tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post4763681998406408219..comments2024-03-29T04:58:54.003-07:00Comments on Edward Feser: DSPT symposium papers online (Updated)Edward Feserhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13643921537838616224noreply@blogger.comBlogger157125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-53654282872852210342014-11-30T15:26:14.486-08:002014-11-30T15:26:14.486-08:00@Step2:
Sure, but in that case it's still not...@Step2:<br /><br />Sure, but in that case it's still not the <i>removal</i> of the tumors that results in the privation. Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11979532520761760862noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-27818461350176010902014-11-30T15:05:20.713-08:002014-11-30T15:05:20.713-08:00@Glenn
But if only the tumors, and nothing but the...@Glenn<br /><i>But if only the tumors, and nothing but the tumors, are removed, why might one think the final state is a privation?</i> <br /><br />As you mention, my objection was qualified to cases where healthy limbs and tissues are removed as a necessary part of removing the tumor. In other cases it depends on where and how large the tumors are. Basically, tumors can damage and to a lesser extent replace healthy tissue. So even if it is possible to target only the tumors without any major side effects from the treatment there can still be permanent reductions in functionality as a lingering effect of the tumors.Step2noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-74067508826744947352014-11-30T12:20:24.504-08:002014-11-30T12:20:24.504-08:00(s/b "...why might one think the final state ...(s/b "...why might one think the final state is a privation (in a scholastic sense)?")Glennnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-27944239234985814762014-11-30T12:17:39.375-08:002014-11-30T12:17:39.375-08:00Step2,
Obviously things went a bit sideways from...Step2,<br /><br /><br /><i>Obviously things went a bit sideways from there.</i><br /><br />It happens; no biggie (as we used to say (looong before Al Gore invented the internet)).<br /><br /><i>I'm going to disagree with part of your statement. The state of your body after their removal, if it involves for example removing a limb or most of an organ, is still a privation. You could fairly say it is a lesser privation than the consequence of not removing the tumors, but it is unclear why I would think the final objective state is not a privation.</i><br /><br />I had anticipated an objection like this before making the statement. ;) My prepared response was that the making of the objection indicates an awareness of the basic point.<br /><br />To take it a bit further, the state of my body sans the tumors is not in a state of privation because of their removal. <br /><br />If, as not infrequently happens, non-tumorous parts are also removed (that, e.g., the tumorous parts themselves may be removed), then it may be the case that, as you suggest, a privation is involved.<br /><br />But if only the tumors, and nothing but the tumors, are removed, why might one think the final state is a privation?Glennnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-76675485799612911802014-11-30T08:12:46.991-08:002014-11-30T08:12:46.991-08:00@Glenn
I was just making light of the notion that ...@Glenn<br /><i>I was just making light of the notion that -3, or any negative number, might qualify as 'evil' in a scholastic sense. </i><br /><br />I had originally intended the analogy in a strict numerical sense, as in denying that negatives exist in the set of real numbers would alter the definition of "real numbers". Obviously things went a bit sideways from there.<br /><br /><i>And it is true that, informally speaking, to be deprived of something is to experience a privation. But neither the removal of cancerous tumors from my body, nor the state of my body after their removal, would, in a scholastic sense, qualify as a 'privation'.</i> <br /><br />I'm going to disagree with part of your statement. The state of your body after their removal, if it involves for example removing a limb or most of an organ, is still a privation. You could fairly say it is a lesser privation than the consequence of not removing the tumors, but it is unclear why I would think the final objective state is not a privation.Step2noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-37460556276908341112014-11-28T11:55:11.182-08:002014-11-28T11:55:11.182-08:00@John West:
"This is all quite different fro...@John West:<br /><br />"This is all quite different from what I'm used to reading about theist moral systems."<br /><br />I'm sure of it. And we haven't even gotten to the strictly <i>moral</i> part yet! (That doesn't come in until rationality does. Only a rational being can make choices based on an intellectual understanding of one's nature and judge whether, and how well, a proposed action accords with the axiomatic moral principle <i>Do good and avoid evil</i>.)Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11979532520761760862noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-84647249911008610722014-11-28T11:00:32.846-08:002014-11-28T11:00:32.846-08:00Thanks. This is all quite different from what I...Thanks. This is all quite different from what I'm used to reading about theist moral systems.John Westnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-71558889988017594512014-11-28T08:39:29.813-08:002014-11-28T08:39:29.813-08:00As for those hypothetical tumors: each one is some...As for those hypothetical tumors: each one is something positively existing in its own right, but someone's <i>having</i> them would be a privation in the sense of a falling short of perfect health, and that's precisely what makes them "evils" befalling <i>that person</i>.Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11979532520761760862noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-83677999847641002052014-11-28T08:01:00.315-08:002014-11-28T08:01:00.315-08:00For example, being killed by a cheetah is a privat...For example, being killed by a cheetah is a privation, and thus an "evil," for the gazelle, but in and of itself the cheetah's action is a fulfillment of the cheetah's nature and thus "good" insofar as it's anything positive.Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11979532520761760862noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-70689320796195847162014-11-28T07:57:17.774-08:002014-11-28T07:57:17.774-08:00@John West:
A privation is just an absence. It...@John West:<br /><br />A privation is just an absence. It's not (or at least it needn't be) an interference with the natural order; it happens all the time in the natural order, as in <a href="http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1049.htm#article1" rel="nofollow">Aquinas's example</a> of the "form of fire" causing the "privation of the form of air or of water." As far as "evil" is concerned, the point is just that it ultimately consists of a privation caused by something that is, in itself, good, and therefore isn't any sort of positive being or substance in its own right.Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11979532520761760862noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-91127408821479458452014-11-28T07:05:50.257-08:002014-11-28T07:05:50.257-08:00So, on Scholasticism, a deprivation is any interfe...So, on Scholasticism, a deprivation is any interference in the natural order, or something? <i>Scholastic Metaphysics</i> just got here. I should, I hope, at least be able to start talking about the right concepts.John Westnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-8781186690515827272014-11-28T06:49:57.417-08:002014-11-28T06:49:57.417-08:00@Glenn:
"But neither the removal of cancerou...@Glenn:<br /><br />"But neither the removal of cancerous tumors from my body, nor the state of my body after their removal, would, in a scholastic sense, qualify as a 'privation'."<br /><br />Indeed, your <i>having</i> them would.Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11979532520761760862noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-44189490256822953142014-11-28T00:14:42.519-08:002014-11-28T00:14:42.519-08:00Step2,
@Glenn
If I had three cancerous tumors (wh...Step2,<br /><br /><i>@Glenn<br />If I had three cancerous tumors (which I don't, and never did (and, God willing, never will)), I'd probably roll out the red carpet for the 'evil' -3.<br /><br />Thanks for pointing out the danger of assuming the "ought" of privation. Sometimes privation is a good thing.</i><br /><br />On a blog populated by people with an interest in things scholastic, 'privation' does have an "ought". (It ought to, anyway). I was just making light of the notion that -3, or any negative number, might qualify as 'evil' in a scholastic sense. <br /><br />Certainly, if I had three cancerous tumors, I'd want to be 'deprived' of them (and right quickly). And it is true that, informally speaking, to be deprived of something is to experience a privation. But neither the removal of cancerous tumors from my body, nor the state of my body after their removal, would, in a scholastic sense, qualify as a 'privation'.Glennnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-80018063001629427512014-11-27T12:06:44.664-08:002014-11-27T12:06:44.664-08:00@Scott
Well it seems that Matthew Ramage might be...@Scott<br /><br />Well it seems that Matthew Ramage might be open to some such thing (busy man as is Ed so I won't even ask him!), so I shall see mid-December. I have a few others I hope to make contact with. Any book suggestions and authors I should consider?<br /><br />Anyway, that's enough of that (as I don't want to get off topic from the DSPT symposium - of which I only got time to look at the Q & A thus far!).<br />Irish Thomisthttp://irishthomist.blogspot.co.uk/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-43771389527409148332014-11-27T10:12:43.980-08:002014-11-27T10:12:43.980-08:00Well, unless we're accepting a mathematikoi-ty...Well, unless we're accepting a <i>mathematikoi</i>-type take on the universe.John Westnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-18058095904264998042014-11-27T10:08:42.194-08:002014-11-27T10:08:42.194-08:00(To clarify that second paragraph, I question this...(To clarify that second paragraph, I question this introduction of pure mathematics into the conversation. Normally, I would be all for it, but I think part of the conversation is getting lost behind analogy here. I say this, by the way, grudgingly and as someone whose area of study is pure mathematics.)John Westnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-21753033932607166462014-11-27T09:43:46.943-08:002014-11-27T09:43:46.943-08:00Daniel and Scott,
If one admits states of affairs...Daniel and Scott,<br /><br />If one admits states of affairs, can one argue instantiations of negative numbers?<br /><br />Incidentally, one can represent every positive integer as a product of negative numbers. Does that mean all things are products of deprivations of things, or am I taking this analysis too far?John Westnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-67941846453080530432014-11-27T09:41:18.292-08:002014-11-27T09:41:18.292-08:00@Scott
What's at issue is whether, and if so h...@Scott<br /><i>What's at issue is whether, and if so how, negative numbers might be instantiated in the physical universe.</i><br /><br />My very limited understanding of quantum mechanics is that it is based on the physical reality of negative probabilities. Which sounds kind of weird but pretty much everything about QM is weird.<br /><br />As a more direct answer, Daniel wants to limit the result to positive numbers or zero. Even though I disagree, all it means is that the positive operand must be greater than or equal to the negative operand. There is no requirement that negative numbers be ruled out completely to allow for his claim.<br /><br />@Glenn<br /><i>If I had three cancerous tumors (which I don't, and never did (and, God willing, never will)), I'd probably roll out the red carpet for the 'evil' -3.</i><br /><br />Thanks for pointing out the danger of assuming the "ought" of privation. Sometimes privation is a good thing.Step2noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-70863208026951583062014-11-27T09:41:15.044-08:002014-11-27T09:41:15.044-08:00Step2,
Your reply is non-sequitur from what my fu...Step2,<br /><br />Your reply is <i>non-sequitur</i> from what my full comment said.John Westnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-60647532575112653892014-11-27T08:42:51.218-08:002014-11-27T08:42:51.218-08:00Heh, that last example is a bit messed up arithmet...Heh, that last example is a bit messed up arithmetically, isn't it?<br /><br />Change the threes to fives. ;-)Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11979532520761760862noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-80367640736852284022014-11-27T08:17:54.690-08:002014-11-27T08:17:54.690-08:00In other words, Daniel's point about negative ...In other words, Daniel's point about negative numbers is just that you can keep taking away apples only until you're out of apples; there's no such physical thing as "three apples fewer than none at all." Of course if you owe someone ten apples and you have only five to give him, you <i>owe</i> him five more apples, and regarding yourself as "having -3 apples" for accounting purposes is unexceptionable. But that doesn't mean you <i>physically have</i> three apples fewer than zero.Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11979532520761760862noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-40345028316669753362014-11-27T08:13:09.964-08:002014-11-27T08:13:09.964-08:00@Wounds, holes, and deceleration(?) have not "...@<i>Wounds, holes, and deceleration(?) have not "failed to instantiate their essence", they are reductions and subtractions from a previous state</i><br /><br />And their being reductions and subtractions is exactly why we call them privations i.e. their being a lack of essential order, an absence rather than a presence. Danielnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-1337771434856596072014-11-27T08:09:07.771-08:002014-11-27T08:09:07.771-08:00@Step2:
The mathematics of subtraction aren't...@Step2:<br /><br />The mathematics of subtraction aren't at issue. What's at issue is whether, and if so how, negative numbers might be instantiated in the physical universe.<br /><br />Physically, taking away an electron (which is arguably a physical instantiation of subtraction) is not the same thing as annihilating it with a positron (cancelling it with something like its physical "negative"). You can do the first without doing the second, just as you can "take away" things that (like jelly beans or apples) may not have physical anti-equivalents.<br /><br />As Daniel implies in his "gold" example, we can certainly conceive of an "anti-apple" as an apple with its particles replaced by anti-particles. But as far as we know, our universe doesn't contain any, and in any case we certainly don't need them in order to "take away one apple."Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11979532520761760862noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-8223424016677594922014-11-27T08:04:17.735-08:002014-11-27T08:04:17.735-08:00If I had three cancerous tumors (which I don't...If I had three cancerous tumors (which I don't, and never did (and, God willing, never will)), I'd probably roll out the red carpet for the 'evil' -3.Glennnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-11496084384607799692014-11-27T07:46:40.574-08:002014-11-27T07:46:40.574-08:00@John West
You don't need to add an anti-somet...@John West<br /><i>You don't need to add an anti-something to something to deprive it. You only need to take away a something.</i><br /><br />Adding a negative X is mathematically identical to (taking away) subtracting a positive X. The properties of math are not question begging.<br /><br />@Daniel<br /><i>So -3 is no more an 'evil' 3, a 3 which has failed to instantiate its essence...</i><br /><br />Then your previous examples make no sense. Wounds, holes, and deceleration(?) have not "failed to instantiate their essence", they are reductions and subtractions from a previous state. You are also ignoring that it is the combination of the operands that produces the evil, not the operands in isolation.Step2noreply@blogger.com