tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14371726.post3725313838828385119..comments2023-04-17T07:26:06.116-05:00Comments on Gratia Super Naturam: Ens Commune?Vincentiushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04622010447899090511noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14371726.post-53867684004724288462009-11-11T05:09:14.205-06:002009-11-11T05:09:14.205-06:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14371726.post-55559812123299093602009-02-18T11:26:00.000-06:002009-02-18T11:26:00.000-06:00Thank you Vincentius!You helped resolve some diffi...Thank you Vincentius!<BR/><BR/>You helped resolve some difficulties in my mind. In particular, I was confused about why St. Thomas would call ens a genus. I had forgotten about that broader sense of genus, and hence my confusion. I actually recently read about the broader sense of genus in De Veritate. It is interesting to note the authority used to justify this broader sense of genus. <BR/>Vel Frater Asinushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00220115052492563584noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14371726.post-44529201757771280742009-02-18T10:45:00.000-06:002009-02-18T10:45:00.000-06:00Frater:Thanks for your follow-up. Regarding your ...Frater:<BR/><BR/>Thanks for your follow-up. <BR/><BR/>Regarding your questions concerning the univocity of ens commune:<BR/><BR/>1) St. Thomas does refer to being as a genus (see, for example the Fourth Way), but I think it is in a loose, non-univocal sense of genus. For he argues explicitly for the fact that ens is not a genus (following Aristotle at 998b 21-27): ST, Iª, q.3, a.5, co; SCG, Vincentiushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04622010447899090511noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14371726.post-76219831178119635212009-02-14T11:08:00.000-06:002009-02-14T11:08:00.000-06:00Matters were not clear in my mind before hand, and...Matters were not clear in my mind before hand, and I think your criticisms are just Vincentius. I was wrong about the way I described the difference between abstraction and separatio.<BR/><BR/>That being said, I think that it is still necessary for abstraction to precede separatio, just as physics must precede metaphysics in the order of learning. So, I am inclined to the position which you Frater Asinushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00220115052492563584noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14371726.post-62385492147664990772009-02-13T19:06:00.000-06:002009-02-13T19:06:00.000-06:00Frater,Could you specify what you mean by abstract...Frater,<BR/><BR/>Could you specify what you mean by abstracting from all matter AND performing a separation? I don't see St. Thomas mention abstraction in q.5, a.1. He speaks of abstraction broadly at the beginning of q.5, a.3, but I argue that there it is not brought up as opposed to separation. Rather, he clarifies the two in the course of the article. His final position is that in cases Vincentiushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04622010447899090511noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14371726.post-49534249004443475532009-02-13T18:00:00.000-06:002009-02-13T18:00:00.000-06:00Frater: you are correct to distinguish between "ab...Frater: you are correct to distinguish between "abstraction" taken strictly, as proper to the first operation, and "separatio" as proper to the second operation of the intellect.<BR/><BR/>Vincentius and I have discussed this at length, mostly last semester. I think his further comments would be helpful here. What I would like to note first in this regard, however, is that these "operations" must John B.https://www.blogger.com/profile/12263867557448283280noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14371726.post-42549940665876037002009-02-09T13:44:00.000-06:002009-02-09T13:44:00.000-06:00Thank you both for your insights!First of all, DW...Thank you both for your insights!<BR/><BR/>First of all, DW I think you are right to bring up separatio. We actually just discussed this idea in metaphysics. My reasoning as follows: In order to do Metaphysics we have to do three things. First we must have a demonstration that there are separated substances. Second we must abstract from all matter and motion, even signate matter. Finally we Frater Asinushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00220115052492563584noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14371726.post-46540403352692088112009-02-09T11:32:00.000-06:002009-02-09T11:32:00.000-06:00My first thoughts: (that is, on your questions, no...My first thoughts: (that is, on your questions, not simply my first thoughts as such, although those, too, would perhaps be pertinent here, if only I could remember them distinctly). Most of this will perhaps state the obvious; but I like beginning there. Or trying to, please God.<BR/><BR/>1) Concerning the "abstraction" question. From "De Trinitate" q. 5, a. 4, recall that, in order to determineJohn B.https://www.blogger.com/profile/12263867557448283280noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14371726.post-62251614188027578822009-02-08T19:38:00.000-06:002009-02-08T19:38:00.000-06:00As to whether St. Thomas considers angels as part ...As to whether St. Thomas considers angels as part of ens commune, Mgsr. Wippel offers this argument:<BR/><BR/>1) Ens commune has the same extension as esse commune. (In Librum De Divinis Nominibus, c.V, l.2, n.655)<BR/><BR/>2) Angels (as all existents which receive their being) are included in esse commmune. (Ibid., n.660)<BR/><BR/>Therefore, etc.<BR/><BR/>Granted, this doesn't help much with Vincentiushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04622010447899090511noreply@blogger.com