tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1780806945960886534.post3357704560112496893..comments2024-03-28T05:47:54.177+00:00Comments on Philosophical Disquisitions: Aquinas's Second Way: An AnalysisJohn Danaherhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06761686258507859309noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1780806945960886534.post-69141199893036415372023-05-15T01:55:05.671+01:002023-05-15T01:55:05.671+01:00Here's an analogy that I've always found h...Here's an analogy that I've always found helpful in understanding the point underlying Aquinas' 2nd Way. Imagine that the cause trying to be explained is an electrical device that has no battery and must be plugged into a power source in order to operate. If one were trying to explain why the device is here and now operating, one could say, "Because it is plugged into a power outlet which possesses the property of electricity, and the electricity is than transferred to from the outlet to the device." This would be a sufficient explanation for explaining why here and now the device is able to operate.<br /><br />However, suppose that instead of plugging the device directly into a power outlet, I instead plug the device into a power strip, that is not plugged into the outlet. This would not be sufficient to supply electricity to the device since the power strip does not possess the property of electricity itself. To power the device, I would have to plug the power strip into a power outlet, causing the electricity to be channeled from the outlet to the power strip to the device. This again would be a sufficient explanation of why the device is here and now operating.<br /><br />Suppose again that instead of plugging the device into the power outlet, I again plug it into a power strip, and I then plug that power strip into another power strip. Would the device possess the property of electricity? The answer is clearly no, because neither the device, nor each of the power strips possess electricity in and of themselves. They only channel electricity from a source that does possess electricity. Suppose then, assuming it were possible, that the electric device was plugged into a power strip and this power strip was plugged into a power strip, and that power strip was plugged into a power strip, so on and so forth in an actually infinite series of power strips in which each power strip is plugged into another power strip stretching to infinity. Even in this case, the question is, does the electric device now possess the property of electricity?<br /><br />The answer is obviously no, because despite the fact that the chain is infinite, none of the objects in the chain possess electricity in and of themselves. They only channel electricity in as much as it is received from an object that possesses it inherently and herein lies Aquinas'/Fesers' point. The property in question is the property of existence. If there is an object that does not exist necessarily (it literally cannot fail to exist for existence is an essential part of what it is), then it must here and now be channeling its existence from something else. If that from which it is channeling existence is itself bring brought into existence by something else, then this chain of causality must terminate in something that simply exists and cannot fail to exist, for even if there was an infinite series of causes, much like the power strip, the infinite series does not overcome the fact that none of the objects in the chain possess the characteristic inherently. <br /><br />When it comes to this first cause who exists necessarily and cannot fail to exist (for existence is a necessary part of what it is) Aquinas then says that "This everyone understands to be God." Admittedly, additional arguments would be required to learn anything more about what else is true of God (i.e. is He intelligent? Does he interact with other things beyond causality, etc.) but that goes further than the argument seeks to establish. If anything exists at all, then existence must be grounded in a first cause who inherently possesses the property of existence.My 2 Centshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16130539062063538459noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1780806945960886534.post-77382922988383055642022-11-06T20:25:51.927+00:002022-11-06T20:25:51.927+00:00One concept that seems to be missing in these argu...One concept that seems to be missing in these arguments is a circular chain of per se causes. Such chains are typical of living systems -- for example look at (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citric_acid_cycle). I have seen this sort of circular chain referred to as autopoeitic but I don't know if that is a generally accepted term.<br />I don't see that this sort of circular chain runs afoul of any of Aquinas' criteria. There are only a finite number of causal steps, none of them are uncaused, the causes are all per se, etc. My guess is that Aquinas (and later commentators) just never considered the idea of chains of per se causes being circular.<br />The distinction between per se and per accidens is very helpful here -- it is new to me. Focusing only on per se causes lets us ignore the question of how a circular causal chain might arise. I think this could be answered without invoking God but it can be dismissed, simplifying the discussion.<br />I also suspect that we can avoid any argument about the existence of essences with respect to circular causal chains. Even if we accept a claim that the individual links in the chain are purely instrumental, the circular structure means that each link is caused in by a prior instrumental link so that's no problem. However I confess that I've never understood how to reason about essences so I could easily be wrong here.<br />Maybe not strictly relevant, but I want to mention that these circular chains play a critical role in adaptation as well as existence. They are typically self-stabilizing -- and in each case this can be analyzed as due to specific per se causes in the loop responding to disturbances in a purely mechanical way. This is another aspect of the circular causal chain concept that doesn't seem to be available to Aquinas and his commentators. jedhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11258416181053973027noreply@blogger.com