Where is the efficient cause in Aristotle's natural motion?

[Blue_Horizon]

Well, this just seems odd to me.

If one tug-of-war team, say the hypothetical brawny women, pull the Don Knotts team into the mud, clearly, the efficient cause of the motion into the mud was the pull exerted on the rope by the brawny women. They “acted” on the rope and the opposing team. This is “work” for you according to your definition because displacement of a mass occurs AND that requires energy, obviously.

Now take the two perfectly matched teams. They are “acting” on each end of the rope and require the exertion of energy to pull on each end. The fact that the rope is not in motion does not make the actions on each end “no longer ‘acting.’”

Clearly, energy is being exerted at each end and the two teams are “acting” on the rope. The fact that no motion is observed does not nullify their actions nor does it reduce energy exertion to zero merely because no movement is observed.

It might even be said that the action of keeping the rope taut over the mud hole is enabled (actualized) by the balance of two equal but opposing efficient causes.

Displacement of masses, in this case, is not required for the two teams to be “working” against each other. Clearly they are both working very hard, exerting energy and as a result are maintaining the tension because they are acting as efficient causes in balance at each end of the rope.

PR the oddness you mention was dealt to in my 2nd last year of Secondary School Science/Physics class…which is still the case in most western schools (I also teach school Physics classes).

I can see you do not have a clear understandingof the subtle relationships between force, displacement and energy transfer (work) .
The world is very non intuitive in this area so I understand your difficulties.
Unfortunately life is short and I do not have the time to untangle your newtonian difficulties here sorry.
In short the exertion you speak of is real but the energy is not being transferred into the rope but remains in the athletes trying to keep their muscles as tense as the rope. A very inefficient transfer of energy which therefore makes them doubly hot as the work is done wholly in muscle tissue and no further energy gets transferred into the rope.

The force situation is no different from a rope hanging from a pulley with 1 tonne weights balanced either side.
The weights do their thing effortlessly but humans must expend muscle energy to produce similar static tension in a rope.

 

[thinkandmull]

PR the oddness you mention was dealt to in my 2nd last year of Secondary School Science/Physics class…which is still the case in most western schools (I also teach school Physics classes).

I can see you do not have a clear understandingof the subtle relationships between force, displacement and energy transfer (work) .
The world is very non intuitive in this area so I understand your difficulties.
Unfortunately life is short and I do not have the time to untangle your newtonian difficulties here sorry.
In short the exertion you speak of is real but the energy is not being transferred into the rope but remains in the athletes trying to keep their muscles as tense as the rope. A very inefficient transfer of energy which therefore makes them doubly hot as the work is done wholly in muscle tissue and no further energy gets transferred into the rope.

The force situation is no different from a rope hanging from a pulley with 1 tonne weights balanced either side.
The weights do their thing effortlessly but humans must expend muscle energy to produce similar static tension in a rope.

I don’t see anything non-intuitive in what Peter Plato said. Nothing non-intuitive at all. I am not sure what principle you two are disputing. (I like this subject though) Saying uniform rectilinear motion does not require an efficient cause is strange though.** In fact, what does it even mean?** If there is motion, there is force (energy).

 

[thinkandmull]

*Corpus omne perseverare in statu suo quiescendi vel movendi uniformiter in directum, nisi quatenus a viribus impressis cogitur statum illum mutare. *
(Principia 1,19)

“Every body persists in its state of being at rest or of moving uniformly straight forward, except insofar as it is compelled to change its state by force impressed”

Yet that wouldn’t apply to rectangular motion

 

[balto]

In this context “life” and “animation” and “soul” have different and discontinuous (though related) definitions for Aristotle wrt sub-lunary and super-lunary spheres (ie perishable substances versus imperishable substances).

Can you provide a quote so I can know where you are coming from (concerning this sub-lunary vs. super-lunary point that is troubling you). This is needed for several of the following points you make.

I am clearly suggesting there are inconsistencies in these arguments (as proven by Newtonian Physics) whereby he reaches that conclusion/definition - which make for gaps.
Therefore, by re-applying his acceptable arguments and reasonings to the new findings of modern Physics we may come up with revised Aristotelian conclusions on some points of his system.

What are the inconsistencies specifically?

The other point you may not have averted to, as hinted above, is that Aristotle has two definitions of soul depending on whether we are speaking of perishable or imperishable substances as he makes clear at the start of DA.

Hence he regards planets and stars as being alive and having souls - though a very different sort of soul from those of plants, animals and humans. Do you disagree?

I need a reference for this.

I am hypothesising that inconsistencies in his Physics wrt natural motion of what you call “inanimate substances” may be explained by allowing that principles he applies to super-lunary substances (composed of the 5th element aether) could be validly applied to the other 4 elements (what I call “minerals”) here on earth.

I think I understand what you are trying to say, but what you are referring to is not a soul. It is simply a form that is the principle of actuality that gives the substance in question its natural powers and actions. A soul is a form that gives a substance life actualities and powers. Are you arguing that minerals and celestial bodies are living?

I read this. This is really irrelevant to the point I am making as I am positing that both apply to celestial bodies (as they have souls) … so why not minerals in like fashion.

Easy, minerals are not self-perfective, hence they do not have immanent causation. Their definitive actions are not undertaken with the mineral itself as the terminus/purpose of the action. Actions characteristic of life, e.g. nutrition, growth, reproduction, metabolism, etc. are undertaken with the preservation of the actor itself as the terminus of the action.

If this same sort of soul can be predicated of the sub-lunary elements then they do have life and telos and perfection as I posit even though it is not “life” as found in perishable bodies.

Now you are again confusing perfection with self-perfection. A thing may have a perfected state, but that doesn’t mean that said perfect state includes the fact that the thing undertakes actions specifically for its own self perfection. Inorganic substances do not do this.

I really don’t know what you mean. Growth is not a necessary quality of soul - the celestial bodies do not grow do they - nor do iron canon-balls.

Celestial bodies do not have souls for all the reasons already given. Yes, you know what mineral growth is. It is an analogy for minerals accumulating more mass.

I believe you will find yourself mistaken if you study Aristotle more deeply on this point.
It is prob not the static location that perfects air but its natural, unrestrained rising motion which is a perfecting act - as opposed to being restrained (a privation?) or violent motion imposed in another direction.

Okay, that may be true since I know they thought that earth naturally seeks the lowest position.

 

[balto]

Motion is change (change of position) and so cannot be a property or accident (place is an accident) as Aristotle explicitly states.
That is why natural motion is problematic - even Aristotle says it is extremely difficult to determine whether it is self-caused (demanding that we call such a form “soul”) or caused by another. He tentatively holds it is caused by another but the arguments he uses are weak and I think he knows that. Newton has proven they are indeed flawed.

What has Newton proposed that calls anything of the above into question?

I do not believe this is the essence of “soul” for Aristotle. But it seems clear to me that his sine qua non is that anything that moves itself must be predicated as having a “soul” and “life” - which he defines in two different and discontinuous ways. Likewise “animation” may be simply local motion - as is the case with the celestial bodies in their natural motions.

Well here’s the issue. I don’t think you are interpreting “moves itself” correctly. You are thinking of a living thing saying “hey I want to move my arm now” and it does so by its own nature. That is not the right reading. “Moves itself” means that living thing does something to perfect itself, so it’s action moves itself, like for instance eating is undertaken to nourish the animal. Since you are interpreting it in the first manner, you think "well since living things exhibit living properties by their own nature, and because they do so we attribute a soul to them, then minerals have souls since they do things by their own nature. The bolded is erroneous.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

If there is motion, there is force (energy).

Are you talking theory or practice?

If you are talking Newtonian theory I am afraid you are mistaken…just as Newton’s famous 1st law of motion, which I quoted you, states.

Aristotle would agree with you however - which is why his system of natural philosophy is flawed in this area…and his explanations of the efficient causality involved in explaining natural motion appear to me not only weak but mistaken.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Can you provide a quote so I can know where you are coming from (concerning this sub-lunary vs. super-lunary point that is troubling you). This is needed for several of the following points you make.

This is Aristotelian cosmology 101 and will easily be found by quick research on the Net.
If you are not familiar with it I am sorry but life is short and I don’t have the time to bring you up to speed. I am really looking to discuss these things with mature Aristotelian philosophers hopefully equal or, better,ahead of me on these matters.

What are the inconsistencies specifically?

I have already stated these below re the cause generans.

Balto you seem to want me to spoon feed you but I just don’t have time for that, life is short!. So I am sorry, but as above, if these common place understandings of Aristotle are not yours then you may not be the sort of respondent who can help me this time on this point.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

What has Newton proposed that calls anything of the above into question?

Again you may not understand Aristotle’s (or Newton’s) basic Physics well enough to engage if you ask this question. Again I do not have time to bring you up to speed so won’t be engaging you on this point sorry.

See my response to ThinkAndMull for the main gist.

Well here’s the issue. I don’t think you are interpreting “moves itself” correctly. You are thinking of a living thing saying “hey I want to move my arm now” and it does so by its own nature. That is not the right reading. “Moves itself” means that living thing does something to perfect itself, so it’s action moves itself, like for instance eating is undertaken to nourish the animal. Since you are interpreting it in the first manner, you think "well since living things exhibit living properties by their own nature, and because they do so we attribute a soul to them, then minerals have souls since they do things by their own nature. The bolded is erroneous.

Try thinking instrumental efficient causality and “local motion” instead of “perfecting itself” … when you do this I believe my understanding of “moves itself” (as opposed to “whatever is moved is moved by another”) is fairly clear and valid and also what Aristotle proposed. (i.e. the “other” may either be an external agent other or an internal agent other if the substance in question has parts).

It is the inexplicably externally efficiently caused local motion of the Celestial bodies that demands Aristotle require a soul of them.

Aquinas, in explaining this local motion of the planets, alternated between the internal “soul” explanation and that of an external mover (angels or directly by God) in SCG. Very difficult to decide, just as Aristotle noted.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

The balance of forces which, for example, keep a bridge or building standing. The forces – gravity acting on dead and live masses resisted by the compression and tensile properties of the materials within the structure – are held in balance precisely because they are simultaneous with respect to each other…

You’ve got me thinking on this.
It would be good basis for another topic thread.

I still don’t think Aristotle’s system of natural philosophy and causality has much explanative or predictive traction here for the reasons prev stated - at least if the analysis is based on change of place and chains of efficient causality wrt movement.

Issue1:
Another prob with looking for chains of causality in balanced force scenarios is to do with causal direction.

Sure, forces are balanced because things are linked one to another producing a sort of “dynamic” balance. Not quite the right word because dynamic implies movement when in fact its a static system.

A better word is probably inter-dependent balance.
And it may indeed be simultaneous as you say.

But if we try and analyse this circular, interdependent chain of connected and counter-balancing parts … where are the start/end termini? What is cause and what is effect?
How does one discover the direction of the succession of case-effect-cause-effect>
It seems to be impossible.

Yet for cause-effect linkages to be operating the cause must be at least logically prior to its effect if not temporally prior (as is always the case with movement).

Yet with chains of linked balanced forces where there is no movement each part is often both cause and effect at the same time it seems.

Issue2:
When one planet pulls another planet of much the same mass - the other planet does likewise too. Both move towards each other (at least to start with). Now this is not a chain of cause effect movement (its but a single cause-effect link) but it raises the question which planet is the agent cause of the resulting motion effect.

Do we say planet A is the agent cause of the motion of planet B and vice-versa?
Or do we say A is the agent cause of its own movement with some hard to describe passive involvement by B in this regard?
Or do we affirm both the above - A is agent cause of the movement of both B and itself.

Or do we say that the linkage is so inter-dependent that the most we can say is that both A and B are agent co-causes of the resultant movement effect

If there was no other matter in space how would we even be sure which planet moved and which stood still anyway? We could never be sure of causal direction?

Or do we simply say Aristotle’s principles don’t really apply well to this sort of thing.

What are your thoughts?

 

[thinkandmull]

Are you talking theory or practice?

If you are talking Newtonian theory I am afraid you are mistaken…just as Newton’s famous 1st law of motion, which I quoted you, states.

Aristotle would agree with you however - which is why his system of natural philosophy is flawed in this area…and his explanations of the efficient causality involved in explaining natural motion appear to me not only weak but mistaken.

Newton said that in a vacuum force is not necessary to keep motion, but it is needed for acceleration. So it would be need to bring anything from rest to motion, and it would seem it would be necessary for a motion to go around the corners of a rectangle. Where exactly do you disagree with Aristotle. Since he wasn’t speaking about motion in a vacuum, not having the technology to have such motion, how is his position on this mistaken?

 

[thinkandmull]

You’ve got me thinking on this.
It would be good basis for another topic thread.

I still don’t think Aristotle’s system of natural philosophy and causality has much explanative or predictive traction here for the reasons prev stated - at least if the analysis is based on change of place and chains of efficient causality wrt movement.

Issue1:
Another prob with looking for chains of causality in balanced force scenarios is to do with causal direction.

Sure, forces are balanced because things are linked one to another producing a sort of “dynamic” balance. Not quite the right word because dynamic implies movement when in fact its a static system.

A better word is probably inter-dependent balance.
And it may indeed be simultaneous as you say.

But if we try and analyse this circular, interdependent chain of connected and counter-balancing parts … where are the start/end termini? What is cause and what is effect?
How does one discover the direction of the succession of case-effect-cause-effect>
It seems to be impossible.

Yet for cause-effect linkages to be operating the cause must be at least logically prior to its effect if not temporally prior (as is always the case with movement).

Yet with chains of linked balanced forces where there is no movement each part is often both cause and effect at the same time it seems.

Issue2:
When one planet pulls another planet of much the same mass - the other planet does likewise too. Both move towards each other (at least to start with). Now this is not a chain of cause effect movement (its but a single cause-effect link) but it raises the question which planet is the agent cause of the resulting motion effect.

Do we say planet A is the agent cause of the motion of planet B and vice-versa?
Or do we say A is the agent cause of its own movement with some hard to describe passive involvement by B in this regard?
Or do we affirm both the above - A is agent cause of the movement of both B and itself.

Or do we say that the linkage is so inter-dependent that the most we can say is that both A and B are agent co-causes of the resultant movement effect

If there was no other matter in space how would we even be sure which planet moved and which stood still anyway? We could never be sure of causal direction?

Or do we simply say Aristotle’s principles don’t really apply well to this sort of thing.

What are your thoughts?

“chains of linked balanced forces where there is no movement each part is often both cause and effect at the same time it seems.” It would be helpful it you gave an example of this. THANKS!

I to, as I wrote before, see why Aristotle thought the motions of the Heavens needed a first mover. I wasn’t aware that he thought they had souls however. I recently finished reading the Summa Contra Gentiles and Aquinas speaks of God and angels moving the heavens, but not of those bodies having souls. However, there is one section I will find and post for you when I get a chance; I think I know what you were referring to. However, my explanations given before make it possible to have a mechanistic explanation the an infinity of past circular motion of the heavens. An infinite dominoes series could be what keeps the heavens “cranked”, constantly regenerating it after every revolution. An old watch is a good example Aquinas’s argument about the heavens not having the energy to keep “pulling and pushing” falls apart then, IF you assume its possible to have in infinite past of causes and effects.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Newton said that in a vacuum force is not necessary to keep motion, but it is needed for acceleration. So it would be need to bring anything from rest to motion, and it would seem it would be necessary for a motion to go around the corners of a rectangle. Where exactly do you disagree with Aristotle. Since he wasn’t speaking about motion in a vacuum, not having the technology to have such motion, how is his position on this mistaken?

TAM I am sorry but I just don’t have time to bring you up to speed on my thread question and these basics. I aimed it at philosophers here who are already au fait with all these things, and hopefully further ahead than me, and could take it further.

 

[Richca]

“chains of linked balanced forces where there is no movement each part is often both cause and effect at the same time it seems.” It would be helpful it you gave an example of this. THANKS!

I to, as I wrote before, see why Aristotle thought the motions of the Heavens needed a first mover. I wasn’t aware that he thought they had souls however. I recently finished reading the Summa Contra Gentiles and Aquinas speaks of God and angels moving the heavens, but not of those bodies having souls. However, there is one section I will find and post for you when I get a chance; I think I know what you were referring to. However, my explanations given before make it possible to have a mechanistic explanation the an infinity of past circular motion of the heavens. An infinite dominoes series could be what keeps the heavens “cranked”, constantly regenerating it after every revolution. An old watch is a good example Aquinas’s argument about the heavens not having the energy to keep “pulling and pushing” falls apart then, IF you assume its possible to have in infinite past of causes and effects.

Yes, Aristotle thought that the intellectual substances that move the heavenly spheres were as the form of the heavenly bodies or spheres much like our soul is the form of our bodies. Aquinas agreed with Aristotle that intellectual substances move the heavenly bodies but he identified these intellectual substances with the angels who are completely immaterial and who do not have bodies. So Aquinas disagreed with Aristotle that the angels are as the form of the heavenly bodies as if they have a body attached to them. The angels move the heavenly bodies by contact of power.

 

[balto]

This is Aristotelian cosmology 101 and will easily be found by quick research on the Net.
If you are not familiar with it I am sorry but life is short and I don’t have the time to bring you up to speed. I am really looking to discuss these things with mature Aristotelian philosophers hopefully equal or, better,ahead of me on these matters.

I have already stated these below re the cause generans.

Balto you seem to want me to spoon feed you but I just don’t have time for that, life is short!. So I am sorry, but as above, if these common place understandings of Aristotle are not yours then you may not be the sort of respondent who can help me this time on this point.

I was a bit saddened to read your responses on this thread, although given our exchanges in the past I can’t say that I am surprised honestly. Yes, I know I can Google things but I am having a conversation presumably with Blue Horizon and not an HTML file. I asked you for quotes and specifics so that I can know what you are reading and try to come to an alternative interpretation, if one exists (maybe yours is the only one, but how am I supposed to know if you refuse to tell me?). Google is not going to tell me what you are thinking and reading. Unless you provide concrete details I cannot respond meaningfully to your points. I don’t know what you are thinking since I am not a mind reader, so I asked you to clarify. That is what “dialogue” is about. No, I have not read Aristotle’s works directly, but I have been committedly familiarizing myself with Aristotelian and Thomistic philosophy of nature and how it can be applied modern scientific knowledge for 2 years or so, since I am in a science Ph.D. program and have a personal interest in the subject. You are always asking how modern science can be fit into classical metaphysics, so this should be right up your alley. I am a little confused as to why you are expecting me to defend 6th century B.C. cosmology when you asked a question about Aristotle’s metaphysics I’m not too interested in understanding classical physics except maybe out of historical interest, so I don’t know as much about that subject as I do others (I am more interested in the philosophy).

Also, your insinuation that I and other posters are “too far behind you” and that “you don’t have time to bring us up to speed on basic issues” or “spoon-feed us”, is condescending and is not appreciated, especially since your own understanding of Aristotelian philosophy seems to be a little lacking (why do you not understand the difference between a form and a soul, or efficient causes vs. the other three causes, or simultaneous causation, or virtual vs. accidental and substantial forms, or change as potentiality becoming actualized, etc if you are so far ahead of us?). I suppose it is a nice rhetorical trick but in rational, logical reasoning it would be called an “ad hominem fallacy” since it is an attempt to discredit the messenger instead of responding logically to the messenger’s argument. If you’re so far ahead of us stupid people and want “better answers”, then try posting your questions over here if you haven’t already: classicaltheism.boardhost.com/index.php. This is an exciting forum with some of the more professional commenters on Feser’s blog that I intend to keep my eye on. I hope it sticks around.

Perhaps you would like to reconsider your responses? If not, then I guess I bid you adieu. I hope that people reading this forum that are interested in these issues have managed to learn something important from the discussions on this thread.

 

[thinkandmull]

TAM I am sorry but I just don’t have time to bring you up to speed on my thread question and these basics. I aimed it at philosophers here who are already au fait with all these things, and hopefully further ahead than me, and could take it further.

That’s kinda insulting. I know what I am talking about when it comes to Thomas Aquinas and physics. Perhaps are you running from discussion?

 

[thinkandmull]

Yes, Aristotle thought that the intellectual substances that move the heavenly spheres were as the form of the heavenly bodies or spheres much like our soul is the form of our bodies. Aquinas agreed with Aristotle that intellectual substances move the heavenly bodies but he identified these intellectual substances with the angels who are completely immaterial and who do not have bodies. So Aquinas disagreed with Aristotle that the angels are as the form of the heavenly bodies as if they have a body attached to them. The angels move the heavenly bodies by contact of power.

I don’t remember that from his Physics. Is it in his Metaphysics?

 

[Blue_Horizon]

I was a bit saddened to read your responses on this thread, although given our exchanges in the past I can’t say that I am surprised honestly. Yes, I know I can Google things but I am having a conversation presumably with Blue Horizon and not an HTML file. I asked you for quotes and specifics so that I can know what you are reading and try to come to an alternative interpretation, if one exists (maybe yours is the only one, but how am I supposed to know if you refuse to tell me?). Google is not going to tell me what you are thinking and reading. Unless you provide concrete details I cannot respond meaningfully to your points. I don’t know what you are thinking since I am not a mind reader, so I asked you to clarify. That is what “dialogue” is about. No, I have not read Aristotle’s works directly, but I have been committedly familiarizing myself with Aristotelian and Thomistic philosophy of nature and how it can be applied modern scientific knowledge for 2 years or so, since I am in a science Ph.D. program and have a personal interest in the subject. You are always asking how modern science can be fit into classical metaphysics, so this should be right up your alley. I am a little confused as to why you are expecting me to defend 6th century B.C. cosmology when you asked a question about Aristotle’s metaphysics I’m not too interested in understanding classical physics except maybe out of historical interest, so I don’t know as much about that subject as I do others (I am more interested in the philosophy).

Also, your insinuation that I and other posters are “too far behind you” and that “you don’t have time to bring us up to speed on basic issues” or “spoon-feed us”, is condescending and is not appreciated, especially since your own understanding of Aristotelian philosophy seems to be a little lacking (why do you not understand the difference between a form and a soul, or efficient causes vs. the other three causes, or simultaneous causation, or virtual vs. accidental and substantial forms, or change as potentiality becoming actualized, etc if you are so far ahead of us?). I suppose it is a nice rhetorical trick but in rational, logical reasoning it would be called an “ad hominem fallacy” since it is an attempt to discredit the messenger instead of responding logically to the messenger’s argument. If you’re so far ahead of us stupid people and want “better answers”, then try posting your questions over here if you haven’t already: classicaltheism.boardhost.com/index.php. This is an exciting forum with some of the more professional commenters on Feser’s blog that I intend to keep my eye on. I hope it sticks around.

Perhaps you would like to reconsider your responses? If not, then I guess I bid you adieu. I hope that people reading this forum that are interested in these issues have managed to learn something important from the discussions on this thread.

Bailto no insult is intended whatsoever. We are all at different levels on different points re matters scientific or philosophic myself included. If we are secure then saying someone is ahead of us on a particular issue doesn’t mean we are stupid or being insulted .

Because I don’t have a lot of time I am looking comments from people who are ahead of me on this point (which I have obviously well researched) or at least up to speed and not questioning me repeatedly on the basic givens. Its not about reading all of Aristotle directly, he has many commentators who ably and succinctly summarise his 101 views in this area but I can see you and T&M are not there yet.
If you wanted to do the research yourselves and come up to speed instead of questioning the basics I assume then I am happy to re-engage.

If this still insults you then I am sorry but I don’t know what more to say, it may be an age thing.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

" I wasn’t aware that he thought they had souls however. I recently finished reading the Summa Contra Gentiles and Aquinas speaks of God and angels moving the heavens, but not of those bodies having souls. .

Book3, Chapter XXIII.
Here’s Rickaby’s Commentary:
The corpus coeleste, ‘the heavenly body’ par excellence with him, is the tenth and outermost crystalline sphere,which by its diurnal motion from east to west controls the motion of all inferior material things, and is called the primum mobile. St Thomas argues that this outermost sphere itself is moved by some intelligence, either by a soul animating it, or by an angel, or immediately by God.

Aquinas least likes Aristotles solution ( a celestial soul) but as there is no easy way to judge the real truth he accepts it as possible though he prefers an angel or God.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

That’s kinda insulting. I know what I am talking about when it comes to Thomas Aquinas and physics. Perhaps are you running from discussion?

T&M, you didn’t know that Aristotle held the celestial spheres have souls,
you didn’t recognise Newton’s 1st and 2nd laws of motion
and you still don’t know what rectilinear (no, not rectangular) motion is .

So, no, on this particular topic I do find it difficult to believe you know what you are talking about yet. That doesn’t mean you aren’t smart.

I am not “running away”, I simply didn’t raise the thread thinking I would have to start from scratch on this topic. Life is short, my apologies for not having the time to assist you in these things any further.

 

[balto]

Bailto no insult is intended whatsoever. We are all at different levels on different points re matters scientific or philosophic myself included. If we are secure then saying someone is ahead of us on a particular issue doesn’t mean we are stupid or being insulted .

Because I don’t have a lot of time I am looking comments from people who are ahead of me on this point (which I have obviously well researched) or at least up to speed and not questioning me repeatedly on the basic givens. Its not about reading all of Aristotle directly, he has many commentators who ably and succinctly summarise his 101 views in this area but I can see you and T&M are not there yet.
If you wanted to do the research yourselves and come up to speed instead of questioning the basics I assume then I am happy to re-engage.

If this still insults you then I am sorry but I don’t know what more to say, it may be an age thing.

Unfortunately this was more-or-less the response I was expecting. As usual, you ask a question, people attempt to answer it, you respond to nothing they actually write, and now you’re going to continue with thinly veiled insults. You’ve received numerous good answers already from several posters, you’ve even received good reading material on this and other threads so you can get up to speed on Aristotelian metaphysics, you’ve been given other avenues to pursue your questions. Unless and until you become serious about understanding these issues you are not going to get anywhere, and I am afraid I cannot give you that seriousness if you don’t have it already. Perhaps someone else will want to play this endless game of bait-and-switch with you, because I am out.