What does, " the nature of a thing " mean?

[Linusthe2nd]

Bahman,

Here is a course an on line course of study in Philosophy just for you and for any others wishing to learn a little more about Aristotilean/Thomistic Philosophy. Not free but very reasonable. Also, the human soul is included in the link I gave you earlier today.

.icucourses.com/

Linus2nd

 

[Bahman]

I don’t know how such a system could be epistemically knowable if it needs to be explained in terms of “inexplicable” properties. Wouldn’t that make P epistemically unknowable?

That is correct.

Anyway, the only point I was trying to make is, using your example, that S may not be completely knowable because you cannot know with 100% certainty what P is, but we can still know that some P is real. Although for me S would be the substance and P would be the essence.

You get it right using your analogy.

 

[Bahman]

I’m not sure I understand what you are saying. I would argue that water in a pitcher is intelligible because it has a sufficient reason for its existence, i.e. when you ask a question about its nature or properties there is an answer, even if the answer is not accessible to a human mind. For example, if I ask why water boils at 100*C the objective answer is never going to be “just because.” I don’t think intelligible is defined as whatever constitutes an intelligent agent if that’s what you are saying.

What I was trying to say that true essence is epistemologically unknowable since substance behaves differently depending on the structure. This is related to what we discuss in previous post.

I don’t know why that would pose a threat to hylemorphic dualism. The Thomist would argue that the human intellect is essentially immaterial and incorporeal and that the intellect flows from the rational animal nature of a human. If you accept that, then it is hard to see why the human substance would end with bodily corruption and death given that our intellect is incorporeal. A bodiless intellect would be a defective human yes but many Christians believe in a resurrection of the body which would restore the human to their natural state.

Human intellect as we discussed is nothing more than a property of system S which as we agreed depends on structure of S. The intellect is gone when the structure is gone. We also agreed that true essence is epistemologically unknowable hence resurrection is impossible.

 

[Bahman]

Bahman,

Here is a course an on line course of study in Philosophy just for you and for any others wishing to learn a little more about Aristotilean/Thomistic Philosophy. Not free but very reasonable. Also, the human soul is included in the link I gave you earlier today.

.icucourses.com/

Linus2nd

Thank you.

 

[inocente]

Water has an essence that makes it what it is, water.
Water is a reality that may or may not be present and may be decompsed into constituent parts that cause it to cease to exist as water. It can also undergo a change in “state” (accidents?) - ice, fluid, gas.Would I be correct to say:
Water as an essence is transcendental in that it is not found in the “realm” described by physics. Essence has to do with the reality of water, physics deals solely with its behaviour (reflecting its nature) and the behaviour of its constituent parts.

To be honest with you I don’t recall what later Scholastics meant and I don’t have the energy to look them up right now. What does Gilson say or Feser? To me it seems that nature, essence, substance are used similarly and at two levels of reality, the first being the ground or source all a beings structure, activities, powers, etc. The second being the " external " appearance that can be touched, seen, experienced. Each may be called a " quiddity, " but at different levels.
Man by definition is a rational animal. That is his quiddity, that is what he is. But the definition still applies whether we are talking about Second Substance ( nature, essence at the level of matter, form, and act ) or First Substance, the thing we see and expericne and lay hands on.

An SEP article has a good discussion of what Scholastics might have meant:

“The Scholastic concept of essence, or what is more properly called a ‘substantial form’, is of an imperceptible, immaterial essence that imposes order onto the matter that it is joined with and makes it a member of a natural species or genus, imbuing it with all of its relevant characteristics, i.e., its essential properties. Essential properties are those features that tell us to what species or genus an object belongs, e.g., being warm blooded is an essential property of mammals, being rational is an essential property of humans, being yellowish and heavy are essential properties of gold. Each of these essential properties is caused by the substantial form that is conjoined with the matter of the substance to make it what it is.” - plato.stanford.edu/entries/real-essence/

The article contrasts that with Locke, who makes a distinction between how we see the world subjectively and how the world really is objectively. I don’t know whether the Scholastics could make that distinction, in a world before accurate measurements, machines and independent testing.

These days it seems clear that an essence or substantial form describes the mental picture which aids us in classifying and naming things, and that’s the only reason why it’s imperceptible and immaterial - it’s inside, not outside, our head.

 

[Bahman]

You always say that but you never do.

I am really very busy.

Nothing in the universe is indefinitely sustainable for ever. " Death " is the law of existence. And why do there have to be " irreducible " beings? Isn’t matter convertible to energy to mass? All is in a state of flux, yet each has a nature with at least a temporary identity.

All I meant that believing in state of matter or substance requires the existence of some irreducible thing.

If you would read all the links I have given you in the past, you might be thinking differently now. Your idealism just doesn’t make sense. We live in a real world and we know it as real, we do not create it with our minds. It was here before we ever existed!!!.

How world could be real if there is no irreducible entities that world is constitute of them?

It seems that many scientists themselves are conflicted about what " laws of nature " mean. But Aristotle was not conflicted, he knew a rock when he saw one and he knew a strom cloud when he saw one and he knew a lightening flash when he saw one. And he knew he was a rational animal like other men. He knew every substance had a nature by which it could be classified and which was the principle of all its observable habits, powers, actions, etc. It is only since Hume that the world has lost its sanity and come to believe that nothing is real.

Given system S there exist a set of laws that explains the behavior of observable properties P, the former being substance (S) and the later being essence (P). This to me is the modern way looking at any problem.

You know I wish we could sit down face to face and discuss this because it is the source of all your difficulties. But that is impossible. Read the Summa Theologiae Questions 75-89. It explains how man knows and knows that he knows.
newadvent.org/summa/1.htm

I wish so. I will look at the link.

Well, we do eventually reach a point ( and haven’t we reached it already) where it is impossible to know if we are dealing with an individual thing, a basic, irreducible something. Other wise how could matter, energy, mass be convertible?,

This means that entities in local limit are virtual and in nonlocal limit real meaning that there exist not an objective reality in former case whereas there is an objective reality in later case.

No, because consciousness or the awareness of being awake and living and knowing that one knows, is an immaterial or spiritual act. Our soul which has the power of knowing and self awareness or consciousness is not reducible to the tiniest particle that can be imagined. It is beyond matter absolutely. Our soul is in a dimension that cannot be touched, measured, weighed, sounded, seen, etc., yet it interacts with the dimension of matter.

But soul is supposed to be the nature or form. Everything has a nature or form as far as I understand Aristotle.

 

[inocente]

Philosophy, at least Aristotilean/Thomistic philosophy is not arguing against empirical evidence. And why can’t philosophy go beyond science? Science is not some sacred god, that knows all there is to know - that is empicism. There are things science cannot know or judge. You already know that Divine Revelation is beyond the competence of science. The same for philosophy. It teaches truths which are also beyond the competency of science.

Agreed, as I said “the philosopher can go beyond the science to say what she thinks it means”. And of course, philosophers of science have helped develop the scientific method and do good work in many areas. All I meant by philosophy following science is that a philosopher who argues against evidence, for example who still argues for Aristotle’s notion of spontaneous generation, won’t be taken seriously.

(btw note the last sentence in that section of the article about Aristotle’s views on the role of women )

A very lively day, thank you.

Y tu.

 

[inocente]

Well yes you do need a metaphysical underpinning. We’re not interested for the moment in what the nature of hydrogen is, to use your example, in this thread, but whether or not hydrogen has a nature at all. I don’t see anyway to make sense out of any scientific finding without affirming that it does. If hydrogen does not have a specific nature, then how would anybody be able to say that canister A of hydrogen gas and canister B of hydrogen gas both contain hydrogen? If they don’t share a nature they have nothing in common. If they share similar properties, why are they similar if they do not have the same nature?

For the reason given by Newton. He refused to speculate on the nature of gravity since he had no evidence for what that nature might be. It didn’t stop him describing how it works, in modern notation:



So gravity is proportional to the product of the masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them. If you like you can call that the nature of gravity, but doing so doesn’t tell you anything new. If you like you can speculate on what the nature of the gravitational constant G might be, but it’s just an empirical value which you dial in to make the predictions come out right, you don’t need to get into any metaphysics.

*Physics, and science more generally, studies being in as much as it is changeable being. Metaphysics studies being proper. How do you study changeable things without having an idea of what it means to be a thing in the first place? Everybody has a metaphysical framework in which they operate, but many people have not spent the time to examine it so most people are not even aware of all the assumptions they are making. That’s not to say you have to become a strict rationalist because I would agree that metaphysics needs to be grounded in experience. *

OK, ask the metaphysical question “what is a thing?”. When Captain Kirk tells Scotty to beam him up, how does the matter transporter know that Kirk means his clothes and boots as well as him? If he’s covered in mud, is the mud part of Kirk? The sweat on his brow? The air in his lungs? The thought in his head? The disease he just caught? Our brain takes lots of shortcuts and ignores many details, whereas rigorously working out what is Kirk and is not-Kirk, thing and not-thing, is really complicated. But if instead Scotty sends a shuttle to pick up Kirk, no one needs to ask the question, let alone answer it. Science is for practical guys who like to get the job done. Metaphysics doesn’t get Kirk home in time for supper.

Newton’s objection may have force against a Platonist who thinks that natures exist in their own right, but like I said earlier the Aristotelian is not positing the existence of “occult” realities when she speaks of essences or natures. All she is saying is that when we say that hydrogen is a specific type of thing and that oxygen is a different type of thing, that is a statement that is objectively meaningful.

I don’t know that Aristotle would agree. Would he think you are divorcing the notion from his entire system of thought to try to give it a modern interpretation? I’m not sure.

 

[Skeptic92]

For the reason given by Newton. He refused to speculate on the nature of gravity since he had no evidence for what that nature might be. It didn’t stop him describing how it works, in modern notation:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...00px-NewtonsLawOfUniversalGravitation.svg.png

So gravity is proportional to the product of the masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them. If you like you can call that the nature of gravity, but doing so doesn’t tell you anything new. If you like you can speculate on what the nature of the gravitational constant G might be, but it’s just an empirical value which you dial in to make the predictions come out right, you don’t need to get into any metaphysics.

OK, ask the metaphysical question “what is a thing?”. When Captain Kirk tells Scotty to beam him up, how does the matter transporter know that Kirk means his clothes and boots as well as him? If he’s covered in mud, is the mud part of Kirk? The sweat on his brow? The air in his lungs? The thought in his head? The disease he just caught? Our brain takes lots of shortcuts and ignores many details, whereas rigorously working out what is Kirk and is not-Kirk, thing and not-thing, is really complicated. But if instead Scotty sends a shuttle to pick up Kirk, no one needs to ask the question, let alone answer it. Science is for practical guys who like to get the job done. Metaphysics doesn’t get Kirk home in time for supper.

I don’t know that Aristotle would agree. Would he think you are divorcing the notion from his entire system of thought to try to give it a modern interpretation? I’m not sure.

No; Aristotle specifically argues against the errors of Platonism.

Also; can you please give me logical demonstration of the validity of the scientific method, using only the scientific method? Your position seems to entail scientism, which isn’t Metaphysically coherent- it begs the question and becomes self-refuting. The Natural Sciences take a host of Metaphysical assumptions; which are open to metaphysical analysis and refutation.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Agreed, as I said “the philosopher can go beyond the science to say what she thinks it means”. And of course, philosophers of science have helped develop the scientific method and do good work in many areas. All I meant by philosophy following science is that a philosopher who argues against evidence, for example who still argues for Aristotle’s notion of spontaneous generation, won’t be taken seriously.

(btw note the last sentence in that section of the article about Aristotle’s views on the role of women )

Y tu.

Hopefully most people will be able to sort our the " wheat from the chaff. " Of course the ancients had an unrealistic view of the role of women ( which stll obtains in much of the world today.),

Linus2nd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

I am really very busy.

All I meant that believing in state of matter or substance requires the existence of some irreducible thing.

How world could be real if there is no irreducible entities that world is constitute of them?

Given system S there exist a set of laws that explains the behavior of observable properties P, the former being substance (S) and the later being essence (P). This to me is the modern way looking at any problem.

I wish so. I will look at the link.

This means that entities in local limit are virtual and in nonlocal limit real meaning that there exist not an objective reality in former case whereas there is an objective reality in later case.

But soul is supposed to be the nature or form. Everything has a nature or form as far as I understand Aristotle.

Well I have tried to answer you but it looks like I am not doing a very good job. And I am still having trouble understanding much of what you are trying to say.

For Aristotle and for Thomas Aquinas everything that exists has a form. But the form of living things is a special form called a soul, because a soul was a living form.

Linus2nd.

 

[inocente]

No; Aristotle specifically argues against the errors of Platonism.

So would I.

Also; can you please give me logical demonstration of the validity of the scientific method, using only the scientific method? Your position seems to entail scientism, which isn’t Metaphysically coherent- it begs the question and becomes self-refuting. The Natural Sciences take a host of Metaphysical assumptions; which are open to metaphysical analysis and refutation.

Ad hominem is dead easy isn’t it? Just give your opinion on what you think my position is (contra the evidence btw), give your opinion on that position, and hey presto you painted me into your opinion. Beats having to make a rational argument any day doesn’t it? But let’s try to avoid the mod having to tell us to discuss the subject rather than each other. I’ll assume you are having a bad day and we’ll never mention it again.

But no, metaphysics comes after science. Your cell phone is a product of the scientific method. It works. QED

 

[Skeptic92]

So would I.

Ad hominem is dead easy isn’t it? Just give your opinion on what you think my position is (contra the evidence btw), give your opinion on that position, and hey presto you painted me into your opinion. Beats having to make a rational argument any day doesn’t it? But let’s try to avoid the mod having to tell us to discuss the subject rather than each other. I’ll assume you are having a bad day and we’ll never mention it again.

But no, metaphysics comes after science. Your cell phone is a product of the scientific method. It works. QED

That wasn’t an Ad Hominem; that was an asking for justification. The Natural Sciences take a host of Metaphysical premises (causation being the most obvious one). The scientific method is it self a product of metaphysical analysis, and the development of Inductive Logic.

Metaphysics comes after science in the sense anyone doing Metaphysics should have a competent grasp of the major scientific theories; however Metaphysics precedes the Natural Sciences in order of precedence. The Natural Sciences are a further abstraction then Metaphysics, and does itself rest upon a Metaphysical Thesis. The most common one amongst Natural Scientists in the modern day is either Metaphysical Naturalism (which is simply question-begging) or a form of Platonism. Given the underlying Cartesian Philosophy of Nature mixed with Empiricist epistemology and Metaphysics; the problems can be enormous in a Philosophical analysis of modern science. Simply because of how often they loose sight of when they are doing Natural Science, and when they are doing Philosophy of Nature.

 

[inocente]

Hopefully most people will be able to sort our the " wheat from the chaff. " Of course the ancients had an unrealistic view of the role of women ( which stll obtains in much of the world today.),

I think your “of course” gives it away. There’s no intrinsic reason why the ancients should have an unrealistic view of womens’ nature and we have a realistic view unless the concept of womens’ nature is relative to culture.

 

[inocente]

The Natural Sciences take a host of Metaphysical premises (causation being the most obvious one). The scientific method is it self a product of metaphysical analysis, and the development of Inductive Logic.

Metaphysics comes after science in the sense anyone doing Metaphysics should have a competent grasp of the major scientific theories; however Metaphysics precedes the Natural Sciences in order of precedence. The Natural Sciences are a further abstraction then Metaphysics, and does itself rest upon a Metaphysical Thesis. The most common one amongst Natural Scientists in the modern day is either Metaphysical Naturalism (which is simply question-begging) or a form of Platonism. Given the underlying Cartesian Philosophy of Nature mixed with Empiricist epistemology and Metaphysics; the problems can be enormous in a Philosophical analysis of modern science. Simply because of how often they loose sight of when they are doing Natural Science, and when they are doing Philosophy of Nature.

I’ve seen this argument before, but to me it wants to call anything and everything metaphysics. Effect following cause is knowable by dropping a bowling ball on our foot, we don’t need a metaphysician to aid us in drawing our conclusion. Richard Feynman had a little joke about this:

youtube.com/watch?v=X8aWBcPVPMo&noredirect=1

Do we need metaphysics to cook a tasty paella or to build a fine house or to paint a beautiful picture? If not for them then why for science?

 

[Skeptic92]

I’ve seen this argument before, but to me it wants to call anything and everything metaphysics. Effect following cause is knowable by dropping a bowling ball on our foot, we don’t need a metaphysician to aid us in drawing our conclusion. Richard Fenyman had a little joke about this:

youtube.com/watch?v=X8aWBcPVPMo&noredirect=1

Do we need metaphysics to cook a tasty paella or to build a fine house or to paint a beautiful picture? If not for them then why for science?

Do you know what circular reasoning is? Your argument seems to be of the form “I know what cause and effect are, because I know what cause and effect are”. Which is inherently circular. Here; refute the classic argument against change (causality) from Parmenides, a problem that Naturalism also appears to suffer from

All motion is motion from non-being to being
Non-being is nothing, and ex nihilo nihil fit*
Therefore motion is impossible, and there is only permanence of Being.

*from nothing, nothing comes.

Heraclitus distinguished the major, and turned the conclusion into a constant state of becoming. Neither of these positions are ultimately helpful to modern science, and in fact would make scientific advancement either an illusion or a miracle. Why are they faulty though? You can’t appeal to the scientific method for this; science has to presuppose the reality of causality, it can not prove it.

You also mustn’t of heard that argument before; because the definition I’ve given of Metaphysics is far more restricted than modern naturalisms idea of “metaphysics” (which includes the likes of Free Will, which is a problem of psychological philosophy) given its methodological presuppositions. Rather than any solid argument.

 

[inocente]

Do you know what circular reasoning is? Your argument seems to be of the form “I know what cause and effect are, because I know what cause and effect are”. Which is inherently circular.

You appear to be arguing that true knowledge cannot be a posteriori. Run the bowling-ball-on-your-foot experiment ten times and I guarantee it will disabuse you of that error.

*Here; refute the classic argument against change (causality) from Parmenides, a problem that Naturalism also appears to suffer from

All motion is motion from non-being to being
Non-being is nothing, and ex nihilo nihil fit*
Therefore motion is impossible, and there is only permanence of Being.

from nothing, nothing comes.

Parmenides demonstrates that a logical proof fails when based on a faulty idea, in this case absolute motion. Often logic alone cannot locate faulty concepts.

Heraclitus distinguished the major, and turned the conclusion into a constant state of becoming. Neither of these positions are ultimately helpful to modern science, and in fact would make scientific advancement either an illusion or a miracle. Why are they faulty though? You can’t appeal to the scientific method for this; science has to presuppose the reality of causality, it can not prove it.

It’s better not to have a proof of causality. If it were proven then we might discard any apparently causeless event as an impossibility. It’s better to treat cause and effect as a scientific hypothesis which has not yet been falsified. We don’t then prohibit ourselves from investigating, and if the hypothesis fails then fine, we know it has a limited scope. The same goes for all supposed assumptions.

You also mustn’t of heard that argument before; because the definition I’ve given of Metaphysics is far more restricted than modern naturalisms idea of “metaphysics” (which includes the likes of Free Will, which is a problem of psychological philosophy) given its methodological presuppositions. Rather than any solid argument.

Oh I know that metaphysics is the discipline which cannot decide what it does (SEP again) .

I don’t remember seeing your definition of metaphysics, but maybe that explains why you capitalize the word.

 

[Aloysium]

So, are we agreed that science is a satisfactory operating manual for matter?
It cannot tell us the purpose of the manual, the good or bad of how we use it other than whether it does what we want it to. It does not tell us of beauty or help us connect with that which we are manipulating. A very practical tool, if that is one’s aim, to get stuff done; it may be all one needs. If one wants to dig deeper into the foundations of what reality is all about it falls short.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

I think your “of course” gives it away. There’s no intrinsic reason why the ancients should have an unrealistic view of womens’ nature and we have a realistic view unless the concept of womens’ nature is relative to culture.

Well, that role is a topic for another thread ( thank goodness! ), so I won’t touch it. Whatever one says it will produce angry potests from all sides.

Linus2nd

 

[Skeptic92]

You appear to be arguing that true knowledge cannot be a posteriori. Run the bowling-ball-on-your-foot experiment ten times and I guarantee it will disabuse you of that error.

Parmenides demonstrates that a logical proof fails when based on a faulty idea, in this case absolute motion. Often logic alone cannot locate faulty concepts.

It’s better not to have a proof of causality. If it were proven then we might discard any apparently causeless event as an impossibility. It’s better to treat cause and effect as a scientific hypothesis which has not yet been falsified. We don’t then prohibit ourselves from investigating, and if the hypothesis fails then fine, we know it has a limited scope. The same goes for all supposed assumptions.

Oh I know that metaphysics is the discipline which cannot decide what it does (SEP again) .

I don’t remember seeing your definition of metaphysics, but maybe that explains why you capitalize the word.

You have not demonstrated why Parmenides problem is wrong, in fact it is a problem that is suffered by modern Metaphysical Naturalism (cf Fr Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange God his Existence and His Nature, Jacques Maritain Introduction to Philosophy). The solution is simple enough; distinguish the consequent. This renders the argument;

If there is motion it is motion from being-in-potency to being-in-act
There is motion
Therefore it is motion from potency to act

As potency and act are contrary principles, an application of the Law of Non-contradiction renders the following principle of causality;

That which is in potency can only be reduced to act, by a being that is itself in act. A further expansion of this would have to go into the divisions of act and potency and the nature of the Four Causes.

And No, Metaphysicians know exactly what their subject matter (Being qua Being) is. Positivism just likes to say what it doesn’t do, and calls that Metaphysics. Which is very ad-hoc.