Existence of God based on the existence of thingsen

[Linusthe2nd]

Thomas Aquinas wrote a rather long essay entitled Ente et Essentia, Existence and Essence. In the essay he has a " proof " for the existence of God that isn’t often seen. Most people interested in God’s existence are familiar with his Five Ways, but not many are familiar with his argument based on the act of existence.

First, the preamble to the argument.

1. Whatever is not of the understood content of an essence or quality is something which comes from without and makes a composition with the essence, because no essence can be understood without the things which are parts of it. Now, every essence or quiddity can be understood without anything being understood about its existence. For I can understand what a man is, or what a phoenix is, and yet not know whether they have existence in the real world. It is clear, therefore, that existence is other than essence or quiddity, unless perhaps there exists a thing whose quiddity is its existence.
2. And there can be but one such thing, the First Thing, because it is impossible to plurify a thing except: (1) by the addition of some difference, as the nature of the genus is multiplied in its species, or (2) by the reception of a form into diverse matters, as the nature of the species is multiplied in diverse individuals, or (3) by this: that one is absolute and the other is received into something; for example, if there were a separated heat, it would by virtue of its very separation be other than heat which is not separated. Now, if we posit a thing which is existence alone, such that this existence is subsistent, this existence will not receive the addition of a difference because it would no longer be existence alone, but existence plus some form. And much less will it receive the addition of matter because it would no longer be a subsistent existence, but a material existence. Whence it remains that such a thing, which is its own existence, cannot be but one.
3. Whence it is necessary, that in every thing other than this one its existence be other than its quiddity, or its nature, or its form. Whence it is necessary that existence in the intelligences be something besides the form, and this is why it was said that an intelligence is form and existence

The argument.

1. Now, whatever belongs to a thing is either caused by the principles of its nature, as the ability to laugh in man, or comes to it from some extrinsic principle, as light in the air from the influence of the sun. But it cannot be that the existence of a thing is caused by the form or quiddity of that thing ─ I say caused as by an efficient cause ─ because then something would be its own cause, and would bring itself into existence, which is impossible. It is therefore necessary that every such thing, the existence of which is other than its nature, have its existence from some other thing. And because every thing which exists by virtue of another is led back, as to its first cause, to that which exists by virtue of itself, it is necessary that there be some thing which is the cause of the existence of all things because it is existence alone. Otherwise, there would be an infinite regress among causes, since every thing which is not existence alone has a cause of its existence, as has been said. It is clear, therefore, that an intelligence is form and existence, and that it has existence from the First Being, which is existence alone. And this is the First Cause, which is God.

dhspriory.org/thomas/english/DeEnte&Essentia.htm

Linus2nd

 

[empther]

Linus,
Thanks for that link to Aquinas’ essay.

I was not aware of it and it will take time to study it.
But it looks promising for providing new weapons against the atheists,
who make a religion of atheism and dedicate their lives to a cause that is as completely useless as anything we can imagine.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Linus,
Thanks for that link to Aquinas’ essay.

I was not aware of it and it will take time to study it.
But it looks promising for providing new weapons against the atheists,
who make a religion of atheism and dedicate their lives to a cause that is as completely useless as anything we can imagine.

Yes, it is an excellent essay. Hope more people read it.

Linus2nd

 

[Bahman]

Thomas Aquinas wrote a rather long essay entitled Ente et Essentia, Existence and Essence. In the essay he has a " proof " for the existence of God that isn’t often seen. Most people interested in God’s existence are familiar with his Five Ways, but not many are familiar with his argument based on the act of existence.

First, the preamble to the argument.

1. Whatever is not of the understood content of an essence or quality is something which comes from without and makes a composition with the essence, because no essence can be understood without the things which are parts of it. Now, every essence or quiddity can be understood without anything being understood about its existence. For I can understand what a man is, or what a phoenix is, and yet not know whether they have existence in the real world. It is clear, therefore, that existence is other than essence or quiddity, unless perhaps there exists a thing whose quiddity is its existence.
2. And there can be but one such thing, the First Thing, because it is impossible to plurify a thing except: (1) by the addition of some difference, as the nature of the genus is multiplied in its species, or (2) by the reception of a form into diverse matters, as the nature of the species is multiplied in diverse individuals, or (3) by this: that one is absolute and the other is received into something; for example, if there were a separated heat, it would by virtue of its very separation be other than heat which is not separated. Now, if we posit a thing which is existence alone, such that this existence is subsistent, this existence will not receive the addition of a difference because it would no longer be existence alone, but existence plus some form. And much less will it receive the addition of matter because it would no longer be a subsistent existence, but a material existence. Whence it remains that such a thing, which is its own existence, cannot be but one.
3. Whence it is necessary, that in every thing other than this one its existence be other than its quiddity, or its nature, or its form. Whence it is necessary that existence in the intelligences be something besides the form, and this is why it was said that an intelligence is form and existence

The argument.

1. Now, whatever belongs to a thing is either caused by the principles of its nature, as the ability to laugh in man, or comes to it from some extrinsic principle, as light in the air from the influence of the sun. But it cannot be that the existence of a thing is caused by the form or quiddity of that thing ─ I say caused as by an efficient cause ─ because then something would be its own cause, and would bring itself into existence, which is impossible. It is therefore necessary that every such thing, the existence of which is other than its nature, have its existence from some other thing. And because every thing which exists by virtue of another is led back, as to its first cause, to that which exists by virtue of itself, it is necessary that there be some thing which is the cause of the existence of all things because it is existence alone. Otherwise, there would be an infinite regress among causes, since every thing which is not existence alone has a cause of its existence, as has been said. It is clear, therefore, that an intelligence is form and existence, and that it has existence from the First Being, which is existence alone. And this is the First Cause, which is God.

dhspriory.org/thomas/english/DeEnte&Essentia.htm

Linus2nd

I am reading them. Wait for my objections, opinions and approvals. Simply discussion as I know you are very good at this stuff.

 

[Bahman]

Thomas Aquinas:

1. A small mistake in the beginning is a big one in the end, according to the Philosopher in the first book of On the Heavens and the Earth.

Very well said.
Thomas Aquinas:

And as Ibn-Sînâ says in the beginning of his Metaphysics, being and essence are what is first conceived by the intellect.

That is not correct. We cannot possibly conceive essence in a direct form. We solely experience what is external to intellect. We however then can deduce the existence of intellect as a entity not by experiencing of objective reality including our body but with authority in deciding which is what is needed in spot, when decision is involved, itself is experienced right away after decision.
Thomas Aquinas:

1. Thus, to avoid making mistakes out of ignorance of them, and to become familiar with the difficulties they entail, we must point out what is signified by the words “being” and “essence,” and how they are found in diverse things, and how they are related to the logical intentions, genus, species, and difference.

Lets follow.
Thomas Aquinas:

1. Since we ought to acquire knowledge of what is simple from what is composed, and come to what is prior from what is posterior, so that, beginning with what is easier, we may progress more suitably in learning; we ought proceed from the meaning of the word “being” to that of the word “essence.”

This is called logical thinking which is one of our tools in acquiring the knowledge but not the only one. Wisdom does the job in opposite way.
Thomas Aquinas:

1. We should notice, therefore, that the word “being,” taken without qualifiers, has two uses, as the Philosopher says in the fifth book of the Metaphysics. (1) In one way, it is used apropos of what is divided into the ten genera;

This is not correct. This is not ten genera as it is infinite. They are all intellects in which lower intellect has a form from higher mind perspective and can be used by intellect when its needed.
Thomas Aquinas:

(2) in another way, it is used to signify the truth of propositions.

This is what appears to intellect hence it is the form hence is objective to higher intellect but subjective to lower.
Thomas Aquinas:

The difference between the two is that in the second way everything about which we can form an affirmative proposition can be called a being, even though it posits nothing in reality. It is in this way that privations and negations are called beings; for we say that affirmation is opposed to negation, and that blindness is in the eye. In the first way, however, only what posits something in reality can be called a being. In the first way, therefore, blindness and the like are not beings.

In reality there is nothing unreal since what is experienced is real and objective to intellect.
Thomas Aquinas:

1. So, the word “essence” is not taken from the word “being” used in the second way; for some things which do not have an essence are called beings in this way as is clear in the case of privations. Rather, the word “essence” is taken from the word “being” used in the first way. It is for this reason that the Commentator says in the same place that the word “being” used in the first way is what signifies the essence of a real thing.

That is no correct. Please read previous comments.
Thomas Aquinas:

1. And because the word “being” used in this way is used apropos of what is divided into the ten genera, as we have said, the word “essence” must signify something common to all natures, by means of which (nature) diverse beings are placed into diverse genera and species; as, for example, humanity is the essence of man, and so with other things.

That is not correct as we are all gifted the same essence but different nature.
Thomas Aquinas:

1. And because that by which a real thing is constituted in its proper genus or species is what is signified by the definition expressing what the real thing is, philosophers sometimes use the word “quiddity” for the word “essence.” This is what the Philosopher often calls what something was to be, i.e., that by which it belongs to something to be what it is.

Please read the last comment.
Thomas Aquinas:

1. It is also called form, in the sense in which the word “form” signifies the full determination of each real thing, as Ibn-Sînâ says in the second book of his Metaphysics.

Form is already explained. In simple word form is a representation of a lower intellect
which can be experienced by higher intellect so called objective reality.
Thomas Aquinas:

1. Further, it is given another name, nature, taking the word “nature” in the first of the four ways given by Boethius in his book On the Two Natures. In this way, whatever can in any way be grasped by the intellect is called a nature. For a real thing is not intelligible except through its definition and essence.

Correct.

Incorrect, since any intellect is intelligible and everything is intellect living in different hierarchical world.
Thomas Aquinas:

1. The Philosopher, too, says in the fifth book of the Metaphysics that every substance is a nature. But the word “nature” taken in this way appears to signify the essence of a real thing according as it has an ordering to the thing’s proper operation; and no real thing lacks a proper operation.

What is substance? It is not defined here.

 

[utunumsint]

Originally Posted by Thomas Aquinas
4. We should notice, therefore, that the word “being,” taken without qualifiers, has two uses, as the Philosopher says in the fifth book of the Metaphysics. (1) In one way, it is used apropos of what is divided into the ten genera;

This is not correct. This is not ten genera as it is infinite. They are all intellects in which lower intellect has a form from higher mind perspective and can be used by intellect when its needed.

I’m not sure I understand your objection. What Aquinas is referring to here is Aristotle’s 10 categories. philofbeing.com/2009/07/aristotle%E2%80%99s-ten-categories/

1. Substance
2. Quantity
3. Quality
4. Relation
5. Place
6. Time
7. Position
8. State or habitus
9. Action
10. Affection

This discussion on being and essence has to do with number 1. A material substance is defined by a composition of form and matter. The essence defines these two. What properties belongs to a substance as defined by its essence have existence, but only in a way that depends on the substance to which those properties belong. The one thing that an essence cannot necessarily have as part of its definition is existence. An essence requires existence to be a substance and since existence is not necessarily part of its essence, the it is contingent and must owe its existence to some being whose essence is to exist and cannot fail to exist. In short, this would be an non-contingent eternal being to whom all other contingent beings would owe their existence.

God bless,
Ut

 

[utunumsint]

That is not correct. We cannot possibly conceive essence in a direct form. We solely experience what is external to intellect.

Again, I am not sure I understand your meaning. Aquinas and Aristotle both believe that how the intellect works is based on the senses. As we sense things with our five sense, those sense images get transferred to our memory, and the part of our minds that abstracts from those images creates formal representations of them in our minds, abstracted from the material particularity of what is sensed. It universalizes what it perceives in the senses. For example, a triangular shaped rock would be represented in the mind as the universal concept of triangularity.

We however then can deduce the existence of intellect as a entity not by experiencing of objective reality including our body but with authority in deciding which is what is needed in spot, when decision is involved, itself is experienced right away after decision.

I am not sure I understand this. Can you clarify?

God bless,
Ut

 

[utunumsint]

Originally Posted by Thomas Aquinas
3. Since we ought to acquire knowledge of what is simple from what is composed, and come to what is prior from what is posterior, so that, beginning with what is easier, we may progress more suitably in learning; we ought proceed from the meaning of the word “being” to that of the word “essence.”

This is called logical thinking which is one of our tools in acquiring the knowledge but not the only one. Wisdom does the job in opposite way.

What Aquinas is talking about here is that we exist in the material world. He defines all material things have being composites of form and matter, therefore composed, as opposed to spiritual beings who are simply a composite of existence and form, such as angels and God. We do not have a direct knowledge of angels and God, and so this knowledge is prior to our experience. We do have a direct knowledge of material things, and so we must start from there in defining what being means and what essence means.

God bless,
Ut

 

[Bahman]

That I was aware of. Thank you very much for your link.

I’m not sure I understand your objection. What Aquinas is referring to here is Aristotle’s 10 categories. philofbeing.com/2009/07/aristotle%E2%80%99s-ten-categories/

1. Substance There is only mind.
2. Quantity This is subjective reality which is discrete.
3. Quality This is subjective reality which is continuous.
4. Relation This is subjective reality which is constraint.
5. Place This is objective reality from higher intellect point of view, being internal degree of freedom within lower intellect.
6. Time This is subject reality which is freedom.
7. Position This is objective reality which is constraint.
8. State or habitus This is objective and subjective reality which is free will.
9. Action This is objective reality which is what intellect experience
10. Affection This is subject reality which is the proper response to what is experienced

This discussion on being and essence has to do with number 1.

That I am aware but those are not the only one.

A material substance is defined by a composition of form and matter.

Matter is objective reality which has a form to intellect otherwise it could not be experience. In this language, matter is lower to intellect. In reality there is no lower and higher since they are other side of a mirror so it is relative.

The essence defines these two. What properties belongs to a substance as defined by its essence have existence, but only in a way that depends on the substance to which those properties belong.

There is only internal and external world relative to intellect.

The one thing that an essence cannot necessarily have as part of its definition is existence.

Intellect does not exist relative to itself since it cannot be experienced directly.

An essence requires existence to be a substance and since existence is not necessarily part of its essence, the it is contingent and must owe its existence to some being whose essence is to exist and cannot fail to exist.

Which is objective reality, yet intellect can exist without any objective reality with the constrain that it could not experience anything. So it exist and does not exist.

God bless,
Ut

I wish you the best and I will come to rest of your comments later.
Bahman.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Very well said.

That is not correct. We cannot possibly conceive essence in a direct form. We solely experience what is external to intellect. We however then can deduce the existence of intellect as a entity not by experiencing of objective reality including our body but with authority in deciding which is what is needed in spot, when decision is involved, itself is experienced right away after decision.

Lets follow.

This is called logical thinking which is one of our tools in acquiring the knowledge but not the only one. Wisdom does the job in opposite way.

This is not correct. This is not ten genera as it is infinite. They are all intellects in which lower intellect has a form from higher mind perspective and can be used by intellect when its needed.

This is what appears to intellect hence it is the form hence is objective to higher intellect but subjective to lower.

In reality there is nothing unreal since what is experienced is real and objective to intellect.

That is no correct. Please read previous comments.

That is not correct as we are all gifted the same essence but different nature.

Please read the last comment.

Form is already explained. In simple word form is a representation of a lower intellect
which can be experienced by higher intellect so called objective reality.

Correct.

Incorrect, since any intellect is intelligible and everything is intellect living in different hierarchical world.

What is substance? It is not defined here.

That’s all well and good, I’m glad you are reading the entire essay. However, I would rather you read the extracted paragraph 80 in my O.P. and see what you think of that first. Then we can go back and discuss these other points. I think this will be a long discussion. I will hold off on commenting on this post until you give me your opinion of paragraph 80 which is a " proof " for the existence of God.

Linus2nd

 

[Bahman]

Again, I am not sure I understand your meaning. Aquinas and Aristotle both believe that how the intellect works is based on the senses. As we sense things with our five sense, those sense images get transferred to our memory, and the part of our minds that abstracts from those images creates formal representations of them in our minds, abstracted from the material particularity of what is sensed. It universalizes what it perceives in the senses. For example, a triangular shaped rock would be represented in the mind as the universal concept of triangularity.

I hope we can agree upon that there are only two worlds one internal and another external relative to intellect, namely subjective reality and objective reality. Senses are subject reality constraint with objective reality, namely what can be experienced.

I am not sure I understand this. Can you clarify?
God bless,
Ut

In reality only those things which are external to intellect, namely objective reality can be directly experienced by intellect. However there are a set of events experienced by intellect which intellect cannot affect them so called nature in another word intellect experiences them unconditionally. There is however an objective reality that intellect has control on it and can be easily affected by intellect so called body. The intellect can however experience objective reality whether it has control on it or not which suffice to conclude that there exist something that experience what is outside. What is inside however can only be experienced by what is outside so called God.

 

[Bahman]

What Aquinas is talking about here is that we exist in the material world. He defines all material things have being composites of form and matter, therefore composed, as opposed to spiritual beings who are simply a composite of existence and form, such as angels and God. We do not have a direct knowledge of angels and God, and so this knowledge is prior to our experience. We do have a direct knowledge of material things, and so we must start from there in defining what being means and what essence means.
God bless,
Ut

He is basically trying to use philosophical method based on wisdom namely “acquire knowledge of what is simple from what is composed”. From practical point of view there is nothing simple in the world since everything is composed of another thing. What we are looking for, absolute truth is composed of infinite number of prepositions which is complete and well defined. What we are expose to however is finite set prepositions could be conceived by intellect due to constraint of time, otherwise the intellect has the capacity the conceive all which requires an eternal life. What he is missing in his framework which is logical thinking which “acquire knowledge of what is composed from what is simple” so called scientific point of view.

One need to strive on both methods with the boundary in which there are ideas from both side collapse, leading to unresolved new problem so called anomaly, which leads to so called new paradigm when one anomaly is resolved, at edge leading to what God or absolute truth is when no anomaly is left.

I wish you the best,
Bahman.

 

[Bahman]

That’s all well and good, I’m glad you are reading the entire essay. However, I would rather you read the extracted paragraph 80 in my O.P. and see what you think of that first. Then we can go back and discuss these other points. I think this will be a long discussion. I will hold off on commenting on this post until you give me your opinion of paragraph 80 which is a " proof " for the existence of God.

Linus2nd

Thank you and I will reach there in a couple of days.

 

[Bahman]

Thomas Aquinas:

1. The name “quiddity,” however, is taken from the fact that what is signified by the definition is the essence. But it is called essence from the fact that through it and in it a real being has existence.

That is correct.
Thomas Aquinas:

1. Because the word “being” is used absolutely and with priority of substances, and only posteriorly and with qualification of accidents, essence is in substances truly and properly, in accidents only in some way with qualification.

It is ambiguous to me.
Thomas Aquinas:

1. Further, some substances are simple and some are composed, and essence is in each. But essence is in simple substances in a truer and more noble way, according to which they also have a more noble existence; for they ─ at least that simple substance which is first, and which is God ─ are the cause of those which are composed. But because the essences of the simple substances are more hidden from us, we ought to begin with the essences of composed substances, so that we may progress more suitably in learning from what is easier.

I have problem here. We have stuff outside our intellects which we can experience them so called objective reality. The word simple is the result of our efforts on categorizing different objective realities. We are mistakenly assigning something simple and something composed since anything in reality is connected so a being which look simple on the surface looks composite when we look through.
Thomas Aquinas:

1. In composed substances there are form and matter, for example, in man soul and body.

We have two worlds, inside and outside, in another world of the realm of intellect and beings. The form is necessary in an objective reality as without that nothing can be experienced. The intellect per se doesn’t have any form from its own perspective, namely it is simple, but it is an objective reality toward another intellects meaning that has a form from another intellect perspective.
Thomas Aquinas:

1. But we cannot say that either one of them alone may be said to be the essence. That matter alone is not the essence of a real thing is clear, since through its essence a real thing is knowable and assigned to a species or to a genus. But matter alone is neither a principle of knowledge, nor is it that by which something is assigned to a genus or to a species; rather a thing is so assigned by reason of its being something actual.

What is outside intellect does have form hence it is dumb including our bodies since they just inform intellect that something exist outside. That is the duty of intellect to construct knowledge from what it perceives.
Thomas Aquinas:

1. Neither can the form alone of a composed substance be said to be its essence, although some try to assert this. For it is evident from what has been said that essence is what is signified by the definition of a real thing. And the definition of natural substances contains not only form, but matter as well; otherwise natural definitions and mathematical ones would not differ.

I agree.
Thomas Aquinas:

1. Neither can it be said that matter is placed in the definition of a natural substance as something added to its essence or as something outside its essence, because this mode of definition is proper to accidents, which do not have a perfect essence. This is why accidents must include in their definition a subject which is outside their genus. It is clear therefore that essence includes matter and form.

I have problem here. What can be experienced by intellect either is body, matter, thoughts, are external to intellect. Intellect however constantly interact with objective reality as well, making the construction of knowledge possible.
Thomas Aquinas:

1. Further, neither can it be said that essence signifies some relation between matter and form or something added to them, because this would of necessity be an accident or something extraneous to the real thing, and the real thing would not be known through it. And these are traits of essence. For through the form, which is the actuality of matter, matter becomes something actual and something individual. Whence what supervenes does not confer on matter actual existence simply, but such an actual existence; as accidents in fact do. Whiteness, for example, makes something actually white. Whence the acquisition of such a form is not called generation simply, but generation in a certain respect. It remains, therefore, that the word “essence” in composed substances signifies that which is composed of matter and form.

What is outside whatever you want to call it has a form and that is the only important thing. It has a form because it has an intellect.
Thomas Aquinas:

1. Boethius is in agreement with this in his commentary on the Predicaments, where he says that ousia signifies the composite. For ousia in Greek is the same as essentia in Latin, as he himself says in his book On the Two Natures. Ibn-Sînâ, too, says that the quiddity of composed substances is the composition itself of form and matter. And the Commentator, likewise, in his considerations on the seventh book of the Metaphysics says: “The nature which species have in generable things is something in between, i.e., composed of matter and form.”

I have problem here.
Thomas Aquinas:

1. … this, because the existence of a composed substance is not the existence of the form alone nor of the matter alone, but of the composite itself; and essence is that according to which a real thing is said to be. Whence it is necessary that the essence, whereby a real thing is denominated a being, be neither the form alone nor the matter alone, but both, although the form alone in its own way is the cause of such existence.

I have problem here.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

That is correct.

It is ambiguous to me.

I have problem here. We have stuff outside our intellects which we can experience them so called objective reality. The word simple is the result of our efforts on categorizing different objective realities. We are mistakenly assigning something simple and something composed since anything in reality is connected so a being which look simple on the surface looks composite when we look through.

We have two worlds, inside and outside, in another world of the realm of intellect and beings. The form is necessary in an objective reality as without that nothing can be experienced. The intellect per se doesn’t have any form from its own perspective, namely it is simple, but it is an objective reality toward another intellects meaning that has a form from another intellect perspective.

What is outside intellect does have form hence it is dumb including our bodies since they just inform intellect that something exist outside. That is the duty of intellect to construct knowledge from what it perceives.

I agree.

I have problem here. What can be experienced by intellect either is body, matter, thoughts, are external to intellect. Intellect however constantly interact with objective reality as well, making the construction of knowledge possible.

What is outside whatever you want to call it has a form and that is the only important thing. It has a form because it has an intellect.

I have problem here.

I have problem here.

You will be a good philosopher. I’ll answer your questions later in the evening. I have work to do around the yard and I’m very tired .

Linus2nd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Very well said.

That is not correct. We cannot possibly conceive essence in a direct form. We solely experience what is external to intellect. We however then can deduce the existence of intellect as a entity not by experiencing of objective reality including our body but with authority in deciding which is what is needed in spot, when decision is involved, itself is experienced right away after decision.

What Thomas means is that both essence and being ( act of existence ) are objects of knowledge, once the intellect has abstracted the necessary data received by the senses. Once the senses have received the data from the external world, the intellect sorts the data out into intelligible concepts ( i.e. essence and existence, something exists and it is a horse, a tree, a man, the sun, etc. ). So the essence exists in the intellect in its universal form, applicable to all individuals having such a form in individualized ways. And the intellect recognizes that this individual has an act of existence similar to all individuals of every genus and species, except it is an act of existence limited by a particular essence.

The intellect is " built " to recognize when it has correctly identified these concepts and that they have individualized correspondents in real individuals outside the mind.

Lets follow.

This is what Thomas said: " Originally Posted by Thomas Aquinas
2. Thus, to avoid making mistakes out of ignorance of them, and to become familiar with the difficulties they entail, we must point out what is signified by the words “being” and “essence,” and how they are found in diverse things, and how they are related to the logical intentions, genus, species, and difference. "

The meaning is clear. This is what Thomas will explain in what follows.

This is called logical thinking which is one of our tools in acquiring the knowledge but not the only one. Wisdom does the job in opposite way.

Of course. But wisdom is aquired only after years of critical thinking and living. First year university students are seldom wise.

This is not correct. This is not ten genera as it is infinite. They are all intellects in which lower intellect has a form from higher mind perspective and can be used by intellect when its needed.

Thomas is following Aristotle in categorizing what really exists outside the mind. This is not a scientific explanation as these exist in various various modern disciplines. It is divided into substance and nine qualities. I don’t see how your objection is related to what is saying. He is not making an epistomological statement involving how the intellect operates.

This is what appears to intellect hence it is the form hence is objective to higher intellect but subjective to lower.

Why do you say " hence is objective to higher intellect but subjective to lower? " I don’t know what you mean and how it applies to what Thomas is saying. You seem to think Thomas is teaching epistomology. He is not, he is making a metaphysical analysis. He is not thinking about " mind, " but you seem preoccupied by " mind. " Why?

In reality there is nothing unreal since what is experienced is real and objective to intellect.

Thomas’ comments here are made because all philosophers of his time had studied Aristotle and Aristotle divides " being " into what exists in reality and their contraries in order to facilitate his explanation of change/motion. Thomas is saying here that, in this essay, only what has concrete existence in reality will be considered as real beings, which is correct.

That is no correct. Please read previous comments.

Again, Thomas is eliminating things like " privation, " affermation, " " negation, " which do not have real existence but still may involved in true propositions. He is saying, " What I say is a being, is a concrete thing like air, water, earth, rock, man, ape, atom, electron, etc.

That is not correct as we are all gifted the same essence but different nature.

All Thomas is saying here is that the essences of real beings tell us what each particular being is. " Horseness " is the essence or " quididty " of what a particular is. Each horse has " horseness " in a slightly different way than every other horse ( i.e. size, temprement, color, etc.). And in the enire range of real beings there are correspondent essences or " quidities " which define what they are.

Thomas is using the Aristotelian definition of essence and nature which are more or less the same in his system. You and I have the same nature, we are rational animals. But our natue is determined by our essence, that is, by the composit of our bodies and our souls or our matter and form. Because our bodies recieve a form called soul, we have the nature of a rational animal.

Please read the last comment.

Ditto.

Form is already explained. In simple word form is a representation of a lower intellect which can be experienced by higher intellect so called objective reality.

This is what I don’t understand. What do you mean by " representation of a lower intellect? " " Form " exists both in reality and in the mind in its universal representation.
In the intellect it is what is called a " universal " in philosophy, for example, " horseness. " But the form is particularized in reality by existing in a particular horse.

Incorrect, since any intellect is intelligible and everything is intellect living in different hierarchical world.

Would you explain what you mean here?

What is substance? It is not defined here.

Anything that actually exists.: God, angels, man, atom, water, electron, proton, rock, house, paper, tree, etc.

Linus2nd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Bahman:

It is ambiguous to me.

It simply means that " accidents " like color, size, heaviness have existence only through the substance. White does not exist alone. You never see substance, what you see are the " accidents. " Substance is what exists fundamentally.

I have problem here. We have stuff outside …

This refers somewhat to Aristotle’s view that the outer spheres of the heavens were " simple " ( uncomposed ) and therefore direct the imperfect, composed substances of the world. Thomas departs from this idea somewhat. Thomas reasoned that the human soul, Angels and God were simple substances and direct the lower and imperfect substances of the world. Man’s soul, for example, directs all of man’s activities. Angels and God direct all the rest, though both Angles and God can act on man’s intellect by way of inspiration, nudging it to act properly or giving man visions and dreams. God can further grant infused knowledge, wisdom, grace, comfort, peace, etc.

We have two worlds, inside and outside, in another world of the realm of intellect and beings.

Please explain what you mean.

The form is necessary in an objective reality as without that nothing can be experienced.

True but you have to remember that our bodies and their physical functions are realities that can also be sensed and experienced. At least many of them can.

The intellect per se doesn’t have any form from its own perspective, namely it is simple,

Not correct. The intellect, will, and memory are functions of the soul. The soul is the substantial form of man. But the soul is simple, it is not composed of matter and form. It is a form that exists, it is a spirit, like Angels and God.

but it is an objective reality toward another intellects meaning that has a form from another intellect perspective.

The soul is an objective reality, but we cannot " see " or " touch " it. Although we can infer its existence, and the existence of God as well. We cannot infer the existence of Angels, we know of their existence only through Divine Revelation.

I have no idea what you mean by: " it is an objective reality toward another intellects meaning that has a form from another intellect perspective…" Please explain.

What is outside intellect does have form…

When you have a belly ache or a head ache or have the flu, you know about that don’t you, you experience it? So your intellect knows you have a body even if nothing else exists outside the mind. But it is correct to divide being into composed and simple. Beings composed of matter and form are the normal objects of our intellect. Simple beings must be inferred, we cannot experience them directly. And by the way, we never experience an external form. We infer it by examining the behavior and characteristics of the beings external to the mind. .

Thomas is not talking about atoms, molecules, protons, neutrons, etc. He is talking about metaphysical compositon. Material beings are composed of matter and form ( which we call an essence or nature ), simple beings are essences or forms which are not composed of matter and form. The soul, and Angels, for example, are essences which have existence. That is they depend for their existence on God. God is an essence or nature which is pure existence, uncaused and perfect in every way… .

.

I have problem here. What can be experienced by intellect either is body, matter, thoughts, are external to intellect. Intellect however constantly interact with objective reality as well, making the construction of knowledge possible.

Right. We experience the external world through the five senses. There is a sensory center in the brain where this data is collected. The intellect inspects this data, sorts it out and categorizes it into concepts. It then inspects these concepts and judges what corresponds to the reality outside the mind. And it stores much of this in memory for future reference and consideration. Eventually universal concepts or ideas are hooked together to form propositions and thus we have thinking based on stored knowledge.

What is outside whatever you want to call it has a form and that is the only important thing. It has a form because it has an intellect.

No. Forms, as they exist in individual beings outside the mind do not have intellects. This was Plato’s idea. It is something disproven by Aristotle and accepted by Thomas.

The material beings of this universe are composed of matter and form, which compound we call an essence or a nature. There is no actually existing universal form as Plato advocates. Rather, the numerous individuals which possess a similar form are instantiations of that particular form. The source of the form, is the agent which has caused the change. The acorn, for example, is the agent causes the oak tree ( or visa versa ). But the original source is God.

I have problem here.

What he means is that the material agent passes its form on to a new being, the acorn causes the oak tree, the oak tree cause the acorn, etc., until we come to the universal cause of being, which is God.

I have problem here.

The form causes existence in that God gives existence to the form as the material agent passes its form to another individual. When God created the universe, he created complete substances, essences plus the act of existence. In material beings this means he created the matter, the form and the act of existence for each substance all at once.

Aristotle proved in his Physics that the nature or essence includes both its matter and its form. It was Thomas who demonstrated that existence to the essence or nature through the form. But that is another topic. I think we have enough on our plate already .

Linus2nd

 

[Bahman]

…So the essence exists in the intellect in its universal form, applicable to all individuals having such a form in individualized ways. And the intellect recognizes that this individual has an act of existence similar to all individuals of every genus and species, except it is an act of existence limited by a particular essence.

The intellect is " built " to recognize when it has correctly identified these concepts and that they have individualized correspondents in real individuals outside the mind.

So we are in the same page. Since intellect cannot directly conceive itself hence it need an objective reality.

…and “essence,” and how they are found in diverse things, and how they are related to the logical intentions, genus, species, and difference. "

The meaning is clear. This is what Thomas will explain in what follows.

We agree.

Of course. But wisdom is aquired only after years of critical thinking and living. First year university students are seldom wise.

We can agree on that.

… I don’t see how your objection is related to what is saying. He is not making an epistomological statement involving how the intellect operates.

That I know. But all 9 qualities are the result of embedding intellect in an objective reality with certain restriction enforced by body. I also believe that substance is nothingness formed and controlled by intellect. My framework is simple, there are only nothingness and intellect where intellect has the power to control and give shapes to nothingness. Just look how you could move your body around. I however agree that these 9 qualities are minimal for an intellect but they are not the only one.

Why do you say " hence is objective to higher intellect but subjective to lower? " I don’t know what you mean and how it applies to what Thomas is saying.

In my framework everything is intellect and nothingness. Intellect can control and give shapes to nothingness. So for example you can move your body and think of a subject matter because your intellect has control on certain things. You move all matter which build your body. What is matter? Simple electron and proton. What they are, simple intellect who have their own body and can interact with each other the same way we do through exchanging information. You can control them since your intellect has the ability to do so, hence it higher than them.

You seem to think Thomas is teaching epistomology. He is not, he is making a metaphysical analysis. He is not thinking about " mind, " but you seem preoccupied by " mind. " Why?

I think his main aim is to teach ontology and I am trying to say what he is missing.

Thomas’ comments here are made because all philosophers of his time had studied Aristotle and Aristotle divides " being " into what exists in reality and their contraries in order to facilitate his explanation of change/motion. Thomas is saying here that, in this essay, only what has concrete existence in reality will be considered as real beings, which is correct.

We can agree on that.

Again, Thomas is eliminating things like " privation, " affermation, " " negation, " which do not have real existence but still may involved in true propositions. He is saying, " What I say is a being, is a concrete thing like air, water, earth, rock, man, ape, atom, electron, etc.

We can agree on that.

All Thomas is saying here is that the essences of real beings tell us what each particular being is. " Horseness " is the essence or " quididty " of what a particular is. Each horse has " horseness " in a slightly different way than every other horse ( i.e. size, temprement, color, etc.). And in the enire range of real beings there are correspondent essences or " quidities " which define what they are.

I stress again we were gifted same intellect but different nature.

…But our natue is determined by our essence, that is, by the composit of our bodies and our souls or our matter and form. Because our bodies recieve a form called soul, we have the nature of a rational animal.

I only have a little problem with definition of substance. What is substance if it not a form controlled by an intellect. An electron, air, water, stone, plants, animal, angels,…

Ditto.

Ditto.

This is what I don’t understand. What do you mean by " representation of a lower intellect? " " Form " exists both in reality and in the mind in its universal representation.
In the intellect it is what is called a " universal " in philosophy, for example, " horseness. " But the form is particularized in reality by existing in a particular horse.

I think I made it clear by now, but please inform me if my explanation is not complete.

Would you explain what you mean here?

An electron has an intellect but different nature as stone has an intellect but different nature, as human has intellect but different nature…

Anything that actually exists.: God, angels, man, atom, water, electron, proton, rock, house, paper, tree, etc.

So it is simply form and essence, in my language form/nothingness and intellect?

 

[Linusthe2nd]

So we are in the same page. Since intellect cannot directly conceive itself hence it need an objective reality.

No, we do not agree. Once the soul is separated from the body it will have access only to what has been retained in memory. It will certainly be aware of itself. Of course you could counter by saying, " But these memories were acquired by its earthly encounter with the world outside the mind. " And you would be correct . Let’s put it this way, we just don’t know because we have no way of verifying whether it is true or not.

That I know. But all 9 qualities are the result of embedding intellect in an objective reality with certain restriction enforced by body. I also believe that substance is nothingness formed and controlled by intellect. My framework is simple, there are only nothingness and intellect where intellect has the power to control and give shapes to nothingness. Just look how you could move your body around.

I can’t agree with the above. If I know substances and the qualities which exist in them, I am not " embedding intellect " in them. I know them because their physical properties have impacted my sence perceptors. And my intellect sorts this data to make sense of it.

A substance is anything which exists. And, I agree, there was a boundary to time, before which there was nothing - but God. But " nothingness " is not a " something " such that it can be formed. " Nothingness " is a descriptor that means " no being. "

The intellect can do nothing to " nothingness " because there is no " there " there. How can the intellect control something that doesn’t exist? That doesn’t make sense.

When you say, " Just look how you could move your body around…" You have said something that is completely incoherent.

I however agree that these 9 qualities are minimal for an intellect but they are not the only one.

What others would you suggest?

In my framework everything is intellect and nothingness. Intellect can control and give shapes to nothingness.

And I say that this makes no sense at all.

So for example you can move your body and think of a subject matter because your intellect has control on certain things.

But my body is not " nothingness." And because I can think of things does not mean I " give shape to nothingness. " The concepts and thoughts which I have are real thoughts, they are derived from a concrete external world. You cannot equate this to creating something from " nothingness. "

You move all matter which build your body.

Actually it is the soul which does this in its function as the form of our body. The intellectual power of the soul is not involved in that. God has " programed " our soul so that it controls the body and all its systems naturally, by its nature. And in his programing he has given the soul the faculties of intellect and will through which man controls his higher functions intentionally.

What is matter? Simple electron and proton. What they are, simple intellect who have their own body and can interact with each other

No. They are not intellects. Interaction alone is not a sign of an intellect. It would be more proper to speak of them as having a nature which has been programed by their creater to act and react in the ways that they do. I certainly wouldn’t be telling my scientific collegues that inanimate substances had intellects or souls.

… the same way we do through exchanging information.

Yes, they exchange information. But that is because they have been programed to do so.

You can control them since your intellect has the ability to do so, hence it higher than them.

My soul, your soul has been programed by God to do these things naturally, we don’t think of most of them. I control my movement and thinking by the intellectual faculty of the soul, but most of my bodily functions happen naturally, without thought.

I think his main aim is to teach ontology and I am trying to say what he is missing.

Yes that is what he is doing. But when you speak of electrons, protons, rocks, stars, etc as having intellects, you are doing the same thing.

I stress again we were gifted same intellect but different nature.

There are different kinds of natures, Some, inanimate substances, have purely material natures, all living things have natures which are souls. But not all souls have the faculty of intelligence. Only man has a soul with an intellectual faculty. And because of this we say that man has a spiritual soul. The souls of creatures which have no intellectual faculty, we call material souls.

I only have a little problem with definition of substance. What is substance if it not a form controlled by an intellect. An electron, air, water, stone, plants, animal, angels,…

Each substance, including man, is controlled by its nature. But only man has an intelligent nature, and it is called a spiritual soul. But every substance is something which has concrete existence. But all are controlled by their particular nature.

I think I made it clear by now, but please inform me if my explanation is not complete.

I think I understand what you mean and I disagree with it.

An electron has an intellect but different nature as stone has an intellect but different nature, as human has intellect but different nature.

And I would say that each has a nature particular to its " quiddity, " and only man has an intellect…

So it is simply form and essence, in my language form/nothingness and intellect?

Yes, composits of form and essence which exist. We call these composits essences or natures or beings. And I disagree with your explanation.

Linus2nd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Bahman,

Here is another version of the argument in comic format. Follow the link.

sweetheartsseekingsanctity.blogspot.com/2014/05/why-god-exists-rational-proof.html

Linus2nd