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

[inocente]

If it is “only a matter of faith whether there are natures at all,” the nature of man is that he has faith in natures.

That’s basically what I’m saying - that natures only exist inside our heads. So at least we two agree then.

 

[inocente]

Well it’s interesting because scientists don’t seem to have a problem agreeing that water boils at 100C under standard atmospheric conditions or that it freezes at 0C or that it is composed of 2 parts hydrogen and 1 part oxygen. Or that is quenches thirst and extinguishes fires. Maybe I missed the controversy that is calling everything we know about water into doubt.

The only thing I’m calling into doubt is the notion that what we know is the same as what exists, which obviously isn’t true.

Yes, I realize that but you still haven’t demonstrated how you can make the jump from the premise that people disagree on what reality is to the conclusion that there is no such thing as reality at all. Biologists study living things and as of yet they still cannot agree on what a living thing is. Heck, a couple of months ago we had that guy write an article in Scientific American I believe claiming that there is no such thing as life at all. Since biologists cannot agree on what they are studying, I suppose it is valid for us to completely reject everything and anything any biologist has ever said because they have no basis for claiming that their theories on life are objective. There seems to be quite a bit of disagreement in physics as well so let’s toss that out the window too while we’re at it. I somehow doubt that is the position to which you are really committed.

Back in Aristotle’s day people thought there was a life force. For example, the body was animated by a soul, and so anything alive must perforce have a soul. We now know that many things we say are alive are complex chemical processes, no soul required. We question whether something like a virus should be classified as alive at all. We question whether life should be defined as things which evolve as then we’d have to say that some computer programs are alive.

It’s always been the case that increased knowledge leads people to question preconceptions. That’s why people gave up on natures and essences, we knew more.

It’s sort of what metaphysics should be doing imho. There’s always been a world of difference between tradition, which gets upset when anything is questioned, and curiosity, which loves to question everything.

 

[inocente]

I don’t remember claiming that something needs Aristotle’s permission to exist. How does adding “perception” to the definition substantially change the meaning of what I said? We’re still perceiving the entity.

You said Aristotle explains “what it means to be an entity”. I’m simply pointing out that entities may not agree with Aristotle. In other words Aristotle divides the world into entities but never proves that his way of dividing it up is objective.

The dog is able to understand a frizby qua frizby. Why would metaphysics be needed here? The example you keep using is that we don’t need metaphysics to do science and I’ve argued otherwise because the modern scientific method is based on what a person believes it means to be a thing and how it behaves. Dogs don’t do either metaphysics or science so the example is not relevant. Are you trying to argue that a dog chasing a frisbee and a scientist studying quantum mechanics is essentially the same with only a difference in degree?

I’m obviously not making myself clear on this. Consider that the dog could not intercept the frizby without working out its projected path. We don’t know the detail of how the dog does this, but it obviously must involve the concept of the frizby as a separate agent, and then predicting the path of this agent based on previous experience. This is basically what a cook does when tasting the paella to see if it needs more salt. Conceive of salt and paella as entities for the purpose of predicting whether to add one to the other based on previous experience. This is basically what all science does. Again and again and again, go back to Newton’s battle cry. The dog, the cook and the scientist do not need to know the meaning to do what they do in order to be successful at what they do. They just need to know how to do it, which they get from experience.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Taking cheap shots is not valid reasoning. Your absence of argument can only mean that you have none. I graciously accept your total surrender.

Pax, hope you have a better day tomorrow.

Linus2nd

 

[inocente]

I can’t help what " physicalists " think or what Russell thinks. It would take volumes to refute them individually. Feser has done this and he references others who have done the same.

I was pointing out that your “Philosophers are not looking for physical explanations” is not true for many philosophers.

You know we cannot discuss evolution. But whatever the case ( and I do not think it can be maintained philosophically ), it is clear that the soul is the form, the source of all of man’s activities. All of man’s activities cease upon death. That should establish the soul as the source of all of man’s activities. And please do not bring up evolution again.

I wasn’t aiming to discuss evolution, simply giving it as one of a number of reasons why the notion of essences fell by the wayside.

" Enchanted " to some perhaps. I don’t think modern science would deny what I said, since it would be to deny the obvious. And the average person is not qualified to judge since they typically would not have given much, if any, thought to the matter.

Modern science would definitely deny the notion that atoms work to the good (or evil) of anything. That would be to impute magical properties. I’m an average person who doesn’t believe claims that philosophers are an elite priesthood.

I have given you a good answer. If you do not want to accept it, I can’t help that.

Again, you seem to think this is personal. I was giving reasons why the notions were discredited.

*That is no argument. He has ruffled your feathers that’s all, that does not mean he is wrong. Besides all his arguments can be distilled from Thomas Aquinas himself. Feser simply saves you the work. And he is widely accepted as an authority in his field. Even his oponents regard him as someone that needs to be dealt with seriously. So he obviously has something to say worth listening to. It is odd that you don’t seem to be critical of his antagonists who are equally, if not more polemical /. It really would be interesting to learn your actual reasons . *

Heh. It would take a lot more than a blogger to ruffle my feathers. I’m equally critical of everyone on the blogger/author/debater circuit, whatever their views they all make a living by forming cliques around their adoring fan bases, whether it’s Lord Fesser or Lord Dawkins.

I think, when we get right down to it, you simply don’t want to acknowledg that Aristotle or Aquinas offer any solutions to the fundamental questions which have always confronted man. You have substituted science as an alternative, the only solution to you. That is your prerogative of course. But it does make one wonder how Faith is justified in your particular world view?

Oh dear you were having a bad day. We now know a lot more than A & AT but we must pretend we don’t?

I answer to Christ, not to every Tom, Dick and Linus on the internet. Now be off with you, go up to your room and think about what you’ve said, you’re totally grounded mister.

 

[inocente]

So by Aristotle’s reasoning, Newton’s eternally moving body, being not essentially different from Aristotle’s eternally moving celestial body, requires an eternally existing Unmoved Mover to account for its eternal motion.

Actually it was Galileo who developed the concept of inertia (the supposed Tower of Pisa experiment). Aristotle’s contention that motion ceases without an agent to keep it going is completely false. In an age of satellites and missions to Mars it’s truly amazing that anyone can still try to defend something which is contrary to what we can all see with our own eyes.

I guess the only reason for doing so is to try to protect the unmoved mover argument, but the argument won’t work on the average atheist without first getting her to forget everything she knows, so there doesn’t seem much point.

PS: I have no idea why you think I’m female. Go to my profile, look up the only thread I’ve ever started, and think again.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

I was pointing out that your “Philosophers are not looking for physical explanations” is not true for many philosophers.

If that is true then modern philosophers aren’t philosophers. Whether they are scientests or not is questionable.

I wasn’t aiming to discuss evolution, simply giving it as one of a number of reasons why the notion of essences fell by the wayside.

You haven’t heard about the revival of Aristitole among the new breed of analytical philosophrs then. And of course the notion of essences is certainly alive and well among modern Scholastic philosophers. And that an idea has fallen into disuse in many circles, due the poisned well created by Hume, Berkley etc. does not mean it is untrue or without merit…
Wether or not you realize it this notion holds at bay the false notion among modern cosmologists that there is no need for God.

Modern science would definitely deny the notion that atoms work to the good (or evil) of anything. That would be to impute magical properties. I’m an average person who doesn’t believe claims that philosophers are an elite priesthood.

That closing remark is just silly, whoever claimed that? As a person of Faith ( supposedly ) just how do you think God moves the world if not by the intentionality he " encodes " in the natures/essences he gives to his creatures? ( I have asked you this several times. You have yet to answer. Why? )

Again, you seem to think this is personal. I was giving reasons why the notions were discredited.

And reported with glee. Yes, it does seem personal when you seem to rejoice over the possibility.

Heh. It would take a lot more than a blogger to ruffle my feathers. I’m equally critical of everyone on the blogger/author/debater circuit, whatever their views they all make a living by forming cliques around their adoring fan bases, whether it’s Lord Fesser or Lord Dawkins.

Glad to hear it. I eagerly await some proof.

Oh dear you were having a bad day. We now know a lot more than A & AT but we must pretend we don’t?

?

I answer to Christ, not to every Tom, Dick and Linus on the internet. Now be off with you, go up to your room and think about what you’ve said, you’re totally grounded mister.

Once again, does Christ forbid you to acknowledge the Nature he has created in each creature, each substance he created? Does he forbid you to acknowledge that he has constantly been revealing himself in the nature of things even before his Divine Revelation?

Linus2nd

 

[Aloysium]

. . . In an age of satellites and missions to Mars it’s truly amazing that anyone can still try to defend something which is contrary to what we can all see with our own eyes.

I guess the only reason for doing so is to try to protect the unmoved mover argument, but the argument won’t work on the average atheist without first getting her to forget everything she knows . . .

I think it makes sense if you consider the Unmoved Mover as existing in eternity and not as something (a force, energy, whatever) in time. Inertia exists because it was caused not only way back when, at the beginning of time as part of the natural order, but is here and now brought into being as the universe is maintained as it is.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Actually it was Galileo who developed the concept of inertia (the supposed Tower of Pisa experiment). Aristotle’s contention that motion ceases without an agent to keep it going is completely false. In an age of satellites and missions to Mars it’s truly amazing that anyone can still try to defend something which is contrary to what we can all see with our own eyes.

First of all it has long been debated whether or not Galileo actually performed the experiment he braged about. Rather, many think it was a " thought experiment " that he embellished. And actually the experiment you are thinking of was the one he actually performed on a slightly inclined, oiled incline.

You have missintepreted the reason why I mentioned Aristotle’s contention that the movement of the heavenly bodies was eternal. It was because an eternal motion requires an eternal mover who is unmoved himself, God. Do you deny that? As a Christian, I don’t see how you can. And BTW, neither did Newton, in fact he suggested it might be so. And I gave you a perfectly good reason for why it is indeed so. Because, God, the creator of all, created all and moves all by the natures he created in his creatures. Read my explanation again. And if you say that God does not move his creatures, even Newton’s eternally moving body, then just what is the nature of the God you believe in? Describe him to me and just what is his relationship with the creatures he made? Does he not guide them? Doesn’t he move all things by his Almighty power, at least through secondary ( Oh my pre-humean philosophy again !)? I hope you aren’t suggesting that there is anything that escapes his causality.

I guess the only reason for doing so is to try to protect the unmoved mover argument, but the argument won’t work on the average atheist without first getting her to forget everything she knows, so there doesn’t seem much point.

It works on some, it worked on Feser. The point is to demonstrate that reason can argue successfully to the existence of God. This gives courage to the faithful that reason can defend itself against the irrational conclusions of atheist cosomologist and scientists.

PS: I have no idea why you think I’m female. Go to my profile, look up the only thread I’ve ever started, and think again.

Well, I guess it has to do with your style of argumentation. But since you have sworn twice now that you are a guy, I will acknowledge that as true

Linus2nd

 

[balto]

The only thing I’m calling into doubt is the notion that what we know is the same as what exists, which obviously isn’t true.

I don’t think anybody would disagree with you that we don’t have infallible knowledge of reality, but your posts seemed to indicate that you don’t think it is possible to know anything about reality. That would only be a difficulty if you are committed to an essentially Cartesian understanding of the mind that posits that the mind is a separate substance and is somehow “unnatural.”

Back in Aristotle’s day people thought there was a life force. For example, the body was animated by a soul, and so anything alive must perforce have a soul. We now know that many things we say are alive are complex chemical processes, no soul required. We question whether something like a virus should be classified as alive at all. We question whether life should be defined as things which evolve as then we’d have to say that some computer programs are alive.

It’s always been the case that increased knowledge leads people to question preconceptions. That’s why people gave up on natures and essences, we knew more.

It’s sort of what metaphysics should be doing imho. There’s always been a world of difference between tradition, which gets upset when anything is questioned, and curiosity, which loves to question everything.

Well first off, you have a misunderstanding of the concept of a soul. The soul is nothing more than the form of a living thing and it need not be spiritual or immaterial at all. I don’t think Aristotle espoused animism. This whole spooky notion of a soul was born from Descartes’ philosophy.

And I still don’t see how you are avoiding talk of essences. Redefining life as “complex chemical reactions” is not throwing away essences but disagreeing on what the essence of life is.

 

[balto]

You said Aristotle explains “what it means to be an entity”. I’m simply pointing out that entities may not agree with Aristotle. In other words Aristotle divides the world into entities but never proves that his way of dividing it up is objective.

Yes, Aristotle explains “what it means to be an entity” and not “what it means to be this type of entity.” That is a question for scientific inquiry but science has to presuppose A.) that things exist and B.) that they behave in regular, repeatable ways either due to their natures or laws of physics or what-have-you.

I’m obviously not making myself clear on this. Consider that the dog could not intercept the frizby without working out its projected path. We don’t know the detail of how the dog does this, but it obviously must involve the concept of the frizby as a separate agent, and then predicting the path of this agent based on previous experience. This is basically what a cook does when tasting the paella to see if it needs more salt. Conceive of salt and paella as entities for the purpose of predicting whether to add one to the other based on previous experience. This is basically what all science does. Again and again and again, go back to Newton’s battle cry. The dog, the cook and the scientist do not need to know the meaning to do what they do in order to be successful at what they do. They just need to know how to do it, which they get from experience.

The dog recognizes the frisbee as a separate object because it perceives the frisbee through its senses. There’s nothing in the activity of the dog chasing a frisbee that requires anything other than sense perception. A human on the other hand can separate out the distinct components of the nature of the frisbee, i.e that it is round, that it is plastic, that it is lightweight, that it experiences certain forces acting on it. They can separate out the universals that the frisbee instantiates and then apply them deductively to other objects that instantiate the same universals. All of which is required for scientific investigation. If dogs use only perceptual thinking and humans use perceptual and conceptual thinking, then there is a difference in kind between human thinking and other forms of animal thinking. Metaphysics is simply one of the most universal concepts a human can entertain.

I think that we are just going to keep going back and forth though and won’t make any more ground. I will let you have the last word and I thank you for your willingness to engage in this discussion :tiphat:

 

[inocente]

If that is true then modern philosophers aren’t philosophers. Whether they are scientests or not is questionable.

“In philosophy, physicalism is the ontological thesis that “everything is physical”, or that there is “nothing over and above” the physical.” - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physicalism

You haven’t heard about the revival of Aristitole among the new breed of analytical philosophrs then. And of course the notion of essences is certainly alive and well among modern Scholastic philosophers. And that an idea has fallen into disuse in many circles, due the poisned well created by Hume, Berkley etc. does not mean it is untrue or without merit…
Wether or not you realize it this notion holds at bay the false notion among modern cosmologists that there is no need for God.

God does not depend on false notions.

That closing remark is just silly, whoever claimed that?

It was aimed at your “And the average person is not qualified to judge since they typically would not have given much, if any, thought to the matter.” You appear to be arguing that the common man should bow to the judgement of your favored philosophers. As if.

As a person of Faith ( supposedly ) just how do you think God moves the world if not by the intentionality he " encodes " in the natures/essences he gives to his creatures? ( I have asked you this several times. You have yet to answer. Why? )

I don’t remember you asking before. Could you please quote everywhere you have asked so I can try to work out how I managed to miss the question so many times?

I don’t understand what “God moves the world” or “” encodes " in the natures/essences he gives to his creatures" mean. By saying “as a person of Faith” you appear to think that a Christian must necessarily consider Aristotle and Thomas to be part of Revelation. You could not be more wrong.

btw Your "As a person of Faith ( supposedly ) " breaks forum rules by questioning the sincerity of another poster’s beliefs. It is in any event a particularly shabby and despicable form of ad hominem. Come on now Linus, this is well beneath you and you know it. Maybe take a walk and calm down while meditating on whether you are the Shepherd or a sheep.

Before the mod has to tell us, could we voluntarily stop discussing each other?

Glad to hear it. I eagerly await some proof.

You’ll not find any posts where I suck up to authority figures.

Once again, does Christ forbid you to acknowledge the Nature he has created in each creature, each substance he created? Does he forbid you to acknowledge that he has constantly been revealing himself in the nature of things even before his Divine Revelation?

To me this attempt to prefigure Aristotle into Revelation sounds close to idolatry. We can surely agree that Christ is God and Aristotle was only a man.

 

[inocente]

I think it makes sense if you consider the Unmoved Mover as existing in eternity and not as something (a force, energy, whatever) in time. Inertia exists because it was caused not only way back when, at the beginning of time as part of the natural order, but is here and now brought into being as the universe is maintained as it is.

Once you acknowledge inertia, the unmoved mover becomes deist, since it is no longer needed to keep things in motion.

For the unmoved mover argument to work for a theist, the thiest has to sweep under the carpet the fact that Aristotle was obviously wrong in thinking that the most natural state is an absence of motion, so anything in motion would stop unless kept in motion. Aristotle just didn’t know enough to understand that friction and drag and so on led him up the garden path.

 

[inocente]

First of all it has long been debated whether or not Galileo actually performed the experiment he braged about. Rather, many think it was a " thought experiment " that he embellished. And actually the experiment you are thinking of was the one he actually performed on a slightly inclined, oiled incline.

I agree, which is why I said supposed experiment.

*You have missintepreted the reason why I mentioned Aristotle’s contention that the movement of the heavenly bodies was eternal. It was because an eternal motion requires an eternal mover who is unmoved himself, God. Do you deny that? As a Christian, I don’t see how you can. And BTW, neither did Newton, in fact he suggested it might be so. And I gave you a perfectly good reason for why it is indeed so. Because, God, the creator of all, created all and moves all by the natures he created in his creatures. Read my explanation again. And if you say that God does not move his creatures, even Newton’s eternally moving body, then just what is the nature of the God you believe in? Describe him to me and just what is his relationship with the creatures he made? Does he not guide them? Doesn’t he move all things by his Almighty power, at least through secondary ( Oh my pre-humean philosophy again !)? I hope you aren’t suggesting that there is anything that escapes his causality. *

*"Addressing the philosophical implication of the primeval atom hypothesis [big bang] at Solvay in 1958, Lemaître states:

As far as I can see, such a theory remains entirely outside any metaphysical or religious question. …] For the believer, it removes any attempt at familiarity with God, as were Laplace’s “flick” or Jean’s “finger [of God agitating the ether]” consonant, it is consonant with the wording of Isaiah’s speaking of a “Hidden God,” hidden even in the beginning of creation." - catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=8847*

I agree with the monseigneur, but not for that reason, it’s that my divinity teacher at high school, a Doctor of Divinity btw, passed on his liking for Isaiah to me. Isaiah’s God has great majesty compared to Aristotle’s tribal god of accountants, his unimaginative robot (my dislike for his vacuous concept of god is unbounded ).

It works on some, it worked on Feser. The point is to demonstrate that reason can argue successfully to the existence of God. This gives courage to the faithful that reason can defend itself against the irrational conclusions of atheist cosomologist and scientists.

Sounds like Christ wasn’t necessary then, all that NT guff about walking in faith, what utter nonsense, all we needed was Aristotle to turn us towards the light.

 

[inocente]

I don’t think anybody would disagree with you that we don’t have infallible knowledge of reality, but your posts seemed to indicate that you don’t think it is possible to know anything about reality. That would only be a difficulty if you are committed to an essentially Cartesian understanding of the mind that posits that the mind is a separate substance and is somehow “unnatural.”

Sorry if I gave that impression. We can know about reality, but we must be very careful not to fool ourselves. Substance dualism is to me a prime example of how we can fool ourselves.

*Well first off, you have a misunderstanding of the concept of a soul. The soul is nothing more than the form of a living thing and it need not be spiritual or immaterial at all. I don’t think Aristotle espoused animism. This whole spooky notion of a soul was born from Descartes’ philosophy.

And I still don’t see how you are avoiding talk of essences. Redefining life as “complex chemical reactions” is not throwing away essences but disagreeing on what the essence of life is.*

I got a bit lost, I didn’t give my view on what a soul is, I was responding to you saying that biologists are questioning what it means to be alive and giving reasons why. You can call anything you like an essence, I’m questioning whether doing so brings anything to the party. If an animist thinks the essence of life is animation by a soul and a biologist thinks that essence of life is chemical processes then all we can say is that the box marked essence is empty, since there’s no agreement on what to put in it.

 

[inocente]

I think that we are just going to keep going back and forth though and won’t make any more ground. I will let you have the last word and I thank you for your willingness to engage in this discussion :tiphat:

Agreed, so I’ve let you have the last word. :tiphat:

 

[Linusthe2nd]

I agree, which is why I said supposed experiment.

*"Addressing the philosophical implication of the primeval atom hypothesis [big bang] at Solvay in 1958, Lemaître states:

As far as I can see, such a theory remains entirely outside any metaphysical or religious question. …] For the believer, it removes any attempt at familiarity with God, as were Laplace’s “flick” or Jean’s “finger [of God agitating the ether]” consonant, it is consonant with the wording of Isaiah’s speaking of a “Hidden God,” hidden even in the beginning of creation." - catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=8847*

I agree with the monseigneur, but not for that reason, it’s that my divinity teacher at high school, a Doctor of Divinity btw, passed on his liking for Isaiah to me. Isaiah’s God has great majesty compared to Aristotle’s tribal god of accountants, his unimaginative robot (my dislike for his vacuous concept of god is unbounded ).

Sounds like Christ wasn’t necessary then, all that NT guff about walking in faith, what utter nonsense, all we needed was Aristotle to turn us towards the light.

I will let this stand as my response to this post and your post # 151. I guess the reader will just have to go back and review the arguments and decide for himself.

Thanks for your participation.

Linus2nd

 

[inocente]

I will let this stand as my response to this post and your post # 151. I guess the reader will just have to go back and review the arguments and decide for himself.

Thanks for your participation.

That would seem wise. I hope we understand each other. Thanks for the conversation.

 

[Aloysium]

Once you acknowledge inertia, the unmoved mover becomes deist, since it is no longer needed to keep things in motion.

For the unmoved mover argument to work for a theist, the thiest has to sweep under the carpet the fact that Aristotle was obviously wrong in thinking that the most natural state is an absence of motion, so anything in motion would stop unless kept in motion. Aristotle just didn’t know enough to understand that friction and drag and so on led him up the garden path.

I see things differently. The natural state would be nothingness (other than God).
This all comes into being in the moment by His Word.
There would be no inertia were it not for God.
The past does not bring the present into existence since it is gone.
There is a continuous transformation of matter within the moment that we are participating.
That moment is brought into being by God.
Aristotle’s problem may have been in choosing an example for motion in space and time and not knowing about relativity.

 

[inocente]

I see things differently. The natural state would be nothingness (other than God).
This all comes into being in the moment by His Word.
There would be no inertia were it not for God.
The past does not bring the present into existence since it is gone.
There is a continuous transformation of matter within the moment that we are participating.
That moment is brought into being by God.
Aristotle’s problem may have been in choosing an example for motion in space and time and not knowing about relativity.

Why the angry smilie on the title??? The trouble now is that Aristotle argues that the absence of inertia proves the existence of the unmoved mover, while you argue that the presence of inertia proves the existence of God.