Update: there is no CD/DVD version now, only part of software packages like Verbum and Logos Hi, where can we get the Summa Theologica and Contra Gentiles for Windows please? Not too expensive

I like this Aristotelian model for change/motion. But whenever this topic comes up I always wonder if the analysis is complete. In the flowchart, you show that if a thing in motion is moved by something else that is moved there are two options: (i) it is eventually moved by a first (ii) it is moved by an infinite regress of causes. Is there still room for option (iii): the thing is moved by another which is moved by it? I.e., A is moved by B and B is moved by A? I would by curious to know how you would analyze the following example. I put a hot metal rod in a cold glass of water. The rod is cooled by the water and the water is simultaneously warmed by the rod. Eventually an equilibrium is reached and no more change/motion happens. It seems like the rod moves the water which moves the rod. Maybe I'm missing something here, but is there a prime mover in this scenario?

@McRingil

Жыл бұрын

how does water cooling the rod contribute to the rod warming it. It doesn`t. The causal power is already established in the rod before the contact with water. Nothing can be moved by itself in the same part wrt to the same aspect. So my brain can move my leg. But strictly speaking what is moved is the potential being actualized. It doesn`t exist yet. So it can`t begin to move itself.

@Kleithap

Жыл бұрын

@@McRingil I'm not totally sure what you mean. The fact that the water cools the rod does not in itself contribute to the rod warming the water, I agree with that. However, that doesn't take away from the fact that the rod is warming the water. As I wrote in another comment: it's true that I kind of cheated by smuggling in causal power into the rod since it certainly didn't move itself to be hot. I think I agree that nothing can be moved by itself in the same part wrt to the same aspect.

@marvalice3455

3 ай бұрын

Thermal dynamics does not allow such a cycle.

What's the name of the intro music?

@Kleithap

Жыл бұрын

Song of Kings

What’s the argument from a first mover to one single prime mover? Feser’s proofs left me unconvinced

@marvalice3455

3 ай бұрын

Let us suppose for a moment there where two prime moves. What would distinguish them from eachother? On a purely essential level?

@whatsinaname691

3 ай бұрын

@@marvalice3455 ​​⁠​​⁠ Suppose that there is nothing that differentiates two prime movers. It does not follow that they are identical. For, consider that the Father, Son, and Spirit are one in divine essence but 3. Suppose that this is not a counterexample, then the argument will still appeal to the principle of the Identity of Indiscernibles. This principle is unmotivated and faces numerous counterexamples. I am inclined to its falsity. Now, let us consider two prime movers that differ in numerous ways. What follows? That there are two distinct pure simple esses. What error is this? I cannot say. Would their differences imply composition in them? Doubtful. There is no a priori route to uniqueness from act and potency

@marvalice3455

3 ай бұрын

@@whatsinaname691 actually it does. Any two things with absolutely no destinction even on the level of essence are by definition identical. As to your Trinity excuse, the persons of the Trinity are one being but destinct only in how they relate to eachother through personhood. This doesn't help you at all, because they form one prime mover, which is my point.

@marvalice3455

3 ай бұрын

@@whatsinaname691 I don't allow you to simply assume many variables until you list one possible variable which logically could exist to distinguish multiple prime movers. Let me tell you why. Because there is none. I'm asking you to think about some, not because you might, but so that we can go through everything you can possibly think of and demonstrate that such a difference has implications that are incompatible with a true first cause. Now, do you think you are capable of coming up with an example or not?