Pints With Aquinas - 18: Understanding Thomas' metaphysical lingo

Starting point is 00:00:00 Welcome to Pints with Aquinas episode 18. I'm Matt Fradd. If you could sit down with St. Thomas Aquinas over a pint of beer and ask him any one question, what would it be? Well, in today's episode we'll ask St. Thomas the question, what are you even talking about anyway? Great to have you back with us here at Pints with Aquinas. This is the show where you and I pull up a barstool next to the angelic doctor and discuss theology and philosophy. Not sure if today's topic made you laugh or curious. When I say what on earth are you talking about anyway, I thought it was about time in this podcast that we talk about Thomistic metaphysical terminology. Last week, we addressed in episode 17, the ontological argument for the existence of God. And soon I'd like to tackle at least one of Aquinas' arguments for the existence of God. But I think one of the biggest barriers to

Starting point is 00:01:20 understanding Thomas' five ways and other things St. Thomas has to write, is that we don't quite understand some of the terms that he uses. So in today's episode, here's some of the terms that I would like to clear up for you. Essence and existence, being, potency, act, and motion. And then I want to talk about a linear and hierarchical series of causes. You'll figure out what that means later. So those are the things I want to talk about. And I think that if you understand these, if you can grasp these, then you can go yourself and have a look at Thomas's five ways and they'll make a whole lot of sense or at least a lot more sense than they did before. Now, I know we've tackled essence

Starting point is 00:02:10 and existence before and maybe even motion. I forget to be honest with you, but let's do it again. All right. You are going to be very clear by the end of this podcast, what these terms mean. And maybe if you listen to this podcast multiple times, it's my hope that you'll be very confident and comfortable with these Thomistic metaphysical terms. Okay. By the way, here's another term we should just clarify right out of the gate. What does metaphysical mean? Well, metaphysics is a branch of philosophy. It has to do with being, right? It's the study of being as being. So there's physics, and then there's metaphysics, or after physics. In fact, that's how it got the name, we think, right after Aristotle's work, the physics. After that was the metaphysics and we think maybe that's why they wrote metaphysics

Starting point is 00:03:06 not for some big grand reason but just that it came after physics okay essence and existence all right now this distinction is critical to get and it's probably simpler than you think essence refers to what a thing is so So for our purposes, essence can also be called nature. A man has a nature that we call human. A human is an animal that possesses the faculty of reason. So humans have a head, two eyes, two feet, two hands. That's if everything's going right, right? These features are the ones that would come to mind if someone asked you, what is a human? So, the whatness of a human is the essence of a human, those features or characteristics that every human possesses

Starting point is 00:03:59 and that aren't unique to any one individual, okay? Existence. Well, existence on the other hand, doesn't refer to what a thing is. Existence refers to the fact that a thing is. So a thing might have an essence, but not existence. Unicorns, for example. What is a unicorn? It's a horse-like animal with a horn. So they have an essence, a what-ness, but they don't exist. They are imaginary. So unicorns have an essence, but not existence. Now, humans have both essence and existence. Humans aren't imaginary. They really exist. This podcast that you're listening to has both essence and existence, right? It possesses the features that a podcast ought to have, whatever they might be, but it also exists. You're not imagining that you're listening to me. You're actually listening to me.

Starting point is 00:05:00 Still, okay, so we've talked about things can have essence but not existence. Other things can have essence and existence. But other things can have neither essence nor existence. What do I mean? Well, a square circle, for example. You can't imagine a square circle because a square circle is a contradiction. The essence or nature of a square does not allow it to be what a circle is by essence or nature. Just try to imagine one for a second. I remember putting my son to bed one night and talking to him about the fact that God can't create a square circle. Okay, because

Starting point is 00:05:39 again, a square circle isn't a thing. And he said, I bet I could do it. So I brought him a pen and a pad of paper and he tried to draw a square circle. And by in trying, he drew a square around a circle, a square around a square, a half square, half circle, can't be done. So a square circle isn't a thing. It doesn't have essence and it certainly doesn't have existence. Okay, let's move on to the next Thomistic metaphysical term, being. Now, you can't read Aquinas without coming across this term. Now, you and I use this word in everyday language. We talk about human beings or being unable to understand Aquinas. But for Aquinas, a being is a thing that has both essence and existence. And again, to an essence, we could also say nature. So that's what a being is. A being has existence

Starting point is 00:06:33 and essence or nature. Now, a thing does not have to be living to have being. Maybe you're listening to this podcast through an iPhone. Well, your iPhone is a being because it has essence and existence. Now, Aquinas differentiates between what he calls contingent being and necessary being. So everything we encounter except God is a contingent being because everything except God could possibly not exist. They are contingent. So we could say that just simply contingent beings receive their existence from another being. They wouldn't exist if this other being that gave it existence didn't exist to bring it into existence. For example, just trying to think on the spot here, every piece of furniture, right, has contingent being, is a contingent being, because it would have not had being if a human person, namely a carpenter, hadn't have brought it into existence, hadn't have

Starting point is 00:07:46 created it. And so similarly, we can say that every human has contingent being, right? And is a contingent being because there was a time when every human did not exist. Every human came into existence at the moment of conception. That's right, Hillary Clinton. Every finite being, not just furniture or humans, is contingent. Okay? Now, Aquinas reasons that there is a direct connection between the contingent nature of the universe, right? The universe doesn't have to exist, but it does, and the existence of God. So to put it very simply, all contingent beings rely on the existence of someone or something else. All finite beings in the world are contingent. And so Aquinas, he'll go on to argue that there therefore must be a

Starting point is 00:08:40 non-contingent, by which he means necessary being upon which ultimately all other existences relies. All other existence, we should say, relies. Existences. Oh, I need a beer. This necessary being, when Aquinas talks about this non-contingent being, necessary being, is, of course, what Aquinas means and what we mean by God. Now, there's one more term about being that we need to understand, and that is substantial being. Aquinas said that God has substantial being. He defines substantial being as that which exists through itself and not through something else. So, to exist through itself is to be existence itself or being itself. Since God is the name we give to this necessary being, the being that exists through itself, we can say that God is being. It's through God that all other beings exist.

Starting point is 00:09:50 So, being itself or existence itself, God gives being or existence to other things. Being itself or existence itself, again, God, brings into existence beings that possess essences or natures. Right, let's look at potency, act, and motion. When Aquinas talks about motion, he means more than an object moving through space. And this is critical to understand, especially the first way of Aquinas, it's his argument from motion. And of course, by understand, especially the first way of Aquinas. It's his argument from motion. And of course, by motion, he doesn't just mean an object moving through space. He actually means, in the Aristotelian sense of the word, he means it to describe any sort of change. So when your fingernails grow, that's motion. When I put a beer into the freezer and forget to take it out and it turns to ice, that's motion.

Starting point is 00:11:06 I came back and someone asked me if I had dyed my hair and I said, no, I'm 32. Come on, what are you talking about? But when that took place, that's motion as well. So within this definition of motion, we find the concepts of, and those are the two terms I said we mentioned, potency and act. So let's talk about them very quickly. What do we mean by act? Act is what the being currently possesses. Potency is an attribute the being is missing, but has the potential, potency, the potential to obtain. So for example, if my wife decides to dye her blonde hair brown, right? Let's say she's deciding that as I do this podcast. Well, in actuality, it's blonde, but it has the potency to become brown, but it isn't that yet. So the process of dyeing her hair or your hair or anyone's hair is the process in which the hair, the hair's potential for brownness, becomes actual. So to use my wife

Starting point is 00:12:08 as an example again, her hair is moved from potentiality, or we should say from being potentially brown to being actually brown. So most of us would no doubt agree that motion, I think we would say it's a very common process in the world. And movement is caused by a mover. When we say mover, we don't necessarily mean an animate thing or a thing with a mind, an animate thing. We just mean whatever it is that gave the thing change. But in order to understand Aquinas' five ways, and again, I know we haven't even touched upon them, but in order to do that, we have to ask ourselves, have I ever seen anything change itself? No, you haven't. I'll just tell you.

Starting point is 00:13:02 Have I ever seen things whose change was caused by something outside itself? Yes. Nothing can change itself. Think, for example, of a stick, right? The stick is potentially flammable, but is actually not on fire. Well, it can't change itself. The stick can't make itself be on fire because if it did, it would have to already be on fire. It would have to be on fire and not on fire in the same time and in the same respect, which is absurd. So whatever moves is moved by another. So back to that beer analogy, when I put a beer in the freezer, it becomes ice. It does so because of the cold temperature moving it. These things, the stick, the beer, my wife's hair, they're moved from potentially to actuality by something

Starting point is 00:14:01 outside themselves. So these examples are pretty obvious, and we could talk more at length about the first way, but we're not going to. Here's another thing we have to recognize. When we think of Aquinas as five ways, it's critical that we get this right. Because in the first way, Aquinas is going to argue the thing can't move itself and therefore needs a mover to move it. And that thing that moves said thing also needs to be moved, right? But we can't have an infinite regress of movers because if there was no first mover, there would be no subsequent movers. And in the second way, Aquinas' argument is from efficient causality. And he says that we can't have an infinite series

Starting point is 00:14:53 of, at least we're going to talk about this in an essentially ordered series, of efficient causes, because if you had no first cause, you would have no subsequent causes. Now, you go to almost every atheist on YouTube talking about Aquinas' five ways, and they almost always misunderstand Aquinas. Aquinas is not talking about an accidentally ordered series. He's talking about an essentially ordered series. You've got no idea what I'm talking about yet, but don't worry, you're about to. Let's talk about that. Okay. So, an accidentally ordered series of causes is a series in which the subsequent causes once caused are no longer dependent upon the first cause. An essentially ordered series of causes are causes, no matter how far up or down you go in the chain, which are continually dependent upon the first cause.

Starting point is 00:16:07 So we have an accidentally ordered series, an essentially ordered series. Aquinas isn't talking about an accidentally ordered series. He's talking about an essentially ordered series. So it's not like Aquinas is giving an argument that the universe can't be infinitely old, that the universe can't be infinitely old, right? Aquinas doesn't actually think that you can prove from philosophy that the universe began to exist. All right. Bonaventure disagreed with Thomas. Theologians today like William Lane Craig disagree with Thomas. Whatever. Thomas agreed with Aristotle. He said, you cannot prove philosophically that the world began to exist. Now, Aquinas believed the universe began to exist because of divine revelation, but he didn't think that you could prove it. So, very important.

Starting point is 00:16:58 When Aquinas says you can't go back ad infinitum when it comes to causes. He's okay with, in theory, of causes stretching back forever, but he's not talking about back. He's talking about up. Oh gosh, we're kidding. This is my fault. I apologize if I'm not explaining myself well. I'm going to try again. What is an accidentally ordered series? An accidentally ordered series is one which subsequent causes are no longer dependent on the first. So my dad gave, well, helped, right, create me. If my dad dies, I continue to live, hopefully. So that's an accidentally ordered series. Let me give you another example of an accidentally ordered series. You go to church and sometimes around Easter, they might light a candle. And then by that candle, they light every other candle. Now, if you blow out

Starting point is 00:17:53 the first candle, that doesn't mean all the other candles will be extinguished. So this is an accidentally ordered series. These causes, the things that are being caused are no longer dependent upon the first cause. Okay. That's an accidentally ordered series. An essentially ordered series is one in which all subsequent causes are continually dependent upon the first. So here's a way to think about it, okay? Instead of saying an accidentally ordered series, think of that as a linear series, as a line, right? Going horizontal. Think of an essentially ordered series as a hierarchical series, a line that's going vertical. So when Aquinas is talking about you can't have

Starting point is 00:18:45 an essentially ordered series of causes stretch on forever, think of that vertically. And one example we'll talk about when we address this argument for the existence of God from the first and second way, maybe the third too, is this idea that imagine if you had a chandelier and think about all of the links on the chain. If the chain is one link short such that it doesn't attach to the ceiling, it will fall. You need something to ground, as it were, to uphold this chandelier. And so this is what Aquinas is talking about when he talks a lot about an infinite regress, right, of causes. So let's talk a little bit about essential or hierarchical series of causes. As I say, this sort of series is one in which the thing moved has an essential dependency on the mover, the first mover. So imagine, for example, that you see

Starting point is 00:19:53 Thomas Aquinas' great works, right? The Summa Theologica. By the way, some of you have criticized me. You say I should say Summa Theologiae. You're probably right, but what am I going to do? Change? I should say Summa Theologiae. You're probably right, but what am I going to do? Change? Admit I'm wrong? Please. Okay, I'm wrong. Summa Theologiae. So suppose you come across St. Thomas's work sitting on a table. These books are able to be positioned as they are. Why? Well, because there's a table underneath them. In turn, the table is able to hold the books. Why? Because it's supported by the floor. But the floor rests on the foundation that lies on the earth. So everything in the series is essential, you notice, to the end result. The book sitting on the table. If it took away the table, the book would not be sitting on it.

Starting point is 00:20:39 And if the house no longer had a foundation, then the floor, the table, and even the books would ultimately collapse. So, examining a hierarchical series helps us to see God as the first mover when we consider a series that exists at one time, simultaneously, hierarchically, right? So, when we think of this, we immediately recognize that something holds the series together. The table, in the example we just gave, holds the books. The floor holds the table. The foundation holds the floor. The earth holds the foundation. And for those of you who are going to be really smart now and go, okay, but what holds the earth? Well, we can say, well, gravity. What keeps gravity in existence? Well, eventually, in every hierarchical series, we trace the causes back to a first cause, a power that supports and holds everything together in existence.

Starting point is 00:21:34 I started to lose some stamina towards the end of today's podcast, and I apologize. I should have paused, taken a breath, got that frozen beer out of the freezer and continued. But I hope this podcast has been a help to you. We talked about essence and existence, being, including contingent being, necessary being. We talked about potency, act, motion. And when we talked about causes, because from motion being changed and something changes that, And when we talked about causes, because from motion being changed and something changes that, we talked about an accidentally ordered series by which we mean a linear series and an essentially ordered series by which we mean a hierarchical one. So with that in mind, that's a very brief sketch, but I think that if you can grasp that,

Starting point is 00:22:30 But I think that if you can grasp that, you'll be in a good place to begin reading Aquinas and especially his Five Ways. Now, I want to do a plug for Edward Fess's fantastic little book. It's called Aquinas, Beginner's Guides. If you type in Edwardessor and Aquinas, you'll see it. It's a fantastic little book that talks about Thomistic metaphysical terms, as well as explores the five ways of Aquinas. And I'll tell you what I'll do. In the description of today's podcast, I'll put up a link so that everyone can go buy it from Amazon. And then Edward Fessor will be so pleased with me that he'll agree to come on my podcast and discuss why Aquinas is the bomb. God bless you guys. Thanks for listening. I tell you what,

Starting point is 00:23:12 if you love the podcast, please give us a rating on iTunes. Visit us at pintswithaquinas.com. Email me if you want to at matt at pintswithaquinas.com. Tell me about a show you'd like to hear about and in the meantime keep it real god bless you guys To carry you, to carry you, to carry you, to carry you, to carry you.

Pints With Aquinas - 18: Understanding Thomas' metaphysical lingo

There aren't comments yet for this episode. Click on any sentence in the transcript to leave a comment.