Ontology, or the Theory of BeingCoffey, P. (Peter)
Philosophy
Ontology, or the Theory of Being
Coffey, P. (Peter)
Ontology
distributively is true of them taken all together when there is
question of what belongs to their nature; and the fact that their
active powers and passive potentialities _fall short_ of the
actuality of the effects we attribute to them is a fact that
appertains to their very nature as finite things. The phenomenon
of continuous change in the universe involves the continuous
appearance of _new actual being_. To account for this constant
stream of actuality we are of necessity carried beyond the system
of finite, changing being itself; we are forced to infer the
existence of a source and principle which must itself be purely
actual and exempt from all change—a Being who can cause all the
actuality that results from change without losing or gaining or
changing in any way Himself, because He possesses all finite
actuality in Himself in a supereminent manner which transcends all
the efforts of finite human intelligence to comprehend or
characterize in any adequate or positive manner. The scholastics
expressed this in the simple aphorism: _Omne novum ens est a Deo_.
And it is the realization of this profound truth that underlies
their teaching on the necessity of the Divine _Concursus_, _i.e._
the influence of the Infinite First Cause or Prime Mover
permeating the efficiency of all finite or created causes. Here,
for example, is a brief recent statement of that doctrine:—
“If we must admit a causal influence of these things [of direct
experience] on one another, then a closer examination will
convince us that a finite thing can never be the adequate cause of
any effect, but is always, metaphysically regarded, only a
part-cause, ever needing to be completed by another cause. Every
effect is—at least under one aspect, at least as an
effect—something new, something that was not there before. Even
were the effect contained, whether formally or virtually, in the
cause, it is certainly not identical with this latter, for if it
were there would be no causality, nothing would ‘happen’. In all
causing and happening, something which was heretofore only
possible, becomes real and actual. But things cannot determine
themselves to influence others, or to receive the influence of
others, since they are not dependent in their being on one
another. Hence the necessary inference that all being, all
happening, all change, requires the concurrence of an Absolute
Principle of being. When two things act on each other the Absolute
Being must work in and with them, the same Absolute Being in
both—to relate them to each other, and supplement their natural
insufficiency.”
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