Sem.

John Kenn Dy Antolin Thomistic Metaphysics II

MCJCS, Philo III Rev. Fr. Jose Francisco K. Peralta, PhL.
15 March 2018

GOD IS CONTAINED IN A GENUS AS REDUCED IN SEVERAL CONTEXTS

(Summa Theologiae, Prima Pars, Question 3, Article 5: Whether God is contained in a genus?)
Introduction

This article started the question: “Whether God is contained in a genus?”, thus, it is but
proper to understand first its implications and meanings. In our understanding of this article, the
term God and genus is very important. First, God. He is the Supreme Being that seems to be in a
genus since there are, in His nature, things that can be found in the idea of genus (genera in
plural). However, if God would be contained in a genus then it is necessary to infer that He
should be under any of the categories or classifications. This would then question the
transcendent nature of God and would debunk His very nature. Second is genus 1 . The cat
belongs to the kingdom of Animalia. The latter statement talks about the cat being classified
under the kingdom of animals or Animalia. The attributes of this cat are only proper or found in
the Animalia which cannot be found in the Plantae. The cat is an animal not a plant. The
kingdom of Animalia only classifies animals and not plants which are properly classified in the
kingdom of Plantae. Therefore, the cat is not on the kingdom of Plantae but only in the Animalia.
Accordingly, this would emerge the idea of Aristotle that there are ten categories or genera. One
for the substance, and nine for the accidence. The categories could also be a supreme genus
which is higher than the universal genera.

“The principal difficulty would be that God is seemed to be under the genus of substance,
since, substance is a being that subsist of itself and that in God we speak of the divine

1
Genus - a class, kind, or group marked by common characteristics or by one common
characteristic; specifically : a category of biological classification ranking between the family and the
species, comprising structurally or phylogenetically related species or an isolated species exhibiting
unusual differentiation, and being designated by a Latin or latinized capitali zed singular noun; a class
of objects divided into several subordinate species. https://www.merriam-
webster.com/dictionary/genus. Accessed. March 12, 2018.
substance”2 - in the Catholic perspective, God has a Divine Substance in three divine persons –
Father, Son and Holy Spirit. However, according to Thomas Aquinas, God transcends the genera
and species. God must beyond any other categories or classification – genus so to say. But, there
are notions that would contradict this idea and this is the task of this paper – to present the
couterarguments concerning the notion about God in the context of categories. In doing so, the
affirmation and negation will be presented.

Body

A. God is not contained in genus.

St. Thomas Aquinas was a renown Scholastic Philosopher who defended and presented
his philosophy in a more Christian way, thus, most of his philosophies were more on the defence
of the Catholic Doctrine, since he is a saint too. In his Summa Theologiae on Prima Pars,
Question number 3 under Article 5, he answered the question whether God is contained in a
genus, from which he replied the different objections raised on it. However, Aquinas presented
his arguments on three main points: On the notion of Genus, On the notion of being and On the
identity of essence and existence in God.

On the notion of genus. Genus for Aquinas is understood under the place of act-potency
relationship. Since we could also apply the act-potency principles in the genera/categories. 3
However, God would not be in the catogeries if this is the case because he is pure act having no
potency. For example, God must not be in the genus of Ubi/Where since he is not present or
acting anywhere or he cannot be found in a particular place and therefore has no potential to
move to another place. It is because he is a transcendent being who transcends place or space.
Therefore, in this sense God is not in a genus.

In addition, genus is determined by the specific difference which would be applied to the
species under this genus. For example, the genus of animalia. Cats and dogs are under this genus
or classification of animalia. They are both animals which would affirm that they are under the

2
http://www.thesumma.info/one/one41.php. Accessed. March 12, 2018.
3
Ibid.
genus of animalia but they have specific differences – the dogs have variety of characteristics
which cannot be found in the cats and vice versa. God then would not be under the genus
because there is nothing from which he is to be compared for to see the specific differences for
consideration.

Whatever is in a genus differs as to being from the other things contained in the same
genus: otherwise a genus would not be predicated of several things. Now all things that
are contained in one same genus, must agree in the whatness of the genus, because the
genus is predicated of all in respect of what a thing is. Therefore, the being of anything
contained in a genus is beside the whatness of the genus. But this is impossible in God.
Furthermore, a thing is placed in a genus by the nature of its whatness, for genus is
predicated of what a thing is. But the whatness of God is His very being. Now a thing is
not placed in a genus according to its being, because then being would be a genus
signifying being itself. Therefore, that God is not in a genus.4

On the notion of being. According to Aquinas, “being cannot be in a genus, but

transcends the genera. But if God were in a genus, then being would be his genus. Therefore,
God is not a genus.”5 However, in understanding being, let us first see its nature. Being (Ens)
composed of Act of being (Esse) and Manner of being or the whatness of a thing (Essentia).
“These two are necessary and inseparable components of every being that exists in the world.”6
If we talk of being it is also necessary to talk about its essence since this must not be separated
into it. Every element implies the presence of the other. “The notion of being is not a genus,
since no differentiating elements can be added to it, which would not already be contained on
it.”7 However, to differentiate is to add extention, like the word “animal”. Dog and man are both
animals but they are different species, they are not equal because of the specific difference or the
extention. Dog is a sentient animal while man is a rational animal. Therefore, they are not the
same. In addition:

If God were to participate in a genus, he must participate in the genus “being”— God is
existence, hence God falls under the heading, being. Here, Aquinas draws on Aristotle
(Metaphy. iii), who he names, the Philosopher (not a philosopher—the philosopher).

4
Summary Against Modern Thought: God Is Not In A Genus, http://wmbriggs.com/post/14557/. Accessed.
March 11, 2018.
5
http://www.thesumma.info/one/one41.php. Accessed. March 12, 2018.
6
Alvira, Tomas et al. Metaphysics. Manila: Sinag-Tala Publishers, Inc. 1991, p. 20.

7
Ibid, p. 29.
 Aquinas, using Aristotle, writes, “being cannot be a genus, for every genus has
differences distinct from its generic essence.” I interpret this as meaning that all genera
(pl. of genus) are genera inasmuch as they cordon something off. Using zoology again—
mammal is a genus because it limits the features certain animals can have. Other marked
features (maybe those of retiles) disqualify a snake, let’s say, from participating in a
mammalian genus. In other words, a genus must assume all the things that fall under its
heading, and must disqualify all the different and distinct things that don’t. Aquinas,
working from the latter “must” states that if God were to be included under the heading
“being”, there must be something from which being is made distinct. However, Aquinas
says this is impossible (don’t tell Heideggar!), because the only thing remaining, once all
being is accounted for, is non-being. And, “non-being cannot be a difference,” Aquinas
claims.8

On the notion the identity of essence and existence in God. “Essence and
existence differ in all things that are in a genus. But essence does not differ from
existence in God.”9 It is understood that the essence and existence of God are identical,
inseparable. It is God’s essence to exist.

Although every creature that exists in reality has essence and that this is absolutely
distinct from its existence, God is not like this. As the aforementioned explanation above, God’s
essence is his existence. Man, as a being, has essence and separate existence, therefore he must
be a contingent being, since he only acquired his existence which implies the separateness of his
essence. Therefore, we must understand that “in this life we know God's essence not as it is in
itself, but as it is the foundation for the truth of the proposition known from effects, namely,
"God is."”10

B. God is contained in genus.

I will be presenting only three counterarguments that would somehow prove that God is
contained in any classification or genus. It will be also discussed here some principles which
have come from classroom discussions and supplemented by some other sources.

8
Aquinassummatheologica, Whether God is Contained in a Genus? P1Q3A5/8.
https://aquinassummatheologica.wordpress.com/2014/10/24/whether-god-is-contained-in-a-genus-p1q3a58/.
Accessed. March 11, 2018.
9
http://www.thesumma.info/one/one41.php. Accessed. March 12, 2018.
10
Ibid.
 On the Phenomena and Noumena. It is very important to note that the transition of
Modern period to Medieval period is actually the rebellion against the metaphysics on God, the
fossilization or the absolutization of the idea of an incomprehensible God. This is why, some
philosophers of the modern period were atheists and agnostics. Emmanuel Kant, one of the
philosophers of the modern period said in his “Critique of Pure Reason” that the power of reason
is only limited to phenomenon, so better not speak of about the noumenon.11 This means that we
can only speak of things which our reason could only capable of grasping. The power of reason
is limited, and thus, limited only to phenomenon. This phenomenon is based from our experience
on a specific thing. This includes shapes, color, size, time, space, etc. which would imply that
they must past through the senses. Based from the latter elaboration of the phenomenon, the
noumenon is the thing-in-itself. Taking chair as an example. We can experience in a chair its
color, shape, size, smell, taste perhaps, texture, etc. which talks about the phenomenon, on the
other hand, there is also its chairness which is about the noumena. So, how can you say
something about the chair if you only talk about the chairness itself which the thing-in-itself.
What I am trying to say here is that, in order to talk about something, it must be experienced
which speaks of the phenomena and that anything beyond the phenomena is no longer important,
like the noumena, because the power of the reason can no longer have the capacity to grasp or
understand that something which is beyond the experience which is the noumena.

Since God is a being who cannot be experienced, he has no taste, no color, no shape, no
size, etc. we should not speak about him because no human being could have the power of his
reason to comprehend the nature of that Being which beyond any other thing. Therefore, in
respect to God, we should not speak about Him because the mere fact that we give descriptions
on him (as we shall see later) is already as if we have the full understanding on him which is not
true because he is not graspable by human reason. This implies now that God would be in a
genus or classification that he belongs to the genus of noumena.

On the notion of the hierarchy of beings. In metaphysics, there are hierarchies of

beings. In this hierarchy, 1) God being the Supreme Being is at top, 2) Angels being spiritual
beings are second, 3) Human beings as a corporeal rational being, 4) Animals, 5) Plants, and 6)
non-living beings. This is very true in the metaphysics of Saint Thomas Aquinas. That is why
11
Based from the lecture of Professor Zackree Damo, Jr on the course, Modern Philosophy. MCJCS. 2017
there is the description of God as the ‘Supreme Being’ because of the hierarchy of beings. And in
a practical understanding, this shows that there are divisions and classifications. Of course, God
is not the same with human beings, since naturally God is the Supreme Being and his essence is
his existence and human being is merely corporeal rational being. Thus, it is very explicit to infer
that there are indeed classifications which would imply that God is under classification.
Therefore, God is contained in a classification, genus so to say.

On the 5 ways of Thomas Aquinas. The five ways of Thomas Aquinas is all about the
proof of God’s existence. All of these ways are from the obvious things around us. Let me give a
brief discussion on these five ways.

The first way talks about the argument from motion. “Our senses prove that some things
are in motion. Things move when potential motion becomes actual motion. Nothing can be at
once in both actuality and potentiality in the same respect. Therefore, nothing can move itself.”12.
Now, it is very absurd to refer back by tracing the reason why something is moving because it
may result to infinite regressions or “the sequence of motion cannot extend ad infinitum”13
Therefore, it is very necessary to infer that there must be someone to put all things in motion and
this must to be part of the series of motion, he must be unmoved and that must be God, the
unmoved mover. Since this is God the unmoved mover, he is different from the moved objects,
therefore He is under the classification of unmoved beings, therefore God is contained in this
classification or genus of unmoved mover which very different to the moved beings.

This is also true to the second way which talks about the arguments from Efficient
Causes. God is the uncaused caused, it is because he is not caused. Therefore, in the context of
Efficient Causes, God belongs to the genus of uncaused cause.

12
Gracyk, Theodore. St. Thomas Aquinas: The Existence of God can be proved in five ways.
http://web.mnstate.edu/gracyk/courses/web%20publishing/aquinasfiveways_argumentanalysis.htm. Accessed.
March 12, 2018.

13
Ibid.
 The third way is all about the argument from Possibility and Necessity. “It is very
obvious that there are beings who are contingent, they possibly exist or not, they acquire their
existence from another existing being.”14 Like us, we are contingent beings because we are born.
But, God did not acquire his existence from another, thus, he is a necessary being. Therefore, in
this context, God belongs to the genus of necessary being.

In the context of the fourth way, there are beings which have more and lesser
characteristics, this argument comes from the Gradation of being. There are more intelligent and
less intelligent. However, God is the source of perfection. He is only the being containing all
perfections. In addition, “the maximum in any genus is the cause of all in that genus.” 15
Therefore, God is different in this sense, since all of created beings, including humanity, though
perfect in the actual state, have a lot of imperfections. Therefore, God is the only being who is
fundamentally and ultimately perfect, thus, it is where he belongs.

The fifth way talks about the argument from design. It answers the reason why there is
the perfect regularity of the rising of the sun and its setting and the reason why the cosmos is like
this which no human being or any other being could make or arrange and put them in this kind of
order. Therefore, it must be distinct from the created beings and this must be God. He is the
grand designer of the cosmos and the one who is responsible for the order of things.

Conclusion

Based from the above arguments whether God is contained in a genus, I therefore
conclude that he is indeed under genus as reduced in several contexts.

God is so much abused in terms of description about His nature that as if these
descriptions could really grasp his totality and this would even imply that we are already giving
God’s limit in the human comprehension. It should be the case because we cannot picture the
entire reality about God. As Ludwig Wittgenstien would say in his book Tractatus-Logico
Philosophicus under seventh proposition, “what we cannot speak about, we must pass through

14
Ibid.

15
Ibid.
silence.” I think we should stop giving a lot of descriptions about God because these descriptions
would limit his unlimited nature as God. However, in connection to the concluded argument
about God being under genus, it is very obvious that God is contained in genus or classification
because, like a choice even you did not choose anything, still, choice have taken place – you
chose not to choose and that is a choice, even if we say that God cannot be in a genus, still God
would always be in a genus because it implies separation in his part and in the part from where
God is separated because the mere fact that he is not classified in any genus reflects the idea that
there is something different in him that the others have none and thus he would still in a genus in
reference to that difference. Therefore, God is always contained in a genus depending on what
perspective you look at him or as reduced in several contexts.
Bibliography

Alvira, Tomas et al. Metaphysics. Manila: Sinag-Tala Publishers, Inc. 1991, p. 20.

Gracyk, Theodore. St. Thomas Aquinas: The Existence of God can be proved in five ways.
http://web.mnstate.edu/gracyk/courses/web%20publishing/aquinasfiveways_argumentana
lysis.htm. Accessed. March 12, 2018.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/genus. Accessed. March 12, 2018.

http://www.thesumma.info/one/one41.php. Accessed. March 12, 2018.

Lecture of Professor Zackree Damo, Jr on the course, Modern Philosophy. MCJCS. 2017

Summary Against Modern Thought: God Is Not In A Genus, http://wmbriggs.com/post/14557/.

Accessed. March 11, 2018.