Part 5 (2/2)

Others(113) hold that while, no doubt, possible essences have ideal being in the Divine Intellect from the fact that they are objects of the Divine Knowledge, yet we must not conceive these essences as deriving their intrinsic possibility from the Divine Intellect. For intellect as such presupposes its object. Just, therefore, as possible essences are not intrinsically possible because they are understood by, and have ideal being in, the human mind, so neither are they intrinsically possible because they are understood by, and have ideal being in, the Divine Mind.

In order to be understood actually, in order to have ideal being, in order to be objects of thought, they must be intelligible; and in order to be intelligible they must be intrinsically possible. Therefore they are formally const.i.tuted as intrinsically possible essences, not by the fact that they are understood by the Divine Intellect, but by the fact that antecedently to this act (in our way of conceiving the matter: for there is _really_ no priority of acts or attributes in G.o.d) they are already possible imitations of the Divine Essence Itself.

This view seems preferable as being more in accordance with the a.n.a.logy of what takes place in the human mind. The speculative intellect in man does not const.i.tute, but presupposes its object. Now, while _actual_ things are the objects of G.o.d's _practical science_-the ”_scientia visionis_,” which reaches what is freely decreed by the Divine Will,-_possible_ things are the objects of G.o.d's _speculative_ science-the ”_scientia simplicis intelligentiae_,” which is not, like the former, productive of its object, but rather contemplative of objects presented to it by and in the Divine Essence.

Why, then, ultimately will the notions ”square” and ”circle” not coalesce so as to form one object of thought for the human mind, while the notions ”equilateral” and ”triangle” will so coalesce? Because the Essence of G.o.d, the Necessary Being, the First Reality, and the Source of all contingent reality, affords no basis for the former as a possible expression or imitation of Itself; in other words, because Being is not expressible by nothingness, and a ”square circle” is nothingness: while the Divine Essence does afford a basis for the latter; because Necessary Being is in some intelligible way imitated, expressed, manifested, by whatever has any being to distinguish it from nothingness, and an ”equilateral triangle”

has such being and is not nothingness.

It is hardly necessary to add that when we conceive the Divine Essence, contemplated by the Divine Intellect, as containing in itself the exemplars or prototypes of all possible things, we are not to understand the Divine Essence as the _formal_ exemplar of each, or, _a fortiori_, as a vast collection of such formally distinct exemplars; but only as _virtually_ and _equivalently_ the exemplar of each and all. We are not to conceive that possible essences are seen by the Divine Intellect imaged in the Divine Essence _as in a mirror_, but rather _as in their supreme source and principle_: so that they are faint and far off reflections of It, and, when actualized, become for us the only means we have, in this present state, for reaching any knowledge of the Deity: _videmus nunc per speculum_.(114)

21. DISTINCTION BETWEEN ESSENCE AND EXISTENCE IN ACTUALLY EXISTING CONTINGENT OR CREATED BEINGS.-Pa.s.sing now from the consideration of possible essences as such, to the consideration of actually existing essences, we have to examine a question which has given rise to a great deal of controversy, partly on account of its inherent difficulty, and partly because of a mult.i.tude of ambiguities arising from confusion of thought: What is the nature of the distinction between essence and existence in the actually existing things of our experience?

We have seen already that the _concepts_ of essence and existence are distinct from each other (12, 13); in other words, that in all cases there is at least a _logical_ distinction between the essence and the existence of any being. We must, however, distinguish between created or contingent beings and the Uncreated, Necessary, Self-Existent Being. The latter exists _essentially_, eternally, by His own Essence, so that in Him essence and existence are _really identical_. His essence is _formally_ His Existence; and, therefore, in thinking of His Essence we cannot positively exclude the notion of existence or think of Him as non-existent. The distinction between essence and existence, which we find in our thoughts, is, therefore, when applied to G.o.d, a _purely logical_ distinction, due solely to our finite human mode of thinking, and having no ground or basis or reason in the reality which is the object of our thought. On this there is complete unanimity among scholastic philosophers.

But while we conceive that G.o.d actually exists by that whereby He is G.o.d, by His Essence Itself, we do not conceive that any created or contingent being exists by that whereby it is what it is, by its essence. We do not, for example, regard the essence of Socrates, whether specific or individual (that whereby he is a _man_, or that whereby he is _this_ man, Socrates), as that whereby he actually exists. In other words, the essence of the existing Socrates, being a contingent essence, does not necessarily demand or imply that it actually exist. Our concept of such an essence does not include the note of actual existence. Therefore if we find such an essence actually existing we consider this actually existing essence as caused or produced, and conserved in existence, by some other being, _viz._ by the Necessary Being: so that if it were not so created and conserved it would be a pure possibility and nothing actual.(115) The same difference between the Necessary Being and contingent beings will be seen from considering their existence. The abstract concept of existence is rendered definite and determinate by the essence which it actualizes. Now every finite essence is of some particular kind; and its existence is rendered determinate by the fact that it is the existence of a definite kind of essence. The existence of a contingent being we conceive as the actuality of its essence; and its essence as a definite potentiality of existence. Thus if we conceive existence as a perfection it is restricted by the finite nature of the potentiality which it actualizes. But the existence of the Necessary Being is the plenitude of actuality, an existence not restricted by being the existence of any essence that is determinate because finite, but of an essence that is determinate by being above all genera and species, by being infinite, by being Itself pure actuality, in no sense potential but perfectly and formally identical with actual existence. While, therefore, the essence of the Necessary Being is a necessarily existing essence, that of a contingent being is not necessarily existent, but is conceived as a potentiality which has been _de facto_ actualized or made existent by the Necessary Being, and which may again cease to be actually existent.(116) On this too there is unanimity among scholastic philosophers.

We distinguish mentally or logically between the essence of an actually existing contingent being and its existence; considering the former as the potential principle, in relation to the latter as the actualizing principle, of the contingent existing reality. But is the distinction between such an essence and its existence something more than a logical distinction? Is it a real distinction? This is the question in dispute.

And in order to avoid misunderstanding, we must be clear on these two points: firstly, of what essence and existence is there question? and secondly, what exactly are we to understand by a real distinction in this matter?

22. STATE OF THE QUESTION.-In the first place, there is no question here of the relation of a _possible_ essence as such to existence. The possible essence of a contingent being, as such, has no reality outside the Divine Essence, Intellect, Will, and Omnipotence. Before the world was created the possible essences of all the beings that const.i.tute it were certainly really distinct from the actual existence of these beings which do const.i.tute the created universe. On this point there can be no difference of opinion. To contend that it is on the eternal reality of the possible essence that actual existence supervenes, when a contingent being begins to exist, would be equivalent to contending that it is the Divine Essence that becomes actual in the phenomena of our experience: which is the error of Pantheism.

Again, before a contingent thing comes into actual existence it may be virtually and potentially in the active powers and pa.s.sive potentialities of other actually existing contingent things: as the oak, for instance, is in the pa.s.sive potentiality of the acorn and in the active powers of the natural agencies whereby it is evolved from the acorn; or the statue in the block of marble and in the mind and artistic power of the sculptor.

But neither is there any question here of the relation of such potential being or essence as a thing has in its causes to the actual existence of this thing when actually produced. Whatever being or essence it has in its active and pa.s.sive causes is certainly really distinct from the existence which the thing has when it has been actually produced. Nor is there any doubt or dispute about this point. At the same time much controversy is due to misunderstandings arising from a confusion of thought which fails to distinguish between the essence as purely possible, the essence as virtually or potentially in its causes, and the essence as actually existing. It is about the distinction between the latter and its existence that the whole question is raised. And it must be borne in mind that this essence, whether it is really distinct from its existence or not, is itself a positive reality from the moment it is created or produced. The question is whether the creative or productive act-whereby this essence is placed ”outside its causes,” and is now no longer merely possible, or merely virtual or potential in its causes, but something real _in itself_-has for its term _one reality_, or _two realities_, _viz._ the essence as real subjective potentiality of existence, and the existential act or perfection whereby it is const.i.tuted actually existent.(117)

The question is exclusively concerned with the essence which began to exist when the contingent being came into actual existence, and which ceases to exist when, or if, this being again pa.s.ses out of actual existence; and the question is whether this essence which actually exists is really distinct from the existence whereby it actually exists. Finally, the question concerns the essence and existence of any and every actual contingent reality, whether such reality be a substance or an accident. Of course it is primarily concerned with the essence and existence of substances; but it also applies to the essence and existence of accidents in so far as these latter will be found to be really distinct from the substances in which they inhere, and to have reality proper to themselves.

23. THE THEORY OF DISTINCTIONS IN ITS APPLICATION TO THE QUESTION.-In the next place, what are we to understand by a _real_ distinction in this matter? Ambiguity and obscurity of thought in regard to the theory of _distinctions_, and in regard to the application of the theory to the present question, has been probably the most fertile source of much tedious and fruitless controversy in this connexion.

Antic.i.p.ating what will be considered more fully at a later stage (30), we must note here the two main cla.s.ses of distinction which, by reflecting on our thought-processes, we discover between the objects of our thought. The _real_ distinction is that which exists in things independently of the consideration of our minds; that which is discovered, but not made, by the mind; that which is given to us in and with the data of our experience.

For example, the act of thinking is a reality other than, and therefore _really_ distinct from, the mind that thinks; for the mind persists after the act of thinking has pa.s.sed away.

Opposed to this is the mental or logical distinction, which is the distinction made by the mind itself between two different concepts of one and the same reality; which is not in the reality independently of our thought, but is introduced into it by our thought, regarding the same reality under different aspects or from different points of view. The mind never makes such a distinction without some ground or reason for doing so.

Sometimes, however, this reason will be found exclusively in the mind itself-in the limitations of its modes of thought-and not in the reality which is the matter or object of the thought. The distinction is then said to be _purely_ logical or mental. Such distinctions are _entia rationis_, logical ent.i.ties. An example would be the distinction between the concept ”man” and the concept ”rational animal,” or, in general, between any definable object of thought and its definition; the distinction, therefore, between the essence and the existence of the Necessary Being is a purely logical distinction, for in a definition it is the essence of the thing we define, and existence is of the essence or definition of the Necessary Being.

Sometimes, again, the reason for making a mental distinction will be found in the reality itself. What is one and the same reality presents different aspects to the mind and evokes different concepts of itself in the mind: though really one, it is virtually manifold; and the distinction between the concepts of these various aspects is commonly known as a _virtual_ distinction. For example, when we think of any individual man as a ”rational animal,” though our concept of ”animal nature” is distinct from that of ”rational nature,” we do not regard these in him as two realities co-existing or combining to form his human nature, but only as two distinct aspects under which we view the one reality which is his human nature. And we view it under these two aspects because we have actual experience of instances in which animal nature is really distinct and separated from rationality, _e.g._, in the brute beast. Or, again, since we can recognize three grades of life in man-vegetative, sentient, and rational-we conceive the one principle of life, his soul, as virtually three principles; and so we distinguish mentally or virtually between three souls in man, although in reality there is only one. Or, once more, when we think of the Wisdom, the Will, and the Omnipotence of G.o.d, we know that although these concepts represent different aspects of the Deity, these aspects are not distinct realities in Him; but that because of His infinite perfection and infinite simplicity they are all objectively one and the same self-identical reality.

A virtual distinction is said to be _imperfect_ (thus approaching nearer to the nature of a purely logical distinction) when each of the concepts whereby we apprehend the same reality only prescinds _explicitly_ from what is expressed by the other, although one of them is found on a.n.a.lysis to include _implicitly_ what is expressed by the other. Such is the distinction between the _being_ and the _life_ of any living thing; or the distinction between the spirituality and the immortality of the human soul; or the distinction between _Infinite_ Wisdom and _Infinite_ Power: the distinction between the divine attributes in general. A virtual distinction is said to be _perfect_ (thus approaching nearer to the nature of a real distinction) when neither of the concepts includes either explicitly or implicitly what is expressed by the other. Such, for instance, is the distinction between the principle of intellectual life and the principle of animal or sentient life in man; for not only can these exist separately (the former without the latter, _e.g._ in pure spirits, the latter without the former, _e.g._ in brute beasts), but also it will be found that by no a.n.a.lysis does either concept in any way involve the other.(118)

Our only object in setting down the various examples just given is to ill.u.s.trate the general scholastic teaching on the doctrine of distinction.

In themselves they are not beyond dispute, for the general doctrine of distinction is not easy of application in detail; but they will be sufficient for our present purpose. Probably the greatest difficulty in applying the general doctrine will be found to lie in discriminating between virtual distinctions-especially perfect virtual distinctions-and real distinctions.(119) And this difficulty will be appreciated still more when we learn that a real distinction does not necessarily involve _separability_ of the objects so distinguished. In other words there may be, in a composite existing individual being, const.i.tutive factors or principles, or integral parts, each of which is a positive real ent.i.ty, really distinct from the others, and yet incapable of existing separately or in isolation from the others. ”Separability,” says Mercier,(120) ”is one of the signs of a real distinction; but it is neither essential to, nor a necessary property of the latter. Two separable things are of course really distinct from each other; but two ent.i.ties may be really distinct from each other without being separable or capable of existing apart from each other. Thus we believe that the intellect and the will in man are really distinct from each other, and both alike from the substance of the human soul; yet they cannot exist isolated from the soul.” Therefore, even though the objects which we apprehend as distinct, by means of distinct concepts, be understood to be such that they cannot actually exist in isolation from each other, but only as united in a composite individual being, still if it can be shown that each of them has its own proper reality independently of our thought, so that the distinction between them is not the result of our thought, or introduced by our thought into the individual thing or being which we are considering, then the distinction must be regarded as real. If, on the other hand, it can be shown that the different aspects which we apprehend in any _datum_ by means of distinct concepts have not, apart from the consideration of the mind, apart from the a.n.a.lytic activity of our own thought, each its own proper reality, but are only distinct mental views of what is objectively one and the same reality, then the distinction must be regarded as logical, not real,-and this even although there may be in the richness and fulness of that one reality comparatively to the limited capacity of our minds, as well as in the very const.i.tution and modes of thought of our minds themselves, a reason or basis for, and an explanation of, the _multiplicity of concepts_ whereby we attain to an understanding of some _one reality_.

24. SOLUTIONS OF THE QUESTION.-Postponing further consideration of the serious problems on the validity of knowledge and its relation to reality, to which those reflections inevitably give rise, let us now return to the main question: the nature of the distinction between the essence and the existence of any actually existing contingent being. We need not be surprised to find that the greatest minds have been unable to reach the same solution of this question. For it is but a phase of the more general metaphysical problem-at once both ontological and epistemological-of the nature of reality and the relation of the human mind thereto. Nor will any serious modern philosopher who is at all mindful of the wealth of current controversial literature on this very problem, or of the endless variety of conflicting opinions among contemporary thinkers in regard to it, be disposed to ridicule the medieval controversies on the doctrine of distinction as applied to essence and existence. No doubt there has been a good deal of mere verbal, and perhaps trifling, argumentation on the matter: it lends itself to the dialectical skill of the controversialist who ”takes sides,” as well as to the serious thought of the open-minded investigator. It is not, however, through drawing different conclusions from the same premisses that conflicting solutions of the question have been reached, but rather through fundamentally different att.i.tudes in regard to the premisses themselves which different philosophers profess to find in the common data of their experience. When we have once grasped what philosophers mean by a logical or a real distinction as applied to the relation between essence and existence we shall not get any very material a.s.sistance towards the choice of a solution by considering at length the arguments adduced on either side.(121)

Those who believe there is a real distinction(122) between the essence and the existence of all actually existing contingent beings mean by this that the real essence which comes into actual existence by creation, or by the action of created causes, is a reality distinct from the existence whereby it actually exists. The actually existing essence is the total term of the creative or productive act; but what we apprehend in it under the concept of _essence_ is really distinct from what we apprehend in it under the concept of _existence_: the existence being a real principle which _actualizes_ the essence, and this latter being itself another real principle which is in itself a positive, subjective _potentiality_ of existence.(123) Neither, of course, can actually exist without the other: no actual existence except that of a real essence; no existing essence except by reason of the existence which makes it actual. But these two real principles of existing contingent being, inseparable as they are and correlative, are nevertheless distinct realities-distinct in the objective order and independently of our thought,-and form by their union a really _composite_ product: the existing thing.

We might attempt to ill.u.s.trate this by the a.n.a.logy of a body and its shape or colour. The body itself is really distinct from its actual shape and colour: it may lose them, and yet remain the same body; and it may acquire other shapes and colours. At any time the body has actually some particular shape and colour; but that by which it is formally so shaped and coloured is something really different from the body itself. Furthermore, before the body _actually_ possessed this particular shape and colour, these were in it _potentially_: that is to say, there were then in the body the real, pa.s.sive, subjective potentialities of this particular shape and colour. So too _that by which_ a real (contingent) essence actually exists (_i.e._ the existential _act_, existence) is really distinct from _that which_ actually exists (_i.e._ the essence, the _potentiality_ of that existential act). The a.n.a.logy is, however, at best only a halting one. For while it is comparatively easy to understand how the pa.s.sive, subjective _potentiality_ of a shape or colour can be _something real_ in the _already actually existing_ body, it is not so easy to understand how the _potentiality of existence_, _i.e._ the real essence, can be anything that is itself real and really distinct from the existence.(124) The oak is _really_ in the acorn, for the pa.s.sive, subjective potentiality of the oak is in the actual acorn; but is this potentiality anything really distinct from the acorn? or should we not rather say that the _actual_ acorn _is potentially_ the oak, or _is_ the potentiality of the oak? At all events even if it is really distinct from the actual acorn, it is in the actual acorn. But is it possible to conceive a _real, subjective potentiality_ which _does not reside in anything actual_?(125) Now if the real essence is really distinct from its existence it must be conceived as a _real, subjective potentiality_ of existence.

<script>