What does Aquinas mean when he refers to things being “identical numerically” or “specifically...












4














In his discussion on the simplicity of God in Summa Theologica, Thomas Aquinas considers the question of "whether God enters into the composition of other things":




Objection 1: It seems that God enters into the composition of other things, for Dionysius says (Coel. Hier. iv): "The being of all things is that which is above being --- the Godhead." But the being of all things enters into the composition of everything. Therefore God enters into the composition of other things...



... I answer that... it is not possible for God to enter into the composition of anything, either as a formal or material principle. First, because God is the first efficient cause. Now the efficient cause is not identical numerically with the form of the thing caused, but only specifically: for man begets man. But primary matter can be neither numerically nor specifically identical with an efficient cause; for the former is merely potential, while the latter is actual.




What does he mean by this? In particular, what it mean for something to be "identical numerically" with something, and what does it mean to be "specifically identical" with something?










share|improve this question





























    4














    In his discussion on the simplicity of God in Summa Theologica, Thomas Aquinas considers the question of "whether God enters into the composition of other things":




    Objection 1: It seems that God enters into the composition of other things, for Dionysius says (Coel. Hier. iv): "The being of all things is that which is above being --- the Godhead." But the being of all things enters into the composition of everything. Therefore God enters into the composition of other things...



    ... I answer that... it is not possible for God to enter into the composition of anything, either as a formal or material principle. First, because God is the first efficient cause. Now the efficient cause is not identical numerically with the form of the thing caused, but only specifically: for man begets man. But primary matter can be neither numerically nor specifically identical with an efficient cause; for the former is merely potential, while the latter is actual.




    What does he mean by this? In particular, what it mean for something to be "identical numerically" with something, and what does it mean to be "specifically identical" with something?










    share|improve this question



























      4












      4








      4







      In his discussion on the simplicity of God in Summa Theologica, Thomas Aquinas considers the question of "whether God enters into the composition of other things":




      Objection 1: It seems that God enters into the composition of other things, for Dionysius says (Coel. Hier. iv): "The being of all things is that which is above being --- the Godhead." But the being of all things enters into the composition of everything. Therefore God enters into the composition of other things...



      ... I answer that... it is not possible for God to enter into the composition of anything, either as a formal or material principle. First, because God is the first efficient cause. Now the efficient cause is not identical numerically with the form of the thing caused, but only specifically: for man begets man. But primary matter can be neither numerically nor specifically identical with an efficient cause; for the former is merely potential, while the latter is actual.




      What does he mean by this? In particular, what it mean for something to be "identical numerically" with something, and what does it mean to be "specifically identical" with something?










      share|improve this question















      In his discussion on the simplicity of God in Summa Theologica, Thomas Aquinas considers the question of "whether God enters into the composition of other things":




      Objection 1: It seems that God enters into the composition of other things, for Dionysius says (Coel. Hier. iv): "The being of all things is that which is above being --- the Godhead." But the being of all things enters into the composition of everything. Therefore God enters into the composition of other things...



      ... I answer that... it is not possible for God to enter into the composition of anything, either as a formal or material principle. First, because God is the first efficient cause. Now the efficient cause is not identical numerically with the form of the thing caused, but only specifically: for man begets man. But primary matter can be neither numerically nor specifically identical with an efficient cause; for the former is merely potential, while the latter is actual.




      What does he mean by this? In particular, what it mean for something to be "identical numerically" with something, and what does it mean to be "specifically identical" with something?







      metaphysics aristotle aquinas






      share|improve this question















      share|improve this question













      share|improve this question




      share|improve this question








      edited 2 days ago









      Mauro ALLEGRANZA

      27.7k21963




      27.7k21963










      asked 2 days ago









      EJoshuaS

      304212




      304212






















          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes


















          7














          The efficient cause is not numerically identical with the effect because the "things" involved into the "production process" are different individials : the father of John generates John but he is a different individual :




          the father is not numerically identical with the son.




          But the father, in order to produce a man must be himself a man, i.e. he must belong to the same species of the "generated" :




          the father is specifically identical with the son.







          share|improve this answer





















          • So, "numerically different" means that they're different individuals, and "specifically identical" means that they're the same kind of thing?
            – EJoshuaS
            2 days ago










          • @EJoshuaS - exactly.
            – Mauro ALLEGRANZA
            2 days ago











          Your Answer








          StackExchange.ready(function() {
          var channelOptions = {
          tags: "".split(" "),
          id: "265"
          };
          initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

          StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
          // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
          if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
          StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
          createEditor();
          });
          }
          else {
          createEditor();
          }
          });

          function createEditor() {
          StackExchange.prepareEditor({
          heartbeatType: 'answer',
          autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
          convertImagesToLinks: false,
          noModals: true,
          showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
          reputationToPostImages: null,
          bindNavPrevention: true,
          postfix: "",
          imageUploader: {
          brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
          contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
          allowUrls: true
          },
          noCode: true, onDemand: true,
          discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
          ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
          });


          }
          });














          draft saved

          draft discarded


















          StackExchange.ready(
          function () {
          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphilosophy.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f59207%2fwhat-does-aquinas-mean-when-he-refers-to-things-being-identical-numerically-or%23new-answer', 'question_page');
          }
          );

          Post as a guest















          Required, but never shown

























          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes








          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes









          active

          oldest

          votes






          active

          oldest

          votes









          7














          The efficient cause is not numerically identical with the effect because the "things" involved into the "production process" are different individials : the father of John generates John but he is a different individual :




          the father is not numerically identical with the son.




          But the father, in order to produce a man must be himself a man, i.e. he must belong to the same species of the "generated" :




          the father is specifically identical with the son.







          share|improve this answer





















          • So, "numerically different" means that they're different individuals, and "specifically identical" means that they're the same kind of thing?
            – EJoshuaS
            2 days ago










          • @EJoshuaS - exactly.
            – Mauro ALLEGRANZA
            2 days ago
















          7














          The efficient cause is not numerically identical with the effect because the "things" involved into the "production process" are different individials : the father of John generates John but he is a different individual :




          the father is not numerically identical with the son.




          But the father, in order to produce a man must be himself a man, i.e. he must belong to the same species of the "generated" :




          the father is specifically identical with the son.







          share|improve this answer





















          • So, "numerically different" means that they're different individuals, and "specifically identical" means that they're the same kind of thing?
            – EJoshuaS
            2 days ago










          • @EJoshuaS - exactly.
            – Mauro ALLEGRANZA
            2 days ago














          7












          7








          7






          The efficient cause is not numerically identical with the effect because the "things" involved into the "production process" are different individials : the father of John generates John but he is a different individual :




          the father is not numerically identical with the son.




          But the father, in order to produce a man must be himself a man, i.e. he must belong to the same species of the "generated" :




          the father is specifically identical with the son.







          share|improve this answer












          The efficient cause is not numerically identical with the effect because the "things" involved into the "production process" are different individials : the father of John generates John but he is a different individual :




          the father is not numerically identical with the son.




          But the father, in order to produce a man must be himself a man, i.e. he must belong to the same species of the "generated" :




          the father is specifically identical with the son.








          share|improve this answer












          share|improve this answer



          share|improve this answer










          answered 2 days ago









          Mauro ALLEGRANZA

          27.7k21963




          27.7k21963












          • So, "numerically different" means that they're different individuals, and "specifically identical" means that they're the same kind of thing?
            – EJoshuaS
            2 days ago










          • @EJoshuaS - exactly.
            – Mauro ALLEGRANZA
            2 days ago


















          • So, "numerically different" means that they're different individuals, and "specifically identical" means that they're the same kind of thing?
            – EJoshuaS
            2 days ago










          • @EJoshuaS - exactly.
            – Mauro ALLEGRANZA
            2 days ago
















          So, "numerically different" means that they're different individuals, and "specifically identical" means that they're the same kind of thing?
          – EJoshuaS
          2 days ago




          So, "numerically different" means that they're different individuals, and "specifically identical" means that they're the same kind of thing?
          – EJoshuaS
          2 days ago












          @EJoshuaS - exactly.
          – Mauro ALLEGRANZA
          2 days ago




          @EJoshuaS - exactly.
          – Mauro ALLEGRANZA
          2 days ago


















          draft saved

          draft discarded




















































          Thanks for contributing an answer to Philosophy Stack Exchange!


          • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

          But avoid



          • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

          • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


          To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.





          Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.


          Please pay close attention to the following guidance:


          • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

          But avoid



          • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

          • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


          To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




          draft saved


          draft discarded














          StackExchange.ready(
          function () {
          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphilosophy.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f59207%2fwhat-does-aquinas-mean-when-he-refers-to-things-being-identical-numerically-or%23new-answer', 'question_page');
          }
          );

          Post as a guest















          Required, but never shown





















































          Required, but never shown














          Required, but never shown












          Required, but never shown







          Required, but never shown

































          Required, but never shown














          Required, but never shown












          Required, but never shown







          Required, but never shown







          Popular posts from this blog

          If I really need a card on my start hand, how many mulligans make sense? [duplicate]

          Alcedinidae

          Can an atomic nucleus contain both particles and antiparticles? [duplicate]