Ontology, or the Theory of BeingCoffey, P. (Peter)
Philosophy
Ontology, or the Theory of Being
Coffey, P. (Peter)
Ontology
Well, we have seen that certain entities, which are objects of
sense or of thought, or of both, can disappear from the individual
without the residue thereby perishing or ceasing to exist actually
as an individual: the human soul survives, as an actual individual
reality, after its separation from the material principle with
which it formed the individual man; the individual man persists
while the accidental modes that affect him disappear. In such
cases as these, intellect, interpreting sense experience and
reasoning from it, places a real distinction, in the composite
individual, between the factors that can continue to exist without
others, and these latter. In doing so it is apparently applying
the analogy of the typical real distinction—that between one
individual and another. The factor, or group of factors, which can
continue to exist actually after the separation of the others, is
an individual: and what were separated from it were apparently
real entities, though they may have perished by the actual
separation. But on what ground is the distinction between the
material principle and the vital principle of a plant or an
animal, for example, regarded as real? Again on the ground
furnished by the analogy of the distinction between individuals of
sense experience. Note that it is not between the material and the
vital principles _as objects of abstract thought_, _i.e._ between
the _materiality_ and the _vitality_ of the plant or the animal,
that a real distinction is claimed: these are regarded only as
conceptually distinct aspects of the plant or the animal; nor is
it admitted that because one of these thought-objects is found
embodied elsewhere in nature without the other—materiality without
vitality in the inorganic universe—we can therefore conclude that
they are really distinct in the plant or the animal. No; it is
between the two principles conceived as coexisting and united in
the concrete individual that the real distinction is claimed. And
it is held to be a real distinction because substantial change in
corporeal things, _i.e._ corruption and generation of individual
corporeal substances, is held to be real. If it is real there is a
real separation of essential factors when the individual perishes.
And the factors continue to be real, as _potential_ principles of
other individuals, when any individual corporeal substance
perishes. Each principle may not continue to exist actually as
such in isolation from the other—though some scholastics hold
that, absolutely speaking, they could be conserved apart, as
actual entities, by the Author of Nature. But they _can_ actually
exist _as essential principles of other actual individuals_: they
are real _potentialities_, which _become actual_ in other
individuals. Thus we see that they are conceived throughout _after
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