Belief versus reality
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
02-11-2017, 07:03 AM
RE: Belief versus reality
(01-11-2017 06:18 PM)Thoreauvian Wrote:  
(01-11-2017 05:34 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Wrong.
It's entirely relevant, and you have to state what is wrong here, and why it's wrong.

I'm not sure it's possible to have what I consider a normal give-and-take conversation with Belaqua. I don't think he understands argumentation.

To be fair, I'm with Belaqua here. Bucky doesn't appear to understand Aristotle's argument. In particular, "cause" (in the context of this argument) doesn't mean what he thinks it does. I've tried to explain this numerous times here, but nobody seems to get it. I give up.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Grasshopper's post
02-11-2017, 07:20 AM (This post was last modified: 02-11-2017 07:23 AM by Thoreauvian.)
RE: Belief versus reality
(02-11-2017 07:03 AM)Grasshopper Wrote:  
(01-11-2017 06:18 PM)Thoreauvian Wrote:  I'm not sure it's possible to have what I consider a normal give-and-take conversation with Belaqua. I don't think he understands argumentation.

To be fair, I'm with Belaqua here. Bucky doesn't appear to understand Aristotle's argument. In particular, "cause" (in the context of this argument) doesn't mean what he thinks it does. I've tried to explain this numerous times here, but nobody seems to get it.

Yes, I apologized for my comment.

I do get it -- for now at least.
Hobo
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Thoreauvian's post
02-11-2017, 07:24 AM (This post was last modified: 02-11-2017 08:04 AM by Free.)
RE: Belief versus reality
(01-11-2017 07:26 PM)Belaqua Wrote:  
(01-11-2017 06:33 PM)Free Wrote:  His argument is remarkably basic, and requires minimal effort to understand.

Material

According to Aristotle, the "Material Cause" is the actual physical properties of things in existence. For example, if a sculpture is made of marble, then the marble is the material cause.

Formal

The Formal Cause represents the design of something in existence. For example, this represents a set of plans or blueprints. It is these blueprints that cause something in existence to be what it appears to be, rather than something else.


Efficient

The Efficient Cause is the catalyst that brings something into its form. It's represents the actual force that shapes something into a perceived form. Using our sculpture and marble example, it would be the sculptor who would be the efficient cause as it would be his chiseling that would bring about the sculpture.

Final

The Final Cause, aka the "End," represents the purpose of the existence. Using our sculpture and marble example again, we could state the purpose was to provide a pleasing aesthetic sculpture for people to enjoy.

None of this is beyond our comprehension.

Let me go ahead and add here why these Four Causes are also applicable to nature, not only man-made things. No "intelligent design" or magic is needed.

Your description of the Four Causes is just right. The first three, in combination, point to or tend toward the Final Cause. The Final Cause, in this case, can be described as an object which does the things which sculptures do (e.g. look pretty).

A cat also has a Final Cause, and that is to do the things that cats do.

For a cat, the Material Cause (flesh and bone), the Formal Cause (the DNA), the Efficient Cause (the cat parents), when combined in the right way all point to, or tend to make, an object which does all the things that cats do.

Given those three causes, it is unlikely that they would combine to create a thing which does, for example, the things that asteroids do. Or worms. Or iPods. Therefore, the Material, Formal, and Efficient Causes have a Final Cause built into them. It is what you naturally get when you put those three causes together.

This is entirely compatible with evolution, with modern genetics, etc. It doesn't require a First Cause of the kind that Bucky talks about.

There is a longer argument about why Aristotle thinks the Final Cause of the universe is the First Cause. (Note that the First Cause is not included in the Four Causes, so a Final Cause can be a First Cause -- nothing rules out being both.)

Now that you agree that I understand the 4 Causes, I will point something out in regards to Aristotle's view.

In the sequence of Material, Formal, Efficient, and Final, it has been shown that the entire process is, in fact, temporal. It begins with a slab of marble, and step by step it ends with a sculpture. Also ...

"In some works of Aristotle, the four causes are listed as (1) the essential cause, (2) the logical ground, (3) the moving cause, and (4) the final cause. In this listing, a statement of essential cause is a demonstration that an indicated object conforms to a definition of the word that refers to it."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causality#Aristotelian

There is absolutely no mystery that what is understood as an Essential Cause is identical to Material Cause. It is an explanation of the nature of the object, such as marble.

There is absolutely no contradiction between temporal of essential here. Just because it can be interpreted as "essential" by no means negates the fact that it is also temporal. Both are applicable to the marble and how a slab of marble progresses towards the form of a sculpture.

Having problems with your computer? Visit our Free Tech Support thread for help!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-11-2017, 07:43 AM
RE: Belief versus reality
(02-11-2017 01:09 AM)Belaqua Wrote:  
(01-11-2017 08:12 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  There is no such thing as "absolute marble".

Bucky,

What do you mean by "absolute marble"?

I have never heard of such a thing, and Aristotle never wrote of anything like it.

I'm not sure why you're introducing it to the debate.

Exactly.
It's actually YOU that don't understand the Aristotle argument and the problems with it.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
02-11-2017, 08:00 AM (This post was last modified: 02-11-2017 08:11 AM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Belief versus reality
(02-11-2017 07:03 AM)Grasshopper Wrote:  To be fair, I'm with Belaqua here. Bucky doesn't appear to understand Aristotle's argument. In particular, "cause" (in the context of this argument) doesn't mean what he thinks it does. I've tried to explain this numerous times here, but nobody seems to get it. I give up.

Whatever.
I refuse to accept the premises the argument is based on.
They are false.
http://www.wwnorton.com/college/phil/log...assume.htm
Belaqua (as everyone I've ever seen pushing this nonsense) has equivocated
http://www.txstate.edu/philosophy/resour...ation.html
multiple times here.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
02-11-2017, 04:13 PM
RE: Belief versus reality
(02-11-2017 07:03 AM)Free Wrote:  the marble has always been marble and nothing but marble, and never changes as per the process of cosmic evolution, and that this is implicit in Aristotle's argument.

That is what Bucky means.

But I don't think that's right.

There's nothing in Aristotle about never-changing physical objects. But there's an enormous amount about how change occurs, and how the material, contingent world is always in motion (passage from potency to act).

So whatever this is in reference to, it isn't Aristotle.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-11-2017, 04:45 PM (This post was last modified: 02-11-2017 04:50 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Belief versus reality
(02-11-2017 04:13 PM)Belaqua Wrote:  
(02-11-2017 07:03 AM)Free Wrote:  the marble has always been marble and nothing but marble, and never changes as per the process of cosmic evolution, and that this is implicit in Aristotle's argument.

That is what Bucky means.

But I don't think that's right.

There's nothing in Aristotle about never-changing physical objects. But there's an enormous amount about how change occurs, and how the material, contingent world is always in motion (passage from potency to act).

So whatever this is in reference to, it isn't Aristotle.

LMAO. Not in the First Cause argument there isn't, and you have done ZERO, nada, zip, to answer ANYTHING I've said.
"Formal Cause", "Efficient Cause", "Final Cause', "Material CAUSE", are each SINGULAR and unchanging.
Nice try.
Fail.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-11-2017, 05:22 PM
RE: Belief versus reality
(02-11-2017 04:13 PM)Belaqua Wrote:  
(02-11-2017 07:03 AM)Free Wrote:  the marble has always been marble and nothing but marble, and never changes as per the process of cosmic evolution, and that this is implicit in Aristotle's argument.

That is what Bucky means.

But I don't think that's right.

There's nothing in Aristotle about never-changing physical objects. But there's an enormous amount about how change occurs, and how the material, contingent world is always in motion (passage from potency to act).

So whatever this is in reference to, it isn't Aristotle.

You need to understand where we are coming from, but before that, you need to understand where Aristotle is coming from.

Aristotle argues, in Book 8 of the Physics and Book 12 of the Metaphysics, "that there must be an immortal, unchanging being, ultimately responsible for all wholeness and orderliness in the sensible world".

This is the origin of his 4 Cause Argument. This is what he bases it upon. The "unmoved mover" is a god-like entity.

If you can grasp that, you will know exactly what we are actually talking about.

Having problems with your computer? Visit our Free Tech Support thread for help!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-11-2017, 05:36 PM
RE: Belief versus reality
(02-11-2017 05:22 PM)Free Wrote:  
(02-11-2017 04:13 PM)Belaqua Wrote:  But I don't think that's right.

There's nothing in Aristotle about never-changing physical objects. But there's an enormous amount about how change occurs, and how the material, contingent world is always in motion (passage from potency to act).

So whatever this is in reference to, it isn't Aristotle.

You need to understand where we are coming from, but before that, you need to understand where Aristotle is coming from.

Aristotle argues, in Book 8 of the Physics and Book 12 of the Metaphysics, "that there must be an immortal, unchanging being, ultimately responsible for all wholeness and orderliness in the sensible world".

This is the origin of his 4 Cause Argument. This is what he bases it upon. The "unmoved mover" is a god-like entity.

If you can grasp that, you will know exactly what we are actually talking about.

So when you say that each of the Four Causes must be eternal, this doesn't apply to most cases, right? (e.g. a sculpture)

You mean to say that when we apply the Four Causes to the case of the First Cause, only in that case are all four causes to be considered as eternal.

Is this right?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-11-2017, 05:41 PM
RE: Belief versus reality
(02-11-2017 05:36 PM)Belaqua Wrote:  
(02-11-2017 05:22 PM)Free Wrote:  You need to understand where we are coming from, but before that, you need to understand where Aristotle is coming from.

Aristotle argues, in Book 8 of the Physics and Book 12 of the Metaphysics, "that there must be an immortal, unchanging being, ultimately responsible for all wholeness and orderliness in the sensible world".

This is the origin of his 4 Cause Argument. This is what he bases it upon. The "unmoved mover" is a god-like entity.

If you can grasp that, you will know exactly what we are actually talking about.

So when you say that each of the Four Causes must be eternal, this doesn't apply to most cases, right? (e.g. a sculpture)

You mean to say that when we apply the Four Causes to the case of the First Cause, only in that case are all four causes to be considered as eternal.

Is this right?

"In the Physics (VIII 4–6) Aristotle finds "surprising difficulties" explaining even commonplace change, and in support of his approach of explanation by four causes, he required "a fair bit of technical machinery".

This "machinery" includes potentiality and actuality, hylomorphism, the theory of categories, and "an audacious and intriguing argument, that the bare existence of change requires the postulation of a first cause, an unmoved mover whose necessary existence underpins the ceaseless activity of the world of motion".

Aristotle's "first philosophy", or Metaphysics ("after the Physics"), develops his peculiar theology of the prime mover, as πρῶτον κινοῦν ἀκίνητον: an independent divine eternal unchanging immaterial substance."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unmoved_mo...philosophy

Having problems with your computer? Visit our Free Tech Support thread for help!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: