Potency

  • Thread starter Thread starter polytropos
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
belorg said:
40.png
polytropos:
Nothing also does not not have potency either. Nothing is { }. It is not some thing which can or cannot be actualized. It is just a complete absence of existence. Creation ex nihilo is a matter of Pure Actuality, which is not nothing, generating something distinct from itself, not a matter of Pure Actuality acting on something which does not exist, which would not make much sense.
Click to expand...
Sure, nothing is a complete absense of existence, and hence there is no potency anywhere.
The main problem for the Thomist is accounting for potency.
Click to expand...
I think the answer to your question is found in polytropos’ answer. Yes, nothingness has no potency to exist. It would require infinite power to cause nothing to become something when nothingness has no propensity for existence. Only God has infinite power and can create from nothing. I think that is what is meant by Pure Actuality. Creation ex nihilo doesn’t mean that there was nothing and then there was something. God is, was, always has been, and always will be. It just means God did not create things from a pre-existing material or substance.
 
belorg said:
Sure, nothing is a complete absense of existence, and hence there is no potency anywhere.
The main problem for the Thomist is accounting for potency.
Click to expand...
By accounting for potency, do you mean accounting for the fact that there exist things with potentcies, which at one point would not have existed if the doctrine of creation ex nihilo holds?

I don’t see how that is problematic. What the principle of motion states is that potencies are only actualized by that which is in act. You seem to (correct me if I’m wrong) be taking that to cast doubt on the idea that there could be no potency and then some potency. But why? The doctrine of creation ex nihilo does not entail, as Balto and I have said, that God “acts on nothing” but that God creates without preexisting materials. It is to say that Pure Actuality has the effect of actuality, and that in producing His effect, is not changed Himself (since only things with potencies could change).
 
polytropos said:
By accounting for potency, do you mean accounting for the fact that there exist things with potentcies, which at one point would not have existed if the doctrine of creation ex nihilo holds?

I don’t see how that is problematic. What the principle of motion states is that potencies are only actualized by that which is in act. You seem to (correct me if I’m wrong) be taking that to cast doubt on the idea that there could be no potency and then some potency. But why?
Click to expand...
Because ex nihilo nihil fit.
 
belorg said:
But potential beings do not come out of Pure Actuality, they come out of nothing.
So there is a huge conflict.
Click to expand...
There’s no conflict. You correctly stated that nothingness has no potential to exist. Therefore, there’s no such thing as a “potential being.” It either exists or it doesn’t. Every being in existence was created out of nothing via God’s pure Act. Again, creation ex nihilo is not nothing → something. It’s only God is and then God acts and then there’s God + creation. God’s act of creation changes Him in no way and therefore He needs nothing in order to create. Hence, creation ex nihilo. Creation has a Creator. There’s nothing in the nature of creation that would necessitate its existence.
 
polytropos said:
Suppose an event E occurs. Prior to E’s occurring, was there necessarily a potential for E to occur?

To put it differently, can state of affairs A transform into state of affairs B if A did not have B in potency?

Will anyone dispute that what has happened would not have happened if it could not have happened?
Click to expand...
I don’t think that the phrase, “state of affairs A transform into state of affairs B if A did not have B in potency” is applicable to every state of affairs considering examples of free will and creativity (the least two that I recall now).
 
Bahman said:
I don’t think that the phrase, “state of affairs A transform into state of affairs B if A did not have B in potency” is applicable to every state of affairs considering examples of free will and creativity (the least two that I recall now).
Click to expand...
How so? Say my hand is open right now. I freely choose to close it into a fist. It is still true and necessary that my opened hand had the potency to be closed. The claim is not about what will happen but what could have happened.
 
belorg said:
But potential beings do not come out of Pure Actuality, they come out of nothing.
So there is a huge conflict.
Click to expand...
What do you mean by “they come out of nothing”? To say that absolute nothingness turns into beings with potentials is, indeed, nonsensical (since nothing could be predicated of “absolute nothingness”). But to say that Pure Actuality can create beings without any other materials is not.
 
polytropos said:
What do you mean by “they come out of nothing”? To say that absolute nothingness turns into beings with potentials is, indeed, nonsensical (since nothing could be predicated of “absolute nothingness”). But to say that Pure Actuality can create beings without any other materials is not.
Click to expand...
Why?
 
Linux said:
Why?
Click to expand...
Pure Actuality has the effect of actuality. I don’t see any logical necessity that it act on something to do so (and the claim is only that creation ex nihilo is consistent, since it is known through faith rather than argument). Since Pure Actuality necessarily exists and beings with potentialities also exist, it would seem that the alternative would require some prime matter (pure potentiality) to be in some way ontologically necessary and independent for the actualized world to exist as it does, which does not make sense to me.
 
polytropos said:
How so? Say my hand is open right now. I freely choose to close it into a fist. It is still true and necessary that my opened hand had the potency to be closed. The claim is not about what will happen but what could have happened.
Click to expand...
In the example that you choose closing hand is the only available option but that is not a problem. Generally speaking if act X is sole outcome of situation Y then you still have freedom on when perform act X. In the above example you could keep your hand as long as you wish. If act X was a potential of situation Y then Y comes out as the result when it is required not when you wish.
 
polytropos said:
What do you mean by “they come out of nothing”? To say that absolute nothingness turns into beings with potentials is, indeed, nonsensical (since nothing could be predicated of “absolute nothingness”). But to say that Pure Actuality can create beings without any other materials is not.
Click to expand...
If you analyze them, they are both equally nonsensical
 
polytropos said:
Pure Actuality has the effect of actuality. I don’t see any logical necessity that it act on something to do so (and the claim is only that creation ex nihilo is consistent, since it is known through faith rather than argument). Since Pure Actuality necessarily exists and beings with potentialities also exist, it would seem that the alternative would require some prime matter (pure potentiality) to be in some way ontologically necessary and independent for the actualized world to exist as it does, which does not make sense to me.
Click to expand...
It did make sense to Aristotle.
 
polytropos said:
Suppose an event E occurs. Prior to E’s occurring, was there necessarily a potential for E to occur?

To put it differently, can state of affairs A transform into state of affairs B if A did not have B in potency?

Will anyone dispute that what has happened would not have happened if it could not have happened?
Click to expand...
PT I suspect you are asking if this is an analytic truth or a synthetic one.

I will stick my neck out and say that change/potency/act/matter/form/Aristotle’s 5-causes are all terms that basically imply each other in a seamless whole. (i.e. an analytic truth).

Just a more complicated version of nephew/uncle. If you accept the definition of nephew…then you accept uncles exist. Unfortunately that seems to have very little do with what is actually happening in “reality” (whatever that is) as opposed to an invented “dictionary”.

What happens “in reality” (which is what you seem to seek surety about) involves attaining to “synthetic truths.” Like, “all creatures with hearts have kidneys.” They always seem to be “less certain” but at least they are “real.”

Potency/act as you are using them seems more like a circular exercise in analytics than synthetics.

If its analytic, then we know it is always true.
But whether we are talking about the real world is a completely different matter.
 
The only way to evade the concept of potency is to assume that everything has come from nothing: sheer nonsense! There is not one jot of evidence that nothing has produced anything, let alone everything. Science is based on the principle of causality which implies that things have the power to produce effects. Voila!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top