ABSTRACT
The conceptual couple of potentiality/ act (dunamis/ energeia) has a long history and an important role in the larger canon of Western philosophy. It is a story that starts with Aristotle’s decision to correlate potentiality with act: “an entity is in act (ergon/ energeia/ entelecheia) when it has its own perfection or determination in respect to what it is in potentiality (dynamis), or when it is still lacking” (Altini, 2014: 9). Although chronologically what is potential precedes what is in act, in actuality from the viewpoint of perfection, the act has supremacy over potentiality because of its raison d’être and finality against what it is still in the process of becoming: “what is posterior by generation, is anterior by essence” (2014: 9). As such, an issue related with time, effects, form and meaning has had many philosophers and theologians critically confronted with the relation between potentiality and actuality, while reframing its contents and limits. Potentiality, in its very basic essence, is often understood in relation to actuality; potential is generally defined as something not-yet actual, but that over time and through the principle of development has the power to become.
