My impression that the key differences of opinion were over what constitutes a 'definition', and what constitutes a 'proof'. — andrewk
The notion of a simultaneous cause (item 5) goes against the common understanding of what a cause is, as well as all coherent philosophical definitions I have seen. — andrewk
Microwaves cause something to go from cold to hot. On his model of causality, this is because the microwaves are actually hot! — Mitchell
OK. But, second, according to Feser, not only must the cause of the change from cold to hot exist prior to the change, and bring about the change, but it also must have in actuality hotness: what causes hotness must itself be hot. — Mitchell
3. His claim that the existence of anything is the result of the actualizing of the potential to exist by something already actualized as existent. — Mitchell
I would be astonished if such disputes did not arise. — andrewk
His example of the coffee getting cold because of the cold air from the air conditioner. Also, his interpretation of "Formal Causality" seems to suggest a "transfer" of Form, in this case the form coldness. If all he is saying is that the cause of hotness or coldness must be some existing characteristic of the cause, but not specifically actual hotness or coldness, this account of qualitative change seems to be so vague as to be uninformative. — Mitchell
How do you infer that the cause must be a particular type of actuality "itself be hot"? — Metaphysician Undercover
His example of the coffee getting cold because of the cold air from the air conditioner. Also, his interpretation of "Formal Causality" seems to suggest a "transfer" of Form, in this case the form coldness. If all he is saying is that the cause of hotness or coldness must be some existing characteristic of the cause, but not specifically actual hotness or coldness, this account of qualitative change seems to be so vague as to be uninformative. — Mitchell
On the other hand, an example of radiation is the sunlight heating a brick wall or your body. The light itself is not hot, just as the microwaves that heat the coffee are not themselves hot. In both cases the theory is that the radiation agitates the molecules to move faster and this faster movement manifests as heat. — Janus
Again, my understanding of that account of causation is that object A can cause object B to go from being potentially X to being actually X only if object A is itself actually X. — Mitchell
He would have done better to have presented the Aristotle or Aquinas version. — andrewk
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.