Ontology, or the Theory of BeingCoffey, P. (Peter)
Philosophy
Ontology, or the Theory of Being
Coffey, P. (Peter)
Ontology
really distinct from the existence whereby it exists; that it forms with
the latter a really composite being; that it is in itself a real,
subjective potentiality, receptive of existence as another and actualizing
reality, really distinct from it, so that the creation or production of
any single actually existing contingent being would have for its term two
really distinct principles of being, a potential and an actual, essence
and existence, created or produced _per modum unius_, so to speak: for
asserting all this it is contended by supporters of the virtual
distinction that we have no sufficient justifying reason.(129) Hence they
conclude that a real distinction must be denied: _Entia non sunt
multiplicanda praeter necessitatem_.
Though each of these opinions has been defended with a great deal
of ability, and an exhaustive array of arguments, a mere rehearsal
of these latter would not give much material assistance towards a
solution of the question. We therefore abstain from repeating them
here. There are only a few points in connexion with them to which
attention may be directed.
In the first place, some defenders of the real distinction urge
that were the distinction not real, things would exist
essentially, _i.e._ necessarily; and thus the most fundamental
ground of distinction between God and creatures, between the
Necessary Being and contingent beings, would be destroyed:
creatures would be no longer in their very constitution composite,
mixtures of potentiality and actuality, but would be purely
actual, absolutely simple and, in a word, identical with the
Infinite Being Himself. Supporters of the virtual distinction deny
that those very serious consequences follow from their view. They
point out that though the existence of the creature is really
identical with its essence, the essence does not exist necessarily
or _a se_; the whole existing essence is _ab alio_, is caused,
contingent; and the fundamental distinction between such a being
and the Self-Existing Being is in this view perfectly clear. Nor
is the creature, they contend, purely actual and absolutely
simple; it need not have existed, and it may cease to exist; it
has, therefore, a potentiality of non-existence, which is
inconceivable in the case of the Necessary and purely Actual
Being; it is, therefore, mutable as regards existence; besides
which the essences even of the most simple created beings, namely
pure spirits are composite in the sense that they have faculties
and operations really distinct from their substance.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account