tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post8002363253965226076..comments2024-03-28T19:56:42.305-05:00Comments on Alexander Pruss's Blog: An Aristotelian argument for a causal principleAlexander R Prusshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05989277655934827117noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-82068138619756867722022-01-18T16:35:18.952-06:002022-01-18T16:35:18.952-06:00Thank you, that makes sense. I agree that it seems...Thank you, that makes sense. I agree that it seems like certain non-Humean non-Aristotelian views might be able to support it as well.James Reillyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16901097019712933386noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-8244134112893718072022-01-18T10:20:44.565-06:002022-01-18T10:20:44.565-06:00The argument depends on the implicit assumption th...The argument depends on the implicit assumption that we can add more massive objects without changing the laws of nature. This is not going to work on Humean accounts of laws on which laws depend on the behavior of objects. It may work on some non-Humean non-Aristotelian views.Alexander R Prusshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05989277655934827117noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-12686673671284030662022-01-15T22:24:59.308-06:002022-01-15T22:24:59.308-06:00Out of curiosity, do you still regard this argumen...Out of curiosity, do you still regard this argument as being sound? Also, why does it depend on an Aristotelian picture of laws of nature? I couldn't quite tell what work (1) was doing in the argument.James Reillyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16901097019712933386noreply@blogger.com