Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: March 28, 2024, 4:15 pm

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
[Serious] Existential Inertia vs. Sustaining First Cause
#1
Existential Inertia vs. Sustaining First Cause
So, prompted by recent ponderings about Aquinas' arguments (and especially the Second Way), I was thinking for the past few hours about the notion of existential inertia. I think if there's anything that could somewhat be a fair challenge to the idea that all things in existence (aside from first cause) require something else to sustain its existence at any point in time, it would be existential inertia. However, I'm not sure how effective this counter could be. Even if it doesn't demolish the arguments of Aquinas, it seems like an alternative worldview for those who don't find themselves convinced by such arguments as the Second Way.

However, it's not without its challenges. And one of the challenges has to do with the principle of sufficient reason.

Here's a link to a post you may want to refer to to get a better idea of what the topic is:
https://strangenotions.com/existential-i...ighty-god/

I haven't read it in its entirety yet. But will read it properly the next time I'm free and then probably share my thoughts here. You can share yours in the meantime.

In a nutshell, these are the competing positions:

Thomists reckon that, at any point in time, a particular thing like a chair can only exist if it is sustained by something else external to it.

Existential "inertians" reckon that the chair, since it exists, exists unsustained because nothing else "killed" its existence.

Which one sounds more reasonable to you? Is there a third alternative view to ponder that's related to this topic? And how would you address the sufficient reason challenge from an "inertian" perspective?
Reply
#2
RE: Existential Inertia vs. Sustaining First Cause
I honestly don't understand the difference in those two phrasings. It seems to me be entirely semantical. I mean, what is a difference between the view that, e.g., a chair existing as a Thing-in-itself (as envisioned by Kant) and existence itself? Seems like a divorce between what people see (a chair), and the ideal of a chair (internalized model of the chair). At least for Kant, he argued you could (and rightly so, IMO) never differentiate between subjective experience apart from a Thing-in-itself.

I have the same view about the trivial realization inherent in the anthropic principle: you only have human reasoning because there are humans around to think. Take humans away from the equation and only the Thing-in-itself remains (just no one around to say that).
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself — and you are the easiest person to fool." - Richard P. Feynman
Reply
#3
RE: Existential Inertia vs. Sustaining First Cause
Strange notions ......Oh dear  Dodgy
"Change was inevitable"


Nemo sicut deus debet esse!

[Image: Canada_Flag.jpg?v=1646203843]



 “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


      
Reply
#4
RE: Existential Inertia vs. Sustaining First Cause
First of all, what percentage of all things have been sampled such that that one, at least one with intellectual honesty, might Say with a straight face That  “based on how many things I’ve sampled, and how clearly I’ve defined the concept of “thing”, the empirical odds that any random thing anywhere in the universe not needing a prior cause or something else To sustain Would seem low”
Reply
#5
RE: Existential Inertia vs. Sustaining First Cause
(August 23, 2020 at 12:24 pm)Grandizer Wrote: Here's a link to a post you may want to refer to to get a better idea of what the topic is:
https://strangenotions.com/existential-i...ighty-god/

Wow, this might be good! There is a serious danger that one could learn something.

I've just skimmed it so far, but it's a pleasure to see someone present the ideas accurately, without (apparently) assuming a foregone conclusion. 

Looking forward to working on this.
Reply
#6
RE: Existential Inertia vs. Sustaining First Cause
(August 23, 2020 at 3:47 pm)Anomalocaris Wrote: First of all, what percentage of all things have been sampled such that that one, at least one with intellectual honesty, might Say with a straight face That  “based on how many things I’ve sampled, and how clearly I’ve defined the concept of “thing”, the empirical odds that any random thing anywhere in the universe not needing a prior cause or something else To sustain Would seem low”

Well, this is coming at it from a prominently empiricist angle. And fair enough.

So I just got done reading that blog post. I don't fully understand everything that was said but I think I got the gist of it. It's basically saying that for something like a chair to continue existing, "infinite power" is required to keep it going, but that cannot reside within the chair itself since it is finite.

I'm iffy about this because I'm not sure "infinite power" is needed to keep a chair existing once the chair exists. Even if "infinite power" may be needed to get a thing to begin to exist ex nihilo , I'm not seeing why it then continues to be required for the continued existence of this thing.

I guess I don't find sustaining first cause as intuitive as existential inertia, and that may perhaps be due to influences from modern science on the way we think about things and probably also because of insufficient reading on the finer details of Thomism. But I nevertheless feel there's a bit of an "overdefinition" of sufficient reason in this case on the part of the Thomist. It seems the chair existing at time t has a sufficient enough reason in the chair existing right before t. If I'm missing something important here, then that is something I would like to hear.

That's my current thought on this given my limited knowledge and reading. I'll be reading further on this.
Reply
#7
RE: Existential Inertia vs. Sustaining First Cause
I doubt that you'll be demolishing an already demolished argument by engaging in the same thing that fouled that argument up to begin with.

OFC there's a third alternative.
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
Reply
#8
RE: Existential Inertia vs. Sustaining First Cause
(August 23, 2020 at 9:47 pm)Belacqua Wrote:
(August 23, 2020 at 12:24 pm)Grandizer Wrote: Here's a link to a post you may want to refer to to get a better idea of what the topic is:
https://strangenotions.com/existential-i...ighty-god/

Wow, this might be good! There is a serious danger that one could learn something.

I've just skimmed it so far, but it's a pleasure to see someone present the ideas accurately, without (apparently) assuming a foregone conclusion. 

Looking forward to working on this.

The author assumed a conclusion, why can't we?
I don't have an anger problem, I have an idiot problem.
Reply
#9
RE: Existential Inertia vs. Sustaining First Cause
For anyone interested, a video discussion between two unknown young but bright minds on this topic:



Reply



Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Proving the Existence of a First Cause Muhammad Rizvi 3 758 June 23, 2023 at 5:50 pm
Last Post: arewethereyet
  God As Grounding Cause datc 75 9759 May 27, 2018 at 1:14 pm
Last Post: Jehanne
  God As Groundhog Cause BrianSoddingBoru4 8 1176 May 26, 2018 at 10:18 am
Last Post: Edwardo Piet
  Dealing with existential nihilism Angst King 113 17630 April 2, 2017 at 1:41 pm
Last Post: Brian37
  Bhagavad Gita First Cause watchamadoodle 4 1319 April 6, 2015 at 8:48 am
Last Post: Mudhammam
  Existential Import Mudhammam 9 1933 April 5, 2015 at 5:02 am
Last Post: Pizza
  The Existential Fallacy Pizza 6 2264 March 20, 2015 at 5:39 pm
Last Post: vorlon13
  "Everything has a cause and an explanation" discussion. Pizza 66 14920 February 22, 2015 at 11:59 am
Last Post: The Reality Salesman01
  Does this work express the feelings of existential angst shakuntala 1 816 November 21, 2014 at 11:15 am
Last Post: Fidel_Castronaut
  Existential comics CapnAwesome 7 3506 December 3, 2013 at 5:10 pm
Last Post: Simon Moon



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)