Talk:Quinquae viae
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Philosophy, which collaborates on articles related to philosophy. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details. | ||||||||
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. | ||||||||
| ??? | This article has not yet received an importance rating on the importance scale. | ||||||||
|
|||||||||
Thank you to everyone for not trolling here, however tempting it may be. TimD (talk) 23:25, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Bad title
The title is wrong, in latin the numbers are undeclinable.
ivansalgadogarcia —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.146.228.143 (talk) 00:40, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] perhaps an oversimplification
I fear that perhaps this article oversimplifies Thomas' most well-known contribution to philosophy, to the point that ambiguities in the understanding make them quite incomprehensible. Without an understanding of the Aristotelian idea of motion as the "actuality of potency as such" (Coughlin, Physics) the first way does not signify the proper understanding; furthermore, the second and third ways, moving through a similar context, become too ambiguous; and the fourth and fifth ways should not go without at least some understanding, for example, of how the gradation of being implies that the best is a cause, or how the governance of things implies that the designer must be purely in act.
I believe these issues are important principally because I believe the article misrepresents the author, secondly because the words taken at face value are confusing, poorly worded, and generally difficult from which to derive the understanding which Thomas himself presents, and lastly because these ambiguities the wording presents allow the misapplication of the five ways to more frivolous things than that for which Thomas argues. This ought not to go uncorrected, as this is the most important article in the Summa (for without God, there is no sacred doctrine) and perhaps the most important philosophical series of proofs (for it argues for a higher science than philosophy through philosophy itself, as Thomas implies in Question 1.)
I hope that this is of some concern.
TonalHarmony (talk) 00:09, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Agreement with TonalHarmony
This article, at the very least, needs more of an introduction, exposition of the arguments, an explanation of each, explanations of difficult terms, links to other exiting Wikipedia articles for positions in Aristotelian and Thomistic philosophy, and references to sources, especially web-based ones, that have St. Thomas' writings and other useful helps. As TonalHarmony implies, this section of Summa Theologiae is fundamental to the work as a whole; this difficult subject deserves a clearer introduction.
JohnofStThomas (talk) 16:58, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] possible clarifying suggestions
Thomas is using the Aristotelian definition of motion, a fact which is apparent from the text of Question 2 of the Summa, where he says "For motion is nothing else but the reduction of potentiality {potency} to actuality {act}." (words in brackets are alternate translations of "potentia" and "actum") (English courtesy of the referenced external link to newadvent.org)
This definition is very controversial, very difficult to understand, disagreed on by most Modernist philosophers, and absolutely essential to understand the five ways. The first amendment I would propose to the body is an explanation of Aristotelian motion, or a reference thereto, because otherwise the five ways become so ambiguous as to become nonsensical in view of their conclusion, which expresses specific and logical statements about what we can know about God. For example:
Aristotle understood motion to be of any sort conceivable: alteration, growth and diminution, and local motion. Descartes, however, in his Principles of Philosophy, disagrees:
"But motion(i.e. local motion, for I can conceive no other kind, and do not consider that we ought to conceive any other in nature), in the vulgar sense, is nothing more than the action by which any body passes from one place to another."
(Descartes, Principles of Philosophy, II 24 - Available on Google Books)
Here Descartes excludes growth and diminution, as well as alteration. But an exclusion of these excludes two senses of being a mover, senses which Thomas includes in what it is to be God. Moreover, insofar as an efficient cause lends the act to the thing having potency, to understand the second way, one needs a true understanding of the first. The third is also thus referenced to the first, for the first necessary being is required to have no potency as part of the argument, in that if a thing is "necessary", it cannot be otherwise, and if it cannot be otherwise, it must be such, and if it must be such, it cannot have potency to any other end.
The fourth and the fifth, while being more intuitive in form, still require the first, because the argument from the more and less good makes the claim that the highest is the "cause" of the lower, referencing the second way, and the argument from governance also requires motion (as the end is prior to the act), causality (as the thing imposing the order is the cause, as the sculptor to the statue), and necessity, since if the being causing and moving is not first, he must also be moved, which is impossible.)
So the first clarification needed is at least a reference to the different understandings of motion. Any thoughts?
TonalHarmony (talk) 00:48, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] proposed outline for revision
I propose that this whole article be reworked, because right now it is just shabby. Here's my suggested outline.
Introduction - What the Five Ways are (proofs for God's existence purely from natural reason.)
The Five Ways - (Literal quotes. Not explanations by Peter Kreeft, because that is not the actual statement, but an interpretation, and a simplified one at that, which causes many difficulties.)
Philosophical Explanation - (how motion works in terms of act and potency and how it is most manifest, how causality is understood separately from motion and is less manifest than motion, how contingency is understood separately from motion and cause and is less manifest than either, in what way the best is a motive, a cause and first in gradation, and in what way the governor is a motive, a cause and first in governance.)
Prior Articles in Relation to the Ways - (understanding of Question 1 as leading to the need for Question 2)
Relation to the Whole of the Summa - (How the rest of the Summa requires the Five Ways as proving certain things presupposed to the articles of faith)
Objections Thomas Cites - (the problem of evil, whether God is needed to explain nature)
Replies and their Basis in the Five Ways - (how Thomas' answer is rooted in gradation and governance, and thereby in motion, cause and contingency.)
With this outline, I think the article will become more helpful, more encyclopedic, and more descriptive of the intent of the author, rather than appearing much like a badly-written Cliff's Note for the most important part of the Summa.
TonalHarmony (talk) 23:44, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Also, the Fifth Way is _not_ the Argument from Design! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.253.244.175 (talk) 16:18, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
