TANGAZA UNIVERSITY COLLEGE

The Catholic University of Eastern Africa

P.O. Box 15055– 00509 Langata Nairobi
Tell: 020-2379048/0722-204724
INSTITUTE OF PHILOSOPHY

PH 201 Philosophy of Being (Metaphysics)

ECTS: 6
Teacher: Rev. Dr. Munguci D. Etriga, AJ.
Contact: [email protected] ; [email protected]; office hrs Tuesdays &
Thursdays: 4.30 – 6:00 n
pm on prior arrangement.

Course Purpose:
The course presents the classical metaphysical analysis of being, and in so doing aims at giving
learners a foundation in Aristotelian-Thomistic metaphysics, including modern aspects and
challenges; and its value as a basis for Natural Theology. It will particularly highlight on the
analysis of Being and ways of getting a solid and systematic understanding of the underlying
principles of reality and man’s relatedness with the Infinite Being.
Course Content:
The different models of approach to metaphysics. Philosophy of being as “wisdom and
knowledge”. Being and the original amazement about the act of being. The real distinction
between essence and the act of being (esse), as the fundamental metaphysical structure of finite
beings. Being, participation, act: the meanings of being and analogy. The metaphysical notion of
person. Transcendental properties and their grades. Participation and causality: the doctrine of
the four causes, the principle of causality; the end as the cause of all causes. Action and its
foundation in being.

References:
Alvira, L., Clavell, L. & Malendo, T. Metaphysics. Manila: Sinag-Tala Publishers, 1991.
Blanchette O., Philosophy of Being. A Reconstructive Essay in Metaphysics, The Catholic
University of America Press, Washington D.C. 2003.
Clavell L. – Perez de Laborda, Metafisica, EDUSC, Roma 2006.
Loux, M.J., Metaphysics: A contemporary introduction, 2nd edition, London: Routledge, 2002.
Elders L. J., The Metaphysics of St. Thomas Aquinas in a Historical Perspective, Brill, Leiden
1992.
 COURSE OUTLINE

CHAPETR I
METAPHYSICS: DEFINITION
1.1 What Metaphysics is Not
1.2 What Metaphysics Is
1.3 Other Names of Metaphysics
1.4 Subject of Metaphysics
1.5 Division of Metaphysics
1.6 Importance of Metaphysics
CHAPTER II
PHILOSOPHY OF BEING “AS WISDOM AND KNOWLEDGE”
Thesis: Philosophy of being as “wisdom and knowledge”.
3.1 Philosophy as a Science
3.2 Philosophy as the Science of Wisdom
 Characteristics of Wisdom
 Goal and Procedure of Wisdom
3.3 Philosophy of Being (Metaphysics) as Wisdom and Knowledge.

CHAPTER III
MODELS OF APPROACH TO METAPHYSICS
Thesis: Models of Approach to Metaphysics
2.1 Pre-Socratic Model
2.2 Platonic Model
2.3 Aristotelian Model
2.4 Epicurean Metaphysical Model
2.5 Stoic Metaphysical Model
2.6 Cartesian (modern) Metaphysical Model

CHAPTER IV
BEING: THE OBJECT OF METAPHYSICS
Thesis: Being and the original amazement about the act of being

4.1 The Notion ‘Being’

4.2 Elements of the Notion ‘Being’
 The Subject
 Act of Being of the Subject
4.3 Modes of Being
 First Mode: Pure Act
  Second Mode: Pure Forms
 Third Mode: Corporeal Beings

CHAPTER V
HIERARCHY OF BEING
Thesis: Being and the original amazement about the act of being
5.1 SUPREME BEING – GOD
5.2 INTELLIGENCES – SEPARATE SUBSTANCES
1. Summit (Supreme, Noble) = The Highest Hierarchy
 Seraphim
 Cherubim
 Thrones
2. The Middle Hierarchy.
 Dominions
 Virtues
 Powers
3. The Lowest Hierarchy
 Principalities
 Archangels
 Angels
5.3 CORPOREAL BEINGS
 Living Corporeal Beings
o Man (Human Beings)
o Brute Animals
o Plants
 Non-Living Corporeal Beings

CHAPTER VI
PRINCIPLES OF BEING: CONSTITUTIVE PRINCIPLES
Thesis: The real distinction between essence and the act of being (esse), as the fundamental
metaphysical structure of finite beings.

6.1 Constitutive Princinciples of Finite Beings

6.2 Esse and Essence
 Esse as Act of Being
 Esse as Linking Verb
 Esse as Mode of Being
6.3 Substance and Accidents Structure of Being
6.4 Act and Potence Structuire of Being
CHAPTER VII
OTHER PRINCIPLES OF BEING
7.1 First Priniple of Being (The Supreme Principle). Generally this is a principle of
knowledge. Specifically, however, because all human knowledge revolves around Being,
it becomes the principle of knowledge of Being.

7.2 Principles derived from the First Principle:

 Princile of Identity
 Excluded Middle
 Sufficient Reason
 Causality
7.3 Other principles:
 Analogy
 Participation

CHAPTER VIII
PRINCIPLE OF PARTICIPATION

8.1 Definition
8.2 Types of Participation
 Participation in Existential Order
 Participation in Essential Order (Substantial Order)
 Participation in Accidental Order
8.3 Participation as Limitation
8.4 Manifestation of Participation in finite beings
8.5 Grades of Existents
8.6 Causality as a Participation

CHAPTER VIX
ANALOGY OF BEING
9.1 Usage of a Term
 Univocal Usage
 Equivocal Usage
 Analogous Usage
9.2 Types of Analogy
  Analogy of Attribution
 Analogy of Extrinsic Attribution
 Analogy of Proportionality
9.3 Importance of Analogy

CHAPTER X
TRANSCENDENTAL PROPERTIES OF BEING
Thesis: Transcendental properties and their grades.

10.1 TRANSCENDENTAL UNITY

10.1.1 Types and Degrees of Transcendental Unity
10.1.2 Relations as Effects of Unity
 Unity
 Multiplication

10.2 TRANSCENDENTAL TRUTH

10.2.1 Being as Object of Intellect
10.2.2 Types of Truth
 Verbal Truth
 Truth of Judgment
 Ontological Truth
o Essential Ontological Truth
o Accidental Ontological Truth
 Opposite of Truth

10.3 TRANSCENDENTAL GOOGNESS

10.3.1 Good
10.3.2 Appetite
10.5.3 Good and the Will:
 Created Will
 Divine Will
10.3.3 Goodness and Perfection

10.4 TRANSCENDENTAL BEAUTY

10.4.1 Beauty: Definition
10.4.2 Transcendental Beauty and its relation to Unity, True, and Good
10.4.3 Foundational Elements of Beauty
10.4.4 Degrees of Beauty
10.4.5 Types Of Beauty
 Ontological beauty
 Physical beauty
 Spiritual beauty
 Perception Of Beauty
 Variations in the Perception of Beauty

CHAPTER XI
METAPHYSICAL NOTION OF PERSON
Thesis: The metaphysical notion of person

11.1 The Notion Subsisting Subject

 Characteristics/Properties of a Subsisting Subject
 Elements of the Suppositum:
o Act of Being
o Subject
11.2 The Notions Supposit and Person
11.2 The Notion Person
11.3 The Human Person and His Acts
 Freedom
 Responsibility
 Friendship or Benevolent love
 Ability to direct all his actions towards God.

CHAPTER XII
PRINCIPL OF CAUSALITY
Thesis: Causality: the doctrine of the four causes, the principle of causality; the end as the cause
of all causes. Action and its foundation in being.

11.1 The Principle of Causality

11.2 The Nature of Causality
11.3 Key Concepts in Understanding Causality
 Cause
 Principle
 Condition
 Occasion
11.4 Experience of Causality
11.5 Cause and Effect

11.6 THE DOCTRINE OF THE FOUR CAUSES

11.6.1 Intrinsic causes
 Material cause
 Formal Cause
11.6.2 Extrinsic Cause
 Efficient cause
 Final Cause

11.7 RELATIONSHIP OF THE FOUR CAUSES

11.7.1 The end as the cause of all causes
11.7.2 The End and other causes
 CHAPETR I
METAPHYSICS
1.7 What Metaphysics is Not
 Misconceptions about metaphysics are not uncommon. This is partly due to ignorance
and rumours about this science, often leading to fear and bewilderment.
 The following are some common misconceptions about this science:
o Metaphysics is the study of God (Alkindi);
o Metaphysics deals with abstract and irrelevant things;
o Metaphysics is nothing but sophistry (D. Hume);
o Metaphysics is not a science (Positivists);
o Like a virgin consecrated to God, metaphysics produces nothing (Francis Bacon);
o Metaphysical knowledge is impossible (Idealists);
o Metaphysics is a dead science (some neo-Kantianists);
o Metaphysics is a restaurant where they give you a thirty-page menu, and no food
(Robert M. Pirsig).

1.8 What Metaphysics Is

 Metaphysics can be described etymologically and generically.
o Etymologically, metaphysics is a compound Greek term: Μετά (Meta) for beyond,
above or after; and φυσικά (Physica) for physics, physicals, nature, or physical
world. Hence, combined, Μετά φυσικά (Metaphysics) is the science that
investigates what goes beyond the physicals.
o However, it’s worth noting that Aristotle – the father founder of this science, did
not know that this science would be called “Metaphysics”. Andronicus of Rhodes
Island so christened it posthumously in 70 BC as a methodological process in his
edition of the voluminous Aristotelian works virtually on everything termed Corpus
Aristotelicus. He divided the Corpus Aristotelicus into two major parts to which
the names of books dealing with it are derived: Physics – the books dealing with
physical realities, and Metaphysics – the books (14 of them) dealing with the non-
physical realities or the beyond-physicals.
o Generically, Metaphysics is the branch of philosophy that investigates being as
being.

1.9 Other Names of Metaphysics

o Philosophy of Being for it is the only science/discipline that investigates being as its
material object.
 o First-Philosophy (Aristotle) – It investigates the first and the deepest/fundamental
principles.
o Primary Philosophy (Aristotle) – ‘primary’ for the prior or first, hence, it deals
with those principles investigated by First-Philosophy. However, first or primary, is
not epistemological but purely metaphysical, i.e., as a process to knowledge of these
principles, other sciences come first, while as a point of arrival, metaphysical
principles come last.
o Queen of Sciences (Aristotle) – It serves other sciences by shading light of the
deepest principles on them, and hence, gives direction, stability and sense of unity to
other sciences.
o Science of being qua being (Aristotle) – a science that treats being as such or as
being, not as anything else.
o Science of Wisdom (Aristotle) – treats the most intelligible objects.
o Science of Separate Substances (Aristotle) – objects that are separate from matter
in the highest degree.
o Divine Science or Theology (Aristotle) – treats substances that are separate and
eternal (in existence). Aristotle calls them gods: 52 of them.
o Metaphysics (Andronicus of Rhodes Island) – in as far as it treats being and the
attributes which naturally accompany being that are beyond physicals.
o Handmaid (Aquinas) – a servant of other sciences.

1.10 Subject of Metaphysics

 Metaphysic’s subject is any being whatsoever, that is, insofar as it is a being.
 In light of the Scholastic tradition that divides the subject of a science in the framework
of Material and Formal object, Metaphysics’:
i. Material Object = Being.
ii. Formal Object = Being as Being or Being qua Being.
o However, it should be noted that:
a) Not all modern Metaphysicians are unanimous on the application of this
traditional Scholastic framework of subject of a science to Metaphysics.
b) Instead of having Being in general as the material object of metaphysics, some
designate common being (ens commune) from which God – the Divine, is
excluded as the material object of this science.
c) Instead of being as being or being qua being, or being as such, for the formal
object of this science, some designate existence.
o Nonetheless, treating being as being is treating being in as far as it is, that is, in so far
as it exists as being. And treating being as existence is treating being in so far as it is,
that is, in as far as it is a being or real. Accordingly, being as being, and being as
existence are not exclusive.
1.11 Division of Metaphysics
o Metaphysics is divided into two main parts: General and Special metaphysics.
i. General Metaphysics; also known as Ontology, investigates the concept being,
its general properties and primary divisions. It treats being at the ontic level.
ii. Special Metaphysics: investigates finite and infinite beings, with the application
of general metaphysical principles. It is further divided into many branches. E.g.:
 Theodicy, also termed Natural Theology or Philosophy of God, investigates
infinite being and other Divine substances.
 Gnoseology, also termed Metaphysics of Truth, investigates the truth of
being in knowledge.
 Cosmology, also termed Philosophy of Nature, is the metaphysics of
inanimate corporeal being or nature.
 Psychology, also termed Philosophy of Mind (Soul), is at times termed
metaphysics of animate nature.
 Philosophical Anthropology, also termed Philosophy of Man, is at times
termed metaphysics of man proper.

1.12 Importance of Metaphysics

 Metaphysics is a speculative science. It does not serve a utilitarian purpose. It is not
studied because it teaches man how to do things. Despite this, however, metaphysics is
not unimportant. The following are some of its importance:
o Man by nature seeks to know. He is naturally inclined to philosophize even if he has
not received any training in philosophy. Hence, metaphysical knowledge satisfies
man’s thirst for knowledge for the sake of it. It is for this that Aristotle maintains that
metaphysics is not useful.
o Metaphysics concerns being in general, hence, it has absolute value, for which it
analyses and evaluates all absolute principles proposed by other sciences. This is
possible because the objects of other sciences fall under the extension of the concept
of being.
o Metaphysics examines the ultimate foundation of all sciences. This is because other
sciences presuppose and take for granted principles examined by metaphysics.
Principles such as; the principle of non-contradiction, principle of causality,
multiplication of individuals within a species, the possibility of change, etc.
Accepting these principles without their examination renders our scientific
knowledge insecure.
o Metaphysics examines and renders secure the ultimate foundations of the normative
moral principles that direct every man’s actions.
o Metaphysics gives sense of unity, direction and stability to all human knowledge.
o Metaphysics evaluates validity of different beliefs about the reality of the universe.
 o Metaphysics enables one to have a universal conception of reality for a holistic
perception of the same. Other sciences have limited knowledge of reality because
they cut a portion of reality as their material objects.
o Metaphysical knowledge is foundational to every other discipline, even if it may be
studied after some other disciplines.
CHAPTER II
PHILOSOPHY OF BEING – AS WISDOM AND KNOWLEDGE
Thesis: Philosophy of being as “wisdom and knowledge”.

 What Metaphysics is, its subject matter, and the various designations have been stated.
One of the designations is Philosophy of Being. This chapter seeks to underscore that
Philosophy of Being is “wisdom and knowledge”.
 Knowledge is variously understood. Traditionally taken, knowledge is a justified true
belief; or comprehension of facts; etc. Wisdom is commonly considered as the ability to
put knowledge to good use based on a reflection on experience. Metaphysical knowledge
as wisdom in Aristotelian tradition is, however, deeper or different from these traditional
or common understandings.
 The conception of Philosophy of being as “wisdom and knowledge” considers
philosophy in two aspects: as a science, and as wisdom.

2.1 Philosophy as a Science

o Aristotle, the father of metaphysics, often employed the term “science” for philosophy in
contrast to ordinary knowledge. Science in its traditional sense is from the Greek
épisteme or Latin scientia, for knowledge.
o In Greek and Latin, the technical meaning of science is knowledge through causes.
o The beginning of this science stems from innate and instinctual human desire triggered
by experience that leads to wonder.
o The reason for the desire in sensible things that sparks this wonder is their causes. Men
seek to know the causes of this behaviour so that there is the ordinary knowledge that
takes things for granted and scientific knowledge that seeks for the causes.
o Scientific knowledge seeking for causes can either be limited to particular causes or
extended to universal causes, giving rise to particular and universal sciences,
respectively.
o Particular sciences accordingly seek immediate causes; have their knowledge particular;
are utilitarian, and are practical or productive.
o Universal sciences instead seek universal causes; have universal knowledge; are
speculative.
o Because of being practical or productive, particular sciences constitute applied
knowledge, while the universal knowledge that is speculative is art.
 o The science of art that deals with universal causes, and is speculative, is philosophy and
the one who possess it is wiser or possess wisdom.

2.2 Philosophy as Wisdom

 From the precedent, the science that seeks universal causes for its own sake is wisdom.
The nature of this wisdom can be explained by its characteristics, procedure, goal and
the causes it deals with.

2.2.1 Characteristics of Wisdom

 Wisdom by nature is knowledge that extends to all things, for as art, it
comprehends forms that are universal.
 However, though universal knowledge, wisdom or philosophy that is truly
wisdom remains at the level of principles, not individuals.
 Because of comprehending universal principles, philosophy of being is a difficult
knowledge. For, universals are separated from sensation or sense knowledge that
is common and particular.
 Knowledge of wisdom is the most certain and exact, for it comprehends the ‘first’
principles and causes.
 Wisdom has the responsibility to teach and direct other sciences. For, one of the
characteristics of a wise person is being able to teach and direct others.
 Wisdom is a difficult knowledge. It is not common to all and involves a
painstaking and consistent reflection on reality.
 These characteristics of wisdom, as will be pointed, suit Wisdom

2.2.2 Procedure and Goal of Wisdom

 Even though philosophy as wisdom or science of wisdom is universal, and comprehends
‘first’ principles and causes, its procedure is striking.
 First, it is deeply grounded in experience of ordinary things as its point of departure.
 Second, despite parting from empirical experience, the goal of this science is not within
the empirics or sensible things. Wisdom seeks knowledge for its own sake. Its aim is
granting ultimate satisfaction to the inquisitive human mind.

2.3 Philosophy of Being as “Wisdom and Knowledge”

 Having seen what philosophy is as a science, what kind of knowledge it deals with as
wisdom, and wisdom’s characteristics, it’s good to treat Philosophy of Being so as to
examine its qualification as Wisdom in the framework so far explained.
  Philosophy of Being, also termed metaphysics or primary philosophy, investigates being
as its material object, and being qua being as its formal object.
 In treating being as being, Philosophy of Being has the following characteristics that
properly qualify it as wisdom and knowledge.

 Philosophy of Being is Directive Science (or Knowledge):

The ultimate goal of all sciences is the attainment of truth of its subject matter. Particular
sciences attain this truth or knowledge in their particularities. Only Philosophy of Being alone, as
a human science, attains this truth in its highest form. In so doing, Philosophy of Being acts as an
intermediary to particular sciences by ordering them in the direction of the final goal. Philosophy
of Being (Metaphysics), thus, is a directive science.

 Philosophy of Being is Certain Science (or Knowledge):

o Certain knowledge connotes knowledge that deals with objects that can cause greater
certitude. These objects are higher in the ontological order and more universal in the
order of causation. Aquinas terms them the Most Intelligible Objects. (Cf. Aquinas,
Prologue).
o The ‘Most Intelligible Objects’ are understood in three ways:
 First from the viewpoint of knowledge. For, the things from which the intellect
derives certitude are more intelligible.
 Hence, since the certitude of causes are intellectual in the highest degree, it follows that
the science of Being, which investigates first causes is certain science, thus, wisdom.

 Second, in comparing intellectual knowledge with sensory perception or

knowledge. For, while sensory knowledge is particular, intellectual knowledge
comprehends universals. Hence, the science of Philosophy of Being that deals with
the most universal principles is pre-eminently intellectual. It investigates principles
that naturally accompany being such as unity, plurality, potency, acts, goodness,
beauty, etc.
 By treating these universal principles, it is wisdom.

 Third, ‘Most Intelligible Objects’ can be understood from intellect’s own

knowledge. For, since each thing or every reality is knowledgeable only in as far as
it can be rendered separate from matter, the objects that are separate from matter are
in the highest degree.
 Hence, Philosophy of Being that treats the most separate substances is certain science, and
hence wisdom. Other sciences that are more particular are less perfect forms of knowledge.

 Philosophy of Being is Universal Science (or Knowledge):

As cited in comparing intellectual and sensory knowledge, particular sciences are limited by their
methodology that are inseparable from sense perception. Besides, their subject matter is
investigated through a restricted set of causes and principles. Philosophy of Being is a universal
knowledge despite it having particular methodology unique to itself. It treats all being and its
principles and causes are applicable to all the other sciences.

 Hence, this universality of knowledge renders Philosophy of Being a science of wisdom.

 Philosophy of Being is Liberal Science (or Knowledge):

The liberty of knowledge in question is in respect to the end and goal of this science. For when a
science investigates the knowledge of its object for a particular end or goal, that science is
limited by that goal. Biology for instance investigates living things for the goal of understanding
life. This could be in order to improve the quality of life. It is therefore limited by that goal and
not free science. Philosophy of being has no such limited goal or end for seeking knowledge of
its object. It seeks knowledge of being primarily for the sake of knowledge.

 Hence, it is a liberal science or art, thus, wisdom.

 Philosophy of Being is methodologically empirical and a teleological Science (or

Knowledge):
Philosophy of being, like every other human science, has for its steppingstone and departure
point empirical experience. It parts from the raw sense data. Despite this setting, however, this
science has its goal not limited to or within the sensible objects. It goes beyond sensory objects
or utilitarian ends. It is metaphysical or teleological in end, or is purposeful. Plato puts teleology
in the knowledge of forms, Aristotle has it in the contemplation of the Supreme Being in the
present life, and Aquinas has it in the beatific vision.

 All these, therefore, qualify this science as wisdom, for wisdom seeks knowledge not for a
particular utilitarian end.

 Philosophy of Being is a Difficult Science (or Knowledge):

While Philosophy of Being is undoubtedly certain and simple science, for it deals with the most
intelligible objects, this science is, however, enigmatic and difficult. This is because those
objects and the principles associated with it are at the level of universals not particulars.
Philosophy of Being (Metaphysics) does not deal with particular objects and principles, and
neither does it remain at the level of particular sensible objects in their collectivise body. It
properly engages being at their most intelligible levels that are far separated from sense
experience.
 Accordingly, Philosophy of Being is a difficult science, hence wisdom.
 CHAPTER III
APPROACHES TO METAPHYSICS
Thesis: The different models of approach to metaphysics
 What Metaphysics is and its understanding as Wisdom and knowledge is now clear. That
the term ‘Metaphysics’ in its original meaning refers to those writings of Aristotle “after
the Physics” that deal with subjects more abstract and difficult to understand than those
examined in the Physics.
 It is also clear that Aristotle remains the father founder of the science of metaphysics as
the science of being qua being so that the fundamental question of metaphysics has
always revolved around Being, that is, What is the nature of Being? However, this
question was raised long before the Stagirite - the Pre-Socratics had handled it as the
oldest branch of philosophy - Cosmology.
 Responses to the above fundamental question have elicited varieties of interpretations
over the centuries. It is from these responses that different metaphysical approaches,
models or systems can be deduced over the centuries.
 The current chapter treats some of the commonest metaphysical systems in the various
periodizations of the Greek-Western philosophical tradition: ancient, medieval, modern
and contemporary. Nominated for this treatment include the metaphysics of: Pre-
Socratics, Plato, Aristotle, Epicurean, Stoic, Plotinus, Medievalists (Augustine, Thomas),
Cartesian, etc. metaphysical approaches will be considered

1. Pre-Socratic Model
 The first metaphysicians and indeed real philosophers were the pre-Socratics, though they
are commonly designated as primitive-cosmologists. They included the Ionians,
Pythagoreans, Eleatics, and the Pluralists.
 The first key in understanding their approach to metaphysics is their radical break from
the status quo, whose approach to explaining the nature of reality of being was poetic-
theology or theogony. It sought to explain reality through religious-mythic approaches.
o The pre-Socratics broke away from this approach to the use of critical reason.
Accordingly, they rebelled against mythology as a model to rational-critical
approach.
 Besides rational-critical approach, the second key to understanding the approach of the
pre-Socratics to metaphysics is that instead of preoccupying with the origin of the cosmos
 as did their predecessors (the poet-theologians), they sought to explain the first absolute
principle (the arché) or the urstoff.
 Despite their agreement in the approach to metaphysical account of the reality, the pre-
Socratics, however, posited different answers or candidates:
 Ionians: These sought to nominate a single principle, though they never
consented on what this principle is:
 Thales - water
 Anaximander – aperion
 Anaximenes – air
 Heraclitus, the last of the Ionian philosophers, hailed from Miletus, posited flux,
change or panta rei, i.e., “everything changes”.
o As the first principle, he posited fire, but sustains thus what is real is
that everything changes, only becoming remains constant throughout:
The world, as well as all other things, was not made by the gods or by men. It always was, is, and
will be, an ever-living fire, which is enkindled according to a certain measure and extinguished
according to a certain measure.
o Heraclitus identifies the nature of the fire with the soul. And that the
nature of the soul is identical with that of the first principle. In man it is
the infinite part of man.
o Finally, in his metaphysics, Heraclitus believed in the immortality of
the soul – the fire in man.
 Pythagoreans: in their metaphysical approach, the Pythagoreans sought to
discover the unifying principle of all reality. They subsumed number.
 Eleatics: The protagonist of the Eleatic school is their founder – Parmenides of
Elea. They continued with the tradition of their predecessors, that is, nature and its
first principle.
o Parmenides solution, however, was original and marked the passage from
the primitively cosmological to metaphysics proper.
o For, while his predecessors subsumed sensible principles as the first
principle for unity of reality, the man from Elea identified Being. He
arrived at this by questioning the multiplicity of reality so that he changed
the very concept of the first principle from the way it had been conceived
till then. “Being is, non being is not”, he declared.
o The other two Eleatics: Zeno and Melissus were disciples of Parmenides.
They carried the approach and doctrine of their founder too far, and nearly
to a radical conclusion.
 It is, however, important noting that unlike that of his predecessors whose first
principles are responsible for origin of all reality, the being of Parmenides cannot
be a principle because nothing proceeds from it. It is unchangeable, fixed and
eternal.
  Parmenides’ main metaphysical contribution, however, lies not in the details of
his account of being, but in the very fact of bringing and placing being at the
centre of metaphysics. That has remained so till to-date.
 Pluralists: These are the last pre-Socratic philosophers. They were termed
pluralists because they chose many elements as their first principle.
o The Pluralists had two reasons for positing pluralism: first to accommodate all the
pre-Eleatic cosmologists from Ionia, who sought to project a single principle of the
urstoff. Second to address the issue of change i.e., reconciling Heraclitus and
Parmenides.
 These pluralists include Empedocles, Anaxagoras, Democritus and Leucippus:
 Empedocles - four elements as the underlying reality: air, earth, water and
fire. The principle by which the four mingle to make sensible reality is
Love, and the principle by which they decay is Hate.
 Anaxagoras – Homeomeries of which each individual element has all
things so that “everything is found in everything”.
 The Atomists – atoms that are hylemorphic.
2. Platonic Model
 While the Pre-Socratics are credited for having been involved in metaphysical discourses
with Parmenides as the chief protagonist of the question of Being, real metaphysical
discourses started with Plato.
 The key to understanding Platonic approach to metaphysics is dualism of reality, derived
from the arguments presented by Heraclitus and Parmenides, rendering Plato’s
metaphysical approach utterly dualistic, arrived at through dialectic of ideas.
o Metaphysics for Plato remains discourse on Being of Parmenides, whose real
meaning are the Forms or Ideas in the separate world.
o Hence, for Plato what is truly real is not the objects of sensory experience but the
Forms. These are not just in the head but are in a separate realm and are ageless,
eternal, unchanging, unmoving, and indivisible.
o Particular objects have a lesser reality and they are real only when they approximate
or participate in the reality of Forms/Ideas.
 Plato’s dialectical approach thus posited a picture of the universe that the real, stable, and
permanent that constitutes the world of Ideas/Forms. The other is the world of ordinary
experience that is illusory, transitory, unimportant sequence of events that taking place in
the physical world.
o Plato’s proper metaphysical approach is thus the logical discourse on Ideas. It has
little to do with the sensible universe.
o The book or dialogue termed Timaeus explains this better. In it Plato explains the
relationship between the supersensible world of ideas (Metaphysical world) and the
visible (Physical world of shadows), both of which are apparently eternal.
o The world of ideas is responsible for (or is the cause of) whatever order occurs in the
material world. This is due not to any direct action by the ideal world, which does not
appear to involve any sort of change or activity, but rather to some kind of agent who is
able to introduce some shadow or copy of the real world into the chaos of the material or
sensible universe.
o There world of Ideas is the perfect world, the world of permanency, comprising of the
meanings or definitions of things.
o On the other hand, there is some amorphous, incoherent “something” that is able to some
extent receive various aspects of the forms.
o Plato conceived an agent termed the “Demiurge,” to explain the relationship between the
two worlds. The Demiurge accomplished this by imposing various forms on the chaotic
material world. The result of this was the triangularity, circularity, brownness, and so on,
until there is some sort of order in the visible world.
o However, the material world is unable to support or sustain these unchangeable ideas.
Hence, it can only partake of them for limited periods of time.
o There’s bound to be constant flux of the material universe as the temporary order it
receives from the world of Ideas dissipates.
o Platonists in antiquity would later emphasize the creative agency of the world of Forms,
changing it from a static world of perfection into the source of all power and reality in the
universe.
o Christian Platonists would absorb such a Platonic model into Christian theology so that
the Ideal world came to constitute the divine creator of the temporary order in the
universe, organizing it accordance with the divine pattern of the Forms.
o Besides the Platonic dualism reflected in the relationship between the two worlds of Ideas
and shadows, Plato’s dualistic approach gets reflected in his conception of the human
person.
o It presents the human person as a borderline condition akin to the position of the
Demiurge, who, as agent, was the link between the two worlds.
o Human person has an immaterial mind, capable of knowledge of forms. So that it always
wants to soar into the heavenly realm of the Ideas and to contemplate them.
o On the other hand is the body that wants to immerse itself into the affairs of the physical
life.
o The human soul, thus like the Demiurge, is caught between these two opposing forces,
trying to steer while it is trapped in its prison house, the body.
o The soul’s success in trying to establish harmony between the two forces only comes
later after its liberation from the bodily entanglement. Our human nature thus calls for
our complete liberation from bodily needs.
 o One’s soul can liberate itself from this bondage, and direct one’s human life both in terms
of one’s physical circumstances and intellectual desires. Then, after the end of bodily
existence the soul can soar upward to the eternal, perfect world of ideas.

3. Aristotelian Model
 Rather than the dualistic and dialectic system of Aristotle’s mentor, the Stagirite
approached metaphysics from a realist’s point of view.
 He parts from the really sensible world of experience and gradually moved into the
discourse on separate Substances, without draining or denying being to the sensible
reality.
 He viewed his Primary Philosophy whose object is not a particular type of Being, but
Being in general, applicable to all sensible and supersensible Beings alike.
 Before examining the key points of his metaphysics, the key to understanding Aristotle’s
metaphysical approach is his life itself.

Aristotle’s Metaphysical Path

 Following the death of Plato in 347 BC, Aristotle who had enrolled at Plato’s Academy
since 367 BC left to devote his time to the study of natural sciences: Zoology, Botany,
chemistry, astrology, physics, etc.
 Aristotle would later return to Athens in 334 to found his own school - the Lyceum.
 At the Lyceum academy the greatest part of Aristotle’s philosophy was expounded. It
virtually covers every reality, both physical and metaphysical.

Aristotle’s Metaphysical Approach

 The Stagirite’s metaphysics is deeply grounded in experience of ordinary things as its
point of departure.
 As already noted, he starts from the study of the really sensible things of everyday life.
He held a strong conviction that the natural world we are acquainted with can be
accounted for or made intelligible without appealing to Platonic metaphysical Forms.
 Some writers attribute this conviction to the influence of his father – Nicomachus whom
as a Physician (Medical doctor) had keen interest in biology (study of life).
 It was after the study of nature that he later devoted his life to the study of metaphysics.
 However, in spite of the fact that Aristotle’s metaphysics takes into account the sensible
things as its starting point, the Stagirite had for his goal not in the sensible things. His
metaphysics seeks knowledge for its own sake. Its aim is granting ultimate satisfaction to
the inquisitive human mind.

Immanence of the Universals

 Unlike the dual nature of Plato’s universe of the world of ideas and the shadowy world of
physical things, Aristotle constructed a metaphysical system devoted primarily to explaining
 the natural world as the real world. He starts with the conviction that the natural world we
are acquainted with can be accounted for or made intelligible without appealing to some
metaphysical realms beyond human experience.
o Hence, while the Platonic approach affirmed that Ideas were the causes of things, and as
such were present in them as participated in what participates; and that the Ideas
transcended sensible reality existing in world of their own, for Aristotle, that which
constituted the essence and intelligible foundation of sensible reality can be found in
sensible reality.
Teleology

o Besides having the goal of his metaphysics not in the empirical or within man’s material
ends, Aristotle’s metaphysical approach is teleological. To him, all the objects of our
experience consist of formed matter moving or changing in a purposeful pattern, or
teleological. That is, the motions or changes occur in order to achieve some goal.
Acorn will always grow into an oak not anything else. Children grow into adults. Stones
always fall down until they reach a state of rest on the surface of the earth.
o In all these instances the motions or changes are directed towards the achievement of
specific results, which appear to be the same for all members of the group or species.
o These examples one can think of that violate this claim of fixed purposeful direction of
change or motion, constitute evidence for a more general thesis, that there is
purposefulness which pervades all natural events and explains the course of nature.
o The instances in which objects do not change or move to accomplish an end are those in
which objects have been interfered with by some outside agency. The acorn that is eaten
by a squirrel, the stone that moves upward instead of downward, the child who fails to
grow up because he is killed in his youth, are instances of violent or unnatural
interference with the object. However, when the object is left to develop naturally, it
tends in a certain direction in order to arrive at some final result, which is the same for
members of the same species.
o Every object in its natural history tries to realize or obtain a certain form proper to it, and
its actions are all directed towards this goal.
 Having pointed the Stagirite’s metaphysical approach, it’s worth noting some of his core
tenets, key among which includes composed substances, separate forms, and Pure Act
(Unmoved Mover).

(a) Matter and Form

Generally, the Aristotelian contention is that every object in this universe, with the exception of
God, is composed of some form of an underlying stuff called “matter.” The matter of each kind
of object has the potentiality for acquiring a form proper to the object (called its ‘end’ or ‘goal’).
The process of change or motion is the actualizing of the potentiality of the object. There is a
natural tendency or teleology which leads each and every object to seek the achievement of its
natural goal, or final form. The alterations that every object undergoes cannot be understood
except in terms of the purposes involved.

(b) Pure forms

There is a relative goal for every object, which is that of realizing the form proper to its species.
There is also an ultimate goal of every object, which is that of realizing a state of complete rest
from which it will be absolutely impossible to change. In so far as it is composed of matter,
everything always has some potentiality or capacity for change, movement, or alteration. So only
by becoming pure form devoid of matter would it be possible for an object to arrive at this final
state.

Looking around the universe, we observe that to varying degrees different species are able to
achieve some aspect of permanence, or immutability, or rest. Aristotle thought the closest
approximation to this state was to be found in the heavens. As far as he could tell, the stars and
the planets changed in only one respect; they changed only their position. Their shape and size
remained forever constant neither decaying nor growing. The only manner in which they appear
to seek for their ultimate form is in their continually circling around the sky. In their movement,
they always seem to repeat the same orbit, indicating that they are so close to complete rest that
all that separate them from this goal was the regular, circular movement in which they engage in
their unending quest for the state of being pure form.

Compared to the near-perfect state of the celestial objects, those on the surface of the earth are
much further removed from the achievement of the ultimate goal. All living things approach it
only to the degree that the species remains forever the same, even though the individual members
change, and finally decay and die. Since Aristotle was not an evolutionist, he regarded the form
of the species as forever constant. He claimed that it is through reproduction of the group that
living things participate in ‘the eternal and the divine.’ However, humans can come closer to the
ultimate state than any other organism. They are able to accomplish this through contemplating
pure form. To the extent that we can manage to reach such pure thought, our minds acquire
or realize a state of form alone, a conception of perfection.

(c) The unmoved mover

As every object in the world, in one way or another, aims to achieve a state of pure form, there
must be an actual entity which is this goal of all change or motion. This object is called the
unmoved mover. Although the unmoved mover undergoes no change (because it contains no
matter and has no potentiality), it is the reason why everything else in the universe moves. All
things (ranging from lowly stones to people and heavenly bodies) go through the kind of
developments they do because of a natural tendency or desire to become like the unmoved
mover. So it is out of love for the perfection of pure form that the natural world goes endlessly
about its movement, alteration and change.
In Aristotle’s metaphysical scheme, the perfect being (or the unmoved mover) does nothing,
and plays no part in the activities of the world, but only serves it by being its purpose and goal.
This teleological universe, in which everything in nature happens purposefully, and can be
accounted for in terms of the relative and final ends being pursued, also has a frustrating aspect.
Though all natural objects, except the unmoved mover, undergo change in order to actualize their
potentialities, they are bound to fail because they never can become pure form. Even the
heavenly bodies, so close to achieving perfection and rest, never do so, but instead revolve
forever in their circular orbits. Aristotle sees the world as an eternal series of processes, always
pursuing the same goal, and never arriving at this end.

4. Epicurean Metaphysical Model

 Key to understanding the Epicurean metaphysical approach is the materialistic view of
reality.
 Contrary to the Aristotelian conception of the universe explained in terms of purposeful or
teleological action is the materialistic view of Epicurus. This theory, originally proposed by
Democritus portrays a universe containing nothing but variously shaped atoms moving
through empty space.
o The Epicureans claimed that the conception of the indivisible atom as the fundamental
feature of the universe, having no purpose, no qualities except its size and shape (and
possibly weight) suffices to account for all that we know about the world.
o Their metaphysics approach or theory can be summarized into three components:
Physical theory, Indeterminacy, and Purposelessness

(a) Physical theory

The Epicureans hold that the permanent aspect of the universe is the physical atom, which is
uncreated and unchangeable. They considered the atoms as solid particles, which could not be
broken down into smaller units, and which occurred in an unlimited number of sizes and shapes.
According to this theory, there were cube-shaped atoms, pyramid-shaped atoms, hooked atoms,
spherical ones, to mention, but a few. Every object in the world is a combination of atoms
distributed in empty space. This includes living things, the human mind, as well as inanimate
objects like stones and tables. The atoms are eternally the same; their combinations alter. That
means the objects which we experience may change and disappear, but the atoms do not.

Movement is a fundamental feature of the atoms. These atoms never had a beginning, but have
been going on for all time. They all fell downward at different rates of speed in the original
theory of Democritus. The faster-moving atoms overtake the slower ones, and a collision occurs.
Due to their differences in shape, the colliding atoms are sent off in various directions, causing
other collisions, and the like. Consequently, all sorts of atomic combinations are formed and later
broken up. This version of metaphysical atomism is completely deterministic. From the initial
position of atoms in the universe and the directions in which they are moving, it is possible to
predict exactly the entire future course of the movements of all atoms. As such, every event in
the world, including thoughts, volitions and all mental events, is completely determined by the
locations and motions of the basic physical particles.

(b) Indeterminacy
For various ethical reasons, Epicurus was oppressed (or overburdened) by the thought of a totally
fixed universe. He modified the ancient atomic theory by introducing an indeterminable element
into the atomic world. Besides moving straight downward and colliding, the atoms also
occasionally have a ‘gentle swerve’ which alters their course. The swerve occurs for no
discoverable reason, but, whenever it takes place, it disrupts the fixed determined character of
the atomic universe, and prevents us from accurately predicting what will happen in the world.

The determinist and indeterminist versions of atomism are examples of completely

materialistic metaphysics. Both Democritus and Epicurus argued that everything in the entire
universe can be accounted for solely in terms of the notions of matter and motion. All
physical action can be explained in terms of ‘the fortuitous (chance occurrence) concourse of
atoms’. Mental events can also be characterized as the result of the collision of a very fine type
of spherical atom, called a soul atom. Living things possess these atoms but inanimate objects
do not. When living things die the soul atoms depart from this particular combination.

(c) Purposelessness

Unlike Aristotelian theory of the cosmos, Epicurean metaphysics portrays a world completely
purposeless. It does not seek for causal explanations of natural events in the end or purpose
towards which they are aiming. The explanation for why anything happens can only be in terms
of the prior events in the atomic world. On the cosmic level and the level of human events,
nothing occurs in order to achieve any goal, but solely because certain atomic collisions have
taken place. Man’s habit of regarding the world as made for him/her, and the events in it as part
of a plan in which he/she plays a central role, is condemned as erroneous. Concerning our hopes,
wishes, desires and thoughts they have nothing to do with the actual course of events. Things
happen because of the patterns existing in the world of atoms. They do not happen because
people want them to occur nor because of any advantages that might result from their
occurrence. NB: This materialistic metaphysics of Epicurus also rules out as important or
relevant to the world’s affairs the thoughts and ideals of humankind. These are only the results of
atomic events within us. They are merely the effects of certain material causes but not guiding
clues to the nature of events, or bases for comprehending the universe.

The Epicurean vision of a purposeless, material cosmos is one of the great metaphysical
systems. Despite its sharp rejection of man’s spiritual hopes and goals, this theory has
contributed an all-encompassing scheme which provides a way of accounting for our experience.
It has also served as an antidote to some of the grandiose (or impressive) metaphysical systems
by the examination of the material world as a way of understanding people’s experience. During
the great religious era, the Middle Ages, Epicureanism was almost totally neglected. However, in
the beginnings of modern science, in the 16th and 17th centuries, there was a strong revival of
interest in ancient atomic metaphysics.

5. Stoic Metaphysical Model

The Stoics are leading opponents of the Epicureans. Like the Epicureans, they held to a
materialistic conception of the world: they contended that the material world was pervaded by
a dynamic force, which acted not mechanically but purposefully, in order to maintain a
universal rational pattern throughout all nature.

(a) Matter and reason

The fundamental elements of the Stoic cosmos are matter and reason, which are found
everywhere.

 Matter is not a series of atomic units, but a continuous amorphous (or shapeless) stuff,
which is pervaded by a rational force that gives it its characteristics. According to this
theory, physical objects represent various states of tension of matter because of the action
of the rational forces that exist throughout the physical world. The dynamic quality of
these rational forces brings about all the changes that take place.
 Reason (sometimes called the soul of the universe, or the rational seeds within it, or
universal reason or God) is conceived as a cosmic power that organizes and governs the
entire universe, not from outside, but from within. Taken as a totality or a whole, it is the
guiding principle of the world. Considered individually, it is the rational element or seed
within each separate thing which governs or directs it.

(b) Stoic determinism

Everything that happens, in Stoic metaphysics, happens for a reason. Given that the reason is the
plan of the cosmic rational element, there is complete determinism in nature. This determinism,
however, is not the result of previous developments in the physical world. It is due to the purpose
of the cosmos, the end result that universal reason works towards. Everything must be as it is
because its occurrence is rationally dictated by the all-pervasive reason in accordance with its
rational purpose. So every event is rational and necessary in this completely rational world.
For anything different to take place than what does, there would have to be some reason. There
cannot be any as universal reason directed the occurrence of what does happen. It means that this
must be the sole rational possibility.

(c) Fatalism and optimism

The Stoic metaphysical system leads to a complete fatalism and a cosmic optimism.

 The fatalistic view results from recognizing that everything that happens must happen
and there is nothing we can do about it. As the causal agency is beyond our control or
influence, instead of brooding about the course of events, past, present and future, we
 ought to accept the prevailing state of affairs, namely, what occurs, must occur. *The
only area in which anything can happen that is not necessary is in the realm of thought.
One can either accept or reject, in the mind, the course of events. The person, who
submits to the universal law of nature and of reason, can be at peace with the world. The
one who cannot or will not accept this fatalistic view is unhappy and at war with the
world. He/she spends his/her life disturbed at what happens and wishes it were otherwise.
As it cannot be, all that results is unhappiness, while the course of nature remains the
same.
 The optimistic dimension of the Stoic metaphysical outlook arises from equating the
necessity and rationality of what occurs with its goodness. As universal reason directs
the activities of the world, they must be directed in order to achieve some cosmic
purpose. This purpose would be the goal of if it were the right goal for the entire
universe. That is, if it is the result of the necessary actions guided by the universal reason
pervading all of nature, which must be the best of all possible worlds. *The optimistic
claim leads to the view that the universe can only be judged as a whole, and in terms of
the direction in which it is moving. To regard a part as significant, and to evaluate it, is to
miss the essential point that the purpose of universal reason is expressed and worked out
throughout the entire cosmos. So one who cannot understand how a good universe can
contain such awful events as earthquakes, famines, plagues and wars does not realize that
the entire material world is interrelated and inter-directed. Even the parts of the whole
that we may not approve of represent some aspect of the rational scheme of things. If the
parts are seen in terms of the larger context, then one will accept them as required
features of this best of all possible worlds, and not as defects.
NB:

The Stoic metaphysical system represents a combination of a pure materialism and a type of
teleology. Nature is conceived as physical and as pervaded by some rational cosmic force.
Consequently, instead of arriving at a deterministic, purposeless picture of the world (like the
Epicureans), the Stoics make their determinism the consequence of the universal guiding spirit.
The physical events that occur are necessary and good parts of a necessary and good world,
moving towards the most reasonable, and so best of all possible conclusions.

6. Cartesian (Modern) Metaphysical Model

We have considered some ancient metaphysical systems (or models) which form the basic
patterns of the later ones. We shall now consider an example of post-Renaissance system (or
model). With the beginnings of modern science, there is a realization that older accepted systems
of thought (like medieval Aristotelianism) were no longer adequate to account for man’s new
knowledge. As such, philosophers sought new metaphysical theories or systems more
appropriate to this new situation. The philosophy of Descartes provided this kind of metaphysics.
It is from the views of Descartes that most of the metaphysical systems of the last three centuries
begin, trying to improve upon them, or to overcome what they regard as difficulties in the
system.

(a) The three substances

There are three basic components in the universe in Descartes’ metaphysics, called substances,
namely, God, mind and matter. Everything else is a modification, or particular example of
these.

God is the creative substance, who has made the other two.

The mental substance has as its essential property that it thinks.

The essential property of matter is that it is extended.

NB:

Everything that happens in the material or the mental realm is entirely dependent on the will of
God which orders and controls them.

The physical world is conceived as a vast, world machine operating according to God’s constant
laws.

 God constantly conserves and controls a physical order in which various portions of
extension move others by contact, producing the regular world modern science describes.
 Everything that is extended is part of this machine including the animal world, which he
thought of as a series of smaller machines, operating entirely by the mechanical
principles.
The only aspect of the created world that is not part of the world machine is – mind.

 It is un-extended and not in contact with the material world.

 Mind engages in mental activities like thinking, willing, and the like.
One of the gravest problems in Cartesian metaphysics is to explain satisfactorily how the mental
world and the physical world can be in any way related and how God can be said to act causally
on either of them.

 Descartes’ mechanism, in denying completely any purposeful tendencies in the

physical world, provided a satisfactory metaphysical basis for the new physical theories
of such scientists as Galileo.
 The sharp division of the created world between the mental and the physical substance
gave rise to many difficulties in constructing a consistent theory of the entire universe.
 The Cartesian conception of the overpowering role played by God seemed to tend
towards a kind of mysticism, rather than provide a basis for scientific knowledge. If all
power rested in God alone, then neither aspect of the created world (mind or matter)
could have any causal efficacy. Any account of natural events would ultimately reduce to
 saying ‘it happens because God so will’. Instead of employing mental or physical terms,
the end result would be to convert all questions into divine mysteries, which mortals can
never comprehend.
Due to problems which appear to arise out of Descartes’ rigid separation of the basic components
of the universe, various metaphysicians sought to construct theories which would modify the
Cartesian conception by simplifying its fundamental conceptions.

 Some philosophers felt that by eliminating the material substance from the metaphysical
system, a more satisfactory theory could be developed.
 Others insisted that the solution lay in denying the mental or spiritual components of the
Cartesian world, and working out a more advanced form of mechanism.
NB:

Out of the original Cartesian metaphysical theory two divergent kinds of metaphysics have
developed:

 One is mentalistic, called idealism.

 The other is a modern form of materialism.
 CHAPTER IV
BEING: THE SUBJECT OF METAPHYSICS
Thesis: Being and the original amazement about the act of being.

 The chapter treats the material object of Metaphysics - Being.

 Given that Being is the starting point of human knowledge and also the object of
metaphysics, all metaphysical questions are therefore resolved in light of its understanding.
 Unfortunately, however, in ordinary usage the term Being is vague. For instance, in English
language alone, Being is even more ambiguously/equivocally used as: noun, verb, and
gerund.
 Accordingly, it is important to get clear grasp of the notion Being at the very onset of the
course. For in Metaphysics, the notion Being has real and specific meaning.

2.1 The Notion ‘Being’

 Being in the strict sense is impossible to define. For definition places the definiendum within
the scope of the broader concept or its genre (genus). In otherwards, to define a thing is to
give its specific difference (species) under a general concept (genus).
E.g.:
Man may be defined as “a rational animal”, and
Animal may be defined as “a type of living thing”, and
Living thing may be defined as “a being which has life”, and;
Life may be defined as “a state or mode of being” but the definition can’t proceed
beyond Being.
o For, there is no genre under which Being can be placed. Being, therefore, has to be described.
o Thus, descriptively, Being is that which is, “that which exists” or “that which is real”, termed
ens in Latin.
 In ordinary language, however, Being is termed thing which is poor in content. For in most
cases, “Thing” connotes corporeal inanimate beings.
 Therefore, the Being that constitutes the subject of metaphysics is that which is or that
which is real.

2.2 Elements of the Notion ‘Being’

 There are many elements in the notion Being, but only two immediately come to mind at the
mention of Being: the subject and the act of being of that subject.
i. The Subject
 Subject or suppositum in metaphysics designates a particular being with all of its perfections.
o It is an individual reality in its totality.
o It is being in the full sense i.e what subsists, or what exists in itself, as something
complete and distinct from any other reality.
 The Subject or Suppositum (supposit) is what exists as a Being in its own right; is entirely
incommunicable and autonomous. It is sometimes termed supposit, subsistent, individual, a
complete substance, or nature.
ii. Act of Being of the Subject
 In the metaphysics of being, no subject or suppositum truly qualifies as being without that
subject possessing the act of Being or termed the act of existence that Aquinas would later
term esse.
o This is important because many subjects are analogously reffered to as Being. Eg.
fictitious beings, ideas, legal beings, logical beings, etc., while devoid of any act of
existence.
 It is for this that in metaphysics of being, we only talk of real beings, supposits, subsistents,
complete substances, etc.

2.3 Modes of Being

 Real beings exist in three modes: First Mode, Second Mode, and Third Mode. The first is
Pure Act, the second Pure Form, and the third is Composed Form, commonly termed
Corporeal or Material Being.
 i. First Mode: Pure Act
 The First Mode consists of the reality or Being that has the poverty of potency. Hence, it is
Pure Act, that is, there was no time it ever passed from potency to act.
o This mode of Being has esse and essence as one and the same thing, that is there is no
distinction between esse and essence. The two are fused.
o Likewise, just as there is no composition of esse (act) and essence (potency), there is no
composition of form amd matter (hylomorphic composition) in the Being of the first
mode.
o It is the most Absolute Act or Being, that is, it possesses Act without limitation.
o The Being of this mode is the First Cause for it is the cause of all causes.
o It is also the Uncaused Cause for it causes others without being caused.
o The Pure Act is the Unmoved Mover for it moves other movers without being moved.
o As Pure Act, this Being is the most simple of all beings.
 Only one Being belongs to this mode - God. He is being by essence.

ii. Second Mode: Pure Forms

 The Second Mode entails the category of reality that are seprated from matter (separate
substances), hence pure forms, but not pure acts. They entail some potency.
o They are beingsnot by essence but participation, that is, they recive or partake in the
being of the Pure Act, though with greater degree than the beings of the Third mode.
o These beings, though pure in form, that is, having no hylomorphic composition, they
have some degree of composition:
a) Esse and essence are distinct and separate constitutive principles;
b) Substance and accidents, since they are finite beings.
o The essence of these separate substances is identical to their form, hence they are simple
beings though less simple than the Pure Act. In this way there is no multiplicity within
the same specie of these beings due to the poverty of matter.
o As pure forms, they subsist closest to the Pure Act in hierarchy of beings.
 The beings that constitute this second mode are the Angels and separated souls, sometimes
collectively referred to as Intelligencies. The last being much lower, and closer to material
beings.
iii. Third Mode: Corporeal Beings
 The Third Mode is of the Beings that are complex, that is, they are mutli-composites:
 Esse and essence composition (finite beings);
 Form (substantia & accidental) and Matter (prime and designated matter)
composition (hence, hylemorphic beings);
 Substance and accident composition (hence materil or corporeal beings);
 Act and potency composition (hence not pure act);
o In these Beings, form is the principle of act (esse) while matter is the principle of potency
(essence).
o At the same time, matter (designated matter) is the principle of individuation and
mutliplication, while form is the principle of unity and identity.
 The Beings that belong to this Third Mode are all the physical beings: animate or inanimate.
 The above three modes of being can be grouped differently depending on the view point:
 Finite vs Infinite Beings, for the (2nd + 3rd) vs 1s modest;
 Simple vs Compose Beings, for the (1st +2nd) vs 3rd modes;
 Absolutely Simple vs Comples Beings, for the 1st vs the (2nd + 3rd) modes;
 Separate vs Material Beings, for the (1st + 2nd) vs 3rd modes;
 Absolute vs Common Beings, for the 1st vs (2nd +3rd) modes;
 Creator vs Creatures, for the 1st vs (2nd + 3rd) modes.
Further Ways of Expressing This Relationsship

 Necessary vs Contigent Beings: Necessary Being that which exists by necessity. It is

impossible for it not to exist. Its existence is by nature. The Being of the first mode fits
this.

Contigent Being is that which exists by participation. Its not-existence is possible. It comes into
existence at a point and can cease to exist at any point in time. It is temporal. For instance, non of
us exists by necessity. Every finite being or beings of the 2nd and 3rd modes belong here.
  Immutable vs Mutable Being: Immutable Being is that which is not subject to change. It
is eternal and has perfection without passing the state of potentialit. Only the Being of
First mode is immutable.

Mutable Being is that which is subject to change. It possesses some actuality together with
potentiality. It is thus temporal. Beings of 2nd and 3rd modes fall here.

 Eternal vs Temporal Being: Eternal Being is that which has no beginning and end. It
ever was, is, and will be. It is thus Infinite, necessary and immutable. Only the Being of
the 1st mode is eternal.

Temporal Being receives existence at a point. It can be and can as well cease to be. It is thus
contigent, finite, mutable or changeable. The beings of the first and second mode belong here.

 Absolute vs Relative Being: Absolute Being is that which possesses the totality of act of
existence/esse. It lacks nothing and needs nothing. Only the Being of the first mode is
Absolute.

Relative Being is that whose existence is in relation to another. It has a causal relation for its
being. All finite beings are relative Beings.

 Perfect vs Imperfect Being: Perfet Being is that which has the poverty of limitation or
potency. It lacks nothing and needs nothing. Only the Being of first mode is Perfect.
However, analogically, every Being, including finite beings, can be said to be perfect as
far as some an aspect of its existence is concerned. Eg. Messi is a perfect or complete no.
10 player.

Imperfect Being is that which is limited. It is potential to receiving further perfection or

corruption. Finite Beings are imperfect.

 Substanbtial vs Accidental Being: Substntial Being is that which has its own esse or act
of existence for which it is a supposit or substance. It does not depent on the act of
existence of another for it to be. However, this does not necessarily mean that a
Substantial Being is necessarily an Absolute Being. Only God or the Being of the first
 Mode is Absolute Being, for which it may analogously be reffered to as Absolute
Substance.

Accidental Being is that which does not hve its own act of existence. It has to inhere in another
subject termed substance, for its existence. Eg. color, height, weight, intelligence, etc.

CHAPTER V
HIERARCHY OF BEING
Thesis: Being and the original amazement about the act of being.

 Having seen the three broad categories of being/reality as first, second and third modes,
we now treat the more specicific classifications of Being that fall within the broader
modes, commonly termed Hierchies, Degrees or Grades of Beings.
 This hierrachy results from esse and essence as intensive act and limiting factors
respectively. For esse is a dynamic and intensive principle of a Being that is limited and
modified by essences that gives rise to various perfections or grades of existents:
1.Supreme Being – God.
2.Intelligences
3.Corporeal Beings
1. SUPREME BEING – GOD.
 He is the only Being that belongs to the first mode.
 Always insufficiently known by the finite human mind, God can only be described.
o St. Thomas maintains that He is the first Being in the whole of hierarchy of
Beings/existents. He folds all creation in Him, that is, He is the sole principle of every
Being.
o As the first principle of every Being, God is the uncaused cause of all beings.
o As the cause and mover of all things, he is the Unmoved mover.
o God is the Pure Act who possesses all esse without limitation.
o He is the Simplest Being, for His nature is never composed.
 The first Being – God, is described or known by many names termed Divine Attributes:
 God is Simple, that is, no composition. In Him all virtues and perfections fuse
into one. He is thus a Unity in Simplicity.
 God is Perfect and Good. His perfection entails being in act without being made
so.
  God is infinite, Immense and Omnipresent. He has the poverty of limitation and
locality. His also immense, that is, having the capacity of being in all places
(omnipresent).
 God is omniscient, that is, He is all knowing. All things are because God knows
them.
 God is omnipotent, that is, He is all powerful.
 God is Absolute Goodness.
 Etc.

ii. INTELLIGENCES – SEPARATE SUBSTACES

 In the hierarchy, immediately after the Supreme Being follows separate Substances often
termed Intelligences.
o Though in certain sense God may be termed Uncreated Intelligence or Absolute
Substance, the Pure forms are actually different from God since they fall short of
the simplicity of the Pure Act.
o They are Beings in participation, but possess esse in higher degree in terms of
perfection than those that fall in third mode.
o The separate substances are Pure Forms, for in them there is no holomorphic
composition.
o Aquinas confesses that in order of creatures, that is, created beings; that in which
the highest degree of created perfection is realized is that of Pure Spirits,
commonly called Angels. He further cautions that ignoring this order of being of
Angels risks destroying the balance of the Universe considered as a whole. For
the knowledge of the reality of Pure Spirits increases one’s capability of
understanding well the nature and operation of inferior creatures in the hierarchy.
Men, for instance, can only be well understood through comparison and contrast
with Separate Substances.
 Degrees of Separate Substances/Pure Forms/Intelligences
o In Aquinas’s classification of hierarchy of Pure Forms, he defines “Hierarchy” a
‘sacred’ principality, which includes two things: the Prince himself and the
participators (intelligences, that is, Angels and the rational creatures).
o He further maintains that men do not receive divine enlightenments as Angels or
intelligent divine beings since the latter do receive them (divine enlightenments)
in their intelligible purity. Men to the contrary receive theirs under sensible signs.
Hence, there is a distinction between human and angelic hierarchies.
o There are three Angelic hierarchies and this diversity or distinction results from:
offices or missions, and actions. In philosophical sense, it means the principle of
individuation in angels or pure forms are: the degree of perfection measured
according to their approximation to Supreme Perfect Being (God), their
offices/missions, and their acts performed by them.
 o The three different grades are as follows in descending order:
1. Summit (Supreme, Noble) = The Highest Hierarchy
2. The Middle = The Middle Hierarchy
3. The Base (Common, End) = The Lowest Hierarchy
o In every hierarchy mentioned above, there exists three orders of angels, making
the total number of nine divine intelligences/angels.

1. Summit (Supreme, Noble) = The Highest Hierarchy

 The Highest Hierarchy consists of three orders: Seraphim, Cherubim, and Thrones, in
descending order.
 Seraphim
o This is the first and the highest order in the rank of the Highest Hierarchy. They
perceive the ordered scheme of providence (divine goodness) though some,
however, receive it clearer than others.
o The Seraphim are intelligences that share more closely the Supreme Being’s
perfections.
o They are participants in the simplicity of God more than other angels.
o ‘Seraphim’ means ‘fiery’ or ‘setting on fire’. This is because fire is used to
designate intensity of love or desire that in the fullest is about the End (Pure Act),
though attaining full perfection of the Pure Act is really impossible.
o Dionysius who inquired about the degree of angels sustained that ‘Seraphim’
indicates the fervent and quivering activity of these creatures towards God as their
End, and also leading other lower beings to God as their End, a mission of all
other beings to their respective lower beings in the hierarchy.
o In theological parlance, they together with Cherubim, constitute the choirs of
Angels.
.
 Cherubim
 This is the second rank in the order of the Highest Hierarchy.
o They are ordered and lead by the Seraphim for being above them.
o The perfection of Cherubim is less compared to that of Seraphim since they are a
bit more distant from the Pure Act.
o Cherubim acquire perfect knowledge of the scheme of providence in the divine
form but less perfect than Seraphim.
o ‘Cherubim’ signifies the fullness of knowledge, for their knowledge is always
made complete through the form of the things known.
o Dionysius sustains that their name ‘Cherubim’ indicates that they contemplate
the highest operative power of the divine beauty.
 o In theological parlance, the Hebrews considered them as intercessors or helpers
of God, N.T alluded to them as celestial attendants (Cf. Rv. 4-6), and Catholic
tradition describes them as angels with intimate knowledge of God.

 Thrones
 This is the third and last order of the Highest Hierarchy.
o Their mission is to contemplate the disposition of divine judgement, that is, God
as judge in itself.
o Aquinas sustains that their name ‘Throne’ suggests the significance of judicial
power, as reflected in Psalm 9:5: “You have sat on the Throne, who judgeth
justice”.
o Thrones are commonly described as angels of pure humility, peace and
submission.
o Thrones reside in the area of the cosmos where material form begins to take
shape.
 The above accounts of nature and mission of the Highest Hierarchy should not, however,
be misconstrued to mean that the divine goodness, essence and knowledge of the
disposition of things are distinct but should be looked at in different points of view.

2. The Middle Hierarchy

 The Middle Hierarchy consists of three orders: Dominions, Virtues, and Powers.
 Dominions
 This is the first rank in the order of the Middle Hierarchy.
o The intelligences (angels) in this rank are mostly known as executors. They
execute what others below them are to execute because they have dominion.
o They are often described as angels of Leadership and help in regulating duties of
other angels by making known Gods commands.
o ‘Dominion’ according to Dionysius signifies a certain liberty free from servile
condition and any subjugation.
o

 Virtues
 This is the second rank or order in the Middle hierarchy. The angels under this are known
as operators and executors in reference to many effects.
o ‘Virtue’ designates a certain strength and virility in carrying out divine operations.
o It is to this rank that the principle of universal operation belongs that the
movement of celestial bodies falls (Aquinas makes Biblical reference of Lk.
21:26).
o Particular causes ensue from the universal causes, and for this reason this rank is
at times referred to as Powers of Heaven.
 o According to St. Gregory, the virtues are those spirits through whom miracle are
frequently wrought.
o In Biblical terms, Virtues are known to execute God’s plans as messengers.
Announcement of the birth of John Baptist (Lk 1:11), announcement about the
birth of Jesus (Lk 1:26), Raphael’s appearance in the book of Tobit/Tobias (Tb
3:25, 5:5-28, 6-12). Gabriel, Raphael, etc. are commonly known to belong to this
rank.

 Powers
 This is the third group in the order of the Middle hierarchy.
o Powers curb all that brings confusion to the universal order of providence.
o Their main mission is to work against evil influences that seeks to disturb the
universal order of providence.

3. The Lowest Hierarchy

 This is the lowest of the three main categories. The intelligences here receive order of
divine providence in relation to particular courses.
 The group concerns angels put in the immediate authority over the human affairs. They
are directly charged with the ordering of human affairs. Hence, these beings are
concerned with humanity as they are nearer to them.
 The following re the choirs of angels in this hierarchy: Principalities, Archangels and
Angels:

 Principalities
 This is the first order of the lowest hierarchy. Just as in human affairs, there is a common
good namely the good of the city, nation or country, so is in this class. Their work is
associated with principalities.
o ‘Principality’ signifies leadership in the sacred order. In biblical parlance, Michael
is named the Prince of Jews, Persians and Greeks (Daniel 10:12-20).
o It within their mission to advice men who are leaders in matters pertaining to
administration of their different offices.
o The Principalities are concerned with the common good and the general good of
nations, cities and kingdoms.
o The conducts of princes and nobles is their direct concern.

 Archangels
 This is the second rank of the Lowest Hierarchy.
 Archangels are concerned with human good executed through individual humans. Such
goods are like articles of faith, divine worship, etc.
o ‘Archangel’ means a principal angel.
 o Archangels are commonly and properly known as God’s messengers, carrying His
message to individual humans, for the common good of all or many.
o Gregory and Aquinas sustain that the archangels announce or execute the greater
things.
o Biblically speaking Gabriel, Michael and Raphael belong here.

 Angels
 This is the last, not only in the last group of angels not only of the Lowest Hierarchy but
the entire heavenly hierarchy of angels.
 Their mission or concern is the good of individual humans.
o These angels are assigned to each individual, dealing with matters pertaining to
an individual.
o They are commonly known as ‘Guardian angels’.
o Aquinas maintains that these angels announce minor matters, and are far from
the divine providence compared to Seraphim.
o Guardian angels compete with the corporeal individual for they are near them by
the fact of being more perfect than the corporeal beings.

 Human Souls – Separated Human Souls

 This holds the lowest rank in the hierarchy of Beings of intellectual substances. Precisely,
they’re below the angels.
 They receive the knowledge of divine providence but only in a general way.
o Like the angels, they’re separated from matter, that is, they don’t share in the
hylemorphic composition, for which it is better to add the prefix ‘Separated’ to
human Souls.
o These souls are separated from matter through death.
o The Separated human souls possess the highest degree of potency in comparison
to other intellectual substances.
o The separated human souls are governed by the higher orders immediately above
them in the hierarchy.
o The separated human soul comes closer to hylemorphic beings to have one of
them shred in its own being (esse).
o While in the living human being, the human soul is embodied through which it
might draw knowledge from the material beings.

4. CORPOREAL BEINGS
 These are Beings in which subject exists in hylemorphic composition.
 Corporeal Beings fall into two broad categories: Living and Non-Living Beings.

a) Living Corporeal Beings

 In this order, the individual beings have life.
 Their potentiality is less than the Non-Living Beings.
 Under this order is found beings that have rationality – Man (Human Beings) and Non-
rational beings.

i. Man (Human Beings)
 This is the first order of beings under corporeal beings since they participate in the
intellectual order.
 Accordingly, man is higher above the rest of the corporeal nature in the hierarchy of
Beings.
 Aquinas uses Scripture to back this claim that the Pure Act created man in His likeness:
“Let Us make man to our own image and likeness, and let him have dominion over fishes
of the sea and fowls of the air, and the beasts of the earth.” (Gn. 1:26). Man thus is to use
his intellect to govern other beings with less or no intellectual (rational) capacity than
him.
 Though man is in the first order of the hierarchy of corporeal Beings, in themselves men
have orders. Aquinas, for instance, cites Aristotle – Politics that those who excel in
outstanding naturally gain control, whereas those who have defective understanding have
strong body seem naturally fitted for service. Solomon in the scriptures too commented
that the fool shall always serve the wise in his book of proverbs (pr. 11:29).

ii. Brute Animals

 These are animals whose understanding is lower than that of man.
o These animals differ from man for lack of rationality. Hence, their capacity to
knowledge of higher things is less.
o These animals are under rational animals.

iii. Plants
 These are vegetative beings falling under the category of Beings with life.
 They, like brute animals, lack rationality. Plants are less operative than brute anils and so
they are put above all non-living beings.

b) Non-Living Corporeal Beings

 The beings in this hierarchy re hylemorphic but with no life.
o These beings are the most distant from the Supreme Being in the hierarchy of
existents.
o Beings under this include inorganic matters, rocks, air, atoms, etc.
o However, between these, there is further division as compound and single matter.
Non- Corporeal Beings are led by other beings above them, yet lead non due to their lacking of
operative power.

CHAPTER V
PRINCIPLES OF BEING: CONSTITUTIVE PRINCIPLES

 Having seen the mods of Beings in general, and their hirearchy in particular, we now, in
this chapter, dwelve into constitution of a Being. This is to treat the content of Being by
examining the principles that constitute it.
 A principle is that from which something else proceeds. As a term, principle connotes a
beginning or starting point of some process without necessarily including any positive
effect of the outcome.
 A point, for instance, is considered to be the principle of a line drawn from it.
o There are many principles of a Being: some extrinsic while others are intrinsic to
Being, from which their modes, manar or categories of being proceed.
o Instrinsic principles are those that constitute a being, without which a being can
simply not be. They form the internal making and structutre of a Being. For instance
atoms that act as intrinsic constitutive principles of molecules, cells are intrinsic
constitutive principles of organisms, bricks are instrinsic constitutive principles of a
building, etc.
 Metaphysics of Being, however, seeks the first and universal principles, ie those that
radically constitute all Beings.

3.1 Intrinsic Constitutive Principles of Being

  Also termed Core principles or most fundamental priciples i.e principles that form the
basic foundation of every real being: finite or infinite, these principles are esse and
essence.
 While in the infinite being, the two are one and the same, that is, God’s esse is His
essence, and His essence is His esse, in the finite beings, the two are distinct and
constitute the fundamental metaphysical structure of finite beings.
3.1.1 Esse: Act of Being
 Esse is the principle that accounts for the act of a being.
 It is the most principal element or the most ultimate foundation of being.
 Characteristic Features of Esse:
o As act, esse is a perfection of a being;
o Esse is a universal act, that is, it belongs to all beings. It is not an exclusive reality to a
particular being. However, its mode and degree varies from one being to another, subject
to their essences.
o Esse is a total act, that is, it encompasses all that a being is. Some acts concern
particular aspects of being. But esse encompasses the whole being. If a tree is, the whole
tree is with all its accidents and parts.
o Esse is by nature prior to any other act, that is, it is not an act derived from what things
are. Rather what things are is derived from esse.
o Esse apart from being a constituent act because it’s received by essence is the
constituent act. No other physical or biological acts: energy, molecule or the atomic
structure of things can make things be except esse. For these other acts in order to
produce their effects, they must first of all be.
o Finally, esse and existence are not the same. To ‘exist’ simply is a state. Esse is an act
and intensive one. This explains why in ordinary usage one can talk of two or more
things existing e.g., a man and a dog existing but cannot say “man exists more than a
dog”. But one can say a man possesses an act of existence in a higher degree than a dog.

i. Asse as a Linking Verb (is);

 Esse is a verb copula, expressed by ‘is’ or ‘to-be’. As a copular;
a) It links the subject to predicate.
 b) It is indicative of the perfection that inheres in the given subject. E.g., in the
proposition “Kansiime ‘is’ intelligent”, the copular ‘is’ indicates that the quality
intelligent really inheres in Kansiime.
c) Finally, in a proposition or judgment, ‘is’ reflects the truth, i.e., that what is affirmed
or negated (in the case of ‘is’ not) is actually true. If not, the truth value of the
proposition will be false.
 In every proposition or judgment, the three: a, b, c, above, are concomitant. It means that:
E.g., in the proposition “Kansiime is intelligent”;
i. The subject Kansiime is predicated of intelligence,
ii. ‘Intelligence’ is actually a perfection of Kansiime,
iii. It is actually true that Kansiime is intelligent.

3.1.2 Essence: Mode of Being

 Essence refers to the immediate and proper potency of the act of being (esse).
o It is that which makes a thing to be what it is. All beings possess esse, but it is the essence
that modifies or limits the degree or the intensity of esse.
o Essence is the principle that brings about modes of being, hence hierarchy in beings. (Cf.
Modes of Being).
 All things ‘are’ because they possess act of existence e.g., angels, men, dogs, trees, air.
But at the same time all things are ‘something’, e.g., there’s ‘this angel’ or ‘that angel’,
‘this man’ or ‘that man’; ‘this dog’ or ‘that doge’s. due to essence.
 In this way, essence is that which makes an angel an angel, a man a man, or a dog a
dog. It is for this reason that it is proper to speak of the ‘essence of this man’ or
‘essence of that man’ than speak of the ‘essence of man’ or “essence of a man”.

 Characteristic features of Essence:

o As principle of operation, essence is nature. It is for this reason that we say something or
creature acts/operates according to its nature. Man thinks, loves, feels or socializes
because they are operations that arise from his nature.
o As a definition, essence is the quiddity of a ‘definindum’ (quiditas or ‘whatness’). A
definition expresses a thing’s essence.
 o As every being that has its own act and the manner of being, essence therefore is the
manner of being, while the act of being is called esse.

DISTINCTION BETWEEN ESSE AND ESSENCE

 The question of what and how the distinction between esse and essence is has raised
much debate among philosophers.
 The bone of contention is whether this distinction is real or virtual, that is, logical.

Meaning of Distinction

 Distinction can be defined as lack of identity between several things. It means a clear
difference or contrast between things, including those that are similar or related.
Distinction, in other words, is the lack of common ground that makes two or more things
equal or one.
 Esse, the act of essence is necessarily distinct from the essence in finite beings. The two
are related as act and potency.


1.2.3 Types of Distinction

 There are tow types of Distinction: Real and Vietual

1.2.4 Real Distinction

 The kind of distinction that exists in things independently of the consideration of our
mind. It means the mind discovers these the distinctions made but does not make them. It
is goiven to the mind and with data of its experience.
 Hence, whether the mind discovers them or not they remain the same.
 In real distinction, the concept of one object does not include that of the other. The act of
thinking, for instance, is a reality other than the mind. It means that thinking and the mind
that things are distinct.
 Real distinction in short is is concrete. It does not only exist in the mind but in the reality
outside the mind.
1.2.5 Virtual Distinction

 Also termed mental or logical distinction, virtual distinction highights the fact that things
are distinct from each other in concept, but not in entity.
 They are distinct in conept (definition and comprehension or thought content) so that the
concept of one does not signify that of another.
 Virtually distinct things exist as one in reality yet the mind makes two or more distinct


conepts of them. distincconcepts of them. Example: the distinction between the concepts man
and rational animal, a stick and its end, red blood cell and its color red, the name Denis and
mr. Denis.

Esse and Essence

The distinction between esse and essence aas suggested by Aquinas is real, not virtual or mental.

3.2 Non-Constituent Principles

3.2.1 The Supreme Principles of Being
3.2.2 Other Principles derived from the First Principle
[[Princile of identity, Excluded middle, Sufficient reason, and Causality]]

4 Identity and Distinction

3 Constitutive Co-relative Principles of Real Beings
2.1 Core Principles

A principle is that from which something else proceeds. And there are many principles of a
being.

Core principlesi.e principles that form the basic foundation of every real being: finite or infinite.

Co-relative principles i.e principles that are metaphysically related; they go together.
Constitutive principles i.e principles that constitute real beings. No such being is possible
without them.

Thus, whereas some constitutive principles apply only to finite real beings, there are those that
constitute both finite and infinite. These are esse and essence.

Esse and Essence constitute finite and infinite being, save that in the latter the two are one and
the same, that is, in the infinite being (God), esse is His essence, and essence is His esse. Finite
beings on the other hand possess esse and essence as distinct and different, with the former
limiting the latter.

3.1 Other Co-relative Principles of Being: Act and Potency

As co-relative principles, act and potency are only proper to finite beings. As distinct and
separate principles, however, act in its fullness is the essence of the Infinite.
 CHAPTER V
PRINCIPLES OF BEING: EXTRINSIC PRINCIPLES
 After the treatment of constitutive principles of Being, we now treat other principles. These
are not constitutive of a Being but help us in our knowing of Being, for which they are often
termed non-Constitutive principles of Being.
 Non-Constituent Principles:
 First Priniple of Being (The Supreme Principles)
 Principles derived from the First Principle: Princile of Identity, Excluded middle,
Sufficient reason, and Causality;
 Other principles: analogy, participation, and

3. THE FIRST PRINCIPLE OF BEING

Just as being is the first notion of our intelligence implied in any consequent notion, there is a
judgment too, which is naturally first that is supposed by all other judgments. This judgment is
called the Principle of Non-Contradiction or the First Principle of Being. Why:

Principle of non-contradiction? For it expresses the most basic condition of things, namely, that
things cannot be self-contradictory.

First Principle of Being? For it is based on being, expressing its consistency as being and its
opposition to non-being. For this reason, when we make a statement that “Something is”, we
make two judgments, one affirmation and another negation. We;

i. Affirm that “that something is”

ii. We negate that “that something at the same time and respect is not”
Since this principle refers to being, although it is used in all areas of human knowledge, it is the
task proper to Metaphysics, the science of being, to study and reveal its full significance.
3.1 Different Ways the Principle of Non-Contradiction may be Expressed

i. A thing cannot be and not be at the same time.

ii. It is impossible for a thing to be and at the same time not to be
iii. It is impossible for one and the same things to be and not to be at the same time and
condition.
iv. What is self-contradictory may be thinkable but intellectually unsustainable
v. Being itself is not self-contradictory
Since our intellect is geared towards knowing reality as it is, the first principle of being is also
called the first law of logic.As a result it may also be formulated as;

vi. We cannot both affirm and deny something of the same subject at the same time and
in the same sense.
vii. Contradictory prepositions about the same subject cannot be simultaneously true.
3.2 Characteristics of the Principle of Non-Contradiction

i. It is naturally and spontaneously known by all men through experience

ii. This principle cannot be demonstrated. This is because it is the first judgment. There
is no other judgment prior to it to prove it. It is immediately evident. Only that which
is not immediately self-evident is that which requires proof.
3.3Defense of the Principle of Non-Contradiction

Though this principle is self-evident and cannot be proved through other evident truths, it can
only be proven indirectly by showing the inconsistency of anyone who would deny it. For;

i. In order to deny this principle one has to reject all meaning in language.
For instance, if “truth” were the same as “false” or “man” were the same as “none-man”, it
would not in fact mean anything at all, or it would mean everything. Any word would signify
anything and consequently communication would be impossible.

ii. Denial of this principle contradicts rationality.

Drawing ultimate consequences from this argument “ad hominem”, Aristotle asserts that anyone
who rejects this first principle should behave like a plant, since even animals move in order to
attain objective which they prefer over others, as when they seek food.
 iii. Denying this principle implies accepting it.
For in rejecting it a person acknowledges that affirming and denying are not the same.

Denial of the principle of non-contradiction leads to relativism.

3.4 Importance of the Principle of Non-Contradiction

It helps to avoid inconsistencies in our knowledge and activity. For instance, it is self-
contradictory for God who is infinite to be subject to evolution through history as sustained by
Hegel. Likewise it is inconsistent to consider the world as self-generating matter as Marx
sustained, since it is contradictory for anything to be the cause of itself, except the case of the
Absolute cause.

It helps in discovering the internal structure of beings and their causes. E.g.it would be
contradictory for material objects to carry out spiritual acts.

The intellect knows the rest of its knowledge by virtue of the principle of non-contradiction. We
come to know, not by starting from the principle of non-contradiction, but rather by proceeding
in accordance with it.

3.5 Other Principles derived from the Principle of Non-Contradiction

3.5.1 The Principle of excluded middle.
It states that “there is no middle ground between being and non-being “or “there is no middle
ground between affirmation and negation”. It can also be stated that “every proposition must
necessarily be true or false”.

Although being in potency might seem a middle ground between being and non-being, it is
actually between absolute non-being and being in act.

Similarly some people have mistakenly sustained a position that between being and non-being
there is becoming. But the fact is that becoming is between being in potency and being in act.

3.5.2 The Principle of identity.

This principle states that “being is being” or “whatever is, is what it is” or “being is, non-being is
not”.
3.5.3 The Principle of sufficient reason.
This principle states that for a being to be, there must be sufficient reason. This principle is most
applicable to finite beings. No being is by itself and accounts for its being particular.

CHAPTER VI
THE PRINCIPLE OF PARTICIPATION

Participation is from two Latin terms: partem for a part and capere for to take part. Thus, to
participate is to have a part or to take part, and the act of taking part is participation. It is to
contain in oneself a characteristic or quality, not in the whole fullness but in a limited and finite
way.

Participation as a theory was first advanced by Plato. By it Plato maintains that the composed
beings are mere participants of the world of ideas. The partakers are simply shadows or
reflections of the real things that are the universal ideas or archetypes existing in a separate
world.

Plato although denied real existence to composed beings, tried to underline the fact that
composed beings partake in the existence that does not fully belong to them. Thus, in this way,
participation so understood means to receive something that fully belongs to another in a partial
manner. Every person for instance participates in humanity without exhausting humanity because
there are many human beings that share the same nature.

A particular being does not only participate in being in its way and according to its measure but
it also imperfectly participates in other more perfect life of existence. A plant for instance
participates in being according to its measure, but it also participates imperfectly in the being of
animals. This means in every finite being, there exists something that belongs to it by nature and
something that’s communicated to it by others. Consequently, every being is as such either by
nature or by participation. And since there’s only one being by nature, who is the Pure Act, we
shall consider the finite beings who are so by participation.
 Types of participation

1. Participation in Existential Order

All finite beings exist but not in the same mode and way. They participate in the act of existing
(act of being).

Participation in existential order simply refers to the fact that all the different existents partake in
an act of existence that is not fully theirs. Angels, souls, human beings, animals, plants, and
inanimate beings are all existents. They as beings exercise an act of being that is proper to their
essences, but none of them is the totality of the other existents, thus, none of them is the act of
being (esse) itself. Each of the finite existents participates in the act of being in their own way,
not exactly in similar way as the other. This means there’s a diversity of participation dependent
on the essences of particular existents.

2. Participation in essential order (substantial order)

Every being that exists has got a particular substantial essence that it shares with many others
beings of the same species. This means ever existent participates in a specific mode of existing.
Human for instance is a primary mode of existence and a substantial existence in which other
existents of human species like John, Mary, Peter, and Susan participate.

Such primary modes of existing can also be called natures. Human nature is participated by
many human beings.

3. Participation in accidental order

Other than primary mode, existents also participate in secondary modes of existing commonly
termed as accidents. Beings are modified by various qualities such as color, tallness, shortness
etc that can be shared by many other beings that may not necessarily belong to the same species
or type. E.g. many people may be brown but a dog can also be brown.

Participation as Limitation

The act of perfection (esse) that is participated-in is possessed in a limited way by finite
existents. Thus the participant (the finite being) has the perfection but is not the perfection. They
possess the perfection of being in a limited manner, commensurate to their capacity.
This implies that perfection is a limitation. A being of a lower level for instance cannot possess a
higher degree of participation.

Manifestation of Participation in finite beings

The principle of participation visibly manifests itself in reality in two broad ways: Grades of
existents and Causality.

Grades of Existents

Also known as Attributive manifestation, this is a form of manifestation in which the superior
existent possesses everything that is contained in the inferior so that the inferior is always a
participation in the superior.

Causality

Also known as, the Apophatic participation, it highlights the causal relationship between the
cause and its effect in which the later owes its existence to the former. In it there’s a priority of
the cause to the being of the effect, for which it (effect) necessarily participates in the cause.
 CHAPTER VII
THE PRINCIPLE OF ANALOGY
Esse partitioned by essence gives rise to hierarchy in beings, so that the myriads of beings in
hierarchy have similarities and differences stemming from the two principles. For this reason, the
term ‘being’ can be used with similar and different senses. This is the analogical sense of being.

In logic, the relationship between things is best expressed broadly in three terms: univocal,
equivocal and analogous terms. And for a better understanding of analogy, one will need to
consider the use of a term in the three senses.

Univocal, Equivocal, and Analogous usage of a term

In Logic, a relationship between a term and another can be expressed in three ways: univocal,
equivocal, and analogous.

i. Equivocal usage of a term.

The term equivocal is from two Latin words, aequi for same, and vocal (from vox), for voice.
Equivocal term thus refers to a relationship expressed by the same term having different
meanings in different subjects. Care should however be taken, for the sameness here is not the
meaning but the term. E.g. the term ‘bank’ for an institution and ‘bank’ for a side of a river. A
relation expressed in this way breeds ambiguity.

This kind of relation expressed by equivocal term cannot, therefore, be applicable to being.
Being as a term is never ambiguous. It cannot have many meanings to many subjects. The only
term with different meaning from being is non-being, that doesn’t exist as an entity.

Hence being is not equivocal.

 ii. Univocal usage of a term
A term is univocal when it carries the same meaning in different subjects. Unlike in equivocity
where sameness is only in term not meaning, a univocal term has sameness both in term,
meaning and sense.

This is applicable to subjects with identical meaning that may differ in particularity. E.g. man.
Denis is a man, Joseph is a man, Kioko is a man, etc.

Being however, cannot be univocal because there are no beings that exist in exactly the same
mode or a being that is a complete replica of another. Every being is identical to itself.

Secondly, if such use of the term being were employed between the Pure Act and Finite beings
like humans, then the Pure Act would be reduced down to human level, i.e. anthropomorphism.

iii. Analogous usage of a term

Analogy is from Greek ana-logon, for proportion, sameness or likeness that exists between two
or more things. It expresses a relation between things by comparison, and the basis of this
comparison is the similarity and difference between things. Thus, without similarity, comparison
is impossible and without difference being presents repetition and lack of new information.

A term is analogously used when it accommodates the two: similarity and differences. This
means a subject has partly the same meaning and partly different meaning from another. In this
way, analogy of beings presents one major paradox in hierarchy of beings, that is, similar beings
are different from each other and different beings are similar to each other.

Types of Analogy

Analogy exists in two broad types: Attributive analogy and Proportional analogy.

Analogy of Attribution

In this type of analogy, predication is based on casual-relationship of dependence and priority in

beings. In it, the principle analogate (the cause) has priority over the secondary analogate, or it’s
dependent. The principle analogate (cause) in this case is the primary analogate, to whom the
term is applied primarily (per prius) while the secondary analogate (effect) is that to whom the
term is applied secondarily (per posterius). The principle analogate possesses the fullness of
perfection while the secondary analogate partakes in that perfection.

In context of the hierarchy of beings, the Pure act is the primary analogate while finite beings are
the secondary analogates.

This leaves two types of analogy of attribution: Analogy of intrinsic and extrinsic attributions.

i. Analogy of Intrinsic Attribution

The term intrinsic connotes a constitutive goodness. In this analogy, the perfection predicated is
part of the internal constitutions of the analogates. This means the perfection referred to belongs
to both the principle and secondary analogates but at different degrees. E.g. in considering the
transcendental attributes; Goodness, Truth and Beauty in which the Pure Act possess all these in
an absolute way, the finite beings (creatures) possess the same in limited degrees for which they
are referred to as good, intelligent or beautiful.

ii. Analogy of Extrinsic Attribution

This is the kind of analogy that does not imply any similarity between what has the character
literally and that to which the character gets attributed. E.g. Health literally applies only to living
things. Mountains, food, water etc. are referred to as healthy only by analogy of extrinsic
attribution.

In case of the Pure Act and finite beings, only finite beings posses such a quality. It is only
attributed to the Pure Act due to the fact that He is the cause, in which case it would suggest that
the finite beings as primary analogate.

Difference between Analogy of Intrinsic and Extrinsic Attributions

In the analogy of intrinsic attribution, both the cause and effect have the quality literally or
formally. Only that the cause has it in a more intense fashion than the effect. The best example is
the transcendental attributes in which God is Good, Beautiful, Truth and Being essentially, while
creatures are so only by participation.

In the case of the analogy of extrinsic attribution, however, it is only the effect that has the
quality literally or formally, while the cause has the quality merely by attribution.
 Analogy of Proportionality

This is the type of analogy in which a term is used to different subjects according to the measure
befitting each one of them. Since being has such a rich and varied meaning, it is analogical, i.e. it
is attributed to all things in a sense which is partly the same and partly different.

2.2.2 Analogy of Proportionality

This is the type of analogy in which the same term applies to various subjects in a way
proportional to their nature, without necessarily implying any relationship. The perfection is
primarily attributed to the primary analogate while secondarily to the secondary analogates due
to the similarities that exists between them.

Like analogy of Attribution, the analogy of proportionality also has two types: Analogy of proper
proportionality and of metaphorical proportionality.

Analogy of proper proportionality

This is also known as the analogy of real proportionality. In it the term used is effectively and
really present in all the subjects in a measure commensurate to their degrees of perfection. E.g.
life in God, angels, man, chicken, mosquito, dross fillers, amoeba, plants, etc.

Analogy of metaphorical proportionality

In this, the term used only belongs to the primary analogate. It is attributed to the secondary
analogate simply due to the relationship of similarity in the actions in the secondary analogates.
E.g. John is a lion means John does brave actions as those of a lion. God is angry, God is
walking, God is sited or God is my rock are all metaphorical analogies. Others include terms like
kid, baby, chick, etc.

In context of the hierarchy of beings, the best analogies that express the relationship between
beings are the analogy of intrinsic attribution and the analogy of proper proportionality. This is
because they demonstrate that the esse belongs to the principle analogate while finite beings
(creatures) participate in the actus essendi from the first analogate-God.

Importance of Analogy
Due to the finitude of human knowledge, analogy helps penetrate what otherwise would not have
been possible. E.g. expressions of relationships between the divine and finite beings.

Analogy plays a significant role in problem solving and decision making, perception, memory,
creativity, emotion, explanation and communication.

Analogy helps in identification of objects, places and people, e.g. in face and facial recognition
systems. [So and so is like so and so....]

CHAPTER X
THE TRANSCENDENTAL PROPERTIES OF BEING

8.1 Introduction
 Transcendental: that which cuts across the domains of the categories.
 Property: that which is predicated of a subject as flowing necessarily from the essence of the
subject. It is not the essence itself, and is only mentally distinct from being.
 Of Being: aspects which belong to being as being. They are properties belonging to all
beings, not just particular being. They do not solely belong to the substance or accidents.
 The transcendental properties of Being, therefore, are aspects or characteristics present in
every being in so far as it is i.e. in so far as it exists or has esse, regardless of their modes of
existence; be it creator or creature, simple or complex.
8.2 Knowledge of the Transcendental Properties

Our knowledge of the transcendental properties is arrived at in two ways:

i. Considering being in itself.

In this being is considered without comparing or relating it to another. This makes us realize that
any being in itself is single or individual thing, i.e. it is one.

Considering a being in itself can also be in two ways: via positiva or negativa. Through the
positive way, we affirm the characteristic of a being having esse that makes it an existent not an
abstract, an existent is singularized or individualized, hence one. Through negativa, we deny any
internal division, and so realize that every being has unity, and anything that has unity is one.

ii. Considering being in its relation to another

o In considering Being in relation to another, we realize that Being has two opposite attributes:
distinction and conformity.
o In its distinction, being is distinct from all other beings, lacking internal division, hence one
or a unity. In its conformity with other beings, we consider its relation to something which
encompasses being as such, and that is the soul. For the soul is in a way all things due to the
universality of the objects of the intellect and the will.
o Thus, being in its conformity with the intellect is true, i.e. something appetible to the
intellect, since the intellect seeks knowledge of what is true.
o In its relation to the will, being is good i.e. as something capable of being loved or drawing
the voluntary appetite, since will always seeks that which is good.
o In the interaction of the knowledge by the intellect (truth) and the appetite of the will (good),
being is beautiful, for it causes a certain pleasure when apprehended.
 In the final analysis, there are six transcendental notions in addition to notion of being:
thing (res), something (aliquid), unity (unum), truth (verum), goodness (bonum), and
beauty (pulchrum).
 However, since only four of them apply to both God and Creatures, they are more basic,
and these are: unity, truth, goodness, and beauty. The first two are transcendentals only as
far as creatures are concerned, and for this reason we shall consider the four basic.

12 TRANSCENDENTAL UNITY
 Transcendental unity refers to the undividedness/indivisibility of a being resulting from
its esse. A thing cannot have half esse or half-be. Either a thing is or is not. A divided
being is non-being.
 Types and Degrees of Transcendental Unity
  The diversity and hierarchy in beings gives rise to different types and degrees of unity.
These degrees of unity can be broadly classified into two: Unity of simplicity and unity
of composition.
a) Unity of simplicity: this is a unity of a being devoid of parts or multiplicity of constituent
principles. This is the most perfect unity and it is only found in God.
b) Unity of Composition: This is constituted of parts or principles. It is a lower degree of
unity compared to the perfect unity. It is found in creatures and is divided into four kinds:
substantial unity, accidental unity, relational unity (unity of order) and aggregate unity.
i. Substantial unity: Unity resulting from the elements that make a substance. The first of
this is a unity due to indivisibility of the act of being (esse).
o The second is unity between esse and essence (essential unity) both in purely spiritual
beings (angels and souls), as well as material beings. In case of the angels since their esse
is received by the angelic forms, there is a certain composition in every angel i.e. that of
esse and essence for which we talk of unity of composition. But since angels have
poverty of matter, their essence is not divisible or multipliable into several individuals.
There is only one angel in each species that exhausts all perfections belonging to that
species.
o The third is the unity of matter and form in corporeal beings. Like esse and essence, this
unity is unbreakable without threatening the very existence of a corporeal being. If the
soul and its matter are for instance separated, man exists no more.
ii. Substance and its Accidents: Another type of unity that however lies between substantial
unity and accidental unity is the unity of substance and its accidents. It is a unity at a
much lower rank than the substantial unity but higher than accidental unity. Its
destruction does not necessarily lead to non-existence of a being in question. When a
dark man suddenly turns albino, he does not cease to be man.
iii. Accidental Unity: unity of many subsistents or accidents. These may be:
o Structural unity-unity of many substances for one general purpose or end, e.g. a shopping
mall, house or automobile.
o Dynamic unity-unity due to one substance directing the activities of another e.g. a rider
and a horse. They are united in activity but divided as beings.
 o Moral unity-united in particular behavior for a purpose but divided as individual
members e.g. a family or sports club.
iv. Relational Unity or Unity of order: This is a kind of a composite unity based on the
accident of relation. The substances that make it do not have a particular substantial form
that unites them but the relationship among the various parts becomes the “form” of this
unity. E.g. parental and filial relations.
v. Aggregate Unity: Another form of a composite unity resulting from a gathering together
of elements without mutual order e.g. a pack of sacks, or firewood, bricks.
Relations as Effects of Unity

 Unity and its opposite multiplication both create relations.

i. Unity
o Relations which stem from unity include: identity, equality and similarity.
o Identity: is a relation that results from the unity of substance. It brings commonness or
resemblances in beings e.g. in genus or species.
o Equality: is a relation that results from unity of the accident quantity, e.g. 2 halves of a
loaf of bread are equal.
o Similarity: is a relation due to unity of the accident quality. Two persons may be
aesthetically beautiful or intelligent.
ii. Multiplication
 On the other hand relations which stem from multiplication include: diversity, difference
and distinction.
o Diversity: results from a multitude of essences. A dog, man, cow or rats are diverse
natures.
o Difference: is a kind of diversity resulting from diversity in one sense and conformity in
another sense. E.g. Kamau and Njoroge may both be Kikuyu but one is a mungiki and the
other a Christian.
o Distinction: is a negation of identity [identity from latin ‘identitas’ for sameness]. It may
refer to a substance and its constituent principles, quantity or relation. E.g. sleeping and
resting are two distinct things, or the nature of a dog and that of man are distinct.
 o Care should, however, be taken that a distinction does not necessarily imply [diversity or]
difference. Two beings may be distinct but not different. [But two things can never be
completely identical. Every being is identical to itself]. Distinction is from latin alius
commonly referred to the suppositum, while diverse always applies to distinction in
nature, i.e. difference.
o There are two types of distinctions: Real and Mental (logical) distinctions.
o Real distinctions exist independently from the mind, e.g. the distinction between esse and
essence, matter and form, act and potency, father and son.
o Mental or logical distinctions in contrast are produced by mind on aspects which are
really identical e.g. that between being and its transcendental properties
o
13 TRUTH AND GOODNESS
 After considering being in itself and in its relation to another being, we now consider
being in its relation to the two great powers of the mind: the intellect and the will. The
former (intellect) is the capacity for understanding and thought, or the power of
apprehension and knowing, while the latter (will) is an innate positive inclination towards
the good. It is that aspect of a rational agent which disposes her to pursue what she
considers good.
 Each of these two powers or faculties of the soul therefore is basically a disposition to be
moved by a certain group of objects. That of the intellect is knowledge or truth, while that
of the will is goodness, thus leading us to talk about transcendental truth and goodness.

14 TRANSCENDENTAL TRUTH
 Being as Object of Intellect
Every being in so far as it is being is an object of the intellect, i.e. it is intelligible, or true. There
is no being that is false.

 Types of Truth
i. Verbal Truth
This is also known as Truth of words. It is the conformity of what is expressed in words to what
the speaker really thinks. Any disparity leads to falsity of words or lie. In most cases it is the
speaker who really knows if what they say is true to their thoughts or not. E.g. a Father who tells
his son to go to his vineyard and the son says yes while he knows he is not going.

ii. Truth of Judgment

This is also known as mental truth. It arises from the conformity between the intellect and reality.
A judgment is true when it asserts that something exists and that thing really exists, or when it
asserts that something does not exist and that thing really does not exists. E.g. when the mind
thinks it is raining when it actually is not.

The above two types of truth have nothing to do with the truth of understanding of being. They
so much deal with the relation of what is thought and judged about reality of being.

iii. Ontological Truth

This is the type of truth due to a being’s conformity or relation to intellect. Hence, it is intellect’s
understanding of being, not mere expression of it, for which it is known as the truth of
understanding of being or ontological truth. This is the truth that properly constitutes the
transcendental aspect/property of being, and it has a twofold reference since there are two
intellects:

a) Essential Ontological Truth

This is truth with respect to God’s intellect. Things are divinely true in so far as they accomplish
that to which they have been directed by God’s intelligence or Divine intellect. This Divine
intellect to which all finite beings are cannot be human intellect since the human intellect does
not make things to be; it merely discovers them. This kind of conformity of beings to God’s
intellect or Divine intellect or the Primary Intellectual cause is radical and intrinsic.

b) Accidental Ontological Truth

o This is the truth with respect to finite or created intellect. Things are true, for instance, to
the human intellect when they are able to provoke a true comprehension, and they are
false when their appearance does not conform to the way in which they really are. E.g. a
metal which looks like gold is in fact a false gold.
o Important to note is that the truth attributed to things in reference to the human intellect,
is in some sense accidental to them, since things would still exist by themselves even
without man’s knowing or existing. But the truth of things attributed to things in
 reference to the Divine intellect is inseparable from them, since their very substance
depends on God’s intellect, which gives them the act of being.
o In this way, to be is not to be perceived by human intellect as Berkeley asserts in his
“esse est percipi”. Equally idealist’s position that things are in as far as they are objects
of human knowledge are wrong.
o It is also important to note that the intellect’s capacity to know the truth of being stems
from the act of being i.e. the existence of a being. There is no knowledge a priori to
being.
o For this reason, subjectivism that bases knowledge of truth on “being-for-me” as did
Sophists, Heidegger’s manifestation of things in human consciousness as basis of truth of
being or things are misplaced. For a thing is not true because of what it is to me neither is
it true because of its manifestation in the consciousness but it is true because it is. Alex is
bearded man not because I think that Alex is truly bearded or not because I’m conscious
of it, but because Alex is bearded that when I affirm it, I’m speaking the truth.

 Opposite of Truth
The opposite of verbal truth is falsehood or lie; that of mental truth is error, while there is no
strict contrary of ontological or metaphysical truth.

In final analysis every being is true due to its conformity to the intellect. And since this cuts
across the domains of categories or modes of existences of beings, it is transcendental truth.

15 TRANSCENDENTAL GOOGNESS
 After considering truth as the object of Intellect that forms one of the two great faculties
or powers of the mind, we now consider the object of the other great faculty of the mind-
will, which is goodness.

3.1 Good:
Good like any other primary notion is easier described than defined, for it cannot be resolved
into more basic realities. Descriptively, therefore, good is that which is desirable or the object of
appetite, so that whatever can be appetized is good in that respect.
3.2 Appetite:
Appetite in general means an inclination, tendency or leaning towards something suitable; and
this has three levels:
i. Pure Physical appetite: This is a purely physical inclination towards a suitable thing
without any knowledge of the inclined thing, e.g. the tendency of a seed to grow into
a tree.
ii. Sensitive Appetite: This is an inclination that follows sensitive knowledge. Such is the
tendency man shares a lot with brutes, e.g. sexual appetite in most living things.
iii. Will: This is the inclination that follows an understood good or knowledge from the
faculty of the intellect. In this case the intellect feeds the will with the knowledge
about the being that is desired.

Of the above three types of inclinations to the good: it is in the intellectual inclination that we
speak of the transcendental or ontological goodness. We saw that every being is appetible to the
intellect. What makes a being appetible to the intellect is the fact that it possess esse. “Everything
that is, is good.”[Cf. St. Augustine, Confessions, Bk VII, 12.] Things are good to the point that
they have esse.

In this way, the goodness of things does not depend on their capacity to arouse love or their
intrinsic value, nor how man desires them, but rather their esse. Things are good in themselves,
i.e. they are good not because we want them; rather, we want them because they are good.

For this reason, ontological / transcendental goodness is not opinioned or a matter of desire nor is
it a matter of democracy that makes it so.

 Potential Esse; Participated Esse and Esse Subsistence

 Since esse can be potential, participated, and Esse Subsistence, good corresponds to esse
as potential good, participated good, and Supreme Good.
o Potential good: A good yet to receive actuality. It may also be termed as possible good.
o Participated good: This is the good found in creatures. A creature is good in as far as it has
esse by participation.
o Supreme Good (God): God is good by essence. “Divine essence is goodness itself…,God is
goodness by essence, whereas other things are good by participation.” [cf. St. Thomas
Aquinas, De Divinis Nominibus, ch. IV, lect.1.]

Good and the Will:

o Just as we can speak of truth with respect to human and Devine intellects, the same is
of goodness. Good adds to being a relation of reason in reference to an appetitive
power, known as the will.
o Since there are two intellects, there are two corresponding types of will: Created will
and Divine Will.

Created Will:
o This is the will constituted by human or angelic wills. Humans or angels will, desire
or love things because they (things) are good. It is not their willing that makes things
good. It is for this that Baruch Spinoza said, “ We do not seek love or desire
something because we judge it to be good; rather we consider it to be good because
we seek it, we love it and we desire it.” [cf. Ethica, III, prop. 9, school.). This means,
just as beings are ontologically true independent of humans or angels knowing them,
they (beings) are also metaphysically good independent of man’s or angel’s willing
them.

Divine Will: Whereas the limited will loves or desires things for being good, on the other hand
things are good because the Divine will loves or wants them. Because God wills them, they are
good. God’s love is the basis of the goodness of creatures.

It should however be kept to mind that though the good is ontologically prior to our knowledge
of it, it does not mean that good is prior to being. First is our knowledge of being, as the stepping
stone of any human knowledge.
Nevertheless, God’s/ Devine knowledge is prior to being and goodness of creatures because the
Devine love is the fullness of perfection. God necessarily loves His own supremely perfect
Being. He is His own object of knowledge and love. It is only through generosity or
superabundance of his love that He creates the universe, making them good.

Goodness and Perfection

Will moves towards its object. This is possible because that object is endowed with a certain
degree of perfection.
Such a perfection that moves the will arises from act; potency on the contrary renders being
imperfect. Thus every being in as far as it has esse is perfect, and every being that is perfect is
good.

Since perfection ranges from less perfect (creatures) to the absolutely perfect (Pure Act),
goodness takes the same corresponding hierarchy (grades). God who is the fullness of act
without any limitation is the Supreme Perfection and Supreme Goodness. He is goodness by
essence while creatures are perfect and good by participation due to potency of their essence.

Despite this limitation of potency, however, creatures can be perfect in three ways:
i. Dimensions (quantitas continua), e.g. a perfect face is that which has a well-
proportioned features like beard, nose, limps etc.
ii. Operative powers (quantitas virtutis), e.g. a perfect car is that which moves or
functions efficiently.
iii. Attainment of end (consecutio finis), e.g. a man who has acquired wisdom is perfect.

In case of spiritual beings, a perfect man or angel is that who is in position to transmit their
perfection to others.

From what has been seen so far, goodness can therefore, be classified into three:

i. Ontological goodness; this is the goodness rendered so due to the possession of esse.
Every real or concrete being is ontologically good.
ii. End or Purposeful goodness, is a good rendered due to achievement of a purpose or
end. A seminarian for instance is good if he behaves in a way befitting to becoming a
 priest, or achieves priesthood, his short-term-end. And morally speaking, one is good
if one directs their acts towards their last end i.e. God.
o However, as regards to the end, there are two types of end that should be kept to
mind: bonum secundum quid and bonum simpliciter.

 The bonum secundum quid, which is also known as good in a particular sense or short
term good, is the good that satisfies some appetite with the possibility of leaving room for
further appetite. In this sense, all creatures even though are ontologically good or perfect
they still leave further room for some other appetite. Thus, the good in them is bonum
secundum quid.
 The bonum simpliciter or the good simply on the other hand is the good without any
further qualification. It satisfies the desire fully without leaving any room for further
desire or appetite. It is the absolute goodness.
o As already seen, creatures are not good by essence or by simply being. Only God is. It
is only in God that there’s perfect identification between Being and being good. His
essence is His goodness. He has no end outside himself. He is infinitely perfect that
nothing outside the Devine can perfect him or add any perfection to him. In this sense
He is the end of himself and of creatures. Thus, whereas creatures offer immanent
end, only God is their ultimate end.

iii. Good according to diffusion, i.e. the good resulting from communication of
perfection. A truly perfect good communicates its perfection to others as expressed by
the maxim Bonum est diffusum-the good tends to spread or diffuse itself.
o This is the sense in which God is supremely good since he is the source from which
all goodness flows throughout the universe. Similarly when creatures share this
diffusion of goodness from God to others, they become more like their creator.
 The Possibility of Evil [personal reading]

16 TRANSCENDENTAL BEAUTY
 So far we have seen three of the four most basic transcendental properties of being: unity,
truth and goodness. We now consider beauty as zenith of the three.
17 Beauty: Definition:
 Like any other transcendental, it is difficult to define beauty. It can only be described.
Descriptively, “the beautiful is that which is pleasing to the behold.” (cf. St. Thomas
Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, 1, q.5, a.4,c.).
 “It is that which being seen pleases” (quid visum Placet) even when not possessed.
 It is that which when perceived, gives delight.

18 Transcendental Beauty and its relation to Unity, True, and Good.

o While unity is not based on relation of being to the mind perceiving it, truth,
goodness and beauty on the other hand bestow an accident of relation to the mind. A
being, for instance, is true due to its conformity to the intellect or in as far as it is
knowable. And the same true being is good in so far as it is appetible to the intellect
and will (mind).
o Knowledge of unity of being, its truth and goodness bring pleasure and delight to the
knower, making it beautiful.
o Thus, when a being resides in the soul as true and good, it brings beauty to the
beholder. Beauty in this sense follows the coincidence of the unity, truth and
goodness of a being in the soul.

19 Foundational Elements of Beauty

 The delight of beauty to the beholder is founded on three constituent elements:
integrity, proportion and clarity. They are also termed as the foundational definitions
of objective beauty.
i. Integrity (Integritas) or completeness: This component conveys a perfection required
by a form of a being. E.g. in case of a true dog, the form must radiate “dog-ness” in
features befitting a dog such as four paws, a tail, ears, nose, etc. These features
qualify the integrity of the dog such as high sense of smell, wailing of tails, or barking
at a stranger. It would not befit the integrity of a dog to be working as a secretary in
an office.
 ii. Harmony or Proportion (Consonantia): Proportion makes us understand the order
and unity within a given being, as well as towards its surrounding and final end.
However, proportion does not exclude variety, neither does it mean monotony.
In case of the dog for instance, if its parts are proportional it will be beautiful, but if its ribs or
ears are disproportional, it will not be beautiful. In case of music the proportional combination of
pitches, instruments, etc bring harmony, hence beauty of a music. Any discord renders sounds
ugly.
iii. Clarity (Claritas): This is both in material and spiritual sense. To the intellect, clarity
means intelligibility, truth and good. To the sense of sight, clarity means light, color,
brightness, to the sense of hearing, clarity means pleasant sound.

 In conclusion, when the three elements are present in a being, it means that that being
is not only one, true and good, but it exhibits an objective delight or it is objectively
beautiful. Such a beauty constitutes aesthetics [a branch of philosophy dealing with
nature of art, beauty and taste].

20 Degrees of Beauty
Like truth and goodness, beauty exists in two main types: Divine beauty and Participated beauty.
The Divine beauty, also known as supreme beauty is that proper to the creator. He possesses it
by essence.
Limited beauty also known as participated beauty is that which creatures possess. Just as
creatures are further divided into two main divisions, i.e. the Spiritual and the material, created
beauty is possessed by them in respective degrees:
a) Spiritual substances: Their beauty corresponds to their mode of being. An angel possess
fullness of beauty pertaining to a whole species.
b) Material substances: Their beauty is more fragmented according to their substantial and
accidental forms
i. Accidental forms: the accidental forms in composed beings give rise to accidental
beauty. Such include the beauty that arises from figure, color, etc.
ii. Substantial beauty: that which flows from substantial form.
However, it should be kept to mind that the ultimate intrinsic source of transcendental
(ontological) beauty is neither accidental nor formal but the very act of being (esse) that cuts
across both composed and spiritual beings. Every being, in as far as it possesses esse, is
transcendentally beautiful.

21 TYPES OF BEAUTY
 Ontological beauty
This type of beauty is characteristic of being in that it is part and parcel of being because it is
found in all beings and convertible with it. It is a type of beauty that a being has by virtue of
being a being. This type of beauty depends on the degree of perfection; hence it is predicated
analogously. No being can be denied of its ontological beauty for to deny a being’s ontological
beauty amounts to the very denial of its being.

 Physical beauty
For Thomas Aquinas physical beauty is the beauty of the body and it consists in having all the
members of the body well proportioned, with the brightness of the color required. Physical
beauty is external beauty, material beauty that can be perceived by the senses.

 Spiritual beauty
For Thomas Aquinas spiritual beauty is the beauty of the soul whereby the character of the
person is proportionate to the light of reason. This happens when human acts are performed
according to the right reason. This type of beauty is peculiar to rational beings; it is the inner
beauty of the person (Summa Theologia I-II, q.145, a.2). This is the beauty of the inner man,
the beauty of virtues. It follows that a thing is beautiful when it possess a proper spiritual or
corporeal splendor and is constituted according to the proportion required (In Div. Nom. IV,
lect.5, n.339).

 Perception of Beauty
o The perception of beauty depends on person’s dispositions. For instance, a scientist, a poet or
an artist or a philosopher would perceive a golden sunset differently. The perception of the
beautiful involves the operation of the whole man.
o It requires for instance a sort of intellectualized sensation an appetitive response of the
knower, a delightful response on both the intellectual and sensory levels. For instance, a
certain aesthetic education is often necessary to be able to perceive the beauty of certain
artistic productions.
o Though human subjectivity sometimes seems to prevail in arts, the beauty of an object does
not depend on what each person likes or on each person’s taste. Otherwise, it would be
meaningless to speak of beauty and ugliness. Both ordinary experience and artistic
experience reveal that natural beauty as well as the beauty arising from human activity
transcend man and is based on the nature of things.
  Variations in the Perception of Beauty
There are various reasons for the variations in the perception of beauty. Prejudice is one of the
reasons for which one perceives beauty subjectively. Prejudice is pre-judgment that determines
and hinders a person from perceiving beauty objectively. The phrase “can anything good come
from Nazareth” is an obvious sign of prejudice whereby Nazareth is excluded from places where
something good can come. Sometimes a person may have a disordered artistic taste or lack the
capacity to appreciate composed beautiful things for instance a piece of music whereby some
hearing classical music may not appreciate it.

Since beauty is perceived as a composite, the knowing subject may pay more attention to a
particular manifestation of it. For instance, if the perceiver is dazzled by a partial superficial
aspect he may overvalue it and thus lose sight of the real value of the beauty of the whole. The
danger is that one may focus on eyes, legs, face or color. Sometimes one may lack the
prerequisite subjective disposition for the perception of the beautiful such as ability to
concentrate, memory, sensory organs or training. Therefore, a certain aesthetic education is often
necessary to be able to perceive the beauty of certain artistic productions.

CHAPTER XI
THE METAPHYSICAL NOTION OF PERSON

 This chapter treats the general metaphysical view of a person as the most noble subsisting
subject (suppositum) in the universe. Man, however, as perfect representative of person in the
universe, is a subject matter proper to Philosophy of Man (Philosophical Anthropology).
 Genesis of he Problem: “Person” as a metaphysical problem has its genesis in revelation. For
according to Christians, there are two natures in Christ but only one person. Accordingly,
there is a difference between person (supposit) and nature.

 However, though the problem has its origin in revelation, as philosophers, we shall not
appeal to revelation for its solution, but treat it from the purely a natural viewpoint of reason.

11.1 The Notion Subsisting Subject

 Substance, so far, has emerged as being primarily individual. It is a Subsisiting Subject
(Suppositum) that designates being with all its perfections.
 It has also come out that the chief charectaristic of a substance is to subsist. This is because a
substance has an act of being (esse) that actualizes everything in its totality.
 Accordingly, the Subsisting Subject (Suppositum) is Being in the fullest sense. It is what
subsists because it has it own esse. Matter or form alone taken separately; or substance and
its accidents taken separatly; or even esse and form in finite beings taken separately, never at
all constitute a Subsisting Subject or Suppositum. Only the whole (totum) does.
 The following are some names used to designate the Subsisting Subject:
 Whole (totum) - to designate a reality constituted of parts
 Concrete - to designate several elements as its composites
 Singular or Individual – to designate what subsists in itself from others
 Suppositum – to refer to the subject
 Primary Substance – to refer to the precedence an individual takes
 Characteristics/Properties of a Subsisting Subject:
o Individuality: Only individuals subsist. Abstarcat essences like “man”, “dog”, stone”,
etc do not subsist, but individuals like “this man”, “that man”, “this dog”, “that
seminarian” subist, because they possess esse of their own.
o Subsistience: To subsist is to exist by virtie of possessing your own esse. Accidents,
for instance, are individual but lack esse of their own. They inhere in a substance that
subsists. An accident is individual (as merely opposed to being universal) but not an
individual (that involves subsistence). For this reason, accidents are not subsisting
subjects.
o Incommunicability: the notion of incommunicability entails that the act of being
(esse) is undonatable even if it may be shared through inhereitance. Accidents, for
intsnce, inhere in substances because the latter subsist. This, however, does not imply
that substances donate their act of being (esse) to accidents.
o Autonomy: A subsisting subject is not only an individual but has autonous existence.
Though it may have a relationship to another being, it is distinct and independent due
to its own esse. A boby in the womb may have lots of relationship to its host, but has
its own autonomous subsitence.
 Elements of the Suppositum:
o Act of Being
o Subject

11.3 The Notions Supposit and Person

 A Subsisting Subject is an individual substance. And while an individual substances of
human nature is metaphysically termed Person, that of a non-rational nature, however, has
no appropriate term in ordinaray lexicon.
o Metaphysicisna have therefore coined the term “supposit” or “ hypostasis” for this
category of substisting subjects.
o It shoukld, however, be noted that in generic sense, supposit or hypostasis have
continually been used to apply to all subsitisng sunjects not excluding the rational.
o Supposit or hypostasis, thus, in the general sense means a complete, independent
being. It is not attributed to anything else, but is itself the ultimate subject of all
predicates, operations, and “to be” itself.
 Hence, a supposit/hypostsasis is being in its own right; is entirely incommunicable and
autonomous; and may be defined as a subsistent, individual, and complete substance or
nature.
 The perfection by which the individual complete substance becomes a supposit is called
“subsistence” or, in the cas of a rational supposit, “personality”. It renders the individual
complete, entirely incommunicable, and intrinsically self-sufficient.

11.2 The Notion Person

o A person, as seen before, is a supposit of a rational nature.
o In the most classical definition given by Severinus Boethius in his book De Duobus
Naturisetuna Persona Christi, he defines person as an individual substance of a rational
nature (individual substantia rationalis naturae).
o In agreement to Boethius, Aquinas would later define a person as a rational subsistent
(subsistent rationale), so that the term subsistent replaces Boethius’ three terms: individual,
nature and substance.
o The person signifies that which is most perfect in all of nature, i.e., what subsists in rational
nature (s. theol. 1 q. 23, a. 3).
o Aquinas further highlights that as a particular type of suppositum or supposit, a person
possesses a spiritual nature, and it designates the most perfect beings that exist viz. God (the
Being of the First Mode), Angels (the Beings of the Second Mode), and Men (a
representative of the Beings of the Third Mode).
o Since all perfections stem from esse, the perfection of these subsistents is due to their
possession of esse: God as fullness of the esse (esse subsistens), and the Angels and Men in
decreasing degree.
o To be a person, accordingly, amounts to possessing a likeness to the Esse Subsistens in a
more sublime way, i.e., by being spiritual, which means having a more intense acts of being
that render Angels and humans to perform similar acts proper to God. Such acts include
understanding, loving, willing, etc. for as persons, angels and men are rational beings
endowed with intellect and will.
o In the ‘Summa Theologiae’, I-II, q. 19, a. 4, Aquinas maintains that human beings
participate in the divine reason. This is to say that through reason, man participates in
divinity of God.
o Thus, through reason and will, man (human being) is an image of God ‘Imago Dei’ (S.
Theol. I, q. 93, a. b).
o Aquinas’ notion of person is thus ontological and it considers a person as a mode of being
that is a high perfection shared even by God.
o Hence, any being that is termed person has infinite dignity and absolute value, be it God,
angel, or man.
o Person in this Boethian-Thomistic notion is thus analogically predicated of God, angels and
men (humans). It is not predicated univocally as this will amount to the same nature
between God and His creatures but analogically. In such an analogical understanding of
person, God is similar to man because both are persons. However, they are also different
because one is Divine person and the other is human person.

7.2. The Human Person

 He is the only person whose image mirrors in a more perfect way the perfection of God in
composed beings. He is not only a bridge between the spiritual and the material beings but
participates in acts proper to God though in a less noble degree. These are the acts that
characterise him as dignified suppositum among the composed beings. Some of these acts
include:
 Freedom: Only rational persons can master their own acts for their rational nature
makes them know their end and so have dominion over their own acts.
 Responsibility: man is free to choose to direct himself towards his end (God or not.)
 Friendship or Benevolent love: Due to his rationality only, a person can love
another for their own sake not as a means to another end. Furthermore, only a
rational being can know other beings as persons and so show them benevolent love.
  Ability to direct all his actions to wards God. It means man as a human person has
the capacity to act morally, with good as the Ultimate End or Ultimate Good of one’s
moral acts.

CHAPTER XI
THE PRINCIPLE OF CAUSALITY

9.1 Participation and causality: the doctrine of the four causes, the principle of causality; the end
as the cause of all causes. Action and its foundation in being.
9.2 The Principle of Causality
9.3 The doctrine of the four causes
9.4 Participation
9.5 Action and its foundation in Being

4.0 CAUSALITY
We can describe causality as the dynamic side of being which through the act of being (esse) can influence others
Causality as a doctrine is understood in terms of a relationship between something which influences another and
something that comes out of the influence. Causality then serves as the real influence that has been exerted upon the
effect. It is the capacity of a thing to communicate its perfections and produce new things. In a long run causality
brings about a substantial or accidental change on a thing from potentiality to actuality. Eventually the theme of
causality in its four forms (material, formal, efficient and final), gives a more vivid explanation of the notion of
being.

4.1 The Nature of Causality

The nature of causality entails a connection and relationship between cause and effect; and in this relationship, it is
important to note the most characteristic observations.

1. The effect depends on the cause as regards the act of being. This means that a cause is to the extent that an
effect cannot come to exist without it.
2. There is a clear distinction between the cause and effect.
3. The cause is always prior to the effect. The effect cannot exist before the cause. For example, a parent must
exist before the child, so there is precedence in existence.
4. An effect can also be a cause but only with regards to another effect, e.g. just as plasmodia is a cause of
malaria, the latter may also be a cause of joy to some qualified but unemployed physician.
Thus the nature of causality is in such a way that a cause is a cause when it is causing and an effect is so when it is
being caused. It implies that in the study of causality, a cause is a primary term and the centre of the entire notion.

4.2 Some key concepts in understanding causality

Cause: is that which exerts a positive influence on the production of another. That which influences is the cause, and
that which is produced is the effect. So the most important aspect of a cause is the positive influence and that the
effect depends on it.

Principle; A principle is that from which some else proceeds. It simply indicates a beginning but does not include
any positive influence on the being which arises. A principle therefore is not causality, but a cause is a principle.
And again all causes are principles but not all principles are causes.

Condition; A condition is simply a necessary disposition for causality to take place. It is an impediment that makes
it possible for the action of a cause to take place. Some conditions are necessary ( sine qua non) but not sufficient
while others are necessary and sufficient; and others are just favourable but not dispensable. Therefore a condition is
not endowed with causality but a prerequisite for causality. (for example, a cable is a prerequisite for the bulb to
glow but not the cause of the lighting).

Occasion; An occasion is something whose presence favours the action of a cause. It is simply an advantageous
though not dispensable situation for causality to take place.

The above concepts are just significant features in the nature of causality and are mere prerequisites for a cause to
take action but they are not causes themselves.

11.8 Experience of Causality.

The notion of causality is always experienced in our day-to-day life because the concepts of cause and effect are
familiar to our usual experience. For example, waves in water could be an effect of throwing a stone in water. In this
case the cause is the “throwing of the stone” and the effect are “the waves”. Therefore there is no need for special
experiments to find evidence of causality because our life is full of experience in which causality is revealed.

In our external experience for example, we observe the influence of things that are external to us. We observe the
influence which is distinct from mere closeness of things to us but things that are completely distinct from us. For
example, the sequence of night and day is an experience that is far from us but experienced as causality.

In our internal experience, everyone is aware that he is the cause of his own actions, for example walking; and so
experiences the power of his will to do these actions.

We also experience concurrent internal and external causality because we know our actions on other things and of
the influence that our surroundings have on us. For example: moulding certain substances.

Our experience of causality in the world therefore is an evident truth ( per se nota) which needs no demonstration,
we only need to study it and understand its basis. Thus understanding of causality requires knowledge of prior
beings called causes and the results called effects.

11.8.1 Cause and Effect.

From the understanding of cause already given, cause is a being that makes something else to proceed from itself as
dependent to another as real. It is a principle which involves dependence of the effect on its origin. Effect on the
other hand is that which is being produced. Thus in the principle of production, effect is the third factor that
necessitates the concept of cause. Thus effect is the outcome of the production.

The relationship between cause and effect is derived from the statement “Every effect has a cause”. This relationship
is therefore a significant one in the study and understanding of causality.

11.9 The Principle of Causality.

Causality involves a mutual connection cause and effect to the extent that one cannot be explained without the other.
Thus the cause-effect dependence between things can be universally explained as the principle of causality.
The principle of causality hence is commonly understood as the efficient cause, because whatever happens has an
efficient cause; though it might not have a material or formal cause. For example the world was created out of
nothing (ex nihilo) so it only has an efficient cause. The final cause is not a principle but only a conclusion, so the
efficient cause is the only principle of causality.

However, it is important to understand the scope of the principle of causality, because it has boundaries. The
principle of causality is discovered inductively through our experience which makes us aware of the limitation and
finitude of any given effect. Thus being caused by another thing is not a property of being as such because God who
is esse by essence is not caused. So the scope of the principle of causality is that it deals with beings which are
caused.

In understanding the principle of causality, there are various formulations of this principle such as; For St. Thomas
Aquinas in Compadium Theologiae, “Everything which begins to be has a cause”, For Aristotle in his Physics,
“Everything which moves is moved by something else”, “Everything contingent requires a cause”, “If something
possesses a perfection which is not derived from its essence, that perfection must come from an external cause”, “
whatever happens has a cause”. And finally Francesco Suarez puts that Omne quod movetur ab alio movetur and
again that Omne quod fit, ab alio fit (Everything that is, is by another).

5.0 THE DOCTRINE OF THE FOUR CAUSES.

The doctrine of causality, as has been presented above is one which is inseparable from the being of things. Aristotle
– the Philosopher was the first person to investigate on the cause of the world around us. He engaged a struggle in
finding out the appropriate causes of natural phenomena. Aristotle points out that his predecessors did not
appropriately use the term causality. Thus he classically divided the causes into four which he says is the best and
appropriate way of explaining causality. The doctrine of the four causes acts as the tool for proper investigation of
the world. He divides causality into material cause, formal cause, efficient cause and final cause.

St. Thomas Aquinas also affirms that there are and there should be four causes. These causes can be classified also
according to the various ways real dependence in being takes place.

However, with Aristotle, the above four causes are grouped into: intrinsic (which constitute the effect) and extrinsic
(which produce the effect). The intrinsic causes are material and formal, while the extrinsic causes are efficient and
final.

5.2 Intrinsic causes

5.2.1 Material cause

The material cause is the cause which contributes to the production of an effect by communicating itself as the
determinable constituent of the effect. Thus it is that from which a material thing is made. It is a measured or
material principle from which a sensible existent is made.
The material cause is of two types; Prime matter which is the potentiality of the thing to be or the indeterminate, and
the secondary matter which is the substance itself which exercises material causality with respect to the accidental
forms. The material cause is identical to the effect in terms of the material formation; it is referred to as that out of
which something has been made. For example a piece of cloth is a material cause of a garment, because it is the
material form which this garment has been made, so the garment has to be identical to the piece of cloth in material.

5.2.2 Formal Cause

The formal cause is a measuring principle upon which a thing is made. It is the intrinsic act of perfection by which a
thing is what it is. The formal cause determines the shape and form of an effect; in which the form of this effect can
either be substantial or accidental. The form of an effect is substantial when it is that which makes the thing to be
what it is. And it is accidental when it accounts for the quantity and quality of a being. For example a short man, the
“manness” is the substantial form while shortness is the accidental form.

In the formal cause, the material communicates itself as a determinable constituent but modified in a way that gives
shape to that material. Actually formal cause denotes that by which something is determined.

The formal cause, by its presence in the effect, fulfils the potentiality of the material cause such that the union of the
two causes is an actual thing with a determined perfection. The formal cause is always likened to the exemplary
cause which denotes the plan according to which something is done. The distinction between the two should be clear
that the exemplary cause is always in the efficient cause.

5.3 Extrinsic Cause

5.3.1 Efficient cause

The efficient cause is that which contributes to the production of an effect by exercising an activity which leads to
the effect. It is that by which something is done. It is the one that performs the activity of producing an effect. For
example in the making of the garment, the designer is the efficient cause.

The efficient cause is in such a way that the cause must contain whatever perfection it confers to the effect because a
thing cannot give what it doesn’t have (nemo dat quod non habet). So the cause communicates its own perfections to
the effect. So it is prior to the effect in nature and existence.

The efficient cause is associated with many concepts like; the principal cause, the immediate cause, the necessary
cause, physical cause and others. But the efficient cause is a universal cause because it holds true for every effect, no
being can be an exemption of this law. It is also necessary because effects must be caused; they don’t merely happen
to be caused.

5.3.2 Final Cause

The word final comes from the Latin word “finis” which means end, goal, aim. The final cause is that on account of
which something is done. It is the reason for which an effect is existing. The final cause as such, however is not
physical reality and so it cannot exert any activity. The final cause is the purpose that incites the efficient cause to
come up with an effect. However it is not the good that has been attained but it is the good to be attained. It is the
purpose of the effect. The final cause is the first among causes because it is the first in intention. The whole process
therefore starts with the purpose of the activity. So it causes by way of attraction.

12 RELATIONSHIP OF THE FOUR CAUSES

The material, formal, efficient and final causes are bound such that they can be termed as moments of the same
causality. Each cause presupposes the other that is to say that the four causes have an intrinsic relation. It is quite
evident that every agent acts according to its nature and the action is directed towards a certain end or purpose.

The relationship between the intrinsic causes (material and formal) is expressed by the fact that they are both
principles intrinsic to the same being and they are both mutual causes in respect to corporeal beings; thus their
relationship is expressed by the fact that matter is potency with respect to form, and form is act with respect to
matter. Therefore St. Thomas in De Principiis Naturae ,points it that matter can only be a form only if the form is in
matter and the form can be a cause of the matter only if the matter does not have actuality except through form. So
the intrinsic causes are constituent causes

Similarly the relationship between the extrinsic causes (efficient and final) is in the way that the agent (efficient) is
the cause of the end. And this is from the point of its fulfilment since the end is attained through the operation of the
agent. Meaning that the efficient cause only brings about the attainment of the final cause, only in some determinate
way.

Eventually, the extrinsic causes are causes of intrinsic causes. The final cause gives rise to the efficient cause which
imparts into the material cause an ideal form of the effect. In the production of a garment for example, there should
be a purpose for this garment (final cause) in the mind of the designer (efficient cause) who gives the shape (formal
cause) to the piece of cloth (material cause) so that the garment can be used.

Finally Jacques Maritain in his work about Thomistic revolution, puts it that in causality, there is a vital force which
is “the regulative force is the causes movement by which the action of the efficient cause regulates all
instrumentality which leads to the final effect.”

12.7 The end as the cause of all causes

In causation, the end is principally the influence of the entire process. Thus the end is the cause of all causes because
it is the cause of causality. The end is the first cause and the necessary prerequisite for the other types of causality
and thus has influence over them. The final cause or the end is the intention of any causality; it is the goal ( telos) of
all activity. It denotes the end because all causality is at the fulfilment of the purpose of the effect.
So the end or final cause has distinct features; that is: - it causes by attraction, it carries its causality through
attracting the agent to a certain end. It also causes by desire, the end is desired because it is simply what moves
other causes. It is also good, the final cause is good, it is its goodness that attract the agent to fulfil it.

Thus the order of this causality demonstrates that the final cause is the cause of all other causes. So, St. Thomas
Aquinas categorically states that the end is the cause of all causes (finis est causa causorum).

12.8 The End and other causes

The end as the finality of causality will eventually have a strong relationship with the other causes.

The end moves the agent (efficient cause) into action to produce its effects, because of the features of the end like
goodness, desirability and attractive, it provokes the activity of the agent into act. Thus the efficient cause is a
moved mover (movens motum) while the end is an unmoved mover (movens immobile).

The end determines the matter (material cause) through the activity of the agent. So the agent acts on matter for the
sake of the end. And again the end makes matter a material cause since matter receives form for the sake of the end.

It is for the sake of the end that form (formal cause) actualises matter and gives it an act of being.

So we can simply say that the end which emerges as end in the process of attainment determines all the other causes;
it is the unmoved mover (movens immobile). Thus the end is the cause of all causes (finis ets causa causorum).

CONCLUSION

Conclusively, Metaphysical survey is such a rich search to the extent that it is impossible to exhaust every aspect
that entails the study of its material object. However, it is important to recognise those who laid the foundations of
the Philosophy of Being especially on the themes discussed in this work. Aristotle for example, is a significant
character in the aspects of causality and analogy of Being; Plato, as the first to formulate the theory of participation;
St. Thomas Aquinas as another proponent of being and the degrees of perfection; and others.

To cause is to bring something into being and we form the concept of cause through our experience, both what we
experience outside us and what we experience within us. The major idea is that everything in the world is what it is
because it participates or resembles in its universal form from what it receives what it participates and so, that from
which it participates is its cause.

With that therefore, metaphysics has passed through strong turbulences and catastrophic waves throughout history.
However, it remains a point of discussion until today and very few Philosophers can pass quietly over such a science
that inquiries into the mystery of being. We cannot do any higher favour to metaphysics than to give it a firm and
scientific base as others like Aristotle, St. Thomas and others, have done in history so that it can be more presentable
in this way enabling it to yield fruitful discovery of the treasure found in being.