Or, to put it terms that reflect rationalist thinking on a number of issues, there is only a distinction of reason between the two orders.
But, as Descartes recognized, the distinction between essence and existence is a distinction of reason; essence is the nature of a thing as it is contained in its definition, and existence is the perfection by which this essence actually exists which is possessed by the action of the Creator.
This is not a distinction of reason, since the two terms are not in a relation of definition to defined, nor is it a real distinction, such as that between substance and accident, since, if this were the case, the species formed by the conjunction of "animal" and "rational" would not be a single one in itself, but only per accidens.
Conceptual distinctions come in two varieties: One is the distinction of reasoned reason and the other the distinction of reasoning reason.
The distinction of reasoned reason is, according to Suárez, a conceptual distinction.
Some call this kind of distinction a distinction of reasoned reason, whereas others call it formal distinction" (DM 39, 2, 22; 1861, 25:516b).
The first, however, the distinction of reasoned reason, has a foundation in reality, even if the distinction itself is merely conceptual.
Now we can go back to categories and apply what we have learned about the distinction of reasoned reason to them.
The point to consider is that a distinction of reasoned reason has some basis in reality, even though the distinction itself is a concept in the mind, resulting from some comparison or of thinking about something.
The distinction of "without cause" means the reason for the lay off isn't personal or performanced based, and generally relates to company restructuring—essentially "it's not you, it's us".
