tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post8580058034088476748..comments2024-03-27T20:37:09.185-05:00Comments on Alexander Pruss's Blog: Fetal potentialityAlexander R Prusshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05989277655934827117noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-86724496030176632122011-08-03T18:24:45.853-05:002011-08-03T18:24:45.853-05:00But, the conceptus is the acorn. Is the conceptus...But, the conceptus is the acorn. Is the conceptus case equally unclear?Enenennxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13522366041938333053noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-44543614550225948912011-08-03T13:32:20.507-05:002011-08-03T13:32:20.507-05:00There is a normative issue here. Take a clearer c...There is a normative issue here. Take a clearer case than an acorn. If an oak seedling dies and fails to develop into an oak tree, something went wrong with and for the seedling. If an oak seedling fails to be changed into a canoe, nothing went wrong with and for the seedling. In fact, if an oak tree fails to be changed into a canoe, then that's so much the better for the oak tree!Alexander R Prusshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05989277655934827117noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-12323619095938905912011-08-03T12:28:04.607-05:002011-08-03T12:28:04.607-05:00[This is a repost of my previous comment, just wit...[This is a repost of my previous comment, just with some minor edits in which I tried to clarify my questions and fixed some typos.]<br /><br />[Concering the difference between internal and external causal agency.]<br /><br />Thanks Professor Pruss for posting some thoughts on this; I am trying to figure some things out concerning some of these issues myself.<br /><br />How are the forces of cutting and adjoining (acting on a tree) different from the forces of water soil and sunlight (acting on an acorn)? The acorn has the potential to be an oak tree by means of external natural forces the same way a tree has the potential to be a canoe by means of external natural forces. These are the same types of forces, are they not? Is there something metaphysical or supernatural that makes forces that act upon something to change it different than the forces that act to actualize some sort of preconceived "right" end (e.g. the acorn ought to be a tree, or an acorn's "natural" end is a tree). To argue that the "natural" end of the acorn is a tree is to invoke a teleological argument about what the acorn ought to be, or what the tree ought to be (or continue being), so it would seem.<br /><br />An acorn can become a tree, or it can become food for a squirrel, or it can become mulch (by means of a lawnmower) - it has the internal ability to become each of these (and more) by it's relationship with the environment it is in.<br /><br />A tree has the internal ability to continue being a tree, to become a canoe, or to become mulch - again determined by it's relationship to the environment. (I.e., if in the tree's environment is the natural forces of a carpenter about to hew a canoe, the tree has an internal ability to be a canoe.)<br /><br />Can it be said that nothing has an internal ability to be anything by itself, it always requires an environment, and that environment will always be one environment amongst many. To say one of these environments results in a internal cause being actualized, whereas the rest of the environments (the one with the carpenter, or the one with a hurricane) results in only external causes being actualized, seems special pleading (or something, I'm not a philosopher; i.e. it seems odd to say that the internal ability (of entity X) is the one which results in the actualized potential that comes to be if it (entity X) develops under (arbitrarily chosen) environment Y).Enenennxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13522366041938333053noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-75142272592599358502011-08-03T00:24:47.147-05:002011-08-03T00:24:47.147-05:00This comment has been removed by the author.Enenennxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13522366041938333053noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-84991051820818210862011-08-02T20:29:51.660-05:002011-08-02T20:29:51.660-05:00Prof. Pruss,
I'm thankful to you for respondi...Prof. Pruss,<br /><br />I'm thankful to you for responding to my comment!<br /><br />I never thought about the usage of primary and supportive roles. I was too focused on natural ends and that certain things have powers innately they can give rise to. (A fetus has innately to bring forth an adult. An oak tree, on the other hand, doesn't have innately the power to give rise to a canoe.) Though, all of this is exactly what I meant in my comment and what you noted in your post, "a distinction between an F's potentiality to <i>change itself</i> into a G, and an F's potentiality to <i>be changed</i> into a G."<br /><br />I also like the three classifications of change: accidental, substantial, and constitutional. Though, as you noted, accidental change--with regards to child becoming an adult--does seem a bit odd, at first.Jarrett Cooperhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17191046219215006345noreply@blogger.com