Ontology, or the Theory of BeingCoffey, P. (Peter)
Philosophy
Ontology, or the Theory of Being
Coffey, P. (Peter)
Ontology
(1) _Actual_ things furnish the basis of irrefragable proofs of
the existence of God—the Supreme, Necessary, Eternal, Omniscient,
and Omnipotent Being. But we are here inquiring whether a mind
which has not yet so analysed actual being as to see how it
involves this conclusion, or a mind which abstracts altogether
from the evidence furnished by actual things for this conclusion,
can prove the existence of such a being from the separate
consideration of possible essences, their attributes and
relations. Now it is not evident that to such a mind possible
essences reveal themselves as having _eternal_ ideal being. Such a
mind is, no doubt, conscious that it is not itself the cause of
their possibility. But it sees that actual things _plus_ the
abstract character of its own thought account sufficiently for all
their features as it knows them. To the question: Is not their
ideal being _eternal_? it can only answer: That will depend on
whether the world of actual things can be shown to involve the
existence of an Eternal Intelligence. Until this is proved we
cannot say whether possible essences have any ideal being other
than that which they have in human minds.
(2) The actual things from which we get our concepts of possible
essences do not exist _necessarily_. But, granted their existence,
we know from them that certain essences are _de facto_ possible.
They are not _necessarily_ given to us as possible, any more than
actual things are necessarily given to us as actual. Of course,
when they are thought of at all, they are, as objects of thought,
necessarily and immutably identical with themselves, and related
to one another as mutually compatible or incompatible, etc. But
this necessity of relations, hypothetical as it is and contingent
on the mental processes of analysis and comparison, involved as it
is in the very nature of being and thought, and expressed as it is
in the principles of identity and contradiction, is just as true
of actual contingent essences as of possible essences;(100) and it
is something very different from the sort of necessity claimed for
possible essences by the contention that they must be conceived as
having ideal being _necessarily_. The ideal being they have in the
human mind is certainly not necessary: the human mind might never
have conceived these possible essences.
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