Potency

[Linusthe2nd]

All created reality is composed of Essence and Existence, Essence is in potency to Existence.. No Essence can change unless it has a potency to change.

The Essence of material beings are composed of Matter and Form.
Unless these Essences ( also called Substances or Beings) have the potential to change to a particular form they cannot change. Potency means that an Essence has the potential to change. Berlog knows this but rejects it. I guess that is why he raised the question. But it should be clear to anyone that change cannot occur unless something has the potential to change into the particular form into which it can change. A horse cannot change into a car, a car cannot change into a tree. Even atheists should understand and accept that. I don’t see the reason for the objection, it does no harm to the atheist ideology.

Linus2nd

 

[tonyrey]

And of course I may be spouting nonsense, but a theory can be disproved by providing evidence against it, which seems rather difficult to do by spouting irrelevant responses.

Then you are not uncertain about the value of evidence nor do you believe that all theories are equally probable or that your opinion is less valuable than the opinions of others.

 

[SentinelofTruth]

Linusthe2nd:

All created reality is composed of Essence and Existence, Essence is in potency to Existence… No Essence can change unless it has a potency to change.

The Essence of material beings are composed of Matter and Form.
Unless these Essences ( also called Substances or Beings) have the potential to change to a particular form they cannot change. Potency means that an Essence has the potential to change. Berlog knows this but rejects it. I guess that is why he raised the question. But it should be clear to anyone that change cannot occur unless something has the potential to change into the particular form into which it can change. A horse cannot change into a car, a car cannot change into a tree. Even atheists should understand and accept that. I don’t see the reason for the objection, it does no harm to the atheist ideology.

Objections:

• If it’s “created” “reality” then it must have existence, and if essence is just potency to existence, then reality must not have essence.
• No, they are not “composed” of anything. They are phantoms whose sole “essence” is to be experienced.

 

[SentinelofTruth]

belorg:

If you are not interested in a serious discussion, then please stop interfering.

I am interested in a serious discussion, but I don’t think I have to know everything that was said beforehand in order to participate.

 

[belorg]

I am interested in a serious discussion, but I don’t think I have to know everything that was said beforehand in order to participate.

You do have to know everything that was said before you can participate in a relevant way.

 

[belorg]

All created reality is composed of Essence and Existence, Essence is in potency to Existence.. No Essence can change unless it has a potency to change.

The Essence of material beings are composed of Matter and Form.
Unless these Essences ( also called Substances or Beings) have the potential to change to a particular form they cannot change. Potency means that an Essence has the potential to change. Berlog knows this but rejects it.

I do not know what Berlog knows or rejects, you’ll have to ask him (or her)

guess that is why he raised the question. But it should be clear to anyone that change cannot occur unless something has the potential to change into the particular form into which it can change. A horse cannot change into a car, a car cannot change into a tree. Even atheists should understand and accept that. I don’t see the reason for the objection, it does no harm to the atheist ideology.

Of course a horse cannot change into a car, but that has nothing to do with my objection.

 

[belorg]

Then you are not uncertain about the value of evidence nor do you believe that all theories are equally probable or that your opinion is less valuable than the opinions of others.

My opinion as such isn’t less valuable that that of others, nor is it more valuable.
And some things seem more probable than others.

 

[tonyrey]

My opinion as such isn’t less valuable that that of others, nor is it more valuable.
And some things seem more probable than others.

•   	 		 	 	 1. You are certain about the value of evidence.

1. You are certain that not all theories are equally probable.
2. You are certain that opinions have some value.

 

[SentinelofTruth]

belorg:

You do have to know everything that was said before you can participate in a relevant way.

Well guess what, I don’t know everything that was said, and I’m participating in a relevant way.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Objections:

• If it’s “created” “reality” then it must have existence, and if essence is just potency to existence, then reality must not have essence.
• No, they are not “composed” of anything. They are phantoms whose sole “essence” is to be experienced.

Hoots from the Peanut Gallery are not relevant .

But for the sake of any genuine human beings ( Real Catholics - of the " no mistake about that " variety ), we live in a real world, not a world of Idealistic illusions. God is a real being, he created a real world, the Israelites were realists, so was Chirst, and so are the People of God, guided by the Church.

The terms potency, essence, existence, matter, and form
are philosophical terms first defined by Plato and Aristotle and used by St. Thomas in his philosophical Corpus.

All created beings are composed of essence and existence with essence having a potency for existence. The essence of material beings is, however, composed of matter and form, wherein it is the form which has a potency for a certain limited perfection of existence.. It is through the form, then, that existence comes to the matter and thus to the entire substance. This is the philosophical composition of reality. It is no illusion.

All the attributes we perceive with our senses inhere in this basic substance which is not seen or sensed and which comes to the substance through its specific form ( nature ), which cannot be sensed either. What we sense are the accidents of the substance - size, shape, color, atoms, molecules, cells,etc.

Thomas says we may call this second substance as opposed to the first substance ( essence with its matter, form, and act of existence), none of which we are able to see or sense.

Deo Gratias

Linus2nd

 

[SentinelofTruth]

Linusthe2nd:

Hoots from the Peanut Gallery are not relevant .

Nobody mentioned anything called that.

Linusthe2nd:

But for the sake of any genuine human beings ( Real Catholics - of the " no mistake about that " variety ), we live in a real world, not a world of Idealistic illusions. God is a real being, he created a real world, the Israelites were realists, so was Chirst, and so are the People of God, guided by the Church.

Please provide evidence for this.

Linusthe2nd:

All created beings are composed of essence and existence with essence having a potency for existence.

Potency implies lack. Thus, if essence has potency for existence, then it does not exist, and so it can’t be a component of a real being.

Linusthe2nd:

The essence of material beings is, however, composed of matter and form,

It’s not good to say that form is a component, since form is the properties of the substance and therefore derivative from matter.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Nobody mentioned anything called that.

Please provide evidence for this.

Potency implies lack. Thus, if essence has potency for existence, then it does not exist, and so it can’t be a component of a real being.

It’s not good to say that form is a component, since form is the properties of the substance and therefore derivative from matter.

Instead of using philosophical terms without knowing what you are talking about, you should actually read St. Thomas or Edward Feser. Agin, you are exposing yourself.

For what Thomas means about some philosophical terms ( as opposed to the " experts " on Wikipedia ), try De Principiis Naturae, dhspriory.org/thomas/english/DePrincNaturae.htm .

Linus2nd

 

[SentinelofTruth]

Linusthe2nd:

Instead of using philosophical terms without knowing what you are talking about, you should actually read St. Thomas or Edward Feser. Agin, you are exposing yourself.

Actually, I learned these terms from Feser’s book on Aquinas.