# Source: dum est, non potest non esse?



## NaphtaliPress (Jun 17, 2010)

The below is a citation out of Gillespie (English Popish Ceremonies). It surely seems to be a quotation from a philosopher, maybe Aquinas or Scotus? Any thoughts, suggestions what or where it is from? I've found the phrase beginning "quod est" rather than "quickquid est," and also Scotus has a phrase "qua res [FONT=&quot] dum est, non potest non esse." So far I have not found something close in Aquinas.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]To us it seems very strange how a man, when he is actually a banqueter, and at the instant of his communicating can be made in any other sort a banqueter than he is; for _quicquid est, dum est, non potest non esse._[FONT=&quot][1][/FONT] Wherefore if a man in the instant of his receiving is an unworthy banqueter, he cannot at that instant be made any other than he is.[/FONT]​ [FONT=&quot][1][/FONT] [_whatever is, while it is, cannot not be_.]​


----------



## jwright82 (Jun 17, 2010)

I am very ignorant in this area but perhaps it is just a common-slogan of the day. Like I have read William James quoting what he called a "Scholastic adage" of "when facing a contradiction make a distinction", he never gave a source for the information but acted like it was common knowledge of scholasticism. It may even have its source in Greek or Roman philosophy since it seems a pretty basic logical principle which again would be common knowledge not cited to a particuler source. For instance Aristotle explained the law of non-contradiction but we don't call it Aristotle's law of non-contradiction just the law of non-contradiction. I don't know if this helps but maybe it might provide an avenue of exploration for you.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Jun 17, 2010)

Thanks James; that is possible as there are one or two maxims like among the many Latin phrases tossed out by Gillespie; however the majority of these have been traceable to poets or philosophers so I wanted to make sure before letting it be.


jwright82 said:


> I am very ignorant in this area but perhaps it is just a common-slogan of the day. Like I have read William James quoting what he called a "Scholastic adage" of "when facing a contradiction make a distinction", he never gave a source for the information but acted like it was common knowledge of scholasticism. It may even have its source in Greek or Roman philosophy since it seems a pretty basic logical principle which again would be common knowledge not cited to a particuler source. For instance Aristotle explained the law of non-contradiction but we don't call it Aristotle's law of non-contradiction just the law of non-contradiction. I don't know if this helps but maybe it might provide an avenue of exploration for you.


----------



## JennyG (Jun 17, 2010)

I showed it to my husband. He thinks it looks as if it could be originally Aristotle (much used in Latin translation in the middle ages) - on the grounds that distinguishing "be" in the existential sense from the same in the copulative sense was a topic that exercised the Greek philosophers (here with the added complication of negation).
But he stresses that it's only an educated hunch


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Jun 17, 2010)

Thanks Jenny; interesting. This link to a Wiki on Scotus makes me lean toward that way; maybe Scotus or the sources noted on that basis but I would sure like to find it commonly attributed to him or something akin. 
Duns Scotus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


JennyG said:


> I showed it to my husband. He thinks it looks as if it could be originally Aristotle (much used in Latin translation in the middle ages) - on the grounds that distinguishing "be" in the existential sense from the same in the copulative sense was a topic that exercised the Greek philosophers (here with the added complication of negation).
> But he stresses that it's only an educated hunch


----------



## jwright82 (Jun 17, 2010)

Your husband may be correct. I am going to look in the Metaphysics by Aristotle for this phrase tonight, as well as the Platonic/neo-Platonic resources I have. I found some simililer though fundamentaly different statements by Parmenedes, he rambled about being and not being. I am pretty sure he didn't say it but I will examine the rest of the pre-Socratics to see if I can't find it, it does sound remarkably Greek to me. I'll probally won't find it but you two got me curious now so hopefully I will stumble across it.


----------



## P.F. (Jun 17, 2010)

Looks like it may be taken from Summa Theologica 1st Part, Question 14, Article 13, Response to the 2nd objection:

"Et sic necessarium est, sicut et antecedens, quia omne quod est, dum est, necesse est esse, ut dicitur in I Periherm."

Thomas de Aquino, Summa Theologiae, Iª q. 3-14

Or from "Foreknowledge and Predestination," Chapter 4, Response to Third Objection:

"Et quia omne quod est, dum est, necesse est esse, quod tamen absolute non est necessarium; ideo in se consideratum, est contingens; sed relatum ad Dei cognitionem, est necessarium; quia ad ipsam refertur secundum quod est in esse actuali, cum aeternitati omnia sint praesentia."

Leonardus Pistoriensis, De praescientia et praedestinatione

Or better yet see here: http://bit.ly/d0sikI

Furthermore, see the reference here: http://books.google.com/books?id=1I...q="est, dum est, non potest non esse.&f=false which points one back to Bonaventure, via the footnotes.

For Bonaventure, the best I've found is this: http://books.google.com/books?id=zs...ook_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CDAQ6AEwAQ

I'm guessing it goes back even further.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Jun 17, 2010)

Many thanks; Gillespie cites Aquinas' Summa more than two dozen times so my first guess would be that would be the most likely immediate source for Gillespie to have picked it up. A simply Cf. to that place may be sufficient?


----------



## P.F. (Jun 17, 2010)

Perhaps. Looking at Gillespie, my first guess would be to look at "Dr. Forbesse, Iren., Lib. 1, cap. 1" for the text. I can't seem to find whatever book that is on-line. Perhaps it is lost. Bonaventure seems to have the closest match for words, though I think (correct me if you disagree) that Aquinas' thought corresponds, especially in the third instance (though I can't seem to find that in the "Corpus Thomisticum," which makes me worry about it.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Jun 17, 2010)

Forbe's _Irenicum _is available on EEBO and I have more work to do with it so I can check, but I really am keying on the Aquinas. It looks like the phrase is in italics at the link and it ends with what I think is a reference to a work by Duns Scotus, i.e. I Periherm


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Jun 17, 2010)

That also gets back to the Aristotle idea as that is Scotus' work on Aristotle's Peri hermeneias.
[FONT=&quot][/FONT]


----------



## jwright82 (Jun 17, 2010)

Here is a link to stuff on Scotus and by him. Some papers on his metaphysics as well. I looked through some of them but there was no discussion, that I found, relating being to non-being (which it seems is the overall focus of the phrase, although a clear Scotus indentity of being and existance is there too).

---------- Post added at 12:32 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:32 PM ----------

here is the link.
The Internet Guide to Bl. John Duns Scotus.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Jun 17, 2010)

Here's the Aquinas in English; by Philosopher via the link he means Aristotle. So need to look in that work by him I think.
Therefore we must reply otherwise; that when the antecedent contains anything belonging to an act of the soul, the consequent must be taken not as it is in itself, but as it is in the soul: for the existence of a thing in itself is different from the existence of a thing in the soul. For example, when I say, "What the soul understands is immaterial," this is to be understood that it is immaterial as it is in the intellect, not as it is in itself. Likewise if I say, "If God knew anything, it will be," the consequent must be understood as it is subject to the divine knowledge, i.e. as it is in its presentiality. And thus it is necessary, as also is the antecedent: "For everything that is, while it is, must be necessarily be," as the Philosopher says in Peri Herm. i.


----------

