Ontology, or the Theory of BeingCoffey, P. (Peter)
Philosophy
Ontology, or the Theory of Being
Coffey, P. (Peter)
Ontology
That there is such real being, apart from the “thought”-being
whereby the mind is constituted formally knowing, is proved
elsewhere; as also that this _esse intentionale_ has modes which
cannot be attributed to the _esse reale_. We merely note these
points here in order to indicate the errors involved in the
opposite contentions. Our concepts are characterized by
abstractness, by a consequent static immutability, by a plurality
often resulting from purely mental distinctions, by a universality
which transcends those distinctions and unifies the variety of all
subordinate concepts in the widest concept of _being_. Now if, for
example, we attribute the unifying mental mode of universality to
real being, we must draw the pantheistic conclusion that all real
being is one: the logical outcome of extreme realism. If, again,
we transfer purely mental distinctions to the unity of the
Absolute or Supreme Being, thus making them real, we thereby deny
infinite perfection to the most perfect being conceivable: an
error of which some catholic philosophers of the later middle ages
have been accused with some foundation. If, finally, we identify
the _esse reale_ with the _esse intentionale_, and this with the
thought-process itself, we find ourselves at the starting-point of
Hegelian monism.(68)
5. FUNDAMENTAL DISTINCTIONS IN REAL BEING.—Leaving logical and ideal being
aside, and fixing our attention exclusively on real being, we may indicate
here a few of the most fundamental distinctions which experience enables
us to recognize in our study of the universal order of things.
(_a_) _Possible or Potential Being and Actual Being._—The first of these
distinctions is that between possibility and actuality, between that which
can be and that which actually is. For a proper understanding of this
distinction, which will be dealt with presently, it is necessary to note
here the following divisions of _actual_ being, which will be studied in
detail later on.
(_b_) _Infinite Being and Finite Beings._—All people have a sufficiently
clear notion of Infinite Being, or Infinitely Perfect Being: though not
all philosophers are agreed as to how precisely we get this notion, or
whether there actually exists such a being, or whether if such being does
exist we can attain to a certain knowledge of such existence. By infinite
being we mean a being possessing all conceivable perfections in the most
perfect conceivable manner; and by finite beings all such beings as have
actually any conceivable limitation to their perfection. About these
nominal definitions there is no dispute; and scholasticism identifies
their respective objects with _God_ and _creatures_.
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.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account