Ontology, or the Theory of BeingCoffey, P. (Peter)
Philosophy
Ontology, or the Theory of Being
Coffey, P. (Peter)
Ontology
Of course if we try to conceive two individuals so absolutely
alike both in essence and accidents, both in the abstract and in
the concrete, as to be indiscernible either by our senses or by
our intellect, or by any intellect—even the Divine Intellect—we
are simply conceiving _the same thing_ twice over. But is there
anything impossible or contradictory in thinking that God could
create two perfectly similar beings, distinct from each other only
individually, so similar, however, that neither human sense nor
human intellect could apprehend them as two, but only as one? The
impossibility is not apparent. Were they two material individuals
they should, of course, occupy the same space in order to have
similar spatial relations, but impenetrability is not essential to
corporeal substances. And even in the view that each is
individuated by its “_materia signata_” it is not impossible to
conceive numerically distinct quantified matters allied at the
same time to the same dimensions of space. If, on the other hand,
there be question of two pure spirits, absolutely similar
specifically, even in the Thomistic view that here the individual
distinction is at the same time specific there seems to be no
sufficient ground for denying that the Divine Omnipotence could
create two or more such individually (and therefore specifically)
distinct spirits:(150) such distinction remaining, of course,
indiscernible for the finite human intellect.
The argument of Leibniz, that there would be _no sufficient
reason_ for the creation of two such indiscernible beings, and
that it would therefore be repugnant to the Divine Wisdom, is
extrinsic to the question of their intrinsic possibility: if they
be intrinsically possible they cannot be repugnant to any
attribute of the Divinity, either to the Divine Omnipotence or to
the Divine Wisdom.
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