Unformatted text preview:

Your name:Your section (circle):Mon. Tues. Wed. Fri.Metaphysics Exercise 4Phil. 93, Winter 2007. Due Tues., Jan. 23.1. As far as you can tell from our reading, which of the following statements wouldPorphyry and Avicenna disagree about? (As on last week’s exercise: if they wouldboth say that the statement is true, or would both say it is false, then that counts as“agreeing,” even if they would mean different things by it.)a. There could never be a fire that does not feel hot, because heat is essential to fire.b. The term “quality” is used univocally when it is applied to the members of acertain genus (namely, the category, quality).c. The heat in a certain individual hot body of water and the heat in a certainindividual fire are different individuals, but they are members of the same species.d. The differentia of fire is not “in a subject.”e. (b) and (d).f. (b), (c) and (d).2. Avicenna adds, to Aristotle’s definition of “in a subject,” the extra words: “anotherthing which has attained existence and species in itself.” What effect do these extrawords have?a. They make it clear that substantial form in matter is not “in a subject,” becausematter has not “attained existence and species in itself.”b. They make it clear that not only accidents, but also differentiae, are “in a subject,”because a spec ies is defined by differentiae, so nothing “attains existence and species”without differentiae.c. They make it clear that three-dimensional continuous quantity in wax is not“in a subject,” bec ause wax does not “attain existence and species” without three-dimensional continuous quantity.d. They make it clear that fire is not a substance, because it does not “attain existenceand species” without heat, which is an accident.e. (a) and (d).f. None of the above.3. As far as you can tell from our reading, about which of the following statementswould Avicenna and St. Thomas disagree (in the above sense of “disagree”)?a. We should not ask why fire can heat water; we should accept what our faithteaches: that God makes it do so by a miracle.b. Suppose this lump of wax is three inches wide. Then the three-inch-wideness is1an accident in the wax (a member of the genus of quantity).c. The indeterminate three-dimensional continuous quantity in this wax is an accidentin this wax.d. There could (conce ivably) be such a thing as a fire which is not hot.e. (c) and (d).f. None of the above.4. After the bread has been sanctified for use in the sacrament of the Eucharist, itseems not to have changed, but (supposedly) the substance present is no longer thesubstance of the bread, but rather the body of Christ. According to St. Thomas, whyis this not “deceptive”?a. Our senses are untrustworthy. Far from deceiving us, God is trying to teach us alesson: don’t trust your senses.b. The lack of apparent change is not deceptive because the sensible qualities, whichare accidents, really have not changed; only the substance of the bread (which is notsensible) has been replaced.c. Normally our reason would lead us to conclude, from the lack of apparent change,that the substance of the bread was still present—and that would be the right con-clusion. In this special case, however, our reason is corrected by faith.d. We ought not to believe our senses or our reason, because, as this case shows,they may go against faith. Only unbelievers and sinners, who follow sense and reasonrather than faith, would be deceived.e. (a) and (d).f. (b) and


View Full Document

UCSC PHIL 93 - Metaphysics Exercise 4

Download Metaphysics Exercise 4
Our administrator received your request to download this document. We will send you the file to your email shortly.
Loading Unlocking...
Login

Join to view Metaphysics Exercise 4 and access 3M+ class-specific study document.

or
We will never post anything without your permission.
Don't have an account?
Sign Up

Join to view Metaphysics Exercise 4 2 2 and access 3M+ class-specific study document.

or

By creating an account you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms Of Use

Already a member?