Define for me: metaphysics, first philosophy and fundamental philosophy

[steph_86]

Hi there,

I have been trying to read commentaries on Thomistic philosophy and I am having a very hard time about pretty much everything.

Here is the site I got my information from: aquinasonline.com/Topics/

I would like to know if someone could explain to me in simple but clear terms what metaphysics, first philosophy and (what I keep calling) fundamental philosophy are. Also, how can these be distinguished from what we know as theology?

But that is not all. I have a very difficult time understanding what is meant by being. How is being differentiated from existence, and how does essence differentiate itself from being and existence?

I also read somewhere the words of a French existentialist philosopher, Jean Paul Sartre who claimed that “existence precedes essence”. Now, I have come to know from other readings on Catholic philosophy that Sartre’s affirmation is philosophically false.

But I would like to know, what the actual relation between essence and existence is.

I know this is a lot, but, I have had a lot of philosophical and metaphysical questions on my mind lately, so I would appreciate it if someone would kindly and patiently take the time to explain these terms for my limited intellect. Maybe, someone could even recommend to me a book, a commentary or a treatise on Thomistic or Scholastic philosophy that I could read in order to explain and introduce me to these very difficult concepts.

Peace to all.

 

[Rhubarb]

So I want to dust off my phil101 and take a crack at this. But it’s a mouthful. I’ll start at the top and filter in more as it comes to me. If I goof, or leave something out I’m sure someone’ll point it out…

So metaphysics, in the broadest sense, is one of the main branches of philosophy. It’s ancient, going back to the classical era. It’s also the springboard of many schools we see today. Its roots are meta- beyond. So it’s the contemplation of things beyond physics- the physical word that can be quantified. Ideas that fall under the umbrella of metaphysics include notions of existence, and the fundamental truths of the world and universe. Back in the history of science, before it branched away from philosophy, Aristotle called it the first philosophy.

Things like existence and reality, identity and matter - what makes a thing a thing. (A chair, for instance. The shape? The materials? What gives a chair its ‘chairness’? Or is ‘red’ real, is there an objective ‘red’ or is it just what we see? How about ‘hour’, is it real? Or is that just a construct?)

Theology is considered part of metaphysics. At least studying gods or God, and religious theories that are, again, ‘beyond physical’. The nature of the divine, divinity, etc.

Cosmology, time, space and its purpose all fit into metaphysics too.

Problems of free will and etc., also the mind.

I’ve also heard that some folks consider epistemology as a sub-branch of metaphysics. Epistemology being the study of knowledge, what constitutes it, and how one acquires it.

You can see why Aristotle called metaphysics the first philosophy, because in an attempt to understand reality, these questions and ideas are more important than the physical things science can answer. Measuring a thing doesn’t matter until you comprehend what the thing is at its most basic level. Remember that these ideas were conceived in a time before hard science.

 

[Shike]

steph_86,

You have a lot of wonderful questions rolling around in your head! I think the most helpful thing I could do is point you to a book to get a general picture of aristotelian and thomistic philosophy and how it fits in with modern philosophy.

Have you read Edward Feser’s The Last Superstition? It’s a good read aimed at beginner’s (but don’t call it easy–I read through it twice because of the whirlwind of information).

And great post Rhubarb. Let me throw my two cents in the ring with regards to a couple things you said.

So metaphysics, in the broadest sense, is one of the main branches of philosophy.

I would even say it is the main branch of philosophy. Any other area of philosophy ultimately relies on deeper assumptions about the nature of reality, assumptions that fall under the purview of metaphysics.

Yes, First Philosophy, Metaphysics, Philosophy of Being, and even Ontology are all terms that are very similar in meaning (though they may not be exact).

Theology is considered part of metaphysics. At least studying gods or God, and religious theories that are, again, ‘beyond physical’. The nature of the divine, divinity, etc.

Aquinas, if I am not mistaken, lays out a good road map of where Theology falls in the first few pages of his Summa Theologiae. I think what you say here is good, but it is incomplete.

It is important to take into account a discipline’s subject matter and method: Theology’s subject matter and method both need to match or fall under Metaphysics subject matter and method in order to be considered a sub-discipline. And we do indeed find that this is the case. The first principles of reality are tied up with the existence of God and such a study can be undertaken by philosophy. I like to call this Philosophical Theology.

However, I would also say there exists the discipline of Theology Proper which doesn’t strictly fall under philosophy. Although Theology Proper utilizes philosophy to reach some of its conclusions, it does not have exactly the same method as it starts from Revelation (whether contained in Scripture, Tradition, or the Magisterium of the Church).

This is also not to say that there isn’t overlap and agreement between Philosophical Theology and Theology Proper… there is.

Remember that these ideas were conceived in a time before hard science.

It is very important to remember that we have come a long way scientifically. Thus, for instance, if you read a lot of Aquinas you can see that some of his examples he gives to illustrate his points don’t always jive with current theory. But it is important to remember that these are just examples, and the metaphysical principles he is demonstrating are just that… necessary principles.

I’m not saying that science and metaphysics are divorced from each other, just that metaphysics has a fundamental primacy.

Good luck and God bless!

• Michael

 

[Rhubarb]

Okay! Back after some time to mull about how to get at the rest of your question. Again, this is just what I recall, and it will probably be explained crudely. I’m sure if I make a mistake, recall wrong, or leave something out someone will correct me.

Let me point out before I get started that a thing about the great philosophers is that when they are discussing their ideas, they create terms and definitions in order to help them explain the meat of their idea. As a philosophy major, I’ve found that understanding their meaning and ideas is more important than their coined phrases. (Though using words in the manner each philosopher does is a great way to sound like a smarty-pants)

So, I see you’ve got three terms left to discuss: Being, Essence, and Existence. All three of these words have been used by philosophers throughout the ages, and can be used in many different ways depending on the idea someone’s trying to convey.

Way back when, one of the main goals of philosophy was to organize existence. (The pre-Socratic philosophers) They had no hard science, microscopes, or tools to help them understand existence as we know it. So they did the best they could with the observations and reasoning they had. ‘Being’ originally, way back when, was the same as ‘thing’. A dog is a thing, a can of Coke is a thing, etc. You could also say that they are a ‘being’, in as much as they are distinct from each other. And if memory serves, and I’m reading my sources right, Aquinas accepts this use of the word too.

The Essence and Existence page from your provided link shows how Aquinas demonstrates that a being is a being - how a thing is a thing. What makes a thing a thing? What makes it real. A being (thing) has two parts. Its essence, and its existence. Perhaps this analogy might help - take a pizza. Your understanding of what ‘pizza’ is, what gives a pizza its pizza-ness is the essence. The pie laying in the cardboard take-out box is the existence. So you might call the existence the ‘stuff’ or ‘material’. (though this ‘stuff’ doesn’t necessarily have to be physical)

So the question then is which part of a being is the ‘more important’, which is truer, or more basic to a beings existence. (by the way, the philosophy that deals with beings, existence and such is called Ontology, another sub-division of Metaphysics) Philosophers of Aquinas’ time would say that the essence, the form-idea-understanding is primary. They would say that the being ‘pizza’ is in fact pizza because its existence (stuff) conforms to the understanding of ‘pizza-ness’.

But then the existentialists came along, of which Sarte is one of. They claim the opposite. They say that the existence is what gives a person their ‘ideas’, and that person then can create what meaning they want out of it. So a pizza is a pizza not because it has all the properties of pizza, but by virtue of the building blocks and we humans call this slab of dough, sauce and cheese pizza. It’s the same sort of head-butting ideas that objectivism and relativism have going on. (An example of essence and existence Catholics can be familiar with every week is a consecrated host - the existence remains bread while the essence becomes Divine. The terms substance and accidents are used instead, but the idea is similar, if not the same.)

Now the real problem question is ‘what is the real relationship’. I remember in my phil101 class a girl raising her hand after the professor going on at length several ideas philosophers had about existence. He was talking about Descartes’ ideas when she asked “Okay, I get all this. But was he right?” She expected there to be some solid answer, like you might find in a math or science class. It just isn’t that simple. When it comes to philosophy, your ideas should be supported by logic and reasoning. But that’s as ‘real’ as they get. In history, philosophy is all about some guy coming up with some ideas, someone refutes them, then someone refutes the refuter, etc. etc. None of them are really wrong - though their reasoning might put off some folks. The real relationship between existence and essence is the one that follows your own logic, reasoning and conscience.

 

[1AugustSon7]

None of them are really wrong - though their reasoning might put off some folks. The real relationship between existence and essence is the one that follows your own logic, reasoning and conscience.

This sounds frighteningly subjective.

Philosophy can answer difficult questions and it would seem rather rash to assume that it cannot or even has not answered definitively the proper relationship between essence and existence. I have often seen men deny for the sake of denying conclusively answered questions, just because they do not like the conclusions.

The Scholastic Philosophy and method has ever been held in esteem by the Church, and to the OP I would say good for you for trying to understand it (I am also, and I know your struggle). It’s an enormous body of knowledge and it requires patience and humility to learn it, but it does challenge you and provoke some serious thought and reflection.

 

[Shike]

I agree with 1AugustSon7. But I would go even further and say not only does it sound frightfully subjective, it is self-defeating to boot. To illustrate, why tell others that philosophy is merely subjective… that’s your subjective philosophy and not mine.

Perhaps this analogy might help - take a pizza. Your understanding of what ‘pizza’ is, what gives a pizza its pizza-ness is the essence. The pie laying in the cardboard take-out box is the existence. So you might call the existence the ‘stuff’ or ‘material’. (though this ‘stuff’ doesn’t necessarily have to be physical)

This analogy seems to make essence purely subjective, which it is not. An existentialist like Sartre would be happy with how you characterize the terms, however.

(An example of essence and existence Catholics can be familiar with every week is a consecrated host - the existence remains bread while the essence becomes Divine. The terms substance and accidents are used instead, but the idea is similar, if not the same.)

The ideas are not the same nor can the terms essence and existence replace substance and accident. Although there is a relation of the principles of actuality to potentiality, they are no substitute for the level of discourse that is being undertaken.

 

[Micorhizea]

Hi there,

I would like to know if someone could explain to me in simple but clear terms what metaphysics, first philosophy and (what I keep calling) fundamental philosophy are. Also, how can these be distinguished from what we know as theology?

But that is not all. I have a very difficult time understanding what is meant by being. How is being differentiated from existence, and how does essence differentiate itself from being and existence?

Peace to all.

These are very good questions. Metaphysics, or applied metaphysics, is holding your mind to an absolute truth in order to stabilize oneself in the storm of temptation and illusion. Philosophy is the love of wisdom, but philosophies differ according to their starting premise. There are many of those, of religious, contemplative, and secular origins. Generally one tends to gravitate toward one that they already embrace the elements of, such as a Catholic leaning towards Thomistic philosophy, or towards someone such as St. Teresa of Avila or Meister Eckhart, A contemporary Catholic who makes exquisite distinctions about the terms you are considering is Bernadette Roberts, a former Carmelite nun who decided that the lessons of silence ought be lived, as she said, “in the market place.” She is rather extraordinary!

But there are enough definitions and considerations about these terms to keep you busy for a lifetime of debate if you leave it in the realm of book learning. What is important to remember is that these terms come from the experiences lead to by the hard work of contemplation and self inquiry of many who have made the love of God the diligent focus of and active life of contemplation.

 

[Rhubarb]

I certainly didn’t intend to lean towards existentialism in my posts - nor anything. But yeah, to a non-existentialist ‘essence’ isn’t a subjective thing. It is. Like Plato’s Forms. It’s the ‘more real’ quality of being. I can see how my wording implied that, it wasn’t my intention.

As for the ‘real’ relationship between essence and existence, I’m not going to make any claim to it - I just mean to discuss how others before me thought on the subject. The argument remains, like so many philosophical ideas, debated to this day. Admittedly, my thoughts on that come from a secular standpoint. The OP can follow the religious line on that matter if he wants, sure. I wouldn’t call it wrong at all.

 

[jochoa]

I would like to know if someone could explain to me in simple but clear terms what metaphysics, first philosophy and (what I keep calling) fundamental philosophy are. Also, how can these be distinguished from what we know as theology?

Excellent questions my friend! I look forward to discussion! Please consider the following concepts:
Regarding Metaphysics
If physics is the force of thermodynamics, the force of gravity, the force of electromagnetism, then metaphysics is the force of desiring happiness when content, the force of desiring peace when disturbed, the force of desiring longevity, the force of desiring knowledge when ignorant, the force of desiring wisdom when knowledgeable, etc.
Regarding first philosophy
Using some fundamental aspects of human nature, one can come to understand why the first philosophy is “Charity/Love” where “Charity is patient and charity is kind.”
Given the purpose of willing is to fulfill various wants, all humans want happiness, where happiness ranges from contentment to intense joy. In order to experience any level of happiness, one must first be content or at peace, where peace is freedom from disturbance. Given our natural ignorance, there will be accidents, which will require patience to maintain peace and kindness to generate any level of greater happiness. Therefore, the greatest actions in life are to master are patience and kindness.
Regarding fundamental philosophy
4 distinct aspects of human nature are: Body/Feelings, Thoughts/Thinking, Will/Acting, and Spirit/Image & Knowledge.
In a given instance, each aspect can be of a different quality of patience and kindness, and therefore will yield various qualities of peace and happiness.
Therefore, an almost complete fundamental philosophy must be patient and kind with all the heart, mind, strength, and soul equally towards others as the self in order to obtain a complete peace and happiness in relationships as well as the self.
To complete the fundamental philosophy, consider what is the Greatest Motivation.
“Be patient and kind and motivated for God with all the heart, mind, strength, and soul equally towards others and the self.”

I will share thoughts on the rest of your post later.

Thoughts?

 

[Alterum]

I would like to know if someone could explain to me in simple but clear terms what metaphysics, first philosophy and (what I keep calling) fundamental philosophy are. Also, how can these be distinguished from what we know as theology?

Metaphysics is the study of being, or the nature of existence.

First philosophy is not a term with one meaning, but generally it refers to one’s “starting point” for conducting philosophical inquiry. Metaphysics is often given primacy, and so questions concerning ontology are given pride of place. However, in modern times, epistemology has usurped metaphysics. Think of Descartes, who gave primacy to questions concerning how people can know anything in the first place. In Catholic philosophy, metaphysics should be given primacy.

Fundamental philosophy is probably the analogue to the fundamental theology John Paul II discusses in his encyclical Fides et Ratio. If so, fundamental philosophy will examine the connection between philosophy and theology.

Distinction: philosophy and theology are deeply interrelated, but they are distinct regarding their source and their object. The Dogmatic Constitution Dei Filius says:

[T]here is a twofold order of knowledge, distinct not only as regards its source, but also as regards its object. With regard to the source, we know at the one level by natural reason, at the other level by divine faith. With regard to the object, besides those things to which natural reason can attain, there are proposed for our belief mysteries hidden in God which, unless they are divinely revealed, are incapable of being known.

steph_86:

But that is not all. I have a very difficult time understanding what is meant by being. How is being differentiated from existence, and how does essence differentiate itself from being and existence? …I would like to know, what the actual relation between essence and existence is.

For Aquinas, all substances (particular existing things) are the conjunction of an essence and an act of existence.

Essence is the nature of a substance, and cannot change. For example, all human beings have a human essence or nature. If a particular person did not have a human essence, he would no longer be human.

Aquinas probably believes that there are no “free-floating” essences, because essences do not have any concrete reality unless they exist. They are, instead, divine “ideas” existing in God’s “mind”.

Existence is the divine act by which an essence is given being and continually sustained in being. In all that is, a rational division can be made between its essence and its existence. If a division cannot be made between essence and existence, then the essence would necessarily exist. Only in God does Aquinas say that essence and existence are identical.

Being is perhaps best used in this discussion to differentiate creation from Creator. If everything other than God can be said to have being, God must be said to be beyond being, as its ground or source. Creation ex nihilo (from nothing) entails that no being whatsoever existed before God created. Thus, when Aquinas says that “God exists,” there is already a caveat in place. The word “existence” cannot be taken to mean the same thing of God that it means of any of the essences which we say “exist”.

 

[steph_86]

So I want to dust off my phil101 and take a crack at this. But it’s a mouthful. I’ll start at the top and filter in more as it comes to me. If I goof, or leave something out I’m sure someone’ll point it out…

So metaphysics, in the broadest sense, is one of the main branches of philosophy. It’s ancient, going back to the classical era. It’s also the springboard of many schools we see today. Its roots are meta- beyond. So it’s the contemplation of things beyond physics- the physical word that can be quantified. Ideas that fall under the umbrella of metaphysics include notions of existence, and the fundamental truths of the world and universe. Back in the history of science, before it branched away from philosophy, Aristotle called it the first philosophy.

Things like existence and reality, identity and matter - what makes a thing a thing. (A chair, for instance. The shape? The materials? What gives a chair its ‘chairness’? Or is ‘red’ real, is there an objective ‘red’ or is it just what we see? How about ‘hour’, is it real? Or is that just a construct?)

Theology is considered part of metaphysics. At least studying gods or God, and religious theories that are, again, ‘beyond physical’. The nature of the divine, divinity, etc.

Cosmology, time, space and its purpose all fit into metaphysics too.

Problems of free will and etc., also the mind.

I’ve also heard that some folks consider epistemology as a sub-branch of metaphysics. Epistemology being the study of knowledge, what constitutes it, and how one acquires it.

You can see why Aristotle called metaphysics the first philosophy, because in an attempt to understand reality, these questions and ideas are more important than the physical things science can answer. Measuring a thing doesn’t matter until you comprehend what the thing is at its most basic level. Remember that these ideas were conceived in a time before hard science.

Thank you for your answer. I think it helps me comprehend these matters a bit better.

 

[steph_86]

Metaphysics is the study of being, or the nature of existence.

First philosophy is not a term with one meaning, but generally it refers to one’s “starting point” for conducting philosophical inquiry. Metaphysics is often given primacy, and so questions concerning ontology are given pride of place. However, in modern times, epistemology has usurped metaphysics. Think of Descartes, who gave primacy to questions concerning how people can know anything in the first place. In Catholic philosophy, metaphysics should be given primacy.

Fundamental philosophy is probably the analogue to the fundamental theology John Paul II discusses in his encyclical Fides et Ratio. If so, fundamental philosophy will examine the connection between philosophy and theology.

Distinction: philosophy and theology are deeply interrelated, but they are distinct regarding their source and their object. The Dogmatic Constitution Dei Filius says:

[T]here is a twofold order of knowledge, distinct not only as regards its source, but also as regards its object. With regard to the source, we know at the one level by natural reason, at the other level by divine faith. With regard to the object, besides those things to which natural reason can attain, there are proposed for our belief mysteries hidden in God which, unless they are divinely revealed, are incapable of being known.

For Aquinas, all substances (particular existing things) are the conjunction of an essence and an act of existence.

Essence is the nature of a substance, and cannot change. For example, all human beings have a human essence or nature. If a particular person did not have a human essence, he would no longer be human.

Aquinas probably believes that there are no “free-floating” essences, because essences do not have any concrete reality unless they exist. They are, instead, divine “ideas” existing in God’s “mind”.

Existence is the divine act by which an essence is given being and continually sustained in being. In all that is, a rational division can be made between its essence and its existence. If a division cannot be made between essence and existence, then the essence would necessarily exist. Only in God does Aquinas say that essence and existence are identical.

Being is perhaps best used in this discussion to differentiate creation from Creator. If everything other than God can be said to have being, God must be said to be beyond being, as its ground or source. Creation ex nihilo (from nothing) entails that no being whatsoever existed before God created. Thus, when Aquinas says that “God exists,” there is already a caveat in place. The word “existence” cannot be taken to mean the same thing of God that it means of any of the essences which we say “exist”.

Thank you so much for your explanations. They really help me a lot. I was reading on Wikipedia an article on Thomism and the question of being. And I read that a being is said to be “an essence that exists.” Then I went back to the Thomistic philosophy website, and there was a distinction made between essence and existence.

Here, it was said that, a being is “that which is”. Here, “which” was said to refer to the being’s “whatness” which is actually the being’s essence, form, or nature. On the other hand, “is”, refers to the being’s “esse”, which is the principle of the being’s existence, or its existence proper.

I would like to know however, can a thing have “whatness” and not have “esse”? On the website, there was a distinction made between “what a thing is” and “that it is”. It is said that there is only a rational division between essence and existence. But is the division actually real, or merely rational?

Concerning the distinction between essence and existence, do things or substances such as rocks and minerals have an essence and an existence? Since they are existing things, they therefore have being right?

But what about man-made creations, such as computers and televisions? Could it be argued that they have an essence and an existence? Could we say for example that “computerness” is an essence because it exists in the mind of man, but that it actually has existence because it is “formed” in the configuration and the composition of an individual thing - a substance? - called “computer”?

In this regard, if a thing were to have essence, and not have existence, would they only exist in the mind of God, like you implied? Furthermore, I would like to know. Is it possible to have being and not exist?

You said that it is not possible to change a thing’s essence, but what about transsubstantiation? Transsubstantiation changes the substance of the bread and of the wine, into the substance of the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ. What is the difference between a thing’s essence and a thing having or being a substance?

Finally, I want to know if you can distinguish between potency, actuality and a thing being real, or perhaps, better said, the reality of a thing. Is reality, the actualization of a thing’s potency, or is it something more?

 

[steph_86]

I am bumping this thread up because I am really hoping that someone can give me some answers to my question.

 

[Alterum]

I’m going to make my remarks brief, but I hope they help. I too recommend Edward Feser. I have not read his books but I’ve been told that they are good introductions to this. I believe he has just written a book on Aquinas.

I would like to know however, can a thing have “whatness” and not have “esse”? On the website, there was a distinction made between “what a thing is” and “that it is”. It is said that there is only a rational division between essence and existence. But is the division actually real, or merely rational?

For Aquinas, the division is real, but a “whatness” (quiddity) would not exist if it did not also have esse. Like I said, only in God are essence and existence identified. However, there is plenty of debate about this. Personally, I don’t feel qualified to have an opinion

Concerning the distinction between essence and existence, do things or substances such as rocks and minerals have an essence and an existence? Since they are existing things, they therefore have being right?

Yes, on Thomas’ view all substances are constituted by an essence and esse.

But what about man-made creations, such as computers and televisions? Could it be argued that they have an essence and an existence? Could we say for example that “computerness” is an essence because it exists in the mind of man, but that it actually has existence because it is “formed” in the configuration and the composition of an individual thing - a substance? - called “computer”?

Since Thomas is working within an Aristotelian framework, artifacts also have an essence and esse. However, you’re raising an important mereological problem. How do we tell when something is a mere aggregate of substances versus when it is one substance? Sometimes this is easy: a human being is one substance whose parts are unified in virtue of his substantial form. But what about a heap of stone? The heap is not one being in the same sense that a stone in the heap is one being. The heap is one being in virtue of its accidental unity, given by an accidental form. The stone is one being substantially, thanks to its substantial form. Nevertheless, this kind of division is not always easy or reasonable to make. Thomistic metaphysics has to be altered to fully digest the discoveries of modern science, I think.

In this regard, if a thing were to have essence, and not have existence, would they only exist in the mind of God, like you implied?

Yes, like I said, for Thomas there are no uninstantiated essences. They are in the mind of God. (They don’t have being; they are not joined to an esse.)

Furthermore, I would like to know. Is it possible to have being and not exist?

It is not possible to have being and not exist.

You said that it is not possible to change a thing’s essence, but what about transsubstantiation? Transsubstantiation changes the substance of the bread and of the wine, into the substance of the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ. What is the difference between a thing’s essence and a thing having or being a substance?

I should have been clearer: It is not possible to change a thing’s essence without effecting a substantial change. (If you change a thing’s essence, it is no longer that thing.) In transubstantiation, the essence of bread and wine is indeed changed, which means that the consecrated species are no longer bread and wine. The species do, in most cases, retain their accidental properties.

“Substances” refers to essence-esse composites.

Finally, I want to know if you can distinguish between potency, actuality and a thing being real, or perhaps, better said, the reality of a thing. Is reality, the actualization of a thing’s potency, or is it something more?

Anything that is, exists. Since a potency is, it can exist unactualized. A potency reduced to act is no longer a potency.

 

[steph_86]

As an aside, has anyone read or heard about the following book:

An Introduction to the Metaphysics of Thomas Aquinas by authors James Francis Anderson and W. Norris Clarke.

books.google.com/books?id=NuYaAQAAMAAJ&dq=introduction%20to%20thomistic%20metaphysics&source=gbs_similarbooks

I am interested in picking it up, but I can’t find any previews of the book’s content on the Internet. Can any one help in this matter?

 

[jochoa]

I would like to know if someone could explain to me in simple but clear terms what …fundamental philosophy are. Also, how can these be distinguished from what we know as theology?

Please consider the following analysis of fundamental theology:

…fundamental philosophy will examine the connection between philosophy and theology.

I am very appreciative of you sharing the concept of fundamental philosophy examining the connection between philosophy and theology. It helped me develop a concept I have been exploring.

The fundamental philosophy of life is the same as the fundamental theology of life and is most simply and elegantly stated by the Holy Bible as: “You shall Love God with all your heart, soul, mind, and strength. Love your neighbor as yourself.” From this simple and wise declaration, as well as trying to master this commandment, there is much to be learned and gained. The following are some of the concepts of living which can be learned from the commandment.
-Since this is God’s request for us, He must be perfect at this.
-There must be a purpose of God wanting this from us.
-A hint of the blessings which are to come once in Heaven.
-The blessings which come from mastery while on earth.
-The components, as well as order, of being.
-It must be based on the first philosophy: “Love is greatest, where love is patient and kind.”
So from developing this commandment, we will get the fundamental of life, including God’s life aka theology.

Development with the basis of first philosophy, the commandment can be defined further as:
You should always be and spread the means to be perfectly patient and kind and motivated for God with all the heart, soul, mind, and strength equally towards others and the self.

Revelation of the components of being from the commandment:
-Heart is the center of the body, and the body feels.
-Soul is the center of the spirit, and the spirit is image, knowledge, and past-actions.
-Mind is the center of the thoughts, and the thoughts think.
-Strength is the center of the will, and the will acts.
-Although the body feeling and thoughts thinking are acts, they are not the fullness of acting/willing until all act in oneness.
Therefore the commandment can be developed further: You should always be and spread the means to be patient and kind and motivated for God with all your body, spirit, thoughts, and will equally towards others as the self.

Revelation of the order of being when coming into existence: First, body. Second, spirit. Third, thoughts. Fourth, will.
From human perspective without consideration of God, we come to exist as a body (single cell) first. Once existing this single cell has a certain appearance, therefore is the first image and first existence of our spirit. Next we have the ability to think because of the generation of the mind. Then from the ability to think and feel, the fullness of our will is revealed by proceeding from our mind and body.
Although the science of God’s existence is different from ours, the order of His existence is the same. My concept of God, the Father’s, existence is: He has a body of a single cell. This cell has the image of the Eucharist, which is an instance of His Spirit. This cell could think of the plan to bring free-willed creations to love as He loves. Then by the procession of the thoughts and body of God, the will caused creation. If you want to know how God is bodiless before this, consider John 1:2 DRB. Although it first states Word(Laws/Nothingness) was first, since it follows with Word with God, God must have already been there for the Word to be with Him. If you need a method to reason that God’s body existed first, refer back to the second question scheme of post #215: Was the first physical/material thing to exist living or nonliving?

Revelation of the blessings which come from mastery while living on earth:
When one is patient and kind and motivated…
…with the body, one’s heart will be filled with peace and happiness and energy.
…with the thoughts, one’s mind will be filled…
…with the will, one’s relationships will be filled…
…with the spirit, one will generate peace and happiness and energy in others.
Given the ignorant nature of humans, as well as the highly selfish living of many, when a person sets out to be perfectly patient and kind in the face of impatience, unkindness, and meanness, s/he will have to sacrifice natural desires/”talents/interests” for the desires of peace and happiness for all, which in turn generates the blessings of perfect happiness with unbreakable peace while on earth.

Revelation of the concept of blessings which are to come in Heaven, and God’s purpose for wanting us to do this:
In the fullness of Heaven (where the resurrected body of Jesus is), everybody lives in perfect alignment with this commandment. And when two or more people live in oneness with these commandments, the blessings become a limitless happiness with unbreakable peace.
Therefore, the purpose of God wanting us to live accordingly is so that He may experience a limitless happiness with an unbreakable peace.

I will follow up with some ideas that share some of the Revelations of God’s Perfection at this commandment.

And given that we are ignorant humans and must grow towards oneness with living perfectly accordingly to the commandment, I have come to interpret the following definition of the commandment:
Always want to learn, perfect, and spread the means to patience and kindness and motivation for God with all the body, spirit, thoughts, and will equally towards others and the self, so that every relationship and the self may experience unbreakable peace, limitless happiness, and unstoppable energy.

Thoughts?

 

[steph_86]

I’m going to make my remarks brief, but I hope they help. I too recommend Edward Feser. I have not read his books but I’ve been told that they are good introductions to this. I believe he has just written a book on Aquinas.

For Aquinas, the division is real, but a “whatness” (quiddity) would not exist if it did not also have esse. Like I said, only in God are essence and existence identified. However, there is plenty of debate about this. Personally, I don’t feel qualified to have an opinion

I am having some hard time wrapping my mind around such notions as essence (quiddity) and existence (esse). As an aside, however, I read that there exists a difference between a concept and a notion. Do you think you could explain it?

Going back to the topic, however, I understand that an essence is the “whatness” of a thing. But I am having a hard time comprehending why the distinction between a thing’s “whatness” and its "esse is actually real. As far as I can understand, the fact that a thing is a “thing”, a “whatness”, and that it actually “exists” or that it “is” are experienced by humans as being the same in reality.

Do you think you could differentiate for me, what is the difference between a human being’s essence and his existence? I read that a human being’s essence is a composite of his substantial form and of his matter. Even further, if we take the creation of Adam as actually having occurred as described in Genesis, was Adam merely an essence, before God breathed life, that is, the soul, into him? Did then afterwards, begin to exist or to be, after the soul was breathed into him?

And what about the souls of the dead? Are they essences, beings, or substances? The way I see it, to be dead is to still possess essence and existence, and thus, being but could it not be said that their essences and their substances are incomplete, since they are no longer united to their being. Is this a satisfactory hypothesis? I know I am asking a lot of questions, but I am trying to understand matters that are fundamental to me.

I would like to know, does St Thomas posit a real distinction between “essence” and “esse” because it is possible for things not to exist or to be as actual substances? As I understand it, essences are first those concepts that exist in the Mind of God. Is it correct more exact to say that they exist in the Mind of God, or should it be said that they exist before the Mind of God?

Can essences be related to Plato’s Theory of the Forms or of the Ideas? The notion that beyond the world of sensation, exists a world of abstract and ideal forms which are more real than the material world?

Is this what reality is, that which is present before the Mind of God?

Yes, on Thomas’ view all substances are constituted by an essence and esse.

So, substances are things that which exist in and by themselves are not said to exist in another. Accidents are those things that exist in another, and are said of another. I understand that a substance, in reality, is a natural kind of thing that exists in its own right. But concretely speaking, what does that mean? According to Aristotle there are 10 categories which are substance and its 9 accidents:

Quantity, quality, relation, action, passion, time, place, disposition (the arrangement of parts), rainment (whether a thing is dressed or armed, etc.).

As far as I can comprehend, all these characteristics fall under and are perceived by the senses. But if you take away all those 9 categories, what is left is a substance. In this case, then, what is substance? Can a substance in itself, even be perceived by the senses?

 

[steph_86]

Going back to the doctrine of Transubstantiation, for example, we know that the substances of the bread and of the wine, are changed into the Body, the Blood, the Soul and the Divinity of Christ, which in a word, are represented in the Self of the Incarnate Word.

(As an aside, I am referring to the Self of the Incarnate Word, based on the miracle of Lanciano that took place around 700 and which was recognized by the Church. In this miracle, the species of the bread and of the wine, were changed respectively into living flesh and into living blood. The flesh was examined, and found to be a section of the myocardium, which is a part of the heart. As such, it can be said that in that the Eucharist, which is the Heart of Christ, contains in itself the whole of Christ’s Self.)

As much as I can gather, a substance cannot exist without its accidents. Am I correct?
In the event of Transubstantiation, the species of the bread and of the wine, retain their accidents, and yet, there occurs a substantial change. How is it possible then, that the Substance of Christ’s Self or of Christ’s Heart, is not perceived by the corporeal senses? Does this mean that a substance in itself or in its essence is not perceptible by the five senses?

Since Thomas is working within an Aristotelian framework, artifacts also have an essence and esse. However, you’re raising an important mereological problem. How do we tell when something is a mere aggregate of substances versus when it is one substance? Sometimes this is easy: a human being is one substance whose parts are unified in virtue of his substantial form. But what about a heap of stone? The heap is not one being in the same sense that a stone in the heap is one being. The heap is one being in virtue of its accidental unity, given by an accidental form. The stone is one being substantially, thanks to its substantial form. Nevertheless, this kind of division is not always easy or reasonable to make. Thomistic metaphysics has to be altered to fully digest the discoveries of modern science, I think.

I would like to know what you mean by an accidental unity and also an accidental form. Are you then suggesting that products of human industry such as machines and electronic apparel are merely imparted with an accidental unity by an accidental form that is itself a material configuration that is a product of human knowledge and of human skill?

Yes, like I said, for Thomas there are no uninstantiated essences. They are in the mind of God. (They don’t have being; they are not joined to an esse.)

It is not possible to have being and not exist.

What does it mean for a thing to be in the Mind of God? Can it be said that they exist in or before His Mind? Can a thing be in the Mind of God and not be called into being, into existence by God?

It reminds me of a topic I read on the Thomistic Philosophy Page, concerning whether God had created the Best of All Possible Worlds, or whether He had merely created, as I understand, a world according to what pleased Him.

I should have been clearer: It is not possible to change a thing’s essence without effecting a substantial change. (If you change a thing’s essence, it is no longer that thing.) In transubstantiation, the essence of bread and wine is indeed changed, which means that the consecrated species are no longer bread and wine. The species do, in most cases, retain their accidental properties.

I have a hard time comprehending how a substantial change can occur, without effecting also an accidental change. I guess, I have a hard time, actually forming in my mind a concept of what an essence actually is. Do you think you can give me a concrete example on how to conceive an essence analogically? Is it possible to actually see and perceive with the five senses what an essence is?

“Substances” refers to essence-esse composites.

Yes. As I understand, rocks, trees, animals and human beings are substances. Just as stars, and suns are substances. Are galaxies substances? Or should it be said that they merely are characterized by an accidental unity? And what about prime matter, since it is matter that exists only and fully as potential, does it have substance?

Anything that is, exists. Since a potency is, it can exist unactualized. A potency reduced to act is no longer a potency.

Finally, do you think you could actually answer my final question? What is the difference between a thing being actual and a thing being real? What is the difference between actuality and reality?

In His Omniscience, does God see actuality or does He see reality?
I know that since God Is All that Is then He Is Reality. But I don’t think that the converse is true. Am I correct in stating that Reality is not God? Is this a good, and a real distinction?

I am sorry for all these questions, but I am really trying to grasp some really important and fundamental concepts.

 

[steph_86]

Do you think you could differentiate for me, what is the difference between a human being’s essence and his existence? I read that a human being’s essence is a composite of his substantial form and of his matter. Even further, if we take the creation of Adam as actually having occurred as described in Genesis, was Adam merely an essence, before God breathed life, that is, the soul, into him, into his body? Did he then afterwards, begin to exist or to be, after the soul was breathed into him?

And what about the souls of the dead? Are they essences, beings, or substances? The way I see it, to be dead is to still possess essence and existence, and thus, being but could it not be said that their essences and their substances are incomplete, since they are no longer united to their being? Is this a satisfactory hypothesis? I know I am asking a lot of questions, but I am trying to understand matters that are fundamental to me.

I meant to posit that because their souls are no longer united to their bodies, then, their essences and their substances are incomplete. Is that an acceptable and correct hypothesis?

 

[steph_86]

I would like to know, does St Thomas posit a real distinction between “essence” and “esse” because it is possible for things not to exist or to be as actual substances? As I understand it, essences are first those concepts that exist in the Mind of God. Is it correct more exact to say that they exist in the Mind of God, or should it be said that they exist before the Mind of God?

I meant to say here that: does St Thomas posit a real distinction between “essence” and “esse” because it is possible for things not to exist or not to be as actual substances? I meant to ask here, whether St Thomas posited a real distinction because created things are contingent and that it is possible for them not to exist, or not to be.