(March 2, 2020 at 3:32 am)Belacqua Wrote: These are all fair questions (except for the joke ones!). But it's a hell of a lot to unpack in a thread like this.
In an enormously small nutshell: actus purus is the condition of complete actualization, with no potentiality. The long elaborate argument tries to demonstrate that in order for change to occur in the world, something which is already actualized must cause potential in the world to be actualized.
This is not something a deity has or sits with. It is the deity itself. Aristotle has additional arguments as to why it must be conscious. The Christians have additional arguments as to why it is cognate with their God. From what I've seen, Klorophyll thinks something very similar about the Muslim God. It's no surprise if this type of Aristotelian concept is a part of Muslim theology.
It's a lot of work to figure it all out. The only point I'm making on this thread is that it is a clear definition. Whether the thing defined is provable through logic is a separate question.
Cool!
So... We now know that the whole '....that in order for change to occur in the world, something which is already actualized must cause potential in the world to be actualized.' doesn't hold up under the weirdness of quantum stuff which bleeds across into the 'Macro' world.
How does the whole thought pattern hold up now, then?
Cheers.
Not at work.
