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

  • Thread starter Thread starter Blue_Horizon
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
thinkandmull said:
I’ve read that Plato said that the smallest particles of fire are tetrahedrons, and even the medieval idea of a quintessence means that there are 5 elements that create the limitless variety in our universe. Modern science has around 50 elements, and has even created new elements. So I don’t think Descartes was alone in his statements on this. Descartes could interpreted, in most of what he said, in line with scholasticism. If a modern physicist explained to Descartes how colors work in modern theory, I can see him saying “yes, they are modes!”. Many books like to make the demarcation between “good philosophy” and “modern philosophy” with Descartes, but he was a Catholic, and I remember a footnote in Dietrich von Hildebrand’s book The Devastated Vineyard that said there is nothing orthodox in Descartes. Anyway, I’d be interested in reading the three different perspectives of Descartes on this question. I’ve only read what he said in his Replies.

“The accidents of the bread that remain without matter do not actually go ‘beyond’ the surface. Surface is one of the accidents that follows quantity, for example, the surface of a body or the bread.”

I don’t see how the first sentence there can be reconciled with the next one. If you don’t believe the accidents after consecration have any extension, then you are in agreement with Descartes
Click to expand...
The philosophy of Descartes is not scholasticism and there are many fundamental disagreements between the two. Descartes deliberately broke from the past and wanted to invent a whole new philosophy that would replace scholastic philosophy even in theological studies. We cannot interpret the philosophy of Descartes in line with scholasticism because of many fundamental disagreements, for instance to name just one, Descartes did away with substantial forms which for the scholastics is a fundamental substantial principle of material substances. It doesn’t matter that Descartes was a catholic, he may have been even a good catholic and held all what the Church teaches. In my opinion, Descartes was no Aquinas and not even close to the genius of Thomas Aquinas; the two are not in the same league, Aquinas was a much deeper and thorough thinker. Mathematically, Descartes was pretty brillant I suppose as he is called the founder of analytic geometry.

Color for Descartes is a subjective phenomenon. I’m not sure modern science understands color as a subjective phenomenon that exists only in our minds. The modern theory of color is that it is an electromagnetic wave of some sort that exists outside our minds.
 
Richca said:
What we see after the consecration of the bread and wine are the accidents of the bread and wine. Matter is a part of the substance of the bread and wine as well as the substantial forms of the bread and wine. And transubstantiation is a change of substance so the matter of the bread and wine is changed into the matter of Christ’s body and blood. This is how you explain it to a non-catholic whether they think the matter of the bread and wine remains or not after consecration. A person would need some understanding of Thomistic philosophy in order to understand what a change of substance involves in material substances. The eucharist is also a miracle so it is not like any kind of change of substance we observe in the natural order of things.
Click to expand...
“Matter is a part of the substance of the bread and wine as well as the substantial forms of the bread and wine.” But matter means that which is perceived by the senses as extended
 
Richca said:
thinkandmull;13243587:
That Jesus is whole and entire in each particle of the bread and wine is not just “an often stated idea” but the doctrine of the Church (CCC#1377 and the Council of Trent). Jesus is whole and entire in the smallest particle that we can call bread or wine. Jesus would not be whole and entire in each of the parts of the smallest particle of bread and wine for the parts of bread and wine are not bread and wine but parts of it. Jesus is present as long as the appearances or accidents of bread and wine remain.
Click to expand...
I said its “often stated” because people seldom bring it to its logical conclusion. You need to take the smallest piece of the accident of “bread”, and imagine that as the host that the priest (a miniature one) consecrates. Jesus is not in each part of this host, because only as a whole is it bread. So the reality of Jesus arm is one part of it, His head another part of this piece of bread, ect. Although we would have to say He is not stretched, or out of shape, because space can really be relative, as science as shown.
Click to expand...
 
Richca said:
The philosophy of Descartes is not scholasticism and there are many fundamental disagreements between the two. Descartes deliberately broke from the past and wanted to invent a whole new philosophy that would replace scholastic philosophy even in theological studies. We cannot interpret the philosophy of Descartes in line with scholasticism because of many fundamental disagreements, for instance to name just one, Descartes did away with substantial forms which for the scholastics is a fundamental substantial principle of material substances. It doesn’t matter that Descartes was a catholic, he may have been even a good catholic and held all what the Church teaches. In my opinion, Descartes was no Aquinas and not even close to the genius of Thomas Aquinas; the two are not in the same league, Aquinas was a much deeper and thorough thinker. Mathematically, Descartes was pretty brillant I suppose as he is called the founder of analytic geometry.

Color for Descartes is a subjective phenomenon. I’m not sure modern science understands color as a subjective phenomenon that exists only in our minds. The modern theory of color is that it is an electromagnetic wave of some sort that exists outside our minds.
Click to expand...
The electromagnetic wave is seen as color by us subjectively; who knows what it is in itself.

Descartes worked hard to have a new school of thought. A lot of the disagreements between the schools of thought in Catholic thought is just jousting and argument over words. The actual disagreements are not as great as many think. You put scholasticism in one group, when in reality there are many types of scholasticism, even though they agree on most of the basics. Descartes had three arguments for the existence of God, two of which are consistent with Aquinas, and even the third could be when see in light of the other two.
 
Did you read about three different explanation of Descartes on transubstantiation in Frederick Copleston’s books??
 
thinkandmull said:
“Matter is a part of the substance of the bread and wine as well as the substantial forms of the bread and wine.” But matter means that which is perceived by the senses as extended
Click to expand...
Extension is an accident of material substance; Aristotle lists quantity as the first accident of material substance. Quantity or extension is not substance. The dimensive quantity of the bread and wine remain after the consecration which is apparent to our senses so the dimensive quantity of the bread and wine is not the substance of the bread and wine.
 
thinkandmull said:
Richca;13250381:
I said its “often stated” because people seldom bring it to its logical conclusion. You need to take the smallest piece of the accident of “bread”, and imagine that as the host that the priest (a miniature one) consecrates. Jesus is not in each part of this host, because only as a whole is it bread. So the reality of Jesus arm is one part of it, His head another part of this piece of bread, ect. Although we would have to say He is not stretched, or out of shape, because space can really be relative, as science as shown.
Click to expand...
Jesus’ body in the eucharist does not occupy space as if he is in a place because the whole substance of the body of Christ is in the eucharist without it being extended and thus the body of Christ in the eucharist is outside the order of dimensions which dimensions belong to a body that is affected by quantity or dimensions.

Accordingly, in the smallest piece of bread that we can call bread, Jesus’ arm is not in one part of it and his head in another part of it, etc., for this would mean that the body of Christ is under that smallest piece of bread according to dimensive quantity, but the whole body of Christ is under the bread not as if it is extended but according to substance unaffected by dimensive quantity. So, the whole substance of the body of Christ is under the smallest piece of bread that we can call bread but not that one part of his body is under one part of that smallest piece and another part of his body is under another part of that smallest piece, for Christ’s whole body is under that smallest piece and it is there outside the order of dimensions.
Click to expand...
 
thinkandmull said:
The electromagnetic wave is seen as color by us subjectively; who knows what it is in itself.

I do not believe color is strictly a subjective phenomenon. Color is in things and I hold with the scholastics that it is an accident of substance. Looking out at my window right now, I see lots of green bushes, trees, and grass and it is quite apparent to me that this green color is in the things I see. I think God gave us eyes to see the things he created and these things I see exist outside of my mind including the colors I see.
Descartes worked hard to have a new school of thought. A lot of the disagreements between the schools of thought in Catholic thought is just jousting and argument over words. The actual disagreements are not as great as many think.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Richca said:
thinkandmull;13252324:
Jesus’ body in the eucharist does not occupy space as if he is in a place because the whole substance of the body of Christ is in the eucharist without it being extended and thus the body of Christ in the eucharist is outside the order of dimensions which dimensions belong to a body that is affected by quantity or dimensions.

Accordingly, in the smallest piece of bread that we can call bread, Jesus’ arm is not in one part of it and his head in another part of it, etc., for this would mean that the body of Christ is under that smallest piece of bread according to dimensive quantity, but the whole body of Christ is under the bread not as if it is extended but according to substance unaffected by dimensive quantity. So, the whole substance of the body of Christ is under the smallest piece of bread that we can call bread but not that one part of his body is under one part of that smallest piece and another part of his body is under another part of that smallest piece, for Christ’s whole body is under that smallest piece and it is there outside the order of dimensions.
Click to expand...
Since Jesus’s body has a spatial dimension, we would have to ask where the arms and legs, for example, were. The only conclusion, it appears, is that although He is in Heaven, the smallest particle of bread is in Heaven too, and to touch on part of this tiny particle would be to touch His arm (if the accident was not “in the way”, and another part His back, ect. Most people don’t get down to this level of analysis, but it occurred to me when having a discussion on a previous thread, and I don’t see how this mystery makes sense any other way. Stuff I read on the relativity of space helped a lot
Click to expand...
 
Richca said:
I do not believe color is strictly a subjective phenomenon. Color is in things and I hold with the scholastics that it is an accident of substance. Looking out at my window right now, I see lots of green bushes, trees, and grass and it is quite apparent to me that this green color is in the things I see. I think God gave us eyes to see the things he created and these things I see exist outside of my mind including the colors I see.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Take the idea of an animal soul for example. Neither Aquinas nor Descartes believed they have spiritual simple souls. Aquinas wanted to call them animal or material souls, Descartes said they had no souls. As long as they both help animals with respect and wonder and knew they have sensational consciousness, this is really just a disagreement in words, even if they vehemently argued against each other.

The famous Etienne Gilson said of the scholastic school of Suarez was “the antithesis of Thomism” and “has being, as an abstraction derived from existence, for its object… The Suarezians are wary of this esse, which they find difficult to define accurately. Its is as essences, and only as essences, that created beings can become subjects of scientific study as we understand it… What a strange science: the study of created things such that they would be even if they did not exist!” (Introduction a la philosophei chretienne, 94-95, 191)

This also could be a mere misunderstanding between followers of Aquinas. An ecumenical spirit can break through the semantical disagreements and see how different thinkers could be understood together
 
I think Descartes position on matter being extension has been made into a caricature by some Catholics (like Fesser). Most people when they speak of “matter” are not referring to something only the mind knows, but the extension which their eyes and skin sense. Descartes took this common sense, this scientific position, and ignored Aquinas’s “hylemorphism”. Descartes probably could have benefited from reading Aquinas on this while he listened to Haydn’s *Creation *, but alas he was for more interested in speaking to the scientific community.

As for methodical doubt, there is a Polish proverb, “To reach certainty, one must begin with doubt”
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top