(December 1, 2022 at 1:03 am)Angrboda Wrote:Remember it's never the failure of their argument it's simply that you aren't smart enough to understand it.....(November 30, 2022 at 7:59 pm)Belacqua Wrote: This seems to be the main sticking point with talking about causality in Aristotle/Thomas. People are just unwilling to grasp the difference in the way the terms are used.
And Thomists cling to semantic arguments such as yours as if they actually met the objection they supposedly respond to when in fact they do not. Aquinas' argument wasn't about formal causes, and even with the Thomism fully taken on board, temporality isn't forgotten or mooted. A reply, if it is to be anything other than a non sequitur, has to function as a defeater for the argument. Neither you nor Neo's replies do that. The problem is not that Thomism eludes us; it's that Thomism fails as a cogent response.
Gaslighting 101
"Change was inevitable"
Nemo sicut deus debet esse!
![[Image: Canada_Flag.jpg?v=1646203843]](https://images.weserv.nl/?url=cdn.shopify.com%2Fs%2Ffiles%2F1%2F0630%2F5310%2F3332%2Fproducts%2FCanada_Flag.jpg%3Fv%3D1646203843)
“No matter what men think, abortion is a fact of life. Women have always had them; they always have and they always will. Are they going to have good ones or bad ones? Will the good ones be reserved for the rich, while the poor women go to quacks?”
–SHIRLEY CHISHOLM
Nemo sicut deus debet esse!
“No matter what men think, abortion is a fact of life. Women have always had them; they always have and they always will. Are they going to have good ones or bad ones? Will the good ones be reserved for the rich, while the poor women go to quacks?”
–SHIRLEY CHISHOLM
