tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post2100527403130540908..comments2024-03-28T13:39:03.094-07:00Comments on Edward Feser: Clarke on the stock caricature of First Cause argumentsEdward Feserhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13643921537838616224noreply@blogger.comBlogger203125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-64894853405517541582019-12-09T08:37:53.408-08:002019-12-09T08:37:53.408-08:00I would like to add that it is very difficult at l...I would like to add that it is very difficult at least in scientific experiments to distinguish between correlation and causation. Whilst two variable may be well correlated according to experimental data, there may actually be no causal relationship between the two variables.Renaissance Tutorshttps://www.renaissancetutors.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-34010844054638904812016-12-26T06:32:25.584-08:002016-12-26T06:32:25.584-08:00I got an email from a Senior Editor of the Stanfor...I got an email from a Senior Editor of the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy asking me to document and support my criticism of this SEP entry:<br />https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/cosmological-argument/<br /><br />I submitted an initial draft, and promised to do a better job when I got hold of Norris Clarke's book, "The One and the Many." Fr. Clarke was my metaphysics teacher at Fordham. He taught us that the famous "five ways" were no good, but that the metaphysics of Thomas Aquinas, as brought out by Etienne Gilson, provides a rational argument, not a proof, of God's existence. The SEP entry only discusses the fallacious "five ways" arguments. My ideas about the "cosmological-argument" are here: <br /><br />https://www.academia.edu/23340072/WHY_PEOPLE_BELIEVE_GOD_CAUSED_THE_BIG_BANG<br /><br />In my essay, I propose a psychological explanation of why people think the Big Bang, biological evolution, and fine-tuning of physical constants is evidence that God exists. I'v attached a lesson plan about the existence of God.<br /><br />My correspondence with the SEP is at <br />http://www.newevangelist.me<br />Very truly yours, <br />David RoemerDavid Roemerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10381078955592416975noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-221934842044381162015-09-30T15:10:21.773-07:002015-09-30T15:10:21.773-07:00I'm reading The Last Superstition and I'm ...I'm reading The Last Superstition and I'm studying the case for the cosmological argument. Ed doesn't answer Kant's criticism of this type of argument, in particular the claim that the cosmological argument ultimately depends on the ontological argument. Since the ontological is a failure, the cosmological argument should be a failure too.<br />What about that?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-15234001174322416842014-08-02T06:49:58.060-07:002014-08-02T06:49:58.060-07:00@E. Seigner
I like the term “vertical” causality....@E. Seigner<br /><br />I like the term “vertical” causality. I also like the phrase “relational holism.” All of this reminds me of a Sufi parable that runs more or less as follows.<br /><br />A- Why were you chasing me?<br />B- Because you were running. Why were you running?<br />A- Because you were chasing me. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10077572827171851940noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-52830137845865610382014-08-02T00:53:05.441-07:002014-08-02T00:53:05.441-07:00Ed uses the term "simultaneous" to descr...Ed uses the term "simultaneous" to describe the other kind of causality than temporal. I find this an unfortunate word, because this still makes it sound somehow related to time. Modern people tend to think of causality in exclusively temporal terms, and the word "simultaneous" does not clarify properly that what is meant in this case is the kind of causality <i>perpendicular</i> to temporal causality.<br /><br />"Instrumentality" is a bit better term. For me, "hierarchical causality" sounds better still, and clearer.E.Seignerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01675302180154802654noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-11102405417373402542014-08-01T21:52:40.136-07:002014-08-01T21:52:40.136-07:00Well, it's not a general theory of sticks and ...Well, it's not a general theory of sticks and stones, only an illustrative example of an instrumental mover. In a different context, you may illustrate a different point. It still comes down to this: that an instrument cannot play itself. The stick has no power to move a stone unless it is being moved by another. Once the hand stops moving the stick, the stick stops moving the stone, because the stick cannot act on its own. This remains true even if the rock continues to roll (or to rock around the clock) due to Bradwardine's "first and last moments." The <i>stick</i> isn't moving it any more.TheOFloinnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14756711106266484327noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-42209079813289150362014-08-01T20:30:03.647-07:002014-08-01T20:30:03.647-07:00Case 1 slow-motion
(The hand moves the stick.) Th...Case 1 slow-motion<br /><br />(The hand moves the stick.) The stick hits the rock (action). The rock starts moving and resisting (reaction). The motion of the stick slows down a little or a lot depending on the size of the rock (resultant). Let’s say that the hand pushes the rock an inch northward then stops. Has the rock caused itself to move in precisely that way? I say no. What was the cause of that motion? I say it was principally the hand. The accent in this example is on instrumentality. Something is needed to move the rock and the stick, something of a different order from either of them. <br /><br />Case 2 stick breaks<br /><br />(The hand moves the stick.) The stick hits the rock (action). The heavy heavy rock starts moving slightly (with the hand) and resisting mightily (reaction). The opposed forces on the stick exceed its compression strength. It breaks (resultant). What caused the stick to break? Was it the action of the hand (plus stick) alone? I say no. Was it the reaction of the rock alone? I say no. Was it the two forces acting together, that is, simultaneously? I don’t know what other conclusion is possible. The accent in this example is on the simultaneity of cause and effect. If either force were to stop acting, the stick wouldn’t continue to break. Here action, reaction, and resultant are simultaneous, or at least overlapping significantly (in time).Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10077572827171851940noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-68727807869818180972014-08-01T03:18:49.668-07:002014-08-01T03:18:49.668-07:00"The link is mainly a defense against Hallqui..."The link is mainly a defense against Hallquist's charges. It doesn't develop the metaphysics. That's done elsewhere and I know it pretty well by now."<br /><br />But it does point toward where the concepts come from, which was your question.<br /><br />"Regarding "Concretizing the abstract," the text can't justify abstracting an error then using it as truth."<br /><br />That isn't why I posted the link.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-78097074226802808652014-07-31T22:22:33.972-07:002014-07-31T22:22:33.972-07:00Anonymous,
"Philosophy of nature/metaphysics...Anonymous,<br /><br />"Philosophy of nature/metaphysics of change. It's in the link."<br /><br />The link is mainly a defense against Hallquist's charges. It doesn't develop the metaphysics. That's done elsewhere and I know it pretty well by now.<br /> <br />Regarding "Concretizing the abstract," the text can't justify abstracting an error then using it as truth.<br />Don Jindrahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05550378223563435764noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-18693582097231213152014-07-30T12:33:34.632-07:002014-07-30T12:33:34.632-07:00"The distinction between between per se and p..."The distinction between between per se and per accidens is based wholly on illustrations. Where else would it come from? Logic? No."<br /><br />Philosophy of nature/metaphysics of change. It's in the link.<br /><br />"What else could he say when the illustrations don't truly illustrate the concepts? It's not too much to ask for an objective example where the physical details do precisely what the concepts claim they do. Otherwise we have no reason to believe the concepts are based on physical reality. Let's remember, the goal is to better describe being itself. You cannot do that by using concepts that have no objective basis in physical reality."<br /><br />Physics requires a high level of abstraction. You have to watch out for this before claiming there really is no per se in nature:<br /><br />http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2012/08/concretizing-abstract.htmlAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-10665286043299094052014-07-30T06:51:36.322-07:002014-07-30T06:51:36.322-07:00Anonymous,
"Feser/Aquinas do not use illustr...Anonymous,<br /><br />"Feser/Aquinas do not use illustrations as evidence."<br /><br />The distinction between between <i>per se</i> and <i>per accidens</i> is based wholly on illustrations. Where else would it come from? Logic? No.<br /><br /><i>"As Rudi te Velde has suggested, some critics place too much significance on the physical details of the examples Aquinas gives in the course of the proof, failing to see that their point is merely to illustrate certain basic metaphysical principles rather than to support broad empirical or quasi-scientific generalizations. (p. 68, emphasis added)"</i><br /><br />What else could he say when the illustrations don't truly illustrate the concepts? It's not too much to ask for an objective example where the physical details do precisely what the concepts claim they do. Otherwise we have no reason to believe the concepts are based on physical reality. Let's remember, the goal is to better describe being itself. You cannot do that by using concepts that have no objective basis in physical reality.<br /><br />Paul,<br /><br />I'll answer you privately.Don Jindrahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05550378223563435764noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-91319365284560178962014-07-29T18:13:51.895-07:002014-07-29T18:13:51.895-07:00“The hand may have started the body of water's...“The hand may have started the body of water's motion, but once affected, the molecules of water are then free to cause other events quite separate from the hand's presence. So they are not being used instrumentally by the hand.” DJ<br /><br />But such counter-waves can be used intentionally and instrumentally. This is often done, for example, in the placement of loudspeakers or microphones. I think you would have to show that such counter-waves *cannot* be used instrumentally for the point to go through.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10077572827171851940noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-6662829617590712952014-07-29T17:50:14.904-07:002014-07-29T17:50:14.904-07:00“But the water does have a "power" of it...“But the water does have a "power" of its own. It will slosh against the side of the tub quite apart from the intention of the kid or his subsequent hand movement.” DJ<br /><br />How does the water have a power of its own? Wouldn’t it keep radiating outward *on its own*?Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10077572827171851940noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-24878210388937399052014-07-29T16:12:24.409-07:002014-07-29T16:12:24.409-07:00Don Jindra,
Your reasoning doesn't parallel F...Don Jindra,<br /><br />Your reasoning doesn't parallel Feser's answer to the objection. For example, where do Feser/Aquinas imply this "Nevertheless, those 'loose illustrations' are evidence enough to take vampires seriously." (or its parallel)? Feser/Aquinas do not use illustrations as evidence.<br /><br />This is also from the link:<br /><br />"As Rudi te Velde has suggested, some critics place too much significance on the physical details of the examples Aquinas gives in the course of the proof, failing to see that their point is merely to illustrate certain basic metaphysical principles rather than to support broad empirical or quasi-scientific generalizations. (p. 68, emphasis added)"Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-18180073451843753972014-07-29T12:17:49.030-07:002014-07-29T12:17:49.030-07:00If the things we talk about, cars, tables, are ill...If the things we talk about, cars, tables, are illusory, when can we speak the truth? Can “The cup I have just put on the table is no longer moving.” be true in some way if at the subatomic level it is false? Can a statement be true at one level and false on another?<br /><br />What should we make of Einstein’s thought experiment where he imagined riding on a beam of light? Can an impossibility not illustrate a truth?Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10077572827171851940noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-30320323282937960912014-07-29T07:47:51.317-07:002014-07-29T07:47:51.317-07:00Anonymous,
Thanks for the link. I missed that one...Anonymous,<br /><br />Thanks for the link. I missed that one when originally posted. As a brief illustration of what I think of the reasoning there, suppose I said this:<br /><br /><i>Examples like Anne Rice's <b>Interview with the Vampire</b> have no significance other than as loose illustrations of certain abstract characteristics of vampires Nevertheless, those 'loose illustrations' are evidence enough to take vampires seriously. The actual physical fact that there are no vampires is completely irrelevant.</i><br /><br />The monster with no reflection in the mirror, in this case, is instrumental cause. Any plot that derives from it, no matter how elaborate and entertaining, is just more fiction.<br /><br />(For someone who so quickly spots begging the question in others, it would be nice if Feser used that talent to examine Aquinas.)Don Jindrahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05550378223563435764noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-15704985310983650802014-07-28T15:10:45.495-07:002014-07-28T15:10:45.495-07:00"The actual situation, then, is this. Exampl..."The actual situation, then, is this. Examples like the hand pushing the stone etc. have (like the physicist’s examples of riding a beam of light or falling into a black hole) no significance other than as loose illustrations of certain abstract concepts -- in this case the concepts of instrumental causality, the actualization of potency, and the like. The actual physical details are completely irrelevant, just as the fact that you’d be torn apart if you fell into a black hole and the fact that a photon is too small to sit on are completely irrelevant to the points the physicist is trying to make. And just as it would be silly to harp on the impossibility of riding on a photon or surviving a fall into a black hole as proof that a certain physicist hasn’t gotten his physics straight or that he doesn’t care about the actual empirical facts, so too is it silly to harp on the physics of the local motion of sticks and stones as proof that Aquinas, Feser, et al. haven’t gotten our physics straight or that we don’t care about the actual empirical facts."<br /><br />http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2012/11/the-incompetent-hack.htmlAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-48563114672314326992014-07-28T10:40:06.403-07:002014-07-28T10:40:06.403-07:00The magnetic field example got me to thinking. Sur...The magnetic field example got me to thinking. Surprisingly it led me to a better understanding of why I've never thought the <i>per se</i> versus <i>per accidens</i> dichotomy was legitimate. <br /><br />When thinking about electricity it's good to conceptualize it as water. This got me to a toy boat in a bathtub. A kid learns he can move the boat by shoving water at it. He never has to touch the boat. But he could take a stick and push it through the water too. It's obvious to me that when using water alone to move the boat, there is no <i>per se</i> chain. The hand pushes the water, and the current and/or waves radiate from the hand and eventually move the boat. But the water does have a "power" of its own. It will slosh against the side of the tub quite apart from the intention of the kid or his subsequent hand movement. The waves of water keep the boat bobbing. Each molecule of water moves independently. The hand may have started the body of water's motion, but once affected, the molecules of water are then free to cause other events quite separate from the hand's presence. So they are not being used instrumentally by the hand.<br /><br />This led me to frozen water on a mountain. A skier starts an avalanche. The snow and ice tumble downhill and destroy a cabin. It's not a <i>per se</i> chain that buries the cabin. It's the cumulative effect of billions of interconnected events.<br /><br />Magnetic fields are like this. It's the cumulative effect of billions of spinning electrons. Each electron causes, and always causes, an electromagnetic disturbance. The fields that move magnets in a motor are the cumulative effect of billions of electrons moving in a more orderly <i>per accidens</i> chain.<br /><br />Finally, this is exactly what the hand-stick-stone analogy is too. It's the hardness of the stick to our senses that confuses the issue. In reality, that stick is just like that water in the tub. The molecules move in a more uniform manner but they do slosh at the atomic level. It cannot then be <i>per se</i>.<br /><br />Paul's instrumental movement of the body by the "soul" remains the most interesting example.Don Jindrahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05550378223563435764noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-43846636726913599542014-07-27T16:16:03.309-07:002014-07-27T16:16:03.309-07:00Which one of those billions do we single out and s...<i>Which one of those billions do we single out and say, Here starts the per se chain?</i><br /><br />Why should any one of them do so?TheOFloinnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14756711106266484327noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-49358657188699576642014-07-27T15:58:47.576-07:002014-07-27T15:58:47.576-07:00Anonymous,
"No flow, no magnetic attraction/...Anonymous,<br /><br /><i>"No flow, no magnetic attraction/repulsion."</i><br /><br />Right, however it's caused by the flow of not one but billions of charged particles (electrons). Which one of those billions do we single out and say, Here starts the <i>per se</i> chain? I think you can see my problem with that. It is an interesting example though. I need to give it some thought. My first thought is that I doubt it's a good example for applying to the cosmological argument because that argument is in search of one prime mover, not the billions required to support a decent magnetic field.<br /><br /><i>"Based on my understanding, per se chains are a result of something's lack of causal power if the 'preceding' element does not actualize its potential."</i><br /><br />I don't think that's quite right. Feser puts it this way: "[I]t is because all the causes in ... a series other than the first are instrumental ... that they are said to be ordered <i>per se</i> or 'essentially,' for their being causes at all depends essentially on the activity of that which uses them as instruments."<br /><br />Instrumentality is the key.Don Jindrahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05550378223563435764noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-90997473719515601372014-07-27T12:26:02.221-07:002014-07-27T12:26:02.221-07:00Or try this.
If I said that when a living thing d...Or try this.<br /><br />If I said that when a living thing dies it stops moving (changing), would you object? I would say that the body stops changing as an instrument of the soul. Yes it goes on changing, but not in the relevant sense. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10077572827171851940noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-52027039036460512082014-07-26T18:50:30.796-07:002014-07-26T18:50:30.796-07:00Let’s try this.
Actually, the Newton thing only m...Let’s try this.<br /><br />Actually, the Newton thing only makes the point. Say our electric car is out in space. Cut the power, the car’s motion *in the relevant sense* stops. Without something to act on it, its trajectory will not change. For Aristotle and Aquinas, motion means change, one kind of change standing for change in general.<br /><br />Generally, when an agent ceases to act on an instrumental cause, the instrumental cause ceases to act *as an instrument*. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10077572827171851940noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-79936419526372744702014-07-26T12:47:10.067-07:002014-07-26T12:47:10.067-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10077572827171851940noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-20839799863662369472014-07-26T10:41:00.711-07:002014-07-26T10:41:00.711-07:00I haven't read up on motors, but isn't ele...I haven't read up on motors, but isn't electricity required to sustain the electromagnet? No flow, no magnetic attraction/repulsion.<br /><br />Based on my understanding, per se chains are a result of something's lack of causal power if the "preceding" element does not actualize it's potential. The motor is not going to function in little bursts without having something actualize it in little bursts.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-47429121531403084192014-07-26T08:33:20.641-07:002014-07-26T08:33:20.641-07:00@Anonymous,
"but wouldn't the coal miner...@Anonymous,<br /><br /><i>"but wouldn't the coal miners be per accidens? If they all suddenly die while the car is being propelled, the engine will continue on just fine."</i><br /><br />But is there anything but <i>per accidens</i> in the entire system? Let's look at that motor. It does not apply continuous force. If it's a brushless DC motor, for example, the electronic motor controller sends a series of pulses to coils to force the magnets to rotate to the next position. What we humans see as continuous rotation is due to the limitations of our senses. In reality that motor is pulsed. Rotation is not constant. Therefore the car's forward motion is driven by a <i>per accidens</i> series of pulses -- like a hammer hitting a nail repeatedly. Our sensation of a constant force at our backs is a fluke of biology. Our subjective sensation hides the fact that in objective reality this is no start of a <i>per se</i> chain. The same sort of analysis can be applied to music.<br />Don Jindrahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05550378223563435764noreply@blogger.com