37. Being and Becoming: Motion, Time, and Perfection

Subscribe in Podcast App | Download Transcript

Lecture Notes

Main Topics #

Being and Becoming: The Problem of Motion #

The Challenge of Understanding Becoming

• Becoming involves a union of being and non-being, which creates logical difficulty
• Learning exemplifies this: the learner is neither entirely ignorant (would be complete non-being) nor fully knowledgeable (would be complete being)
• Motion is a diminished kind of being—it hardly exists in the fullest sense

The Ontological Status of Motion

• At any given instant, only an indivisible point of motion is actually present
• The past portion of motion no longer exists; the future portion does not yet exist
• Therefore, motion has neither complete being (like substance) nor complete non-being (like blindness)
• Motion is an intermediate form of being, requiring both actual and potential existence

The Paradox of Instantaneous Change

• When something becomes a sphere (or any substantial change), is there a last instant in which it is not a sphere and a first instant in which it is?
• If these are the same instant, we have a contradiction: it both is and is not a sphere simultaneously
• If they are different instants, what occupies the time between them?
• Thomas’s Solution (from Physics VI): There is no last instant of non-being. When the period of becoming is complete, it has become a sphere. There is a first instant of actual being, but no final instant of prior being.
• This solution is highly subtle and most people miss it

Theological Application: Transubstantiation

• The same paradox troubled medieval theologians regarding transubstantiation
• Before consecration: bread and wine exist under their appearances
• After consecration: the body and blood of Christ exist under the same appearances
• If there were a last instant of bread and wine AND a first instant of body and blood as the same instant, we would have both bread and wine AND body and blood simultaneously—a heretical position
• Thomas’s solution applies here: when the priest completes the words of consecration, it has become the body and blood. There is a first instant of this new substantial reality, but no last instant of bread and wine.
• Knowledge of Physics VI is necessary to solve theological difficulties that puzzle theologians

The Word “Perfect” (τέλειος / Teleiōs) #

First Meaning: Having All Parts

• Perfect means that which is complete—nothing is missing from its proper parts
• Example: A repas complet (complete meal) in Quebec restaurants includes appetizer, main course, and dessert
• A perfect man has all his limbs, organs, and bodily parts
• The absence of parts constitutes incompleteness (e.g., Schubert’s “Unfinished Symphony,” or books missing pages)
• Closely related to the concept of whole (ὅλον / holon) versus part (μέρος / meros)

Second Meaning: Possessing All the Ability of Its Kind

• Perfect means that which lacks nothing in virtue and goodness according to its nature
• Examples from human excellence:
  • Homer: The perfect poet, lacking nothing a great poet should have—excellent plots (with proper beginning, middle, and end), multifaceted characters (like a diamond with many facets), and magnificent language with beautiful similes
  • Mozart: The perfect musician—mastered all instruments, all genres, understood the human voice perfectly, could compose symphonies, concertos, and entertainment music (divertimenti), and adapted perfectly to each instrument’s essence
  • Shakespeare: The perfect playwright—excelled in both tragedy and comedy, created complex characters, wrote magnificent language, and handled both pure and mixed tragic-comic forms
  • Alec Guinness: The perfect actor—capable of both comic and tragic roles with equal mastery
• Perfection in this sense is limited to one’s kind or genus; Homer lacks the perfection of a musician; Mozart lacks the perfection of a poet
• A complete cook prepares all courses (appetizer, main course, dessert) and can work with all types of ingredients (steak, chicken, fish)
• John Dryden’s Observation: Dryden noted that Fletcher was “just a limb of Shakespeare”—meaning Fletcher possessed only some of what Shakespeare had. He had something of Shakespeare’s power but not the whole of it.
• This sense bridges to the first sense: if you are only a limb (part), you are very incomplete

Third Meaning: Having Achieved Its End or Purpose

• Perfect means that which has reached or achieved its τέλος (telos / end)
• The end is better than what leads to the end
• Examples: health is better than medicine; knowing is better than learning; money is better than earning money
• This sense can be applied metaphorically to destruction: a “completely destroyed” house or “totaled” car—though this is ironic, since the house has achieved its end negatively

The Relationship Between the Three Meanings #

Ordering and Unity

• The three meanings form an ordered progression
• They move from less universal to more universal
• The whole (having all parts) is better than the part
• The end is better than the means—perhaps the most fundamental principle
• When we say “the perfect is better than the imperfect,” we can unpack this into these three senses

God’s Perfection vs. Creature Perfection #

Creatures Are Perfect in Their Kind

• A creature can be perfect in its genus or kind—a perfect cook, perfect poet, perfect horse
• But each kind lacks what other kinds possess
• Creature perfection is limited

God Is Universally Perfect

• God is not perfect in these three senses—He has no parts, no genus, and no end to achieve
• Rather, God is universally perfect: He lacks nothing
• All perfections that are divided among creatures are united in God in a simple, unified way
• God is the end of all other things; He does not reach toward an end
• This infinite perfection is beyond full human understanding or love
• As the book mentions: God is altogether simple, and this simplicity is a kind of perfection we struggle to comprehend

The Fourth Book Connection

• These distinctions of perfection relate to the four basic senses of being from Metaphysics IV: substance, accident, motion, and non-being
• Understanding perfection helps clarify what it means for things to participate in being in different degrees

Key Arguments #

The Problem of Motion and the Solution #

1. The Paradox: When x becomes y, either the last instant of non-y and the first instant of y are:

   • The same instant → Contradiction (both is and is not y)
   • Different instants → What exists in between? (Must be either y or non-y, so they cannot be different)

2. The Thomistic Solution: There is no last instant in which x is non-y; the becoming is a process that, when complete, has become y. Thus:

   • There is a first instant in which x is y
   • There is no last instant in which x is non-y
   • No contradiction; no temporal gap

3. Application to Theology: This solution resolves the medieval controversy over transubstantiation by avoiding the simultaneous presence of bread and body.

The Universality of Perfection #

1. All creatures seek perfection in at least one of these senses
2. Yet all creature perfection is limited to their kind
3. God alone is universally perfect—all perfections are united in His simple substance
4. Therefore, understanding creature perfection points toward understanding God’s transcendent perfection

Important Definitions #

Becoming (γένεσις / Genesis): The process of coming to be, involving both being and non-being; distinguished from substantial being and accidental being

Motion (κίνησις / Kinesis): An actuality of the potential qua potential; a kind of being that is neither fully actual nor fully potential, existing between substance and non-being

Perfect (τέλειος / Teleiōs): (1) Having all proper parts; (2) Lacking nothing in virtue and goodness according to its kind; (3) Having achieved or possessing its end or purpose

Whole (ὅλον / Holon): That which contains all its parts; the complete form of something

Part (μέρος / Meros): That which is incomplete in relation to the whole; distinct from the whole and constitutive of it

End (τέλος / Telos): The purpose, goal, or final cause toward which something is directed; that for the sake of which a thing acts or exists

Genus (γένος / Genos): A kind or class; the broader category into which a species falls

Virtue (ἀρετή / Arete): Excellence; the fullness of power or ability in something according to its nature

Examples & Illustrations #

Becoming and Digestion #

• Food consumed is gradually transformed into human flesh, blood, and bones
• This process of becoming is actual and occurs continuously
• Yet we do not become what we eat (we remain human, not carrot or broccoli)

Learning as Becoming #

• Learning exemplifies becoming: the learner is neither entirely ignorant nor entirely knowledgeable
• The learner has some knowledge but lacks complete knowledge
• This is coming-to-be in a lesser sense than substantial being

The Perfect Poet: Homer #

• Plot: Homer discovered the principle of dramatic unity—a plot must have a beginning, middle, and end, not merely chronicle all events of a man’s life or war
• Character: Like multifaceted diamonds, Homer’s heroes (Achilles, etc.) have many dimensions and psychological depth
• Language: Beautiful, gentle similes that provide relief during violent scenes; compared to Shakespeare’s observation that such similes give “smoothness to all violence”

The Perfect Musician: Mozart #

• Mastered composition for every instrument: violin, piano, oboe, bassoon, flute concertos
• Perfectly understood the essence of each instrument, unlike Baroque composers who merely transcribed the same piece for different instruments
• Could write symphonies, divertimenti, operas, chamber music
• Had unparalleled skill with the human voice—“no one can write more beautifully for the human voice than Mozart”
• Berquist’s paraphrase of Johnson: “When you’re tired of Mozart, you’re tired of music”

The Perfect Playwright: Shakespeare #

• Excelled in both tragedy and comedy (unlike most playwrights)
• Could create complex, psychologically nuanced characters
• Mastered language and could seamlessly blend tragic and comic scenes (e.g., Henry IV, Part I)
• John Dryden’s observation: “Fletcher was just a limb of Shakespeare”—Fletcher had only partial mastery

The Perfect Actor: Alec Guinness #

• Demonstrated equal mastery in comic and tragic roles
• Most actors get “typed” and can only play one kind of role or essentially play themselves
• Guinness possessed the complete power of an actor

The Perfect Cook #

• Can prepare all courses (appetizer, main course, dessert)
• Works skillfully with all types of ingredients (steak, chicken, fish, etc.)
• Has complete mastery of the culinary art
• Example: A chef trained at the Culinary Institute of America

The Perfect Horse: Champion #

• A beautiful, well-trained horse
• Possessed the complete perfection of a horse
• Lacked the perfection of a philosopher, cook, or musician—as one would expect
• Ginati’s Champion was remarked upon even in the show ring for its excellence

Imperfect Examples #

• Dickens: Good with characters but weak with plot construction
• Beethoven: Cannot write well for the human voice (unlike Mozart)
• Johann Christian Bach: “Mozart with something missing”—had influence on Mozart but lacked his universality

The Complete Meal (Repas Complet) #

• In Quebec restaurants, a repas complet includes three courses: appetizer, main course, and dessert
• Costs more than à la carte because it provides a complete dining experience
• Illustrates the first meaning: perfection as having all necessary parts

Notable Quotes #

“Blindness is an unbeing of sight”—Aristotle, discussed by Berquist

“There is no last instant in which it is not a sphere. When that period of time in which it is becoming a sphere is complete, it has become a sphere."—Thomas Aquinas’s solution to the paradox of change (Physics VI)

“Fletcher was just a limb of Shakespeare."—John Dryden, on the superiority of Shakespeare to his contemporaries

“When you’re tired of Mozart, you’re tired of music."—Paraphrase of Samuel Johnson’s remark on London, applied by Berquist

“Things in motion sooner catch the eye than what not stirs."—Shakespeare, Troilus and Cressida, cited by Berquist on why motion seems more real than it is

Questions Addressed #

How can becoming be understood when it involves both being and non-being? #

• Becoming is a middle ground: the learner is neither entirely ignorant nor entirely knowledgeable
• Motion exemplifies this: at any instant, only an indivisible point of motion is actually present
• This intermediate status makes becoming difficult to understand rationally, but it is real

How is the paradox of instantaneous change resolved? #

• The resolution: There is no last instant of prior being; when the process of becoming completes, the thing has become what it was becoming
• Thus: first instant of actual being exists; no last instant of prior being exists
• This avoids contradiction while maintaining temporal continuity

How does this apply to transubstantiation? #

• During the consecration, bread and wine become the body and blood of Christ
• The solution prevents the heretical conclusion that bread and body coexist at the same instant
• Thomas’s understanding of Physics VI allows him to resolve what puzzled medieval theologians

What distinguishes a perfect being from an imperfect one? #

• A perfect being of a certain kind lacks nothing in the abilities and virtues proper to that kind
• An imperfect being has only some of those abilities
• Shakespeare is perfect as a playwright because he has mastery of plot, character, and language; Dickens is imperfect because his plots are weak

Why is God’s perfection different from creature perfection? #

• Creatures are perfect in their genus but lack the perfections of other genera
• God is universally perfect—He lacks nothing
• All divided perfections in creatures are united simply in God
• This infinity is beyond our complete understanding or love