Question Two. Whether any Creature is Simple

27. Following on from this I ask whether any creature is simple.

And I argue yes as follows: the composite is composed from parts, and these not from other parts, therefore these other parts are in themselves simple.

28. The opposite of this is in On the Trinity VI ch.6 n.8, where Augustine says that no creature is in itself simple.

I. To the Question

A. The Opinion of OthersAquinas Contra Gentes II chs.53-54, I ch.22; ST la q.50 a.2 ad 3. ⁴⁴

29. There is said here that ‘any creature at all is composed of act and potency’; that no creature is pure potency, because then it would not exist, - nor is any creature pure act, because then it would God.

30. Further, that ‘any creature at all is a being through participation’, -therefore it is composed of participant and participated.

31. Against this conclusion I argue that if in anything at all there is composition of thing and thing, I take the thing that does the composing and I ask if it is simple or composite; if it is simple, the proposition is gained [sc. that some creature is simple], - if it is composite, there will be a process in ‘things’ to infinity.

B. Scotus’ own Opinion

32. I concede then that some creature is simple, that is, not composed from things. However no creature is perfectly simple, because it is in some way composite and combinable.

How it is composite I clarify thus, that it has entity along with privation of some grade of entity. For no creature has entity according to the total perfection that is of a nature to belong to entity in itself, and therefore it lacks some perfection which is of a nature to belong to entity in itself, and so it is ‘deprived’, - just as a mole is said to be blind ‘because it is of a nature to have sight according to the idea of animal, but not according to the idea of mole’ according to the Philosopher at Metaphysics 5.22.1022b24-27. Therefore any creature is composed, not from positive thing and thing, but from positive thing and privation, namely from some entity, which it has, and from lack of some grade of perfection of entity - of which perfection it is itself not capable, though being itself is capable of it; just as a mole is, according to itself, not of a nature to see but is, according to that which is animal, of a nature to see. Nor yet is this composition ‘from positive and privative’ in the essence of the thing, because privation is not of the essence of anything positive.

33. On this composition there also follows composition of potency and act objectively; for anything that is a being and that lacks some perfection of being is simply possible and is the term of potency simply, whose term cannot be infinite being, which being is necessary existence.

34. It is also the case that any creature at all is combinable:

This is plain about accident, which is combinable with a subject. In the case of substance too it is plain, about form as well matter. Also plain about substance per se generable and corruptible, because it is receptive of accident; no substance then would be non-receptive of accident save on account of its perfection. - But the most perfect intelligence [sc. creaturely intelligence] is receptive of accident, because it is capable of its own intellection and volition, which are not its substance; first, because then it would be formally blessed in itself, the opposite of which was proved in distinction 1 [I d.1 n.175]. Second, because any intelligence can understand infinite things, because these are all intelligible; therefore, if its own intellection were its essence, it could have an infinite essence, because it would have one intellection of infinite things. Third, because its own intellection would not depend on any object save that on which its own ‘existence’ would depend, and so it could understand nothing inferior to itself - not even itself - in its proper genus, but only in the superior object moving it; nay no intelligence could understand anything save in God, because its own existence is not caused by any other intelligence -therefore not its intellection either. Fourth, because the word of an angel would be personally distinct from it and essentially the same as it, as was proved in distinction 2 about the divine Word [I. d.2 n.355].

II. To the Arguments

35. [To the principal argument] - To the principal argument of Augustine [n.28] I concede that no creature is truly simple, because it is composite - in the aforesaid way - from positivity and privation [n.32], act and potency objectively [n.33], and combinable with some other creature [n.34].

36. [To the argument of the opinion of others] - And from this is plain the response to the argument about the first opinion [n.29]; for no act is pure that lacks a grade of actuality, just as no light is pure that lacks a grade of light, even if there is not mixed with that impure light any positive entity but only a lack of a more perfect grade of light.

37. To the second [n.30] I say that ‘to participate’ is in some way the same as ‘to take part in’, so that it involves a double relation - both of part to whole and of taker to taken.

The first relation is real. Nor yet is part understood to be that which is something of the thing, but it is taken extensively, insofar as every less is said to be part of a more; but everything that is a ‘finite such’ is simply a ‘less such’, if anything such is of a nature to be infinite; but any perfection simply is of a nature to be infinite - therefore wherever there is a finite perfection it is less than some similar perfection, and so it is a part extensively.

38. But the second relation - namely of taker to taken - is a relation of reason, as in the case of creatures between the giver and the given. However a thing is taken in three ways; either such that the ‘whole’ taken is part of the taker, as the species participates the genus (as far as the essential parts of the genus are concerned, not the subjective ones),The essential parts of something are what define it; the subjective parts are the kinds it divides into. So ‘animal’, which is by definition ‘animate sensing body’, is taken wholly by the species ‘man’ (for man is a rational animate sensing body), but the subjective parts of animal are all the kinds of animals (horses, dogs, giraffes), and of course none of these is taken into the definition of man. ⁴⁵ or ‘part’ of the taken is part of the taker, or -in the third way - ‘part’ of the taken is the whole taker itself. In the first two ways the relation of taker and taken can be conceded to be real, but not in the third way; this third way is the one in the intended proposition, because every limited perfection (which perfection is of itself, however, not determined to limitation, and it is the part taken) is the limited whole itself,I.e. no perfection is of itself limited, but in creatures every perfection is limited, being a partaking of the perfection that is of itself unlimited [n.37]. Thus a limited perfection is a part of unlimited perfection, but in creatures this limited perfection is the whole creaturely perfection itself. ⁴⁶ except that a distinction can be made here between the supposit taking and the nature taken - but there is not thus a real distinction.