Thomas's forth way

[Bahman]

P4 is poorly worded but I know what you are trying to say and it requires some justification.There is only a “boundary” between God and creation in the sense that God and his creation are not the same thing. This “boundary” is not something with ontological existence which is neither God nor creation, as you seem to be implying.

Yes and I would be happy to discuss P4 further.

C2 implies is that a thing cannot be both perfect and imperfect.

I cannot understand you.

 

[seagal]

I am confused. You can look at premises and conclusion if you have any objection. I would be happy to hear you.

Sorry I went off on a tangent. I was trying to make it clear that God and his creation are not the same and that the boundary you mention in your P4 is simply where God ends and we begin. TheSecondMile said it better – there is no ontological neutral “thing” that exists between the perfect thing and the imperfect thing. There is simply the end of one and the beginning of the other. In other words, there is the end of me and the beginning of air, there is nothing in between that is somehow both me and air, or neither me nor air. Therefore, P4 and C3 are defeated, C4 is dependent only on P1 which states change exists, from which we cannot conclude God does not exist. Try again.

 

[Bahman]

Sorry I went off on a tangent. I was trying to make it clear that God and his creation are not the same and that the boundary you mention in your P4 is simply where God ends and we begin. TheSecondMile said it better – there is no ontological neutral “thing” that exists between the perfect thing and the imperfect thing. There is simply the end of one and the beginning of the other. In other words, there is the end of me and the beginning of air, there is nothing in between that is somehow both me and air, or neither me nor air. Therefore, P4 and C3 are defeated, C4 is dependent only on P1 which states change exists, from which we cannot conclude God does not exist. Try again.

I am afraid that your example of you and air does not apply to our case as you and air are both imperfect. But anyhow, why we cannot experience God if our end is beginning of God using your analogy?

 

[seagal]

I am afraid that your example of you and air does not apply to our case as you and air are both imperfect. But anyhow, why we cannot experience God if our end is beginning of God using your analogy?

Can the air experience me?

 

[Bahman]

Can the air experience me?

You can experience air. Just wave your hands or try to run fast.

 

[davidv]

You can experience air. Just wave your hands or try to run fast.

That does not answer the question that was asked. The question was, can the air experience you?

 

[TheSecondMile]

Yes and I would be happy to discuss P4 further.

I cannot understand you.

Yes, P4 requires justification. How does the fact that God and his creation are not the same imply the ontological existence of a barrier between the two which is neither?

What is it that you are not understanding?

 

[Linusthe2nd]

The forth argument is about perfection. Am I right? I am trying to simply prove that perfection cannot objectively exist and only exists as an idea.

Yes it is about degrees of perfection. No, it is not simply an idea. I can think of hundreds, thousands of examples. There are shades of white ranging from " snow " white to dirty white. A four legged dog is more perfect than a three legged dog. Steel is a more perfect material for the supporting structure of buildings than wood, etc. And since the entire material universe is made up of individuals which exist, it is obvious that none of them exist perfectly, none of them exhausts the perfection of existence. Therefore none of them can be the cause of existence. The cause of existence must be perfect and it cannot be a part of the imperfect uninverse.

Linus2nd

 

[Bahman]

That does not answer the question that was asked. The question was, can the air experience you?

How air could be affected with us if it doesn’t experience our existence?

 

[Bahman]

Yes, P4 requires justification. How does the fact that God and his creation are not the same imply the ontological existence of a barrier between the two which is neither?

First, why we don’t experience God if there is no barrier between?

Second, you need boundary for definability purpose since otherwise God and creation are indistinguishable. What is a cell if it doesn’t have a membrane?

What is it that you are not understanding?

How about the second argument?

 

[Bahman]

Yes it is about degrees of perfection. No, it is not simply an idea. I can think of hundreds, thousands of examples. There are shades of white ranging from " snow " white to dirty white. A four legged dog is more perfect than a three legged dog. Steel is a more perfect material for the supporting structure of buildings than wood, etc. And since the entire material universe is made up of individuals which exist, it is obvious that none of them exist perfectly, none of them exhausts the perfection of existence. Therefore none of them can be the cause of existence. The cause of existence must be perfect and it cannot be a part of the imperfect uninverse.

Linus2nd

We are not more perfect than a dog as a dog is not more perfect than a three. Everything has its place in nature and they are equal in eyes of divine justice. Could you survive by breathing, drinking water and taking sun?

 

[Linusthe2nd]

We are not more perfect than a dog as a dog is not more perfect than a three. Everything has its place in nature and they are equal in eyes of divine justice. Could you survive by breathing, drinking water and taking sun?

Of course we are. And, as a matter of fact, we do have the same capabilities of plants and animals and more. We take in food and water and even energy from the sun and turn them into ourselves, we also sense, move, grow, reproduce, etc. just as plants and animals. We can also think and plan and choose. So we are more perfect, we possess existence more perfectly.

Linus2nd

 

[lmelahn]

The forth argument is about perfection. Am I right? I am trying to simply prove that perfection cannot objectively exist and only exists as an idea.

Just trying to understand you, Bahman. What does “perfection” mean to you?

For Aquinas, “perfection” it is roughly a synonym of “fulfillment.” (It is really quite different in meaning from how it is used in modern English: we usually define “perfection” as “absence of defects,” but that is not Thomas’ meaning.)

That is to be understood on all levels: from the most mundane, to the most profound. It can refer both to what makes something “good” and what makes it “happy.”

For instance, if I am cold, for me a roaring fire is “perfect” because it fulfills one of my needs; it also make me “perfect,” because in relieving my shivering it makes me happy (in a rather superficial way, obviously).

A little more profoundly, a man is “perfect” if he is morally virtuous, because virtuous living gives a man true happiness (albeit still rather limited while we are still on earth).

Another thing that we have to get used to, when employing Thomas’ usage of the term, is that perfection admits of degrees: a hot, crispy, tasty pizza is more perfect than a cold, soggy, tasteless one.

Now, I think we both agree that crispy pizzas, roaring fires in winter, and virtuous men really exist. Are you still convinced that perfection (defined in this way) does not exist?

 

[Bahman]

Just trying to understand you, Bahman. What does “perfection” mean to you?

Perfection by definition is state of balance between inside and outside.

For Aquinas, “perfection” it is roughly a synonym of “fulfillment.” (It is really quite different in meaning from how it is used in modern English: we usually define “perfection” as “absence of defects,” but that is not Thomas’ meaning.)

Fulfillment is not achievable. Absence of defect is state of static.

That is to be understood on all levels: from the most mundane, to the most profound. It can refer both to what makes something “good” and what makes it “happy.”

It can refer to what makes something “right” (opposite to wrong) rather than “good” (opposite to evil) .

For instance, if I am cold, for me a roaring fire is “perfect” because it fulfills one of my needs; it also make me “perfect,” because in relieving my shivering it makes me happy (in a rather superficial way, obviously).

So state of balance is what you are looking for. You feel cold inside so you search for heat outside. Don’t you?

A little more profoundly, a man is “perfect” if he is morally virtuous, because virtuous living gives a man true happiness (albeit still rather limited while we are still on earth).

How do you define morality?

Another thing that we have to get used to, when employing Thomas’ usage of the term, is that perfection admits of degrees: a hot, crispy, tasty pizza is more perfect than a cold, soggy, tasteless one.

Not when you ate to death. Moreover there is always possible to find a pizza that you have never taste before. How about the pizza that is waiting for you in heaven? And the one above heaven? And higher one? To the edge of madness?

Now, I think we both agree that crispy pizzas, roaring fires in winter, and virtuous men really exist. Are you still convinced that perfection (defined in this way) does not exist?

Perfection as absence of defect is what we are looking for. This however cannot be realized hence that is only an idea yet it is helping us to turn inside out and outside in. We however can learn to how to make balance between inside and outside.

 

[lmelahn]

Perfection by definition is state of balance between inside and outside.

OK, but it isn’t Aquinas’ definition, so we just need to be aware of that when we read him. (Aquinas’ perfectio is the translation of Aristotle’s enteléchia, which means “achieving your end” or “realizing yourself”).

Also, “perfection” is not an abstract term for Aquinas. The very heat of fire is “a perfection,” in his parlance. So “a perfection” can also mean “a good aspect” of something.

Fulfillment is not achievable. Absence of defect is state of static.[/quoto]

So, for example, happiness is not possible?

It can refer to what makes something “right” (opposite to wrong) rather than “good” (opposite to evil) .

Well, we would have to define those terms, but if you meant that it apply to both analogically, I think I would be in agreement.

So state of balance is what you are looking for. You feel cold inside so you search for heat outside. Don’t you?

Right, in anything physical like that, you will need to seek a balance. But heat and cold are not equivalent. Cold is the absence of heat.

How do you define morality?

Well, acting “morally” (which is synonymous with acting “virtuously”) means performing those actions that are respectful of my dignity and that of others.

When those actions regard our sensual appetites (our tendency to fulfill our basic needs, as well as our tendency to perform courageous acts in difficult moments), then I completely agree that balance is necessary.

But the balance, as I see it, is not the definition of perfection. It is just the way that perfection plays out when we are dealing with our sensual appetites. For example we can exercise our tendency to courageous acts too much (we can be foolhardy), or too little (we can be cowardly)–the virtue (courage) in this case is in the mean–but it is not possible to employ too much disinterested love, for example.

Not when you ate to death. Moreover there is always possible to find a pizza that you have never taste before. How about the pizza that is waiting for you in heaven? And the one above heaven? And higher one? To the edge of madness?

No pizza can fulfill a man completely, I grant you. But it is still, as I see it, an example of a kind of fulfillment, albeit a superficial one.

Perfection as absence of defect is what we are looking for. This however cannot be realized hence that is only an idea yet it is helping us to turn inside out and outside in. We however can learn to how to make balance between inside and outside.

If we reduce perfection to absence of defect, and in the abstract like that, then I agree that it is beyond our power.

However, if “perfections” are the concrete good things that we encounter (which is what Aquinas meant by the term), then they exist, don’t they?

 

[Bahman]

OK, but it isn’t Aquinas’ definition, so we just need to be aware of that when we read him. (Aquinas’ perfectio is the translation of Aristotle’s enteléchia, which means “achieving your end” or “realizing yourself”).

I showed with two arguments that perfection as a being without defects or fulfilled is an pure abstract concept and cannot objectively exist. Here you are:

First proof:

P1: Change exists
P2: There is no change in perfection
C1: Change is only possible in absence of perfection
C2: From P1, P2 and C1 we can conclude that Perfection and imperfection are mutually exclusive
P3: Lets define existence as whole including perfection (God) and imperfection (Creation)
P4: There exists a boundary for any mutually exclusive things which is neither
C3: From C2, P3 and P4 we can deduce that there exist a boundary between perfection and imperfection where the boundary is neither perfect nor imperfect, an anomaly which is impossible
C4: From P1 and C3 we can include that God dose not exist

Second proof:

P1: Change exists
P2: There is no change in perfection
C1: Change is only possible in absence of perfection
C2: From P1, P2 and C1 we can deduce that perfection and imperfection are mutually exclusive
C3: From P1 and C2 we can conclude that perfection cannot objectively (from our point of view) exist
C4: Hence perfection is only subjective (from our point of view)

So, for example, happiness is not possible?

There is no edge for any aspect of human being hence you could always be wiser than before and you could be more happier than before, etc.

Well, we would have to define those terms, but if you meant that it apply to both analogically, I think I would be in agreement.

Good. The problem is an absolute right is just an idea, as absolute love, absolute wisdom, etc. Relative right is possible, as relative happiness, etc.

Right, in anything physical like that, you will need to seek a balance. But heat and cold are not equivalent. Cold is the absence of heat.

Cold is the opposite of heat and you are looking for it outside when you feel warm inside. Once you are state of balance, don’t feel cold or warm then you are in state of perfection or satisfied.

Well, acting “morally” (which is synonymous with acting “virtuously”) means performing those actions that are respectful of my dignity and that of others.

To me morality means to do with something which is right and not wrong. Right by definition is a quality in a thing which take you to an end.

When those actions regard our sensual appetites (our tendency to fulfill our basic needs, as well as our tendency to perform courageous acts in difficult moments), then I completely agree that balance is necessary.

Good.

But the balance, as I see it, is not the definition of perfection. It is just the way that perfection plays out when we are dealing with our sensual appetites. For example we can exercise our tendency to courageous acts too much (we can be foolhardy), or too little (we can be cowardly)–the virtue (courage) in this case is in the mean–but it is not possible to employ too much disinterested love, for example.

The other definitions are just an abstract idea. We can never ever realize them in reality yet there could be our goal.

No pizza can fulfill a man completely, I grant you. But it is still, as I see it, an example of a kind of fulfillment, albeit a superficial one.

There does not exist a superficial need. They are all necessary. You like to read a lot and know more and more things. I know that. Is that a superficial virtue. The same go with eating, sex, etc.

If we reduce perfection to absence of defect, and in the abstract like that, then I agree that it is beyond our power.

Good. It however could be a goal. However, what I am arguing that perfect thing in Thomas’s sense dose not exist.

However, if “perfections” are the concrete good things that we encounter (which is what Aquinas meant by the term), then they exist, don’t they?

We cannot encounter perfection in the sense of a quality that is absolutely without a defect.

 

[Bahman]

Seriously? You should do better than this.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Seriously? You should do better than this.

Seriously, you should open your mind. At the present moment you wouldn’t know the truth about anything, even if it hit you right between the eyes. But by this time eveyone here knows that your whole purpose is to put grease on the tracks and sand in the fuel tank.

Linus2nd

 

[Bahman]

Seriously, you should open your mind. At the present moment you wouldn’t know the truth about anything, even if it hit you right between the eyes. But by this time eveyone here knows that your whole purpose is to put grease on the tracks and sand in the fuel tank.
Linus2nd

Do you believe that there exist a boundary? You believe in revelation!

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Do you believe that there exist a boundary? You believe in revelation!

There is no barrier between God and the universe, including man. Of course I believe in Divine Revelation, but that ended with the death of the last Apostle.

Linus2nd