Autor: Lonergan, Bernard J.F.

Buch: The Trinune God: Systematics

Titel: The Triune God: Systematics

Stichwort: Thomas, Sprachgebrauch (Aristoteles, Avicenna): aktive - passive Potenz; Natur; Hervorgang einer Tätigkeit - processio operati

Kurzinhalt: Following Aristotle, he defines active potency as the principle of motion or change in another as other, and passive potency as the principle of motion or change by the other as other.

Textausschnitt: 5 Active and Passive Potency

539d St Thomas uses the words 'active' and 'passive' in two different ways. (Fs)

Following Aristotle, he defines active potency as the principle of motion or change in another as other, and passive potency as the principle of motion or change by the other as other. According to this terminology, then, nature, the principle of motion in that in which it is, is adequately distinguished from active and passive potency, the principle of motion from another or in another. (Fs)

539e But there is another usage derived, it seems, from Avicenna, according to which passive potency is first potency, potency simply so called, such as prime matter or the possible intellect, and active potency is form; thus, De potentia, q. 1, a. 1 c. According to this terminology, nature (in the Aristotelian sense) is the same as passive and active potency. (Fs)

541a Moreover, in the Avicennan terminology there are two aspects to active potency or form. As referring to second act (action, operation, energeia), form is called the principle of action or operation, or the formal principle of action or operation. As further referring to some other reality besides second act that is produced by means of this act, form is said to be the principle of the effect, or the principle of the product. (Fs)

541b Again, since form is both a principle of action and a principle of the effect, the distinction continually recurs between the twofold action, the twofold operation, the twofold motion, or between operation and motion, or action and production, where there is always a question of second act and of some further effect. See Summa contra Gentiles, 2, c. I, ¶¶-6, §§853-55. (Fs)

541c From this same source arises the distinction between a procession of an operation and a processio operati (elsewhere, a process of an operation and a processus operati), as in De veritate, q. 4, a. 2, ad 7m. For the operator that is complete in first act through its form is a principle both of the further perfection which it receives, namely, operation, and of the further perfection which it produces, namely, the product or work.1

541d Note, however, that this double terminology did not at all lead St Thomas astray. In his Scriptum super Sententias and in the Quaestio disputata de potentia, the Avicennan terminology seems to prevail, while in the Summa contra Gentiles and in the Summa theologiae the Aristotelian terminology is more common. This is well illustrated if one compares De potentia, q. 1, a. 1, and Summa theologiae, 1, q. 25, a. 1: in the body of the article in De potentia he uses Avicenna's terminology, while in the objections he uses Aristotle's; contrariwise, in the body of the article in the Summa theologiae he uses Aristotelian terminology, and Avicenna's terminology comes up in the solutions to the objections. (Fs)

The relevant Thomistic passages and sources are indicated in Theological Studies 8:3 (1947) 418-29 [Verbum 121-33]; see also ibid. 437-41 [Verbum 143-48]. (Fs)