22. Divine Simplicity and God's Non-Composition with Creatures

Subscribe in Podcast App | Download Transcript

Lecture Notes

Main Topics #

Article 7: God’s Absolute Simplicity #

The Inductive Argument from Previous Articles

• Thomas has systematically eliminated six particular kinds of composition in prior articles (1-6)
• Since all particular compositions have been shown not to exist in God, God must be altogether simple (omnino simplex)
• Simplicity is understood primarily negatively: God is in no way composed (nullo modo compositus)

The Fourth Argument: From the Nature of Wholes

• In any composite thing, something belongs to the whole that does not belong to each part
• Example: The word “cat” - no single letter is the word “cat”; all letters together constitute the word
• Example: A chair’s legs and seat are related to the whole chair as potency to act
• In God, there is nothing that is “not God”
• This argument appears fully developed in Summa Contra Gentiles but only briefly in the Summa Theologiae

The Fifth Argument: From Parts and Composition

• In things of dissimilar parts (like man), no part is the whole thing itself
• In things of similar parts (like water), while a part may share the name with the whole, something predicated of the whole is not predicated of each part
• Example: If the whole water is two cubits, the part is not two cubits
• Therefore, in everything composed there is something that is not it; in God there is nothing that is not Him

Comparison to Creatures

• In creatures, even immaterial ones (angels), there exists composition—at minimum between essence and existence
• God alone is pure simplicity without any composition whatsoever

Article 8: God Does Not Compose with Other Things #

Three Historical Errors Refuted

1. God as soul of the world (attributed to Varro) - God as the organizing principle of creation
2. God as formal principle of all things (Amalric of Bena) - God as intrinsic form pervading creation
3. God as first matter (David of Dinant) - the most egregious error, called “stupidly taught” by Thomas

Why God Cannot Compose with Other Things

• God is the first efficient cause; an efficient cause does not come together numerically with what it causes (only specifically)
• Example: Man generates man—same in species, not in number; the dough is not even the same in species as the maker
• God acts first and through Himself; anything that enters into composition with another is not first-acting but rather the composite itself acts
• Example: The hand does not act; the man acts through the hand; fire heats through heat
• No part of something composed can be simply the first among beings
• Matter is pure potency; potency is after act; God is pure act
• Form that is part of a composite is participating form; what participates is after that which IS through essence

The Problem of Difference and Identity #

The Difficulty of the Third Objection

• Objection claims: God and first matter do not differ in any way; therefore they are the same
• The key distinction: Things differ “by something” versus being other “by themselves” (per se)

Composed vs. Simple Things

• Composed things (like man and horse) differ by differences (rational vs. irrational)
• If these differences must further differ by other differences, we face infinite regress
• Simple things do not differ by differences; they are other by themselves
• Example: Odd and even numbers—both numbers but differ by themselves (having or not having a middle), not by further difference
• Example: Being and non-being—differ by themselves, not by some difference

Application to God and Prime Matter

• Both are altogether simple (simplex)
• They are other by themselves, not by some difference
• Therefore it does not follow that they are identical
• The difference between being other and differing: otherness can exist without difference

Key Arguments #

From Causality and Priority #

• Everything composed depends on its parts; God as first being cannot depend on parts
• The first being must be uncomposed; composition implies posteriority to components

From Act and Potency #

• All composition involves the relationship of potency and act
• God is pure act (ipsum actus); pure act admits no composition

From God’s Causality Over Creation #

• God as first efficient cause cannot enter into composition with effects
• The efficient cause relates extrinsically to what it makes; composition is an intrinsic relation

From the Nature of Wholes #

• No whole can exist where all parts are identical to the whole
• In God there is no such distinction between part and whole

Important Definitions #

Simplicity (Simplicitas)

• Not merely an affirmative description but understood through negation of composition
• Omnino simplex: altogether simple, admitting no composition of any kind
• Contrast: Even angels possess composition of essence and existence; only God is absolutely simple

Otherness vs. Difference

• Differre per aliquid: to differ by something (requires intermediate difference)
• Esse aliud per se: to be other by itself (requires no intermediate difference)
• Simple things are other by themselves without needing further differences

Prime Matter (Materia Prima)

• Pure potency with no actuality
• Cannot enter into anything composed because it is only ability without any act
• Stands in complete opposition to God who is pure act

The Composite (Compositum)

• Always has something that does not belong to each of its parts
• Parts are related as potency to act within the whole
• Depends upon both parts and their union for its being

Examples & Illustrations #

The Written Word #

• The letters C, A, T are related to the word “cat” as potency to act
• No single letter is the word; all together constitute it
• The letters can form other words (initials for “Thomas Aquinas College”)
• This shows how parts have their being ordered toward the whole

The Chair #

• Legs and seat are related to the whole chair as potency to act
• No individual part is “the chair”
• The whole is constituted by the unified arrangement of parts

Numbers and Difference #

• Odd and even numbers: both are numbers but differ by themselves
• The property of having/not having a middle is not itself a difference requiring further difference
• This example shows how simple things can be other without composition

Water and Cubits #

• If the whole water is two cubits, a part of the water is not two cubits
• Yet both whole and part are water (share the predicate “water”)
• This illustrates that composition admits properties of the whole not present in parts

Human Materiality #

• A person contains matter that could become a lion or worms
• Matter in us is “not us”—it is able to be something other than us
• This illustrates human precariousness due to material composition

Notable Quotes #

“There is something in me that’s not me… I’m in a very precarious situation.” — Duane Berquist (on human composition with matter)

“God, who is strength, is not contained from things that are weak; nor he who is light itself is fitted together from obscure things.” — Hilary of Poitiers (cited by Thomas, on God’s incomposition)

“To be or not to be? That is the question.” — Duane Berquist (citing Shakespeare on the difference between being and non-being)

“Unless you see that rational and irrational are other by themselves, you don’t need to know another difference.” — Duane Berquist (on simple difference)

Questions Addressed #

Main Question of Article 7 #

Is God altogether simple?

• Answer: Yes. Having eliminated all particular kinds of composition, God must be absolutely simple without any composition whatsoever.

Main Question of Article 8 #

Does God come into composition with other things?

• Answer: No. God cannot compose with other things because:
  • He is the first efficient cause, which does not compose numerically with its effects
  • He acts first and through Himself; only composites act through their parts
  • No part of composition can be simply first among beings; God is simply first

Objection from Dionysius #

If Dionysius says God is the being of all things, doesn’t this mean God composes with creatures?

• Resolution: Dionysius speaks of God as being of all things effectively (as efficient cause) and exemplarily (as model), not formally (as intrinsic form). God is cause and exemplar, not component part.

The Problem of Identical Simplicity #

If God and prime matter are both absolutely simple and differ in no way, are they not the same thing?

• Resolution: Simple things are other by themselves and need not differ by something. Being other by oneself does not entail identity. God (pure act) and prime matter (pure potency) are other by themselves but radically opposed, hence not identical.

Understanding Difference #

How can two things differ without differing by something?

• Resolution: When things are altogether simple, difference understood as requiring intermediate differences applies only to composed things. Simple things are other per se; they do not differ but simply are other. To properly speak of them, one should say they are “simply other” rather than that they “differ.”

Pedagogical Methods and Observations #

On Reading Thomas

• Thomas is often brief and assumes reader will unfold implications
• Earlier works sometimes fuller than later summaries
• Summa Contra Gentiles gives six arguments for God’s pure act; Summa Theologiae integrates this into discussion of simplicity
• Must read Thomas carefully, comparing across works to fully grasp his thought

On Close Reading

• Berquist’s teacher taught primarily how to read Thomas carefully
• Most authors do not reward careful reading; Aristotle, Thomas, and Shakespeare do
• Details matter: Thomas may not mention “pure act” explicitly but assumes it will be brought in

On the Importance of Precision

• The distinction between differing and being other is easy to miss but crucial
• Confusing these leads to pantheism or materialism
• Mathematical examples (odd/even, being/non-being) help clarify abstract distinctions