Vic, I tried it in both Firefox and Chrome, and I can't get it to work. I'd like to read it. How's about you download it and then re-up it somewhere and link to it?
Whoops. Never mind. I already had that paper in my library.
I think Oderberg is kinda hard to read compared to Feser. I don't understand his explanation of per se and per accidens on page 144. It doesn't make any sense to me. Whereas Feser describes a per se series as one that is causally dependent on a first, and a per accidens series as one that is not (like a series of events in time, only dependending on the previous event). This is how Aquinas explains it as well. But Oderberg talks about something moving per accidens if it is located in something else that is moving. Huh? That doesn't seem to jive whatsoever with what Aquinas and Feser say.
5 comments:
The link isn't working, Vic.
It worked for me from Chrome, but it went into print preview.
Vic, I tried it in both Firefox and Chrome, and I can't get it to work. I'd like to read it. How's about you download it and then re-up it somewhere and link to it?
Martin, try THIS.
Whoops. Never mind. I already had that paper in my library.
I think Oderberg is kinda hard to read compared to Feser. I don't understand his explanation of per se and per accidens on page 144. It doesn't make any sense to me. Whereas Feser describes a per se series as one that is causally dependent on a first, and a per accidens series as one that is not (like a series of events in time, only dependending on the previous event). This is how Aquinas explains it as well. But Oderberg talks about something moving per accidens if it is located in something else that is moving. Huh? That doesn't seem to jive whatsoever with what Aquinas and Feser say.
Post a Comment