Nothing to something

[STT]

But if clear knowledge is the conscious holding of what is, and someone knows an apple is three-dimensional, that is to say that an apple is of three dimensions. If a being is outside of time an has clear knowledge of what is (and within time, we would call what was and what will be), then such must be. Even the interaction between atemporal and temporal being would be taken into acount of a result, and is observed as already done even before you (in a temporal light) do so.

God’s foreknowledge is subjected to my decision since I can do what is declared or do opposite since I am free. Now, there would be no conflict if I do what is declared but obviously there is a conflict when I do opposite.

 

[Vico]

Nothing to something is either logically possible or it is logically impossible. There is no need for God in the first case since the process of nothing to something is possible. Introducing God in the second case cannot help to have something out of nothing since the process is logically impossible. Therefore, there is no need for God to have something out of nothing.

Read the arguments against and for here:
Whether Creation is Possible.

 

[Gorgias]

You, your essence, does not change.

I think you’re using ‘essence’ in a way that is non-standard, and it’s causing you to say things about ‘essence’ and ‘existence’ that persons versed in Thomistic philosophy would reject out of hand.

Here’s my question: take (as an example) three humans: me, you, and quaestio. How many “essences” do we represent? How many “existences” do we represent?

What if I ask God to tell me about my decision in a situation and do the opposite?

That old canard? Really?!? OK, the answer is: He wouldn’t tell you, and therefore, paradox would not result.

 

[STT]

I think you’re using ‘essence’ in a way that is non-standard, and it’s causing you to say things about ‘essence’ and ‘existence’ that persons versed in Thomistic philosophy would reject out of hand.

Here’s my question: take (as an example) three humans: me, you, and quaestio. How many “essences” do we represent? How many “existences” do we represent?

There are three essences. Existence however as I mentioned refer to state of being instead of state of non-being so three persons exist.

That old canard? Really?!? OK, the answer is: He wouldn’t tell you, and therefore, paradox would not result .

What happens if He tells me and I do the opposite? Do I vanish?

 

[STT]

Read the arguments against and for here:
https://www3.nd.edu/~afreddos/courses/527/create06.htm#:~:text=I.,made%20by%20the%20agent’s%20action .

Oh thanks for the link.

 

[Gorgias]

Gorgias:

I think you’re using ‘essence’ in a way that is non-standard, and it’s causing you to say things about ‘essence’ and ‘existence’ that persons versed in Thomistic philosophy would reject out of hand.

Here’s my question: take (as an example) three humans: me, you, and quaestio. How many “essences” do we represent? How many “existences” do we represent?

There are three essences. Existence however as I mentioned refer to state of being instead of state of non-being so three persons exist.

Yep. That’s a problem. As I understand it, we would say that there is only one essence for the three of us – the essence ‘human’. (An essence only tells us what a thing is and not identify who an individual is.)

On the other hand, there are three persons, and therefore, three existences.

So, what you’re calling an ‘essence’, Thomistic philosophy might understand as a particular instance of an essence joined to a particular form (i.e., a person).

If you wish to speak in Thomistic terms (and you are, if you’re asking about "God’s essence is His existence), then you must use the terms properly. Otherwise, confusion and misunderstanding result.

So – your original claim, to which I responded, was “you, your essence, does not change.” We would agree – the essence of “human” does not change, based on the existence (or non-existence) of any individual. Moreover, essence exists even if no living beings of that essence are in existence. (After all, there was a time before you were born, and there will be a time after you die, when your “existence” no longer is present; however, in those times, the essence of “human” continues to exist.)

For God, however, His very nature is to exist (after all, He’s a necessary being). So, for God alone, His essence is His existence.

STT:

That old canard? Really?!? OK, the answer is: He wouldn’t tell you, and therefore, paradox would not result .

What happens if He tells me and I do the opposite? Do I vanish?

God’s smarter than you. He wouldn’t answer your request.

 

[STT]

Yep. That’s a problem. As I understand it, we would say that there is only one essence for the three of us – the essence ‘human’. (An essence only tells us what a thing is and not identify who an individual is.)

On the other hand, there are three persons , and therefore, three existences .

So, what you’re calling an ‘essence’, Thomistic philosophy might understand as a particular instance of an essence joined to a particular form (i.e., a person).

If you wish to speak in Thomistic terms (and you are, if you’re asking about "God’s essence is His existence), then you must use the terms properly. Otherwise, confusion and misunderstanding result.

I already defined what do I mean with essence and existence but thanks for the clarification.

So – your original claim, to which I responded, was “you, your essence, does not change.” We would agree – the essence of “human” does not change, based on the existence (or non-existence) of any individual. Moreover, essence exists even if no living beings of that essence are in existence. (After all, there was a time before you were born, and there will be a time after you die, when your “existence” no longer is present; however, in those times, the essence of “human” continues to exist.)

For God, however, His very nature is to exist (after all, He’s a necessary being). So, for God alone, His essence is His existence.

Well, if there is any God.

 

[Gorgias]

I already defined what do I mean with essence and existence but thanks for the clarification.

You can define terms according to your personal whim all you like; but, if you’re going to enter into a discussion on Thomistic philosophy, you would do well to use standard definitions.

 

[STT]

You can define terms according to your personal whim all you like; but, if you’re going to enter into a discussion on Thomistic philosophy, you would do well to use standard definitions.

I try to do that.

 

[Gorgias]

Gorgias:

You can define terms according to your personal whim all you like; but, if you’re going to enter into a discussion on Thomistic philosophy, you would do well to use standard definitions.

I try to do that.

Cool!

I’m glad, then, that I’ve helped you learn that this is not what you’re doing with the discussion of ‘essence’ and ‘existence’!

 

[Pattylt]

Yep. That’s a problem. As I understand it, we would say that there is only one essence for the three of us – the essence ‘human’. (An essence only tells us what a thing is and not identify who an individual is.)

Sorry to interrupt a bit. I’m trying to understand how Thomists use essence as it seems a fuzzy definition. One of our “essences” is certainly human. It’s a general category. But how about our sex? My essence is also as a woman, correct? Whereas yours is as a man. So, is essence just limited to the widest category and ignoring further divisions?

If you could expand a bit, it would help a great deal! Thanks!

 

[Gorgias]

But how about our sex? My essence is also as a woman, correct? Whereas yours is as a man. So, is essence just limited to the widest category and ignoring further divisions?

No. Gender is based on physical accidents (‘characteristics’). Does it make a difference in terms of who you are as an individual? Of course! Does it change your identity as a human, or make you ‘more’ or ‘less’ human than other humans? Of course not!

Let’s pick a different physical characteristic, and see if you’re willing to say that this particular characteristic makes a different ‘essence’: I have (or had, in my younger days) brown hair. Perhaps you are blonde, or redhead. Does your ‘blondness’ make you of a difference essence than me in my brunet-ness? Of course not – it just means that we have different physical characteristics! We’re still both humans, though!

So, ‘essence’ speaks to what we are. Physical characteristics – “physical accidents”, to use the lingo – don’t change what we are, but rather, simply describe something about the particular individual. Those characteristics might have more or less impact on the individual… but they still don’t change the question of “what is this individual?”

To put it another way: whether you say “male human” or “female human”, the ‘what?’ answer is still “human”…!

 

[Pattylt]

Thank you. I now understand it then as the broadest category you can put someone /anyone in.

I’m getting there with the terminology! Again, thanks for answering!

 

[Gorgias]

I now understand it then as the broadest category you can put someone /anyone in.

I’m not certain I’d say “broadest category”. After all, a more broad category would be “animal”, right? Or “living being”, no? On the other hand, essence distinguishes an entity in its most basic distinguishing feature, wouldn’t you say?

 

[quaestio45]

broadest category you can put someone /anyone in.

I’m not sure we should say that specifically, actually. Because human also falls under the category of animal; and that under what is animate; and that under bodies. Do you see? The broadest, then, would be something way higher then what we look for. Rather, I think it is the most specifically applicable essense (or genus, if those two things are identical) to an individual, if I am not incorrect.

 

[quaestio45]

I’m not certain I’d say “broadest category”. After all, a more broad category would be “animal”, right? Or “living being”, no? On the other hand, essence distinguishes an entity in its most basic distinguishing feature, wouldn’t you say?

read my mind

 

[Pattylt]

essence distinguishes an entity in its most basic distinguishing feature, wouldn’t you say?

Yes, that’s a better way to say it but it is still a type of category, yes/no? I think I see what essence is trying to describe…could you also say it is the widest category something can be placed in that defines what is unique to that something yet excludes others? It still seems to be a category…a fancy way to define it. Or am I still losing something by calling it a category?

 

[Abrosz]

Thank you. I now understand it then as the broadest category you can put someone /anyone in.

Don’t hurry with that “thank you”. The term “human” is still a conglomerate or hodgepodge of “accidents”. A wider term would be an “animal” with certain characteristics. But it can be even broader: “a living entity, with certain accidents”… but that is not all. It can be conglomerate of sub-atomic particles - which, while true, gives us no relevant information.

To sum it: the term “essence” is not an objective category. Actually, it designates a pretty meaningless “box” that one arbitrarily creates, to “hold” some entities. Which are the “essential characteristics” and which are the “accidental features” is contingent upon the person who wishes to make a characterization. But try to explain it to a Thomist, and all you will receive is an “empty stare”. The only way how one can approach is to take a specific example, and ask them to separate the “essential” and “accidental” features - and then sit back and enjoy the mumbling.

Try the “essence” of a table, or the “essence” of a cow. The result might be entertaining, but nothing more.

 

[Pattylt]

Try the “essence” of a table, or the “essence” of a cow. The result might be entertaining, but nothing more.

This is why I’m trying to understand how essence is different than just a category. I agree that humans have a humanness about us. I suppose a table has a tableness about itself, too. However, in my mind when a Thomists is talking about essences and accidents, my brain has to translate it to category and material components to even begin to make sense…but, I think theThomist means more than category and material when discussing these terms and that’s what I hope to get to the bottom of…how is an essence different than a specific category we place all things into. Can any thing have more than one essence? Can an essence apply to more than one category of things?

I almost think I understand…but I continue to feel like I’m missing something important in there…

 

[Abrosz]

This is why I’m trying to understand how essence is different than just a category.

As an entertainment issue, it might be interesting. But don’t try to read more into it.