Everything, except contraries, that can be thought of is in some way real. We may say that unicorns, fairies, and triangles are real. We may also say that my Isuzu Rodeo and my wife are real. However, there is a significant difference between a unicorn and my wife. Unicorns, while they may be thought of, do not exist. My wife, on the other hand, most definitely exists.
If this is true, then both existing things and non-existing things are real. The first sense of “real” refer’s to all beings that may be thought of, that have existed in the past, or that may exist in the future. For example, there is nothing logically impossible about the future existence of unicorns. It is simply the case that they do not now exist. Nor is there anything contradictory about saying that George Washington is real. He does not exist, but if he were not real in some way, it would be absurd to make reference to him as if we were talking about something intelligible.
In the second sense, the term “real” refers only to actually existing things. My wife and my vehicle are both real in this sense, but George Washington is not. The difference then, between the first and second sense of the term “real” is a difference of existence. My wife has existence, while George Washington does not have existence. If it is the case that both of these individuals are real, but only one exists, then existence cannot be the only principle that makes something real. For George Washington, being real, lacks existence.
In the first sense of the term real, we are referring to a thing’s essence or whatness. In the second sense of the term real, we are talking about a things act of existence combined with its essence. We can speak of objects that do not exist meaningfully because we are talking about what a thing is. We may distinguish between things that exist and don’t exist because we understand that there is a real difference between a thing’s essence and its act of existence.
Once again, essence is that which is common to George Washington and my wife. Both of them are properly called human. When George Washington died, humanity did not die. So humanity cannot be strictly identified with any particular human existence. This shows that there must be a real difference between what a thing is and that a thing is. The common element of essence explains how we may predicate the term “human” of two different beings. The act of existence explains why some real thing’s are actual and why other real things are not.
Furthermore, the distinction between essence and existence must be a real distinction and not merely a logical distinction. Logical distinctions cannot account for the real existence of an actual being. Nor can logic account for a thing being what it is. When we ask for an account of a things existence, we cannot appeal to the instrument through which we know real things. We must appeal to real metaphysical principles to account for that which is real.
