"Everything is intelligible"
- Jacques Maritain
From a thomistic point of view and given the doctrine of transcendentals, it seems that everything is intelligible (PSR formulation). But from the fact that everything is intelligible, how does it follow that "there is a sufficient reason or adequate necessary objective explanation for the being of whatever is and for all attributes of any being” (Bernard Wuellner, Dictionary of Scholastic Philosophy, p. 15)?
How do these two formulations relate? If I say that being A or event X lacks a reason or explanation why is that unintelligible?
*According to Edward Feser and his "Scholastic Metaphysics", "on the Scholastic doctrine of the transcendentals, being is convertible with truth (Cf. Bittle 1939, Part II; Feser 2009, pp. 31-36; Gardeil 1967, Chapter 4; Koren 1960, Chapter 2; Renard 1946, Section IV)".
"A transcendental notion is one which is above every genus, common to all things and thus not restricted to any category or individual. Being is a transcendental insofar as everything real, whether a substance, an accident, or whatever, is a being of some sort or other. Truth is also a transcendental insofar as everything real is truly the thing it is. (Consider how “true” is often used in the sense of “real” or “genuine.”) Being and truth are convertible in the sense that they are the same thing considered under different aspects. Being is reality considered in itself, truth is reality considered in its relation to an intellect which grasps it. In other words, truth is just being considered as intelligible. Now if every being is in this sense true – and that this is Aquinas’s own view is uncontroversial – then it follows that every being is intelligible. And that is just what PSR says. (Cf. Gardeil 1967, pp. 139-42; Maritain 1939, pp. 97-105)".