Combining Texts

Ideas for 'Mahaprajnaparamitashastra', 'Essence and Being' and 'Quaestiones de Potentia Dei'

unexpand these ideas     |    start again     |     choose another area for these texts

display all the ideas for this combination of texts

---

5 ideas

9. Objects / B. Unity of Objects / 1. Unifying an Object / b. Unifying aggregates

17555	'One' can mean undivided and not a multitude, or it can add measurement, giving number [Aquinas]
	Full Idea: There are two sorts of one. There is the one which is convertible with being, which adds nothing to being except being undivided; and this deprives of multitude. Then there is the principle of number, which to the notion of being adds measurement.
	From: Thomas Aquinas (Quaestiones de Potentia Dei [1269], q3 a16 ad 3-um)
	A reaction: [From a lecture handout] I'm not sure I understand this. We might say, I suppose, that insofar as water is water, it is all one, but you can't count it. Perhaps being 'unified' and being a 'unity' are different?

9. Objects / D. Essence of Objects / 1. Essences of Objects

14221	Serious essentialism says everything has essences, they're not things, and they ground necessities [Shalkowski]
	Full Idea: Serious essentialism is the position that a) everything has an essence, b) essences are not themselves things, and c) essences are the ground for metaphysical necessity and possibility.
	From: Scott Shalkowski (Essence and Being [2008], 'Intro')
	A reaction: If a house is being built, it might acquire an identity first, and only get an essence later. Essences can be physical, but if you extract them you destroy thing thing of which they were the essence. Does all of this apply to abstract 'things'.

9. Objects / D. Essence of Objects / 6. Essence as Unifier

14222	Essences are what it is to be that (kind of) thing - in fact, they are the thing's identity [Shalkowski]
	Full Idea: The route into essentialism is, first, a recognition that the essence of a thing is "what it is to be" that (kind of) thing; the essence of a thing is just its identity.
	From: Scott Shalkowski (Essence and Being [2008], 'Essent')
	A reaction: The first half sounds right, and very Aristotelian. The second half is dramatically different, controversial, and far less plausible. Slipping in 'kind of' is also highly dubious. This remark shows, I think, some confusion about essences.

9. Objects / D. Essence of Objects / 13. Nominal Essence

14226	We distinguish objects by their attributes, not by their essences [Shalkowski]
	Full Idea: In ordinary contexts, we distinguish objects not by their essences but by their attributes.
	From: Scott Shalkowski (Essence and Being [2008], 'Ess and Know')
	A reaction: Hence we have a gap between what bestows identity intrinsically, and how we bestow identity conventionally. If you could grasp the essence of something, you might predict a new attribute, as yet unobserved.

9. Objects / D. Essence of Objects / 15. Against Essentialism

14225	Critics say that essences are too mysterious to be known [Shalkowski]
	Full Idea: According to critics, the thorniest problem for essentialism is the question of our knowledge of essence. It is usually at this point that terms of abuse such as 'dark', 'mysterious', and 'occult' are wheeled out.
	From: Scott Shalkowski (Essence and Being [2008], 'Ess and Know')
	A reaction: I'm inclined to think that the existence of essences can be fairly conclusively inferred, but that attributing a precise identity to them is the biggest challenge.