Aquinas vs Scotus on the Real Distinction Between Essence and Existence

It is often thought that Scotus rejected Aquinas's understanding of the real distinction between a thing's essence and act of existence. But is that entirely correct, or is reconciliation possible between the perspectives of each of these thinkers? Scotus scholar Thomas Ward discusses the issue with Pat.

Please like, comment, share, and subscribe.

[MountAthosandAquinas]

I loved Thomas Wards answer when asked what the “real distinction” is: “I’m not sure.” If it doesn’t entail separability which we see in concrete things, then somehow it’s separable at the level of intellection but not at the level of (how we think of) quantitative dimensions. For by quantitative dimensions I conceptualize separability (such as coffee and mug). But intellectually I can conceive of two separate concepts as inseparably one. (Such as triangularity and trilateralarity) If anyone is interested in reading a deep metaphysician, I recommend Maximus the Confessors Opusculas. He was the one who John of Damascus learned his metaphysics from, and I believe to be the most underrated metaphysician in the Catholic Church. His Opusculas are chalked full of distinctions between Hypostasis-Nature, Potency-Act, Mover-moved, Essence-Energy etc.

Pat, I like that you suggested to Thomas that formal distinction (for Thomists) can be couched in a real distinction. I think Aquinas would agree. For some reason nobody online mentions that Aquinas, in his De Potentia, calls the real relations of the Persons of the Godhead “formally distinct.” Now unfortunately Thomas doesn’t define what he means by “formally distinct, ” however, it’s clear from the corpus of his work that it’s synonymous with “real distinction.” For in his Trinitarian theology he always refers to the Persons as “really distinct.”

Great guest. Seemed humble and wasn’t afraid to admit that our language doesn’t seem to reflect these distinctions fully.

[YovanypadillaJr]

Off topic question, any good intro book on Palamas

[InquisPrinciple]

Anyone know where I can find this Allan Wolter article on the distinction of reason in Aquinas?

[horseman]

Patt, what are your thoughts on Paul Damiani? Also - when can we expect another episode with my favourite ex-powerlifter philosoph Jim Madden?

[airokun]

Where can I find Aquinas mentioning distinction of reason ex parti rei

[brysonstevens]

If only there was a middle distinction between the two cough cough (virtual) Suarez

[markbirmingham]

Comment for traction. This was a great part of the larger discussion

[TheJesusNerd]

Wolter, Allan. “The Formal Distinction.” Studies in Philosophy and the History of Philosophy 3 (1965): 45-60.