This is EXACTLY what I've been looking for. Thank you! I've been in a crisis about matter, properties, meaning, etc. and this really helped clear it up. Also, I'm never going to McZeno's now that I've heard what it offers ;)
@@anahata3478 I agree. But, when it comes to conceptual clarity on a lot of the philosophical issues of today, Aristotle usually has something illuminating to say.
@@anahata3478 Aristotle lived 300 years before Christ, so it should be rather obvious that his beliefs on matters spiritual should be incomplete and unbiblical. Note that I am quoting here, and that the quote is referring to matters of rationality, not faith.
@@anahata3478 Um, immortality of the soul is Biblical though. In fact, that has always been the Christian belief with countless passages in the Bible speaking about the eternity of punishment. The annihilating of souls that enter hell was an error that came from gnostic influence, then mainly pushed forward by Valentinus, but was rightly suppressed after the Council of Nicea. Unfortunately, as with all errors, it was later revived by the Protestants, and some groups still hold it today. But, a simple glance at Church history, or Biblical passages and Church doctrine to the contrary makes it clear that Christians do hold that the human soul is immortal.
@@eufrosniad994 Not sure I agree with you. 1 Tim 6:14-16 "14 That thou keep this commandment without spot, unrebukable, until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ: 15 Which in his times he shall shew, who is the blessed and only Potentate, the King of kings, and Lord of lords; 16 Who only hath immortality, dwelling in the light which no man can approach unto; whom no man hath seen, nor can see: to whom be honour and power everlasting. Amen."
Very good lecture indeed... but it is adequate for the initated, or else one have to listen to it several times, as it is, as most of Ed Feser lectures, very condensed. This one have helped me clarify several aspects of Thomistic worldview.
Having infinite # of parts does not imply infinite size. The sum of the series 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + 1/6 + ... is not infinity (it actually equals 1). Is there another proof against infinite divisibility of particles? (the 4th objection to mechanical philosophy given in this talk?)
For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountain of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.
Really omits the fact theologians got there by reason too. Jastrow is influenced by the kind of protestant fideism. But it`s a great quote. If you listen to the lecture you can see just one instance of many in which what is considered naivety plays out as robust knowledge in the course of history.
I'm not entirely sure what sorts of things theologians have known about for centuries but I can give you a few examples of things science has taught us about: evolution, the origin of the universe, the nature of DNA, the types of matter which make up our universe, the way our minds work (and the many biases we have), how planets and stars behave (heliocentrically). In every instance science has pioneered our understanding of reality, all whilst religious people have claimed to know it all with little more than a book to back up their claims, and in every case, the evidence has overwhelmingly proven these theories in contrary to the religious viewpoint. So tell me, when has religion helped us understand more about reality?
@@seanjhardy Let me see. It`s gonna be long, bear with me. An example: Christians believed the universe had a beginning for millenia. In the 12th century a Franciscan Robert Grosseteste describes his best understanding of it like this: "God created first a material point endowed with its form. A single material point was enough because its form was light. Light is a very subtle corporeal substance, whose exceeding thinness and rarity approaches the incorporeal, and which of its own nature perpetually generates itself and is at once spherically diffused around a given point." It wasn`t considered a 'scientific fact' (I`m aware of the problems this category poses) until Father Lemaître came up with the Big Bang theory. In fact it was a testimony to Einstein`s insincerity who saw the solutions of his equations describing the big bang but purposefully changed the constants to avoid it, because he considered beginning of the universe a religious superstition. The scientific community didn`t want to acknowledge the fact and mocked Christians for the next 30 years until Arno Penzias (the noblist) accidentally discovered the microwave background and said "The best data we have are exactly what I would have predicted, had I nothing to go on but the five books of Moses, the Psalms, the Bible as a whole". Obviously it`s quite a recent story and only an example of how the Christians shaped the science as we know it. It`s not an accident that study of nature as rationally structured developed in a monotheistic culture. The answer to your question: theologians and philosophers knew for centuries that the Universe has one, simple, unchangeable, intelligent, immaterial cause. The very first of seriously thinking people deduced monotheism 5 centuries before Christ (so it wasn`t a very fashoinable idea). You may have heard about Xenophanes who said: "But if cattle and horses and lions had hands or could paint with their hands and create works such as men do, horses like horses and cattle like cattle also would depict the gods' shapes and make their bodies of such a sort as the form they themselves have." It`s portrayed as a critique of theism. But he writes right after this that there is "One god greatest among gods and men, not at all like mortals in body or in thought." And ramble about how stupid Greeks are to think God could be something requiring a cause. Anaximander, Parmenides, Socrates, Platon, Aristotle, Plotinus all knew there`s one intelligent cause of the whole reality. There are proofs written by Aristotle who came up with the idea of rigorous proof and established Physics in the book of this title. There are proofs from: contingency, from existence of complex objects, from the existence of change, the ontological one known from Godel`s formulation but there are better ones: mally.stanford.edu/Papers/ontological-computational.pdf I know it`s already too much for you. I could give you thousands of examples of Cahtolic scientists but you would argue that faith wasn`t substantial in their research. So I gave Lemaitre who did it because of the Church`s dogma. Obviously Galileo, Newton must have been monotheists, they wrote about God governing the world with mathematics, scholastic metaphysics were one justifying studying the world with mathematical concepts abstracted from the concrete phenomena. Scholastic tradition lead to development of 'Oxford Calculators' of whom one was mentioned earlier. But they were proving First Mover`s existence too, consequently met with resistance in the 15th century. Humanists were against 'Scholastic mathematization of nature'. I could be writing for a week. Get educated.
I just had a thought and I’m not a philosopher so it might be dumb but here it goes: Suppose there exists a lump of clay that is eternal and completely metaphysically necessary. There will always be that lump of clay no matter what and that lump of clay can never not exist. Now if you shape that clay into a square, would that particular shape be necessary as well? I think that the straightforward answer is no. The clay can be molded into any kind of shape and that shape can be an infinite amount of different shapes. This would make the shape of the clay contingent (having the possibility to be otherwise) while the clay itself is necessary. I think this idea translates well to reality. It seems that the deepest layer of reality is necessary while the configuration and “shape” of reality is always changing, starting from the Big Bang. Think of how stars and galaxies form from whatever the fundamental reality is but there are all kinds of stars and galaxies that are all different from each other. It seems that while what makes up these stars and galaxies may be fundamental, they have the ability to be ordered and shaped in different ways. To me, the best explanation for the differences we see in the world is that they are contingent and have the ability to be something other than what they are now. To anyone reading this I’d love to hear some responses and see if I made a mistake somewhere
I'm a junior biblical language major at Moody Bible Institute in Chicago. Graduation will be here in no time, and I would like to continue my theological education at a Thomistic college. How do I go about doing that?
So by analogy from biology. Prime matter would be your totipotent stem cells vs fermions being a pluripotent stem cell, still able to differentiate, but not to the full spectrum. I would say one objection that could be made to classical hylomorphism being purely the working system, would be to take from water the fact that the magnetic properties of Hydrogen and Oxygen have been proven to lead to properties of watee, such as capillary action owed to the Hydrogen end of tge particle being attracted to the electron fields in the walls of the container. Or surface tension from Oxygen`s negative polar charge lightly bonding with the electronegative charge of the Hydrogen end of the molecule. This also has been shown to vary with different heating and cooling schema to give different properties (for instance boiled water does indeed freeze more quickly than cold water and exhibits less surface tension. Yet certainly the mechanistic view for reasons brilliantly pointed out by Dr.Feser has many issues that are handily addressed by Aristotilean hylomorphism. I am not saying it is wrong perhaps merely insufficient on its own or incomplete but an indispensible core to the make-up of reality. I should also mention that virtual particles are one potential explanation for space and espescially its expansion that does fall in line with quantum mechanics and may be useful for (or originate from) the quantum hylomorphic model. I do believe if this model is shown, then it can be combined with the universality of mathematics to map physical interactions to show that reality is essentially both intelligible and must originate in a Divine Mind. This is supported by the place Mathematics is found naturally is within intelligent systems (as shown in humans, animals more roughly, or to counter those saying it is merely an as yet undiscovered property of biological, computers or circuits more generally, and espescially in machines, artificial neural networks. ) And yet we see things like fractals and patterns from geometry appear within such varied phenomena as gravitational flow of objects around the solar system, to seed arrangements in floret blossoms, to genetic trait inheritence, to electromagnetic fields of sub-atomic particles, to the clouds on Saturn, and the distribution of galaxies in the Universe. Yet there is no apparent physical source for these patterns in such a model unless it is all originating from a Divine Mind. Now they could counter that an infinite number of complex systems is possible and will exhibit emergent properties as a matter of due course. But that only pushes the question back to them needing to explain such a field of potential differs from or originates from a thing identical to a Divine Mind; once we take into account the need to explain how we get from there to actualization. Sorry if this is badly put together, I am not a trained philosopher but have been studying and want to try my hand at seeing if my personal studying is of any use.
One suggestion that I’ve seen that responds to the problem of a supposed unified substance of water exhibiting properties (like capillary action) that derive spatio-temporarily from the properties of its component parts comes from thinking about what substantial change implies. All agree that water molecules have properties that oxygen and hydrogen (at least separately) don’t have, but that doesn’t imply that water exhibits none of the behavior that oxygen or hydrogen does. Substantial change doesn’t imply the anhilation of all properties that are prior to the change. In fact, we would expect the opposite. Children exhibit properties inherited from their parents, but ofc they aren’t the same thing as their parents. Hence, with water, the property of capillary action was “inherited” from hydrogen, analogous to how curly or straight hair is inherited genetically from parents. But, ofc, that doesn’t imply that the child is genetically the same as the parents, nor does it imply that the water molecule is the same thing as its component parts because properties are inherited from its component parts. It’s something substantially distinct. It’s WATER that exhibits capillary action, not a “bundle” or “clump” (whatever that’s supposed to mean) of hydrogen and oxygen exhibiting capillary action. Even if you can prove with Quantum field theory that all the properties of molecules derive entirely from the properties of its parts, that molecule, with its properties, is a unique quantum state, it’s an actualization of potential subatomic interactions, and thus a unique thing existing in itself, and thus a substance with substantial unity. Material reduction still fails.
I'm not sure I understood entirely the result of this talk/reasoning. Matter is what defines a form in the physical sense? So the form is out there (like a Divine Idea), and matter "actualizes" it? Unfortunately, prime matter cannot really be called matter, as it is not matter, despite its name. Therefore, trying to reduce the concept of matter to prime matter doesn't work. I might need to hear this all over again.
How is form, act, educed from the potency of matter in substantial change.? And what does it mean that prime matter stays the same throughout change? After electrolysis is the amount of prime matter in hydrogen and oxygen equal to what was in the water? How do the ashes of a burnt log have the same amount of prime matter as the ashes? The forms are different. Or perhaps we shouldn't be talking about the " amount. " but the remaining prime matter of the ashes being equal to that of the unburnt log. I have always found this principle of prime matter difficult to comprehend. What role does secondary matter play in the overall picture? Is secondary matter the same as signate matter? In a stone does the form actualze all the prime matter. If so, then where is the potency for change?
@Boulanger this was it: SED CONTRA hylomorphism does not work post-science and post-Phenomenology. Science has shown that higher-level Forms do for lower-level Forms what Form is meant to do to Matter: that is it organises parts into unities-with-function. Therefore Forms do provide the final definitive essence of anything - the essence of something physical is its function within its environment. And there is no fundamental “pure potency”, “prime matter” or ‘stuff which becomes organised’. But Scholastics are right that ontology of the objective physical collapses without a foundational existential category. Realist Phenomenology has shown that the fundamental existential level of the physical is the specific and specifying dynamic between sensed object and subjective intentionality. Matter-energy is intrinsically organised and intelligible. To suggest that there is intelligibility which is not rooted in the dynamic relationship of meaning for the subject is, by definition, unintelligible. The degree to which it works to describe physical things by their holistic structure, physical environmental functionality and the act-potency dynamic is the degree to which its meaning-for-the-subject is being assumed. As Merleau-Ponty said, "science is second-order".
Would it be fair to sum it up as a continuous kalam argument w/regard to physical reality? That God is required to maintain existence as God never starts to exist but is required to maintain the continuity of existence?
@@ThomisticInstitute Well, there can be no infinite regress, so the anchor point is God. God never "begins to exist", but the universe does. It would seem that instead of an infinite regress in time being proscribed as does the kalam argument, the argument Feser is pointing to the fact that there can be no infinite regress w/regard to the phenomenon that is currently being manifested. This anchor point is God in this case as well. It is as if should God not engage at every moment in sustaining existence, it would cease. It's like kalam is length (time) and Feser's pointing to verticality. Things can't extend over time if God isn't there continuously supporting each instance. Kalam measures length, but Feser's measuring height.
My understanding: there are 2 main types of cosmological arguments: 1. Is the Kalam style which argues for an initial cause in terms of time. Think tipping the first domino. Importantly in these types of causal series the initial cause doesn’t need to persist after the intitial effect, once the chain has been kicked off. The 2nd type is the more thomistic First cause type argument. Where God is here and now holding the universe in being. Contemporary versions of this include the contingency argument, and the version from efficient causality, and the De ente (essence existence). By my lights, I find the contingency versions strongest, the De Ente then the more Aristotelian style efficient causality version. Aquinas’ 5th way regarding immanent teleology (not intelligent design from outside) is quite interesting as well. Just my thoughts
@@safedba ? If our limited thinking is disregarded, 2D gone, then the vertical argument can mirror the horizontal (length, time), making both vertical reflections.
The comment according to which it is a matter of controversy whether angels exist or not illustrates to me what detriment has came about philosophy when Aristotle, the greatest this-worldly thinker, became associated with Christian mysticism.
While I don't agree with the way scholasticism has tried to shoe horn the Judeao-Christian God onto hylomorphism, Aristotle's epistemology was always inadequate. It was itself a shoe horning of the human mind onto his form-matter, act-potency ontology of the physical. The inevitable slow second millennium rediscovery of realist phenomenology can provide, IMO, a better, mind-matter, metaphysics.
@@ryam4632 which is why I qualified it as "realist". e.g. the Munich school (Scheler, Edith Stein, etc) which inspired St JP II's phenomenology, and the Pittsburg School (McDowell, Brandom, etc)
@@ryam4632 How does one achieve stable affirmation of concrete, particular existence? Aristotle did it upon Prime Matter, pure potency, is not observed - nor observable. Realist Phenomenology does it upon the subject-object relationship, which is self-evidently at the heart of all observation.
Woo hoo! Ed Feser. Seeing this talk pop up on my recommended RUclips was like getting an early Christmas present.
This is EXACTLY what I've been looking for. Thank you!
I've been in a crisis about matter, properties, meaning, etc. and this really helped clear it up.
Also, I'm never going to McZeno's now that I've heard what it offers ;)
becuose kastrup, of course
@@lizardking1979
Are you saying Kastrup is responsible for the meaning crisis?
Thanks for the upload & talk! It's one of my favourites now.
"Whenever you've got a new idea, read Aristotle to find out what's wrong with it/if he had already thought of it."
This is more true than people realize until they read far and wide (from modal logic to the so-called mind/body "problem", to physics).
@@anahata3478
I agree. But, when it comes to conceptual clarity on a lot of the philosophical issues of today, Aristotle usually has something illuminating to say.
@@anahata3478 Aristotle lived 300 years before Christ, so it should be rather obvious that his beliefs on matters spiritual should be incomplete and unbiblical. Note that I am quoting here, and that the quote is referring to matters of rationality, not faith.
@@anahata3478 Um, immortality of the soul is Biblical though. In fact, that has always been the Christian belief with countless passages in the Bible speaking about the eternity of punishment. The annihilating of souls that enter hell was an error that came from gnostic influence, then mainly pushed forward by Valentinus, but was rightly suppressed after the Council of Nicea. Unfortunately, as with all errors, it was later revived by the Protestants, and some groups still hold it today. But, a simple glance at Church history, or Biblical passages and Church doctrine to the contrary makes it clear that Christians do hold that the human soul is immortal.
@@eufrosniad994 Not sure I agree with you. 1 Tim 6:14-16 "14 That thou keep this commandment without spot, unrebukable, until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ: 15 Which in his times he shall shew, who is the blessed and only Potentate, the King of kings, and Lord of lords; 16 Who only hath immortality, dwelling in the light which no man can approach unto; whom no man hath seen, nor can see: to whom be honour and power everlasting. Amen."
Very good lecture indeed... but it is adequate for the initated, or else one have to listen to it several times, as it is, as most of Ed Feser lectures, very condensed. This one have helped me clarify several aspects of Thomistic worldview.
love your books and your lectures.!!!
Thank you!!
Having infinite # of parts does not imply infinite size. The sum of the series 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + 1/6 + ... is not infinity (it actually equals 1). Is there another proof against infinite divisibility of particles? (the 4th objection to mechanical philosophy given in this talk?)
There is so much in here. It's great!
Thank you this is an awesome talk.
"I'll be here all week!"
🤣
For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountain of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.
Great words sir
@@johndoe617 It`s a quote from Robert Jastrow
Really omits the fact theologians got there by reason too. Jastrow is influenced by the kind of protestant fideism. But it`s a great quote. If you listen to the lecture you can see just one instance of many in which what is considered naivety plays out as robust knowledge in the course of history.
I'm not entirely sure what sorts of things theologians have known about for centuries but I can give you a few examples of things science has taught us about: evolution, the origin of the universe, the nature of DNA, the types of matter which make up our universe, the way our minds work (and the many biases we have), how planets and stars behave (heliocentrically). In every instance science has pioneered our understanding of reality, all whilst religious people have claimed to know it all with little more than a book to back up their claims, and in every case, the evidence has overwhelmingly proven these theories in contrary to the religious viewpoint. So tell me, when has religion helped us understand more about reality?
@@seanjhardy Let me see. It`s gonna be long, bear with me.
An example: Christians believed the universe had a beginning for millenia. In the 12th century a Franciscan Robert Grosseteste describes his best understanding of it like this:
"God created first a material point endowed with its form. A single material point was enough because its form was light. Light is a very subtle corporeal substance, whose exceeding thinness and rarity approaches the incorporeal, and which of its own nature perpetually generates itself and is at once spherically diffused around a given point."
It wasn`t considered a 'scientific fact' (I`m aware of the problems this category poses) until Father Lemaître came up with the Big Bang theory. In fact it was a testimony to Einstein`s insincerity who saw the solutions of his equations describing the big bang but purposefully changed the constants to avoid it, because he considered beginning of the universe a religious superstition. The scientific community didn`t want to acknowledge the fact and mocked Christians for the next 30 years until Arno Penzias (the noblist) accidentally discovered the microwave background and said "The best data we have are exactly what I would have predicted, had I nothing to go on but the five books of Moses, the Psalms, the Bible as a whole". Obviously it`s quite a recent story and only an example of how the Christians shaped the science as we know it.
It`s not an accident that study of nature as rationally structured developed in a monotheistic culture.
The answer to your question: theologians and philosophers knew for centuries that the Universe has one, simple, unchangeable, intelligent, immaterial cause. The very first of seriously thinking people deduced monotheism 5 centuries before Christ (so it wasn`t a very fashoinable idea). You may have heard about Xenophanes who said:
"But if cattle and horses and lions had hands
or could paint with their hands and create works such as men do,
horses like horses and cattle like cattle
also would depict the gods' shapes and make their bodies
of such a sort as the form they themselves have."
It`s portrayed as a critique of theism. But he writes right after this that there is
"One god greatest among gods and men,
not at all like mortals in body or in thought."
And ramble about how stupid Greeks are to think God could be something requiring a cause. Anaximander, Parmenides, Socrates, Platon, Aristotle, Plotinus all knew there`s one intelligent cause of the whole reality. There are proofs written by Aristotle who came up with the idea of rigorous proof and established Physics in the book of this title. There are proofs from: contingency, from existence of complex objects, from the existence of change, the ontological one known from Godel`s formulation but there are better ones:
mally.stanford.edu/Papers/ontological-computational.pdf
I know it`s already too much for you. I could give you thousands of examples of Cahtolic scientists but you would argue that faith wasn`t substantial in their research. So I gave Lemaitre who did it because of the Church`s dogma. Obviously Galileo, Newton must have been monotheists, they wrote about God governing the world with mathematics, scholastic metaphysics were one justifying studying the world with mathematical concepts abstracted from the concrete phenomena. Scholastic tradition lead to development of 'Oxford Calculators' of whom one was mentioned earlier. But they were proving First Mover`s existence too, consequently met with resistance in the 15th century. Humanists were against 'Scholastic mathematization of nature'. I could be writing for a week. Get educated.
Is there anyway to access the handout that Feser speaks of in the lecture?
I just had a thought and I’m not a philosopher so it might be dumb but here it goes:
Suppose there exists a lump of clay that is eternal and completely metaphysically necessary. There will always be that lump of clay no matter what and that lump of clay can never not exist. Now if you shape that clay into a square, would that particular shape be necessary as well? I think that the straightforward answer is no. The clay can be molded into any kind of shape and that shape can be an infinite amount of different shapes. This would make the shape of the clay contingent (having the possibility to be otherwise) while the clay itself is necessary. I think this idea translates well to reality. It seems that the deepest layer of reality is necessary while the configuration and “shape” of reality is always changing, starting from the Big Bang. Think of how stars and galaxies form from whatever the fundamental reality is but there are all kinds of stars and galaxies that are all different from each other. It seems that while what makes up these stars and galaxies may be fundamental, they have the ability to be ordered and shaped in different ways. To me, the best explanation for the differences we see in the world is that they are contingent and have the ability to be something other than what they are now.
To anyone reading this I’d love to hear some responses and see if I made a mistake somewhere
Ever, forever my darling, true love is written in the stone.
Just don’t throw it.
I'm a junior biblical language major at Moody Bible Institute in Chicago. Graduation will be here in no time, and I would like to continue my theological education at a Thomistic college. How do I go about doing that?
Two in the US are the Dominican House of Studies in Washington, DC and the Dominican School of Philosophy and Theology in Oakland, CA.
@@chosenskeptic5319 What are you referring to?
What is matter?? Never mind! What is mind? Oh, never matter!
Come on, the mind matters.
Plato summed up
Mind Forms matter. Matter is intrinsically formed. No need to make "Form" a third intermediate metaphysical category.
Mind your matters
So by analogy from biology. Prime matter would be your totipotent stem cells vs fermions being a pluripotent stem cell, still able to differentiate, but not to the full spectrum.
I would say one objection that could be made to classical hylomorphism being purely the working system, would be to take from water the fact that the magnetic properties of Hydrogen and Oxygen have been proven to lead to properties of watee, such as capillary action owed to the Hydrogen end of tge particle being attracted to the electron fields in the walls of the container. Or surface tension from Oxygen`s negative polar charge lightly bonding with the electronegative charge of the
Hydrogen end of the molecule. This also has been shown to vary with different heating and cooling schema to give different properties (for instance boiled water does indeed freeze more quickly than cold water and exhibits less surface tension. Yet certainly the mechanistic view for reasons brilliantly pointed out by Dr.Feser has many issues that are handily addressed by Aristotilean hylomorphism. I am not saying it is wrong perhaps merely insufficient on its own or incomplete but an indispensible core to the make-up of reality.
I should also mention that virtual particles are one potential explanation for space and espescially its expansion that does fall in line with quantum mechanics and may be useful for (or originate from) the quantum hylomorphic model.
I do believe if this model is shown, then it can be combined with the universality of mathematics to map physical interactions to show that reality is essentially both intelligible and must originate in a Divine Mind. This is supported by the place Mathematics is found naturally is within intelligent systems (as shown in humans, animals more roughly, or to counter those saying it is merely an as yet undiscovered property of biological, computers or circuits more generally, and espescially in machines, artificial neural networks. )
And yet we see things like fractals and patterns from geometry appear within such varied phenomena as gravitational flow of objects around the solar system, to seed arrangements in floret blossoms, to genetic trait inheritence, to electromagnetic fields of sub-atomic particles, to the clouds on Saturn, and the distribution of galaxies in the Universe. Yet there is no apparent physical source for these patterns in such a model unless it is all originating from a Divine Mind.
Now they could counter that an infinite number of complex systems is possible and will exhibit emergent properties as a matter of due course. But that only pushes the question back to them needing to explain such a field of potential differs from or originates from a thing identical to a Divine Mind; once we take into account the need to explain how we get from there to actualization.
Sorry if this is badly put together, I am not a trained philosopher but have been studying and want to try my hand at seeing if my personal studying is of any use.
One suggestion that I’ve seen that responds to the problem of a supposed unified substance of water exhibiting properties (like capillary action) that derive spatio-temporarily from the properties of its component parts comes from thinking about what substantial change implies. All agree that water molecules have properties that oxygen and hydrogen (at least separately) don’t have, but that doesn’t imply that water exhibits none of the behavior that oxygen or hydrogen does. Substantial change doesn’t imply the anhilation of all properties that are prior to the change. In fact, we would expect the opposite. Children exhibit properties inherited from their parents, but ofc they aren’t the same thing as their parents. Hence, with water, the property of capillary action was “inherited” from hydrogen, analogous to how curly or straight hair is inherited genetically from parents. But, ofc, that doesn’t imply that the child is genetically the same as the parents, nor does it imply that the water molecule is the same thing as its component parts because properties are inherited from its component parts. It’s something substantially distinct. It’s WATER that exhibits capillary action, not a “bundle” or “clump” (whatever that’s supposed to mean) of hydrogen and oxygen exhibiting capillary action.
Even if you can prove with Quantum field theory that all the properties of molecules derive entirely from the properties of its parts, that molecule, with its properties, is a unique quantum state, it’s an actualization of potential subatomic interactions, and thus a unique thing existing in itself, and thus a substance with substantial unity. Material reduction still fails.
I'm not sure I understood entirely the result of this talk/reasoning. Matter is what defines a form in the physical sense? So the form is out there (like a Divine Idea), and matter "actualizes" it? Unfortunately, prime matter cannot really be called matter, as it is not matter, despite its name. Therefore, trying to reduce the concept of matter to prime matter doesn't work. I might need to hear this all over again.
Cf. my comment just posted on the main thread.
0:53 Gilsons's book
33:57 bookmark
How is form, act, educed from the potency of matter in substantial change.? And what does it mean that prime matter stays the same throughout change? After electrolysis is the amount of prime matter in hydrogen and oxygen equal to what was in the water? How do the ashes of a burnt log have the same amount of prime matter as the ashes? The forms are different. Or perhaps we shouldn't be talking about the " amount. " but the remaining prime matter of the ashes being equal to that of the unburnt log. I have always found this principle of prime matter difficult to comprehend. What role does secondary matter play in the overall picture? Is secondary matter the same as signate matter? In a stone does the form actualze all the prime matter. If so, then where is the potency for change?
Cf. my comment just posted on the main thread.
@Boulanger this was it:
SED CONTRA hylomorphism does not work post-science and post-Phenomenology.
Science has shown that higher-level Forms do for lower-level Forms what Form is meant to do to Matter: that is it organises parts into unities-with-function. Therefore Forms do provide the final definitive essence of anything - the essence of something physical is its function within its environment. And there is no fundamental “pure potency”, “prime matter” or ‘stuff which becomes organised’.
But Scholastics are right that ontology of the objective physical collapses without a foundational existential category. Realist Phenomenology has shown that the fundamental existential level of the physical is the specific and specifying dynamic between sensed object and subjective intentionality.
Matter-energy is intrinsically organised and intelligible. To suggest that there is intelligibility which is not rooted in the dynamic relationship of meaning for the subject is, by definition, unintelligible. The degree to which it works to describe physical things by their holistic structure, physical environmental functionality and the act-potency dynamic is the degree to which its meaning-for-the-subject is being assumed. As Merleau-Ponty said, "science is second-order".
This ed Feser is really making me think 😂😂😂
34:30 Breeds of dog I think would be accidents. Breeds don’t have specific difference.
20:51 colour is in the form?
Would it be fair to sum it up as a continuous kalam argument w/regard to physical reality? That God is required to maintain existence as God never starts to exist but is required to maintain the continuity of existence?
Could you say a little more about what the Kalam argument states that helped you to make this connection?
@@ThomisticInstitute Well, there can be no infinite regress, so the anchor point is God. God never "begins to exist", but the universe does. It would seem that instead of an infinite regress in time being proscribed as does the kalam argument, the argument Feser is pointing to the fact that there can be no infinite regress w/regard to the phenomenon that is currently being manifested. This anchor point is God in this case as well. It is as if should God not engage at every moment in sustaining existence, it would cease. It's like kalam is length (time) and Feser's pointing to verticality. Things can't extend over time if God isn't there continuously supporting each instance. Kalam measures length, but Feser's measuring height.
@@safedba Thanks for the clarification. Sounds like you've made a pretty good connection. Great insight!
My understanding: there are 2 main types of cosmological arguments: 1. Is the Kalam style which argues for an initial cause in terms of time. Think tipping the first domino. Importantly in these types of causal series the initial cause doesn’t need to persist after the intitial effect, once the chain has been kicked off.
The 2nd type is the more thomistic First cause type argument. Where God is here and now holding the universe in being. Contemporary versions of this include the contingency argument, and the version from efficient causality, and the De ente (essence existence). By my lights, I find the contingency versions strongest, the De Ente then the more Aristotelian style efficient causality version. Aquinas’ 5th way regarding immanent teleology (not intelligent design from outside) is quite interesting as well. Just my thoughts
@@safedba ? If our limited thinking is disregarded, 2D gone, then the vertical argument can mirror the horizontal (length, time), making both vertical reflections.
Cool
Excellent! Thank you!
The comment according to which it is a matter of controversy whether angels exist or not illustrates to me what detriment has came about philosophy when Aristotle, the greatest this-worldly thinker, became associated with Christian mysticism.
While I don't agree with the way scholasticism has tried to shoe horn the Judeao-Christian God onto hylomorphism, Aristotle's epistemology was always inadequate. It was itself a shoe horning of the human mind onto his form-matter, act-potency ontology of the physical.
The inevitable slow second millennium rediscovery of realist phenomenology can provide, IMO, a better, mind-matter, metaphysics.
@@fr.hughmackenzie5900 Phenomenology? Yea, right. Call me when phenomenologists decide whether external reality exists or not.
@@ryam4632 which is why I qualified it as "realist". e.g. the Munich school (Scheler, Edith Stein, etc) which inspired St JP II's phenomenology, and the Pittsburg School (McDowell, Brandom, etc)
@@fr.hughmackenzie5900 I was not aware of these thinkers, but realist phenomenology sounds like an instable position to hold.
@@ryam4632 How does one achieve stable affirmation of concrete, particular existence? Aristotle did it upon Prime Matter, pure potency, is not observed - nor observable. Realist Phenomenology does it upon the subject-object relationship, which is self-evidently at the heart of all observation.