Whether Nature Exists?

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.

13 Responses to “Whether Nature Exists?”

  1. Lou Deeptrek Says:

    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:

    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:

    Been hanging around all those Thomists too long?

  4. Mikhail Emelianov Says:

    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:

    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:

    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:

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

  8. Daniel Says:

    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:

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

  10. Lou Deeptrek Says:

    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:

    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:

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


Comments are closed.