tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2472139466585018053.post3045783103592943898..comments2024-03-11T04:11:06.487-04:00Comments on The Smithy: De materiaLee Faberhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00476833516234522602noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2472139466585018053.post-11347527820129124402007-08-26T20:29:00.000-04:002007-08-26T20:29:00.000-04:00Yes, creation is ex nihilo. see Ord. II d. 1. 1st...Yes, creation is ex nihilo. see Ord. II d. 1. 1st mode as in objective potency. the classic example is the soul of the anti-christ. for a fuller discussion of potency see the first 3 questions or so of Book IX of the Qq. on the metaphysics.Lee Faberhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00476833516234522602noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2472139466585018053.post-82268689656058188142007-08-25T22:01:00.000-04:002007-08-25T22:01:00.000-04:00Again, my ignorance: is Scotus suggesting, that cr...Again, my ignorance: is Scotus suggesting, that creation was not ex nihilo? It seems that he is, since "before it was created, it existed in the first mode". But the first mode means diminished being. But whatever existed in the first mode had to be created; but it could not have been created, Scotus seems to be saying, if it didn't already exist in the first mode. Which seems to be saying that it always existed in that way, which means it was uncreated. Or am I missing something, such as what Scotus means by "first mode" or "creation"?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2472139466585018053.post-59095454499083567802007-08-01T21:56:00.000-04:002007-08-01T21:56:00.000-04:00"uniniate"? Real smooth.This passage at any rate d..."uniniate"? Real smooth.<BR/><BR/>This passage at any rate does <I>not</I> seem to be arguing that matter can exist without being informed, but I'm given to understand he's more explicit other places.Michael Sullivanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11191322302191384384noreply@blogger.com