Ontology, or the Theory of BeingCoffey, P. (Peter)
Philosophy
Ontology, or the Theory of Being
Coffey, P. (Peter)
Ontology
_substantial_ unity in the latter as their fundamental principle,
a unity resulting from the _union of incomplete substances_.
This latter is undoubtedly the view of St. Thomas, of practically
all the medieval scholastics, and of most scholastics in modern
times. Nor do we see any sufficient reason for receding from it,
or admitting the modern distinction between substance and nature.
And if it be objected that the view which admits the reality of
incomplete substances and substantial change is as much a
preconception as what we have called the atomic view of substance,
our answer is, once more, that since we have no intellectual
intuition into the real constitution of the substances which
constitute the universe, since we can argue to this only by
observing and reasoning from their activities on the principle
_Operari requitur esse_, the evidence alone must decide which view
of these substances is the correct one. Does the evidence afforded
us by a scientific analysis of all the functions, inorganic,
vegetative, sentient and rational, of an individual man, forbid us
to conclude that he is one complete substance, resulting from the
union of two incomplete substantial principles, a spiritual soul
and a material principle? and at the same time compel us to infer
that he is one complete nature resulting from the union of a
plurality of principles supposed to be complete as substances and
incomplete as natures? We believe that it does not; nor can we see
that any really useful purpose is served by thus setting up a real
distinction between substance and nature. From the evidence to
hand it is neither more nor less difficult to infer unity of
substance than unity of nature in the individual. The inference in
question is an inference from facts in the phenomenal order, in
the domain of the senses, to what must be actually there in the
noumenal order, in the domain of nature or substance, a domain
which cannot be reached by the senses but only by intellect. Nor
will any imagination images which picture for us the physical
fusion or coalescence of material things in the domain of the
senses help us in the least to conceive in any positive way the
mode in which incomplete natures or substances unite to form a
complete nature or substance. For these latter facts belong to the
domain which the senses cannot reach at all, and which intellect
can reach only inferentially and not by direct insight.
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