tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-447603865959500290.post2749536209679406888..comments2024-03-28T02:54:46.537-04:00Comments on The TOF Spot: Marilyn Monroe, melting glaciers, and aliensTheOFloinnhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14756711106266484327noreply@blogger.comBlogger19125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-447603865959500290.post-11876441355291104462015-09-22T19:00:17.224-04:002015-09-22T19:00:17.224-04:00So possibly building/actually building are not con...So possibly building/actually building are not considered distinctive potential states for an agent, but the material used in the process the agent causes? What distinction is made (if any) for the agent who facilitated the process, before, during and after it ends? Doesn't the builder undergo at least a "change of mind", relating to the decision to facilitate such an end? We say Joe is planning to build/ is building/ has built a patio deck when we describe Joe's participation in the process of a collection of material collapsing into that potential, and we don't speak of Joe as planning to build or still building when the process is complete. How would we describe the process when an immaterial being exists by itself in a timeless state and then acts to create/sustain a material thing like a universe? Talonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05200852355967804488noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-447603865959500290.post-34851813622808425262015-09-17T16:03:14.576-04:002015-09-17T16:03:14.576-04:00insisting God has no potency, as an Unmoved Mover
...<i>insisting God has no potency, as an Unmoved Mover</i><br /><br />Again: it is not the Mover but the Moved that is in potency to be something else.<br /><br />Remember the pile of building materials that was in potency to be a house? It was also in potency to be a gazebo, a scaffold, a grandstand, etc. It was not in potency to be an armadillo or two pounds of pastrami, so "potency" does not mean "could be anything."<br /><br />When the agent starts to build, all these various potentials collapse into one, say a house. Because the builder must be building <i>something,</i> or perhaps I should say <i>some</i>thing. The building supplies (<i>not</i> the builder) are now in active potency. They are "abuilding," the present participle of a verb. When the house has been completed, they have become "a building," a noun. In between the collapse of the potential function and the equilibrium point is what Aristotle called "motion." Actually, he called it <i>kinesis,</i> but it was translated as "motion" just so moderns could confuse it with change of location exclusively.TheOFloinnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14756711106266484327noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-447603865959500290.post-83888202145708952402015-09-17T13:33:34.202-04:002015-09-17T13:33:34.202-04:00Thank you both for answering my questions. JMHenry...Thank you both for answering my questions. JMHenry, are there sources that discuss the distinction between active and passive potency in greater detail? This idea is actually a little closer to my original issue: it seemed being able to act (create) is a kind of potency, and insisting God has no potency, as an Unmoved Mover, seemed to be suggest God was somehow acting though He couldn't possibly do so, as that would imply change of some sort, as if the Thomist was sneaking "active potency" in the backdoor while steadfastly denying God had potency at all: a being of pure act that can't really do anything (because potency only equals being acted upon, which equals change) is non-coherent.<br /><br /> I couldn't believe that folks so brilliant (Aristotle, Aquinas and modern Scholastic writers like Ed Feser) could make such a simple error or perhaps be so deceptive in their writing or that New Atheists could be so muddleheaded and oblivious that wouldn't capitalize on it immediately.Talonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05200852355967804488noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-447603865959500290.post-60685315894715278212015-09-16T18:01:57.467-04:002015-09-16T18:01:57.467-04:00...curious also that God is labelled omniPOTENT bu...<i>...curious also that God is labelled omniPOTENT but cannot, by definition, possess any sort of potential at all.</i><br /><br />Well, our host can correct me if I'm wrong, but a potency is simply defined as a power or capacity. (Hence, omnipotent means "all-powerful.") But it was my understanding that Aristotle and the Scholastic writers made a distinction between "active potency," which is the capacity to <i>act upon</i> something else, and "passive potency," which is the capacity to <i>be acted upon by</i> something else.<br /><br />If God is pure act, then He must possess the former, but cannot possess the latter. Indeed, Aquinas concludes that "in God there is active power [or potency] in the highest degree." (<i>Summa Theologica</i> I, q. 25, a. 1)jmhenryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10108615537455993311noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-447603865959500290.post-9180751442109150562015-09-16T07:24:30.867-04:002015-09-16T07:24:30.867-04:00As for that, mi amigo, you'd have to ask him.As for that, mi amigo, you'd have to ask him.TheOFloinnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14756711106266484327noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-447603865959500290.post-22224865901928040422015-09-15T22:35:45.907-04:002015-09-15T22:35:45.907-04:00Interesting use of relativity in wordplay, curious...Interesting use of relativity in wordplay, curious also that God is labelled omniPOTENT but cannot, by definition, possess any sort of potential at all. Thank you for clearing that up. The idea of human creativity being a pale derivative of Divine power and thus an imperfect frame of reference, is an un-intuitive notion from a modern perspective but something I will think on. I suppose I still wonder what would motivate a naturally perfect being to power such a creation as the material universe we inhabit.Talonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05200852355967804488noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-447603865959500290.post-27159956359286921122015-09-15T22:32:02.452-04:002015-09-15T22:32:02.452-04:00This comment has been removed by the author.Talonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05200852355967804488noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-447603865959500290.post-88227606616692676352015-09-15T16:33:21.138-04:002015-09-15T16:33:21.138-04:00Actually (pause for gales of laughter) what the bu...Actually (pause for gales of laughter) what the builder does is "create" only in an analogous sense. The "divine art" as Aquinas put it, is as if the builder to give to the materials the power to assemble themselves into a building.TheOFloinnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14756711106266484327noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-447603865959500290.post-4315064106797098992015-09-15T16:14:48.486-04:002015-09-15T16:14:48.486-04:00 Material things (including humans) are act/potenc... Material things (including humans) are act/potency but immaterial things (God/Angels) are pure act. So it would be correct to view God as a creator only in an analogous sense while our man creating a home out of various materials would be a creating agent in a more familiar sense?Talonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05200852355967804488noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-447603865959500290.post-67787401632137644302015-09-14T21:26:31.950-04:002015-09-14T21:26:31.950-04:00Any being that was purely actual would not only ha...Any being that was purely actual would not only have to be immaterial, it would also be unique.<br /><br />Hence why Aquinas said every angel is a species unto itself.Sophia's Favoritehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02871625814389904112noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-447603865959500290.post-35690085654136862502015-09-14T20:37:13.847-04:002015-09-14T20:37:13.847-04:00Certainly, all material beings are a compound of a...Certainly, all material beings are a compound of actual and potential. Any being that was purely actual would have to be immaterial. TheOFloinnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14756711106266484327noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-447603865959500290.post-3756209356718114402015-09-14T20:09:18.746-04:002015-09-14T20:09:18.746-04:00But didn't the person who collected all the ma...But didn't the person who collected all the material and proceeded to build the home have some potential (an act of creation) which was actualized by doing all those things? Perhaps prior to building he might have been asleep, eating a snack, reading a book, but now he's bringing his vision to fruition via the actual labor needed to collect, nail, wire and paint the parts into a home. Do we not tell talented youngsters they "have potential" to do great things? It sounds as though potency is defined in a more limited way in this case.Talonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05200852355967804488noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-447603865959500290.post-86111554546011630922015-09-14T17:41:19.189-04:002015-09-14T17:41:19.189-04:00Actually, what caught my eye was the peculiar phra...Actually, what caught my eye was the peculiar phrase "coincidentally coinciding."jmhenryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10108615537455993311noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-447603865959500290.post-24560137436450822152015-09-14T13:58:06.331-04:002015-09-14T13:58:06.331-04:00The question I would beg to make is if Marilyn Mon...The question I would beg to make is if Marilyn Monroe could have single-handedly caused the melting of a glacier?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-447603865959500290.post-43968076851383047352015-09-12T23:35:47.014-04:002015-09-12T23:35:47.014-04:00The potency is in the matter, not in the God. Comp...The potency is in the matter, not in the God. Compare a pile of building materials which has the potency to become a house, a gazebo, a grandstand, a scaffold, or whatever. At some point, building commences and all these potencies collapse into one.Let's say, a house. Eventually, in the common course, the building concludes and there is an actual house. But notice these are potencies and actualities <i>of the building materials,</i> not of the house. They are certainly not potencies of the builder.TheOFloinnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14756711106266484327noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-447603865959500290.post-68401775622508870242015-09-12T23:15:25.251-04:002015-09-12T23:15:25.251-04:00TOF, as an occasional reader of your blog I unders...TOF, as an occasional reader of your blog I understand you to be familiar with A-T, arguments for the First Way, act/potency and so on. I had a question and was hoping you might be able to point me in right direction for an answer, hopefully not behind a paywall. The arguments describe God as a necessary being, an unmoved mover, do God's possible acts count as potentials until they happen or does the act/potency distinction only apply to change in material reality? If I've badly mangled the question, let me phrase it in specifics: has God been eternally creating/sustaining the universe/multiverse? If not, wouldn't "not creating/sustaining the universe" and then "creating/sustaining the universe" count as a type of change? Could the change be self-caused? Am I misunderstanding something? Any help you or one of your readers can offer would be greatly appreciated. Talonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05200852355967804488noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-447603865959500290.post-40043501822796435492015-09-11T21:25:36.353-04:002015-09-11T21:25:36.353-04:00Ditto on the peeve. You would not believe how ofte...Ditto on the peeve. You would not believe how often people use this around my office and it just makes me ill.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-447603865959500290.post-78953466719156648432015-09-11T20:06:18.129-04:002015-09-11T20:06:18.129-04:00Have you taught your pet to beg?Have you taught your pet to beg?Joehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17109095347818446088noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-447603865959500290.post-9701656130651855982015-09-10T21:19:09.406-04:002015-09-10T21:19:09.406-04:00I have the same peeve for MY pet!!I have the same peeve for MY pet!!Basil Stag Harehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05249972715160411934noreply@blogger.com