I don't understand your objection. Does this section from the Catholic Encyclopedia on "Essence and Existence" describe your objection? I understand the argument up to possible and actualized essence but I don't understand the "nice point" (in bold).
The question agitated in the School arises at this point: What is the nature of the distinction that obtains between the physical essence and the existence of creatures? It is to be borne in mind that the controversy turns not upon a distinction between the merely possible essence and the same essence as actualized, and thus physically existent; but on the far different and extremely nice point as to the nature of the distinction to be drawn between the actualized and physically existent essence and its existence or actuality, by which it is existent in the physical order. That there is no such distinction in God is conceded by all. With regard to creatures, several opinions have been advanced. Many Thomists hold that a real distinction obtains here and that the essence and existence of creatures differ as different entities. Others, among them Dominicus Soto, Lepidi, etc., seem to prefer a distinction other than real. The Scotists, affirming their "formal distinction", which is neither precisely logical nor real, but practically equivalent to virtual, decide the point against a real distinction. Suarez, with many of his school, teaches that the distinction to be made is a logical one. The principal arguments in favour of the two chief views may be summarized as follows:Thomists:
* If essence and existence were but one thing, we should be unable to conceive the one without conceiving the other. But we are as a fact able to conceive of essence by itself.
* If there be no real distinction between the two, then the essence is identical with the existence. But in God alone are these identical.
Suarez:
* A real physical essence is actual in the line of being and not merely possible. But this actuality must belong to it, as a physical essence; for it is, ex hypothesi, neither nothing nor merely possible, and the actuality of an essence is its existence. Cardinal Franselin cast the argument in this form: "Est omnino evidens in re positâ extra suas causas, in statu actualitatis, ne ratione quidem abstrahi posse formalem existentiam" (De Verbo Incarnato).
* It is inconceivable how the existence of a real or physical essence should differ from the essence of its existence.
These positions are maintained, not only by argument, but by reference to the authority and teaching of St. Thomas, as to whose genuine doctrine there is considerable difference of opinion and interpretation. It does not, however, appear to be a matter of great moment, as Soto remarks, whether one holds or rejects the doctrine of a real distinction between essence and existence, so long as the difference between God and His creatures is safe-guarded, in that existence is admitted to be of the essence of God and not of the essence of creatures. And this would seem to be sufficiently provided for even in the supposition that created essences are not distinct from their existences as one thing is from another, but as a thing from its mode.
What I was referring to was the entire Universe, taken as a Whole. The Big Picture.
Are you a monist? Pantheist? Save me some time here.
There is no separation between being and essence. The statement 'things do not exist by nature' has no meaning for me. To me, that is a contradiction in terms. Doesn't explain much for me in that regard.
Aristotle advanced the idea of "being in potency" and "being in act" to explain 'the problem of change.'
Thus, there are three principles necessary for change to take place. There must be something new that comes to be, something old that passes away, and something that stays the same throughout. In the Aristotelian tradition, these principles receive the names form, privation and matter. Form is what comes to be, privation is what passes away and matter is what stays the same throughout the change.
I don't understand your objection. Does this section from the Catholic Encyclopedia on "Essence and Existence" describe your objection? I understand the argument up to possible and actualized essence but I don't understand the "nice point" (in bold).
It is to be borne in mind that the controversy turns not upon a distinction between the merely possible essence and the same essence as actualized, and thus physically existent; but on the far different and extremely nice point as to the nature of the distinction to be drawn between the
actualized and physically existent essence and its existence or actuality, by which it is existent in the physical order.This position is Platonist, holding basically that the ‘essence’ is a Platonic form in the mind of God. What I have marked in red is the heart of matter and the ’nature of the distinction’ is, as the old saying goes - ‘it is a distinction without a difference.’ Essence is an abstraction of the sum total of the properties describing a phenomenon that is being reified into ‘existence’ as Platonic form here. At the point that ‘essence’ is separated from what ‘exists’ that defines it, yet is still said to have ‘existence’ somewhere is the point of reification. To say that essence exists in some place which is, at the same time, separate from physical existence, is, as far as I am concerned, a contradiction in terms. * If essence and existence were but one thing, we should be unable to conceive the one without conceiving the other. But we are as a fact able to conceive of essence by itself.
It is an abstraction of the sum total of the properties of the target concept. It can be a fairly high level concept that includes not only concretes like color or shape, but other abstractions such as beauty or usefulness. When one is dealing with such a high level, complicated abstraction it is easy to reify it and think it ‘must’ exist somewhere. This so much easier than actually going through the work of identifying all the elements of the abstraction and figuring out where they all derive from. * If there be no real distinction between the two, then the essence is identical with the existence. But in God alone are these identical.
And my point is admitted here, they are identical. But then, the second sentence is an unnecessary qualification, that is an Assertion Without Proof. This is the real problem here, this Begged Question. It is at the heart of all I question. It is a statement made with no other justification other than, ’This is the way it is.’ But there is no ’reason’ to believe this. Nothing in the foregoing that justifies it. It cannot be proven, it cannot be demonstrated, it cannot be verified, it is just a dogmatic statement. It is no different than saying the Universe arises as a lotus flower out of the navel of the sleeping Vishnu. Are you a monist? Pantheist? Save me some time here.
As I said to someone else, what I am is not the issue. I’m not interested in what you are either. I am analyzing the nature of the statements and the conclusions that are drawn from them and how we arrived there, is this valid thinking or not? I cannot save you any time, it would be counterproductive to do so, as I have learned over the years. As soon as you develop a handle you will stick me in that box and I will spend all my time explaining why that doesn’t pertain to me while you will insist it does, like those that insist my only choices are to believe in evolution or as you do. I’m in my own box. Form is what comes to be, privation is what passes away and matter is what stays the same throughout the change.
Aristotle wasn’t right about ’everything.’ He did the best he could with the information available at the time. He major contribution was giving us an insight to how we think.