23. God's Simplicity, Perfection, and Likeness to Creatures

Subscribe in Podcast App | Download Transcript

Lecture Notes

Main Topics #

Completing the Treatment of Simplicity (Question 3) #

• Review of premise: Thomas establishes in the preamble that we must first show how God is not (through negation of composition), then how he is known by us (Question 12), then how he is named (Question 13)
• Order of removing compositions from God: Thomas explicitly removes motion first, then composition, though both removals are essential
• Why perfection comes second: Simple things in bodily nature are imperfect (like atoms, electrons). Students naturally think that since God is altogether simple, he must be imperfect. Thomas therefore takes up perfection second to correct this misconception immediately
• The principle connecting simplicity to unchangeability: “Whatever changes is composed” (from Physics Book 1). Since God is altogether simple with no composition, God cannot change. This forms a valid second-figure syllogism
• Three reasons God is unchangeable: (1) From simplicity—composed things can change; (2) From perfection—God is universally perfect and lacking nothing, so cannot acquire anything; (3) From infinity—even those who thought infinity was material recognized the unchangeable nature of the infinite

God’s Perfection (Question 4) #

• Two questions attached to perfection: (1) Whether God is perfect; (2) Whether God is universally perfect, having the perfections of all things
• Distinction in perfection: Creatures are perfect in their kind (Homer is a perfect poet; Mozart is a perfect musician), but lack many perfections. God has no lack of any perfection of any kind
• The problem of opposite perfections: How can God have seemingly opposite perfections (masculine and feminine qualities, wisdom and love)? In creatures, opposites cannot coexist; in God, all perfections pre-exist in a unified, simple way
• Two main arguments for universal perfection:
  1. From efficient causality: Whatever perfection is found in an effect must pre-exist in the efficient cause, either univocally (same form) or eminently (in a more perfect way). God as universal efficient cause must contain all perfections eminently
  2. From ipsum esse (being itself): God’s essence is being itself. Whatever is perfect through being in a limited way (wisdom, life, courage), God has simply by being being itself. Being itself is the most actual and perfect of all things, compared to all others as act to potentiality
• The common mistake about being: Being seems most general and indistinct, therefore imperfect. But ipsum esse (being itself) is most actual and most perfect. The indistinctness and generality apply to being as predicated of many things, not to being itself

Creatures’ Likeness to God (Article 3, Question 4) #

• The paradox of likeness and distance: Scripture asks “Who is like the Lord?” yet also says we are made “in the image and likeness of God.” How can creatures be like God when the distance is so great?
• Fourth Lateran Council principle (cited from what Berquist identifies as the fourth session): “Between God and creatures there can be noted a likeness without a greater unlikeness.” We can affirm likeness and deny it simultaneously
• Implications for naming God: The principle of simultaneous affirmation and denial is important for understanding how names are transferred from creatures to God
• Etymology vs. meaning distinction: This clarifies how we can speak of “perfection” in God even though the word comes from factum (made). The etymology tells us where the word originated; the meaning (what the word signifies) extends to anything fully actual, whether made or not

Key Arguments #

Why Simplicity Does Not Imply Imperfection (Against Objection 2) #

• The material beginning is imperfect, but not simply first: The seed is the beginning of plants and animals, but the seed is imperfect. However, something more perfect precedes it (the mature plant or animal)
• Principle of actuality: Being in potentiality is not reduced to act except through something already in act. Therefore, something actually perfect must precede what is imperfect
• Application to God: God is the first beginning not as first matter (which is pure potentiality and imperfect) but as the first efficient cause (the mover and maker), which must be most of all in act
• Act before potentiality: Act is simply before potentiality, though in time a thing may be in potentiality before in act. Aristotle teaches this in Metaphysics Book 9

Why Being Itself Is Most Perfect (Against Objection 3) #

• Being compared to other things as act: Ipsum esse is the most perfect of all things because it is compared to all other things as act to potentiality
• Nothing has actuality except by being: Whatever exists has actuality insofar as it is. Therefore, being itself is the actuality of all things, even of forms themselves
• Being received vs. being as receiver: Being is not compared to others as that which receives to that which is received, but rather as the received to the one receiving. This inverts the usual relationship
• How being is contracted: Being is not contracted like a genus by differences (as if there were different kinds of being). Rather, different natures partake of being in different ways according to their own nature; they receive being more or less fully

The Universal Perfection of God (Two Arguments) #

1. From the nature of efficient causality: Effects pre-exist in their efficient cause. God is the universal efficient cause of all things. Therefore, all perfections of all things must pre-exist in God, in a more eminent way
2. From God as ipsum esse: Since perfections are perfections insofar as they participate in being, and God is being itself, God possesses all perfections in their fullness and simplicity

Important Definitions #

Perfection (perfectio) #

• General sense: That to which nothing is lacking according to its mode or way of perfection (modus perfectinis)
• Creature perfection: Limited to a particular genus or kind (Homer is perfect as a poet; Mozart as a musician)
• Divine perfection: Universal (universaliter perfectus) - lacking no nobility or perfection of any kind found in any genus
• Etymology: The word comes from factum (made), from the idea that something made becomes perfect when it reaches its complete form. But the meaning extends to anything fully actual, whether made or not
• Simple perfection: The predicate “perfect” is attributed to God without qualification, not merely “perfect of a kind”

Act (actus) and Potentiality (potentia) #

• Agent as act: The agent or maker is essentially in act (in actu). What is received from an agent is received through its actuality
• Receiver as potentiality: That which receives is as such potentiality (potentia). What is given is given insofar as it is act
• Simply speaking: Act is simply (simpliciter) before potentiality, though in time something may be in potentiality before in act
• Reduction of potentiality: Potentiality is reduced to act only through something already in act. Nothing in potentiality can actualize itself

Ipsum esse (being itself) #

• Most actual of all things: Being itself is compared to all other things as act to potentiality
• Actuality of all things: To be (esse) is the actuality of all things, and of forms themselves
• Not a genus: Being itself is not contracted like a genus by differences; rather, it is participated in differently by different natures
• Formal and received in creatures: In creatures, being is considered as formal and received (not as that to which being belongs, but as what is received by that which has being)

Examples & Illustrations #

Material Simplicity vs. God’s Simplicity #

• Atoms and electrons: Simple material things seem imperfect because they are indivisible parts. But this is because they are pure potentiality, not pure actuality
• Progress from imperfect to perfect: Just as going toward first matter yields simpler things (atom → electron), students naturally think simplicity equals imperfection. Thomas corrects this by showing God’s simplicity is pure actuality

Efficiency and Causality #

• The cookie press: The press already has the shape it gives to the dough. The agent gives what it actually possesses. This illustrates how an agent must be in act to transmit actuality
• Michelangelo and the marble: Just as Michelangelo gives a shape to marble through his actuality, so God gives being and perfection to creatures through God’s actuality
• The sun’s power: All things generated through the sun’s power have a likeness in the sun. This shows how effects pre-exist in their efficient cause

Etymology and Meaning #

• Geometry (measure the earth): The name comes from measuring the earth, but geometry is an abstract science concerning sphere and cube, not sensible measurement
• Philosophy (love of wisdom): Common confusion—the name means “love of wisdom” but Plato and Aristotle use it to name the knowledge (scientia) the philosopher pursues, not the love itself
• Berquist (mountain branch): The name’s etymology is “mountain branch,” but the speaker is not literally a mountain branch except metaphorically

The Problem of Opposite Perfections #

• Masculine and feminine qualities: How can God have both? St. Francis de Sales (quoted by Paul VI) says women have greater capacity for love; yet the greatest theologians of faith-seeking-understanding (Augustine, Thomas) are men with greater capacity for understanding. How are both in God?
• Love and knowledge: Knowing tries to get something into your head; loving tries to put your heart into what you love. They seem to work in contrary ways, yet God has both perfectly
• Resolution: In God, opposites pre-exist in a unified, simple way without formal distinction, unlike in creatures where opposites cannot coexist

Being as Most General #

• Apparent imperfection: Being is the most general concept, receiving additions of all things (substance adds to being; quantity adds to substance, etc.). So being seems most indistinct and imperfect
• The confusion: Modern philosophers mistakenly identify being (which is everything) with matter, both seeming simple with nothing by which they differ. They conclude being and matter must be the same
• The correction: Being itself (ipsum esse) is most actual and perfect. The generality and indistinctness apply only to being as predicated of many things, not to being itself as God’s essence

The Wise Man’s Knowledge #

• Aristotle’s insight: The wise man knows all things in a qualified sense because he knows that which is said of all things (being, one, etc.)
• Not unqualified knowledge: But this is not knowledge of all things simply. Only God knows all things simply without qualification
• The equivocation: Just as a man might say he knows everything because he knows what “knowable” means, so one can say the wise man knows all things in a very qualified way

Notable Quotes #

“When we speak about God, we stutter.” — St. Gregory the Great (cited by Thomas Aquinas)

“The simple things in bodily things are imperfect.” — Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae I, Q. 4, Preamble

“Between God and creatures there can be noted a likeness without a greater unlikeness.” — Fourth Lateran Council (cited by Berquist; commonly attributed to Session IV, Canon 2)

“God, in something one, has all existing things beforehand.” — Dionysius, Divine Names, Chapter 5 (cited by Thomas)

“Whatever changes is composed.” — Aristotle, Physics Book 1 (foundational principle for understanding God’s unchangeability)

“Act is simply before potentiality.” — Aristotle, Metaphysics Book 9 (fundamental to understanding why God as pure act must be most perfect)

“Be perfect, even as your heavenly Father is perfect.” — Matthew 5:48 (cited as scriptural authority for God’s perfection)

Questions Addressed #

Why Does Thomas Discuss Perfection Immediately After Simplicity? #

• Student misconception: Material experience teaches that simple things are imperfect (atoms are simpler than molecules, but more limited). Students naturally conclude that God’s simplicity means imperfection
• Correction strategy: By discussing perfection second, Thomas immediately corrects this misconception
• Philosophical reason: Because composed things in creatures are more perfect than simple things, but this is because creature perfection is limited. God’s simplicity is compatible with infinite perfection

How Can God Be Simple Yet Perfect? #

• The distinction: In creatures, composed things (like a church with diverse elements) are more perfect than simple things. But this is because creature perfection is limited to a kind
• In God: Absolute simplicity and absolute perfection coincide because God is pure act with no potentiality. Composition introduces potentiality, which is imperfect
• Example from art: Shakespeare’s plays (composed) are more perfect than his sonnets (simple), but this is because created perfection is limited. God’s simplicity contains all perfections eminently

How Can Creatures Be Like God Despite Infinite Distance? #

• The principle: We can affirm likeness and deny it simultaneously. Creatures are like God, but with greater unlikeness (Fourth Lateran Council)
• Scripture’s witness: “Who is like the Lord?” (denial) and “made in image and likeness of God” (affirmation) both true
• Method for naming God: This principle is crucial for understanding how we transfer names from creatures to God—we must both affirm and deny the likeness

Why Is Being Itself Most Perfect If Being Is Most General? #

• The objection: Being is the most common term, receiving additions from all other concepts. The more general, the more indistinct. Therefore being seems most imperfect
• The resolution: Being itself (ipsum esse) is most actual and perfect. It is compared to all other things as act to potentiality
• The confusion: The objection confuses being as predicated of many things (which is indeed indistinct) with being itself (which is pure actuality)
• Clarification: When contracting being through different natures, we are not contracting a genus by differences as if there were different kinds of being. Rather, different natures partake of being in different ways according to their nature

Can Opposite Perfections Coexist in God? #

• The problem: Opposites cannot be in the same thing (a subject cannot be both healthy and sick). Yet God seems to have opposite perfections (masculine and feminine qualities; wisdom and love which seem to work contrary ways)
• The solution: In creatures, opposites are formally distinct and exclude each other. In God, all perfections pre-exist in a unified, simple way without formal distinction
• Key insight: Perfections in creatures are limited to a kind. In God, they are unlimited and unified in God’s simple being itself

Philosophical Method Notes #

Etymology vs. Meaning #

• Critical distinction: The origin of a word (a quo sumitur nomen) is not necessarily the meaning of the word (ad quod sumitur)
• Example with perfection: “Perfect” comes from factum (made), but the meaning extends to anything fully actual, whether made or not
• Berquist’s insistence: This distinction is crucial and often confused by students and modern philosophers
• Application: We must know both the etymology and the meaning, and understand when etymology can mislead about meaning

The Reduction of Potentiality to Act #

• Fundamental principle: Being in potentiality cannot actualize itself; it must be actualized by something already in act
• Therefore: Something must be simply first and in act, not in potentiality (refuting the error of those who make first matter the first principle)
• Connection to God: God must be the first efficient cause, most of all in act, because only pure act can be first without prior causation

Key Connections to Other Questions #

• Question 3 (Simplicity): The subject being completed; perfection follows from and depends on understanding simplicity
• Question 5 (Goodness): Will follow from perfection; things are good insofar as they are perfect
• Question 12 (How God is Known): The ordering principle: we know through what he is not (negative way via Question 3), then how he is known by us
• Question 13 (God’s Names): We name God as we know him; both depend on understanding simplicity and perfection