Act and Potency: Real Concepts?

[MPat]

Aquinas is being ambiguous. He uses matter and prime matter in two different senses. I don’t disagree that the bronze is the matter and the form the shape of the statue. Nobody does. I in no way do away with branches and leaves and call them virtual like you. The catholic encyclopedia says “Essence and nature express the same reality envisaged in the two points of view as being or acting. As the essence is that whereby any given thing is that which it is, the ground of its characteristics and the principle of its being, so its nature is that whereby it acts as it does, the essence considered as the foundation and principle of its operation. Hence again St. Thomas: “Nature is seen to signify the essence of a thing according as it has relation to its proper operation” (De ente et essentia, cap. i). Furthermore, essence is also in a manner synonymous with form, since it is chiefly by their formal principle that beings are segregated into one or other of the species. Thus, while created spiritual things, because they are not composed of matter and form, are specifically what they are by reason of their essences or “forms” alone, the compounded beings of the corporeal world receive their specification and determination of nature, or essence, principally from their substantial forms.” My case is that there is no distinction between form and prime matter except virtually (as Scotus says),* if even that*. Prove otherwise, or just say “go reread Aquinas” like they always say when they get into the mud

I won’t ask you to reread anything, but to rewrite this. For I can’t make head or tail of it.

You cite the part that says that essence is mostly concerned with form (and still more so for non-material substances), then claim that it is form and prime matter that are the same… And previously you claimed that only I make form and essence be the same (meaning that either you think that it should be otherwise, or you think that St. Thomas Aquinas thought so)…

So, please, explain your position clearly - who thinks that what is not distinguished from what.

Of course, there is one exception:

I don’t disagree that the bronze is the matter and the form the shape of the statue. Nobody does.

I am happy you took back this:

nor the matter of a statue the rocks and the form its shape. That is not what Aquinas is saying.

Hopefully, that counts as progress.

So much time has been wasting talking about form prime matter, existence essence accident substance being universal ect., which has led to Stephen Hawkings and others saying philosophy is dead. Those concepts don’t add anything to human knowledge. We all know what a dog and a human is. As for the Eucharist, its better just to accept it as a mystery and let it be

If that is such a waste of time, what are you doing here?

It is clear that what you wrote here has nothing whatsoever to do with you not liking Thomism (although I guess you do (mistakenly, but sincerely) think otherwise) - if they were, you would be bored by now.

So, are there any conclusions Thomists reach that you do not like?

I am so glad for this thread, and especially for your contribution. It is crystal clear that the whole Thomistic philosophy is a huge waste of time. About on par with the discussion about the number of angels dancing on the tip if a needle.

But, just for the fun of it. If some of you Thomists think that the concept of “essence” is a useful one, try to tell us what is the essence of a “cow”. It is easy to say: “what makes a cow to be a cow”, but that is an empty utterance. Enumerate all the “essential” (not accidental) properties which must all be there for this “whatchamacallit” to become a “cow”. Which make this “whatever” to be a “cow”. If any of these “essential” properties would be different, or would be missing, it would not be a cow any more. Or, if you prefer, perform the same kind of analysis and tell us what is the essence of a “chair”.

Have at it.

So, more volunteers to waste time?

Anyway, if you want to have more fun, it would be useful to find out what essence is supposed to be first, and laugh at it later, not vice versa.

For no, “essence” is not a list of properties that all instances of a “class” must have.

And in real life you would know that well enough. If you see a broken car of some specific model you will know that it needs spare parts of that same model, even when it does not have all that the specifications (analogous to essence) demand (otherwise it would not be broken).

And no, I won’t give you a full description of cow biology. But if you wish, have a look at “essence” of img HTML element - w3.org/TR/html51/semantics-embedded-content.html#the-img-element - in HTML standard…

 

[Richca]

Nobody would disagree with that. Why call that philosophy?

Yes, but it appears you are disagreeing with it in some sense and now say you don’t? Which is it?

Let me ask this: how many forms are there in the water of a swimming pool?

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

For no, “essence” is not a list of properties that all instances of a “class” must have.

Essence: “what makes something WHAT it is”. And that means those attributes that every element of that class must have. Details here: aquinasonline.com/Topics/essencex.html

And no, I won’t give you a full description of cow biology.

We are not talking about biology, we talk about “philosophy”. It is just one convenient example to visualize the abstract concept of “essence”. Or would be, if anyone could tell us, “what” it is. To borrow from the linked article: “what is the ‘quiddity’ of the cow”?, or in general: “what is the ‘quiddity’ of the essence”?

 

[thinkandmull]

I won’t ask you to reread anything, but to rewrite this. For I can’t make head or tail of it.

You cite the part that says that essence is mostly concerned with form (and still more so for non-material substances), then claim that it is form and prime matter that are the same… And previously you claimed that only I make form and essence be the same (meaning that either you think that it should be otherwise, or you think that St. Thomas Aquinas thought so)…

So, please, explain your position clearly - who thinks that what is not distinguished from what.

Of course, there is one exception:

I am happy you took back this:

Hopefully, that counts as progress.

If that is such a waste of time, what are you doing here?

It is clear that what you wrote here has nothing whatsoever to do with you not liking Thomism (although I guess you do (mistakenly, but sincerely) think otherwise) - if they were, you would be bored by now.

So, are there any conclusions Thomists reach that you do not like?

So, more volunteers to waste time?

Anyway, if you want to have more fun, it would be useful to find out what essence is supposed to be first, and laugh at it later, not vice versa.

For no, “essence” is not a list of properties that all instances of a “class” must have.

And in real life you would know that well enough. If you see a broken car of some specific model you will know that it needs spare parts of that same model, even when it does not have all that the specifications (analogous to essence) demand (otherwise it would not be broken).

And no, I won’t give you a full description of cow biology. But if you wish, have a look at “essence” of img HTML element - w3.org/TR/html51/semantics-embedded-content.html#the-img-element - in HTML standard…

I showed that Aquinas speaks of matter in two different ways; I didn’t contradict myself. Further, what do you mean that essence has “mostly” to do with form? This kind of confusion is what Galileo Descartes Locke and others to give up on scholastics.

To clarify their own position, they speak of form uniting with prime matter to make an essence. Moreover, form and prime matter are formed by “being”. However, they must have being in order to be something that can be united. So the scholastics slipped up

 

[thinkandmull]

Yes, but it appears you are disagreeing with it in some sense and now say you don’t? Which is it?

 

[MPat]

Essence: “what makes something WHAT it is”.

Good…

And that means those attributes that every element of that class must have. Details here: aquinasonline.com/Topics/essencex.html

And wrong.

No, it does not mean that. No, this conclusion does not follow. No, nothing in the link you gave is anyhow similar to what you claim.

From edwardfeser.blogspot.lt/2015/09/risible-animals.html - “A property or collection of properties of a thing is not to be confused with the thing’s essence or even any part of its essence. Rather, properties flow or follow from a thing’s essence.”. Later an example of “having four legs” is given as an example of property of cats, that, however, can be “blocked”.

We are not talking about biology, we talk about “philosophy”. It is just one convenient example to visualize the abstract concept of “essence”. Or would be, if anyone could tell us, “what” it is. To borrow from the linked article: “what is the ‘quiddity’ of the cow”?, or in general: “what is the ‘quiddity’ of the essence”?

Science that is “responsible” for the essence of cows is Biology, just as science “responsible” for the essence of sulphuric acid is Chemistry and science “responsible” for essence of electrons is Physics.

Philosophy only tells the scientists that they do not have to, let’s say, measure the electrical charge of all possible electrons, for essence of all them is the same.

So, if you ask for the essence of cow, I can either answer with one word “cowness” (which is true, but not very useful here), or I can describe (though not give) it by listing all that one can know about cows as such (which is not practical - I do not know that much about cows).

 

[thinkandmull]

Essence: “what makes something WHAT it is”. And that means those attributes that every element of that class must have. Details here: aquinasonline.com/Topics/essencex.html

We are not talking about biology, we talk about “philosophy”. It is just one convenient example to visualize the abstract concept of “essence”. Or would be, if anyone could tell us, “what” it is. To borrow from the linked article: “what is the ‘quiddity’ of the cow”?, or in general: “what is the ‘quiddity’ of the essence”?

The link you cite shows clearly how Thomists get bogged down in child’s play. Remember as a child when you wondered about a ship upon which a new plank is put on every day? When is it a new ship I use to wonder! That’s a children’s paradox though. The kind of time they spend trying to understand what a tree is funny

 

[thinkandmull]

Good…

And wrong.

No, it does not mean that. No, this conclusion does not follow. No, nothing in the link you gave is anyhow similar to what you claim.

From edwardfeser.blogspot.lt/2015/09/risible-animals.html - “A property or collection of properties of a thing is not to be confused with the thing’s essence or even any part of its essence. Rather, properties flow or follow from a thing’s essence.”. Later an example of “having four legs” is given as an example of property of cats, that, however, can be “blocked”.

Science that is “responsible” for the essence of cows is Biology, just as science “responsible” for the essence of sulphuric acid is Chemistry and science “responsible” for essence of electrons is Physics.

Philosophy only tells the scientists that they do not have to, let’s say, measure the electrical charge of all possible electrons, for essence of all them is the same.

So, if you ask for the essence of cow, I can either answer with one word “cowness” (which is true, but not very useful here), or I can describe (though not give) it by listing all that one can know about cows as such (which is not practical - I do not know that much about cows).

You say the properties of thing are not the essence but then you say science says what the essence of the cow is. What gives??

 

[thinkandmull]

Not to say he didn’t die a very holy man, but watch here as Duns Scotus tries to stare down a stone:

“Because there is among beings something indivisible into subjective parts—that is, such that it is formally incompatible for it to be divided into several parts each of which is it—the question is not what it is by which such a division is formally incompatible with it (because it is formally incompatible by incompatibility), but rather what it is by which, as by a proximate and intrinsic foundation, this incompatibility is in it. Therefore, the sense of the questions on this topic is: What is it in[e.g.] this stone, by which as by a proximate foundation it is absolutely incompatible with the stone for it to be divided into several parts each of which is this stone, the kind of division that is proper to a universal whole as divided into its subjective parts?”

— Duns Scotus, Ordinatio II, d. 3, p. 1. q. 2, n. 48 [Scotus, (1950-), 7:412-413; Spade (1994), 69]

Most people wouldn’t understand that paragraph and think it must be profound, when in reality as it is talk about is this-ness. Lol This-ness. What a waste of intellectual energy. Think of the science he could have worked on instead

 

[thinkandmull]

See the little back and forth here with Vico to see how scholastics’ books spin terms

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=1047564&page=14

 

[thinkandmull]

With regard to the statue, read here to see how Aquinas uses form and matter the way I have said he has:

biblehub.com/library/aquinas/summa_theologica/whether_light_is_a_quality.htm

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

From edwardfeser.blogspot.lt/2015/09/risible-animals.html - “A property or collection of properties of a thing is not to be confused with the thing’s essence or even any part of its essence. Rather, properties flow or follow from a thing’s essence.”. Later an example of “having four legs” is given as an example of property of cats, that, however, can be “blocked”.

Why do you think that Feser is unquestionable?

So, if you ask for the essence of cow, I can either answer with one word “cowness” (which is true, but not very useful here), or I can describe (though not give) it by listing all that one can know about cows as such (which is not practical - I do not know that much about cows).

To call the essence of a cow “cowness” is not just not useful, but a bare-faced tautology. If you don’t know much about cows. try to give the “essence” of a chair (or chair-ness").

To try to separate the properties of a cow (or chair) from the essence of the cow (or chair) makes the concept of essence meaningless.

 

[thinkandmull]

Most posters on this forum think Fesser is unquestionable

 

[Richca]

To clarify their own position, they speak of form uniting with prime matter to make an essence. Moreover, form and prime matter are formed by “being”. However, they must have being in order to be something that can be united. So the scholastics slipped up

Not sure what you mean by ‘form and prime matter are formed by being.’ Being or what exists is the composite of form and prime matter.
The substantial form is what gives matter being. Matter does not exist without form nor do material forms (forms that only exist with matter) exist without matter. Matter and form are the fundamental principles of a being or material substance, they co-exist. What primarily exists or has being is the composite of the matter and form, the substance. Substances are what primarily exist or have being such as individual people, cats, and dogs.

 

[Richca]

Just taking the water, how many substances are there of water in the pool? (I asked how many forms, but substance will do just as well)

There are as many of individual substances of water in the pool as there are water molecules are there not?

 

[thinkandmull]

There are as many of individual substances of water in the pool as there are water molecules are there not?

Far enough on that point. My contention this whole time has been that you can’t prove prime matter exists at all. Talk to a common man on the street and they know what a rhino is. Saying it *must *be conceived with form and prime matter is something Aristotle made up

 

[thinkandmull]

Not sure what you mean by ‘form and prime matter are formed by being.’ Being or what exists is the composite of form and prime matter.
The substantial form is what gives matter being. Matter does not exist without form nor do material forms (forms that only exist with matter) exist without matter. Matter and form are the fundamental principles of a being or material substance, they co-exist. What primarily exists or has being is the composite of the matter and form, the substance. Substances are what primarily exist or have being such as individual people, cats, and dogs.

If you read the article on essence in the Old Catholic Encyclopedia, it says that commonly Thomist believe being, form, and prime matter all three come together to create an essence (which in turn is split into accidents and substance). My argument was that form has to exist somehow in order to do its forming. Things don’t have existence, they exist

 

[MPat]

I showed that Aquinas speaks of matter in two different ways; I didn’t contradict myself.

Um, I didn’t say that you contradicted yourself. I said that I have no idea what you wrote.

Of course, it might well be that you have contradicted yourself, but I would have to deduce that from your “unprovoked” denial, for, um, I can’t decipher what you wrote there.

Further, what do you mean that essence has “mostly” to do with form?

That’s from the quote you yourself gave (just reworded). Have you actually read it?

It explains that for spiritual (non-material) substances (angels) essence describes only form.

This kind of confusion is what Galileo Descartes Locke and others to give up on scholastics.

So, are you telling me that I should give up on you if I find your writing confusing and messy?

To clarify their own position, they speak of form uniting with prime matter to make an essence.

:banghead:

Did you write “essence” while wanting to write “substance”?

Somehow I get an impression that it doesn’t make much of a difference to you…

Moreover, form and prime matter are formed by “being”. However, they must have being in order to be something that can be united. So the scholastics slipped up

I guess I won’t try to find out what you are referring to (I do not expect much from that anyway) and instead ask a different question: how have you studied the Scholastic Philosophy? And why? For example, was there a university course, or did you find a book of St. Thomas Aquinas in a library, or something else?

Why do you think that Feser is unquestionable?

I think he is a better authority on his own position (and, by extension, position of Thomistic philosophers, since he is one of them) than you are, which is all I need here. Or do you think you are such an authority that one has to be “unquestionable” to outrank you?

To call the essence of a cow “cowness” is not just not useful, but a bare-faced tautology.

No, its a pointer.

If you don’t know much about cows. try to give the “essence” of a chair (or chair-ness").

I already gave a couple of illustrations in this thread. They should be sufficient.

To try to separate the properties of a cow (or chair) from the essence of the cow (or chair) makes the concept of essence meaningless.

And, by analogy, separation of suspect (substance, analogous to essence here) and police description of a suspect (list of accidents, analogous to list of properties that describe the essence here) makes the concept of the suspect meaningless?

 

[thinkandmull]

Well you didn’t address any of my previous posts. Fesser is one writer, and there are millions of others. I learned Aquinas in school. I read some of his Summa when I was 13. It’s funny though how people always run to Fesser when they start getting stuck in the mud

 

[thinkandmull]

Here’s the controversial post:

“Aquinas is being ambiguous. He uses matter and prime matter in two different senses. I don’t disagree that the bronze is the matter and the form the shape of the statue. Nobody does. I in no way do away with branches and leaves and call them virtual like you.”

Simple enough.

“The catholic encyclopedia says ‘Essence and nature express the same reality envisaged in the two points of view as being or acting. As the essence is that whereby any given thing is that which it is, the ground of its characteristics and the principle of its being, so its nature is that whereby it acts as it does, the essence considered as the foundation and principle of its operation. Hence again St. Thomas: “Nature is seen to signify the essence of a thing according as it has relation to its proper operation” (De ente et essentia, cap. i). Furthermore, essence is also in a manner synonymous with form, since it is chiefly by their formal principle that beings are segregated into one or other of the species. Thus, while created spiritual things, because they are not composed of matter and form, are specifically what they are by reason of their essences or “forms” alone, the compounded beings of the corporeal world receive their specification and determination of nature, or essence, principally from their substantial forms.’”

Simple enough. Unless the encyclopedia is confusing.

“My case is that there is no distinction between form and prime matter except virtually (as Scotus says), if even that. Prove otherwise, or just say ‘go reread Aquinas’ like they always say when they get into the mud”

So it wasn’t a misspelled hard to understand post at all. Again, prove that prime matter exists