tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-447603865959500290.post6369710581674017292..comments2024-03-28T02:54:46.537-04:00Comments on The TOF Spot: Summa origines scientiarum: Articulus 1TheOFloinnhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14756711106266484327noreply@blogger.comBlogger30125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-447603865959500290.post-84472495614640206502013-11-21T12:01:33.120-05:002013-11-21T12:01:33.120-05:00St. Gregory Thaumaturgus, in his farewell speech t...St. Gregory Thaumaturgus, in his farewell speech to his teacher, Origen, talked about how Origen taught him and his brother math and natural philosophy (science) as part of their preparation for learning theology and Scripture studies. And Origen was a pupil of St. Clement of Alexandria.<br /><br />This sort of thing turns into the trivium and quadrivium of Liberal Arts, later on.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-447603865959500290.post-39178649419511440092013-11-11T12:00:11.071-05:002013-11-11T12:00:11.071-05:00BenYachov here!
Slightly off topic. I'll jus...BenYachov here!<br /><br />Slightly off topic. I'll just mention it then you can get back too it. <br /><br />I have been reading a lot of Catholic Scifi & some other than Catholic but still generic Christian Scifi.<br /><br />It's pretty cool you should do a survey of this awesome sub-gentry. With honorable mentions to authors who treat religion & religious faith seriously instead of as stereo typical superstition that dis out as mankind progresses technologically.<br /><br />Cheers thenSon of Ya'Kovhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05645132954231868592noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-447603865959500290.post-22605378145976314622013-11-11T07:39:22.337-05:002013-11-11T07:39:22.337-05:00And since they were in error, how can Christian tr...And since they were in error, how can Christian truth be the cause of their error?<br /><br />Occasion, yes. Just as Catholic truth was occasion of Protestant errors.Hans Georg Lundahlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01055583255516264955noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-447603865959500290.post-24236828262349964562013-11-11T07:37:37.557-05:002013-11-11T07:37:37.557-05:00Those involved in the 17th century Scientific Revo...<i>Those involved in the 17th century Scientific Revolution were purposefully engaged in overturning previous Aristotelian paradigms. Descartes’ Principles of Philosophy is perhaps the Storming of the Bastille. Yet, even if the Revolutionaries were correct in their self-assessment, revolutions always have deeper origins.</i><br /><br />I believe those guys were largely in error.Hans Georg Lundahlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01055583255516264955noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-447603865959500290.post-92228645209518322522013-11-11T07:24:44.431-05:002013-11-11T07:24:44.431-05:00I suppose he would have called a bike, had he seen...I suppose he would have called a bike, had he seen one, a machine.Hans Georg Lundahlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01055583255516264955noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-447603865959500290.post-86256804711189107392013-11-11T07:21:37.197-05:002013-11-11T07:21:37.197-05:00Clocks in his day ... not sure they had clockworks...Clocks in his day ... not sure they had clockworks.<br /><br />Clepsydras, sandclocks, sun dials, wax taper clocks were all known, but I think clockworks were a bit later.<br /><br />Anyway, the tertium comparationis was being arranged by intelligence, not working it out mechanically without intelligence acting all along. As when a clockwork is wound up and the clock left to lie running as the drawer up (and maker) both are absent.Hans Georg Lundahlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01055583255516264955noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-447603865959500290.post-47529416535118918532013-11-10T22:22:04.874-05:002013-11-10T22:22:04.874-05:00But very much not for Sacrobosco predating Newton ...<i>But very much not for Sacrobosco predating Newton in seing nature as a kind of clockwork.</i><br /><br />I didn't say Sacrobosco said the universe was a "clockwork." I said he spoke of the "world machine," which he does:<br /><br /><i>"The machine of the universe is divided into two, the ethereal and the elementary region."</i>jmhenryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10108615537455993311noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-447603865959500290.post-49766933052646036712013-11-10T22:16:53.423-05:002013-11-10T22:16:53.423-05:00This is the only reference to a clock in the Summa...This is the only reference to a clock in the <i>Summa Theologica</i>:<br /><br /><i>Accordingly, in all things moved by reason, the order of reason which moves them is evident, although the things themselves are without reason: for an arrow through the motion of the archer goes straight towards the target, as though it were endowed with reason to direct its course. <b>The same may be seen in the movements of clocks and all engines put together by the art of man. Now as artificial things are in comparison to human art, so are all natural things in comparison to the Divine art.</b></i> -- I-II, q. 13, art. 2<br /><br />Granted, Aquinas is not saying the world is literally like a clock in this passage. What he is saying, though, is that things that lack intelligence themselves, like natural bodies, still seem to act for an end by behaving the same way always or for the most part. These things are, therefore, directed to their ends by the Intelligent Being. This is precisely what Aquinas states in his Fifth Way.<br /><br />In the above passage, he uses the image of an arrow directed to an end by the archer (like he does in the Fifth Way), but he also uses the second image of a clock, which is directed by the "human art." Natural things, however, are directed by the "Divine art."<br /><br />The difference between Aquinas' use of the clock metaphor and the way it was used by early modern philosophers is that the latter rejected Aristotelian teleology. For Aquinas, natural things are directed to ends because it's their <i>nature</i> to be so directed, but this nature is ultimately endowed by the Intelligent Being, and therefore directed by that Being. He uses the clock metaphor, like the archer metaphor, to illustrate this.<br /><br />But for early modern philosophers, there is no conception of the end-directedness-by-nature, or the Aristotelian teleology of Aquinas, and so the clock metaphor is more literal -- the universe became <i>just like</i> a clock, devoid of any inherent purposes or ends.jmhenryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10108615537455993311noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-447603865959500290.post-13333717300584105582013-11-10T12:53:35.231-05:002013-11-10T12:53:35.231-05:00And Denis in giving the two alternatives "God...And Denis in giving the two alternatives "God of nature suffering" and "machina mundi being dissolved" neatly showed his intimate knowledge of both Stoic Pantheism and Epicurean Mechanicism - and refuted both. To Stoics the God of nature cannot suffer. To Epicureans the mechanism of the world cannot be dissolved.<br /><br />Not something any faker of his biography would likely have been able to do before Lorenzo Valla. At least in the Middle Ages.<br /><br />This is therefore an argument for both the biography of "Pseudo"-Dionysus being genuine and therefore also for Good Friday Dark Sun witnessed outside Jerusalem.<br /><br />But very much not for Sacrobosco predating Newton in seing nature as a kind of clockwork.Hans Georg Lundahlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01055583255516264955noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-447603865959500290.post-7365939394547960022013-11-10T10:29:45.144-05:002013-11-10T10:29:45.144-05:00Actually Ioannes de Sacrobosco did not conceive of...Actually Ioannes de Sacrobosco did <i>not</i> conceive of the world as "machina mundi". He is quoting the words of a not yet Christian Denis of the Areopagus:<br /><br /><i>ECLIPSE DURING THE PASSION MIRACULOUS. -- From the aforesaid it is also evident that, when the sun was eclipsed during the Passion and the same Passion occurred at full moon, that eclipse was not natural -- nay, it was miraculous and contrary to nature, since a solar eclipse ought to occur at new moon or thereabouts. On which account Dionysius the Areopagite is reported to have said during the same Passion, "Either the God of nature suffers, or the mechanism of the universe is dissolved."</i><br /><br />Source: <a href="http://www.esotericarchives.com/solomon/sphere.htm" rel="nofollow">http://www.esotericarchives.com/solomon/sphere.htm</a><br /><br />While Denis of the Areopagus was yet a Pagan and saw the miraculous non-shining of the sun (it could not be an eclipse since it was close to or on full moon) on Good Friday, he may very well have been thinking sometimes in terms of "machina mundi", but the comparison is not by the converted saint, nor by the man who quoted his words from before the conversion.Hans Georg Lundahlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01055583255516264955noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-447603865959500290.post-45738842481337703482013-11-10T09:50:30.929-05:002013-11-10T09:50:30.929-05:00The Universe is indeed in a way a clock, insofar a...The Universe is indeed in a way a clock, insofar as it measures time.<br /><br />But the point is whether it is the kind of clock Immanuel Kant constituted in Königsberg (a living voluntary clock taking his daily walk at regular times) or what is more commonly known as a clockwork.<br /><br />If I should have been misconstruing St Thomas (so far I am not much read in Buridan or Oresme), do give me the reference, to Summa or to Latin works not translated, quia et hac lingua bene lego textus.<br /><br />Sacrobosco ... I am not sure he was as orthodox as St Thomas or Nicole Oresme. But it was ages since I just possibly read about him, and I have not read his own texts, so I am not sure.<br /><br />Buridan (like Bradwardine) was, unless I recall wrong, less orthodox. Pre-calvinist.<br /><br />Not meaning to depreciate Bradwardines logarithmic idea or its application for mechanics (which is where he used it, he never went to Napier's lengths in actually defining logarithmic values).Hans Georg Lundahlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01055583255516264955noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-447603865959500290.post-91221945385793548392013-11-09T21:12:08.853-05:002013-11-09T21:12:08.853-05:00That's an interesting question in general, and...That's an interesting question in general, and it is not so apparent that the answer, in general, is yes. In the case you mention, nucleosynthesis can answer most of what you are asking if you ignore the pesky questions surrounding the "p-process", which is not well understood. The p-process, however, is invoked for only a few of the naturally occurring nuclides, almost all of which can be explained by the much better understood s- and r-processes.Figulushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13549064050271896212noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-447603865959500290.post-19082174417055227822013-11-09T14:15:28.592-05:002013-11-09T14:15:28.592-05:00And if by "a kind of machine" you mean &...<i>And if by "a kind of machine" you mean "a kind of clockwork which runs itself".</i><br /><br />It should be noted that it was the medieval natural philosophers who first compared the universe to a clock -- the clock was, after all, a medieval invention.<br /><br />Jean Buridan and Nicholas Oresme (14th century) compared the universe to a clock. Even Thomas Aquinas did so. And before that the 13th century monk and astronomer Sacrobosco conceived of the "world machine."<br /><br />The image of the clockwork universe, or a world machine, was simply an image meant to express a metaphysical view of the universe as a rationally ordered thing, which humans can understand through the use of natural reason.<br /><br />Like so much else, the Scientific Revolutionaries simply inherited the "machine/clockwork universe" metaphor from their medieval predecessors.jmhenryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10108615537455993311noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-447603865959500290.post-54276676914610586942013-11-09T08:35:06.167-05:002013-11-09T08:35:06.167-05:00Astronomy is content with establishing the regular...<i>Astronomy is content with establishing the regularities of nature. But Astrophysics wants to know why these regularities exist.</i><br /><br />The problem is that the definition was not "divinatio possibilitatis per causas," but "cognitio certa per causas". And astrophysics is a far cry from cognitio certa.Hans Georg Lundahlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01055583255516264955noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-447603865959500290.post-51134262493437643282013-11-09T08:32:14.373-05:002013-11-09T08:32:14.373-05:00Of the six features I would single out as most Ant...Of the six features I would single out as most Antichristian:<br /><br />1.The view of the world as a kind of machine. <br />2.The distinction between “primary” and “secondary” qualities.<br /><br />If by primary is not meant substance and secondary accidents, but by primary is meant all quantity related things and by secondary all sensorial things. And if by "a kind of machine" you mean "a kind of clockwork which runs itself".Hans Georg Lundahlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01055583255516264955noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-447603865959500290.post-3923855156905820142013-11-09T08:26:02.295-05:002013-11-09T08:26:02.295-05:00the Scientific Revolution “outshines everything si...<i>the Scientific Revolution “outshines everything since the rise of Christianity and reduces the Renaissance and Reformation to the rank of mere episodes… within the system of medieval Christendom.”</i><br /><br />Indeed, what if the Scientific Revolution in question was the beginning of the Great Apostasy?<br /><br />Just a side issue, you cannot say "summa origines" when you mean "summa de origine" or "summa de originibus", and you could hardly say "scientiarum" if you mean specifically the results of the Scientific Revolution.Hans Georg Lundahlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01055583255516264955noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-447603865959500290.post-84746071649587794802013-11-08T16:22:42.069-05:002013-11-08T16:22:42.069-05:00Modern science looks for metrical efficient causes...Modern science looks for metrical efficient causes; and of course it raises Theories on top of Facts and Laws. (Or the <i>propter quid</i> for the <i>quia,</i> as the medievals put it.)TheOFloinnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14756711106266484327noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-447603865959500290.post-632784990970670152013-11-08T01:00:15.142-05:002013-11-08T01:00:15.142-05:00But modern science does look for causes. It is not...But modern science does look for causes. It is not content with "mathematically expressed regularities of nature."<br />Consider the difference between Astronomy and Astrophysics. <br />Astronomy is content with establishing the regularities of nature. But Astrophysics wants to know why these regularities exist. The astrophysics was started off by Kepler who first postulated forces between sun and the planets to account for the planetary orbits. Gyanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09941686166886986037noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-447603865959500290.post-46830480422065226092013-11-07T12:37:41.948-05:002013-11-07T12:37:41.948-05:00Can chemistry be *well* reduced to physics? For in...Can chemistry be *well* reduced to physics? For instance, can we generate the elements and their properties as consequences of quantum mechanics *ab origine*? I'm told we cannot. (I can't claim to have tried myself.) Philosophy of chemistry is still a bit nascent, but try some papers by Scerri for a start. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy has a tidy summary of the puzzle under 'philosophy of chemistry', in section 6. - Chris Kirk Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-447603865959500290.post-16152037890002404292013-11-07T12:30:37.580-05:002013-11-07T12:30:37.580-05:00Water is wet. H2O is not. There are formal causes...Water is wet. H2O is not. There are formal causes ("emergent properties" in modern lingo) that are not explicable from the more basic level. But I agree that, both dealing with inanimate objects, there is a closer correspondence between the science of atoms and the science of molecules.TheOFloinnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14756711106266484327noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-447603865959500290.post-43473515023435271582013-11-07T12:23:55.098-05:002013-11-07T12:23:55.098-05:00While I find this self-evidently true of psycholog...While I find this self-evidently true of psychology, and nearly so for biology, I'm curious about your statement about chemistry and physics. Having been educated in both, I'm hard-pressed to find any aspect of chemistry that can't be reduced to physics. What did you have in mind?Garthnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-447603865959500290.post-87122022850365898712013-11-07T12:15:36.467-05:002013-11-07T12:15:36.467-05:00I would like to think so.I would like to think so.TheOFloinnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14756711106266484327noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-447603865959500290.post-65621100486871359542013-11-07T12:14:32.612-05:002013-11-07T12:14:32.612-05:00The quantitative business was the main objective o...The quantitative business was the main objective of the scientific revolutionaries. I would have said "metric" properties of physical bodies, but it's the same thing as Descartes and the rest asserted as the New Science. The Old Science looked at non-quantitative aspects, esp. formal and final (be)causes, but the Revolution discarded these precisely <i>because</i> they are not quantitative/measurable.TheOFloinnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14756711106266484327noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-447603865959500290.post-78031106557030735362013-11-07T10:30:50.218-05:002013-11-07T10:30:50.218-05:00In your reply to objection 1, you say that the pre...In your reply to objection 1, you say that the pre-modern notion of science was "a systematic and analytical study of a subject using evidence, logic and reason". I think this is right in its basic thrust, but leaves out that criterion or "certitude" which is at the core of the Aristotelian notion of science, thus distinguishing scientific demonstration from dialectical demonstration. I wonder if we cannot still say with Aristotle's medieval commentators that science is "cognitio certa per causas" in the precise Aristotelian sense. If so, then much of modern "science" is still in the state of dialectical probability, awaiting the discovery of the proper causes of the observed and mathematically expressed regularities of nature.<br /><br />Love your blog, Mike Flynn, and I look forward to your future installments on this topic.Charleshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15728259859819037533noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-447603865959500290.post-70014130092388805002013-11-07T09:37:13.414-05:002013-11-07T09:37:13.414-05:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com