Wednesday, July 19, 2023

What is classical theism?

Recently, I was interviewed by John DeRosa for the Classical Theism Podcast.  The focus of our discussion is my essay “What is Classical Theism?,” which appears in the anthology Classical Theism: New Essays on the Metaphysics of God, edited by Jonathan Fuqua and Robert C. Koons.  We also address some other matters, such as the book on the soul that I’m currently working on.  You can listen to the interview here.

Posted by at

88 comments:

  1. AnonymousJuly 19, 2023 at 11:02 AM

    Dr. Feser,
    How is your book on the soul coming along?

    ReplyDelete
  2. DanielJuly 19, 2023 at 11:09 AM

    The book on the soul is very exciting to hear about! If you need editors or proof readers, let me know! :)

    I think proofs for the immateriality and immortality of the human soul are as important as proofs for the existence of God.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. AnonymousJuly 20, 2023 at 1:53 PM

      WCB

      What matters is hard evidence. One can easily toss out a few unevidenced propostions and then "prove" anything, depending on one's choice of unevidenced claims. Then it is no more useful than speculating on the nature and powers of fairy dust.

      Having searched official Catholic catechisms on the soul, there is surprisingly little and what there is a rather vague. The Bible mentions almost nothing about souls. And nothing even vaguely approaching hard evidence.

      WCB

      Delete
    2. UncommonDescentJuly 21, 2023 at 12:20 AM

      Show me "hard evidence" that life can come from non-life, without employing circular logic, massive hand-waving or appeals to the "unseen powers of Mommy Nature."

      And I swear I'll convert to your religion.

      Delete
    3. DanielJuly 21, 2023 at 6:16 AM

      Have you read any of Ed's stuff on the Soul in Philosophy of Mind, Aquinas, Five Proofs for the Existence of God (the third way), or articles on ths blog? He provides very many arguments about the soul, which, taken together, constitutes some very good evidence for its reality in my opinion.

      If we are going to have a discussion about the soul, it is probably best that we start with a definition. Aquinas understood from Aristotle that the soul is the form of the body and that the soul is the principle of life - that which differentiates living versus non living things.

      Lets start with form. All material things have a form. But whatever form a living thing has while it is alive, disappears when that thing dies. The Aristotelian can say that death has occurred because substantial change has occurred. The form of tomato plant or hamster or rational animal has been lost and its constitutive elements are now no longer unified under the principle of life that once united them under the banner of one substantial form. Aristotle saw vegetative, sensory/animal, and rational souls/forms.

      Inanimate substances, such as elements on the periodic table can also lose their substantial form as well, say, for example, during electrolysis, when water is split into hydrogen and oxygen through the application of electrical energy. It loses the substantial form of water, and all of its intrinsic properties, and takes on new substantial forms in hydrogen and oxygen. We don't call that process life or death in an immaterial thing though, because an inanimate substance has no living principle – no soul.

      Delete
    4. StardustyPsycheJuly 22, 2023 at 4:11 PM

      Descent,
      "Show me "hard evidence" that life can come from non-life,"
      You are apparently unaware of self replicating molecules. A quick search will provide many links for you to become familiar with the subject.

      Delete
    5. UncommonDescentJuly 23, 2023 at 3:01 AM

      @StardustyPsyche:

      You are apparently unaware of self replicating molecules.

      By "self-replicating" you mean:

      a) that there's real unity in Nature?
      b) or that we project "unity" upon a bunch of totally un-related atoms?

      It doesn't matter which horn of the dilemma you'll choose. Being a materialist, you're going to lose either way.

      Delete
    6. UncommonDescentJuly 24, 2023 at 11:38 AM

      Stardusty, I'm waiting...

      Delete
    7. StardustyPsycheJuly 24, 2023 at 9:20 PM

      Descent,
      "Stardusty, I'm waiting..."
      Were you once a petulant teenager?

      Somehow I am not feeling guilty about failing to spend the morning appeasing your impatience.

      I realize you are in desperate need of and longing for my educational wisdom but you are going to have to learn to take whatever bits you are lucky enough to receive from this busy sage.

      "a) that there's real unity in Nature?"
      Molecular bonding is an actual state of affairs in the cosmos.

      "b) or that we project "unity" upon a bunch of totally un-related atoms?"
      The quarks and electrons have no knowledge of or concern for anything else in the cosmos, they just progress as they do.

      "Meaning" is a description of a relationship. Say, the relationship between the constituents of a water molecule. Those relationships are not static or precisely the same from molecule to molecule, but they do stay within ranges of distances and angles.

      In more complex molecules that description holds but merely has more constituents and more variables.

      Water molecules do not replicate themselves, meaning, a set of parts within the range of relationships we call a water molecule does not have a physical mechanism by which chaotic bits of matter bouncing into the water molecule are catalyzed to form other arrangements of material we would call water molecules. There just are not any mechanisms for that process to occur.

      However, that is not the case for all molecules. In some cases a particular arrangement of material will attract and catalyze reactions in just the ways that lead to the assemblage of another such molecule. We call this process self replication.

      One can debate the definition of life, but in general self replication is a key process for life as we know it here on Earth.

      Vitalism is just old superstition. Life is chemistry, chemistry is particles in motion, particles in motion is physics.

      There are no self defeating contradictions to materialism. You certainly have not pointed out any, nor have you offered any alternative explanation.

      All you have to offer is strawman quips that get a chuckle from the credulous, and alternatively you offer incoherent assertions that explain nothing.


      Delete
    8. UncommonDescentJuly 25, 2023 at 3:39 AM

      @StardustyPsyche:

      Molecular bonding is an actual state of affairs in the cosmos.

      Oh, "actual". I love it! And what "actualizes" those states, Stardusty? Oh, wait... I know it... it has to be... "The Laws of Physics"*, of course.

      Now do tell me how "The Laws of Physics", which are abstract constructs of the human mind, can do anything at all, much less hold an entire Universe in existence. Unless of course you are suggesting that "The Laws of Physics" are themselves physical, which would be, you know... weird.

      *So in the end, you are pagan polytheists, because you don't have one only "God", you have several "gods"/"laws". Greek copy-catting much?

      The quarks and electrons have no knowledge of or concern for anything else in the cosmos, they just progress as they do.

      Well, that's exactly what Aquinas said 700+ years ago. That's why he developed his Fifth Way. Matter "knows" nothing --> which leads us to another naturalist "miracle", because our brains know things, although they are composed by those same quarks and electrons that can not "know" anything at all, not even in principle.

      So quarks and electrons are both "unknowing" and "knowing". Yikes.

      Delete
    9. UncommonDescentJuly 25, 2023 at 3:43 AM

      @Stardusty Psyche:

      Those relationships are not static or precisely the same from molecule to molecule, but they do stay within ranges of distances and angles.

      Those "ranges of distances and angles" = "form".
      Those "non-static relationships" = materia quantitate signata.

      In more complex molecules that description holds but merely has more constituents and more variables.

      Yes, there are varieties of forms (more and less perfect, or more and less "complex" as you say). There are different essences in the Universe. You finally got it right, Stardusty.

      Water molecules do not replicate themselves

      Well, Mr. Oderberg agrees. There's no immanent causation in inorganic compounds. Reproduction is a characteristic of living organisms which are in a totally different class from inorganic ones.

      The important part is that the difference is real, and by real I mean extra-mental. It's not something that we project into Nature, it's there.

      One can debate the definition of life

      Yes, but there's ONE correct definition (the truth) and multiple wrong ones.

      Life is chemistry, chemistry is particles in motion, particles in motion is physics.

      That falls under the category "wrong ones".

      Vitalism is just old superstition.

      Hylemorphism is not vitalism.

      Delete
    10. UncommonDescentJuly 25, 2023 at 3:51 AM

      @StardustyPsyche:

      There are no self defeating contradictions to materialism.

      Yes, there are. "The Laws of Physics" can not have causal powers, because they are NOT physical, and materialism only allows for efficient causation. So your ridiculous, pagan substitute for "God" is just a massive waste of time.

      All you have to offer is strawman quips that get a chuckle from the credulous

      Argument by assertion, in which you indulge yourself all the time, being the obnoxious priest of materialism that you are.

      and alternatively you offer incoherent assertions that explain nothing.

      Which ones? Your laughable "complexity" is just you trying to smuggle A-T's "form" into the picture, but "naturalizing" it. Because you materialists are lame thinkers, you have to borrow from others and destroy their intellectual legacy.

      Look at this piece of weird non-sense:

      In some cases a particular arrangement of material will attract and catalyze reactions in just the ways that lead to the assemblage of another such molecule.

      We all know there are different types of arrangements. What your limping side can not explain is HOW the "The Laws of Physics" can accomplish such a feat. It's just a "brute fact", which explains nothing and is typical of uneducated, anti-intellectual materialists.

      Delete
    11. StardustyPsycheJuly 25, 2023 at 7:15 PM

      Descent,
      "So quarks and electrons are both "unknowing" and "knowing". Yikes."
      Fallacy of composition, again.

      Delete
    12. UncommonDescentJuly 25, 2023 at 11:12 PM

      @StardustyPsyche:

      Fallacy of composition, again.

      Trying to smuggle A-T's "form", again.

      How do "The Laws of Physics" interact with matter so they can create a brain?

      Are "The Laws of Physics" some sort of ethereal ectoplasm inhabiting the Cosmos?

      Are "The Laws of Physics" fairy dust, magical "goo-goo"?

      You are doing a very poor job defending your "gods", Stardusty. Give me something of substance, please, so I don't get bored while tearing down your facile non-sense.

      Delete
    13. UncommonDescentJuly 26, 2023 at 12:50 AM

      @StardustyPsyche:

      So let's make a brief recap of your position:

      - "matter" can acquire "different compositions"
      - each of these "compositions" can exhibit a different set of properties (there's "free quarks and electrons" which can't know anything and there's "quarks and electrons arranged brain-like, who can get to know things")

      The "building blocks" are the same, what changes is the "structure in space".

      - and "matter" is an objective feature, it exists in extra-mental reality independently of how we think about it

      Am I correct?

      Delete
    14. UncommonDescentJuly 26, 2023 at 7:41 AM

      @StardustyPsyche:

      I'm more than willing to take "whatever bits" from you who are such a "busy sage".

      Stardusty, when I get a viral infection and the virus 's DNA gets inserted in my genoma, do I become a half human-half virus entity, like Spider-man who becomes half man-half spider after being bitten? Or do I keep being 100% human?

      Delete
    15. StardustyPsycheJuly 28, 2023 at 8:42 AM

      Descent,
      "when I get a viral infection and the virus 's DNA gets inserted in my genoma, do I become a half human-half virus entity,"
      A single virus, or even some number of them, does not make you half virus, the math is way off from half.

      If a horse and donkey mate and have offspring the result is in some sense, yes, half horse and half donkey, a mule.

      Eukaryotes may have developed from prokaryotes with endosymbiosis, absorbed prokaryotes and rather than digesting them, incorporated them.

      So, yes, there are mechanisms for hybridization in general but none for human beings I am aware of.

      Note the absence of a soul or immaterial in all this. Just chemistry, which is material progressing as it does.

      If you understood science you would understand that our written "laws" of physics are just descriptions of how material progresses.

      Your strawman of reification of descriptions as though somebody somehow thinks that the descriptions themselves have causal powers only indicates your lack of scientific understanding.

      Delete
    16. UncommonDescentJuly 29, 2023 at 4:24 AM

      @StardustyPsyche:

      A single virus, or even some number of them, does not make you half virus, the math is way off from half.

      But a single mutation can convert me in the member of another species. So, by materialist standards of "reasoning", a single virus' genome insertion could perfectly make me a member of a new species: "UncommonDescent, the half-human, half-virus superhero." What matters is not the number of bases, but the phenotypical weight of the mutation/inserted DNA. "Half" as in phenotypically expressed, not as in "total DNA weight". As in how it affects the essence of Uncommon Descent.

      Also, there's not an equation of "being human". Being human is not explained by a mathematical formula. Or, if it were, no one has discovered it yet.

      If a horse and donkey mate and have offspring the result is in some sense, yes, half horse and half donkey, a mule.

      If a horse and a donkey mate and have offspring, the result, according to Mayr, is that mules are members of "no species" at all, since mules are sterile and Mayr's definition says that a species has to be "prospectively* capable of interbreeding with other members of the same species ". Abdicating from form has consequences. The "problem of species" is just one of them.

      *Or potentially, in Aristotelian terms. You naturalists are obsessed with Ari. Because he was great, of course.

      Eukaryotes may have developed from prokaryotes with endosymbiosis, absorbed prokaryotes and rather than digesting them, incorporated them.

      Or they may have been created by an alien with a lab coat. There's no empirical proof of how eukaryotes came to be. We have no access to what happened billions of years ago. There's no fossil registry of endosymbiosis. But we have speculation.

      And what's funny is how, again, you apply the Scholastic PPC (Principle of Proportionate Causality) to this possible scenario. For a nucleus can not have appeared from anucleated cells, so you have to take two cells with their actual membranes and combine them, because what is in the effect has to be in the cause. (Membrane and membrane).

      Delete
    17. UncommonDescentJuly 29, 2023 at 4:47 AM

      @StardustyPsyche:

      Note the absence of a soul or immaterial in all this.

      Natural science is not concerned with souls, because as it has been explained to you, tiny brain, is that metaphysics and natural science are different domains of enquiry. That mathematics does not speak of evolution does not "prove" that evolution does not exist. That biology does not speak of metaphysical principles does not mean that they do not exist. Apples and oranges.

      If you understood science you would understand that our written "laws" of physics are just descriptions of how material progresses.

      Well, of how it "apparently" progresses, as you have said in another of your inane posts. If they are "apparent", then they are not real laws, and we can not make universal inferences with them (well, we can, but they would be erroneous). If only you understood logic, the one you say you "love" and destroy with your continuous non-sense.

      Your strawman of reification of descriptions as though somebody somehow thinks that the descriptions themselves have causal powers only indicates your lack of scientific understanding.

      They are "apparent descriptions" according to you, dunce. An "apparent description" is not a "real description". And you have to explain why matter "apparently develops in the way it does" and not in other ways.

      Who set those laws/ behavior? It could not have been "matter itself". So, who or what did it? Ah, wait, it had to be the silly "multiverse" that exists inside the naturalist's childish and overactive imagination. Another poor substitute for "God". "Multi-god" this time. So un-original.

      Delete
    18. StardustyPsycheJuly 29, 2023 at 6:55 PM

      Descent,
      "you, dunce."
      I already told you I am not a devotee of John Dunes Scotus, so your attribution is false.

      All causation is fundamentally circular, mutual, and multilateral. This is expressed most clearly in the familiar force equations for gravity and electrostatic repulsion or attraction.

      Causation is due to mutual forces. The equations merely describe ways in which such forces progress.

      Forces are always mutual. There is no such thing as a one-way push or pull.

      Newton showed this in his Principia, where he gave the example of a horse pulling a stone with a rope. It might seem that the the cause of the stone's motion is the horse. What Newton pointed out is that the stone changes the horse just as much as the horse changes the stone.

      For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.

      Here Dr. Feser asks us to:
      "Consider the causal sequence: x → y → z."
      edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2015/06/cross-on-scotus-on-causal-series.html

      In so doing Dr. Feser demonstrates a core error of Aristotle, Aquinas, and Scotus (of whom I am not a devotee, please refrain from associating me with him in the future).

      Causation never proceeds with A pushing B, and B pushing C. Rather, it is always the case that A and B push each other (or pull), and B and C push each other (or pull).

      Here Scotus argues against a circle of causes using the erroneous notion of one-way causation. He argues that in a circle of causes A moves B, B moves C, and C moves A, but this is impossible, he says, because that would make C both posterior and prior to A, and thus A would be prior to itself.
      www.ewtn.com/catholicism/library/treatise-on-god-as-first-principle-10044

      For Scotus it would be as if you reached around and pushed yourself on your back, which clearly will not move you off your spot.

      The error of Aristotle, Aquinas, Scotus, and Feser is failing to read and understand Newton, as well as a multitude of other descriptions of causation, causal forces, and how material acts upon other material.

      A, B, and C all push each other multilaterally.
      The whole circle of causation expands mutually.

      That is how real causation works.

      Causation is always mutual at base.
      There is no call for an unmoved mover, because at base all movers move each other and are themselves moved in a mutual causal process.

      The field equations that describe these forces are just descriptions of how real causality progresses.

      To learn about causality I suggest Newton, Russell, and your university physics book.
      www.mtsu.edu/faculty/wding/The_Mathematical_Principles_of_Natural_Philosophy_1846.pdf
      www.hist-analytic.com/Russellcause.pdf

      Delete
    19. UncommonDescentJuly 30, 2023 at 2:02 AM

      @StardustyPsyche:

      I already told you I am not a devotee of John Dunes Scotus, so your attribution is false.

      Agere sequitur esse.

      Forces are always mutual.

      Which implies an eternal Universe, something that is not supported by science (don't know if you've heard about the "Big Bang"). If you don't like science, just say it.

      Newton showed this in his Principia, where he gave the example of a horse pulling a stone with a rope.

      Newton proposed idealizations of how material bodies behave theoretically, but those idealizations do not obtain in real life, due to the amount of interfering factors. So, according to your side, Newton's laws are not real, because they are never observed and what is not observed is not "true". Your constant appeals to Newton don't move me.

      Newton also backed up the act/potency division: “every body continues in its state of rest or of uniform motion in a straight line, unless it is compelled to change that state by forces impressed upon it.”

      Which indicates that moving bodies are potentially changeable, or else no body could ever be stopped, which is contrary to what happens in real life (bodies are routinely stopped). Again, the actualization of potentials.

      That is how real causation works.

      "Apparently" according to you. "Apparent laws" are not laws. And since your love to quote Newton so much, he also said that the The Laws of Nature were "God's decrees".

      Delete
    20. StardustyPsycheJuly 30, 2023 at 3:30 PM

      Descent,
      "(Forces are always mutual.)
      "Which implies an eternal Universe,"
      No, if somehow creation ex nihilo were the case the material created would interact with mutual forces. Your claim is a non-sequitur.

      Further, irrespective of your nonsensical implications, the fact remains that forces are always mutual, thus causation is always mutual, never one-way.

      Mutual causation negates the call for a first mover, thus makes the Aristotelian first mover unnecessary.

      "something that is not supported by science"
      There is no science to support creation ex nihilo at the big bang. Nobody knows what caused the big bang. Ideas such as the multiverse or the oscillating universe are just mathematical speculations at this point.

      It is at least logically possible that mathematical speculations about the cause of the big bang might lead to calculated observable effects in our observable universe, in which case we might call such a prediction a scientific hypothesis. If appropriate observations falsify the hypothesis then back to the drawing board. If observations confirm the hypothesis then that might lead to an accepted scientific theory.

      That is a lot of maybes. Right now nobody knows what caused the big bang and there certainly is no science to suggest the big bang just popped out of absolutely nothing at all ex nihilo.

      All causation is mutual at base, irrespective of notions about the big bang.

      "Newton proposed idealizations of how material bodies behave theoretically, but those idealizations do not obtain in real life,"
      Of course they do, but not as isolated idealizations, rather, combined idealizations.

      "(bodies are routinely stopped)."
      You obviously know next to nothing about physics, and therefore causation.

      Bodies are never stopped.

      Irrespective, all causation is mutual at base.

      Talk about the big bang, stopping bodies, and all the rest are just your red herrings.

      There is no such thing as on-way causation at base, thus there is no call for a first mover.

      Aristotle was wrong, as was Aquinas, Scotus, Feser, and you. The First Way is nonsense.


      Delete
    21. UncommonDescentJuly 31, 2023 at 1:42 AM

      @StardustyPsyche:

      No, if somehow creation ex nihilo were the case the material created would interact with mutual forces.

      But first you need the Creation ex-nihilo (which implies God, obviously). So your theory leads to God (the only logical option). And you need some potentials to be actualized, or we're back again at a Parmenidean block (with all its consequences, for example that Evolution has already happened and it's not an ongoing process. Darwin would not be pleased).

      Mutual causation negates the call for a first mover

      For "mutal causation" to happen, both members need to be in existence at the same time, or then causation would be halted (no longer "mutual") --> implies: a) eternal Universe (again, not supported by Cosmology) b) Creation ex-nihilo / God (only logical one).


      Nobody knows what caused the big bang.

      But your side "knows" that "it wasn't God".

      It is at least logically possible that mathematical speculations about the cause of the big bang might lead to calculated observable effects in our observable universe, in which case we might call such a prediction a scientific hypothesis.

      Which means that "sensism" ("we only believe in what we can see") is wrong. We can gather information from extra-mental reality that is not just physical (mathematics are not "physical", mathematics are abstracta). We "see" with our eyes and we "see" with our intellects (power of abstraction, immaterial (on pain of absurdity, like your "we're each a multitude" non-sense).

      Delete
    22. UncommonDescentJuly 31, 2023 at 2:14 AM

      @StardustyPsyche:

      Of course they do, but not as isolated idealizations, rather, combined idealizations.

      Exactly. There's a deviation between the idealization and what happens in the real world. The reason is that idealizations are immaterial, of the mind, and the real extra-mental world is made of composites of "matter+form". Matter is not exact, because it's always changing. Ideas are exact, because they are not material.

      You obviously know next to nothing about physics, and therefore causation.

      For you to have recourse to the deliverances of science, you first need to justify that our cognitive faculties are reliable. You need to assure us that we can know truth. But your side can not, due to the fact that we are forced into representationalism/ indirect "realism". You need to prove that the several variants of the "Argument from Reason" (Plantinga, Lewis, Reppert...) do not obtain. If our intellectual faculties are not reliable, science becomes useless. So do your homework, Stardusty. First things first.

      Bodies are never stopped.

      Only reliable cognitive faculties can assert such things. Evolutionary skepticism entails that our scientific findings are just another "illusion". Again, no reliability of the human mind -> NO science. You're putting the cart before the horse. And that's not an intelligent move.

      Talk about the big bang, stopping bodies, and all the rest are just your red herrings.

      They are logical entailments of your arguments and are relevant to the discussion. We are debating worldviews, not isolated events. (Materialism vs Theism). You use Newton to back up your absurd materialism, but you fail.

      Aristotle was wrong, as was Aquinas, Scotus, Feser, and you. The First Way is nonsense.

      You have not proved any of that.

      Delete
  3. UncommonDescentJuly 19, 2023 at 12:23 PM

    That book on the soul is going to p**s silly materialists. They only have their absurd "complexity" to explain things (which explains nothing after all, because it's a ridiculous concept).

    The Saint would have had some belly laughs thanks to these ignoramuses.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. StardustyPsycheJuly 28, 2023 at 8:54 AM

      The soul explains nothing, certainly not consciousness.

      The soul is Consciousness Explained Away.

      What is the structure of the soul that gives rise to consciousness?

      How does the soul store memories? What is the structure of immaterial that stores the vast bits of sense data for our memories?

      How does the soul compare memories to incoming sense data to make decisions?

      How does immaterial connect with material to transfer immaterial decisions to material motor actions?

      What is the mechanism by which immaterial gives rise to first person experience, qualia?

      Not only does the soul explain nothing even on the speculation of its existence, the notion of speculating an invisible ghost in your skull is preposterous.

      Delete
    2. UncommonDescentJuly 28, 2023 at 1:59 PM

      @StardustyPsyche:

      The soul explains nothing, certainly not consciousness.

      Argument by assertion, again.

      The soul is Consciousness Explained Away.

      And again.

      What is the structure of the soul that gives rise to consciousness?

      The soul is a type of form. Forms don't have "structure" (if by "structure" you mean a "physical configuration"). Soul is a co-principle (along with matter) in living substances. Souls are modes of being, and those modes of being have been defined by their Creator.

      What is the "structure" of the brain that gives rise to consciousness? What's that "complexity" that you are so fond of?

      What is the structure of immaterial that stores the vast bits of sense data for our memories?

      Memories are stored in matter (that of the brain). That's why Alzheimer and injuries can alter its retrieving. The soul is a principle of unification and activity. In humans, one of those powers enables us to willingly retrieve our memories (providing that the material storage has not been damaged).

      (Cont...)

      Delete
    3. UncommonDescentJuly 28, 2023 at 2:07 PM

      (Cont...)

      And it provides the unity that your materialism can not provide, and never will be capable of providing, no matter how many appeals to "future science" you engage in. The reason is that "matter" is defined as "something that is spread over space", and that means that, per the definition given, it can never be "unified". That's why your materialism has failed, and you are going to remain forever frustrated. Matter has no "unity" in it, therefore it can not give what it doesn't have. You have defined yourselves out of existence.

      What is the mechanism by which immaterial gives rise to first person experience, qualia?

      It unifies the subject, which is a pre-requisite to experience anything at all. Even Hume knew that matter was not up to the task. I have the citation, but not at hand. I'll share it later. His "bundle theory" is a total absurdity.

      Not only does the soul explain nothing even on the speculation of its existence

      Argument by assertion, again

      the notion of speculating an invisible ghost in your skull is preposterous..

      No one is speculating any "ghost" in any skull.

      Delete
    4. UncommonDescentJuly 28, 2023 at 10:38 PM

      Hume's quote:

      All my hopes vanish, when I come to explain the principles, that unite our successive perceptions in our thought or consciousness. I can not discover any theory, which gives satisfaction in this head.

      Hume was a crank, but at least he was honest about it. His "bundle theory" tried to convert a "bundle/aggregate" into a substance. But an aggregate can not be, per definition, a substance.

      Your "personal identity is maintained by moment to moment renormalization of the self to include parts that have joined and exclude parts that have left the collection" is nothing but gobbledygook. You string words together that amount to mere gibberish.

      What maintains that moment to moment "renormalization"? What's the substrate? Your master Hume didn't have an answer, and neither have you.

      What you have is your usual, out-of-date, materialist crap.

      Delete
    5. StardustyPsycheJuly 29, 2023 at 6:28 AM

      "What maintains that moment to moment "renormalization"?"
      Brain processes. There is no single locus of you, or me, or any individual. We are each a multitude. With some 100 billion cells and 100 trillion connections a very great deal of redundancy and parallel processing is continually refreshing the set of what is internally considered as "me".

      When I gain weight, lose weight, shave, find another gray hair, or spit on the ground some physical aspect of my body changes. My brain is capable of noting these relatively small changes and continually refreshes "me", as in "the new me".

      Each change is small relative to the whole, so easy to adjust to.

      "Your "personal identity is maintained by moment to moment renormalization of the self to include parts that have joined and exclude parts that have left the collection" is nothing but gobbledygook. You string words together that amount to mere gibberish."
      Do you even know what renormalization means?

      If you do not know what a word means it can indeed sound to you like gibberish. One application has been the mathematics of renormalization in the electroweak theory for which Gerard t'Hooft won a Nobel prize.

      The term can be applied more generally. We each change through time. Yet we each feel like we are the same individual we were as a child.

      The immaterialist typically invents a speculated soul, some sort of "immaterial" something or other that somehow is where our personal identity resides and thus accounts for our perception of continuity of self throughout our lives.

      The continuity of personal identity is supposed by immaterialists to be some sort of problem for materialists to account for, but that is nonsense.

      Materialism accounts for the continuity of self very easily. Each change is small. Brain processes continually evaluate these small changes and re-define each "new me" as "me", renormalizing "me" continually to adjust for incremental changes.

      Commonly the immaterialist will object that this is somehow circular, that "me" cannot change "me" at the same time as being "me". That is easy to account for on materialism as well.

      There is no single "me". Materialists have no need to account for an actual unity of self because there is no actual unity of self. The human brain is vastly complex with a multitude of parallel and redundant processes.

      "What's the substrate?"
      The human brain, which is composed of a multitude of cells arranged in massively parallel and redundant networks over an extended volume, the interior of the skull.

      Delete
    6. UncommonDescentJuly 29, 2023 at 1:51 PM

      @StardustyPsyche:

      Brain processes. There is no single locus of you, or me, or any individual.

      And where's the empirical proof? Nowhere to be seen, of course, because if according to you, the self is "not locatable", then it's not amenable to empirical verification.

      We are each a multitude.

      More non-sense. If we are one, we are not a "multitude". The problem of universals, again

      With some 100 billion cells and 100 trillion connections a very great deal of redundancy and parallel processing is continually refreshing the set of what is internally considered as "me".

      More gobbledygook, not backed up by scientific findings. An "elusive" self = inexistent self. And you contradict yourself. You say "there's no unity of the self" and yet you say that "the brain is the self". But the brain is unitary, unless you're suggesting that we have "multitude of brains".

      Each change is small relative to the whole

      That's the definition of "accidental change". But not all changes are "small". Some people suffer severe brain injuries and loss of brain matter. And yet they keep being the same person.

      Materialists have no need to account for an actual unity of self because there is no actual unity of self.

      Even if there were "lots of selves" in our brains (which makes no sense), each one of them would be an unitary self (even if only for a brief period of time). You have to account for the unity of those "fleeting selves".

      Delete
    7. StardustyPsycheAugust 1, 2023 at 6:58 AM

      Descent,
      "But not all changes are "small". Some people suffer severe brain injuries and loss of brain matter. And yet they keep being the same person."
      That is small. Small is relative term.

      If 99.9% of you could somehow be replaced with the material from a space alien then likely you would cease to be you.

      Some people do lose the perception of identity of self by losing access to their memories. They no longer know who they were, so memory plays an important part in maintaining the sense of continuity of the self.

      Delete
    8. StardustyPsycheAugust 1, 2023 at 7:03 AM

      Descent,
      "Even if there were "lots of selves" in our brains (which makes no sense),"
      That makes no sense to a person who lacks sense.

      The reason you sometimes feel like you are having a conversation with yourself is because you are, that is, what you might think of your single self is composed of various processes interacting with each other internally.

      "You have to account for the unity of those "fleeting selves"."
      No I don't, all I have to account for is the aggregate, which is easy to do on material distributed networked brain processes.

      Delete
    9. UncommonDescentAugust 3, 2023 at 5:18 AM

      @StardustyPsyche:

      That is small. Small is relative term.

      Relative to what?

      If 99.9% of you could somehow be replaced with the material from a space alien then likely you would cease to be you.

      Likely or surely? And what is 100% "me"? If I "am" my brain, I should know up to the last detail each and every atom composing "me"*. No brain have been capable of offering such a catalogue, ever. If I don't know 100% "me", I can't, of course, know 99,9% "me".

      *So when my atoms are changed, I can know that those new atoms are part of the correct combination that constitutes "me" (and not of another combination). And that would include "me" knowing my "future" atoms in the present, which is a patent absurdity.

      Some people do lose the perception of identity of self.

      According to you, we are not "people". We are "brains". Big difference. When I look in the mirror, I should see a "body" constituted by grey matter and nerve terminations. That's not why I see. I see a "person", with a head, a face, a torso, two arms and two legs. Your "identity" theory is absurd and patently false. And I certainly don't see in the mirror "action potentials" swirling left and right.

      You materialists are kooks.

      No I don't, all I have to account for is the aggregate, which is easy to do on material distributed networked brain processes.

      You have to account for reality, which you are failing miserably at. No one sees "distributed network processes" when they look in the mirror or take a picture of themselves. That's not what people are. Does "Natural Selection" select "distributed network processes" or whole bodies? Because if "distributed network processes" is what we truly "are", that would be the unity of selection. "Distributed network processes" don't pass their genes, whole individuals through their gametes do. Your theory is ridiculous .

      Delete
    10. UncommonDescentAugust 3, 2023 at 7:38 AM

      @StardustyPsyche:

      Since you seem to not understand the concept of "identity":

      One reason why we are not identical to our brain consists simply in the fact that we do not first of all have a body that is composed only of neurons but have many additional organs that consist of other kinds of cells.

      But if our conscious self is generated by the brain, it cannot simply and self-evidently be identical to what generated it. If A is generated by B, then A and B are in any event not strictly identical. Hence, either the self is generated by the brain* or it is identical with the brain.

      -Markus Gabriel, I Am Not a Brain

      *Under physicalism, then, it has to have physical characteristics and that means that it needs to be located somewhere. Now disentangle this mess, Stardusty. Self and brain identity is stupid and obviously not true. Is the "self" some magical substance, some ectoplasmic woo-woo? Do we have fairies living inside our skulls? Leprechauns? Unicorns?

      Delete
  4. AnonymousJuly 19, 2023 at 1:43 PM

    Thank you Dr. Feser. In my conversation with nonbelievers I have found that, when it comes to arguments for the existence of God the arguments put forward by Einstein (a deist), Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo, Newton, Pascal, Descartes, Boyle and other chtistian scientists are more likely to be heard with atention than the arguments of philosephers. At least initially. It is like they are the best preamble to the preambles of the faith.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. UncommonDescentJuly 20, 2023 at 1:13 AM

      "Non-believers" are believers in the powers of matter/ Mother Nature. The figure of the scientist is akin to the figure of the shaman in indigenous tribes. They treat scientists as special people, because "scientists" are powerful mediums, who can unlock the "secrets" of matter/ Mother Nature.

      Materialists are tribalistic in nature (us vs.them), and their behavior fully reflects it. (As I have mentioned elsewhere, they even partake in the ritual of human sacrifice - abortion, and some believe that the cells of the "sacrificed" will cure us from sickness and death).

      Delete
    2. StardustyPsycheJuly 22, 2023 at 4:23 PM

      Descent,
      "They treat scientists as special people, because "scientists" are powerful mediums, who can unlock the "secrets" of matter/ Mother Nature."
      Penicillin, Maxwell's Equations, Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, Nuclear Power, Transistor, Jet Airplane, James Webb Space Telescope...

      Yes, it took some special people to accomplish those things and much more, special in their education and research, otherwise rather ordinary as human beings.

      "The figure of the scientist is akin to the figure of the shaman in indigenous tribes."
      No, because that is more of a channeling of magic, religion. The Catholic priest is akin to the shaman in indigenous tribes, with his outlandish costume, incantations, blood rituals, and summoning of imagined spirits.

      Materialists understand that scientists are generally exceptional in their fields of study, but otherwise pretty ordinary human beings, and in any case not at all capable of any sort of magic or spiritual channeling or having any reference to ancient superstitions such as the soul or an afterlife.

      Delete
    3. UncommonDescentJuly 23, 2023 at 3:05 AM

      @StardustyPsyche:

      Yes, it took some special people to accomplish those things and much more, special in their education and research, otherwise rather ordinary as human beings.

      Well, according to your materialist religion, those people accomplished nothing at all, since it was the impersonal Laws of Physics what accomplished such feats, being the only causally efficacious agents and by using human bodies as instruments to achieve their ends. (Puppeteer and puppet scenario).

      But you materialists do not understand causation, and because you don't understand causation, you don't understand the world.

      with his outlandish costume, incantations, blood

      What "blood" are you talking about?

      Materialists understand that scientists are generally exceptional in their fields of study

      Not again. It's the Laws of Physics which are "exceptional" and use human bodies to express themselves (transeunt causation). The "Laws of Physics" do science, not humans.

      I'll repeat it: you materialists do not understand causation. But we A-T proponents know a great deal about it. And we are going to take you to school (pun intended).

      Delete
    4. UncommonDescentJuly 23, 2023 at 3:08 AM

      @StardustyPsyche:

      All Christian formulations of god are incoherent. It is a mere matter of enumerating the various aspects attributed to any particular Christian formulation of god, and then pointing out the various logical contradictions entailed in that particular formulation of god.

      All materialist conceptions of the human mind are incoherent. It is a mere matter of enumerating the various aspects attributed to any particular Materialist formulation of the human mind, and then pointing out the various logical contradictions entailed in that particular formulation of the human mind.

      For example, if you assert humans can do science while denying that they have free will, you have made an incoherent assertion (it's the "Laws of Physics" who* wrote On The Origin of Species, not Darwin. The "Laws of Physics" are the sculptor and Darwin was their chisel).

      *they are impersonal, although you materialists end up attributing personal characteristics to them, because they are your version of "God".

      Delete
    5. StardustyPsycheJuly 24, 2023 at 7:32 AM

      Descent,
      "those people accomplished nothing at all, since it was the impersonal Laws of Physics what accomplished such feats,"
      Fallacy of composition.

      "What "blood" are you talking about?"
      Christianity simply is a cult of human sacrifice, wherein the murder of one human being is asserted to somehow atone for the sins of all mankind.

      To celebrate this human sacrifice Christians of various denominations often speak of being covered in the blood, or washed by the blood of the murder victim.

      Catholics take this all rather literally in the transubstantiation. Not only human blood is ritually drunk, but human gore is ritually eaten.

      The priest tells you so, that this is (literally is) the blood and the body. Christianity simply is a cult of human blood and gore consumption.

      "I'll repeat it: you materialists do not understand causation. But we A-T proponents know a great deal about it. And we are going to take you to school"
      Hilarious. Aristotle got nearly everything wrong about physics, including causation. If you want to understand the base of causation study field equations and their applications.

      "(it's the "Laws of Physics" who* wrote On The Origin of Species, not Darwin."
      Wrong, it was both, Darwin is just what we call a particular collection of particles in motion.

      Gosh, that was easy.

      "because they are your version of "God"."
      Projection.

      Your thinking is manifestly limited to attributing some sort of god. You seem to be under the impression that if one does not incorporate your sort of god in one's thinking then there must be some substitute sort of god employed.

      It does not seem to dawn on you that one can simply employ no sort of god at all.

      Delete
    6. UncommonDescentJuly 24, 2023 at 11:36 AM

      @StardustyPsyche:

      Fallacy of composition.

      "The fallacy occurs when someone argues that something must be true of the whole because it is true of some parts of the whole, ignoring the fact that what is true of the part is not necessarily true of the whole."

      Now please tell me what that's got to do with what I wrote. And in your materialist religion there's not even a "Darwin" to begin with, because materialism can neither explain nor ground diachronic identity.

      To celebrate this human sacrifice Christians of various denominations often speak of being covered in the blood, or washed by the blood of the murder victim.

      Analogy/ metaphor. No real blood involved.

      Catholics take this all rather literally in the transubstantiation. Not only human blood is ritually drunk, but human gore is ritually eaten.

      But are they "real"? Human blood is a red, sticky liquid. I have not seen a single drop of it at any mass. Neither have I seen any "gore". If that were true, the cops would have to interrupt any such events.

      But there's real blood spilled during your ritual of abortion, with all the piercing, dismemberment and vacuuming you engage in. That's real "gore", a sorry spectacle endorsed by the "evolved" ones.

      Hilarious. Aristotle got nearly everything wrong about physics, including causation.

      Hilarious. Stardusty got everything wrong about Aristotelian metaphysics. If there's no act and potency, then there's no change (only a Parmenidean block or a constant Heraclitean flux).
      If Parmenides: --> no evolution.
      If Heraclitus: --> no Stardusty (well, that sounds good).

      Wrong, it was both, Darwin is just what we call a particular collection of particles in motion.

      So now "motion" is real? Wasn't it an "illusion foisted upon us by the Evolution goddess blah, blah, blah..."?

      It does not seem to dawn on you that one can simply employ no sort of god at all.

      I care about logical conclusions (and you should too). If the "Laws of Physics" "created the Universe and direct both it and our fate", --> then they're nothing but "God" (a pagan version).

      Genus: "God".
      Species: "pagan god" (materialist superstition/ non-sense/ rehashing of ancient myths, etc).

      Delete
    7. StardustyPsycheJuly 24, 2023 at 8:51 PM

      Descent,
      "Now please tell me what that's got to do with what I wrote. And in your materialist religion there's not even a "Darwin"
      Fallacy of composition, again.

      Each particle is not what we call "Darwin".
      The total set of particles all moving just as they did is what we call "Darwin".
      "Darwin" really is (was) the set of all particles moving just the way they did.
      You employ the fallacy of composition in denying that the set of particles moving as they did is (was) "really" Darwin because each of those particles is not itself Darwin.

      "materialism can neither explain nor ground diachronic identity."
      Oh, another easy one.
      Personal identity is maintained by moment to moment renormalization of the self to include parts that have joined and exclude parts that have left the collection.

      "Analogy/ metaphor. No real blood involved."
      Right, that is why I said it was a ritualized blood consumption. The cracker eating is ritualized gore eating.


      Delete
    8. UncommonDescentJuly 25, 2023 at 4:16 AM

      @StardustyPsyche:

      Fallacy of composition, again.

      My original point is that Darwin was not the volitional author of On the Origin of Species, just an instrument of the "Laws of Physics".

      You repeating like a parrot "fallacy of composition" is totally irrelevant to the point.

      Personal identity is maintained by moment to moment renormalization of the self to include parts that have joined and exclude parts that have left the collection.

      You materialists speak as if you were high all the time. What maintains that "personal identity"? Oh, the "bonding of molecules", of course, which is in turn maintained by the... you know... causally inefficacious "Laws of Physics".

      Meh, it's always the same with you lot. Zero explanations, just dogmatic assertions coming out of the materialist's mouths.

      Right, that is why I said it was a ritualized blood consumption.

      You can't consume what is not "real", Stardusty, the-champion-of-logic. At best, it would be a play. But you probably believe that actors "really" die in the movies, don't you, Stardusty? "Rambo was a massacreeeee!..."

      Delete
  5. AnonymousJuly 19, 2023 at 4:07 PM

    Dr. Feser,

    Any chance you go into more depth on the unity of substantial form as opposed to the plurality of substantial forms promoted by Duns Scotus et al.

    You briefly discuss it in Scholastic Metaphysics, but it is something I would love to hear discussed in greater depth from you.

    I think it has major ramifications for our conception of human nature (especially given the transgender madness).

    ReplyDelete
  6. BillJuly 20, 2023 at 9:34 AM

    Ed's link just opens up the picture in the OP. The link to the actual podcast is HERE.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Vincent TorleyJuly 20, 2023 at 11:11 AM

    Hi Ed,

    I listened with interest to John de Rosa's interview with you on the Classical Theism Podcast. I'd like to make a few quick points.

    1. What's the most fundamental thing about God? For classical theists, it's that God is the Ultimate Reality in the order of being, and the Ultimate Explanation in the order of discovery (to cite your words). My problem with that is that it makes God's Intelligence and Love secondary: insofar as we ascribe them to God, it's only because He is Ultimate Being. However, I consider them primary. Nothing is more fundamental than love. So how do I show that God is ultimate? To do that, I appeal to a worldview that makes the notion of a Personal Agent metaphysically and epistemically foundational, along the lines of John Macmurray's personalism. This doesn't mean that I regard God as a person; rather, it means He's an Intentional Agent in Whom three persons exist in relation to one another. Humans and other finite intelligences are agents whose modus operandi is constrained by certain rules defined by God, the ultimate Rule-maker. They are small-p personal agents.

    2. Divine simplicity as defined by the Catholic Church refers only to God's essence. It does not rule out the possibility of God having energies (as Greek theologians like Gregory Palamas theorized - a view never condemned by the Church) or of His having thoughts distinct from Himself. You may object that God's essence would be in potentiality to these thoughts, but the notion of a self-actualizing God is quite coherent (Suarez). To be sure, if one regards God as Pure Being, then we cannot ascribe accidents to Him, but the Church has never defined this view of God. And I put it to you that if it makes no sense to say that acting acts or that thinking thinks, it is equally nonsensical to say that Existence exists.

    3. The real reason why the God of classical theism strikes people as cold and off-putting is very simple: it teaches that although we may have a personal relationship with God, God does not and cannot have a personal relationship with us, because He doesn't have a real relationship with us. Deep down, people long for something more than that from the God they worship.

    I'm looking forward to your book on the soul. Cheers.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. AtnoJuly 20, 2023 at 6:09 PM

      Vincent,

      I'm not really invested in religion, but point 3 always seemed to me to be a misunderstanding. Most Classical Theists would AFAIK believe that God has a real relationship with creatures. It's just that this relationship doesn't involve the addition of accidents or change in intrinsic properties in God.

      And in any case, Classical Theists would say that God is as great as great can be; it's just that greatness is compatible with immutability and simplicity. The Divine Essence is a mysterious thing that is nevertheless perfectly great. It's just that opponents keep insisting "no, being unchanging is NOT great, and there can be no greatness in being unchanging!". Of course, they come up with some nice arguments for that. But at the very least it's not something obvious.

      They might think that the Thomistic CT picture is incoherent, but it's not as if the Thomistic CT picture is about God being unchanging in a weak or boring or imperfect way. It's just God already being at the maximal, perfect term to which changing things apire to. So of course such a picture allows for God to really know you, love you, etc. It's just that this would involve no intrinsic change or accidents. This is something unimaginable to me, but not incoherent or crazy. (It can be for some people, though)

      Delete
    2. AnonymousJuly 21, 2023 at 11:47 AM

      Vincent,
      "The Ultimate Reality in the order of being and the Ultimate Explanation in the order of discovery" simply sounds a more plausible definition of God than what you suggest. "Nothing is more fundamental than love" is highly questionable because love presupposes distinctions A and B and a relationship such that A loves B. I am not aware of many Eastern or Western philosophers from the pre-Socratics on who have taken the intuitively strange position that love, whether obligation or relationship, is what is fundamental. Obligations and relationships intuitively presuppose something more fundamental.

      Delete
    3. StardustyPsycheJuly 22, 2023 at 4:47 PM

      Tim,
      "And I put it to you that if it makes no sense to say that acting acts or that thinking thinks, it is equally nonsensical to say that Existence exists."
      You have indeed identified an incoherence in classical theism of the sort that holds that god is existence itself.

      All Christian formulations of god are incoherent. It is a mere matter of enumerating the various aspects attributed to any particular Christian formulation of god, and then pointing out the various logical contradictions entailed in that particular formulation of god.

      For example, if you assert god is both omniscient and has free will you have made an incoherent assertion (I don't know if this applies to you as an individual or not).

      If you assert god is the source of objective morality then, again, you have made an incoherent assertion (see my recent entry here edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2010/10/god-obligation-and-euthyphro-dilemma.html).

      But, at least you have made some progress in identifying the incoherence of asserting that god is existence itself.

      You seem interested in Dr. Feser's upcoming book on the soul. Why? Do you suppose there is some sort of ethereal ectoplasm soul inhabiting your body and interacting with your brain?

      Delete
    4. Vincent TorleyJuly 24, 2023 at 8:27 AM

      Hi StarDustyPsyche,

      Thank you for your remarks on the incoherence of identifying God with existence itself.

      Re Ed's upcoming book: although I don't agree with everything he has to say, I would have to acknowledge that some of Ed's best philosophical work relates to the mind-body problem, so I'm interested to see what his mature thinking on the subject is.

      Hi Tim,

      There's something wrong with the notion of defining God as the Ultimate Reality: namely, that "Ultimate" is a term that implicitly assumes the existence of other, derivative realities (contingent beings) which it supports. However, God would still be God even if nothing else existed. In the end, a Thomistic classical theist has no choice but to define God as Being itself - a notion which is incoherent, as I argued above.

      You argue that love presupposes distinctions A and B and a relationship such that A loves B. Christian classical theists believe that God loves Himself and that "love" is not just something that God does, but rather, what He is. The reason why I resist attempts to boil love down to something more fundamental is that I view such attempts as a form of reductionism. You cannot explain love in terms of anything else, and attempts to cash it out in terms of Being just don't work. You still have to import other notions like "good."

      Hi Atno,

      Not all classical theists are Thomists, but Ed is. And surprisingly, Thomists really do deny that God has any real relation with creatures, including us. You can read more about it here: https://afkimel.wordpress.com/2016/12/20/but-is-god-really-really-really-related-to-the-world/

      I have no objection to classical theists arguing that God undergoes no intrinsic changes in creating the world, as I don't believe that God is mutable. However, I do object to Thomists saying that as Creator, God doesn't have any thoughts or intentions about his creatures, and that the content of His Mind would not be in any way different, even if He'd never created anything. That makes no sense to me.

      Cheers, everyone.

      Delete
    5. UncommonDescentJuly 24, 2023 at 3:11 PM

      @ Vincent Torley:

      Thank you for your remarks on the incoherence of identifying God with existence itself.

      Stardusty is constantly pointing fingers at (supposedly) Christian contradictions. But when his materialist contradictions are exposed, then he decrees a Papal Bull to himself (special pleading to the extreme, because "materialism IS right and HAS to be right." Now add some inane appeals to popularity/ numbers: "religion is declining and blah, blah, blah...)

      Or, as our good Professor has stated, he takes part in the
      never-ending, on-going, materialist shell's game.

      Delete
    6. StardustyPsycheJuly 24, 2023 at 8:30 PM

      Vincent,
      "There's something wrong with the notion of defining God as the Ultimate Reality: namely, that "Ultimate" is a term that implicitly assumes the existence of other, derivative realities (contingent beings) which it supports. However, God would still be God even if nothing else existed."
      In a set with 1 member that member is both first and last, greatest and least, although one might consider those labels trivial in that case, they are not strictly incoherent.

      In any case, manifestly there are a multitude of entities in the cosmos other than god, any particular god being infinitesimally likely to exist given that there are, in principle, an unbounded number of such unevidenced idle speculations one can make.

      "You cannot explain love in terms of anything else,"
      Sure I can. Love is an emotion. An emotion is a brain process. A brain process is particles in motion.

      Here are some commonly made, but incoherent, assertions:
      God is love itself.
      God is goodness itself.
      God is existence itself.

      As pointed out above, such assertions are as coherent as asserting that thinking thinks. The notion that there is some sort of thing called "thinking itself" is just gibberish, no more reasonable than stating "this statement is false".

      The English language allows for stringing words together that amount to mere gibberish, which is what theists commonly resort to, and classical theists do so frequently when confronted with a puzzle that nobody has ever solved. In the case of a universally unsolved puzzle the classical theist will simply string together a few disjoint words and declare the resultant incoherent term to be some sort of grand solution that only the foolish fail to accept.

      So, Vincent, you are on the right track with identifying the incoherence in classical theism of stating that "god is existence itself". If you continue on that rational path, applied to the numerous incoherent Christian assertions, you will arrive at a place of comprehensive coherence and rationality, but of course, by that time you will be far outside the boundaries of any sort of Christianity.

      Delete
    7. Walter Van den AckerJuly 25, 2023 at 1:02 AM

      Vincent

      "I have no objection to classical theists arguing that God undergoes no intrinsic changes in creating the world, as I don't believe that God is mutable."

      The question is: is there any possible way in which an immutable being can create anything at all?
      The main problem with Classical theism is that there is no logical connection of any kind between the Creator and Creation. Any type of creation or causation requires that there is something in the Cause that becomes something in the effect. If a billiard ball A hits another one B, (some of )the kinetic energy of A transfers to B. But if god is immutable nothing in God (or of God) can become something in the effect.

      "However, I do object to Thomists saying that as Creator, God doesn't have any thoughts or intentions about his creatures, and that the content of His Mind would not be in any way different, even if He'd never created anything. That makes no sense to me."

      The very simple question I'd like any Classical Theist to answer is this, "Is it possible that God gets a goat when He wants a sheep? " or
      "If God wants to create at all, is it a simple coincidence that He gets a goat instead of a sheep?"
      That is, if the Classical Theist ever gets around explaining how a God who doesn't want to create anything is intrinsically the same as a God who does want to create something.

      So far, Classical Theism is a dead end.

      Delete
    8. UncommonDescentJuly 25, 2023 at 4:35 AM

      @StardustyPsyche:

      We are not going to worship your lame "Laws of Physics", so you'd better stop trying.

      We are intellectuals and are only attracted towards an intellectual God, not towards a pagan, childish, counterfeit one.

      Delete
    9. UncommonDescentJuly 25, 2023 at 11:58 AM

      @Walter:

      The main problem with Naturalism is that there is no logical connection of any kind between the Laws of Physics and their Creation. Any type of creation or causation requires that there is something in the Cause that becomes something in the effect. If a billiard ball A hits another one B, (some of )the kinetic energy of A transfers to B. But if The Laws of Physics are immutable*, nothing in The Laws of Physics (or of The Laws of Physics) can become something in the effect.

      *Are they, Walter?

      So far, The Laws of Physics are a dead end.

      Delete
    10. StardustyPsycheJuly 25, 2023 at 7:12 PM

      Descent,
      "We are not going to worship your lame "Laws of Physics", so you'd better stop trying."
      Projection. You apparently feel some sort of need or drive or inclination to worship. I don't.

      I never said you ought to worship anything. The fact that you (falsely) assert I am "trying" to do so only indicates your narrow view of worship projected onto others.

      "nothing in The Laws of Physics (or of The Laws of Physics) can become something in the effect."
      Fallacy of reification.

      You obviously have not studied field equations and their applications, at least not with any understanding that rose above rote calculations.

      The "laws" of physics are abstracted descriptions of how material apparently progresses over time.

      You are conflating the description of the transfer with a source of that which is transferred.

      The "laws" of physics are not an unchanged or unchanging or unchangeable changer. They merely describe how materials change each other.

      All change is mutual. There is no such thing as a one-way push, or pull. That is why the incoherent notion of an unchanged changer is unnecessary. At base materials change each other so there is no need for a hierarchical linear causal regress to terminate in an unmoved (unmoving or unchanging) mover (changer).

      Causation is not one-way, and is not fundamentally linear, rather, change is always mutual, multilateral, and fundamentally circular.

      You have nothing to teach me about causation, but if you study field equations and their applications you have much to learn about causation.

      Delete
    11. UncommonDescentJuly 25, 2023 at 11:34 PM

      @StardustyPsyche:

      The "laws" of physics are abstracted descriptions of how material apparently* progresses over time.

      Good, it seems that we are reaching the quid of the question. For "matter" to "progress", there has to be something:

      a) ""internal to it", which vindicates Aristotle

      b) "external" to it, which puts you in the very delicate position of explaining where they are (Platonism) and how they have causal powers

      c) or even in the more delicate position of not being capable of explaining neither a) nor b), and converting "The Laws of Physics" into a fiction, which would destroy your Naturalism.

      *apparently? Lol. So they are not real and universal? That only compromises even further your Naturalism.

      Delete
    12. UncommonDescentJuly 25, 2023 at 11:44 PM

      @StardustyPsyche:

      All change is mutual. There is no such thing as a one-way push, or pull.

      Are you implying an eternal Universe? Careful, because science doesn't support your position.

      Delete
    13. Walter Van den AckerJuly 26, 2023 at 12:25 AM

      UncommonDescent

      If I have just established that your car has a flat tyre, then even if it were true that my car also has a flat tyre, or even four flat tyres, that does not mean your car is okay now.

      Delete
    14. UncommonDescentJuly 26, 2023 at 12:19 PM

      @Walter:

      That's true, but it's not what I was pointing at. A consequent person who ditches Classical Theism for the reasons you stated, should also ditch her belief in "The Laws of Physics."

      Are you consequent, Walter? Are you going to stop believing in the "archaic non-sense of the "The Laws of Physics?" (that would make Stardusty very sad).

      Delete
    15. Walter Van den AckerJuly 27, 2023 at 12:22 AM

      UncommonDescent

      You do not know what my beliefs are, so you have no idea what I would have to ditch.
      Meanwhile, your inability to reply to my actual arguments is telling.
      BTW, I do not care too much about what makes stardusty sad or happy.

      Delete
    16. AtnoJuly 27, 2023 at 1:11 PM

      Vincent,

      "Not all classical theists are Thomists, but Ed is. And surprisingly, Thomists really do deny that God has any real relation with creatures, including us."

      My point is that this phrasing is vague. I am well aware that Thomists reject real relations as normally considered, but my point is that what the Thomist really is denying is change in intrinsic properties in God. There is nothing in Aquinas's arguments that would lead to a rejection of changes in extrinsic properties in God, so at this point it becomes a matter of semantics on whether to call it a "real" relation or not. I think it's not helpful to speak like that.

      Again, the point is that (under Thomistic simplicity) God can truly, really be related to us. Just in a manner that doesn't involve changes in intrinsic properties in him! That's all. How could God NOT be really related to us if he is our cause? Of course he is really related to us, and this relation is not simply a logical one. It's just that - and this is the important part - God undergoes no intrinsic change in becoming really related to us.

      And really, absolutely nothing is lost here. I don't like charging people with anthropomorphism since this sometimes gets glibly thrown around a lot by certain triumphalistic and hostile "Classical Theists" online, but it really does seem a bit anthropomorphic to me to assume that the only possible manners of knowing and loving something would involve change in intrinsic properties in the knower/lover. There are externalist theories of semantic content out there. It doesn't seem clear to me that God could not have externalist knowledge (in fact it seems like that's how things should be, if he really is the changeless first cause of things). And so if he has real knowledge and love for us, what does it matter that this involves no change in intrinsic properties? It's still as great and as perfect as love and knowledge can be, and that's what Thomists say. Again, to say there CANNOT be externalist knowledge and love is not at all clear to me, and seems a bit anthropomorphic.

      Delete
    17. AtnoJuly 27, 2023 at 1:33 PM

      Walter,

      "The question is: is there any possible way in which an immutable being can create anything at all?"

      In the context of the First Way, you either accept that the answer is "yes" or you end up with something moving without a cause. Now, I can't speak for yourself. But in my case, I consider the second option to be absurd and much harder to maintain, so I am dialectical forced to answer "Yes".

      I think it's important to remind people of this dialectical context because the God-thingy at the end of classical arguments is never meant to be easy to understand. On the contrary, it is meant to defy our imagination and be hard for us to understand. It's just that (so the arguments go) we can know *that* it exists, and it is what it is; if we are to explain motion, we need something that moves without itself being moved.

      As for your example of transfer of kinetic energy, it seems too limited to physical causation between physical objects. What is required is that a cause possess the actuality of the effect in a manner sufficient to produce it. But this production need not be a transfer of numerically the same act. When a teacher gives a student the knowledge of a theorem, it's not literally the teacher's knowledge that is being transferred; rather the teacher is able to actualize knowledge of the theorem given that he himself possesses it (and is therefore able to operate such an act, therefore being capable of causing it). The ball also loses its kinetic energy as it transfers it, but the teacher loses none of his knowledge. In general an efficient cause need not lose anything as it causes.
      I think that if the cause possesses the actuality that it produces, then that's good enough. That's how it seems to me.
      But if you think it's hard to accept something being actualized by a cause that doesn't change as it does so, I think it should be much harder for an actualized potential to come about without any cause at all.

      "Is it possible that God gets a goat when He wants a sheep?"

      I think we discussed this before, right? My answer is that this also applies to libertarian freedom for humans. And I will keep stomping my foot on that. Ultimately, in LFW the same exact state in a person can contingently lead to A or B. If there is a change AFTER the choice ("caused A"), it seems to me a relational one, not an intrinsic one. Precisely because it'd be a byproduct of the state M which, in itself, could lead to either A or B. So this is LFW in general, not just Classical Theism.

      Delete
    18. StardustyPsycheJuly 27, 2023 at 9:14 PM

      "In the context of the First Way, you either accept that the answer is "yes" or you end up with something moving without a cause."
      The First Way suffers from the fallacy of false dichotomy, the fallacy of begging the question, as well as several false premises.

      The First Way is, in short, junk.

      "the God-thingy at the end of classical arguments is never meant to be easy to understand. On the contrary, it is meant to defy our imagination and be hard for us to understand."
      That is just excuse making for inventing incoherent terms that actually solve nothing.

      " if we are to explain motion, we need something that moves without itself being moved."
      No, we need mutual movers that move each other and both move. That is how causation really works.

      Classical theists would know that if they studied and understood field equations and their applications.

      "But this production need not be a transfer of numerically the same act."
      Wrong again. In simple terms, for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.

      Delete
    19. Walter Van den AckerJuly 28, 2023 at 12:49 AM

      Atno

      "or you end up with something moving without a cause."

      There is nothing absurd about that. The "cause" of the "something" moving is the "something" itself, or rather existing is moving. Everything that exists moves. it doesn't make sense to say of anything that hypothetically doesn't move at all that it exists.
      This "moving-thingy" may jnot be easy to understand, but there is nothing absurd or contradictory about it. A mover that doesn't move, however, is a genuine contradiction.
      Your teacher analogy actually shows this.
      Even if the teacher's knowlegde doesn't change, something in the teacher necessarily changes if he shares his knowledge. What you call knowledge is actually information carried by an energy wave. In order to produce this energy wave, the teacher changes. If you think that's too limited to physical causation between physical objects, any sort of information has to 'travel' from the source to the object and even if it is through some non-physical 'force'. The 'force' of creation is originally in God and 'ends up' in the creature. Even if God has an infinite amount of force, this is still a fact. The "actuality of the effect" is origianlly in God and ends up in the effect. That is a change, no matter how you look at it.
      Now, even if I accepted that something can bring about an effect in an existing thing without any change at all, the claim that God created ex nihilo means that, without changing He brought about an effect in something that did not exist.
      Not even Aristotle believed this was possible.
      Even if I accepted your

      Delete
    20. Walter Van den AckerJuly 28, 2023 at 1:02 AM

      Atno
      (continued)

      I do not believe in LFW, but let's, for the sake of the argument, agree that LFW is possible.
      It is, however, not the case that in LFW the same exact state in a person can contingently lead to A or B. What you are describing here is an indeterministic outcome of a certain cause. Of course i can want to paint a picture of my wife and end up with something that doesn't even resemble a woman because of various circumstances, the most important if which is that I am not a skilled painter. Or I can try to shoot you but miss.
      But LFW means freedom of the will, not freedom of the effect of the will.
      You confuse those two concepts, and you are not the only one. If there is a change AFTER the choice, this change is not the result of your will, so this change has nothing to do with LFW. What you need to account for is the fact that on LFW I can freely will a goat or I can freely will a sheep and that somehow the willing of a goat is "the same exact state" in me as the willing of a sheep.

      Delete
    21. StardustyPsycheJuly 28, 2023 at 8:22 AM

      Descent,
      "science doesn't support your position."
      If you understood science you would understand that Newton overturned Aristotle.

      In classical theism a core argument is for a first mover, the Aristotelian argument. That argument relies on the false notion of one way causation.

      Newton, and subsequent scientists, showed that causation is fundamentally mutual, thus negating the Aristotelian argument and with it negating the First and Most Manifest Way.

      Aquinas made such a bad argument in the First Way that he did not even deal with the case of mutual causation that is fundamentally circular. That makes classical theism vacuous.

      Scotus, who wrote not long after Aquinas, at least had the insight to realize that the case of circular causation must be dealt with, and that by leaving it out an argument for a first mover would be logically invalid, suffering from false dichotomy, which is the case for the First Way.

      But, Scotus retained the notion of a one-way push, that is, one-way causation, so his attempt at denial of circular causation is unsound due to that false premise.

      If you understood science you would understand that causation is not the actualization of a potential in the thing acted upon by something already actual. That foundation of classical theism is scientifically false.

      Causation is always mutual, multilateral, and fundamentally circular. That fact invalidates the First Way and with it invalidates classical theism.

      Delete
    22. UncommonDescentJuly 28, 2023 at 12:56 PM

      @Walter:

      Meanwhile, your inability to reply to my actual arguments is telling.

      Meanwhile, your inability to understand what has been explained to you dozens of times during the years is telling. You are either a) incapable of grasping A-T metaphysics, or b) able (but unwilling to), or c) trolling. Neither of them are my fault.

      Any type of creation or causation requires that there is something in the Cause that becomes something in the effect.

      Being Itself is "being in itself" --> after creation, created beings start to participate in "being", a "being" which they did not possess before (or else they wouldn't have needed to be "created"). What was in the cause is now in the effect.

      Everything that exists moves.

      Parmenideans disagree. The Universe is a static 4D block according to them. You have to support your premises.

      Even if the teacher's knowlegde doesn't change, something in the teacher necessarily changes if he shares his knowledge.

      God is not a "teacher". God is Actus Purus. The Creator and the Order of Creation are not the same. Category mistake. Or not even wrong.

      Delete
    23. UncommonDescentJuly 28, 2023 at 2:52 PM

      @StardustyPsyche:

      If you understood science you would understand that Newton overturned Aristotle.

      As far as I know, Newton never presented a metaphysical thesis. He was a scientist, not a philosopher (although he smuggled philosophy into his work, exactly the same thing that modern scientists like Hawkins and others keep doing today). It's a common vice. But a vice nonetheless.

      Newton, and subsequent scientists, showed that causation is fundamentally mutual, thus negating the Aristotelian argument and with it negating the First and Most Manifest Way.

      Newton was concerned with "explaining"* observed regularities in the natural world, not causation per se. He even advanced the famous "hypothesis non fingo" dictum. Again, Newton was not a metaphysician. You are confusing fields of inquiry.

      *With an asterisk mark, because describing is not explaining. If I describe the physical appearance of my dog, I'm not "explaining" why it is how it is.

      If you understood science you would understand that causation is not the actualization of a potential in the thing acted upon by something already actual. That foundation of classical theism is scientifically false.


      Again, empirical science is not metaphysics. If you understood definitions and what they entail, you wouldn't be repeating the same mistake, over and over.


      Causation is always mutual, multilateral, and fundamentally circular. That fact invalidates the First Way and with it invalidates classical theism.

      Keep dreaming.

      And you have not solved the quandary: it's "The Laws of Physics" what decided to use Newton as an instrument to practice science, not Newton himself. Newton was forcefully co-opted. The "Laws of Physics" are running the whole show. If only you understood causation, Stardusty...

      Delete
    24. StardustyPsycheJuly 28, 2023 at 8:39 PM

      Descent,
      "Keep dreaming."
      Your "arguments" have descended to the level of "sez you".

      Delete
    25. UncommonDescentJuly 28, 2023 at 9:55 PM

      @StardustyPsyche:

      And you have stoop so low as to not have any argument at all. Sorry, but your materialism is crap. And it will keep being a total loser.

      Your "circular causation, always mutual and fundamentally circular" is laughable. You don't even know what you are saying.

      Delete
    26. Walter Van den AckerJuly 29, 2023 at 12:55 AM

      UncommonDescent

      Again, you do not reply to my actual arguments but instead try to attack my position. You do not succeed, of course, because "Parmenideans disagree" is as usefuol as "Non-Thomists disagree". I have never claimed that nobody disgrees with me.
      But even if you did succeed, that would only mean that, as long as you are unable to defend your position, we are both wrong.
      To be fair, you do attempt to counter my claim that something in the cause that becomes something in the effect, contradicts the immutabilty of the cause by agreeing that what was in the cause is now in the effect, IOW, you make my point.
      Thank you for that.

      Delete
    27. Walter Van den AckerJuly 29, 2023 at 12:59 AM

      UncommonDsecent

      Just another quick note. I did not claim that God is a teacher, it was Atno who used it as an analogy. I simply built my reply on that analogy.

      Delete
    28. UncommonDescentJuly 29, 2023 at 6:51 AM

      @StardustyPsyche:

      If the "Laws of Physics" are "how matter develops" (and letting aside for a moment your ridiculous and unscientific "apparently" qualifier), then "The Laws of Physics" = "Matter Itself" (another copy of A-T, in this case of "Being Itself").

      But "The Laws of Physics" (your beloved "field equations"?) are mute with respect to matter organizing "itself" into bacteria, oak trees, fish and humans capable of practicing science. Nothing in those "field equations" leads to what is out there in the real world, one filled to the brim with living substances (and non-living ones too). So, "The Laws of Physics" can not explain why reality is how it is.

      If "Matter Itself" does not have in "itself" sufficient explanation as to how it operates as it does (including "directing itself towards acquiring the "form of Darwin"), then your materialism lacks explanatory value.

      And if "matter develops towards certain ends and no others", then this process is a telic process (final causation).

      Either way, you lose.

      There are very good books on logic out there. Some are free. Check them out.

      Delete
    29. UncommonDescentJuly 29, 2023 at 1:48 PM

      @Walter:

      Again, you do not reply to my actual arguments.

      You were not providing an argument, you were providing an unsupported assertion ("everything that exists moves").

      No need to attack your position, because you are not arguing your point.

      ...contradicts the immutabilty of the cause by agreeing that what was in the cause is now in the effect,

      "Being" is not physically transferable, because it's not material (physical beings are, though). The first accident of matter is quantity, which makes matter divisible. But "Being Itself" is not material, therefore it's not divisible. "Being Itself" is not diminished after Creation, because "diminishment" implies "reduction in quantity". Since it has been established that there is no quantity in "Being Itself", then the objection is moot. There's no "what was before in the Cause is now in the effect", because "Being Itself" is not measurable, nor locatable neither in space nor in time. Matter is the substrate of change ("mutability"). Being Itself is not "made of matter".

      Again, category error. Immaterial =/= from material.

      If you want to "debunk" Aquinas, then you'll need to address his metaphysics adequately.

      Delete
    30. Walter Van den AckerJuly 30, 2023 at 1:22 AM

      UnvommonDescent

      "Everything that exist moves" is not the argument I was referring, my actual argument is in my reply to Vincent, to which you replied with a kind of parody about materialism.

      The rest of your reply here further establishes my point, except that you now deny what you previously stated , namely that "What was in the cause is now in the effect". That is literally what you said, but now you deny it.
      BTW, I have never claimed anything about things that are "physically transferable".

      So, thank you again for making my point.

      Delete
    31. UncommonDescentJuly 30, 2023 at 2:01 PM

      @ Walter:

      to which you replied with a kind of parody about materialism.

      Materialism is Parody in Itself.

      except that you now deny what you previously stated , namely that "What was in the cause is now in the effect".

      Not true. "What was in the cause is now in the effect" implies physical transference. There's no physical transference regarding "being", there's "participation in being". A participation which is not quantifiable (you don't measure "being").

      Billiard balls =/= from Creation.

      So, thank you again for making my point.

      I didn't.

      Delete
    32. Walter Van den AckerJuly 31, 2023 at 1:05 AM

      UncommonDescent

      Not true?

      Your claim was that "Being Itself is "being in itself" --> after creation, created beings start to participate in "being", a "being" which they did not possess before (or else they wouldn't have needed to be "created"). What was in the cause is now in the effect."

      I, on the other hand said nothing about physical transference or quantifiable things.

      So, yes, you did make my point.
      But I guess there no point in discussing this any further unless you somehow come, up with at least some sort of argument.
      Until that time comes, I bow out.



      Delete
    33. UncommonDescentJuly 31, 2023 at 2:53 PM

      @ Walter:

      Your objection: "The question is: is there any possible way in which an immutable being can create anything at all?"

      Yes, there is. Being Itself keeps being Being Itself after Creation. Now it's not another thing, the definition has not changed. It has not suffered increase or decrease in quantity or quality. It has not suffered local motion. The only difference is relational, the created creatures now participate in Being, something they could not did before (basically because they didn't exist).

      Creation without change in the Creator.

      I, on the other hand said nothing about physical transference or quantifiable things.

      Then please do tell me your account of "change". What do you mean by that word?

      So, yes, you did make my point.

      Nop.

      But I guess there no point in discussing this any further unless you somehow come, up with at least some sort of argument.
      Until that time comes, I bow out.

      Oh, please.

      Delete
    34. BillAugust 28, 2023 at 1:16 PM

      @Walter, you write:

      A mover that doesn't move, however, is a genuine contradiction.

      I saw this some time ago, but I’m now just getting to it. Your comment is just plain silly. Why do you take it upon yourself to criticize a system you do not understand? If classical theism isn’t your cup of tea, then why are you here? What motivates you to come here again and again to bellyache about something you don’t believe in? As a former Catholic, are you just obsessed with validating your decision to move away from Catholicism? Do you think that classical theism somehow represents a threat to a new world order that you’re trying to set up, so you have to fall all over yourself to trash it at every opportunity? I don’t believe the Earth is flat, but I don’t visit Flat Earth Society’s websites to routinely trash it. Man alive, Bub, what’s your point?

      Anyway, “a mover that doesn’t move” isn’t anywhere near a contradiction because what it meant by “mover” is different than what is meant by “moved.” To move another is to have the ability to effect change whereas to be moved is to have the potency to acquire or to lose a state of reality. You’re presupposing God to be a univocal causal agent, so that the causal efficacy entailed by a finite agent is exactly what God’s causal efficacy is like. And no matter how many times you’re told that you cannot project finitude upon God, you continue to do so. You’re of course free to believe anything you want, but you’re not going to convince anybody here that you have anything of value to say when you fail to understand what the argument is. Are you here to skewer scarecrows or do you really want to know the answer? Agents within the same order of being which cause things do undergo some change relative to the thing they change, but God is not correlative to the world. God’s act of creation is eternal whereas the effect is necessarily temporal.

      The causal principle is that no potency can be raised to act except by something in act. A cause must be actual in order to produce an effect. The cause is the agent of an effect whereas what is affected is the patient. An acting cause as acting cause does not receive anything. It’s only the acting cause not as agent but as patient that receives anything. Motion is the process whereby a patient gains a perfection. As Aquinas notes, through heating, a log acquires the perfection of being hot. But the agent of heating is already hot, that is, it is in act and not in potency. A cause presupposes that the agent is already perfect whereas (again) motion is the process of acquiring a perfection. And this is why it does not make sense to think of an agent’s action as a motion which it undergoes when it acts. An illustration which Dolezal uses is a bare foot which makes an impression in sand. The foot as an agent has the causal efficacy to make said impression, but the sand has the causal efficacy to make indentations in the foot as a result because they are both correlative. It’s not the foot as agent that receives the indentations; it is rather the foot as patient that receives them. If one is not a patient, then one cannot be affected. Thus, agency in itself does not entail passive potency.

      (To be continued…)

      Delete
    35. BillAugust 28, 2023 at 1:17 PM

      Part 2…

      Even if the teacher's knowlegde doesn't change, something in the teacher necessarily changes if he shares his knowledge.

      And there you go projecting finitude upon God again. Since God is every universal perfection transcendently, and since God’s acts are eternal, there can be no coming to be for God. There is no perfection in possible beings which isn’t already eminently in God, so nothing is either lost or gained, by definition, in God. My son’s growing to my height affects no change in me since I’m already that height. In creation, nothing that literally “goes out” of God and into something else. God cannot leave one place and go to another because His reality is already “there.” He freely wills the existence of the universe via His active potency, and since the cause is fully actual, it isn’t undergoing motion, and since the resulting effect is in finitude what God is transcendently, nothing accrues to God. You’re making a fundamental category mistake. If this were the first or second time you’ve done that, you’d get a pass. But your continuing to do so after you’ve been told that you’re misrepresenting classical theism is inexcusable.

      Delete
  8. AnonymousJuly 23, 2023 at 5:44 PM

    I'm looking forward to the book on the soul. (I hope it's not going to be one of those absurdly expensive academic works. So far, they haven't.)

    I also hope it clears up some of my problems with this subject. The big one is that it seems to undercut the main motive I had for switching to Aristotle from Plato. That was the fact that, under hylomorphism, the matter individuates, while the form is the same from one substance to another.

    That formulation is one that Ed has used. But if the soul is unique and individual to each of us, particularly made for each body, how can the above remain in play? (I confess Averroes always seemed plausible, though Aquinas's arguments also seem sound.) It seems to blow hylomorphism out of the water, and bring the Third Man back into play. After all, if my soul (and form) is different from yours, then, well, we're back to the Parmenides.

    At least, that's how it seems to me. I may post again on other things that bug me.

    I hope this gets through; they often don't.

    -- George LeS

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. TalmidJuly 23, 2023 at 7:58 PM

      "That was the fact that, under hylomorphism, the matter individuates, while the form is the same from one substance to another."

      There is a important thing here: when we say that two substances have the same form we are not saying that there is this, say, Form of Humanity that is connected to every human being at the same time. That is in fact more platonic.

      Rather, there are individual substances that have their own matter and every matter has a principle of organization, tendencies etc that gives the substance identity and characteristics, but on substances of the same group* this principle that organizes the form is equal in one and another, on the sense that St. Thomas would call they "formaly identical". Think of it like twins: they are diferent but the look the same and pretty much function the same.

      So Averroes view is not what we are getting at, the forms are "the same" pratically, but not on the sense of being all one big form.

      *i'am using the word on a non-technical way

      Delete
    2. UncommonDescentJuly 24, 2023 at 6:50 AM

      @ George LeS:

      The answer to your question is
      materia quantitate signata

      Delete
    3. AnonymousJuly 24, 2023 at 8:37 AM

      Thanks, but I don't see how that helps. Comparing them to twins seems to me like saying "They're not just alike, but very very much alike". To my mind that puts us right back in Plato land.

      Forms are not substances; that is elementary. Another point in my conversion was that Plato had made universals (forms) into a kind of particular. I am very resistant to anything pushing in that direction.

      -- George LeS

      Delete
    4. TalmidJuly 26, 2023 at 9:49 AM

      How the aristotelian view makes forms into particulars if in it the forms are not complete substances? It seems very diferent from the platonic view were the form is its own substance.

      Delete
    5. TonyJuly 27, 2023 at 5:00 PM

      So, let's take the question out of the issue of substantial identities, and regard accidental forms. Let's say that my child has some play-do, and makes a cube 2" on a side. Then she makes a ball. Not liking that, her brother makes it back into a cube. For both instances of the cube, the underlying matter is the "same" play-do, though it is presumably mixed up differently in having different parts in different relative locations. But the shape is exactly the same: a 2" cube. Thus the two(?) shapes are identical IN FORM but distinct as to time and distinct as to agent cause, so (arguably) distinct in material cause at least in part, so presumably they are distinct in "identity", insofar as there is "identity" to speak of. At least, one can certainly point to distinct instances of a cube.

      The whole point of Aristotle's distinction of causes is not to raise up just MORE causes of a thing, but causes in different senses. Material cause and formal cause are causes of the thing in different ways. The two cubes here (along with any other causes, made of ice, of gold, of mashed potatoes, of rubber, etc) are the same in form insofar as they share the formality of "cubeness". That sameness regards a different SORT of likeness than we look at (and distinguish) when we count them "different in number". The sharing that the cubes share in having the "same" formal reality is, precisely, a sameness that CAN be "same" while being "in" different individuals: it isn't meant to be a sharing of a substance "cubeness", but the participation of a formal cause.

      Delete

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)