Necessity and contingency in Aquinas's sense don't exist because a thing doesn't have form\matter, accidents\substance, and existence\essence divisions. An object is one thing composing necessity and contingency and everything is related to something else. Aquinas could write endlessly on these subjects but really doesn't have any sound arguments

1) things exist

2) things have existence

Aquinas thought he could argue that 2 is true and 1 is wrong but his arguments presupposes God's existence although he is trying to prove it. All his 5 ways have God's existence in the premises

Take the 5th way. It says there is design which by definition means "done by an intellect". So he assumes God's mind in trying to prove it. The 4th way is not an argument and the first 3 ways assume contingency and God's necessity in the premises.

I think Bertrand Russell provided a good solution for any problem caused by this concept in his famous essay, "On Denoting ". It's available online and you should read it.

The main problem was making a reference to an object that doesn't exist, how to make sense of it.

When René Descartes said: cogito ergo sum he referred that if I have awareness, then I exist, doesn’t matter at all if everything around us cheat me or is lying to me. Our world could be a fantasy or created by pure interpretation of ourselves. This is the true essence I guess. The fact of doubting about external points but not about your own awareness.

Well we’ve started talking about existence as a quality, without any concept of existence. What makes existence what it is? What is the essence of existence? Perhaps there are different senses (is the word used in different ways, Wittgenstein would ask). We can say a unicorn does not exist, but it is a fantasy (and an analogy). We could say the Bermuda Triangle doesn’t exist, but it is still an area on a map; here perhaps it’s the fantasy that we (want to?) say does or does not exist. And we could say it is something real, but then do fake watches not exist? We could say it is something tangible, but we can also say justice doesn’t exist in some places; that gravity exists. When we tell a child that Santa Claus doesn’t exist, what essentially changes? We haven’t just said he is not real, tangible, alive, certain, provable, etc. (“that man at the mall is not Santa”); the tragedy of it is that we destroy the ability for the myth to be meaningful, to be something that matters to us. So, then: does God exist? No, and yes (and so, absolutely not!). But is it always an open question? of everything? “Does that oasis exist?”, but, “Does that table exist?” Does Russell need to solve for the “object” which he can not see (@Wittgenstein), for others (and their minds) to matter to him (us)? Is existence dependent on (a certain) knowledge?

I think Bertrand Russell provided a good solution for any problem caused by this concept in his famous essay, "On Denoting " — Wittgenstein

Yes, it's a good objection. It is similar to Kant's in that it questions whether existence is a predicate or not. My favorite illustration of the argument is Martin Gardner's:

Suppose I express my idea of ​​a blue apple by painting a picture of five blue apples. I point my finger at it and say, "This represents five blue apples." If later I discover that blue apples really exist, I can still point to the same picture and say, "This represents five real blue apples." And if I can't discover the existence of the blue apples, I can point to the painting and say, "This represents five imaginary blue apples." In all three cases the picture is the same. The concept of five real apples does not contain one more apple than the concept of five possible apples. The idea of ​​a unicorn will not get more horns just because unicorns exist in reality. In Kant's terminology, one does not add any new properties to a concept by expressing the belief that the concept corresponds to a real object external to one's mind. — Martin Gardner

The conflating what we imagine with what actually exists seems a problem, to me.

Walter!

Nice. In my view the traditional existential ethos is that existence precedes essence. Meaning we understand our existence more than our essence. In layman's term's, we do not have the essential tools available in order to fully understand the nature of our own existence, which are framed as essences (consciousness, cosmological existence, so on and so forth). Yet we do know that we exist (in some way shape or form).

So the paradox between understanding our true nature or essence and that of our existence, makes essence subordinate to existence. Logically we know that we exist but we don't know how or why we came to exist. Or came into Being... .

I can't remember but didn't Aquinas argue the opposite?

Aquinas thought existence actualizes what some thing is (form) to makes its existence in reality (essence as accidents and substances). But doesn't a form have to exist in a sense before being actualized?

Aquinas thought existence actualizes what some thing is (form) to makes its existence in reality (essence as accidents and substances). But doesn't a form have to exist in a sense before being actualized? — Gregory

Gregory!

Great question, in that so-called paradoxical view it seems like it does. In other words, if we agree that 'forms' are tantamount to the nature of our own existence (our true essence), and the fact that we don't truly understand those 'forms', our true essences, then we must turn attention to how we came into Being (or existence) for clues (theoretical physics, etc..).

In turn, that becomes a kind of segue to other existential questions, including metaphysical questions (essences) that include conscious existence. For instance, what really is consciousness(?). Self-awareness? It seems like we must first exist to logicize, yet it takes something or someone to think in order to make something else think, I think. Or, is self-awareness and consciousness itself (its essence) just a byproduct of evolutionary soup. Certainly. having self-awareness in and of itself, creates these kinds paradoxical concerns.

To me, when one speaks essences, it begs metaphysical questions, which include metaphysical languages (mathematics) used in physics to parse the true nature of (our) existence. At some point, we only possess that language to (abstractly) describe our existence. Yet living life is more than just a priori mathematics. Go figure.

Ye I think the book Frankenstein applies to all of use. We are fashioned by the gods (evolution?) in ways we really don't understand. We approach the world with love, expecting acceptance, but we find things happen to use that don't make sense (Camus's "absurd") and we become resentful and doubtful. We don't know who is to blame for the whole situation but we feel like we shouldn't be on this earth in this condition. We feel like the world owes us more. In the final analysis, we oscillate between pure idealism ("I create reality") and perfect realism ("only matter exists"). I think this dialectic is what "phenomenology" means.

Ye I think the book Frankenstein applies to all of use. We are fashioned by the gods (evolution?) in ways we really don't understand. We approach the world with love, expecting acceptance, but we find things happen to use that don't make sense (Camus's "absurd") and we become resentful and doubtful. We don't know who is to blame for the whole situation but we feel like we shouldn't be on this earth in this condition. We feel like the world owes us more. In the final analysis, we oscillate between pure idealism ("I create reality") and perfect realism ("only matter exists"). I think this dialectic is what "phenomenology" means. — Gregory

I must say, either I've been away too long, or you've come a long way! Specifically, you paraphrased yet anther basic existential ethos!

Damn these self-aware sentient Beings!!#$%@? Who needs them !!!!!

Good Stuff man!

Necessity and contingency in Aquinas's sense don't exist because a thing doesn't have form\matter — Gregory

Form is what unifies some matter into a single object; it's how you can refer to something that has properties as a single thing.

An object is one thing composing necessity and contingency and everything is related to something else. — Gregory

I didn't understand this. Are you saying objects can be contingent in relation to one another?

his arguments presupposes God's existence although he is trying to prove it — Gregory

None of his arguments do this.

It says there is design which by definition means "done by an intellect". So he assumes God's mind in trying to prove it — Gregory

No, it only presupposes a relationship between deisgn and (our) intellects.

the first 3 ways assume contingency and God's necessity in the premises. — Gregory

No they don't.

...essence, or what makes a thing what it is, is distinct from its existence.

Imagine a unicorn... — Walter Pound

A unicorn does not exist. :snicker: