tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post3780759447049182188..comments2024-03-28T21:43:44.433-07:00Comments on Edward Feser: Plotinus on divine simplicity, Part IEdward Feserhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13643921537838616224noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-81978298517636678342019-04-20T20:12:05.302-07:002019-04-20T20:12:05.302-07:00Can I ask what the justification is for (2)? I hav...Can I ask what the justification is for (2)? I have been very stuck on this. I can understand why someone might believe that whatever is composed requires some external cause, but what is the problem with this: <br /><br />X is a necessary being, which is composed of parts A, B, and C, and these parts are necessarily instantiated in reality, and so are there relations - necessarily instantiated in reality. Since X and its parts and their relations are all necessary (necessary is to mean, they CANNOT fail to exist) <br /><br />Some people might start talking about 'derived necessity'; such that, while X may necessarily exist, its existence is derived from something external to it. I take issue with this response. For one, if it is the PARTS which give X its necessity (and its being as a matter of fact, since it is claimed that parts are ontologically prior to the whole, such that the parts CAUSE the whole to be, if I am not mistaken), then this seems almost tautological; for the parts just are IDENTICAL to the whole itself, X just is the parts A, B, and C arranged thus wise, and this is a necessary constitution. So, from what would these parts themselves derive their necessity? Are these parts ultimately simple? <br /><br />Perhaps see this as well: https://maverickphilosopher.typepad.com/maverick_philosopher/2019/01/contingency-and-composition.html <br /><br />I feel as though I have misunderstood the entire argument, so some clarification would be nice. generaltheisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17421074599946814302noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-79587111492725325892019-03-10T13:42:24.756-07:002019-03-10T13:42:24.756-07:00Forgive me - I may be missing something. It seems ...Forgive me - I may be missing something. It seems that the entire argument rests on proposition No. 1, but I do not see No. 1 as being a self-evident truth. I suppose I can imagine that any explanation for reality would be better articulated or understood if there were an identifiable "first principle of all", but I am not certain that it is necessary. And even if it were necessary, I don't see how we could verify that it existed. Even if it were a "logical necessity" that does not - it seems to me - mean that it is an "ontological necessity". As a first principle, it is an intriguing one, but it seems to me that it there would have to be some further argument to establish that. But I could be wrong . . .peteywest@yahoo.comhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16625832279944964090noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-33501568330272202482015-10-15T05:02:52.707-07:002015-10-15T05:02:52.707-07:00Good job Edward! I like the way you first broke it...Good job Edward! I like the way you first broke it down into 6 parts and then continued to explain each item in turn. The mark of a true educator. Simplicity and repetitive expansion seem to go hand and hand. Have you written anything on how the Ideal-Numbers have come into existence? In particular I should like to 'see' artistic interpretations of this process. Regards, JY Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-5429456247150454852012-01-07T21:43:38.390-08:002012-01-07T21:43:38.390-08:00Dear Mr. Feser, in my feeble attempt to understand...Dear Mr. Feser, in my feeble attempt to understand God as best I can, I started to vaguely understand that the arguments given for God seem to support monotheism specifically. However, I reached this understanding through intuition, so when I try to flesh out my reasoning it doesn't work. Would you mind spelling out the reason that divine simplicity and first cause arguments require a monotheism?Samihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03649613938638506260noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-89180646450782487972010-10-18T13:19:21.807-07:002010-10-18T13:19:21.807-07:00Fantastic post sir. I shall be following this blo...Fantastic post sir. I shall be following this blog intently.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-50392376495707517782010-01-18T19:52:17.658-08:002010-01-18T19:52:17.658-08:00Thanks, Ed. I think I see now.
I guess this works...Thanks, Ed. I think I see now.<br /><br />I guess this works into the denials of the principle of sufficient reason among atheists/materialists. Though that leads to an interesting question about science.Crudehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04178390947423928444noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-26814824450854747592010-01-18T19:20:38.514-08:002010-01-18T19:20:38.514-08:00No, I mention the "Theory of everything"...No, I mention the "Theory of everything" merely as an example indicating that materialists as much as theists seem committed to the notion of a first principle. If Plotinus' argument works, though, it shows that such a first principle cannot be material, because material things are in various ways composite.Edward Feserhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13643921537838616224noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-42628809546306783222010-01-18T02:11:12.458-08:002010-01-18T02:11:12.458-08:00Ed, very interesting post - and I too am looking f...Ed, very interesting post - and I too am looking forward to reading more about Plotinus, so thank you very much for blogging all this. As Warren said, not too much is ever written about this one or neoplatonism.<br /><br />That said, I'm curious of one thing: Is what Plotinus is trying to prove here (this "first principle") compatible with materialism? You mention the "theory of everything", for example. Or does this show that if there really was a "theory of everything" that was true in the appropriate sense of the word, that "materialism" would therefore be false?Crudehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04178390947423928444noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-39678485099298883522010-01-15T17:51:45.607-08:002010-01-15T17:51:45.607-08:00Very nice to have the commentary on Plotinus - pro...Very nice to have the commentary on Plotinus - probably the first Western philosopher (after Plato) that I took a serious interest in, but also one about whom much too little of substance is written these days.Warrenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13623170987747998335noreply@blogger.com