(Chapter 1) Reap-Reason explains "Esse-Monism."

[Michael_Mayo]

From the wikiarticle

The knowledge of God by the Eastern Orthodox church is not arrived at by a form of rational theology but rather by illumination (theoria) as a stage of development in the process of theosis. Which again goes against the Roman Catholic theologians validation of theology using the Pagan philosopher Aristotle’s Metaphysical and scholastic arguments such as actus and potentia to rationalize God. The West does this through what the East calls an incompleteness as a form of theology called kataphatic theology. The East does not use kataphatic statements about God to validate God since to use positive statements about God goes against God’s very being (ontology) which is apophatic and therefore incomprehensible and not rational.

Reap, it sounds like you have more affinity with the Eastern Orthodox church.

 

[Alindawyl]

Its not clear to me at all that i am accepting as true that which is contrary to Catholicism. I am not a pantheist. A pantheist makes no distinction between “esse and essence”. You are clearly in error. In fact my argument is in keeping with Catholic principles and respects the distinction between creation and necessary existence. But feel free to assert error as you please.

I’ll assert your error. It’s your definition of the universe as everything that exists. That definition means you must, by necessity, assert one of the following two statements if you also assert that God exists:

1. God is synonymous with the universe
2. God is less than the universe

Catholic teaching firmly rejects both of these statements because Catholic teaching is that God created the universe. He is neither less than nor equal to the universe but beyond it, ie transcendent.

 

[ReapReason]

I’ll assert your error. It’s your definition of the universe as everything that exists.

Where do I argue that the universe is all that exists?

If you read my argument properly, you will see that I am in fact arguing against that idea. In fact I argue that the universe is not intrinsically real, but only contingently real; it is not its own act of reality. This is simply to say that the isness or actuality of its nature is not the same thing as its nature.

This is perfectly in line with the idea of God as pure actuality and God as the sustainer of all things.

 

[ReapReason]

From the wikiarticle

The knowledge of God by the Eastern Orthodox church is not arrived at by a form of rational theology but rather by illumination (theoria) as a stage of development in the process of theosis. Which again goes against the Roman Catholic theologians validation of theology using the Pagan philosopher Aristotle’s Metaphysical and scholastic arguments such as actus and potentia to rationalize God. The West does this through what the East calls an incompleteness as a form of theology called kataphatic theology. The East does not use kataphatic statements about God to validate God since to use positive statements about God goes against God’s very being (ontology) which is apophatic and therefore incomprehensible and not rational.

Reap, it sounds like you have more affinity with the Eastern Orthodox church.

Why do you say that?

 

[Alindawyl]

Where do I assert that the universe is all that exists?

If you read my argument properly, you will see that I am in fact arguing against that idea. In fact I argue that the universe is not intrinsically real, but only contingently real. This is simply to say that the isness or actuality of its nature is not the same thing as its nature.

I misread your initial post, sorry.

In that case, I don’t understand the point of what you’re saying. Of course the universe is contingently real. All of creation is contingent upon its creator, God.

 

[ReapReason]

I misread your initial post, sorry.

Please feel free to read my post again properly, and if I feel that you have grasped it properly; then we can discuss it.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

What is Esse-Monism?

An analysis of your thesis. The first parts of your thesis have been omitted as not germain.

i still think that Monism can be applied to “existence”, as an act, so long as existence is something that is intrinsically distinct from that which is a “contingent essence” (Particular kinds of nature that have a beginning

 

[empther]

You wanted me to give you a rebuttel, Reap. How’s this?

God’s existence ( esse ) is identical to his essence, that which makes him what he is.

Only of God is this true.

All other things in the universe that exist are not made of existence, but some other substance or substance: essence. So an apple has the essence of an apple, not the essence of a blue whale. Both have existence, but this existence is not their essence, that which makes them what they are.

Looked at in the other direction, their existence is not something, a substance, or essence, that which makes them what they are. But in God, his existence is something. It is his essence, that which makes him what he is.

And so there is the one God, and there are innumerable other acts of existence in the universe. The things of the universe have nothing in common with God whose mode of existence is unique in being the same as his essence.

God cannot make a thing whose existence is its essence, for this mode of existence is his alone. So the universe cannot be God, or share his existence in any way.
Pantheism, or any philosophy in the same general area, is impossible.

( written in 15 minutes. I just got back from work. :compcoff: Time for bed. )

 

[ReapReason]

You wanted me to give you a rebuttel, Reap. How’s this?

God’s existence ( esse ) is identical to his essence, that which makes him what he is.

Only of God is this true.

All other things in the universe that exist are not made of existence, but some other substance or substance: essence. So an apple has the essence of an apple, not the essence of a blue whale. Both have existence, but this existence is not their essence, that which makes them what they are.

Looked at in the other direction, their existence is not something, a substance, or essence, that which makes them what they are. But in God, his existence is something. It is his essence, that which makes him what he is.

And so there is the one God, and there are innumerable other acts of existence in the universe. The things of the universe have nothing in common with God whose mode of existence is unique in being the same as his essence.

God cannot make a thing whose existence is its essence, for this mode of existence is his alone. So the universe cannot be God, or share his existence in any way.
Pantheism, or any philosophy in the same general area, is impossible.

( written in 15 minutes. I just got back from work. :compcoff: Time for bed. )

How is any of this contrary to what I have said? I think your playing games.

 

[ReapReason]

ReapReason;9913024:

What is Esse-Monism?

I would disagree with the first part. Existence is part of limited extant ( i.e. contingent beings). This would be Thomas’ position.

I disagree that this is Thomas’ position. He can be interpreted as speaking of potential beings as limited acts in the sense that their essence is not intrinsic to reality itself. He needn’t be interpreted as saying that limited pockets of existence can exist as intrinsic parts of an essence. In fact, if that is what he is saying, it makes no sense, beyond simply pointing out the fact that some beings are potentially real, to make a distinction between esse and essence. What is the point. It seems to me that Aquinas Goes further than that. It seems to me that logically he makes an absolute distinction between actuality and potential natures.

Even if this is not what Aquinas is saying, my position is consistent with metaphysical principles. Metaphysically speaking, You cannot get reality out of nothing. It does not matter how powerful or perfect a being may be. Creation ex nihilo cannot be interpreted as getting something from the absence of things. Therefore you can only get reality from God, and God cannot be divided into parts. Thus the only way you can distinguish between the universe as an act and God as an act, is by recognising that the universe is only distinct from God in so far as its essence is concerned. In other words, in terms of the universe, its act of reality is God, but its essence (its nature) is not.

To say that the universe is essentially distinct from God provides the rational distinction between creator and creation; and at the same time does away with the irrational idea that creation exnihilo is saying that God can do that which is metaphysically impossible.

 

[ReapReason]

I would certainly not agree that this is correct. The " isness " of a thing is part of the nature or essence or substance. A thing’s esse comes through its form which comes from the matter by eduction - in physical beings.

This ignores the distinction between esse and essence, since you are now saying that a things nature is what makes it real. Not only does this do away with God as a creator, it ignores Gods roll as a sustainer, since what sense does it make to say that God sustains them in reality if they already have a limited act of reality intrinsic to their being?

Obviously all of us are having a hard time understanding exactly what you are trying to say. My suggestion is that you devote your obvious energy to actually studying St. Thomas. And the easiest clearest source is " Aquinas " by Edward Feser

I have already read edward fesers Aquinas. But this thread is not really about understanding Aquinas. It is simply an argument defending my position as an esse-monist. It really does not matter what Aquinas thinks, unless you can use him to defend your argument rationally. Making quotes of what he said, does not actually further this discussion because it does not entail that you actually have a rational argument against me, but rather it only entails that you think Aquinas is infallibly right, and therefore anything that sounds even slightly dissimilar is necessarily wrong.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

This ignores the distinction between esse and essence, since you are now saying that a things nature is what makes it real. Not only does this do away with God as a creator, it ignores Gods roll as a sustainer, since what sense does it make to say that God sustains them in reality if they already have a limited act of reality intrinsic to their being?

But I did. The distinction between esse and essence is a difference between principles only. A physical reality is a composit of esse and essence. The essence ( i.e. its nature as it exists in a physical reality ( an actually existing being or substance, also called essence) has two principles, matter and form ( its nature or form as it is called in Aristotles list of categories, a species). The form is educed from the being’s matter, and the esse is educed from the form. Neither the matter nor the form ( nature or essence) nor the esse exist alone. They are found only in an actually exising physical reality. Each being then has its own esse or principle of existence which it does not share with any other actually existing physical reality. The source of the act of existence of each is given to it along with its matter and form ultimately by God who exists outside of the universe of time and space and can not be a part of it as Thomas has demonstrated a number of ways.
You are trying to prove that all of creation is one esse where individual beings are simply different essences to which the one esse ( which in your view is a part of the universe) adds some of its own esse. You have not proven that and cannot prove it. Thomas has disproved this idea. Futher, this is a form of pantheism. You also say that the one esse is part of this universe. This is also a form of pantheism.

This is what you said in post # 1 Essentially; what i believe is that Existence as an act is only one thing. There are not multiple acts of existence. There is no duality in existence as an act. There is only one intrinsic act of reality; and any nature which begins to have an act, is not real by its own nature, but is instead real because existence as a distinct holistic nature on to itself is making particular kinds of nature real by sharing its one act of reality with a potential object. Otherwise a contingent nature would never be real since you cannot get an act of reality out of nothing.

Thomas disproves what you say here as I said. It looks like you are trying to say that " individual " beings are just emanations of the " one being " and this is pantheism. It is also incorrect as I said.

I have already read edward fesers Aquinas. But this thread is not really about understanding Aquinas. It is simply an argument defending my position as an esse-monist. It really does not matter what Aquinas thinks, unless you can use him to defend your argument rationally.

What Thomas thinks matters a great deal. He has disproven you philosophy. I do not need to manufacture my own analysis of your philosophy, Thomas has done it for me and has proven your position wrong.

Making quotes of what he said, does not actually further this discussion because it does not entail that you actually have a rational argument against me, but rather it only entails that you think Aquinas is infallibly right, and therefore anything that sounds even slightly dissimilar is necessarily wrong.

Sure it does. And I don’t think Thomas infallibly right in everything but I don’t know myself where he has made an error.

The question is why you feel compelled to manufacture a new philosophy? What is the genesis of this compulsion you feel? I think that is improtant. What is it precisely?

 

[Alindawyl]

You are trying to prove that all of creation is one esse where individual beings are simply different essences to which the one esse ( which in your view is a part of the universe) adds some of its own esse. You have not proven that and cannot prove it. Thomas has disproved this idea. Futher, this is a form of pantheism. You also say that the one esse is part of this universe. This is also a form of pantheism.

The original post wasn’t very clear to me. Somehow I got the idea that he was talking about pantheism, but I couldn’t really figure out where I was getting that idea from since it wasn’t how pantheism is normally presented. This explains it nicely. Thanks.

 

[ReapReason]

But I did. The distinction between esse and essence is a difference between principles only.

The distinction points out the difference between that which is reality, and a potential essence which requires reality in order to have an act. It is not just some abstract principle.

A physical reality is a composit of esse and essence.

Physical reality is a conjoining of reality and potential essences. The essences in and of themselves are not what reality is essentially; otherwise they would not be potential, but rather they would be intrinsically real by nature like God.

You are trying to prove that all of creation is one esse

No i am not trying to prove that all of creation is one esse. Go and read the first and especially the second post again. No where in those posts have I said or attempted to prove that creation is by nature one esse. I only said that there is one esse. The distinct essence of creation is contingent upon that esse in-order to exist; but esse and essence are not the same thing, accept in God.

You also say that the one esse is part of this universe.

I have said no such thing and can only conclude that you are a deceptive person. Or at least self deceptive since you and empther are so desperate to find error in my arguments without actually presenting an argument.

what i believe is that Existence as an act is only one thing.

Yes. However I said nothing about creation being the same thing as that which I called esse. I have always maintained a distinction between esse and essence, and there is nothing you can do to change that.

…multiple acts of existence.

No there are not. There are multiple essences that are a conjoining of reality and potential.
reality is always and is absolutely distinct from that which was only potential to begin with. Esse is not and is never an intrinsic expression of their nature. There is only one esse; there is only one God.

There is no duality in existence as an act. There is only one intrinsic act of reality; and any nature which begins to have an act, is not real by its own nature, but is instead real because existence as a distinct holistic nature on to itself is making particular kinds of nature real by sharing its one act of reality with a potential object. Otherwise a contingent nature would never be real since you cannot get an act of reality out of nothing.

This is correct. So long as you cannot get an act of reality out of nothing (the absence of some - thing), It stands irrefutable.

Thomas disproves what you say here as I said. It looks like you are trying to say that " individual " beings are just emanations of the " one being " and this is pantheism. It is also incorrect as I said.

I am clearly saying no such thing. I always maintain a distinction between esse and essence, and thus I cannot possibly be talking about emanations in the pantheistic sense of the word.

What Thomas thinks matters a great deal. He has disproven you philosophy.

No he has not. He has disproved the straw-men that you have made of my argument. And in your case his metaphysics is of no benefit to you at all if you cannot grasp the ontological consequences that come with the fact that out of absolutely nothing comes nothing.

Sure it does. And I don’t think Thomas infallibly right in everything but I don’t know myself where he has made an error.

Why would you know if he had made error? You are of the impression that God’s “esse” is not an ontological absolute. But rather, there can be many distinct esse’. You are treating God as if he is one esse among other esse. You have have not fully grasped the rational consequences of claiming that Gods’ essence is his esse, and what it means for a potential essence to be conjoined with esse. Aquinas never said that material forms are there own esse; which means that they are absolutely distinct in nature; unlike God.

You are misinterpreting Aquinas. You have a superficial understanding of his work.

Aquinas is an “esse-monist”.

The question is why you feel compelled to manufacture a new philosophy? What is the genesis of this compulsion you feel? I think that is improtant. What is it precisely?

Aquinas went as far as to prove that there is a being that is the embodiment of esse. But he never explained how God creates new actual essences. This will always be a stumbling block for atheists, since out of nothing comes nothing. You cannot get a new act of reality out of absolutely nothing no matter how infinitely powerful you might be, because it is a metaphysical contradiction, just like a square triangle is a contradiction. Reality and nothing are absolutely distinct; you cannot attribute to nothing that which is true of reality as an act.

I am not trying to manufacture a new philosophy. I am trying to complete what Aquinas began; rather than repeating something that is incomplete.

 

[ReapReason]

The original post wasn’t very clear to me. Somehow I got the idea that he was talking about pantheism, but I couldn’t really figure out where I was getting that idea from since it wasn’t how pantheism is normally presented. This explains it nicely. Thanks.

He is not presenting my argument as I gave it. I never once said that creation is all reality.

I suggest that you re-read the second post where I defend my thesis.

Just because something appears like something else, does not mean that it is what it appears like.

 

[ReapReason]

Reposted because of missing words and quoting errors.

But I did. The distinction between esse and essence is a difference between principles only.

The distinction points out the difference between that which is reality, and a potential essence which requires reality in order to have an act. It is not just some abstract principle.

A physical reality is a composit of esse and essence.

Physical reality is a conjoining of reality and potential essences. The essences in and of themselves are not what reality is essentially; otherwise they would not be potential, but rather they would be intrinsically real by nature like God. Like God, their nature would be the same as their esse.

You are trying to prove that all of creation is one esse

No i am not trying to prove that all of creation is one esse. Go and read the first and especially the second post again. No where in those posts have I said or attempted to prove that creation is by nature one esse. I only said that there is one esse. The distinct essence of creation is contingent upon that esse in-order to exist; but esse and essence are not the same thing, accept in God.

You also say that the one esse is part of this universe.

I have said no such thing and can only conclude that you are a deceptive person. Or at least self deceptive since you and empther are so desperate to find error in my arguments without actually presenting an argument.

what i believe is that Existence as an act is only one thing.

Yes. However I said nothing about creation being the same thing as that which I called esse. I have always maintained a distinction between esse and essence, and there is nothing you can do to change that.

…multiple acts of existence.

No. There are no multiple acts of existence. Just one.
There are multiple essences that are a conjoining of reality and potential.
Reality is always and is absolutely distinct from that which was only potential to begin with. Esse is not and is never an intrinsic expression of their nature. There is only one esse; there is only one God.

There is no duality in existence as an act. There is only one intrinsic act of reality; and any nature which begins to have an act, is not real by its own nature, but is instead real because existence as a distinct holistic nature on to itself is making particular kinds of nature real by sharing its one act of reality with a potential object. Otherwise a contingent nature would never be real since you cannot get an act of reality out of nothing.

This is correct. So long as you cannot get an act of reality out of nothing (the absence of some - thing), It stands irrefutable.

It looks like you are trying to say that " individual " beings are just emanations of the " one being " and this is pantheism. It is also incorrect as I said.

I am clearly saying no such thing. I always maintain a distinction between esse and essence, and thus I cannot possibly be talking about emanations in the pantheistic sense of the word.

What Thomas thinks matters a great deal. He has disproven you philosophy.

No he has not. He has only disproved the straw-men that you have made of my argument. And in your case his metaphysics is of no benefit to you at all if you cannot grasp the ontological consequences that come with the fact that out of absolutely nothing comes nothing.

Sure it does. And I don’t think Thomas infallibly right in everything but I don’t know myself where he has made an error.

Why would you know if he had made error? You are of the impression that God’s “esse” is not an ontological absolute. But rather you think that there can be many distinct esse’. You are treating God as if he is one esse among other esse. You have not fully grasped the rational consequences of claiming that Gods’ essence is his esse, and what it means for a potential essence to be conjoined with esse. Aquinas never said that material forms or essences are there own esse, that their essence and esse are intrinsically one and the same thing; and my argument proves that they are absolutely distinct in nature; unlike with God who is his own esse.

You are misinterpreting Aquinas. You have a superficial understanding of his work.

Aquinas is an “esse-monist”.

The question is why you feel compelled to manufacture a new philosophy? What is the genesis of this compulsion you feel? I think that is improtant. What is it precisely?

Aquinas went as far as to prove that there is a being that is the embodiment of esse. But he never explained how God creates new actual essences. This will always be a stumbling block for atheists, since out of nothing comes nothing. You cannot get a new act of reality out of absolutely nothing no matter how infinitely powerful you might be, because it is a metaphysical contradiction, just like a square triangle is a contradiction. Reality and nothing are absolutely distinct; you cannot attribute to nothing that which is true of reality as an act.

I am not trying to manufacture a new philosophy. I am trying to complete what Aquinas began; rather than repeating something that is incomplete.

 

[Alindawyl]

He is not presenting my argument as I gave it. I never once said that creation is all reality.

I suggest that you re-read the second post where I defend my thesis.

Just because something appears like something else, does not mean that it is what it appears like.

You’re missing the trees for the forest in your assertion that, and I quote, “Therefore a true intrinsic act of reality or actuality cannot truly be divided into separate entities with distinct natures.”

This makes no sense. The act and the beings created by the act are distinct. God’s act of creation has brought into existence a multitude of separate entities with distinct natures. All anyone has to do is look around them to see how self-evident that is.

The cat that I petted before leaving home this morning is not me. The wife that I said goodbye to is not me. The birds that I saw in the sky on the way to work are not me. The sky in which they flew is not me. The car in which I drove is not me. The building in which I work is not me. The screen at which I am currently looking is not me. This keyboard on which I am currently typing is not me. The lunch I am about to go get is not me. All are separate entities with distinct natures.

 

[ReapReason]

You’re missing the trees for the forest in your assertion that, and I quote, “Therefore a true intrinsic act of reality or actuality cannot truly be divided into separate entities with distinct natures.”

You are clearly quoting things out of context and you are clearly not reading my argument properly. I am saying that the “act of reality” cannot be divided into a multitude of realities, and i defend that fact logically. However, I never said that essence cannot be a multitude. If you had been reading my theisis properly, you would realize that i make a distinction between esse and essence (existence and nature) in so far as potential beings are concerned. Only in God do we find that his essence is intrinsically the same as his existence; his essence is his esse; and that is why he is eternal. Everything else is only borrowing reality in order to be real; they are not real by their own nature. Reality is not an intrinsic expression of what they are. Otherwise, like God, they would be eternal.

The cat that I petted before leaving home this morning is not me. The wife that I said goodbye to is not me. The birds that I saw in the sky on the way to work are not me. The sky in which they flew is not me. The car in which I drove is not me. The building in which I work is not me. The screen at which I am currently looking is not me. This keyboard on which I am currently typing is not me. The lunch I am about to go get is not me. All are separate entities with distinct natures.

They are all separate natures, but they are not there own “act of existence”.

If you say one more thing that suggests to me that you haven’t bothered to read my argument properly, i will ignore you.

 

[Alindawyl]

You are clearly quoting things out of context and you are clearly not reading my argument properly. I am saying that the “act of reality” cannot be divided into a multitude of realities, and i defend that fact logically. However, I never said that essence cannot be a multitude. If you had been reading my theisis properly, you would realize that i make a distinction between esse and essence (existence and nature) in so far as potential beings are concerned. Only in God do we find that his essence is intrinsically the same as his existence; his essence is his esse; and that is why he is eternal. Everything else is only borrowing reality in order to be real; they are not real by their own nature. Reality is not an intrinsic expression of what they are. Otherwise, like God, they would be eternal.

They are all separate natures, but they are not there own “act of existence”.

If you say one more thing that suggests to me that you haven’t bothered to read my argument properly, i will ignore you.

Well, if pantheism isn’t really what you’re arguing for, you could review your thesis and try to see how not just one but multiple people who have bothered to read it and respond have come to that conclusion. Maybe whatever non-pantheistic concept you believe that you’re attempting to convey is not being expressed clearly. Because I don’t really see the point of what you’re saying unless you’re arguing for a form of pantheism. If you’re not arguing for a form of pantheism, then I will say again that I have no clue what it is you’re trying to say. Maybe I’m an idiot. Maybe you’re just not phrasing it very well. Maybe you ARE arguing for pantheism and just need to be honest with yourself. All I can say for certain is, I don’t get it.

Casting aspersions on those who do not understand or agree with your writings, by treating them as stupid or lazy or deceptive, is not going to encourage anyone to take you seriously. But if you feel that you must ignore me because I do not measure up to whatever requirements you have for discourse, then you may do so. I’ll deal with it as best I can.

 

[ReapReason]

Well, if pantheism isn’t really what you’re arguing for, you could review your thesis and try to see how not just one but multiple people who have bothered to read it and respond have come to that conclusion. Maybe whatever non-pantheistic concept you believe that you’re attempting to convey is not being expressed clearly. Because I don’t really see the point of what you’re saying unless you’re arguing for a form of pantheism. If you’re not arguing for a form of pantheism, then I will say again that I have no clue what it is you’re trying to say. Maybe I’m an idiot. Maybe you’re just not phrasing it very well. Maybe you ARE arguing for pantheism and just need to be honest with yourself. All I can say for certain is, I don’t get it.

Casting aspersions on those who do not understand or agree with your writings, by treating them as stupid or lazy or deceptive, is not going to encourage anyone to take you seriously. But if you feel that you must ignore me because I do not measure up to whatever requirements you have for discourse, then you may do so. I’ll deal with it as best I can.

Its one thing to disagree with somebodies writings and give a rebuttal of what they have written, or not understand them and ask for help in understanding them. Its another thing entirely for somebody to accuse me of saying things i have not said. People are clearly putting words in my mouth, and saying that i have said things that i have not said. This is not a sign of good character. I am not going to be bullied or emotionally blackmailed into apologizing for pointing out bad attitude. You don’t have to post here.

You do have the option of addressing the points that i have made. Or you can ignore them and continue with that attitude. But i am not going respond to you anymore if you make that choice.

Perhaps you should stop treating me like an idiot.