tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post520734168632316022..comments2024-03-28T13:23:50.623-05:00Comments on Alexander Pruss's Blog: The Hermes in the marbleAlexander R Prusshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05989277655934827117noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-67138908323264565102021-06-03T03:49:06.582-05:002021-06-03T03:49:06.582-05:00- The quantum revolution has been regularly used a...- The quantum revolution has been regularly used as an argument in favor of Aristotelianism. While it is doubtlessly true that Aristotle got his physics wrong, that doesn't affect his metaphysics, since they're independent of it. <br /><br />- Accepting metaphysical systems based on dogmaticism is wrong without prior justification. Doesn't mean that you can't reason yourself to a thomistic metaphysics (e.g. the real distinction between essence and existence), so the criticism is misguidedDominik Kowalskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14634739012344612398noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-3167575185561093982021-06-02T12:22:10.738-05:002021-06-02T12:22:10.738-05:00Posted on some older post by mistake, so reposting...Posted on some older post by mistake, so reposting here:<br /><br />Hello sir Pruss!<br />It's unrelated, but the question really troubles me and I would love to know your thoughts.<br />There're a bit of questions here, so if you've no time, don't bother, but as a teen baby-philosopher I'd be honoured if you responded! So, I've been told by a catholic priest philosopher that thomism is outdated because:<br />-It's based on outdated aristotelian metaphysics and physics<br />-We should not make systems in philosophy, rather find answers and arguments apart without preassuming things that systems like platonism or aristotelianism do.<br /><br />Is this criticism right? I have no idea if you're a thomist or not, but it just felt so weird for me not to accept thomistic 5 ways based on such criticism.<br /><br />He also said, that he would argue for God out of<br />1.Rationality of the universe (we can do maths sort of thing)<br />2. Why is there something rather than nothing question.<br />3. The fact that it seems intuitional that some God exists<br />How do you feel about this way of arguing? Isn't it just too weak in Your opinion?<br />Maybe arguments like from beauty (loved your lecture :)), conscience or morality would be good to back up the case for how obvious God is, as those are things we take for granted, unlike First Cause or Greatest Perfection.<br /><br />That was long, but have a magnifficent day!Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11743366098348247236noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-75530941469333851362021-06-01T16:56:39.577-05:002021-06-01T16:56:39.577-05:00I don't think a shape is a form. A form is an ...I don't think a shape is a form. A form is an intrinsic component of a substance.Alexander R Prusshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05989277655934827117noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-18591118235254420422021-05-31T16:54:03.587-05:002021-05-31T16:54:03.587-05:00I think the removal of material is not necessary t...I think the removal of material is not necessary to create the problem. If I cut a sheet of paper diagonally I make two triangles of paper where there was a rectangle. What I did was change a shape. In this case the shape is the form.<br />Williamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09292602256213936359noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-90829583748267652062021-05-31T13:37:01.749-05:002021-05-31T13:37:01.749-05:00Matthew: I think the dependence on God is causal, ...Matthew: I think the dependence on God is causal, not ontological. Alexander R Prusshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05989277655934827117noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-75686838941463022112021-05-31T10:41:05.473-05:002021-05-31T10:41:05.473-05:00Quick response to the claim that “A substance’s ex...Quick response to the claim that “A substance’s existence does not ontologically depend on the state of anything beyond the substance.”: This is false. Every substance is ontologically dependent on the state of something beyond the substance, since every substance is ontologically dependent on God’s willing its continued existence. <br /><br />Longer response: The marble that the artist needs to chip away doesn’t just surround the marble that makes up the statue. It is related to it in a particular way. It might be related to it in the way that distinct parts are related to each other in a larger whole. But if I were related to another substance such that the two of us would become parts in a larger whole, then the two of us would cease to exist as substances. SMatthewStoltehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06632670946997680263noreply@blogger.com