actuality. But nothing can be reduced from potentiality to actuality, except by something in a state of actuality. Thus that which is actually hot, as fire, makes wood, which is potentially hot, to be actually hot, and thereby moves and changes it. Now it is not possible that the same thing should be at once in actuality and potentiality in the same respect, but only in different respects. For what is actually hot cannot simultaneously be potentially hot; but it is simultaneously potentially cold. It is therefore impossible that in the same respect and in the same way a thing should be both mover and moved, i.e. that it should move itself. Therefore, whatever is in motion must be put in motion by another. If that by which it is put in motion be itself put in motion, then this also must needs be put in motion by another, and that by another again. But this cannot go on to infinity, because then there would be no first mover, and, consequently, no other mover; seeing that subsequent movers move only inasmuch as they are put in motion by the first mover; as the staff moves only because it is put in motion by the hand. Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other; and this everyone understands to be God.

Linus2nd

Linus2nd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

The concepts of act/potency at their basic level, really, are not to difficult to understand. That which is in act, has actual being or existence. That which is in potency, has potential being or existence. For example, a block of wood has actual being, it is actually a block of wood, but it is potentially a table, a chair, or if you burned it, ashes.

Aristotle introduced the concepts of act/potency in his explanation of how change takes place in the world. He steered a middle course between the Eleatics such as Parmenides and Zeno on the one hand, who denied the reality of change in the world, and the camp of Heraclitus on the other hand, who denied that there was anything permanent in the world but the only reality is change and fluctuation. Aristotle thought that to deny the reality of change or permanence is simply to deny common sensible observation. For example, in the example of the block of wood above, if a carpenter made this block of wood into a table, then this block of wood is no longer a block of wood but a table. At the same time, there is something permanent in the table that was in the block of wood, namely, the wood. This is an example of an accidental change. Wood is a substance in this example which can take on accidental forms. If you burned this block of wood, you would have a substantial change. The wood would no longer be wood but ashes or a conglomerate of elemental or compound substances. Wood, before being burned, is potentially ashes. But wood cannot set fire to itself nor make itself into a table. Potency does not raise itself to act. That which is already actual such as fire or a carpenter is required to bring about a change in the block of wood. Accordingly, Aristotle taught that change in general requires an external efficient cause which in this example is the fire or the carpenter.

Very good, a picture is woth a thousand words.

Linus2nd

 

[thinkandmull]

On the other hand, no one on this forum or anywhere else in the entire world that I know of has definitively proven or demonstrated that the first proof of Aquinas is false or incoherent. I think Aquinas assuredly thought himself, that the first proof based on observable motion or change, the principle that whatever is moved is moved by another, and the metaphysical principles of actuality and potentiality is a real demonstration for the existence of a first unmoved mover which we call God, the denial of which would be conceptually incoherent.

Metaphysics begins with the sensible, which is the field of physics, and ends in the trans-sensible and sound intellectual reasoning. Again, metaphysical concepts are based on observation and common sense, but the concepts themselves are trans-sensible. You can’t place the trans-sensible under a microscope and say “there it is!.” Neither can one place God under a microscope and say “There he is!.” God is trans-sensible, immaterial, and transcendent to the universe.

St Paul says: “For what can be known about God is evident to them, because God made it evident to them. Ever since the creation of the world, his invisible attributes of eternal power and divinity have been able to be understood and perceived in what he has made.” (Romans 1: 19-20). And the CCC#286 states: The existence of God the creator can be known with certainty through his works, by the natural light of reason."

According to the word of God, which is truth itself, and the catholic faith, the existence of God can be known with certainty through his works by the natural light of reason. This is what appears to be what St Thomas attempts to do in the five demonstrations or proofs for the existence of God. But, the existence of God or His very being is not going to be found in the sensible and observable or under a microscope. One has to transcend the sensible and think outside the physical box, as it were, to acknowledge His existence.

The distinction between sense and intellect was an important advancement in philosophic thinking. If I’m not mistaken, I believe Aquinas attributes to Plato as at least one of the first and which Plato asserted the immateriality of the intellect. However, Anaxagoras before Plato did introduce the concept of Mind in his philosophy but it was apparently quite anthropomorphic. Aristotle once stated that Anaxagoras “stood out like a sober man from the random talkers that had preceded him.” Aristotle later though became disillusioned with Anaxagoras because of other elements of his philosophy and how he applied the concept of Mind in his philosophy.

Even with a First Mover, the motions go back allegedly forever, one dependent on the one before. So why the necessity of the first mover for the chain, since each part is anyways dependent on what is before it? The Third Way… So someone in the world has shown the first way isn’t an argument

 

[thinkandmull]

What have I rejected? All I said was that Thomas assumed the eternity of the world for the sake of argument. His first way proves the impossibility of an infinite number of per se movers. He didn’t mention anything at all about an the possibility of an infinite number of per accidens movers. He mentioned nothing about physics, he mentioned nothing about the Kalam argument. He spoke only about the necessity of a First Unmoved Mover which moved every thing else and this First Unmoved Mover could not have any potency and therefore must exist outside the universe of composed essences, moving them to be and to act. The First Way uses physical examples to get accross the idea of a reduction of potency to act in those things which change.

The first and more manifest way is the argument from motion. It is certain, and evident to our senses, that in the world some things are in motion. Now whatever is in motion is put in motion by another, for nothing can be in motion except it is in potentiality to that towards which it is in motion; whereas a thing moves inasmuch as it is in act. For motion is nothing else than the reduction of something from potentiality to actuality. But nothing can be reduced from potentiality to actuality, except by something in a state of actuality. Thus that which is actually hot, as fire, makes wood, which is potentially hot, to be actually hot, and thereby moves and changes it. Now it is not possible that the same thing should be at once in actuality and potentiality in the same respect, but only in different respects. For what is actually hot cannot simultaneously be potentially hot; but it is simultaneously potentially cold. It is therefore impossible that in the same respect and in the same way a thing should be both mover and moved, i.e. that it should move itself. Therefore, whatever is in motion must be put in motion by another. If that by which it is put in motion be itself put in motion, then this also must needs be put in motion by another, and that by another again. But this cannot go on to infinity, because then there would be no first mover, and, consequently, no other mover; seeing that subsequent movers move only inasmuch as they are put in motion by the first mover; as the staff moves only because it is put in motion by the hand. Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other; and this everyone understands to be God.

Linus2nd

Linus2nd

What he said is about physics and he is rejecting the Kalam argument. Why cannot an infinitely long arm more? That would be per se definitely. Why is not eternal motion per se as my dominoes example should. You and Aquinas are standing with stale crumbs for arguments

 

[Richca]

Even with a First Mover, the motions go back allegedly forever, one dependent on the one before. So why the necessity of the first mover for the chain, since each part is anyways dependent on what is before it? The Third Way… So someone in the world has shown the first way isn’t an argument

According to Aquinas, the motions do not go back to infinity but there is a first mover who is pure act. This conclusion is required from the principle that whatever is moved is moved by another. If you had an infinite number of things potentially moveable but nothing in act, you would have no motion or change which is contrary to sense experience. If the stick moves because it is in potentiality to be moved by the hand, and the hand moves because it is in potentiality to be moved by the arm, and the arm moves because it is in potentiality to be moved by muscles, and the muscles move because they are in potentiality to be moved by the firing of certain motor neurons, etc. to infinity, would we not have an infinite number of things in potentiality to be moved but no movement? Nothing can be reduced from potentiality to actuality except by something in a state of actuality.

 

[thinkandmull]

Aquinas says food is all liquid, that the tongue can become liguid, that the pupils are clear instead of black (because otherwise it could not see black, even though a man can see a man. And how can something clear see something clear by that logic). I have quotes for all this.

If a eternity of motions one after another is possible, than why not all at once. Wouldn’t that be per se??

 

[thinkandmull]

According to Aquinas, the motions do not go back to infinity but there is a first mover who is pure act. This conclusion is required from the principle that whatever is moved is moved by another. If you had an infinite number of things potentially moveable but nothing in act, you would have no motion or change which is contrary to sense experience.

Aquinas believed there could be an infinity of motion. Read the beginning of this thread and the beginning of the Summa Contra Gentilies

 

[Linusthe2nd]

What he said is about physics and he is rejecting the Kalam argument. Why cannot an infinitely long arm more? That would be per se definitely. Why is not eternal motion per se as my dominoes example should. You and Aquinas are standing with stale crumbs for arguments

You are the one making the statements. Show how what you said is true.

Linus2nd

 

[thinkandmull]

Did you read my first post? Per se for Aquinas is my hand being dependent on my arm, and that on something else, to infinity, which is what infinite motion is

 

[Richca]

Did you read my first post? Per se for Aquinas is my hand being dependent on my arm, and that on something else, to infinity, which is what infinite motion is

I think it has been explained in this thread that Aquinas and other medieval thinkers distinguished between two kinds of series of efficient causes, namely, per se and per accidens. The first proof for the existence of God in the ST concerns a per se series which cannot go on to infinity. Aquinas does not mention anything about the eternity or non-eternity of the world in this argument because it is irrelevant. The question about the eternal duration or motion of the world would involve, I think, a series of efficient causes per accidens which could stretch back in time to eternity, only because God is eternal. However, even if such an infinite series of efficient causes per accidens existed, we would still need to posit God as the first mover and first cause of this series.

 

[thinkandmull]

Why would you have to “posit a God as the first mover and first cause of this series”? The series is a series of infinite intermediate movements anyone? One the Third Way can save the day, but that makes the first way irrelevant and not an argument at all for God.

And as per se is explained by Aquinas, it is no different than accidental. One thing dependent on the former, than the former, ect to eternity. It is only if this is a simultaneous eternal motion is there maybe a problem but it has nothing to do with Aquinas’s argument.

 

[thinkandmull]

From the article in question

Reply to Objection 6. Passage is always understood as being from term to term. Whatever bygone day we choose, from it to the present day there is a finite number of days which can be passed through. The objection is founded on the idea that, given two extremes, there is an infinite number of mean terms.

Already refuted by me in this thread

Reply to Objection 4. Those who hold the eternity of the world hold that some region was changed an infinite number of times, from being uninhabitable to being inhabitable and “vice versa,” and likewise they hold that the arts, by reason of various corruptions and accidents, were subject to an infinite variety of advance and decay. Hence Aristotle says (Meteor. i), that it is absurd from such particular changes to hold the opinion of the newness of the whole world.

You guys are saying there can be eternal motion where every mover is an intermediate mover, with God the overarching Mover. But to prove the overarching Mover is for the Third Way

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Did you read my first post? Per se for Aquinas is my hand being dependent on my arm, and that on something else, to infinity, which is what infinite motion is

That is not an example of an infinite per se motion which is impossible. Thomas makes it clear that an infinite per se motion is impossible.

Linus2nd

 

[inocente]

a-ha, i think you were referring to your post # 35 where you said, " 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.

It is imelahn’s and your mixing of the two systems of thought which intrigues me. It doesn’t generate any new knowledge, it just seems to obfuscate. Is it a desperate last attempt to rescue scholasticism or something?

Btw the relativity only needs to be galilean relativity, the kind used by all navigators for centuries."

yes, if one has not studied natural philosophy, the philosophy of nature or even the philosophy of science and metaphysics from an a/t perspective, it can get kind of " complicated. " and believe me it is complicated to all beginning students of philosophy as well, the confusion is not something peculiar to you. I think imelahn would agree.

Nevertheless, it is an effort a/t philosophers feel compelled to make because of the criticisms of modern cosmologists and their inadmissible conclusions ( god does not exist, or we can get along just fine without him, nothing exists but matter, etc. ). And i agree that some of the folks who post here have an imperfect grasp of a/t principles. This is an open forum and anyone can jump in and claim anything they want. It would be best to go directly to aristotle and thomas aquinas and his commentaries and then make conclusions based on those. The trouble is that a lot of people settle for someone elses analysis of these men and only that or, worse, on articles they find on the net.

For example, when they say that newton has burried a and t or that general or special relativity or that quantum mechanics has burried not only a/t philosophy but even god himself, that has to be challanged, because it is certainly wrong. Now you might say that a/t philosophers are wasting their breath and i agree it is an uphill battle. But there are cracks in the armour. Aristotle is studied more than he was a couple of decades ago and so is aquinas.

Thanks, but I think you’re still missed the point of my question. Personally I don’t think Aristotle’s physics or metaphysics is anywhere near as complicated as some make out.

But again, as I’ve said maybe four times now, it isn’t his ideas that I was asking about. It’s the contemporary attempt, the twenty-first century attempt, by some to mix his principles with modern science, which doesn’t result in any synthesis but only in a complicated ragbag which aids neither philosophy nor science, and just obfuscates.

God won’t be found in mess and confusion, and God doesn’t compel us to mess and confusion, so any A & TA philosophers who “feel compelled” to produce such mess and confusion are imho on the road to nowhere.

 

[inocente]

The concepts of act/potency at their basic level, really, are not to difficult to understand. That which is in act, has actual being or existence. That which is in potency, has potential being or existence. For example, a block of wood has actual being, it is actually a block of wood, but it is potentially a table, a chair, or if you burned it, ashes.

Aristotle introduced the concepts of act/potency in his explanation of how change takes place in the world. He steered a middle course between the Eleatics such as Parmenides and Zeno on the one hand, who denied the reality of change in the world, and the camp of Heraclitus on the other hand, who denied that there was anything permanent in the world but the only reality is change and fluctuation. Aristotle thought that to deny the reality of change or permanence is simply to deny common sensible observation. For example, in the example of the block of wood above, if a carpenter made this block of wood into a table, then this block of wood is no longer a block of wood but a table. At the same time, there is something permanent in the table that was in the block of wood, namely, the wood. This is an example of an accidental change. Wood is a substance in this example which can take on accidental forms. If you burned this block of wood, you would have a substantial change. The wood would no longer be wood but ashes or a conglomerate of elemental or compound substances. Wood, before being burned, is potentially ashes. But wood cannot set fire to itself nor make itself into a table. Potency does not raise itself to act. That which is already actual such as fire or a carpenter is required to bring about a change in the block of wood. Accordingly, Aristotle taught that change in general requires an external efficient cause which in this example is the fire or the carpenter.

Some tell me that yon unmoved mover has to be part of every motion, even the motion of every elementary particle in the entire universe, as if God is a cosmic plate juggler.

Whereas post #6 on this thread says “[Fr. Weisheipl] points out that according to Aristotle an accompanying mover is only necessary in motions which are contrary to nature. In things which move naturally, it is the generator of the form which is the mover or agent of motion ( the per se mover ).”

Now if I were to ask which of these is correct, I’ll probably be told that “mover” doesn’t mean “mover” but “sustainer”. But under the second view, the Fr. Weisheipl interpretation, if the unmoved mover does not have to accompany natural motion then we can go one small step further and conclude that the unsustained sustainer does not have to sustain nature. Voila, the unmoved mover disappears in a puff of logic.

So I think the reason act/potency got dropped by science is that it’s a null concept, it says whatever anyone wants it to say.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Thanks, but I think you’re still missed the point of my question. Personally I don’t think Aristotle’s physics or metaphysics is anywhere near as complicated as some make out.

But again, as I’ve said maybe four times now, it isn’t his ideas that I was asking about. It’s the contemporary attempt, the twenty-first century attempt, by some to mix his principles with modern science, which doesn’t result in any synthesis but only in a complicated ragbag which aids neither philosophy nor science, and just obfuscates.

O.K. then, just how does his principles " complicated ragbag? " Surely we have the right do defend not only philosophy but the inappropriate conclusions some modern " cosmoligists " and scientists assert are the logical conclusions of science.

God won’t be found in mess and confusion, and God doesn’t compel us to mess and confusion, so any A & TA philosophers who “feel compelled” to produce such mess and confusion are imho on the road to nowhere.

I understand why atheists and skeptics would feel this way but I don’t see how it is a threat to faith that philosophers, at least since Plato, found that God could indeed be found through the philosophical exercise. Even St. Paul said the " …the evidence of Him can be found in the things He has made…" Of course faith is not reason but good reasons can lead to faith and it certainly reinforces it. What is wrong with that? Reason does not eliminate faith, it simply puts it on a firm foundation, or can. Besides we are told by theologians who should know that faith does require reasons. The only exception I think of to that would be a private Divine revelation as happened to St. Paul and that doesn’t happen very often.

Linus2nd

 

[Richca]

Some tell me that yon unmoved mover has to be part of every motion, even the motion of every elementary particle in the entire universe, as if God is a cosmic plate juggler.

The quantum or subatomic universe and its workings as science tells us is truly quite amazing, very amazing. God is the creator of all this as well as its preserver. I’ve heard it said from science that the atomic or subatomic world are the building blocks of nature. The builder here is God. God is not blind to the quantum universe, for he is its builder.
Without the activity of the First Mover and First Efficient Cause who is God, no movement, change, or effect would take place in the universe and this includes the tiniest elementary particles in the farthest reaches of space. Indeed, without the constant activity of God, the universe would vanish back into nothingness from which it came. It is actually a wonderful meditation to consider that God is behind all the workings of not only the macro universe but also the micro and quantum universe. What we should gather from a meditating on all this, I think, is how great God truly is, He is infinite while the universe is finite as well as our tiny little minds. The Scripture says: Thus says the Lord, “The heavens are my throne, the earth, my footstool” (Isaiah 66: 1).

Whereas post #6 on this thread says “[Fr. Weisheipl] points out that according to Aristotle an accompanying mover is only necessary in motions which are contrary to nature. In things which move naturally, it is the generator of the form which is the mover or agent of motion ( the per se mover ).”

 

[thinkandmull]

That is not an example of an infinite per se motion which is impossible. Thomas makes it clear that an infinite per se motion is impossible.

Linus2nd

What he says is ambiguous. If it means an movement of infinite parts, than that’s debatable. If its just a hand being dependent on a previous arm movement, which in turn if dependent ect ect to infinity, than it is the domino thing, and thus no difference between accidental and per se. This supposed distinction doesn’t make clear there is a God. You would probably feel happier with you intellect if you thought for yourself instead of parroting a dead guy you never met all the time. Just a thought

 

[thinkandmull]

Point your finger to the north and imagine a line going infinitely in that direction. So you have a line ending at you. Call yourself NOW. The line represents the supposed eternal motions, one succeeding the next. Now think of another line next to it. It is the creative-sustaining force of God. Now the first line stands on its own in the sense that there is no first mover; every movement is intermediate. Therefore, why do these lines have to be together? THE THIRD WAY! The First Way does not prove there is a God.

 

[thinkandmull]

You guys are thinking that there must be something in back of the infinite series, but the infinite series would still be infinite therefore, although he would be called the First Mover, it would be known by us primarily (although there is the 4th and 5th ways) because of contingency.

This is not to say I believe that time and motion have always been. I believe the Kalam argument is the only demonstration for God that is mathematical in its precision