St. Thomas on "If a tree falls in a forest..."

[Geremia]

How would St. Thomas resolve the classical philosophical question "If a tree falls in a forest, and no one is around, does it make a sound?" Thanks

[JohnDamian]

Summa Theologica, Q84, Art. 8, Pt.1

The judgement of the intellect is not hindered by suspension of the sensitive powers. For the superior does not depend on the inferior.

Summa Theologica, Q86, Art. 4, Pt.1


...All knowlege is in the intellect. But some sciences are of the contingent thing, as the moral sciences, the objects of which are human actions subject to free-will; and again, the natural sciences in as far as they relate to things generated and corruptible. Therefore the intellect knows contingent things.

----

It can be inferred from this that he takes things generated and corruptible to be real things. And that the consideration of contingent things is accidental to their existence.

[mark a]

Originally Posted by Geremia

How would St. Thomas resolve the classical philosophical question "If a tree falls in a forest, and no one is around, does it make a sound?" Thanks

St. Thomas would most likely say "no".

The falling tree makes pressure waves, which are perceived by a hearing or feeling being. And if one is not there to hear it. . . . . .

[DaveBj]

What would St. Thomas say about this one:

If a man says something in the woods, and there's no woman around to hear him, is he still wrong?


DaveBj

[mark a]

Originally Posted by DaveBj

What would St. Thomas say about this one:

If a man says something in the woods, and there's no woman around to hear him, is he still wrong?


DaveBj

Only if her mother is there.

[Katholish]

St. Thomas would say "yes" and "no".

The truth of the sensible world is not dependant upon its being perceived. In one sense, sound, like light or heat, is a real physical thing.

On the other hand, sound can also be taken to be the act of sensation which occurs in a being which is capable of experiening that kind of sense data. In this sense, the act of sensation can only exist in a subject, and if no subject is present, no act of sensation occurs.


Usually when we speak of something "making a noise or sound" we refer to the physical objective reality, and not the act of sensation, so "Yes" is a more appropriate answer.

[John Paul Jones]

Originally Posted by Katholish

St. Thomas would say "yes" and "no".

I don't know if St. Thomas would say both "yes" and "no," I don't think he would consider something both true and false.

I think if he was posed the question, before he take time before he would answer it, he would read other's answers to that question before given his own. I think he would notice most of the debate is over the word "sound." In my opinion he would consider it to a trick question that has more to do with semantics than something that has philosophical merit to it.

[fhansen]

Originally Posted by DaveBj

What would St. Thomas say about this one:

If a man says something in the woods, and there's no woman around to hear him, is he still wrong?


DaveBj

No, he’s still wrong. The only time he gets to be right is if the women is in the forest and the tree falls on her.

[DaveBj]

Originally Posted by fhansen

No, he’s still wrong. The only time he gets to be right is if the women is in the forest and the tree falls on her.

On a serious note, the question quoted in the OP is the kind of idiocy that gives philosophy a bad name. Right along with "What is the sound of one hand clapping?" and "How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?"

DaveBj

[Moonstruck888]

A tree falling would make compression waves propagate in the time domain that would dissipate as a function of the square of the radius.

Sound is an observation.

[Katholish]

John Paul Jones,

I don't know if St. Thomas would say both "yes" and "no," I don't think he would consider something both true and false.

St. Thomas is famous for his yes and no answers - he does it all throughout the ST. The point is that a term like "sound" can refer to two different yet related things. According to one meaning it is true, according to the other, it is not. Thomas's genius is in part recognizing how language is used analogously.

[Geremia]

Originally Posted by Katholish

Thomas's genius is in part recognizing how language is used analogously.

This is very true.

[Geremia]

Originally Posted by DaveBj

On a serious note, the question quoted in the OP is the kind of idiocy that gives philosophy a bad name. Right along with "What is the sound of one hand clapping?" and "How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?"

It is not idiocy to resolve questions pertaining to the objectivity of reality and how the senses perceive it (falling tree dilemma) or if immaterial beings can be localized in space (angels on pinhead). I agree "What is the sound of one hand clapping?" is a contradiction, though.

[John Paul Jones]

Originally Posted by Katholish

John Paul Jones,

St. Thomas is famous for his yes and no answers - he does it all throughout the ST. The point is that a term like "sound" can refer to two different yet related things. According to one meaning it is true, according to the other, it is not. Thomas's genius is in part recognizing how language is used analogously.

Providing arguements both "for" and "against" isn't the same as saying (without any further explaination) "Yes & no." at the same time as answer to a question. Saying "Yes, when ___ means..." and "No, when ____ means..." isn't the same as providing arguements both "for" or "against" nor is it the same as a "yes/no" answer (as if it is both "true and false" simutaneously.)

[fhansen]

My burning philosophical question has been, would a bear still do his business in the woods even while a tree is falling on a monk clapping one hand?

If we could resolve this question, along with the angels promenading around on the head of a pin thing, the world could be a better place for all.