Advertisement

Being and Non-Being

Chapter
  • 81 Downloads

Abstract

As we have seen, mutability in Augustine’s metaphysics, is defined in terms of not-being (non-esse) and immutability in terms of being (esse or vere esse): “non enim est verum esse, ubi est et non esse.”1 If follows that these two principles — esse and nonesse — are formally more basic in the metaphysical dimension of his thought than are the more explicitly stressed mutability-immutability pair. Hence it is formally, though implicitly, more accurate to say that in Augustine’s ontology their rôle, rather than that of the mutability-immutability couplet, is analogous to the part played by the act-potency pair in “Thomism.”2

Keywords

Natural Evil Christian Doctrine Technical Precision Latin Language Metaphysical Dimension 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    On St. John’s Gospel, XXXVIII, 10 (PL 35, 1680).Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    See above, chapter II, p. 17.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    The Trinity, VII, 4.9 (PL 42, 942).Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Commentary on Psalm LXVIII, Sermon I, 5 (PL 36, 844).Google Scholar
  5. 5.
  6. 6.
    The Trinity, VII, 5.10 (PL 42, 942).Google Scholar
  7. 7.
  8. 1.
    “Deus autem si subsistit ut substantia proprie dici possit … nefas est autem dicere ut subsistat et subsit Deus bonitati suae, atque ilia bonitas non substantia sit … neque ipse Deus sit bonitas sua, sed in illo sit tamquam in subjecto …” Ibid.Google Scholar
  9. 2.
    “… ut nomine usitatiore intelligatur [sc, Deus] essentia, quod vere ac proprie dicitur …” ibid.Google Scholar
  10. 3.
    St. Thomas Aquinas makes the same point expressly with his usual technical precision, e.g., in Summa Theologiae I, q.14, a.1, ad 1; q.29, a.3, ad 3; q.29, a.2, c.Google Scholar
  11. 4.
    Commentary on Psalm CXXXIV, 4 (PL 37, 1741).Google Scholar
  12. 5.
    Cf. On Christian Doctrine, I, 32.35 (PL 34, 32); The City of God, VIII, 6 (PL 41, 251); XII, 2 (PL 41, 350); On the Manichean Way of Life, II, 1.1 (PL 32, 1345); Confessions, XIII, 3.4 (PL 32, 846); Commentary on Psalm CXXXIV, 4 (PL 37, 1741).Google Scholar
  13. 1.
    See below, Chapters V and IX.Google Scholar
  14. 2.
    E. Gilson, Being and Some Philosophers (Toronto: P.I.M.S., 1952), p. 31.Google Scholar
  15. 3.
    See below, chapter X.Google Scholar
  16. 1.
    See above, chapter II.Google Scholar
  17. 2.
    On St. John’s Gospel, XXXVIII, 10 (PL 35, 1680).Google Scholar
  18. 3.
    Commentary on Psalm CXXXIV, 4 (PL 37, 1741).Google Scholar
  19. 4.
    Commentary on Psalm VII, 19 (PL 36, 108).Google Scholar
  20. 5.
    On the Manichean Way of Life, II, 2. (PL 32, 1346).Google Scholar
  21. 6.
  22. 7.
    Specifically evil is the privation of good. Cf. Confessions, III, 7.12 (PL 32, 688). “Quid est autem aliud quod malum dicitur, nisi privatio boni?” Enchiridion, XI (PL 40, 236). “… non quod aliqua sit natura tenebrarum: omnis enim natura in quantum natura est, esse cogitur; esse autem, ad lucem pertinet; non esse, ad tenebras. Qui ergo deserit eum a quo factus est, et inclinatur in id unde factus est, id est, in nihilum, in hoc peccato tenebratur …” Commentary on Psalm VII, 19 (PL 36, 108).Google Scholar
  23. 8.
    On the Nature of the Good, I (PL 42, 551).Google Scholar
  24. 9.
    Cf. On the Nature of the Good, I (PL 42, 554).Google Scholar
  25. 1.
  26. 2.
    See below, Chapter VII.Google Scholar
  27. 3.
    “… nam et anima humana secundum quemdam modum dicitur immortalis: sed non est vera immortalitas, ubi tanta est mutabilitas, per quem et deficere et proficere potest …” Sermon CCXII, I (PL 38, 1059).Google Scholar
  28. 4.
    Cf. On the Immortality of the Soul, esp. VIII, 15 (PL 32, 1028-29); IX, 16 (PL 32, 1029); XI, 18 (PL 32, 1030-31); XII, 19 (PL 32, 1031); XVI, 25 (PL 32, 1034).Google Scholar
  29. 5.
    “Ubi est prima et summa vita, cui non est aliud vivere et aliud esse, sed idem est esse et vivere: et primus ac summus intellectus, cui non est aliud vivere et aliud intel-ligere, sed id quod est intelligere, hoc vivere, hoc esse est, unum omnia …” The Trinity, VI, 10.11 (PL 42, 931-32). “Nihil eorum [sc. creaturarum] est id quod habet … sed quae habet [sc. Deus], haec et est, et ea omnia unus est.” The City of God, XI, 10.2-3 (PL 41, 326-27).Google Scholar
  30. 6.
    Against Julian the Pelagian, V, 14.51 (PL 44, 813).Google Scholar
  31. 1.
    On the Nature of the Good, III-IV (PL 42, 553-54); Confessions, III, 7.12 (PL 32, 688); Enchiridion, XI (PL 40, 236).Google Scholar
  32. 2.
    Confessions, VII, 11.17 (PL 32, 742).Google Scholar
  33. 3.
    “Nulla enim natura, in quantum natura est, malum est; sed prorsus bonum, sine quo bono ullum esse non potest malum.” Incomplete Work Against Julian, III, 206 (PL 45, 1334).Google Scholar
  34. 4.
    “Omnia … quae facta sunt, mutabilia sunt, quia de nihilo facta sunt, id est, non fuerunt, et Deo faciente, sunt, et bona sunt: a bono enim facta sunt; nec omnino essent mutabilia bona ulla, in quantum sunt, nisi esset a quo crearentur, immutabile bonum. Mala igitur omnia, quae nihil sunt aliud quam privationes bonorum, ex bonis orta sunt, sed mutabilibus.” Incomplete Work Against Julian V, 60 (PL 45, 1495). “… quocumque modo, quacumque specie, quocumque ordine sunt [sc, naturae corruptibiles), quia Deus est a quo factae sunt: ideo autem non incommutabiles sunt, quia nihil est unde factae sunt.” On the Nature of the Good, X (PL 42, 554-55).Google Scholar
  35. 5.
    “… ut … bona … sine malis esse possint, sicut Deus ipse verus et summus …” The City of God, XIV, n.1 (PL 41, 418).Google Scholar
  36. 6.
    “Mala vero sine bonis esse non possint, quoniam naturae in quibus sunt in quantum naturae sunt, utique bonae sunt.” Ibid.Google Scholar
  37. 1.
    Cf. On the Nature of the Good, VIII (PL 42, 554); The City of God, XII, 4-5 (PL 41, 351-52).Google Scholar
  38. 2.
    Cf. On Freedom of Choice, II, 18.48 (PL 32, 1266).Google Scholar
  39. 3.
    Cf. Enchiridion, XCVI, 24 (PL 40, 276); C, 26 (PL 40, 279); On Freedom of Choice, III, 9.26 (PL 32, 1283-84); III, 11.32-33 (PL 32, 1287-88); The City of God, XII, 22 (PL 41, 335-36), etc.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Martinus Nijhoff, The Hague, Netherlands 1965

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Villanova UniversityUSA

Personalised recommendations