Essence and existence

doi:10.1017/CHOL9780521762182.008

45 - Essence and existence

from VIII - Metaphysics

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 28 May 2011

Robert Pasnau

John Wippel

Show author details

Robert Pasnau: Affiliation:
University of Colorado Boulder

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).

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

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CHOL9780521762182.008 [Opens in a new window]

Publisher: Cambridge University Press

Print publication year: 2009

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.)

Book purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Adamson, Peter. “Al-Kindi and the Reception of Greek Philosophy,” in Adamson, P. and Taylor, R. (eds.) The Cambridge Companion to Arabic Philosophy (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005).Google Scholar

Aertsen, Jan A., Emery, Kent, and Speer, Andreas (eds.). Nach der Verurteilung von 1277: Philosophie und Theologie an der Universität von Paris im letzten Viertel des 13. Jahrhunderts: Studien und Texte (Berlin: De Gruyter, 2001).Google Scholar

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).Google Scholar

Aquinas, Thomas. An Exposition of the “On the Hebdomads” of Boethius, tr. Schultz, J. L. and Synan, E. A. (Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 2001).Google Scholar

Boethius, . Opuscula sacra, ed. Galonnier, A. (Leuven: Peeters, 2007).Google Scholar

Brosch, Hermann Josef. Der Seinsbegriff bei Boethius mit besonderer Berücksichtigungder Beziehung von Sosein und Dasein (Innsbruck: Felizian Rauch, 1931).Google Scholar

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).Google Scholar

Aquinas, Thomas. De ente et essentia (Venice, 1496).Google Scholar

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).Google Scholar

Duin, Joannes Josef. “La bibliothèque philosophique de Godefroid de Fontaines,” Estudios Lulianos 3 (1959), 137–60.Google Scholar

Fabro, Cornelio. La nozione metafisica di partecipazione secondo S. Tommaso d’Aquino, 3rd edn (Turin: Società editrice internazionale, 1963; repr. Segni: Editrice del Verbo Incarnato, 2005).Google Scholar

Fabro, Cornelio. Participation et causalité selon S. Thomas d’Aquin (Leuven: Publications universitaires, 1961).Google Scholar

,Giles of Rome. Theoremata de corpore Christi (Bologna, 1481).

,Giles of Rome. Theoremata de esse et essentia, ed. Hocedez, E. (Leuven: Museum Lessianum, 1930).Google Scholar

Gómez Caffarena, José. Ser participado y ser subsistente e la metafísica de Enrique de Gante (Rome: Pontificia Università Gregoriana, 1958).Google Scholar

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

Grant, Edward. “The Medieval Doctrine of Place: Some Fundamental Problems and Solutions,” in Maierù, A. and Paravicini-Bagliani, A. (eds.) Studi sul XIV secolo in memoria di Anneliese Maier (Rome: Edizioni di Storia e Letteratura, 1981).Google Scholar

Hadot, Pierre. “Forma essendi: interprétation philologique et interprétation philosophique d’une formule de Boèce,” études Classiques 38 (1970).Google Scholar

Hoeres, Walter. “Wesen und Dasein bei Heinrich von Gent und Duns Scot,” Franziskanische Studien 47 (1965).Google Scholar

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).Google Scholar

König-Pralong, Catherine. Avènement de l’aristotélisme en terre chrétienne (Paris: Vrin, 2005).Google Scholar

Maurer, Armand. The Philosophy of William of Ockham in the Light of its Principles (Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies, 1999).Google Scholar

McInerny, Ralph. Boethius and Aquinas (Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 1990).Google Scholar

Nash, Peter W. “Giles of Rome on Boethius’s ‘Diversum est esse et id quod est’,” Mediaeval Studies 20 (1950).Google Scholar

O’Brien, Andrew. “Duns Scotus’ Teaching on the Distinction between Essence and Existence,” New Scholasticism 38 (1964).CrossRef Google Scholar

Aquinas, Thomas. On Being and Essence, tr. Maurer, A. (Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies, 1968).Google Scholar

Paulus, Jean. Henri de Gand. Essai sur les tendances de sa métaphysique (Paris: Vrin, 1938).Google Scholar

Porro, Pasquale. “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).Google Scholar

Porro, Pasquale. “Possibilità e Esse essentiae in Enrico di Gand,” 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).Google Scholar

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

Ryan, John K. and Bonansea, Bernardino M.. “John Duns Scotus, 1265–1965,” in Ryan, J. K. and Bonansea, B. M. (eds.) Studies in Philosophy and the History of Philosophy, vol. III (Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 1965).Google Scholar

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

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

Wippel, John F. “The Dating of James of Viterbo’s Quodlibet I and Godfrey of Fontaines’ Quodlibet VIII,” Augustiniana 24 (1974).Google 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 (Berlin: De Gruyter, 1981).Google Scholar

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).Google Scholar

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

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

Wippel, John F. “The Relationship Between Essence and Existence in Late Thirteenth-Century Thought: Giles of Rome, Henry of Ghent, Godfrey of Fontaines, and James of Viterbo,” in Morewedge, P. (ed.) Philosophies of Existence Ancient and Medieval (New York: Fordham University Press, 1982).Google Scholar

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

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

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