[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 34 KB, 370x370, Aquy.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6967972 No.6967972 [Reply] [Original]

So I've seen that Aquinas' First Way is and has been thoroughly mistaken in modern times and now I've recently read from a few sources that Aquinas' Fifth Way deals nothing with Paley's Intelligent Design. How could that be? Does anyone have any sources I could go to to understand it better that isn't the truncated version of it at the beginning of the Summa?

>> No.6968035

>>6967972
Edward Feser for introduction, especially his book Aquinas.
It is worth noting that Aristotelian teleology has nothing in similar to Paley Design, Aristotelian telos is immanent, while Paley Design is external (imposed from the outside)

>> No.6968057

>le dumb ox face
>le giant fat fuck pose

>> No.6968956

>>6967972
>So I've seen that Aquinas' First Way is and has been thoroughly mistaken in modern times
I know this is probably a b8 thread but could you elaborate?
>now I've recently read from a few sources that Aquinas' Fifth Way deals nothing with Paley's Intelligent Design.
would you also link to sources?

>> No.6968963

>>6968956
see>>6968035

>> No.6968964

>>6968057
>le giant fat fuck prose

I really don't think you're doing justice to the fact of just how big he fucking was

>> No.6968981

>>6968964
yeah, he was really fat, some say he had edema. It is possible, since he fasted like any ordinary monk

>> No.6968993

>>6967972
Intelligent Design is not a theory. It is a way to travest religion as science. A way to place God intervention in Creation so that some modern sensibilities could be appaled to without destroying completely their belief in evolution. ID is not as ridiculous as Creationism, but still has no substance.

Evolution status as dogma in the community needs to be broken if Christianity wants to be taken seriously in the debate again.

>> No.6969004

>>6968993
It is an actual theory, there is no scientific reason for rejecting divine intervention a priori.
Even though i disagree with ID, implying it can be discarded as a theory a priori is wishful thinking

>> No.6969082

>>6969004
>there is no scientific reason for rejecting divine intervention a priori.
Without proof for divine intervention, the null hypothesis suggests it can be ignored as a concept.

Give some statistically significant results involving divine intervention, and then I'D can be taken seriously as a theory.

>> No.6969086

>>6968981
>
I don't care, the man looked like a corn fed bovine at an ice cream buffet

>> No.6969101

>>6969082
i said a priori
>>6969086
so what?

>> No.6969105

>>6967972

ID argues like this

> See how complex this eye is ? Only an intelligence could possibly create something this complex.

Which is arbitrary because no matter how complex something is there is always a possible thing infinitely more complex than it. It is totally arbitrary at what point we determine that something is at that level of complexity that it "must have been an intelligence that produced it".

Aquinas' teleology doesn't base it'self on subjective notions of complexity. It is based on the fact that substances tend towards certain ends consistently,and that we need something to explain the regularity of these substances action.

It is about the general metaphysical features of reality, as opposed to a kind of mechanistic "watchmaker" analogy.

>> No.6969116

>>6969101
im just saying the man was a balloon full of lard so heavy he couldn't be push down a hill

>> No.6969119

>>6968963
I'll check it out thanks

>> No.6969125

>>6969116
so? not even i think he was that fat, his fatness was probably exaggerated because of the times he lived in

>> No.6969128

>>6969125
well, the people in his time were lucky enough to escape without being suffocated by his ass cheeks, if you know what i'm saying

>> No.6969131

>>6969128
ok

>> No.6969318

>>6969105
>that we need something to explain the regularity of these substances action.
why must an intellect do it? Why can't an inanimate object or law just "be"?

>> No.6969332

>>6969128
you're not really interesting or clever enough to justify your being a namefag.

>> No.6969341

>>6969318
laws describe the essences of stuff.
they cant just be because they lack intelligence

>> No.6969343

>>6969332
really? I thought fat jokes were original

>> No.6969344

>>6969341
Why is intelligence a must?

>> No.6969348

>>6969344
acting for a goal is an intelligent activity

>> No.6969351

>>6969348
or manipulative lol

>> No.6969353

>>6969348
but the mechanical world acts towards ends all the time
why can't the mechanical be it? Why is intelligence a must?

>> No.6969360

>>6969353
because perpetual motion doesn't exist

>> No.6969361

>>6969353
that it acts towards ends is a sign of a guiding intelligence.

mechanical implies that there are no ends, there are just "laws", which are tied to a divine decree, which is imposed on something already existing. Completely incompatible with thomistic teleology, which holds that there are real substances.

>> No.6969369

>another medieval xian thread
lol
Well come at me christfags, what are the true logical horrors of atheism

please

humor me

>> No.6969374

>>6969369
atheism doesn't define god except in the most simplistic way

>> No.6969382

>>6969360
isn't a perpetual intelligence always in motion (in the Aristotelian sense of motion)? Why give exception to that?

>> No.6969389

>>6969382
isn't mechanical essentially a guise for cause and effect?

a machine, takes energy, transforms energy

>> No.6969391

>>6969369
imagine a child who, never having seen a river, believes rivers to be blue strokes of a brush along the field. When he is told that believing rivers are blue strokes of a brush is fucking stupid, he stops believing in rivers completely.

That's atheism

>> No.6969399

>>6969374
who gives a fuck
that doesn't change that atheism leaves more doors open for a person than xianity and materialism/naturalism are obviously true

>> No.6969408

>>6969399
materialism/naturalism cant even explain the mind, which is where they put everything that wasnt reducible to matter. You could do the reverse and it would be the same

>> No.6969412

>>6969399
no atheism slams the door that says
"no empirical proof"

>> No.6969426

>>6969408
>materialism/naturalism cant even explain the mind
I'm sure you have a way of backing that up.

>> No.6969441

>>6969412
And because of that so many more doors are open
we are free to do as we want
no worry about values and meanings but what we apply
that sort of thing

the childish theist locks so many doors on hisself over fairytales

>> No.6969444

>>6969426
you claim they are obviously true, prove it.
explain the mind without denying it exists

>> No.6969447

>>6969426
lol no you're the one who has to back it up.

all we're doing is casting doubt

regardless, the point doesn't speak anyway to the legitimacy of atheism as an ideology so you might as well just throw it in the garbage

>> No.6969454

>>6969441
no no you're turning it into a fucking sports contest

and its not

the point is to leave the door open for things which there is no proof because that's where imagination creates the impossible

>> No.6969459
File: 162 KB, 1024x878, 12244941134.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6969459

>>6969369

>> No.6969461

>>6969444
how do you explain the explainer

>> No.6969469

>>6969444
What about the mind needs explaining?

>> No.6969480

>>6969469
its presence?

>> No.6969481

>>6969408
>mind-body problem
it's 2015, don't be thus hung up on modernism
aristotle has the answer

>> No.6969482

>>6969469
in your theory, everything
start with thought and intentional states

>> No.6969486

>>6969481
yes, but this dude denies aristotle

>> No.6969491

>>6969486
This is what I'm saying. Don't be a pleb. Join the Aristotelian ranks. All the cool thinkers are doing it.

>> No.6969495

>>6969491
im not a pleb, i dont deny aristotle

but Thomas was the better Aristotelian

>> No.6969499

>>6969491
you do realize aristotle doesn't really answer anything right?

>> No.6969501

>>6969499
No, Aristotle literally answers all questions that have and can exist. At the same time.

Of course I do, you idiot.

>> No.6969509

>>6969482
Define "thought".

>> No.6969514

>>6969509
a conception of the mind

>> No.6969518

>>6969509
concept forming, logical reasoning, mathematical reasoning to name a few

>> No.6969530

>>6969518
Why are the abilities of a computer not classified as these things?

>> No.6969536

>>6969530
because these are made by thinking agents, and presuppose a mind to begin with

>> No.6969539

>>6969530
the computer being aware of the intended result

>> No.6969545

>>6969509
“If the human brain were so simple that we could understand it, we would be so simple that we couldn’t.”

>> No.6969551

>>6969536
Then what qualifies something as being a "mind"?

>> No.6969557

>>6969551
free control of its applications

the ability to reform its mechanism in relation to external improvements

>> No.6969576

>>6969551
able to exercise inherent thought.

Please explain the mind, your definition begging isnt a good sign of your ability to do it

>> No.6969581

>>6969576
I don't see why the phrase
"explain the explainer"

doesn't "explain" the difficulty in explaining the mind

>> No.6969589

>>6969581
but you can know yourself. If you can know your body you can know your mind

>> No.6969593

>>6969589
your tongue doesn't TASTE like anything.

>> No.6969604

>64 replies
>9 posters
>most of the posts are one shitty namefag with undergrad tier ideas

>> No.6969614

>>6969604
hold a candle anon, hold a candle.

impress us please.

recommend us only the most essential literature for the comprehension of this controversial concept

oh please

please ...we love you!

>> No.6969620

>>6969557
What makes something have "free" control of its applications as oppose to just control of its applications? And there are already machines that are capable of adapting to situations.

>>6969576
Are you saying that something can't exercise thought unless it's a mind, and something can't be a mind unless it exercises thought?

>> No.6969629

>>6969620
inherent thought

the "thought" of computers is clearly imposed from the outside, it is not very different from a clock, so they cant be a basis for explaining human thought

>> No.6969641

>>6969629
So are you saying that human thought arises from nothing to no influence by anything?

>> No.6969663

>>6969641
no, human thought is a process that starts within a being and ends within the being for the being.

Now please, explain the mind, how does it possess intentional states, determinate thought, etc?

>> No.6969696

>>6969663
the only entity with an answer would be a superhuman entity. no human has this level of perspective to "explain" what you demand

>> No.6969707

>>6969105
notice I didn't say god. I refer to this post because "superhuman" is simply "more than human" its not "the ultimate" or "the end".
>>6969696
>>6969663

>> No.6969708

>>6969614
>us
>we
>namefag gets called out for shitposting and proceeds to shitpost more
filtered

>> No.6969724

>>6969663
The brain possesses the ability to measure future states.

>> No.6969729

>>6969708
I'm only asking to be enlightened, not simply criticized. the person I responded to is lazy as fuck. there is nothing arguably more important than what we are discussing, which is our nature and our entire reality, being by virtue of what we call "our mind"

>> No.6969731

>>6969724
that isnt an explanation, that's an assertion
why the brain? why not a tiny bone inside the skull?

>> No.6969748

>>6969731
It has those things because it is able to measure future states.

>> No.6969772

>>6969748
that's a mere tautology
>it does those things because it can do them

>> No.6969794

>>6969318

Because these ends aren't logically necessary ones, they are contingent. You need some sort of intellect to determine that this end regularly follows rather than another end, and that they are consistent rather than chaotic.

"Natural Laws" are also a really spooky concept anyways, few have a good definition of exactly what they are. Are they just mathematical regularities ? ( which leaves us still asking why we have these regularities, since they are not logically necessary), since that is all physics gives us, are they actual "laws" that metaphysically dictate things, if so then how ? What is the ontological status of these laws ?

The idea that beings are endowed with teleological properties that are sustained by an intelligence is much more intelligible than spooky "laws" that are left unexplained, and gives a better explanation that than just taking laws as mechanical regularities that cannot be inquired into on any deeper level.

>>6969353

What "mechanical world"?, what you mean is the equations in physics that give us mathematical abstractions of what happens regularly in the world. These do not explain the regularities, rather they are abstractions grounded and explained by the real existence of the regularities. So trying to use them as evidence for us not needing an explanation for the regularities would be viciously circular.

>>6969360

Newton's inertial laws are merely a description of what happens, it does not explain why perpetual motion happens to hold in our universe. There is also the problem of empirical verification: you can never actually observe perpetual motion by definition ( since it assumes a potential infinity, which we cannot traverse and thus cannot experience). So empirically speaking the inertial laws that ground perpetual motion are pretty shaky, it is a useful fiction for Science, but at best it's existence is only probable.

>> No.6969824

>>6969772
That was referring to the above statement. Intentional states arise in the brain as a result of it measuring the future.

>> No.6969851

>>6969824
where can i find intentional states in the brain?

>> No.6969855

>>6969851
Where can I find code in a computer?

>> No.6969864

>>6969369
ooga booga you'll go to heck

>> No.6969868

>>6969855
computer analogy doesnt work though, leave machines for a while

>> No.6969912

>>6969731
>why not a tiny bone inside the skull?
Because we can'talk find a tiny bone in the skull that does so, and if pieces of the brain are selectively destroyed mind function deteriorates with some degree of predictability.

>> No.6971079

>>6969912
but how do you know the brain does instead of the bone?

but that some functions are correlated doesnt imply they are causally related