(October 29, 2019 at 8:24 am)Grandizer Wrote:(October 29, 2019 at 7:28 am)Belacqua Wrote: "Being" in this case means the extent to which a thing has actualized its potential. So it doesn't mean just that something exists. A hairless sick badger does in fact exist. But it has less being -- in Thomas's meaning of the term -- than a badger which is in accord with the outcome its DNA was aiming for.
Ok, this might have been why I got confused. Perhaps I forgot about how Feser defined "being" in previous sections.
It's all very slippery and -- to me -- wonderful, just because it's so different. All these words which are so fuzzy to us are for him clear and precise.
I had forgotten all this part, and was aware of a lack in myself for not knowing why Being is considered always Good. So thank you very much for focussing on this, and making me review what I should have known before!
