18, 19, etc.) of change as “the actualization of a potential.” But he does set forth and defend the theses that are specific to and indeed define any specifically Aristotelian version of rationalism, those of the theory of actual being and potential being, in short, of act and potency, and the distinction between them. In Five Proofs, to be sure, Feser does not so much set forth or defend such principles as he thinks and argues in accordance with them. It upholds, then, among other principles, the principle of non-contradiction, according to which no being can both be and not be, in any one respect and at any one time, and the principle of excluded middle, according to which all beings must either be or not be, in any one respect and at any one time. This metaphysics adheres to a resolute rationalism, according to which the real is intrinsically rational or, better, intelligible. Second, the book spells out a version of classical Aristotelian metaphysics or, more specifically, of the natural theology that the Aristotelian tradition thinks that that metaphysics includes. Even so, I do have some comments on the book I would like to offer, the first of which is that the book is extraordinarily well organized: Feser tells you in advance and clearly what he will do, does it, and then, periodically and helpfully, sums up where the argument stands, telling you what he thinks the book has done. I am therefore quite early on in my reading and reflecting upon the book. The book commands serious reading and serious reading is slow reading.
Edward Feser’s Five Proofs of the Existence of God* (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2017) has been out for a few weeks now, though I received my copy, ordered in June, just a few days ago.
0 kommentar(er)
