John Scottus Eriugena famously defined his Natura as possessing two primary orders — the things that are, and the things that are not — the startling point of his theory is that Eriugena defines 'being' and 'non-being' as those objects that are, or are not, perceived by the sensible/intellectual faculties of man.
In so doing, he united the two distinct lines of theological development that even today separate East from West — he took the Apophatic or Negative Theology of the East (in the works of the 6th century Syrian Monk Denys the Areopagite), and placed them alongside the tradition of Cataphatic or Affirmative Theology that so marked the Western way.
Eriugena has been declared the last great Platonist of the West, for even in his own time he began to be accused by the champions of an emergent Aristotelianism. His influence is there however, down through the ages ... especially in the line of apophatic speculation, such as in Eckhart, and Nicholas of Cusa ... even today he is admired by the German Idealists in particular, among the Continental schools of philosophy.
Being and NonBeing
The first mode:
"Of these, the first seems to be the one by which reason persuades us that all things subject to corporeal sense and the perception of intelligence can reasonably be said to have being... "
and conversely ...
"those things which are beyond the grasp of the mind, of which God is foremost, are said not to be."
Here Eriugena argues for a mode of non-being by virtue of is 'excellence', which transcends any objective categorisation. (He discusses the Aristotelian Categories at great length.)
He will also argue that, apart from God who alone is, everything else is, and is not, simultaneously ... and finally that the actuality of the being of all things — their is-ness — is their participation in God who alone is.
The second mode:
The first mode dealt with non-being deemed higher than being 'by reason of their excellence' and the second mode is an application of this to the created world. Since God is totally beyond human understanding, He is said not to be. But that is seen by Eriugena as a limit upon the Divine Nature. He prefers to further distance God from the limitations of both being and non-being, and quotes Denys: "The being of all things is Superbeing, Divinity."
With regard to creation, Eriugena assigns being to all creatures in accordance with their place in the hierarchy or order of things, 'from the highest angel down to the lowest part of a rational or irrational soul.'
Every order of rational and intellectual creature is said to have and not to have being. It has being insofar as it is known by higher creatures or by itself; it lacks being insofar as it does not allow itself to be comprehended by its inferiors.
The novel twist taken here is to reverse the normal neoplatonic approach to the hierarchy of creation, where the higher is a cause of the lower, and thus said to have greater being, all the way up to God, the Supreme Being. The higher, he says, has no being at all, at least when perceived, if that's the word, by a creature less than itself.
Being and non-being here are relative terms, depending as they do on the difference between subject and mind, rather than any absolute property in the subject itself. Angels have non-being when they are understood by man, but consist of being as they understand themselves.
The third mode:
The third mode of being and non-being considers the difference between the actuality and the potentiality of things.
Thus something has being with regard to its actuality, but there was a time when it was not, and there will be a time when it will no longer be, so being in this degree is the being of things that come into being and pass away.
Thus wilst all being exists in God eternally, being appears in creation according to their time and place, sequentially. Thus the seed is before the plant, and the plant is before the flower.
There is also with this the idea of a thinh exists actually, and potentially, and that the full potentiality of something, that is its perfection, is its true and real mode of being, whereas the actuality of a thing, inasfar as it is neither fulfilled nor perfect, is then said not to be, according to that measure.
Thus a flower that is still a seed is not a flower, the seed contains the potential to be a flower, but it might not be ... so in this aspect the flower has no being until it is a flower.
The fourth mode:
The fourth mode states that 'according to the plausible theory of philosophers' only those things 'grasped by the intellect alone' can truly be said to be, as opposed those things which are merely accessible through sense perception.
To utilise the flower again, we can see the flower exists as a seed, a plant, a flower ... but all of these are grouped under the idea of flower, and the idea of the flower is its being, whereas the actuality of its substance in a given time and place, as a seed, a shoot, a plant, a leaf, a flower, etc., have being in themselves only according to the idea of the plant that precedes them.
The fifth mode:
This mode is particular to a rational nature. The being of anything is the Divine Idea of the thing, that which God wills into being, and which is good, because God wills it. Man, for example, in attaching himself to other things than those willed by God, is said to fall away as it were into unbeing, in that those things towards which he directs himself have no existential being because they are not willed by God, and are called sin.
Thus, to recap, human existence partakes of being and non-being by participation: Being is then synonymous with the true and the real, whereas non-being is synonymous with that which is false, and the illusory ... not because falsehood and illusion are bad, but rather that they are bad precisely because that which is not true, and that which is not real, can have no being.
Thus, as an aside, we can argue that God is and cannot be the author or mover of sin or evil, because sin ands evil possess not existential being, they are by nature illusions, falsehoods, deceptions ... and arise only in the disordered will.
Thomas
In so doing, he united the two distinct lines of theological development that even today separate East from West — he took the Apophatic or Negative Theology of the East (in the works of the 6th century Syrian Monk Denys the Areopagite), and placed them alongside the tradition of Cataphatic or Affirmative Theology that so marked the Western way.
Eriugena has been declared the last great Platonist of the West, for even in his own time he began to be accused by the champions of an emergent Aristotelianism. His influence is there however, down through the ages ... especially in the line of apophatic speculation, such as in Eckhart, and Nicholas of Cusa ... even today he is admired by the German Idealists in particular, among the Continental schools of philosophy.
Being and NonBeing
The first mode:
"Of these, the first seems to be the one by which reason persuades us that all things subject to corporeal sense and the perception of intelligence can reasonably be said to have being... "
and conversely ...
"those things which are beyond the grasp of the mind, of which God is foremost, are said not to be."
Here Eriugena argues for a mode of non-being by virtue of is 'excellence', which transcends any objective categorisation. (He discusses the Aristotelian Categories at great length.)
He will also argue that, apart from God who alone is, everything else is, and is not, simultaneously ... and finally that the actuality of the being of all things — their is-ness — is their participation in God who alone is.
The second mode:
The first mode dealt with non-being deemed higher than being 'by reason of their excellence' and the second mode is an application of this to the created world. Since God is totally beyond human understanding, He is said not to be. But that is seen by Eriugena as a limit upon the Divine Nature. He prefers to further distance God from the limitations of both being and non-being, and quotes Denys: "The being of all things is Superbeing, Divinity."
With regard to creation, Eriugena assigns being to all creatures in accordance with their place in the hierarchy or order of things, 'from the highest angel down to the lowest part of a rational or irrational soul.'
Every order of rational and intellectual creature is said to have and not to have being. It has being insofar as it is known by higher creatures or by itself; it lacks being insofar as it does not allow itself to be comprehended by its inferiors.
The novel twist taken here is to reverse the normal neoplatonic approach to the hierarchy of creation, where the higher is a cause of the lower, and thus said to have greater being, all the way up to God, the Supreme Being. The higher, he says, has no being at all, at least when perceived, if that's the word, by a creature less than itself.
Being and non-being here are relative terms, depending as they do on the difference between subject and mind, rather than any absolute property in the subject itself. Angels have non-being when they are understood by man, but consist of being as they understand themselves.
The third mode:
The third mode of being and non-being considers the difference between the actuality and the potentiality of things.
Thus something has being with regard to its actuality, but there was a time when it was not, and there will be a time when it will no longer be, so being in this degree is the being of things that come into being and pass away.
Thus wilst all being exists in God eternally, being appears in creation according to their time and place, sequentially. Thus the seed is before the plant, and the plant is before the flower.
There is also with this the idea of a thinh exists actually, and potentially, and that the full potentiality of something, that is its perfection, is its true and real mode of being, whereas the actuality of a thing, inasfar as it is neither fulfilled nor perfect, is then said not to be, according to that measure.
Thus a flower that is still a seed is not a flower, the seed contains the potential to be a flower, but it might not be ... so in this aspect the flower has no being until it is a flower.
The fourth mode:
The fourth mode states that 'according to the plausible theory of philosophers' only those things 'grasped by the intellect alone' can truly be said to be, as opposed those things which are merely accessible through sense perception.
To utilise the flower again, we can see the flower exists as a seed, a plant, a flower ... but all of these are grouped under the idea of flower, and the idea of the flower is its being, whereas the actuality of its substance in a given time and place, as a seed, a shoot, a plant, a leaf, a flower, etc., have being in themselves only according to the idea of the plant that precedes them.
The fifth mode:
This mode is particular to a rational nature. The being of anything is the Divine Idea of the thing, that which God wills into being, and which is good, because God wills it. Man, for example, in attaching himself to other things than those willed by God, is said to fall away as it were into unbeing, in that those things towards which he directs himself have no existential being because they are not willed by God, and are called sin.
Thus, to recap, human existence partakes of being and non-being by participation: Being is then synonymous with the true and the real, whereas non-being is synonymous with that which is false, and the illusory ... not because falsehood and illusion are bad, but rather that they are bad precisely because that which is not true, and that which is not real, can have no being.
Thus, as an aside, we can argue that God is and cannot be the author or mover of sin or evil, because sin ands evil possess not existential being, they are by nature illusions, falsehoods, deceptions ... and arise only in the disordered will.
Thomas
