Existing is more than Existence


The problem of the one and the many, writes Norris Clarke, “is the ultimate paradox of being and the deepest and the most fundamental problem of all metaphysics, of every intellectual effort to achieve a total, unified vision of all reality” (The One and the Many, p. 72). Perhaps I may have once known this back in my undergraduate days, when I took a few courses on ancient Greek philosophy; but all of that has been long forgotten. Not surprisingly, therefore, my initial response to the above quote is, what problem? Over the past three millennia, metaphysicians have been staying awake until the wee hours of the morning obsessing over this  conundrum, yet I haven’t given it a moment’s thought in my entire life. Plato I’m not.

When we expand our  intellectual horizons to apprehend the whole of reality, we are confronted with a vast multitude of beings. We note their similarities and dissimilarities. On the one hand, every being is similar to every other being by virtue of their being. Each is real. Each claims our attention by its sheer existing. On the other hand, each is dissimilar. Each is this one as opposed to that one. A is, B is, C is; but A is not B, B is not C, C is not A. The is is the presupposition of the not. A, B, and C cannot be compared except on the basis of a shared reality. “Total diversities,” Clarke comments, “with nothing whatsoever in common between them, are incomparable, in fact unthinkable” (p. 74). He suggests we spend a few minutes mulling over this simple but basic metaphysical principle. Just try to imagine a universe populated by beings that are completely different. In fact we cannot. To apprehend beings is to apprehend the primacy of existence itself. We apprehend the many and are immediately drawn to the one.

Clarke believes that the most compelling and illuminating solution to the problem of the one and the many was articulated by St Thomas Aquinas in the 13th century: finite beings participate in the infinite activity of existing (esse). Thomas writes:

Every perfection of any being whatsoever belongs to it according to its act of existence (suum esse). For no perfection would belong to a man from his wisdom unless he actually is wise, and so of all other attributes. Therefore according to the mode in which a thing has existence is its mode of perfection; for according as the act of existence of a thing is contracted to some particular mode of perfection, either greater or lesser, it is said to be more or less perfect. Now if there is something to which belongs the total power of being (tota virtus essendi), no perfection that belongs to anything whatever can be lacking to it. And so God, who is identical with his own act of existence … possesses his act of existence according to the total power of existence itself. Therefore he can lack no perfection that belongs to any being whatever. (SG I.28)

Being itself is offered to creatures to be participated in before all the other participations of God. Whatever perfection a creature may have, it receives through a participation in God, who is, as it were, offered to all beings that they may participate in him; but he is first participated in with regard to Being itself [ipsum esse] prior to any other perfection: thus Being itself per se is more ancient, that is, more primary and noble than Life itself. (In DN VI.i.633)

The bond of unity in which all beings share is the activity of existing, and this existing derives from the ultimate source of reality, Ipsum Esse Subsistens—the One who simply is his activity of existing, with no limiting essence.

I am, you are, it is—that something is expresses what is most fundamental in our experience of the world. Beings stand out from nothingness by their existing. Clarke’s metaphysical vision invites us to move from the brute fact of existence, as an attribute shared by all beings, to the inner act that grounds it. “This inner act of existence,” he explains, “is not reducible to an essence or mode of being, a what, nor a mere static state, but a dynamic act of presence that makes any essence or nature to be real, to present itself actively to other real beings” (pp. 79-80). To be is a verb, not a noun. Whereas most Western philosophers have focused their attention on the essences of things (what things are), those within the Thomistic tradition have focused on the existential action by which things present themselves to the world.

The solution to the one and the many is beginning to peek through: in their multiplicity and diversity, beings are finite participations in the infinite plenitude. “This participation,” explains Clarke, “is mediated through the metaphysical composition of esse, the act of existence, and essence as particular limiting mode—a composition found in all beings save one, the Infinite Source, who alone possesses this perfection in unlimited intensive plenitude as pure Subsistent Act of Existence” (Explorations in Metaphysics, pp. 12-13). Clarke thus advances a Platonic structure of ontological participation, modified by the metaphysical Thomistic twist. Think of essence as the principle that finitizes and restricts the unlimited fullness of Being. Essence holds onto and shapes the intensive energy of existing (virtus essendi). It may thus be understood as a receptive and determinative capacity that allows so much be-ing but no more, or to speak a bit more metaphorically, “the restrictive channel along which flows and expresses itself the encapsulated energy of the act of existence” (One & Many, p. 151). But be sure not to think of it as a preexisting container into which being is poured. Essence without an act of existence would be zilch; an act of existence without a defining essence would be either nothing in particular or the infinite fullness of Being, i.e., God himself. Esse and essentia are joined together simultaneously to form particular realities—there can’t be one without the other. Nor should we think of the creaturely act of existing as identical to the divine act of existing:

The act of existence (best understood as the “activity of existing”) which is participated in diversely by many different essences is not to be understood crudely as the one infinite act of existence of God himself, which is somehow divided up among creatures like pieces of a pie. God has no pieces nor can he lose his infinite fullness by created more beings. Each particular act of existence is a new one, fresh out of the oven, so to speak, which exists only as correlated with its own particular limiting essence, not first in an unlimited state, than afterwards limited. We are not “parts” of God. But each one is limited, not because it is an act of existence, but because it is correlated with its own limiting essence. Yet all are analogously similar, because they all participate in the common perfection of existence as active presence. They all share in an objective similarity that cannot be denied and needs the same term to express it: real. (pp. 85-86)

The one and the many—so far we have been looking at the problem from the point of view of finite beings. Is it clear to you how Clarke’s proposal purportedly solves it? What if we were to look at the metaphysical conundrum from the point of view of the transcendent Creator?

Thus the best way to think the whole universe of real beings as both one and many is from the point of view of God, the infinite fullness of pure unlimited existence, and the one ultimate Source of all being, as actively intending and willing to share, to communicate, his own fullness of being with many other limited beings, each according to its own limited degree or capacity (essence), each corresponding to a distinct idea or plan in the mind of God for sharing his own unitary fullness with many. The unity of existence in the many participants derives from the unitary fullness of the Source and the single idea, intention, will to communicate this to many according to different modes or manners of being. (p. 87)

The one who is One is primary; the many, secondary and derivative. That which binds beings—in all of their manifest diversity, variety, multiplicity, and differences—is their act of existence; and this act, this beingness, directs us to the transcendent source who is infinite aseity and inexhaustible plenitude, “the act of all acts and perfection of all perfections” (Aquinas). The unity of the many can only be convincingly explained by their participation in the God who is absolute Being.

The Rig Veda: “Brahman is the unborn in whom all existing things abide. The One manifests as the many, the formless putting on forms.”

Thales: “All things are from water and all things are resolved into water.”

Heraclitus: “All things come out of the one, and the one out of all things.”

Zhuang-tzu: “Great thinking sees all as One; small thinking breaks down into the many.”

Plotinus: “It is precisely because there is nothing within the One that all things are from it.”

Ibn Arabi: “Glory to Him who created all things, being Himself their very essence.”

Radhakrishnan: “We have the universe of individuals which is not self-sufficient and in some sense rests on Brahman, but the exact nature of the relation between them is a mystery.”

Segue to the Holy Trinity.

(Go to “Analogy of Being”)

This entry was posted in Philosophical Theology and tagged , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

11 Responses to Existing is more than Existence

  1. brian says:

    The key for most moderns is to move from a “thin” concept of existence as mere “fact,” to an understanding of existence as active, dynamic, flourishing plenitude. The aseity of unlimited existence is what Thomas means by Pure Act. However, the Holy Trinity deepens and in some ways radically transforms even this “rich” concept of existence. Michel Henry elaborates a “metaphysics of life” rooted in an “entirely unfounded `generation.'” The Father is eternally constituted by “existence” as “fathering.” The Son is eternally constituted as existence as “generated.” The joy of existence is “always already” gift that is self-donation, self-communication made possible by a receptivity that is not “passive,” not in any sense a “lack” subordinated to a “secondary” or “lesser ontological” plane. Generation is itself not a closed in totality, not a “finished product” of dyadic satisfaction, but a “dynamic aseity.” The artistry of the Spirit is the ever deepening fecundity of eternal Generation. Participation as limited, finite sharing in the infinite wealth of esse is a relation of gift modeled after the Triune perichoresis. The poverty of finite being is fulfilled, in theosis, by being raised to the receptivity of the Son. The fullness of esse is “always already” creative, dramatic, opening up new springs of novelty, delight, paradoxically, as Przywara’s analogy of being understands, always beyond us, even beyond our polarities and contrasting dichotomies of “rich/poor,” “giver/receiver,” “complete as totality/open as potential.”

    Love the cartoon, btw.

    Liked by 2 people

  2. Robert Fortuin says:

    Going beyond dialectic polarities seem to me especially pertinent as modern ways of thinking tend to be stuck in either/or paradigms. Freedom is understood in opposition to divine sovereignty so that human agency is at the expense of divine agency. Conversely, divine intentionality is construed at the expense of human agency. Similarly, transcendence is understood in contrast to immanence, eternity against temporality, immutability against relation, and so forth. All these are variations on the ‘one and the many’ conundrum.

    Liked by 2 people

    • brian says:

      Robert, I entirely concur. Theology proceeds best in the context of “both/and,” though the way that happens involves an understanding that certainly transcends our univocal penchants and even the merely dialectical tendencies of philosophy.

      Aaron Riches’ excellent recent book on Christology, imo, demolishes the current textbook narrative that would explain Chalcedon as a compromise between a Platonic “high Christology” in Alexandria and Antiochean interest in “low Christology” that preserves a supposedly more authentic anthropology. The entire antithesis is based on fundamentally flawed assumptions fed by contemporary desire to preserve human integrity. Moderns, of course, have no comprehension of a participation metaphysics, so they invariably understand difference as at least implicitly conflictual along a single plane of being. Hence, they perceive “the human thing” to be threatened by an obliterating Logos-centric theology. It is the same binary understanding of Transcendence that a hermeneutics of suspicion aims to reveal as a static, totalizing rhetoric that falsely pretends to authorize power from a position of unassailable perfection. The academy is rife with this stuff.

      Historically, apart from a few significant Nestorian or quasi-Nestorian outliers, the Church was struggling to articulate what was consistently a “high Christology.” RIches’ excellent suggestion inverts the philosophical advice that one “distinguish to unite.” In the case of Christology, one must “unite to distinguish.” Paradoxically, it is “high Christology” that founds genuine anthropology. Creaturely liberty is made possible and rendered flourishing by the divine source that is inherently “non-competitive”, both arche and telos, always nurturing.


  3. Michelle says:

    If essence is an idea of a certain limit in the mind of God, then Jesus as fully human is the true expression of this particular limit thought up by God. In our fallen state we somehow miss the mark of being fully human. I would love to hear Norris’ explanation of how it is possible for a created being to fall short of its own essence, and the role of grace in hitting the mark of fully participating in one’s essence.

    Also, is this possible to explain in terms of philosophical metaphysics, or this the point where metaphysics can no longer provide an answer, and spiritual revelation must take over?


    • brian says:

      Well, I would distinguish between a metaphysics open to revelation and one that steadfastly refuses such. The Gospel helps us articulate a Christian metaphysics. I would think that Maximus’ distinction between gnomic and natural will would prove helpful in discerning the gap between essence and temporal realization.


  4. Michelle says:

    Another thought-

    Maybe the bare bones, and spiritually starved and unfulfilling existential experience of Descatres’ “I exist,” by virtue of its being the only possible experience offered to the experiencer as totally impenetrable to all skepticism (with all other ‘truths’ being susceptible to doubt) becomes the purveyor of the quintessential expression of fallen man’s ‘gnomic’ existence. In other words, our inability to transcend Descartes’ “I exist” affords us our ability to doubt all else, and thus engenders the gnomic will within us.

    And so my question to Norris is, how does the existential realization of the ‘unfallen’ human essence, as thought of in God’s mind, defeat this ‘gnomic’ state? How does the ‘human essence’ (a participation in Being correlated to a ‘limit’ thought of in the mind of God) exisistentially trascend Descartes’ “I exist” in a way that overcomes this gnomic state?


  5. brian says:


    Clarke’s understanding of essence is not altered by a sinful failure to hit the mark. My surmise is he would understand the existential question you are asking as requiring theological address beyond the constraints of a purely metaphysical discussion. I like him and have learned a great deal from Clarke. Yet there is a kind of “American optimism” in his presentation that does not sufficiently deal with existential darkness. That’s simply not his metier.


  6. John H says:

    Does anyone know whether Father Clarke believed in or hoped for the salvation of all? Did he write anything on the topic or was he influenced by other Catholic universalists like Rahner or von Balthasar?


    • Fr Aidan Kimel says:

      John, in his book The Philosophical Approach to God, Clarke discusses humanity’s intrinisic orientation to Truth and Good; but he also affirms humanity’s radical existential freedom to definitively reject Truth and Goodness, i.e., God. So I guess the answer to your question is no.


  7. John H says:

    Thanks Father. On its face, Clarke’s affirmation of humanity’s radical existential freedom would indeed seem to foreclose universalism. And we know that the Angelic Doctor did subscribe to Augustnian double predestination in his writings. But with Clarke I wonder whether things are a bit more complicated. He tends to make use of metaphors in his writings which are rather inclusive, I think. For example that wonderful image of the Great Circle of Being as a journey outward from God(creation, fall, exitus) followed by a universal return of all beings to God. (sanctification, theosis, reditus) Like John Scotus Eriugrna, Clarke does not seem to leave anyone out of the Great Return to the Source. In addition, his notion of the personal dimension of God being a self communicating and unconditional love for all of creation seems to lead to universalism. I think that Clarke probably was a universalist at heart; Brian Moore accurately characterizes him as an “American optimist”.

    And, like all truly great philosophers, Clarke was a great storyteller. His tale of experiencing the “taste of being” while scaling the New Jersey Palisades close to the George Washington Bridge is priceless. He had a knack for making difficult concepts understandable

    Liked by 1 person

Comments are closed.