Arguments Against Thomistic philosophy

[Mystic]

Let's be honest here.

It's all bollocks.

When you are honest, you will acknowledge the call of the witness with you, that calls you to God, that calls you back to the light for he is the door of light.

You will pick up that sword and let it help you battle against the shadows.

[Mister Agenda]

Speaking of dishonest, Mystic Knight is in the house!

[vulcanlogician]

That’s why I don’t have the patience to deal with post’s like Polymath’s. Polymath is too far gone in his or her denial of intelligibility. Polymath is committed to the idea of a world without any ‘whatness’, one in which there are no things (just accidental collections) and descriptive language just floats free without any correspondence to real objects. Likewise, people who cannot understand the notion of privation (because they do not recognize the necessary conditions for intelligibility) will never realize that ‘maximally evil’ is an oxymoron. That’s one reason why my posts are getting fewer and fewer. Even when conversing with the most astute AF members, we seem to be talking past one another for lack of a common nomenclature.

I see where you are coming from on the idea of intelligibility, but, to me, Polymath's description (on the whole) is more coherent. Isn't coherency important when speaking of intelligibility? These criticisms of the Aristotelian view did not originate with Polymath. The debate is long in the tooth now, and you can't blame him for adopting the modern syntax.

[Mystic]

Speaking of dishonest, Mystic Knight is in the house!

We are two forces at battle, who takes side of darkness and who takes side of reason light and goodness, this is the great test of life.

Everyone claims to be truthful but we must see who brings their proofs and proves their path, and the one who refuses to bring proof but wishes to be followed or their leaders followed without offering proof, they are the evil side, calling people by their mere dark desires and wishes.

[Whateverist]

I'm not trying to compare Cartesian concepts to scholastic ones here, I'm just trying to get at why "purely actual" indicates an unchanging nature. It may be that this is due to scholastic conceits, or maybe there is another piece of logic backing this up. Spinoza is obviously describing a God who is "purely actual" but his God is subject to change/modification. Otherwise his God is similar to the scholastic's god in that he is causa sui. IDK, maybe I'm confusing things by bringing Spinoza in, but I was just trying to give a reference point. What am I missing that logically demonstrates that purely actual entails unchanging?

In Scholasticism, act and potency are mutually exclusive attributes. It’s like virginity. A maiden is a potential lover. However, following coitus the potential has been actualized. Now the woman, formally a maiden, is an actual lover. For God there are no potentials that are not already actualized. Therefore, He can neither gain nor lose any attributes to become other than what He already is.

And how do we know God is as you say? Why because you choose to define Him thus. True by definition. *yawns*

[Mystic]

Whateverist, what you just stated is so important, it's exactly that we cannot define by words that his living name is a leader and living guide and his living word of light and is the sacred chosen holy spirit from him.

Samuel means name of God. Give the Bible a more thorough read, it has a lot of the answers you question about.

[Neo-Scholastic]

Speaking of dishonest, Mystic Knight is in the house!

Mystic Knight is probably one of the most sincere AF members. You two may butt heads but IMO your comment is uncalled for.

[Neo-Scholastic]

I see where you are coming from on the idea of intelligibility, but, to me, Polymath's description (on the whole) is more coherent. Isn't coherency important when speaking of intelligibility? These criticisms of the Aristotelian view did not originate with Polymath. The debate is long in the tooth now, and you can't blame him for adopting the modern syntax.

Yes, the arguments are old but worthy of being revisited. Some analytic philosophers are even starting to toy with Scholastic concepts although they are careful to avoid Medieval nomenclature and adopting terms like "dispositional properties." Also despite their nuance, there is still some untapped distinctions within final cause that the Scholastic did not feel necessary to tease out (or perhaps I just haven't read deeply enough yet see how they resolved those ambiguities).

As is stands, Polymath's response is "so bad it isn't even wrong." The problem is that a his approach is actually consistent, not coherent. Meaning he (or she, I don't know which) has made the existential choice to consistently view the world as serendipitous. People who take this stance believe 1) that reality is accidentally ordered and 2) reason can only construct passive interpretations of subjective experience that may or may not coincide with reality as it actually is. This stance cannot produce coherent results. Or as I usually say, such people deny that reality is intelligible and the efficacy of human reason.

As I stated earlier, the common belief is that modern theories of causality have displaced the Aristotelian causes. That simply is not true. They are complimentary because they are about completely different things. Modern causality is all about sequential states and events. Prior states or events are called causes and subsequent states or events are called effects. For example, Marlboro man smoking is the cause of his getting cancer. Aristotelian causes concern what makes any given thing the kind of thing that it is. What is the nature of Marlboro man, his origin and dispositions, etc. Indeed, there are sequences of events and we can look to those to give us scientific insight into the relationships between prior states and subsequent ones BUT events must be linked to objects that manifest them and changing states most be associated with common objects. For example, Polymath doesn't consider the acorn and the mature tree the same oak. Unless there is a common object undergoing a change of state, nothing binds any particular 'before' to a specific 'after'. If the scientific enterprise is truly about understanding the nature of objective reality, then Polymath's approach undermines that goal.

[Succubus]

In Scholasticism, act and potency are mutually exclusive attributes. It’s like virginity. A maiden is a potential lover. However, following coitus the potential has been actualized. Now the woman, formally a maiden, is an actual lover. For God there are no potentials that are not already actualized. Therefore, He can neither gain nor lose any attributes to become other than what He already is.

And how do we know God is as you say?  Why because you choose to define Him thus.  True by definition.  *yawns*

Yep. That's the tactic of theologians for the past sixteen hundred years, defining god into existence.

[downbeatplumb]

Let's be honest here.

It's all bollocks.

When you are honest, you will acknowledge the call of the witness with you, that calls you to God, that calls you back to the light for he is the door of light.

You will pick up that sword and let it help you battle against the shadows.

Be honest. You got a hard on writing that didn't you!