Discussions on a ranges of philosophical issues including the nature of truth and reality, personal identity, mind-body theories, epistemology, justification of beliefs, argumentation and logic, philosophy of religion, free will and determinism, etc.
Kenny wrote:Byblos
Kenny, the fact that you can see two of them proves they are not identical. The mere fact that they occupy a different section of space-time proves they are not identical. If A and B are identical in every respect then it is not enough to state A=B, it would then necessarily follow that A IS B and B IS A, i.e. they are one and the same. I'm not sure how else to make something this obvious more, well ... obvious.
How are you defining “identical”? I define it as does the dictionary as: alike in every way IOW by definition, identical must be more than one; it is plural. Nobody looks at a single thing and calls it identical.
Post edit: here's an example Kenny, perhaps this will make it clearer. Take those two pieces of paper that are seamingly identical and scrible on one the letter A, and on the other the letter B. Now look at them, do you think they are identical still?
Ken
Of course not! They’ve been altered.
Byblos
Of course not, so how could two distinct somethings be identical in instance and not in another? They can't because they were not identical to begin with, appearances to the contrary.
Ken
They are identical until somebody comes along and changes one or both of them. I don’t understand why you aren’t getting this.
Ken
I'm not sure if you actually believe what you say or you say it and then sit back and snicker but either way my response is not aimed at you directly but at other readers who may benefit from the exchange, however mind-numbingly obvious it is.
For the last time, if X and Y have the same exact properties without any distinction then X and Y are one and the same just called by a different name. It truly is that basic but yet it escapes you (maybe).
Let us proclaim the mystery of our faith: Christ has died, Christ is risen, Christ will come again.
Lord I am not worthy that you should enter under my roof, but only say the word and my soul shall be healed.
in scholastic philosophy, actus purus ( literally "pure act") is the absolute perfection of God.
Created beings have potentiality that is not actuality, imperfections as well as perfection. Only God is simultaneously all that He can be, infinitely real and infinitely perfect: 'I am who I am' (Exodus 3:14). His attributes or His operations, are really identical with His essence, and His essence necessitates His existence. (Contrast this understanding with the Essence–Energies distinction in Eastern Christian, particularly Palamite, theology).
In created beings, the state of potentiality precedes that of actuality; before being realized, a perfection must be capable of realization. But, absolutely speaking, actuality precedes potentiality. For in order to change, a thing must be acted upon, or actualized; change and potentiality presuppose, therefore, a being which is in actu. This actuality, if mixed with potentiality, presupposes another actuality, and so on, until we reach the actus purus.
According to Thomas Aquinas a thing which requires completion by another is said to be in potency to that other: realization of potency is called actuality. The universe is conceived of as a series of things arranged in an ascending order, or potency and act at once crowned and created by God, who alone is pure act. God is changeless because change means passage from potency to act, and so he is without beginning and end, since these demand change. Matter and form are necessary to the understanding of change, for change requires the union of that which becomes and that which it becomes. Matter is the first, and form the second. All physical things are composed of matter and form. The difference between a thing as form or character and the actual existence of it is denoted by the terms essence and being (or existence). It is only in God that there is no distinction between the two. Both pairs - matter & form and essence & being - are special cases of potency and act. They are also modes: modes do not add anything to the idea of being, but are ways of making explicit what is implicit in it.
So if I understand you correctly, your definition of pure actuality includes perfection?
Ken
RickD wrote
"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence".
Kenny wrote:Byblos
Kenny, the fact that you can see two of them proves they are not identical. The mere fact that they occupy a different section of space-time proves they are not identical. If A and B are identical in every respect then it is not enough to state A=B, it would then necessarily follow that A IS B and B IS A, i.e. they are one and the same. I'm not sure how else to make something this obvious more, well ... obvious.
How are you defining “identical”? I define it as does the dictionary as: alike in every way IOW by definition, identical must be more than one; it is plural. Nobody looks at a single thing and calls it identical.
Post edit: here's an example Kenny, perhaps this will make it clearer. Take those two pieces of paper that are seamingly identical and scrible on one the letter A, and on the other the letter B. Now look at them, do you think they are identical still?
Ken
Of course not! They’ve been altered.
Byblos
Of course not, so how could two distinct somethings be identical in instance and not in another? They can't because they were not identical to begin with, appearances to the contrary.
Ken
They are identical until somebody comes along and changes one or both of them. I don’t understand why you aren’t getting this.
Ken
I'm not sure if you actually believe what you say or you say it and then sit back and snicker but either way my response is not aimed at you directly but at other readers who may benefit from the exchange, however mind-numbingly obvious it is.
For the last time, if X and Y have the same exact properties without any distinction then X and Y are one and the same just called by a different name. It truly is that basic but yet it escapes you (maybe).
Okay; since we are obviously talking past each other; let me put it this way, when I said "identical" I was using the term the way most people use it; the way the dictionary defines the term which is multiple things that appear the same. Whatever it is that you are talking about is obviously not what I meant when I said "identical". I hope that clears that up.
Ken
RickD wrote
"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence".
in scholastic philosophy, actus purus ( literally "pure act") is the absolute perfection of God.
Created beings have potentiality that is not actuality, imperfections as well as perfection. Only God is simultaneously all that He can be, infinitely real and infinitely perfect: 'I am who I am' (Exodus 3:14). His attributes or His operations, are really identical with His essence, and His essence necessitates His existence. (Contrast this understanding with the Essence–Energies distinction in Eastern Christian, particularly Palamite, theology).
In created beings, the state of potentiality precedes that of actuality; before being realized, a perfection must be capable of realization. But, absolutely speaking, actuality precedes potentiality. For in order to change, a thing must be acted upon, or actualized; change and potentiality presuppose, therefore, a being which is in actu. This actuality, if mixed with potentiality, presupposes another actuality, and so on, until we reach the actus purus.
According to Thomas Aquinas a thing which requires completion by another is said to be in potency to that other: realization of potency is called actuality. The universe is conceived of as a series of things arranged in an ascending order, or potency and act at once crowned and created by God, who alone is pure act. God is changeless because change means passage from potency to act, and so he is without beginning and end, since these demand change. Matter and form are necessary to the understanding of change, for change requires the union of that which becomes and that which it becomes. Matter is the first, and form the second. All physical things are composed of matter and form. The difference between a thing as form or character and the actual existence of it is denoted by the terms essence and being (or existence). It is only in God that there is no distinction between the two. Both pairs - matter & form and essence & being - are special cases of potency and act. They are also modes: modes do not add anything to the idea of being, but are ways of making explicit what is implicit in it.
So if I understand you correctly, your definition of pure actuality includes perfection?
Ken
It's not my definition of course but yes, it would have to be so.
Kenny wrote:Byblos
Kenny, the fact that you can see two of them proves they are not identical. The mere fact that they occupy a different section of space-time proves they are not identical. If A and B are identical in every respect then it is not enough to state A=B, it would then necessarily follow that A IS B and B IS A, i.e. they are one and the same. I'm not sure how else to make something this obvious more, well ... obvious.
How are you defining “identical”? I define it as does the dictionary as: alike in every way IOW by definition, identical must be more than one; it is plural. Nobody looks at a single thing and calls it identical.
Post edit: here's an example Kenny, perhaps this will make it clearer. Take those two pieces of paper that are seamingly identical and scrible on one the letter A, and on the other the letter B. Now look at them, do you think they are identical still?
Ken
Of course not! They’ve been altered.
Byblos
Of course not, so how could two distinct somethings be identical in instance and not in another? They can't because they were not identical to begin with, appearances to the contrary.
Ken
They are identical until somebody comes along and changes one or both of them. I don’t understand why you aren’t getting this.
Ken
I'm not sure if you actually believe what you say or you say it and then sit back and snicker but either way my response is not aimed at you directly but at other readers who may benefit from the exchange, however mind-numbingly obvious it is.
For the last time, if X and Y have the same exact properties without any distinction then X and Y are one and the same just called by a different name. It truly is that basic but yet it escapes you (maybe).
Okay; since we are obviously talking past each other; let me put it this way, when I said "identical" I was using the term the way most people use it; the way the dictionary defines the term which is multiple things that appear the same. Whatever it is that you are talking about is obviously not what I meant when I said "identical". I hope that clears that up.
Ken
But then you would be responding to your own argument, not mine. I clearly stated that for two entities to be called identical they must be so in every respect without any distinctions whatsoever. And if they are such they must be one and the same. This by definition precludes anything material for, at a minimum, they occupy a different slice of space-time. So no, we're not talking past each other. I know exactly what you're saying and you are simply wrong.
Let us proclaim the mystery of our faith: Christ has died, Christ is risen, Christ will come again.
Lord I am not worthy that you should enter under my roof, but only say the word and my soul shall be healed.
John 5:24 24 “Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life.
“A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves.”
-Edward R Murrow
St. Richard the Sarcastic--The Patron Saint of Irony
Byblos wrote:
But then you would be responding to your own argument, not mine. I clearly stated that for two entities to be called identical they must be so in every respect without any distinctions whatsoever. And if they are such they must be one and the same. This by definition precludes anything material for, at a minimum, they occupy a different slice of space-time. So no, we're not talking past each other. I know exactly what you're saying and you are simply wrong.
Do you not see the contradiction in what you just said? Why didn't you just say there is no such a thing as identical in the material world? (woulda saved a whole lotta trouble)
But getting back to what we were discussing on 01/07/15 at 7:52 am, I would say it is not necessary for multiple uncaused causes to be identical.
Ken
RickD wrote
"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence".
in scholastic philosophy, actus purus ( literally "pure act") is the absolute perfection of God.
Created beings have potentiality that is not actuality, imperfections as well as perfection. Only God is simultaneously all that He can be, infinitely real and infinitely perfect: 'I am who I am' (Exodus 3:14). His attributes or His operations, are really identical with His essence, and His essence necessitates His existence. (Contrast this understanding with the Essence–Energies distinction in Eastern Christian, particularly Palamite, theology).
In created beings, the state of potentiality precedes that of actuality; before being realized, a perfection must be capable of realization. But, absolutely speaking, actuality precedes potentiality. For in order to change, a thing must be acted upon, or actualized; change and potentiality presuppose, therefore, a being which is in actu. This actuality, if mixed with potentiality, presupposes another actuality, and so on, until we reach the actus purus.
According to Thomas Aquinas a thing which requires completion by another is said to be in potency to that other: realization of potency is called actuality. The universe is conceived of as a series of things arranged in an ascending order, or potency and act at once crowned and created by God, who alone is pure act. God is changeless because change means passage from potency to act, and so he is without beginning and end, since these demand change. Matter and form are necessary to the understanding of change, for change requires the union of that which becomes and that which it becomes. Matter is the first, and form the second. All physical things are composed of matter and form. The difference between a thing as form or character and the actual existence of it is denoted by the terms essence and being (or existence). It is only in God that there is no distinction between the two. Both pairs - matter & form and essence & being - are special cases of potency and act. They are also modes: modes do not add anything to the idea of being, but are ways of making explicit what is implicit in it.
So if I understand you correctly, your definition of pure actuality includes perfection?
Ken
It's not my definition of course but yes, it would have to be so.
Okay so if we go back to post dated 01/08/15 at 7:46 am, I disagree with your claim that the first cause must be pure actuality. So please explain why logically it must be.
Ken
RickD wrote
"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence".
Kenny wrote:
...But getting back to what we were discussing on 01/07/15 at 7:52 am, I would say it is not necessary for multiple uncaused causes to be identical...
John 5:24 24 “Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life.
“A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves.”
-Edward R Murrow
St. Richard the Sarcastic--The Patron Saint of Irony
I would say it is not necessary for multiple uncaused causes to be identical
The uncaused cause is pure actuality which means that if there could be more than one uncaused cause ( there can't be) and they are NOT identical, then it means that this/these other uncaused causes would POTENTIALLY be something else, which means they are not pure actuality and as such, can't be uncaused causes.
I would say it is not necessary for multiple uncaused causes to be identical
The uncaused cause is pure actuality which means that if there could be more than one uncaused cause ( there can't be) and they are NOT identical, then it means that this/these other uncaused causes would POTENTIALLY be something else, which means they are not pure actuality and as such, can't be uncaused causes.
Again; why must the uncaused cause be pure actuality? Which includes perfection (what-ever that means)
Ken
Last edited by Kenny on Fri Jan 09, 2015 5:39 pm, edited 1 time in total.
RickD wrote
"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence".
I would say it is not necessary for multiple uncaused causes to be identical
The uncaused cause is pure actuality which means that if there could be more than one uncaused cause ( there can't be) and they are NOT identical, then it means that this/these other uncaused causes would POTENTIALLY be something else, which means they are not pure actuality and as such, can't be uncaused causes.
Again; why must the uncaused cause be pure actuality?
Ken
Because if it was NOT then it would have the potential to be caused by something else.
Pure actuality has no potentiality.
I would say it is not necessary for multiple uncaused causes to be identical
The uncaused cause is pure actuality which means that if there could be more than one uncaused cause ( there can't be) and they are NOT identical, then it means that this/these other uncaused causes would POTENTIALLY be something else, which means they are not pure actuality and as such, can't be uncaused causes.
Again; why must the uncaused cause be pure actuality?
Ken
Because if it was NOT then it would have the potential to be caused by something else.
Pure actuality has no potentiality.
The fact that it is eternal exempts it from being caused by something else.
Ken
RickD wrote
"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence".
