In another thread, a member* expressed interest an old debate in the philosophy section, a debate about the 5 Ways of Thomas Aquinas. While the debate IMO ended unsatisfactorily, I do feel that my interpretation of the 5 Ways stands up well against those of other apologists. That isn't saying much. I do not think modern defenders of Scholasticism (think the Strange Notions website) don't really update the archaic philosophical nomenclature of the Summa or do much in the way of explaining the important distinctions from classical philosophy, such as actuality/potency, accidental/essential, etc.
While reading the posts again, after so much time, my explanations seem designed to prove to myself that I understood the subject rather than clearly convey to others that understanding. Nevertheless, I do feel too many detractors of the 5W lack a fair appreciation of them.
My goal is not to revive any debate or even advocate from a position of conviction. Instead I would welcome a discussion of possible 5W flaws and even share some of my own issues. For example, I am not as certain as I once was that an essentially ordered sequence is impossible. Maybe that's just the mystic in me going "meta". Similarly, I do not necessarily share with Scholastics the idea that potency isn't in its own way a kind of being.
*I am keeping the OP anonymous out of respect for AF contributors who may not see or wish to join this thread.
While reading the posts again, after so much time, my explanations seem designed to prove to myself that I understood the subject rather than clearly convey to others that understanding. Nevertheless, I do feel too many detractors of the 5W lack a fair appreciation of them.
My goal is not to revive any debate or even advocate from a position of conviction. Instead I would welcome a discussion of possible 5W flaws and even share some of my own issues. For example, I am not as certain as I once was that an essentially ordered sequence is impossible. Maybe that's just the mystic in me going "meta". Similarly, I do not necessarily share with Scholastics the idea that potency isn't in its own way a kind of being.
*I am keeping the OP anonymous out of respect for AF contributors who may not see or wish to join this thread.
<insert profound quote here>
