The Aristotelian Proof: Premises 10 & 11

Premises 10 & 11: 10—If A’s existence at the moment it actualizes S presupposes the concurrent actualization of its own potential for existence, then there exists a regress of concurrent actualizers that is either infinite or terminates in a purely actual actualizer. 11—But such a regress of concurrent actualizers would constitute a hierarchical causal series, and such a series cannot regress infinitely.

Here’s what this means: Start with something that changes. That thing, call it S, has to exist at the moment it changes. But its very existence at that moment is also something that has to be actualized, for it also has the potential to not exist. So, something actual must be actualizing S’s existence. Let’s call the thing that actualizes S’s existence A. A must exist at the moment it actualizes S’s existence. Either A’s existence is being actualized by some further thing or A is such that it does not have the potential to not exist. Premise 11 claims that there must be a stopping point here. There must be something that is fully actual, with no potential to not exist that confers or brings about existence in everything else that has the potential to exist and the potential to not exist.

I don’t think Feser did a great of job explaining why the hierarchical series cannot be infinite. But we can help him out, I think. (It may be that I just prefer my own explanation over his, and there is nothing really missing from his explanation.)


Question: So, why can’t the hierarchical series be infinite?

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