Aristotle, God, and Existence

[Linusthe2nd]

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.

Agree to first part. Disagree, provisionally, with the last statement. Aristotle, in the Metaphysics, discusses the survival of the intellectual soul. But I haven’t made a through study of his thinking. I just remember that from my reading of the M.

Linus2nd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

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.

See my post 18 below, I think it covers most of your objections. As to your last sentence, for both Thomas and A., the one absolutely Necessary being was pure act. A. would have described this Being as that " whos very existence was actuality. " I don’t see how that can be interpreted as anything but a Being who was pure act, a pure act of existence.

" …The first mover, then, exists of necessity; and in so far as it exists by necessity, its mode of being is good. and it is in this sense a first principle…On such a principle, then, depend the heavens and the world of nature…And it is a life…And life also belongs to God; for actuality of thought is life, and God is that actuality; and God’s self-dependent actuality is life most good and eternal. We say therefore that God is a living being, eternal, most good, so that life and duration continuous and eternal belong to God; for this is God. " ( Met. 1072b, 7-30 )

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.

A. does not use the term " existence, " he uses " actuality. " ( see post 18 ). I never said, or even hinted, that A used " existence " as a predicate to " essences. " So, naturally, I agree with you.

Thomas saw God as existence itself: subsistent existence.

Yes, and it is my contention that A. did as well.

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

Agreed. I never implied any thing else, either of Thomas or of A.

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.

You seem fixated on this issue. Whatever did I say that made you think I disagreed with any of this? I wore out my first copy of that book and now have the hard copy, which I have read cover to cover several times. I am a great Gilson fan .

Have you read A’s Metaphysics? Have you read Thomas’ Commentary?

Linus2nd

 

[thomas_yo]

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.

The objection I raised was to your original statement regarding Aristotle about “existence” in regard to God. I will repeat your statement: “But few who have not read Aristotle’s Metaphysics know that Aristotle concluded that God was pure existence.”

Now, to say that “God’s essence is his actuality” is a different statement, metaphysically, than “God was pure existence.” Your argument, as I noted in an earlier post conflates the two statements. I’m not sure you grasp the distinction.

It may seem like a reasonable interpretation to say, as you did, that “Aristotle concluded that God was pure existence”, that is, until one studies deeper Aristotelian thought, as well as the historical development if Aquinas’ thought.

Perhaps you have some authority on this matter you would like to cite in support of your position.

On the other hand, I could cite Sir David Ross, Etienne Gilson, Fr. Frederick Copleston, and others, in support of my interpretation, which really isn’t my interpretation, but the interpretation of recognized authorities in this matter.

 

[orang]

Well this is a good one and enjoyed reading. Reading people talking about philosophy is the only way I can read things in this subject. I gotta walk in my own shoes and in general like how they tie up. ( would rather read the Saints who talk about the faith and so on, every one is different but do enjoy watching or reading the talking in this topic of philosophy.

These guys are probably in heaven having a nice time . Anyway with all the words necessary to explain a concept esp when it comes or gets or reduce’s to the esse, the subject pretty much concedes to the mystery of the esse.

ever notice how some animals act differently. A dog panting, a littie chipmunk eating the food very quickly ? how length of time can be perceived differently under different situations ? ( edit / not to do with the curiosity itself, of the subject… but the curious in the subject.)

 

[Linusthe2nd]

The objection I raised was to your original statement regarding Aristotle about “existence” in regard to God. I will repeat your statement: “But few who have not read Aristotle’s Metaphysics know that Aristotle concluded that God was pure existence.”

I admit that that is my interpretation. But it is justified by what he said. The qualities he attaches to the First Being are the same as those which Thomas attaches to the First Being. Except that Thomas concludes with the phrase Pure Act of Subsistent Existence. He does also use the phrases in actu ( S.T., Part 1, Q 3, A 1 ) and purus actu ( A 2 ).

Further, Thomas also describes God as unmoved, having no potentiality, having no matter, having no magnitude, he whose very essence is his existence, is the absolutely necessary being, the most perfect in goodness, is a substance, is life, is the final end.

And this is the same way A. describes God, except A. uses the term actuality always, whereas Thomas uses the terms act, and existence alternately. And A. says not only is God unmoved but is also unmoveable, whereas, I think, Thomas omits " unmoveable, " but of course he would agree to that as well.

So I am justified in saying that A. concluded that God was pure existence. The only difference is that he used the phrases " whose very essence is actuality, " and who is " actuality. "

Now my only point is to show that Thomas could not have missed the implications of what A. said, that A. might just as well have said that God was the pure act of subsistant existence. And if this is so, then Thomas may not have relied simply on the text in Genesis where God said " I AM Who AM. "

FNow, to say that “God’s essence is his actuality” is a different statement, metaphysically, than “God was pure existence.” Your argument, as I noted in an earlier post conflates the two statements. I’m not sure you grasp the distinction.

If you add together all that I have said,I think the phrases are identical. I do " grasp " that.

It may seem like a reasonable interpretation to say, as you did, that “Aristotle concluded that God was pure existence”, that is, until one studies deeper Aristotelian thought, as well as the historical development if Aquinas’ thought.

I have never pretended to be anything but an amature, I have read the Physics, the Metaphysics, de Anima, Nichomean Ethics. Perhaps you could enlighten me what you mean by " deeper Aristotelian thought" and " the historical development of Aquinas’ thought? " I assume you have something specific in mind?

Perhaps you have some authority on this matter you would like to cite in support of your position.

No, just my own reflections. I was impressed by the implications of what A. said.

On the other hand, I could cite Sir David Ross, Etienne Gilson, Fr. Frederick Copleston, and others, in support of my interpretation, which really isn’t my interpretation, but the interpretation of recognized authorities in this matter.

I don’t know about Ross and Copleston ( whom I never cared for BTW ), but I’m sure Gilson never said anything to contradict anything I have said. If he did, I would be most interested in seeing what that might be?

Linus2nd.

 

[thomas_yo]

The OP asserts that, “Aristotle concluded that God was pure existence.” The following quote from Etienne Gilson makes it clear why this statement cannot be true. The ontology of Aristotle has distinct differences from that of St. Thomas. The former is an ontology of “essence”, while the latter is an ontology of “existence”:

“For Aristotle, it is quite true that that substance alone exist, but it is equally true that, for him, to exist is simply to be a substance, or, in other words, that to be is before all to be something. More particularly, and in the fullest sense, it is to be one of those things, which, owing to their form possess in themselves the cause of what they are. Thus, the being at which Aristotle stops is “that-which-has-the-act-of being,” minus the act of being itself. And indeed, as St. Thomas puts it, ens does not signify principally the esse, but the quod est, not so much the act-of-being as the thing possessing it: rem habentem esse. Aristotle therefore, was right in throwing into relief the role of an act played by the form in the constitution of the substance and, as well, the actuality of the substantial being, but his metaphysics has not gone beyond the plane of “entitative” being, which is that of the ens, towards attaining the very existential act of the esse.

“Here, then, is the reason for a fact noted by one of the best Aristotelian scholars, “in the verb esti, the meaning *to exist *and that belonging to the copula are strangely confused,” for “Aristotle mixes very confusedly the two senses of the verb to be, that is the being of existence and that of predication. Perhaps it would be better to say, rather than mix them, Aristotle did not distinguish them. We, who distinguish them carefully, find these two senses confused in his text. For him, to say that a just man exists, or that a man is just, was always to say that a man exists with the determination: to be just. It all came to the same thing.

“In turning the ontology and logic of Aristotle to his own account, St. Thomas transposed them from their original tone, that of essence, to his own tone, that of existence. Whence this first conclusion which is to affect our whole interpretation of Thomism: in entering the doctrine of St. Thomas, the metaphysics of Aristotle has received an entirely new existential meaning.”

(The Christian Philosophy of St. Thomas Aquinas, Ch. I: ‘Existence and Reality’)

 

[levinas12]

Agree to first part. Disagree, provisionally, with the last statement. Aristotle, in the Metaphysics, discusses the survival of the intellectual soul. But I haven’t made a through study of his thinking. I just remember that from my reading of the M.

Linus2nd

Aristotle does indeed talk about an “agent intellect” which is “eternal”. But, under most interpretations, it is singular and comes in from the “outside”. It’s not “us” - so individual human beings remain “mortal”.

Aquinas, on the other hand, argues for a plurality of agent intellects, i.e., each human being has his/her own agent intellect. So there’s a natural basis for some sort of individual survival (although “truncated” - no body, no sensation, etc).

 

[levinas12]

Aristotle’s God remains a part of the world, a being among other beings, albeit the “best” being.

The Christian God, on the contrary, is not a part of the world. He is completely “outside” - so much so that He cannot even be considered “a being among other beings”.

Without this “transcendence”, creation ex nihilo would not have been possible. And we would probably have known nothing about the “radical contingency” of the world.

Aristotle, of course, was unaware of this creation ex nihilo and the “radical contingency” of the world. For him, on the contrary, the world was the final, necessary and eternal context for everything. Aristotle couldn’t imagine the world “not being”. The question, “why is there anything at all?”, never occurred to him.

That’s why there’s a fundamental “tension” between Aristotle and Aquinas.

For more detail on all of this, see Msgr. Robert Sokolowski’s book, The God of Faith and Reason: Foundations of Christian Theology.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

The OP asserts that, “Aristotle concluded that God was pure existence.” The following quote from Etienne Gilson makes it clear why this statement cannot be true. The ontology of Aristotle has distinct differences from that of St. Thomas. The former is an ontology of “essence”, while the latter is an ontology of “existence”:

“For Aristotle, it is quite true that that substance alone exist, but it is equally true that, for him, to exist is simply to be a substance, or, in other words, that to be is before all to be something. More particularly, and in the fullest sense, it is to be one of those things, which, owing to their form possess in themselves the cause of what they are. Thus, the being at which Aristotle stops is “that-which-has-the-act-of being,” minus the act of being itself. And indeed, as St. Thomas puts it, ens does not signify principally the esse, but the quod est, not so much the act-of-being as the thing possessing it: rem habentem esse. Aristotle therefore, was right in throwing into relief the role of an act played by the form in the constitution of the substance and, as well, the actuality of the substantial being, but his metaphysics has not gone beyond the plane of “entitative” being, which is that of the ens, towards attaining the very existential act of the esse.

“Here, then, is the reason for a fact noted by one of the best Aristotelian scholars, “in the verb esti, the meaning *to exist *and that belonging to the copula are strangely confused,” for “Aristotle mixes very confusedly the two senses of the verb to be, that is the being of existence and that of predication. Perhaps it would be better to say, rather than mix them, Aristotle did not distinguish them. We, who distinguish them carefully, find these two senses confused in his text. For him, to say that a just man exists, or that a man is just, was always to say that a man exists with the determination: to be just. It all came to the same thing.

“In turning the ontology and logic of Aristotle to his own account, St. Thomas transposed them from their original tone, that of essence, to his own tone, that of existence. Whence this first conclusion which is to affect our whole interpretation of Thomism: in entering the doctrine of St. Thomas, the metaphysics of Aristotle has received an entirely new existential meaning.”

(The Christian Philosophy of St. Thomas Aquinas, Ch. I: ‘Existence and Reality’)

I have already said that for beings " beneath " God this is true. But when it comes to God, for A. God was pure existence, whether or not he actually realized it. The arguments by which he concludes to the nature of God, are the exact same arguments Thomas by which he concluded that God was Pure Subsisting Act ( Existence ). A. said that God was he " whose very essence was actuality, " Thomas said God was he whose essence was his existence. In both cases essence and existence are one and the same. So whether A. realized it or not, for him God was pure Act ( Existence ). And I contend that it was this, or at least it could have been, which was the source of Thomas’ own acknowledgement that, for all, beings, there was an act of existence which was divided from essence, except in the case of God, In God, for Thomas, there was no distinction between the two - God’s essence was his existence. And this is exactly what A. is saying. For him, there was no potency, God was actuality., pure act, pure existence.

Linus2nd

 

[thomas_yo]

I have already said that for beings " beneath " God this is true. But when it comes to God, for A. God was pure existence, whether or not he actually realized it. The arguments by which he concludes to the nature of God, are the exact same arguments Thomas by which he concluded that God was Pure Subsisting Act ( Existence ). A. said that God was he " whose very essence was actuality, " Thomas said God was he whose essence was his existence. In both cases essence and existence are one and the same. So whether A. realized it or not, for him God was pure Act ( Existence ). And I contend that it was this, or at least it could have been, which was the source of Thomas’ own acknowledgement that, for all, beings, there was an act of existence which was divided from essence, except in the case of God, In God, for Thomas, there was no distinction between the two - God’s essence was his existence. And this is exactly what A. is saying. For him, there was no potency, God was actuality., pure act, pure existence.

Linus2nd

Pure act does not necessarily equate with pure existence. That is, it’s a logical and ontological ambiguity, in regard to exegesis, to assert that it does, since Aristotle’s ontology is essentialist and not existential on any level, whether finite being or infinite being.

In short, I’m afraid you continue to seriously misread Aristotle. It’s your choice to differ from the best Aristotelian scholars and Thomists on this issue. Best of luck.

 

[polytropos]

Linus, I am with thomas_yo here. To read “pure act” as “pure existence” is to read Aquinas back into Aristotle. I don’t have anything by Gilson on hand at the moment, but I imagine that you could find Gilson arguing this (at least implicitly) somewhere, since Gilson tended to stress the historical discontinuities between Aristotle and Aquinas, when they do crop up.

 

[thomas_yo]

I have already said that for beings " beneath " God this is true. But when it comes to God, for A. God was pure existence, whether or not he actually realized it. The arguments by which he concludes to the nature of God, are the exact same arguments Thomas by which he concluded that God was Pure Subsisting Act ( Existence ). A. said that God was he " whose very essence was actuality, " Thomas said God was he whose essence was his existence. In both cases essence and existence are one and the same. So whether A. realized it or not, for him God was pure Act ( Existence ). And I contend that it was this, or at least it could have been, which was the source of Thomas’ own acknowledgement that, for all, beings, there was an act of existence which was divided from essence, except in the case of God, In God, for Thomas, there was no distinction between the two - God’s essence was his existence. And this is exactly what A. is saying. For him, there was no potency, God was actuality., pure act, pure existence.

Linus2nd

To assert that Aristotle and Aquinas used the same arguments regarding the nature of God begs the question. The reality is that though they may use the same terminology, that terminology takes on a different meaning for Aquinas since he has transformed Aristotle’s metaphysics to a higher level.

You say Aristotle may not have realized what he was teaching in regard to existence. Hmm! The history of the development of Aquinas’ conception of existence reveals that he did not derive it from Aristotle. This would mean then, in accordance with your position, that Aquinas did not realize either what Aristotle was teaching. However, no scholar or philosopher of any repute would agree to such an interpretation.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Aristotle does indeed talk about an “agent intellect” which is “eternal”. But, under most interpretations, it is singular and comes in from the “outside”. It’s not “us” - so individual human beings remain “mortal”.

Aquinas, on the other hand, argues for a plurality of agent intellects, i.e., each human being has his/her own agent intellect. So there’s a natural basis for some sort of individual survival (although “truncated” - no body, no sensation, etc).

I don’t see what this has to do with anything I have said. I can’t comment on your first sentence. From what I read in the Metaphysics, A. did not say much more than that the intellect ( soul ) survived death. And it was unclear ( to me, as far as I remember ) whether he stood pat on that or was merely speculating.

Linus2nd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Aristotle’s God remains a part of the world, a being among other beings, albeit the “best” being.

The Christian God, on the contrary, is not a part of the world. He is completely “outside” - so much so that He cannot even be considered “a being among other beings”.

Without this “transcendence”, creation ex nihilo would not have been possible. And we would probably have known nothing about the “radical contingency” of the world.

Aristotle, of course, was unaware of this creation ex nihilo and the “radical contingency” of the world. For him, on the contrary, the world was the final, necessary and eternal context for everything. Aristotle couldn’t imagine the world “not being”. The question, “why is there anything at all?”, never occurred to him.

That’s why there’s a fundamental “tension” between Aristotle and Aquinas.

For more detail on all of this, see Msgr. Robert Sokolowski’s book, The God of Faith and Reason: Foundations of Christian Theology.

All true as far as I can tell. But what has that got to do with anything I have said? I will say that there is no " tension " between A. and T… Thomas held A. in such high regard that he ofter refers to him as The Philosopher. All I have pointed out is that Thomas got most of his Philosphy from A, at least in germ form. And I insist that he well could have gotten his idea of existence from A - as I state in the O.P. and have defended right along.

Linus2nd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Pure act does not necessarily equate with pure existence.

I really do have to object to this. They are absolutely identical statements. Anyone who knows Thomas knows that.

That is, it’s a logical and ontological ambiguity, in regard to exegesis, to assert that it does, since Aristotle’s ontology is essentialist and not existential on any level, whether finite being or infinite being.

My friend, even Gilson said that A. was ambiguous, but he did not apply that ambibuity to A.'s concept of God. There is no ambiguity about what A. meant when he spoke of God. He was saying the same exact thing as Thomas, only he used a different phrase, a different word. That has nothing to do with any " exegesis, " it is a matter of understanding a clear statement when one is uttered.

In short, I’m afraid you continue to seriously misread Aristotle. It’s your choice to differ from the best Aristotelian scholars and Thomists on this issue. Best of luck.

I am disagreeing with no Thomist, since no Thomist has addressed the issues I raised, as far as I know. I certainly disagree with your own analysis however.

Perhaps if you read Book XII of the Metaphysics ( chap 5 and following ) you will see for yourself that my interpretation is, indeed, justified.

And good luck to you as well and thank you for the lively discussion.

Linus2nd

 

[polytropos]

I really do have to object to this. They are absolutely identical statements. Anyone who knows Thomas knows that.

This is our point; “Pure Act” and “Pure Existence” are the same in Thomism, but Aristotle had different views on the predicate “_____ exists” than did Aquinas. Consequently the same inference can’t be made.

Even in Aquinas, actuality and existence are not identical in referent, even though they are correlated. Actuality is to potentiality as existence is to essence.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

This is our point; “Pure Act” and “Pure Existence” are the same in Thomism, but Aristotle had different views on the predicate “_____ exists” than did Aquinas. Consequently the same inference can’t be made.

Even in Aquinas, actuality and existence are not identical in referent, even though they are correlated. Actuality is to potentiality as existence is to essence.

I am not making a universal statement. I realize that A. made no distinction between essence and existence in nature. However where God was concerned the two were one . I am saying, as far as God is concerned, A’s God and T’s God were identical, as far as A dealt with the subject. A’s arguments defining the nature of God are exactly the same as the arguments used by Thomas. Therefore the conclusion is the same, a pure act of subsistent existence, though A used different terminology. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it is a duck, it is just has different collored feathers.

Why not read the referenced sections of Book XII of Metaphysics? It isn’t that hard to read, not nearly so hard as Physics.

Linus2nd
Linus2nd.

 

[orang]

Well from what I understand Aristotle is saying pure existence. So he concedes in the scheme of it to not know * pure existence, as the value has been itemized apart from what is accessible and known by the deducing itself. ( determining the value.

from what I can understand in this talking, they were two different sculptors from the same side of the street. If one was born before Christianity with a set of given’s and one not, how can the circumstance in explaining from the philosophical shaping not consider to be a major player and not, shadow the content and meaning in the …what, was going on in the thinking which would of been what, the heck is this all about. If it wasn’t what the heck is this all about there would be a bias, so it can argue both ways.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Well from what I understand Aristotle is saying pure existence. So he concedes in the scheme of it to not know * pure existence, as the value has been itemized apart from what is accessible and known by the deducing itself. ( determining the value.

from what I can understand in this talking, they were two different sculptors from the same side of the street. If one was born before Christianity with a set of given’s and one not, how can the circumstance in explaining from the philosophical shaping not consider to be a major player and not, shadow the content and meaning in the …what, was going on in the thinking which would of been what, the heck is this all about. If it wasn’t what the heck is this all about there would be a bias, so it can argue both ways.

If it is beyond you why not start by reading Aquinas by Edward Feser and spend a lot of time on his blogspot after that? After about a year you might consider reading Aristotle’s Metaphysics. But you aren’t contributing anything by the comments above.

Linus2nd

 

[orang]

If it is beyond you why not start by reading Aquinas by Edward Feser and spend a lot of time on his blogspot after that? After about a year you might consider reading Aristotle’s Metaphysics. But you aren’t contributing anything by the comments above.

Linus2nd

Then what’s the point exactly ? Things in philosophy are not difficult to understand at all and this is easy to follow.