Whether Nature Exists?

Wednesday, October 10, 2007 — Anthony Paul Smith

Objection 1: It seems that Nature does not exist; because if one of two contraries be infinite, the other would be altogther destroyed. By the word “Nature” means that she is infinte disregard. If, therefore, Nature existed, there would be no good discoverable; but there is good in the world. Therefore Nature does not exist.

Posted in nature. 13 Comments »

13 Responses to “Whether Nature Exists?”

  1. Lou Deeptrek Says:
    Wednesday, October 10, 2007 at 10:15 am

    Come again? Is this a quotation of some kind? What does the sentence “because if one of two contraries be infinite, the other would be altogether destroyed” mean? Or this sentence: “By the word ‘Nature’ means that she is infinite disregard.”? Who means that? You are responsible for a very very confused morning – but it sounds promising…

  2. Craig Says:
    Wednesday, October 10, 2007 at 12:08 pm

    I’m with Lou – the paragraph is altogether too condensed! I’m interested in the topic – I’ve been thinking a lot about the idea of “nature” in the “state of nature” scenario used in the late seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries. Likely not the nature you’re talking about, though.

  3. discard Says:
    Wednesday, October 10, 2007 at 12:23 pm

    Been hanging around all those Thomists too long?

  4. Mikhail Emelianov Says:
    Wednesday, October 10, 2007 at 12:29 pm

    Ha Lou, you’ve discovered this blog as well – myself I wonder if this issue was partly addressed, if not solved, by the Great Prussian with his discussion of the “world” – but, of course, it will all depend on what the hell this “Objection 1″ paragraph means – on the lighter note, I do hope that the old Scholastic jargon makes a triumphant return…

  5. Anthony Paul Smith Says:
    Wednesday, October 10, 2007 at 12:36 pm

    discard wins the prize.

    I’ll try to update this tomorrow. It might help if you know that one of the problems I’m looking at that I think complicates philosophy of religion and philosophy of nature is the problem of evil. Think of this as a kind of mash-up of Thomas and Spinoza.

  6. Lou Deeptrek Says:
    Wednesday, October 10, 2007 at 12:40 pm

    how about some Leibniz too then? Leibniz is the shit when it comes to the problem of evil, me thinks…

  7. Anthony Paul Smith Says:
    Wednesday, October 10, 2007 at 12:47 pm

    I don’t know how much I buy the best of all possible worlds thing.

  8. Daniel Says:
    Wednesday, October 10, 2007 at 1:14 pm

    I really “On the Miscarriage of all Philosophical Trials in Theodicy”. Though I suppose Kant doesn’t tend to play very well with others.

  9. Daniel Says:
    Wednesday, October 10, 2007 at 1:15 pm

    *really liked. As a way of making the problem of evil not so problematic.

  10. Lou Deeptrek Says:
    Wednesday, October 10, 2007 at 2:30 pm

    i think “the best of possible worlds” thing is definitely underappreciated – it’s solid in its theological oomph and, at the very least, shows some dedication to the argument – but i suppose we’re getting ahead of ourselves here…

  11. Dave Belcher Says:
    Friday, October 12, 2007 at 3:57 pm

    I suppose my question is, where is the rest of the article–specifically the reply to objection 1 and the “I answer that…”?!

  12. Mark Says:
    Wednesday, October 17, 2007 at 5:34 am

    whoops. I think you snuck in the whole “but” premiss so, I call shenanigans for begging the question.

    hiho


Comments are closed.

«

»
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,364 other followers