Edward Fesser on Aquinas: Esse/essence distinction

[Linux]

In Edward Fesser’s book on Aquinas he says that even after esse and essence is conjoined, “esse” is still distinct from the “essence” of a thing. In other words esse is never intrinsic to an essence accept in God.

But then what is esse considered by itself?

I think that the logical consequences of the esse and essence distinction is that God is identical to the Esse of every contingent essence; because it is not esse that is said to come into existence but rather it is “essence” that is said to become actual. If the Esse of an essence never comes into existence then we must say that the esse (the act of existence) of every contingent essence (the nature of the contingent thing existing) is identical to God; which would also mean that there is only one esse despite there being many actual essences, and that ties in nicely with monotheism, the theological/doctrinal pronouncement that there is only one God.

God is the act of existence.
What say ye?

 

[Linusthe2nd]

In Edward Fesser’s book on Aquinas he says that even after esse and essence is conjoined, “esse” is still distinct from the “essence” of a thing. In other words esse is never intrinsic to an essence accept in God.

But then what is esse considered by itself?

I think that the logical consequences of the esse and essence distinction is that God is identical to the Esse of every contingent essence; because it is not esse that is said to come into existence but rather it is “essence” that is said to become actual. If the Esse of an essence never comes into existence then we must say that the esse (the act of existence) of every contingent essence (the nature of the contingent thing existing) is identical to God; which would also mean that there is only one esse despite there being many actual essences, and that ties in nicely with monotheism, the theological/doctrinal pronouncement that there is only one God.

God is the act of existence.
What say ye?

Yikes ! Read it again. God is Pure Existence. He is not a part of the existence of the created universe. Linus

 

[Linux]

Yikes ! Read it again. God is Pure Existence. He is not a part of the existence of the created universe. Linus

He certainly is not part of the “essence” of the created universe, but it follows logically from the esse/essence distinction that esse is identical to God and that same God is the esse of the universe.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

He certainly is not part of the “essence” of the created universe, but it follows logically from the esse/essence distinction that esse is identical to God and that same God is the esse of the universe.

No, no. God is His own esse ( Actus Purus ). He does not share that act. His Act of Existence is His Essence, it is His Being. It is a Pure Being, having no limitation, eternally existing. His creation is one of limited, contingent beings. They have existence, given by Him Who has the power to create. To create means to cause to have existence, to cause something else " to be in act. " It is to cause to " come to be, " and " to act.
The beings of the universe have there own esse which is given to them by God when He created them. Linus

 

[Linux]

The beings of the universe have there own esse which is given to them by God when He created them. Linus

What you are saying here does not follow logically from the esse/essence distinction.

 

[rom422]

In Edward Fesser’s book on Aquinas he says that even after esse and essence is conjoined, “esse” is still distinct from the “essence” of a thing. In other words esse is never intrinsic to an essence accept in God.

But then what is esse considered by itself?

I think that the logical consequences of the esse and essence distinction is that God is identical to the Esse of every contingent essence; because it is not esse that is said to come into existence but rather it is “essence” that is said to become actual. If the Esse of an essence never comes into existence then we must say that the esse (the act of existence) of every contingent essence (the nature of the contingent thing existing) is identical to God; which would also mean that there is only one esse despite there being many actual essences, and that ties in nicely with monotheism, the theological/doctrinal pronouncement that there is only one God.

God is the act of existence.
What say ye?

The esse or “the act of existing” is a perfection. It is what makes an essence (or a possible being) to be an actual being. However, every perfection is received by a subject according to the nature of the subject. As we say it in Latin, Quidquid recipitur per modum recipientis recipitur. Whatever is received, is received according to the mode or nature of the recipient. This is why the *esse *of a flower is not the same as the esse of a bird. Because although we are here talking about the same perfection (the act of existing), the perfection is received differently by two different beings (of two different natures).

This principle is very important in understanding thomistic philosophy. There are actually many other perfections besides the act of existing that we find in creatures; for example, beauty, intelligence, etc. The beauty of a flower is not the same as the beauty of a bird, and it is not the same as Beauty itself, which God is. Likewise, the intelligence of Peter is not the same as the intelligence of an angel, and that intelligence is not identical to Intelligence itself, which God is.

So, it is true that God is the Act of Existing. But He is the Act of Existing pure and simple. He is the uncreated Act of Existing that is unreceived and unlimited by any finite nature. However, the act of existing that you find in creatures is not unlimited, but is limited by the nature that received the act. The esse of a flower is limited by the nature of the flower that received it. And the esse of a bird is also limited by the essence or nature of the bird itself. This is why their esse is different from each other, and different from God Himself. The uncreated Act of Existing that God is, is not the same as the act of existing (esse) that you find in creatures. The esse of creatures are finite. God, however, as Act of Existing, is infinite.

Yet all are called “beings” by their possession of the act of existing. But among all these beings God alone is being par excellence, because He alone is the One whose nature is to be. Others (the creatures), however, are beings by participation, because it is not of their nature to be, but to be a flower, to be a bird, or to be a man, or to be some other limited thing.

 

[Linux]

The esse or “the act of existing” is a perfection. It is what makes an essence (or a possible being) to be an actual being. However, every perfection is received by a subject according to the nature of the subject. As we say it in Latin, Quidquid recipitur per modum recipientis recipitur. Whatever is received, is received according to the mode or nature of the recipient. This is why the *esse *of a flower is not the same as the esse of a bird. Because although we are here talking about the same perfection (the act of existing), the perfection is received differently by two different beings (of two different natures).

This principle is very important in understanding thomistic philosophy. There are actually many other perfections besides the act of existing that we find in creatures; for example, beauty, intelligence, etc. The beauty of a flower is not the same as the beauty of a bird, and it is not the same as Beauty itself, which God is. Likewise, the intelligence of Peter is not the same as the intelligence of an angel, and that intelligence is not identical to Intelligence itself, which God is.

So, it is true that God is the Act of Existing. But He is the Act of Existing pure and simple. He is the uncreated Act of Existing that is unreceived and unlimited by any finite nature. However, the act of existing that you find in creatures is not unlimited, but is limited by the nature that received the act. The esse of a flower is limited by the nature of the flower that received it. And the esse of a bird is also limited by the essence or nature of the bird itself. This is why their esse is different each other, and different from God Himself. The uncreated Act of Existing that God is, is not the same as the act of existing (esse) that you find in creatures. The esse of creatures are finite. God, however, as Act of Existing, is infinite.

Yet all are called “beings” by their possession of the act of existing. But among all these beings God alone is being par excellence, because He alone is the One whose nature is to be. Others (the creatures), however, are beings by participation, because it is not of their nature to be, but to be a flower, to be a bird, or to be a man, or to be some other limited thing.

I don’t see why the limitations of a particular nature has any relevance to its esse. A person is limited because that is what it means to have the “nature” of a person. Esse is distinct from the nature we call a person.

 

[rom422]

I don’t see why the limitations of a particular nature has any relevance to its esse. A person is limited because that is what it means to have the “nature” of a person. Esse is distinct from the nature we call a person.

The nature is very relevant because it imposes a limit on the esse that it receives. In creatures - as you said - esse is distinct from the nature, and that is why it can be limited by it. In God, His nature is the unreceived Esse itself - no limits whatsoever by reason of identity.

 

[Linux]

The nature is very relevant because it imposes a limit on the esse that it receives. In creatures - as you said - esse is distinct from the nature, and that is why it can be limited by it. In God, His nature is the unreceived Esse itself - no limits whatsoever by reason of identity.

Nature does not impose a limit on esse. Nature does not cause esse. Its essence is its limitation; not its esse. Esse is what makes it actual as opposed to a mere potentiality.

 

[rom422]

Nature does not impose a limit on esse. Nature does not cause esse. Its essence is its limitation; not its esse. Esse is what makes it actual as opposed to a mere potentiality.

As long as essence does not have esse, then it is only a being in potency, a possible being. To be an actual being, the essence needs to receive an act of existing, or esse. But if a being is to exist with a particular nature, then it has to receive an esse that is proportionate to it. To that extent, essence imposes a limitation on esse.

However, you are also right in thinking that as a principle of being, essence does not cause esse. It is the formal cause of the existent, or the actual being, but not the cause of its esse. Potency does not cause act, but it limits any act it receives. This is the reason why any thing composed of potency and act would be limited by that very fact. All creatures are limited because they are a mixture of potency and act. Only God is Pure Act, without any mixture of potency.

 

[Linux]

But if a being is to exist with a particular nature, then it has to receive an esse that is proportionate to it.

I don’t see how that follows. Why does esse have to be limited to the essence to which it is conjoined? Why does esse itself have to be proportionate?

 

[rom422]

I don’t see how that follows. Why does esse have to be limited to the essence to which it is conjoined? Why does esse itself have to be proportionate?

Because it is going to be the actuality of a potential being. Have you seen a flower with infinite beauty? a man with infinite intelligence?, etc? There is no such thing. Every perfection that a creature receives is restricted by its nature. The same is true of the act of existing. Any being other than God cannot have an infinite act of existing.

 

[Linux]

Because it is going to be the actuality of a potential being. Have you seen a flower with infinite beauty? a man with infinite intelligence?, etc? There is no such thing. Every perfection that a creature receives is restricted by its nature.

A things nature is its limitations.

The same is true of the act of existing. Any being other than God cannot have an infinite act of existing.

I don’t see why the esse in itself has to be limited. A nature exists only so long as there is a conjoining of esse and essence. An essence may cease to be when that conjoining is terminated, but I don’t understand why “esse” must also cease with the essence. The two are not identical, so I don’t see why the same consequence is applied to the two.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

The esse or “the act of existing” is a perfection. It is what makes an essence (or a possible being) to be an actual being. However, every perfection is received by a subject according to the nature of the subject. As we say it in Latin, Quidquid recipitur per modum recipientis recipitur. Whatever is received, is received according to the mode or nature of the recipient. This is why the *esse *of a flower is not the same as the esse of a bird. Because although we are here talking about the same perfection (the act of existing), the perfection is received differently by two different beings (of two different natures).

This principle is very important in understanding thomistic philosophy. There are actually many other perfections besides the act of existing that we find in creatures; for example, beauty, intelligence, etc. The beauty of a flower is not the same as the beauty of a bird, and it is not the same as Beauty itself, which God is. Likewise, the intelligence of Peter is not the same as the intelligence of an angel, and that intelligence is not identical to Intelligence itself, which God is.

So, it is true that God is the Act of Existing. But He is the Act of Existing pure and simple. He is the uncreated Act of Existing that is unreceived and unlimited by any finite nature. However, the act of existing that you find in creatures is not unlimited, but is limited by the nature that received the act. The esse of a flower is limited by the nature of the flower that received it. And the esse of a bird is also limited by the essence or nature of the bird itself. This is why their esse is different from each other, and different from God Himself. The uncreated Act of Existing that God is, is not the same as the act of existing (esse) that you find in creatures. The esse of creatures are finite. God, however, as Act of Existing, is infinite.

Yet all are called “beings” by their possession of the act of existing. But among all these beings God alone is being par excellence, because He alone is the One whose nature is to be. Others (the creatures), however, are beings by participation, because it is not of their nature to be, but to be a flower, to be a bird, or to be a man, or to be some other limited thing.

Yes, by analogy. Linus

 

[Pugsly]

In Edward Fesser’s book on Aquinas he says that even after esse and essence is conjoined, “esse” is still distinct from the “essence” of a thing. In other words esse is never intrinsic to an essence accept in God.

But then what is esse considered by itself?

I think that the logical consequences of the esse and essence distinction is that God is identical to the Esse of every contingent essence; because it is not esse that is said to come into existence but rather it is “essence” that is said to become actual. If the Esse of an essence never comes into existence then we must say that the esse (the act of existence) of every contingent essence (the nature of the contingent thing existing) is identical to God; which would also mean that there is only one esse despite there being many actual essences, and that ties in nicely with monotheism, the theological/doctrinal pronouncement that there is only one God.

God is the act of existence.
What say ye?

That is quite interesting…So…let’s take what you are kicking around…and apply it to String Theory for a moment. In ST all matter is actually held together by varies “tones” or “vibrations similiar to sound”…Therefore, in String Theory anyone who cares to look can get a picture of the Word vivifying all existence…with ESSE (the Word of Life) holding together the ESSENCE.

 

[rom422]

A things nature is its limitations.

Correct. A thing is limited by its nature, not only in what it can do, but also in the way it is. There is also another thomistic principle which says, Agere sequitur esse, which means that a thing acts according to its being. A finite action results from itss having a finite *esse, *whereas an infinite act proceeds from its having an infinite esse. If a thing has infinite esse (like God’s esse), then it would, like God, be able to create something out of nothing. However, we know that no creature creates anything ex nihilo. This limitation results from its having a limited esse.

I don’t see why the esse in itself has to be limited. A nature exists only so long as there is a conjoining of esse and essence. An essence may cease to be when that conjoining is terminated, but I don’t understand why “esse” must also cease with the essence. The two are not identical, so I don’t see why the same consequence is applied to the two.

Among creatures esse, like essence, is a principle of being. It is not itself the “thing” that exists, as if it is a “something” that could survive the destruction of the individual being. When a creature ceases to exist, it loses both its essence and its act of existing (esse).

 

[Linux]

Correct. A thing is limited by its nature, not only in what it can do, but also in the way it is. There is also another thomistic principle which says, “Agere sequitur esse,” which means that a thing acts according to its being. A finite action results from having a finite esse, whereas an infinite act proceeds from having an infinite esse. If a thing has infinite esse (like God’s esse), then it would, like God, be able to create something out of nothing. However, we know that no creature creates anything ex nihilo. This limitation results from its having a limited esse..

you are confusing natural behaviour with its act of existing. I see no need for the idea that an esse is limited by the nature to which it is conjoined. Nature is limited according to the kind of nature it has, not according to its esse. Esse is wholly distinct from its nature. Gods esse, however, is Gods nature and that is precisley why God has the power to conjoin existence with potentiality; because God is the act of existence…

Among creatures esse, like essence, is a principle of being. It is not itself the “thing” that exists, as if it is a “something” that could survive the destruction of the individual being. When a creature ceases to exist, it loses both its essence and its act of existing (esse).

Not only do you destroy the real distinction between esse and essence in contingent beings by asserting that esse is merely a principle having no real act of its own, also the consequence of rendering it a mere principle also renders the conjoining of existence with a potential essence objectively meaningless. What sense does it make to bring a potential being into existence if its act of existing is intrinsic to what it is by nature? No; the act of existing is by definition a real act in itself and remains truly distinct even after being conjoined with an essence as it was presented in the OP. Nothing is said about bringing esse into being or out of being, but rather a potentiality is said to become actual when esse is conjoined with it; and obviously it ceases to be actual when it is no-longer conjoined with esse. The underlying principle of bringing something “into” being does not speak true to what you are saying, or rather it certainly does not necessitate what you are asserting.

Also; consider the idea of God himself sustaining essences in existence. In God and through God with have our being. My thesis certainly makes more sense of that claim if God is the distinct esse of all essences. What sense does it make if God gives all potential essences their own sustaining act wholly apart from Gods own act?

 

[rom422]

you are confusing natural behaviour with its act of existing. I see no need for the idea that an esse is limited by the nature to which it is conjoined. Nature is limited according to the kind of nature it has, not according to its esse. Esse is wholly distinct from its nature. Gods esse, however, is Gods nature and that is precisley why God has the power to conjoin existence with potentiality; because God is the act of existence.

I highlighted the text that I want to comment on. How can esse not be limited in a finite being if it is the actuality of its finite nature? How can a flower be finite, if it is in possession of an infinite act of existing? Its act of existing is the act by which it exists as a flower. So, if the existing flower is finite, so is its act of existing.

Not only do you destroy the real distinction between esse and essence in contingent beings by asserting that esse is merely a principle having no real act of its own, also the consequence of rendering it a mere principle also renders the conjoining of existence with a potential essence objectively meaningless. What sense does it make to bring a potential being into existence if its act of existing is intrinsic to what it is by nature? No; the act of existing is by definition a real act in itself and remains truly distinct even after being conjoined with an essence as it was presented in the OP. Nothing is said about bringing esse into being or out of being, but rather a potentiality is said to become actual when esse is conjoined with it; and obviously it ceases to be actual when it is no-longer conjoined with esse. The underlying principle of bringing something “into” being does not speak true to what you are saying, or rather it certainly does not necessitate what you are asserting.

Also; consider the idea of God himself sustaining essences in existence. In God and through God with have our being. My thesis certainly makes more sense of that claim if God is the distinct esse of all essences. What sense does it make if God gives all potential essences their own sustaining act wholly apart from Gods own act?

The act of existing, just like the essence, is not something existing by itself. The thing that really exists is the existent - the being that has both essence and existence, for example, the flower. The essence of the flower, as well as its esse, are said to exist only because the flower itself exists. If you take away the flower, then both the nature and its act of existing disappear.

It is incorrect to imagine that the esse that we find in creatures is like a subsistent reality that is merely conjoined accidentally to their natures. Not so. The esse of each thing belongs to the existent as the actuality of its fundamental potency (nature). I am not here destroying the distinction between essence and existence. I am actually defending this distinction. For me, essence is related to existence as potency to act. If there is a real distinction between potency and act, then there is a real distinction between essence and existence.

Your original contention - that the esse of creatures is identical to God’s esse - runs the risk of converting the world into a kind pantheistic cosmology. God, indeed, is the source of all our being, but He is distinct from the world and not a part of it.

OK, Linusx. It’s been nice conversing with you. However, today is Sunday and I need to get ready for Church. I’ll see if I will have time tonight to continue.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

I highlighted the text that I want to comment on. How can esse not be limited in a finite being if it is the actuality of its finite nature? How can a flower be finite, if it is in possession of an infinite act of existing? Its act of existing is the act by which it exists as a flower. So, if the existing flower is finite, so is its act of existing.

The act of existing, just like the essence, is not something existing by itself. The thing that really exists is the existent - the being that has both essence and existence, for example, the flower. The essence of the flower, as well as its esse, are said to exist only because the flower itself exists. If you take away the flower, then both the nature and its act of existing disappear.

It is incorrect to imagine that the esse that we find in creatures is like a subsistent reality that is merely conjoined accidentally to their natures. Not so. The esse of each thing belongs to the existent as the actuality of its fundamental potency (nature). I am not here destroying the distinction between essence and existence. I am actually defending this distinction. For me, essence is related to existence as potency to act. If there is a real distinction between potency and act, then there is a real distinction between essence and existence.

Your original contention - that the esse of creatures is identical to God’s esse - runs the risk of converting the world into a kind pantheistic cosmology. God, indeed, is the source of all our being, but He is distinct from the world and not a part of it.

OK, Linusx. It’s been nice conversing with you. However, today is Sunday and I need to get ready for Church. I’ll see if I will have time tonight to continue.

Just to be clear, I am Linus, he is Linux. So who are you addressing? Linus

 

[Linux]

I highlighted the text that I want to comment on. How can esse not be limited in a finite being if it is the actuality of its finite nature? How can a flower be finite, if it is in possession of an infinite act of existing? Its act of existing is the act by which it exists as a flower. So, if the existing flower is finite, so is its act of existing.

If that were true there would be no distinction between the essence of the flower and its act of existing. But esse is absolutely distinct from the essence to which it is conjoined and thus there is no need to think that the limitation of a things nature reflects the limitations of the esse through which it is actual. Just like it is the esse that makes a potential actual by being conjoined, an essence ceases to be actual when it is no longer conjoined to esse.