john the scot was irish
for whatever reason i've been thinking about what it means to be this afternoon (i.e.the metaphysical nature of existence).
according to john scotus eriugena there are five senses of being:
one-all things which are detectable to the corporeal senses, or to the perception of intelligence, can be said to be. those things which elude perception, either through our senses or our intelligence, are said correctly not to be.
two-to be is to be understood, and it is relative to your position on the spectrum of the natures of all creatures. a creature cannot comprehend something which is superior to itself; i.e. a human cannot full understand the nature of an angel (as something more than a good human), just as a lion cannot fully understand a human (as something other than food, competition, or danger). every order of rational or intellectual creatures is said to be and to not be. it is insofar as it is known to itself and to its superiors; it is not in the sense that it is not comprehended by its inferiors.
three-things which are composed of formed matter are said to be; whereas things which "appear in the recesses of nature," are said not to be. that is to say, that things which are actual are considered to be, and things which are potential are considered not to be, i.e. a tree is potential and therefore exists, a seed is potential and therefore does not exist.
four-things only truly are if they can be comprehended by the intellect alone. things which are altered through generation, the addition/subtraction of matter, the intervals of places, and the motions of time are said not to be. this seems to be say that something like the platonic notion of the forms, or the neo-platonic notion of the divine ideas, are considered to be, and all other things are considered not to be.
five-before the fall is considered to be. human nature after sinning and "deserting" the dignity of the divine image is considered to not be. however, according to eriugena, human nature when restored by the grace of christ is led back to its pristine state and is said to begin to be again.
in my opinion it's awkward to put so many different categories of existence into your metaphysical canon. it seems like a philosopher would want more restrictions on what is, rather than coming up with an explanation for why everything exists. if your objective is to support the existence of a majority of things, it seems pointless to begin the mental exercise in the first place--well i guess descartes did this, but he used god as a cop-out. i need to reflect on what eriugena's goals may have been more.
according to john scotus eriugena there are five senses of being:
one-all things which are detectable to the corporeal senses, or to the perception of intelligence, can be said to be. those things which elude perception, either through our senses or our intelligence, are said correctly not to be.
two-to be is to be understood, and it is relative to your position on the spectrum of the natures of all creatures. a creature cannot comprehend something which is superior to itself; i.e. a human cannot full understand the nature of an angel (as something more than a good human), just as a lion cannot fully understand a human (as something other than food, competition, or danger). every order of rational or intellectual creatures is said to be and to not be. it is insofar as it is known to itself and to its superiors; it is not in the sense that it is not comprehended by its inferiors.
three-things which are composed of formed matter are said to be; whereas things which "appear in the recesses of nature," are said not to be. that is to say, that things which are actual are considered to be, and things which are potential are considered not to be, i.e. a tree is potential and therefore exists, a seed is potential and therefore does not exist.
four-things only truly are if they can be comprehended by the intellect alone. things which are altered through generation, the addition/subtraction of matter, the intervals of places, and the motions of time are said not to be. this seems to be say that something like the platonic notion of the forms, or the neo-platonic notion of the divine ideas, are considered to be, and all other things are considered not to be.
five-before the fall is considered to be. human nature after sinning and "deserting" the dignity of the divine image is considered to not be. however, according to eriugena, human nature when restored by the grace of christ is led back to its pristine state and is said to begin to be again.
in my opinion it's awkward to put so many different categories of existence into your metaphysical canon. it seems like a philosopher would want more restrictions on what is, rather than coming up with an explanation for why everything exists. if your objective is to support the existence of a majority of things, it seems pointless to begin the mental exercise in the first place--well i guess descartes did this, but he used god as a cop-out. i need to reflect on what eriugena's goals may have been more.