Act and potency aquinas

  • Thread starter Thread starter ttabor33
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
My understanding of infinite in natural theology from how I have heard other modern philosophers use it is that it simply means unlimited, not necessarily the number infinity as in mathematics. Is that how you are using the term?
 
fisherman_carl said:
Is that how you are using the term?
Click to expand...
I am using a slightly different concept of infinity. I am, admittedly, a Thomist first and foremost in philosophical perspective and it tends to color my usage of terms which can somewhat be outdated. I apologize. Thomas has different connotations of infinity when speaking in different contexts because the subject of that infinity is inherently different when speaking of God, physical things of themselves and physical things in relation to each other. When speaking of act, Thomas and I have the same concept of infinity as you do: the simple absence of limits. In this sense, God is infinite and physical things of themselves are finite. However, when speaking of progression, Aquinas many times uses a slightly different meaning that is more akin to the modern usage of ‘eternal’ rather than ‘infinite’. In this sense, infinity is a series of finite things which has no finite conclusion. Thus, the world, the physical reality, although bounded by reality and inherently finite may progress/subsist infinitely in time. Physical things may be finite but physicality (the potential for physical things) is infinite.
 
Last edited:
So when it comes to God’s knowledge or his power are you saying He has/is a numerical infinity amount of knowledge and power? Or are you saying His knowledge and power are unlimited, ie not limited by anything? The latter is my understanding of Aquinas. Since he says we can’t know anything about what God is, only what he is not. Thus, we can only know that God has no limits, but we can’t know if he is an infinity of something.
 
Last edited:
Wouldn’t a limited amount of anything be it knowledge or power be a limit?
 
ttabor33 said:
Wouldn’t a limited amount of anything be it knowledge or power be a limit?
Click to expand...
True, in a numerical sense, but how are you defining limited? I would not consider for instance God causing all power or knowing all true propositions to be limited in any way, since nothing else is limiting him. To be limited means to have something else limiting him. But since He has nothing limiting him He is not limited by anything. He simply Is. Numerical amounts that do not exist can not limit something that does exist.
 
Last edited:
I am using the latter definition, like you when it comes to infinity with regards to God. You are right when you say this is Aquinas’s meaning of infinity in this situation. This definition only deviates in his works when he speaks of things progressing through time.
 
Last edited:
Happy Easter!

Ad Maiorem Resurgentis Gloriam!

For the Greater Glory of the Rising Christ!
 
Ok so it seems I was wrong about the Infinity the aquinas used when talking about act and potency. So in order to say that God is infinite as in endless amount of knowledge or power we must presuppose that there is an endless amount of knowledge and power then if God is unlimited in knowledge and power according to the premise that act is only limited by potency we can say that he has no terminus in these attributes. Is that correct? Act and potency only show us he is unlimited
 
ttabor33 said:
Ok so it seems I was wrong about the Infinity the aquinas used when talking about act and potency. So in order to say that God is infinite as in endless amount of knowledge or power we must presuppose that there is an endless amount of knowledge and power then if God is unlimited in knowledge and power according to the premise that act is only limited by potency we can say that he has no terminus in these attributes. Is that correct? Act and potency only show us he is unlimited
Click to expand...
It’s very difficult to grasp. In fact, insofar as God being an actual infinite, we cannot grasp this accept in comparison to what he is not which is finite. God is not finite, he cannot even be considered a never ending potential infinite. God, the fact that he is not made of parts, and the fact that he is not a mixture of potency and act, doesn’t have any limitations at all. He cannot be added too.
 
Last edited:
If Aquinas just thought that God was unlimited and that didn’t mean infinite as in an infinite amount or quantity then why did he say this?

Considered absolutely, being itself is infinite, for it can be participated in infinite ways by and infinite number of things, If, then, the being of something is finite, that being must be limited by something else which is its cause in some way. SCG 1.43.363
 
To Aquinas, when speaking of attributes of God, you cannot speak of amount, instead you speak of volume (I almost want to use the word potency, but philosophically that is sometimes used interchangeably with potentiality), as unbound and endless rather than bound and quantatative. All powers, that is, all things which resides in the essence/existence of God, are one due to the simplicity of God’s existence. In the first sentence, Aquinas is speaking of infinity in two different ways. First he speaks of absolute existence, which is part of God’s essence. This is spoke about in volumetric infinity as there is only one existence. Afterwards, Aquinas addresses the relationship of finite (bounded) things and that which gives it existence and thus the use of infinity turns to the progression of finite causes and things. Again, this cannot be approached through the numerical concept of infinity, as true numerical infinity travels in a both progressive and regressive direction. God is the source of all things, so this halts the regressive aspect of numerical infinity. Instead this usage is more akin to that which Aquinas uses with regards to time: eternal. While there is a point of genesis, a first cause, the series may progress without end. The second sentence simply points to the fact that a thing with a quantitative finite existence must always be bounded and caused by something else. In essence, he is stating that if you can quantify the existence of something, it is not participating fully in the absolute existence of God.

You must remember that our modern concept of numerical infinity only came about in the late19th century and infinity (outside of some obscure work of Archimedes) was almost solely the realm of philosophical principles regarding limit, the lack thereof, and the progression of said limits.
 
Last edited:
All these different infinities are confusing. When I read:

Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, Ia, q.7, a.1: “If, however, any created forms are not received into matter, but are self-subsisting,as some think is the case with angels, these will be relatively infinite, inasmuch as such kinds of forms are not terminated, norcontracted by any matter. But because a created form thus subsisting has being, and yet is not its own being, it follows that its being is received and contracted to a determinate nature (receptum et contractum ad determinatam naturam). Hence it cannot be absolutely infinite.”

This is how I think about it please tell me if I am wrong. Being in itself is endless and inexhaustible. Everything finite and limited participates in being but there is infinitely more of being to be had because there is a terminus to everything that has an end. God is the being that has not terminus in everything that he is. Is this the Thomistic understanding?
 
The size of my head is infinite relative to my belief that i am the most intelligent being on the planet.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top