Why Are Accidents Included under Being per se?

Nova et Vetera (forthcoming)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

In In V Metaphysics, lec. 9, Aquinas distinguishes between “being by accident” (ens per accidens) and “being by itself” (ens per se) and includes the nine accidental categories under the latter. But isn’t substance a being per se while accidents are, by definition, accidental beings? Several authors—including Ralph McInerny, Paul Symington, and Greg Doolan—have offered explanations of this strange classification. Drawing on an overlooked parallel text in the Posterior Analytics commentary and on Aquinas’s critique of Avicenna’s understanding of accidental denominatives, this paper presents an alternative explanation of the lecture. In the process, it clarifies how Aquinas views the relation of the ten categories to predication and suggests important implications for how we should understand the analogy of being and the phrase “substantial being” (esse substantiale). [Winner of the Leo Elder's Junior Scholar Essay Contest (2024)]

Other Versions

No versions found

Links

PhilArchive

External links

  • This entry has no external links. Add one.
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

How the Fallacy of Accident Got Its Name.Allan Bäck - 2015 - Vivarium 53 (2-4):142-169.
A Comparison between Book E and Book K of Aristotle’s Metaphysics.Lisa Bressan - 2018 - Proceedings of the XXIII World Congress of Philosophy 2 (2):47-54.

Analytics

Added to PP
2023-11-27

Downloads
519 (#57,413)

6 months
213 (#15,124)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Elliot Polsky
St. John Vianney Theological Seminary

Citations of this work

The Real Distinction between Supposit and Nature in Angels in Thomas Aquinas.Elliot Polsky - forthcoming - Proceedings of the American Catholic Philosophical Association.

Add more citations