But that is why the arguments for this stance along with motivations of its defender seem to be more interesting. Footnote 1 Although the essence of God as traditionally conceived is undoubtedly different from that of a horse, it seems that the thesis stating that divine essence is just identical with God Himself is not a trivial one and – from the point of view of common sense (that does not have the decisive voice in philosophy it is a philosophical starting point, though) – is very suspicious. Aristotelian philosophers called these determinations accidents (proper ones as regards the former example, improper ones in the case of the latter). These properties are either entailed by the essence of this thing (as being able to neigh) or not (as having its hair done), yet they are said to belong to it. A given thing, apart from being something (a horse, say) and existing (provided that it exists at all), is (usually, if not always) such and such – we could say that it has certain properties. For the Aristotelian philosopher, a thing cannot lose its essence and keep on existing – if you make the horse into meat, this horse will lose its essence. The essence of a particular thing is a factor responsible for what the very thing is (a horse, say). In this article I consider whether Aquinas’ arguments are conclusive and what was his purpose of upholding the thesis about divine essence. Among philosophers who defended this view Thomas Aquinas is a classical example. The traditional philosophy of God maintains that God is His essence.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |