Metaphysics, Philo 23-F

Midterm Exam
_____________________
I tried to engage chatGPT in a discussion of metaphysical matters. I found it’s answers to my
questions OK, but not deep enough, or rather substantial enough. In fact, I tried coaxing it to
come up with the correct responses by paraphrasing my questions, but it ended up simply
repeating what it already said before.
In this exam, I would like you to comment on the answers provided by chatGPT to my questions.
Feel free to agree or disagree with the answers given. But always, explain yourself. In other
words, I will be grading you for your understanding of the topic under discussion, the clarification
you offer on an answer presented by chatGPT, and the clarity with which you articulate your
thoughts and ideas.
As usual, points are given to each part of the exam.
______________________

1) So, I asked chat GPT to define “Being”. And this is what it said:

“The concept of "being" can have different meanings depending on the context in which
it is used. In philosophy, being typically refers to existence, the state or quality of having an
objective reality or existence, whether as a physical entity or an abstract concept. Commented [YZ1]: I agree to this to some extent, however,
I find that this definition is lacking something. Being can
At a more fundamental level, being can refer to the essence or nature of a thing or entity, its refer to the states of having existence, but also, it can be
underlying reality or substance that defines what it is. In this sense, being is often associated with defined as the totality of all beings, or reality itself, as
everything is, in a sense, being.
metaphysical inquiry and the search for ultimate truth or reality.
Commented [YZ2R1]: This definition is also only directed
In everyday language, being can also refer to the state or condition of a person, such as their towards real beings, and does not take into consideration
mental beings, which is not present in existence but just in an
physical or emotional well-being, or their state of consciousness. In this sense, being can be idea.
understood as a holistic concept that encompasses a range of subjective and objective factors
Commented [YZ3]: Being does not have only a mere
that contribute to an individual's experience of existence.” (10 pts) association with metaphysical inquiry, it is the aim of
metaphysical inquiry itself! The inquiry is focused on the
ultimate context of being itself, and this, in a sense, is
ultimate truth or reality, since being itself is reality.
I would say that I would have to disagree with ChatGPT's answer, for the reason that it is
incomplete and may mislead those who would want to know more about being. Most of my
apprehensions about ChatGPT's answer stem from the idea that the AI has shown that,
philosophically, being can refer to existence. While this is correct, to some extent, it is important
to note that this notion that being refers to existence is only limited to real beings (those which
exist outside mere ideation), and does not include another division of being - the mental being.
Mental beings are characterized by being present within an idea and does not have existence in
itself. Another important definition of being is that being is the totality of all beings (in short,
reality) which will be relevant in another point that I will be making.
It has also reduced being to be just an association to metaphysical inquiry, when in fact, this is
the aim of metaphysical inquiry itself. Metaphysical inquiry focuses on the ultimate context of
being itself. ChatGPT has made mention that this kind of inquiry is directed to the search of
ultimate reality and being has only a mere association to such. In the previous definition made
above about being as the totality of all beings (reality), it would make more sense that
metaphysical inquiry would be directed to the search of ultimate reality of being itself to make it
clearer and more precise.

2) According to St. Thomas, being and human intellect are correlative. What does this mean? Does
the question make sense to you?

I am an AI language model and do not have the ability to determine whether a question
makes sense or not in the context of a conversation or situation. However, I can certainly try to
provide an answer or clarification to any question to the best of my abilities based on my training
and knowledge. So, please feel free to ask any question that you may have.
St. Thomas Aquinas believed that there is a fundamental relationship between being and human Commented [YZ4]: ChatGPT recognizes the fundamental
intellect. In his philosophy, being (or existence) and human intellect are correlative, which means relationship between intellect and being. However, it is more
precise to say that being and intellect have a natural
that they are intimately connected and mutually dependent upon each other. correlation with each other.

For Aquinas, being is the most fundamental reality, and everything that exists derives its being
from God. Human intellect, on the other hand, is the capacity for rational thought and
understanding that is unique to humans.
According to Aquinas, the human intellect is able to grasp the nature of being and understand
the world around us precisely because being is the foundation of all reality. The human intellect
is able to reason and understand because it is in tune with the structure of reality itself, which is
grounded in being.
In other words, the human intellect is able to comprehend the world around us because it is able
to grasp the nature of being, which is the foundation of all reality. This correlative relationship
between being and human intellect is central to Aquinas' philosophy and has profound
implications for our understanding of the nature of reality and our place in it. (10 pts)
Commented [YZ5]: Not really correlated in this sense,
when you look at it. Intellect and being has a deeper
relationship instead of describing it as just connected and
dependent upon each other. Intellect, rather, is oriented
toward being by natural affinity to search what truly is being
and how being really is.
Commented [YZ6]: There is an allusion to his theory of
participation here, in which creatures on earth participate,
albeit limited, in the plenitude of being that God has.
However, I cannot see how this can enrich discussion on the
correlation of being and intellect.
Commented [YZ7]: Not quite. Human intellect is able to
grasp the nature of being simply because it is driven to know
all there is to know about being. It has a natural affinity and
aptitude to search for what it truly is and how being really is.
It needs to grasp the nature of being because being needs to
become intelligible for it not to be a monstrous absurdity.

ChatGPT struggles with being precise. When asked about the correlation of intellect and being,
it says that this is a fundamental relationship. However, St. Thomas Aquinas describes this
relationship most precisely as he says that intellect and being has a natural correlation with each
other. By showing that intellect is naturally correlated with being, it would show how deep the
connection is between these two concepts -- that it is not a mere correlation, it is a correlation
that occurs naturally when these concepts are put together. Saying that intellect and being are
in a "fundamental relationship" fails to show the depth of the connection between the two
concepts.
There is also an allusion to Aquinas' theory of participation here, as it mentions in its description
of being as a fundamental reality that everything that exists derives being from the plenitude of
being, which is God. However, there seems to be a disconnect with the concepts, since this
allusion can best fit discussions on being as analogous, and not the correlation of intellect and
being. In other words, the paragraph:
" For Aquinas, being is the most fundamental reality, and everything that exists derives its being
from God. Human intellect, on the other hand, is the capacity for rational thought and
understanding that is unique to humans."
…seems out of place. While it does describe what being and human intellect is to better
understand the concepts given, it fails to connect to the rest of the answer, and even the
following paragraphs of the answer do not provide anything that will best describe its
relationship with each other.
What mostly made me disagree with ChatGPT's answer is how it describes intellect and being is
correlated with each other and how intellect "grasps" the nature of human being. Intellect and
being are not really correlated in the sense that it is intimately connected and mutually
dependent on one another, rather, intellect is oriented toward the natural affinity to search for
what truly is and how being is. With how intellect "grasps" the nature of human being, on the
other hand, is not really because being is the foundation of reality, but that the intellect simply
has the drive to know. This drive to know is natural -- it is a natural affinity to know what being
really is. This natural affinity stems from the fact that being needs to be intelligible, else they
become a monstrous absurdity when it does not become intelligible.

3) What does it mean for the concept of being to be transcendental?

The concept of "being" is considered transcendental in philosophy because it is a universal

and necessary condition that is presupposed by all human knowledge and experience.
Transcendental philosophy holds that certain concepts, such as being, are not derived from
experience but are rather conditions that make experience possible. Commented [YZ8]: Off the bat, ChatGPT seems to have
different view of what it means for being to be
In this sense, "being" is not an empirical concept that can be directly observed or measured, but “transcendental.” It sees “transcendental” as the conditions of
rather a necessary aspect of all human thought and perception. It is a fundamental concept that the possibility of something (in this case, philosophy) and not
transcendental as in “all-encompassing, all-inclusive.) Hence
underlies all other concepts and is necessary for any meaningful understanding of the world. the reference to Immanuel Kant in the latter part of the
answer.
According to Immanuel Kant, one of the most influential philosophers in the history of
transcendental philosophy, the concept of being is one of the fundamental categories of the mind
that allows us to structure our experience of the world. In his Critique of Pure Reason, Kant argues
that being is one of the twelve categories of the understanding that are necessary for the
possibility of human knowledge.
Therefore, the concept of being is transcendental because it is a universal and necessary
condition that is presupposed by all human knowledge and experience. It is not derived from
experience but is rather a fundamental aspect of human thought and perception.
[Your reference to Immanuel Kant is fine. How would Thomism understand the concept of being
as transcendental?]
 In Thomism, the concept of being is also considered to be transcendental, but it is
understood in a slightly different way than in Kantian philosophy. Saint Thomas Aquinas, a
medieval philosopher and theologian, viewed being as a fundamental concept that is applicable
to all existing things, both material and immaterial.
For Aquinas, being is the most universal concept and the foundation of all other concepts. He
argued that being is not only a necessary condition for human knowledge, but it is also a property
of all existing things. In other words, being is not only a necessary aspect of human thought and
perception but also a necessary aspect of reality itself. Commented [YZ9]: Being here is shown to be a
transcendental concept rather than it having transcendental
Furthermore, in Thomism, being is not just an abstract concept or a mental category, but it is characteristics or properties, watering down how it means for
understood as a real property of things. According to Aquinas, being is not something that exists being to be transcendental.

independently of things, but rather it is identical with the thing itself. For example, the being of
a tree is not something separate from the tree but is identical with the tree itself.
Therefore, in Saint Thomism, the concept of being is transcendental because it is a universal and
necessary condition that is applicable to all existing things. It is not just a mental category or a
necessary condition for human knowledge, but it is also a real property of things themselves. (10
pts) Commented [YZ10]: Again, I think ChatGPT has confused
the meaning of transcendental, even though the user has
attempted to redirect the answer to the answer that he was
looking for. It focuses on how being is a transcendental
ChatGPT is confused with the concept of the transcendental in the first half of the answer, as the concept rather than transcendence being an actual property of
transcendental in philosophy holds different meanings based on how it is used. What the AI has being itself that makes it universal and all-inclusive.

employed as the meaning of transcendental in its definition how it is "the conditions of the
possibility of something," deriving from Kant's transcendental philosophy. It has alluded to Kant's
transcendental philosophy by defining being as transcendental as the condition of the possibility
of philosophy.
However, this definition of transcendental is not the definition that one is looking for when
talking about being as transcendental. This is what is sought to correct in the second half of the
statement, where the user asks about how Aquinas views such concept. It does attempt to
answer the question about Aquinas' view; however, it repeatedly says that being is
transcendental concept of all other concepts. Being is only regarded as being a universal concept
that is the foundation of all other concepts, and not one that has properties of transcendence
that allow being to be called as such even though it is present in different modes of existence.
The answer that is aimed for is the explanation of the Transcendental Character of being. That is,
how the notion of being includes all beings and all of their real parts, transcending barriers of
modes of existences. In other words, being has the same notion, regardless if it is used to describe
humans, stars or even numbers. Being is all-inclusive, because it includes reality itself within it.
The only thing that it excludes from its notion of being, are the non-beings, that are not present
in existence or idea at all. For this reason, I disagree with ChatGPT's answer. It must be best that
these ideas of "transcendentals" be clarified, as there are several definitions of it within the realm
of philosophy.
4) I asked chatGPT to explain Aquinas’ understanding of “being” as an analogous concept.

“In Thomism, being is understood as an analogous concept because it applies to different

things in different ways. This means that being is a concept that is used to describe both God and
creatures, but it has different meanings when applied to each.
According to St. Thomas Aquinas, being is a transcendental concept, which means that it is a
concept that applies to everything that exists. Being is not a specific attribute of things, but rather
a fundamental concept that is present in everything that exists. However, being is not a univocal
concept, which means that it does not have the same meaning when applied to everything.
In Thomistic philosophy, the analogy of being is important because it helps us understand the
relationship between God and creatures. It allows us to recognize that there is a similarity or
analogy between the two, even though they are fundamentally different in nature. Moreover, it
emphasizes the importance of recognizing the role of God as the ultimate cause of all being and
the dependence of creatures on God for their existence.
Moreover, the analogy of being is based on the idea that there are different levels or degrees of
being, and these levels are related to each other in a hierarchical way. This means that there is a
proper proportionality between the different uses of the term "being," and each use of the term
corresponds to a different level or degree of being.
Overall, the analogy of being in Thomistic philosophy is not metaphorical but is based on a real
similarity or proportionality between the being of God and the being of creatures. This analogy
is grounded in the idea that God is the ultimate cause of all being, and all creatures derive their
being from Him in a hierarchical way. (10 pts)
ChatGPT has a close attempt to define analogous terms. However, its definition is incomplete, as
it needs to include how the meaning of these terms are partly same and partly different, that
Commented [YZ11]: More of being a term whose meaning
is partly same and partly different, that is why it can be
applied to different subjects.
Commented [YZ12]: Not just a concept, but a
characteristic that it is all-inclusive to all modes of existence.
That is why being must not be univocal, because it cannot be
contained into a single meaning in each single case. Being
cannot be encased only in humans, just as it cannot be
enclosed only in numbers.
Commented [YZ13]: This can be one case that analogy can
be applied. God and creatures are the same in the sense that
both of them are beings, however God’s nature is
fundamentally different from the nature of creatures. For
example, God is a divine being, while creatures are mortal
beings.
Commented [YZ14]: This hierarchy can be called as the
“Neo-Platonic Theory of Participation.” God, being the
plenitude of being, has a different proportion of “being” than
the creatures that had come from Him, because these
creatures partake in a limited participation of “being” that is
from the plenitude of being.

would explain why it can describe different subjects.

Still, ChatGPT gets confused with the idea of the transcendental. Taking from the previous
answer, about being as transcendental, it still regards being as a transcendental concept that is
the root of all concepts, and not as having transcendental properties/character within itself. The
explanation as to why being is analogous rather than univocal stems from its transcendental
property which allows it to be all-inclusive of all modes of existence. This allows it to stretch itself
when it is applied to different things and not as rigid and fixed as a univocal term.
The AI mostly gets it correct with the application of being as analogous to Thomistic philosophy,
as it mostly describes the similarities and differences of God and creatures and their hierarchy
under the Neo-Platonic Theory of Participation. God and creatures are similar because both are
beings, but different in the modes of their nature (e.g. God as divine entity and creatures as
mortal entities). There is also the idea of proper proportionality that ChatGPT has elaborated on,
which shows how the different uses of being has a different level or degree. For example, the
extent of God's being is different from the extent of the being of creatures (of humans, to have
a more precise example.)
Finally, even though it has not named it, the AI describes the Neo-Platonic Theory of Participation.
Wherein, God is the plenitude of being and the creatures that exist participate limitedly in this
plenitude of being as it derives being from this Divine Being. It fortifies Aquinas' view of having a
first cause, God, which had caused everything in the universe.
To some extent, therefore, I agree with ChatGPT's answer to this question as this has been the
most precise of all from what I have seen from other answers regarding being. However, much is
also needed to improve, like the precision to define analogous terms to prevent incomplete
definitions and the resolution to the confusion of the idea of the transcendental when it comes
to beings and metaphysics.