トマス･アクィナスの《モドゥス》研究（三） --《モドゥス》の意味論的側面--

Abstract

As the third and final part of my study on “modes” (modi) in Thomas Aquinas, this article explores semantic aspects of “modes”. First, we examine the modes of categories. On the one hand, Aquinas seems to attribute a mode unique to each category. In other words, each category has its own mode of being distinguished from those of the other genera of beings. In his discussions of the Eucharist, however, Aquinas holds that the appearances (species) of the bread, which are accidents, lose their modes of being as accidents because they now stay without their subject, i.e., the bread, which is transformed into the body of Christ. We consider how these two positions are compatible in Aquinas’s metaphysical framework. With reference to the ten categories of being, Aquinas also claims that the modes of predication correspond to the modes of beings. We attempt to understand Aquinas’s intention in this statement. Among the categories, the category of relation has the weakest being, and some relations, such as self-identity, do not exist outside the mind. These relations have modes based on reality but are mental in themselves. Second, we consider the modes of “transcendentals” (transcendentia), i.e., words applied to all the categories such as “being” (ens), “one” (unum), “a thing” (res), “true” (verum), and “good” (bonum). According to Aquinas, these terms express “general modes of being” while the ten categories express “specific modes of being.” We conclude that the general modes of being exist solely in the mind, whereas the specific modes of being are modes of existing (modi existendi) outside the mind. Nonetheless, the general modes of being are attributed to things outside the mind because they constitute objective aspects of beings. Third, we analyse Aquinas’s various uses of “mode of signifying” (modus significandi) in order to understand what it is. This term is specifically employed in his theory of divine names, incorporated into his claim that “things signified” (res significata) by names of perfection (such as “wise” and “good”) are prior in God to creatures while the “modes of signifying” of these names are in creatures prior to God. Modes of signifying do not always follow “modes of being” (modus essendi), since our “modes of understanding” (modus intelligendi) mediate them. That is to say, we name and express things as we understand. From the consideration of “modes of signifying, ” it is clear that “modes” are parts of our limitation or the imperfection of creatures. Our finite “modes, ” however, precisely open the way to talk about God, so far as these modes are participations of the perfect mode of the Divine Being. We can exist because God exists, and we can speak about God because God is a mode.