Being as a Negation of Genus.

June 20, 2006 at 3:57 pm (Default Category)

It is helpful to look at being not only by dividing up the various meanings of the word, but also in relation to genus. Being is not a genus, but it has some similarities to it, like predictability and generality of notion. Because of these similarities, it is easy to confuse ideas of being with ideas of a genus, or things considered generically.

There are a few differences. To name only three:

– Genus, as such, connotes incomplete existence, for as genus it is rendered more complete by a receiving differences. Being does not connote incomplete existence, neither can it receive differences in any way.

-Genus necessarily connotes limitation, but being does not. For genus necessarily connotes passive potency, and being is indifferent to it. But passive potency is the cause of limitation, for it determines what is able to be.

-Genus connotes a certain relation, for genus is an imperfect or incomplete species. But being does not connote a certain relation.