Act and Potency (Aquinas 101)

⭐️ Donate $5 to help keep these videos FREE for everyone!
Pay it forward for the next viewer: go.thomisticin...
How can the water in a river always be flowing by and yet it remains the same river?
By wrestling with this and various puzzles regarding change, Aristotle discovered the distinction between act and potency or actuality and potentiality. Aristotle realized that all the things in nature are a blend of act and potency, like the water. For example, an acorn is potentially a fully-grown oak tree; a child is potentially a grown man; and, the water in the ocean is potentially a rain cloud over land. Aristotle realized that change consists of the actualization of the potentiality latent within the things of nature.
Act and Potency (Aquinas 101) - Fr. James Brent, O.P.
For readings, podcasts, and more videos like this, go to www.Aquinas101.com. While you’re there, be sure to sign up for one of our free video courses on Aquinas. And don’t forget to like and share with your friends, because it matters what you think!
Subscribe to our channel here:
www.youtube.co...
--
Aquinas 101 is a project of the Thomistic Institute that seeks to promote Catholic truth through short, engaging video lessons. You can browse earlier videos at your own pace or enroll in one of our Aquinas 101 email courses on St. Thomas Aquinas and his masterwork, the Summa Theologiae. In these courses, you'll learn from expert scientists, philosophers, and theologians-including Dominican friars from the Province of St. Joseph.
Enroll in Aquinas 101 to receive the latest videos, readings, and podcasts in your email inbox each Tuesday morning.
Sign up here: aquinas101.tho...
Help us film Aquinas 101!
Donate here: go.thomisticin...
Want to represent the Thomistic Institute on your campus? Check out our online store!
Explore here: go.thomisticin...
Stay connected on social media:
/ thomisticinstitute
/ thomisticinstitute
/ thomisticinst
Visit us at: thomisticinsti...
#Aquinas101 #ThomisticInstitute #ThomasAquinas #Catholic

[@2555Edu]

when I said to my friends that the church needed a method to reach more young people, it was something like this channel, great work and great videos, God bless you

[@ThomisticInstitute]

That's very encouraging. Thanks for commenting.

[@lmratnapalan5069]

For those who want longer videos I thoroughly recommend their podcasts, which are longer and more detailed. Click on the link to the class they have provided and sign up for their free classes if you would like to listen to them.

[@ThomisticInstitute]

The podcast is also available here: soundcloud.com/thomisticinstitute

[@jackdarby2168]

@@ThomisticInstitute Thanks guys. You guys are awesome!!

[@JCATG]

When I was studying the Aquinasʼ “Five Ways” years ago, this was actually one of the most confusing concepts that I had to try understanding. But all the more I read, especially with the helpful of your ministry here, I am able to grasp it clearly. Thank you so much for all of your videos! God bless.

[@matthewmayuiers]

If you’re looking for an in-depth video on the Act potency distinction; I’d check this one out. kzbin.info/www/bejne/gIfEf4Zqotqbas0

[@ThomisticInstitute]

We just published a video on the Five Ways which you might find helpful: kzbin.info/www/bejne/amOomGmLiqekp9E

[@angelicdoctor8016]

@@ThomisticInstitute AMAZING -- again, this might very well be the most important Catholic video series on the planet, given where our culture is at -- MANY MANY MANY thanks. Please keep up this important ministry!

[@mariao62]

I'm with the ones who want longer videos. Your teaching is so clear and helpful.

[@ThomisticInstitute]

Now that we're arrived at the Walkthrough of the Summa Theologiae section, you'll see longer videos (7-10 minutes) in greater numbers.

[@charlesmalaniak4897]

The Aquinas 101 podcasts are amazing! They take complicated concepts from the great Thomas Aquinas and through visual pictures enable any person to understand. The fact they are free is even better. True evangelism for those of us who view things from a more theological and philosophical standpoint. Thank you to the Thomistic Institute for bringing this to the masses.

[@ThomisticInstitute]

Our joy!

[@MariEllaOficial]

Explicação muito didática! Gostei e me inscrevi no canal. Vim pela Academia Atlântico, do Brasil. Mais alguém?

[@nomnombr]

Eu!

[@Enigmatic_philosopher]

Here is a philosophical critique of some of the key points made in the video "Act and Potency (Aquinas 101)" from an analytic metaphysics perspective: This video provides a helpful explanation of Thomas Aquinas' metaphysical concept of act and potency, which it rightly notes is central to his philosophical framework. However, some metaphysicians may argue the metaphysical claim that pure act could exist conflates ontology with theology, assuming God's actuality rather than arguing for it. Additionally, the principle that everything moving must be moved by another entity in act may posit an excessive dependence between beings. This principle faces difficulties accounting for phenomena like self-motion, emergence and contingency. Some metaphysical systems posit a more fundamental interdependence between entities. There is also ongoing philosophical debate around whether the actual/potential distinction maps onto mind-independent categories of reality. Some process philosophies understand being as an open-ended dynamism that cannot be fully captured by statically defined essences rooted in act. The video could have acknowledged criticisms that Aquinas' metaphysics insufficiently incorporates temporality or change. It also does not address how actuality/potentiality interrelate with causation, an issue with no philosophical consensus. Finally, while helpfully outlining Aquinas' view, the video presents his perspective definitively without sufficient acknowledgement of alternative metaphysical frameworks or philosophical problems still being debated around these core concepts. A more balanced critique would have situated Aquinas' thought within ongoing metaphysical disputes. In summary, the video provides a clear overview but could have better situated Aquinas' metaphysics within contemporary philosophical discussion to avoid suggesting a definitively resolved interpretation of these contentious and enduring issues.

[@manahil558]

What should I read to understand these things more? I could only grasp some terms from your comment! What would you suggest to me as a beginner?

[@convulsingbaldman4954]

Who presented this video? He does an awesome job, and so do the rest of the presenters. Thank you for making such an engaging and informative series which is accessible in not only a financial sense, but also an intellectual sense for those who are novices to theology. I think many beginners will be extraordinarily grateful for the effort you have all put in! God Bless

[@fr.gregorypine5137]

The video is done by Fr. James Brent, O.P. who is a professor of philosophy at the Dominican House of Studies in Washington, DC. The Dominican House of Studies is a school of theology of the Dominican Province of St. Joseph. The videos are a venture of the Thomistic Institute and produced by Coronation Media in Emmittsburg, MD. Thanks for your encouragement. We hope you enjoy the rest!

[@Guest-Plato]

This was very helpful in understanding act and potency, thank you and keep up with the good work, God bless you

[@eliassousa6738]

Amazing... but I also think the videos should be a little longer.

[@ThomisticInstitute]

Stay tuned!

[@CureInsomnia]

Good stuff. Is Aquinas still taught in seminary? Not asking about Dominican formation but diocesan formation.

[@anthonybui4622]

Yes I believe so! Maybe not as in depth as you would in Dominican formation but correct me if I am mistaken

[@CureInsomnia]

@@anthonybui4622 Good to know. My daughter got me interested in the Compendium. It is SO much easier for the layman to read and understand compared with the Summa format.

[@Rome_77]

The clips here are beautiful and helpful but way too short. The perfect length I find is anywhere between 6 to 12 minutes. For example the videos from the KZbin channel Kurzgesagt.

[@ThomisticInstitute]

Starting with the video on the Five Ways (9 December 2019), the remaining videos (which will premier through late June) are due to be longer (7-10 minutes length). Hope you enjoy.

[@fernandolh6538]

@@ThomisticInstitute Full of gratitude for these illuminating videos, I'd like first of all to thank you and also to encourage this work, at least with my prayer. And because it's been a matter in the commentaries of this particular video, I'd say that a short video could be extraordinary and a long one, instead, might be boring. I don't think that it has to do with "lenght", but a matter of making attractive presentations while introducing to instructive subjects (for which you have huge heritage!). In this one, about act and potency, it's true you come to the end desiring to deepen a bit farther the question. Certainly, for divulgation level, more than 10-12 minutes... it might be difficult, I think. God bless!! In communion from Spain.

[@HumanbeingonfloatingEarth]

Thank you Father. Great subject matter to consider.

[@johnfitzgerald4038]

one word - excellent

[@davidrasch3082]

The examples go a long way to helping me understand the teaching, a teaching which requires precision of thought and language.

[@putinstea]

Why must there be one unmoved mover? Why only one?

[@rev.fr.spyridonchiones3963]

Excellent, as all videos. What book is best introduction to Thomas Aquinas' s work ?

[@ReggieRockification]

"Summa of the Summa" by Peter Kreeft is often recommended. But you can't go wrong with simply sitting down and reading the Summa itself. Other works of Aquinas include the Summa Contra Gentiles and the Catena Aurea.

[@aiantenor9080]

thank you Padre

[@duotheowl]

we have discussed

[@radovanmarcincin2502]

Mindblown

[@kristindreko3194]

Thank you, may our Lord Jesus Christ bless you!

[@Gataista]

0:40 So the question is »How can something become something it is not?« But how does Potentiality explain Becoming? 1:16 »Once the pot is on the stove the potentiality to be hot *becomes* actualized.«,- this doesn't explain what happened. It is just repeating that the pot was not hot and now it is. It sounds like the stove *is* not potentially hot, but that - after it became *hot* - we now make up its »former« potential-hot-being; this doesnt explain anything. does it? guys plz help

[@iqgustavo]

🎯 Key Takeaways for quick navigation: 00:00 🌟 Understanding the distinction between potentiality and actuality is crucial to grasp Thomas Aquinas's arguments for the existence of God. 00:57 💧 All things in nature have both actuality (what they currently are) and potentiality (what they can become). 01:55 🌱 Change occurs when potentialities within things are actualized. 02:23 🔄 The ultimate source of change, according to Aristotle, is the unmoved mover or God, which is completely actual and responsible for realizing potentiality in everything else. Made with HARPA AI

[@aiantenor9080]

mind-blowing

[@oplatonico]

Excelent video! 🇧🇷🇧🇷

[@chloemines4581]

Act and potential Change is actualization of potentiality. How potentiality becomes actual? Potential does not become actualized without the cause. Therefore there must be ultimate actuality without potentiality.

[@jackdarby2168]

May I trouble you bt asking for the Greek phrase for "the unmoved mover". Is this correct ὃ οὐ κινούμενον κινεῖ( It's from Wikipedia)

[@titounoundici7920]

Jack Darby, If I do not get you wrong: the greek you wrote means "the one who moves without moving [himself]". Take care.

[@lordanselglennn.bongcassmm3348]

can you at some point discuss question 16 Truth, articles 5 and 7 of the Summa Theologica? Thanks in advance

[@ColeB-jy3mh]

Can you do a video on a pure actual being and why there is only one God?

[@highground3609]

ACTUS PURUS!!!! I FOUND YOU!!!! After YEARS OF SEARCHING!!

[@brysonstevens1431]

So what is the steeleman argument for the distinction of act and potency being formal, as opposed to Aquinas saying it is real? -Someone who is interested in Suarez

[@DaretoDream88]

Is this what Aquinas means when he says actus purus? 2:27

[@apeture_explorer4810]

I've been wondering and a bit worried to even try and wrap my mind around it, but is potential itself actual or is it more of a linguistic or interpretive thing much like logic seems to be that only exists purely with reference to God? What I mean by that, is that logic itself seems to be a linguistic tool that is sort of nominal, but refers to things that aren't, it's a way to describe the way that God "thinks", and one of the ways to describe how we can at times. Is potential sort of like that, or is it actually real? Edit: I'm sorry if that doesn't make sense, but I'm just curious as to where potentiality itself terminates or if it bares any reality of its own like actuality does, like, is potential something God created in the way that a dog is?

[@NightKnight347]

Since no one has responded, I will hazard an answer. This was actually one of my favorite ideas to bat in undergraduate, but it's been a hot minute if you will have mercy on me. Consider strength: When my wife asks me to carry something very heavy, is she appealing to something real within me, or merely submitting to an ideal of masculine capability for lifting and seeing God change the location of the object in tangent with my own body (think Berkeley and a little Leibniz)? I think anyone would say that the latter option is rather absurd, and we can certainly critique those idealist philosophies separately if necessary. However, common sense tells us it is obviously the case that I am myself moving the heavy object, even as God moves me more fundamentally. My muscles and bones are much stronger, much more potent, than my wife's. They have the capacity to exert hundreds of pounds of force, and that is a real quality. It is not the case that we are talking about an ethereal distinction only because we are talking about qualities of our two bodies, rather we are talking about real potentialities to lift. Still, this is not the whole picture. I chose an example which has a very continuous and extensive spectrum of act/potency. In one sense of act and potency (2nd act/1st potency), we recognize that my frame has the potential to exert that force now, and I can standup and grab some weights to actualize that potential. Yet I also have the potential to be much stronger than I am (2nd potency), but this potential is not as easily realized as picking up a heavy object across the room. We are talking about a potential within me to grow past my current limits. In order to do that, I must exercise and actualize my body's capacity to grow and alter the muscle fibers at the cellular level. That activity changes my matter to the point that I actually have more potency than I started with. Since I am not pure act, I cannot increase my potential indefinitely (only God could.) In the opposite direction, I could get in a car wreck, lose innervation in my limbs, and undergo atrophy until I would be too weak to pick up a glass. I am potentially weaker than I am. It is a wonderful thing to reflect on these matters in a deeper way, and I hope that I could help you in this regard. It may be that you are not fully convinced, or that there is a better approach to explaining it. All the same, I hope this helps you think about the reality of potency, and understand the temptation to say that categories are not real simple because the categories themselves do not have bodies but belong to bodies. (We will never walk down the street and see the category of strength walking by, we will only ever see people who have different degrees of strength within them.) I think it is a little easier to see how 1st potency is real instead of nominal, and from there we can understand the reality of 2nd potency.

[@Urbanity_Kludge]

If Aquinas were alive today what "sed contra's" to the unmoved mover would here have to reply to?

[@ThomisticInstitute]

Excellent question! Let's see what types of responses people come up with!

[@Urbanity_Kludge]

@@ThomisticInstitute so there are at least three philosophical objections 1 The principle of sufficient reason is neglected once you reach an"uncaused" cause. 2 St. Thomas commits a fallacy of composition 3 Bute facts suffice I'm reading an online paper by Alexander Pruss that talks a bit about this but the paper is deeper and wider than I am.

[@ThomisticInstitute]

@@Urbanity_Kludge I'm interested in hearing some of those arguments. Feel free to post some of your findings as you work your way through it!

[@martintohilldvm5546]

@@ThomisticInstitute Thanks, I assume you are familiar with the arguments and, even now, my wife wonders where I am. I am puzzling over the fact that it seems the question, "So who made God"? isn't as stupid as it sounds. Some philosophers complain that the PSR(Principle of Sufficient Reason) used to prove that contingent objects are insufficient to satisfy the beginning of the universe cannot be cast aside by simply stating that God is necessary. They say that the statement is simply a "brute fact" and there is no reason they cannot produce their own brute facts. At least as I understand the issue.

[@ThomisticInstitute]

@@martintohilldvm5546 This is a good observation, and it can't easily be passed over. It serves for believers as an invitation to consider how the divine nature is beyond the compass of our minds. Here, I think Gilson has some insights as concern the metaphysics of creation. He emphasizes the sense in which God isn't merely necessary being. St. Thomas himself argues that God could make other beings to be "necessary" in a restricted sense. In the case of God though, we are talking about subsisting "to be" who is utterly uncircumscribed and unlimited in his expression of being. This is why it's so important to read Ia Q. 2 with the texts that follow. Q. 3 fills in the sense of God's simplicity as one utterly uncomposed. QQ. 12-13 emphasize the way in which our language breaks down around this limit and also how we can begin to undersatnd what it means to call God "ipsum esse per se subsistens (very being subsisting through itself)."

[@doejohn215]

David Hume and Kant dismantled Aquinas' 5 ways. Resurrecting them now is just ignoring Kant and Hume.

[@blakemoon123]

Neo-Thomistic philosophers have successfully met the challenges posed by David Hume and Kant.

[@doejohn215]

@@blakemoon123 According to who, Christian theists?

[@doejohn215]

@@blakemoon123 How did they solve the problem if induction? The cosmological argument is valid in proving the Christian God?

[@blakemoon123]

@@doejohn215 The cosmological arguments do not claim to prove the truth of Christianity. They just demonstrate the existence of the God of classical theism - or at least show that it is reasonable to think that the God of classical theism exists.

[@blakemoon123]

@@doejohn215 What is exactly is the ‘problem of induction’? I’m not claiming to be an expert in philosophy.

[@wisdomdesignedlife]

Need to be careful in articulating this as critics might use it to argue God is the actualizer of evil and sin, responsible in actualizing non-good by giving free-will... instead of only actualizing potentiality itself.

[@alexandrepereira3902]

E X C E L L E N T WORK - GOD's WORK - BLESSED BE ALL OF YOU... TKU

[@davonbenson4361]

Existence seems to be binary in Nature. 0= potential, and 1= actually.

[@brotheraugustine]

Sure, but he was also writing in a pre-Incarnation world with an idea of God that does not match the Christian God at all. The eternal Logos only became man (incarnated) at a specific point in time; He was not eternally incarnating as a man. Therefore the Christian God is not “actus purus” or pure actuality - it leaves no room for the Incarnation at all. Either God is pure act or God became man at a specific point in time (ie, actualized His potential to incarnate), it has to be one or the other.

[@dexteradomini7103]

“Brother” AhhJewstein droppin’ pilpuls like it’s hot!

[@NepticChronicles]

Thanks for sharing this vid brother. Will listen to the Montanica lectures

[@JamaicanHopscotchMafia]

Wouldn't it be doubly bad because of man's fallen nature? Wouldn't God have to be eternally actualizing the incarnation in man's fallen nature before the creation of man on the sixth day?

[@bleudauvergne5852]

Alpha et Omega

[@adothariman966]

Yeah this is wrong. God is beyond potency and act. Saying that He is Pure Act is to fall into error of miscategorization How smart [potency or act] is God? Totally smart [Actus Purus] It's a categorical fallacy

[@antoniomoyal]

We can.only know God through analogías (indirectly)

[@adothariman966]

@@antoniomoyal Sure. And we know that He is beyond potency and act Aquinas was wrong to say that God was pure actuality