This was a mind-bending chapter, that seemed to stretch my intellect above, beyond, and through my prior limitations, and comprehensions.
Firstly, the question, “What is the relationship, or distinctions, between: ‘What is?’, and ‘What could have been?'” It seemed to me that, ‘What is?’, is what is in the present condition, what is apparent now, the state in which a thing finds itself in the current moment. E.g. the fact that right now, I’m actively typing out this sentence by acting upon the keyboard. The question, “What could have been?”, presented an image in my mind of something that is inherent within each respective thing, but never realizing its potential. E.g. a man given gifts, and talents for a particular vocation, and never actually assuming that vocation. I took this question, and my interpretive examples, to the tutor who put the difference, between the two existential questions, into two simple terms:
“Actuality, and Potentiality.“
It makes sense now, what is actual, is what is now; and, what is potential, or what could be, is what something can become.
Finally, the last question was a mystery to me: “If the future is not known, then why does tense, idea, and expectation exist in a rational mind?” This was difficult for me to understand, would it not be more simple, perhaps less anxious to not have to deliberate about the future? Would there not be peace, and liberty in that? Or perhaps that is what it means to be irrational, to not be concerned with anything outside the present moment. Perhaps my own personal interaction with ‘what could be’ is disordered, due to my lack of reasoning to deliberate about the future logically. The tutor gave me the answer:
“The human mind, has the potentiality for posterior analytics.”
I don’t know what ‘posterior analytics’ means, but I look forward to learning how to do it. This gives me a lot of hope, and consolation for the future.
“I say, for instance, it is necessary, indeed, that there will be or will not be a naval engagement to-morrow, yet it is not necessary that there should be a naval engagement nor, nor that there should not be. It is necessary, however, that it should either be or not be.” – Aristotle
In XC, with Sts. Sebastian, Thomas Aquinas, & Bartolo Longo,
Eddie