positive, intrinsic to this stone,” which forbids the stone “to be divided into partes subjectivas” (Duns Scotus, Opera, Vol. VI, p. 375). On the other hand, material substance, by the mere fact of its existence as such, is neither explained as an individual, nor shown to be the source of individuality in anything else. For, first: Existence, as such, is no determined predicate of anything, and so cannot individuate what is otherwise undetermined (Id., p. 379). In other words, individuation, if it is a truth, is a somewhat, needing to be defined. If you have not already defined, apart from the fact of existence, what makes Socrates and the stone, viewed in their nature or essence, individuals, you cannot make the individuality clearer by merely saying, Socrates (or The stone) exists. Moreover, the question would then arise about existence, as before about essence: What is the nature of individual existence? The concept of existence is not identical with the concept of individuality. Individuality is, then, a something pertaining to the nature of the individual object, and is not a result of the mere existence of the individual. You can say, indeed: “All that actually exists is individual.” But you do not thus explain what individuality is. God knew individuals, as pure ideas, before the creation. This Thomas himself asserts. These individuals must, then, have possessed an individual essence in advance of their existence.
Moreover, the Thomistic doctrine of the corporeal individual, as individuated by reason of the quantitatively determined matter that enters into its composition, must be false; for the individual can persist,
