Metaphysics Final Study Guide Fall 2024 PDF

Metaphysics Final Study Guide Fall 2024 A. Aristotle’s Metaphysics 1. According to A-Rizz-Toddler, what is wisdom? How does his reasoning proceed? State clearly what he takes wisdom to be and what wisdom is about. ○ Wonder, particulars, universals ○ all...

Metaphysics Final Study Guide Fall 2024 A. Aristotle’s Metaphysics 1. According to A-Rizz-Toddler, what is wisdom? How does his reasoning proceed? State clearly what he takes wisdom to be and what wisdom is about. ○ Wonder, particulars, universals ○ all men “desire understanding” ○ Wisdom, the why: understanding not experience ○ Science of first causes and principles ○ Being qua being - what is most truly being - divine - ultimately, God 2. Define the two types of analogy Aristotle uses, as opposed to univocal and equivocal speech. Explain the importance of analogy in Aristotle’s assertion that metaphysics is one science. ○ Univocal speech: same thing in same sense ○ Equivocal speech: two unrelated things called same word ○ Analogy of proportion: two things stand to one another in the same way (relationship is the same) ○ Analogy of Relation: two things standing in some relation to the same thing (term is the same) ○ Important to Metaphysics because about Being (One science) ○ Being spoken of in many senses ○ Metaphysics one science because about all being - and all things are being by analogy of relation ○ All ways of being sourced in substance; called being for different reasons, but being remains the same ○ Analogy allows us to see this, and study being qua being 3. What is the principle of non-contradiction? Explain why Aristotle calls it the “unhypothetical first principle of thought” and how he defends it against the stubborn denials of the Sophists. ○ /../Principle of non-contradiction: that a thing cannot be and not be at the same time and in the same respect ○ First principle of thought because thought must begin with the assumption that thought is in reality-intellect and reality have true relationship ○ If contradiction exists, then nothing exists-if you assert contradiction you are not saying anything ○ To deny principle is to deny reason its end (to understand reality) ○ Defends it not by proving it, but by showing those who deny it still live it out in real life  4. Describe the ways in which actuality is prior to potentiality and the way in which it is not. Why was this discovery crucial to Aristotle’s thought? Why is it still relevant today? ○ Actuality prior in both in formula and in substance ○ Formula, substance, form, generation time (in one sense) ○ Formula: form of what is in actuality prior to formula/knowledge of what is in potentiality ○ Can’t know it until it’s in act ○ A thing is actualized from potentiality by something which is in actuality ○ Prior in substance (what comes later in generation comes first in substance, e.g. baby to man) (prior in end) potentiality for sake of end ○ Proceeding towards an actuality which is an end ○ Form exists actually; matter exists potentially ○ Matter potential because it can accept a form ○ Actuality prior in substance: “one actuality always precedes another in time, until we come to the actuality of the eternal prime mover” 1050b5 ○ First thing which exists actually is the cause of all ○ Must be a first mover whose substance is actuality ○ “Nothing which exists potentially is eternal” ○ Potentiality prior to actuality in generation in time (baby before man) ○ Aristotle: valuing the actual over the potential: allowing you to see reality, but also understand finality of creation (priority of end of things) 5. Discuss the relationship between the order of knowledge and order of experience in Aristotle and Plato. How does this give rise to theory of the Forms in Plato and how does Aristotle address it? ○ Aristotle: knowledge comes from experience, intellectual checked by real ○ Plato: intellectual preexists, drawn out by experience/learning ○ Forms: there are things prior and preexistent to reality ○ Aristotle addresses it by positing that the real is primary, so that things actually existing are the highest ○ Subsistent forms existing separately can’t communicate their form to things ○ If a Form exists outside of the substance, then how can they be one? The universals do not exist apart from the substances (cf. p.133-134). B. Aquinas & “The Philosopher” 1. What are the three types of substances Aquinas describes in Being and Essence and how does his conception of a substance (ousia/essentia) differ from Aristotle’s? 3 types of substances: 1) God, whose essence His very being 2) Immaterial substances (their being other than their essence)  3) Substances composed of matter and form (nature or quiddity received in matter) Aristotle: substance composed of matter and form, with matter in potency to form’s act Aquinas: builds on this, with the composite of form & matter (essence) in potency to the actus essendi; when the essence is actualized, the substance comes to be Substance now includes act of being Josef Answer: Basically, it seems that Aristotle conceived of Things as sufficiently explained by Hylomorphism: the soul is where the buck stops, even if its motion is traced back to God the first mover. Aquinas adds the layer of the Gift of Being to the body-soul composite, making the buck stop with God as gift-giver of being. Aquinas essentially moves everything up a level and starts with something purely Divine. 2. Why is there something rather than nothing? How would Aristotle and Aquinas answer this question in turn? ○ Aristotle: There is something rather than nothing because the first mover moved (cf. p.205). The first mover is the only thing that exists of necessity. ○ Aquinas: There is something rather than nothing because God chooses of His own free will and out of love to create. 3. Compare Aristotle’s understanding of God to that of Aquinas. Is God definable? ○ Aristotle: First mover and principle of all things; most properly being, hence highest kind of being; hence thinking - Intellect; Intellect whose intelligible object is Himself ○ “We say that God is a living being which is eternal and the best; so life and continuous duration and eternity belong to God and this is God.” pg. 205 ○ Aquinas: agrees but goes farther? Different because of his being/essence ideas ○ You could maybe say that Aristotle believes in God as a first mover, whereas Aquinas demonstrates God is not only moving us as the first in a finite regress, but also in always giving being, not just in motion?? ○ God’s essence = His being; not in a genus; all perfections are in Him one ○ God not definable because not another being among beings, but being Itself ○ God creates from nothing; Aristotle posits an eternal universe. 4. How does Aquinas sort out the question of the universals? If they exist, how so? What is their relation to essence (ousia)? ○ Ch. 3 That to which notion of Genus, species and difference belongs said of a determinate thing ○ Notion of a universal (genus/species) cannot belong to an essence when expressed as a part  ○ Genus & species cannot belong to an essence as a reality existing apart because then they are not attributed to an individual - individual cannot be something separated from itself ○ Separate Universal can’t help us know the individual ○ Genus, Species, and difference are related to essence as a particular, individual thing, and are determined according to both matter and form ○ Josef Answer: Aquinas tackles two understandings of universals in Chapter Three. i. 1) Universals (Genus/Species) cannot belong to essence when expressed as a PART (ex. humanity, rationality) because they are attributed to an individual determinate thing, not the collective (ex. humanity). Humanity or rationality are not universals (species making difference), but rather principles of difference. ii. 2) Universals (Genus/Species) cannot belong to essence outside of individual things, because then they would not be said of an individual (ex. Socrates would be separate from himself). We wouldn’t know him by this universal, making it no help in knowing anything. 5. Why is it wrong to conceive of “esse” as a thing? If it is not a thing, what is it? ○ “Esse” not a thing, but rather, existence ○ The actualization of the thing - informs thing; act/gift of existence ○ Nonsubsistent, gives itself to thing so that thing comes to be ○ God is being itself, gives esse to thing ○ Hylomorphism in potency, actualized by esse C. “All Thought is Metaphysical” 1. How does Aquinas understand the human person? The human person is a unified composite of body and soul. The soul is the form of the body, i.e. it actualizes the matter of the body. The life of the soul is the life of the whole, transmitted. The whole of the human person is in potentiality to the actus essendi, the gift of being, via the soul. Josef Answer: God > gift of being > soul > soul + body (I think) Substantial form (forma partis) - soul Forma totius - humanity (soul+body) - this is his essence 2. What is the meaning of “creation” and how does it differ from the notions of change and temporal beginning? Josef Answer: Creation: the product of an act bringing all existing things into existence, preceded by no existing thing (God does not exist, he subsists). It is not a “change” as change requires underlying matter, of which there was none until after creation. Creation never ‘began’ in the sense that there was no before–it did not begin temporally or in time.  Time is a product of creation, probably relative to the motions begun by God. Temporal beginning and change are alterations with reference to time Creation ex nihilo means that God brought about all creatures out of nothing Time is a creature, therefore it is a product of the act of creation, it does not preexist it Creation is not temporal formation form pre-existing material but the bringing about of something from nothing (only God can do this) 3. In his Summa Contra Gentiles (II, 3, 6) Aquinas says: “An error concerning creatures…spills over into false opinion about God, and takes men’s minds away from Him.” Why does theology require a proper understanding of creatures? Why does theology require an accurate metaphysics? Josef Answer: We know God by His creation. There’s literally no other way, as we cannot define God or know His essence. So we are looking towards reflections (negative theology) from His creation. If you misunderstand creation, you will not be able to understand the Creator. Metaphysics is really the highest study of Creation, as it studies Being foremost, which we know through Creation. Theology (study of God, who we know through creation and revelation) relies on Metaphysics for the creation part. Further, Metaphysics shows us the means of comparing creation to God by Analogy, as we share in His life and his Gift of Being. Don’t screw that up or bad stuff. We can’t know God as he is because of his transcendence Therefore our knowledge of God is based on comparison drawn to creatures However we have to properly understand analogy: similarity within a greater difference Otherwise we can make God too remote or too anthropomorphic Because God is being itself, all creatures participate in God’s being Therefore we will make mistake about God if we miss creatures 4. Some Christian cosmologists point to the Big Bang as evidence of God’s Creation, corresponding to Genesis. Atheist cosmologists have developed theories that avoid a “beginning” to the universe in response. Why are both wrong? ○ Josef Answer: 1) The Big Bang is something, and could not be the ‘beginning’ as it is within time–at the very most it would be the intelligible effect of the act of creation. We know that time and motion (Big Bang is under these) are also creations. 2) Atheist cosmologists are wrong to assume an eternal universe, as an infinite regress of motion is impossible. But we can’t use time frames to say ‘before’ and ‘after’  unfortunately–needless to say, time and motion are not sufficient explanations of themself, necessitating a creation (?) ○ The Big Bang does not account for the presence of matter, time, and change in the universe–it’s just another version of the Pagan formation of order from chaos ○ God’s Creation is something from nothing, and points to time and matter itself coming into existence when it did not exist before ○ Atheists cannot account for something separate from physical reality causing that reality; i.e. The existence of being itself, preexisting all beings ○ Time and matter are contingent and need a source greater and other than them 5. In what ways is Deism (the conception of God as a “Clockmaker” or “Great Architect”) a metaphysical failure? Metaphysically speaking, why is God closer to us than our own selves? ○ Josef Answer: Deism posits a God who can step away from Creation. This God is nothing like the classical and Christian God, who by His gift of Being, is holding all things in existence. What He loves he knows, and what He knows is where He is (not locally obviously), meaning He is nearer to you than you are to yourself. ○ Hasn’t set things into existence and left them ○ Need God continually present in world because everything needs the actus essendi in order to remain in existence ○ God is present because holding all things in existence ○ God is closer to us than our own selves because we partake of His life (in a way). We receive the gift of being from Him, but He is being itself so He is more us than we are (I guess). ○ Since God is being itself his sharing of his life must be continuous…hence God can’t just make it and let it run because it needs being in it at all times