Aristotle, God, and Existence

[Linusthe2nd]

People have always wondered where St. Thomas Aquinas got his notion of the act of existence, for it is one of Thomas’ original contrabutions to philosophy. It is speculated that he got it from Genesis where God tells Moses, " I am Whom…" But few who have not read Aristotle’s Metaphysics know that Aristotle concluded that God was pure existence.

So I would just like to summarize Aristotle’s teaching, briefly, in his own words. You may find the references in Book Xll of his Metaphysics, beginning with chapter Vl.

1. “…we must assert that it is necessary that there should be an eternal unmovable substance…” ( 1071b, 3-4 )
2. “…since that which is potentially may possibly not be. There must, then be such a principle, whose very essence is actuality. Further, then, these substances must be without matter; for they must be eternal, if anything is eternal. Therefore they must be actuality…for it is possible for all things to be capable of existing but not yet to exist…” ( underlining is mine, emphasis is A’s ) ( 1071b,2-27)

• Further on A will identify the substance having these attributes as God and One. But in 2 above we see that this God is pure act, pure existence, which is the way God identifies himself in Genesis and is one of the attributes Thomas gives him in his Five Ways. We also see that this pure actuality is a substance, without matter, is eternal, and is unmovable. This being has no potentality at all, thus the other attributes.

** Notice also in 2 above that A says that anything that has potentiality may possibly not be. It may not exist. This is hugely important because A is saing that beings having potentiality must have their very being caused by the one, perfect act of existence who has no potentiality, God. But he does not use this as an argument for the existence of God because he was weded to the Celestial Mechanics of his time and the philosophers which preceeded him who were concerned only with motion/change and the one and the many. And most of these men with the exception of Empedocles and Anaxagoras believed that the world was eternal.

But it is very likely that Thomas was inspired by this thought. It may have helped him hit on the act of existence as a property of every being of the universe. Further, his 2nd, 3rd, and 4th Ways could well have been inspired by the content of item 2.

1. Whatever causes generation and destruction and eternal motion ( A’s thought, not mine or Thomas’ ) requires a first agent. ( 1072a1-1072a15)
2. There must be a first mover who is a substance, eternal, and pure act, unmoved, immovable, pure mind, who moves by being loved. ( the final cause is the first cause ) ( 1072b 18-42)
3. " The first mover, then, exists of necessity; …and on such a principle, then, depend the heavens and the world of nature ( who derive their necessity from the one who is necessary in itself, sounds like Thomas’ 3rd way to me ).(1072b 4-15 )
4. " And life also belongs to God; for the actuality of thought is life, and God is that actuality; and God’s self-dependent actuality is life most good and eternal, we say thereforethat God is a living being, eternal, most good, so that life and duration continuous and eternal belong to god; for this is God. ( 1072b 25-30 )
5. " It is clear then from what has been said that there is a substance which is eternal and unmoveable and separate from sensible things. It has been shown also that this substance cannot have any magnitude but is without parts and indivisible…it has also been shown that it is impassive and unalterable…" ( 1073a 2-13 )

• So A’s God is separate from all other substances, is not only Unmoved but is, indeed, unmoveable.

1. God is One, there is only one God. ( 1074 14- 39 )

I thought this section of A’s Metaphysics was very interesting. I reveals where Thomas possibly got his notion of the act of existence, and where he got much support for his own arguments to prove the existence of God and of God’s Nature, in so far as these things are accessible to reason. Hope you enjoied it.

You can read Thomas’ Commentary here: dhspriory.org/thomas/english/Metaphysics12.htm

Linus2nd

 

[grannymh]

People have always wondered where St. Thomas Aquinas got his notion of the act of existence, for it is one of Thomas’ original contrabutions to philosophy. It is speculated that he got it from Genesis where God tells Moses, " I am Whom…" But few who have not read Aristotle’s Metaphysics know that Aristotle concluded that God was pure existence.

So I would just like to summarize Aristotle’s teaching, briefly, in his own words. You may find the references in Book Xll of his Metaphysics, beginning with chapter Vl.

1. “…we must assert that it is necessary that there should be an eternal unmovable substance…” ( 1071b, 3-4 )
2. “…since that which is potentially may possibly not be. There must, then be such a principle, whose very essence is actuality. Further, then, these substances must be without matter; for they must be eternal, if anything is eternal. Therefore they must be actuality…for it is possible for all things to be capable of existing but not yet to exist…” ( underlining is mine, emphasis is A’s ) ( 1071b,2-27)

• Further on A will identify the substance having these attributes as God and One. But in 2 above we see that this God is pure act, pure existence, which is the way God identifies himself in Genesis and is one of the attributes Thomas gives him in his Five Ways. We also see that this pure actuality is a substance, without matter, is eternal, and is unmovable. This being has no potentality at all, thus the other attributes.

** Notice also in 2 above that A says that anything that has potentiality may possibly not be. It may not exist. This is hugely important because A is saing that beings having potentiality must have their very being caused by the one, perfect act of existence who has no potentiality, God. But he does not use this as an argument for the existence of God because he was weded to the Celestial Mechanics of his time and the philosophers which preceeded him who were concerned only with motion/change and the one and the many. And most of these men with the exception of Empedocles and Anaxagoras believed that the world was eternal.

But it is very likely that Thomas was inspired by this thought. It may have helped him hit on the act of existence as a property of every being of the universe. Further, his 2nd, 3rd, and 4th Ways could well have been inspired by the content of item 2.

1. Whatever causes generation and destruction and eternal motion ( A’s thought, not mine or Thomas’ ) requires a first agent. ( 1072a1-1072a15)
2. There must be a first mover who is a substance, eternal, and pure act, unmoved, immovable, pure mind, who moves by being loved. ( the final cause is the first cause ) ( 1072b 18-42)
3. " The first mover, then, exists of necessity; …and on such a principle, then, depend the heavens and the world of nature ( who derive their necessity from the one who is necessary in itself, sounds like Thomas’ 3rd way to me ).(1072b 4-15 )
4. " And life also belongs to God; for the actuality of thought is life, and God is that actuality; and God’s self-dependent actuality is life most good and eternal, we say thereforethat God is a living being, eternal, most good, so that life and duration continuous and eternal belong to god; for this is God. ( 1072b 25-30 )
5. " It is clear then from what has been said that there is a substance which is eternal and unmoveable and separate from sensible things. It has been shown also that this substance cannot have any magnitude but is without parts and indivisible…it has also been shown that it is impassive and unalterable…" ( 1073a 2-13 )

• So A’s God is separate from all other substances, is not only Unmoved but is, indeed, unmoveable.

1. God is One, there is only one God. ( 1074 14- 39 )

I thought this section of A’s Metaphysics was very interesting. I reveals where Thomas possibly got his notion of the act of existence, and where he got much support for his own arguments to prove the existence of God and of God’s Nature, in so far as these things are accessible to reason. Hope you enjoied it.

You can read Thomas’ Commentary here: dhspriory.org/thomas/english/Metaphysics12.htm

Linus2nd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

People have always wondered where St. Thomas Aquinas got his notion of the act of existence, for it is one of Thomas’ original contrabutions to philosophy. It is speculated that he got it from Genesis where God tells Moses, " I am Whom…" But few who have not read Aristotle’s Metaphysics know that Aristotle concluded that God was pure existence.

So I would just like to summarize Aristotle’s teaching, briefly, in his own words. You may find the references in Book Xll of his Metaphysics, beginning with chapter Vl.

1. “…we must assert that it is necessary that there should be an eternal unmovable substance…” ( 1071b, 3-4 )
2. “…since that which is potentially may possibly not be. There must, then be such a principle, whose very essence is actuality. Further, then, these substances must be without matter; for they must be eternal, if anything is eternal. Therefore they must be actuality…for it is possible for all things to be capable of existing but not yet to exist…” ( underlining is mine, emphasis is A’s ) ( 1071b,2-27)

• Further on A will identify the substance having these attributes as God and One. But in 2 above we see that this God is pure act, pure existence, which is the way God identifies himself in Genesis and is one of the attributes Thomas gives him in his Five Ways. We also see that this pure actuality is a substance, without matter, is eternal, and is unmovable. This being has no potentality at all, thus the other attributes.

** Notice also in 2 above that A says that anything that has potentiality may possibly not be. It may not exist. This is hugely important because A is saing that beings having potentiality must have their very being caused by the one, perfect act of existence who has no potentiality, God. But he does not use this as an argument for the existence of God because he was weded to the Celestial Mechanics of his time and the philosophers which preceeded him who were concerned only with motion/change and the one and the many. And most of these men with the exception of Empedocles and Anaxagoras believed that the world was eternal.

But it is very likely that Thomas was inspired by this thought. It may have helped him hit on the act of existence as a property of every being of the universe. Further, his 2nd, 3rd, and 4th Ways could well have been inspired by the content of item 2.

1. Whatever causes generation and destruction and eternal motion ( A’s thought, not mine or Thomas’ ) requires a first agent. ( 1072a1-1072a15)
2. There must be a first mover who is a substance, eternal, and pure act, unmoved, immovable, pure mind, who moves by being loved. ( the final cause is the first cause ) ( 1072b 18-42)
3. " The first mover, then, exists of necessity; …and on such a principle, then, depend the heavens and the world of nature ( who derive their necessity from the one who is necessary in itself, sounds like Thomas’ 3rd way to me ).(1072b 4-15 )
4. " And life also belongs to God; for the actuality of thought is life, and God is that actuality; and God’s self-dependent actuality is life most good and eternal, we say thereforethat God is a living being, eternal, most good, so that life and duration continuous and eternal belong to god; for this is God. ( 1072b 25-30 )
5. " It is clear then from what has been said that there is a substance which is eternal and unmoveable and separate from sensible things. It has been shown also that this substance cannot have any magnitude but is without parts and indivisible…it has also been shown that it is impassive and unalterable…" ( 1073a 2-13 )

• So A’s God is separate from all other substances, is not only Unmoved but is, indeed, unmoveable.

1. God is One, there is only one God. ( 1074 14- 39 )

I thought this section of A’s Metaphysics was very interesting. I reveals where Thomas possibly got his notion of the act of existence, and where he got much support for his own arguments to prove the existence of God and of God’s Nature, in so far as these things are accessible to reason. Hope you enjoied it.

You can read Thomas’ Commentary here: dhspriory.org/thomas/english/Metaphysics12.htm

Linus2nd

Where is everyone? What do you think? I thought it interesting. It shows how close Aristotle was to our understanding of God. It also shows that Thomas relied more on Aristotle than commonly thought. And it shows why Thomas called Aristotle The Philosopher. Without Aristotle one wonders what Thomas would have been.

Linus2nd

 

[grannymh]

Where is everyone? What do you think? I thought it interesting. It shows how close Aristotle was to our understanding of God. It also shows that Thomas relied more on Aristotle than commonly thought. And it shows why Thomas called Aristotle The Philosopher. Without Aristotle one wonders what Thomas would have been.

Linus2nd

The comparison is very interesting and needs more of my time. My first impression may be totally wrong; but, somehow I have the idea that Thomas did not need Aristotle as an original inspiration, but rather as a confirmation of his own approach.

This is the section I am wondering about.
** Notice also in 2 above that A says that anything that has potentiality may possibly not be. It may not exist. This is hugely important because A is saing that beings having potentiality must have their very being caused by the one, perfect act of existence who has no potentiality, God. But he does not use this as an argument for the existence of God because he was weded to the Celestial Mechanics of his time and the philosophers which preceeded him who were concerned only with motion/change and the one and the many. And most of these men with the exception of Empedocles and Anaxagoras believed that the world was eternal.

A question, please. I have seen different meanings of eternal such as “without end”. I have also seen that eternal could mean “without a beginning”. What is the correct meaning of “eternal” used in philosophy? “Without a beginning” would play havoc with “first agent” (point 3) or from a Catholic position, God as Creator – wouldn’t it? Point 3 includes “eternal motion”. Would eternal motion be applied to God if eternal did not have a beginning? And how does infinite fit in?

 

[polytropos]

Hmm. Aristotle says, “There must, then be such a principle, whose very essence is actuality.” Aquinas identifies actuality with existence (roughly–but not exactly). But I don’t think Aristotle did. We can only take Aristotles characterization of God as pure actuality to imply that God is pure existence if Aristotle generally considered them to be correlates, but there seems to be evidence against that.

Barry Miller (who has done a pretty deep study of existence in classical theism) attributes to Aristotle a “redundancy view” of the predicate “_____ exists”:

So, although for Socrates to be is for him to be what he is essentially, we can pursue that lead as far as we wish, but will never reach the point at which being (existence) is part of the essence of any genus. As Aristotle recognized, Socrates’ reality would ultimately have to be demonstrated. This, however, should not be taken as tacit recognition that existence is some kind of ontological element additional to Socrates, for he says quite explicitly that ‘one man and a man are the same thing, and existent man and a man are the same thing, and the doubling of the words in “one man” and “one existence man” does not give any new meaning (it is clear that they are not separated either in coming to be or creasing to be).’ (Barry Miller, The Fullness of Being, pp. 11)

In other words, for Aristotle, to say that something exists does not add anything to it. Existence is not a real property. For Aquinas, however, it is, owing to his real distinction.

 

[polytropos]

A question, please. I have seen different meanings of eternal such as “without end”. I have also seen that eternal could mean “without a beginning”. What is the correct meaning of “eternal” used in philosophy? “Without a beginning” would play havoc with “first agent” (point 3) or from a Catholic position, God as Creator – wouldn’t it? Point 3 includes “eternal motion”. Would eternal motion be applied to God if eternal did not have a beginning? And how does infinite fit in?

I think the best way to disambiguate uses of “eternal” is to read “eternal” as “timeless,” ie. outside time, in which case it is only predicable of God.

To say the world is eternal usually is a different sense, meaning that its duration is boundless, which is to say it has no beginning or end but is still “in time.” That is what I think most of the Greek philosophers (barring those who denied the reality of change) would have held, though I’m not familiar enough with them specifically. That would be inconsistent with Catholic teaching, but not really threatening as the boundlessness of time is at best something one could show to be consistent; I doubt someone could demonstrate it to be true.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

The comparison is very interesting and needs more of my time. My first impression may be totally wrong; but, somehow I have the idea that Thomas did not need Aristotle as an original inspiration, but rather as a confirmation of his own approach.

I think most of Thomas’ Philosophy was taken from Aristotle. Most Philosophers would agree. Thomas made original contributions and corrected some of Aristotle’s errors. But without Aristotle, it is hard to tell what kind of Philosophy Thomas would have develooped.

This is the section I am wondering about.
** Notice also in 2 above that A says that anything that has potentiality may possibly not be. It may not exist. This is hugely important because A is saing that beings having potentiality must have their very being caused by the one, perfect act of existence who has no potentiality, God. But he does not use this as an argument for the existence of God because he was weded to the Celestial Mechanics of his time and the philosophers which preceeded him who were concerned only with motion/change and the one and the many. And most of these men with the exception of Empedocles and Anaxagoras believed that the world was eternal.

A question, please. I have seen different meanings of eternal such as “without end”. I have also seen that eternal could mean “without a beginning”. What is the correct meaning of “eternal” used in philosophy? “Without a beginning” would play havoc with “first agent” (point 3) or from a Catholic position, God as Creator – wouldn’t it? Point 3 includes “eternal motion”. Would eternal motion be applied to God if eternal did not have a beginning? And how does infinite fit in?

1. I think we have to distinguish between the eternity of God and the possible eternity of creatures. The former has been described as an eternal now. But an eternal universe would be one in which the universe would have an eternal past and an eternal future, time would reach infinitely into the past and infinitely into the future. But the individual creatures of such a universe would be a generation and corruption of new creatures.
2. As to point 3 and a possible conflict with Catholic teaching, the answer is no. There is no conflict because the First Cause Thomas is reasoning to is the First Cause of all motion ( eternal and otherwise ), the First Efficiant Cause, the Most Perfect Being, The One Absolutely Necessary Being, and the Final End of all creatures. The First Cause as the Creating Agent is simply bypassed. Thomas felt that this was something that could not be demonstrated and could only be known through Faith. But he argues for the cogency of an eternal act of creation in On the Eternity of the World here: http://dhspriory.org/thomas/english/DeEternitateMundi.htmdhspriory.org/thomas/english/DeEternitateMundi.htm
3. The God of Aristotle was not in motion in any way. Aristotle describes him as the eternal unchanging, unchangeable, act of pure Intellect, a Being Who simply Is, but Who is an Intellect which simply Is.

Very good questions.

Linus2nd .

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Hmm. Aristotle says, “There must, then be such a principle, whose very essence is actuality.” Aquinas identifies actuality with existence (roughly–but not exactly). But I don’t think Aristotle did. We can only take Aristotles characterization of God as pure actuality to imply that God is pure existence if Aristotle generally considered them to be correlates, but there seems to be evidence against that.

I think we can, you can read the reference yourself. But whether Aristotle actually proved it can certainly be debated. I simply noted it because I was trying to draw the similarity between A’s God and Thomas’.

Barry Miller (who has done a pretty deep study of existence in classical theism) attributes to Aristotle a “redundancy view” of the predicate “_____ exists”:

In other words, for Aristotle, to say that something exists does not add anything to it. Existence is not a real property. For Aquinas, however, it is, owing to his real distinction.

I would agree with this as well. But, as I pointed out he came very close. The germ of this concept was there, but it was left to Thomas to grab it.

Linus2nd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

I think the best way to disambiguate uses of “eternal” is to read “eternal” as “timeless,” ie. outside time, in which case it is only predicable of God.

To say the world is eternal usually is a different sense, meaning that its duration is boundless, which is to say it has no beginning or end but is still “in time.” That is what I think most of the Greek philosophers (barring those who denied the reality of change) would have held, though I’m not familiar enough with them specifically. That would be inconsistent with Catholic teaching, but not really threatening as the boundlessness of time is at best something one could show to be consistent; I doubt someone could demonstrate it to be true.

Right, but we have to keep in mind that Thomas assumed this for the sake of argument and so the Church would not be called foolish by unbelievers for attempting to prove something that could not, in their minds, be demonstrated.

Linus2nd

 

[zippy2006]

Hmm. Aristotle says, “There must, then be such a principle, whose very essence is actuality.” Aquinas identifies actuality with existence (roughly–but not exactly). But I don’t think Aristotle did. We can only take Aristotles characterization of God as pure actuality to imply that God is pure existence if Aristotle generally considered them to be correlates, but there seems to be evidence against that.

Barry Miller (who has done a pretty deep study of existence in classical theism) attributes to Aristotle a “redundancy view” of the predicate “_____ exists”:

In other words, for Aristotle, to say that something exists does not add anything to it. Existence is not a real property. For Aquinas, however, it is, owing to his real distinction.

This is a very good post, I agree completely. Actuality and existence were not the same thing for Aristotle, nor were they for Thomas, even though he saw them as closely intertwined.

So I would just like to summarize Aristotle’s teaching, briefly, in his own words. You may find the references in Book Xll of his Metaphysics, beginning with chapter Vl.

1. “…we must assert that it is necessary that there should be an eternal unmovable substance…” ( 1071b, 3-4 )
2. “…since that which is potentially may possibly not be. There must, then be such a principle, whose very essence is actuality. Further, then, these substances must be without matter; for they must be eternal, if anything is eternal. Therefore they must be actuality…for it is possible for all things to be capable of existing but not yet to exist…” ( underlining is mine, emphasis is A’s ) ( 1071b,2-27)

Okay, but is this really grounds for thinking Aristotle saw actuality as existence? I think you are reading Aquinas back into Aristotle.

But it is very likely that Thomas was inspired by this thought. It may have helped him hit on the act of existence

 

[thomas_yo]

What St. Thomas had to say about the relation of essence to existence is more complicated than what Aristotle taught. St. Thomas’ conception of this relation was influenced more so by the Arabian philosophers, Avicenna, Alfarabi, Algazel, and the Jewish philosopher, Moses Maimonides. Thomas does not merely repeat his predecessors here, but further develops the conception in question. I think the main difference in St. Thomas doctrine was derived from his reflections on the divine name: “I AM”. This being the case, as I think it is, we cross the line of metaphysics into what is truly theology.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

This is a very good post, I agree completely. Actuality and existence were not the same thing for Aristotle, nor were they for Thomas, even though he saw them as closely intertwined.

But the " act of existence " as it applies to creatures was never raised by Aristotle, that is clear. And it is clear if you actually read Book XII, Chap 6 and following. I think " actuality " means " existence " in both A and T. in a given context.

Okay, but is this really grounds for thinking Aristotle saw actuality as existence? I think you are reading Aquinas back into Aristotle.

It was the same as applied to the Being he called God. I don’t think that can be disputed.
To him God was an actuality, an actuall existing Being that was pure existence.

This may well be true, and it is notable that the 5 ways are generally understood to stand without the essence/existence distinction.

Correct, that was not at issue in the O.P.

Linus2nd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

What St. Thomas had to say about the relation of essence to existence is more complicated than what Aristotle taught. St. Thomas’ conception of this relation was influenced more so by the Arabian philosophers, Avicenna, Alfarabi, Algazel, and the Jewish philosopher, Moses Maimonides. Thomas does not merely repeat his predecessors here, but further develops the conception in question. I think the main difference in St. Thomas doctrine was derived from his reflections on the divine name: “I AM”. This being the case, as I think it is, we cross the line of metaphysics into what is truly theology.

I have shown you a reasonable alternative.

Linus2nd

 

[thomas_yo]

Reasonable alternative?

First let us consider this statement: “But few who have not read Aristotle’s Metaphysics know that Aristotle concluded that God was pure existence.” This statement is false.

First, Aristotle did not conceive of God as pure existence. In fact, nowhere in the Aristotelian corpus is there an emphasis on “existence”. Even the existence of finite beings did not raise metaphysical problems to be investigated considering the nature of Aristotle’s cosmos.

Second, none of the subsequent Aristotelian quotes in the OP support the assertion “that Aristotle concluded that God was pure existence.” Statements concerning substance, essence and act are not statements specifically about “esse”.

Third, Aristotle’s main emphasis was on substance or essence. Unless we are to conflate the Thomistic notions of essence and existence, we can not rightfully claim that Aristotle understood “existence” as a distinct metaphysical constituent in the real world.

 

[Bahman]

How a mind/self without body/matter could experience other beings, but the self itself? From emerical knowledge we know that any being with mind has to have a body to experience and interact with other beings. How God without a body could do the same?

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Reasonable alternative?

First let us consider this statement: “But few who have not read Aristotle’s Metaphysics know that Aristotle concluded that God was pure existence.” This statement is false.

First, Aristotle did not conceive of God as pure existence. In fact, nowhere in the Aristotelian corpus is there an emphasis on “existence”. Even the existence of finite beings did not raise metaphysical problems to be investigated considering the nature of Aristotle’s cosmos.

Second, none of the subsequent Aristotelian quotes in the OP support the assertion “that Aristotle concluded that God was pure existence.” Statements concerning substance, essence and act are not statements specifically about “esse”.

Third, Aristotle’s main emphasis was on substance or essence. Unless we are to conflate the Thomistic notions of essence and existence, we can not rightfully claim that Aristotle understood “existence” as a distinct metaphysical constituent in the real world.

Will get back with you much later this afternoon or eveining. I could have read him incorrectly, but I don’t think so.

Linus2nd

 

[zippy2006]

But the " act of existence " as it applies to creatures was never raised by Aristotle, that is clear. And it is clear if you actually read Book XII, Chap 6 and following. I think " actuality " means " existence " in both A and T. in a given context.

No, it doesn’t mean existence in the way Aquinas means it. Potentiality has to do with becoming (going into and out of existence). So it is true that something that is pure actuality cannot have any potentiality, and thus could not fail to exist. But that is very far from Thomas’ claim. For Aristotle and Thomas there are incorruptible beings that cannot fail to exist (heavenly bodies, angels, etc.). For neither philosopher does something need to be pure act to be a necessary being.

It was the same as applied to the Being he called God. I don’t think that can be disputed.
To him God was an actuality, an actuall existing Being that was pure existence.

Find me a passage where Aristotle says the first mover is pure existence. As so many have mentioned, Aristotle did not even see existence as predicable of essences.

Thomas saw God as existence itself: subsistent existence. For Thomas, everything that exists other than God is essence+existence: an essence participating in existence itself, God. This is not true for Aristotle.

I would recommend the first chapter of Gilson’s The Christian Philosophy of St. Thomas Aquinas. He not only explains Thomas’ distinction between ens and esse, he gives some of the historical development of the idea that comes through the Islamic philosophers.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Reasonable alternative?

First let us consider this statement: “But few who have not read Aristotle’s Metaphysics know that Aristotle concluded that God was pure existence.” This statement is false.

It is not false. The quote from A which I gave should be sufficient.

First, Aristotle did not conceive of God as pure existence. In fact, nowhere in the Aristotelian corpus is there an emphasis on “existence”. Even the existence of finite beings did not raise metaphysical problems to be investigated considering the nature of Aristotle’s cosmos.

Second, none of the subsequent Aristotelian quotes in the OP support the assertion “that Aristotle concluded that God was pure existence.” Statements concerning substance, essence and act are not statements specifically about “esse”.

Third, Aristotle’s main emphasis was on substance or essence. Unless we are to conflate the Thomistic notions of essence and existence, we can not rightfully claim that Aristotle understood “existence” as a distinct metaphysical constituent in the real world.

 

[polytropos]

I think that the essence/existence distinction was one of the places where Aquinas seriously broke new ground, rather than expounding and applying the fruits of Aristotle. That also explains why Aristotle and Aquinas agreed that the intellect had no corresponding organ, but only Aquinas could accept the possibility of subsistent souls.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Reasonable alternative?

Why not. He could easily have gotten the idea from Aristotle. If God is a being whose very essence is actuality, A is saying that God’s essence is his actuality. At least I think that is a reasonable interpretation.

First let us consider this statement: “But few who have not read Aristotle’s Metaphysics know that Aristotle concluded that God was pure existence.” This statement is false.

If A’s God had no potentiality, he, per force, was pure act, pure existence. And Thomas supports this reasoning when discussing the nature of God in the S.T., Part 1, ques 3 and following. There he identifies God as pure act ( A’s " actuality " ). So my interpretation is perfectly reasonable.

First, Aristotle did not conceive of God as pure existence. In fact, nowhere in the Aristotelian corpus is there an emphasis on “existence”. Even the existence of finite beings did not raise metaphysical problems to be investigated considering the nature of Aristotle’s cosmos.

There was no need for A to use the term " existence. " I used it because I wanted to use a term familiar to Thomists. For A, God had no potentiality, as I said. Therefore he was pure act ( his " very essence " was his actuality, he was pure existence). This reasoning is supported by Thomas as I just explained. Now Thomas did not allude to the source of his reasoning. I am merely saying that if this reasoning for determining the nature of God can be used by him, I am surely justified in appling the same reasoning to the nature of A’s God.

Your last sentence is definitely wrong as I understand it. He definitely applied metaphysical reasoning to all of nature, including the cosmos. Have you read A’s metaphysics, have you read Thomas’ Commentary on this work?

Second, none of the subsequent Aristotelian quotes in the OP support the assertion “that Aristotle concluded that God was pure existence.” Statements concerning substance, essence and act are not statements specifically about “esse”

…

I have just given you enough reasoning to support what I said. A said, “…since that which is potentially may possibly not be. There must, then be such a principle, whose very essence is actuality. Further, then, these substances must be without matter; for they must be eternal, if anything is eternal. Therefore they must be actuality…for it is possible for all things to be capable of existing but not yet to exist…” ( underlining is mine, emphasis is A’s ) ( 1071b,2-27)

Notice that he is identifying " essence " with " actuality, " whose " very essence is actuality. " Then he goes on to say the eternal must be " actuality. " An eternal being having no potential, no matter, is unmoved, is unmoveable, whose " very essence is actuality " must be a pure actuality, a pure act of existence ( to use Thomas’ own reasoning and terminology).

Third, Aristotle’s main emphasis was on substance or essence. Unless we are to conflate the Thomistic notions of essence and existence, we can not rightfully claim that Aristotle understood “existence” as a distinct metaphysical constituent in the real world.

I agree. But in regard to his notion of God, I am not " conflating. " I never implied that he drew a distinction between essence and existence in the real ( created ) world. But whether he realized it or not, he was making an identification of essence and existence in discussing the nature of God, as I have explained. And I think that is why Thomas so often referred to him as The Philosopher.

Further more, if you read Book 12 ( esp. ch 5 and following ) of the Metaphysics you can find the germs of all of Thomas’ Five Ways. And I think he got the ideas for them from A’s Metaphysics especially.

Linus2nd