tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2472139466585018053.post5497789853205075738..comments2024-03-11T04:11:06.487-04:00Comments on The Smithy: Divine Simplicity ILee Faberhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00476833516234522602noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2472139466585018053.post-81000833455239151102010-11-24T16:13:56.500-05:002010-11-24T16:13:56.500-05:00That argument is also found in various forms in Aq...That argument is also found in various forms in Aquinas. It presupposes that substances are composed of matter and form, sure, and so a broadly Aristotelian outlook. It could be reduced to a prior principle of 'nothing causes itself'. Postulating a "brute fact" certainly is begging the question; I don't see how something that is contingent could also be uncaused; if it could have been otherwise, why wasn't it?<br /><br />The Proof is more of the same: substances are composed of matter and form, but these are parts, and so there must be some prior entity that will compose them. Causality of Matter and form introduce imperfection, while final and efficient causality do not. Again, he is presupposing broadly ARistotelian notions; if you don't accept them, you probably won't accept the general proof.Lee Faberhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00476833516234522602noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2472139466585018053.post-44161050392759459492010-11-20T06:55:02.967-05:002010-11-20T06:55:02.967-05:00I really appreciate you posting these, and transla...I really appreciate you posting these, and translating them to be so clear and concise. It's a real help.<br /><br />With that said, in set A, syllogism 1, premise 1 seems to be begging the question to me. It seems possible to have a "brute fact", that is, an uncaused contingent fact; and I'm not too sure I have a proper understanding of his proof for 1. Think you can help me out here?awatkins909https://www.blogger.com/profile/04272494240109130737noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2472139466585018053.post-43593171684512928722010-11-19T13:28:47.262-05:002010-11-19T13:28:47.262-05:00No need. It's already been reviewed several ti...No need. It's already been reviewed several times. My remark was directed at his view that simplicity in the cappadocians is an activity, something he claims is missing in the west, because he takes Aquinas as the paradigm case of the west.Lee Faberhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00476833516234522602noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2472139466585018053.post-11630250669191635052010-11-18T18:12:50.213-05:002010-11-18T18:12:50.213-05:00Perhaps a review of David Bradshaw's book with...Perhaps a review of David Bradshaw's book with you main points of criticism are in order?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com