God cause existence in creatures but He is not their existence

[Love4All]

Because God by definition is esse. And essence is not.

Not true. God’s essence IS His esse. So to say, “essence is not (esse)” is to forget about God.

God is by definition HIS OWN esse. He is not, by that definition, the esse of created things. I think that is where you are getting confused.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

I am sorry, but you where the one that brought it up.

I did not bring up my " personal " philosophy. I brought up the Philosophy of St. Thomas. It is my purpose to make sure we make clear certain teachings of Thomas. It does just happen however that of all philosophers his is the most complete and the most true - in my opinion. But here we are speaking of his philosophy.

Linus2nd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Not true. God’s essence IS His esse. So to say, “essence is not (esse)” is to forget about God.

God is by definition HIS OWN esse. He is not, by that definition, the esse of created things. I think that is where you are getting confused.

It is an easy point to get confused about because we are right on the cusp of what the human mind is capable of conceiving. The nature of a substance is known by its definition. God revealed his nature to Moses. When Moses asked God what his name was, God said, " …I AM WHO AM…tell the Israelites, HE WHO IS, sends you…"

Clearly God was revealing not just his name but his very nature, his essence. Thomas would say that in God, Essence and Existence were identical, that God’s very nature or Essence is Existence. So He does have a Nature or Essence but it is His very Exist ence. He Is Who Is. In God Essence IS EXISTENCE.

And when we come to created creatures, Thomas would say their esse is the focus of God’s creative act and that the rest of their substance is concreated along with their esse. Their " act of to be, " their " act of being " is intrinsic to their substance as a necessary principle of their being, it is what makes them a being, to be and to act. But they do so in a limited way, a contingent way, their forms being related to their " act of to be " as potency to act. Thus their forms limit the amout of esse they partake of.

But their being does not partake of the Esse of God. It is created by God for them along with their substance. Their esse is entirely different from the Esse of God. They are said to partake of esse in the sense that by having esse they dimly reflect or imitate the Being of their Creator.

Linus2nd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

I agree that God’s “esse” is “different” from the “esse” of creatures.

But what is the meaning of “esse” first and foremost?

Well, what is the everyday sense of “esse”?

Something that is “present”, “here”, “now”, “in our world”.

Even to put it this way is grossly inadequate. But it is a starting point.

Consider the apple over there on the table.

The apple is not simply there as an object of scientific contemplation.

It’s look delicious and I’m hungry.

So how is it “there” for us first and foremost?

Simply as food? Or is there a more primordial “thereness” at work in the apple?

These types of question must be explored before we can talk about the “esse” of God.

Obviously, God is not “there” in the same way that the apple is “there”.

That’s why Heidegger’s Being and Time is helpful. It takes us back to the beginning (although Heidegger realized later that his magisterial work was not complete).

What I’m saying is that “esse” needs to clarified.

Yes and that is very hard to do. Thomas would say that " esse " is the " act " by which a substance exists.

If you go out on a really foggy morning, so foggy you just see indefinable images all around you, you will say, “…I don’t know what it is but I know THAT IT IS…” There is an existent there, something that IS. Or as Thomas would say, an " ans sit, " a something that IS. And when we get to God, we just imagine an IS, pure and simple… It is a matter of the judgment. We judge to be true, real, what we have just aprehended or understood.

Linus2nd

 

[Love4All]

Yes and that is very hard to do. Thomas would say that " esse " is the " act " by which a substance exists.

If you go out on a really foggy morning, so foggy you just see indefinable images all around you, you will say, “…I don’t know what it is but I know THAT IT IS…” There is an existent there, something that IS. Or as Thomas would say, an " ans sit, " a something that IS. And when we get to God, we just imagine an IS, pure and simple… It is a matter of the judgment. We judge to be true, real, what we have just aprehended or understood.

Linus2nd

I don’t see what is so hard about saying “esse” means “to exist.”

Isn’t that what it means?

 

[Linusthe2nd]

I don’t see what is so hard about saying “esse” means “to exist.”

Isn’t that what it means?

Sure. " to exist, " " to be, " " is, " " am, " " act of being, " " b-e-i-n-g, " " existence, " " existing, " " existent, " " being," all mean " esse. " There are three forms used, the noun form, the verb or predicate form, and the participle form. The noun form a or the " being " is used in reference an essence or nature or substance or thing which exists, which exercises its " act of being. " It is just that in some contexts one or the other of the various forms sounds better or creates more emphasis. Thomas always used " esse " to refer to the " to be, " or to the " act of to be " of a thing. But he generally reserved " ens " for a being.

Linus2nd

 

[Linux]

Not true. God’s essence IS His esse. So to say, “essence is not (esse)” is to forget about God.

This will be my last post here as i don’t want to get Linus upset.

This is a straw-man of what i said. Metaphysically speaking, to speak of Gods essence is simply to speak of God as an absolute act of reality (esse). To say that God is esse is no different than saying that Gods essence is his esse. They are synonymous terms in God. Esse is not an addition to his essence. God is not a composite of two things, and God has to be an act of reality before you can say anything else about his nature.

God is therefore esse.

For me, the esse and essence distinction in creatures is more radical than people care to admit. Its a shame because it solves the problem of How God creates out of nothing when interpreted as ontologically real distinctions. You and linus appear to be from the school of thought that there is no real ontological distinction but rather these are merely descriptive or categorical distinctions. I am obviously not from that school of thought.

While i might be wrong, i think i deserve some respect, instead of being treated in a defensive manner as if i am plotting to deceive people.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

I don’t see what is so hard about saying “esse” means “to exist.”

Isn’t that what it means?

Yes, that is what it means. Some people can’t understand it though. See my comments above. Linus2nd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

This will be my last post here as i don’t want to get Linus upset.

This is a straw-man of what i said. Metaphysically speaking, to speak of Gods essence is simply to speak of God as an absolute act of reality (esse). To say that God is esse is no different than saying that Gods essence is his esse. They are synonymous terms in God. Esse is not an addition to his essence. God is not a composite of two things, and God has to be an act of reality before you can say anything else about his nature.

God is therefore esse.

This is indeed what Thomas taught. Agreed.

For me, the esse and essence distinction in creatures is more radical than people care to admit. Its a shame because it solves the problem of How God creates out of nothing when interpreted as ontologically real distinctions. You and linus appear to be from the school of thought that there is no real ontological distinction but rather these are merely descriptive or categorical distinctions. I am obviously not from that school of thought.

This is where you missinterpret Thomas. In created beings neither essence nor esse have an " ontological " reality when essence is understood in the sense of form. They do not exist except in a composit substance. Thomas explains that esse is the act principle in relation to form. And form or essence is the potency principle of the actually existing essence ( also termed being, substance or the " this " or " that " thing."

The problem is in translating all these terms accurately from Greek, to Latin, and then into one’s native tongue. Essence can mean the form or the actual bing or existent or substance ( the latter three being understood as equivalent terms in this case). One has to keep in mind in what sense essence is being used.

In God for example, Essence ( what God is ) is identical to Esse ( Existence ). So God is not composed in His Being or Substance, He simply IS, His Essence or Nature is Pure Existence.

An Angel is an Essence which Has a certain perfection or degree of Existence ( Esse ) determined by its Form ( and since we can also call the Form its Essence this can be confusing). When we are speaking of Essence in the sense of Form we have to be sure that is clear. And if we are using Essence in the sense of an existent or substance or being, we have to make that clear. But usually we mean a being.

When we get down to material Existents we have the additional element of Matter. At this level Essence means that Existent composed of matter, form, and existence ( its esse or existence limited by the form). Again, we can call the Essence, substance, existent, or being, but most properly being.

At all three levels of Existence we are using Existence or Being analogically. What does that mean? It means that Being is said of God, separated substances, and material substances similarly but differently, yet in a real ontological sense.

What we mean is that God is Existence, He is a Being that is Pure Existence and that caused by no other.

But outside of God we are dealing with Beings which are composit and who have their existence from God through His act of creation. And this existence which created beings have is created by God along with their entire substance.

And obviously the existence of the created substances are not the existence of God. But they are said to participate in existence because that term describes the fact that their existence is a reflection of God’s existence. That is it is similar to or holds a certain likeness to God’s own existence but is entirely different at the same time.The Existence of God is Infinite and is His own and the existence of the creature is finite and limited and they Have it through God’s creative act and is entirely other than God’s own existence.

Linus2nd

 

[Love4All]

This will be my last post here as i don’t want to get Linus upset.

This is a straw-man of what i said. Metaphysically speaking, to speak of Gods essence is simply to speak of God as an absolute act of reality (esse). To say that God is esse is no different than saying that Gods essence is his esse. They are synonymous terms in God. Esse is not an addition to his essence. God is not a composite of two things, and God has to be an act of reality before you can say anything else about his nature.

God is therefore esse.

For me, the esse and essence distinction in creatures is more radical than people care to admit. Its a shame because it solves the problem of How God creates out of nothing when interpreted as ontologically real distinctions. You and linus appear to be from the school of thought that there is no real ontological distinction but rather these are merely descriptive or categorical distinctions. I am obviously not from that school of thought.

While i might be wrong, i think i deserve some respect, instead of being treated in a defensive manner as if i am plotting to deceive people.

I don’t think you’re plotting to deceive people, I think, rather, you are a little confused and a little too reliant on yourself. If you wish to leave the discussion, that is up to you I guess. For my part, however, I will answer you as if you were not leaving it.

There can be no ontologically real distinction except among substances. Since esse and essence are not by themselves substances, except in God where they are identical with Him, consequently it is nonsense to talk about “ontologically real” distinctions between the esse and the essence of a thing. Just because we give Latin names to concepts does not elevate them to the status of substantial reality. There is an ontological distinction between an apple and a cat. But the esse/essence of an apple is just Latin phrasing for the fact that an apple exists, and that it is an apple. There’s nothing more mysterious about it than that. If that reality isn’t mysterious enough for you, seek a better one, but don’t think that by calling the facts that it is and that it is what it is by their Latin names you have named two ontologically distinct things. Quite pointedly, only the cat has ontological reality, neither the fact that it exists nor the fact of its catness have any independent existence apart from the cat.

God is Love. God is the Existence of Love. God is the Reality of Love. Start from there, I think you will get to a better place.

 

[Linux]

I don’t think you’re plotting to deceive people, I think, rather, you are a little confused and a little too reliant on yourself. If you wish to leave the discussion, that is up to you I guess. For my part, however, I will answer you as if you were not leaving it.

There can be no ontologically real distinction except among substances. Since esse and essence are not by themselves substances, except in God where they are identical with Him, consequently it is nonsense to talk about “ontologically real” distinctions between the esse and the essence of a thing. Just because we give Latin names to concepts does not elevate them to the status of substantial reality. There is an ontological distinction between an apple and a cat. But the esse/essence of an apple is just Latin phrasing for the fact that an apple exists, and that it is an apple. There’s nothing more mysterious about it than that. If that reality isn’t mysterious enough for you, seek a better one, but don’t think that by calling the facts that it is and that it is what it is by their Latin names you have named two ontologically distinct things. Quite pointedly, only the cat has ontological reality, neither the fact that it exists nor the fact of its catness have any independent existence apart from the cat.

God is Love. God is the Existence of Love. God is the Reality of Love. Start from there, I think you will get to a better place.

So you are saying that a Cat is its esse.

 

[Love4All]

Love4All:

There is an ontological distinction between an apple and a cat. But the esse/essence of an apple is just Latin phrasing for the fact that an apple exists, and that it is an apple. There’s nothing more mysterious about it than that. If that reality isn’t mysterious enough for you, seek a better one, but don’t think that by calling the facts that it is and that it is what it is by their Latin names you have named two ontologically distinct things. Quite pointedly, only the cat has ontological reality, neither the fact that it exists nor the fact of its catness have any independent existence apart from the cat.

So you are saying that a Cat is its esse.

No, I am saying that it is impossible to find esse of cat apart from a cat. What we mean by “cat” is the essence. Particular cats have esse. If the cat were its esse, the world would be entirely filled by cats. Very messy. Not at all what I mean.

 

[Love4All]

Perhaps. But its not really relevant, since i don’t assume that Aquinas had all the correct answers. A true philosopher never does that. I would rather be wrong or even be a bad philosopher than follow something out of being a fan based on a positive image or paranoid fear of being in the wrong.

It could be that you are wrong despite your beliefs and assertions to the contrary.

It is generally accepted that Saint Thomas Aquinas was substantially correct. There are a few cranks, of course, but you wouldn’t be here if your wish was to remain a crank.

This is not an argumentum ad populam. There are reasons why Saint Thomas is considered to be correct. Those reasons are amenable to rational scrutiny.

I disagree with this depending on what you mean. The esse and essence distinction is intended to be ontological, it is intended to imply a real ontological distinction, not just a superficial distinction between different aspects of the same thing.

Superficial or not, the esse/essence distinction cannot be ontological, since ontology is concerned with substances. An ontological distinction means a distinction between different substances. The esse and essence of a solitary thing, are not and cannot possibly be different substances. They are indeed different aspects of the same thing. I would not call the distinction superficial; differences in color would be superficial. The difference between the esse and essence of a thing is epistemological. It is a distinction between two ways of knowing about a thing. If I am in the presence of one particular cat, there is no way for me to show an ontological distinction between its esse and its essence. It is what it is — one cat. I can talk meaningfully about its esse and its essence, but the distinction between those two is in my mind, not in the cat. The cat itself is an instantiation of essence. The fact of that instantiation is the esse. We have not diverged from talking about one ontological cat.

 

[Linux]

It is generally accepted that Saint Thomas Aquinas was substantially correct. There are a few cranks, of course, but you wouldn’t be here if your wish was to remain a crank.

This is not an argumentum ad populam. There are reasons why Saint Thomas is considered to be correct. Those reasons are amenable to rational scrutiny.

Assertion mixed with an argument from authority and an Ad hominem attack.

Useless if you actually want to convince me of what you choose to believe.

Superficial or not, the esse/essence distinction cannot be ontological, since ontology is concerned with substances.

Ontology is concerned with being as being.

The esse and essence of a solitary thing, are not and cannot possibly be different substances.

Substance in the context of created things, logically speaking, can only be concerned with describing a things essence as it exists; it is not describing esse in and of itself. Esse is not identical with substances, but rather esse is that which is required for there to be a substance, a word symbolising that which is a conjoining of esse and essence.

They are indeed different aspects of the same thing.

Wrong. If the essence that is a cat was identical with the act of reality, it would always exist like God.

The difference between the esse and essence of a thing is epistemological.

Assertion.

It is a distinction between two ways of knowing about a thing.

Assertion.

If I am in the presence of one particular cat, there is no way for me to show an ontological distinction between its esse and its essence.

You can show that there is a real objective distinction by acknowledging the simple fact that the essence is not identical with esse. This is achieved by pointing out that essences begin to exist and therefore esse is not intrinsic to or identical with the essence.

It is what it is — one cat. I can talk meaningfully about its esse and its essence, but the distinction between those two is in my mind, not in the cat. The cat itself is an instantiation of essence. The fact of that instantiation is the esse. We have not diverged from talking about one ontological cat.

You have rejected the real objective distinction between esse and essence.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

You can show that there is a real objective distinction by acknowledging the simple fact that the essence is not identical with esse. This is achieved by pointing out that essences begin to exist and therefore esse is not intrinsic to or identical with the essence.

I would like to address one point here. Existence ( esse ) is intrinsic to the Essence ( nature, form ) of every created substance or being. Per S.T. Q 8, a1 :

“…But being is innermost in each thing and most fundamentally inherent in all things since it is formal in respect of everything found in a thing, as was shown above (Question 7, Article 1)…”

The word " being " here means " existence " ( act of being, esse ) and a footnote by the translator of Q7, art 1 uses the term " intrinsic " to define the relationship of the substance’s essence to its esse. So existence ( esse) has a relationship of act to potency ( essence ) in each created substance or being.

Linus2nd

 

[Love4All]

Assertion mixed with an argument from authority and an Ad hominem attack.

Useless if you actually want to convince me of what you choose to believe.

I choose to believe in love. There is no convincing.

Ontology is concerned with being as being.

Being as being, substance as substance, substance as being, being as substance. These are synonyms.

Substance in the context of created things, logically speaking, can only be concerned with describing a things essence as it exists; it is not describing esse in and of itself. Esse is not identical with substances,

Substances have esse.

but rather esse is that which is required for there to be a substance,

Along with essence.

a word symbolising that which is a conjoining of esse and essence.

But I hope you are not imagining that God has a great big pile of essences and another great big pile of esses, and He puts them together as His act of creating.

Wrong. If the essence that is a cat was identical with the act of reality, it would always exist like God.

Assess what I actually write, please. The existence of a cat and the cathood of the same cat are two different aspects of the same existing, substantial, being. Esse means existence and essence means thinghood.

Assertion.

Are you really asserting that there is an ontological difference between the existence of a particular cat and the fact that it is a cat??

Assertion.

There is not a pile of essences and a pile of esses waiting to be put together, anywhere — not even in the mind of God.

You can show that there is a real objective distinction by acknowledging the simple fact that the essence is not identical with esse.

Difference does not entail real objective distinction.

This is achieved by pointing out that essences begin to exist and therefore esse is not intrinsic to or identical with the essence.

Alternatively, I could say that essences are merely patterns for existence, and always exist in the sense of pure Platonic forms, and that it is particular esses that begin to ess. It makes just as much sense, because this argument is really semantical as opposed to substantial.

You have rejected the real objective distinction between esse and essence.

You have failed to show such an alleged “real objective distinction.” I’m open to your demonstration.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Perhaps. But its not really relevant, since i don’t assume that Aquinas had all the correct answers. A true philosopher never does that. I would rather be wrong or even be a bad philosopher than follow something out of being a fan based on a positive image or paranoid fear of being in the wrong.

It could be that you are wrong despite your beliefs and assertions to the contrary.

I disagree with this depending on what you mean. The esse and essence distinction is intended to be ontological, it is intended to imply a real ontological distinction, not just a superficial distinction between different aspects of the same thing.

In created beings neither essence nor esse exist as independent beings or ontological substances. They exist as distinct principles of substances. For example a horse is a composite of matter and essence or horseness. The esse comes to the substance through its essence or form. Linus2nd