Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
"One of the best contemporary writers on philosophy" National Review
"A terrific writer" Damian Thompson, Daily Telegraph
"Feser... has the rare and enviable gift of making philosophical argument compulsively readable" Sir Anthony Kenny, Times Literary Supplement
Selected for the First Things list of the 50 Best Blogs of 2010 (November 19, 2010)
The book is published by the Catholic University of America Press, which publishes many excellent books on Thomistic philosophy.
ReplyDeleteWhat do you think of Daniel’s comments about you on his blog saying that you may have mischaracterized act and potency? Specifically, about how parts of a substance are in potency to the whole. Here is what he said:
ReplyDeletehttps://danielshields.info/2024/02/19/feser-on-potency-and-act/
https://danielshields.info/2024/03/10/further-thoughts-on-act-and-potency/
It seems to me that Shields may be misreading Feser. Ed isn’t denying the subjective potency for continued existence. He agrees with Aquinas that a thing cannot be in act and potency in the same respect. What he appears to deny is the presence of objective potency—the potential to become something one is not yet—once that potential has been actualized. Subjective potency, by contrast, is the principle of receptivity that remains even after actualization. Do you happen to have the exact passage where Ed is said to make the claim in question?
Delete@Bill
DeleteI do find Daniel’s usage of the terminology of ‘objective’ and ‘subjective’ potency to be a bit odd. In all of the manuals I’ve read (admittedly not a lot, but still a decent amount of material), an objective potency is simply a logical possibility, and it has nothing to do with being opposed to act per se. And a subjective potency is a potency that exists in a real subject and not just as a mere possibility.