tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24504461.post7108176818252651937..comments2024-02-19T22:24:48.553-06:00Comments on Ite ad Thomam Institute: The Fourth Way in Syllogistic FormUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24504461.post-46669883191785381962010-02-21T19:01:29.602-06:002010-02-21T19:01:29.602-06:00@Michael - I do think that what you suggest is one...@Michael - I do think that what you suggest is one of the possible ways that one can reconcile the problem with the argument. However, it does bring up a much bigger problem. <br /><br />The statement that you quote seems to require us to view the 4th way through a highly Platonic lens. However much Thomas appropriated from both major schools of Neo-Platonism it is a rare case that he Br. Gabriel Thomas, OPhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16824006295974370765noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24504461.post-82028687290114886822010-02-21T11:44:39.314-06:002010-02-21T11:44:39.314-06:00Br. Gabriel,
There is no problem with the argumen...Br. Gabriel,<br /><br />There is no problem with the argument.<br /><br />The key to the proof is that transcendental perfections, unlike their variable counterparts, are not self-limiting. If what is not self-limiting is therefore found in limited form, this presents a problem the solution of which is the conclusion of this proof.<br /><br />As Fr. G.H. Joyce, S.J. explains:<br /><br />"Michaelnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24504461.post-31110027833878571822010-02-20T12:31:06.229-06:002010-02-20T12:31:06.229-06:00Allow me to restate the problems, as I see them.
...Allow me to restate the problems, as I see them.<br /><br />First, there is a problem with the Major Premise of Syllogism B (as you provide it). The reason why premise is false is due to Thomas' argument. Without going into the whole history of the problem of the 4th way (many contemporary students of Thomas have explained the problem) it is sufficient to note that Thomas (and all his Br. Gabriel Thomas, OPhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16824006295974370765noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24504461.post-12356306519003604052010-02-20T09:25:30.097-06:002010-02-20T09:25:30.097-06:00Your comment is a bit foggy and I'm not sure I...Your comment is a bit foggy and I'm not sure I understand whether you are saying:<br /><br />a) I misrepresented Aquinas' argument, or<br /><br />b) Aquinas' argument is not a sound argument.<br /><br />I assume that you mean (a). If that is the case, what exactly would be your suggestion? That is to say, please give me the correct form of syllogism so that I can correct what I'Don Pacohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13921692353515274589noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24504461.post-9501942309506744132010-02-19T22:59:23.838-06:002010-02-19T22:59:23.838-06:00I think there are a few problem with your syllogis...I think there are a few problem with your syllogism with reference to the so-called 4th way.<br /><br />1. I have to deny the Major of B. There is no necessity relationship between a perfection existing at its maximum and it being the cause of all perfections in its genus - save it being an exemplary cause. Thomas' use of the the perfections that are transendentals is important here. It Br. Gabriel Thomas, OPhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16824006295974370765noreply@blogger.com