Author Topic: Atomism and unactualized actualizer  (Read 227 times)

TiCatho

  • Member
  • Posts: 1
    • View Profile
Atomism and unactualized actualizer
« on: October 16, 2020, 09:42:54 am »
Hello,

What's a good argument against atomism? I mean, sure, we have the potential-actual distinction, but if we look at it through the lens of atoms, everything can be studied as small particles moving (with a discretization of space if needed), and we have ample evidence of "things moving". Atoms are unchanging in themselves (partially actual?), and voilą... No need for an unactualized actualizer. :(
I fail to see how I can refute that. Help? What do I have wrong?

Thanks in advance. :)

tiCatho

ClassicalLiberal.Theist

  • Member
  • Posts: 31
    • View Profile
Re: Atomism and unactualized actualizer
« Reply #1 on: October 28, 2020, 05:56:06 pm »
The physical is by definition always divisible. For example, if I take a stick and cut it in half, I can then cut one of those in half, and then one of those in half, ad infinitum. Because physical things are the way they are, there can always in principle be a division between it. Therefore, every physical thing, just in terms of being physical, is composite. What this means then is that each physical whole is only in existence insofar as each one of its constituents continues to hold it in existence or cause it to be. Metaphysically, the potential for the whole is actualized by its parts. Therefore, you must appeal to something ontologically prior in order to explain its existence or we end up with a "brute fact" you might say.

A really important distinction to make when speaking of act and potency is the potential for accidental changes lets say (this involves moving up or down, left to right, etc. Any change something undergoes that is not a change in the thing itself), and the "potential for existence". There are things of derivative existence (books, particles, angels, atoms, etc), and things of underived existence (this is God). Given the analysis above, an atom is strictly speaking something of derivative existence because it must causally apeal to its structure. In order to satisfy the causal principle, you must at some point in the chain of continued actualization end up with something of underived existence. Sure, you can posit that in some way a physical thing can have no potentiality. There is nothing, as far as I can tell, logically wrong with that; however, given the reasons already stated, you will still need something causal prior to it in order to explain its existence as such.

Another classic thomistic appraoch, even though I am not a huge fan of it, would be to appeal to its metaphysical composition (technically, a composition of act and potency is a metaphysical composition, but that isn't what I am talking about). That is, to state that every physical thing is composed of matter and form (it has material existence, and has a physical/formal structure) or to state that every physical thing is composed of essence and existence (it exists, and it has a nature). In either case, you cannot appeal to one or the other to explain a physical things existence because you will end up with something circular: the form causes the matter to exist, which causes the form to exist, which causes the matter to exist, etc; its existence is caused by its essence, which is caused by its existence, which is caused by its essence, etc. You must then appeal to something which is not composed of form or matter, or of essence and existence. This is what we call, God.

It is important when talking about the argument from change to understand why change is spoken about at all. As I see it, change is simply talked about in order to establish the existence of act and potency. It is not the change itself which is important to the deduction, it is the metaphysical principles it demonstrates. When Feser (I am assuming you've read some of his work. If you haven't, you really should) talks about change, he doesn't really deduce God existence from that change, even if it seems like he is doing so. Rather, he deduces God existence using the metaphysical principles change proves, and uses them in a way to show that everything but God is only potentially in existence, whereas He is actually in existence; He is pure act.

Sorry for the long winded answer. This is something I struggled with for awhile and I feel a very thorough explanation is required. If you have any further questions or would like me to clarify something, I will be happy to respond.