Godfrey's collapse of this distinction cannot account for why finite beings fail to exhaust the fullness of being, since an unreceived esse would be unlimited and identical with God's own act of existing.
?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
No one has weighed in yet. Be the first to share reasons for or against this statement.
Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.
Fullness of being(What finite things cannot fully possess or represent)
The complete, unlimited perfection and reality of existence—a quality traditionally attributed to God alone.
Godfrey(Named as the philosopher whose theory is being critiqued)
A medieval philosopher (likely Godfrey of Fontaines, 13th century) who developed ideas about how things exist and relate to God.
Identical with(used to ask whether a playwright in an alternate scenario is actually Russell)
Being the exact same person or thing, not just similar—in philosophy, this raises the question of what makes someone 'the same person' across different scenarios.
Unreceived(An 'unreceived esse' is existence that isn't dependent on or caused by anything external)
Not given or received from something else; self-originating and independent.
esse(Damian's ontology of good and evil; 610B–C)
Genuine or real being, of the kind possessed by good things, as distinguished from the apparent or quasi-being attributed to evil things.