32. The Four Kinds of Opposites and Divine Distinction

Subscribe in Podcast App | Download Transcript

Lecture Notes

Main Topics #

The Four Kinds of Opposites #

Berquist presents Aristotle’s classification of opposites in a specific order of increasing opposition:

1. Relatives (σχετικά): Opposites that mutually imply and demand each other without removal. Example: father and son. Neither removes the other; rather, one cannot exist without the other.

2. Contraries (ἐναντία): Opposites within the same genus and subject. Example: virtue and vice (both habits); black and white (both colors). They have a common subject and genus. Contraries are described as “species that are furthest apart within the same genus.”

3. Privation/Lack (στέρησις): The non-being of something in a subject that is able to have it and perhaps should have it. Example: blindness in relation to sight. The subject remains (the eye), but the quality is absent. Crucially, a stone that doesn’t see is not “blind” because stones lack the subject capable of sight.

4. Contradictories (ἀντιφάσεις): Complete removal with nothing left. Example: being and non-being, man and not-man. One must always be true of any thing.

The Ordering Principle #

Affirmation and negation (contradictories) are maxime opposita (most opposed) because they contain no coming together of things opposed. All other oppositions include some affirmation-negation within them. Therefore, contradictories are “the first and the greatest opposition” and “the cause of all opposition and the cause of all distinction.”

Formal vs. Material Distinction #

• Material distinction: Arises from division of the continuous (dividing a line into two lines). This is how number arises from continuous quantity.
• Formal distinction: Occurs in things without matter or quantity and is based on opposites. This is the only kind of distinction possible in God, since God has no quantity.

Application to Divine Persons #

Berquist argues that the real distinction of divine persons must be a formal distinction by reason of relatives, not by contradictories, contraries, or privation. This is because:

• God is “I AM WHO AM” (pure being)
• If one person was contradictory to another, there would be a lack of being in one (impossible for God)
• Relatives alone allow for real distinction without removing each other
• The Father and Son are distinct as relatives: one cannot be without the other, yet neither removes the other

This preserves God’s unity while allowing for the distinction of persons.

Evil as Privation #

Evil is not a being of nature (ens naturae) but a being of reason (ens rationis). More precisely, evil is a privation, not something positive:

• Evil is the non-being of something in a subject that should have it
• Ignorance is a simple lack of knowledge (privation)
• Error or mistake is a positive false belief (not mere privation)
• Example: A person can be ignorant without error, or one can hold an error while possessing knowledge in other areas

Good and evil are in things (as privations of being), while true and false are in the understanding (as second acts of understanding).

Key Arguments #

Ordering of Opposites #

• Affirmation and negation are foundational; all other oppositions presuppose them
• Relatives are least opposed because they mutually imply each other
• Contraries require a common genus and subject but still remove each other partially
• Privation is a negation in a specific subject capable of the quality
• Contradictories are absolute negation with nothing left

Why God’s Distinction Must Be by Relations #

1. God is pure being; any contradiction would imply a lack of being
2. Contraries, privation, and contradictories all involve some form of negation or removal of being
3. Only relatives allow for real distinction without negation
4. The Father and Son are infinitely distinct as relatives: the one is not the other, yet their reality is identical in essence

Ignorance vs. Error #

• Ignorance: Mere lack of knowledge (privation)
• Error: Active false belief (positive, not mere absence)
• Pedagogical implication: It is easier to teach someone ignorant (blank slate) than someone already holding a false belief

Important Definitions #

• Privation (στέρησις): Non-being of something in a subject that is able to have it and perhaps should have it (e.g., blindness in a sighted animal).
• Relatives (σχετικά): Things defined in relation to one another, where neither removes the other (e.g., father/son, double/half).
• Contraries (ἐναντία): Opposites within the same genus and subject; often called “species furthest apart within a genus.”
• Contradictories (ἀντιφάσεις): Opposites in which one wholly removes the other, leaving nothing (e.g., being/non-being).
• Maxime opposita: Most opposed; said of affirmation and negation.
• Formal distinction: Distinction in immaterial things based on opposites, without division of quantity.
• Ens naturae: Being of nature; something positive in reality.
• Ens rationis: Being of reason; something understood by the mind but not existing positively in things (e.g., evil, privation).

Examples & Illustrations #

• Father and son: Relatives; neither removes the other; each demands the other’s existence
• Virtue and vice: Contraries; both are habits in the same subject (a person)
• Sight and blindness: Privation; blindness is not merely non-seeing but the absence of sight in a being naturally capable of sight
• Stone and sight: A stone does not see, but it is not “blind” because it lacks the subject (eyes and proper nature) capable of sight
• Man and not-man: Contradictories; everything either is or is not a man
• Mozart’s music: Known and loved by hearing; spontaneously leads to praise (illustration of the connection: knowledge → love → praise)
• Ignorance in a student: Easier to teach than a student holding an error; ignorance leaves the student undetermined rather than actively committed to falsehood
• Political persuasion: Easier to convince someone undecided than someone who has already chosen wrongly

Notable Quotes #

“Three is the first number about which we say ‘all’” — Aristotle, cited by Berquist on the perfection of the number three (beginning, middle, end)

“We use the number three in praising God not because He has an inkling that there are three persons in God, but because of the perfection of the number three” — Thomas Aquinas, on why Aristotle employed the number three

“In God all things are one except where there is the opposition of relation” — Theological axiom, central to understanding divine simplicity and the Trinity

“Evil is not a being of nature but a being of reason” — Thomas Aquinas, on the nature of evil

Questions Addressed #

On Divine Distinction and the Trinity #

Q: How can there be a real distinction of divine persons without dividing God’s unity?

A: The distinction is formal (by opposites), not material. Specifically, it is a distinction by relations, which do not remove each other but mutually imply each other. The Father and Son are distinct as relatives: the one is not the other, yet their being is identical. This preserves both real distinction and perfect unity.

On the Ordering of Opposites #

Q: Why is the order of opposites (relatives, contraries, privation, contradictories) significant?

A: This order reflects increasing opposition and decreasing “coming together” of opposed things. Relatives mutually imply; contraries share genus and subject; privation occurs in a specific subject; contradictories have nothing in common. All other oppositions include the contradiction-negation within them, making contradictories foundational.

On Evil and Privation #

Q: What is the difference between saying “evil is in things” and “evil is a being of reason”?

A: Evil exists in things as a privation (non-being, lack), not as something positive. But it is called a being of reason because it is understood and defined by the intellect. Good and evil are thus in things, while truth and falsehood are in the understanding.

On Ignorance and Error #

Q: Is ignorance the same as error?

A: No. Ignorance is a simple lack of knowledge (privation). Error is an active false belief (positive). Therefore, someone ignorant is easier to teach than someone in error, as ignorance leaves the mind undetermined rather than actively committed to falsehood.

Theological Context #

This lecture is essential for understanding how Thomas Aquinas, following Augustine, uses the metaphysical analysis of opposites to defend the Trinity. Since God is pure being and absolute simplicity, the distinction of persons cannot be material, substantial, or involve any privation. It must be purely formal and relational—a distinction by opposites of the type that least threatens unity.