tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5743370102334877264.post8270702338147146882..comments2023-04-05T09:07:08.419-07:00Comments on Fides et Ratio: Two Certainties: 1) There is a God; and 2) I am not God.Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07034462951274070391noreply@blogger.comBlogger34125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5743370102334877264.post-5732603112155470152013-07-03T10:18:43.899-07:002013-07-03T10:18:43.899-07:00>But firstly, there is no evidence that every c...>But firstly, there is no evidence that every chnage needs such extranl stimulus,<br /><br />Did not say there was. We've both already explained that a potential must be actualized by something already actual. This could include something internal.<br /><br />>X is being actualized by an unchanging termination point because the analogy would entail that X, while non-actual, was moved by a object of desire, which lead X to become actual.<br /><br />The analogy was simply to demonstrate that "X changing Y" does not entail a change in X. Which was your original objection.<br /><br />Martinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06038086497147379685noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5743370102334877264.post-64879939458490476602013-07-02T08:34:35.741-07:002013-07-02T08:34:35.741-07:00I was actually replying to Martin's claim, whi...I was actually replying to Martin's claim, which does not entail an X that already has both A and P. So, my objection is relevant to Martin's concept, and not to yours.Walter Van den Ackerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16101735542155226072noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5743370102334877264.post-28609141878395615082013-07-02T08:27:06.739-07:002013-07-02T08:27:06.739-07:00Walter, X exhibits both actuality and potentiality...Walter, X exhibits both actuality and potentiality, so your objection doesn't stay true to the illustration. Of course, the man has actuality, but his potentiality of gaining an additional aesthetic appreciation cannot actualize itself. No potentiality can actualize itself because that would entail that it's self-caused, which is impossible. Since you agree that a thing cannot be self-caused, where does the problem lie?Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07034462951274070391noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5743370102334877264.post-48910430102029212082013-07-02T00:53:05.671-07:002013-07-02T00:53:05.671-07:00The process of change in the man is an entirely in...The process of change in the man is an entirely internal process, which, in this case is partly triggered by an external stimulus. Fine. But firstly, there is no evidence that every chnage needs such extranl stimulus, but secondly, and more importantly, this analogy does not work on a fundamental level, on which X is being actualized by an unchanging termination point because the analogy would entail that X, while non-actual, was moved by a object of desire, which lead X to become actual.<br />That's absurd, because in order for X to be moved, X has to be actual, which yoi claipm is the result of X being moved. So, yoi are stuck in a fatal viscious circularity.Walter Van den Ackerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16101735542155226072noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5743370102334877264.post-49822674642805898502013-07-01T10:23:42.013-07:002013-07-01T10:23:42.013-07:00No, Doug has it right. Can X change Y without X it...No, Doug has it right. Can X change Y without X itself changing? Of course. The beautiful painting causes a change in the man, even though the painting itself does not change. A lump of gold in a gold mine can cause a riot in the local mining town even though the gold itself does not change. <br /><br />There is nothing about "X changing Y" that <i>entails</i> X needing to change itself. Martinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06038086497147379685noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5743370102334877264.post-62457304035948714572013-07-01T00:46:56.516-07:002013-07-01T00:46:56.516-07:00I'll wait for Martin's reply, because you ...I'll wait for Martin's reply, because you are talking about something entirely different, and as a result, completely miss the mark.Walter Van den Ackerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16101735542155226072noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5743370102334877264.post-22232676156752293712013-06-30T18:59:22.044-07:002013-06-30T18:59:22.044-07:00It's both a sound and effective analogy. The ...It's both a sound and effective analogy. The man doesn't need to will to exist. The sole point of the analogy is that X can change Y without X also changing. And, of course the man possesses actuality, but his potentiality of a newfound aesthetic appreciation is not something that actualizes itself, but is something received upon gazing on the painting's beauty.<br /><br />Moreover, I see no reason why Pure Actuality cannot timelessly will something. Objections to this hypothesis are dubious at best, and I've never come across an objection that made me lose any sleep.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07034462951274070391noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5743370102334877264.post-31141643108038271292013-06-30T07:54:42.864-07:002013-06-30T07:54:42.864-07:00The analogy of the man who views a beautiful paint...The analogy of the man who views a beautiful painting in no way answers my objection. For starters, in order for the man to be moved by the painting, the man must have act, which, according to Martin, he must have received. So, accirding to you, the reason why the man exists is because he desired to exist.<br />To <br />Actually the fact that to my knowlegde this very poor analogy is the closest way to an explanation I have ever seen or heard any Thomist attempt is what convinces me that there is not much reason to think the Thomist worldview is any way as complete as Thomists like to assert.<br />Walter Van den Ackerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16101735542155226072noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5743370102334877264.post-61626214535862750242013-06-29T21:35:06.314-07:002013-06-29T21:35:06.314-07:00That's not always the case, as I've argued...That's not always the case, as I've argued dozens of times before. I'm sure Martin can answer for himself, but this is same objection that's been answered time and again. A man who views a beautiful painting is said to be "moved" (changed) by it because the painting's beauty is an object of desire. Pure Actuality is the supreme object of desire.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07034462951274070391noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5743370102334877264.post-44048843378543985992013-06-27T22:36:10.148-07:002013-06-27T22:36:10.148-07:00The termination point(TP) must have act and potenc...The termination point(TP) must have act and potency because, if the other entities are 'receivers', it logically follows that the TP is a 'giver'.<br />In order for A to give somethingto B, something from A must go to B. But that is a change, hence the TP cannot be immutable.Walter Van den Ackerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16101735542155226072noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5743370102334877264.post-7803275745463247932013-06-26T17:00:09.540-07:002013-06-26T17:00:09.540-07:00It's "receiving" in this sense:
A i...It's "receiving" in this sense:<br /><br />A is being actualized by B, but B is being actualized by C, and so on. This can only terminate in an unactualized actualizer, because with an actualized actualizer it just wouldn't BE the termination point.Martinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06038086497147379685noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5743370102334877264.post-26574346974247520572013-06-26T13:41:45.145-07:002013-06-26T13:41:45.145-07:00Good to know.Good to know.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07034462951274070391noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5743370102334877264.post-73361236619589827932013-06-26T12:19:56.298-07:002013-06-26T12:19:56.298-07:00That's true, but nothing that I say entails se...That's true, but nothing that I say entails self-causationWalter Van den Ackerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16101735542155226072noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5743370102334877264.post-38229627343820028302013-06-26T08:40:42.659-07:002013-06-26T08:40:42.659-07:00The reason Thomists say that no potentiality can a...The reason Thomists say that no potentiality can actualize itself is because that would make the actualization something self-caused. In this case, X would exist and not-exist simultaneously in order to cause its own existence, which is absurd.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07034462951274070391noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5743370102334877264.post-68617524981795775052013-06-25T23:02:02.480-07:002013-06-25T23:02:02.480-07:00A potency is a possibility that exists within a co...A potency is a possibility that exists within a concrete object. I fully agree with that. But you still haven't shown how any of this is "received" in any way.<br />Moreover, I am not sure you are aware of the implications of this, but, taken to its logical consequences, this is a straighforward rejection of the doctrine of creatio ex nihilo.Walter Van den Ackerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16101735542155226072noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5743370102334877264.post-68968364188113690512013-06-25T13:40:08.504-07:002013-06-25T13:40:08.504-07:00Spontaneously or not, that doesn't answer the ...Spontaneously or not, that doesn't answer the question. The body builder has an actuality of strength, which has its sustaining cause in properly functioning organs, and so forth. If the strength were only in potentiality, that potentiality would not actualize itself.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07034462951274070391noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5743370102334877264.post-20110469950275512832013-06-25T10:54:56.936-07:002013-06-25T10:54:56.936-07:00I also think that this is the most straightforward...I also think that this is the most straightforward, because it can be justified in a simple manner.<br /><br />No potency can actualize itself. Why? Because a potency is a possibility that exist within a concrete object. A mere possibility cannot cause or actualize anything, including itself.ozero91https://www.blogger.com/profile/15383910270101919080noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5743370102334877264.post-50920686520067835572013-06-25T10:52:27.501-07:002013-06-25T10:52:27.501-07:00Martin,
From one of Doug's arguments:
"...Martin,<br /><br />From one of Doug's arguments:<br /><br />"Everything that changes has an external cause. (Premise)"<br /><br />Walter Van den Ackerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16101735542155226072noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5743370102334877264.post-51212557042316679222013-06-25T10:45:28.431-07:002013-06-25T10:45:28.431-07:00SpontaneouslySpontaneouslyWalter Van den Ackerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16101735542155226072noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5743370102334877264.post-47399025670352512582013-06-25T09:42:37.934-07:002013-06-25T09:42:37.934-07:00Admittedly, some of my formulations of the argumen...Admittedly, some of my formulations of the argument do allude to the external cause of change. My favorite formulation of the causal principle, however, is: "No potentiality can actualize itself."Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07034462951274070391noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5743370102334877264.post-35015656656045745792013-06-25T09:29:04.845-07:002013-06-25T09:29:04.845-07:00Walter,
>Or something can be changed as a resu...Walter,<br /><br />>Or something can be changed as a result of internal properties. <br /><br />Right. Internal <i>actual</i> properties. That's exactly what the premise says: whatever is changing is being changed by something <i>actual</i>. <br /><br />The premise does not say: "whatever is changing is being changed by something external". Martinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06038086497147379685noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5743370102334877264.post-34984540371209353692013-06-25T09:11:50.467-07:002013-06-25T09:11:50.467-07:00Thomists will be quick to grant that some things c...Thomists will be quick to grant that some things can change as a result of internal properties. For example, a body builder has the potential to bench press 400 lbs. However, it's only because he has the actuality of a certain level of strength that he is able to do so. Yet, the body builder is still dependent on external actualities in order to sustain certain changes, such as breathing oxygen. So, while a thing can change as a result of internal properties, the question remains: how are these internal properties actualized?Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07034462951274070391noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5743370102334877264.post-53083550229603678822013-06-24T22:07:25.656-07:002013-06-24T22:07:25.656-07:00"Right, but that's what premise 2 does: w..."Right, but that's what premise 2 does: whatever is changing is being changed by something already actual."<br /><br />Or something can be changed as a result of internal properties. Walter Van den Ackerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16101735542155226072noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5743370102334877264.post-55435104887561405452013-06-24T11:41:43.503-07:002013-06-24T11:41:43.503-07:00>it begs the question because it is not because...>it begs the question because it is not because someone possesses something that he has necessarily received it<br /><br />Right, but that's what premise 2 does: whatever is changing is being changed by something already actual. <br /><br />That is, if something is changing, something actual is changing it. Or even if something is not changing: the frozen lake is actualized by cold air, cold air is actualized by the jet stream, the jet stream is actualized by the sun.<br /><br />In this case, everything is a receiver, and it must therefore bottom out in something that can give without having to get from anything further.Martinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06038086497147379685noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5743370102334877264.post-38422055309586674132013-06-23T23:42:49.219-07:002013-06-23T23:42:49.219-07:00Martin
Nice to see so many omniscient people here...Martin<br /><br />Nice to see so many omniscient people here who know what my objection presupposes. In reality my objection is far more complex than you think. Unfortunately, this blog is not the proper place for an elabortate discussion of this intriguing subjcet.<br /><br />Just one final word: your claim that a receiver entails a giver is correct, but it begs the question because it is not because someone possesses something that he has necessarily received it. But that discussion would open a new can of wormsWalter Van den Ackerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16101735542155226072noreply@blogger.com