My evaluation of Thomistic metaphysics begins where Feser does in his recent bookĀ Scholastic Metaphysics: A Contemporary Introduction, namely, with the theory of act and potency.* His chapter on this topic is 57 pages long, so I’ll need to break the topic down into parts. I’m going to parallel Feser’s section numbering to structure my discussion.ā¦ Read More »
This post begins a series on Thomistic Metaphysics. In this introductory post I explain my motivations in undertaking this series. (1) Better understanding I went to graduate school at Fordham University. It’s run by the Jesuits, a Roman Catholic monastic order. And since Thomas Aquinas is in many respects “The Philosopher” of the Roman Catholicā¦ Read More »
This post continues a series on issues related toĀ truth. In previous posts I have looked at (a) the correspondence theory of truth and its relation to truthmaking, (b) disquotation principles, and (c) the conflict between correspondence and disquotation principles, to the detriment of the latter. In this post I want to look at a distinctionā¦ Read More »
In my previous two posts I have discussed the correspondence theory of truth and disquotation principles. In this post I’m going to use the former to argue against the latter.Ā More specifically, I’m going to argue that the “if and only if” of the disquotation principles should be merely an “only if”. In other words, insteadā¦ Read More »
In my previous post I talked about the correspondence theory of truth and its relation to truthmaker theory. I’m going to follow itĀ up with a series of posts on various issues concerning truth and ontology that I’ve been mulling over off-and-on over the past several years.Ā The current post concerns disquotation principles. I distinguish between sententialā¦ Read More »
What is the relation of truthmaker theory to the correspondence theory of truth? In a paper by William Lane Craig and David Hunt that I’ve just finished responding to in a series of posts (1, 2, 3, 4, and 5), they assert that It is ā¦ no part of the correspondence theory of truth thatā¦ Read More »
This is the fifth installment in a series of posts responding to a 2013Ā paperĀ by William Lane Craig and David Hunt (hereafter, C&H) entitled āPerils of the Open Roadā. In the paper C&H critique two papers defending open theism: a 2006Ā paperĀ (hereafter, RBB) that I co-wrote with Greg Boyd and Tom Belt entitled āOpen Theism, Omniscience, andā¦ Read More »
This is the fourthĀ installment in a series of posts in which I respond to a recent 2013Ā paperĀ entitled āPerils of the Open Roadā authored by William Lane Craig and David Hunt (hereafter, C&H).Ā In their paper C&H critique two papers defending open theism: a 2006Ā paperĀ (hereafter, RBB) that I co-wrote with Greg Boyd and Tom Belt entitled āOpenā¦ Read More »
Among open theists there has been a running in-house debate between what I will call the “passibilist” and “impassibilist” camps. T. C. Moore has lately been leading the charge on behalf of the passibilists, while Tom Belt and Dwayne Polk have been leading the charge for the impassibilists. (As noted below, by “passibilism” and “impassibilism”ā¦ Read More »
Alex Pruss recently posted an interesting new objection to alethic openness at his blog. His argument is not that long, so for convenience I’ll reproduce it here. According to open future views, the proposition that in 2015 a fair and indeterministic coin lands heads has some probability but is not true. However, that proposition isā¦ Read More »