Yes! It is the form that is in the process of becoming one with the primary matter, that is the substantial change that we are talking about. At the beginning, the matter does not possess said form. At the end of the process, the matter then possesses the form. Sometimes substantial change can be effected instantly. Other times, it is a process. Does this make sense?
In and for our intellects, we do reify “necessary” and “contingent”. But, we really do have a choice between the use of the abstraction, or the use of the reality of the necessary or contingent statuses. If I place a mouse in a bell jar and remove all of the air from the jar, the mouse will die (not to mention explode). Thus the mouse’s existence is contingent upon its receiving sufficient air. Likewise, if I can go back in time and do that to the mouse’s parents, the mouse will never have existed. So, the poor little thing is also contingent upon its parents, or, at least their gametes.
Hmm. I see your point. Allow me, therefore, to postulate that I am not a mathematical realist for precisely the reason that there is a difference between mathematical reality and necessity/contingency reality. But, that being said, perhaps there would not be such a difference if we cooperated in the understanding that one = unity, or unified, rather than a set, or sequence, of just numbers.
There are four known causes, in nature, derived from the First principles discovered through a beginning, or general, science of nature enunciated by Aristotle, Aquinas, and others… The first of these is matter, or the material cause. The second cause is the efficient cause. Efficient is from the root word meaning “effect”, so that it can be called the effector cause, as opposed to the material cause , which is that which is affected. In the example of wood burning to ash, the wood is the material cause of the effect (ash), while the fire is the efficient cause.
Sort of, with the exception that the turning of a wheel is still local motion. When taken in its wider sense, motion also means coming to be. It is the process, then, of the acorn becoming an oak tree.
Very interesting. I’d like to know more about it.
That is, in a way, one of the arguments of St. Thomas Aquinas.
It’s not a “category error.” It’s simply another way of saying, “. . . actually actual.” C’mon.
Glue.
I guess the Alien monster is both a concept and real, then. or, perhaps it is really real as the effect of the cause which is the concept. I am so confused.
Oops! I didn’t realize.
Can you touch a number? Of course, you can write a number. Once written, does it come to life some how?
You’re right. Only the concept that we are conceptually having a concept conversation is real.
Actually this is a rather interesting question and take on things. You are right in that many people get the greatest inspiration from the “beautiful” things and things that give joy to the senses. I would not say that this negates the other things. A scientist looking into “decay” might well see God in the process, especially if that scientist is trying to turn decay into something useful like methane Gas and/or compost to grow plants etc.Hi there Atassina
I was wondering if you would answer a question about that. I’ve heard that argument before, and I always felt that it discounted all the things that are not beautiful… death, decay, tornadoes, sickness, etc. How do you see that working into the picture? Just curious.
Hey, Pele - soccer player extraordinaire! I have a question for you. Without the negatives, how would you know what the positives were? If everything was positive, it would be a wonderfully boring world.
Well, not right now… I think I broke my toe playing a few weeks ago. Getting too old I think
That is an interesting take on it… I agree that the bad amplifies the good and that we don’t appreciate the blessings we have if we aren’t reminded why they are blessings. However, do you see heaven as a place where some contraries or negatives exist then, or will we all be kind of god-like in perfection there?
It’s interesting that you ask this in light of your earlier comparison to God being like Love. Heaven, tha tis existing in the presence of God will be like being completely immersed in a perfect Love. I have a reference somewhere on this but cannot get to it right now. If you’d like I’ll try to look it up tomorrow.Well, not right now… I think I broke my toe playing a few weeks ago. Getting too old I think
That is an interesting take on it… I agree that the bad amplifies the good and that we don’t appreciate the blessings we have if we aren’t reminded why they are blessings. However, do you see heaven as a place where some contraries or negatives exist then, or will we all be kind of god-like in perfection there?
Ah, I see… that would mesh well with the idea of leaving the physical behind, which is a major belief regarding heaven. No need to look it up, a quote’s source rarely actually means much imho. Thank you for the replies, I think I understand your position in this regard now.
Or pure order – “self-sufficient,” “self-subsistent,” and “spontaneous” seems to be a pretty good description of Spinoza’s universe (and not coincidentally, Spinoza’s God). Though I expect Spinoza to be just as unpopular as Hume in these parts.
The distinction drawn is arbitrary from a metaphysical standpoint. There is no dependency in the all-that-is.
The mouse’s existence as a live mouse, perhaps. Its existence as a dead mouse does not depend on this. It seems that there is some confusion about assigning predicates to things – e.g. this thing is a mouse – vs. the things’ bare existence – e.g. this thing is.
But unless there is only one being, period – which is of course monism – you are still applying the plurality to all-that-is, by saying "this is one being, this is a second being, this is a third being, " etc.
David Hume! I am just overly exited because my favorite quote of scripture is placed over his tomb. “Thanks be to God who gives us victory through our Lord Jesus Christ!” -1 Cor 15:57
Yeah, that’s not good. Who do you play with? Are you on a team? Is it just for fun or are you professional? Do you remember watching Pele do that roundhouse kick where he basically somersaults and catches the ball over his head with his foot and directs it perfectly into the net? It was amazing!Well, not right now… I think I broke my toe playing a few weeks ago. Getting too old I think
That is an excellent question. My answer is that I don’t know. Years ago, a teacher of mine said that, “…the moment we enter heaven, as an angel, we are instantly infused with all of the knowledge of the universe.” What I haven’t figured out is, was she limiting it to just the universe, or, was she talking about “all the knowledge there is to know”?
In the way you’re stating it, yes. Again, think of it like this: I could have said either a mouse, meaning a living mouse, or, I could have said a dead mouse, with both having contingency. The live mouse, on the oxygenated air, and the dead mouse on not having been consumed by decay organisms - perhaps contingent, in this case, on time. (Interesting.)
But, all-that-is is a concept as well. We can’t begin to have any real knowledge of all-that-is, except by reification. There’s too much we can’t see; too much hidden from our view. So, this becomes a postulation only. Further, although “two” is quite important to the “group (set) of two as two,” it is not essentially important to the real beings of the set (if they are in fact real beings), or necessary, to the individuals of the group of two as two. The disintegration of one as one, is the annihilation of that being. Whereas, the removal of one of a set of two as two, annihilates the “two-ness”, but, not the being(s) - unless we do something really bad to that other being that was removed. (Of course, if I had a million dollars and someone robbed me and left me with only one dollar, I might change my mind on this!)
I just play on an amateur league in Atlanta for fun now, been playing since I was eight though. Yes, I remember several of his kicks like that… I think I have a whole tape of Pele and his greatest goals on VHS somewhere
The point I was trying to make is that the “contingency” you describe is whether or not various properties can be ascribed to the “thing,” not whether or not the “thing” exists or not. Indeed, even modern physics theorizes that the most basic material in the mouse has “existed” for as long as the universe has – so what does it mean to call it “contingent,” really? The particular arrangement of material that provokes us to call it a “mouse?” Perhaps – but can one really apply that notion of contingency outside its original context of natural processes, as one must do for the cosmological argument?
Truly I don’t see the difference between saying all of these things are contingent, based on the rock’s history through time – and saying all of these things are necessary, based on taking into consideration the universe without applying time to it.
Surely you must have figured by now that I consider this a pseudoproblem, just like the question of uncaused causes, etc.
I merely put monism forth as a metaphysics equally consistent as the one put forth by scholastics. It’s one of the perks of fallibilism and pragmatism to not need to be committed to any particular metaphysical or foundational claim.I guess I am saying – on what grounds can you claim there are two beings at all? Only via mental action. The same applies to necessity and contingency. It might be that ascribing one-ness, two-ness, three-ness, etc., or necessity, contigency, etc., says more about you (and me) than it does about the cosmos.
I can one-up that! I saw him live, years ago when he play in Miami. I used to live there. Soccer then was not the sport it is now. I have learned, along the way, that I like soccer less on TV, than live. People who have not watched soccer from the sidelines, or, I guess, in the game would even be better, have no idea what they’re missing.I just play on an amateur league in Atlanta for fun now, been playing since I was eight though. Yes, I remember several of his kicks like that… I think I have a whole tape of Pele and his greatest goals on VHS somewhere
