2

OUR LADY OF THORNWOOD CENTER FOR HIGHER STUDIES

Faculty of Philosophy


On The Absurdity of Being
A philosophical and existential inquiry on what it means to be







Professor: Albert Gutberlet, LC.
Student: Julio E. Lpez, LC.
Course: PhE 1002 Thought Paper
Date: February 8, 2011

3

Table of contents


Introduction....................................................................................... 4
Chapter I Ens ............................................................................................................................................. 6
Chapter II Magnitude .............................................................................................................................. 10
Chapter III Determination ....................................................................................................................... 15
Chapter IV Transcendence ...................................................................................................................... 19
Chapter V Causality ................................................................................................................................. 21
Conclusion ....................................................................................... 24

4

Introduction

Life without meaning is absurd. When someone has no purpose in life, everything else is
nonsense. If life is pointless, suffering is just hell on earth, life is to be damned. What is the point of
loving someone else, if there no reason for it? If my life does not have meaning, then I am just
something else doomed to die. My dignity as person would mean nothing. I am just nothing. My
existence is one of those incidents in a meaningless world.
If this is the case, then I have only three solutions: escape, despair or hatred. If I choose escape,
then I should commit suicide. Why would I want to live hell, when I can avoid it? If I am afraid of death, I
am not strong enough to cease with my worthless life. If I am not strong enough, I am very weak. So, I
should opt for despair. I must live without any hope or desire whatsoever. Why should I strive for
something when it is pointless and I am so weak that I cannot fight? Yet, if I am strong enough and I do
not want to die, then I should live it up and hate. I must look after myself alone, and hate everyone else.
Nobody is worthy, not even I am. But I am strong and intelligent. I am the only subject of this world and
everyone else is an object for me, either for my advantage or for my hate.
Still I do not want to escape, nor to despair and nor to hate. How can I escape when there is a
possibility of joy, of love, of meaning in my life? How can I despair when I have hoped what I have now?
How can I hate those who have loved me so much? I cannot give up. I must fight, strive for the truth.
What hypothesis is true? Do I have meaning in my life or do I not? If there is meaning in my life I
should seek it. If there is not meaning I should commit suicide. If there is not meaning for living, why
should I resign myself to life, if that is pointless? Or why should I strive for something which at the end
would be absurd too? I do not want to die with the doubt, with the possibility of a what-if-it-had-been-
true-? And if I lived, and found no meaning, at least I lived with a meaning. I lived because I thought that
I would find out the meaning of life.
So as to find meaning in my life, I need to discover: where do I come from? Why did my parents
bring me about? Who am I? Where am I going to? Where will I end up? Only and only if I know the true
answer to these questions, my reality will make sense.
5

But where do I start from? There are many things in life, in the earth, in the universe that I
would have no time to examine one by one! There must be something to which all the others things can
be reduced. There must be one thing in which a rock, a plant, a dog and a human being are equal; one
thing that can embrace all that exists. Here it is: existence or being. Then, I can use the word existence in
order to embrace everything and to analysis everything in one shot.


















6

Chapter I
Ens

We use words in order to refer to things we know. I have decided to start my existential inquiry
by analyzing the word being. This word reaches out to all the existing things. And I consider it more
useful than existence, since being refers to anything that is.
It is not necessary to clarify what I mean by being or ens, since I just said it above. Yet, it is pretty
important to pin down when we experienced this reality for the first time. This first experience is
attained since the first time we met reality. It occurred when we were aware of something else besides
ourselves. Seen from the particular side, this something is very different in each case, but from the
universal side, we all know a being, something which is. Then, this first experience is above all what
makes clearer the meaning of the word being.
This is pretty interesting, because we can also experience our transcendence and freedom in a
certain sense. Animals can only focus their attention on the particular, whereas the human being is able
to go beyond it, and grasp the universal concept of the particular. Nonetheless, we do not stop there.
We can also go further on. Every time we say Ens we are transcending any particular and any universal,
for the mere fact that ENS embraces everything. Hence, when we say ENS, we experience the
transcendental aspect of our being.
Yet that is not all. We also experience our freedom. When we consciously think of ENS, we are
choosing the universal instead of the particular. We are rejecting whatever is in front of us, in order to
put ourselves before a universe of things. Then, I have decided to say no to one thing, so as to grasp the
infinitude of beings. And it is exactly here where is revealed the second aspect regarding ENS: negation.
As we said in the introduction, we are trying to discover and know what everything is all about.
We have decided to start with being, since everything that exists can be referred to by means of this
word. Then, we attained the first glimpse of ENS without our awareness. Yes, we just affirmed that
being is. It seems at first glance that being is all about existing, being. But it is not. We just said it. It is
not. Since we showed that anything is expressed by means of the word being, we assume that it
corresponds to being. Therefore, being is not (ENS non est).
7

Now, if being is not, it means that nothing exists at all, nothing is. But if nothing is, all that we
are experiencing right now does not exists at all. This is absurd. Hence, it seems reasonable to state that
there is no negation at all. Being simply is. Yet, what did we just do sixteen words ago? We just negated
again. We got a negation of a negation: there is no negation at all. This is undoubtedly a negation.
Therefore, being is not.
All this is absurd and nonsense. How, on earth is it possible that being is and is not? The answer
is in the previous paragraph. It seems that we are misunderstanding the word being. Upon a careful
reading of the last paragraph it easy to recognize that the word being has been taken in two senses, in
the pure univocal sense and in the indefinite and analogous sense. Hence, it is only when ENS is taken in
the pure sense, that is to say that being simply is, or that being is absolutely not, it is absurd. But when
we consider ENS in the analogous sense, we see that being is and is not. For instance, we can say that an
apple is not a pear. By doing that, we are affirming that the apple is (exists) and that the apple is not (the
pear). The apple and the pear are beings, and the former is not the latter, and vice versa. So, the apple is
opposed to the pear. Therefore, we have grasped another aspect of ENS: opposition.
Yet, what really is to be opposed to something? If we say that A is opposed to B, we are saying
that A is contrary to B. Then, opposition means to be opposed to ones contrary. The contrary of being
is non-being. So, being is opposed to non-being, which is true. But, what is non-being? Non-being is
nothing. Then, there is no opposition. And if there is no opposition, there is unity. Therefore, being is
one, and only one. This is absurd again, since our daily experience shows us quite the contrary. There is
not only one being, but there are many beings. If this is true, there is no unity at all. So there is only
opposition among beings. But what is opposed to being once again?
We are locked again. It seems that there must be opposition and unity in being, but this is
contradictory. We experience opposition and unity among beings. A is opposed to B, and A is one. So, it
is important to find a solution for this aporia. Our answer lays right in the previous instance. There
cannot be either pure opposition between beings, or pure unity of being. Hence, we realize that there is
diversity among beings, and there is identity in beings. A is diverse from B, and otherwise. A and B are
identical inasmuch are they are letters. These two clarifications lead us to another aspect of being:
communion.
8

Communion means to be one with another. We experience this reality of being. We can see a
communion of persons, although they are diverse from one another. So, is being all about communion?
It seems that this time we do not find any objection to it. Yet, if we take communion in the absolute
sense, it does not work, because it means that being is one with another being. But what is the diversity
between being and being? There is not diversity, both are the same. Then, if both are the same, there is
no necessity for communion, since communion is unity of opposites. In addition, being is not opposed to
being, but to non-being. Since non-being does not exist, there is nothing opposed to being. And if there
is nothing opposed to be, there cannot be communion of beings. Therefore, being is solitude. Solitude
means to be one with oneself, which is to be one. Hence, there is only one being, which is absurd again.
This philosophical inquiry seems to be impossible, since every time we discover something new
about being, there is always a new problem or contradiction. Nevertheless, we cannot give up the
search. Each step along the way has made sense with the corresponding answer, which is an upper step
in our journey. Yet, it seems that we are trapped in a loop, since all the previous problems are reduced
to the negation or being, or to the oneness of being. In a deeper analysis of our inquiry it is possible to
find out that we are locked in one mode of being. What do I mean by mode of being? By mode of being I
mean the way in which a being exists or is considered. So far, we have considered being in a negative
way. This way of being does not correspond to an existing thing in reality. We do not see a negation
bobbing or weaving out there. Negation is only conceived in the mind.
If we remember the fourth paragraph of this first chapter, we will discover this reality. We said
above: When we consciously think on ENS, we are choosing the universal instead of the particular. We
are rejecting whatever is on front of us, in order to put ourselves before a universe of things. Any
negation corresponds to a concrete mode of being, so called: ens rationis. We only experience negation
in our mind, when we focus on a second intention. This reality is made so as to distinguish and
differentiate one being from another being.
Our problem, therefore, is that we have been considering ens rationis, and not ens realis (beings
which exist in reality). We have been trying to discover the content of the word being. Although the
word being is a being, it is not being as such or ens qua ens. Being is greater than a simple word, and
than its own sing. We only have said what being is not. We need to say how being is. So, being is more
than pure solitude. This is true, for the previous reasons. Nonetheless, we experience this reality as
necessity. When we got locked in our loop of pure solitude, we experienced a need. Being has to be
9

more than this, than pure solitude. Hence, as a matter of necessity otherwise we would not be able to
continue our inquiry we state that being is more than just pure solitude. Here another aspect of being
has been disclosed. Being is magnitude, this is how being is.
10

Chapter II
Magnitude

We have just passed on to another level of our inquiry. We have discovered being is and is not;
being is opposed inasmuch it is diverse from another being. And one insofar as it is identical to another.
This diversity creates a communion among beings. Finally we found out that being has different modes
or ways of being. Being can be either an ens rationis or an ens realis. So, we have gone up in our
philosophical search. Yet, it is not complete. We just got to the conclusion that being is more.
Magnitude refers to the greatness of being: being is more than We said that being must be
more than pure solitude. If pure solitude is to say that being is and nothing else, by saying that being is
great, we are saying that being is more than just pure solitude. Therefore, to be is to be more than
oneself alone. Being is more than being. Can being be more than itself? This is absurd. It is out of the
question. Being cannot be more than being, because there is nothing more or greater than being itself.
So, being is limited. Being cannot be more. But if being is not more, if it is limited, it means that being is
pure solitude, which happened to be false. Hence, being cannot be limited, it has to be more.
What is not limited is unlimited. So, being is unlimited. Here there is another aspect of being:
illimitation. Consequently, if being is unlimited, to be means to be more and more and more. And once
again this is nonsense. We cannot go ad infinitum without stopping. We feel the need of a limit. To be
cannot be being more and more and more, since some beings cease to be. One thing is pretty clear:
being is more than pure solitude. Being has to be more than being. Purely speaking this is impossible,
but analogously speaking it is possible. Then, we can say that a rabbit is greater than a rock. The rabbit
and the rock are two beings. In this sense, a being is greater than another being. Therefore, there is
difference among beings. A is different from B, because A is greater than B.
Then, to be is to be different from another. Difference always implies three aspects, the two
terms of differentiation and the thing in which they differ from one another. In this way, then, it is
obvious that one being has to be greater than another being, and that the other being has to be
smaller that first being, in a certain respect. Consequently, there has to be a being that is the greatest
and another being that is the smallest. Being is the greatest conceivable and the smallest, since
11

whatever is the greatest in something is a being. And whatever is the smallest is a being. If this is true,
there is no necessity for differentiation, since being the greatest and the smallest is to be equal. Both
are beings. If both are beings, what is the difference? Therefore, there is no difference in being, there is
only equality.
Equality means being is neither greater nor littler. Being is equal; each being has the same
magnitude. But, taking equality in a pure sense, it implies that to be equal is to be the same. And to be
the same is to be one. And if being is one, it means that there is only one being, which has been proved
to be totally wrong. Then, being is different. We just have another contradiction. How do we reconcile
that being is different and is equal.
Once again we have to qualify these two terms. There cannot be pure difference and pure
equality in beings. But, there can be distinction and agreement in beings. Joe and Jim are distinct from
one another. Joe is not Jim, but Joe. And Jim is not Joe, but Jim. Each one of them has a proper
magnitude. Nonetheless, Joe and Jim agree inasmuch as they are human beings. Both have a common
magnitude.
This new step has disclosed to us another aspect of being. There is a plurality of distinct beings,
and a plurality of magnitudes within one magnitude. The former is called extensive magnitude, and the
latter intensive magnitude. Plurality of distinct being is something we experience in our daily life. And
that something is included within something is also true. To be a person is included in being a doctor.
But if we said that to be is only extensive magnitude and intensive magnitude, then, being is to be pure
plurality and to be pure inclusion.
Pure extensive magnitude means that there is a being with another being, which form another
being. But this new being cannot be alone, since to be is being with another being. Then, this new being
is with another being, which necessarily has to form another being, and so on and on forever. It is just
absurd.
Pure intensive magnitude means that being is included within another being. Being only
includes being and nothing else. There is nothing outside of being, and inside there is only being and
that is it. Then, if there is nothing outside of it, and nothing inside besides it, to be means being oneself
alone, which is pure solitude. Hence, there is only one being, which is just being. This is nonsense again.
12

In order to solve the apparent contradiction we need two things, something greater than
extensive magnitude, and something distinct from intensive magnitude. Only in this way we can
reconcile that two being can form another one without the necessity of forming a fourth one and so on.
We also reconcile that what is within being is different. It seems that the answer lies in the right
conception of extensive magnitude and intensive magnitude.
Joe is one and is distinct from Jim. Jim is also one and is distinct from Joe as well. So, there is
diversity between them. This diversity forms extension. Since they are extent bodies, they form
extensive magnitude. Then, in this way to be is extensive magnitude. In addition, since Joe and Jim are in
a certain communion of magnitudes, inasmuch as they are equal in being, they are contained in
something greater, which is extensive magnitude. In this mode what is contained (quod recipitur) is
distinct from what contains it (recipiens). Therefore, If we take extensive magnitude as quod recipitur
(what is received) and intensive magnitude as recipiens (the receiver), we solve the aporia.
It seems that we have arrived to the end of our philosophy search. But, we have not arrived yet,
since the previous solution leads us to another aspect of being: containing. Following the previous proof,
we conclude that being is to contain and to be contained in a certain respect. Hence, we have a
container and what is within it. The question is if this container is totally full. If we say yes, we state that
being is totally full. The problem is that fullness in the pure sense means to be equal, to be same and to
be one. This would entail that being is equal, the same and one with what is within it. This is something
which we just proved to be absurd. So, the answer is that being is not full.
Yet, if being is not full, it means that being is empty. The thing is that if being is just empty, that
would imply pure emptiness. In this respect, the problem is that being has no content, that there is
nothing within it, which we have shown to be wrong as well. So, if being is neither totally full nor totally
empty, being is partially full and partially empty. We just found another aspect of being: partiality.
Being, therefore, is partial. Partiality means to be contained in something greater. It is so,
because to be contained, shows that being has content, that is not empty. And to be contained in
something greater discloses to us that what is contained is distinct from the container, that being is not
totally full. Thus, being is to be contained in something greater. Nevertheless, there is an inconsistency
in our affirmation. We have claimed previously that there is nothing greater than being. If we say that to
be is pure partiality, we are saying that non-being is greater than being. But, non-being does not exist.
13

Then, being cannot be contained in something greater, which entails that there is not partiality at all. If
there is not partiality, there is either fullness or emptiness, which has been proved to be false. Once
again all this is absurd.
There is another aspect that partiality has and that has not been unveiled yet: division. Division
is grasped once it has been talked about partiality. We said that partiality is to be contained in
something greater, it means that what is contained is part of the container. And this distinction is only
possible with division. If what is contained cannot be divided from the container, it means that the
container is indivisible. What is indivisible is one. If it is one, it is the same with the content, which is
absurd. Therefore, being is divisible.
Yet, this distinction has brought about two more problems. If being is pure divisible, it implies
that being is again unlimited. We can divide the content over and over again, and keep going forever.
But this was proved to be false. But, if being is not divisible at all, we are saying that being is only one,
that it is the same with the content. And all this has been shown to be false.
Thus, the aporia still remains the same. Is being divisible or indivisible? Or is being total or
partial? Pure division destroys the totality and its partiality. It is obvious that being is divisible, and that
being is not indivisible in the pure sense, but in the analogous. Being is divisible inasmuch as being is a
part. And being is indivisible insofar as being is one. Let us think on a cake. The cake is indivisible
inasmuch as it is one being. When it is divided, the cake is not longer a cake, but many slices of cake.
Then, we have many beings, which are indivisible inasmuch as they are beings. And from this division we
have attained the parts. When the cake is divided, a part of it can be taken away. Therefore, being is to
be part of
To be part of implies a whole, since a part can only exist within a whole. Even a part of is a
whole in itself, since it can be divided into more parts. Hence, the whole is prior ontologically speaking
to the parts. Thus, being is to be a whole, which contains parts that are distinct to it, whose existences
give content to the whole. In the same respect, being as whole is greater than its content and the
content is smaller than being. It is also limited and unlimited, limited inasmuch as it is one, and
unlimited insofar as it can be divided into parts. Therefore, to be is being a whole.
It sounds like we have arrived to our goal. Being is all about being a whole. But to say that the
being is just to be a whole, we are saying that being is nothing else but a whole. And if being is only a
14

whole, it means that being does not have content, for being is just to be a whole and nothing else. And
what is not a whole is not being. Then, our conclusion is that being is only a whole, which is to be one,
which is pure solitude.
We just arrived to the same point from which we started our second part of this philosophical
inquiry. But being cannot be just this. Being has to be more than this. We have the same conclusion and
the same point of departure. We are locked again. If we restarted, we would end in the same exact spot.
So, is there any other point of departure? If we said not, we would be boldly claiming that being is just
absurd; that our inquiry has never had a reason to be; that all that we have done is stupid; that we just
miserably killed our time; that our existence is meaningless. But if we said yes, we would dare to say
that there is something more about being. Is there anything more about being?
15

Chapter III
Determination

So as to avoid despair and to solve our existential problem, it is important to remember the
solution of the first part. We found out that we were locked in a mode of being: ens rationis. For that
reason we decided to consider the other mode of being: ens realis. And we did so. But our problem was
we did not consider ens realis in relation to reality, but in relation to itself. We just considered ens realis
as such (ens realis qua ens realis). We just considered that being is great, but we never talked about how
great being is. How it is the key term in our new level of our philosophical and existential search.
We know that beings are greater than other beings; that beings are different from other beings.
Now, we need to determine how great beings are, how different. Thus, we have another aspect of
being: determination. Being is determined (ens est sic). We are claiming that being has a way of being,
of existence. This way or mode of being, of existence is called essence. Being is according to its essence,
to its way of being. Therefore, being is its essence.
Being is the way it is. This way of being is only known through our mind. I know that Mary is tall
because I know her. The senses do not tell me how Mary is, but my intellect. If we took being in the
absolute way, it would mean that for being to be is to be known. If for being to be is to be known, all
what is outside of my mind is simply not, it does not exist. Then, there is only ens rationis. If there is only
ens rationis, I do not exist, since I am an ens realis. But, if I exist, then I am an ens rationis, which implies
that there is someone or something else that is thinking of me. Yet, this new being by necessity has to
be an ens rationis, since being is to be known. And if all of this is true, being would be absurd, for it is
impossible to have only ens rationis. We would be locked up in the first loop. In addition, so as to have
pure ens rationis it is necessary to have an intellect. But it would be outside of the intellect, it would be
an ens realis, which does not exist at all. Hence, being cannot be its own essence.
If being as such cannot be its own essence, esse (being as such; ens qua ens) and essence are
opposed. We just proved that if they were not opposed, they would be one and the same. Being would
be pure solitude once again. Thus, esse and essence are opposed.
16

Being, therefore, is to be not so as ones essence expresses (ens est non sic). To be not as ones
essence expresses is to be deprived of something. There is a lack in being. We experience such a
privation in our daily life. Joseph is not as tall as Mary. In this case Joseph lacks something. There is a
privation in his way of being. So, to be is to be deprived of something. Now, if being is considered to be
pure privation, to-be-not-so-as-ones-essence-expresses in an absolute manner, we are saying that
being is absolutely deprived of all esse. It is so, since to-be-not-so-as-ones-essence-expresses is to say
that being is not according to its own way of being, of existing. Essence is a way of being, of esse. If
being is not so as its own way of being, then being is as its own way of non-being. But being cannot be
non-being, for this implies that being is not being. But non-being is nothing. Hence being does not exist
at all, which is absurd. Therefore, we must to affirm that being has to have esse and essence. We just
got another aspect of being: habit.
By habit we mean that being is to be ones own essence. Being has a way of being. Mary is Mary,
and she cannot be not-Mary, since she would be another person and not Mary. Mary is (she has esse)
and Mary is Mary (she also has essence). Therefore, being is habit. It is to be ones own essence. But can
being be its own essence? If we want to be coherent, we should say not. It was shown above that if
being is to be its own essence, being must be only as an ens rationis. So, being cannot be its own
essence. And if being is not its own essence, then being is totally deprived of esse. Being is non-being,
which is nothing. Therefore, being is nothing. Nonsense!
We are sure that being must have esse and essence, but in which sense. When we affirm that
being is pure privation or pure habit, we form an aporia. And when we go to reality in order to get an
instance of what we are saying, it is when we see that being can be deprived of something and that it
has an essence. Therefore, so as to solve the aporia we need to consider being as privation and habit in
an analogous way.
So, if we consider privation and habit in an analogous way, we discover that there are contrary
qualities in being. Joseph is short whereas Mary is tall. Both beings have qualities, which are contrary.
Their essences are had more or less. Mary has more tallness than Joseph. And Joseph has less tallness
than Mary. It is interesting to notice that there are contrary qualities only in a relationship with another.
Mary is so in relation to Joseph, and otherwise. Consequently, there is a multiplicity of beings, which
reality so clearly confirms us.
17

Therefore, essence is had more or less by a being. This leads to a dilemma. Either there is one
essence which is had by each being in different degrees, or there are types of essence. If the former
were right, that would mean that Mary, Joseph and Jesus are the same. Mary would not be Mary but
Mary-Joseph-and-Jesus, and so on in each case. Nevertheless, reality shows us quite the contrary. Mary
is Mary, Joseph is Joseph, and Jesus is Jesus. Therefore, there is not one essence, but there are many
types of essence.
All these types of essence correspond to each being. It would be pointless to try to put down all
these types, for we would go ad infinitum. Hence, it should be a way of reducing the types of essence in
a more general way. Considering essence in itself, it is easy to recognize three types of essence. I know
how an oak is in reality; I know how an oak should be; and I express how an oak is. Then, there is a real
essence (how it is in reality), an ideal essence (how it should be), and a nominal essence (how it is
expressed). These three types can be said of any instance of essence. Mary has a real, ideal and nominal
essence, and so does Joseph, and so do I. This qualification has proved to us that there are many beings
with contrary qualities, with different essence.
In this way, we can conclude that being is to have contrary qualities. But, what would it entail to
say that being is pure contrariety? If being is pure contrariety, the very best would lack non-being, which
is nothing. And the very worst would lack all being. If the former is true, then it is not contrary. Hence,
there would be at least one being that is not contrary. So, pure being is not pure contrariety. Besides
this, if the latter is true, then it is simply not, for it lacks all being. It is just non-being, which is nothing. It
does not exist at all. So, being is absurd in this case.
Hence, beings are not contrary but alike. Each being possesses likeness. This is very true. A son is
like his father and a daughter is like her mother. There are certain qualities that are alike in beings. Yet,
if being is pure likeness, every being is one single thing. If this were true, there would not be plurality of
beings, which clearly goes against reality.
Once again being cannot be pure contrariety or pure likeness. Then, we got to qualify
contrariety and likeness in being. We already know that esse and essence are different. So, each being
has esse and essence. Esse is the same for every being, since every being is, exists. What makes the
difference among beings is essence. The way of being is not the same for every being. If esse is the same
18

for everyone and essence is different, now we can say that being is contrary and alike. All beings are
alike inasmuch as they have esse, and are contrary insofar as they have essence.
Now all this about being has made sense. It is true that being has esse, since it exists; and that
being has essence, which is endowed with contrary qualities that make being in the way being is. If
being is according to its essence, it means that being is exactly as it has to be. Whatever is exactly as it
has to be, that is perfect. Being is as it has to be. Therefore, being is perfect.
After all this long philosophy inquiry of being, we got the feeling of satisfaction. We have said all
what can be said about being. Being is according to its essence. We finally arrived to a perfect
knowledge of being. Before we did not know how being is. But now we do know how being is. Before
our knowledge of being was imperfect. But now it is perfect.
We went from the imperfect to the perfect. How does this fit properly with our claim that being
is perfect? It is enough to have an instance of an imperfect being, in order to prove the falsehood of our
claiming. We just did so. Our knowledge of being, which is a being, was imperfect. Thus, all about being
is false. If all about being is false, we have just killed miserably and meaninglessly our time. There was
not a real reason for starting our philosophical inquiry. Our entire search has been in vain, and it is
pointless, meaningless.
One could argue that now our knowledge is perfect. Even though, we did not know before all
the consequence if we were proved to be wrong. We were imperfect in this respect. In addition, there
are others persons that do not know all this about being. Hence, their knowledge of being is imperfect.
There is no way to avoid despair this time.
We know we have only two possibilities, either to give up, walk away and live in despair; or keep
fighting and die in the fight. The former is meaningless and absurd. The latter gives to us a little bit of
hope. If we kept fighting and discovered that there is more about being, that there is more than
perfection, we would find out the truth about being; we would have meaning in our search and in our
life. And if we fought and would not find anything else about being, we would get to the former. But if
the latter were truth, it is very worthy to keep fighting.
19

Chapter IV
Transcendence

All problems arose from the affirmation that being is perfect. What would happen if being is
imperfect? We already know that being is imperfect. Being is according to its essence. That is very true.
Yet, what type of essence are we talking about? As we know there are three general type of essence:
the real essence, the ideal and the nominal.
The real correspond to the way in which every being is. So, in this sense being is perfect, for it is
according to its real essence. The ideal essence correspond to how being should be. We know that any
human beings should have five fingers in each hand. But there are some human beings with four fingers,
or with four and a half. Then, these beings are imperfect insofar as they do not correspond to the ideal
of human essence. They are not what they should be. Finally, the nominal essence corresponds to the
way essence is expressed. I can say that Mary is beautiful, which is true. But this nominal essence, this
expression does not tell me all about Mary. All her essence is not totally revealed in her nominal
essence. Thus, in this sense Mary is imperfect, since she is not as her nominal essence expresses. She is
more than that.
Therefore, being is imperfect, is defective. There are defects that are presents in beings. As we
proved above, a being can be imperfect because it falls short of its ideal essence, and a being can be
imperfect because it exceeds its nominal essence. We have, then, acquired another aspect of being:
defect or imperfection.
This aspect of being is not only revealed through a logical analysis of the types of essence. It is
also disclosed in the most common experience of life: movement. Our last existential crisis showed us
so. We felt the imperfection of being in our philosophical inquiry. We went from ignorance about being
to knowledge of it. We went from imperfection to perfection. Life itself is a going towards perfection.
It seems that being goes towards perfection and departs from it. Perfection is a sort of zenith or
climax. A kind is not a perfect man. He is going towards perfection of his essence. And once he is a
grown-up, he starts going down from perfection. Then, being is to go towards perfection. Being
overcomes its limits. In other words, being is transcendence.
20

So, to be is to be transcendence. It is to go from what is not yet possessed to what is possessed,
and from it to disappear. It this case, for being it would entail to go from non-being to being, from it to
non-being again. But, can non-being transcendence itself? Non-being is nothing. Non-being does not
exist. Then, non-being cannot transcend itself. If non-being cannot transcend itself, then being cannot
come from non-being. If being does not transcend non-being, it means that being transcends itself.
Nevertheless, there is nothing beyond being. Outside of being there is non-being, which is nothing.
Therefore, being is not transcendence.
Nonetheless, this is contrary to our daily experience. We experience the birth of a new child that
goes to maturity and finishes in death. So there is transcendence. If there is transcendence, it has to
start with being. Then, being remains within being. Being starts in being and finishes in being. Therefore
being is immanence.
How are we going to reconcile that being is immanence and transcendence? Pure
transcendence does not work. But does pure immanence do so? Being cannot come from non-being,
since non-being does not exist. And it cannot come from something else, since the only thing that there
is outside of being is non-being. If being cannot come from something else besides being, it means that
being has never begun and would never stop. Hence, being is immanence.
All this about immanence of being really sounds. But once again, how are we going to reconcile
that being is transcendence and immanence? There is only one way. We need to qualify being. Mary, an
apple, a rock, the letter A are (exist), and are in a specific way. They are beings with esse and essence.
Here there is one being that has not been taken into account: are. Are corresponds to esse, a quality
that any being possesses. Esse or to be has never begun and would never stop. If esse had a starting
point it would be non-esse, which is absurd. And if esse would stop, it would cease to be, which is
absurd. Therefore, esse (to be) or being as such (ens qua ens) has never begun and will never stop.
So, we just attained our solution. Being is immanence and transcendence. Being is immanence
inasmuch as it is esse. And being is transcendence insofar as it is endowed with esse and essence.
Therefore, we can conclude that there are two types of beings. There is an infinite being (esse) and
many finite beings (esse and essence).
21

Chapter V
Causality

All this raises another question, how did beings, endowed with esse and essence, become so?
We know that any finite being is going towards perfection. If it is going towards perfection, this means
that it is in movement. Whatever is in motion has a point of departure and a point of arrival. Being
before going to perfection was static, at rest. If this is true, then it was infinite, since it did not have a
beginning. Moreover, when finite being arrives to his end, to its point of arrival, it becomes at rest again.
If this point of arrival is a true point of arrival, which entails that once finite being is there, it becomes
infinite. Once finite being is at rest, it does not have an end. If that were not true, the point of arrival
would not be a real point of arrival, and finite being would be still in motion. But, if that is the real point
of arrival, finite being would stay there forever. It would not have an end. Then, it would be infinite.
This analysis has revealed to us that being is static and dynamic. That whatever is in motions is
finite being, and whatever is at rest has ceased to be finite, to become infinite. Taking in the pure sense,
finite beings are always in motion, are dynamic. But infinite being cannot be dynamic, since that would
imply to have a beginning and an end. In the other hand, infinite being can be at rest in the absolute
way, which is to have no-beginning and no- end. But for finite being that is just impossible. So, there is
once again a clear difference between infinite being and finite being. It also shows us that finite being
starts in infinite being and it finishes in infinite being as well. The conclusion is clear. Finite being must
have its beginning and its end in infinite being. But, what is still unclear is how.
We know that both are different; that infinite being is immanence and finite being is
transcendence; that the former has no-beginning and no-end whereas the latter does. The only possible
solution is that infinite being is uncaused and that finite being is caused. A cause is immanent. It gives
rise to something and it remains after whatever is caused has ceased. A cause gives rise to an effect. An
effect is transcendence, since it goes towards perfection. An effect has its origin in the cause and its
point of arrival too. The effect depends on the cause, since as long as the cause is, the effect is.
Therefore, infinite being or esse is the cause of all finite beings (esse and essence).
22

Now everything that we found out about being makes sense. Being is all about causing and
being caused. Infinite being is the cause, and finite being is caused. Now, to be has meaning. Any being
is meaningless or pointless. Esse causes and esse-essence is caused. The formers purpose is to cause
finite beings, and the latters purpose is to be caused by infinite being.
But if this is true in an absolute and pure sense, we are saying that finite being is because
another is. We are saying that the effect is doing nothing, is passive. If finite being is because another is,
its being is not its own, but of the infinite being, of the cause. If the cause produces the effect, which is
true, the effect, then, is produced by the cause, which implies that the effect is nothing, since it is doing
nothing. The action is the same. The efficient agent of the action is the same. So, the only one who
exists, since it is doing something is the cause, the infinite being.
If we stay here, our entire work has been in vain again. We killed miserably our time, and we do
not have purpose and meaning in life. To be is absurdity. We just do not exist. If so, what are we working
on this for? Why do we still try to find more about being? Is there something more about it?
Our problem is that if finite being is just caused by another, we do not exist at all. But, if finite
being is not caused by another, then it would be caused by itself. If this is true that finite being causes
itself, then to be would be pure self-perfection. But, pure self-perfection does not exist, since finite
being cannot come from finite being, but from infinite being, as we just proved above. Then, this is
impossible. Nothing makes sense. Everything is absurd and pointless. Let us stop here and escape from
being. Let us go to non-being. Either it makes sense or it is just nothing, which now seems better than
being.
We cannot stop here, because we are not done yet. By the previous analysis we just found out
another aspect of being. Yes, finite being is caused. But is there only one type of cause? No, there is not
one type of cause. There are two types of causes: an extrinsic cause and an intrinsic one. One is outside
of finite being and the other is inside of it. Esse or infinite being is the extrinsic cause, which gives being
(esse or existence) to finite being. And by doing this, finite being causes itself from inside. It is passive
inasmuch as it receives esse. Yet, it is active insofar as it tends towards perfection by itself, by means of
its essence. This shows us that finite being has a power to tend towards perfection, but it is not self-
sufficient power. It needs to be triggered. So, there is an appetite, a desire in finite being for perfection.
23

Now, everything makes sense, perfect sense. There is no longer a desire for suicide, certitude of
absurdity in being. Infinite being and finite being exist, are. They are different and at the same time
similar. One causes the other, and the other depends on the first. Finite being has an origin, which
makes sense, infinite being esse. It has meaning in life: going towards its own perfection. And it has an
end which is not absurd, infinite being esse.
24

Conclusion

We finally arrived to the point in which being makes sense. We cannot claim that it is our point
of arrival, since we would stay here forever: something, which we just proved to be absurd. Hence, we
cannot exhaust the reality of being, either finite being or infinite being. I am sure that there is more to
say about both. Yet, we are in a point in which it is not necessary to look for it, to search for it. Why? We
just said it. We finally arrived to the point in which being makes sense.
We went from despair to meaning in our search. We had to study all types of being in order to
get to here. We analyzed ens rationis, ens realis in itself and in relation with reality. We found out that
there are two types of being in reality, infinite being and finite being. Our entire work was to go from
what seemed to make perfect sense to the absurdity; and from absurdity to more aspects of being. By
doing this, we got to know who we are, finite beings; we found our origin, since it is obvious that we are
finite beings. We discovered our meaning and purpose in life: going towards perfection of ourselves.
And we are sure about our end, infinite being, which in a certain sense implies immortality.
Esse is what has given meaning to our existences. By pure reasoning we grasped that there is
one, necessary, absolute and perfect being, which is the first and final cause of all contingent, finite and
imperfect being. Esse, therefore, is the god to which man can arrive through reason. It is a god which is
one, necessary, absolute and perfect, which is the first and final cause of all contingent, finite and
imperfect being. This is all what man can grasp by means of his reason. We cannot go beyond it, unless it
is revealed to us.
Then, it seems that there is one more question left. Has Esse revealed itself to man once? There
is only one religion that holds it up. Christianity claims that her God is one in three persons; a God that is
father, full of mercy and compassion; a God that is love. If this is true, it is not because they have
grasped through their reason. It is true because God himself has revealed to them.