Is it possible to make a sound version of Aquinas' First

you would probably have to explain
what this means
or provide an example
for the confused ones
who know not
of what you speak

t. brainlet - rupi kaur

>>9721294
Aquinas' first part of his argument the Five Ways - the First Way - is argued using the Aristotelian method for understanding causation, the act/potency distinction. I am wondering if the argument can be valid if worded in modern methods of understanding causation or if it depends on that method.

>>9721384
Aristotelian conception doesnt invalidate modern causation interpretation and vice versa

>>9721401
Right, but if an argument cannot stand a change in still-valid terminology then it shows that the argument is dependent on that construct rather than telling of nature.

>>9721403
I always remember hearing that Aristotle's conceptions of causality are much more encompassing than modern use of the term, that there's some straight metaphysics in Aristotle's conception of causality.

>>9721198
Aristotelian causality is completely sound, if you have a problem with his metaphysics try reading David Oderberg and Alsadair MacIntyre.

>>9721525
If it is, show how by doing the argument in modern terms.

>>9721529
Why? Modern metaphysics doesn't have equivalent words because it's a different system.

>>9721588
To ensure it is sound and not dependent on one system of description.

>>9721403
Would you like to use ass for act and pussy for potency? Because you can do that too, but you don't do it because it would just confuse people needlessly.

>>9721525
Valid or Sound?

Do you know any quality philosophical works that discuss the soundness of Aristotle's axioms who are not religious or Aristotelians?

The only people who I see who are knowledgeable about him are all religious or Aristotelians themselves (it faced a simmilar problem on the opposite end when I first tried getting my head around Marxism).

>>9721701
No, but in his Aquinas: Beginner's Guide Feser has like 50 various recommendations, 5-6 at the end of each chapter on specific problems. I forgot the atheist whose work he referenced a lot. The Miracle of Theism may also contain something on it, he discusses it as well. The name is misleading, it's not pro theistic. As for Marxism and Aristote, MacIntyre is an obvious pick as he was the first before becoming the second.

>>9722053
> The Miracle of Theism may also contain something on it, he discusses it as well. The name is misleading,

This is what baffles my mind, in that in 2000 years of philosophical tradition the closest thing to a philosophical criticism of Aristotle is a single chapter in a book from the 1980s.

>Aquinas: Beginner's Guide Feser has like 50 various recommendations, 5-6 at the end of each chapter on specific problems. I forgot the atheist whose work he referenced a lot

Are they good recommendations/ is that Athiest source a good one or is it setting up clay pigeons?

Im a bit distrustful of Fesser as aside he seemed to misrepresent Hume (in his book speaking as if his epistemological arguments regarding causation - empiricisms trouble accounting for it - means an absurd rejection of it all together.

That and he wrote in such a sanctimonious and arrogantly dismissive way that I had trouble trusting him to be honest on the matter. Much in the same vein you get when you read anything by Lenin.

> As for Marxism and Aristote, MacIntyre is an obvious pick as he was the first before becoming the second.

Oh that was just an example, of how the vast bulk of work on Marxism is by Marxists and even though they answers criticisms you wont find any real challenges or knock out blows to the theories credibility.

>>9722128
Aristote was kinda forgotten from Descartes to the early 20th century, they just kind of forgot him. There's a lot of medieval criticism from st. Bonaventure and bl. Duns Scot as well as William Ockham, but the question is, why would an atheist looking to avoid religious sources read them now without interest in theology, because all of them were primarily theologians.
Feser does a good job in the book and out of the dozens of authors he mentions at least some should not be aristotelians/Christians.
As for criticism of Marxism, I can't say that I've had a problem in finding criticism of it, be it Hilaire Belloc, Jaques Maritain, MacIntyre, Hayek etc. It's pretty easy, even if most aren't specific refutations of marxism.

>>9722159
>here's a lot of medieval criticism from st. Bonaventure and bl. Duns Scot as well as William Ockham

What kinds of criticism? Ive looked at some religious arguments against him but they tend to lean towards "Aristotle is not a Church Father or a christian therefore ignore him" or just general attacks on trying to use reason and logic to understand God.

>but the question is, why would an atheist looking to avoid religious sources read them now without interest in theology, because all of them were primarily theologians.

Because Aristotle's metaphysics are not religious works but philosophical ones- even if he insipried religious thinkers-. Its easy enough to find people refuting or criticizing Plato but there seems to be a huge Aristotle Gap. That and Aristotle's use of logic seems like something 20th Century thinkers would be all serious about (outside of Anscombe).

+ I figured that refuting Aristotle would be a key concern for any intellectually honest Athiest.

>As for criticism of Marxism, I can't say that I've had a problem in finding criticism of it,

Like I said it was just an example of why Im looking for criticism from "outside sources"

One more thing what philosophical angle or argument is used against Aristotle in "The Miracle of Theism" and why did you not find it convincing?

>there's no reason to update the argument to modern terms, leave it in archaic terms! It'll be fine!