Talk:Edward Feser

What to do about good faith edits that aren't good
I don't want to revert the guy, but this change by isn't great. It includes lots of quotes and content, and "references" but doesn't stop along the way to make a point, it's dry and factual but not really informative. It also adds categories that don't exist, suggesting that he thinks this is wikipedia, and I'd really like a second pair of eyes on it. Thanks ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 22:11, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

On asking the stone what it's doing
This is wrong (not that I am a fanboy), but as per his guide to Aquinas he explicitly says there that this way of attack is wrong. Things don't have to consciously direct at anything (apart from conscious beings). All that matters in the efficient and the final cause is that they are tied together at this very moment and they inevitably lead to something. For example, the cup is falling down is the cause of it hitting the ground (final cause). It doesn't necessarily stretch all the way to its telos; telos you can ascribe to living beings or laws of physics, based on observations, but that's about it, nothing in particular for a stone. The important distinction is his distinction of effects by accident in which cause and effect are not bound in sequence and the ones in direct sequence, acting on each other at the same time, this is effects per se.