− | In Metaphysics, Fishacre's view lies within the Christian neo-Platonic tradition, that being is essence. God is completely what he is, simple and unchangeable. To the extent that created things change, they are infected with non-being (''In I Sent. 8.1''). However Richard does suggest in one passage that our own being follows from the composition of material and form, and so is the actualising of the essence, and therefore is an accident. God's being is truer than ours, and is identical with his substance, whereas our being is between being and non-being, because our being is to die (''ibid''). | + | In Metaphysics, Fishacre's view lies within the Christian neo-Platonic tradition, that being is essence. God is completely what he is, simple and unchangeable. To the extent that created things change, they are infected with non-being (''In I Sent. 8.1''). Richard suggests in one passage that our own being follows from the composition of material and form, and so is the actualising of the essence, and therefore is an accident. God's being is truer than ours, and is identical with his substance, whereas our being is between being and non-being, because our being is to die (''ibid''). |
| + | If there be something most simple, it would be identical with its being; otherwise it would have is being and something else besides and consequently would not be the most simple. Therefore, if anything be most simple, it would esit; but the most simple is the most simple; therefore it exists. (Long 1987, pp. 176-7). |