Відео

Saying that someone "should know" is an infinite regress, because obviously they don't know that they should know. Your examples also assume that the bad-actor (de Medici) knows that usury is wrong.

Around 12:30, how does the will fail to consider something? I thought the will selects what the intellect presents to it as the best good. The will doesn't have contemplative properties, does it? Only the intellect can contemplate. Thoughts?

I guess it all depends on what your definition of "is" is.

6:24 bookmark

2:02 bookmark

Can you prove that whatever is unmoved mover is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, unique, simple, and perfect?

Is this teaching a part of the Trivium and Quadrivium?

Thank you very much make more videos please

Thank you!

Has anyone worked on the Aristotle Topics or art of Dialectic? I find the topics hard to understand

Good lecture. I just know that everything that exists is good since God's created them.

Another topic for future video… What virtues/vices effect each faculty?

Your videos are by far the best by virtue of precision that gives rise to clarity. I have watched just about everything on UA-cam/Spotify in the realm of thomism (1000s of hours) and your videos have helped me more than all of the videos/podcasts combined. I was wondering if you could possibly do a future video on this topic… - 7 deadly sins and their daughters / virtues that correspond to them - Gifts and fruits of Holy Spirit - 64 virtues and consequent vices (Fr. Ripperger has a list) I read almost entirely 3 authors and those are St. Thomas Aquinas, Aristotle and Fr Ripperger. If you haven’t already give this book a read. - Introduction into the science of mental health -Fr Ripperger I am interested in this topic above as this would help in a more concrete and practical manner with many individuals… especially those who are idiots when it comes to philosophy/theology truth and putting that truth into the concrete (I’m one of those idiots lol). Here’s an example, let’s say I struggle with x vice and I have x daughters. The corresponding virtue to that vice/daughter would be x. Thank you for all your work you have done! Always remember to follow the truth no matter the personal consequences! God bless!

What program did you use to create slides like these

I don't understand how "white" is a property of swans. Isn't "not found outside the species" part of the definition of property"? There's plenty of white species.

The conversion of a universal affirmative ("Every swan is white") is a particular affirmative ("Something white is a swan")? I'm not willing to accept that because the latter requires swans to exist (at least if something white exists) but the original statement does or should not. Now, of course, we know that swans and white things exist, but the entire point of the exercise is to look at the structure only, so we should be able to say, neutrally, "Everything A is B" and the alleged conversion "Something B is A". Also, we can essentially define that "every A is B" shall imply that at least one A exists. But I don't think that's a good idea for the following reasons: FIrst, the conventions I personally know, e.g. in programming (all function in Haskell, std::all_of in C++) or first-order logic (∀x: A(x) → B(x) is true if there is no x such that A(x)) Second, in mathematics, it is quite useful to construct statements of the form "Every _something that doesn't exist_ is …" for the purpose of proof by contradiction. Third, and I admit that's rather technical, if we don't consider "Every A is B" to imply the existence of an A, and we need that, though, we can easily add an axiom to our axiomatic system that says "There is an A". However, if we do consider that "Every A is B" implies this and we do not want this additional axiom, we need to remove it with an implication: "If there is an A, then every A is B." and an implication translates to a disjunction ("There exists no A or every A is B."), which can't be a separate axiom because axioms are effectively combined in a conjunction (logical and). (Maybe I'm missing something, of course…)

is this from a book?

Thank you, Elliot, this is tremendously helpful for my study group!

This is another fantastic lecture and it has been very useful in helping to reinforce my learnings from Jensen's books on sin and natural law. Do you have any thoughts as to how to avoid an infinite regress of interactions between the intellect and will when considering sin as culpable ignorance? For instance, the final step appears to fall with the will in allowing substitution for a major premise (sins of weakness), a minor premise (sins of ignorance), or an entire syllogism (sins of malice). However, how can we avoid saying that the intellect could subsequently inform the will that avoiding this substitution would be a higher good? We might answer that the will has ceased this process, but one might object that the intellect could inform the will that avoiding cessation would be a higher good? This would lead to an infinite regress. Do we merely say the will's cessation of the process is an irreducible fact? I believe this culpable ignorance is understood as "choosing without a rule." However, I've really struggled with understanding 1.) how one can be culpable without ending the process with the intellect's information and 2.) how one can be free without ending the process with the will's choice. How do we reconcile this to allow for culpable freedom?

This is another outstanding presentation. I am enjoying all of your work. One question here: Do you feel the estimative power is involved in the training of the sense appetites? E.g., Are both being trained in concert? What do you feel is the relationship between these two powers in the acquisition of virtue?

These lectures are answeing questions ive been asking for a while thankyou

These are excellent lectures! I'm so glad I found them. I do have one question. At 30:02 you said, "the will cannot cause the body to do anything directly." Is there a way to align this with ST I Q82 a4: "Secondly, a thing is said to move as an agent, as what alters moves what is altered, and what impels moves what is impelled. In this way the will moves the intellect and all the powers of the soul" and "Therefore the will as agent moves all the powers of the soul to their respective acts, except the natural powers of the vegetative part, which are not subject to our will." Thank you!

This was very helpful. Thanks for the explanation! Hope you make many more of these.

Question: How does prime matter relate to the material cause? Aristotle uses the example of bronze being the material cause of the statue, but that seems like it is a per accidens material cause since "bronze" is not a requirement of making a statue a statue (unless of course if we were talking about a bronze statue rather than just a "statue"). Love your videos by the way.

What kind of being would color be, considering that light or electromagnetic radiation is not color neither contains color, it contains rather different wavelengths, frequencies, amplitudes of the electric and magnetic field in a spacial direction in time, so those would be the accidents of the substance "light", then in the human person who sees you have a sensitive power that receives and unifies those accidents through the eye, retina, cones, and all of that to bring about the perception of "color", which is also called "visible" light which means that it's a light that has to be perceived by vision in order to be such, plus you have the mediums in which light is carried and reflected on which are not color neither contain the accident of color within them, color occurs only when all of those things are in relationship with each other so color isn't a being in its own right but rather it is due to accidental relations within very specific substances in a very specific manner.

At 1:23, Occult means hidden. There’s nothing superstitious about. And metaphysics fall under Occult Science, because metaphysical things are not apparent, which means that it can’t be a science. In order for something to be scientific, you have to be able to empirically measure something.

I am having a trouble with the notion of "Color" because there is no color in the skin (using your example) neither color in the sight or the eye, neither color on the light or electromagnetic radiation, you get what we call "color" only when there is accidents in relation to each other, the power of sight + electromagnetic radiation (light) + and a medium through which the light travels and/or is reflected on (the skin for example). Color is also called "visible light" because for color to be a thing it needs the person with sight sensing electromagnetic radiation at a specific frequency as such and such "color". So color is not an actual thing in that or that substance but only exists through an accidental relation of sense power, the accidents of light and of the medium for light. Help me please ❤

Whoa ! Thank you. It will take me months to digest the basics of this. Anyone who grasped it on the first two or three watches - you must be brilliant beyond my imaginings ! But alas ! Where natural brilliance fails me. . . . hard work and devotion to comprehending this will prevail. . . .eventually I pray ! Thank you. I wish I had learned this at school. With the right teacher, this could have been made wonderful. Thank you for being the right teacher, albeit many decades after I wished I had learned this knowledge and developed my skills with the benefit of having known of it earlier! God Bless you and Peace be with you Dear Prof. Elliot Polsky and Friends reading this. AMAZING. I am addicted to this channel.

I was praying for some insight into how to communicate the distinction between law in ethics and law in theory and law in practice to explain a complex issue. This is an issue I have been wrestling with for many months. This most clear and brilliant presentation was literally an Answer to my Prayers. I have now watched it 5 times in the last 24 hours, and the presentation is so well done and so enjoyable and interesting, every time I have listened to it my notes have picked up on more issues which inspire even more questions. I can not thank you enough for the very great inspiration, brilliance and thought and care that has been put into this presentation. It is so beautifully done, I have even shared it with a Loved One who is was not deeply interested in the subject matter . . . . . . until now ! Peace be with you and may GOD Bless you abundantly. I can not quite express my gratitude enough, and the word Thank You after so many months of wrestling with the issue is well. . . . an answer to my prayers of many months !

Help!

Isn't saying a "Being is One" a tautology?

I became interested in the transcendentals thru Nietzsche ....but it's still abstract for me

🎯 Key Takeaways for quick navigation: 00:02 🧠 Thomas Aquinas defines three operations of intellect: simple apprehension, judgment, and knowledge by reasoning. 01:34 🧩 Syllogism components: premises (self-evident) and conclusion (non-self-evident). Terms are words/phrases within propositions. 03:03 💡 Self-evident propositions: predicate in subject's definition, subject in predicate's definition, or subject causes predicate. 04:13 ❌ Non-self-evident propositions: contingently true or dependent on prior self-evident propositions. 07:20 📊 Proving non-self-evident propositions: derive from self-evident premises, using logic and reasoning. 09:16 🎓 Understanding, science, and wisdom are intellectual virtues. Opinion, error, and fallacy are non-virtuous habits. 11:17 🤖 Science is an intellectual virtue that leads to knowledge through reasoning from self-evident principles. 14:12 🔬 Three types of science: Natural Philosophy (physics), Mathematics, and Metaphysics. 17:24 🌍 Distinguishing sciences by their object's separation from matter and motion. Individual matter, common matter, sensible matter, intelligible matter. 24:07 👼 Metaphysics studies being in general, separate from all matter. Positively immaterial (e.g., God) and neutrally immaterial (e.g., substance). 25:35 🔍 Sciences judge conclusions differently: natural philosophy uses external senses, mathematics uses imagination, metaphysics uses reason. 26:46 🌐 Mixed sciences combine principles from one science (e.g., math) to study objects of another science (e.g., biology). 27:30 🧠 Philosophy of the human person studies the soul as immaterial substance, differing from psychology's mixed science. 28:02 🔍 Metaphysics has four names: Metaphysics (after physics), Divine Science or Theology (study of God), First Philosophy (first causes), and Wisdom (first principles). 29:26 💭 Metaphysics consists of Critique (study of human knowledge), Ontology (principles of being), Usiology (study of sensible substances), and Natural Theology (study of immaterial substances). 30:26 📘 Logic is a liberal art and speculative science; studies spoken words to produce habits of clear and orderly thinking. 30:54 🔍 Logic studies beings as conceived by the mind, while metaphysics studies beings as they are in themselves outside the mind. 31:25 🕊️ Metaphysics (natural theology) studies God as a principle of sensible things; sacred theology (revealed theology) studies God based on revelation. Made with HARPA AI

Here is an attempt to symbolize some of the key problems with each of Aquinas' Five Ways using symbolic logic: First Way (Motion) 1. Everything that is moved is moved by another (premise) 1. There cannot be an infinite regress of movers (premise) 1. ∴ There must be an unmoved mover (from 1 and 2) Problem: 4\. ◇∃x(~Mx & ~∃yMyx) It is possible that there exists some x that is unmoved and yet there is no y that moves x In other words, premise 2 is questionable because it is possible for there to be an infinite regress of moved movers, without any unmoved mover. Second Way (Causation) 1. Everything that is caused is caused by another (premise) 1. There cannot be an infinite regress of causes (premise) 1. ∴ There must be an uncaused cause (from 1 and 2) Problem: 4. ◇∃x(~Cx & ~∃yCxy) It is possible that there exists some x that is uncaused and yet there is no y that causes x As with the First Way, premise 2 is doubtful because an infinite causal regress is possible. Third Way (Contingency) 1. Contingent beings exist (premise) 1. Contingent beings require a necessary being (premise) 1. ∴ A necessary being exists (from 1 and 2) Problem: 4. ~□∃xNx It is not necessary that a necessary being exists The move from contingent beings to a necessary being is invalid. The existence of contingency does not necessitate the existence of necessity. Fourth Way (Gradation) 1. Finite goods exist (premise) 1. Finite goods require a maximum good (premise) 1. ∴ An absolute maximum good exists (from 1 and 2) Problem: 4. ~□∃x(Mx & ∀y(My → x≥y)) It is not necessary that there exists some x that is maximally good such that x is greater than or equal to any other good y. An infinite regress of greater and greater finite goods is possible, without any absolute maximum good. Fifth Way (Teleology) 1. Non-intelligent things act towards ends (premise) 1. Non-intelligent things require an intelligent director (premise) 1. ∴ There exists an intelligent director of things (from 1 and 2) Problem: 4. ~□∃xDx It is not necessary that there exists some intelligent director x of things. The move from the apparent functionality of nature to a cosmic intelligent designer is invalid, since there may be naturalistic explanations for biological teleology.

Here is a comprehensive philosophical critique of the arguments for God's existence in Summa Theologica: First Way (Motion) - The argument relies on an outdated Aristotelian physics that viewed motion as a transition from potentiality to actuality. Modern physics rejects this framework. Motion can occur without external causes. - Even if we grant the principle that whatever is moved is moved by another, it does not logically follow that there must be an unmoved mover. There could be an infinite regress of moved movers, each moved by a prior cause. Aquinas gives no justification for rejecting such a series. - The argument illicitly moves from observable motions to an unobservable first mover. We have no empirical evidence of a first uncaused cause of motion. It is a metaphysical assumption. - The argument assumes that the first mover must be God. But even if we grant an unmoved mover, it need not have all the properties of God such as perfection, goodness, infinity etc. Second Way (Causation) - As with the first way, the argument relies on an outdated Aristotelian view of causation that is no longer accepted in modern science. Causes do not have to temporally precede effects. - There are credible modern cosmological theories, like eternal inflation, that posit infinite causal regresses. Aquinas gives no good reason to reject such theories out of hand. - The argument illicitly moves from observable chains of causation to an unobservable first cause. We have no empirical evidence of a first uncaused cause. It is a metaphysical assumption. - Even granting a first cause, it need not have the properties of God. It could simply be an impersonal necessary being. Third Way (Contingency) - The argument relies on an Aristotelian cosmology of necessity and contingency that does not match our modern understanding of the universe. - The argument illicitly moves from the existence of contingent beings to a necessary being. We have no empirical evidence of any non-contingent entities. It is a metaphysical assumption. - The argument equivocates between ontological necessity and causal necessity. Something may be necessary causally but still contingent ontologically. - Even granting a necessary being, it need not be God. It could simply be an impersonal ground of being. Fourth Way (Gradation) - The argument relies on an Aristotelian metaphysics of degrees of perfection that is questionable. There are other explanations for degrees besides exemplar causality. - The move from finite goods to an infinite good is invalid. Infinite regresses are possible, so no maximum is necessarily implied. - The maximum being inferred need not be God. It could simply be an impersonal absolute. The properties of goodness, knowledge, power are assumed rather than proven. Fifth Way (Teleology) - The argument relies on empirically questionable teleological explanations in biology. Most adaptation is explained by natural selection, not intentional design. - Even granting the analogy of design, at most this proves a designer, not necessarily God. We have no warrant to assign properties like perfection, infinity or creativity to the designer. - The argument illicitly moves from particular cases of apparent design in nature to a cosmic designer. Local adaptation does not imply cosmic teleology. In summary, Aquinas' five ways are based on Aristotelian metaphysics, science and logic that is outdated and empirically dubious. They rely on illicit moves from the observable world to unobservable metaphysical assumptions. And even granting their dubious premises, they do not lead specifically to the God of classical theism. At best, they point to an impersonal first cause, necessary being, maximum goodness or intelligent designer. Aquinas' arguments are ingenious products of their time, but they do not provide compelling reasons to believe in God from the perspective of modern philosophy and science.

Comment for traction

Comment for traction.

I hope that you'll get around to part 2 of this topic sometime! I'm very interested in the issue of tense, in particular.

I didn`t quite grasp how is ad unum different from ab uno. It seems like in the examples ad unum exploited both types of causality and ab uno exploited the final one, contrary to the description.

It is really enlightening class.. Pls upload

Can u upload st. Thomas Aquinas further part from summa theologia

2:35 i think a more appropriate way of converting those sentences with implicit copulas into senteces with explicit copulas is "Socrates is such that he sits" or "Squirrels are such that they eat". i think that because the terms "eat" and "eating" have slightly different meaning and i think it would be prefereable to preserve the meaning of each term of the sentence.

Haha, "the cloistered monk or nun has the highest degree of happiness." What a self-reductio ad absurdum!

How do I answer the question "what is philosophy"? It's not enough to answer "a theoratical activity"( as there are probably many other forms of theoratical activities). I know it from the account of St. Thomas in the Ethics as: oder that reason does not establish but beholds( natural philosophy). But it seems we'd have to introduce the historical aspect to set philosophy off from other forms of theoratical activity that arose in other parts of the world( for eg. in India). Anyway, how would you define "philosophy". And are there works on this? ( Btw you should post something on community post, that way the comment section will not get cluttered)

This was so helpful. Brilliant. Thank you.

13:11 bookmark

There are, I think, several problems with this. First, sins of malice appear to be sins of ignorance with respect to higher moral values. So, the difference between the two categories is unclear. But this projects a problem for the entire analysis of the issue, since the problem is that some people know the good and pursue the bad. Such a situation would not have existed if only ignorance, in some form or another, was at play. This is why Ayn Rand's analysis is better: it introduces the mechanism of evasion by which ignorance is deliberately created so as to do evil. And that grounds moral judgment, because evasion is the result of volition. Also, some of the examples are weird. Oedipus, to name one, can't have committed a sin precisely because of his ignorance. Ignorance of that kind is exempting of moral condemnation.

How did you make slides? 6:19 what do you mean here by fundemental? What makes something more fundemental than something else?

Brilliantly explained, I have been looking for someone to really explain these concepts

I am trying to find Parmenides's work on this. Is there a book name I can look up? Google isn't doing too well with me searching the quotes.