Existential Inertia and Thomistic Esse w/ Jack Boczar
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 12 ธ.ค. 2024
- Pat is joined by Jack Boczar to discuss his forthcoming paper Existential Inertia and Thomistic Esse.
Jack has published on Aquinas and Augustine and is currently working on medieval metaphysics. His PhilPeople page can be accessed here:
philpeople.org...
Colossians 1:17: "And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together"
Very many thanks, Guys! This is incredibly helpful.
The great-cast is back on. Psyched on this topic
How in the darn tootin did I miss this?! This will be my reward after work!!
This one will be really cool! Comment for traction
Jack has articulated much of what I've thought about the EI thesis, just much better than I ever could. It's always come across as a massive question beg against Thomistic metaphysics to me. Argue for your alternative metaphysical schema if you wish (I'm not a strict Thomist either) but EI is not a standalone objection at all and needs to be justified itself.
To my mind many passages in the Bible support Divine conservartion. Take for exemple Col 1:17. It's certainly not necessary to run Thomas' arguments, but it was certainly in his mind.
Mr. Schid's coauthor is Dr. Daniel Linford, not Lindorf. I own a copy of their book.
Great episode guys! Pat have you ever connected with Prof Alfred Freddoso before? I know he's written a lot on concurrentism which seems relevant for this topic. Also idk if it's just me but it seems like every modern philosophical debate boils down to ignoring one of the 4 causes or in this case the real distinction. Obviously it's usually formal and final these days but even sometimes it seems like it's even material when it comes to things like pantheism or panentheism.
I read "Jack Boxcar" at first
Return to TH-cam
@Aliocha777 don't have anything I want to make a video about really.
Hi! I'm not an expert in Thomistic metaphysics (I'm trying to learn) but I have a hard time accepting the argument you're making.
Here's why. Please let me know if there is something I am missing.
This seems to be one step in the argument you are giving:
1. Composite things must have esse from another thing to exist.
2. Composite things must have esse at all times that they exist in order to exist.
:. Composite things must have esse from another thing at all times in order to exist.
It seems to be invalid.
1. is either:
Composite things must have esse from another thing to begin to exist.
Or Composite things must have esse from another thing to exist concurrently.
If it's the first then the argument is invalid, and if it's the second then it's begging the question.
There may be something I'm missing in the language of participation.
Please let me know what you think! God bless!
Thanks for this! I'll be responding to Boczar's paper on my blog in the coming days :)
Hi Mr Schmid, could I get your thoughts on the following? It seems to me that for concepts or entities to persist, such as the concept of existential inertia, the reality they exist in has to be stable from moment to moment. If reality were inconsistent, it seems like that could affect whether concepts can even exist or be observed. So, if the persistence of entities relies on a stable reality, doesn't that imply that existential inertia might not fully explain how things continue to exist? It seems like the idea of entities persisting on their own might actually depend on the broader stability of reality itself, which could challenge the notion that things don’t need any external support to continue existing. What do you all think about this?
Comment for traction 🎉
I was thinking of Hebrew 1:3 "The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word."
Existential inertia and divine conservation both seem to be built on the same fatal error, the assumption that things "come to be" and "pass away" out of existence. It's time to take the Parmenides pill: there is what there is, simple as.
Edit: I'm curious why one would think that act/potency style change doesnt involve creation. After all, the actuality that was not, is, and the actuality that is, is not. This point is made explicit by Melissus, but I'm not sure if the people referenced addressed his work directly.
My own experience comes to be and passes away, the experience of change itself counts as change, how do you account for that?
@@Aliocha777Parmenides say “It’s an illuuuuuusion!”
@@Aliocha777 you experience different moments and their chronological relations. You don't experience what-is "becoming" an is-not or literal "nothing", nor do you experience an is-not becoming what-is.
Everything you experience is affirmative/present as what it is. The mistake is in trying to tell a story that involves positing things that don't exist, which is an obvious contradiction.
@@tweetophon that's borderline unintelligible, very disrespectful of my time.
@@Aliocha777and what is that response of yours, if not disrespectful? You shouldn't bother commenting at all if that's all you have to offer.
This man on the left looks like he recently emerged from the deep woods of contemplation.
Are the below points sound? God as the Ground of Inertia: If existential inertia is true, it could be seen as the natural order of things that God sustains. In other words, God doesn’t need to continuously intervene to re-create entities, because He has created a reality where beings have the intrinsic capacity to persist. However, this capacity itself is grounded in God’s sustaining power.
God as the Source of Stability: The stability and consistency of reality, which allows for existential inertia, could be interpreted as reflecting the continuous, sustaining presence of God. In this view, God is not just the creator but the reason why reality remains stable and why entities persist.
Inertialism is no different than deism
Please please shave and get a haircut! Please!
Is Jack's paper available on academia or something?