-Chomsky said we have no idea what matter is, and so talking about the difference between spirit and matter is like talking about the difference between spirit and ectoplasm. But this misses the crucial role that mechanism plays in our understanding of the physical or material. We know what machines are since they only exist through us, and the “physical” is, for us, a mechanism.
-If we really took the denial of mechanism seriously, we’d be asserting fundamentally uncontrollable powers.
-The condition for our making something is that the formal be accidental, i.e. that the thing in itself be other than its form and therefore other than the aspect under which it is understood. But “science” consists in understanding things so far as they can be made. Results must be public and reproducible.
-STA: Truth is relation to an intellect, but natural being does not have a per se relation to our intellect. “Science” proceeds as though it did, and so far as it succeeds, man takes on a divine role.
roblewis92 said,
March 3, 2013 at 6:32 pm
Hello,
I have written two blog posts criticizing what I see as errors in Aquinas’ system. I did this to see if anyone could answer these problems I was seeing when examining Aquinas. Could you read my posts and point out where I went wrong?
https://scholasticinquiry.wordpress.com/2013/02/11/analysis-of-aristotle-on-motion-and-aquinas-first-way/
https://scholasticinquiry.wordpress.com/2013/02/07/aquinas-contradictions/
Sincerely,
Rob Lewis