Essence and Existence (Aquinas 101)

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

The Pre-Socratics tried to explain everything as elemental fire or water or spirit. Many contemporary scientists try to explain everything as ordered bundles of chemicals, molecules, and atoms. The problem here is that these building blocks themselves are diverse. How do we account for that? The attempt to reduce everything to material bits is ill-fated. Reality is not simply built up from the bottom; it is also influenced from the top down. While the essence of a thing tells you what it is, the existence of a thing tells you that it is.

Essence and Existence (Aquinas 101) - Fr. Thomas Joseph White, O.P.

❓ Questions you want answered? Make sure to put #AskAFriar in your comment!

— WHAT'S NEW —

— WHAT'S NEXT —

— SOCIAL MEDIA —

— SUPPORT —

— THE THOMISTIC INSTITUTE —

— AQUINAS 101 —

#ThomisticInstitute #ThomasAquinas #Catholic #Thomism

[bestpossibleworld]

The Dominicans that are creating and distributing these videos are doing a wonderful thing. I am impressed by every one that I watch.

[angelicdoctor]

The format of these videos is outstanding: crisp clear language; not excessively long; well supported by digital imagery; good sound and digital effects; witness to religious vocation (wearing the Dominican habit in the videos); not getting caught up in "Church politics" but staying focused on communicating the most important truths - helping us understand who we are and who God is. This is REAL Thomism meets QUALITY online instruction - the New Evangelization in spades. You might very well be inviting vocations to the Dominicans if you keep this up! Very well done - I honestly can't get enough of these videos.

[teresabaker-carl]

This makes so much sense and so easily. I really enjoy these videos.

[santiagolgb]

Wow, what a beautiful treat this is! Succinct, rich and crystal clear. Our beloved Doctor must be really happy knowing how you guys are carrying out the fruits of his endeavor. Thank very much. God bless you all!

[iqgustavo]

🎯 Key Takeaways for quick navigation:

00:00 🌍 The world is filled with diverse, irreducible natural kinds of things, and these are referred to as essences.
02:10 🧩 In all things, there is a combination of form and matter, where form organizes and makes sense of the material parts.
03:08 🌟 Essence defines the nature of a thing, while existence answers the question of whether it exists, and existence is something common to all things.

Made with HARPA AI

[frankdsouza]

What an appetising taster, Fr White to the banquet I believe awaits us. Gratitude to Fr Verrall of Fisher House, Cambridge, England for getting me started.

[aiantenor]

the videos are short, compact, concise, precise. Thank you for this

[CanalTremocos]

I'm so happy I discovered this channel.

[dogswithtorches]

Awesome video! :D One of the most important distinctions for Thomistic philosophers, especially the Existential Thomists.

[markmenotti]

The TI, and Dominicans in general, is/are awesome! Keep up the great work!!

[elijahgabalda]

Very good explanation of Esse and Essence!

[Enigmatic_philosopher]

Here is a philosophical critique of some of the key metaphysical ideas presented in the video "Essence and Existence (Aquinas 101)" from an analytic perspective:

The video helpfully introduces Aquinas' important distinction between a thing's essence (what it is) and its existence (that it is). However, philosophers debate whether essence truly precedes existence in reality or if this ordering is conceptual.

Some argue essentialism is an outdated metaphysical framework as we lack direct epistemic access to fixed essences. On this view, essence and existence are interdependent in a process of dynamical becoming.

The contention that God's essence just is his existence remains hotly disputed. Critics argue this conflates logic with metaphysics or that divine simplicity is ultimately incoherent.

Asserting composites require a cause of their existence to be joined to essence assumes causation runs strictly in one direction. But emergence challenges neat hierarchies of strong ontological dependence.

Alternative philosophical paradigms like existentialism question whether essences, rather than open-ended existence, should be considered metaphysically primary.

While clarifying Aquinas' perspective, the video does not sufficiently acknowledge interpretive challenges or place his view within broader debates. A more comprehensive critique would situate his metaphysics among alternatives.

The video introduces key Thomistic concepts but could better balance explanation with acknowledging difficulties and highlighting Aquinas' arguments as historically situated rather than definitive conclusions to complex philosophical problems.

[strigoi]

Excellent video. Thank you for this series

[aliqazilbash]

it is called; Synecdoch: the name of a part is used to designate the whole or the name of the whole is used to designate the part.

it is a rhetorical device.

[kristindreko]

Thank you, may our Lord Jesus Christ bless you!

[garylovan]

As a follow up, there seems a tension between the kind of intellectual seeing of the essence and the aspects of the essence that reveal themselves only to the whole human being, including emotional response. The attitude toward trees and the different intelligible emotions evoked by trees in Tolkien's Lord of the Rings, for instance, seem to be part of the essence of trees. (cf. Peter Kreeft, The Philosophy of Tolkien). So my question: Is there a tension between the idea of intellectual seeing and grasping the essence? Aren't essences open-ended for finite creatures - rather like a novel discloses new aspects and possibilities over time? Thank for the videos!

[waynesulak]

This video demonstrates a fascinating look at what a genius could make of the world during the middle- ages. Appealing to common sense and Aristotle’s ideas was reasonable then but common sense told us the world was flat and that approach has generally proven a bad guide for understanding reality as it is. It still has a strong appeal but that does not make it any more accurate.

Common sense saw the human race as the center of entire universe and defined how it worked in relation to us. Literally decided that the sun moved around us, the stars moved around us because it just looked that way. As we have grown and become less self-centered we realized that the universe does not revolve around us. Almost the entire known universe appears to be lethal to us. We share a great commonality with other earthly animal life forms and quite a bit with other life forms down to viruses. Viruses reproduce by tricking our cells to reproduce and make more viruses. This is possible only because we share much with all life on earth.

I don’t feel if a brilliant guy like Aquinas was around today he would hold the same views he did back then. He would probably be using cutting edge knowledge just as he did then, but it would not be Aristotle’s ideas, it would be genetics and maybe quantum mechanics.

[amazingcommenter]

I spoke with someone also Catholic about this and I probably didn't explain it as well as this video or a scholar/theologian but the person responded it's doesn't matter. I didn't want to press on but I don't agree. It does matter because the person is saying it doesn't matter to him, which is quite true because he already believe in God. But when we speak with different people with different perspective, background, spiritual level, God as "the act of sheer existence" makes sense. People ask who created God all the time. Trinity is easier to understand because we can know that God is Father first (and not Creator first) and Jesus has always been the Son and not only when he was incarnated. Dismissing to know God in a deeper level just because "we can't truly understand Him enough" doesn't sit well with me. We can't stop TRYING to know Him. Granted we have different ways to do so, like praying, studying, praise and worship, but philosophy is also a very important way that many Christians try to skip just because "its the thing of Aristotle and Plato" or "weird" or "not Christian".

[Lay-Man]

I was wondering, can a being lose its essence?
I'd say yes? If it changes from a substantial form to another?

[rijpmajohan]

0:45 scientific reduction doesn't mean that human beings are "just" molecules and atoms. There are different levels of explanation one does not exclude the other. More over materialism doesn't only deal with matter but also includes energy and even information that doesn’t have to be in a physical medium.