Whether Nature Exists?

Objection 1: It seems that Nature does not exist; because if one of two contraries be infinite, the other would be altogther destroyed. By the word “Nature” means that she is infinte disregard. If, therefore, Nature existed, there would be no good discoverable; but there is good in the world. Therefore Nature does not exist.

13 thoughts on “Whether Nature Exists?

  1. Come again? Is this a quotation of some kind? What does the sentence “because if one of two contraries be infinite, the other would be altogether destroyed” mean? Or this sentence: “By the word ‘Nature’ means that she is infinite disregard.”? Who means that? You are responsible for a very very confused morning – but it sounds promising…

  2. I’m with Lou – the paragraph is altogether too condensed! I’m interested in the topic – I’ve been thinking a lot about the idea of “nature” in the “state of nature” scenario used in the late seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries. Likely not the nature you’re talking about, though.

  3. Ha Lou, you’ve discovered this blog as well – myself I wonder if this issue was partly addressed, if not solved, by the Great Prussian with his discussion of the “world” – but, of course, it will all depend on what the hell this “Objection 1” paragraph means – on the lighter note, I do hope that the old Scholastic jargon makes a triumphant return…

  4. discard wins the prize.

    I’ll try to update this tomorrow. It might help if you know that one of the problems I’m looking at that I think complicates philosophy of religion and philosophy of nature is the problem of evil. Think of this as a kind of mash-up of Thomas and Spinoza.

  5. i think “the best of possible worlds” thing is definitely underappreciated – it’s solid in its theological oomph and, at the very least, shows some dedication to the argument – but i suppose we’re getting ahead of ourselves here…

Comments are closed.