tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post3923493360518207423..comments2024-03-28T19:56:42.305-05:00Comments on Alexander Pruss's Blog: Causing via a partAlexander R Prusshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05989277655934827117noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-34009936099430914072023-03-03T13:52:01.210-06:002023-03-03T13:52:01.210-06:00I'd say that human beings aren't physical ...I'd say that human beings aren't physical entities.<br /><br />A more worrisome thing is that on an Aristotelian view I don't know that any substance is a physical entity. For form does not seem to be a physical entity and is a part of any substance.<br /><br />I wonder if we shouldn't say that at some point the physical/nonphysical distinction breaks down. Consider trope theory, and suppose that an electron has a charge trope. Is the charge trope a physical object? I don't know. Alexander R Prusshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05989277655934827117noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-74811640245043762082023-03-03T11:52:46.575-06:002023-03-03T11:52:46.575-06:00"All the parts of a physical entity are physi..."All the parts of a physical entity are physical."<br /><br />It does seem pretty plausible at first glance. But it's common for Aristotelians to say human beings are physical entities, but have a non-physical (or transphysical, or spiritual) part in the soul that allows for intellect and will, etc. <br />What should we say to that? Atnohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13138424784532839636noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-61094672413470473772023-03-03T08:55:50.637-06:002023-03-03T08:55:50.637-06:00Fr Kirby: That's actually a really good stylis...Fr Kirby: That's actually a really good stylistic point. Keep the letters in the statement matching the letters in the application so one doesn't have to keep a translation list in the mind. I think it should be better now. I usually try to pay at least a little attention to this when writing up mathy stuff.Alexander R Prusshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05989277655934827117noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-2935233577437708082023-03-02T18:16:41.999-06:002023-03-02T18:16:41.999-06:00Ah, referring to my intellectual limitations with ...Ah, referring to my intellectual limitati<b>o</b>ns with an obvious typo. Brilliant.<br /><br />BTW, should one of the zs been a w?Fr M. Kirbyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06118708352430779782noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-79839154764088959152023-03-02T18:03:38.942-06:002023-03-02T18:03:38.942-06:00It's probably my intellectual limitatins, but ...It's probably my intellectual limitatins, but I would find the argument easier to follow if you had not used x, y and z in both the first premises. I think I get it now, but at first I couldn't get past the first two premises, trying to work out how they related to one another.<br /><br />Would a re-expression be useful, or am I missing the point somehow?Fr M. Kirbyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06118708352430779782noreply@blogger.com