Aquinas Absolute Essence Analysis

Aquinas agrees with Avicenna on the topic of the real distinction. However, Aquinas differs on the theory essence and existence. Aquinas than transforms Avicenna’s doctrine of the Absolute Nature into abstraction, common nature and absolute essence.

Aquinas disagrees with Avicenna in Absolute Essence. Aquinas believes that essence can be considered without considering essence as existing as a concrete reality or the mind. Although you can consider absolute essence you cannot cut out the “being” of essence. Essence cannot prescinded from some order of existence, it has to cut away from being”. By cutting away the essence you are left with abstraction without precision. Abstraction without precision is for example essence “man” removed from

John, Paul, and Joseph. If you were to cut humanity away from the men, it does not mean that they are not men. Also, I don’t need to be thinking of the men to know that they exist.
Common Nature is the Nature abstracted without precision. Nature is common to many singulars individuals in existence and universal existence. According, to Aquinas there is a confused and indistinct concept to common nature. The Indistinct concept does not distinguish its uses as it applies to John, Paul, and Joseph. The Confused concept don’t bend back into predication to individuals or to the being it has in the mind. Common Nature is the nature that is shared between individual existence and universal existence and that is the essence that is shared by many.
Avicenna believed that Essence can be considered without considering the being that is either reality or the mind.

Aquinas’s Absolute Nature was simply a consideration of the common nature without considering the nature as a common. He believes the mind was capable to compare the ways in which nature can exist and understand nature by adverting nature into existence by individuals and the mind. Although, he considered Essence to be absolute, he could not prescind the essence from existence. If essence prescinded all orders of being, then it would cut the essence right out being which would lead to nothing. Even thought, the prescinded essence isn’t even an essence because “knowing” is a mode of being. The understanding of Nature absolutely considered is in fact “being”. The Essence of universal is common to many. The Nature of absolutely is considered but no considered as one common to many, it is simply considered in itself. For example, “Z” is not a common nature to many, but “Z” is simply understood as “Z” but when “Z” is being thought as de facto which is common to many. When you look everything, Avicenna’s Absolute Nature is simply Aquinas’s Nature Absolutely Considered. Nature Absolutely Considered is “being” but there are only two orders of “being”: “being” and “being known”. So, this would mean that there is no essence prior to existence and if it is prior to existence is nothing at all.

Aquinas’s two great conclusions in de ente et essential are non-identity and the

absolute priority of existence over essence. Aquinas agrees with Avicenna on Non-Identity but parts way on the Absolute Priority. Aquinas believed that Esse is not within essence as a constitutive principle and no essence finds as one of its constitutive elements and existence. Essence is englobed within esse; an essence which fell outside of “to be”. This concludes that essence has fallen out, and it will not be known and won’t be possible.