21. Relations: Secundum Esse, Secundum Dici, and Real Relations

Subscribe in Podcast App | Download Transcript

Lecture Notes

Main Topics #

The Category of Relation (Ad Aliquid) #

• Definition: Things whose whole being or nature is to be toward something else
• Latin term: ad aliquid (toward something) - more precise than the abstract “relation”
• Key characteristic: Relations have no being in themselves; they only exist in reference to another
• Example: A double and a half - their entire being consists in their relation to another quantity

Why Aristotle Treats Relation Before Quality #

The Problem with Plato’s Definition

• Plato defined relation too broadly: “whatever is said to be of another in some way”
• This would make parts of substances into relations (e.g., the hand of a body becomes a relation)
• This definition confuses things fundamentally in other categories that merely have relations following upon them

Aristotle’s Solution

• Modifies definition to: those things whose whole nature is to be toward another
• Treats relation before quality to correct the Platonic confusion and clarify what truly belongs to the category of relation
• Distinguishes between things that ARE relations versus things that HAVE relations following upon them

The Two Medieval Distinctions of Relations #

1. Relatives Secundum Esse vs. Secundum Dici

Relatives Secundum Esse

• Whole nature is to be toward another
• Examples: double, half, taller, shorter
• Nothing in themselves; meaningless without reference to something else
• “How much is double?” - cannot be answered without reference to what is doubled

Relatives Secundum Dici

• Said to be “of” another, but fundamentally something else
• Examples: knowledge, power/ability, father, son
• Have relations following upon them, but are not fundamentally relations
• Knowledge is fundamentally a quality (in the mind) but is said to be “of” something known
• Father is fundamentally a person with divine nature, not a relation itself

2. Real Relations vs. Relations of Reason

• Real relations: Have a foundation in the thing itself (e.g., knowledge in the knower)
• Relations of reason: Exist only in the mind’s consideration (e.g., left and right sides of a pillar)
• Knowledge is really related to the known, but the known is not necessarily really related to knowledge (if unaware of being known)
• Today is before tomorrow - but tomorrow doesn’t exist, so this is a relation of reason

Key Arguments #

Why Knowledge is Not Fundamentally a Relation #

• Knowledge is said to be “of” something, which appears relational
• However, knowledge is fundamentally a quality (an ability or habit in the mind)
• The relation to the known follows upon this quality
• Therefore, knowledge belongs in the category of quality, not relation
• This is why it is called a relativum secundum dici

The Divine Generation Problem #

• The dilemma: Does the Father generate the Son by His substance or by His fatherhood?
• If by fatherhood: This would imply two fathers in the Trinity (heretical)
• If by substance: The Son has the same divine nature, so why can’t He generate too?
• Aristotle’s teaching on power: Power is fundamentally a quality, not a relation; it belongs in quality
• Thomas’s solution: The Father generates by the divine nature as it is in the Father (not as it is in the Son). The relation of fatherhood follows upon the divine nature, not vice versa. The Son cannot generate because the divine nature in the Son is from the Father, not from itself.

Why Father and Son Are Relations of Reason in Certain Contexts #

• The heretic Sabellius claimed the same person is called “father” insofar as he created us and “son” insofar as he became man
• This treats fatherhood and sonship as merely relations of reason applying to one entity
• Thomas’s correction: Fatherhood and sonship in the Trinity are real relations, not relations of reason, but they follow upon the divine substance

Important Definitions #

Relatives Secundum Esse (Relatives by being/essence) #

• Things whose whole nature is to be toward another
• “Nothing in itself” - their being consists entirely in their relation
• ad aliquid - toward something; the most precise description

Relatives Secundum Dici (Relatives by being said) #

• Things that are said “of” another but are fundamentally something else (quality, substance, etc.)
• Relations follow upon them as a consequence
• The name signifies a quality or other category, to which a relation necessarily follows

Real Relation (relatio realis) #

• A relation that has a real foundation in the thing itself
• Requires something besides the relation to ground it
• In creatures: relations are real when grounded in the substance
• In God: relations are real but identical to the divine substance itself

Relation of Reason (relatio rationis) #

• A relation that exists only in the mind’s consideration
• No real foundation in the things themselves
• Examples: left/right sides of a pillar, before/after in time
• The mind constructs the relation by considering two things in relation

Examples & Illustrations #

Double and Half #

• “I’ll give you a double” - of what? The meaning is completely indeterminate without reference to another quantity
• Could be double of something very small, divided infinitely
• Shows that double and half have no being whatsoever in themselves, only toward another

Knowledge and the Teacher-Student Relation #

• A teacher has knowledge (a quality, a habit of the mind)
• The teacher is said to be “of” students (a relation that follows upon knowledge)
• But the teacher’s fundamental nature is the quality of knowing, not the relation to students
• Being a teacher is fundamentally about possessing knowledge; the relation to students follows from this

Left and Right Sides of a Pillar #

• We can speak of the left and right sides of a pillar
• But the pillar itself has no intrinsic left or right: this distinction exists only relative to an observer
• This is a relation of reason, not a real relation in the pillar
• Contrasts with a right-handed person: there IS a real basis in the person (muscular/neurological organization) for the distinction

Before and After in Time #

• Is today before tomorrow? We say yes
• But tomorrow doesn’t exist yet
• Therefore, before/after is a relation of reason, not a real relation
• The mind looks “before and after” and constructs this relational order

Notable Quotes #

“The relative secundum esse is one whose whole nature, right? It’s being in the sense of nature, right? A human being, right? You dump the nature of the thing. Something whose whole nature is to be towards something, right? It’s nothing in itself.”

“Knowledge is knowledge of something, right? So it seems to be relative to something else, right? But is knowledge fundamentally a relation, nothing in itself? … It’s fundamentally because you have students that you can teach? Or is it fundamentally you can teach because you know something? It’s really a quality, right?”

“Well, if you say it was by his fatherhood, right, they generate the Son, which makes some sense. The Father generates the Son, right? You get into a certain problem, right, huh? Because every agent makes something like itself, right? And so, does the Father communicate his fatherhood, or his fatherliness, to the Son? It sounds kind of heretical to me, huh? We have two fathers in the Trinity, yeah.”

“The Father has the divine nature, not from another. The Son has the divine nature from the Father. That’s what we say in the Creed, don’t we? God from God, light from light, true God from God. You’ve got the, not me again. It’s not an effect, right?”

“So that’s kind of like, you know, you should have stood there a little bit more there, Bezos, you know? … Can you realize that Bezos is a really great mind, right? But then how is the Holy, how is God’s divine nature in the Holy Spirit differently than in the Father and the Son, right?”

Questions Addressed #

Why does Aristotle treat relation before quality in the Categories? #

Answer: Because there was a famous (Platonic) definition of relation that was too broad and included things fundamentally in other categories. Aristotle must clarify that relation properly refers only to things whose whole nature is to be toward another, excluding things fundamentally in quality or substance that merely have relations following upon them.

Is knowledge fundamentally a relation or a quality? #

Answer: Knowledge is fundamentally a quality - a habit or ability of the mind. The relation to the known follows upon this quality. Therefore, knowledge should be classified as a relativum secundum dici, not secundum esse.

How can the Father generate the Son if they have the same divine nature? #

Answer: The Father generates by the divine nature as it is in the Father, not as it is in the Son. The divine nature itself is not a relation; it is the absolute divine substance. The relation of fatherhood follows upon this substance. The Son cannot generate because the divine nature in the Son is from the Father, not from itself.

What is the distinction between something being said “of” another and being fundamentally a relation? #

Answer: Many things are said “of” another without being fundamentally relations. A part is said “of” a whole, but a part is fundamentally a substance or quantity. A quality is said “of” a subject, but it is fundamentally a quality. Only things whose whole nature is to be toward another are fundamentally relations (relatives secundum esse).

Are all relations real or do some exist only in reason? #

Answer: No. Some relations are only of reason (relations of reason). For example, left and right exist in reason when applied to a pillar (the pillar has no intrinsic left or right). But knowledge is a real relation in the knower because it has a foundation in the knower’s mind. Before and after is a relation of reason because tomorrow doesn’t exist yet.

How do these logical distinctions apply to the Trinity? #

Answer: The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are really distinct insofar as they have real relations (fatherhood, sonship, procession), but these relations are grounded in the divine substance which is numerically one. The relations are real, not merely relations of reason, because they have a foundation in the absolute divine nature. Yet the divine nature remains absolutely simple and undivided.

Connections to Trinitarian Theology #

• Divine simplicity: God is not composed of substance plus accidents or properties
• Real distinctions among persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are really distinct through their real relations
• Numerical identity of nature: All three have numerically the same divine nature (not merely the same kind of nature like humans share human nature)
• Generation and procession: The Son proceeds from the Father, the Holy Spirit proceeds from Father and Son
• The problem of naming: We struggle to name the Holy Spirit because the generative and spirative relations are different from those of Father and Son
• Charity and friendship: The Holy Spirit proceeds as the mutual love (charity) of Father and Son, analogous to how human friendship is based on mutual likeness in being