NEXT BACK Forum                    WELCOME PAGE
Recent Posts

Philosophical musings on Quanta & Qualia;  Materialism & Spiritualism; Science & Religion; Pragmatism & Idealism, etc.


Next (right) Back (history)

   Post 113.  January 8, 2021 continued . . . .

  Aristotle and Einstein

   Potentiality and  Actuality

 Philosophers are more likely than scientists to ask “whether reality extends beyond the natural world”. Which raises the question of a possible super-natural or meta-physical realm. Feser boldly asserts that “metaphysics is concerned with all possible reality”. But, he doesn’t even include “supernatural” in his index. So, his arguments tend to avoid religious language, in favor of mundane philosophical and scientific terminology. And that is in keeping with my own preference. After the scientific Enlightenment, and the religious Reformation, any references to “metaphysics” became controversial. But Feser notes that “many claims today put forward as ‘scientific’ are in fact philosophical” — and metaphysical. Which is why I say that in 20th century Quantum Theory. Scientists crossed back over the forbidden line between Physics and Meta-Physics3.

Aristotle’s second volume, which later came to be labeled in sequence as “Metaphysics”, implied something more than merely “after” the volume on Physics (Nature). It seemed to point to something “beyond” the mere physical world. That’s because Vol II discussed, not concrete physical objects, but abstract subjective ideas about things-in-general, such as universal properties. Those abstractions4 exist only in minds capable of imagining concepts beyond mere sensory appear-ances. So some philosophers, such as Plato, came to believe that those abstract ideas are more real (significant to humans) than the mundane objects of reality, because they possessed almost unlimited Potential to enform5 actual things. But, Aristotle tried to bring Plato’s Forms6 back down to Earth, by defining them as embodied in the natural objects they enform in Reality. However, Feser notes that “the neglect of unreal Potentiality as a real feature of the world, and a middle ground between non-being on the one hand and actuality on the other”, caused the Pre-Socratic philosophers to be oblivious to such un-real-but-useful notions as “Infinity” and “Zero”.

The blindness of his predecessors toward how things come to exist may be why Aristotle placed such emphasis, in his Meta-physics, on the concepts of Potentiality & Actuality. That funda-mental distinction is also applicable to Universals & Particulars; Qualia & Quanta; Forms & Objects; Wholes & Holons. He also distinguished between Active Potency (capacity to bring about an effect) and Passive Potency (capacity to be affected). Yet, in his theory of Hylemorphism (matter + form), Aristotle blurred Plato’s distinction between Ideal (potential) “Form” and Real (actual) “Things”. Whereas Form is an intangible mental pattern of relationships, known only via inference, and Matter is known by its sensory appearance, Ari defined real things (beings) as enformed matter. According to Feser, “a corporeal substance is, to state things more precisely, a composite of prime matter and substantial form. But that much precision is usually only needed for contentious philosophical debates.

Aristotle’s catalog of categories is useful in discussions of physical objects (accidental forms) and metaphysical concepts (substantial forms). Plato’s notion of ideal Forms referred to the design concept of a potential thing, rather than the actual thing itself. In Physics, the actualizing force is typically labeled “Energy”, and the raw material to be formed is “Matter”. But, in the Enformationism thesis, the “determining” Form is called “EnFormAction”7the creative power to enform.                      Post 113 continued . . . click Next

4. Abstractions :
  1. the quality of dealing with ideas rather than events or objects.
   Even sensible character-istics are generalized to apply to all members of a species (universals). Collect-ively, those members are quantified in terms of abstract numbers. And their most general commonalities are then categorized as essential qualities of the species or kind. So, our distinctions between Real and Abstract are themselves only relatively true approximations of reality.

5. Enform :
    (Verb) – to form or fashion, to create. The act of con-verting an Ideal Form (design) into a Real thing. Also, to cause a meaningful idea (information) to occur in a mind.

6. Forms :
    “For Plato, forms, such as beauty, are more real than any objects that imitate them”.

7. EnFormAction :
     The creative power of Evolution; the power to enform; Logos; Change.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html


3. Meta-Physics :
   The branch of philosophy that examines the nature of reality, including the relationship between mind and matter, substance and attribute, fact and value.

1. Often dismissed by materialists as idle speculation on topics not amenable to empirical proof.
2. Aristotle divided his treatise on science into two parts. The world as-known-via-the-senses was labeled “physics” - what we call "Science" today. And the world as-known-by-the-mind, by reason, was labeled “metaphysics” - what we now call "Philosophy" .
3. Plato called the unseen world that hides behind the physical façade: “Ideal” as opposed to Real. For him, Ideal “forms” (concepts) were prior-to the Real “substance” (matter).
4. Physics refers to the things we perceive with the eye of the body. Meta-physics refers to the things we conceive with the eye of the mind. Meta-physics includes the properties, and qualities, and functions that make a thing what it is. Matter is just the clay from which a thing is made. Meta-physics is the design (form, purpose); physics is the product (shape, action). The act of creation brings an ideal design into actual existence. The design concept is the “formal” cause of the thing designed.
5. I use a hyphen in the spelling to indicate that I am not talking about Ghosts and Magic, but about Ontology (science of being)
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page14.html.


Aristotle’s Revenge
The Metaphysical Foundations  of Physical and Biological Science


Edward Feser
Philosopher of
Metaphysics & Natural Theology


“Aristotelian metaphysics is not only compatible with modern science, but is implicitly presupposed by modern science.

Potential (seed)

Versus

Actual (tree)

“Aboutness”