tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5375330549366725595.post8235737289066740347..comments2023-11-26T21:30:21.796-08:00Comments on The Analytic Scholastic: Does Conceivability Entail Possibility?awatkins909http://www.blogger.com/profile/04272494240109130737noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5375330549366725595.post-14489717260145145142011-04-21T13:25:58.813-07:002011-04-21T13:25:58.813-07:00I think if we say some concept or idea c is concei...I think if we say some concept or idea c is conceivable we're saying that we can hold c in our head while c is in itself free of contradiction. If that condition holds for any c, the people we're arguing against here would say that c is possible. I think that sounds right--and "disjoint" worlds seem to fit the bill, no?<br /><br />BTW, you should check out the post Leo did on his blog. I think you'll like it as well.awatkins909https://www.blogger.com/profile/04272494240109130737noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5375330549366725595.post-78283934244700397632011-04-21T12:59:09.666-07:002011-04-21T12:59:09.666-07:00(8) is the lynchpin, and "conceive" is a...(8) is the lynchpin, and "conceive" is ambiguous. Being a fellow classical theist, I of course grant that there is a necessary being, and thus, I wouldn't be able to conceive of two disjoint worlds.Louishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07276304333361151814noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5375330549366725595.post-465545049075015552011-04-09T15:32:09.108-07:002011-04-09T15:32:09.108-07:00I have up on my blog another argument against the ...I have up on my blog another argument against the tie between the conceivable and the possible. Feel free to comment.Leohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06297966783686086577noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5375330549366725595.post-83465012677853601672011-04-09T14:55:51.875-07:002011-04-09T14:55:51.875-07:00For something to have an essence doesn't it ha...<i>For something to have an essence doesn't it have to be classified under genus/species?</i><br /><br />That doesn't seem right: God, after all, has an Essence, but He does not fall under a genus or species.Leohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06297966783686086577noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5375330549366725595.post-11017176100996683582011-04-09T13:13:02.824-07:002011-04-09T13:13:02.824-07:00For something to have an essence doesn't it ha...For something to have an essence doesn't it have to be classified under genus/species? To be honest I'm not too sure about this.<br /><br />Glad you like the Doctors! Their heavenly intercession will bring us closer to the truth of this matter. ;-)awatkins909https://www.blogger.com/profile/04272494240109130737noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5375330549366725595.post-7826874899758399282011-04-09T12:30:16.506-07:002011-04-09T12:30:16.506-07:00Thanks, first of all, for adding the new Doctors o...Thanks, first of all, for adding the new Doctors of the Church! :-)<br /><br />I'm not sure that I understand the following argument:<br /><br /><i> We can't turn to essences to learn about the modal properties of being. Being has no "essence", since it's a transcendental.</i><br /><br />Firstly, why can't a transcendental have an essence? Wisdom and truth would seem to be counterexamples.<br /><br />Secondly, it would not follow, even if we were to grant that no transcendental has an essence, that no essence can ground a modal property of being. Doesn't God's Essence involve His being?Leohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06297966783686086577noreply@blogger.com