The Intermountain Catholic. (Salt Lake City [Utah] ;) 1899-1920, 1902-09-13

quently, the growth of existence is a
growth of being, in the sense of its
realization, or in realization of
the ideal, progress in filling
up the void, in rendering
it plenum, and producing the pleroma,
or universal fulness. Progress then,
as we philosophers of the movement
understand it, consists in the continu-
Gus realization of being. 1t is prog
ress because it involves a procession
from the possible to the ideal, and from
the ideal to the real, and because it
tends to the production of the pleroma.
1t is illimitable, because the being to
be realized is infinite, and the infinite
has no limits"
Il see nothing very profound in this,
save its absurdity. 1t smells strongly
of tobacco smoke and lager beer. There
| is no doubt, a glimmering of sense in
| the expression being is in doing, that
| to be is to do, for what is not inactu
| is not at all, and hence all theologians
! say of God he is actuS purissimus. AL
| so, when taken in the order of the
return of the existences to God, with
out absorption, as their final cause, or
ultimate end, it may express an i'm
portant and wholesome practical truth;
but, applied, as you apply it, to the
procession of existences from God, and
understood to mean that nothing is
real only in that it produces something,
or is a maker, it is false and absurd.
1t then implies that God is real as dis
tinguished from possible being only in
so far as he creates, or is manifested
in eXistences; or, as Pierre Leroux, the
ablest philosopher you have on your
side, expresses it, God is living Goo
only in his creations or manifestations
and therefore, without those manifest
ations which we call the universe, ht
could not be real, but would be simply
possible God-that is, no God at all
God, according to him, is the infinite
possibility, or, which with him means
the same thing, the infinite virtualit!
of the universe, and is actual or living
God only in existence, and only in 81
t far as his virtually is realized or &C
seem profound, and the proof of tn
: marvellous comprehension of your phi
| losophers; to me it is only a striking
| proof of the pains they take to max
themselves fools.
, Just observe, my dear Dick tina
: your philosophy places first bythos
abyss void, the possible as distin
guished from the real. Very good
? The possible is simply in potentia a.
} actum, but it is not actus and therefor
t by your own rule, not being at all. an
t therefore a sheer nullity, since betwee
not being at all and nullity there is n
medium. Hence you have this no
very easy problem to solve. How fror
2 nothing to get something? Or hoy
e from the infinite abyss of nothing t
e get existence? Elk nihilo nihil fl
/ How does your potential which is null
: oontrive to pass from its potentialit
= to actually, from das refine Sein in
e distinguishable from das Nichtsein,
das Wesen, or existence? Here is
S triling difficulty which 1 pray you
S clear up. To my old fogy understand
= ing, the real, not che possible. is pr
s mary, for without the real to reduc
= the possible to act, it can never be
o come actual, unless you suppose moth
: ing can make itself something"
: ITO be Continued.)