 | This article shouldspecify the language of its non-English content, using{{langx}},{{transliteration}} for transliterated languages, and{{IPA}} for phonetic transcriptions, with an appropriateISO 639 code. Wikipedia'smultilingual support templates may also be used - notably grc for Ancient Greek.See why.(November 2021) |
Ousia (/ˈuːziə,ˈuːsiə,ˈuːʒə,ˈuːʃə/;Ancient Greek:οὐσία) is aphilosophical andtheological term, originally used inancient Greek philosophy, then later inChristian theology. It was used by various ancient Greek philosophers, likePlato andAristotle, as a primary designation for philosophical concepts ofessence orsubstance. It is analogous to concepts ofbeing and theontological incontemporary philosophy. InChristian theology, the concept ofθεία ουσία (divine essence) is one of the most important doctrinal concepts, central to the development oftrinitarian doctrine.[1]
TheAncient Greek termθεία ουσία (theia ousia;divine essence) was translated inLatin asessentia orsubstantia, and hence in English asessence orsubstance.[2]
The termοὐσία is anAncient Greek noun, formed on thefeminine presentparticiple of the verbεἰμί,eimí, meaning "to be, I am", so similar grammatically to the English noun "being". There was no equivalent grammatical formation inLatin, and it was translated asessentia orsubstantia.Cicero coinedessentia[3] and the philosopherSeneca and rhetoricianQuintilian used it as equivalent forοὐσία, whileApuleius renderedοὐσία both asessentia orsubstantia. In order to designateοὐσία,early Christian theologianTertullian favored the use ofsubstantia overessentia, whileAugustine of Hippo andBoethius took the opposite stance, preferring the use ofessentia as designation forοὐσία.[4][5] Some of the most prominent Latin authors, likeHilary of Poitiers, noted that those variants were often being used with different meanings.[6] Some modern authors also suggest that the Ancient Greek termοὐσία is properly translated asessentia (essence), whilesubstantia has a wider spectrum of meanings.[7]
From οὐσία (essence), philosophical and theological termοὐσιότης (essentiality) was also derived. It was used byPlatonists, likeAlcinous, as designation for one of the basic properties of divinity or godhead.[8]
Aristotle definedπρῶται οὐσίαι (protai ousiai;primary essences) in theCategories as that which is neithersaid of norin any subject, e.g., "this human" inparticular, or "this ox". The genera in biology and othernatural kinds are substances in a secondary sense, asuniversals,formally defined by theessential qualities of the primary substances; i.e., the individual members of those kinds.[9]
In Book IV ofMetaphysics Aristotle explores the nature and attributes of being (ousia). Aristotle divides the things that there are, or "beings," into categories. Aristotle calls these substances and argues that there are many senses in which a thing may be said "to be" but it is related to one central point and is ambiguous.[10]
Aristotle states that there are both primary and secondary substances. InCategories Aristotle argues that primary substances areontologically based and if the primary substances did not exist then it would be impossible for other things to exist.[11] The other things are regarded as the secondary substances (also known as accidents). Secondary substances are thus ontologically dependent on substances.[11]
InMetaphysics,Aristotle states that everything which is healthy is related to health (primary substance) as in one sense because it preserves health and in the other because it is capable of it. Without the primary substance (health) we would not be able to have the secondary substances (anything related to health). While all the secondary substances are deemed "to be" it is in relation to theprimary substance.[10]
The question, what is being, is seeking an answer to something "that is." A contemporary example in rhetoric would be to look at a color. Using white as an example, when we define a color, we define it by association. Snow is white. Paper is white. A cow is white. But what is white? While we are saying things that are white, we are not defining what white is without qualification. Ousia is thus the answer to the question of "what is being" when the question is without qualification. The unqualified answer of what is white is the ousia of white.
Much later,Martin Heidegger said that the original meaning of the wordousia was lost in its translation to the Latin, and, subsequently, in its translation to modern languages. For him,ousia meansBeing, notsubstance, that is, not something or somebeing that "stood" (-stance) "under" (sub-). Moreover, he also used the binomialparousia–apousia, denotingpresence–absence,[clarification needed] andhypostasis denotingexistence.[12]
The concept ofθεία οὐσία (theia ousia;divine essence) is one of the most important concepts inChristian theology. It was developed gradually byEarly Church Fathers during the first centuries ofChristian History. Central debates over the doctrinal use and meaning of οὐσία were held during the 4th century, and also continued later, some of them lasting up to the present day.[1]
The wordousia is used in the New Testament only in relation to thesubstance in the sense ofgoods, twice in theparable of the Prodigal Son where the son asked his father to divide to him his inheritance, and then wasted it on riotous living.[13][14]
An apparently related word,epiousios (affixing the prefixepi- to the word), is used in theLord's Prayer, but nowhere else in the scriptures. Elsewhere, it was believed to be present in one papyrus (a list of expenses) among expenses for chick-peas, straw, etc., and for material.[15] In 1998, according to axerographic copy of a papyrus found in the Yale Papyrus Collection (from the Beinecke Rare Book and Manuscript Library) inventory 19 (a.k.a.P.C.+YBR inv 19), it was suggested that the document had been transcribed differently from other early manuscripts and that the actual word used in that particular papyrus waselaiou, meaning "oil".[16]
Origen (d. 251) usedousia in defining God asone genus of ousia, while being three, distinct species ofhypostasis: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. TheSynods of Antioch condemned the wordhomoousios (same essence) because it originated in pagan Greek philosophy.[citation needed] John Chapman'sCatholic Encyclopedia entry forPaul of Samosata states:
It must be regarded as certain that the council, which condemned Paul, rejected the termhomoousios; but, naturally, only in a false sense, used by Paul; not, it seems, because he meant by it a unity of Hypostasis in the Trinity (so St. Hilary), but because he intended, by it, a common essence, out of which both Father and Son proceeded, or which it divided between them – so St. Basil and St. Athanasius; but the question is not clear. The objectors to the Nicene doctrine in the fourth century made copious use of this disapproval of the Nicene word by a famous council.[17]
In 325, theFirst Council of Nicaea condemnedArianism and formulated theNicene Creed, which stated that in theGodhead the Son wasHomoousios (same in essence) of the Father. However, controversy did not stop and many Eastern clerics rejected the term because of its earlier condemnation in the usage of Paul of Samosata. Subsequent EmperorsConstantius II (reigned 337–361) andValens (reigned 364–378) supported Arianism and theologians came up with alternative wordings likeHomoios (similar),homoiousios (similar in essence), orAnomoios (unsimilar). While theHomoios achieved the support of several councils and the Emperors, those of an opposing view were suppressed. The adherents of theHomoiousios eventually joined forces with the (mostly Western) adherents of theHomoousios and accepted the formulation of theNicene creed.
The generally agreed-upon meaning ofousia inEastern Christianity is "all that subsists by itself and which has not its being in another" – in contrast tohypostasis, which is used to mean "reality" or "existence".[18]John Damascene gives the following definition of the conceptual value of the two terms in his Dialectic: Ousia is a thing that exists by itself, and which has need of nothing else for itsconsistency. Again, ousia is all thatsubsists by itself and which has not its being in another.[19]
Primary substances are fundamental in that "if they did not exist it would be impossible for any of the other things to exist." [Categories, 2b5]
