Classical Theism, Philosophy, and Religion Forum / Potency limits act or act limits potency?

**Posted by RomanJoe** 7/26/2017 10:13 pm

I'm reading Oderberg's Real Essentialism (thanks for the recommendation Danielcc) and came across this passage on page 65: "actuality limits potentiality by carving it up into discrete and qualitatively distinct elements [...] On the other hand, potentiality limits actuality by restricting it within boundaries so that we can truly say that actualities are present in different regions of reality."

So how which is it? How can potentiality and actuality both individually be the limited and that which limits? It seems to me, in the first part of this passage, saying actuality limits potentiality isn't accurate--to say so would be to admit that potentiality has positive existence and actuality a negative one. But this is evidently false, seeing how actuality is responsible for the isness of a being, its real existence, an obviously positive principle. Any thoughts? Am I overthrowing this?

**Posted by UGADawg** 7/27/2017 9:54 am

Once something is actualized in a given manner, some potentialities are going to disappear or fade away. The types of potentialities a thing has flow from the type of thing it is, i.e. its form, with form being a kind of actuality. So given this form it has these potentialities, given that form it has another set of potentialities, and so forth.

Last edited by UGADawg (7/29/2017 9:29 pm)

**Posted by RomanJoe** 7/28/2017 10:59 pm

Alexander wrote:
RomanJoe wrote:
How can potentiality and actuality both individually be the limited and that which limits?
From what you quote, they are limited and limiter in different respects, so there's no logical problem here. But I think the answer would be that, absolutely speaking, potentiality limits actuality. But when it comes to a specific being, it's potentialities are in a sense limited when actualised, because it goes from potentially doing/being all sorts of things to actually doing/being one definite thing.

Yeah I think you're right. Actuality makes the indeterminate aspect of being determinate. But, specifically, a particular potency limits actuality from doing/being actual in other respects.