Why is the Fourth Way the LEAST Popular of St. Thomas' Five Ways? (Aquinas 101)

Подписаться 126 тыс.

Просмотров 12 тыс.

50% 1

⭐️ Donate $5 today to help keep these videos FREE for everyone! You can pay it forward for the next viewer: go.thomisticinstitute.org/don...
How does St. Thomas' Fourth Way prove the existence of God through gradations of being? Why is this argument thought to be the least popular of St. Thomas Aquinas' Five Ways? In this episode of Aquinas 101: The Five Ways, join Fr. Ambrose Little, O.P., a Dominican friar from the Province of St. Joseph, as he presents an introduction to how St. Thomas' Fourth Way for proving the existence of God works.
This video is an excerpt from Lesson 10: The Least Popular of St. Thomas' Five Ways (Aquinas 101) by Fr. Ambrose Little, O.P. To explore the complete module, including supplemental readings and lectures, click here: aquinas101.thomisticinstitute...
For readings, podcasts, and more videos like this, go to www.Aquinas101.com. While you’re there, be sure to sign up for one of our free video courses on Aquinas. And don’t forget to like and share with your friends, because it matters what you think!
Subscribe to our channel here:
ru-vid.com...
--
Aquinas 101 is a project of the Thomistic Institute that seeks to promote Catholic truth through short, engaging video lessons. You can browse earlier videos at your own pace or enroll in one of our Aquinas 101 email courses on St. Thomas Aquinas and his masterwork, the Summa Theologiae. In these courses, you'll learn from expert scientists, philosophers, and theologians-including Dominican friars from the Province of St. Joseph.
Enroll in Aquinas 101 to receive the latest videos, readings, and podcasts in your email inbox each week.
Sign up here: aquinas101.thomisticinstitute...
Help us film Aquinas 101!
Donate here: go.thomisticinstitute.org/don...
Want to represent the Thomistic Institute on your campus? Check out our online store!
Explore here: go.thomisticinstitute.org/sto...
Stay connected on social media:
/ thomisticinstitute
/ thomisticinstitute
/ thomisticinst
Visit us at: thomisticinstitute.org/
Dominican Friars: dominicanfriars.org/
#Aquinas101 #ThomisticInstitute #ThomasAquinas #Catholic

Опубликовано:

1 июл 2024

Ссылка:

Скачать:

Готовим ссылку...

Добавить в:

Мой плейлист

Посмотреть позже

Комментарии : 40

@thanderhop1489 11 месяцев назад

I'm excited to see how this goes. Gaven Kerr has a video discussing the 4th way with a particular interpretation of his that focuses on reducing the "per aliud" to the "per se." He thinks this is the sort of thing that St Thomas has in mind by "maximal" (e.g. the maximally hot is the per se hot, not the 10^100+ degree Celcius or something)

@ThomisticInstitute 11 месяцев назад

Glad to hear it! We'll have a few more videos on the Fourth Way coming out over the next few weeks, so stay tuned. Thanks for taking the time to watch and comment. May the Lord bless you!

@tomislavbrncic7337 11 месяцев назад

Awsome video, can't wait for the next one. It was really clear and easy to follow. Keep up the good work. God bless!

@ThomisticInstitute 11 месяцев назад

We're so happy to hear that the video was helpful! Thanks for taking the time to watch and comment. May the Lord bless you!

@robertvann7349 11 месяцев назад

@@ThomisticInstitute Dude you talk smack about the law of non-contradiction A isn't=to B objective absolutely true logic but don't know how to demonstrate absolute true logic. Dude make this go viral, demonstrate A=B not word OPINIONS LAW OF CONTRADICTION A=B IMPOSSIBLE CONTRADICTION SUBJECTIVE ILLOGICAL IMMORAL UNJUST ILLEGAL REASONING A non intelligence caused evolved = B the contradictory effect of intelligence This is A=B impossible contradiction subjective illogical immoral unjust illegal absurd confusing reason A nothing caused evolved = B the contradictory effect of something A=B impossible contradiction again As a scientist you better learn how to test a scientific hypothesis by using A=B impossible contradiction equation. In labs all day long A no brain organisms with dna reads never make a brainiac organism caused evolved into = A the effect of a no brainiac organism EVOLUTION is a false proposal easily debunked by A=B impossible contradiction subjective illogical immoral unjust illegal absurd confusing reason. Bro, your decieved and don't even know it. A God is a non-pacifist good just = B God is a pacifist good just A=B impossible contradiction A isn't=to B objective absolutely true logic EITHER A God is a non-pacifist good just OR B God is a pacifist good just Not both to avoid A=B impossible contradiction subjective illogical immoral unjust illegal absurd confusing reason Closing argument Your honor God, if you are A non-pacifist good just God that kills then to avoid A=B impossible contradiction B God that doesn't kill would be non good and unjust. Absurd God, if this were true God would have to B kill all humans because not killing like a pacifist would be immoral unjust and illegal, then God would have to commit suicide because killing is moral just legal HONORABLE death. Dude you better learn this or quit teaching, your a false teacher dude.❤😎👍😍

@robertvann7349 11 месяцев назад

Read my comment for real truth.❤😎👍😍

@kielgillard4862 11 месяцев назад

Great video! Very much looking forward to the rest of this series.

@ThomisticInstitute 11 месяцев назад

We're so glad to hear it! Thanks for taking the time to watch and comment. May the Lord bless you!

@antoniomoyal 11 месяцев назад

Brilliant as usual For me this fourth argument is the most compelling, as it foes not need to explain the impossibility of an actual set of infinite causes

@roisinpatriciagaffney4087 11 месяцев назад

Thank you, Father Little. Almighty God bless you.

@ThomisticInstitute 10 месяцев назад

You're welcome! Thanks for taking the time to watch and comment. May the Lord bless you!

@jsaff4391 11 месяцев назад

This proof is entirely underrated, in my opinion. It is a powerful argument, and I think it is helpful to juxtapose the proof with chapter I of St. Anselm's Monologion. In the last two paragraphs, Anselm writes: "But, since the reasoning which we have observed is in no wise refutable, necessarily, again, all things, whether useful or honorable, if they are truly good, are good through that same being through which all goods exist, whatever that being is. But who can doubt this very being, through which all goods exist, to be a great good? This must be, then, a good through itself, since ever other good is through it. It follows, therefore, that all other goods are good through another being than that which they themselves are, and this being alone is good through itself. Hence, this alone is supremely good, which is alone good through itself. For it is supreme, in that it so surpasses other beings, that it is neither equalled nor excelled. But that which is supremely good is also supremely great. There is, therefore, some one being which is supremely good, and supremely great, that is, the highest of all existing beings." It seems to me Aquinas has this sort of thinking in mind. He wants to ask, "why are some things more or less good, true, one (simple) or beautiful? And he wants to ask what causes these transcendental qualities in various degrees? As is the case with the prior 3 proofs, the argument can only be established by refuting infinite regress, thereby establishing with Anselm that God is the first cause whose goodness, truth, simplicity (unity) and beauty are not caused by or exist for something else. The proof expands upon the conclusion from the third way, that God is necessary being. Otherwise, nothing would be more or less true, good, beautiful and the like. We can adapt this proof to any experience of beauty, unity/simplicity (why are all substances a unity of substances in composite wholes to varying degrees?), or things more or less true...

@michaelrobbins7220 11 месяцев назад

I love the "hypothetical" Fr. Thomas Joseph who is shorter than the "hypothetical" Fr. Dominic, who is shorter than the "hypothetical" Fr. Ambrose.

@ultimateoriginalgod 11 месяцев назад

The least favourite of others, but my personal favourite

@ThomisticInstitute 11 месяцев назад

We're glad to hear it! Thanks for taking the time to watch and comment. May the Lord bless you!

@xaviervelascosuarez 5 месяцев назад

Thank you very much for such a neat presentation. I particularly enjoyed the slideshow. Very well put together! I think this might be the most intuitive of the five ways. My memory is not very accurate, but I remember being taught this way as *degrees of perfection* . Of course, the field of analysis is, as usual in Thomas, the field of being and, hence, this would translate as the need for a most perfect being. Is it the same to say "the being with most _being_ " or "the most perfect being"? My intuitive guess is that Saint Thomas wasn't keen on putting God "in a field of being" as one more being among others. I understand that concern, but it seems to me that speaking of degrees of perfection might be more accessible to the common person. The caveat about the impossibility of capturing God within a category can (and must) always be introduced at a different time. And I think the example of fire can be very helpful here, as it intuitively feels wrong to frame it within a category of "hot things." It doesn't feel right to say "fire is one hot thing among other hot things."

@MBarberfan4life 11 месяцев назад

Gradations/ways of being has actually become somewhat popular again, recently.

@FimiliarGalaxy9 11 месяцев назад

It’s my go to argument tbh

@laurentius.dominus 11 месяцев назад

It is amazing that the deepest and most important of all ways is the least popular. Without this way, practically, it is not understood how the others lead to God.

@thiagocastro1129 3 месяца назад

Thanks for the explanation! But I have one question about the first step. Consider, for example, a set of numbers: all the real numbers in the interval [0, 2). If we consider just a finite amount of numbers, we can find the greatest. However, if we consider all numbers in this set, there is no greatest number. As such, would the first step be limited to comparisson between a finite number of things? If so, does that imply that the argument is based on the assumption that there is a finite quantity of beings to compare?

@JacksonD0716 11 месяцев назад

#AskAFriar What exactly is Sacred Scripture ontologically? How is Scripture distinguished from authoritative works such as the Catechism of the Catholic Church, or from works such as The Diary of St. Faustina (which holds weight due to the Church having infallibly declared her a saint)?

@reneelascala5050 10 месяцев назад

Apology for being fatuous, but I see reference to the Fourth Way in Renfield’s discussions with Dr Seward in “Dracula.”

@Levi-ht4st 11 месяцев назад

thanks

@ThomisticInstitute 11 месяцев назад

You're welcome! Thanks for taking the time to watch and comment. May the Lord bless you!

@sethapex9670 11 месяцев назад

Thomas Aquinas talks about things with maximum hotness, but he lived before the invention of Lasers, which have negative absolute temperatures, which are actually hotter than all positive temperatures.

@javif3915 11 месяцев назад

So if Fr. Thomas Joseph left the room and Fr. Dominic and Fr. Ambrose were left in the room, would that mean that Fr. Dominic is now short?😅

@jhoughjr1 10 месяцев назад

Can be he short in relation to himself though? I think that is a lot of what the argument points to.

@McRingil 8 месяцев назад

Fr. Ambrose looks like a true medieval monk.

@Enigmatic_philosopher 10 месяцев назад

Here is a philosophical critique of the discussion of Aquinas' Fourth Way in the video: - The argument relies on the key controversial premise that perfection implies existence. This is disputed in modern philosophy, as existence may not logically follow from conceptual coherence. - The video presenter does not justify the move from degrees of perfection to attributing supreme perfection to God. Concepts can have unlimited degrees without exemplification. - Equivocating between different meanings of perfection (moral, aesthetic, etc.) makes the reasoning excessively vague rather than rigorous. - Even if valid, identifying a most perfect entity does not necessarily entail this is the theistic God. Other conceptualizations of maximum perfection could fit. - The analogy to attributing maximum speed to a physical object is disanalogous to ontological perfection and existence. This can mislead more than clarify. - The Fourth Way fails to rule out alternative metaphysical systems without hierarchical degrees of perfection, or systems with infinite ascent of being. Overall, this presentation reveals how Aquinas' Fourth Way relies on a contentious assumption that perfection implies real existence. It does not succeed as a sound deductive argument when key objections go unaddressed.

@Enigmatic_philosopher 10 месяцев назад

Here is the Fourth Way as a syllogism to demonstrate problems: 1. Degrees of perfection exist 1. The maximum degree of perfection must be real. 1. Therefore, God (the maximally perfect being) exists. Formalized: 1. ∃xPx 1. Max(Px) → Ey 1. ∃y(Gy & Ey) Issues: - Premise 2 is unsupported, as maximal conceptual coherence does not guarantee existence. - The conclusion invalidly equates this maximum with God. Symbolic version: 1. ∃xPx 1. Max(Px) → Ey 1. ∃y(My & Ey) - Reveals the gap between absolute perfection and God's existence. The syllogistic structure demonstrates the flaws in reasoning from degrees of perfection to God's real existence. When symbolized, it becomes clearer that this is an unsound argument.

@alphazero5614 10 месяцев назад

- Aquinas does not assert a bare conceptual perfection necessitates existence, but that the nature of act and potency as formal/material causes demands a Pure Act exist as first efficient cause of all participated perfections below. - The “more/less perfect” gradation refers precisely to degrees of act and being, not equivocal perfections. Act’s communicability via causation demands a primary Act not constrained by receptivity. - Vagueness is avoided by analyzing perfection according to its precise metaphysical signification as a thing’s degree of actuation and participation in the ipsum esse subsistens. - While other concepts may analogously be called perfections, Thomism posits the fullness of act demanded by causal principles can only be possessed eminenter by the subsistent cause of all act, viz. God. - The speed analogy simply illustrates how potentials tend towards act via efficient causality just as matter seeks actuation, compelling inference to a Pure Actuality as causes’ cause. - Thomism also grounds promotion to ever “more being” via formal causality, not just efficient causes, requiring a source of all act to avoid infinite regress. The Fourth Way builds soundly upon principles of Saint Thomas’ philosophy of act and potency to delineate God metaphysically as source of all hierarchical perfections among caused beings. Prudently developed, its reasoning withstands objections raised.

@Enigmatic_philosopher 10 месяцев назад

@@alphazero5614 The comment makes some fair points about how Aquinas is using technical concepts like act/potency and degrees of perfection in a precise metaphysical sense. It argues these avoid the vagueness and equivocation I cite. However, it does not directly address my concern about perfection conceptually not necessitating existence. Similarly, noting act seeks actualization may clarify Aquinas' reasoning, but alone does not justify inferring a maximally perfect Pure Act. The comment does not directly tackle my objection that concepts can have unlimited degrees without real exemplification. The comment's contention that only God can possess fullness of act "eminently" begs the question if existence is not first established. My point stands that even if valid, a most perfect entity may not be the theistic God. The speed analogy does seem disanalogous, as I note, and the comment does not refute this. Likewise, for my concern about alternative metaphysical systems. While the comment elucidates some helpful context around Aquinas' metaphysics, it does not adequately resolve the core objection that perfection and existence are not necessarily linked. My critique that the Fourth Way fails as a deductive proof thus still stands, in my analysis. The commenter does not succeed in showing how Aquinas surmounts this philosophical gap. But I appreciate them engaging thoughtfully with my position.

@alphazero5614 10 месяцев назад

@@Enigmatic_philosopher The commenter? You are using ChatGPT, no wonder you do not make sense. The bot is wrong as Aquinas does not argue perfection necessitates existence conceptually, but rather through assessing the demands of key metaphysical principles involving act and potency as real causes. Inference is made not from abstract gradations but from causal relations. Aquinas would agree there are no limits to how we "can speak" of perfections, but metaphysics studies real rather than conceptual orders. His inference concerns what act demanded by formal/efficient causes actually requires to be. The bot says possibility alone does not establish philosophical necessity. But alternative accounts cannot harmonize act/potency and formal/efficient causality as coherently. Absent a superior metaphysics, we do not need to abandon probable axioms before new insights emerge. The speed case serves not as proof itself but illustration of tendencies in act identified through careful analysis of causality, matter's vegetative inclination towards actualization, etc. Taken with other elements, it adds plausibility without final demonstration. You're asking too much for ChatGPT, that single argument is not intended as a demonstration but contribution to an interconnected metaphysical framework built on causality.

@Enigmatic_philosopher 10 месяцев назад

@@alphazero5614 You saying I’m using a specific bot based off me referring to a comment left as a comment is a assertion that is still not justified. What you are saying appears to be summarizing and defending Aquinas' argument for the existence of God based on the concept of perfection implying existence. There are a few key philosophical issues worth examining: - The distinction made between conceptual and real orders is an important one in metaphysics. However, it's not clear that Aquinas only makes inferences about real rather than conceptual orders. His argument relies on conceptual analysis of what it means for something to be "most perfect" or "maximally great." The leap from conceptual to real existence requires further justification. - The defense that Aquinas is not arguing "from abstract gradations" but instead "from causal relations" is relevant. But the type of cause and effect relationship at play in this argument needs explication. Is the causal relationship logical, metaphysical, empirical? What kind of causality connects the concept of perfection to real existence? - Alternative metaphysical accounts are dismissed for not harmonizing act and potency as coherently. But coherence is not the only criterion by which to judge a metaphysics. Simplicity, explanatory scope, and correspondence to experience also matter. The text does not show why Aquinas' system is superior on these grounds. - The speed example is not fully explicated. How exactly does it illustrate the "tendencies in act" that are central to the argument? The connection between this example and the metaphysical principles in play needs clarification.

@Olivier1 11 месяцев назад

I'm not sure I understand this one. If we're talking in terms of being, shouldn't we settle first what it means "to be". Because there's always a possibility of facing something we cannot grade by our human senses, that is the soul, which is intimately tied with the body, which compose the person. I think step 2 is assuming the material and the immaterial are at the same footing and thus can be compared. Does a good-doing person exist more than an evil-doing person? Whether good or evil, you would definitely feel the consequences of the person’s actions 🤔. But rocks do exist, and do nothing to us even though they ARE rocks. 😵‍💫 Now, Jesus says we're worth than many sparrows, which I accept it by faith in his authority and knowledge. But I think there's a missing link in the discussion as to what makes someone have more being than another. Can someone exist more? After death, parent / child relationships do not cease to exist, right?

@noobslayeru 11 месяцев назад

Well the hardest part to argue is of being being a property.

@MarshBrik 11 месяцев назад

gradation of being? degree of being? among beings there are some less or more good and noble. but if it is possible to have a property in different amounts, then it is possible to have a property in the highest amount and the lowest amount. every continuum and hierarchy has a top and bottom, a limit or extreme. truth is a property of things. things can be less or more true so truth as a property of things has a hierarchy. the instance of maximum truth in the continuum/hierarchy of truth belongs to the being that is the cause of all truth in the genus but is there a max to every property that differs among things? is there a max height? a min height? we are concerned being so we what are concerned with what is. among what is, there will be a a max and min. there is a tallest man in the world. there is a shortest man in the world. there is also a tallest and shortest man in the room. aquinas in the fourth way does not begin with an absolute theoretical max. he is referring to the actual max among things that exist

@alphazero5614 10 месяцев назад

@@danubs8385 The argument centers on degrees of essence or quiddity, not accidental properties. A being's essence is determined by how fully it actuates its inherent potentials according to principles of act and potency which constitute its nature. Where act dominates to a greater extent, there is necessarily "more being" intrinsically. And since act is communicable through causality, this entails a causal hierarchy. Now were this essential, act-potency ordered series infinite in ascending perfection, it would undermine the primacy of act as a principle. For act to truly be prior as a causal factor determining essence, it must achieve pure unlimited actualization to serve as transcendent source grounding all finite act-potency compositions in the first place. Therefore, although quantitative series admit actual or conceptual infinity, essential gradation constituted through act and potency cannot allow this. A purely actualized maximum of being must be posited to serve as first efficient and formal cause conferring the dynamism of act upon every restricted admixture of potency in finite natures. I hope this explication of the argument's step clarifies the reasoning without shorthand notation.