James Chastek, Nature, operation, and esse

Metaphysics analyses being, and Aristotle showed two different ways to do this. First, he studied how being was said per se. In this line, being is primarily substance as opposed to accident. Second, he studied being so far as it was opposed to becoming. In this line, being is primarily act as opposed to potency. In this second sense, it is helpful to see “act” as meaning “rising above becoming”. Now rising above becoming happens in three ways:

1.) Being constituted in nature, whether as a substance or an accident. This is the term of generation or change.

2.) Operation/ proper activity. Nature is nothing other than a principle or source of motion and rest. For example, “Rational” or “sentient” are natures, and these are perfected by actually reasoning and actually sensing. Just as a constituted nature rises above becoming, operation rises above the nature. It is substance as operating that most of all rises above becoming, and therefore is most of all “being”.

3.) Esse or the act of being. All becoming is between contraries, but there is no contrary of existence. So taken, esse is absolutely set apart from becoming. Esse, considered in its pure communicability to many, is outside of motion and becoming, even if, in some particular case, it is only present at the term of a motion.

There is a clear order between 1 and 2: nature is the goal of becoming, operation the goal of nature. There is also a clear relation between 1 and 3: sense 1 is existence in a secondary and indirect sense; sense 3 is existence considered in its pure communicability to many, or existence primo et per se. Sense 1 is existence as the term of a natural agent as agent; sense 3 is the properly the term of divine action.

(One difficulty is that the word “esse” or “form” is frequently used for 1 and 3)

But what is the order between 2 and 3? This is a crucial problem, and until we recognize it as a problem our notion of “esse” is likely to slump towards essentialism; where “pure being’ is seen as the lifeless crystalline forms of the platonic museum (Plato distanced himself from these things later in his career). We see “pure act” too easily as mere existence- which makes our opinion of God be more or less the same as a giant stone in the sky. We overlook that an act is an act. The word was not chosen at random. To call God pure act is the same thing as saying that he is the highest operation. After one sees that God is pure act (as Aristotle did) he can immediately know that God is alive, intelligent, blessed, loving (though not in Plato’s sense of “love” in the Symposium- but simply as the perfect operation of will) and with all transcendental perfection: power, goodness, unity, truth, etc.