The First Way Explained

[inocente]

Gee, why shouldn’t I be surprised? I think you and your friends devoted to scientism have concocted enough imaginary scenarios for us all.

If you’re reduced to repeatedly making personal remarks then you must be fresh out of arguments.

Please at least try to vary the insults though, use a little imagination.

You are also posting lots of long posts so I can’t possibly keep up. That’s known as proof by intimidation or argumentum ad nauseam.

You must be a Republican to filibuster like that. Next thing you’ll be shutting down CAF along with the national parks and federal aid.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Nope, a reasonable conclusion is that Thomas relied on the (now discredited) physics prevalent in his day. Magee uses all of Thomas’ writing and cites other scholars to show that this is born out by further analysis. You’d need to make a similarly detailed analysis and cite scholars to support your theory that he is wrong when he says:

Magee is a hostile and discredited witness and one of no standing in the philosophical community… He taught philosophy for only two years and was last known to be acting in campus ministry - in an unknown capicity. Any one with a few bucks can publish their footnoted ramblings on a web site.

"Furthermore, Professor Christopher Martin shows that Aquinas seeks to explain any given motion on earth through what Martin (following Peter Geach) calls a ‘lumping together’ of all the motions of the world. Aquinas treats every motion of the world as part of the motion of the whole world, and through this lumping together, the motion of the whole world, and therefore all of the motions within the world, depend on a single universal moving cause.

Exactly and Thomas wouldn’t deny it. And isn’t that the common sense way most of us would view the condition of the universe. Except that Thomas has provided an intellectual basis for these common sense conclusions. And isn’t it true that Scripture says the same thing? I notice you haven’t responded to that reference.

"Aquinas accepted the astronomical and cosmological model of the physical universe that was current in his day, i.e., the model which Aristotle adopted from Eudoxus and which he describes in Metaphysics XII, 8. 11 This geocentric model saw the earth as the motionless center of the physical universe with the celestial lights – the moon, sun, planets and stars – affixed to great transparent spheres which ceaselessly rotate around the earth in uniform circular motion. This complex scheme explained and predicted the apparent rising and setting of the sun and moon, the variable motion of the planets and the eternal cycle of the stars.

"With this model of the physical universe, Aquinas viewed the whole cosmos as a system of essentially subordinated causes being driven by the motion of the spheres. As he says in his Summa contra Gentiles , III, 82, “The heaven must be the cause of all the movement in the lower bodies”. He also cites Aristotle in claiming that “Man and the sun generate man.” In another proof for God’s existence paralleling the First Way he says, “Everything which moved is moved by another, for lower things are moved by higher ones, as elements are moved by heavenly bodies, and these lower ones are acted upon by the higher”. In the next chapter of the same work he says, “We see, for instance, that alterations and generating and corrupting which occur among lower things are explained by the heavenly body as by a first mover, which is not moved by this same kind of movement, as it is ungenerable, incorruptible and unalterable.” It is implicit in the First Way and explicit elsewhere in Aquinas’s writings, that the heavenly spheres are per se causes of motion of the whole world, causes which act simultaneously with the motions or changes they bring about. Thus, by lumping together all the motions of the world as constituting the motion of the whole world, Aquinas believes each motion is essentially subordinated to, and simultaneously caused by, the motion of the heavens. - aquinasonline.com/Topics/firstway-analysis.pdf

Yes, I have already answered this. The First Way does not depend on any Celestrial Mechanics of the past, nor of today. If the reader goes back to my posts on the Lessons ( Posts #s 13, 16, 17, 18, 24 - and my assorted responses to your posts ). As I have repeatedly pointed out, we may discard all of Thomas’ references to Celestial Mechsanics and all that happens is that we reach the Unmoved Mover, God, all the sooner. His arguments are still valid .

Linus2nd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

On the other thread I went into detail about exactly how and why Feser failed to reconcile the “principle of motion” with the principle of inertia.

Yes, and I have gone on in great detail there and on this thread to explain how you are wrong. And I have also pointed out that we may omit any reference to Aristotle’s principle of motion or Newton’s Law of Inertia and the First Way is still valid. All we need do is demonstrate, which I and others have done, that some other type of change concludes to the Unmoved Mover.

There may well be many houses in the kingdom, but none of them are built on the sands of falsehood.

True indeed, and there is nothing false about the premises upon which Thomas bases his arguments. They are based on the principles of potency and act, as he shows, and the principles of matter and form, where matter is in potency to form and form is in potency to the act of existence and all subject to the principles of causality ( i.e. matter and form, and efficient and final causality), and whatever is moved is moved by another… Not even Magee would dare deny that .

Oh dear, got up on the wrong side of bed then? So according to you I must bow down before the alter of Thomas. But before I do, let’s hear what the Pope has to say: “The church has experienced times of brilliance, like that of Thomas Aquinas. But the church has lived also times of decline in its ability to think. For example, we must not confuse the genius of Thomas Aquinas with the age of decadent Thomist commentaries.”

The comments by Pope Frances did not single out any particular school of philosophy. He certainly was not critisizing St. Thomas or his Corpus. If he had anyone in mind, he would certainly have included Magee, who is definitely ouside the mainstream of reliable Thomists.

So the Pope doesn’t agree with you there. I wonder what he has to say about modern science? “Even the other sciences and their development help the church in its growth in understanding.”

Your conclusion that the Pope doesn’t agree with me is not a valid conclusion, since he did not give any specific names or schools. And you misunderstand my position on science. I certainly have the highest regard for science but not the invalid inferences you and others have drawn from that science, even where that science is far from settled…

Also, you’ve not noticed the irony. Those addicted to the now discredited science of Thomas’ day are not, according to you, guilty of scientism, while those who don’t like falsehoods are. What strange logic, to call truth illusion and falsehood truth.

You cerainly slipped on the banana peal there. You and Magee are the ones who insist that Thomists must adhere to an outdated science. I have insisted all along that we can and should drop it. But you insist we hang onto it, so you can use it as a club to discredit Thomas. So, who is being more up to date here? Who is more credible?

I’ve seen people try to put science on the opposite side of the fence to religion, but never before have I seen anyone try to pit it against reality. You even did it using a device which could never have been made using your false science, in a world where the horrible killer smallpox would never have been eradicated by your false science, and where you may well have died as an infant with your false science.

For the benefit of the reader, here is the statement you are criticising :

" Newtons first law is mathematics, that was what Feser was pointing out. It is a scienific convenience, it is not and never was meant to refelect reality in the sense I am speaking of and in the sense Thomas was speaking of. The reality which leads us to God. Ergo, the First Way does not fail . It succeeds because it deals with the real world, not with mathematics. "

Now how can you go from that statement to, " against reality, " " false science, " " smallpox would never have been eradicated by your [mine] false science? " That is an incredible flight of fancy. What in the world does a the mathematical convenience of Newton’s First Law have to do with the actuality from which it has been abstracted. so we can put it it on our slide rules? You cannot pur the real world on a slide rule, but you can put mathematics on one. And that is the whole point. Thomas is dealing with the real world, where people do get smallpox, not in some mathematical matrix where anything goes.

One question: What’s the point of defending this argument when it necessitates virtually all atheists and theists hanging their heads and walking away? You don’t think it’s just a bit, well, self-indulgent, or to use the Pope’s term decadent?

If it had not been for wiseacres like Hume and the " Age of Enlightenment, " which has lead to the " Age of Atheism " of today, there would be little need of it because it was never meant for anyone but Priests and the Church. But Hume got hold of it and made a big deal of it, so he could club the Church over the head. I can’t help what atheists think or don’t think ( and mostly it is the latter ). As far as the theists go, I think you grossly generalize there, you certainly cannot use yourself as a representative example. That I find very hard to believe.

And what could be more self-indulgent that the practitioners of scientism who say " my way or the highway, " as it is being preached on High School and College campuses throughout the West?

Linus2nd

 

[inocente]

Magee is a hostile and discredited witness and one of no standing in the philosophical community… He taught philosophy for only two years and was last known to be acting in campus ministry - in an unknown capicity. Any one with a few bucks can publish their footnoted ramblings on a web site.

Oh dear, defamation now. Yet less than two weeks ago you recommended Magee’s video in the OP of this thread. Talk about blowing in the wind.

A quick google shows him to be the Director of Campus Ministry of the Catholic Student Center at Sam Houston State University, where he also teaches Philosophy of Religion. Previously he was a Dominican friar and then studied Aquinas at the Center for Thomistic Studies at the University of Saint Thomas.

shsu.edu/org_cath/director.htm
shsu-catholic.org/staff.html
shsu.edu/~psy_ww2/documents/Vita/josephmagee.pdf
shsu.edu/catalog/courses/index.php?alpha=p (course PHL 367)

So no, nothing you’ve said about him holds any water. Magee isn’t anything to me but I won’t post on this thread again unless you calm down so we can have a civil discussion. Go for a walk or something, clear your head.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Oh dear, defamation now. Yet less than two weeks ago you recommended Magee’s video in the OP of this thread. Talk about blowing in the wind.

A quick google shows him to be the Director of Campus Ministry of the Catholic Student Center at Sam Houston State University, where he also teaches Philosophy of Religion. Previously he was a Dominican friar and then studied Aquinas at the Center for Thomistic Studies at the University of Saint Thomas.

shsu.edu/org_cath/director.htm
shsu-catholic.org/staff.html
shsu.edu/~psy_ww2/documents/Vita/josephmagee.pdf
shsu.edu/catalog/courses/index.php?alpha=p (course PHL 367)

So no, nothing you’ve said about him holds any water. Magee isn’t anything to me but I won’t post on this thread again unless you calm down so we can have a civil discussion. Go for a walk or something, clear your head.

Your information is dated ( 2002 ). Your references about calming down and civil discussion, have, as ususl, omitted the " beam " in someone ele’s eye. But I realize that self examination is difficult.

I did find a philosopher who would probably be more to your liking, especially if you are current in Spanish. I speak of Xavier Subri, a noted Spanish philosopher. He only has a couple of books published in English. See, zubiri.org/intro.htm

Until we meet again.
Linus2nd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

If you’re reduced to repeatedly making personal remarks then you must be fresh out of arguments.

For the benefit of the reader I reference the following remark by Inocente on her post # 29, " There’s a good rule of thumb to always be suspicious of mechanisms which have no apparent purpose other than to save an argument. For fun, to see what I mean, have a look at the Flat Earth Society forum, where you’ll find some experts in concocting strange and complicated explanations to try to support their argument (I think maybe they just do it for sport). "

To which I replied, " Gee, why shouldn’t I be surprised? I think you and your friends devoted to scientism have concocted enough imaginary scenarios for us all. "

Yes, we should all be gracious, we should all " turn the other cheek. " And I would be happy to and have done so often enough, to which all can bare witness by reading through the thread. But sometimes the bite stings just too much.

{Please at least try to vary the insults though, use a little imagination.

Well, one could hardly accuse you of lacking in imagination in seaching for the pointed barb, as for instance in your post # 19, " Unfortunately the onus is wrong. It’s a bit like saying Father Christmas must be real if we can’t think of any other explanation for why a sackful of presents arrived at the bottom of our bed. To be falsifiable the onus needs to be reversed, as Darwin did in On The Origin: “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down”.

But we are supposed to ignore " God in the Gap " insinuations.

You are also posting lots of long posts so I can’t possibly keep up. That’s known as proof by intimidation or argumentum ad nauseam.

Not in the least. I am defending the First Way from the three or four years of incessant abuse it has gotten on this forum. And it seemed a good way to do that was to begin by dismantleing the more well known objections and also to explain how the argument is supposed to be understood. And of course I have to answer your current objections. That necessitates some attention to detail, some work…

You must be a Republican to filibuster like that. Next thing you’ll be shutting down CAF along with the national parks and federal aid.

Well, there you go again with the slights . I guess it is just composition of your of your essence .

Linus2nd

 

[inocente]

Your information is dated ( 2002 ). Your references about calming down and civil discussion, have, as ususl, omitted the " beam " in someone ele’s eye. But I realize that self examination is difficult.

I did find a philosopher who would probably be more to your liking, especially if you are current in Spanish. I speak of Xavier Subri, a noted Spanish philosopher. He only has a couple of books published in English. See, zubiri.org/intro.htm

Until we meet again.
Linus2nd

All the links I gave are current Sam Houston University website pages. He was appointed to his current position at that university in 2002.

You’re the one defaming him, and you have not provided any evidence that “Magee is a hostile and discredited witness”, that he has “no standing in the philosophical community”, that “he taught philosophy for only two years” or that he was “last known to be acting in campus ministry - in an unknown capacity”.

Magee is in a position of trust with Catholic students who may come across your defamation on CAF, so unless you provide proof or retract I’ll have to ask the moderator to remove your defamation.

I’m not going to even read anything else on this thread until you sort this out.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

All the links I gave are current Sam Houston University website pages. He was appointed to his current position at that university in 2002.

You’re the one defaming him, and you have not provided any evidence that “Magee is a hostile and discredited witness”, that he has “no standing in the philosophical community”, that “he taught philosophy for only two years” or that he was “last known to be acting in campus ministry - in an unknown capacity”.

Magee is in a position of trust with Catholic students who may come across your defamation on CAF, so unless you provide proof or retract I’ll have to ask the moderator to remove your defamation.

I’m not going to even read anything else on this thread until you sort this out.

As you wish. However I did not defame Magee. I said nothing about his character as a human being or as a Catholic or about his current position as Director of Campus Ministry at the Catholic Center at Sam Huston U.

I said he was a hostile witness for St.Thomas since he clearly teaches that the First Way fails. I specified the reasons why he is wrong. He is wrong because he bases his claim on a very narrow interpretation of the First Way and its elements. He can only do this by rejecting several foundational premises of Thomistic philosophy. He has published these views for all to see and maintains the web site. He himself as revealed his thoughts. I have not revealed anything that is not public knowledge.

And in the above sense, he is discredited as a reliable authority on Thomas - that is my opinion. No one is obliged to accept it. We assume, I assume, that everyone here is adult enough to form their own opinions irrespective of my own…

I was unaware however that, as of 2013, he was still the Director of Ministries at the SH Catholic Center. However, he is not listed among the faculty in the Bachelor’s of Philosophy section of the Liberal Arts program. From which I deduce that he no longer teaches philosophy.

Linus2nd

 

[inocente]

As you wish. However I did not defame Magee. I said nothing about his character as a human being or as a Catholic or about his current position as Director of Campus Ministry at the Catholic Center at Sam Huston U.

I said he was a hostile witness for St.Thomas since he clearly teaches that the First Way fails. I specified the reasons why he is wrong. He is wrong because he bases his claim on a very narrow interpretation of the First Way and its elements. He can only do this by rejecting several foundational premises of Thomistic philosophy. He has published these views for all to see and maintains the web site. He himself as revealed his thoughts. I have not revealed anything that is not public knowledge.

And in the above sense, he is discredited as a reliable authority on Thomas - that is my opinion. No one is obliged to accept it. We assume, I assume, that everyone here is adult enough to form their own opinions irrespective of my own…

I was unaware however that, as of 2013, he was still the Director of Ministries at the SH Catholic Center. However, he is not listed among the faculty in the Bachelor’s of Philosophy section of the Liberal Arts program. From which I deduce that he no longer teaches philosophy.

I suppose that’s as close to a retraction as we’ll get, so let’s summarize:

You said Magee has “no standing in the philosophical community” and that “he no longer teaches philosophy”. Wrong on both counts - I just typed “sam houston philosophy” into google and got straight to a page listing Joseph M. Magee, Ph.D. as a lecturer in the philosophy faculty - shsu.edu/~psy_ww2/Faculty.html

You said “Magee is a hostile and discredited witness”, yet under cross examination you now admit you had no evidence and it was just your opinion.

The defense rests, let’s never mention this again.

---

I’d have thought Magee has lots of company in his critique of the physics of Thomas’ day since it’s obvious to all who have eyes to see that it was badly wrong, and therefore any of his arguments involving physics must be suspect. It’s a fact. Nothing against young Thomas, he did lots of good work, but his physics is just plain wrong.

Clearest and most obviously wrong example I know of is that any child these days would immediately fail Thomas for his “proof” that light is instantaneous: ccel.org/ccel/aquinas/summa.FP_Q67_A2.html

And that disproves your notion in post #30 that the first way’s bad physics is somehow real-world physics. All of us these days know that light is not instantaneous, we all know it takes several minutes for a signal to reach a Mars rover, etc., we can’t somehow ignore what we know.

Well, not unless philosophical arguments now require suspension of belief akin to Disney cartoons and sci-fi block busters.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

I suppose that’s as close to a retraction as we’ll get, so let’s summarize:

You said Magee has “no standing in the philosophical community” and that “he no longer teaches philosophy”. Wrong on both counts - I just typed “sam houston philosophy” into google and got straight to a page listing Joseph M. Magee, Ph.D. as a lecturer in the philosophy faculty - shsu.edu/~psy_ww2/Faculty.html

O.K.

You said “Magee is a hostile and discredited witness”, yet under cross examination you now admit you had no evidence and it was just your opinion.

The evidence is his second video where he says the First Way Fails and his written paper to the same effect. That makes him a hostile witness and discredits him as a reliable authority on St. Thomas. And I never claimed that this was anything other than my personal opinion. However, I can cite plenty of acknowledged authorities who disagree with his personal opinions. Would you like four or five just to start?

The defense rests, let’s never mention this again.

Fine with me. However, I will continue to explain the First Way in the manner consistent with the 24 Thomistic Theses as approved, under Pius X, by the Sacred Congregation of Studies and as interpreted by acknowledged authorities of St Thomas such as Etienne Gilson, Jaques Maritain, Peter Hoenen S.J., Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange O.P., Cardinal Mercier, Maurice R. Holloway S.J., etc…

The 24 Thomistic Theses: u.arizona.edu/~aversa/scholastic/24Thomisticpart2.htm

---

I’d have thought Magee has lots of company in his critique of the physics of Thomas’ day since it’s obvious to all who have eyes to see that it was badly wrong,

And I agree, I never suggested anything else. But Magee was not just criticising that physics, he was criticising the First Way, as presented in the Summa Contra Gentiles, for using it. The latter is what I have objected to, as I have already discussed above and here.

and therefore any of his arguments involving physics must be suspect. It’s a fact. Nothing against young Thomas, he did lots of good work, but his physics is just plain wrong.

As I have repeadtedly pointed out, his arguments do not depend on any physics, ancient or modern. He used what he had at hand, not in support of that physics ( as I have explained above) but as an example that would be accepted by the educated men of his age ( including the censors at the Vatican, which was always a concern).

They were not used as irrevocable facts He, but as a means to illustrate the causality involved in moving a thing from a potential act to and actual act, eventually arriving at the Unmoved Mover. And since Aristotle was well known to the Doctors and Students of his day, he used the argument Aristotle used.

The argument, as presented in the Summa Theologica, works just fine. You object to it because there, Thomas did drop his dependence on the physics of his day. Indeed, throughout his Theology and the rest of his Corpus, Celestial Mechanics can be omitted without any harm to his arguments.

Clearest and most obviously wrong example I know of is that any child these days would immediately fail Thomas for his “proof” that light is instantaneous: ccel.org/ccel/aquinas/summa.FP_Q67_A2.html

Really now, that is not fair. You said and I agreed that Thomas did not know anything about modern physics ( and by the way no one did until the late 19th cent, and I really don’t know about the advent of modern light physics, but it was relatively recent). Besides, the question he was answering was " Whether light was a body? " Based on the knowledge he had of the science at that time, his answer was correct. That does not invalidate his philosophy, except to the those with an ax to grind.

And that disproves your notion in post #30 that the first way’s bad physics is somehow real-world physics. All of us these days know that light is not instantaneous, we all know it takes several minutes for a signal to reach a Mars rover, etc., we can’t somehow ignore what we know.

Sometimes I wonder if you actually read my posts . I never suggested that his physics was real world physics. I have consistently maintained that we can drop Celestial Mechanics entirely without doing damage to his philosophy. It is you who keeps insisting that it must be left in. So you are beating a red herring. Besides it has nothing to do with the First Way or my explanation of it.

Well, not unless philosophical arguments now require suspension of belief akin to Disney cartoons and sci-fi block busters.

Well, it is you who wants to keep it in. So that little zinger misses the mark. ( Are we back to redicule again? I thought we were going to drop all that ?

Linus2nd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Lesson 3 cont. Revisiting Some Issues, part 2

Since it has been a week since I have added to my explanation of the First Way, the reader might want to review posts #s 1, 13, 16, 17, 18, and 24, which are dedicated to that project. Not that the other posts are unimportant but they are point and counter point and one may get lost in the give and take.

It has been remarked by some that the First Way is limited to local motion as explained by Aristotle. Nothing could be futher from the truth. This has been advanced by those who don’t understand the argument or who think they can use such a deception to invalidate the First Way. And by the First Way, I am referring to the First Way as given in the Summa Theological ( see post one ).

The fact is that by motion Thomas meant any type of change, substantial change, qualitative change, quantatative change, and local motion or place to place change.

First let’s look at the First Way itself for proof of this. Thomas begins by saying, " Prima autem at manifestior via est quae sumitur ex parte motus. " ( " The first and most manifest way however is based on change. " trans. from Blackfriars translation of the Summa Theologica] ) It is clear that to translate motus as change rather than simply motion is well accepted by qualified authorities on Thomas’ work

Thomas goes on, " Certum est enim et sensu constat aliqua moveri in hoc mundo." ( " Some things in the world are certainly in process of change: this we plainly see. " )_Notice here that the verb is moveri, which can and does mean any kind of change whatsoever. And since motus is the past participle form of this past indicative infinitive, it also can mean any type of change whatsoever.

In the body of the argument Thomas gives two examples of change, one of local motion and one of qualitative change. Thus fire, which is actuallly hot, makes wood, which is potentially hot, to be actually hot. The second is of local change. Thus, the hand moves the stick which moves the rock.

From this we see that the argument is not limited to local motion. But we can go futher and show that it can mean any type of change.

It is well known that Aristotle had no category of change called motion… He simply described the cause of movement as , " that from which movement begins. " ( Gilson, Element of Christian Philosophy, pg 185. It is his translators who ascribed to him the four causes of moving, material, formal, and final. Aristotle had no effecient cause.(ibid.p.185)

But Christian philosophers had no moving cause. For them and for Thomas the four causes were, efficient, material, formal, and final. So for Thomas the source of all change, including local motion, was an efficeint cause.(ibid. pgs 185-188) And this included any type of change imaginable. That is why it is a great error to say that the First way is limited to changes of local motion. From his own understanding of efficient cause, the motus of the First way was necessarily an effecient cause.

Futhermore, in the Latin-English Dictionary of St. Thomas Aquinas, motus does indeed cover any type of motion, although its first meaning is that of local motion.

But in his Commentary of Aristotle’s Metaphysics, Book V, lect.2, no 765 ( Elements of Christian Philosophy, pg 322) Thomas says, " 765. In a third sense cause means that from which the first beginning of change or of rest comes, i.e., a moving or efficient cause. He says “of change or of rest,” because motion and rest which are natural are traced back to the same cause, and the same is true of motion and of rest which are a result of force. For that cause by which something is moved to a place is the same as that by which it is made to rest there. “An adviser” is an example of this kind of cause, for it is as a result of an adviser that motion begins in the one who acts upon his advice for the sake of safeguarding something. And in a similar way “a father is the cause of a child.” In these two examples Aristotle touches upon the, two principles of motion from which all things come to be, namely, purpose in the case of an adviser, and nature in the case of a father. And in general every maker is a cause of the thing made and every changer a cause of the thing changed. "

and no. 770 " 770. Further, to this genus of cause is reduced everything that makes anything to be in any manner whatsoever, not only as regards substantial being, but also as regards accidental being, which occurs in every kind of motion. Hence he says not only that the maker is the cause of the thing made, but also that the changer is the cause of the thing changed. " ( ibid.)

So it is absolutely clear that for Thomas, all change was efficient change and for him there was no " moving cause." For him every change was an example of efficient causality.

So the First Way is not limited to local motion, it is not limited to Aristotle’s " moving " cause. Thomas selected the example of local motion as an evident example of change in the experiential world and because it was the way Aristotle began his proof.

But Thomas soon makes it plain that he is talking about any change when he begins talking about things changing from a potential state, in which they lack a perfection, to the actual state, in which they have acquired that perfection.

To be continued.

Linsu2nd

 

[inocente]

O.K.

Sorry for the delay, things are kind of hectic and probably will be for a while.

The evidence is his second video where he says the First Way Fails and his written paper to the same effect. That makes him a hostile witness and discredits him as a reliable authority on St. Thomas. And I never claimed that this was anything other than my personal opinion. However, I can cite plenty of acknowledged authorities who disagree with his personal opinions. Would you like four or five just to start?

We have plenty of evidence that philosophers disagree on every question under the Sun, so there’s nothing new here.

*Fine with me. However, I will continue to explain the First Way in the manner consistent with the 24 Thomistic Theses as approved, under Pius X, by the Sacred Congregation of Studies and as interpreted by acknowledged authorities of St Thomas such as Etienne Gilson, Jaques Maritain, Peter Hoenen S.J., Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange O.P., Cardinal Mercier, Maurice R. Holloway S.J., etc…

The 24 Thomistic Theses: u.arizona.edu/~aversa/scholastic/24Thomisticpart2.htm*

This is an issue identified previously - for some the first way is not so much a philosophical argument as dogma, an article of faith.

*As I have repeadtedly pointed out, his arguments do not depend on any physics, ancient or modern. He used what he had at hand, not in support of that physics ( as I have explained above) but as an example that would be accepted by the educated men of his age ( including the censors at the Vatican, which was always a concern).

They were not used as irrevocable facts* He, but as a means to illustrate the causality involved in moving a thing from a potential act to and actual act, eventually arriving at the Unmoved Mover. And since Aristotle was well known to the Doctors and Students of his day, he used the argument Aristotle used.

The argument, as presented in the Summa Theologica, works just fine. You object to it because there, Thomas did drop his dependence on the physics of his day. Indeed, throughout his Theology and the rest of his Corpus, Celestial Mechanics can be omitted without any harm to his arguments.

Censors at the Vatican? Surely not.

I can’t see your argument that the ST version contains no physics, as it is based on physical things, physical things physically moving, physical wood physically cold/hot, etc.

*Really now, that is not fair. You said and I agreed that Thomas did not know anything about modern physics ( and by the way no one did until the late 19th cent, and I really don’t know about the advent of modern light physics, but it was relatively recent). Besides, the question he was answering was " Whether light was a body? " Based on the knowledge he had of the science at that time, his answer was correct. That does not invalidate his philosophy, except to the those with an ax to grind. *

Errr… it was his philosophy and it was wrong. You can’t retrospectively redefine any argument that later turned out to be wrong as if it’s not philosophy. As I said " therefore any of his arguments involving physics must be suspect. It’s a fact. Nothing against young Thomas, he did lots of good work, but his physics is just plain wrong."

Sometimes I wonder if you actually read my posts . I never suggested that his physics was real world physics. I have consistently maintained that we can drop Celestial Mechanics entirely without doing damage to his philosophy. It is you who keeps insisting that it must be left in. So you are beating a red herring. Besides it has nothing to do with the First Way or my explanation of it.

Take the physics out and the ST version becomes “The first and more manifest way is the argument from -]motion/-]. …] and this everyone understands to be God”.

Well, it is you who wants to keep it in. So that little zinger misses the mark. ( Are we back to redicule again? I thought we were going to drop all that ?

= joke

PS: Not sure when I’ll be able to get back.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Sorry for the delay, things are kind of hectic and probably will be for a while.

We have plenty of evidence that philosophers disagree on every question under the Sun, so there’s nothing new here.

This is an issue identified previously - for some the first way is not so much a philosophical argument as dogma, an article of faith.

Censors at the Vatican? Surely not.

I can’t see your argument that the ST version contains no physics, as it is based on physical things, physical things physically moving, physical wood physically cold/hot, etc.

Errr… it was his philosophy and it was wrong. You can’t retrospectively redefine any argument that later turned out to be wrong as if it’s not philosophy. As I said " therefore any of his arguments involving physics must be suspect. It’s a fact. Nothing against young Thomas, he did lots of good work, but his physics is just plain wrong."

Take the physics out and the ST version becomes “The first and more manifest way is the argument from -]motion/-]. …] and this everyone understands to be God”.

= joke

PS: Not sure when I’ll be able to get back.

Read it. I have already responded to all this.

Linus2nd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Sorry for the delay, things are kind of hectic and probably will be for a while.

…
.

Censors at the Vatican? Surely not.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Lesson 3 cont. Revisiting Some Issues, part 2 ( revised slightly for clarity )

Since it has been a week since I have added to my explanation of the First Way, the reader might want to review posts #s 1, 13, 16, 17, 18, and 24, which are dedicated to that project. Not that the other posts are unimportant but they are point and counter point and one may get lost in the give and take.

It has been remarked by some that the First Way is limited to local motion as explained by Aristotle. Nothing could be futher from the truth. This has been advanced by those who don’t understand the argument or who think they can use such a deception to invalidate the First Way.

Thomas recoginzed only four kinds of causes, efficient, material, formal, and final, with creating cause as a special form of efficient cause reserved for God. On the other hand, Aristotle had no effecient cause. So for Thomas, who got the concept from Avecenna, there was no moving cause. For him, all changes were efficient causes, which included that which caused changes of local motion or motion from place to place. For him all changes were were the result of an efficient cause, substantial changes, changes of quantity and quality, and changes of place.

First let’s look at the First Way itself for proof of this. Thomas begins by saying, " Prima autem at manifestior via est quae sumitur ex parte motus. " ( " The first and most manifest way however is based on change. " trans. from Blackfriars translation of the Summa Theologica] ) It is clear that to translate motus as change rather than simply motion is well accepted by qualified authorities on Thomas’ work, and for the reasons I have stated, and for the following reasons.

Thomas goes on, " Certum est enim et sensu constat aliqua moveri in hoc mundo." ( " Now it is evident to the senses that some things in the world are being moved ( literal translation) Notice here that the verb is " moveri, " which can and does mean any kind of change whatsoever. And since motus is the past participle form of this past indicative infinitive, it also can mean any type of change whatsoever.

In the body of the argument Thomas gives two examples of change, one of qualitative change and one of local motion. Thus fire, which is actuallly hot, makes wood, which is potentially hot, to be actually hot. The second is of local change. Thus, the hand moves the stick which moves the rock.

From this we see that the argument is not limited to local motion. But we can go futher and show that it can mean any type of change.

It is well known that Aristotle had no category of change called motion… He simply described the cause of movement as , " that from which movement begins. " ( Gilson, Element of Christian Philosophy, pg 185. It is his translators who ascribed to him the four causes of moving, material, formal, and final. Also, Aristotle had no effecient cause.(ibid.p.185)

And for Thomas all change, including local motion, was an efficeint cause.(ibid. pgs 185-188) And this included any type of change imaginable. That is why it is a great error to say that the First way is limited to changes of local motion. From his own understanding of efficient cause, the motus of the First way was necessarily an effecient cause.

Futhermore, in the Latin-English Dictionary of St. Thomas Aquinas, motus does indeed cover any type of motion, although its first meaning is that of local motion.

But in his Commentary of Aristotle’s Metaphysics, Book V, lect.2, no 765 ( Elements of Christian Philosophy, pg 322) Thomas says, " In a third sense cause means that from which the first beginning of change or of rest comes, i.e., a moving or efficient cause. He ( Aristotle ) says “of change or of rest,” because motion and rest which are natural are traced back to the same cause, and the same is true of motion and of rest which are a result of force. For that cause by which something is moved to a place is the same as that by which it is made to rest there. “An adviser ( agent)” is an example of this kind of cause, for it is as a result of an adviser that motion begins in the one who acts upon his advice for the sake of safeguarding something. And in a similar way “a father is the cause of a child.” In these two examples Aristotle touches upon the, two principles of motion from which all things come to be, namely, purpose in the case of an adviser, and nature in the case of a father. And in general every maker is a cause of the thing made and every changer a cause of the thing changed. "

And also, " 770. Further, to this genus of cause is reduced everything that makes anything to be in any manner whatsoever, not only as regards substantial being, but also as regards accidental being, which occurs in every kind of motion. Hence he says not only that the maker is the cause of the thing made, but also that the changer is the cause of the thing changed. " ( ibid.)( In other words every change is caused by an effecient causes . )

So it is absolutely clear that for Thomas, all change was efficient change and for him there was no " moving cause." For him every change was an example of efficient causality.

So the First Way is not limited to local motion, it is not limited to Aristotle’s " moving " cause. Thomas selected the example of local motion as an evident example of change in the experiential world and because it was the way Aristotle began his proof.

But Thomas soon makes it plain that he is talking about any change when he begins talking about things changing from a potential state, in which they lack a perfection, to the actual state, in which they have acquired that perfection.

Linus2nd to be continued

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Lesson 3 cont. Revisiting Some Issues, part 3 ( revised slightly for clarity )

But Thomas soon makes it plain that he is talking about any change when he begins talking about things changing from a potential state, in which they lack a perfection, to the actual state, in which they have acquired that perfection.

And from the point where Thomas says, " …for nothing can be moved except it is in potentiality to that towards which it is moved: where as a thing moves inasmuch as it is in act…" he is into pure metaphysics. For all substances, except God, are composed of an essence and an act of existence where the essence is a principle of potentiality and existence is a principle of actuality. So all created substances have two composing principles that are related to the substance and to each other as potency and act

And for a substance to change, it must be moved to change into a new actuality and it must have a potentiality to be changed into that new actuality. Water, for example, must have the potentiality to be changed into the actualities of H2 and O. It cannot, for example, be changed to the actuality of fire, because it has no potentiality to be changed to fire.

What the First Way is saying is that all changes, not just changes in local motion, result from a certain potentiality being actualized. That covers every type of change. So, while it is not necessary, we can just drop local motion from those causes covered by the first way, since we only need to reach the Unmoved Mover in one instance of a change and we have reached our goal. But you will see that there is no need to drop local motion. It has got hundreds of years of bad press because people refused to understand what Thomas was saying. And, no, Newton’s Law of Inertia has not adverse effect on the First Way .

Linus2nd.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Lesson 3 continued

I think I have found what can be regarded as probable proof that when Thomas says, " Omne autem quid movetur ab alia movetur…" in the First Way, he is not limiting movement to local motion.

In the first line of De Motu Cordis ( Concerning the Motion of the Heart ) and the title of the treatise he uses " Motu " to describe the motions of the heart. We can see that the kind of movement is not specified. The first line reads, " Quia omne quod movetur, necesse est habere motore, dubitabile videtur quid moveat cor, et qualis sit eius motus. " Or because everything that is moved must have a mover, it debateable what moves the heart, and of what kind of movement it is. In other words Thomas is admitting " the kind of movement " may not be local movement. Yet he has used the noun motus ( masculine, third declinition) twice to describe this undefined type of motion. In other words motus is not limited to local motion as I said in my last post.

Later in the discussion he says, " Naturalia enim sunt quorum principium motus in ipsis est. Nihil autem proprium magis est animalibus quam motus cordis; quo cessante, perit eorum vita. Sequitur igitur inesse ipsis animalibus aliquod principium talis motus. "

" For those things that are natural, the principle of motion, is in themselves. But nothing is more proper for animals than the motion of the heat; for once it stops, their live stops. It follows therefore necessarily that the principle of motion of animals is in themselves.

Now notice that Thomas is still using the noun motus for motion. He has found this motion to be in the animal itself. But all local motion is from place to place. Such motion could hardly be the kind of motion taking place in the heart. Therefore when Thomas uses the noun motus he does not always mean local motion but, indeed, may mean some other kind of motion.

He goes on to say definitely that the motion of the heart is intrinsic to the animal, " Motus autem cordis semper adest animali. Non est ergo a cause separata tantum, sed ab aliquo intrinseco principio. " That, indeed, it results from some intrinsic principle. This could not be local motion.

Then follows eight instances in which he uses some form of motus localis to indicate that he is speaking specifically of local motion. I cite only the following two; " In universo autem primus motus est motus localis, qui est causa alterationis et aliorum motuum. Unde et in animali magis videtur motus localis esse alterationis principium, quam e contra. " " But in the universe the first motion is local motion, which is the cause of alteration and other kinds of motion. And thus it is more clearly seen in animals that local motion is the principle of alteration, than the contrary.

The point is that when Thomas wants to specify local motion he has, in this treatise, taken pains to make no mistake about it by using some form of motus localis.

What all this demonstrates is that if Thomas had wanted to limit the First Way to local motion, he has shown that he could easily have made that clear, since he has done so a number of times. So why didn’t he do so in the First Way? This is not definite proof that he intended the First Way to cover every type of motion but it certainly opens up that possibility. Perhaps we will find more specific examples which will make this conclusion more than a possibility. But it does show that it is certainly valid to insist that Thomas made no definite restriction himself. And considering all the points brought up in the last two posts, it is a near certainty that he had no restrictions in mind and that he intended the First Way to cover all forms of motion and did not intend to limit it to cases of local motion…

• De Motu Cordis dhspriory.org/thomas/DeMotuCordis.htm

Linus2nd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Just a note to let everyone know that I still intend to show that Newton’s Law of Inertia has no adverse effect on the First Way but the explanation involves some research and one of the books can only be read in the library and may not be checked out unless one is willing to give over one’s credit card number, which I am not willing to do and the book is much too expensive to buy. And it is quite complicated reading, so it will take some time. For those who may be interested, my sources are Nature and Motion in the Middle Ages by James A. Weisheipl O.P. From a Realist Point of View, 2nd ed by William A. Wallace O.P. and Aquinas by Edward Feser, and his blog spot.

Linus2nd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

In a follow up to yesterday’s post and from my research today it is a fact that Newton never speculated on the souce of gravity except to say that it had a definite cause and that in may be God Himself. He said it was a property of all beings having mass but he rejected the notion of " attraction " between bodies. Therefore it does not seem beyond reason to suggest that gravity is a property of the nature of beings with mass and this would correspond closely with the notions of Aristotle and St. Thomas. It was a hundred years after Newton that " positivists, " following David Hume ( probably ) that the first voices were raised, saying that Newton’s Laws disproved all causality and therefore the First Way of St. Thomas. It was not something Newton himself held.

Linus2nd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

This project is going to last until the New Year, probably. So I will try to give some tidbits a couple of times a week to keep the interest up.

One other sourses I have found very helpful is the 1st ( 1979 edition ) of From a Realist Point of View ( none are on the market, if you don’t have it you will have to go to a library).

Anyway, it has an excellent article on Newton not in the 2nd addition and another excellent article on causality not in the 2nd edition. Both are well worth reading. Some of Wallace’s articles can be obtained in back issues of the Thomist and other places. These two books are compilations of some of his treatises given as presentations.

By the way Wallace is probably the most knowledgeable living source on the Philosophy of Nature as it relates to St. Thomas’ philosophy. He is a renowened scholar in the History of Philosophy as it relates to the Philosophy of Nature. Read his bio, quite interesting. One of his courses based on two of his books is available online here: home.comcast.net/~icuweb/c02000.htm.

Linus2nd