Passive Versus Active Potency

  • Thread starter Thread starter Rete
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
R

Rete

Guest
Can somebody explain this to me? I am working through the book Reality: A Synthesis of Thomistic Thought, by Father Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange O.P.

I grasp most of what he argues, but I find either the translation of this particular section unclear, or the argument he made not very coherent.

I understand the concept of potency versus act, but I don’t see any meaningful difference between an active and passive potency. Could one not describe all potency as passive?
 
I don’t think Aquinas means “passive” to be taken as “dormant” or “not yet emerged” or “not yet instantiated” but rather in the traditional sense as “being acted upon”.

So, if I’m right here (and I’m very rusty on this, haven’t studied it for years), passive potency is potency of the object, that which is acted upon, whereas active potency is potency of the subject, that doing the acting.

For instance, my health or physiological constitution has a passive potency to illness, that is, being acted upon by viruses to make me sick. I am healthy now but could potentially (passive) be sick. On the flip side, my physiological constitution has the passive potency to get better after sickness, by my antibodies fighting a virus. I am sick now but could potentially (active) get better.

From this distinction it is clear that God has no passive potency.
 
Passive potency refers to potencies that can only be actualized by something external to the entity. Active potency refers to to merely unexercised powers. (For example God has the power to create unicorns, and this power is not dependent upon anything external to God yet he has chosen not to exercise that power and so it remains a mere potency) In this regard God is infinite in active potency while he possesses no passive potencies.
 
Rete said:
Can somebody explain this to me? I am working through the book Reality: A Synthesis of Thomistic Thought, by Father Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange O.P.

I grasp most of what he argues, but I find either the translation of this particular section unclear, or the argument he made not very coherent.

I understand the concept of potency versus act, but I don’t see any meaningful difference between an active and passive potency. Could one not describe all potency as passive?
Click to expand...
Well, here is one place I think ST. Thomas made a mistake. He should never have used the term " Active Potency, " because it is largely meaningless and because it has lead to all kinds of confusion.

If you read the Summa Theologiae, Part1, Ques 3-11, I don’t think he ever uses the term. In fact I can’t remember where he does use it. But I do remember that he used it some where to describe God’s creative causality ( I guess that would be Part 1, Ques 44-49).

So it is simply a term used to indicate God’s power to create, cause, move, change, guide, and govern the created universe. It does not imply any potency in God’s Essence or Nature, because we know God is " Actus Purus , " which means there not only is no change in His Essence but there can be no change in His Essence. He simply Is, purly and simply. The term could also be applied in the order of created beings to describe the ability of one being to move or change another.

However, the term " potency " is properly used to refer to the " forms " which potentially inhere in matter and which can be educted by some being in act. That is, a being contains in its matter, in potency, forms which can be educed by the application of some power or force outside itself. Thus, hydrogen and oxygen can be educed from water by the application of an electric current. The hydrogen and oxygen are thus seen as real potencies or real passive potencies existing in the matter of water. Or, considering prime matter itself, we can say all possible material " forms " exist as passive potencies in prime matter.

Hope that helps. While reading Fr. Reginald you must keep in mind that, as a commentator on Thomas, he is no better and no worse than others. You will be reading Thomas through his eyes and it is best to read Thomas through your own eyes when you are at the point where you are able to do that. Linus2nd
 
Okay. Thanks. I understand. But there does seem to exist good cause to separate the two types of potency if the object-subject relationship forms the foundation for further arguments. I can see why one would want to distinguish them now.

One thing I find interesting here is how St. Thomas sort of anticipates quantum mechanics. We already have several interpretations of these equations. Not accounting for the interpretation that assumes all of the other possible states of quanta represent equally valid universes, you roughly have a physical explanation for what St. Thomas described.

Perhaps the way He constructed the physical universe has within it (pre-created) all potential configurations representing all the possible choices of free-willed creatures. That larger universe of potentiality, remains fixed, but our choices only make one actual sequence of events actualized.

What still puzzles me is how God, who is all act, can create a universe with potentiality. The only way I can reconcile that is with the idea of an infinite creation constructed at once, with all its potentialities, but only one path of actualized events in those potentialities. But then I am not sure potentialities would be anything more than simply act in a different form.

I guess I have to read further.
 
ilikepizza1 said:
Passive potency refers to potencies that can only be actualized by something external to the entity. Active potency refers to to merely unexercised powers. (For example God has the power to create unicorns, and this power is not dependent upon anything external to God yet he has chosen not to exercise that power and so it remains a mere potency) In this regard God is infinite in active potency while he possesses no passive potencies.
Click to expand...
And while this is true it is yet a matter of some confusion to refer to active power as active potency. God does not in any way change, nor does he have any potential to change, and the word potency is at glance in conflict with the notion that God is purely actual. So we might say that God has unlimited active power, to mean that if he so willed to do something he could, while we also know that his will does not change and if he does not will something, it is never going to happen.
 
Rete said:
Can somebody explain this to me? I am working through the book Reality: A Synthesis of Thomistic Thought, by Father Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange O.P.

I grasp most of what he argues, but I find either the translation of this particular section unclear, or the argument he made not very coherent.

I understand the concept of potency versus act, but I don’t see any meaningful difference between an active and passive potency. Could one not describe all potency as passive?
Click to expand...
According to Bernard Wueller, SJ, Dictionary of Scholastic Philosophy, 1956, s.v. “potency.”
“capacity of any sort; capacity of a being or in a being to be, to act, or to receive.”

“active potency”
“the principle of change or of acting upon another inasmuch as it is another thing; a power; the capacity to do or make.”

“passive potency”
“1. the principle which receives change from another inasmuch as it is another. 2. the capacity to receive, to be acted on, to be modified.”

Gun powder has the active potency to explode.
A beer can has the passive potency to be crushed. Burp!

The same thing can have both active and passive potency, but they are distinct. A log has the passive potency to be ignited and the active potency to generate light and heat.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top