PL EN


2019 | 67 | 4 | 129-143
Article title

How Save Aquinas’s “Intellectus Essentiae Argument” For The Real Distinction Between Essence And Esse?

Authors
Content
Title variants
PL
Jak ocalić Akwinaty „argument intellectus essentiae” za realną różnicą między istotą i esse?
Languages of publication
EN
Abstracts
EN
Aquinas’ so-called “Intellectus essentiae Argument” for the distinction between being and essence is notoriously suspect, including among defenders of Aquinas’ distinction. For the paper in this volume, I take as my starting point the recent defense of the argument by Fr. Lawrence Dewan, O.P. Fr. Dewan’s project is unsuccessful. Pointing out some shortcomings in his readings allows me to take up his call to highlight the “formal” or “quidditative side” of Aquinas’ metaphysics, in this case in regards to the proofs of the “real distinction.” Accordingly, the second half of this paper sets forth a way in which the famous “Intellectus essentiae Argument” of De Ente et Essentia 4 can succeed as a proof of the real distinction. Aquinas’ argument presupposes the prior real distinction between essence and supposit or individual substance. Esse is the ontological component that makes true our judgments that substances actually are: Obama exists. By contrast, this “truth-maker” cannot be predicated of humanity, although it is in Obama as really distinct from him. If Aquinas’ reasoning in this most contentious of his proofs can be saved, so, perhaps, can most of his other proofs.
PL
Tak zwany argument intellectus essentiae Akwinaty za realną różnicą między bytem a istotą jest powszechnie podawany w wątpliwość, w tym także w kręgu obrońców tego rozróżnienia Akwinaty. W artykule zawartym w niniejszym tomie za punkt wyjścia biorę ostatnią obronę tego argumentu przez o. Lawrence’a Dewana OP. Projekt o. Dewana kończy się niepowodzeniem. Wskazanie pewnych niedociągnięć w jego twierdzeniach pozwala mi podjąć jego wezwanie do podkreślenia „formalnej” lub „istotnościowej” strony metafizyki Akwinaty, w tym przypadku w odniesieniu do dowodów za „realną różnicą”. Druga część tego artykułu przedstawia, w jaki sposób słynny „argument intellectus essentiae” z De ente et essentia 4 może zostać uznany za dowód realnej róznicy. Argument Akwinaty zakłada wcześniejszą realną różnicę między esencją i suppositum lub pojedynczą substancją. Esse jest składnikiem ontologicznym, który potwierdza nasze osądy, że substancje faktycznie są: Obama istnieje. Z kolei ów „uprawdziwiacz” nie może być przypisany ludzkości, chociaż w Obamie jest tak naprawdę czymś odrębnym od niego. Jeśli rozumowanie Akwinaty w tym najbardziej kontrowersyjnym z jego dowodów może zostać ocalone, być może ocalić można także wiele innych jego dowodów.
Year
Volume
67
Issue
4
Pages
129-143
Physical description
Contributors
author
  • Marquette University, Wisconsin, USA
References
  • DEWAN, Lawrence. “St. Thomas and the Distinction between Form and Esse in Caused Things.” In IDEM. Form and Being: Studies in Thomistic Metaphysics, (Studies in Philosophy and the History of Philosophy), 188–204. Washington, DC: The Catholic University of America Press, 2006. Reprinted from Gregorianum 80 (1999): 353–70.
  • DEWAN, Lawrence “St Thomas, Joseph Owens and the Real Distinction between Being and Essence.” The Modern Schoolman 61 (1984): 145-56.0.
  • DEWAN, Lawrence. “St. Thomas, Metaphysical Procedure, and the Formal Cause.” In IDEM. Form and Being: Studies in Thomistic Metaphysics, (Studies in Philosophy and the History of Phi-losophy), 167–74. Washington, DC: The Catholic University of America Press, 2006. Re-printed from The New Scholasticism 63 [1989]: 173–82.
  • FABRO, Cornelio. “La problematica dello esse tomistico.” In IDEM. Tomismo e pensiero moderno, 103–33. Rome: Pontificia Università Lateranense, 1969). Reprinted from Aquinas 2.2 (1959) 194–225.
  • FABRO, Cornelio. Participation et causalité selon S. Thomas d’Aquin. Louvain: Publications uni-versitaires de Louvain, 1961).
  • GILSON, Etienne. Elements of Christian Philosophy. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1960.
  • KLIMA, Gyula. “On Kenny on Aquinas on Being: A Critical Review of Aquinas on Being by Anthony Kenny.” International Philosophical Quarterly 44 (2004): 567–80.
  • KLIMA, Gyula. “The Semantic Principles Underlying Saint Thomas Aquinas’s Metaphysics of Being,” Medieval Philosophy and Theology 5 (1996): 87–141.
  • MACDONALD, Scott. “The Esse/Essentia Argument in Aquinas’s De ente et essentia.” Journal of the History of Philosophy 22 (1984): 157–72.
  • OWENS, Joseph. An Elementary Christian Metaphysics. Milwaukee: Bruce, 1963.
  • OWENS, Joseph. “Quiddity and Real Distinction in St Thomas Aquinas.” Mediaeval Studies 27 (1965): 1–22.
  • OWENS, Joseph. “Stages and Distinction in De ente: A Rejoinder.” The Thomist 45 (1981): 99–123.
  • OWENS, Joseph. “Thomistic Common Nature and Platonic Idea.” Mediaeval Studies 21 (1959) 211–23.
  • ROLAND-GOSSELIN, Marie-Dominique. Le ‘De Ente et Essentia’ de S. Thomas d’Aquin: texte éta¬bli d’après les manuscrits parisiens. Paris: Vrin, 1948.
  • ROSIER-CATACH, Irène. “Grammar.” In The Cambridge History of Medieval Philosophy, edited by Robert Pasnau, vol. 1, 197–207. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010.
  • TRAYLOR, Gregory. “Causal Arguments, Ontological Distinctions: Lawrence Dewan and the Argu-ment for the Real Distinction” (forthcoming).
  • TWETTEN, David. “Really Distinguishing Essence from Esse.” In Peter KWASNIEWSKI (ed.). Wis¬dom’s Apprentice: Thomistic Essays in Honor of Lawrence Dewan, O.P., 40–84. Wash¬ington, D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 2007.
  • VARGAS, Rosa. Thomas Aquinas on the Apprehension of Being: The Role of Judgment in Light of 13th C. Semantics, Ph.D. Dissertation, Marquette University, 2013.
  • VARGAS, Rosa, and David TWETTEN. “Albert on Being and Beings: The Doctrine of Esse.” In A Companion to Albert the Great: Theology, Philosophy, and the Sciences, edited by Irven M. Resnick, 627–48. Leiden: Brill, 2013.
  • WIPPEL, John. “Essence and Existence in the De ente, Ch. 4.” In IDEM. Metaphysical Themes in St. Thomas Aquinas, 107–33. Washington, DC: The Catholic University of America Press, 1984. Substantially revised from IDEM. “Aquinas’s Route to the Real Distinction: A Note on De ente et essentia.” The Thomist 43 (1979): 279–95.
Document Type
Publication order reference
Identifiers
YADDA identifier
bwmeta1.element.desklight-1c9c7e53-1288-4bac-a393-1a4d71dbdcdd
JavaScript is turned off in your web browser. Turn it on to take full advantage of this site, then refresh the page.