The Aristotelian Proof: Premise 4

Premise 4: No potential can be actualized unless something already actual actualizes it (the principle of causality)

Here’s what this means: it is not possible for a potentiality to become an actuality without something moving the potentiality to actuality. But for something to move the potentiality to actuality, that something has to be actual at the time of the movement. Hence, premise 4.

The principle of causality (premise 4) appears to rule out things like completely uncaused events and being coming from non-being. But Hume thought that such things were conceivable and thus possible. And Kant thought that we can appeal to the principle of causality when it comes to things within our experience but that the extend it to things outside our experience is unwarranted.

Question 1: what reasons does Feser give for thinking that Hume is wrong?
Question 2: what reasons does Feser give for thinking that Kant is wrong?
Question 3: what do you think of Feser’s reasons?

One line of thought that Feser does not give but that I want to think about a bit more is the following:

If Hume is right and wholly uncaused events are possible, then reasoning itself completely worthless. But if reasoning itself is worthless, then Hume’s reasoning is worthless. But if Hume’s reasoning is worthless, then we have no reason at all to think that Hume is right. Hence, if Hume is right, we have no reason to think that Hume is right.
(I think the above argument can be put much more strongly, but I’ll leave that to the side for now.)


The key claim in the above argument is the first one: If Hume is right and wholly uncaused events are possible, then reasoning itself completely worthless. Let me explain. I just presented you with an argument, which consists of premises (reasons) that are supposed to provide support for the conclusion. When you contemplate the above argument, you can see that the premises, if they are true, guarantee the truth of the conclusion. In other words, you can see that the premises are connected to the conclusion. That is a form of reasoning. But if Hume is right, and there can be uncaused events, then we should be suspicious about our ability to reason in the above manner. Perhaps we think there is connection and there is not; in other words, perhaps the move from one premise to the next and from the premises to the conclusion are just a series of uncaused events—one thought popping into existence followed by another thought popping into existence following by a thought that says that those thoughts are rationally related popping into existence—with no real connection between them. So, actual reasoning is completely untrustworthy.

Question 4: what do you think of the above line of thought?

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Arguing For God's Existence

Proving God’s Existence Throughout the modern period of philosophy and theology (beginning around the 18 th century until now) various thinkers have suggested that there is something problematic about giving arguments for God’s existence. They have given a variety of different reasons: faith requires the absence of proof, faith requires not relying on a proof, even if there are some, no argument for God’s existence is a good one, no argument gets us to God, no argument gets us to the God of the Bible (this is the worry that the God of the philosophers is different from the God of the Bible), arguments for God’s existence assume that our intellects have not been affected by the fall, God’s existence is obvious and a proof assumes that it is not, God’s existence is known by all because it is implanted in us so proofs are superfluous at best, denials of God’s existence are a sin problem, not a philosophy problem, etc. Rather than focus on the above reasons for not giving arguments f...
Read more

Possible Worlds and Covid-19

We are in the midst of a pandemic. As nations around the world respond to it, models of varying kinds are being generated to give policy-makers, practitioners, and others some kind of insight into the implications of all sorts of responses to the pandemic. Each model involves a bunch of assumptions—many of which are hidden in the mathematics—ranging from estimates about the number of actual infections, rate of infection, prevalence of co-morbidities, demographics of regions, infection death-rates, confirmed infection death-rates, duration of virus, etc. etc. etc.  Each model is representing a possible world! Did you notice that? Every model—and these are being relied upon by each and every country’s leaders in the world right now—is a prediction of what the world will look if x is true and we do y (to simplify quite a bit). Change x a bit and leave y alone and we get a new future; leave x alone and change y a bit and we get a new future; change both x and y a bit and we get ...
Read more

Concepts of Existence: An Intuitive Introduction

Concepts of Existence Consider the following: some dogs are brown. (In what follows, I use the phrases, property, first-order property, predicate, first-order predicate, as synonyms. They each mean roughly: a feature of some individual object. So a second-order property or second-order predicate is a property or predicate of an individual's first-order property. The considerations below suggest that 'existence' is best understood as a second-order property and not a first-order one. This will all be more understandable after you read below!) Given the truth of the above it seems to follow that some dogs exist. We do not need to add to the above claim: Some dogs are brown and they exist. Once we know that some dogs are brown, we already know that they exist. So, existence is not really a property of anything in the way that, say, being brown is a property of some dogs. So, it looks like thinking existence is a property is either unnecessary or incoherent. If x...
Read more