quotidian wrote:

. But let's say that the metaphorical chairs/tables/apples exist - no contention there, I hope - but the nature of the existence of inanimate things is different to the nature of the existence of humans; which is why humans are 'beings' and chairs are 'things'. So there is something intrinsic to humans which differentiates them from 'things'.

I chose an electron because it's an instance of a Natural Kind. Strictly speaking the terms/thing/object and being (entity) are synonymous. Humans of course are a differant kind of entity, they have a differnt essence which makes them what they are, but that alone doesn't mean they exist in a differant way from inanimate objects - the differnce lies on the side of essence not existence.

quotidian wrote:

Could you recommend any sources on that? (I am actually intending to enrol in Oxford's external studies unit in Metaphysics pending getting my employment situation sorted out.)

Certainly,

For loads of entries on and defense of Divine Simplicity from a modern perspective as well as criticism of early Analytical Philosopy's fixation with the existential quantifier its worth scouring William Vallicella's blog Maverick Philosopher.

For a good introduction to contemporary Analytical metaphysics from a realist perspective it's hard to get much better than Michael Loux Metaphysics, third edition.
 
For Modal Logic and derived there is obviously Alvin Plantinga's The Nature of Necessity which is filled with those valuable fine grain distinctions I praised modern Analytical philosophy for. Plantinga’s account of the nature of Possible Worlds is not as satisfying as it could be from a Classical Theist perspective – for that one might try either Brian Leftow*’s God and Necessity or Alexander Pruss’ Actuality, Possibility and Worlds (a nice taster essay of which can be found here).

For an extremely ambitus attempt to develop Thomist metaphysics based on the Real Distinction in modern language one should turn (preferably through a library) to Barry Miller's trilogy:

The Fullness of Being
From Existence to God
A Most Unlikely God

David Oderberg's Real Essentialism is a formidable Analytical account of classical essentialism and philosophy of nature against modern detractors.

*In fact I'd suggest most of Leftow's essays.

Scott wrote:

Immortal beings like souls and angels are not contingent in the Thomistic sense of the term; they're necessary, as they have no inherent tendency toward corruption*. They just have their necessity from God rather than from themselves.

----

* They would still, of course, be annihilated if God ceased to sustain them in being, but that's different.

I am aware of this but think there is nothing to be gained from hanging on to Thomas' terminology in this instance.

Last edited by DanielCC (8/07/2015 9:49 am)

I do read Bill Vallicella - I like his philosophy (his politics, not so much).

When I said that I didn't think that Anglo-American analytic philosophy comprehended ontology or metaphysics I suppose what I meant was secular humanism. I guess when stated like that it sounds obvious, but that is the pre-dominant attitude, almost the default on philosophy forums. (I notice that Barry Miller is a fellow at UNE - one of my oldest and dearest friends, sadly now deceased, was a lecturer in Drama there.)  I will look into those books, they do seem directly relevant, and my library has one of them (just as well, the Amazon price is $249.50 .  Thanks!

Last edited by quotidian (8/10/2015 5:23 am)