I see. With the references to 'potential' and 'actual', I see what Sophisticat meant about your view appearing to be based in an Aristotelian metaphysical framework. Like Sophisticat I do not find that framework helpful, so I'm afraid I'll have to bow out.

It is amazing how taste can trump analysis.

It is amazing how taste can trump analysis. — Dfpolis

Well, when it comes to philosophy, at the end of the day it does come down to "taste;" there's no getting around it, unless you believe that you can derive an entire philosophy completely a priori, without any extrarational commitments (which would be an exceptionally crankish thing to believe).

But that's not really why I don't accept your argumentation in this instance. When making an argument one must start from some common ground, and Aristotelian or Scholastic metaphysics isn't such a common ground between us. If you absolutely have to use that framework, then you would have to start by justifying that entire framework to me, or at least its relevant parts. And that is just too unwieldy a task for a forum discussion on an unrelated topic.

Well, when it comes to philosophy, at the end of the day it does come down to "taste;" there's no getting around it, unless you believe that you can derive an entire philosophy completely a priori, without any extrarational commitments (which would be an exceptionally crankish thing to believe). — SophistiCat

No, I think you can derive any sound philosophical conclusion a posteriori by reflecting on judgements adequately based on human experience. I see no need for any a priori claims, although I think that some conclusions, once they are come to a posteriori, may be applied a priori thereafter. So, while we cannot prove all premises, those admissible to philosophy can either be proven, or derived from experience. "Taste" is a cover term for intellectual prejudice.

When making an argument one must start from some common ground, and Aristotelian or Scholastic metaphysics isn't such a common ground between us. — SophistiCat

And that is why I do not appeal to authority, but to the data of experience in making my case. So, while my mode of analysis is, as you say, Aristotelian or Scholastic, the common ground I appealed to was experiential data and the acceptance of salve veritate logical moves. If you thought my argument unsound, you could rationally have pointed out a failure on either point.

If you absolutely have to use that framework, then you would have to start by justifying that entire framework to me, or at least its relevant parts. — SophistiCat

And that is what I have been doing. I showed how the concept of potency is required to reject Parmenides argument that change is an illusion. I showed how concurrent causality is required by the fact that to operate, something must be operational, etc.

I received no objections to my justifications, only a rejection of the line of argument based on "taste."

Dennis, if you really believe that philosophical theories are uniquely derived from experience with unassailable reasoning, and that this can be done for Aristotelian philosophy in just a couple of paragraphs, then you are very naive. Anyway, I do not wish to detail this discussion any further.

Dennis, if you really believe that philosophical theories are uniquely derived from experience with unassailable reasoning, and that this can be done for Aristotelian philosophy in just a couple of paragraphs, then you are very naive. Anyway, I do not wish to detail this discussion any further. — SophistiCat

I think neither that philosophical theories are unique, nor that they can be derived in a few paragraphs.

I do think that all sound philosophical theories, as reflections of reality, are necessarily mutually consistent. I also think that the insights necessary to support specific conclusions can be provided in a few paragraphs. If they could not, this, and similar, forums would be futile.

You are, of course, free to direct your time and attention where you will.