- truthseeker
- Member
Offline - Registered: 7/01/2015
- Posts: 28
Re: Seeking Clarification of Feser's Philosophy
Thanks for the responses gentlemen. I'm liking the discussion here. Please give me a while to assimilate everything that's been said. I hope to give you a further response in the near future.
- truthseeker
- Member
Offline
- Registered: 7/01/2015
- Posts: 28
Re: Seeking Clarification of Feser's Philosophy
I've read and considered what you wrote, and I'm going to back off from trying to paraphrase statements about potencies using statements involving possibility for now. I'm returning to pp. 34-40 of SM, which cover kinds of act and potency. Let me ask some questions that are arising as I read.
Is a substantial form the same as an essence?
- •
Thread Starter- Scott
- Moderator
Offline
- From: Ohio, USA
- Registered: 6/26/2015
- Posts: 357
Re: Seeking Clarification of Feser's Philosophy
truthseeker wrote:
Is a substantial form the same as an essence [of a substance]?
It was for Aristotle, but not for Aquinas. For the latter the essence of a material substance includes its matter, not just its form: it belongs to the essence of Socrates that he's a material being. But his substantial form isn't material. (The terms are nevertheless sometimes used interchangeably when the difference isn't important, and sometimes carelessly even when it is.)
(I added the square-bracketed phrase because things other than substances also have essences.)
Last edited by Scott (7/04/2015 8:30 pm)
- truthseeker
- Member
Offline
- Registered: 7/01/2015
- Posts: 28
Re: Seeking Clarification of Feser's Philosophy
What else besides substances have essences?
- •
Thread Starter- iwpoe
- Member
Offline
- From: Knoxville, TN
- Registered: 6/26/2015
- Posts: 1,080
Re: Seeking Clarification of Feser's Philosophy
Numbers and mathematicals I would think, unless they are immaterial substances.
Fighting to the death "the noonday demon" of Acedia.
My Books
It is precisely “values” that are the powerless and threadbare mask of the objectification of beings, an objectification that has become flat and devoid of background. No one dies for mere values.
~Martin Heidegger
- truthseeker
- Member
Offline
- Registered: 7/01/2015
- Posts: 28
Re: Seeking Clarification of Feser's Philosophy
My scholastic dictionary defines 'essence' as (1) 'that which a thing is, and without which it cannot be what it is;' and (2) 'the genus of a thing plus its specific difference.' At first was assuming only substances had essences. Now Scott says beings other than substances have essences, and iwpoe thinks numbers have essences. This leads me to ask, does absolutely every being (qualities, relations, actions, passions, etc.) have an essence?
- •
Thread Starter- iwpoe
- Member
Offline
- From: Knoxville, TN
- Registered: 6/26/2015
- Posts: 1,080
Re: Seeking Clarification of Feser's Philosophy
I should think so, yes. My main concern was not whether or not everything that is has an essence, but rather weather everything that is has essence also has substance.
The only problematic cases with respect to essence that might come to my mind right away are 'Does essence, as such, have essence?' and 'Does being, as such, have essence?'
Last edited by iwpoe (7/05/2015 6:20 pm)
Fighting to the death "the noonday demon" of Acedia.
My Books
It is precisely “values” that are the powerless and threadbare mask of the objectification of beings, an objectification that has become flat and devoid of background. No one dies for mere values.
~Martin Heidegger
- truthseeker
- Member
Offline
- Registered: 7/01/2015
- Posts: 28
Re: Seeking Clarification of Feser's Philosophy
There are other problematic cases of the sort you mention: Socrates has an essence. Does the essence of Socrates have an essence? If so, does the essence of the essence of Socrates have an essence? These kinds of cases suggest to me that there should either be a limit on that which can have an essence, or that the essence of some beings is identical to them. E.g., the essence of the essence of Socrates would be identical to the essence of Sorates.
- •
Thread Starter- Scott
- Moderator
Offline
- From: Ohio, USA
- Registered: 6/26/2015
- Posts: 357
Re: Seeking Clarification of Feser's Philosophy
I should think so, yes.
I'd agree, or at least that anything that exists has an essence. Surely even attributes have their own essences -- each specific shade of color, for example -- even if they're "accidents" of a substance.
I'll have to leave the other questions for later (or for someone else); dinner's just now ready.
- DanielCC
- Administrator
Offline
- Registered: 6/26/2015
- Posts: 765
Re: Seeking Clarification of Feser's Philosophy
There are other problematic cases of the sort you mention: Socrates has an essence. Does the essence of Socrates have an essence? If so, does the essence of the essence of Socrates have an essence? These kinds of cases suggest to me that there should either be a limit on that which can have an essence, or that the essence of some beings is identical to them. E.g., the essence of the essence of Socrates would be identical to the essence of Sorates.
E.J. Lowe addresses that problem with characteristic lucidity in his essay [url=,d.ZGU]Metaphysics as the Science of Essence[/url]