Equivocity and Univocity in Language

Assignment #1

1.Three Examples of Equivocity and Univocity in language.

Equivocity: Three example terms of equivocity in language are chair, pitcher and screen. For example: John closed the screen on the window to block out the pestering sun. The goalie could not make the save because of a player creating a screen. The word screen in the first sentence means a device used to block the sun, commonly found on standard windows. The word screen in the second sentence means there was a player screening the goalie or blocking his view of the puck and so the goalie could not make the save.

Univocity: Three example terms are decaffeinated coffee, sun, and automobile. For example: The automobile is priced at $16,000. The blue automobile is the best looking one. The word automobile has the same meaning and so it is difficult to misinterpret in either sentence even though in one sentence the automobile is described by price and in another is described by color, the word means the same thing.

2.Definitions

Definition: Determining and explaining clearly a word’s meaning.

Essence: The makeup and nature of a particular thing. The qualities that make it what it is.

Argumentation: The process and formation of reasons and the determination of conclusions in order to apply them to a particular instance in a conversation.

Rational: Dependent upon facts and reason, not emotional states or feelings.

Ultimate: What occurs at the end of a process or at the end of several events.

Causes: The production of an effect, result or particular condition.

Effects: A change that occurs when something is carried out or occurs.

Knowledge: Information, understanding or skills that are obtained through experience and education.

Belief: A feeling of confidence and assurance that something is true, right or good.

Religion: The belief in God or different Gods, sometimes consisting of an organized system of beliefs accompanied by ceremonies and rules used in order to worship God or Gods.

God: The all-knowing and all-powerful spirit entity that is worshipped, particularly by the Abrahamic religions. Created the universe and is looked at as having tremendous power, strength, and knowledge.

Empirical: Based on observation or experience as well as a reliance on experience or observation. Capable of verification or disapproval through observation or experimentation.

Supersensible: A state above or beyond what is apparent to the senses.

Sensible: What is perceivable by the senses. Often accompanied by having or demonstrating good sense or judgment.

Qualitative Procedure: Procedure used to be able to relate to how good something is.

Quantitative Procedure: Procedure used to be able to relate to how much of something there is.

Thing: An object, animal or substance of any kind. Little description of the item.

Faith: Beliefs that are strong, often towards the acceptance of the existence of God and consisting of a set of religious beliefs.

Science: Study of the natural world based on facts obtained through experimentation and observation. Consists of several disciplines such as biology, geology and/or chemistry.

Assignment #2

1. Chapter 2 examines what “being” really means. Is it a matter of recollection or imagination or more about what actually exists in reality? Several examples are given to illustrate this difference such as the idea of a house that has not been built but “exists” in the mind of the builder versus a house that is currently being lived in by people. The chapter goes further to suggest that not only are future “beings” part of this idea but also things that have long since passed such as empires, civilizations or deceased people. In other words, things that exist as “being” in the mind are cognitional because they are not physically present at the current time. Again, it is important to remember that something existing in reality versus in the mind is a radically different state of being, as explained in the zombie argument against physicalism.

Further along in the chapter, there are philosophical arguments brought to the forefront about how distinct the separation of reality from cognitional being really is. As mentioned, if a person, we would call delusional, is unable to differentiate between hallucination and reality, is what is in their minds cognitional or is it their reality? How much consideration can be given to something like this?

On page 35 there is a reference to an understanding that labels given to things of being do not intrinsically change the thing in question. So why would the cognitional or physical awareness of a thing change the concept of being? The objection says it wouldn’t. In addition, because cognitional recognition of being is dependent upon individual thought, there is concern that knowledge loses its appeal because in order for knowledge to have value, at least from one argument, the thing where the knowledge is based has to be consistent and applicable to reality. Also, it is important to remember that labels do not change the makeup of a thing. They are simply a tool used in cognitional remembrance of a particular thing. When the cognitional state kicks in and the labels have done their job, that’s when the thing comes into being again, at least when talking about being in the mind.

Page 36 examines the idealistic perspective which holds that being is held exclusively in a state of cognition. However, this goes against the concept of experiencing a thing in reality. The reference made to Aristotle’s view of knowledge, perception, opinion, and understanding explains this misconception. It is impossible to have cognitional knowledge of a thing without first having knowledge of it outside of the mind. The reason therefore why things can be brought into being in a cognitive fashion is because they were first experienced in reality.

Page 37 delves into the importance of distinguishing a thing from its actual being. The example used is an apple that has been labeled to be “red.” The distinction is an apple was an apple prior to humans labeling it so and adding the characteristic red.

In distinguishing between different kinds of being, in the mind versus, in reality, the two terms used are “real being” which is existence in reality and “being of reason” which is existence purely in the mind. The latter allows for concepts to be discussed that do not occur in reality but serve as good philosophical discussion. The example used is square and circle. Obviously, an object cannot be both but taking them and combining them in the mind has created the dilemma used to explain inconsistency: trying to fit a square peg into a round hole. In reality, this could not happen but in the mind, it is a good analogy for pointing out concepts in reality. Further, it is important to recognize that things, in reality, precede things in cognition. The example used in the chapter is Neptune existed in reality prior to an astronomer’s discovery of it. Again, this dismantles the idealistic notion that things only exist in the mind.

2. Definitions

Fideism: Epistemological theory claiming that faith and reason are independent of each other, giving more weight to faith as the preferable method of reaching truths.

Rationalism: Epistemological theory claiming that reason is the primary foundation of knowledge.

Christian metaphysics: Places God as the beginning of being and existence.

Practical knowledge: Skills learned via repeated usage of invented concepts onto events in reality. Usually helps to broaden understanding.

Speculative knowledge: Theoretical knowledge, not rooted in experience but rather ideas and reflections.

Wonder: To be in awe and amazed, usually accompanied by feeling admiration.

3. Knowledge is useful because of its knowledge. As the Greeks said in reference to education to obtain an education because having an education is its own reward and for no other purpose. All knowledge is valuable even if it cannot be directly applied to anything in the real world because it still strengthens and expands the mind. As stated, the desire for knowledge makes knowledge useful. It can be argued that knowledge rooted in reality like practical knowledge is more beneficial because it deals with things in reality. Speculative knowledge, however, is also important because it is based in theory and can help expand on previously accepted, practical knowledge.

4. I think it is quite a stretch to make the claim that Christian metaphysics can exist without it having a religious angle. It might be possible through the use of semantics to label it spiritual but for all needed purposes, Christian metaphysics is a religious concept because of the injection of God into the equation. It is possible to have the idea of Christian metaphysics apply to other religions because the God in question is very much the same. However, Saint Augustine, for example, places God as the beginning of existence, the beginning of the state of being. When starting from that premise, it is relatively impossible to take the religious angle out of Christian metaphysics. In the job scenario, take a fast food worker for example. Someone working at the register might have a motive to do the job to make extra money, an income or just work through the summer. While the means for the production is to serve customers. For the customer, the job may represent that person’s ability to purchase and consume a food item. It is the difference between the individual’s reason versus the company and customer’s reason for the meaning of the job.

Assignment #3

1. The main consequence of metaphysics when there is nothing common is a lack of knowing where to build concepts and ideas upon. When realists say there is a link that is a giant leap to take without much of a foundation. Because metaphysics by its very nature depend on a belief in things not demonstrable in the material world, it is currently, impossible to link the non-material to the material at least in reality. In the mind, this is possible, as discussed in chapter 2, but a thing existing in the mind doesn’t bring it into being in reality. Santa Clause is a good example of an idea that can encompass both physical reality and the cognitional. Going to the mall around Christmas time there will be a physical Santa Clause so technically he does exist in reality. However, the cognitional idea of Santa Clause of the man who rides around in a sleigh with flying reindeer and manages to visit all of the houses in one night is purely a figment and lives only in the mind.

2.Definitions

Real being: Things that exist that are not dependent upon human thought to generate them into existence. They exist separately from what can be thought in the mind, whether or not they have ever been thought of doesn’t matter.

Cognitional being: Things that exist that are dependent upon human thought to generate them into existence. They can but don’t have to exist in reality. Anything has the potential to come into being in this way because the human mind can imagine countless things not rooted in reality.

The real thing: A thing that exists in reality, not dependent, though can be within the minds of human beings.

Cognitive thing: A thing that exists in the minds of human beings but may not exist in reality.

Real distinction: Often a label created by the human intellect to define a thing. However, the thing, for example: an apple was an apple prior to humans labeling it red and associating the color red with apples.

Conceptual distinction: A distinction that depends on a conceptual difference between the same thing.

Verbal distinction: A thing that is divided between at least two names and both names reference the same thing.

Why is the word ‘being’ ambiguous: It is ambiguous because there are multiple meanings for the word, it is not univocal. It can be used in the context of real or cognitional so it is not clear unless elaborated as to whether “being” is being discussed as a cognitional or real concept.

Assignment #4

1. In a conceptual sense yes a thing can exist without existing in reality. As Chapter 2 demonstrated, it is possible for things to exist cognitively such as envisioning a house that hasn’t been built yet. In a technical sense no. A thing does not exist if it is not in reality, even if it does exist in the mind. Therefore, it is important to distinguish between the two.

2. Yes, again Chapter 2 illustrated this with the example of Neptune. Neptune existed in reality long before astronomers knew of its existence. Things that exist in the mind may, in fact, exist in reality but the opposite is not true all of the time. At the very most, things that exist in the mind can take some credit for that thing’s eventual existence in reality. An example of this may be an artist who envisions a painting before it is actually completed. The existence of that work of art in the mind helped it eventually come into being in reality but envisioning that work of art in the mind alone doesn’t bring it into reality.

3. No, because a thing that doesn’t have being or existence simply is not existing or being in any sense.

4. Yes, a thing can exist (be) without existing in reality because that thing could exist in a cognitional sense, known as in the mind. It is also possible for a thing that previously only existed in the mind to then exist in reality. Many scientific ideas that eventually become theory or fact begin in the mind to test in reality. When a thing ceases to exist in reality, like an ancient civilization or a past event that is over with yes those things can exist in the mind as memories and recollections. Because these things existed in reality at one point, that makes those things forever established in reality, whether it is in the past or the present. Anything that is first established in reality can go on to exist within the minds of human beings.

5. The existence (being) in reality is more important for the simple reason that thing is real. In other words, the thing is not dependent upon human thought to generate it into existence. In the real world, it is then possible to deal with things existing in reality. While things that exist in a cognitive sense sometimes lead to eventual existence in reality, they have still imagined concepts and therefore have little to no use, at least when existing purely in the mind, in the real world.

6. Yes, for example, a human being can be defined in an extremely generalized way (being) through the simple same Homo sapiens or male and female. However, when looking at the individual person (thing that possesses being) there are a wide variation of differences. There are different cultures, religions, feelings, memories and experiences that make the possessor of being unique from the generalized definition of the actual being.

7. Anything and everything that currently exists in the real world or could eventually exist in the real world is another way to explain real being. Things that could exist in this category are more restricted because they are restrained by the real world and what is possible in reality.

8. Anything and everything that currently exists only in the mind or could eventually exist in the mind is another way to explain cognitive beings. Things that could exist in this category are less restricted because they are not restrained by the real world and what is possible in reality.

9. Cognition means a thing that is brought into being within the minds of human beings and is not contingent upon the real world.

10. Real being and cognitional being are separated by whether the thing in question can be either in the real world or just in the mind. It is important to note that a thing can exist both in the real world and in the mind. If a thing exists, in reality, it certainly exists in someone’s mind. However, a thing existing in the mind does not necessarily exist in reality.

Assignment #5

1. The Doctrine of the Four Causes is made up of four parts in Aristotle’s thought process. They are the Material cause, Formal cause, Efficient (Agent) cause, and the Theological (Final) cause. These four causes together are supposed to be able to answer in a generalized way the question of why. This doctrine has been applied to the modern sciences.

2. The Material cause is the first of four causes in the attempt to ascertain “why” something is the way it is. Does the Material cause simply mean what gave rise to the material itself? This cause obviously assumes a premise that every material has a cause. For example, the rock limestone is the material cause of marble through metamorphic transformation. In other words, marble that exists as a material thing came from the material cause of limestone.

3. The Formal cause is the second of four causes in the attempt to ascertain what something is. The Formal cause is, therefore “former” to whatever is being investigated. This causes attempts to figure out the essence of a thing and also illustrates the exemplary idea of a particular outcome. This cause can also be spotted in the definition of the Greek word logos.

4. The Efficient, or Agent cause, is the third of four causes and this causes attempts to explain by what means does this thing exist. This cause accounts for the first source of a thing as well as subsequent changes that may take place. It also takes into consideration the overall composition of a thing.

5. The Theological or Final cause, is the fourth of four causes and this cause tries to explain the meaning of a thing. Often this can be thought of as a “means to an end” cause because it is assumed that there is an overarching purpose to a thing. For example, a playwright composes a play for the sake of pleasing an audience or a chef prepares a meal for the sake of pleasing a diner.

6. Two internal causes of a house have to do with the materials necessary to construct a house. Therefore, two internal causes of a house could be the foundation such as wood or brick as well as the fixtures needed such as glass for the windows or tile or carpet for the flooring.

7. Two external causes of a house have to do with the outside factors necessary to construct a house. This means things needed outside of the actual makeup of the house itself. Therefore, two external causes of a house could be the actual builder or contractor of the house as well as a physical building permit. Both of these external causes are needed for the eventual house to be constructed.

8. The Theological or Final cause is the most important in the discussion of metaphysics because as Aristotle argued, the Final cause is necessary for the other three causes to follow in suit. Also, the Final cause attempts to drill down on why something exists as well as its purpose which is one of the driving forces in a conversation regarding metaphysics.

9. The question answered by the Material cause is why a thing is the way it is also included would be the physical makeup of a thing.

10. The question answered by the Formal cause is what made a thing the way it is, also known as what was the thoughts or ideas preceding the thing.

11. The question answered by the Efficient cause is what mechanism does a thing requires in order to exist. This is where the agent comes into play or the maker of a thing if we are talking about an artifact.

12. The Final cause is called the Theological cause and attempts to answer the question of why a thing has a purpose and also why a thing is necessary for its existence. This may, in fact, be the hardest question to answer.

13. An agent is an entity, the primary necessity of the efficiency cause that is able to do things or commit actions of their own accord.

14. An artifact is usually an object, probably created by an agent, which is consciously created for a reason.

Assignment # 6

1. Being does not involve any addition to a thing because the being is more like the possessed instead of the possessor. In other words, it is the first cause because without being there is nothing to build on from that. At least, this is assumed in order to build an argument beginning from being. Essentially the only precursor to the existence of a thing is the existence of other things that needed to exist before the other thing came into existence. Existence can be non-important if it is based mostly on the cognitive state rather than reality. Things come into being sometimes before they come into existence. In fact, a lot of the eventual existence of a thing depends on that existence being formed in the mind first. Most importantly, labeling a thing with conceptual ideas does not change its existence. Labeling the planet Mars red, for example, does not change its composition, shape or overall structure.

2. It is possible for existence to be non-essential if it is based within the mind for things in the mind that do not necessarily need to physically exist in reality. This applies not only to the concept of God but also to past events. It is possible to discuss things that no longer exist like past vacations, discussions, relationships and so on. Immanuel Kant was born on the 22nd of April in 1724 and was a very influential German philosopher in the variety of modern philosophy. He died on the 12th of February in 1804 within Prussia. Kant authored many important books, the most important being his Critique of Pure Reason which attempted to meld reason with experience and fix flaws existing in the relationship between metaphysics and traditional philosophy. A couple of other notable works by Kant are the Metaphysics of Morals, primarily focusing on ethics and the Critique of Judgment which examined aesthetics and teleology. Prior philosophers who influenced Kant were Aufklarer Christian Wolff and Jean-Jacques Rousseau. Thomas Aquinas was born on the 28th of January in 1225 and was a very influential philosopher in the field of scholasticism and was eventually uplifted to the status of the saint by the Catholic Church, thus his name Saint Thomas Aquinas. He died on the 7th of March in 1274. Aquinas authored many important books, two of the most important being Summa Theologica and Summa contra Gentiles. Though Summa Theologica was unfinished by Aquinas, it is very important, particularly to Western theology because it explains the reasoning behind all Christian concepts. Summa contra Gentiles meanwhile is related to his first because it attempts to defend the hostile history of Christianity, particularly against attacks from non-believers. Prior philosophers who influenced Aquinas were Aristotle and Plato. The existence (being) is important when discussing things rooted in reality. For example, it is important for there to be an image or the actual baseball field when trying to explain the rules to someone who doesn’t understand. In order for clarity to existing, there has to be a physical representation or the physical thing itself to teach from. When discussing conceptual ideas that are not necessarily rooted in reality, for example, a discussion about the latest Harry Potter or Lord of the Rings movie, there doesn’t need to be a Hogwarts or Middle Earth to have this discussion. It is enough for the concepts to existing only in the mind and not in reality.

3. Chapter 3 has to do with what being is.The chapter begins with an example given byImmanuel Kant with the one hundred dollars. Kant explains that one hundred dollars in the mind are just as real as one hundred dollars in reality, at least from a conceptual point of view. This calls into question the actual meaning of existence. While conceptually one hundred dollars is the same whether it’s in the mind or in reality obviously this is not true when it comes to the hundred dollars existing as an object. It is much more beneficial to a person to physically possess the money rather than only possess it in their mind.

In moving past pure conceptualization, Chapter 3 introduces the idea of judgment. This is essentially a person’s ability to ascertain and separate the “mind” one hundred dollars and the “physical” one hundred dollars. This is fundamental because with just relying on concepts, again the money is the same whether it’s in the mind or physical. To an extent, belief must be used also in order to accept the circumstance of a particular thing as Plato says near the bottom of page 46. While beliefs are not necessarily based on intellectual knowledge, they are still very important in judging what is rooted in the mind versus what is rooted in reality.

Beliefs are also differentiated in degree in Chapter 3. For example, a person’s belief, sometimes crossing over into faith in the acceptance of Angels or God is not the same as a person’s belief that they are currently having a conversation with Joe who is standing right in front of them. Again, it is shown that certain beliefs require more reliance on something other than the intellect whereas others rely much more on, sometimes almost exclusively on intellect as well as the senses.

Building upon the belief in a thing is the idea of human beings and their ability to analyze a particular thing’s nature. In most circumstances, the judging of the existence of a thing, as well as the understanding of the same thing’s nature, occurs at the same time because most beliefs are based on judgments and what can be perceived by the senses. In fact, these two processes of the human mind cannot exist without each other.

Further on in the chapter, there is a discussion about how complex being is. The first step is making a judgment as to whether or not a thing exists. If it does, there is then a process of explaining what it means for that thing to have been. In other words, what makes the thing what it is and the makeup of a thing is very complex. This is why the judgment of a thing is a complex concept. Time is also introduced and the main point within the chapter is that existence is primarily in the present. While things like houses and cars do not change from day-to-day as far as people perceive them, they do change in their existence because yesterday’s existence of a car is not the same as today’s existence of a car.

The diversity of being is also explained which connects with the time idea. Time is obviously always different and so being is always different. Being is very diverse even though humans have managed to create simplified concepts. Things are not the same across an infinite number of cases and within spans of time. Further, recognizing and labeling a thing as being is fundamentally different than understanding the makeup of a thing that is being. This is explained on page 55 with the distinction of a thing and its actual being.

Assignment #7

1. An example of the four causes is a sculptor working in a statue. The Material cause would be material needed for the statue, such as marble or bronze. The Formal cause would be what preceded the statue such as the idea inside the sculptor's head like the creation of a statue of Caesar. The Efficient cause would be what allowed this idea (the formal cause) to come into being. In the case of the creation of a statue that would be the sculptor because he/she is the artist behind the idea. The Final cause would be the result or the statue itself when it is finished. Whether or not everything requires an explanation largely depends on the time in which things are being explained. For example, a Final cause (the finished statue) would not have an explanation if the idea in question is in the Formal cause stage (imagined idea of the statue). Also, there is another factor to consider that not everything necessarily needs an Efficient cause or an agent. This is especially true if we are talking about agents as human beings. Phenomena occur without the use of humans such as the water cycle, erosion of landscapes and the formation of sedimentary, igneous and metamorphic rocks. If arguing that nature itself is an agent then yes. However, the answer to the question of whether each cause needs an explanation really depends on what is being explained at the time.

Assignment #8

1. Chapter 10 begins by explaining the essence. One of the defining factors of essence is whether or not to classify it as dependent or independent. This difference is based on in what way the being is possessed. Knowing whether to classify essence as dependent or independent depends on whether or not the being is unaltered when the essence is changed. For example, in the chapter, there is a reference to man’s skin changing in the summer. Because his being is not dependent upon a skin tone change, that alteration, in essence, would be dependent because it would be impossible for this change in skin tone to occur without the man existing. In other words, the alteration is dependent upon the man and not the other way around. Further, independent changes are referred to as substances whereas dependent ones are referred to as accidents.

In the explanation of substance, there is a differentiation into two principles, matter and form. The matter is free and has the ability to shift and take on a new form at any time. Form, meanwhile, is specific and does not have as much range for change. Thus, a change in form would change a thing’s very nature whereas a change in the matter would not change the nature of a thing. In combining nature, matter and form you get intrinsic causes. When lined up with Aristotle’s four causes, the matter is the Material cause and form is the Formal cause (these two causes are referred to as intrinsic). Meanwhile, the extrinsic causes are the Efficient (agent) cause and the Theological (final) cause.

Sensible things, in particular, are variable when matter takes on a new form a thing ceases to be what it was and becomes something different. The form, argues the chapter, is the cause of being itself. So again, when the form changes the nature of a thing changes. Because sensible things are subject to a wide degree of change and metamorphosis, they are analyzed as perishable. In the case of matter, however, material nature is considered very temporary and fleeting. Upon a thing of being reaching the Efficient cause, it is dependent upon that Efficient cause, usually a human being or a creator. Should that being not carry the idea to the Final cause, that thing would regress back to nothing. This is referred to as annihilation.

Despite the difference between matter and form, they are both considered substantial principles. Apart they are separate incomplete parts but melded together they are the completion of the essence. Both matter and form have the capability of taking on the primary role as the complete substance. Through completion, the nature is often referred to as a supposit. When a supposit is intellectual, it is called a person. Because a person is very complex consisting of virtually unlimited possibilities, it is not restricted to the category of a subsistence. Therefore, a person is not dependent upon another form of essence.

Chapter 11 titled Accidents begins with the explanation of etymology and dependence. Etymology begins where chapter 10 left off in restating that a change in a matter such as a body’s skin tone does not change the body itself. In other words, the nature of the body is not contingent upon those alterations or accidents. These are referred to as accidents because they do not directly affect the nature of the form, or the body of a person in this case. Further, concepts like skin tone are dependent on the mind and therefore are not independent of the substance.

Essence can also be dependent on sequence. For example, as stated in the chapter, redness is an essence and it depends on another essence (a body) to have the capacity to be red. Once again, a change in the body from saying pale to red does not change the nature of the body, it is rather a change in the essence. In going back to accidents, it is important to recognize that all accidents occur within subjects that are classified as substances and all accidents trigger a substance. However, not all accidents are innate when interacting with a particular thing. Basic accidents tend to be innate while complex ones may be classified differently. Accidents may also qualify as being because they do have existence even if it is often dependent upon its interactive substance. Often accidents cease to be while the host of the accidents continues on. For example, a man’s skin may be tan in the summer months (an accident) but when fall comes that tan leaves, therefore the accident ceases to be.

Accidents' existence are also contingent and representative of their respective nature. Because nature is the overarching power between the two, the nature will dictate the severity of the accident’s existence and play a large role in when that accident’s existence ceases. Further, a substance does not allow an accident to thwart its original nature. While accidents can play a secondary role, also considered a temporary role (skin tone changes) the accidents themselves do not affect or change the significant nature of the substance. However, a substance can, because accidents are secondary effects, “be” different in the secondary though this is a temporary change. Finally, an accident should be viewed as a being within a being and can be either innate or non-innate depending on its classification.

The natural things must have a maker question that resembles closely a commonly flawed argument called the watchmaker. Essentially this argument states that because there appears to be a design there must, therefore, be a designer. The word appears is key because it should not be assumed that just because something looks like it was designed that it is. Again, looking to nature, there were no agents. In using my definition of an agent above, “an agent is an entity that is able to do things or commit actions of their own accord.” If an entity implies any form with an intellectual capability, then it is obvious that not everything in nature has a maker. For example, the landscape of the Earth, oceans, and landmasses, etc. did not have an agent committing actions to create these things in nature. At least, there is no specific evidence for this, if there were it would most likely coincide with the argument for the existence of God. Also, since God is classified as supernatural, it doesn’t coincide with the natural occurrence of these things. God used to be the explanation for storms or natural disasters and now there is a natural explanation for these naturally occurring phenomena. These things occurred within nature but without a maker, at least not an identifiable marker. Therefore, I agree with realist’s position. It should not be assumed that all things in the natural world have a maker. In other words, an argument should not start from that premise.

Turning to category-error, it is easy to the need of a maker in the natural world as well as for artifacts. Artifacts, as defined above, “usually an object, probably created by an agent, which is consciously created for a reason.” Here we have an object, created by an agent and consciously created. Examples of these could be a symphony, sculpture, house, car, or plane. These artifacts have makers. However, natural world occurrences like the different bodies of water or the Appalachian Mountain range on Earth are not equivalent in comparison. While it is possible that occurrences in the natural world have a maker like artifacts do it should not be treated in the same way because there is evidence lacking for this claim. Therefore, it is a category error to equate them.

Assignment #9

1. Real existence is accidental to a thing because things exist outside what is natural of any sensible thing. This is why existence is accidental, in order for it not to be a thing would have to exist inside what is the nature of a being.

2. Real being (existence) is not a predicate because there has to be an assumption of real being and so there cannot be a predicate. Otherwise, there would be nothing to work from.

3. The distinguishing feature of an accident is dependent upon something, it cannot stand alone. It can be thought of as an attachment to a being or a being within a being.

4. A prior accident is an accident that exists independent of needed experience.

5. A posterior accident is an accident that exists dependent upon experience.

6. The meaning of the words prior are posterior are prior to meaning known from before and posterior meaning known from after.

7. Speaking of temporal priority means witnessing a thing come into being but it is not clear what the original cause is for that being. It also encompasses the past, present, and future.

8. Metaphysical priority means a single and simple principle that explains regression, metamorphosis, and counters all nullification. Also because it is called Metaphysical “prior”ity there is an implication that this is the knowledge that is independent of needed experience. This suggests that Metaphysical priority is self-evident and precedes substance qualities.

9. Assuming there is a first cause, as chapter 6 demonstrates, existence is a prior and posterior accident at the same time because the accident and the nature, at least in the beginning occurred simultaneously.

10. The premises that establish that natural things must have an efficient cause are that everything that is in existence had an efficient cause or an agent preceding it. However, there is an argument for a first cause because there had to, in theory, be a cause that did not need an agent preceding it.

Assignment #10

1. Chapter 25 begins by explaining that knowledge of God is beyond the ability of the human mind because God cannot be defined and it is not known what divine existence really is anyway. In further explanation, divine existence is purely conceptual and holds existence in a cognitive sense. In addition, there is nothing to compare the idea of God in order to conceptualize and come to a knowledgeable understanding of what divine existence really is. Since nature cannot be ascertained, it would be inappropriate to label God as a first cause in the continuous problem of ascertaining the first cause.

Essentially the problem lies in the inability of human beings to realize what perfection and goodness mean on a divine level. Because we are natural beings, it makes sense that a natural idea could not be applied to a supernatural idea. It is quite similar to comparing apples and oranges which is suggested in chapter 25 through the appeal to stretching intellect beyond its capabilities with the introduction of the supernatural. It is also difficult to grasp God because there is no relatable idea to God other than God and since the idea of God is by definition outside of the capacity of the human intellect, how is it possible to perceive and understand God? However, it is important to note that a term like perfection can apply to both the natural and supernatural because perfection is perfection but the concept changes when what it is being applied to changes. It is, therefore, inconsistent to compare a natural perfection with a supernatural perfection and pretend that they are compatible.

One of the first labels explained in the chapter that is given to God is that God must be a spiritual entity because God is free from any kind of material restraints. This allows humans to uplift and categorize God as something beyond the material world, yet never knowing exactly what that is composed of. God also has the ability to ascertain and understand not just essential but all essences spanning all creatures. Also, because the existence of God transcends time, the understanding of God also transcends time and knowledge is readily understood no matter what period of time is brought in for examination.

The question is brought up in the chapter that even though God’s knowledge of all things that have occurred, are occurring and will occur is perfect, what about things that may have happened but never did? Are things that never come to pass known by God?

It is also explained that humans, in the mind of God, are assumed to be the dominant life form, overriding the interests of plant life and other animal life because human beings exist for God’s purpose. However, because God exists in the supernatural, it is needed in the natural world in which humans live for there to be governments and bodies of law. This, the chapter says, is where evil and free will come into play. It is argued further that the necessary evils of the physical world are sacrificed for the overall importance of the spiritual.

Because of this importance of spirituality, it is also mentioned that agents (humans) acting “freely” are still being influenced by God yet at the same time allows for the decisions made by humans to be of their own accord. Essentially, decisions made are also followed by consequences that are the responsibility of the agent themselves. Finally, the chapter ends with a reminiscence of the beginning in stating that humans are aware and know that God is guiding these actions while still allowing for the free decision but humans cannot know, because God is on another plane in being a supernatural entity what the interworking of this guidance by God actually entails.

Assignment #11 (Multiple Choice Questions)

1. According to your author, the view that natural things must have an efficient cause is: A self-evident truth; B first principle, C conclusion of an argument or D true because God is the cause of all things ultimately.

2. Prior and posterior can only mean one thing exists at one time while another thing exists at a different time. A. True; B. False

3. For realists, the discussion about the accidentally and priority of serving as: A. Premises, B. conclusions, C. a and b, D. immediately known data

4. Everything in the “perceptual field” must-have existence accidentally. Realists would agree. A. True, B. False

5. In the “perceptual field” the sensible thing is perceived A. at the same time as the other items in the perceptual field, B. at different times as the other items in the perceptual field, C. by the same means of knowledge as are the sense feature that is known

6. According to realists, the chief feature of an accident is A. dependence; B. independence; C a and b; D. its identity with the sensible thing itself.

7. For realists, existence is nonessential A. True; B. False

8. Whatever there is in a thing that is outside its essence belongs to that thing A. accidentally; B. substantially; C neither a nor b; D separated from the thing itself temporally; E. None of these.

9.“Now every essence can be understood without anything being known of its existing. I can know what a man or a cat is and still be ignorant of whether it exists in reality. From this, it is clear that existence is another essence” Realists would agree. A. True B. False

10. For realists, every sensible substance is prior to its real being A. True B. False.