Mark wrote:

I haven't a clue what an "act of existence" is, since, as far as I'm aware, existence isn't an action at all, but rather a fact about the reality/actuality of a being.

That's a very common and natural question, and the answer is that the Scholastics didn't view "existence" in the way we tend to view it today. Etymologically, for whatever it's worth, the word means a standing out or coming forth -- something that's happening. Existing things don't, so to speak, just sorta sit there and "be."

An "act of existence" is, to put it loosely but I hope vigorusly and intelligibly, what makes something exist. We can conceive of the nature or essence of a horse, for example, but in order for a horse to exist, it's not sufficient that we conceive it. Existence, as the Scholastics understood it, is a very active affair; in order for something to exist, something (in fact Someone) has to be doing something. That something is an "act of existence."

Again, I'm putting this loosely in order to get the idea across. What I'm trying to convey is that for the Scholastics (including of course Aquinas), to "exist" is something dynamic. (Your own language actually, though inadvertently, captures that dynamicity: you say "reality/actuality," and both of those terms were also understood dynamically -- especially actuality.)

So yes, for the Scholastics existence is, in a way, an "action." Hope that helps.

Last edited by Scott (7/11/2015 8:29 pm)

Mark wrote:

[W]hat is it about the angels' acts of existence that properly indivduates them? They're all identical in form[.]

Ah, but they're not. Each angel has a unique form.

Your question is an excellent one; it's only your information that was off.

Last edited by Scott (7/12/2015 7:17 pm)