The Real Distinction (Aquinas 101)

[@displaychicken]

“All chairs are quite different”. - HG Wells “If they were different you could not call them all-chairs”. - GK Chesterton

[@jacobtaylor5365]

Fathers and Associates of the Thomistic Institute, thank you so much for what you provide for us as Catholics, Christians, and human beings. I am about to begin my first year teaching high school physics, astronomy/geology, and maths and I am thankful for your work.

[@beverlykamps8249]

The Dominicans never disappoint...excellent course and explanations are made understandable if you do not have a background in philosophy.

[@ThomisticInstitute]

Cheers!

[@fernandadasilva2894]

@Matt Mayuiers they are both good orders

[@apostolicapologetics4829]

@matthewmayuiers You stated, "jesuits have a more scandalous history" in reference to what? I think Aquinas is theologically correct on almost everything except his definition of "what constitutes as a lie?"

[@YgnaciaProductions]

We have been using your series for homeschooling, thank you~

[@ThomisticInstitute]

Delighted to hear!

[@SevenDeMagnus]

Cool, thanks God and St. Thomas Aquinas for being an instrument. God bless.

[@nietzschesmoustache3585]

THANK YOU

[@kelvinvillegas5310]

Thank you so much for all these videos. !!

[@ThomisticInstitute]

Our pleasure!

[@Enigmatic_philosopher]

Here is a philosophical critique of some of the main points presented in the video "The Real Distinction (Aquinas 101)" from an analytic metaphysics perspective: The video helpfully introduces Thomas Aquinas' doctrine of the real distinction between essence and existence. However, philosophers continue to debate the coherence of this distinction, as well as whether it maps onto mind-independent features of reality. Specifically, arguments that essences could possibly exist without existence are controversial. Some argue we have no epistemic access to entities existing apart from concrete instantiation. Relatedly, the video asserts the distinction applies within the Trinity, but interpreting divine realities raises unique theological challenges. Critics argue the doctrine of divine simplicity renders the distinction incoherent as applied to God. Presenting contingent beings as necessarily involving both essence and existence may reify conceptual abstractions rather than reflecting open-textured processes of emergence. Asserting essences are metaphysically priorized over concrete particulars assumes a controversial brand of top-down essentialism. But essences may be abstracted from empirical particulars rather than vice versa. While clarifying Aquinas' view, the video downplays interpretive complexities and alternatives. It could have situated the doctrine more within contemporary metaphysical debates over these fundamental issues. The video provides a clear introduction but a more robust critique would acknowledge philosophically dissenting perspectives and discuss interpretive challenges facing Aquinas' influential yet disputed metaphysical framework.

[@iqgustavo]

🎯 Key Takeaways for quick navigation: 00:00 🌟 In our inquiry into the world, we define things by their essences, which represent what a thing is and its core properties. 01:20 🧐 Everything in our experience is contingent, meaning it can exist or not exist and relies on a cause for its existence. 02:17 🤯 God, in contrast to everything else, exists essentially and doesn't receive existence from anything else; He is the ultimate source of existence for all other things. Made with HARPA AI

[@michaelfaherty4413]

I can't help thinking about the "caused beings", the 10 thousand babies who will be murdered (aborted) this Saturday. It seems that some of us have lost our minds. Love your videos. You are a light shining in the darkness.

[@ThomisticInstitute]

Thanks!

[@goobgoobgoobgoobgoobgoob]

@@ThomisticInstitutebro this insane

[@kristindreko1998]

Thank you, may our Lord Jesus Christ bless you!

[@brysonstevens1431]

Could you guys please do a video on the differences between the real, virtual, and formal distinctions ie Aquinas, Suarez, Bonaventure? Any good sources would be great as well.

[@mattmckenna8545]

Very well done videos! Great instructional tools!!!

[@ThomisticInstitute]

Thank you!

[@sunyongkim6966]

What is the difference between principle and cause? Is cause a principle or the other way around? Thank you!

[@blag345]

The answer is found in the Summa Theologiae, first part, question 33, article 1: Objection 1: It seems that the Father cannot be called the principle of the Son, or of the Holy Ghost. For "principle" and "cause" are the same, according to the Philosopher. But we do not say that the Father is the cause of the Son. Therefore we must not say that He is the principle of the Son. Reply by Aquinas: The Greeks use the names "cause" and "principle" indifferently in divine things, but the Latin teachers do not use the name "cause," but only "principle." The reason is because "principle" is more general than "cause", like "cause" is more general than "element". For the first endpoint, or also the first part, of a thing is called "principle", but not "cause". Now the more general some name is, the more suitable it is for it to be assumed in divine things, as was said above, because the more special the names are, the more they determine the mode that suits a creature. Hence the name "cause" seems to imply a diversity of substance, and a dependence of one thing from another, which the name "principle" does not imply: Because in all kinds of causes, one always finds a distance between the cause and that of which it is the cause, as regards some perfection or power; but the name "principle" we use even in things which have no such difference, but only as regards a certain order, as when we say that a point is the principle of a line, or also when we say that the first part of a line is the principle of the line.

[@davidus9702]

You guys really like kangaroos!

[@TheProdigalMeowMeowMeowReturns]

I'm with Braxton Hunter on this

[@JBNyoka]

😂😂😂

[@savedbygrace8337]

Romans 10:13 “For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.”