>Whatever is changing is being changed by something else.

>Whatever is changing is being changed by something else. If that by which it is changing is itself changed, then it too is being changed by something else. But this chain cannot be infinitely long
Really? What are you basing this on, vibes? Fat moron.

Beware Cat Shirt $21.68

Rise, Grind, Banana Find Shirt $21.68

Beware Cat Shirt $21.68

  1. 4 months ago
    Anonymous

    You can have infinite causal progress, but you can't logically have infinite causal regress, this is entry level shit the Greeks understood perfectly well.

    • 4 months ago
      Anonymous

      >You can have infinite causal progress, but you can't logically have infinite causal regress
      hurrrr

    • 4 months ago
      Anonymous

      >but you can't logically have infinite causal regress
      Because…?

      • 4 months ago
        Anonymous

        Because causality is not invariant when you reverse time, google "cosmological argument", "Prime Mover", or Aquinas' actual argument about this, which is, you will be shocked to discover, not well summarized by OP's fedora-tipping baitpost.

        • 4 months ago
          Anonymous

          >Because causality is not invariant when you reverse time

          Prove to me that this gif is in positive time and not in negative time then.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            Also, consider that the gif has a definite beginning and end, where at one end there is someone dropping the ball and, at the other end, someone catching the ball. You have no way of knowing if the ball is being dropped at the end of the video and it is running in negative time, or vice versa.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            Not op but that's not the same thing. This is an idealized scenario that's contrived to make your argument sound. It would have been better if you fielded an actual puzzle. Also this is easy to prove if you measured the temperature changes of the balls or the amplitude of the swings. What you are doing is almost like posting a video game play through and asking someone to prove that the characters are human.

      • 4 months ago
        Anonymous

        Because the Bible says that the universe had a start time ergo history is finite so you can't have an infinite series going backwards, and you can't have one going forwards because the Bible says that the universe has an end time.

        • 4 months ago
          Anonymous

          Google "Big Bang theory (not tv show)", you may be in for a shock.

          Also Aristotle was not, to the best of my knowledge, a Biblical literalist.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            Aristotle believed that we lived in an eternal uncreated world ruled over by 47-55 Gods who were the Olympians as described by Hesiod and Homer. Are you mistaking him for Aquinas? Aquinas was of the opinion that Aristotle was wrong and that we lived in a created world that had a set beginning and end whose precise dating could be known from the Bible, that was ruled over by the israeli tribal deity of volcanos, his son, and the smell that they make.

            My post only makes sense in the context of Aquinas, I imagined that you would infer that we were talking about Aquinas given that this is what the thread is about, and given that the Bible was written after Aristotle had died.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            >given that the Bible was written after Aristotle had died.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            aristotle died 37 years before the septuagint was written anon

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Aristotle believed that we lived in an eternal uncreated world ruled over by 47-55 Gods who were the Olympians
            https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unmoved_mover
            Aristotle (as I understand it) believed in an eternal temporal universe, everything moving in circular orbits for all time, but it still needed a causal beginning, outside of time. The prime mover, like The One of Plato and the neoplatonists, was at least a very close cousin of monotheism, which is a big reason the monotheistic religions found him so useful.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            >causal beginning, outside of time.
            Aristotle completely rejects this because he rejects the idea of there being an "outside". The Gods, who are the Unmoved Movers, are "inside" the universe with us. He sets up a whole ontology about why this is the case but tl;dr if the Gods were outside the universe then they couldn't get in to do stuff (the constant movement of the Gods is necessary for causality and natural phenomena; to use modern terminology, if Aphrodite wasn't moving around there'd be no gravity, and if Hermes wasn't moving then trees wouldn't grow). Likewise, if the universe had a beginning then there had to be a time when it didn't exist, but the Gods exist, which means that there would have to be a time when the Gods didn't exist. The Gods are part of the universe (because they exist), ergo the universe has always existed: at most you can argue that the contents of the sublunar realm have changed (Aristotle believed this).

            >The prime mover,
            According to Aristotle the Prime Move is Zeus, the God whose circle (they don't really "orbit", they move in circles) is farthest from the center of the Earth. He's the biggest (okay well his body is the smallest but his mind is the biggest), but is otherwise coequals with the other 46-54 Gods. Aristotle rejected the idea of The One on the grounds that he denied the univocity of being (you know how Christians argue over whether or not Yahweh created evil? Aristotle held the equivalent of "Yahweh did not create evil").

            >was at least a very close cousin of monotheism
            The One isn't a deity, it can't do anything because it only be. It can't do anything other than be because it is characterized only by being. If it could sit, then that meant that it could be not-sitting at some point, and The One cannot not do anything. The One's being emanates into multiple other entities (the Gods) so that there can be entities that can do something and not do something else. This is why Platonism (and Neoplatonism) are inherently polytheistic, as there's no room for any kind of oneness past The One.

            >which is a big reason the monotheistic religions found him so useful.
            Abrahamic neoplatonism got dropped pretty early because it requires too many deviations from revealed texts. People have been reacting to Plato because he more or less founded Western philosophy, but they haven't been using him in any sort of earnestness.

  2. 4 months ago
    Anonymous

    He got pussy at the end of his life and that is why he uttered the straw comment.

  3. 4 months ago
    Anonymous

    Aquinas sounds a lot like Anselm here.
    The real question is can you know and navigate Change/Will?
    If not, then it's Nominalism.
    If yes, then you have Transcendence.

    • 4 months ago
      Anonymous

      Wrong board

      • 4 months ago
        Anonymous

        [...]

        • 4 months ago
          Anonymous

          you are sexually confused kek

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            Wow, that's some impressive psychological diagnosis from just a few words of mine on this sexless digital plane.
            Now let's see if you have any philosophical arguments...?

  4. 4 months ago
    Anonymous

    What if the thing changing and the thing changing it are one and the same?

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *