It seems that “things are the way they were a moment ago” isn’t the sort of thing that needs an explanation.
In the previous section, we saw that Aquinas assumed, as so many did, that objects in motion stop of their own accord, and need something to keep them going and that Newton showed that that’s not a general rule, it’s just the way things usually play out on Earth.įeser’s question here seems to stem from the same source: that there has to be some sustaining force for the universe to not collapse on itself and disappear in an instant. In particular, it must persist in existence from moment to moment. In order for the universe to undergo change, it obviously must exist. If you thought Feser’s “ Unmoved mover” argument was just mental masturbation, the sort of sophistry that gives philosophy a bad reputation and evokes the image of a tweed-wearing ivory tower professor using five-dollar words to ask meaningless questions, then you can skip his First Cause section, because it’s more of the same.
0 kommentar(er)
