John N. Deck is a highly interesting, if obscure, figure in the neo-Scholasticism of the 20th century. I first took note of him in 1989, ten years after his death, when his article "Metaphysics or Logic?" appeared in New Scholasticism (vol. LXIII, no. 2, Spring 1989, pp. 229-240.) Thanks to the labors of Tony Flood we now have a better picture of the man and his work. The case of Deck may well prove to be a partial confirmation of Nietzsche's "Some men are born posthumously."
I myself am neither a Thomist nor a neo-Thomist. My route to the philosophy of Being was via the transcendental philosophy of Kant, Husserl, and Heidegger. My dissatisfaction with the phenomenological approach to ontology as well as with the logical approach one finds in Frege and Russell led me to re-think in my own way and in my own terms the old Thomist idea of ipsum esse subsistens. I gave my thoughts a rough and provisional form in my 2002 book A Paradigm Theory of Existence to which I attached the perhaps excessively triumphalist subtitle, Onto-Theology Vindicated. The gist of the subtitle can be put in the slogan: Being is neither a phenomenological nor a logical notion, but an onto-theological one.
Not having discussed Deck in my book, I will make good that omission here in a series of posts.
It is a matter of experience that our world is a plural world, one consisting of a manifold of beings or existents. The manifoldness is undoubtedly real, but it is not a pure manyness but a plurality of things that are, that have Being or existence in common, that form a community of being. There are many beings, but each is. It is undeniable that Being is in some sense common to beings, and therefore distinct from them.
The question in dispute, however, is whether both Being and beings are real in the "extra-cognitional order" to use a phrase of Deck's, or only beings are. I maintain that both Being and beings are extra-cognitionally real whereas Deck maintains that only beings are. Thus Deck's view is that beings exist outside the mind, but that their unity and commonality is merely that of a concept, and so is imposed by the mind to satisfy its own logical exigencies. Deck's view could be put as follows. When we say of a thing that it exists, what we say is true; but there is no real unity in things that grounds our application of the predicate 'exists' to them. There is no Being in the things that are that makes it true to say of them that they are: Being is a concept we impose. The diversity of beings is real (extramental, extra-cognitional), but their unity is merely conceptual.
One could say that Deck takes a deflationary line: there is no such 'thing' as Being outside the mind. Clearly, this must be opposed by anyone who, like me, sees merit in the notion of ipsum esse subsistens, self-subsistent existence. But in philosophy it all comes down to the arguments one can adduce for or against. In support of his deflationism, Deck says the following:
There is no alternative to being. Everything is. Thus there is no ultimate intelligibility in the contention that all things that are agree in this, that they are all opposed to, or even equally opposed to, non-being — they would be at one, as it were, in the non-non-being feature. (232)
This passage suggests a Contrast Argument:
1. If a term T denotes something real, then there must be items to which T does not apply.
2. There are no items to which 'being' or 'existent' does not apply.
Ergo
3. 'Being' or 'existent' does not denote anything real.
In point of validity, this argument is unobjectionable: it is an instance of Modus Tollens. But it is unsound. The following consideration suffices to refute the first premise. Since everything is self-identical, it is true to say of any particular thing that it is self-identical. 'Self-identical' is not rendered either senseless or reference-less by the plain fact that nothing is self-diverse. I don't think we need to waste any more words on the first premise. It is obviously false.
But even if you insist that (1) is true, there is still a problem with the argument. Although (2) is true, it does not have the implication Deck thinks it has. He seems to think that if everything exists, then it is unintelligible to suppose that there is a difference between existence and nonexistence. But this is a non sequitur. For although it is true that there is nothing that does not exist, a contingent being that does exist is possibly such that it does not exist. So there is a contrast after all. It is the contrast between existence and possible nonexistence.
It is quite clear that the difference between existence and nonexistence cannot be explained by giving examples of existents and examples of nonexistents. Pace Meinong and the Meinongians, there are no examples of nonexistents. But how it is supposed to follow from this that there is no real unity in things that grounds the application of 'exists' to them?
It seems to me that Deck is making a rather obvious mistake. He is assuming that existence or Being is a highest what-determination. He is thinking of 'being' as a maximally general term which, due to its all-inclusive extension, is virtually nil in intension. Here is what he has to say:
The distinction between 'being' and, for example, 'dog,' is then a distinction between the more general and the less general. This is a logical or cognitional distinction, which does not necessarily reflect anything in the nature of things. Nor does it necessarily point to any real composition within things. It is analogous to the distinction made between 'animal' and 'dog' when it is said that Rover is a dog and Rover is an animal, which distinction does not point to two distinct principles within Rover — dog and animal. Rover is a dog who is an animal, an animal who is a dog. His being a dog and his being an animal are the same in him, even though there are other animals. Similarly, Rover is both a being and a dog — there are other beings, but this does not change the fact that for him, to be a dog is to be a being, to be a being is to be a dog. (232-233)
This passage shows that Deck is thinking of being as a highest genus. Rover is a dog, an animal, a living thing, a physical thing . . . a being. On this way of thinking, being is the most general what-determination. But if anything is clear, it should be that Being or existence is not a summum genus as Aristotle pointed out at 998b22 of the Metaphysics. And as Kant pointed out in his famous discussion, Being or existence is not a reales Praedikat: Being or existence is no part of what a thing is.
I'll have more to say about this later. For now, the main point is that Deck's Contrast Argument above is unsound. Not only does it share the defect of every contrast argument, it also confuses Being or existence with a highest what-determination.
Related Posts (on one page):
- John Deck's Contrast Argument Against the Philosophy of Being
- Total Dependence and Essence/Existence Composition
Have I understood you correctly?
Yes, I think you understand me. I reject the view that "existence must be the least of all properties" or the emptiest of empty abstractions, etc. on the ground that everything exists. Contra the Meinongians, I say: everything exists. Contra the Fressellians (Frege-Russell crowd), I say: existence can be predicated of individuals. Deck would agree with these rejections. But what Deck fails to see -- putting the point somewhat cryptically -- is that existence does not lie in the quidditative dimension: it is not a highest what-determination, a summum genus, or anything like that. It is not the emptiest concept, but no concept at all, rather, that which makes things be in the first place.
To understand this is the task of the philosophy of Being. Deck joins D. C. Williams, Sydney Hook and a hundred others in failing to grasp the problem. You might say they are 'existence-blind.'
But what about your man Zubiri? Where does he stand? There is a lot to like in On Essence. I agree with his critique of Heidegger.
Reminds me of when somebody asked me point blank "What does Zubiri mean by 'essence?'" and my response was basically a series of vocalized pauses (errr, uhhh, ahhh, let me get back to you).
The reason I think this happens is that Zubiri does better the closer he is to his starting point, which I think is the right one. I'm thinking of "reality," for instance, as what gives of itself to cause a thing to be what it actually is. It's harder to screw up on existence, in that case, because one immediately recognizes that things are because they are real and not vice versa. That's where I think Deck goes wrong in starting with the reality of beings (Heidegger as well, I suppose, by starting with the property of beings being in time). But in Zubiri, the order of dependence is right, which allows him to be robust in concepts like "substantivity" (coherence between notes) or structure of reality, because there is something real beyond the notes in the first place.
But getting the order of dependence right, while admirable, is only the first step. When it gets to the point of description, that's where Zubiri seems to trail off a bit. He's identified where people have gone off the track in looking at beings themselves for an explanation of beings, but when it comes down to actually ponying up on the details of the explanation itself, it all gets "wooly," to use your term. What he means by "reality is formality" or just what he intends by the term "essence" remains difficult to map onto a clear set of concepts. Frankly, sometimes I just don't know what he means. But in these sorts of endeavors, the one who points out the path is rarely the one who walks it, so I can't be too critical.
Perhaps what he needs is for some hard-core analytic types who are sympathetic to his ideas to whip them into shape.
2. Disallowing comments from a particular person, or deleting an offensive, off-topic, or otherwise substandard comment, has nothing to do with censorship. People who think otherwise confuse censorship with lack of sponsorship. I am under an obligation not to interfere with anyone's exercise of legitimate free speech rights. But I am not under any obligation to aid and abet anyone's exercise of free speech rights, legitimate or illegitimate.
3. The Comments area is not an open forum for anyone to say anything about any topic. As the name implies, it is primarily for commenting on the author(s)' posts. But to comment on them, one must have read them. And if I have spent three hours on a post, a reader will not understand it in thirty seconds. Secondarily, the Comments area is to facilitate civil discussion between and among commenters as long as the discussion remains on-topic.
4. Some undesirables: The skimmers, those who cannot read but only read-in. The sophists who, abusing argument, argue for the sake of argument. The ideologues, those who are out for power, not truth. The uncivil. The illogical. The politically correct. Worst of all, perhaps, are those who exemplify the anti-Socratic property: those who think they know what they don't know. If Socrates was famous for his learned ignorance, these types are marked by their ignorant unlearnededness.