Scholastic Distinction in Finite Being and Ontological Difference

The article maintains that the being (ens) is the proper subject of metaphysics, not being at all (esse). It is demonstrated by way of comparison of two different contexts. The first one is scholastic distinction in finite being, and the second one — the ontological difference by Martin Heidegger, which is founded on the first. Duns Scotus and Francisco Suarez shows that the content of being (esse), as a result of difference between essence and existence, cannot be explicated in logos. It is accessible in the modes of the giveness of essence, of its presence. Heidegger discusses the possible access to being through its difference from a being, in situation when Desein understands being (esse) by way of own actual existence. Nevertheless, Dasein cannot articulate the meaning of being, because the later, as a principium of temporality and of consciousness, always is concealed from reflection. Being is the source of any definiteness for the subject; it is an absolute beginning. That is why being cannot have the definite content for thought. In its meaning being is nothing and for us it discovers itself mediately — from essence and the modes of essence, i.e. by way of the being (ens).