Wouldn't Aquinas say that Hume's arguments against causality are insufficient?
>>7422974
Being an over emotional and stupid Christian, he probably would say something like that.
>>7422974
Aquinas would say all kinds of dumb shit.
>>7422974
I think Aquinas would say that Hume doesn't even understanding causality. First of all, Hume does address form, matter, or final cause at all. Second, he has a child's understanding of efficient cause. He thinks it's pool balls hitting each other, when actually the efficient cause is that which converts a potential being into an actual being. You don't need to be able to see it happen to realize that it must, even if watching it happen is how we recognize efficient causes.
>>7423002
If you think the best criticism of the scholastics is that they were too "emotional" than you've clearly never read them.
Does this sound particularly overwrought with emotion to you?
"The efficient cause is called a cause with respect to the end, since the end is actual only by the operation of the agent. But the end is called the cause of the efficient cause, since the efficient cause does not operate except by the intention of the end. Hence the efficient cause is the cause of that which is the end, for example walking in order to be healthy. However, the efficient cause does not cause the end to be the end. Therefore it is not the cause of the causality of the end, i.e., it does not cause the end to be the final cause; for example the doctor causes health to actually exist, but he does not cause health to be the end."
Quit projecting.
>>7422974
aquinas probably wouldn't say anything
if his speech is anything like his writings, he would probably just be incomprehensible drooling sounds in place of words
He isn't against cause and effect, it's a core aspect of his philosophy. It's just that you often cannot clearly identify causes and effects.
>>7423280
Anyone who goes to that kind of trouble to make their childish faith academically respectable is pretty emotionally invested in a silly position.
>>7423315
Sam Harris of 4chan
>>7423346
Nah fuck that guy too.
The best movement in Christian scholarship was presuppositional apologetics, so they could stop pretending they were actually justifying their faith and just admit it was a personal choice that they feel panned out. Trying to tie the Jesus of the bible to universal underpinnings of totally human-made epistemological tools was folly.
>>7422974
Aquinas would weep into his holy water until some other theofag came and patted him on the back. Truly a hack for the ages.
>actuality and potentiality existing in physical reality
What an odd mentality.
>>7423353
It's okay to just admit that you didn't understand Aquinas bro.
If I ever read Aquinas I'd tear you apart.
>>7423725
People who adhere to Aquinas's model for causality, or Aristotelian physics in general for that matter, don't really understand physics.
They started calling it metaphysics to keep it safe from being completely debunked.
>>7423895
>People who adhere to Aquinas's model for causality, or Aristotelian physics in general for that matter, don't really understand physics.
How? Not to deny that there are no significant differences between Aristotelian physics and the modern physical sciences, but Aristotle's physics defined the subject matter of the future physics (motion, time, place/space), and that basic subject matter has never been rejected. His cosmology is arguably wrong (and rightly rejected), but his concepts haven't really been *refuted*, and his notions of causality are still present in different areas in modern science (efficient cause is still widely used, formal cause has just been renamed "emergent properties", material cause is still trivially used when we discuss how material properties are the cause of something being the way it is; final cause is very arguable, since it's the cause biologists have been struggling to do away with, but never quite definitively). And hell, some of his concepts keep appearing at key points in the history of science (potentiality's reappearance as "dynamics" and as an early formulation of inertia; his key term energeia reappears as energy; his term entelecheia reappearing as Spemann's short lived but important notion of entelechy).
>They started calling it metaphysics to keep it safe from being completely debunked.
That's not true; classical Aristotelian physics was *always* linked with metaphysics (originally called "first philosophy"), and it's not as if modern science doesn't have *anything* to do with metaphysics--they just don't call their metaphysics by that name. Anything that's an explanation of being/existence and of primary causes is metaphysics.
>>7424010
>Spemann's
Fuck, I meant Driesch.
potency and actuality are social constructs. things aren't brought into being, they are socially constructed. there are no potentials, there are only social contexts from which things are socially constructed.
>>7424029
So, Aristotle never conceived of and thematized "actuality" and "potentiality" on his own? He just took up traditions already present in his society?
What is the strength of explaining something to be a "social construct"? I'm assuming you take it as trivially true (tautological even) that social constructs are socially constructed. But if appealing to social constructs is supposed to in some way diminish the explanatory power of "actuality" and "potentiality" as concepts, then why should we favor the one explanation (social constructs) over the other (actuality and potentiality), if the former is *fine* with taking itself to be socially constructed? Isn't that just a choice by fiat?
>>7424070
the social construct is inescapable. contrarians think they have original thoughts but their ideas are just as socially constructed as yours. truth is just whatever your peers will let you get away with. he found a social construct to help explain another social construct within a social context. these are merely ideas that are socially constructed and exist in his head. truth is whatever your peers will let you get away with saying
>>7424010
>How? Not to deny that there are no significant differences between Aristotelian physics and the modern physical sciences, but Aristotle's physics defined the subject matter of the future physics (motion, time, place/space), and that basic subject matter has never been rejected.
K. He offered a neat starting point.
>His cosmology is arguably wrong (and rightly rejected), but his concepts haven't really been *refuted*, and his notions of causality are still present in different areas in modern science (efficient cause is still widely used, formal cause has just been renamed "emergent properties", material cause is still trivially used when we discuss how material properties are the cause of something being the way it is; final cause is very arguable, since it's the cause biologists have been struggling to do away with, but never quite definitively). And hell, some of his concepts keep appearing at key points in the history of science (potentiality's reappearance as "dynamics" and as an early formulation of inertia; his key term energeia reappears as energy; his term entelecheia reappearing as Spemann's short lived but important notion of entelechy).
Final causes are abstractions. We can always report to instincts, intentions, whatever that is in the organism at the time of or the time prior to the action. Or whatever stimuli triggered the behavior in the first place. The cause of these is in the evolutionary past of the species and the individual itself. Final causes don't describe the physical universe.
I'm too drowsy to keep going, I'm probably gonna say something stupid. But I did read/heard something about how formal, material and efficient causes are very nebulous distinctions. Something like, the properties of matter determine how it behaves (moves) and how it arranges itself. The way it arranges itself dictates how that configuration of matter behaves and how it arranges itself with other configurations. And basically, every level from the most fundamental up is derived from interaction at the levels below, with the different types of causes being indissociable from one another, making the distinction more of a matter of perspective than a description of distinct realities.
>That's not true; classical Aristotelian physics was *always* linked with metaphysics (originally called "first philosophy"), and it's not as if modern science doesn't have *anything* to do with metaphysics--they just don't call their metaphysics by that name. Anything that's an explanation of being/existence and of primary causes is metaphysics.
I meant metaphysics in the new meaning: the study of the workings beyond the physical stuff. Aristotle hadn't meant it in that way.
>>7424029
What. Are wild children not aware that things exist? Not all information must be socially codified, OK.
>>7424100
wild children live in a reality socially constructed by wild animals.
>>7423895
Physics, and empiricism in general, is all wrong.
>>7425918
this tbqh
science as a whole is little more than guessing
>>7425937
This. I ain't gonna listen to a scientist. Ya'll fuckers are lying, and getting me pissed.
>>7425918
Finally someone dares to say it.
>>7426221
i'm retarded and don't know what epistemology is: the post
>>7426221
Piss-poor argument from the manchild undergrad.
>>7426221
Ok, but I could just as easily say this to someone in person. I know how you're going to respond to this, so I'll go ahead and say that I would still be right even if I didn't know I was, so if I was in some "primitive" hunter/gatherer tribe in pre-history I would still be just as happy as I am now. "Technology" and "progress" are these lofty things that empiricists and materialists like to go on about as if they are inherently good without ever having to justify why.
>>7426249
You can argue that technology doesn't make you personally happen all you want, but the assertion that physics and all of science is "wrong" is literally disproven by the fact that we're conversing right now.
If your head is so far up your own ass that you think metaphysics lets you know more about physics than generations of physicists there's really no helping you.
>>7426306
>he believes in proof by contradiction
>>7426306
How is anything disproven (sic) by the fact we're using technology to have a conversation? Did you even read my entire post? Or did you just go on a gut reaction, not very scientific of you.
Anyway I never said I'm correct, I just said there's no way to prove you are and I'm not. Which there isn't. There is still a leap of faith when you elect to accept scientific findings.
>>7426306
Why do STEfags constantly add insults to their posts as if it does anything other than hurt their own image. This isn't middle school.
>>7426329
>I never said I'm correct
>>7426345
I didn't. I'm just speculating and that's all I can do. The point I'm trying to make is that that's all anyone can do. This false sense of superiority that empiricists have is what I'm trying to tackle. The belief that they're "above" philosophy and that simply stating so is enough to trump anyone's argument is insufferable. Either completely stay out of the discussion or at least pretend to be open minded.
>>7426380
> This false sense of superiority that empiricists have is what I'm trying to tackle.
This. But it's just not going to happen, anon: they are the ultimate dogmatists that Skepticism sought to destroy. And the reason that their dogmatism is accepted as fact is because it feeds our superstructure of wealth and comfort.
>>7422974
Yes.
Hume is pointless if you've read Aristotle.
>>7426380
>simply stating so is enough to trump anyone's argument
this this is the most infuriating thing, it's like going into a history class and then when the teacher asks you a question you just respond with stuff like "you think history is a real subject?", "history is just stupid bullshit", et cetera.
>>7425918
>>7425937
>>7426223
>>7425948
/lit/ confirmed for the dankest memes and b8.
>Proving things in general is wrong
>Facts in general are wrong desu senpai
>logic is for c.uck.s tbqh senpai
Its some impressive dressing up, but it may as well just be reduced to the same idea.
>>7426329
>>7426380
m80 i think he's trying to say that science has proven things, like the ability to communicate via internet is predicated on our knowledge of physics use of satellites, etc
>pic related
Sophistry.
>>7426898
>Empiricism
>proof
>facts (implying facts even exist)
>logic
Defend these position or get off my plane.
>>7426898
>video game reaction image
>reddit/4chan memeslang
So this is that STE banter I've been hearing about.
>>7426898
>Empiricism is the natural extension logic and if you dispute empiricism you're disputing logic itself.
>>7426942
Math is logic and math is empirical. 2 apples + 2 apples = 4 apples. We decided that 2 + 2 = 4 based on the repeated observation that 2 things plus 2 things equals 4 things. All knowledge ultimately comes from sensory experience and observation. The law of noncontradiction is also empirical. A thing cannot be and not be at the same time. We decided on this by noting that a cup in being cannot not be.
>>7426968
>math is [the only] logic
LMFAO
Empiricists are braindead.
>>7426978
PRINCIPIA MATHEMATICA
RUSSELL + WHITEHEAD BTFO PHILOSOPHY
>>7426968
Pure maths yes, but you can't apply perfect logic to anything to do with the "physical" "world" because it's inherently imperfect.
>>7426968
>Math is logic and math is empirical. 2 apples + 2 apples = 4 apples
PFTTT OMG THIS FAGGOT
I CAN'T /LIT/ OMG
>>7426968
I can't believe this is a post that someone actually made. I really hate to just make some empty response but I really don't know where to begin, please narrow down this argument a bit and we can get started with the refute but as it stands I'm at a complete loss, and that's as much my fault as it is yours, but we really have to get to the bottom of this.
>>7426968
All M is L
All M is E
∴ All L is E
Invalid you filthy pleb.
>>7426968
lol
>>7427003
what's the alt code for the therefor sign or do you just copy and paste it every time?
>>7426996
IT'S SO BAD
fractally retarded
>Math is logic
ok, actually not literally true but fine
>math is empirical
wat
> We decided that 2 + 2 = 4 based on the repeated observation that 2 things plus 2 things equals 4 things
omg
>All knowledge ultimately comes from sensory experience
i know nothing about math: the post
>The law of noncontradiction is also empirical. A thing cannot be and not be at the same time
wherein i do metaphysics but im fine with it because my iq is 30
>We decided on this by noting that a cup in being cannot not be.
The End of Ontology everyone
>>7427008
Unfortunately, I have to just copy and paste it.
>>7426968
>All knowledge ultimately comes from sensory experience and observation
>>7427014
Is that generally faster than typing therefor or does it have other connotations, I generally write it on coursework but that's because it's much faster to write.
>>7426968
>We decided that 2 + 2 = 4 based on the repeated observation that 2 things plus 2 things equals 4 things
Please tell me you're joking.
>>7427032
>We decided that 2 + 2 = 4 based on the repeated observation that 2 things plus 2 things equals 4 things
were you on the research team for this what the fuck does this even mean are you serious right now like are you being totally "for real" right now because I'm honestly having a fairly difficult time believing that you are entirely genuine
>>7427031
I keep all of the logical symbols (whether or not they have alt codes) on a desktop word document, so they are easily accessible for me. The main reason I do use it in an instance like >>7427003 is just to keep the consistency of how I am formatting the arguments. I suppose it would matter more for propositional arguments than for syllogistic arguments, but it's just a preference of mine.
>>7427051
If you observed one thing, and then observed two other things, but there were actually four things in total, you would have decided 1 + 2 = 4. this would be a vastly different universe from the one we call home
>>7427087
you are a fucking joke
>>7427087
shut it down it's a troll
no one can be this retarded and still know how to type.
>>7427032
Not him, but I'm genuinely confused. How isn't that correct?
>>7422974
I think unless you're fluent in Latin you wouldn't know what the fuck Aquinas would say.
>>7427110
he thinks we have a special logic faculty in our brain
it's literally atheistic creationism.
>>7427110
That's not how arithmetical thinking really works. There *is* something to noting that the Greek concept of number was more concrete then our current concept, since number for the Greeks was *of things*, but "twice twoness" being "equal" to "four" isn't empirical, but a mix of some elements of empirical observation (somehow distinguishing objects as discrete collections instead of a unending heap) with elements that could for better or for worse be called "ideal" (namely, properties of 'two' that are always peculiar to 'two' and not to 'three', like 'being even', 'being equal to four when multiplied by itself', 'being related to other numbers in such a way as to maintain its place between one and three', and so on).
It's similar with equality, and has been taken to be trivially true in the history of philosophy that we never naturally encounter equal beings (though we can get very close by artifice). Equality is not purely "empirical".
That anon (though likely as b8) confused observation with the thinking that makes sense of that observation, and the two aren't the same.
(That's just part of what's wrong with that fucking post.)
>>7426968
We can only understand quantity because of mathematics, not the other way around
>>7427443
>we never naturally encounter equal beings
we encounter things that appear identical to our senses all the time. the sensory experience gives the illusion of equality and our concept of equality is based on these sensory experiences. this is still entirely sensory
>>7427582
>muh fascist rationalists
>muh strict empiricsm
>muh lack of empirical proof for any conceptual apparatus such as those used to discuss empiricism whatsoever
Y'all need Kuhn.
