Ontology, or the Theory of BeingCoffey, P. (Peter)
Philosophy
Ontology, or the Theory of Being
Coffey, P. (Peter)
Ontology
The reason, therefore, why things are ontologically true for our minds,
why our minds can apprehend their essences, why we can have any true
knowledge about them, is in fact because both our minds and all things
else, being expressions of the Divine Essence, are in essential conformity
with the Divine Intellect. Not that we must know all this in order to have
any logical truth, any true knowledge, about things; or in order to
ascribe to things the ontological truth which consists in their conformity
with our conception of their nature. The atheist can have a true knowledge
of things and can recognize in them their conformity with his mental
conception of their nature; only he is unaware of the real and fundamental
reason why he can do so. Nor can he, of course, while denying the
existence of God, rise to the fuller conception of ontological truth which
consists in the essential conformity of all reality with the Divine
Intellect, and its essential dependence on the latter for its
intelligibility to the human intellect.
Naturally, it is this latter and fuller conception of ontological truth
that has been at all times expounded by scholastic philosophers.(166) We
may therefore, define ontological truth as _the essential conformity of
reality, as an object of thought, with intellect, and primarily and
especially with the Divine Intellect_.
The conformity of reality with the Divine Intellect is described
as _essential_ to reality, in the sense that the reality is
dependent on the Divine Intellect for its intelligibility; it
derives its intelligibility from the latter. The conformity of
reality with the human intellect is also essential in the sense
that _potential_ conformity with the latter is inseparable from
reality; it is an aspect really identical with, and only logically
distinct from, the latter. But inasmuch as the _actual_ conformity
of reality with our human conception of it is contingent on the
existence of human intelligences, and is not _ultimately_
dependent on the latter, inasmuch as reality does not derive its
intelligibility _ultimately_ from this conception—seeing that
rather this conception is derived from the reality and is
ultimately dependent on the Divine Exemplar,—this conformity of
reality with the human mind is sometimes spoken of as _accidental_
to reality in contrast with the relation of dependence which
exists between reality and the Divine Mind.
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