2022.01.07 19:15

What is the difference between potency and act in philosophy

Other attributes can be argued from this position, but the main contention is that a being that is pure actuality must exist necessarily by virtue of its essence. This is because a potency and an act cannot exist in the same being in the same sense. That is, a log cannot both be actually on fire and have the potential to be on fire. Thomas Aquinas continues his thought:. For what is actually hot cannot simultaneously be potentially hot; but it is simultaneously potentially cold.

If a philosopher grants that this relationship corresponds to the way things are in the world, then he is quickly headed towards the world-view of theism. It is a common misconception that what Thomas means by this term is the idea of Newtonian motion. However, the way in which Thomas is using this word is related to the relationship of change, rather than that of loco-motion.

Aquinas, Thomas Coyote Canyon Press. Sign in via your Institution. You could not be signed in, please check and try again. Sign in with your library card Please enter your library card number. Show Summary Details Overview act and potency.

Reference entries act and potency in Encyclopedia of the Middle Ages Length: words. All rights reserved. Sign in to annotate. Delete Cancel Save. Cancel Save. Actuality is prior to potentiality in excellence. This is an implication of the previous sub-principle: if something is prior in nature, it is also prior in excellence. Actuality, insofar as it is not dependent upon potentiality, is more excellent than potency, which is dependent upon actuality.

This is evident even with the briefest of examinations: do we a praise a thing for its capacity to possess further perfections on account of the capacity alone or on account of it being a capacity for perfection? Clearly it is the latter, for perfection is better than capacity—even capacity for perfection. Actuality is prior to potentiality in intelligibility. This a further extrapolation from the initial sub-principle.

For insofar as actuality, as a state of being, is prior to potentiality in nature so it is known first , since any potentiality is known only with reference to requisite actuality, while that requisite actuality is known only with reference to itself.

Therefore, it is prior in intelligibility. Now t he astute reader will note that this seems to go against what I have said previously. Is this a contradiction? In the abstract, act and potency are correlative intelligibilities, since the concepts are mutually independent; however, in the concrete, actuality and potentiality or being-in-act and being-in-potency are not mutually dependent with regard to intelligibility but rather one is known with reference to the other while that other is known only with reference to itself.

As a state of being, actuality is that which is actual, while potentiality is the potentiality of an actuality. I hope this post was helpful to you, my readers. For an overview of Heraclitus see Daniel W. Klubertanz, Introduction to the Philosophy of Being , 2 nd ed. Wuellner, Summary of Scholastic Principles , You are commenting using your WordPress. You are commenting using your Google account.

You are commenting using your Twitter account. You are commenting using your Facebook account. Notify me of new comments via email. Notify me of new posts via email. Skip to content. This is shown by their definitions: Actuality is a state of being i.