A question came in from the podcast from gentle listener Nicholas, which I’ve decided to answer here. (I’ll probably speak this more on Philosophy Friday, as we continue our series in natural theology).
Nicholas asks: “In his episode on Aquinas’ first way, Pat describes God as the “unactualized actualizer.” Why would a being need to be actual (and thus actualized?) in order to actualize? What allows us to conclude that even a First Cause isn’t unactualized? The broader question, I think, is why doesn’t potential precede actuality, rather than (as Aristotle says and Aquinas carries over) actuality precedes potential? How might the distinction between paradox and contradiction be fleshed out by such considerations? And do either of you cogitate such things while swinging kettlebells?”
Here’s the link to the episode in case anybody wants to get caught up. And yes… these are precisely the sorts of questions I cogitate while swinging kettlebells. That, or what I’ll be having for lunch.
Now, to the point: this is a searching question, but one I already addressed when detailing the argument from change. Without re-offering the entire presentation, here’s the simple gist.
All being (apart from God) is divided into actual being and potential being – that much, it seems, the gentle listener has solidly grasped. However, anything changing is being reduced from a potential state to an actual state. That is the general metaphysical principle that Aristotle, and later St. Thomas, derived, and did so much metaphysical work with.
Now, why must actuality, and not potentiality, be fundamental? The reason is simple. Potentiality qua potentiality has no powers to produce an effect – that is, no actual activity. Potentiality is simply an ontological latency requiring an acting power to bring it about – such as the potential heat in water, which requires something already (read: actually) hot to actualize it. So, if potentiality were primary, then nothing would have come to exist in the first place – it is really no better than trying to say that something can come from nothing. So, in order to avoid absurdity, it follows logically that actuality – and, in particular, pure actuality — is (metaphysically/in the order of being) primary. Hence, the unactualized actualizer.
For a more detailed explanation of this, please revisit the argument on the podcast (specifically steps 2 – 5, and 7) and the accompanying outline here.