Essence and existence

John F. Wippel

doi:10.1017/CHO9781107446953.055

45 - Essence and existence

from VIII - Metaphysics

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 August 2014

John F. Wippel

Edited by

Robert Pasnau

Edited in association with

Christina van Dyke

Show author details

John F. Wippel: Affiliation:
The Catholic University of America
Robert Pasnau: Affiliation:
University of Colorado Boulder
Christina van Dyke: Affiliation:
Calvin College, Michigan

Book contents

Get access

Summary

SOURCES FOR THE SCHOLASTIC DEBATE

At least two issues contributed to the extensive discussion of essence and existence by Latin thinkers in the thirteenth and early fourteenth centuries. First, there was a need to explain the metaphysical structure of immaterial entities other than God (angels, within the Christian tradition) in a way that would distinguish them from the absolute simplicity of God, especially for those who rejected the possibility of matter–form composition both for such entities and for human souls (see Chapters 21 and 46). Second, there was a need to account metaphysically for the distinction between God, the uncaused cause who necessarily exists, and all other beings, which depend on something else for their existence.

This famous scholastic dispute over the relationship between essence and existence has its roots in earlier Latin and Arabic discussions. Among Latin sources, Boethius was especially influential. He begins his De hebdomadibus by listing a series of axioms, some of which compare and contrast that-which-is (id quod est) and being (esse). Consider, for instance, Axiom II: “Being and that-which-is are diverse”; Axiom VII: “Every simple entity has its being and that-which-is as one”; and Axiom VIII: “In every composite entity its being and that-which-is are diverse.” With some exceptions, modern interpreters of Boethius do not see in this contrast a real distinction between essence and existence (esse) as two distinct intrinsic principles of being. Rather, according to many of these interpreters, Boethius compares and distinguishes between a concrete entity (that-which-is) and a form in which it shares (esse). In simple beings they are identical, whereas in composite beings they are diverse.

Type: Chapter
Information: The Cambridge History of Medieval Philosophy , pp. 622 - 634

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CHO9781107446953.055 [Opens in a new window]

Publisher: Cambridge University Press

Print publication year: 2014

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Brosch, Hermann, Der Seinsbegriff bei Boethius mit besonderer Berücksichtigung der Beziehung von Sosein und Dasein (Innsbruck: Felizian Rauch, 1931)

Roland-Gosselin, M.-D., Le “De ente et essentia” de s. Thomas d’Aquin (Paris: Vrin, 1926) pp. 142–5

Fabro, Cornelio, La nozione metafisica di partecipazione secondo S. Tommaso d’Aquino, 3rd edn (Turin: Società Editrice Internazionale, 1963) pp. 102–3, 33–7

Hadot, Pierre, “La distinction de l’être et de l’étant dans le ‘De Hebdomadibus’ de Boèce,” in Die Metaphysik im Mittelalter (Berlin: De Gruyter, 1963) pp. 147–53

Les Études Classiques 38 (1970) 143–56

McInerny, Ralph, Boethius and Aquinas (Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 1990) pp. 161–98

Marenbon, John, Boethius (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003) pp. 88–90

Galonnier, Alain’s commentary in Boèce. Opuscula Sacra (Louvain: Peeters, 2007) I: 336–45

Druart, Thérèse-Anne, “‘Shay’ or ‘Res’ as Concomitant of ‘Being’ in Avicenna,” Documenti e studi sulla tradizione filosofica medievale 12 (2001) pp. 125–6Google Scholar

Wisnovsky, Robert, “Avicenna and the Avicennian Tradition,” in Adamson, P. and Taylor, R. (eds.) The Cambridge Companion to Arabic Philosophy (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005) pp. 108–9

Wisnovsky, Robert, Avicenna’s Metaphysics in Context (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2003)

Caster, Kevin, “William of Auvergne and St. Thomas Aquinas on the Real Distinction between Being and Essence,” in Hackett, J. et al. (eds.) Being and Thought in Aquinas (Binghamton, NY: Global Academic Publications, 2004) 75–108

Archives d’histoire doctrinale et littéraire du moyen âge 15 (1946) 55–91

Aquinas, Thomas, On Being and Essence (Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies, 1968) pp. 23–4;

Wippel, John F., The Metaphysical Thought of Thomas Aquinas: From Finite Being to Uncreated Being (Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 2000) p. 136 n. 11

Houser, R. E., “The Real Distinction and the Principles of Metaphysics: Avicenna and Aquinas,” in Houser, R. E. (ed.) Laudemus viros gloriosos. Essays in Honor of Armand Maurer, CSB (Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 2007) 74–108

Fabro, Cornelio, Participation et causalité selon S. Thomas d’Aquin (Louvain: Publications universitaires,1961) p. 195

Wielockx, Robert in Giles of Rome, Apologia (Florence: Olschki, 1985) pp. 236–40

Donati, Silvia, “Studi per una cronologia delle opera di Egidio Romano. I: Le opera prima del 1285 – I commenti aristotelici,” Documenti e studi sulla tradizione filosofica medievale 1 (1990) pp. 21–5, 71Google Scholar

Porro, Pasquale, however, in “An Historiographical Image of Henry of Ghent,” in Vanhamel, W. (ed.) Henry of Ghent. Proceedings of the International Colloquium on the Occasion of the 700th Anniversary of his Death (1293) (Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1996) p. 391

Revue de l’Université d’Ottawa 23 (1953)

Morewedge, P. (ed.) Philosophies of Existence Ancient and Medieval (New York: Fordham University Press, 1982) pp. 134–6

Paulus, Jean, Henri de Gand. Essai sur les tendances de sa métaphysique (Paris: Vrin, 1938) pp. 283–4

Nash, Peter, “Giles of Rome on Boethius’ ‘Diversum est esse et id quod est’,” Mediaeval Studies 20 (1950) pp. 57–8, 90–1;Google Scholar

Gregorianum 38 (1957) 103–15

Suárez, Gregorio, “El pensamiento de Egidio Romano en torno a la distinción de esencia y existencia,” La Ciencia Tomista 75 (1948) 66–99, 230–72Google Scholar

Wippel, , “Thomas Aquinas and Siger of Brabant on Being and the Science of Being as Being,” Modern Schoolman 82 (2005) pp. 155–6Google Scholar

Maierù, A. and Bagliani, A. Paravicini (eds.) Studi sul xiv secolo in memoria di Anneliese Maier (Rome: Edizione di Storia e Letteratura, 1981) pp. 309–16

Van Steenberghen, Fernand, Maître Siger de Brabant (Louvain: Publications universitaires, 1977) pp. 291–2

Putallaz, François-Xavier and Imbach, Ruedi, Profession, philosophe: Siger de Brabant (Paris: Cerf, 1997) pp. 153, 163

König-Pralong, Catherine, Avènement de l’aristotélisme en terre chrétienne (Paris: Vrin, 2005) pp. 49–52;

Duin, J. J., “La bibliothèque philosophique de Godefroid de Fontaines,” Estudios Lulianos 3 (1959) 21–36, 137–60;Google Scholar

Wippel, John F., “Godfrey of Fontaines at the University of Paris in the Last Quarter of the Thirteenth Century,” in Aertsen, J. A. et al. (eds.) Nach der Verurteilung von 1277. Philosophie und Theologie an der Universität von Paris im letzten Viertel des 13. Jahrhunderts (Berlin: De Gruyter, 2001) 359–89

Aiello, Andrea and Wielockx, Robert, Goffredo di Fontaines, aspirante baccelliere Sentenziario: le autografe “Notule de scientia theologie” e la cronologia del ms. Paris BNF Lat. 16297 (Turnhout: Brepols, 2008)

Wippel, John F., The Metaphysical Thought of Godfrey of Fontaines: A Study in Late Thirteenth-Century Philosophy (Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 1981) pp. 47–53

Wippel, John F., “Possible Sources for Godfrey of Fontaines’ Views on the Act-Potency Composition of Simple Creatures,” Mediaeval Studies 44 (1984) 222–44Google Scholar

Wielockx, Robert, “Le ms. Paris Nat. lat. 16096 et la condemnation du 7 mars 1277,” Recherches de théologie ancienne et médiévale 48 (1981) 227–37Google Scholar

Gómez Caffarena, José, Ser participado y ser subsistente en la metafisica de Enrique de Gante (Rome: Pontificia Universitas Gregoriana, 1958) pp. 263–6

Paulus, , Henri de Gand, pp. 311–14; Walter Hoeres, “Wesen und Dasein bei Heinrich von Gent und Duns Scot,” Franziskanische Studien 47 (1965) pp. 146

Ypma, Eelcko, “Recherches sur la carrière scolaire et la bibliothèque de Jacques de Viterbe +1308,” Augustiniana 24 (1974) 247–82;Google Scholar

Augustiniana 25 (1975) 223–82

Wippel, John F., “The Dating of James of Viterbo’s Quodlibet I and Godfrey of Fontaines’ Quodlibet VIII,” Augustiniana 24 (1974) 348–86Google Scholar

Gossiaux, Mark, “James of Viterbo on the Relationship between Essence and Existence,” Augustiniana 49 (1999) 73–107Google Scholar

Wippel, John F., “James of Viterbo on the Essence-Existence Relationship (Quodlibet 1, q. 4), and Godfrey of Fontaines on the Relationship between Nature and Supposit (Quodlibet 7, q. 5),” in Sprache und Erkenntnis im Mittelalter (Miscellanea Mediaevalia 13/2) (Berlin: De Gruyter, 1981) 777–87

O’Brien, A. J., “Duns Scotus’ Teaching on the Distinction between Essence and Existence,” New Scholasticism 38 (1964) 61–77Google Scholar

Wolter, Allan B., “The Formal Distinction,” in Ryan, J. K. and Bonansea, B. M. (eds.) John Duns Scotus, 1265–1965 (Washington, DC: Catholic University of America, 1965) 45–60

Maurer, Armand, The Philosophy of William of Ockham in the Light of its Principles (Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies, 1999) pp. 60–2

Book contents

45 - Essence and existence

Summary

Access options

References

Save book to Kindle

Save book to Dropbox

Save book to Google Drive