They are what St. Thomas called " beings of the mind. " They are not substances or beings having ontological existence. All ideas, concepts, exist as " forms " in the mind, as such, they are " universals. " Universals have no actual existence, only particulars have existence. The idea you have of a horse is a " universal. " It is the " perfect " idea of a horse. But in reality only specific realities of horse exist. A concrete horse in the flesh and blood is a particular instantiation of the " universal " idea. The concrete horse has a real form ( call it horseness ) united to a certain particular degree of matter and the two together make a horse, in the flesh.Do abstract ideas, like love or hate or jealousy, have essence?
If they have essence, then do they have to have existence?
If they don’t have existence, are they causally independent of God?
Wow that makes me think of Plato and his “World of forms”. Substance exists right? The substance of the host cannot be seen but only the accidents. The substance is the same as christ right? Through transubstantiation?They are what St. Thomas called " beings of the mind. " They are not substances or beings having ontological existence. All ideas, concepts, exist as " forms " in the mind, as such, they are " universals. " Universals have no actual existence, only particulars have existence. The idea you have of a horse is a " universal. " It is the " perfect " idea of a horse. But in reality only specific realities of horse exist. A concrete horse in the flesh and blood is a particular instantiation of the " universal " idea. The concrete horse has a real form ( call it horseness ) united to a certain particular degree of matter and the two together make a horse, in the flesh.
Linus2nd
I believe the platonists would go so far as to say that the universals are entirely distinct from sense experience and known only through the souls by God or the gods. Aquinas would say that i only can have a concept of the universal in my mind and then when I sense-perceive a thing that fits that concept, that concept is that thing I have conceived. Or i can sense-perceive an attribute of a being and then that being would be a particular instance of that concept. Correct me if I’m wrong.Wow that makes me think of Plato and his “World of forms”. Substance exists right? The substance of the host cannot be seen but only the accidents. The substance is the same as christ right? Through transubstantiation?
First, a word like “love” would have no essence if not sensed? So we can’t say that love has essence even though we have an idea of what “love” is in the universal without sensing it?They are what St. Thomas called " beings of the mind. " They are not substances or beings having ontological existence. All ideas, concepts, exist as " forms " in the mind, as such, they are " universals. " Universals have no actual existence, only particulars have existence. The idea you have of a horse is a " universal. " It is the " perfect " idea of a horse. But in reality only specific realities of horse exist. A concrete horse in the flesh and blood is a particular instantiation of the " universal " idea. The concrete horse has a real form ( call it horseness ) united to a certain particular degree of matter and the two together make a horse, in the flesh.
Linus2nd
Aristotle and Plato used the same term, but they did not mean the same thing. In Platonism, forms are ontologically primary and exist perfectly in a third realm, while in Aristotelian hylemorphism, substances are ontologically primary. Substances are compounds of matter and form, but Aristotelian forms are individuated, though they can be abstracted (as Linus says) by intelligent creatures as beings of reason (or mind). In Platonism, that which is sensed in the world participates in perfect forms, while in Aristotelianism, substances have forms, which cannot exist apart from the substance.Wow that makes me think of Plato and his “World of forms”.
God creates particulars. Thomas would hold, though, that forms pre-exist in the divine intellect, but that is not akin to the way that Platonic forms exist in a third realm.Second, In Thomistic ontology, did God make only existent beings (particulars), or these and those universals?
Redness does exist in things that are red, just not in the abstract. Redness is an accident, which has an accidental form (as opposed to a substantial form). God created things which are red; the accident of redness would not need to be created except in those things which have it.In other words, did God make the predicate property of redness?
Or better yet, things that don’t exist, like redness, per se?
They have definition for us as abstract only…Do abstract ideas, like love or hate or jealousy, have essence?
Not for us,If they have essence, then do they have to have existence?
Nothing is,If they don’t have existence, are they causally independent of God?
Substances are real entities that have existence outsied the mind; i.e. your car, your Mon and Dad, the local Grocery store, your dog and cat, etc. You have ideas of these things too but you have them in a universal way, like the universal Mom or the universal dog, etc. These Universal ideas are " beings of the mind, " they do not have actual existence outside the mind.Wow that makes me think of Plato and his “World of forms”. Substance exists right? The substance of the host cannot be seen but only the accidents. The substance is the same as christ right? Through transubstantiation?
So does that mean that the first time before his glorification, that he broke bread he was not in it?Substances are real entities that have existence outsied the mind; i.e. your car, your Mon and Dad, the local Grocery store, your dog and cat, etc. You have ideas of these things too but you have them in a universal way, like the universal Mom or the universal dog, etc. These Universal ideas are " beings of the mind, " they do not have actual existence outside the mind.
Substance is understood at two levels. Second Substance would be Jesus as He walked among the Apostoles. The Christ in the Sacrament is just exactly like that, it is Jesus as He walked among the Apostles, except His Body is now Glorified and is present in the Sacrament according to the manner of the Sacrament. That is, His presence, by His will is made conformable to the necessary conditions of the Species ( the host and wine ), whose substance is changed into His Body and Blood.
First Substance really does not have anything to do with the Sacrament, but it is the reality of a thing in which all the accidents inhere. You cannot see First Substance, what you see is Second Substance, which is really noting but the total conglomerate of a Substances accidents - arms, legs, color, hair eyes, shape, weight, etc.
Linus2nd
No, He was present even then. Since His Sacrifice is a timeless event, it can be anticipated for a future time as well as relived in the present time. Besides, He pronunced the words of consecration at that original offering. His words are quite clear. And He never lies.So does that mean that the first time before his glorification, that he broke bread he was not in it?
In a sense that is true, though I would say rather that the time of Christ’s Sacrifice is brought forward to us. Jesus is stepping out of time. He is bringing past time to us and we step into it at Communion, so both ideas are true.I read during Mass you are actually taken out of time and before the cross which is an event that is outside of and transcends time. Maybe like all events I don’t know.