More    Next Blog» costanzj@gmail.

com   Dashboard   Sign Out

Blog About OUT-OF-PRINT LIBRARY IAT Books & Media IAT Translation Project S.T.A.G.S. Quaestiones Disputatae Downloadable PDFs

FRIDAY, MAY 28, 2010

Material Logic: Quia Demonstrations vs. Propter Quid Demonstrations Search This Blog

Our Patron
From St. Thomas' Summa theologiae I.2.2c:

I answer that it must be said that demonstration is twofold: One which
is through the cause, and is called demonstration "propter quid" [lit.,
'on account of which'] and this is [to argue] from what is prior simply
speaking (simpliciter). The other is through the effect, and is called a
demonstration "quia" [lit., 'that']; this is [to argue] from what is prior
relatively only to us (quoad nos). When an effect is better known to
us  than  its  cause,  from  the  effect  we  proceed  to  the  knowledge  of  the
cause.  And  from  every  effect  the  existence  of  its  proper  cause  can  be
demonstrated,  so  long  as  its  effects  are  better  known  to  us  (quoad
nos);  because  since  every  effect  depends  upon  its  cause,  if  the  effect
exists, the cause must pre­exist.

From Aristotle's Posterior Analytics I.13:

"Knowledge  of  the  fact  (quia  demonstration)  differs  from  knowledge  of  the  reasoned  fact  (propter  quid
demonstrations).  [...]  You  might  prove  as  follows  that  the  planets  are  near  because  they  do  not  twinkle:  let  C  be  the
planets, B not twinkling, A proximity. Then B is predicable of C; for the planets do not twinkle. But A is also predicable of
B,  since  that  which  does  not  twinkle  is  near­­we  must  take  this  truth  as  having  been  reached  by  induction  or  sense­
perception.  Therefore  A  is  a  necessary  predicate  of  C;  so  that  we  have  demonstrated  that  the  planets  are  near.  This
syllogism, then, proves not the reasoned fact (propter quid)  but  only  the  fact  (quia);  since  they  are  not  near  because
they do not twinkle, but, because they are near, do not twinkle...."

A (major term) = close heavenly body

B (middle term) = non-twinkling heavenly body
C (minor term) = planet Our Model
Major Premise: B is A
Minor Premise: C is B
Conclusion: C is A

Major Premise: Non-Twinkling heavenly bodies are close heavenly bodies.

Minor Premise: Planets are non-twinkling heavenly bodies (effect).
Conclusion: Planets are close heavenly bodies (cause).

From Aristotle's Posterior Analytics I.13 (cont'd):

"The major and middle of the proof, however, may be reversed, and then the demonstration will be of the reasoned fact
(propter quid). Thus: let C be the planets, B proximity, A not twinkling. Then B is an attribute of C, and A­not twinkling­
of B. Consequently A is predicable of C, and the syllogism proves the reasoned fact (propter quid), since its middle term
is the proximate cause...."

A (major term) = non-twinkling heavenly body

B (middle term) = close heavenly body
C (minor term) = planet

Major Premise: B is A
Minor Premise: C is B
Conclusion: C is A

=
Major Premise: Close heavenly bodies are non-twinkling heavenly bodies.
Minor Premise: Planets are close heavenly bodies (cause).
Conclusion: Planets are non-twinkling heavenly bodies (effect).

Posted by Francisco Romero Carrasquillo at May 28, 2010  
Labels: aquinas , Aristotle , Logic

3 comments

Add a comment as JM Costanzo

Top comments

Don Paco 7 years ago

 
Well, a 'a priori' and 'a posteriori' are not Thomistic concepts. They are modern concepts, typically found in Kant,
Descartes, and their ilk. In the Kantian sense, 'a priori' knowledge is knowledge obtained independently of sense
experience; whereas 'a posteriori' knowledge is knowledge that is obtained from sense experience (for Kant, only
'a priori' knowledge is worthwhile, because he thinks the senses are not reliable). At least given this Kantian
meaning, 'a priori' (a la Kant) is obviously not the same as propter quid (in the Thomistic sense), since in

Geremia 7 years ago

  demonstration <i>propter quid</i> = a demonstration <i>a priori</i>, and a demonstration <i>quia</i> = a
A
demonstration <i>a posteriori</i>, or is there a subtle difference? Thanks
Bitcoin Address: 3CrwQVXKw2zCDbL9NSvaDAt
Bitcoin Cash: qznyjd6tnv82jl3tk67etjz2ce3nxhh2
Ethereum: 0xfFb4F18537fccB5EB7F4F4AF41c666
Litecoin: MFYwaLv9BAdebRQrspD9xBtWfWiPdN

Don Paco 7 years ago

Or Mine Litecoin for Us Right Her
 
Why is this important? Well, for many reasons. For example, Aquinas teaches that God's existence can be
demonstrated with a quia demonstration, but not with a propter quid demonstration. Also, the most scienti c kind
of demonstration is the propter quid demonstration, because it proceeds from a knowledge of the essence or of
the cause of something. Only propter quid demonstrations can completely satisfy the intellect's desire to know
something. As lovers of wisdom, therefore, we must seek propter quid demonstrations when they are available,
MINING LITECOIN
Current hash rate

Post a Comment
11 H/s
Newer PostHome Older Post Low CPU usage (earn less)

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)

4 threads

 Pause mining

Research Starting P
(External Links)
Sacred Scripture: Texts
Biblia Clerus (Cong. for the Clergy)
Douay-Rheims + Vulgate
Polyglot Bible (Greek/Hebrew/Latin/English)
Septuagint + Greek NT
Vulgata Clementina

Sacred Scripture: Bible Study

Biblia Clerus (Cong. for the Clergy)
Enchiridion Biblicum (English)
Haydock Scripture Commentary
Lectio Divina (from Fisheraters)
Neo-Patristic Approach to Scripture
St. Jerome Biblical Guild
St. Thomas Aquinas Scripture Commentaries
Cornelius à Lapide - New Testament Commentary

Sacred Tradition: Church Fathers

Catena Aurea on St. John