84. Distinctions in Being: Per Se and Per Accidens

Subscribe in Podcast App | Download Transcript

Lecture Notes

Main Topics #

• The Per Se / Per Accidens Distinction: The fundamental difference between something belonging to a thing essentially (per se) versus accidentally (per accidens)
• Common Philosophical Errors: How confusing these categories leads to fundamental mistakes in reasoning
• Application to Metaphysical Problems: How this distinction resolves problems about matter, form, privation, and non-being
• Extension to Theology: How the same distinction applies to theological concepts like divine attributes and the Trinity
• Predication and Knowledge: How things are named according to how we know them, affecting how we apply terms

Key Arguments #

The Distinction Illustrated Through Examples #

Sickness and Health

• The body desires health (per se)
• The sickness does not desire health, for health would destroy sickness
• Nothing desires what is bad for itself or what would destroy it
• Therefore, we must distinguish: the body desires health as such, but sickness (which is accidental to the body) does not
• Plato’s error: confusing matter with non-being, as if matter were privation

Ignorance and Learning

• One can only teach the ignorant
• Therefore ignorance gives the ability to learn?
• No: ignorance is always there when learning occurs, but not as the cause of learning
• Ignorance is per accidens, not per se, to learning
• The ability to learn comes from the nature of the rational soul, not from the privation (ignorance)

Sartre’s Error on Free Will

• Sartre argues: one can only truly choose if the will is indeterminate before choosing
• Therefore: indetermination (a kind of non-being) is what makes one free
• Error: Sartre confuses what is always present (indetermination) with what causes the effect (freedom)
• The indetermination is per accidens, not per se
• True freedom comes from the rational will’s nature, not from negation

Berkeley’s Error on Knowledge

• One cannot know anything without it being known by me
• What is known by me is in my mind
• Therefore: all I know is what is in my mind
• Error: “known by me” is per accidens to the object known, not per se
• When I know the definition of a square, the definition itself doesn’t change depending on who knows it
• The same theorem is known by me and by you, though the knowing is different in each case

The Principle: What Always Accompanies Need Not Be the Cause #

• If X always accompanies Y, it does not follow that X is per se (essentially) the cause of Y
• Mere temporal or necessary presence does not establish per se causation
• Socrates in Phaedo: “Socrates is always here, trouble comes to town after I arrive, therefore Socrates causes trouble”
• The negative always precedes the positive (learning always involves prior ignorance), but the negative is not the per se cause

Application to Hegel and the “Tremendous Power of the Negative” #

• Hegel: the negative always comes before, and seems to be per se cause of what comes after
• The error: confusing what is always present with what is essentially causal
• Just because negation/indetermination is always there does not make it the fundamental principle

Important Definitions #

Per Se (as such, essentially)

• Predicated of something according to its essence or nature
• What belongs to a thing by virtue of what it fundamentally is
• Example: “rational” is per se to man; “white” or “educated” is per accidens to man

Per Accidens (accidentally)

• Predicated of something not according to its essence, but incidentally
• What accompanies a thing but does not belong to its nature
• Example: “educated” or “pale” is per accidens to Socrates

Privation (στέρησις / privatio)

• The absence of a form that a thing is naturally capable of possessing
• Distinguished from mere non-being (nihil)
• Distinguished from mere accidents
• Example: blindness in a creature naturally capable of sight is privation

Non-Being

• In the strict sense (nihil): absolute nothing
• In a qualified sense: accidents, matter, privation are “not being simply” but “being in some way”
• Example: becoming learned is not coming-to-be simply (I don’t come into existence), but coming-to-be in a qualified sense (I come to be learned)

Examples & Illustrations #

Change and Coming-to-Be #

• Generation (substantial): Wayne Perkins came to be (generation simply)
• Qualification: When I learned Euclid, I didn’t come to be; I came to be educated (generation in a qualified sense)
• Accident: When I enter this room, I come to be in this room (not generation, but change of place)
• When I leave the room, I don’t cease to be simply, but I cease to be in this room

The Difference Between Per Se and Per Accidens in Predication #

• “The body is capable of being healthy” — the body is in some way good (per accidens, because goodness belongs to it through its capacity for form)
• “Sickness is not in any way good” — sickness has no capacity for the good; it is destroyed by health
• “Squares can be green, but greenness is not per se to square” — we don’t confuse accidental properties with essential ones when they’re optional
• “But ignorance always accompanies learning” — yet we rightly recognize ignorance is not per se to learning

Plato’s Confusion of Matter with Non-Being #

• Plato identified matter (ὕλη / materia) with non-being (μὴ ὄν)
• But matter is not nothing; it is capable of receiving form
• Accidents are not per se being, but nor are they simply non-being
• Matter and accidents are being in a qualified sense (ens per accidens), not being simply (ens simpliciter)

Questions Addressed #

Question 1: How can a distinction that seems abstract matter for practical reasoning? #

Response: This distinction is foundational. Without it, “you can’t get anywhere in philosophy.” People who deny or fail to see this distinction end up in absurdities (Sartre, Plato, Berkeley). Even the wise are “seduced” into this error—it is extremely difficult to see.

Question 2: How does this distinction extend beyond physics to theology? #

Response: The distinction between per se and per accidens reappears in theological contexts:

• God’s attributes (justice, wisdom, mercy) are the same secundum rem (in reality) but differ in ratione (in definition)—a version of this same distinction
• This was not invented by theologians but recognized as necessary from the structure of being itself
• Understanding the distinction in simple cases (sickness/health) prepares one for grasping it in complex cases (divine attributes)

Question 3: Why does Aristotle emphasize that even the wise are deceived by this? #

Response: Because the per se/per accidens distinction is genuinely subtle. What accompanies something necessarily (like ignorance accompanying learning) can appear to be its cause. The error arises from natural human observation of temporal sequence and constant accompaniment. Vigilant philosophical thinking is required to distinguish genuine causation from mere accompaniment.

Structure of the Lecture #

Berquist begins with the general principle, illustrates it through multiple philosophical errors (Plato, Sartre, Berkeley, Hegel), then shows how recognizing the distinction unlocks understanding of metaphysical concepts (matter, form, accident, privation) and theological concepts. The lecture emphasizes that without this distinction, fundamental philosophical understanding breaks down. He stresses that the distinction appears again and again—it is not a minor logical point but a recurring structural feature of reality and thought that philosophy must continually recognize and apply.

Pedagogical Note #

Berquist emphasizes that recognizing this distinction requires practice and habituation. Students should become sensitive to moments when:

• Something always accompanies something else (but may not cause it)
• An absence is treated as a positive principle
• What is defined in one way is confused with what is defined in another way
• Accidents are treated as essential properties