PROPOSITION XLV.

The existence of the material Substance cannot be the intrinsic principle of its individuation.

PROLEGOMENON.

It is supposed, in the hypothesis which is here combated, that Existence is something really distinct from the individual Essence. For, if by existence is understood the actual entity of each being, the statement that the existence of the individual is the intrinsic principle of its Individuation, though obscure and ambiguous in expression, is true in fact; as will be seen in the next Thesis.

I. The truth of this Proposition is proved by an appeal to an intellectual experience that is common to all men. For, -- setting aside all question of existence, -- Essence, remaining within the simple sphere of Essence, becomes individual; and, in this way, the specific Nature is determined or contracted. Thus, we truly conceive of Antichrist, for instance, as an individual; though he is not as yet existing. In like manner, Dramatists and Authors of works of fiction conceive individuals, who are as essentially these men or these women, as they are essentially human beings. To these illustrations and the argument which they supply, it may be urged, by way of objection, that in these and the like cases, as there is an ideal individuality, so there is also an ideal existence. This is true; not, however, because the concept of Existence is necessary to the concept of the Individual, but because it is necessary to the concept of the Individual acting, seeing that a thing must exist before it can energize. But the above illustrations are intended to show, that the human intellect can truly conceive a specific Nature individuated, apart from its actual existence. And, considering the question in the abstract, is it not plain that, as the specific Difference essentially contracts the Genus by an intrinsic determination of the Nature; so, the Individual Difference essentially contracts the specific Nature, by an intrinsic determination to this individual? Take it in the concrete. Surely, as James and John are essentially men by an intrinsic determination of Animality to that determined Species; so, they are as essentially this man and that man, not by any adventitious addition, but by the intrinsic and necessary determination of their own actual Nature. Yet, in the theory here combated, Existence is considered as something really distinct from the actual Nature. If the idea of an efficient Cause is introduced, further confirmation will be afforded to the present argument. Take a sculptor. He must work according to the pattern idea (in metaphysical phrase, the exemplar Cause), which he has conceived in his mind. Is it possible to imagine him beginning to employ his scalpel on the marble, before that pattern idea has been individuated; that is, before be has conceived the height, proportion, features, pose, which he intends to give the figure? And that individuality remains conceptually in his model man, whether he ever brings his statue into existence or no: nay, it often happens that the individuality in the prototypal idea, owing to a want of skill, is quite different from the individuality of the executed work. In Art, then, the Individuation belongs to the Essence, so to speak, of the produced nature; why should it be otherwise in created Being? But the individuality is ideal in such case, and becomes actual by existence. Most true; but precisely the same may be said of the Essence. It is only on the hypothesis of Existence being something really distinct from the actual Essence of the Individual, that the present Proposition is required. If they are judged to be identical; then, the assertion that Existence is the intrinsic principle of Individuation would only be, as has been said before, a clumsy and somewhat inaccurate enunciation of the next Thesis.

II. Every individual Act, which is really distinct from that Potentiality of which it is the Act, presupposes the Potentiality to be individual. But, according to the hypothesis here considered, Existence is the Act of actual Essence, from which it is really distinct. Therefore, it presupposes the Individuation of the actual Essence.

III. Lastly, a palmary argument is derived from the concept of Existence. For Existence itself may be considered in general, according to its specific nature, or, in particular, according to its individual determination. Thus, the old question returns, -- How is Existence itself individuated? Evidently, not from the common specific Nature; for that is not individual, but common. Is it, then, by means of some supervening Accident or Mode? Such a supposition would be something too repugnant to common sense; to say nothing of its involving a perpetual process. Will it therefore be said, not unjustly, that it is individuated by itself? But if so, why should not the same be said a fortiori of Essence, which is prior to it in order of nature and of perfection; seeing that Existence is the actuation of this Essence? Whence it is easy to conclude, that This is rather derived from the Essence to the Existence; not vice versa.