7

According to the Thomistic view in Ontology, essence and 'the act of being' (I'm translating from a romance language) are different, in which 'to be' is the act received by the essence, which is the potency that limits the act of being.

So, my question is: if the act of being comes from God, who is Pure act of being, then where does the essence/potency come from?

Any help would be appreciated. ;)

Joseph Weissman
  • 9,432
  • 8
  • 47
  • 86
An old man in the sea.
  • 196
  • 1
  • 11
  • 2
    Tillich said, "God is the *ground* of all being." Tillich, of course was a Christian Atheist. Nevertheless, he is describing 'essence'. We might be seeking an answer more characteristic to 'poetry' (the essence of philosophy). We know that God *is* true essence embodied in a man (Son of God, Son of Man)--Jesus. That is to say, Truth is embodied in *a* Man; *not* in mankind. This is why philosophy is so dead-ended; or is it? As Barth said, "...a word comes through." Nevertheless, man (any man) is both *being* and *becoming*. Man, created in the image of God, is 'like' God. – Darcy Davis Dec 06 '14 at 19:51
  • 2
    @DarcyDavis what do you mean by 'Christian Atheist'? – An old man in the sea. Dec 06 '14 at 20:07
  • 2
    It is a good question. "Christian Atheism" first appeared just after the events of World War II. It is basically a product of despair. It asks the questions; "Where is God." "He has utterly failed to show up." "He has failed to appear 'on time'." Christian Atheism or the **Death of God Movement** centered around the **New Theology**. Adherents were Thomas J.J. Altizer, Dietrich Bonhoeffer (hanged by the Nazis), Rudolf Bultmann, Mircea Eliade (a non-believing Jew), Harvey Cox, Paul Tillich, Gabriel Vahanian, Paul M. Van Buren, and many others. – Darcy Davis Dec 06 '14 at 21:53
  • @DarcyDavis but why use the noun atheism? Many believers, even in some psalms, or other biblical books like Job's, people ask where is God when destruction and evil strike them... That doesn't mean they apostatize – An old man in the sea. Dec 06 '14 at 22:18
  • @DarcyDavis, could you give some references as how Dietrich Bonhoeffer was part of that theothanatology movement? Thanks ;) – An old man in the sea. Dec 06 '14 at 22:20
  • 1
    "Energeia, [as] presencing into the appearance, was translated by the Romans as actus", hence Actus Purus (Pure act of being) - http://philosophy.stackexchange.com/a/10011/5154 – Chris Degnen Dec 07 '14 at 18:58
  • @ChrisDegnen Thanks for the link. I ,however, tend not to follow Heidegger's view on Aristotle or S.Thomas Aquinas. I don't think he understood them well. It's just my take from some books I've read on metaphysics. ;) – An old man in the sea. Dec 08 '14 at 14:17
  • @Old Man: You asked: *"...Could you give some references as how Dietrich Bonhoeffer was part of the **New Theology** or **Christian Atheist** movement?"* The editors of the revised edition of *The Zondervan Pictorial Bible Dictionary* (1963; 1977: s.v. "The New Theology," p. 585-586) state: *"Both Tillich and Bultmann contributed to the radical theologians who now constitute the 'death of God' movement. However, some of the latter statements of Dietrich Bonhoeffer (1906-1945) point more directly to this radical theology."* This scholarly article goes on to cite why. Good reading! – Darcy Davis Dec 08 '14 at 17:37
  • @DarcyDavis «Years after Bonhoeffer's death, some Protestant thinkers developed his critique into a thoroughgoing attack against traditional Christianity in the "Death of God" movement(...) However, some critics (...) have charged that those radical interpretations of Bonhoeffer's insights amount to a grave distortion, that Bonhoeffer did not mean to say that God no longer had anything to do with humanity (...). More recent Bonhoeffer interpretation is more cautious in this regard, respecting the parameters of the neo-orthodox school to which he belonged.» (in Wikipedia page of Bonhoeffer) – An old man in the sea. Dec 08 '14 at 20:17
  • @Old Man: I would highly recommend purchasing The *Zondervan Pictorial Bible Dictionary* for the article I cite. You might try the local Junior College Library (according to news reports, the staff there is crying for 'customers' who read). I understand the evangelical and fundamentalist emphasis on Bonhoeffer's writings (*The Cost of Discipleship*, etc.); but, I think their efforts are misguided. The Zondervan article notes: Bonhoeffer promoted "a secular Christianity." He also "...believed that God was active in the world (without the help of the Church)." If this is so, "Why a Church?" – Darcy Davis Dec 10 '14 at 19:27

4 Answers4

2

I have not studied St. Thomas but the theory is also discussed in muslim philosophy, that's why I readily recognized the theme. My answer also comes from my knowledge of muslim philosophy but I think due to common origins between Medieval Christian and Muslim philosophy the theories must be identical.

Now to answer your question, the essence/potency doesn't have to come from anywhere, because they are nothing at all in the first place! That is, essence as limit of being is itself non-being or non-existence. Because only non-existence limits existence, while the act of being by God only creates being/existence.

infatuated
  • 1,387
  • 7
  • 13
  • 1
    Thanks for the interest. I just found the answer to my own question. I'm not sure if it's compatible with yours. Roughly translated, it goes as follows:«Essence only exists by being, since before having 'being', it is nothing, except only in God's 'Understanding'[??], where it is no longer a creation, but the Creator's essence. God, when creating, produces beings from nothing, as an act limited by its essence [the acts corresponding essence]; not from two different things that were separately made, and then joined, but only one thing, a compound of both potency(essence) and act(being).» – An old man in the sea. Dec 06 '14 at 20:05
  • @Anoldmaninthesea., Good! And that's right. And what you wrote essentially says the same thing as I said: "essence only exists by being", that's without being essence is nothing. – infatuated Dec 06 '14 at 20:15
  • Do you think the existence of that which has some essence, or quiddity, has a different order of existence than the essence itself? Such as the existence of a hat which has the essence of hatness. Or are you are saying the existence of hatness is another similar order of thing alongside the existence of an actual hat? – Chris Degnen Dec 09 '14 at 02:23
  • @ChrisDegnen, Essence is basically the attributes of a being as perceived by human mind. That's also why in logic essence inevitably becomes the subject of definition. This also infers that in reality being precedes essence, or in other words, essence exists via being and can not exist without it except in human mind, as it is the human mind that perceives essence and then preserves it independent of the external being from which it was originally abstracted. – infatuated Dec 09 '14 at 06:19
  • Therefore since essence exists in human mind, we can in some sense argue that it is of a different order of existence, however I don't think this is the sense you intended. – infatuated Dec 09 '14 at 06:20
  • 1
    A further analysis that helps to clarify the reality of essence in relation to being is that, since the essence somehow has to correspond to the external being from which it was originally abstracted, it is wrong to assume that it is a purely mental entity. It is subsequently revealed that the external referent of essence is the existential limits of the being from which it was abstracted. – infatuated Dec 09 '14 at 06:23
  • 1
    This can also be understood by contemplating the process of logical definition when some attributes has to be necessarily negated from the subject of definition (essence), implicitly or explicitly, for the essence to become distinct from those of other beings. These negated attributes, it is then argued, correspond to the external limits of the being whose essence is being defined. So essence is non-existing in reality, in the sense that it corresponds to the actual limits of a being, and since being can only be limited by non-being, essence is in reality non-existent. – infatuated Dec 09 '14 at 06:33
  • 1
    I hope this helps to clarify the matter than confuse it! This must also be said that all the above statements as to the nature of essence hold true only in regards with creation not God. Because since God has no limits it can not have essence in the sense I defined above. – infatuated Dec 09 '14 at 06:35
  • @infatuated I must say that it took me a bit to slightly understand what you're trying to say. The deep implications of this elude me for the moment... =D – An old man in the sea. Dec 15 '14 at 16:18
  • @Anoldmaninthesea., Ah! That's a good sign! You're hopefully on the path to enlightenment, :). – infatuated Dec 15 '14 at 17:32
1

Probably one of the greatest theologians of our time, Carl F.H. Henry, citing John Calvin, writes:

The knowledge of God is nonetheless for the sake of the good life. "We are invited to a knowledge of God not such as, content with empty speculation, merely floats in the brain, but such as will be solid and fruitful, if rightly received and rooted in out hearts" (Institutes I, 5, 9). The pious mind covets knowledge of God for the sake of reverent worship and obedience. "The right way, and the best method of seeking God" is "not with presumptuous curiosity to attempt an examination of his essence, which is rather to be adored than too curiously investigated; but to contemplate him in his works, in which he approaches and familiarizes, and, in some measure, communicates himself to us" (Ibid, I, 5, 9). "Cold and frivolous . . . are the speculations of those who employ themselves in disquisitions on the essence of God, when it would be more interesting to us to become acquainted with his character, and to know, what is agreeable to his nature" (Ibid. I, 2, 2).

In other words, "Don't look for God to take a shower." Or, better, "Don't peak at God lounging poolside."

(I would highly recommend Henry's work in Christian theology, God, Revelation, and Authority [in five volumes: 1976-1987]. He address the problem of Thomastic theology, at least partly, in his Chapter 20: "The Theological Transcendent A Priori," Volume 1.)

Nevertheless, Plato's concept of 'Form' or 'eternal substance' (eidos) is related significantly to 'essence' (ousia); also, hypostasis is substantial, concrete being between the merely actual but contingent and the realities that are merely mental. The whole picture is a 'tricotomy':

mental reality (appearance)

hypostasis: concrete being (substance)/becoming (change): 'reality'

actuality by contingency (hypokeimenon): the basic primary matter which has not yet been formed: a circling back to the original Form (Ideal). (In successful philosophy and philosophic-theologic world-life views: that which is placed in the lower story does not consume the upper (as in modernism and postmodernism); rather, it merges with it. Watch for this.)

Historic or personal movement through time begins 'top-to-down'. Reality and appearance are sometimes opposed. Time (to the Platonists and Neo-Platonists) was thought of as noema (thought or concept) and metron (measure), but not as hypostasis (the reality we experience; with this in mind, you might detect how C. Godel [Einstein's best friend] was merely a Neo-Platonist).

Hypostasis is further identified with the world spirit or world soul. It is 'essence' that gives stability to the concrete, individual thing. This is the world of substantia (substance: electrons, protons, neutrons and stuff; This is my, your world; the objective world).

Plato's 'Form' basically meant "to place under." Under what? Under heaven, God's realm. Our world is both under heaven literally and by authority (the Creator's conduct). Our world is like a world under water... a bottom world upon which one can or cannot get a foothold. It's like 'night-floundering' in Georgia swamp land, a lantern and a 'gig' in-hand. You look, feel for solid ground under and through the deep dark, dank forested swamp waters. Sometimes nothing is there, so you float. Or, you tread water (with all that stuff in both hands, better tread with your feet)! Sometimes you might feel with your bare feet the muddy bottom ooze. Yea, "That's 'bottom'." Tillich's "God, the ground of all being."

(I would highly recommend The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology [1967; 1975], Volume 1: s.v., "Form," p. 703-714.)

Darcy Davis
  • 518
  • 2
  • 12
  • If there is a problem with Thomistic philosophy, the Catholic Church hasn't found it to be too big to prevent Thomas Aquinas from being officially proclaimed a Saint, and Angelicus Doctor... – An old man in the sea. Dec 08 '14 at 20:51
  • 2
    I think Henry raises a good point. That there's a substantial difference between becoming spiritually acquainted with God -- which is stuff of worship and spirituality -- and logically examining Him via concepts of mind. But I'd argue that both of these undertakings are valuable and important. One gives us the actual fruits of connection by heart, the other enables us help other hearts to believe in what their minds is not yet convinced about. – infatuated Dec 09 '14 at 06:17
  • 2
    @Infatuated: excellent answer; this is the 'essence' of the matter. – Darcy Davis Dec 09 '14 at 18:19
  • +1 for an interesting read. More on ground here: http://philosophy.stackexchange.com/a/10253/5154 - grounds for philosophising. – Chris Degnen Dec 11 '14 at 04:14
1

I think infatuated mostly explains it well, but I wanted to pitch in a couple points:

One alternate way of thinking about/translating the same statement ipsum esse subsistens is God as "unconditioned being." When one asks "where does [God's] essence/potency come from?" one puts conditions on it (as in "we are talking about the essence that comes from X..."). Another translation is "the infinitive 'to be' existing by itself," and asking where it comes from doesn't make sense because that implies a past, which implies a conjugation of "to be," which violates the definition.

According to Thomas, for the rest of us, our essence comes from God/ipsum esse subsistens. That is, we exist, but in a conditioned state.

James Kingsbery
  • 5,919
  • 1
  • 18
  • 41
  • 1
    Just adding a bit more to your answer. I think Aquinas refers to ' to be by participation' when talking about that conditioned state, and 'to be by essence' when in the unconditioned state. ;) – An old man in the sea. Dec 10 '14 at 22:50
  • Good one! Approaching the problem by reference to the "unconditioned being" is a good shortcut to solution. Btw, @Anoldmaninthesea. I'm curious about whether in the original language, the word for 'essence' is the same as the one as in "to be by essence." Because it seems to me that the latter is a different notion of essence. And for this distinction, muslim philosophers finally came up with at least two different terms for them. – infatuated Dec 15 '14 at 12:44
  • @infatuated In latin, or in the language I'm reading, that's spanish? Either way, I'll have to reach the end of the book to answer you. =D – An old man in the sea. Dec 15 '14 at 16:15
0

To complement user infatuated's answer, and since many may not read my comment.

Roughly translated, it goes as follows:

Essence only exists by being, since before having 'being', it is nothing, except only in God's 'Understanding'[??], where it is no longer a creation, but the Creator's essence. God, when creating, produces beings from nothing, as an act limited by its essence [the act's corresponding essence]; not from two different things that were separately made, and then joined, but only one thing, a compound of both potency(essence) and act(being).

[??] I'm not exactly sure how to translate the expression written in the original.

virmaior
  • 24,518
  • 3
  • 48
  • 105
An old man in the sea.
  • 196
  • 1
  • 11