The Issue of Reality

This chapter deals with the questions, what is out there? What is the relationship between essence and
existence? What is reality? Does free will exist? Is there such a process as cause and effect? These
questions are addressed in the study of metaphysics.

In Western philosophy, metaphysics is the philosophical study of being and knowing; it is the study of
the fundamental nature of all reality — what is it, why is it, and how are we can understand it. Some
treat metaphysics as the study of “higher” reality or the “invisible” nature behind everything, but that
isn’t true. It is, instead, the study of all of reality, visible and invisible; and what constitutes reality,
natural and supernatural.

Where does the term “metaphysics” come from?

The term metaphysics is derived from the Greek Ta Meta ta Physkiabiblia which means, “the books
after” or “beyond” the books on nature.” When a librarian was cataloging Aristotle’s works, he did not
have a title for the material he wanted to shelve after the material called “nature” (Physkia) — so he
called it “after nature.” Originally, this wasn’t even a subject at all — it was a collection of notes on
different topics, but specifically topics removed from normal sense perception and empirical
observation.

Metaphysics and the Supernatural:

In popular parlance, metaphysics has become the label for the study of things which go beyond (meta)
the natural world — that is, things which supposedly exist separately from nature and which have a
more intrinsic reality than our natural existence. This assigns a sense to the Greek prefix meta which it
did not originally have, but words do change over time. As a result, the popular sense of metaphysics
has been the study of any question about the place of human beings in the universe, the purpose and
nature of reality, and the nature of mind, self, and consciousness which cannot be answered by scientific
observation and experimentation.
Essence and Existence.

The study of metaphysics is based on two central principles: essence and existence. What is the
relationship between essence and existence in the study of metaphysics?

What is essence? Try to see the different things around us: acacia tree, dogs, mangoes. Let us not
confuse one with the other. When we speak of dogs, we don’t think of mangoes and acacia tree for that
matter. So what is essence? It is the “whatness” of that thing. Meaning, it is what a thing is. It is what
makes a dog to be a dog.

What about existence? We have no doubt that acacia tree, dogs, mangoes do exist in the world of
reality. They are certainly different as to the nature of their existence, but they all do exist. Hence,
existence is the “thatness” of things in the sense of the very fact that they exist, or the “isness” of
things.

Essence is what a thing is, and existence is that it is or that it exists, and “what a thing is” is not the same
as “that it is.” There are two distinct attitudes of mind involved, one when we name something and the
other when we assert that it exists. The "what" and the "that" form two basic ways in which our mind
tries to make sense of the things around us, or put in another way, they are two distinct aspects of
things that the mind grasps and tries to come to terms with.

Having established that, the most challenging part of doing metaphysics is asking what makes a “what”
to be a “what”? What is the essence of essences?

Essence better captures the idea of reality than “thatness.” We distinguish one thing from another and
even oppose one thing to another. A dog is not an acacia tree, and we don't expect anyone to confuse
the two. But we rarely if ever stop and consider the ultimate nature of the “whats” we are constantly
making use of.

What makes adog a dog must be different from what makes an acacia tree an acacia tree, or else they
would be the same. But what makes a what to be ultimately a what? What makes a what ultimately to
be a what cannot be a particular what, or else all whats would be the same, and we know this is not
true. In short, what if we asked an admittedly very strange question: what is the whatness of whats, the
essence of essences? What makes a what to be a what? It cannot be a particular what, for no particular
what or essence can be the foundation of many different essences.
St. Thomas Aquinas wrote in his Summa Theologicae: "Existence itself is the actuality of all things, even
of the forms themselves." Hence, “The intuition of being is not only a realization of the non-essential
nature of ultimate reality, it is a glimpse of the positive abundance and richness of this reality we call
existence.”

What, then, is the essence of essence? It is a certain capacity to exist. Jacques Maritain calls essences
"positive capacities of existence" and says: "the very intelligibility of essences is a certain kind of ability
to exist." The revolution inaugurated by St. Thomas was the transformation of essence which had been
considered the ultimate principle of metaphysics because it indicated the central intelligibility of
something. He brought this conception of essence into relationship with a higher principle, which was
the act of existence: "...potency (essence, or intelligible structure already achieved in its own line of
essence) is completed or actuated by another act of another order which adds absolutely nothing to
essence as essence, intelligible structure, or quiddity, yet adds everything to it inasmuch as it posits it
extra causas or extra nihil." What is at stake here is a transformation of the whole essentialist
perspective. Essence is displaced from the center of the metaphysical stage and the much more
mysterious reality of existence takes its place. Essence is a certain capacity to exist. It stands in
relationship to existence as potency to act, and essence is the potentiality for a certain degree of
existence. For example, a mango seed has the potential to become a mango tree. For the Greek pre-
Socratic thinkers and for Aristotle, 'nature' (physics) is linked to a series of processes such as producing,
growing, generating, and forming. Existence is what actualizes these different potentialities so that there
are actually existing things. Existence is an act or energy whose richness exceeds the whole order of
essence and founds it. It admits being realized in this and that way because it exceeds every particular
manifestation. "Existence is perfection par excellence, and as it were the seal of every other perfection...
Doubtless of itself it says only positing outside of nothing, but it is the positing outside of nothing of this
or that." The intuition of being is a perception of the transessential amplitude of existence in
relationship to essence. What existence posits is not an accidental quality added to a somehow pre-
existing essence. Essences do not exist in themselves. They do not have any actuality. They only exist in
relationship to existence as potentialities for existence. The ultimate root of their intelligibility lies not in
themselves but in what Maritain called the superintelligibility of existence.

Does Free Will exist?

One of the core questions of metaphysics is, “Is everything in the Universe determined by outside
causes or are humans, at least, freely able to choose for themselves? This question in metaphysics
suggests an idea that all human beings are unfree. Notice what Paul Henri d’ Holbach wrote on
determinism:

“In whatever manner man is concerned, he is connected to universal nature, and submitted to the
necessary and immutable laws that she imposes on all being she contains… He is born without his
consent; his ideas come to him involuntarily; and his habits are in the power of those who cause him to
have them. He is unceasingly modified by causes, whether visible or concealed, over which he has no
control and which necessarily regulate his existence, color his way of thinking, and determine his
manner of acting… “

His will is necessarily determined by the qualities, good or bad, agreeable or painful, of the object or the
motive that acts upon his senses or which he retains in his memory. In consequence, he acts necessarily,
his action is the result of the impulse he receives either from the motive, from the object, or from the
idea which has modified his brain or disposed his will. When he does not act according to his impulse, it
is because there comes some new cause, some new motive, some new idea, which modified his brain in
a different manner, gives him a new impulse, and determines his will in another way… In all this he
always acts according to necessary laws from which he has no means of emancipating himself…

In short, the actions of man are never free; they are always the necessary consequence of his
temperament, of the idea he has received, including his true or false notions of happiness, and of those
opinions that are strengthened by example, by education, and by daily experience…man is not a free
agent in any instant of his life.” (Baron Paul Henri d’ Holback, System of Nature (London: Dearsley, 1797)

This notion on determinism did not sit well among the many contemporary philosophers. One of them is
Victor Frankl, a twentieth-century Jewish psychologist and existentialist philosopher who had gone
through the horrors of Jewish persecution during Holocaust. While languishing in concentration camps,
he was surprised to see how often people responded to situation with generosity and selflessness. Later
on, he claims that human beings are ultimately free and that each of us has the freedom to pursue a
kind of destiny in life we want to be:

“Man is not fully conditioned and determined; he determines himself whether to give in to condition or
stand up to them. In other words, man is ultimately self-determining. Man does not simply exist, but
always decides what his existence will be, what he will become in the next moment. By the same token,
every human being has the freedom to change at any instant….”

A human being is not one thing among others. Things determine each other, but man is ultimately self-
determining. What he becomes – within the limits of endowment and environment – he has made out
of himself. In the concentration camps for example, in this living laboratory and on this testing ground,
we watched and witnessed some of our comrades behaved like swine while others behaved like saints.
Man has both potentialities within himself. Which is actualized depends on decisions but not on
conditions.” (Victor Frankl, Search for Meaning (New York :Washington Square Press, 1963, p206, 213.)

But the Hindu idea on Karma argued that humans can both free and determined. Free because our
successes and failures are mostly products of our own thoughts and actions. However, there are times in
our lives that no matter how many good deeds we do, yet we reap negative consequences. A student
may study well for his exam, but may end up failing. A corrupt person may turn out to be a very wealthy
person. Why is this so? Karma explainsthat “the current events in our lives need not necessarily be
determined by our previous actions in this very life, but also by the actions we did in our previous lives.
Meaning, our past actions – our karma – determine the kind of being we have become. As the Hindu
philosopher Sarvepalli writes,

“Freedom is not caprice, nor is karma necessity… Freedom is not caprice since we carry our past with us.
Our character, at any given point, is the condensation of our previous history. What we have been
enters into the “me” which is now active and choosing. The range of one’s natural freedom of action is
limited. No man has the universal field of possibilities for himself…Only the possible is the sphere of
freedom. We have a good deal of present constraint and previous necessity in human life. But necessity
is not to be mistaken for destiny which we can neither defy nor delude. Though the self is not free from
the bonds of determination, it can subjugate the past to a certain extent and turn it into a new course.
Choice is the assertion of freedom over necessity by which it converts necessity to its own use and thus
frees itself from it.”(SarvepalliRadhakrishman, An Idealist View of Life (London: George Allen &Unwin,
1932) 220, 221.)

Given the different views above, can we say that reality are all casually determined, or are we
completely free to choose what we would like to become, or are we determined but free to choose
within the constraints set by our past. These are some of the questions of metaphysics.

On freewill, Thomas Aquinas has this to say:

“…we must observe that some things act without judgment; as a stone moves downwards; and in like
manner all things which lack knowledge. And some act from judgment, but not a free judgment; as
brute animals. For the sheep, seeing the wolf, judges it a thing to be shunned, from a natural and not a
free judgment, because it judges, not from reason, but from natural instinct … But man acts from
judgment, because by his apprehensive power he judges that something should be avoided or sought.
But because this judgment, in the case of some particular act, is not from a natural instinct, but from
some act of comparison in the reason, therefore he acts from free judgment and retains the power of
being inclined to various things. … And forasmuch as man is rational is it necessary that man have a free-
will.”

He asserts that animals have no choice to “shun,” because they judgeth “not from reason, but from
natural instinct” like in the case of the sheep when seeing the wolf. Aquinas says man judges from
reason - he can look at two things and compare them i.e. either going to Palawan or Boracay for
vacation. And he can reason his choice on the basis of factors such as the cost of the each trip, the
sightseeing, people he can visit, and the weather. Aquinas concludes that man’s ability to reason
between two things is proof of his free will. One would be hard pressed to not question the behaviorists
and the central-state materialists whether they would want justice if someone were to injure one of
their loved ones. Their theory falls short here, because if someone injured B.F. Skinner’s child, Skinner
would probably want justice, so he would have to disregard his own theory, if only for a little while.

The Prima Pars of the Summa Theologica contains question 83, “Of Free Will.” The first article is
“Whether Man Has Free Will.” He offers five objections of why men do not have free will, his answer,
and five responses to the objections. In his response Thomas Aquinas states, “I answer that, Man has
free-will: otherwise counsels, exhortations, commands, prohibitions, rewards, and punishments would
be in vain.”

In short, St. Thomas says, without free will there is no point in morality. Without free will society cannot
punish if someone is murdered there is no reason to find the murderer, it is not their fault. There is no
need to reward actions, because it is not the doer of the action. “If people lacked freedom, there would
be nothing we could recognize as moral philosophy, or that there would be no point in trying to engage
in it… Aquinas suggests, you cannot seriously engage in ethical thinking if you deny human freedom.” Is
it possible to arrest a person for murder, if they cannot be responsible for their actions? Aquinas thinks
otherwise.