I think that the setting is suited, because imo Aristotle's substances are things whose activities constitute a life. But I have nothing against textbooks and btw you can take them with you into the woods as well!
I most certainly will, I got alot from this video, watched it a couple of times to get everything, have to say I heard a word in it. We all have a purpose given to us by the unmoved mover God for me Jesus Chirst, it is upon all of us to leave this world in full actuality- giving all He placed in us to be deposited in the world (dominion) fulfilling purpose, in doing that we have fulfilled the goal of leaving no potentiality, leaving this world empty, not with things we were supposed to do but didn't get done. Hence why it is said that the cemetery is the richest place on earth- where the record of many are that died with books that were never written, impact that was never put forth. As sons and daughters of the unmoved mover, we must thrive to become all that He has destined for us, for in so doing we become like him, having no potentiality remaining but ending in actuality. God bless you for being obedient in taking the time out to do this video. Though done 9 years ago, it is and will always be current👍@@haugenmetaphilosophy
I most certainly will, I got alot from this video, watched it a couple of times to get everything, have to say I heard a word in it. We all have a purpose given to us by the unmoved mover God for me Jesus Chirst, it is upon all of us to leave this world in full actuality- giving all He placed in us to be deposited in the world (dominion) fulfilling purpose, in doing that we have fulfilled the goal of leaving no potentiality, leaving this world empty, not with things we were supposed to do but didn't get done. Hence why it is said that the cemetery is the richest place on earth- where the record of many are that died with books that were never written, impact that was never put forth. As sons and daughters of the unmoved mover, we must thrive to become all that He has destined for us, for in so doing we become like him, having no potentiality remaining but ending in actuality. God bless you for being obedient in taking the time out to do this video. Though done 9 years ago, it is and will always be current👍
this was truly such a great video. I thank you so much for making something so boring so interesting. i enjoyed this video from beginning to end. Thank you
I appreciate the compliment. I'm sorry you find philosophy boring. Maybe one way to think about it as that, through the study of philosophy, you find out that the world is much more interesting than you can imagine. Thanks for watching in spread the word.
Thanks Ron. I appreciate the compliment. For the most part my students are grateful. We tend to have a lot of fun in class. Thanks for watching and spread the word.
This is a great video. Cleared up a lot. Would be great if you could explain how if every being comes from something at least as great as it fits in with evolution. Also what about a fire, started by rubbing to sticks together? Are the sticks at least as great as the fire? Maybe I haven't fully grasped what 'great' is
I appreciate the compliment. Regarding your question, I do not think Aristotelian conceptions of Potentiality and Actuality can be consistent with Darwinian Evolution. This is why Darwin’s theory is revolutionary in the literal sense of the word. My grasp of the history is a little fuzzy, but something like Aristotle’s conception was the accepted theory for centuries regarding the existence of different species. Darwin’s theory provided a better explanation, but does not appeal to something like “greatness”. In fact, under Darwinian Evolution, the diversity of species is explained by random mutation, that mutation contributing to the survival of an individual animal (or at least not killing it), and that animal passing the mutation on to further generations. Mutations are not something Aristotle would consider “great” or even part of a substance’s potentiality at all. Regarding the fire, it depends on whether the fire is a substance. I am not too familiar with the body of Aristotle’s works. He wrote extensively on what we would call the “Physical Sciences” (what was then called “Natural Philosophy”). You would probably have to have a good understanding of what Aristotle thought in order to answer that question. Further, you would probably have to become very familiar with his works in Natural Philosophy to have a good understanding of what Aristotle thought. As for not fully understanding “great”-you are not alone. This is a topic of debate which usually distinguishes the different schools of Aristotle. These are good questions and I apologize if I sound discouraging. However, they are usually the topic of a academic paper or even a dissertation. If this truly interests you, you are likely only satisfied with a truly scholarly work. Most any introduction by Oxford University Press, Cambridge University Press, or even the citations provided in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy entry on Aristotle should get you started. plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle/ Thanks for watching and spread the word.
@@haugenmetaphilosophy Cheers, thanks for the link. I actually watched this video a month ago and subscribed. watched it again yesterday as I have been thinking a lot. I'm very familiar with William Lane Craig's apologetics arguments, and have been trying to delve into Aquinas recently and understand his 5 proofs. Although I think they are excellent, I have so many questions about them. Seems like to fully understand Aquinas and Aristotle, you have to learn a whole new language - and without any formal philosophy training it's very hard to grasp some of these concepts. And ah man, that sucks about the evolution thing - evolutionary theist over here (though not a neo-Darwinist). Thanks for your comment though. Very informative
Just a quick addendum: you are right that you have to learn a whole new language. It is called “Scholasticism”. It is the set of terms, argument, and topics of Scholastic Philosophy-also called “Medieval Philosophy”. There are several good schools to attend for this; though one that comes to mind immediately is St. Louis University as well as-no surprise-Notre Dame. In fact, there are entire academic works-including reference volumes-dedicate to this endeavor. If you are considering studying this as part of a serious academic endeavor, say, in grad school, you will also likely need to learn Latin (and its variations) and perhaps even Greek. Good luck!
@@haugenmetaphilosophy Nice. Thanks again for the info. Na, I'm just interested for personal reasons; not for academic endeavours. You've certainly shown me some good rabbit holes to go down. Thanks :-)
My rationale : Existance = singular particle of matter relative to a particular period in time A thing or being is a combination of matter in a specific form of singular various particles of matter at differing maturity in combination at a particular point in time due to cause and effect So therefore a thing or being or energy is the current result in effective of evolution at a point in time. Change is an outcome within the universe occuring constantly to everything in the space of the universe Speed of time is relavent to ones current position in the universe beyound the universe there must be an influence as nothing surely is still something
Okay, let me try to take this piece by piece. “Existance = singular particle of matter relative to a particular period in time” All right, what exists are particles. We do not know what the particles are, their nature, or their composition (if they have any); but we at least have the assertion that existence is a particle. “A thing or being is a combination of matter in a specific form of singular various particles of matter at differing maturity in combination at a particular point in time due to cause and effect” Okay, particles are what exists, and things are combinations of particles. Do these “things“ or “objects” exist? If so, are they particles? It does not look like they are since you state that things are combinations of particles. Combinations of particles are not identical to the particles themselves. If these “things“ are not particles, then, by your own assertion, they do not exist. “So therefore a thing or being or energy is the current result in effective of evolution at a point in time. Change is an outcome within the universe occuring constantly to everything in the space of the universe Speed of time is relavent to ones current position in the universe beyound the universe there must be an influence as nothing surely is still something” Before I try to untangle this paragraph on change, let me ask: is change real? Does change exist? If so, is it a particle? If so, how can change *be* a particle? If change is not real, then why provide an account of it?
I understand "actuality" as the actual state of affairs. I understand "potentiality" as a logically possible state of affairs. For example, in "actuality" I do not have a winning lottery ticket. However, "potentiality" I may posess a winning lottery ticket and win the lottery. However, Aristotle wants to use these words to answer the objections against change raised by Parmenides and I don't see how Aristotle's actuality and potentiality invention explains change. Consider the statement, "The baby is actually hungry, but potentiality breastfed." This just sounds like a hand wave answer to explain how change is possible. The state of affairs could be different to what they actually are, but that doesn't make it impossible for the actual state of affairs to remain the way it is. Why can't the actual state of affairs remain changeless? Could you please help me see where I am going wrong? Aristotle's argument for an unmoved mover is also based on his belief that whatever is changing is brought to it's changing state by something else, but why believe this? Why not suppose that everything changes, but that everything changes because change is fundamental to reality? Nothing "causes" anything else to change because things change due to it being the nature of reality that change occurs. Nothing begins to change since everything that exists was always in the state of changing.
For starters, you and Aristotle mean different things by ‘actuality’ and ‘potentiality’. So, your description of how Aristotle will answer Parmenides is not congruent with his account of change. For Aristotle, there is a way that every substance is supposed to be; this is what we would likely refer to as a purpose or fulfillment of the thing. This is what he calls a ‘final cause’ (keeping in mind by ‘cause’ he means something like “explanation”). A substance’s actuality is the extent to which it has fulfilled its final cause; potentiality is the extent to which it has yet to fulfill the final cause. Since your final cause is what it means to be a fulfilled human, and a winning lottery ticket is not included in that final cause (he would say a development of reason and wisdom is your final cause; a winning lottery ticket may be useful, but not required, for such an endeavor), a winning lottery ticket is not a potentiality. Similar remarks apply to the hungry baby; you and he are not using the words the same way. If you have a complaint about how he is using these terms, keep in mind that he used them first; we have adopted and adapted his terminology-not the other way around. As for whether Aristotle has successfully refuted Parmenides, I am not entirely sure he-or anyone-has. Aristotle’s account of change, i.e. this “movement” from potentiality to actuality, still relies on properties to an extent. Hence, if a substance has a property at one moment, and then does not have the property the next, then Aristotle’s account of change still seems to rely on being about to talk about what does not exist, viz. the property. Parmenides will likely point out that talking about nothing is meaningless; hence, talking about change is meaningless. For what it is worth, I think Parmenides is correct that we cannot coherently talk about nothing. Every attempt we have made in serious discourse-to my knowledge-has resulted in self-contradiction. If we are going to coherently talk about change, we will likely need to do so that does not involve any discussion about “what is not”. As for the unmoved mover, remember that Aristotle is using the word ‘change’ differently from us. Further keep in mind that ‘change’ is the word we have used in translation from Ancient Greek-I actually do not know the Greek word. So, it is not as if Aristotle thinks the Unmoved Mover is somehow “pushing” or “acting” on you-in fact, he thinks the Unmoved Mover is unaware of you. After all, the Unmoved Mover is perfection-Being unlimited. You are not. You are a mere shadow, a speck, a piece of lint left in a pocket of some forgotten pair of pants in Goodwill. You are not interesting enough to pay attention to from the perspective of Perfection. (Aristotle’s Unmoved Mover is not a “loving God”; it is not the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Moses.) Rather, the Unmoved Mover moves you in the sense of “inspiration” or “motivation”. The Unmoved Mover is your goal, your end, your Final Cause of Final Causes. You wish to increase your existence, your capabilities, and your knowledge-you wish to increase your Being. In that, the Unmoved Mover is your goal. In that, the Unmoved Mover moves you. Please excuse the harsh description. It is merely to illustrate his point.
If there is no teleology, then you are not dealing with Aristotle. If you are not dealing with Aristotle, and you still wish to refute Parmenides argument, you are nevertheless under the burden of explaining change and division (that there is more than one thing) without reference to what does not exist, viz. “nothing”, “what is not”, or “something that does not exist”. To my knowledge, no one has succeeded at this.
Could you see the idea of pantheism deriving from the idea that whatever exists must have been brought about by something with at least as much existence as itself?
Not necessarily. It is certainly not a conceptual necessity. In the Hellenist’s case-it did not. Pantheism predates Aristotle. Moreover, Aristotle likely was not a typical Hellenist regarding the gods. His own conception of the Final Cause is closer to-though not really the same thing as-contemporary monotheism. So, if there is some sort of connection between Final Causes and pantheism, it is accidental likely due to that person‘s or group of people’s history, context, and experience.
Also, would you say the “Unmoved mover” is in the state of “Actuality” and remains there. Or would you say this unmoved mover, like with potentiality, does not abide by the rules of actuality?
Well, the Unmoved Mover is not moving since there is no further degree of Final Cause to achieve. It is pure Act. Pure Being. It abides by the rules of actuality since it is the that by which the rules of actuality exist. It *is* the rule.
So... According to you.. Evolution cannot account for human beings to exist.. because something non-human can't make something human... when.. in 'actuality'... over a long period of time, something non-human did turn into something human
But the goal isn't to justify this or that type of change (e.g evolution) but to create a coherent worldview that describes how change is possible in the world The worldview of evolution presupposes a metaphysic of constant change. Which is that of Parmenides ("no man steps in the same river twice"). This comes with the objection - if everything changes then nothing changes. That is there needs to be something that is changing with respect to some unchanging standard. Which leads one back to substance and essences. Science unknowingly is trying to determine what these essences are but fails to understand that they are pre-determined. The essence of treeness, humanity etc is not physical but metaphysical and stands outside the physical system.
![30 ชั่วโมงคนเดียว บนรถไฟชั้น 3 โซเวียต [Around The World Ep. 2]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/MlE9boAVqDA/mqdefault.jpg)
![[LIVE] : ONE ลุมพินี 85 | คู่เอก "ยอดเหล็กเพชร vs ผึ้งหลวง"](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Qq_19bnnxEo/mqdefault.jpg)
great work, this is how philosophy should look like.Not just in the textbook, but in the nature.thanks for making this.
Thank you for the compliment, and thanks for watching. Spread the word!
I think that the setting is suited, because imo Aristotle's substances are things whose activities constitute a life.
But I have nothing against textbooks and btw you can take them with you into the woods as well!
Love this, really easy to understand. I side with Aristotle for within the little me(child) came a big me (adult) not from nothing, we are something.
I am glad you liked the video. Thanks for watching and spread the word.
I most certainly will, I got alot from this video, watched it a couple of times to get everything, have to say I heard a word in it. We all have a purpose given to us by the unmoved mover God for me Jesus Chirst, it is upon all of us to leave this world in full actuality- giving all He placed in us to be deposited in the world (dominion) fulfilling purpose, in doing that we have fulfilled the goal of leaving no potentiality, leaving this world empty, not with things we were supposed to do but didn't get done. Hence why it is said that the cemetery is the richest place on earth- where the record of many are that died with books that were never written, impact that was never put forth. As sons and daughters of the unmoved mover, we must thrive to become all that He has destined for us, for in so doing we become like him, having no potentiality remaining but ending in actuality.
God bless you for being obedient in taking the time out to do this video. Though done 9 years ago, it is and will always be current👍@@haugenmetaphilosophy
I most certainly will, I got alot from this video, watched it a couple of times to get everything, have to say I heard a word in it. We all have a purpose given to us by the unmoved mover God for me Jesus Chirst, it is upon all of us to leave this world in full actuality- giving all He placed in us to be deposited in the world (dominion) fulfilling purpose, in doing that we have fulfilled the goal of leaving no potentiality, leaving this world empty, not with things we were supposed to do but didn't get done. Hence why it is said that the cemetery is the richest place on earth- where the record of many are that died with books that were never written, impact that was never put forth. As sons and daughters of the unmoved mover, we must thrive to become all that He has destined for us, for in so doing we become like him, having no potentiality remaining but ending in actuality.
God bless you for being obedient in taking the time out to do this video. Though done 9 years ago, it is and will always be current👍
Thanks, very well and very clearly explained in the perfect setting to discuss Aristotle. Nature striving for perfection, actuality.
I appreciate the compliment. Thanks for watching and spread the word.
this was truly such a great video. I thank you so much for making something so boring so interesting. i enjoyed this video from beginning to end. Thank you
I appreciate the compliment. I'm sorry you find philosophy boring. Maybe one way to think about it as that, through the study of philosophy, you find out that the world is much more interesting than you can imagine. Thanks for watching in spread the word.
Amazing video. Thank you so much.
I appreciate the compliment. Thank you for watching and spread the word.
omg this is 10,000 times clearer than how my philosophy teacher explained it
I’m glad you liked it. Thanks for watching and spread the word.
Very good summary, thank you.
I appreciate the compliment. Thanks for watching and spread the word.
I hope your students know how good they have it. Amazing command of the knowledge. Thanks for sharing. Subscribed.
Thanks Ron. I appreciate the compliment. For the most part my students are grateful. We tend to have a lot of fun in class. Thanks for watching and spread the word.
Refreshing
Thankyou
I am glad you liked the video. Thanks for watching and spread the word.
That tree must of loved it when he talked about its purpose
great video, i like the setting as well. im a computer science major but i really love my philosophy class, this helped alot!
I am glad it helped. Share it with others if it well help them as well. Thanks for watching.
Wooow you had to go this far to make us understand.Thank u very much..it was helpful...
I am glad you liked the video. Thanks for watching and spread the word.
You broke it down so well! Bravo 👏
I am glad you liked it. Thanks for watching and spread the word.
Great Work
I appreciate the compliment. Thanks for watching and spread the word.
This is a great video. Cleared up a lot. Would be great if you could explain how if every being comes from something at least as great as it fits in with evolution.
Also what about a fire, started by rubbing to sticks together? Are the sticks at least as great as the fire? Maybe I haven't fully grasped what 'great' is
I appreciate the compliment. Regarding your question, I do not think Aristotelian conceptions of Potentiality and Actuality can be consistent with Darwinian Evolution. This is why Darwin’s theory is revolutionary in the literal sense of the word. My grasp of the history is a little fuzzy, but something like Aristotle’s conception was the accepted theory for centuries regarding the existence of different species. Darwin’s theory provided a better explanation, but does not appeal to something like “greatness”. In fact, under Darwinian Evolution, the diversity of species is explained by random mutation, that mutation contributing to the survival of an individual animal (or at least not killing it), and that animal passing the mutation on to further generations. Mutations are not something Aristotle would consider “great” or even part of a substance’s potentiality at all.
Regarding the fire, it depends on whether the fire is a substance. I am not too familiar with the body of Aristotle’s works. He wrote extensively on what we would call the “Physical Sciences” (what was then called “Natural Philosophy”). You would probably have to have a good understanding of what Aristotle thought in order to answer that question. Further, you would probably have to become very familiar with his works in Natural Philosophy to have a good understanding of what Aristotle thought. As for not fully understanding “great”-you are not alone. This is a topic of debate which usually distinguishes the different schools of Aristotle.
These are good questions and I apologize if I sound discouraging. However, they are usually the topic of a academic paper or even a dissertation. If this truly interests you, you are likely only satisfied with a truly scholarly work. Most any introduction by Oxford University Press, Cambridge University Press, or even the citations provided in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy entry on Aristotle should get you started.
plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle/
Thanks for watching and spread the word.
@@haugenmetaphilosophy Cheers, thanks for the link. I actually watched this video a month ago and subscribed. watched it again yesterday as I have been thinking a lot. I'm very familiar with William Lane Craig's apologetics arguments, and have been trying to delve into Aquinas recently and understand his 5 proofs. Although I think they are excellent, I have so many questions about them. Seems like to fully understand Aquinas and Aristotle, you have to learn a whole new language - and without any formal philosophy training it's very hard to grasp some of these concepts. And ah man, that sucks about the evolution thing - evolutionary theist over here (though not a neo-Darwinist). Thanks for your comment though. Very informative
Just a quick addendum: you are right that you have to learn a whole new language. It is called “Scholasticism”. It is the set of terms, argument, and topics of Scholastic Philosophy-also called “Medieval Philosophy”. There are several good schools to attend for this; though one that comes to mind immediately is St. Louis University as well as-no surprise-Notre Dame. In fact, there are entire academic works-including reference volumes-dedicate to this endeavor.
If you are considering studying this as part of a serious academic endeavor, say, in grad school, you will also likely need to learn Latin (and its variations) and perhaps even Greek.
Good luck!
@@haugenmetaphilosophy Nice. Thanks again for the info. Na, I'm just interested for personal reasons; not for academic endeavours. You've certainly shown me some good rabbit holes to go down. Thanks :-)
great forest tour, i don't know if that place called forest lol thanks for your discussions sir
I'm glad you enjoyed the video. Thanks for watching and spread the word.
Thank you!! It helps me a lot
You are welcome. Thank you for watching and spread the word.
This was very helpful, thank you!
I appreciate the compliment. Thanks for watching and spread the word.
🙏 bdw... 0% potentiality and 100% Actuality😁😁 would need at least some more time to register this completely. Heading for a better appetite😈.
Thanks for watching and spread the word.
You would have to define great in your premise that for everything that has existed there is something that has existed just as great as it.
My rationale :
Existance = singular particle of matter relative to a particular period in time
A thing or being is a combination of matter in a specific form of singular various particles of matter at differing maturity in combination at a particular point in time due to cause and effect
So therefore a thing or being or energy is the current result in effective of evolution at a point in time.
Change is an outcome within the universe occuring constantly to everything in the space of the universe
Speed of time is relavent to ones current position in the universe
beyound the universe there must be an influence as nothing surely is still something
Okay, let me try to take this piece by piece.
“Existance = singular particle of matter relative to a particular period in time”
All right, what exists are particles. We do not know what the particles are, their nature, or their composition (if they have any); but we at least have the assertion that existence is a particle.
“A thing or being is a combination of matter in a specific form of singular various particles of matter at differing maturity in combination at a particular point in time due to cause and effect”
Okay, particles are what exists, and things are combinations of particles. Do these “things“ or “objects” exist? If so, are they particles? It does not look like they are since you state that things are combinations of particles. Combinations of particles are not identical to the particles themselves. If these “things“ are not particles, then, by your own assertion, they do not exist.
“So therefore a thing or being or energy is the current result in effective of evolution at a point in time.
Change is an outcome within the universe occuring constantly to everything in the space of the universe
Speed of time is relavent to ones current position in the universe
beyound the universe there must be an influence as nothing surely is still something”
Before I try to untangle this paragraph on change, let me ask: is change real? Does change exist? If so, is it a particle? If so, how can change *be* a particle? If change is not real, then why provide an account of it?
I understand "actuality" as the actual state of affairs.
I understand "potentiality" as a logically possible state of affairs.
For example, in "actuality" I do not have a winning lottery ticket.
However, "potentiality" I may posess a winning lottery ticket and win the lottery.
However, Aristotle wants to use these words to answer the objections against change raised by Parmenides and I don't see how Aristotle's actuality and potentiality invention explains change.
Consider the statement, "The baby is actually hungry, but potentiality breastfed." This just sounds like a hand wave answer to explain how change is possible. The state of affairs could be different to what they actually are, but that doesn't make it impossible for the actual state of affairs to remain the way it is. Why can't the actual state of affairs remain changeless?
Could you please help me see where I am going wrong?
Aristotle's argument for an unmoved mover is also based on his belief that whatever is changing is brought to it's changing state by something else, but why believe this? Why not suppose that everything changes, but that everything changes because change is fundamental to reality? Nothing "causes" anything else to change because things change due to it being the nature of reality that change occurs. Nothing begins to change since everything that exists was always in the state of changing.
For starters, you and Aristotle mean different things by ‘actuality’ and ‘potentiality’. So, your description of how Aristotle will answer Parmenides is not congruent with his account of change. For Aristotle, there is a way that every substance is supposed to be; this is what we would likely refer to as a purpose or fulfillment of the thing. This is what he calls a ‘final cause’ (keeping in mind by ‘cause’ he means something like “explanation”). A substance’s actuality is the extent to which it has fulfilled its final cause; potentiality is the extent to which it has yet to fulfill the final cause. Since your final cause is what it means to be a fulfilled human, and a winning lottery ticket is not included in that final cause (he would say a development of reason and wisdom is your final cause; a winning lottery ticket may be useful, but not required, for such an endeavor), a winning lottery ticket is not a potentiality. Similar remarks apply to the hungry baby; you and he are not using the words the same way. If you have a complaint about how he is using these terms, keep in mind that he used them first; we have adopted and adapted his terminology-not the other way around.
As for whether Aristotle has successfully refuted Parmenides, I am not entirely sure he-or anyone-has. Aristotle’s account of change, i.e. this “movement” from potentiality to actuality, still relies on properties to an extent. Hence, if a substance has a property at one moment, and then does not have the property the next, then Aristotle’s account of change still seems to rely on being about to talk about what does not exist, viz. the property. Parmenides will likely point out that talking about nothing is meaningless; hence, talking about change is meaningless. For what it is worth, I think Parmenides is correct that we cannot coherently talk about nothing. Every attempt we have made in serious discourse-to my knowledge-has resulted in self-contradiction. If we are going to coherently talk about change, we will likely need to do so that does not involve any discussion about “what is not”.
As for the unmoved mover, remember that Aristotle is using the word ‘change’ differently from us. Further keep in mind that ‘change’ is the word we have used in translation from Ancient Greek-I actually do not know the Greek word. So, it is not as if Aristotle thinks the Unmoved Mover is somehow “pushing” or “acting” on you-in fact, he thinks the Unmoved Mover is unaware of you. After all, the Unmoved Mover is perfection-Being unlimited. You are not. You are a mere shadow, a speck, a piece of lint left in a pocket of some forgotten pair of pants in Goodwill. You are not interesting enough to pay attention to from the perspective of Perfection. (Aristotle’s Unmoved Mover is not a “loving God”; it is not the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Moses.) Rather, the Unmoved Mover moves you in the sense of “inspiration” or “motivation”. The Unmoved Mover is your goal, your end, your Final Cause of Final Causes. You wish to increase your existence, your capabilities, and your knowledge-you wish to increase your Being. In that, the Unmoved Mover is your goal. In that, the Unmoved Mover moves you.
Please excuse the harsh description. It is merely to illustrate his point.
@@haugenmetaphilosophy So Aristotle tries to explain change with his teleology?
What happens if teleology isn't real?
If there is no teleology, then you are not dealing with Aristotle. If you are not dealing with Aristotle, and you still wish to refute Parmenides argument, you are nevertheless under the burden of explaining change and division (that there is more than one thing) without reference to what does not exist, viz. “nothing”, “what is not”, or “something that does not exist”. To my knowledge, no one has succeeded at this.
Could you see the idea of pantheism deriving from the idea that whatever exists must have been brought about by something with at least as much existence as itself?
Not necessarily. It is certainly not a conceptual necessity. In the Hellenist’s case-it did not. Pantheism predates Aristotle. Moreover, Aristotle likely was not a typical Hellenist regarding the gods. His own conception of the Final Cause is closer to-though not really the same thing as-contemporary monotheism. So, if there is some sort of connection between Final Causes and pantheism, it is accidental likely due to that person‘s or group of people’s history, context, and experience.
Also, would you say the “Unmoved mover” is in the state of “Actuality” and remains there. Or would you say this unmoved mover, like with potentiality, does not abide by the rules of actuality?
Well, the Unmoved Mover is not moving since there is no further degree of Final Cause to achieve. It is pure Act. Pure Being. It abides by the rules of actuality since it is the that by which the rules of actuality exist. It *is* the rule.
I don't understand about limit as limit in itself and infinite regress being
Cedar, no, That’s a spruce cedars don’t have needles
you can tell its a tree because of the way it is.
Simplified.
08:48
So... According to you.. Evolution cannot account for human beings to exist.. because something non-human can't make something human... when.. in 'actuality'... over a long period of time, something non-human did turn into something human
No. This is a video explaining Aristotle’s views. Not my own.
But the goal isn't to justify this or that type of change (e.g evolution) but to create a coherent worldview that describes how change is possible in the world
The worldview of evolution presupposes a metaphysic of constant change. Which is that of Parmenides ("no man steps in the same river twice"). This comes with the objection - if everything changes then nothing changes. That is there needs to be something that is changing with respect to some unchanging standard. Which leads one back to substance and essences. Science unknowingly is trying to determine what these essences are but fails to understand that they are pre-determined. The essence of treeness, humanity etc is not physical but metaphysical and stands outside the physical system.
Wooow you had to go this far to make us understand.Thank u very much..it was helpful...
I am glad you liked the video. Thank you for watching and spread the word.