Classical Theism, Philosophy, and Religion Forum / Seeking Clarification of Feser's Philosophy

**Posted by John West** 7/02/2015 9:45 pm

I would also point out, in case you're a classical theist, that given creatio ex nihilo and God as pure being-in-act, it follows that there must have been metaphysical possibilities preceding potencies. If you're not a classical theist, then, of course, this kind of argument is likely unconvincing.

**Posted by Etzelnik** 7/02/2015 10:35 pm

John West wrote:
I would also point out, in case you're a classical theist, that given creatio ex nihilo and God as pure being-in-act, it follows that there must have been metaphysical possibilities preceding potencies. If you're not a classical theist, then, of course, this kind of argument is likely unconvincing.

You mean ontologically? Or even temporally?

**Posted by John West** 7/02/2015 11:03 pm

Etzelnik wrote:
John West wrote:
I would also point out, in case you're a classical theist, that given creatio ex nihilo and God as pure being-in-act, it follows that there must have been metaphysical possibilities preceding potencies. If you're not a classical theist, then, of course, this kind of argument is likely unconvincing.

You mean ontologically? Or even temporally?

I mean that metaphysical possibility is ontologically prior or more basic than potency such that there are metaphysical possibilities that have nothing to do with potency, but no potencies that have nothing to do with metaphysical possibility.

I didn't have temporal priority in mind. Not too sure about temporal priority.

**Posted by truthseeker** 7/02/2015 11:13 pm

Can't something that doesn't exist have a potency to exist?

**Posted by Etzelnik** 7/02/2015 11:25 pm

truthseeker wrote:
Can't something that doesn't exist have a potency to exist?

How can it, if it doesn't exist? The very fact of X containing potency means that X exists.

**Posted by Etzelnik** 7/02/2015 11:30 pm

John West wrote:
didn't have temporal priority in mind. Not too sure about temporal priority.

I don't claim scholarship in Aquinas, but I recently had this discussion with somebody who has. I'm pretty sure Aquinas rules that out in part 1 (44:2).

**Posted by iwpoe** 7/03/2015 1:01 am

truthseeker wrote:
Can't something that doesn't exist have a potency to exist?

It depends on what you mean- if it's not-anything then trivially it has no potency.

If all you mean is that it's not actual (as fire doesn't presently exist in a bundle of straw because it's not actual only potential), then yes, it does have the potency to be actual.

**Posted by DanielCC** 7/03/2015 4:45 am

truthseeker wrote:
Can't something that doesn't exist have a potency to exist?

This is a very good point. The intrinsic possibility to exist, the 'mere' logical possibility to look at it in a more modern way, is separate from the notion of Potency as normally understood. After all how can a non-existent being stand in potency to anything?

The later Scholastics, in particular Scotus, were aware of this and referred to it by the term ‘Objective Potency’: this is one of the reasons why Scotus has been called the ancestor of modern modal theory.

**Posted by iwpoe** 7/03/2015 5:13 am

You mean something like unicorns? Or something like square-circles? Or both?

**Posted by John West** 7/03/2015 9:28 am

iwpoe wrote:
You mean something like unicorns? Or something like square-circles? Or both?

Nope, square circles' concepts contain contradictions and do not even have a logical possibility to exist. Unicorns, maybe or maybe not (ie. Saul Kripke, for example, would say it's not even possible for unicorns to exist because of vague identity.) But let's try to keep this thread about truthseeker's questions. People get real passionate over that unicorn stuff.

Last edited by John West (7/03/2015 9:49 am)