The Aristotelian Proof: Premise 2

In this post and the ones to follow, I will be focusing our attention on premises in the Aristotelian Argument that are the most controversial. I will then ask some questions that you can answer for extra credit in the comments section. Let's get started:

Here are the premises that might be controversial

Premise 2: Change is the actualization of a potential

Here’s what this means: for something O to change it must be the case that O has the potential to change. Having the potential to change is not enough for there to actually be a change, of course. So for O to change it must be the case that O moves from having the potential to change to actually changing. And that movement from having the potential to change to being changed is a movement from potentiality to actuality. We can put this a bit more formally:

            O is ~F at t1, & O is potentially F at t1, & at t2 F is actualized in O.

            A less metaphysically loaded account of change is this:

                        Change is simply: O is ~F at t1 & O is F at t2.
Here’s what this means: O is one way at t1, namely not-F, and O is a different way at t2, namely F

(Note that in both accounts of change a difference in time is needed, otherwise we’d wind up having to say that O is both F & ~F at the same time, which sure looks like a contradiction (O can be both F & ~F at the same time, if one part of O is F at t and another part of O is ~F at t. But in our example we just rule that possibility out by declaring that we are talking about all of O).)


Question: does the less metaphysically loaded account of change spell doom for Feser’s premise 2?

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