Studied by 0 people
Looks like no one added any tags here yet for you.
What is Cotter's 15th thesis?
The historical truth of physical miracles can sometimes be known for certain, not only by eye-witnesses, but also by others, even centuries afterward.
What is a physical miracle?
A sensible fact or event, which transcends the powers of nature and is due to divine intervention.
The concept of a physical miracle contains these and only these three concepts:
(a) an event which can be perceived by man's external senses, (b) which, however, cannot be produced by the laws of nature, (c) and which is due to divine intervention.
What is the "historical truth" of a physical miracle?
The external fact or event as such.
What 2 conditions are necessary to have formal certitude in the case of the historical truth of physical miracles?
(a) for eye-witnesses, if their external senses functioned normally and they paid due attention; (b) for others, if they have trustworthy testimony of eyewitnesses who observed the event under the above conditions.
How does Cotter prove Thesis 15?
A physical miracle is an event which, as far as perceptibility goes, does not differ from any other event that can be perceieved by our external senses.
Now under the conditions laid down, we can be sure of the historical truth of other events.
Therefore under the same conditions, we can be sure of the historical truth of physical miracles.
What is Cotter's 16th thesis?
Formal certitude is a firm assent (or dissent) based on motives which are in themselves infallible and are known to be infallible.
What is certitude?
A firm assent (or dissent), that is, one which is unwavering and without fear of error.
What is doubt?
Absence of assent (or dissent).
What is opinion?
Hesitating assent.
What is formal certitude?
A firm assent (or dissent) which is necessarily true and known to be true
What does the term assent or dissent primarily stand for and secondarily stand for?
It primarily stands for a judgement. It secondarily stands for the habitual state resulting from a firm judgement.
Is a motive always present for judgements?
Yes.
What is an infallible motive?
One which excludes the very possibility of error.
How does Cotter prove the 16th thesis?
Formal certitude is a firm assent (or dissent) which is necessarily true and known to be true,
Now (a) no assent can be such unless the motive for it is in itself infallible and is known (by me) to be infallible; (b) the assent must be such (normally) if the motive is infallible and known to be infallible.
Therefore formal certitude is a firm assent (or dissent) based on motives which are in themselves infallible and are known to be infallible.
Proof of minor: a. Only that judgement is necessarily true which cannot err. Now only an infallible motive excludes the very possibility of error. Therefore only an infallible motive is a sufficient guarantee for the (logical) truth of a judgement.
b. If my motives for a judgement are infallible, then my mind is necessarily conformed to the object; and if I know moreover the motives to be infallible, then I know the conformity of my mind with the object.
What is Cor 1 of the 16th thesis?
Therefore formal certitude is essentially made up of three elements: (a) a firm assent (or dissent) of the mind, (b) an infallible motive, (c) knowledge of its infallibility.
What is Cor 3 of the 16th thesis?
Therefore formal certitude involves reflection, viz. (a) on the native power of our mind to attain to truth, (b) on the force of the motive on account of which I assent or dissent. Vice versa, where this power of reflection is impeded, and as far as it is impeded (e.g. during sleep), formal certitude is impossible.
What is Cotter's 17th thesis?
In the natural order, objective evidence is the ultimate and universal motive of certitude.
What is certitude for which our faculties are naturally sufficient?
Certitude which is so without the special help of God's revelation and grace.
What is a motive?
The reason for doing something.
What is a motive of certitude?
The reason for giving a firm assent to a proposition.
What is a motive of formal certitude?
The reason for giving a firm assent to a proposition, but so that the proposition is necessarily true.
What is an ultimate motive?
One beyond which no other can be assigned.
What is an universal motive?
One which extends to all assents. Or it may be said to be that motive which is contained in all particular motives, and without which these would have no force.
What is objective evidence?
"the object manifest to the mind"
Where:
The word object is taken in its widest sense as meaning anything which the human intellect, without God's special aid, may know.
The word manifest is taken to mean two things, (a) a certain quality of the object, which we may compare to the illumination which makes a material thing visible to the eye; (b) the act of the mind seeing or understanding the object (together with the consciousness of this act and its infallibility).
How does Cotter prove the 17th thesis as a matter of fact?
That is as a matter of fact the ultimate and universal motive of certitude, on which men fall back ultimately whenever questioned as to the motive of their firm assent.
Now men always fall back ultimately on objective evidence.
Therefore objective evidence is the ultimate and universal motive of certitude.
Proof of minor:
We are certain of what our consciousness or our senses tell us; we are certain of the truth of first principles; we are certain of truths that have been demonstrated to us; we are certain of facts which we did not witness ourselves, but which we hold on the strength of the testimony of others.
Now if asked why we are certain in any of these cases, our ultimate answer will invariably be: Because the thing is manifestly so and because I see it to be so. Which is precisely what we mean by objective evidence.
How does Cotter prove the 17th thesis by right?
That is by right the ultimate and universal motive of certitude, (a) beyond which no other can or need be assigned, (b) without which no other motive would have any force.
Now (a) no other motive can or need be assigned beyond objective evidence, (b) no other motive would have any force without it.
Therefore objective evidence is by right the ultimate and universal motive of certitude.
Proof of minor: (a) Clearly, when I can honestly say: The thing is manifestly so (cannot be otherwise), I can go back no further; nor need I, since there can then be no fear of error. (b) The force of the particular motives consists precisely in this that each in its own sphere manifests to me that the thing is so.
What is immediate evidence?
Evidence where the object becomes manifest to us without the aid of demonstration.
What is mediate evidence?
Evidence where the object becomes manifest only through demonstration.
What is intrinsic evidence?
Evidence where the thing becomes manifest to us by merely considering the terms of the proposition (such as is had primarily in first principles)
What is extrinsic evidence?
Any non-intrinsic evidence, that is, evidence where the thing becomes manifest to us not merely by considering the terms of the proposition.
What is the third division of evidence?
Perfect and imperfect.
How does Cotter refute Huet's thought that we can only ever get probability without divine grace. (fideism)
Before we can believe God's word, we must know for certain (a) that there is a God, (b) that He knows all things, (c) that He is all-truthful, (d) that He has spoken to us. If we were not sure of these things before-hand and hence through our unaided faculties, how could we ever be sure of what God revealed to us?
How does Cotter refute Herbert if Cherbury's and de Lamennais' thought that we can only ever know what all men agree upon?
Before we can take what all men agree upon, we must be sure (a) that we ourselves exist, (b) that other people exist and existed, (c) that they all agreed and still agree on something etc.
How does Cotter refute the thought that some philosophers would call nothing certain unless it be demonstrated?
If everything had to be demonstrated, there would be no certitude at all. To see the truth of this statement, we need only reflect on what demonstration implies. Demonstration is an argumentation in which the premises are certain and the form correct. Now if nothing is to be taken for granted except on demonstration, then each of the premises should be demonstrated by another argument, and the premise of this again by other arguments, and so on indefinitely.
How does Cotter refute modern positivism, that is, the notion that nothing is really certain unless it can be verified by experience, or unless it can be subjected to the "scientific method?"
(a) As has been proved, there are five sources of cognition; why limit one's field of vision to one, and then proclaim to the world that there is nothing beyond it? (b) The propositions of mathematics, at least as far as their universality and absolute certainty goes, do not depend on experience at all; they are analytic. (c) Induction, too, is without foundation unless based on analytic principles. (d) If experience were the only kind of evidence, we could not be sure of God's existence.
What is "demonstration?"
A correct argument from certain (and evident) premises.
What is a postulate?
A proposition which is not immediately evident, but which is provisionally accepted by both parties to a dispute, because it is supposed to be proved elsewhere. In modern philosophical language, a postulate is a proposition which, though neither immediately nor mediately evident, is yet accepted because it is indispensible for life.
