Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 764 views

    Quia Demonstrations vs. Propter Quid Demonstrations

    Uploaded by

    diotrephes
    The document discusses two types of demonstrations in logic: quia demonstrations and propter quid demonstrations. A quia demonstration shows that something is the case but does not explain why, while a propter quid demonstration shows both that something is the case and why it is the case by revealing the cause. The document uses the example of demonstrating that planets are close based on their not twinkling to illustrate the difference. It explains how reversing the order of the premises in a syllogism can transform a quia demonstration into a propter quid demonstration.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Quia Demonstrations vs. Propter Quid Demonstrations

    Uploaded by

    diotrephes
    764 views2 pages
    The document discusses two types of demonstrations in logic: quia demonstrations and propter quid demonstrations. A quia demonstration shows that something is the case but does not explain why, while a propter quid demonstration shows both that something is the case and why it is the case by revealing the cause. The document uses the example of demonstrating that planets are close based on their not twinkling to illustrate the difference. It explains how reversing the order of the premises in a syllogism can transform a quia demonstration into a propter quid demonstration.

    Original Description:

    Types of Demonstrations

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The document discusses two types of demonstrations in logic: quia demonstrations and propter quid demonstrations. A quia demonstration shows that something is the case but does not explain why, while a propter quid demonstration shows both that something is the case and why it is the case by revealing the cause. The document uses the example of demonstrating that planets are close based on their not twinkling to illustrate the difference. It explains how reversing the order of the premises in a syllogism can transform a quia demonstration into a propter quid demonstration.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    764 views2 pages

    Quia Demonstrations vs. Propter Quid Demonstrations

    Uploaded by

    diotrephes
    The document discusses two types of demonstrations in logic: quia demonstrations and propter quid demonstrations. A quia demonstration shows that something is the case but does not explain why, while a propter quid demonstration shows both that something is the case and why it is the case by revealing the cause. The document uses the example of demonstrating that planets are close based on their not twinkling to illustrate the difference. It explains how reversing the order of the premises in a syllogism can transform a quia demonstration into a propter quid demonstration.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 2

      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

    You might also like