Is Being a Genus? (2)

Philosophical Studies (Dublin) 8:89-104 (1958)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

Those who in the past tended to say that being is a genus, coupled their assertion with the belief that the genus is univocal, thus making being univocal—a position which can easily be overturned. Others failed to distinguish between being as meaning essence, and so divisible into the ten categories, and being as meaning existence. The consequence was that they restricted the Divine Being to a genus of being, thereby denying God’s transcendence. As far as I know, the theory which combines the two doctrines that the genus is analogical and that the being which is held to be a genus is only essence, has never been propounded. It merits investigation.

Other Versions

No versions found

Links

PhilArchive

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Analytics

Added to PP
2011-12-02

Downloads
101 (#505,298)

6 months
14 (#859,264)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Citations of this work

Further Remarks upon ‘Is Being a Genus?’.Joseph Bobik - 1959 - Philosophical Studies (Dublin) 9:73-78.

Add more citations

References found in this work

No references found.

Add more references