Posted by RomanJoe  7/22/2017 12:05 am | #1 |
If essence and existence can't exist independently, if--only together--they constitute a real being, then when separate both existence and essence aren't real beings. But if both aren't real beings, then how can these two non-beings (separated existence and separated essence) constitute a real being? Is this not a case of something out of nothing? This also complicates things when we look at how essence and existence as two metaphysical co-principles interact. Essence, being merely potential, limits existence. But how can non-being limit existence? Therefore, I'm confused.
Furthermore, on a Thomistic view essences limit existence, making existence less than purely actual existence, less than the fullness of being. That is, essence stands in a negative relationship to existence. So every act of existence when joined to a finite essence is one of subtraction in regards to the essence : existence – essence A; existence – essence B; existence – essence C, etc. How can something that is purely negation actually be real? How can a negative principle be real? If we deny its reality, then how can it have the efficacy to negate?
Also, why should we try to solve the “one and many” issue by positing a fullness of existence that multiple essences limit? Why can’t we just have multiple instances of existence that aren’t mere limitations of a purely actual existence? For instance, I have many different sized shoes, but each shoe is separate from the other shoe, they all have their own distinct size and do not participate in some ultimate shoe size. Why couldn’t existence operate in a similar way? Perhaps there isn’t just purely actual existence with multiple participatory essences. Perhaps there are just multiple beings with varying degrees of existence, perfection, what have you.
Last edited by RomanJoe (7/22/2017 12:51 am)
|
Posted by Dennis 7/22/2017 12:55 pm | #2 |
Roman, I do want to say that I agree with Daniel (that you should read contemporary stuff before tackling the Scholastics) with regard to your struggles in pursuing truth. If it helps, you might want to read the Sophist, Timaeus, and Parmenides (preferably the Joe Sach's translation).
The doctrine of a real distinction between essence and existence concerns whether the essence of a creature is distinct from the mere act of existence of the said being. Since creatures are contingent beings (assumption), then their essences (if distinct from existence) are possibles or potential beings. A potential being is something which is able to be brought about by God's act of creation whereby these essences/potential beings receive existence.
Potential beings are not non-beings, they are beings, but not actual being. This seems to be the whole point of the Act/Potency distinction. The claim of something have an essence is a claim which concerns constituting identity.
|
Posted by RomanJoe 7/22/2017 1:39 pm | #3 |
Dennis wrote:
Roman, I do want to say that I agree with Daniel (that you should read contemporary stuff before tackling the Scholastics) with regard to your struggles in pursuing truth. If it helps, you might want to read the Sophist, Timaeus, and Parmenides (preferably the Joe Sach's translation).
The doctrine of a real distinction between essence and existence concerns whether the essence of a creature is distinct from the mere act of existence of the said being. Since creatures are contingent beings (assumption), then their essences (if distinct from existence) are possibles or potential beings. A potential being is something which is able to be brought about by God's act of creation whereby these essences/potential beings receive existence.
Potential beings are not non-beings, they are beings, but not actual being. This seems to be the whole point of the Act/Potency distinction. The claim of something have an essence is a claim which concerns constituting identity.
Thank you. I suppose I'm falling into a Eleatic mindset--viewing only actual being as solely real.
I thought that metaphysical (non-physical) essences don't really exist in the extra-mental world, so what could it possibly mean to have a potential being? I doubt the Thomist would argue for uninstatiated essences (a la Plato). Also, don't essence act as a negative principle in relation to existence? How can a purely negative thing be said to be a being? Perhaps I'm confusing existence with being. What do you think about my suggestion that the one and many paradox can be solved by positing a multiplicity of beings that have their own degrees of existence, rather than a multiplicity of limiting essences that are receptive to purely actual existence?
Also, you and Daniel may be right. I have, perhaps, jumped into the world of Scholasticism too soon. I was just amazed at its incredible depth, and I find Aquinas utterly fascinating--particularly his natural theology, which seemed like divine revelation after years of dabbling in theistic personalism. In what way do you think more contemperary philosophers will assist me in understanding the Scholastics? Do you have any reccommendations?
Last edited by RomanJoe (7/22/2017 6:46 pm)
|
Posted by RomanJoe 7/22/2017 1:40 pm | #4 |
From contemporary thinkers, Barry Miller is pretty good on defending a modern notion of the real distinction (though not in the same terms as the scholastics).
Any particular book or article?
