It’s the nature of the thing!
The most direct way for me to know something is to experience it with my senses – to taste it, feel it, see it, hear it, or smell it. Indeed all human knowledge begins with the senses. I know, have direct sensory experience, that there are many things that exist in the world, trees, cars, bicycles, children, adults, dogs, etc. I am also certain that each of these things in the world are different from me, i.e., I am not the tree and the tree is not me. This seems to be a very basic experience, and one would assume that this is probably a good candidate for the simplest, most direct knowledge. But if we take a moment to really think about this we will see that the understanding that I am not the tree is not the most basic knowledge we have. Indeed, knowing the tree is not the most basic, nor is knowing that that thing is a tree. No, the most fundamental knowledge we have is existence itself. The first thing that I can say with certainty about the tree is not that it is a thing called a “tree” – but that it is a thing – it “is”. It is only after I know that that thing exists that I can judge it to be a tree.
From this primary experience of existence, the intellect begins to form concepts leading to the differentiation among all the things found in the natural world. In experiencing the natural world, it becomes clear that the things in the world come into being and run their course without benefit of my assistance or influence. In other words, I am not the tree and the tree is not me. Furthermore, each thing in the world has its own “nature”, the source of the activities the thing originates. This “nature” is unique to each thing. Examples of things with natures are rocks, plants, animals, chemical elements and their compounds, planets, stars, galaxies. All of these things come into existence and pass away. All these things change and are changeable.
To say that something is a rose or a cow is to describe its nature. The intellect grasps the nature of a thing from its appearance and from the way it acts/reacts in various situations. When the nature of a thing is defined, I am able to differentiate it from other things. Thus, natures are universals, concepts, objects of the intellect.
The nature of a thing makes the thing be what it is, serves to differentiate it from all other things, and accounts for its unique activities and responses. I initially grasp natures in a general way as I learn language and attach meanings to words. My understanding is further refined as I gain more information and experience about the objects I know. My understanding of an object’s nature grows with more experience with the object. Thus, a gardener would know more about roses than a child. But both would share a general understanding of the nature of a rose.
Change, Motion, and Cause
As alluded to earlier, things move, that is things change. Things exist. Things change. But for a thing to change, there must be a cause. Oftentimes, these causes remain hidden from my direct sensory observation, but I can learn something about the cause from its effect, the change I do observe.
Four factors can be identified as the causes of change. They do not all operate in the same way but each functions in a unique, distinctive manner. The four factors are usually identified as matter, form, agent, and end. Matter becomes the material cause, form the formal cause, agent the efficient cause, and end the final cause.
An example might help in understanding this. In analyzing a table, the matter and form become very evident. Matter is the “stuff” out of which the table is made and which remains in it. Let’s say that our table is made of maple wood. The form is the shape or design imposed on the matter – in this case the shape of the table formed during its making. Both matter and form are internal to the table that is they are within it not external to it. Matter and form explain why the table is what it is. Matter and form, then, are internal causes.
Agent and end are external causes. Agent and end are external to the table and explain “how” the table came to be. The agent is the carpenter who made the table from the raw materials. The end is the objective or goal that the carpenter had in mind when making the table – say to make an elegant dining table. Both agent and end are not found within the table but are external to it. If the table embodies the goal the carpenter had in mind completely, it is called a good table.
To summarize: The agent acts on matter to enduce the form from it as the end of the process.
From the example I provided above the interactions of the four causes are fairly easy to understand. However, it can be more difficult to see these four causes at work in the things of nature, apart from the influence of human actions. The table is an artifact, a product of human action. Natural entities are substances that have natures that explain their unique activities. For each natural thing, I want to explore the matter from which it is formed, how its form is different from an artifact, the agency that produces it, and the end intended and achieved through nature’s processes.
What’s the matter?
Matter is the “stuff” out of which a thing is made and remains in it. So what is matter? The maple that from which the table is made is rather obvious. But what about the maple tree? Or what about gold, or water, or a cow? The question becomes: is there a basic “stuff” out of which all natural substances are made and that remains in them?
This has been the $64,000 question for almost 3000 years now. There have been several proposed answers – earth, air, water, fire and ether were the standard answer until the 18th century.
In the 19th century, science discovered the chemical elements which seemed to give the answer to the question about the basic stuff. But what is the stuff from which the elements are made? Atoms. What composes atoms? Protons, neutrons, and electrons. What composes these particles? Etc. etc. Modern science still is probing what this most fundamental matter could be. The most successful factor based on the work of Einstein is the concept of mass-energy.
Aristotle termed this most fundamental stuff as prime matter or protomatter. This prime matter is the basic potential principle underlying all changes in the universe. Matter is not passive and inert but is a potency, a potentiality, at the foundation of all change that occurs throughout the universe. Prime matter is conserved in any and all changes (e.g., matter-energy is neither created nor destroyed).
Form
Form is the shape or figure the matter assumes in a thing. As such, form becomes part of its being. In our table example, the form is the shape the maple wood assumes when the table is made. The form then is part of the table’s being. Although the maple wood was not always formed as a table, as long as it was identifiable as maple is was under some form.
Matter and form then are inseparable. But although matter is somewhat unintelligible, form allows us to understand the natures of things in the world.
Form allows me to identify things, animals, plants, and minerals with which I come in contact. Form allows me to classify things according to differences among them. Even though individual objects within a class have differences among them, I can still understand them as a class and ascribe a common nature to them. For example, I understand the concept of animals even though a dog is very different than an eagle. It is this form or formality that I name and define as I learn about the natural kinds of things in the world.
Size, shape, quantity, quality, color etc. are accidents that exist in the substance of a thing. These are changeable. I can change the size or shape of the table without changing the substance of which it is composed. The form that underlies these accidental attributes, that makes it an enduring substance, is called the substantial form or natural form. Changing attributes and properties are accidental forms. These are forms that modify the substance in various ways. Accidental forms may vary in degree, or in presence and absence, without affecting the basic character of the substance.
It is the natural or substantial form that I apprehend when I understand the nature of something and attempt to define it. The substantial form is a universal concept that is given in the sense world but results from intellectual abstraction – the first order of abstraction. Once grasped, I can apply the universal concept of the nature of things to individual examples of those things. Thus, I can have universal knowledge of the natural world
Friday, December 10, 2010
Philosophy 101A
In this discussion, appeal will be made to the following three guides:
1. The basic assumptions listed earlier in this blog,
The natural world exists
The natural world exists independent of our minds.
The natural world is orderly.
The order of the natural world is contingent.
Humans are able to know this natural contingent order.
2. Philosophical Common sense or Common Sense Philosophy
Common sense refers to the spontaneous activity of the intellect, the way in which it operates of its own native vigor before it has been given any special training. It implies man's native capacity to know the most fundamental aspects of reality
Philosophy is linked to common sense in that both concern themselves with the most fundamental aspects of reality. In particular, philosophy concerns itself with the existence of things (including our own existence), the first principles of being (identity, noncontradiction, and excluded middle), and secondary principles which flow immediately from the self-evident principles (causality, sufficient reason, etc.).
While common sense utilizes these principles, it does so unconsciously, unreflectively, and uncritically. Faulty education, cultural prejudice, deceptive sense imagery can distort and obscure common sense. Philosophy seeks to use these principles critically, consciously, scientifically (i.e., intellectually, rationally, and through causes); and thus can defend and communicate its knowledge.
Another link between common sense and philosophy is that they both take in (seek to know) all of reality. Saying that philosophy knows the totality of reality does not mean that any one philosopher can claim omniscience. Rather, it refers to the fact that all of reality is the subject matter of the philosopher’s inquiry because he takes as his point of view the highest and first principles, the ultimate causes, of all reality. Philosophy, as well as common sense, seeks to develop a comprehensive, all encompassing view of reality – in short, the knowledge of all things.
True philosophy, then, grows out of common sense. Any philosophy, therefore, that strays very far from common sense is suspect. If it goes so far as to contradict the basic certitudes of common sense, then it is guilty of denying reality itself, and on this point common sense can pass judgment on it.
Philosophy is a tool to help us move from the realm of human experience – things we can feel and touch, see, taste and smell – towards reaching what is objectively true. Philosophical inquiry does not leave the enquirer confused and lost in ideas but marks the first step in clearly reaching an understanding of life and its meaning.
3. Logic
Logic is the tool, the means by which we are able to “do” philosophy (or science for that matter). With this tool in hand, we are able to attain certain and irrefutable knowledge through clear, logical reasoning.
Knowledge – How I Know Things
In common language, knowledge refers to anything that I take as certain no matter how I arrived at that certainty.
So how do I come to know things? How do I come to know with certainty?
There are basically three categories of knowledge: sense knowledge, intellectual knowledge, and belief (faith).
The most direct knowledge of the world comes to me from my senses or from sense experience. The most direct way for me to know something is to experience it with my senses – to taste it, feel it, see it, hear it, or smell it. Indeed all human knowledge begins with the senses. I know, have direct sensory experience, that there are many things that exist in the world, trees, cars, bicycles, children, adults, dogs, etc. This type of knowledge is the most obvious.
This sense knowledge is attained in two stages. First, my sense organs (eye, ear, nose, mouth, and skin) – my outer senses – when stimulated - produce a sensation characteristic of a particular sense (sight, hearing, smell, taste, and touch).
The sensation then is passed to my inner senses. These inner senses are located within my brain and nervous system. For simplicity sake, these can be divided into three components, the central sense, the imagination, and the memory. The central sense receives sensations and integrates them into a singular composite representation called a percept through a process called perception.
For example in sense experience I perceive a rose. This is an individual large, deep red rose with a very sweet pleasant fragrance, a long green stem with very long pointed and sharp thorns. All these sensations and possibly others are incorporated into the single percept whereby I perceive this particular rose.
With imagination, I can reconstitute the elements that entered into the percept of the rose, and in its absence, I can imagine the rose. I can imagine it as it actually was or I can imagine it in an embellished way, for example as a yellow rose. I can remember the rose as it was in the past utilizing memory to recall the particular percept. In this way, I build up sense experience by accumulating memory of all the percepts I have experienced in my lifetime.
2. Intellectual Knowledge
This large database then is drawn upon by my intellect. I am capable of acquiring a deeper knowledge through my mind or intellect. My mind enables me to transcend the knowledge of the individual things (trees, cars, bicycles, children, adults, dogs, etc.) provided to me by my senses. My intellect is capable of grasping the natures of things as they are in themselves, through universals. Universals are less obvious to us, but with them I am able to go beyond the surface appearances of things as presented by my senses.
In effect, my intellect works on my sense experience by focusing on the percept and extracting various intelligible aspects of it creating a universal concept. This is accomplished in two stages. First the intellect illuminates the percept in a particular way. Then under this illumination, it abstracts intelligible content from the percept. The percept is a concrete and singular image of a thing perceived (the rose). The concept is an abstract and universal representation that furnishes me with an idea of what I perceived (rose-ness). The concept is abstract because it was abstracted from the particulars of my sense knowledge. It is universal because it grasps the nature of the particular – what it means to be a rose. I am able then to apply the concept to all objects that I perceive share the same nature as the rose. The concept then is a universal idea or meaning. In this way, I build up many concepts in my mind.
Types of Concepts
The concepts developed as described above are said to be natural concepts because they arise from sense knowledge of nature. These concepts can be understood simply on the basis of ordinary experience of the world.
Such concepts can be classified in terms of the two intellectual processes by which they are formed, illumination and abstraction. Abstraction can provide various degrees of abstractness depending on how the precept is illuminated by the intellect. Generally, three orders of abstraction can be delineated providing us with three basic types of concepts: natural concepts, mathematical concepts, and metaphysical concepts.
Natural Concepts
Consider the precept “this rose”.
Natural concepts are associated with the first order of abstraction in which the intellect leaves aside the individual and concrete aspects of the precept, the “this”. In this way I come to the universal of “rose”. I am no longer tied to a particular, unique rose, but the natural concept of “rose”, the blossom of any and every rose bush. I grasp the meaning that is common to all classes of objects that share the properties of “rose”. The natural concept refers to objects that exist in matter as it is perceived by our senses, what we call sensible matter. One of the characteristics of such matter is that it is always capable of undergoing change.
Mathematical Concepts
Associated with the second order of abstraction, mathematical concepts are more abstract due to the fact that more is left aside when they are conceptualized. Consider the precepts “three roses” and “wooden ball” and the concepts of “three” and “sphere” that may be abstracted from them. “Three” and “sphere” are both mathematical concepts referring to all classes of things that share the number “three” and geometrical shape “sphere”. These concepts do not reference anything sensible. The “three” does not contain any reference to roses but merely indicates a group of units that are only imaginable. “Sphere” does not refer to an object being composed of wood, metal, or plastic. Rather, it indicates a body composed of continuous quantity, an imaginable or intelligible matter that does not exhibit any sensible qualities.
Metaphysical Concepts
Metaphysical concepts are the most abstract of all for they are separated entirely from matter and contain no reference to individual, sensible, or intelligible matter. Examples of metaphysical concepts are “being” and “existent”. The concept of “being” expresses an intelligible content that is found in roses, balls, and mathematical objects. All of these are beings in some sense. Metaphysical concepts are very general and apply to being as such, not just to objects in sensible matter (changeable being) or intelligible matter (quantified being). Metaphysical concepts apply to whatever “is” including things that are completely immaterial, incorporeal, or spiritual (for example, the concept of God – assuming such things do indeed exist - but we will get to that in a later post).
Natural concepts, mathematical concepts, and metaphysical concepts are all concepts drawn from the real world by various degrees of abstraction and so are termed real concepts. Real concepts are formed in the intellect, but they are concepts of things that exist outside the intellect and they enable me to grasp the natures of such things.
Logical Concepts
But I also have concepts of concepts. These logical concepts are completely existent in my mind. They have no independent existence outside my mind.
Grammatical concepts are logical concepts. Consider I have the concepts of “rose” and “red”. From these, I can formulate a proposition or sentence, “The rose is red”. Further, I can formulate two more sentences from this one: “Rose is the subject” and “Red is the predicate”. In so doing, I have developed two more concepts: “subject” and “predicate” – which reveal how “rose” and “red” relate to each other in the sentence “The rose is red”. “Rose” and “redness” exist outside my mind but “subject” and “predicate” do not.
Logical concepts are universals of a special kind, the most important of which are of two types: predicables and categories. Predicables are referred to as modes of predication (assignment of something to a class), whereas categories are referred to as modes of being (how something “is”).
Predicables
There are five predicables: genus, species, differentia, property, and accident. While genus and species share a common name to taxonomic classifications used in modern biology, they should not be confused with them.
Genus describes many things that differ in species. Genus answers the question “what is it?” For example, humans, butterflies, and starfish are said to be of the same genus since they all fall under the category of “animal”.
Species is the universal of many things that differ only in number again in answer to the question “what is it?”. Einstein and Aristotle belong to the species “human” because they share in human nature, common to all individuals in the species “human”.
Differentia is the qualitative part of the nature of things that differ in number and also species. Man is rational for rationality is what distinguishes humans from all the other species of “animals”.
Property is the universal said of a species as belonging exclusively, necessarily, and always to a species and its individuals. An example would be "scientifically teachable," since only humans are capable of learning a science or other intellectual discipline.
Accident is the universal said of a species as belonging contingently to the species and its individuals. “White” as said of humans is a predicable accident since it does not pertain to the essence of being human to be white.
Universality is found more properly in essential predicates than in those that do not indicate the essence of the subject. Of the essential predicates, the genus is more universal than the species, and so these predicates are given first as substantial predicates. After them comes differentia as a qualitative predicate. And finally we have property and accident as predicates that are yet more distant from the essence of the subjects to which they are being attributed.
Categories
The ten basic categories designate modes of being. The first is substance, and other nine are quantity, quality, relation, location, time, disposition (the arrangement of parts), rainment (being clothed, armed, etc.), action, and passion. These are the basic or ultimate groups into which real entities may be classified.
Substance is unique in that it exists in itself, does not exist in another, and cannot be said of another. Accidents exist in another and cannot exist in themselves but must exist in a substance. Substance then sustains accidents in their being. Accidents are the modifications that substances undergo, but that do not change the kind of thing that each substance is. Accidents only exist when they are the accidents of some substance.
These categories reflect the basic distinction in the way reality is stuctured and reflect the basic way that I view reality. The fundamental distinction is between substance and accident. Substance is whatever is a natural kind of thing and exists in its own right. Examples are rocks, trees, animals, etc. What an animal is, a dog for example, is basically the same whether it is black or brown, here or there, etc. A dog is a substance since it exists in its own right; it does not exist in something else, the way a color does.
All these distinctions are basically logical, but in a sense they reflect the structure of reality. I never find any substance that I experience without some accidents, nor an accident that is not the accident of a substance. Every dog, for instance, has some color, place, size. Nevertheless, it is obvious that what a dog is is not the same as its color, or its size, etc
Scientific Reasoning (in Philosophy)
In philosophy, scientific reasoning, in its strictest sense, means reasoning that leads to certain and irrefutable knowledge of the causes of things in the world. The process involved is demonstration which depends on a special type of syllogism termed demonstrative regress.
Causes, by definition, are followed by their effects. A cause is prior and the effect is posterior. In my search for knowledge, I can begin with a cause and reason to its effect. This is a priori reasoning.
Often though, I am only able to observe effects in the world, the causes of which are hidden or unclear to me. In these cases, I can begin with the effects and reason my way to their causes. This is a posteriori reasoning. To be certain, however, I would need then to later reverse the procedure and reason a priori back to the effects.
This twofold reasoning process is called demonstrative regression. The first a posteriori stage, moving from effect to cause, individual to universal, is the process of induction. Induction is the primary reasoning method of modern science. Deduction is the second a priori stage in which I move from the cause back to the effect in order to explain the effect from its cause.
Induction, a posteriori reasoning, usually begins with observations made about the world. It begins with individual, singular objects/events perceived by the senses. It concludes with the discovery of causes or explanatory principles for the effects observed. These causes or principles are universals grasped by my intellect. The second process, deduction, uses the causes or principles, the universals, to return to the observations which I now recognize as effects. I understand them in terms of the factors that make them what they are.
I accomplish this demonstrative regression through the work of my intellect. Let’s see how this is accomplished using an example.
I observe that the moon exhibits phases. Through inductive reasoning, I arrive at a possible cause for this. I can express this in a statement or proposition. The moon exhibits phases because it is a sphere.
Restating and identifying the grammatical components I arrive at:
The moon (Subject) exhibits phases (Predicate) because it is a sphere (Middle term).
I can now write the proposition in the form of a syllogism.
A sphere (M) exhibits phases (P).
M is P
The moon (S) is a sphere (M).
S is M
Therefore, the moon (S) exhibits phases (P).
S is P
This is an a posteriori argument and a demonstration. Now, I can turn the demonstration into an a priori demonstration by interchanging its middle term and predicate. This gives us the following:
A body that exhibits phases (M) is a sphere (P).
M is P
The moon (S) exhibits phases (M).
S is M
Therefore, the moon (S) is a sphere (P).
S is P
If both the a posteriori and a priori demonstrations are logically consistent, valid, and true, then I have shown that indeed the moon exhibits phases because it is a sphere, and I have certainty of this knowledge.
1. The basic assumptions listed earlier in this blog,
The natural world exists
The natural world exists independent of our minds.
The natural world is orderly.
The order of the natural world is contingent.
Humans are able to know this natural contingent order.
2. Philosophical Common sense or Common Sense Philosophy
Common sense refers to the spontaneous activity of the intellect, the way in which it operates of its own native vigor before it has been given any special training. It implies man's native capacity to know the most fundamental aspects of reality
Philosophy is linked to common sense in that both concern themselves with the most fundamental aspects of reality. In particular, philosophy concerns itself with the existence of things (including our own existence), the first principles of being (identity, noncontradiction, and excluded middle), and secondary principles which flow immediately from the self-evident principles (causality, sufficient reason, etc.).
While common sense utilizes these principles, it does so unconsciously, unreflectively, and uncritically. Faulty education, cultural prejudice, deceptive sense imagery can distort and obscure common sense. Philosophy seeks to use these principles critically, consciously, scientifically (i.e., intellectually, rationally, and through causes); and thus can defend and communicate its knowledge.
Another link between common sense and philosophy is that they both take in (seek to know) all of reality. Saying that philosophy knows the totality of reality does not mean that any one philosopher can claim omniscience. Rather, it refers to the fact that all of reality is the subject matter of the philosopher’s inquiry because he takes as his point of view the highest and first principles, the ultimate causes, of all reality. Philosophy, as well as common sense, seeks to develop a comprehensive, all encompassing view of reality – in short, the knowledge of all things.
True philosophy, then, grows out of common sense. Any philosophy, therefore, that strays very far from common sense is suspect. If it goes so far as to contradict the basic certitudes of common sense, then it is guilty of denying reality itself, and on this point common sense can pass judgment on it.
Philosophy is a tool to help us move from the realm of human experience – things we can feel and touch, see, taste and smell – towards reaching what is objectively true. Philosophical inquiry does not leave the enquirer confused and lost in ideas but marks the first step in clearly reaching an understanding of life and its meaning.
3. Logic
Logic is the tool, the means by which we are able to “do” philosophy (or science for that matter). With this tool in hand, we are able to attain certain and irrefutable knowledge through clear, logical reasoning.
Knowledge – How I Know Things
In common language, knowledge refers to anything that I take as certain no matter how I arrived at that certainty.
So how do I come to know things? How do I come to know with certainty?
There are basically three categories of knowledge: sense knowledge, intellectual knowledge, and belief (faith).
- Sense Knowledge
The most direct knowledge of the world comes to me from my senses or from sense experience. The most direct way for me to know something is to experience it with my senses – to taste it, feel it, see it, hear it, or smell it. Indeed all human knowledge begins with the senses. I know, have direct sensory experience, that there are many things that exist in the world, trees, cars, bicycles, children, adults, dogs, etc. This type of knowledge is the most obvious.
This sense knowledge is attained in two stages. First, my sense organs (eye, ear, nose, mouth, and skin) – my outer senses – when stimulated - produce a sensation characteristic of a particular sense (sight, hearing, smell, taste, and touch).
The sensation then is passed to my inner senses. These inner senses are located within my brain and nervous system. For simplicity sake, these can be divided into three components, the central sense, the imagination, and the memory. The central sense receives sensations and integrates them into a singular composite representation called a percept through a process called perception.
For example in sense experience I perceive a rose. This is an individual large, deep red rose with a very sweet pleasant fragrance, a long green stem with very long pointed and sharp thorns. All these sensations and possibly others are incorporated into the single percept whereby I perceive this particular rose.
With imagination, I can reconstitute the elements that entered into the percept of the rose, and in its absence, I can imagine the rose. I can imagine it as it actually was or I can imagine it in an embellished way, for example as a yellow rose. I can remember the rose as it was in the past utilizing memory to recall the particular percept. In this way, I build up sense experience by accumulating memory of all the percepts I have experienced in my lifetime.
2. Intellectual Knowledge
This large database then is drawn upon by my intellect. I am capable of acquiring a deeper knowledge through my mind or intellect. My mind enables me to transcend the knowledge of the individual things (trees, cars, bicycles, children, adults, dogs, etc.) provided to me by my senses. My intellect is capable of grasping the natures of things as they are in themselves, through universals. Universals are less obvious to us, but with them I am able to go beyond the surface appearances of things as presented by my senses.
In effect, my intellect works on my sense experience by focusing on the percept and extracting various intelligible aspects of it creating a universal concept. This is accomplished in two stages. First the intellect illuminates the percept in a particular way. Then under this illumination, it abstracts intelligible content from the percept. The percept is a concrete and singular image of a thing perceived (the rose). The concept is an abstract and universal representation that furnishes me with an idea of what I perceived (rose-ness). The concept is abstract because it was abstracted from the particulars of my sense knowledge. It is universal because it grasps the nature of the particular – what it means to be a rose. I am able then to apply the concept to all objects that I perceive share the same nature as the rose. The concept then is a universal idea or meaning. In this way, I build up many concepts in my mind.
Types of Concepts
The concepts developed as described above are said to be natural concepts because they arise from sense knowledge of nature. These concepts can be understood simply on the basis of ordinary experience of the world.
Such concepts can be classified in terms of the two intellectual processes by which they are formed, illumination and abstraction. Abstraction can provide various degrees of abstractness depending on how the precept is illuminated by the intellect. Generally, three orders of abstraction can be delineated providing us with three basic types of concepts: natural concepts, mathematical concepts, and metaphysical concepts.
Natural Concepts
Consider the precept “this rose”.
Natural concepts are associated with the first order of abstraction in which the intellect leaves aside the individual and concrete aspects of the precept, the “this”. In this way I come to the universal of “rose”. I am no longer tied to a particular, unique rose, but the natural concept of “rose”, the blossom of any and every rose bush. I grasp the meaning that is common to all classes of objects that share the properties of “rose”. The natural concept refers to objects that exist in matter as it is perceived by our senses, what we call sensible matter. One of the characteristics of such matter is that it is always capable of undergoing change.
Mathematical Concepts
Associated with the second order of abstraction, mathematical concepts are more abstract due to the fact that more is left aside when they are conceptualized. Consider the precepts “three roses” and “wooden ball” and the concepts of “three” and “sphere” that may be abstracted from them. “Three” and “sphere” are both mathematical concepts referring to all classes of things that share the number “three” and geometrical shape “sphere”. These concepts do not reference anything sensible. The “three” does not contain any reference to roses but merely indicates a group of units that are only imaginable. “Sphere” does not refer to an object being composed of wood, metal, or plastic. Rather, it indicates a body composed of continuous quantity, an imaginable or intelligible matter that does not exhibit any sensible qualities.
Metaphysical Concepts
Metaphysical concepts are the most abstract of all for they are separated entirely from matter and contain no reference to individual, sensible, or intelligible matter. Examples of metaphysical concepts are “being” and “existent”. The concept of “being” expresses an intelligible content that is found in roses, balls, and mathematical objects. All of these are beings in some sense. Metaphysical concepts are very general and apply to being as such, not just to objects in sensible matter (changeable being) or intelligible matter (quantified being). Metaphysical concepts apply to whatever “is” including things that are completely immaterial, incorporeal, or spiritual (for example, the concept of God – assuming such things do indeed exist - but we will get to that in a later post).
Natural concepts, mathematical concepts, and metaphysical concepts are all concepts drawn from the real world by various degrees of abstraction and so are termed real concepts. Real concepts are formed in the intellect, but they are concepts of things that exist outside the intellect and they enable me to grasp the natures of such things.
Logical Concepts
But I also have concepts of concepts. These logical concepts are completely existent in my mind. They have no independent existence outside my mind.
Grammatical concepts are logical concepts. Consider I have the concepts of “rose” and “red”. From these, I can formulate a proposition or sentence, “The rose is red”. Further, I can formulate two more sentences from this one: “Rose is the subject” and “Red is the predicate”. In so doing, I have developed two more concepts: “subject” and “predicate” – which reveal how “rose” and “red” relate to each other in the sentence “The rose is red”. “Rose” and “redness” exist outside my mind but “subject” and “predicate” do not.
Logical concepts are universals of a special kind, the most important of which are of two types: predicables and categories. Predicables are referred to as modes of predication (assignment of something to a class), whereas categories are referred to as modes of being (how something “is”).
Predicables
There are five predicables: genus, species, differentia, property, and accident. While genus and species share a common name to taxonomic classifications used in modern biology, they should not be confused with them.
Genus describes many things that differ in species. Genus answers the question “what is it?” For example, humans, butterflies, and starfish are said to be of the same genus since they all fall under the category of “animal”.
Species is the universal of many things that differ only in number again in answer to the question “what is it?”. Einstein and Aristotle belong to the species “human” because they share in human nature, common to all individuals in the species “human”.
Differentia is the qualitative part of the nature of things that differ in number and also species. Man is rational for rationality is what distinguishes humans from all the other species of “animals”.
Property is the universal said of a species as belonging exclusively, necessarily, and always to a species and its individuals. An example would be "scientifically teachable," since only humans are capable of learning a science or other intellectual discipline.
Accident is the universal said of a species as belonging contingently to the species and its individuals. “White” as said of humans is a predicable accident since it does not pertain to the essence of being human to be white.
Universality is found more properly in essential predicates than in those that do not indicate the essence of the subject. Of the essential predicates, the genus is more universal than the species, and so these predicates are given first as substantial predicates. After them comes differentia as a qualitative predicate. And finally we have property and accident as predicates that are yet more distant from the essence of the subjects to which they are being attributed.
Categories
The ten basic categories designate modes of being. The first is substance, and other nine are quantity, quality, relation, location, time, disposition (the arrangement of parts), rainment (being clothed, armed, etc.), action, and passion. These are the basic or ultimate groups into which real entities may be classified.
Substance is unique in that it exists in itself, does not exist in another, and cannot be said of another. Accidents exist in another and cannot exist in themselves but must exist in a substance. Substance then sustains accidents in their being. Accidents are the modifications that substances undergo, but that do not change the kind of thing that each substance is. Accidents only exist when they are the accidents of some substance.
These categories reflect the basic distinction in the way reality is stuctured and reflect the basic way that I view reality. The fundamental distinction is between substance and accident. Substance is whatever is a natural kind of thing and exists in its own right. Examples are rocks, trees, animals, etc. What an animal is, a dog for example, is basically the same whether it is black or brown, here or there, etc. A dog is a substance since it exists in its own right; it does not exist in something else, the way a color does.
All these distinctions are basically logical, but in a sense they reflect the structure of reality. I never find any substance that I experience without some accidents, nor an accident that is not the accident of a substance. Every dog, for instance, has some color, place, size. Nevertheless, it is obvious that what a dog is is not the same as its color, or its size, etc
Scientific Reasoning (in Philosophy)
In philosophy, scientific reasoning, in its strictest sense, means reasoning that leads to certain and irrefutable knowledge of the causes of things in the world. The process involved is demonstration which depends on a special type of syllogism termed demonstrative regress.
Causes, by definition, are followed by their effects. A cause is prior and the effect is posterior. In my search for knowledge, I can begin with a cause and reason to its effect. This is a priori reasoning.
Often though, I am only able to observe effects in the world, the causes of which are hidden or unclear to me. In these cases, I can begin with the effects and reason my way to their causes. This is a posteriori reasoning. To be certain, however, I would need then to later reverse the procedure and reason a priori back to the effects.
This twofold reasoning process is called demonstrative regression. The first a posteriori stage, moving from effect to cause, individual to universal, is the process of induction. Induction is the primary reasoning method of modern science. Deduction is the second a priori stage in which I move from the cause back to the effect in order to explain the effect from its cause.
Induction, a posteriori reasoning, usually begins with observations made about the world. It begins with individual, singular objects/events perceived by the senses. It concludes with the discovery of causes or explanatory principles for the effects observed. These causes or principles are universals grasped by my intellect. The second process, deduction, uses the causes or principles, the universals, to return to the observations which I now recognize as effects. I understand them in terms of the factors that make them what they are.
I accomplish this demonstrative regression through the work of my intellect. Let’s see how this is accomplished using an example.
I observe that the moon exhibits phases. Through inductive reasoning, I arrive at a possible cause for this. I can express this in a statement or proposition. The moon exhibits phases because it is a sphere.
Restating and identifying the grammatical components I arrive at:
The moon (Subject) exhibits phases (Predicate) because it is a sphere (Middle term).
I can now write the proposition in the form of a syllogism.
A sphere (M) exhibits phases (P).
M is P
The moon (S) is a sphere (M).
S is M
Therefore, the moon (S) exhibits phases (P).
S is P
This is an a posteriori argument and a demonstration. Now, I can turn the demonstration into an a priori demonstration by interchanging its middle term and predicate. This gives us the following:
A body that exhibits phases (M) is a sphere (P).
M is P
The moon (S) exhibits phases (M).
S is M
Therefore, the moon (S) is a sphere (P).
S is P
If both the a posteriori and a priori demonstrations are logically consistent, valid, and true, then I have shown that indeed the moon exhibits phases because it is a sphere, and I have certainty of this knowledge.
True?
The Universe
A large hackberry tree grows outside the front window of my house. I see it everytime I walk through the living room. The tree and my relationship to it provide a good starting point for our discussions.
In considering the universe, several basic principles become obvious. I cannot necessarily “prove” the truth of these principles but my common experience of the universe, and that of my friends and colleagues, confirm their truth. These principles then are self-evident – they can be considered some of the first principles upon which I build my knowledge and understanding of the universe – they are part of the common sense. What are these?
To Know the Truth
Is it true?
Is it knowable? Can I know it?
Can I give reasons for it? Can I prove it?
Can I be certain about it? Can I have certainty?
Can I have scientific certainty?
We will address the first of these questions here. The remainder will be addressed as we outline our philosophical system of inquiry.
Quid est Veritas?
Truth looked at philosophically is an assessment of reality according to the mind. Since truth may be taught to others, it is also an adequate expression of reality that others can share in a meaningful way. Philosophy does not remain in the realm of ideas and principles. It helps us to analyze an experienced reality. This analysis leads to something very concrete and objective. It is the road that is followed by those who ask questions, are seeking to know themselves and the meaning of the world around them. It leads us to a discovery of what is true and real.
So what do we mean when we say something is true?
1. Truth is the equation, conformation, correspondence of object and intellect.
2. A judgment is said to be true when it conforms to reality.
3. A thought is said to be true because it conforms to a thing or person.
4. A thing or person is said to be true because it conforms to a thought.
5. To know the truth of a proposition is to know what causes that proposition to be true.
6. The truth of a proposition may be caused by the truth of another proposition.
7. The truest proposition may be the proposition which is always true.
8. The truest proposition may also be the proposition which causes other propositions to be true, and which does not depend on the truth of other propositions.
9. To make a true statement is to say of what is, that it is, or to say of what is not, that it is not.
10. To make a false statement is to say of what is not, that it is, or to say of what is, that it is not.
11. ‘That which is’ cannot simultaneously be ‘that which is not.’ Being and non-being (existence and non-existence) cannot be predicated of the same subject at the same time in the same respect.
12. Although a proposition may potentially be either true or false, it cannot be both true and false at the same time in the same respect.
13. A proposition may appear to be true, and yet may be false. A proposition may appear to be false, and yet may be true.
14. If a proposition is not necessarily false, then it may possibly be true.
15. If a proposition is not necessarily true, then it may possibly be false.
16. A proposition which is necessarily true cannot possibly be false.
17. A proposition which is necessarily false cannot possibly be true.
18. The appearance of something may differ from the true reality of that thing.
19. Moreover, the appearance of something may be relative to the position of an observer, and may depend on the opinions and attitudes of the observer.
20. Things may not appear the same to everyone, and may have contradictory appearances.
- Things exist. The tree in my yard exists.
- The things of the universe exist outside my mind. The tree exists outside my mind. It is not a figment of my imagination, nor is it dependent on my thoughts about it. Its existence is separate from mine. I am not the tree, and the tree is not me.
- The universe is orderly. The tree is subject to orderly patterns of growth and development, common to other trees. Furthermore, the internal workings of the cells and tissues of the tree exhibit characteristic patterns and order of operation – again common to other trees. There is a lawful order and pattern to the universe and its operations.
- I can understand the order found in the universe.
- The universe is contingent. Things come into existence and seemingly go out of existence. But no thing causes its own existence. The tree in my yard to not cause itself to exist. It came from a seed that was produced by another tree. Something does not come from nothing, and a thing cannot exist and not exist at the same time.
- Likewise, things in the universe change. People grow older, fatter, thinner, balder. Grass grows and gets cut. Erosion wears down mountains and volcanic eruptions give rise to new islands in the ocean. The tree grows taller, and loses its leaves in the winter.
- Humans can know the contingent order in the universe.
These principles form the basis of any knowledge I can gain about the universe around me. While I cannot “prove” them, I assume their truthfulness in my everyday experience of the world around me. They form the common sense out of which we view the world. Their denial would mean that there is no way to truly objectively know anything. There are philosophical systems that do indeed deny one or more of these first principles with very interesting consequences. We will address these as they relate to our discussions at hand throughout the blog.
There are five basic questions we can ask ourselves about any object of knowledge.
Introduction
In an Interest of Full Disclosure
Before I begin and in an effort at full disclosure, I want to say, up front, that I am a Catholic who happens to live in 21st century America. I love the Church and am eternally grateful for the gift of being one of her children. Likewise, I am an unabashed, 100%, card-carrying, VERY AMATEUR Thomist. It is from these two vantage points that I come at the issues discussed in this blog.
Why? I am Catholic because I have come to realize that the Catholic Church contains the fullness of truth about God as revealed in His Son, Jesus, His creation, and His people. The older I get; the more I read and study; the more certain I am in this conclusion.
I am a Thomist (really a baby Thomist) because I find that Thomas Aquinas presents a philosophical and theological view of the universe that rings true based on my common experience as a human being living and existing in this universe. Aquinas is arguably the most important medieval philosopher, and he is still extremely influential in philosophy today. It is not that I don’t find truth in non-Thomist philosophies. It is that I find the most complete, common sensical, logical philosophical understanding of the universe in Thomas Aquinas. Others disagree with me. That’s fine, but this is where I am coming from.
A Brief Roadmap of Where We Will Be Going
As mentioned in the above description of this blog, I will be exploring three main areas: the existence and nature of God; the nature of Man (in particular the existence and immortality of the human soul); and natural law as the basis for ethics/morality. All three concepts are rejected in modern Western culture – no God, no soul, no natural law. In my discussions, I will show not only that these three concepts are reasonable, possible and probable but that they are indeed true. I will show that God does exist. I will show that man does have an immortal soul. And I will show that natural law does indeed exist and is the foundation for ethical and moral behavior. We will address each of these topics in the order they are presented above – God, soul, natural law.
However before we launch into these topics, I feel it necessary to address two items of initial preparation. As a result of our modern Western culture, I feel it is necessary to first outline the basics of a philosophical understanding of the universe – as it comes to us from the ancient Greeks, especially Plato and Aristotle, through the medieval Scholastics, most importantly Thomas Aquinas. For this will form the basis of argument in exploring the main topics of this blog, and unfortunately, such philosophical inquiry is no longer part of modern education.
As part of this philosophical outline, I will address the whole concept of “truth”. As an unfortunate byproduct of our Western relativism and subjectivism, we must first establish that there is objective truth. Then, establish that we can know this truth. And finally, describe how we know something is indeed true.
All right now that we have a map, let’s get underway!
Before I begin and in an effort at full disclosure, I want to say, up front, that I am a Catholic who happens to live in 21st century America. I love the Church and am eternally grateful for the gift of being one of her children. Likewise, I am an unabashed, 100%, card-carrying, VERY AMATEUR Thomist. It is from these two vantage points that I come at the issues discussed in this blog.
Why? I am Catholic because I have come to realize that the Catholic Church contains the fullness of truth about God as revealed in His Son, Jesus, His creation, and His people. The older I get; the more I read and study; the more certain I am in this conclusion.
I am a Thomist (really a baby Thomist) because I find that Thomas Aquinas presents a philosophical and theological view of the universe that rings true based on my common experience as a human being living and existing in this universe. Aquinas is arguably the most important medieval philosopher, and he is still extremely influential in philosophy today. It is not that I don’t find truth in non-Thomist philosophies. It is that I find the most complete, common sensical, logical philosophical understanding of the universe in Thomas Aquinas. Others disagree with me. That’s fine, but this is where I am coming from.
A Brief Roadmap of Where We Will Be Going
As mentioned in the above description of this blog, I will be exploring three main areas: the existence and nature of God; the nature of Man (in particular the existence and immortality of the human soul); and natural law as the basis for ethics/morality. All three concepts are rejected in modern Western culture – no God, no soul, no natural law. In my discussions, I will show not only that these three concepts are reasonable, possible and probable but that they are indeed true. I will show that God does exist. I will show that man does have an immortal soul. And I will show that natural law does indeed exist and is the foundation for ethical and moral behavior. We will address each of these topics in the order they are presented above – God, soul, natural law.
However before we launch into these topics, I feel it necessary to address two items of initial preparation. As a result of our modern Western culture, I feel it is necessary to first outline the basics of a philosophical understanding of the universe – as it comes to us from the ancient Greeks, especially Plato and Aristotle, through the medieval Scholastics, most importantly Thomas Aquinas. For this will form the basis of argument in exploring the main topics of this blog, and unfortunately, such philosophical inquiry is no longer part of modern education.
As part of this philosophical outline, I will address the whole concept of “truth”. As an unfortunate byproduct of our Western relativism and subjectivism, we must first establish that there is objective truth. Then, establish that we can know this truth. And finally, describe how we know something is indeed true.
All right now that we have a map, let’s get underway!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)