I enjoyed this post brother! I'm about to start Real Essentialism and take notes about it. But I realized there were some heavy terms or jargon that takes me a bit to digest. I was thinking of using a Dictionary of Philosophy. Do you have any more resources to help out and try making Real Essentialism an easier read?
Honestly, I think Real Essential is pretty accessible. Oderberg is an exceptionally clear writer (one of his many gifts), and he doesn't assume too much on the reader's behalf going in. So, I would just dive right in.
That said, I do quite like the Dictionary of Scholastic Philosophy, from Bernard Wuellner: https://amzn.to/3DEtccn
Hi Pat, great post, really good stuff. Can you explain how pantheism does not result from your account of beings participating in existence? If God's essence is existence, and all beings participate in existence (whether in a horse-way, human-way, etc) then it seems to me you are saying this horse is a participant in existence aka God's essence. Same for the form "horse" which God combines with matter to make an actual horse. The idea is certainly had by God but cannot be the essence of God, or so it seems to me.
Thanks for the comment, Joe. Pantheism is a large topic, and I hope to write something more extensive on the subject soon enough.
In the meantime, here are a few quick thoughts:
At least in the context of Thomistic essentialism, there seems to be quite a bit in the system that prevents pantheism. For instance, all essences are numerically distinct from one another and from God. Moreover, God is the exemplar cause, not the material cause. Even within the traditional Aristotelian framework that Thomas adopts, it seems that affirming a material cause for particular things excludes pantheism—such things are neither "made of" God nor part of God in any quantitative or constitutive sense. Moreover—and this is important to be precise about—we say that God is His existence, not that God is existence simpliciter or esse commune. While all created beings participate in esse commune—a shared, analogical sense of existence—God is not identical to this common being. That would be a misreading of Thomas, and just false.
Additionally, to say that something participates in existence is not to say it participates specifically in God’s act of existence. Rather, participation simply means that something possesses a perfection in a partial or restricted way, having received this perfection from a higher source. Ultimately, this source is one which possesses the perfection in an unrestricted manner.
I agree with everything you said except for one part I am trying to wrap my head around. You say "all created beings participate in esse commune -- a shared, analogical sense of existence -- God is not identical to this common being". This is exactly what I think! What I don't understand is how you can say that while still maintaining that God is essence alone. For God must have esse commune in some sense in order for us to participate in it, yet esse commune is not the essence of God as you just said.
The same goes for what you say about participation, I agree. What follows is that God is both participable and imparticipable. The being we have comes from participating in some idea/essence in God's mind, yet we never participate in the essence of God given that we are not God. Thus God's ideas must be distinct from God's essence, otherwise to participate in one would be to participate in the other.
Please let me know if I am missing something here!
Yes, I think you are conflating, confusing, or just missing several things (God definitely does not have esse commune, for one thing, insofar as God does not have created esse; nor does God have to have created esse for us to participate in esse; nor should we think that God’s ideas, properly understood, are really distinct from God, even if creatures are; nor did I say God just is essence alone but rather his essence just is his existence; etc.), but a longer response will have to wait. Busy day!
When I say "have" I don't mean to say God is created being, what I am saying is that God must "have" the being we participate in similar to how he must have His ideas. God does not create the idea "human" because 1) He already has it and 2) In order to create the idea he'd have to already have it, otherwise we would be violating the principle that something cannot give what it does not have. The same reasoning that leads us to know God is an intellect (that He must have the forms we see around us without being any form Himself) also tells us God does not create the forms but rather simply knows/has them just by being what He is.
So with regard to the being that we participate in, I am saying the same thing as I just did about God's ideas. God does not create "being" any more than He creates "human-ness". What He does create are individual beings and individual humans, which participate in being and in human-ness. But what these are participating in is uncreated just as the ideas/forms are uncreated. How could it be otherwise? Do you think God creates something analogous to Himself for us to participate in? But for Him to create that, He would have to already have it in some sense. So He really must have the being we participate in in some sense. Individual beings are of course created but what they participate in, being, must be uncreated, just as the forms are.
When I referred to God as essence alone what I meant was that Thomists believe all the various attributes we use to refer to God, like omnipotence, omniscience, goodness, life, being, truth, etc are all analogous to the very same one thing, which is God's essence, which is God's existence.
I enjoyed this post brother! I'm about to start Real Essentialism and take notes about it. But I realized there were some heavy terms or jargon that takes me a bit to digest. I was thinking of using a Dictionary of Philosophy. Do you have any more resources to help out and try making Real Essentialism an easier read?
Thanks, Tuav!
Honestly, I think Real Essential is pretty accessible. Oderberg is an exceptionally clear writer (one of his many gifts), and he doesn't assume too much on the reader's behalf going in. So, I would just dive right in.
That said, I do quite like the Dictionary of Scholastic Philosophy, from Bernard Wuellner: https://amzn.to/3DEtccn
Happy New Year!
Hi Pat, great post, really good stuff. Can you explain how pantheism does not result from your account of beings participating in existence? If God's essence is existence, and all beings participate in existence (whether in a horse-way, human-way, etc) then it seems to me you are saying this horse is a participant in existence aka God's essence. Same for the form "horse" which God combines with matter to make an actual horse. The idea is certainly had by God but cannot be the essence of God, or so it seems to me.
Thanks for the comment, Joe. Pantheism is a large topic, and I hope to write something more extensive on the subject soon enough.
In the meantime, here are a few quick thoughts:
At least in the context of Thomistic essentialism, there seems to be quite a bit in the system that prevents pantheism. For instance, all essences are numerically distinct from one another and from God. Moreover, God is the exemplar cause, not the material cause. Even within the traditional Aristotelian framework that Thomas adopts, it seems that affirming a material cause for particular things excludes pantheism—such things are neither "made of" God nor part of God in any quantitative or constitutive sense. Moreover—and this is important to be precise about—we say that God is His existence, not that God is existence simpliciter or esse commune. While all created beings participate in esse commune—a shared, analogical sense of existence—God is not identical to this common being. That would be a misreading of Thomas, and just false.
Additionally, to say that something participates in existence is not to say it participates specifically in God’s act of existence. Rather, participation simply means that something possesses a perfection in a partial or restricted way, having received this perfection from a higher source. Ultimately, this source is one which possesses the perfection in an unrestricted manner.
Happy New Year!
Happy New Year to you as well!
I agree with everything you said except for one part I am trying to wrap my head around. You say "all created beings participate in esse commune -- a shared, analogical sense of existence -- God is not identical to this common being". This is exactly what I think! What I don't understand is how you can say that while still maintaining that God is essence alone. For God must have esse commune in some sense in order for us to participate in it, yet esse commune is not the essence of God as you just said.
The same goes for what you say about participation, I agree. What follows is that God is both participable and imparticipable. The being we have comes from participating in some idea/essence in God's mind, yet we never participate in the essence of God given that we are not God. Thus God's ideas must be distinct from God's essence, otherwise to participate in one would be to participate in the other.
Please let me know if I am missing something here!
Yes, I think you are conflating, confusing, or just missing several things (God definitely does not have esse commune, for one thing, insofar as God does not have created esse; nor does God have to have created esse for us to participate in esse; nor should we think that God’s ideas, properly understood, are really distinct from God, even if creatures are; nor did I say God just is essence alone but rather his essence just is his existence; etc.), but a longer response will have to wait. Busy day!
When I say "have" I don't mean to say God is created being, what I am saying is that God must "have" the being we participate in similar to how he must have His ideas. God does not create the idea "human" because 1) He already has it and 2) In order to create the idea he'd have to already have it, otherwise we would be violating the principle that something cannot give what it does not have. The same reasoning that leads us to know God is an intellect (that He must have the forms we see around us without being any form Himself) also tells us God does not create the forms but rather simply knows/has them just by being what He is.
So with regard to the being that we participate in, I am saying the same thing as I just did about God's ideas. God does not create "being" any more than He creates "human-ness". What He does create are individual beings and individual humans, which participate in being and in human-ness. But what these are participating in is uncreated just as the ideas/forms are uncreated. How could it be otherwise? Do you think God creates something analogous to Himself for us to participate in? But for Him to create that, He would have to already have it in some sense. So He really must have the being we participate in in some sense. Individual beings are of course created but what they participate in, being, must be uncreated, just as the forms are.
When I referred to God as essence alone what I meant was that Thomists believe all the various attributes we use to refer to God, like omnipotence, omniscience, goodness, life, being, truth, etc are all analogous to the very same one thing, which is God's essence, which is God's existence.