B
balto
Guest
Well I don’t think I have anything more to say so I hope you enjoy your weekend
- Status
A
Aloysium
Guest
LoL!
Oops!
I’m about 500 km from home in the middle of almost nowhere, posting on my phone to pass the time while waiting to leave.
I am actually frustrated using this phone. Do you think it senses it?
If anything else weird shows up. I will apologize further when I get back to the computer.
I’m not even going to try to get that blushing emote.
I
inocente
Guest
And you, nice talking with you.Well I don’t think I have anything more to say so I hope you enjoy your weekend
Oh right, been there got the tee shirt.
L
Linusthe2nd
Guest
" But what of genuine efficient causality itself? Was it anywhere to be seen in the philosophical
literature? Well, yes it was, but this occurred in the almost wholly independent literature on causality that
was being generated by analytic philosophers of science. Here, in accord with Ross’s fundamental
insight, the force of actual scientific practice and discourse was being felt, so that a few philosophers of
science (Rom Harré and Edward Madden in their book Causal Powers and Nancy Cartwright in How the
Laws of Physics Lie and later in Nature’s Capacities and Their Measurements) had begun to urge that the
problems besetting philosophers about causality and about the character and modality of scientific laws
of nature could best be solved by attributing to natural entities causal powers and tendencies and
resultant causal actions.12 The suggestion was then made that scientific laws of nature be thought of as
reflecting the inherent causal powers and tendencies of natural agents.13 All of these positions are, of
course, standard fare within Aristotelian-Thomistic philosophy of nature. "
From a lecture at the recent Dominican Colloquia in Berkeley: Philosophers & Theologians in Conversation. The point being that the Aristotilean notion of Nature as the sourse of natural powers and tendencies of natural substances including plants and animals and not just in man. The whole paper helps explain why this understanding has been lost and explains its recent revival in some quarters.
www3.nd.edu/~afreddos/papers/The%20Vindication%20of%20St%20Thomas%207-14-14.pdf
Linus2nd
literature? Well, yes it was, but this occurred in the almost wholly independent literature on causality that
was being generated by analytic philosophers of science. Here, in accord with Ross’s fundamental
insight, the force of actual scientific practice and discourse was being felt, so that a few philosophers of
science (Rom Harré and Edward Madden in their book Causal Powers and Nancy Cartwright in How the
Laws of Physics Lie and later in Nature’s Capacities and Their Measurements) had begun to urge that the
problems besetting philosophers about causality and about the character and modality of scientific laws
of nature could best be solved by attributing to natural entities causal powers and tendencies and
resultant causal actions.12 The suggestion was then made that scientific laws of nature be thought of as
reflecting the inherent causal powers and tendencies of natural agents.13 All of these positions are, of
course, standard fare within Aristotelian-Thomistic philosophy of nature. "
From a lecture at the recent Dominican Colloquia in Berkeley: Philosophers & Theologians in Conversation. The point being that the Aristotilean notion of Nature as the sourse of natural powers and tendencies of natural substances including plants and animals and not just in man. The whole paper helps explain why this understanding has been lost and explains its recent revival in some quarters.
www3.nd.edu/~afreddos/papers/The%20Vindication%20of%20St%20Thomas%207-14-14.pdf
Linus2nd
- Status