DOCSLIB.ORG

Aquinas, the Divine Nature

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Aquinas, the Divine Nature Aquinas, The Divine Nature So far we have shown THAT God exists, but we don’t yet know WHAT God is like. Here, Aquinas demonstrates attributes of God, who is: (1) Simple (i.e., God has no parts) (2) Perfect (i.e., God has all of the perfections; e.g., goodness, wisdom, power) (3) Infinite (i.e., God is not limited in any way) (4) Ubiquitous (i.e., God exists in all places) (5) Immutable (i.e., God does not change) (6) Eternal (i.e., God is timeless) (7) One (i.e., there is only one God, one entity with all of these attributes) 1. Simplicity: Everything that you and I have ever seen is composed; that is, has parts. But, God is not like that. He is “simple”. His summary of the best arguments for this come in Article 7, but he makes a couple of points worth noting along the way: God is Immaterial: First, God cannot be a “body”. Aquinas has already shown (in the 1st Way) that God is the First Mover, Unmoved. But, any body that is the source of the motion in another body must itself move. God’s Essence is Existence: Second, Aquinas has already shown (in the 3rd) way, that God is a necessary being. But—if you recall from our study of Avicenna—that is the sort of being whose existence is GUARANTEED by its own essence. I said this in my notes: A triangle’s essence does not guarantee its existence. Just by considering the essence of a triangle, we see that it needs a cause in order to exist. It needs existence to be ADDED TO its essence in order to exist in actuality. On the other hand, recall that positing the non-existence of a necessary being results in a contradiction. So, a necessary being would be one whose essence is such that it DOES guarantee its own existence. It doesn’t need existence ADDED to its essence in order to exist because its essence IS existence. Any being with THAT sort of essence simply MUST exist. For, what it is is pure existence. In short, God is not composed of essence PLUS existence, since His essence IS existence. The Proof of God’s Simplicity: Aquinas’s most straightforward reasons are these: (1) Wholes (i.e., composite things) are dependent upon their parts; and parts are (at least logically, if not also causally) prior to the whole. But, God depends on nothing, and nothing is prior to God. 1 (2) Composites are potentially dissoluble (i.e., capable of not existing); since the parts can be separated from one another so that the whole ceases to exist. So, any composite is capable of not existing (i.e., is a contingent being). But, God is not capable of not existing (He is a Necessary Existent). (3) Every composite requires a composer—that is, an efficient cause which brings the parts together into one whole. But, God has no cause (He is the First Cause). 2. Perfection: Aquinas argues that God is absolutely perfect. To understand his main reason for thinking this, it is important to note that Aquinas endorses the Augustinian view that existence, or being—insofar as it is being—is good. Furthermore, imperfection (e.g., evil) is a PRIVATION of being. In short, the more existence a thing has, the more perfect it is. But, God’s essence IS existence. As such, God is pure being. His being lacks nothing. It is without privation. So, He is absolutely perfect. He says that “God is self-subsisting existence. It follows from this that God contains the complete perfection of existing in himself.” (I.4.2) The second argument given is this: Clearly, there are perfections that created things can have (e.g., goodness, wisdom, being, life, and so on). But, Aquinas believes that a cause cannot impart these attributes to its effect unless it itself has them, and in a more perfect way. (For example, the sand on a beach gets hot. The cause of this effect is the Sun, which possesses heat to a much greater degree.) He writes, “it is obvious that an effect preexists in the power of the acting cause. But to preexist in the power of the acting cause is not to preexist in an imperfect mode but rather in a more perfect mode. … Thus since God is the first efficient cause of things, it follows that the perfections of all things preexist in God in a more eminent way.” (I.4.2) Conclusion: Aquinas infers from God’s absolute perfection that He therefore possesses ALL of the perfections—e.g., goodness, wisdom, and life. He writes, “insofar as something is perfect it is also said to be good.” (I.4) And later, “the very existence of God includes in itself life and wisdom, since no perfection of existing can be lacking to what is subsisting existence itself.” (I.4.2) 3. Infinity: By ‘infinite’ Aquinas means ‘not limited’. To understand why Aquinas thinks that God is not limited in any way, it will be helpful to discuss the Aristotelian view (which Aquinas endorses) regarding matter and form. 2 When we discussed the Four Causes, we saw that the efficient cause is responsible for bringing together the matter (the material cause) and the form (the formal cause). Thus, each material being is composed of matter + form. For instance, a statue is composed of the slab of marble (matter) and that particular statue-shape (form). Matter: In their own way, both matter and form suffer some limitations. It may seem like matter is NOT limited because it can become ANYTHING! With a pile of protons, neutrons, and electrons, you could make a table, or a dog, or a star! Ultimately, however, Aquinas says matter is limited because it cannot exist independent of form. There is no such thing as formless matter.* So, wherever matter exists, it is limited by form to be THIS SORT of thing, rather than some other. For instance, the matter in Fido is limited by the form of ‘dog’ to be a dog, rather than, say, a cat or a table. ( * Though Aristotelians often spoke of matter without form—they called it “Prime Matter”—they did not think that Prime Matter actually existed somewhere in the universe. Matter can only exist if it has a form.) Forms: Forms are weird. They can exist simultaneously in many places at once. For instance, a particular statue-shape can exist in many slabs of marble at once. Similarly, YOUR form (the form of human being) exists in many places at once—namely, in each and every human being. So, in a sense, forms are NOT limited (to any particular matter). Interestingly, the implication is that matter is what individuates things. If I say that two statues are “identical”, you might reply: “Well, they’re not REALLY identical. They just LOOK the same. But, they’re composed of different matter.” What’s been said here is that the 2 statues share one and the same FORM, but not one and the same MATTER— and for this reason, they are not the same statue. Similarly, Fido and Sparky share one and the same form (the form of ‘dog’), but not the same matter. That is why they are two numerically distinct dogs rather than one dog. But, now we see that, in some sense, form is limited too. Though a single form can be in many places at once, wherever it exists, it exists in some matter than makes it be THIS individual rather than THAT individual. For instance, in Fido, the form of ‘dog’ is limited by the matter which makes it be Fido (and not Sparky). In Sparky, the same form is limited by the matter which makes it be Sparky (and not Fido). Aquinas writes, “Now in one way matter is limited by form, and in another way form by matter. Matter is limited by form insofar as matter, prior to receiving form, is in potentiality to many forms; once it receives a form, however, it becomes limited by that one form. Form is limited by matter insofar as form, considered in itself, is common to many; once it is received in matter, however, it becomes the determinate form of this thing.” (I.7.1) 3 Thus, while forms may be “universal” in the sense that they can exist in many things, they are always restricted by (or limited by, or contracted into) matter to become “particular” things. God: But, God is not composed of matter and form, as we have seen. Rather, God is the CAUSE or SOURCE of all matter and form. Thus, He does not suffer from either of their limitations. Furthermore, unlike contingent beings (whose existence is limites), God is a necessary being. As such, His existence is not limited (e.g., He doesn’t begin or cease to be). Furthermore, as a necessary being, God’s essence IS existence. For all other things that exist, they exist in some particular (restricted) way that is specified by their essence, or nature. For instance, any dog that exists, exists in only some restricted way (namely, as a DOG, and NOT, say, a CAT). But, since God’s essence just IS existence, His existence is not restricted or limited in any particular way. God is PURE EXISTENCE. Thomas writes, “Now, as was made clear above [I.4.1.R3], what is most formal of all is existence itself. Therefore, since the divine existence is not received in anything, but is itself its own subsisting existence, as proven above [I.3.4], it is clear that God is infinite and perfect.” (I.7.1) In other words, existence is typically RECEIVED by (or added to) some matter and form.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Thomas Aquinas: Soul-Body Connection and the Afterlife Hyde Dawn Krista University of Missouri-St
    University of Missouri, St. Louis IRL @ UMSL Theses Graduate Works 4-16-2012 Thomas Aquinas: Soul-Body Connection and the Afterlife Hyde Dawn Krista University of Missouri-St. Louis, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: http://irl.umsl.edu/thesis Recommended Citation Krista, Hyde Dawn, "Thomas Aquinas: Soul-Body Connection and the Afterlife" (2012). Theses. 261. http://irl.umsl.edu/thesis/261 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate Works at IRL @ UMSL. It has been accepted for inclusion in Theses by an authorized administrator of IRL @ UMSL. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Thomas Aquinas: Soul-Body Connection and the Afterlife Krista Hyde M.L.A., Washington University in St. Louis, 2010 B.A., Philosophy, Southeast Missouri State University – Cape Girardeau, 2003 A Thesis Submitted to The Graduate School at the University of Missouri – St. Louis in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree Master of Arts in Philosophy April 2012 Advisory Committee Gualtiero Piccinini, Ph.D. Chair Jon McGinnis, Ph.D. John Brunero, Ph.D. Copyright, Krista Hyde, 2012 Abstract Thomas Aquinas nearly succeeds in addressing the persistent problem of the mind-body relationship by redefining the human being as a body-soul (matter-form) composite. This redefinition makes the interaction problem of substance dualism inapplicable, because there is no soul “in” a body. However, he works around the mind- body problem only by sacrificing an immaterial afterlife, as well as the identity and separability of the soul after death. Additionally, Thomistic psychology has difficulty accounting for the transmission of universals, nor does it seem able to overcome the arguments for causal closure.
    [Show full text]
  • Comparativeurban Studies Project
    COMPARATIVE URBAN STUDIES PROJECT URBAN UPDATE September 2007 NO. 12 Cities and Fundamentalisms WRITTEN BY: Nezar AlSayyad, Professor of Architecture, Planning, and Urban History & Chair of the Center for Middle Eastern Studies, University of California at Berkeley; Mejgan Massoumi, Program Assistant, Comparative Urban Studies Project (2005-2007); Mrinalini Rajagopalan, Assistant Professor, Draper Faculty Fellow (The City), New York University. With the unanticipated resur- gence of religious and ethnic loy- alties across the world, commu- nities are returning to, reinvigo- rating, and giving new meaning to religions and their common practices. Islam, Christianity, Judaism, and Hinduism, among others, are experiencing new in- fl uxes of commitments and tra- ditions. These changes have been coupled with the breakdown of order and of state power under the neo-liberal economic para- Top Row, Left to Right: Salwa Ismail, Mrinalini Rajagopalan, Raka Ray, Blair Ruble, Renu Desai, Nezar AlSayyad. Bottom Row, Left to Right: digm of civil society which have Omri Elisha, Emily Gottreich, Mona Harb, Mejgan Massoumi. created vacuums in the provi- sion of social services. Religious groups in many countries around the world are increasingly providing those services left unattended to by state bureaucracies. The once sacred divide between church and COMPARATIVE URBAN STUDIES PROJECT state or the confi nement of religion to the pri- fundamentalisms in several parts of the world. The vate sphere is now being vigorously challenged systematic transformation of the urban landscape as radical religious groups not only gain ground through various strategies of religious funda- within sovereign nation-states but in fact forge mentalism has led to the redefi nition of minority enduring and powerful transnational connections space in many cities.
    [Show full text]
  • Conceptual Analysis and the Essence of Space: Kant's Metaphysical
    AGPh 2015; 97(4): 416–457 James Messina* Conceptual Analysis and the Essence of Space: Kant’s Metaphysical Exposition Revisited DOI 10.1515/agph-2015-0017 Abstract: I offer here an account of the methodology, historical context, and content of Kant’s so-called “Metaphysical Exposition of the Concept of Space” (MECS). Drawing on Critical and pre-Critical texts, I first argue that the arguments making up the MECS rest on a kind of conceptual analysis, one that yields (analytic) knowledge of the essence of space. Next, I situate Kant’s MECS in what I take to be its proper historical context: the debate between the Wolffians and Crusius about the correct analysis of the concept of space. Finally, I draw on the results of previous sections to provide a reconstruction of Kant’s so-called “first apriority argument.” On my reconstruction, the key premise of the argument is a claim to the effect that space grounds the possibility of the co-existence of whatever things occupy it. “To investigate the essences of things is the busi- ness and the end of philosophy.” (AA 24:115) 1 Introduction In the Transcendental Aesthetic of the Critique of Pure Reason, Kant argues that space is the a priori form of outer intuition (call this the Form Thesis).¹,² Kant’s 1 References to the Critique of Pure Reason are given according to the pagination of the first (A) and second (B) editions. In quotations I have followed Critique of Pure Reason (Kant 1998). References to other works by Kant are given by volume and page number of the Berlin Akademie edition (cited as AA).
    [Show full text]
  • Can God's Goodness Save the Divine Command Theory
    CAN GOD’S GOODNESS SAVE THE DIVINE COMMAND THEORY FROM EUTHYPHRO? JEREMY KOONS Georgetown University School of Foreign Service in Qatar Abstract. Recent defenders of the divine command theory like Adams and Alston have confronted the Euthyphro dilemma by arguing that although God’s commands make right actions right, God is morally perfect and hence would never issue unjust or immoral commandments. On their view, God’s nature is the standard of moral goodness, and God’s commands are the source of all obligation. I argue that this view of divine goodness fails because it strips God’s nature of any features that would make His goodness intelligible. An adequate solution to the Euthyphro dilemma may require that God be constrained by a standard of goodness that is external to Himself – itself a problematic proposal for many theists. The Euthyphro dilemma is often thought to present a fatal problem for the divine command theory (aka theological voluntarism). Are right acts commanded by God because they are right, or are they right because they are commanded by God? If the former, then there is a standard of right and wrong independent of God’s commands; God’s commands are not relevant in determining the content of morality. This option seems to compromise God’s sovereignty in an important way. But the second horn of the dilemma presents seemingly insurmountable problems, as well. First, if God’s commands make right actions right, and there is no standard of morality independent of God’s commands, then that seems to make morality arbitrary. Thus, murder is not wrong because it harms someone unjustly, but merely because God forbids it; there is (it seems) no good connection between reason and the wrongness of murder.
    [Show full text]
  • Existentialism
    TOPIC FOR- SEM- III ( PHIL-CC 10) CONTEMPORARY WESTERN PHILOSOPHY BY- DR. VIJETA SINGH ASSISTANT PROFESSOR P.G. DEPARTMENT OF PHILOSOPHY PATNA UNIVERSITY Existentialism Existentialism is a philosophy that emphasizes individual existence, freedom and choice. It is the view that humans define their own meaning in life, and try to make rational decisions despite existing in an irrational universe. This philosophical theory propounds that people are free agents who have control over their choices and actions. Existentialists believe that society should not restrict an individual's life or actions and that these restrictions inhibit free will and the development of that person's potential. History 1 Existentialism originated with the 19th Century philosopher Soren Kierkegaard and Friedrich Nietzsche, but they did not use the term (existentialism) in their work. In the 1940s and 1950s, French existentialists such as Jean- Paul Sartre , Albert Camus and Simone de Beauvoir wrote scholarly and fictional works that popularized existential themes, such as dread, boredom, alienation, the absurd, freedom, commitment and nothingness. The first existentialist philosopher who adopted the term as a self-description was Sartre. Existentialism as a distinct philosophical and literary movement belongs to the 19th and 20th centuries, but elements of existentialism can be found in the thought (and life) of Socrates, in the Bible, and in the work of many pre-modern philosophers and writers. Noted Existentialists: Soren Kierkegaard (1813-1855) Nationality Denmark Friedrich Nietzsche(1844-1900) Nationality Germany Paul Tillich(1886-1965) Nati…United States, Germany Martin Heidegger ( 1889-1976) Nati…Germany Simone de Beauvior(1908-1986) Nati…France Albert Camus (1913-1960) Nati….France Jean Paul Sartre (1905-1980) Nati….France 2 What does it mean to exist ? To have reason.
    [Show full text]
  • What Is Meant by “Christian Dualism” (Genuine Separation
    Jeremy Shepherd October 15, 2004 The Friday Symposium Dallas Baptist University “Christian Enemy #1: Dualism Exposed & Destroyed” “The Fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge, but fools despise wisdom and discipline.” - Proverbs 1:7 “Christianity is not a realm of life; it’s a way of life for every realm”1 Introduction When I came to Dallas Baptist University I had a rather violent reaction to what I thought was a profound category mistake. Coming from the public school system, I had a deeply embedded idea of how “religious” claims ought to relate, or should I say, ought not to relate, with “worldly affairs.” To use a phrase that Os Guinness frequently uses, I thought that “religion might be privately engaging but publicly irrelevant.”2 I was astonished at the unashamed integration of all these “religious” beliefs into other realms of life, even though I myself was a Christian. The key word for me was: unashamed. I thought to myself, “How could these people be so shameless in their biases?” My reaction to this Wholistic vision of life was so serious that I almost left the university to go get myself a “real” education, one where my schooling wouldn’t be polluted by all of these messy assumptions and presuppositions, even if they were Christian. My worldview lenses saw “education” as something totally separate from my “faith.” I was a model student of the American public school system, and like most other students, whether Christian or not, the separation of “church/state” and “faith/education” was only a small part of something much deeper and much more profound, the separation of my “faith” from the rest of my “life.” Our public schools are indoctrinating other students who have this same split-vision3, in which “faith” is a private thing, which is not to be integrated into the classroom.
    [Show full text]
  • Essence Rx (HMO-POS) Essence (HMO-POS) Spirit Rx (HMO-POS)
    2021 H5211 Assurance Rx (HMO-POS) Essence Rx (HMO-POS) Essence (HMO-POS) Spirit Rx (HMO-POS) Spirit (HMO-POS) Security Health Plan is an HMO-POS, MSA and D-SNP plan with a Medicare contract and a contract with the Wisconsin Medicaid program. Enrollment in Security Health Plan depends on contract renewal. Call Customer Service at 1-877-998-0998 (TTY 711) for more information. Y0117_MC-778-3860-C-09-20_M accepted January 1, 2021 – December 31, 2021 This is a summary of health and prescription drug services covered by Security Health Plan’s Assurance Rx (HMO-POS), Essence Rx (HMO-POS), Essence (HMO-POS), Spirit Rx (HMO-POS) and Spirit (HMO-POS) Medicare Advantage plans. The benefit information provided is a summary of what each plan covers and what you pay. It doesn’t list every service that we cover or list every limitation or exclusion. The complete list of services we cover is found in each plan’s Evidence of Coverage. You can review the Evidence of Coverage at www.securityhealth.org/medicaredocuments. If you would like a printed copy of the Evidence of Coverage mailed to you, call Customer Service (phone numbers are on page 2 of this booklet). To join Assurance Rx (HMO-POS), you must be entitled to Medicare Part A, be enrolled in Medicare Part B, and live in our service area. Our service area includes the following counties in Wisconsin: Columbia, Dane, Green, Green Lake, Iowa, Jefferson, Marquette, Richland, Sauk and Waukesha. To join Essence Rx (HMO-POS) or Essence (HMO-POS), you must be entitled to Medicare Part A, be enrolled in Medicare Part B, and live in our service area.
    [Show full text]
  • Biosense Platform Quick Start Guide to Using ESSENCE 1
    December 2017 BioSense Platform Quick Start Guide to Using ESSENCE 1 Quick Start Guide to Using ESSENCE CONTENTS 1 Overview, 1 2 Access, 4 Log In to ESSENCE, 4 Get Oriented to Home Page, 4 3 Data Completeness, 6 4 Basic Monitoring, 7 Check Alert List, 7 Create, Visualize, and Save a Query, 9 View Your Dashboard (myESSENCE), 15 Visualize Statistical Alerts: The “Map Portal” Tab, 17 Share Queries and Visualization, 18 Generate Reports, 20 Request Technical Assistance, 21 5 Activities Common to Users and Site Administrators, 22 Technical Assistance: support.syndromicsurveillance.org The National Syndromic Surveillance Program (NSSP) promotes and advances development of the cloud-based BioSense Platform, a secure integrated electronic health information system that hosts standardized analytic tools and facilitates collaborative processes. The BioSense Platform is a product of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). BioSense Platform Quick Start Guide to Using ESSENCE 2 Quick Start Guide to Using ESSENCE 1. Overview NSSP’s BioSense Platform hosts the Electronic Surveillance System for the Early Notification of Community- based Epidemics (ESSENCE)—a system that will let you analyze events of public health interest, monitor healthcare data for events that could affect public health, and share data and analyses. This quick start guide supports NSSP ESSENCE v.1.21 and will help you access and navigate the system’s main features. This guide is NOT intended to be a comprehensive user’s manual. Version 1.21 updates include: . New access control system . Improved graph overlay functionality (examples on pages 11 and 12) . Ability to query multiple user-defined text fields when building free-text queries (not just chief compliant, CC/DD or triage notes) (examples on page 9) .
    [Show full text]
  • On the Mind/Body Problem: the Theory of Essence
    On the Mind/Body Problem: The Theory of Essence J. Kenneth Arnette, Ph.D. Colorado State University ABSTRACT: The classical mind/body problem can be approached empiri cally, using instances of the near-death experience (NDE) as experimental data. The monistic viewpoint, that the mind is the functioning of the brain, finds little support in the NDE data, while dualism, mind and body as separate entities, is consistent with NDE research to date. Comparison of the details of the NDE with predictions from theoretical cosmology shows strong similarities between the two and further strengthens the case for dualism. A theory of human nature is proposed that incorporates these similarities. The mind/body problem has been a topic of great interest to philoso phers, scientists, and psychologists throughout history. From the spec ulations of Plato, Aristotle, and other Greek philosophers to the dualist viewpoint of Descartes to modern psychology's material monist bent, the mind/body relationship has helped form the foundations of para digms related to the understanding of human nature. There are two fundamental positions one might reasonably take on the physical relationship between mind and body. I will call these the monist and dualist positions. The monist position is stated most eco nomically as: the mind is nothing more than the biological functioning of the brain. Consider an analogy with computers. The monist might say that the brain corresponds to the central processing unit (CPU) of the computer, while the body and its organ systems are analogous to the peripherals in a computer system. The CPU serves to supervise J.
    [Show full text]
  • Hyman, Arthur/ Averroes' 'De Substantia Orbis': Critical Edition Of
    MEDIEVAL ACADEMY BOOKS, NO. 96 CORPUS PHILOSOPHORUM MEDII AEVI AVERROIS HEBRAICUS CORPUS PHILOSOPHORUM MEDII AEVI ACADEMIARUM CONSOCIATARUM AUSPICIIS ET CONSILIO EDITUM OPERA AVERROIS Ediderunt HENRICUS AUSTRYN WOLFSON V't SHLOMO PINES THE MEDIEVAL ACADEMY OF AMERICA AND THE ISRAEL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES AND HUMANITIES AVERROES' DE SUBSTANTIA ORBIS Critical Edition of the Hebrew Text with English Translation and Commentary by ARTHUR HYMAN Cambridge, Massachusetts and Jerusalem 1986 ISBN 965-208-071-3 Library of Congress Catalog Card Number: 85-61823 Copyright ©1986 by the Medieval Academy of America Printed in Israel In 1931, the Medieval Academy of America undertook the publication of Averroes' Commentaries on Aristotle in accordance with H.A. Wolfson's "Plan for the publication of a Corpus Commentariorum Averrois in Aristotelem"', published in Speculum, VI (1931), pp. 412-427. In 1977, the Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities undertook to publish the Hebrew translations of the works of Averroes. The present volume is a joint publication of both academies. It is the last to be published in the framework of the Medieval Academy series of Corpus Commentariorum Averrois in Aristoielem. S. Pines CONTENTS Preface 7 Introduction 13 CONCERNING THE SUBSTANCE OF THE CELESTIAL SPHERE BY AVERROES Chapter One 39 Chapter Two 74 Chapter Three 99 Chapter Four 112 Chapter Five 120 Chapter Six 123 Bibliography 139 Index of References 144 Index of Names and Subjects 148 Hebrew Section see p. 7 PREFACE Averroes is primarily known for his many commentaries on Aristotle's works and for his Tahdfut al-Tahafut, "The Incoherence of the Incoherence." He was also the author of a number of independent treatises dealing with a variety of philosophical and theological topics.
    [Show full text]
  • On the Validity of Spinoza's Proof for Monism
    On the Validity of Spinoza’s Argument for Monism: A Question of Equivocation Jennifer Lynn Daigle INTRODUCTION pinoza’s case for ontological monism is indeed an inter- esting one. Beginning with the Cartesian metaphysical principles of substance and attribute, Spinoza believes himself to have demonstrated the underlying substantial Suniformity of all beings, as he writes, “Except for God, no sub- stance can be or be conceived.”1 However, the validity of his ar- gument for monism is questionable, for when one considers care- fully the meaning which Spinoza attaches to certain concepts, it becomes quite apparent that he fails to use such meaning consis- tently. More specifically, in the first part of his proof for mo- nism, wherein he argues against the possibility of two infinite substances of distinct attributes, Spinoza equivocates on the term ‘finite’, which thus undermines the validity of his entire demon- stration. The following is divided into five sections. In the first section, a very basic explication of substance and attribute within the Spinozistic metaphysics will be provided. Following that consideration, in the second section, Spinoza’s argument for on- tological monism will be clearly outlined and briefly explained. The third section will focus exclusively on Spinoza’s two fold Jennifer Daigle was born in Albany, NY and resides in East Greenbush, NY. Jen is currently a senior at Providence College in Providence, RI where she is studying philosophy and psychology. She has broad in- terests in the history of philosophy, which include such topics as the relationship between faith and reason, the ethic of decreation in Simone Weil, the human person as symbolic being, and R.
    [Show full text]
  • Naturalism: Friends and Foes
    Naturalism: Friends and Foes These days, it seems there are at least as many strains of naturalism as there are self-professed naturalistic philosophers. My personal favorite has its primary roots in Quine, though it branches off from Quinean orthodoxy at some fundamental points.1 Unfortunately, when it comes to spelling out the precise contours of this preferred version, there is an immediate difficulty: naturalism, as I understand it, is not a doctrine, but an approach; not a set of answers, but a way of addressing questions. As such, it can hardly be described in a list of theses; it can only be seen in action.2 And this is a long-term undertaking.3 What I propose to do here is to triangulate on the position in two ways that I hope will be illuminating. For the first perspective, I trace three conspicuous earlier flowerings of this naturalistic impulse; though I won’t agree with every opinion of these proto-naturalists, a look at their practices provides us with models of the fundamental naturalistic bent in familiar 1 For examples, see the treatments of scientific methodology and the status of mathematics in [1997] and [200?]. 2 I hope this will come clearer toward the end of §I. 2 philosophical settings. For the second perspective, I take up a range of well known objections to ‘naturalism’ -- including its purporting interconnections with the theory of truth, a recurring theme in many discussions, pro and con -- and indicate how the naturalist I envision would react. In the end, I hope at least to have clarified the outlines of the position I recommend.
    [Show full text]