Thompson Arrington

Well I wonder

[Thompson Arrington @TLArrington]

@returntoquality This is more 2002 but whatevs

[Thompson Arrington @TLArrington]

@parhypostates @JosephBenJ2 I think God's having being essentially intrinsically isn't exhaustive of what we want here but it gets at God's having being "from himself" in that it gets right the distinction between creation's dependence on God for being vs God's independence here.

[Thompson Arrington @TLArrington]

@parhypostates @JosephBenJ2 Good point. It does seem like being is part of what it is to be each thing. I mean, it's even in the expression "What it *is* to be..." But it also seems that only God has being essentially intrinsically, which helps account for the distinction here b/t God and creation

[Thompson Arrington @TLArrington]

@parhypostates @JosephBenJ2 I said God is essentially being *et al* which was a sloppy way of saying God is essentially being along with the other transcendentals. I think God has numerous essential features.

[Thompson Arrington @TLArrington]

@JosephBenJ2 @parhypostates Yes, I accept that. I don't think God just is his being, but I also don't think his being is the being of creation.

[Thompson Arrington @TLArrington]

@parhypostates @JosephBenJ2 Being etc. doesn't have to already exist in order for God to have it essentially. And one way to flesh out the view I'm pushing is to say that *only* God is essentially being et al. Everything else has being necessarily but not essentially.

[Thompson Arrington @TLArrington]

@parhypostates @JosephBenJ2 For things that aren't God, being is extrinsic according to all three of the analyses you posted.

[Thompson Arrington @TLArrington]

@parhypostates @JosephBenJ2 The Kantian view here presupposes that predicates must partition off a proper part of the space of qualities. This isn't defensible since a big part of the predicate role is to account for qualities regardless of whether they apply universally.

[Thompson Arrington @TLArrington]

@parhypostates @JosephBenJ2 My bad--both lines of convo involved matter and I thought I was in the other thread. One sec...

[Thompson Arrington @TLArrington]

@parhypostates @JosephBenJ2 That's a claim, but why think it's true? Why couldn't such a being be the source?

[Thompson Arrington @TLArrington]

@parhypostates @JosephBenJ2 No one's denying being enmattered is a state of being. But for the state to obtain, there must be something playing the matter role, otherwise you'd have just one form for each species when in fact we have many instances of each species among other problems.

[Thompson Arrington @TLArrington]

@parhypostates @JosephBenJ2 ...while essential properties are those a thing must have to be the kind of thing it is..."

[Thompson Arrington @TLArrington]

@parhypostates @JosephBenJ2 In philosophy, intrinsic and essential properties both relate to what defines a thing, but they address different aspects. Intrinsic properties are those a thing possesses independently of its relations to other things...

[Thompson Arrington @TLArrington]

@parhypostates @JosephBenJ2 There is a form of being enmattered, but being enmattered isn't merely form, as we can see from the fact that being enmattered is what moves the form of being enmattered to the state of being enmattered.

[Thompson Arrington @TLArrington]

@parhypostates @JosephBenJ2 No one's saying matter has to be metaphysically separable from form. But it's still different than form, since enmattered things are different than their forms which can exist without being enmattered.

[Thompson Arrington @TLArrington]

@parhypostates @JosephBenJ2 Sure we have. We've repeatedly contrasted e.g. being with being enmattered.

[Thompson Arrington @TLArrington]

@parhypostates @JosephBenJ2 Everything necessarily has them and maybe has them essentially, but only God has them intrinsically. I.e., we can't have them without God, but God can have them without us.

[Thompson Arrington @TLArrington]

@parhypostates @JosephBenJ2 I don't see this at all. God is the source of all of these things. We have them only because God donates them.

[Thompson Arrington @TLArrington]

@parhypostates @JosephBenJ2 This conversation is a counterexample, since we've repeatedly singled them out.