To say that two things are really distinct simply means that one thing is not the other. Thus a chair and a desk are really distinct simply because the chair is not the desk.
This argues against the formal distinction of Duns Scotus, because if we take two things which are said to be formally distinct in his sense, either the first is not the second, or the first is the second. If the first is not the second, they are really distinct, and there is no need for his formal distinction. If the first is the second, then they are really the same, and it is enough to speak of a distinction in concept.
However, it should be noted that in another sense, no distinction is real. The distinction consists in the fact that one thing is not another, and “not being another” is not a being, but a lack of being. Thus distinction is always something generated by the mind when understanding reality, rather than something that exists in itself.
Nonetheless, “this concept differs from that one” differs from “this is not that,” and consequently we distinguish between conceptual distinctions and real distinctions in this way, even though in themselves all distinctions are conceptual.
[…] unity of a being is simply a certain negation of distinction or division. As was said in the last post, distinction consists in the fact that this thing is not that thing. To say that a thing is one is […]
LikeLike
[…] That which is divided, namely something and something else such that the something is not the something else. Taken in this way, the idea of many comes before the idea of one, because many in this sense is simply defined by distinction. […]
LikeLike
[…] “it is the same thing that can be thought and that can be.” This is not quite true, since as I pointed out earlier, “not being another”, even though it can be truly predicated of things, is not a […]
LikeLike
[…] consists in the fact that one thing is not another. But why is it not the other? We can find two kinds of distinction in things, material and […]
LikeLike
[…] we discussed the order of the concepts distinction, unity, whole and part, many, first and second, origin, and cause. Some things that follow […]
LikeLike
[…] mainly because it is not clear to me what such a distinction would mean. I pointed out that distinction always involves something conceptual, but we can distinguish between real distinctions and conceptual distinctions insofar as it is one […]
LikeLike
[…] the discussions here on this blog, I took care to form fairly precise definitions of terms such as distinction, whole and part, one and many, and so on. No one has given an equally clear definition of mind, and […]
LikeLike