| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| − | -----------------
| + | [http://www.logicmuseum.com/authors/aquinas/summa/Summa-I-87-89.htm Now at the new Logic Museum] |
| − | SUMMA THEOLOGIAE - QUESTIONS LXXXVII - LXXXIX
| |
| − | -----------------
| |
| − | [[Directory:Logic Museum/Aquinas Summa Theologiae|Index]]
| |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | *[[#q87|Question 87 How the intellectual soul knows itself and all within itself]]
| |
| − | *[[#q88|Question 88 How the human soul knows what is above itself]]
| |
| − | *[[#q89|Question 89 The knowledge of the separated soul]]
| |
| − | | |
| − | {| border=1 cellpadding=10
| |
| − | !valign = top width=46%|Latin
| |
| − | !valign = top width=54%|Latin
| |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<div id="q87"><b>IЄ q. 87</b> ||How the intellectual soul knows itself and all within itsel
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 87 pr. </b>Deinde considerandum est quomodo anima intellectiva cognoscat seipsam, et ea quae in se sunt. Et circa hoc quaeruntur quatuor. Primo, utrum cognoscat seipsam per suam essentiam. Secundo, quomodo cognoscat habitus in se existentes. Tertio, quomodo intellectus cognoscat proprium actum. Quarto, quomodo cognoscat actum voluntatis. ||
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 87 a. 1 arg. 1 </b>Ad primum sic proceditur. Videtur quod anima intellectiva seipsam cognoscat per suam essentiam. Dicit enim Augustinus, IX de Trin., quod mens seipsam novit per seipsam, quoniam est incorporea. ||Objection 1. It would seem that the intellectual soul knows itself by its own essence. For Augustine says (De Trin. ix, 3), that "the mind knows itself, because it is incorporeal."
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 87 a. 1 arg. 2 </b>Praeterea, Angelus et anima humana conveniunt in genere intellectualis substantiae. Sed Angelus intelligit seipsum per essentiam suam. Ergo et anima humana. ||Objection 2. Further, both angels and human souls belong to the genus of intellectual substance. But an angel understands itself by its own essence. Therefore likewise does the human soul.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 87 a. 1 arg. 3 </b>Praeterea, in his quae sunt sine materia, idem est intellectus et quod intelligitur, ut dicitur III de anima. Sed mens humana est sine materia, non enim est actus corporis alicuius, ut supra dictum est. Ergo in mente humana est idem intellectus et quod intelligitur. Ergo intelligit se per essentiam suam. ||Objection 3. Further, "in things void of matter, the intellect and that which is understood are the same" (De Anima iii, 4). But the human mind is void of matter, not being the act of a body as stated above (76, 1). Therefore the intellect and its object are the same in the human mind; and therefore the human mind understands itself by its own essence.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 87 a. 1 s. c. </b>Sed contra est quod dicitur in III de anima, quod intellectus intelligit seipsum sicut et alia. Sed alia non intelligit per essentias eorum, sed per eorum similitudines. Ergo neque se intelligit per essentiam suam. ||On the contrary, It is said (De Anima iii, 4) that "the intellect understands itself in the same way as it understands other things." But it understands other things, not by their essence, but by their similitudes. Therefore it does not understand itself by its own essence.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 87 a. 1 co. </b>Respondeo dicendum quod unumquodque cognoscibile est secundum quod est in actu, et non secundum quod est in potentia, ut dicitur in IX Metaphys., sic enim aliquid est ens et verum, quod sub cognitione cadit, prout actu est. Et hoc quidem manifeste apparet in rebus sensibilibus, non enim visus percipit coloratum in potentia, sed solum coloratum in actu. Et similiter intellectus manifestum est quod, inquantum est cognoscitivus rerum materialium, non cognoscit nisi quod est actu, et inde est quod non cognoscit materiam primam nisi secundum proportionem ad formam, ut dicitur in I Physic. Unde et in substantiis immaterialibus, secundum quod unaquaeque earum se habet ad hoc quod sit in actu per essentiam suam, ita se habet ad hoc quod sit per suam essentiam intelligibilis. Essentia igitur Dei, quae est actus purus et perfectus, est simpliciter et perfecte secundum seipsam intelligibilis. Unde Deus per suam essentiam non solum seipsum, sed etiam omnia intelligit. Angeli autem essentia est quidem in genere intelligibilium ut actus, non tamen ut actus purus neque completus. Unde eius intelligere non completur per essentiam suam, etsi enim per essentiam suam se intelligat Angelus, tamen non omnia potest per essentiam suam cognoscere, sed cognoscit alia a se per eorum similitudines. Intellectus autem humanus se habet in genere rerum intelligibilium ut ens in potentia tantum, sicut et materia prima se habet in genere rerum sensibilium, unde possibilis nominatur. Sic igitur in sua essentia consideratus, se habet ut potentia intelligens. Unde ex seipso habet virtutem ut intelligat, non autem ut intelligatur, nisi secundum id quod fit actu. Sic enim etiam Platonici posuerunt ordinem entium intelligibilium supra ordinem intellectuum, quia intellectus non intelligit nisi per participationem intelligibilis; participans autem est infra participatum, secundum eos. Si igitur intellectus humanus fieret actu per participationem formarum intelligibilium separatarum, ut Platonici posuerunt per huiusmodi participationem rerum incorporearum intellectus humanus seipsum intelligeret. Sed quia connaturale est intellectui nostro, secundum statum praesentis vitae, quod ad materialia et sensibilia respiciat, sicut supra dictum est; consequens est ut sic seipsum intelligat intellectus noster, secundum quod fit actu per species a sensibilibus abstractas per lumen intellectus agentis, quod est actus ipsorum intelligibilium, et eis mediantibus intellectus possibilis. Non ergo per essentiam suam, sed per actum suum se cognoscit intellectus noster. Et hoc dupliciter. Uno quidem modo, particulariter, secundum quod Socrates vel Plato percipit se habere animam intellectivam, ex hoc quod percipit se intelligere. Alio modo, in universali, secundum quod naturam humanae mentis ex actu intellectus consideramus. Sed verum est quod iudicium et efficacia huius cognitionis per quam naturam animae cognoscimus, competit nobis secundum derivationem luminis intellectus nostri a veritate divina, in qua rationes omnium rerum continentur, sicut supra dictum est. Unde et Augustinus dicit, in IX de Trin., intuemur inviolabilem veritatem, ex qua perfecte, quantum possumus, definimus non qualis sit uniuscuiusque hominis mens, sed qualis esse sempiternis rationibus debeat. Est autem differentia inter has duas cognitiones. Nam ad primam cognitionem de mente habendam, sufficit ipsa mentis praesentia, quae est principium actus ex quo mens percipit seipsam. Et ideo dicitur se cognoscere per suam praesentiam. Sed ad secundam cognitionem de mente habendam, non sufficit eius praesentia, sed requiritur diligens et subtilis inquisitio. Unde et multi naturam animae ignorant, et multi etiam circa naturam animae erraverunt. Propter quod Augustinus dicit, X de Trin., de tali inquisitione mentis, non velut absentem se quaerat mens cernere; sed praesentem quaerat discernere, idest cognoscere differentiam suam ab aliis rebus, quod est cognoscere quidditatem et naturam suam. ||I answer that, Everything is knowable so far as it is in act, and not, so far as it is in potentiality (Metaph. ix, Did. viii, 9): for a thing is a being, and is true, and therefore knowable, according as it is actual. This is quite clear as regards sensible things, for the eye does not see what is potentially, but what is actually colored. In like manner it is clear that the intellect, so far as it knows material things, does not know save what is in act: and hence it does not know primary matter except as proportionate to form, as is stated Phys. i, 7. Consequently immaterial substances are intelligible by their own essence according as each one is actual by its own essence. Therefore it is that the Essence of God, the pure and perfect act, is simply and perfectly in itself intelligible; and hence God by His own Essence knows Himself, and all other things also. The angelic essence belongs, indeed, to the genus of intelligible things as "act," but not as a "pure act," nor as a "complete act," and hence the angel's act of intelligence is not completed by his essence. For although an angel understands himself by his own essence, still he cannot understand all other things by his own essence; for he knows things other than himself by their likenesses. Now the human intellect is only a potentiality in the genus of intelligible beings, just as primary matter is a potentiality as regards sensible beings; and hence it is called "possible" [Possibilis--elsewhere in this translation rendered "passive"--Ed.]. Therefore in its essence the human mind is potentially understanding. Hence it has in itself the power to understand, but not to be understood, except as it is made actual. For even the Platonists asserted than an order of intelligible beings existed above the order of intellects, forasmuch as the intellect understands only by participation of the intelligible; for they said that the participator is below what it participates. If, therefore, the human intellect, as the Platonists held, became actual by participating separate intelligible forms, it would understand itself by such participation of incorporeal beings. But as in this life our intellect has material and sensible things for its proper natural object, as stated above (84, 7), it understands itself according as it is made actual by the species abstracted from sensible things, through the light of the active intellect, which not only actuates the intelligible things themselves, but also, by their instrumentality, actuates the passive intellect. Therefore the intellect knows itself not by its essence, but by its act. This happens in two ways: In the first place, singularly, as when Socrates or Plato perceives that he has an intellectual soul because he perceives that he understands. In the second place, universally, as when we consider the nature of the human mind from knowledge of the intellectual act. It is true, however, that the judgment and force of this knowledge, whereby we know the nature of the soul, comes to us according to the derivation of our intellectual light from the Divine Truth which contains the types of all things as above stated (84, 5). Hence Augustine says (De Trin. ix, 6): "We gaze on the inviolable truth whence we can as perfectly as possible define, not what each man's mind is, but what it ought to be in the light of the eternal types." There is, however, a difference between these two kinds of knowledge, and it consists in this, that the mere presence of the mind suffices for the first; the mind itself being the principle of action whereby it perceives itself, and hence it is said to know itself by its own presence. But as regards the second kind of knowledge, the mere presence of the mind does not suffice, and there is further required a careful and subtle inquiry. Hence many are ignorant of the soul's nature, and many have erred about it. So Augustine says (De Trin. x, 9), concerning such mental inquiry: "Let the mind strive not to see itself as if it were absent, but to discern itself as present"--i.e. to know how it differs from other things; which is to know its essence and nature.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 87 a. 1 ad 1 </b>Ad primum ergo dicendum quod mens seipsam per seipsam novit, quia tandem in sui ipsius cognitionem pervenit, licet per suum actum, ipsa enim est quae cognoscitur, quia ipsa seipsam amat, ut ibidem subditur. Potest enim aliquid dici per se notum dupliciter, vel quia per nihil aliud in eius notitiam devenitur, sicut dicuntur prima principia per se nota; vel quia non sunt cognoscibilia per accidens, sicut color est per se visibilis, substantia autem per accidens. ||Reply to Objection 1. The mind knows itself by means of itself, because at length it acquires knowledge of itself, though led thereto by its own act: because it is itself that it knows since it loves itself, as he says in the same passage. For a thing can be called self-evident in two ways, either because we can know it by nothing else except itself, as first principles are called self-evident; or because it is not accidentally knowable, as color is visible of itself, whereas substance is visible by its accident.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 87 a. 1 ad 2 </b>Ad secundum dicendum quod essentia Angeli est sicut actus in genere intelligibilium, et ideo se habet et ut intellectus, et ut intellectum. Unde Angelus suam essentiam per seipsum apprehendit. Non autem intellectus humanus, qui vel est omnino in potentia respectu intelligibilium, sicut intellectus possibilis; vel est actus intelligibilium quae abstrahuntur a phantasmatibus, sicut intellectus agens. ||Reply to Objection 2. The essence of an angel is an act in the genus of intelligible things, and therefore it is both intellect and the thing understood. Hence an angel apprehends his own essence through itself: not so the human mind, which is either altogether in potentiality to intelligible things--as is the passive intellect--or is the act of intelligible things abstracted from the phantasms--as is the active intellect.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 87 a. 1 ad 3 </b>Ad tertium dicendum quod verbum illud philosophi universaliter verum est in omni intellectu. Sicut enim sensus in actu est sensibile, propter similitudinem sensibilis, quae est forma sensus in actu; ita intellectus in actu est intellectum in actu, propter similitudinem rei intellectae, quae est forma intellectus in actu. Et ideo intellectus humanus, qui fit in actu per speciem rei intellectae, per eandem speciem intelligitur, sicut per formam suam. Idem autem est dicere quod in his quae sunt sine materia, idem est intellectus et quod intelligitur, ac si diceretur quod in his quae sunt intellecta in actu, idem est intellectus et quod intelligitur, per hoc enim aliquid est intellectum in actu, quod est sine materia. Sed in hoc est differentia, quia quorundam essentiae sunt sine materia, sicut substantiae separatae quas Angelos dicimus, quarum unaquaeque et est intellecta et est intelligens, sed quaedam res sunt quarum essentiae non sunt sine materia, sed solum similitudines ab eis abstractae. Unde et Commentator dicit, in III de anima, quod propositio inducta non habet veritatem nisi in substantiis separatis, verificatur enim quodammodo in eis quod non verificatur in aliis, ut dictum est. ||Reply to Objection 3. This saying of the Philosopher is universally true in every kind of intellect. For as sense in act is the sensible in act, by reason of the sensible likeness which is the form of sense in act, so likewise the intellect in act is the object understood in act, by reason of the likeness of the thing understood, which is the form of the intellect in act. So the human intellect, which becomes actual by the species of the object understood, is itself understood by the same species as by its own form. Now to say that in "things without matter the intellect and what is understood are the same," is equal to saying that "as regards things actually understood the intellect and what is understood are the same." For a thing is actually understood in that it is immaterial. But a distinction must be drawn: since the essences of some things are immaterial--as the separate substances called angels, each of which is understood and understands, whereas there are other things whose essences are not wholly immaterial, but only the abstract likenesses thereof. Hence the Commentator says (De Anima iii) that the proposition quoted is true only of separate substances; because in a sense it is verified in their regard, and not in regard of other substances, as already stated (Reply to Objection 2).
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 87 a. 2 arg. 1 </b>Ad secundum sic proceditur. Videtur quod intellectus noster cognoscat habitus animae per essentiam eorum. Dicit enim Augustinus, XIII de Trin., non sic videtur fides in corde in quo est, sicut anima alterius hominis ex motibus corporis videtur; sed eam tenet certissima scientia, clamatque conscientia. Et eadem ratio est de aliis habitibus animae. Ergo habitus animae non cognoscuntur per actus, sed per seipsos. ||Objection 1. It would seem that our intellect knows the habits of the soul by their essence. For Augustine says (De Trin. xiii, 1): "Faith is not seen in the heart wherein it abides, as the soul of a man may be seen by another from the movement of the body; but we know most certainly that it is there, and conscience proclaims its existence"; and the same principle applies to the other habits of the soul. Therefore the habits of the soul are not known by their acts, but by themselves.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 87 a. 2 arg. 2 </b>Praeterea, res materiales, quae sunt extra animam, cognoscuntur per hoc quod similitudines earum sunt praesentialiter in anima; et ideo dicuntur per suas similitudines cognosci. Sed habitus animae praesentialiter per suam essentiam sunt in anima. Ergo per suam essentiam cognoscuntur. ||Objection 2. Further, material things outside the soul are known by their likeness being present in the soul, and are said therefore to be known by their likenesses. But the soul's habits are present by their essence in the soul. Therefore the habits of the soul are known by their essence.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 87 a. 2 arg. 3 </b>Praeterea, propter quod unumquodque tale, et illud magis. Sed res aliae cognoscuntur ab anima propter habitus et species intelligibiles. Ergo ista magis per seipsa ab anima cognoscuntur. ||Objection 3. Further, "whatever is the cause of a thing being such is still more so." But habits and intelligible species cause things to be known by the soul. Therefore they are still more known by the soul in themselves.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 87 a. 2 s. c. </b>Sed contra, habitus sunt principia actuum, sicut et potentiae. Sed sicut dicitur II de anima, priores potentiis, secundum rationem, actus et operationes sunt. Ergo eadem ratione sunt priores habitibus. Et ita habitus per actus cognoscuntur, sicut et potentiae. ||On the contrary, Habits like powers are the principles of acts. But as is said (De Anima ii, 4), "acts and operations are logically prior to powers." Therefore in the same way they are prior to habits; and thus habits, like the powers, are known by their acts.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 87 a. 2 co. </b>Respondeo dicendum quod habitus quodammodo est medium inter potentiam puram et purum actum. Iam autem dictum est quod nihil cognoscitur nisi secundum quod est actu. Sic ergo inquantum habitus deficit ab actu perfecto, deficit ab hoc, ut non sit per seipsum cognoscibilis, sed necesse est quod per actum suum cognoscatur, sive dum aliquis percipit se habere habitum, per hoc quod percipit se producere actum proprium habitus; sive dum aliquis inquirit naturam et rationem habitus, ex consideratione actus. Et prima quidem cognitio habitus fit per ipsam praesentiam habitus, quia ex hoc ipso quod est praesens, actum causat, in quo statim percipitur. Secunda autem cognitio habitus fit per studiosam inquisitionem, sicut supra dictum est de mente. ||I answer that, A habit is a kind of medium between mere power and mere act. Now, it has been said (1) that nothing is known but as it is actual: therefore so far as a habit fails in being a perfect act, it falls short in being of itself knowable, and can be known only by its act; thus, for example, anyone knows he has a habit from the fact that he can produce the act proper to that habit; or he may inquire into the nature and idea of the habit by considering the act. The first kind of knowledge of the habit arises from its being present, for the very fact of its presence causes the act whereby it is known. The second kind of knowledge of the habit arises from a careful inquiry, as is explained above of the mind (1).
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 87 a. 2 ad 1 </b>Ad primum ergo dicendum quod, etsi fides non cognoscatur per exteriores corporis motus, percipitur tamen etiam ab eo in quo est, per interiorem actum cordis. Nullus enim fidem se habere scit, nisi per hoc quod se credere percipit. ||Reply to Objection 1. Although faith is not known by external movement of the body, it is perceived by the subject wherein it resides, by the interior act of the heart. For no one knows that he has faith unless he knows that he believes.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 87 a. 2 ad 2 </b>Ad secundum dicendum quod habitus sunt praesentes in intellectu nostro, non sicut obiecta intellectus (quia obiectum intellectus nostri, secundum statum praesentis vitae, est natura rei materialis, ut supra dictum est); sed sunt praesentes in intellectu ut quibus intellectus intelligit. ||Reply to Objection 2. Habits are present in our intellect, not as its object since, in the present state of life, our intellect's object is the nature of a material thing as stated above (84, 7), but as that by which it understands.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 87 a. 2 ad 3 </b>Ad tertium dicendum quod, cum dicitur, propter quod unumquodque, illud magis, veritatem habet, si intelligatur in his quae sunt unius ordinis, puta in uno genere causae, puta si dicatur quod sanitas est propter vitam, sequitur quod vita sit magis desiderabilis. Si autem accipiantur ea quae sunt diversorum ordinum, non habet veritatem, ut si dicatur quod sanitas est propter medicinam, non ideo sequitur quod medicina sit magis desiderabilis, quia sanitas est in ordine finium, medicina autem in ordine causarum efficientium. Sic igitur si accipiamus duo, quorum utrumque sit per se in ordine obiectorum cognitionis; illud propter quod aliud cognoscitur, erit magis notum, sicut principia conclusionibus. Sed habitus non est de ordine obiectorum, inquantum est habitus; nec propter habitum aliqua cognoscuntur sicut propter obiectum cognitum, sed sicut propter dispositionem vel formam qua cognoscens cognoscit, et ideo ratio non sequitur. ||Reply to Objection 3. The axiom, "whatever is the cause of a thing being such, is still more so," is true of things that are of the same order, for instance, of the same kind of cause; for example, we may say that health is desirable on account of life, and therefore life is more desirable still. But if we take things of different orders the axiom is not true: for we may say that health is caused by medicine, but it does not follow that medicine is more desirable than health, for health belongs to the order of final causes, whereas medicine belongs to the order of efficient causes. So of two things belonging essentially to the order of the objects of knowledge, the one which is the cause of the other being known, is the more known, as principles are more known than conclusions. But habit as such does not belong to the order of objects of knowledge; nor are things known on account of the habit, as on account of an object known, but as on account of a disposition or form whereby the subject knows: and therefore the argument does not prove.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 87 a. 3 arg. 1 </b>Ad tertium sic proceditur. Videtur quod intellectus non cognoscat proprium actum. Illud enim proprie cognoscitur, quod est obiectum cognoscitivae virtutis. Sed actus differt ab obiecto. Ergo intellectus non cognoscit suum actum. ||Objection 1. It would seem that our intellect does not know its own act. For what is known is the object of the knowing faculty. But the act differs from the object. Therefore the intellect does not know its own act.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 87 a. 3 arg. 2 </b>Praeterea, quidquid cognoscitur, aliquo actu cognoscitur. Si igitur intellectus cognoscit actum suum, aliquo actu cognoscit illum; et iterum illum actum alio actu. Erit ergo procedere in infinitum, quod videtur impossibile. ||Objection 2. Further, whatever is known is known by some act. If, then, the intellect knows its own act, it knows it by some act, and again it knows that act by some other act; this is to proceed indefinitely, which seems impossible.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 87 a. 3 arg. 3 </b>Praeterea, sicut se habet sensus ad actum suum, ita et intellectus. Sed sensus proprius non sentit actum suum, sed hoc pertinet ad sensum communem, ut dicitur in libro de anima. Ergo neque intellectus intelligit actum suum. ||Objection 3. Further, the intellect has the same relation to its act as sense has to its act. But the proper sense does not feel its own act, for this belongs to the common sense, as stated De Anima iii, 2. Therefore neither does the intellect understand its own act.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 87 a. 3 s. c. </b>Sed contra est quod Augustinus dicit, X de Trin., intelligo me intelligere. ||On the contrary, Augustine says (De Trin. x, 11), "I understand that I understand."
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 87 a. 3 co. </b>Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut iam dictum est, unumquodque cognoscitur secundum quod est actu. Ultima autem perfectio intellectus est eius operatio, non enim est sicut actio tendens in alterum, quae sit perfectio operati, sicut aedificatio aedificati; sed manet in operante ut perfectio et actus eius, ut dicitur in IX Metaphys. Hoc igitur est primum quod de intellectu intelligitur, scilicet ipsum eius intelligere. Sed circa hoc diversi intellectus diversimode se habent. Est enim aliquis intellectus, scilicet divinus, qui est ipsum suum intelligere. Et sic in Deo idem est quod intelligat se intelligere et quod intelligat suam essentiam, quia sua essentia est suum intelligere. Est autem alius intellectus, scilicet angelicus, qui non est suum intelligere, sicut supra dictum est, sed tamen primum obiectum sui intelligere est eius essentia. Unde etsi aliud sit in Angelo, secundum rationem, quod intelligat se intelligere, et quod intelligat suam essentiam, tamen simul et uno actu utrumque intelligit, quia hoc quod est intelligere suam essentiam, est propria perfectio suae essentiae; simul autem et uno actu intelligitur res cum sua perfectione. Est autem alius intellectus, scilicet humanus, qui nec est suum intelligere, nec sui intelligere est obiectum primum ipsa eius essentia, sed aliquid extrinsecum, scilicet natura materialis rei. Et ideo id quod primo cognoscitur ab intellectu humano, est huiusmodi obiectum; et secundario cognoscitur ipse actus quo cognoscitur obiectum; et per actum cognoscitur ipse intellectus, cuius est perfectio ipsum intelligere. Et ideo philosophus dicit quod obiecta praecognoscuntur actibus, et actus potentiis. ||I answer that, As stated above (1,2) a thing is intelligible according as it is in act. Now the ultimate perfection of the intellect consists in its own operation: for this is not an act tending to something else in which lies the perfection of the work accomplished, as building is the perfection of the thing built; but it remains in the agent as its perfection and act, as is said Metaph. ix, Did. viii, 8. Therefore the first thing understood of the intellect is its own act of understanding. This occurs in different ways with different intellects. For there is an intellect, namely, the Divine, which is Its own act of intelligence, so that in God the understanding of His intelligence, and the understanding of His Essence, are one and the same act, because His Essence is His act of understanding. But there is another intellect, the angelic, which is not its own act of understanding, as we have said above (79, 1), and yet the first object of that act is the angelic essence. Wherefore although there is a logical distinction between the act whereby he understands that he understands, and that whereby he understands his essence, yet he understands both by one and the same act; because to understand his own essence is the proper perfection of his essence, and by one and the same act is a thing, together with its perfection, understood. And there is yet another, namely, the human intellect, which neither is its own act of understanding, nor is its own essence the first object of its act of understanding, for this object is the nature of a material thing. And therefore that which is first known by the human intellect is an object of this kind, and that which is known secondarily is the act by which that object is known; and through the act the intellect itself is known, the perfection of which is this act of understanding. For this reason did the Philosopher assert that objects are known before acts, and acts before powers (De Anima ii, 4).
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 87 a. 3 ad 1 </b>Ad primum ergo dicendum quod obiectum intellectus est commune quoddam, scilicet ens et verum, sub quo comprehenditur etiam ipse actus intelligendi. Unde intellectus potest suum actum intelligere. Sed non primo, quia nec primum obiectum intellectus nostri, secundum praesentem statum, est quodlibet ens et verum; sed ens et verum consideratum in rebus materialibus, ut dictum est; ex quibus in cognitionem omnium aliorum devenit. ||Reply to Objection 1. The object of the intellect is something universal, namely, "being" and "the true," in which the act also of understanding is comprised. Wherefore the intellect can understand its own act. But not primarily, since the first object of our intellect, in this state of life, is not every being and everything true, but "being" and "true," as considered in material things, as we have said above (84, 7), from which it acquires knowledge of all other things.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 87 a. 3 ad 2 </b>Ad secundum dicendum quod ipsum intelligere humanum non est actus et perfectio naturae intellectae materialis, ut sic possit uno actu intelligi natura rei materialis et ipsum intelligere, sicut uno actu intelligitur res cum sua perfectione. Unde alius est actus quo intellectus intelligit lapidem, et alius est actus quo intelligit se intelligere lapidem, et sic inde. Nec est inconveniens in intellectu esse infinitum in potentia, ut supra dictum est. ||Reply to Objection 2. The intelligent act of the human intellect is not the act and perfection of the material nature understood, as if the nature of the material thing and intelligent act could be understood by one act; just as a thing and its perfection are understood by one act. Hence the act whereby the intellect understands a stone is distinct from the act whereby it understands that it understands a stone; and so on. Nor is there any difficulty in the intellect being thus potentially infinite, as explained above (86, 2).
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 87 a. 3 ad 3 </b>Ad tertium dicendum quod sensus proprius sentit secundum immutationem materialis organi a sensibili exteriori. Non est autem possibile quod aliquid materiale immutet seipsum; sed unum immutatur ab alio. Et ideo actus sensus proprii percipitur per sensum communem. Sed intellectus non intelligit per materialem immutationem organi, et ideo non est simile. ||Reply to Objection 3. The proper sense feels by reason of the immutation in the material organ caused by the external sensible. A material object, however, cannot immute itself; but one is immuted by another, and therefore the act of the proper sense is perceived by the common sense. The intellect, on the contrary, does not perform the act of understanding by the material immutation of an organ; and so there is no comparison.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 87 a. 4 arg. 1 </b>Ad quartum sic proceditur. Videtur quod intellectus non intelligat actum voluntatis. Nihil enim cognoscitur ab intellectu, nisi sit aliquo modo praesens in intellectu. Sed actus voluntatis non est praesens in intellectu, cum sint diversae potentiae. Ergo actus voluntatis non cognoscitur ab intellectu. ||Objection 1. It would seem that the intellect does not understand the act of the will. For nothing is known by the intellect, unless it be in some way present in the intellect. But the act of the will is not in the intellect; since the will and the intellect are distinct. Therefore the act of the will is not known by the intellect.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 87 a. 4 arg. 2 </b>Praeterea, actus habet speciem ab obiecto. Sed obiectum voluntatis differt ab obiecto intellectus. Ergo et actus voluntatis speciem habet diversam ab obiecto intellectus. Non ergo cognoscitur ab intellectu. ||Objection 2. Further, the act is specified by the object. But the object of the will is not the same as the object of the intellect. Therefore the act of the will is specifically distinct from the object of the intellect, and therefore the act of the will is not known by the intellect.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 87 a. 4 arg. 3 </b>Praeterea, Augustinus, in libro X Confess., attribuit affectionibus animae quod cognoscuntur neque per imagines, sicut corpora; neque per praesentiam, sicut artes, sed per quasdam notiones. Non videtur autem quod possint esse aliae notiones rerum in anima nisi vel essentiae rerum cognitarum, vel earum similitudines. Ergo impossibile videtur quod intellectus cognoscat affectiones animae, quae sunt actus voluntatis. ||Objection 3. Augustine (Confess. x, 17) says of the soul's affections that "they are known neither by images as bodies are known; nor by their presence, like the arts; but by certain notions." Now it does not seem that there can be in the soul any other notions of things but either the essences of things known or the likenesses thereof. Therefore it seems impossible for the intellect to known such affections of the soul as the acts of the will.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 87 a. 4 s. c. </b>Sed contra est quod Augustinus dicit, X de Trin., intelligo me velle. ||On the contrary, Augustine says (De Trin. x, 11), "I understand that I will."
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 87 a. 4 co. </b>Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut supra dictum est, actus voluntatis nihil aliud est quam inclinatio quaedam consequens formam intellectam, sicut appetitus naturalis est inclinatio consequens formam naturalem. Inclinatio autem cuiuslibet rei est in ipsa re per modum eius. Unde inclinatio naturalis est naturaliter in re naturali; et inclinatio quae est appetitus sensibilis, est sensibiliter in sentiente; et similiter inclinatio intelligibilis, quae est actus voluntatis, est intelligibiliter in intelligente, sicut in principio et in proprio subiecto. Unde et philosophus hoc modo loquendi utitur in III de anima, quod voluntas in ratione est. Quod autem intelligibiliter est in aliquo intelligente, consequens est ut ab eo intelligatur. Unde actus voluntatis intelligitur ab intellectu, et inquantum aliquis percipit se velle; et inquantum aliquis cognoscit naturam huius actus, et per consequens naturam eius principii, quod est habitus vel potentia. ||I answer that, As stated above (59, 1), the act of the will is nothing but an inclination consequent on the form understood; just as the natural appetite is an inclination consequent on the natural form. Now the inclination of a thing resides in it according to its mode of existence; and hence the natural inclination resides in a natural thing naturally, and the inclination called the sensible appetite is in the sensible thing sensibly; and likewise the intelligible inclination, which is the act of the will, is in the intelligent subject intelligibly as in its principle and proper subject. Hence the Philosopher expresses himself thus (De Anima iii, 9)--that "the will is in the reason." Now whatever is intelligibly in an intelligent subject, is understood by that subject. Therefore the act of the will is understood by the intellect, both inasmuch as one knows that one wills; and inasmuch as one knows the nature of this act, and consequently, the nature of its principle which is the habit or power.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 87 a. 4 ad 1 </b>Ad primum ergo dicendum quod ratio illa procederet, si voluntas et intellectus, sicut sunt diversae potentiae, ita etiam subiecto differrent, sic enim quod est in voluntate, esset absens ab intellectu. Nunc autem, cum utrumque radicetur in una substantia animae, et unum sit quodammodo principium alterius, consequens est ut quod est in voluntate, sit etiam quodammodo in intellectu. ||Reply to Objection 1. This argument would hold good if the will and the intellect were in different subjects, as they are distinct powers; for then whatever was in the will would not be in the intellect. But as both are rooted in the same substance of the soul, and since one is in a certain way the principle of the other, consequently what is in the will is, in a certain way, also in the intellect.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 87 a. 4 ad 2 </b>Ad secundum dicendum quod bonum et verum, quae sunt obiecta voluntatis et intellectus, differunt quidem ratione, verumtamen unum eorum continetur sub alio, ut supra dictum est, nam verum est quoddam bonum, et bonum est quoddam verum. Et ideo quae sunt voluntatis cadunt sub intellectu; et quae sunt intellectus possunt cadere sub voluntate. ||Reply to Objection 2. The "good" and the "true" which are the objects of the will and of the intellect, differ logically, but one is contained in the other, as we have said above (82, 4, ad 1; 16, 4, ad 1); for the true is good and the good is true. Therefore the objects of the will fall under the intellect, and those of the intellect can fall under the will.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 87 a. 4 ad 3 </b>Ad tertium dicendum quod affectus animae non sunt in intellectu neque per similitudinem tantum, sicut corpora; neque per praesentiam ut in subiecto, sicut artes; sed sicut principiatum in principio, in quo habetur notio principiati. Et ideo Augustinus dicit affectus animae esse in memoria per quasdam notiones. ||Reply to Objection 3. The affections of the soul are in the intellect not by similitude only, like bodies; nor by being present in their subject, as the arts; but as the thing caused is in its principle, which contains some notion of the thing caused. And so Augustine says that the soul's affections are in the memory by certain notions.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<div id="q88"><b>IЄ q. 88</b> ||How the human soul knows what is above itself
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 88 pr. </b>Deinde considerandum est quomodo anima humana cognoscat ea quae supra se sunt, scilicet immateriales substantias. Et circa hoc quaeruntur tria. Primo, utrum anima humana, secundum statum praesentis vitae, possit intelligere substantias immateriales quas Angelos dicimus, per seipsas. Secundo, utrum possit ad earum notitiam pervenire per cognitionem rerum materialium. Tertio, utrum Deus sit id quod primo a nobis cognoscitur. ||
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 88 a. 1 arg. 1 </b>Ad primum sic proceditur. Videtur quod anima humana, secundum statum vitae praesentis, possit intelligere substantias immateriales per seipsas. Dicit enim Augustinus, in IX de Trin., mens ipsa, sicut corporearum rerum notitias per sensus corporis colligit, sic incorporearum rerum per semetipsam. Huiusmodi autem sunt substantiae immateriales. Ergo mens substantias immateriales intelligit. ||Objection 1. It would seem that the human soul in the present state of life can understand immaterial substances in themselves. For Augustine (De Trin. ix, 3) says: "As the mind itself acquires the knowledge of corporeal things by means of the corporeal senses, so it gains from itself the knowledge of incorporeal things." But these are the immaterial substances. Therefore the human mind understands immaterial substances.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 88 a. 1 arg. 2 </b>Praeterea, simile simili cognoscitur. Sed magis assimilatur mens humana rebus immaterialibus quam materialibus, cum ipsa mens sit immaterialis, ut ex supradictis patet. Cum ergo mens nostra intelligat res materiales, multo magis intelligit res immateriales. ||Objection 2. Further, like is known by like. But the human mind is more akin to immaterial than to material things; since its own nature is immaterial, as is clear from what we have said above (76, 1). Since then our mind understands material things, much more is it able to understand immaterial things.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 88 a. 1 arg. 3 </b>Praeterea, quod ea quae sunt secundum se maxime sensibilia, non maxime sentiantur a nobis, provenit ex hoc quod excellentiae sensibilium corrumpunt sensum. Sed excellentiae intelligibilium non corrumpunt intellectum, ut dicitur in III de anima. Ergo ea quae sunt secundum se maxime intelligibilia, sunt etiam maxime intelligibilia nobis. Sed cum res materiales non sint intelligibiles nisi quia facimus eas intelligibiles actu, abstrahendo a materia; manifestum est quod magis sint secundum se intelligibiles substantiae quae secundum suam naturam sunt immateriales. Ergo multo magis intelliguntur a nobis quam res materiales. ||Objection 3. Further, the fact that objects which are in themselves most sensible are not most felt by us, comes from sense being corrupted by their very excellence. But the intellect is not subject to such a corrupting influence from its object, as is stated De Anima iii, 4. Therefore things which are in themselves in the highest degree of intelligibility, are likewise to us most intelligible. As material things, however, are intelligible only so far as we make them actually so by abstracting them from material conditions, it is clear that those substances are more intelligible in themselves whose nature is immaterial. Therefore they are much more known to us than are material things.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 88 a. 1 arg. 4 </b>Praeterea, Commentator dicit, in II Metaphys., quod si substantiae abstractae non possent intelligi a nobis, tunc natura otiose egisset, quia fecit illud quod est naturaliter in se intellectum, non intellectum ab aliquo. Sed nihil est otiosum sive frustra in natura. Ergo substantiae immateriales possunt intelligi a nobis. ||Objection 4. Further, the Commentator says (Metaph. ii) that "nature would be frustrated in its end" were we unable to understand abstract substances, "because it would have made what in itself is naturally intelligible not to be understood at all." But in nature nothing is idle or purposeless. Therefore immaterial substances can be understood by us.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 88 a. 1 arg. 5 </b>Praeterea, sicut se habet sensus ad sensibilia, ita se habet intellectus ad intelligibilia. Sed visus noster potest videre omnia corpora, sive sint superiora et incorruptibilia, sive sint inferiora et corruptibilia. Ergo intellectus noster potest intelligere omnes substantias intelligibiles, et superiores et immateriales. ||Objection 5. Further, as sense is to the sensible, so is intellect to the intelligible. But our sight can see all things corporeal, whether superior and incorruptible; or lower and corruptible. Therefore our intellect can understand all intelligible substances, even the superior and immaterial.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 88 a. 1 s. c. </b>Sed contra est quod dicitur Sap. IX, quae in caelis sunt, quis investigabit? In caelis autem dicuntur huiusmodi substantiae esse; secundum illud Matth. XVIII, Angeli eorum in caelis et cetera. Ergo non possunt substantiae immateriales per investigationem humanam cognosci. ||On the contrary, It is written (Wisdom 9:16): "The things that are in heaven, who shall search out?" But these substances are said to be in heaven, according to Mt. 18:10, "Their angels in heaven," etc. Therefore immaterial substances cannot be known by human investigation.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 88 a. 1 co. </b>Respondeo dicendum quod secundum opinionem Platonis, substantiae immateriales non solum a nobis intelliguntur, sed etiam sunt prima a nobis intellecta. Posuit enim Plato formas immateriales subsistentes, quas ideas vocabat, esse propria obiecta nostri intellectus, et ita primo et per se intelliguntur a nobis. Applicatur tamen animae cognitio rebus materialibus, secundum quod intellectui permiscetur phantasia et sensus. Unde quanto magis intellectus fuerit depuratus, tanto magis percipit immaterialium intelligibilem veritatem. Sed secundum Aristotelis sententiam, quam magis experimur, intellectus noster, secundum statum praesentis vitae, naturalem respectum habet ad naturas rerum materialium; unde nihil intelligit nisi convertendo se ad phantasmata, ut ex dictis patet. Et sic manifestum est quod substantias immateriales, quae sub sensu et imaginatione non cadunt, primo et per se, secundum modum cognitionis nobis expertum, intelligere non possumus. Sed tamen Averroes, in Comment. tertii de anima, ponit quod in fine in hac vita homo pervenire potest ad hoc quod intelligat substantias separatas, per continuationem vel unionem cuiusdam substantiae separatae nobis, quam vocat intellectum agentem, qui quidem, cum sit substantia separata, naturaliter substantias separatas intelligit. Unde cum fuerit nobis perfecte unitus, sic ut per eum perfecte intelligere possimus, intelligemus et nos substantias separatas; sicut nunc per intellectum possibilem nobis unitum intelligimus res materiales. Ponit autem intellectum agentem sic nobis uniri. Cum enim nos intelligamus per intellectum agentem et per intelligibilia speculata, ut patet cum conclusiones intelligimus per principia intellecta; necesse est quod intellectus agens comparetur ad intellecta speculata vel sicut agens principale ad instrumenta, vel sicut forma ad materiam. His enim duobus modis attribuitur actio aliqua duobus principiis, principali quidem agenti et instrumento, sicut sectio artifici et serrae; formae autem et subiecto, sicut calefactio calori et igni. Sed utroque modo intellectus agens comparabitur ad intelligibilia speculata sicut perfectio ad perfectibile, et actus ad potentiam. Simul autem recipitur in aliquo perfectum et perfectio; sicut visibile in actu et lumen in pupilla. Simul igitur in intellectu possibili recipiuntur intellecta speculata et intellectus agens. Et quanto plura intellecta speculata recipimus, tanto magis appropinquamus ad hoc quod intellectus agens perfecte uniatur nobis. Ita quod cum omnia intellecta speculata cognoverimus, intellectus agens perfecte unietur nobis; et poterimus per eum omnia cognoscere materialia et immaterialia. Et in hoc ponit ultimam hominis felicitatem. Nec refert, quantum ad propositum pertinet, utrum in illo statu felicitatis intellectus possibilis intelligat substantias separatas per intellectum agentem, ut ipse sentit, vel, ut ipse imponit Alexandro, intellectus possibilis nunquam intelligat substantias separatas (propter hoc quod ponit intellectum possibilem corruptibilem), sed homo intelligat substantias separatas per intellectum agentem. Sed praedicta stare non possunt. Primo quidem quia, si intellectus agens est substantia separata, impossibile est quod per ipsam formaliter intelligamus, quia id quo formaliter agens agit, est forma et actus agentis; cum omne agens agat inquantum est actu. Sicut etiam supra dictum est circa intellectum possibilem. Secundo quia, secundum modum praedictum, intellectus agens, si est substantia separata, non uniretur nobis secundum suam substantiam; sed solum lumen eius, secundum quod participatur in intellectis speculatis; et non quantum ad alias actiones intellectus agentis, ut possimus per hoc intelligere substantias immateriales. Sicut dum videmus colores illuminatos a sole, non unitur nobis substantia solis, ut possimus actiones solis agere; sed solum nobis unitur lumen solis ad visionem colorum. Tertio, quia dato quod secundum modum praedictum uniretur nobis substantia intellectus agentis, tamen ipsi non ponunt quod intellectus agens totaliter uniatur nobis secundum unum intelligibile vel duo, sed secundum omnia intellecta speculata. Sed omnia intellecta speculata deficiunt a virtute intellectus agentis, quia multo plus est intelligere substantias separatas, quam intelligere omnia materialia. Unde manifestum est quod etiam intellectis omnibus materialibus, non sic uniretur intellectus agens nobis, ut possemus intelligere per eum substantias separatas. Quarto, quia intelligere omnia intellecta materialia vix contingit alicui in hoc mundo; et sic nullus, vel pauci ad felicitatem pervenirent. Quod est contra philosophum, in I Ethic., qui dicit quod felicitas est quoddam bonum commune, quod potest pervenire omnibus non orbatis ad virtutem. Est etiam contra rationem quod finem alicuius speciei ut in paucioribus consequantur ea quae continentur sub specie. Quinto, quia philosophus dicit expresse, in I Ethic., quod felicitas est operatio secundum perfectam virtutem. Et enumeratis multis virtutibus, in decimo, concludit quod felicitas ultima, consistens in cognitione maximorum intelligibilium, est secundum virtutem sapientiae, quam posuerat in sexto esse caput scientiarum speculativarum. Unde patet quod Aristoteles posuit ultimam felicitatem hominis in cognitione substantiarum separatarum, qualis potest haberi per scientias speculativas, et non per continuationem intellectus agentis a quibusdam confictam. Sexto, quia supra ostensum est quod intellectus agens non est substantia separata, sed virtus quaedam animae, ad eadem active se extendens, ad quae se extendit intellectus possibilis receptive, quia, ut dicitur in III de anima, intellectus possibilis est quo est omnia fieri, intellectus agens quo est omnia facere. Uterque ergo intellectus se extendit, secundum statum praesentis vitae, ad materialia sola; quae intellectus agens facit intelligibilia actu, et recipiuntur in intellectu possibili. Unde secundum statum praesentis vitae, neque per intellectum possibilem, neque per intellectum agentem, possumus intelligere substantias immateriales secundum seipsas. ||I answer that, In the opinion of Plato, immaterial substances are not only understood by us, but are the objects we understand first of all. For Plato taught that immaterial subsisting forms, which he called "Ideas," are the proper objects of our intellect, and thus first and "per se" understood by us; and, further, that material objects are known by the soul inasmuch as phantasy and sense are mixed up with the mind. Hence the purer the intellect is, so much the more clearly does it perceive the intelligible truth of immaterial things. But in Aristotle's opinion, which experience corroborates, our intellect in its present state of life has a natural relationship to the natures of material things; and therefore it can only understand by turning to the phantasms, as we have said above (84, 7). Thus it clearly appears that immaterial substances which do not fall under sense and imagination, cannot first and "per se" be known by us, according to the mode of knowledge which experience proves us to have. Nevertheless Averroes (Comment. De Anima iii) teaches that in this present life man can in the end arrive at the knowledge of separate substances by being coupled or united to some separate substance, which he calls the "active intellect," and which, being a separate substance itself, can naturally understand separate substances. Hence, when it is perfectly united to us so that by its means we are able to understand perfectly, we also shall be able to understand separate substances, as in the present life through the medium of the passive intellect united to us, we can understand material things. Now he said that the active intellect is united to us, thus. For since we understand by means of both the active intellect and intelligible objects, as, for instance, we understand conclusions by principles understood; it is clear that the active intellect must be compared to the objects understood, either as the principal agent is to the instrument, or as form to matter. For an action is ascribed to two principles in one of these two ways; to a principal agent and to an instrument, as cutting to the workman and the saw; to a form and its subject, as heating to heat and fire. In both these ways the active intellect can be compared to the intelligible object as perfection is to the perfectible, and as act is to potentiality. Now a subject is made perfect and receives its perfection at one and the same time, as the reception of what is actually visible synchronizes with the reception of light in the eye. Therefore the passive intellect receives the intelligible object and the active intellect together; and the more numerous the intelligible objects received, so much the nearer do we come to the point of perfect union between ourselves and the active intellect; so much so that when we understand all the intelligible objects, the active intellect becomes one with us, and by its instrumentality we can understand all things material and immaterial. In this he makes the ultimate happiness of man to consist. Nor, as regards the present inquiry, does it matter whether the passive intellect in that state of happiness understands separate substances by the instrumentality of the active intellect, as he himself maintains, or whether (as he says Alexander holds) the passive intellect can never understand separate substances (because according to him it is corruptible), but man understands separate substances by means of the active intellect. This opinion, however, is untrue. First, because, supposing the active intellect to be a separate substance, we could not formally understand by its instrumentality, for the medium of an agent's formal action consists in its form and act, since every agent acts according to its actuality, as was said of the passive intellect (70, 1). Secondly, this opinion is untrue, because in the above explanation, the active intellect, supposing it to be a separate substance, would not be joined to us in its substance, but only in its light, as participated in things understood; and would not extend to the other acts of the active intellect so as to enable us to understand immaterial substances; just as when we see colors set off by the sun, we are not united to the substance of the sun so as to act like the sun, but its light only is united to us, that we may see the colors. Thirdly, this opinion is untrue, because granted that, as above explained, the active intellect were united to us in substance, still it is not said that it is wholly so united in regard to one intelligible object, or two; but rather in regard to all intelligible objects. But all such objects together do not equal the force of the active intellect, as it is a much greater thing to understand separate substances than to understand all material things. Hence it clearly follows that the knowledge of all material things would not make the active intellect to be so united to us as to enable us by its instrumentality to understand separate substances. Fourthly, this opinion is untrue, because it is hardly possible for anyone in this world to understand all material things: and thus no one, or very few, could reach to perfect felicity; which is against what the Philosopher says (Ethic. i, 9), that happiness is a "kind of common good, communicable to all capable of virtue." Further, it is unreasonable that only the few of any species attain to the end of the species. Fifthly, the Philosopher expressly says (Ethic. i, 10), that happiness is "an operation according to perfect virtue"; and after enumerating many virtues in the tenth book, he concludes (Ethic. i, 7) that ultimate happiness consisting in the knowledge of the highest things intelligible is attained through the virtue of wisdom, which in the sixth chapter he had named as the chief of speculative sciences. Hence Aristotle clearly places the ultimate felicity of man in the knowledge of separate substances, obtainable by speculative science; and not by being united to the active intellect as some imagined. Sixthly, as was shown above (79, 4), the active intellect is not a separate substance; but a faculty of the soul, extending itself actively to the same objects to which the passive intellect extends receptively; because, as is stated (De Anima iii, 5), the passive intellect is "all things potentially," and the active intellect is "all things in act." Therefore both intellects, according to the present state of life, extend to material things only, which are made actually intelligible by the active intellect, and are received in the passive intellect. Hence in the present state of life we cannot understand separate immaterial substances in themselves, either by the passive or by the active intellect.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 88 a. 1 ad 1 </b>Ad primum ergo dicendum quod ex illa auctoritate Augustini haberi potest quod illud quod mens nostra de cognitione incorporalium rerum accipere potest, per seipsam cognoscere possit. Et hoc adeo verum est, ut etiam apud philosophos dicatur quod scientia de anima est principium quoddam ad cognoscendum substantias separatas. Per hoc enim quod anima nostra cognoscit seipsam, pertingit ad cognitionem aliquam habendam de substantiis incorporeis, qualem eam contingit habere, non quod simpliciter et perfecte eas cognoscat, cognoscendo seipsam. ||Reply to Objection 1. Augustine may be taken to mean that the knowledge of incorporeal things in the mind can be gained by the mind itself. This is so true that philosophers also say that the knowledge concerning the soul is a principle for the knowledge of separate substances. For by knowing itself, it attains to some knowledge of incorporeal substances, such as is within its compass; not that the knowledge of itself gives it a perfect and absolute knowledge of them.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 88 a. 1 ad 2 </b>Ad secundum dicendum quod similitudo naturae non est ratio sufficiens ad cognitionem, alioquin oporteret dicere quod Empedocles dixit, quod anima esset de natura omnium, ad hoc quod omnia cognosceret. Sed requiritur ad cognoscendum, ut sit similitudo rei cognitae in cognoscente quasi quaedam forma ipsius. Intellectus autem noster possibilis, secundum statum praesentis vitae, est natus informari similitudinibus rerum materialium a phantasmatibus abstractis, et ideo cognoscit magis materialia quam substantias immateriales. ||Reply to Objection 2. The likeness of nature is not a sufficient cause of knowledge; otherwise what Empedocles said would be true --that the soul needs to have the nature of all in order to know all. But knowledge requires that the likeness of the thing known be in the knower, as a kind of form thereof. Now our passive intellect, in the present state of life, is such that it can be informed with similitudes abstracted from phantasms: and therefore it knows material things rather than immaterial substances.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 88 a. 1 ad 3 </b>Ad tertium dicendum quod requiritur aliqua proportio obiecti ad potentiam cognoscitivam, ut activi ad passivum, et perfectionis ad perfectibile. Unde quod excellentia sensibilia non capiantur a sensu, non sola ratio est quia corrumpunt organa sensibilia; sed etiam quia sunt improportionata potentiis sensitivis. Et hoc modo substantiae immateriales sunt improportionatae intellectui nostro, secundum praesentem statum, ut non possint ab eo intelligi. ||Reply to Objection 3. There must needs be some proportion between the object and the faculty of knowledge; such as of the active to the passive, and of perfection to the perfectible. Hence that sensible objects of great power are not grasped by the senses, is due not merely to the fact that they corrupt the organ, but also to their being improportionate to the sensitive power. And thus it is that immaterial substances are improportionate to our intellect, in our present state of life, so that it cannot understand them.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 88 a. 1 ad 4 </b>Ad quartum dicendum quod illa ratio Commentatoris multipliciter deficit. Primo quidem, quia non sequitur quod, si substantiae separatae non intelliguntur a nobis, non intelligantur ab aliquo intellectu, intelliguntur enim a seipsis, et a se invicem. Secundo, quia non est finis substantiarum separatarum ut intelligantur a nobis. Illud autem otiose et frustra esse dicitur, quod non consequitur finem ad quem est. Et sic non sequitur substantias immateriales esse frustra, etiam si nullo modo intelligerentur a nobis. ||Reply to Objection 4. This argument of the Commentator fails in several ways. First, because if separate substances are not understood by us, it does not follow that they are not understood by any intellect; for they are understood by themselves, and by one another. Secondly, to be understood by us is not the end of separate substances: while only that is vain and purposeless, which fails to attain its end. It does not follow, therefore, that immaterial substances are purposeless, even if they are not understood by us at all.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 88 a. 1 ad 5 </b>Ad quintum dicendum quod eodem modo sensus cognoscit et superiora et inferiora corpora, scilicet per immutationem organi a sensibili. Non autem eodem modo intelliguntur a nobis substantiae materiales, quae intelliguntur per modum abstractionis; et substantiae immateriales, quae non possunt sic a nobis intelligi, quia non sunt earum aliqua phantasmata. ||Reply to Objection 5. Sense knows bodies, whether superior or inferior, in the same way, that is, by the sensible acting on the organ. But we do not understand material and immaterial substances in the same way. The former we understand by a process of abstraction, which is impossible in the case of the latter, for there are no phantasms of what is immaterial.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 88 a. 2 arg. 1 </b>Ad secundum sic proceditur. Videtur quod intellectus noster per cognitionem rerum materialium possit pervenire ad intelligendum substantias immateriales. Dicit enim Dionysius, I cap. Cael. Hier., quod non est possibile humanae menti ad immaterialem illam sursum excitari caelestium hierarchiarum contemplationem, nisi secundum se materiali manuductione utatur. Relinquitur ergo quod per materialia manuduci possumus ad intelligendum substantias immateriales. ||Objection 1. It would seem that our intellect can know immaterial substances through the knowledge of material things. For Dionysius says (Coel. Hier. i) that "the human mind cannot be raised up to immaterial contemplation of the heavenly hierarchies, unless it is led thereto by material guidance according to its own nature." Therefore we can be led by material things to know immaterial substances.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 88 a. 2 arg. 2 </b>Praeterea, scientia est in intellectu. Sed scientiae et definitiones sunt de substantiis immaterialibus, definit enim Damascenus Angelum; et de Angelis aliqua documenta traduntur tam in theologicis quam in philosophicis disciplinis. Ergo substantiae immateriales intelligi possunt a nobis. ||Objection 2. Further, science resides in the intellect. But there are sciences and definitions of immaterial substances; for Damascene defines an angel (De Fide Orth. ii, 3); and we find angels treated of both in theology and philosophy. Therefore immaterial substances can be understood by us.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 88 a. 2 arg. 3 </b>Praeterea, anima humana est de genere substantiarum immaterialium. Sed ipsa intelligi potest a nobis per actum suum, quo intelligit materialia. Ergo et aliae substantiae immateriales intelligi possunt a nobis per suos effectus in rebus materialibus. ||Objection 3. Further, the human soul belongs to the genus of immaterial substances. But it can be understood by us through its act by which it understands material things. Therefore also other material substances can be understood by us, through their material effects.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 88 a. 2 arg. 4 </b>Praeterea, illa sola causa per suos effectus comprehendi non potest, quae in infinitum distat a suis effectibus. Hoc autem solius Dei est proprium. Ergo aliae substantiae immateriales creatae intelligi possunt a nobis per res materiales. ||Objection 4. Further, the only cause which cannot be comprehended through its effects is that which is infinitely distant from them, and this belongs to God alone. Therefore other created immaterial substances can be understood by us through material things.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 88 a. 2 s. c. </b>Sed contra est quod Dionysius dicit, I cap. de Div. Nom., quod sensibilibus intelligibilia, et compositis simplicia, et corporalibus incorporalia apprehendi non possunt. ||On the contrary, Dionysius says (Div. Nom. i) that "intelligible things cannot be understood through sensible things, nor composite things through simple, nor incorporeal through corporeal."
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 88 a. 2 co. </b>Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut Averroes narrat in III de anima, quidam Avempace nomine, posuit quod per intellectum substantiarum materialium pervenire possumus, secundum vera philosophiae principia, ad intelligendum substantias immateriales. Cum enim intellectus noster natus sit abstrahere quidditatem rei materialis a materia, si iterum in illa quidditate sit aliquid materiae, poterit iterato abstrahere, et cum hoc in infinitum non procedat, tandem pervenire poterit ad intelligendum aliquam quidditatem quae sit omnino sine materia. Et hoc est intelligere substantiam immaterialem. Quod quidem efficaciter diceretur, si substantiae immateriales essent formae et species horum materialium, ut Platonici posuerunt. Hoc autem non posito, sed supposito quod substantiae immateriales sint omnino alterius rationis a quidditatibus materialium rerum; quantumcumque intellectus noster abstrahat quidditatem rei materialis a materia, nunquam perveniet ad aliquid simile substantiae immateriali. Et ideo per substantias materiales non possumus perfecte substantias immateriales intelligere. ||I answer that, Averroes says (De Anima iii) that a philosopher named Avempace [Ibn-Badja, Arabian Philosopher; ob. 1183 taught that by the understanding of natural substances we can be led, according to true philosophical principles, to the knowledge of immaterial substances. For since the nature of our intellect is to abstract the quiddity of material things from matter, anything material residing in that abstracted quiddity can again be made subject to abstraction; and as the process of abstraction cannot go on forever, it must arrive at length at some immaterial quiddity, absolutely without matter; and this would be the understanding of immaterial substance. Now this opinion would be true, were immaterial substances the forms and species of these material things; as the Platonists supposed. But supposing, on the contrary, that immaterial substances differ altogether from the quiddity of material things, it follows that however much our intellect abstract the quiddity of material things from matter, it could never arrive at anything akin to immaterial substance. Therefore we are not able perfectly to understand immaterial substances through material substances.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 88 a. 2 ad 1 </b>Ad primum ergo dicendum quod ex rebus materialibus ascendere possumus in aliqualem cognitionem immaterialium rerum, non tamen in perfectam, quia non est sufficiens comparatio rerum materialium ad immateriales, sed similitudines si quae a materialibus accipiuntur ad immaterialia intelligenda, sunt multum dissimiles, ut Dionysius dicit, II cap. Cael. Hier. ||Reply to Objection 1. From material things we can rise to some kind of knowledge of immaterial things, but not to the perfect knowledge thereof; for there is no proper and adequate proportion between material and immaterial things, and the likenesses drawn from material things for the understanding of immaterial things are very dissimilar therefrom, as Dionysius says (Coel. Hier. ii).
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 88 a. 2 ad 2 </b>Ad secundum dicendum quod de superioribus rebus in scientiis maxime tractatur per viam remotionis, sic enim corpora caelestia notificat Aristoteles per negationem proprietatum inferiorum corporum. Unde multo magis immateriales substantiae a nobis cognosci non possunt, ut earum quidditates apprehendamus, sed de eis nobis in scientiis documenta traduntur per viam remotionis et alicuius habitudinis ad res materiales. ||Reply to Objection 2. Science treats of higher things principally by way of negation. Thus Aristotle (De Coel. i, 3) explains the heavenly bodies by denying to them inferior corporeal properties. Hence it follows that much less can immaterial substances be known by us in such a way as to make us know their quiddity; but we may have a scientific knowledge of them by way of negation and by their relation to material things.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 88 a. 2 ad 3 </b>Ad tertium dicendum quod anima humana intelligit seipsam per suum intelligere, quod est actus proprius eius, perfecte demonstrans virtutem eius et naturam. Sed neque per hoc, neque per alia quae in rebus materialibus inveniuntur, perfecte cognosci potest immaterialium substantiarum virtus et natura, quia huiusmodi non adaequant earum virtutes. ||Reply to Objection 3. The human soul understands itself through its own act of understanding, which is proper to it, showing perfectly its power and nature. But the power and nature of immaterial substances cannot be perfectly known through such act, nor through any other material thing, because there is no proportion between the latter and the power of the former.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 88 a. 2 ad 4 </b>Ad quartum dicendum quod substantiae immateriales creatae in genere quidem naturali non conveniunt cum substantiis materialibus, quia non est in eis eadem ratio potentiae et materiae, conveniunt tamen cum eis in genere logico, quia etiam substantiae immateriales sunt in praedicamento substantiae, cum earum quidditas non sit earum esse. Sed Deus non convenit cum rebus materialibus neque secundum genus naturale, neque secundum genus logicum, quia Deus nullo modo est in genere, ut supra dictum est. Unde per similitudines rerum materialium aliquid affirmative potest cognosci de Angelis secundum rationem communem, licet non secundum rationem speciei; de Deo autem nullo modo. ||Reply to Objection 4. Created immaterial substances are not in the same natural genus as material substances, for they do not agree in power or in matter; but they belong to the same logical genus, because even immaterial substances are in the predicament of substance, as their essence is distinct from their existence. But God has no connection with material things, as regards either natural genus or logical genus; because God is in no genus, as stated above (3, 5). Hence through the likeness derived from material things we can know something positive concerning the angels, according to some common notion, though not according to the specific nature; whereas we cannot acquire any such knowledge at all about God.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 88 a. 3 arg. 1 </b>Ad tertium sic proceditur. Videtur quod Deus sit primum quod a mente humana cognoscitur. Illud enim in quo omnia alia cognoscuntur, et per quod de aliis iudicamus, est primo cognitum a nobis; sicut lux ab oculo, et principia prima ab intellectu. Sed omnia in luce primae veritatis cognoscimus, et per eam de omnibus iudicamus; ut dicit Augustinus in libro de Trin., et in libro de vera Relig. Ergo Deus est id quod primo cognoscitur a nobis. ||Objection 1. It would seem that God is the first object known by the human mind. For that object in which all others are known, and by which we judge others, is the first thing known to us; as light is to the eye, and first principles to the intellect. But we know all things in the light of the first truth, and thereby judge of all things, as Augustine says (De Trin. xii, 2; De Vera Relig. xxxi; [Confess. xii, 25). Therefore God is the first object known to us.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 88 a. 3 arg. 2 </b>Praeterea, propter quod unumquodque, et illud magis. Sed Deus est causa omnis nostrae cognitionis, ipse enim est lux vera, quae illuminat omnem hominem venientem in hunc mundum, ut dicitur Ioan. I. Ergo Deus est id quod primo et maxime est cognitum nobis. ||Objection 2. Further, whatever causes a thing to be such is more so. But God is the cause of all our knowledge; for He is "the true light which enlighteneth every man that cometh into this world" (John 1:9). Therefore God is our first and most known object.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 88 a. 3 arg. 3 </b>Praeterea, id quod primo cognoscitur in imagine, est exemplar quo imago formatur. Sed in mente nostra est Dei imago, ut Augustinus dicit. Ergo id quod primo cognoscitur in mente nostra est Deus. ||Objection 3. Further, what is first known in the image is the exemplar to which it is made. But in our mind is the image of God, as Augustine says (De Trin. xii, 4,7). Therefore God is the first object known to our mind.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 88 a. 3 s. c. </b>Sed contra est quod dicitur Ioan. I, Deum nemo vidit unquam. ||On the contrary, "No man hath seen God at any time" (John 1:18).
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 88 a. 3 co. </b>Respondeo dicendum quod, cum intellectus humanus, secundum statum praesentis vitae, non possit intelligere substantias immateriales creatas, ut dictum est; multo minus potest intelligere essentiam substantiae increatae. Unde simpliciter dicendum est quod Deus non est primum quod a nobis cognoscitur; sed magis per creaturas in Dei cognitionem pervenimus, secundum illud apostoli ad Rom. I, invisibilia Dei per ea quae facta sunt, intellecta, conspiciuntur. Primum autem quod intelligitur a nobis secundum statum praesentis vitae, est quidditas rei materialis, quae est nostri intellectus obiectum, ut multoties supra dictum est. ||I answer that, Since the human intellect in the present state of life cannot understand even immaterial created substances (1), much less can it understand the essence of the uncreated substance. Hence it must be said simply that God is not the first object of our knowledge. Rather do we know God through creatures, according to the Apostle (Romans 1:20), "the invisible things of God are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made": while the first object of our knowledge in this life is the "quiddity of a material thing," which is the proper object of our intellect, as appears above in many passages (84, 7; 85, 8; 87, 2, ad 2)
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 88 a. 3 ad 1 </b>Ad primum ergo dicendum quod in luce primae veritatis omnia intelligimus et iudicamus, inquantum ipsum lumen intellectus nostri, sive naturale sive gratuitum, nihil aliud est quam quaedam impressio veritatis primae, ut supra dictum est. Unde cum ipsum lumen intellectus nostri non se habeat ad intellectum nostrum sicut quod intelligitur, sed sicut quo intelligitur; multo minus Deus est id quod primo a nostro intellectu intelligitur. ||Reply to Objection 1. We see and judge of all things in the light of the first truth, forasmuch as the light itself of our mind, whether natural or gratuitous, is nothing else than the impression of the first truth upon it, as stated above (12, 2). Hence, as the light itself of our intellect is not the object it understands, much less can it be said that God is the first object known by our intellect.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 88 a. 3 ad 2 </b>Ad secundum dicendum quod propter quod unumquodque, illud magis, intelligendum est in his quae sunt unius ordinis, ut supra dictum est. Propter Deum autem alia cognoscuntur, non sicut propter primum cognitum, sed sicut propter primam cognoscitivae virtutis causam. ||Reply to Objection 2. The axiom, "Whatever causes a thing to be such is more so," must be understood of things belonging to one and the same order, as explained above (81, 2, ad 3). Other things than God are known because of God; not as if He were the first known object, but because He is the first cause of our faculty of knowledge.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 88 a. 3 ad 3 </b>Ad tertium dicendum quod, si in anima nostra esset perfecta imago Dei, sicut filius est perfecta imago patris, statim mens nostra intelligeret Deum. Est autem imago imperfecta. Unde ratio non sequitur. ||Reply to Objection 3. If there existed in our souls a perfect image of God, as the Son is the perfect image of the Father, our mind would know God at once. But the image in our mind is imperfect; hence the argument does not prove.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<div id="q89"><b>IЄ q. 89</b> ||The knowledge of the separated soul
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 89 pr. </b>Deinde considerandum est de cognitione animae separatae. Et circa hoc quaeruntur octo. Primo, utrum anima separata a corpore possit intelligere. Secundo, utrum intelligat substantias separatas. Tertio, utrum intelligat omnia naturalia. Quarto, utrum cognoscat singularia. Quinto, utrum habitus scientiae hic acquisitae remaneat in anima separata. Sexto, utrum possit uti habitu scientiae hic acquisitae. Septimo, utrum distantia localis impediat cognitionem animae separatae. Octavo, utrum animae separatae a corporibus cognoscant ea quae hic aguntur. ||
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 89 a. 1 arg. 1 </b>Ad primum sic proceditur. Videtur quod anima separata nihil omnino intelligere possit. Dicit enim philosophus, in I de anima, quod intelligere corrumpitur, interius quodam corrupto. Sed omnia interiora hominis corrumpuntur per mortem. Ergo et ipsum intelligere corrumpitur. ||Objection 1. It would seem that the soul separated from the body can understand nothing at all. For the Philosopher says (De Anima i, 4) that "the understanding is corrupted together with its interior principle." But by death all human interior principles are corrupted. Therefore also the intellect itself is corrupted.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 89 a. 1 arg. 2 </b>Praeterea, anima humana impeditur ab intelligendo per ligamentum sensus, et perturbata imaginatione, sicut supra dictum est. Sed morte totaliter sensus et imaginatio corrumpuntur, ut ex supra dictis patet. Ergo anima post mortem nihil intelligit. ||Objection 2. Further, the human soul is hindered from understanding when the senses are tied, and by a distracted imagination, as explained above (84, 7,8). But death destroys the senses and imagination, as we have shown above (77, 8). Therefore after death the soul understands nothing.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 89 a. 1 arg. 3 </b>Praeterea, si anima separata intelligit, oportet quod per aliquas species intelligat. Sed non intelligit per species innatas, quia a principio est sicut tabula in qua nihil est scriptum. Neque per species quas abstrahat a rebus, quia non habet organa sensus et imaginationis, quibus mediantibus species intelligibiles abstrahuntur a rebus. Neque etiam per species prius abstractas, et in anima conservatas, quia sic anima pueri nihil intelligeret post mortem. Neque etiam per species intelligibiles divinitus influxas, haec enim cognitio non esset naturalis, de qua nunc agitur, sed gratiae. Ergo anima separata a corpore nihil intelligit. ||Objection 3. Further, if the separated soul can understand, this must be by means of some species. But it does not understand by means of innate species, because it has none such; being at first "like a tablet on which nothing is written": nor does it understand by species abstracted from things, for it does not then possess organs of sense and imagination which are necessary for the abstraction of species: nor does it understand by means of species, formerly abstracted and retained in the soul; for if that were so, a child's soul would have no means of understanding at all: nor does it understand by means of intelligible species divinely infused, for such knowledge would not be natural, such as we treat of now, but the effect of grace. Therefore the soul apart from the body understands nothing.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 89 a. 1 s. c. </b>Sed contra est quod philosophus dicit, in I de anima, quod si non est aliqua operationum animae propria, non contingit ipsam separari. Contingit autem ipsam separari. Ergo habet aliquam operationem propriam; et maxime eam quae est intelligere. Intelligit ergo sine corpore existens. ||On the contrary, The Philosopher says (De Anima i, 1), "If the soul had no proper operation, it could not be separated from the body." But the soul is separated from the body; therefore it has a proper operation and above all, that which consists in intelligence. Therefore the soul can understand when it is apart from the body.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 89 a. 1 co. </b>Respondeo dicendum quod ista quaestio difficultatem habet ex hoc quod anima, quandiu est corpori coniuncta, non potest aliquid intelligere nisi convertendo se ad phantasmata, ut per experimentum patet. Si autem hoc non est ex natura animae, sed per accidens hoc convenit ei ex eo quod corpori alligatur, sicut Platonici posuerunt, de facili quaestio solvi posset. Nam remoto impedimento corporis, rediret anima ad suam naturam, ut intelligeret intelligibilia simpliciter, non convertendo se ad phantasmata, sicut est de aliis substantiis separatis. Sed secundum hoc, non esset anima corpori unita propter melius animae, si peius intelligeret corpori unita quam separata; sed hoc esset solum propter melius corporis, quod est irrationabile, cum materia sit propter formam, et non e converso. Si autem ponamus quod anima ex sua natura habeat ut intelligat convertendo se ad phantasmata, cum natura animae per mortem corporis non mutetur, videtur quod anima naturaliter nihil possit intelligere, cum non sint ei praesto phantasmata ad quae convertatur. Et ideo ad hanc difficultatem tollendam, considerandum est quod, cum nihil operetur nisi inquantum est actu, modus operandi uniuscuiusque rei sequitur modum essendi ipsius. Habet autem anima alium modum essendi cum unitur corpori, et cum fuerit a corpore separata, manente tamen eadem animae natura; non ita quod uniri corpori sit ei accidentale, sed per rationem suae naturae corpori unitur; sicut nec levis natura mutatur cum est in loco proprio, quod est ei naturale, et cum est extra proprium locum, quod est ei praeter naturam. Animae igitur secundum illum modum essendi quo corpori est unita, competit modus intelligendi per conversionem ad phantasmata corporum, quae in corporeis organis sunt, cum autem fuerit a corpore separata, competit ei modus intelligendi per conversionem ad ea quae sunt intelligibilia simpliciter, sicut et aliis substantiis separatis. Unde modus intelligendi per conversionem ad phantasmata est animae naturalis, sicut et corpori uniri, sed esse separatum a corpore est praeter rationem suae naturae, et similiter intelligere sine conversione ad phantasmata est ei praeter naturam. Et ideo ad hoc unitur corpori, ut sit et operetur secundum naturam suam. Sed hoc rursus habet dubitationem. Cum enim natura semper ordinetur ad id quod melius est; est autem melior modus intelligendi per conversionem ad intelligibilia simpliciter, quam per conversionem ad phantasmata, debuit sic a Deo institui animae natura, ut modus intelligendi nobilior ei esset naturalis, et non indigeret corpori propter hoc uniri. Considerandum est igitur quod, etsi intelligere per conversionem ad superiora sit simpliciter nobilius quam intelligere per conversionem ad phantasmata; tamen ille modus intelligendi, prout erat possibilis animae, erat imperfectior. Quod sic patet. In omnibus enim substantiis intellectualibus invenitur virtus intellectiva per influentiam divini luminis. Quod quidem in primo principio est unum et simplex; et quanto magis creaturae intellectuales distant a primo principio, tanto magis dividitur illud lumen et diversificatur, sicut accidit in lineis a centro egredientibus. Et inde est quod Deus per unam suam essentiam omnia intelligit; superiores autem intellectualium substantiarum, etsi per plures formas intelligant, tamen intelligunt per pauciores, et magis universales, et virtuosiores ad comprehensionem rerum, propter efficaciam virtutis intellectivae quae est in eis; in inferioribus autem sunt formae plures, et minus universales, et minus efficaces ad comprehensionem rerum, inquantum deficiunt a virtute intellectiva superiorum. Si ergo inferiores substantiae haberent formas in illa universalitate in qua habent superiores, quia non sunt tantae efficaciae in intelligendo, non acciperent per eas perfectam cognitionem de rebus, sed in quadam communitate et confusione. Quod aliqualiter apparet in hominibus, nam qui sunt debilioris intellectus, per universales conceptiones magis intelligentium non accipiunt perfectam cognitionem, nisi eis singula in speciali explicentur. Manifestum est autem inter substantias intellectuales, secundum naturae ordinem, infimas esse animas humanas. Hoc autem perfectio universi exigebat, ut diversi gradus in rebus essent. Si igitur animae humanae sic essent institutae a Deo ut intelligerent per modum qui competit substantiis separatis, non haberent cognitionem perfectam, sed confusam in communi. Ad hoc ergo quod perfectam et propriam cognitionem de rebus habere possent, sic naturaliter sunt institutae ut corporibus uniantur, et sic ab ipsis rebus sensibilibus propriam de eis cognitionem accipiant; sicut homines rudes ad scientiam induci non possunt nisi per sensibilia exempla. Sic ergo patet quod propter melius animae est ut corpori uniatur, et intelligat per conversionem ad phantasmata; et tamen esse potest separata, et alium modum intelligendi habere. ||I answer that, The difficulty in solving this question arises from the fact that the soul united to the body can understand only by turning to the phantasms, as experience shows. Did this not proceed from the soul's very nature, but accidentally through its being bound up with the body, as the Platonists said, the difficulty would vanish; for in that case when the body was once removed, the soul would at once return to its own nature, and would understand intelligible things simply, without turning to the phantasms, as is exemplified in the case of other separate substances. In that case, however, the union of soul and body would not be for the soul's good, for evidently it would understand worse in the body than out of it; but for the good of the body, which would be unreasonable, since matter exists on account of the form, and not the form for the sake of matter. But if we admit that the nature of the soul requires it to understand by turning to the phantasms, it will seem, since death does not change its nature, that it can then naturally understand nothing; as the phantasms are wanting to which it may turn. To solve this difficulty we must consider that as nothing acts except so far as it is actual, the mode of action in every agent follows from its mode of existence. Now the soul has one mode of being when in the body, and another when apart from it, its nature remaining always the same; but this does not mean that its union with the body is an accidental thing, for, on the contrary, such union belongs to its very nature, just as the nature of a light object is not changed, when it is in its proper place, which is natural to it, and outside its proper place, which is beside its nature. The soul, therefore, when united to the body, consistently with that mode of existence, has a mode of understanding, by turning to corporeal phantasms, which are in corporeal organs; but when it is separated from the body, it has a mode of understanding, by turning to simply intelligible objects, as is proper to other separate substances. Hence it is as natural for the soul to understand by turning to the phantasms as it is for it to be joined to the body; but to be separated from the body is not in accordance with its nature, and likewise to understand without turning to the phantasms is not natural to it; and hence it is united to the body in order that it may have an existence and an operation suitable to its nature. But here again a difficulty arises. For since nature is always ordered to what is best, and since it is better to understand by turning to simply intelligible objects than by turning to the phantasms; God should have ordered the soul's nature so that the nobler way of understanding would have been natural to it, and it would not have needed the body for that purpose. In order to resolve this difficulty we must consider that while it is true that it is nobler in itself to understand by turning to something higher than to understand by turning to phantasms, nevertheless such a mode of understanding was not so perfect as regards what was possible to the soul. This will appear if we consider that every intellectual substance possesses intellective power by the influence of the Divine light, which is one and simple in its first principle, and the farther off intellectual creatures are from the first principle so much the more is the light divided and diversified, as is the case with lines radiating from the centre of a circle. Hence it is that God by His one Essence understands all things; while the superior intellectual substances understand by means of a number of species, which nevertheless are fewer and more universal and bestow a deeper comprehension of things, because of the efficaciousness of the intellectual power of such natures: whereas the inferior intellectual natures possess a greater number of species, which are less universal, and bestow a lower degree of comprehension, in proportion as they recede from the intellectual power of the higher natures. If, therefore, the inferior substances received species in the same degree of universality as the superior substances, since they are not so strong in understanding, the knowledge which they would derive through them would be imperfect, and of a general and confused nature. We can see this to a certain extent in man, for those who are of weaker intellect fail to acquire perfect knowledge through the universal conceptions of those who have a better understanding, unless things are explained to them singly and in detail. Now it is clear that in the natural order human souls hold the lowest place among intellectual substances. But the perfection of the universe required various grades of being. If, therefore, God had willed souls to understand in the same way as separate substances, it would follow that human knowledge, so far from being perfect, would be confused and general. Therefore to make it possible for human souls to possess perfect and proper knowledge, they were so made that their nature required them to be joined to bodies, and thus to receive the proper and adequate knowledge of sensible things from the sensible things themselves; thus we see in the case of uneducated men that they have to be taught by sensible examples. It is clear then that it was for the soul's good that it was united to a body, and that it understands by turning to the phantasms. Nevertheless it is possible for it to exist apart from the body, and also to understand in another way.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 89 a. 1 ad 1 </b>Ad primum ergo dicendum quod, si diligenter verba philosophi discutiantur, philosophus hoc dixit ex quadam suppositione prius facta, scilicet quod intelligere sit quidam motus coniuncti, sicut et sentire, nondum enim differentiam ostenderat inter intellectum et sensum. Vel potest dici quod loquitur de illo modo intelligendi qui est per conversionem ad phantasmata. ||Reply to Objection 1. The Philosopher's words carefully examined will show that he said this on the previous supposition that understanding is a movement of body and soul as united, just as sensation is, for he had not as yet explained the difference between intellect and sense. We may also say that he is referring to the way of understanding by turning to phantasms.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 89 a. 1 ad 2 </b>De quo etiam procedit secunda ratio. ||This is also the meaning of the second objection.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 89 a. 1 ad 3 </b>Ad tertium dicendum quod anima separata non intelligit per species innatas; nec per species quas tunc abstrahit; nec solum per species conservatas, ut obiectio probat, sed per species ex influentia divini luminis participatas, quarum anima fit particeps sicut et aliae substantiae separatae, quamvis inferiori modo. Unde tam cito cessante conversione ad corpus, ad superiora convertitur. Nec tamen propter hoc cognitio non est naturalis, quia Deus est auctor non solum influentiae gratuiti luminis, sed etiam naturalis. ||Reply to Objection 3. The separated soul does not understand by way of innate species, nor by species abstracted then, nor only by species retained, and this the objection proves; but the soul in that state understands by means of participated species arising from the influence of the Divine light, shared by the soul as by other separate substances; though in a lesser degree. Hence as soon as it ceases to act by turning to corporeal (phantasms), the soul turns at once to the superior things; nor is this way of knowledge unnatural, for God is the author of the influx of both of the light of grace and of the light of nature.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 89 a. 2 arg. 1 </b>Ad secundum sic proceditur. Videtur quod anima separata non intelligat substantias separatas. Perfectior enim est anima corpori coniuncta, quam a corpore separata, cum anima sit naturaliter pars humanae naturae; quaelibet autem pars perfectior est in suo toto. Sed anima coniuncta corpori non intelligit substantias separatas, ut supra habitum est. Ergo multo minus cum fuerit a corpore separata. ||Objection 1. It would seem that the separated soul does not understand separate substances. For the soul is more perfect when joined to the body than when existing apart from it, being an essential part of human nature; and every part of a whole is more perfect when it exists in that whole. But the soul in the body does not understand separate substances as shown above (88, 1). Therefore much less is it able to do so when apart from the body.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 89 a. 2 arg. 2 </b>Praeterea, omne quod cognoscitur, vel cognoscitur per sui praesentiam, vel per suam speciem. Sed substantiae separatae non possunt cognosci ab anima per suam praesentiam, quia nihil illabitur animae nisi solus Deus. Neque etiam per aliquas species quas anima ab Angelo abstrahere possit, quia Angelus simplicior est quam anima. Ergo nullo modo anima separata potest cognoscere substantias separatas. ||Objection 2. Further, whatever is known is known either by its presence or by its species. But separate substances cannot be known to the soul by their presence, for God alone can enter into the soul; nor by means of species abstracted by the soul from an angel, for an angel is more simple than a soul. Therefore the separated soul cannot at all understand separate substances.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 89 a. 2 arg. 3 </b>Praeterea, quidam philosophi posuerunt in cognitione separatarum substantiarum consistere ultimam hominis felicitatem. Si ergo anima separata potest intelligere substantias separatas, ex sola sua separatione consequitur felicitatem. Quod est inconveniens. ||Objection 3. Further, some philosophers said that the ultimate happiness of man consists in the knowledge of separate substances. If, therefore, the separated soul can understand separate substances, its happiness would be secured by its separation alone; which cannot be reasonably be said.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 89 a. 2 s. c. </b>Sed contra est quod animae separatae cognoscunt alias animas separatas; sicut dives in Inferno positus vidit Lazarum et Abraham, Luc. XVI. Ergo vident etiam et Daemones et Angelos animae separatae. ||On the contrary, Souls apart from the body know other separated souls; as we see in the case of the rich man in hell, who saw Lazarus and Abraham (Luke 16:23). Therefore separated souls see the devils and the angels.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 89 a. 2 co. </b>Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut Augustinus dicit in IX de Trin., mens nostra cognitionem rerum incorporearum per seipsam accipit, idest cognoscendo seipsam, sicut supra dictum est. Per hoc ergo quod anima separata cognoscit seipsam, accipere possumus qualiter cognoscit alias substantias separatas. Dictum est autem quod quandiu anima corpori est unita, intelligit convertendo se ad phantasmata. Et ideo nec seipsam potest intelligere nisi inquantum fit actu intelligens per speciem a phantasmatibus abstractam, sic enim per actum suum intelligit seipsam, ut supra dictum est. Sed cum fuerit a corpore separata, intelliget non convertendo se ad phantasmata, sed ad ea quae sunt secundum se intelligibilia, unde seipsam per seipsam intelliget. Est autem commune omni substantiae separatae quod intelligat id quod est supra se, et id quod est infra se, per modum suae substantiae, sic enim intelligitur aliquid secundum quod est in intelligente; est autem aliquid in altero per modum eius in quo est. Modus autem substantiae animae separatae est infra modum substantiae angelicae, sed est conformis modo aliarum animarum separatarum. Et ideo de aliis animabus separatis perfectam cognitionem habet; de Angelis autem imperfectam et deficientem, loquendo de cognitione naturali animae separatae. De cognitione autem gloriae est alia ratio. ||I answer that, Augustine says (De Trin. ix, 3), "our mind acquires the knowledge of incorporeal things by itself"--i.e. by knowing itself (88, 1, ad 1). Therefore from the knowledge which the separated soul has of itself, we can judge how it knows other separate things. Now it was said above (1), that as long as it is united to the body the soul understands by turning to phantasms, and therefore it does not understand itself save through becoming actually intelligent by means of ideas abstracted from phantasms; for thus it understands itself through its own act, as shown above (87, 1). When, however, it is separated from the body, it understands no longer by turning to phantasms, but by turning to simply intelligible objects; hence in that state it understands itself through itself. Now, every separate substance "understands what is above itself and what is below itself, according to the mode of its substance" (De Causis viii): for a thing is understood according as it is in the one who understands; while one thing is in another according to the nature of that in which it is. And the mode of existence of a separated soul is inferior to that of an angel, but is the same as that of other separated souls. Therefore the soul apart from the body has perfect knowledge of other separated souls, but it has an imperfect and defective knowledge of the angels so far as its natural knowledge is concerned. But the knowledge of glory is otherwise.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 89 a. 2 ad 1 </b>Ad primum ergo dicendum quod anima separata est quidem imperfectior, si consideretur natura qua communicat cum natura corporis, sed tamen quodammodo est liberior ad intelligendum, inquantum per gravedinem et occupationem corporis a puritate intelligentiae impeditur. ||Reply to Objection 1. The separated soul is, indeed, less perfect considering its nature in which it communicates with the nature of the body: but it has a greater freedom of intelligence, since the weight and care of the body is a clog upon the clearness of its intelligence in the present life.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 89 a. 2 ad 2 </b>Ad secundum dicendum quod anima separata intelligit Angelos per similitudines divinitus impressas. Quae tamen deficiunt a perfecta repraesentatione eorum, propter hoc quod animae natura est inferior quam Angeli. ||Reply to Objection 2. The separated soul understands the angels by means of divinely impressed ideas; which, however, fail to give perfect knowledge of them, forasmuch as the nature of the soul is inferior to that of an angel.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 89 a. 2 ad 3 </b>Ad tertium dicendum quod in cognitione substantiarum separatarum non quarumcumque, consistit ultima hominis felicitas, sed solius Dei, qui non potest videri nisi per gratiam. In cognitione vero aliarum substantiarum separatarum est magna felicitas, etsi non ultima, si tamen perfecte intelligantur. Sed anima separata naturali cognitione non perfecte eas intelligit, ut dictum est. ||Reply to Objection 3. Man's ultimate happiness consists not in the knowledge of any separate substances; but in the knowledge of God, Who is seen only by grace. The knowledge of other separate substances if perfectly understood gives great happiness--not final and ultimate happiness. But the separated soul does not understand them perfectly, as was shown above in this article.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 89 a. 3 arg. 1 </b>Ad tertium sic proceditur. Videtur quod anima separata omnia naturalia cognoscat. In substantiis enim separatis sunt rationes omnium rerum naturalium. Sed animae separatae cognoscunt substantias separatas. Ergo cognoscunt omnia naturalia. ||Objection 1. It would seem that the separated soul knows all natural things. For the types of all natural things exist in separate substances. Therefore, as separated souls know separate substances, they also know all natural things.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 89 a. 3 arg. 2 </b>Praeterea, qui intelligit magis intelligibile, multo magis potest intelligere minus intelligibile. Sed anima separata intelligit substantias separatas, quae sunt maxima intelligibilium. Ergo multo magis potest intelligere omnia naturalia, quae sunt minus intelligibilia. ||Objection 2. Further, whoever understands the greater intelligible, will be able much more to understand the lesser intelligible. But the separated soul understands immaterial substances, which are in the highest degree of intelligibility. Therefore much more can it understand all natural things which are in a lower degree of intelligibility.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 89 a. 3 s. c. 1 </b>Sed contra, in Daemonibus magis viget naturalis cognitio quam in anima separata. Sed Daemones non omnia naturalia cognoscunt; sed multa addiscunt per longi temporis experientiam, ut Isidorus dicit. Ergo neque animae separatae omnia naturalia cognoscunt. ||On the contrary, The devils have greater natural knowledge than the separated soul; yet they do not know all natural things, but have to learn many things by long experience, as Isidore says (De Summo Bono i). Therefore neither can the separated soul know all natural things.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 89 a. 3 s. c. 2 </b>Praeterea, si anima statim cum est separata, omnia naturalia cognosceret, frustra homines studerent ad rerum scientiam capessendam. Hoc autem est inconveniens. Non ergo anima separata omnia naturalia cognoscit. ||missing
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 89 a. 3 co. </b>Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut supra dictum est, anima separata intelligit per species quas recipit ex influentia divini luminis, sicut et Angeli, sed tamen, quia natura animae est infra naturam Angeli, cui iste modus cognoscendi est connaturalis, anima separata per huiusmodi species non accipit perfectam rerum cognitionem, sed quasi in communi et confusam. Sicut igitur se habent Angeli ad perfectam cognitionem rerum naturalium per huiusmodi species, ita animae separatae ad imperfectam et confusam. Angeli autem per huiusmodi species cognoscunt cognitione perfecta omnia naturalia, quia omnia quae Deus fecit in propriis naturis, fecit in intelligentia angelica, ut dicit Augustinus, super Gen. ad Litt. Unde et animae separatae de omnibus naturalibus cognitionem habent, non certam et propriam, sed communem et confusam. ||I answer that, As stated above (1), the separated soul, like the angels, understands by means of species, received from the influence of the Divine light. Nevertheless, as the soul by nature is inferior to an angel, to whom this kind of knowledge is natural, the soul apart from the body through such species does not receive perfect knowledge, but only a general and confused kind of knowledge. Separated souls, therefore, have the same relation through such species to imperfect and confused knowledge of natural things as the angels have to the perfect knowledge thereof. Now angels through such species know all natural things perfectly; because all that God has produced in the respective natures of natural things has been produced by Him in the angelic intelligence, as Augustine says (Gen. ad lit. ii, 8). Hence it follows that separated souls know all natural things not with a certain and proper knowledge, but in a general and confused manner.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 89 a. 3 ad 1 </b>Ad primum ergo dicendum quod nec ipse Angelus per suam substantiam cognoscit omnia naturalia, sed per species quasdam, ut supra dictum est. Et ideo non propter hoc sequitur quod anima cognoscat omnia naturalia, quia cognoscit quoquo modo substantiam separatam. ||Reply to Objection 1. Even an angel does not understand all natural things through his substance, but through certain species, as stated above (87, 1). So it does not follow that the soul knows all natural things because it knows separate substances after a fashion.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 89 a. 3 ad 2 </b>Ad secundum dicendum quod, sicut anima separata non perfecte intelligit substantias separatas ita nec omnia naturalia perfecte cognoscit, sed sub quadam confusione, ut dictum est. ||Reply to Objection 2. As the soul separated from the body does not perfectly understand separate substances, so neither does it know all natural things perfectly; but it knows them confusedly, as above explained in this article.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 89 a. 3 ad 3 </b>Ad tertium dicendum quod Isidorus loquitur de cognitione futurorum; quae nec Angeli nec Daemones nec animae separatae cognoscunt, nisi vel in suis causis, vel per revelationem divinam. Nos autem loquimur de cognitione naturalium. ||Reply to Objection 3. Isidore speaks of the knowledge of the future which neither angels, nor demons, nor separated souls, know except so far as future things pre-exist in their causes or are known by Divine revelation. But we are here treating of the knowledge of natural things.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 89 a. 3 ad 4 </b>Ad quartum dicendum quod cognitio quae acquiritur hic per studium, est propria et perfecta; illa autem est confusa. Unde non sequitur quod studium addiscendi sit frustra. ||Reply to Objection 4. Knowledge acquired here by study is proper and perfect; the knowledge of which we speak is confused. Hence it does not follow that to study in order to learn is useless.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 89 a. 4 arg. 1 </b>Ad quartum sic proceditur. Videtur quod anima separata non cognoscat singularia. Nulla enim potentia cognoscitiva remanet in anima separata nisi intellectus, ut ex supra dictis patet. Sed intellectus non est cognoscitivus singularium, ut supra habitum est. Ergo anima separata singularia non cognoscit. ||Objection 1. It would seem that the separated soul does not know singulars. For no cognitive power besides the intellect remains in the separated soul, as is clear from what has been said above (77, 8). But the intellect cannot know singulars, as we have shown (86, 1). Therefore the separated soul cannot know singulars.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 89 a. 4 arg. 2 </b>Praeterea, magis est determinata cognitio qua cognoscitur aliquid in singulari, quam illa qua cognoscitur aliquid in universali. Sed anima separata non habet determinatam cognitionem de speciebus rerum naturalium. Multo igitur minus cognoscit singularia. ||Objection 2. Further, the knowledge of the singular is more determinate than knowledge of the universal. But the separated soul has no determinate knowledge of the species of natural things, therefore much less can it know singulars.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 89 a. 4 arg. 3 </b>Praeterea, si cognoscit singularia, et non per sensum, pari ratione omnia singularia cognosceret. Sed non cognoscit omnia singularia. Ergo nulla cognoscit. ||Objection 3. Further, if it knew the singulars, yet not by sense, for the same reason it would know all singulars. But it does not know all singulars. Therefore it knows none.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 89 a. 4 s. c. </b>Sed contra est quod dives in Inferno positus dixit, habeo quinque fratres, ut habetur Luc. XVI. ||On the contrary, The rich man in hell said: "I have five brethren" (Luke 16:28).
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 89 a. 4 co. </b>Respondeo dicendum quod animae separatae aliqua singularia cognoscunt, sed non omnia, etiam quae sunt praesentia. Ad cuius evidentiam, considerandum est quod duplex est modus intelligendi. Unus per abstractionem a phantasmatibus, et secundum istum modum singularia per intellectum cognosci non possunt directe, sed indirecte, sicut supra dictum est. Alius modus intelligendi est per influentiam specierum a Deo, et per istum modum intellectus potest singularia cognoscere. Sicut enim ipse Deus per suam essentiam, inquantum est causa universalium et individualium principiorum, cognoscit omnia et universalia et singularia, ut supra dictum est; ita substantiae separatae per species, quae sunt quaedam participatae similitudines illius divinae essentiae, possunt singularia cognoscere. In hoc tamen est differentia inter Angelos et animas separatas, quia Angeli per huiusmodi species habent perfectam et propriam cognitionem de rebus, animae vero separatae confusam. Unde Angeli, propter efficaciam sui intellectus per huiusmodi species non solum naturas rerum in speciali cognoscere possunt, sed etiam singularia sub speciebus contenta. Animae vero separatae non possunt cognoscere per huiusmodi species nisi solum singularia illa ad quae quodammodo determinantur, vel per praecedentem cognitionem, vel per aliquam affectionem, vel per naturalem habitudinem, vel per divinam ordinationem, quia omne quod recipitur in aliquo, determinatur in eo secundum modum recipientis. ||I answer that, Separated souls know some singulars, but not all, not even all present singulars. To understand this, we must consider that there is a twofold way of knowing things, one by means of abstraction from phantasms, and in this way singulars cannot be directly known by the intellect, but only indirectly, as stated above (86, 1). The other way of understanding is by the infusion of species by God, and in that way it is possible for the intellect to know singulars. For as God knows all things, universal and singular, by His Essence, as the cause of universal and individual principles (14, 2), so likewise separate substances can know singulars by species which are a kind of participated similitude of the Divine Essence. There is a difference, however, between angels and separated souls in the fact that through these species the angels have a perfect and proper knowledge of things; whereas separated have only a confused knowledge. Hence the angels, by reason of their perfect intellect, through these species, know not only the specific natures of things, but also the singulars contained in those species; whereas separated souls by these species know only those singulars to which they are determined by former knowledge in this life, or by some affection, or by natural aptitude, or by the disposition of the Divine order; because whatever is received into anything is conditioned according to the mode of the recipient.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 89 a. 4 ad 1 </b>Ad primum ergo dicendum quod intellectus per viam abstractionis non est cognoscitivus singularium. Sic autem anima separata non intelligit, sed sicut dictum est. ||Reply to Objection 1. The intellect does not know the singular by way of abstraction; neither does the separated soul know it thus; but as explained above.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 89 a. 4 ad 2 </b>Ad secundum dicendum quod ad illarum rerum species vel individua cognitio animae separatae determinatur, ad quae anima separata habet aliquam determinatam habitudinem, sicut dictum est. ||Reply to Objection 2. The knowledge of the separated soul is confined to those species or individuals to which the soul has some kind of determinate relation, as we have said.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 89 a. 4 ad 3 </b>Ad tertium dicendum quod anima separata non se habet aequaliter ad omnia singularia, sed ad quaedam habet aliquam habitudinem quam non habet ad alia. Et ideo non est aequalis ratio ut omnia singularia cognoscat. ||Reply to Objection 3. The separated soul has not the same relation to all singulars, but one relation to some, and another to others. Therefore there is not the same reason why it should know all singulars.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 89 a. 5 arg. 1 </b>Ad quintum sic proceditur. Videtur quod habitus scientiae hic acquisitae non remaneat in anima separata. Dicit enim apostolus, I ad Cor. XIII, scientia destruetur. ||Objection 1. It would seem that the habit of knowledge acquired in this life does not remain in the soul separated from the body: for the Apostle says: "Knowledge shall be destroyed" (1 Corinthians 13:8).
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 89 a. 5 arg. 2 </b>Praeterea, quidam minus boni in hoc mundo scientia pollent, aliis magis bonis carentibus scientia. Si ergo habitus scientiae permaneret etiam post mortem in anima, sequeretur quod aliqui minus boni etiam in futuro statu essent potiores aliquibus magis bonis. Quod videtur inconveniens. ||Objection 2. Further, some in this world who are less good enjoy knowledge denied to others who are better. If, therefore, the habit of knowledge remained in the soul after death, it would follow that some who are less good would, even in the future life, excel some who are better; which seems unreasonable.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 89 a. 5 arg. 3 </b>Praeterea, animae separatae habebunt scientiam per influentiam divini luminis. Si igitur scientia hic acquisita in anima separata remaneat, sequetur quod duae erunt formae unius speciei in eodem subiecto. Quod est impossibile. ||Objection 3. Further, separated souls will possess knowledge by influence of the Divine light. Supposing, therefore, that knowledge here acquired remained in the separated soul, it would follow that two forms of the same species would co-exist in the same subject which cannot be.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 89 a. 5 arg. 4 </b>Praeterea, philosophus dicit, in libro Praedicament., quod habitus est qualitas difficile mobilis; sed ab aegritudine, vel ab aliquo huiusmodi, quandoque corrumpitur scientia. Sed nulla est ita fortis immutatio in hac vita, sicut immutatio quae est per mortem. Ergo videtur quod habitus scientiae per mortem corrumpatur. ||Objection 4. Further, the Philosopher says (Praedic. vi, 4,5), that "a habit is a quality hard to remove: yet sometimes knowledge is destroyed by sickness or the like." But in this life there is no change so thorough as death. Therefore it seems that the habit of knowledge is destroyed by death.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 89 a. 5 s. c. </b>Sed contra est quod Hieronymus dicit, in epistola ad Paulinum, discamus in terris, quorum scientia nobis perseveret in caelo. ||On the contrary, Jerome says (Ep. liii, ad Paulinum), "Let us learn on earth that kind of knowledge which will remain with us in heaven."
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 89 a. 5 co. </b>Respondeo dicendum quod quidam posuerunt habitum scientiae non esse in ipso intellectu, sed in viribus sensitivis, scilicet imaginativa, cogitativa et memorativa; et quod species intelligibiles non conservantur in intellectu possibili. Et si haec opinio vera esset, sequeretur quod, destructo corpore, totaliter habitus scientiae hic acquisitae destrueretur. Sed quia scientia est in intellectu, qui est locus specierum, ut dicitur in III de anima; oportet quod habitus scientiae hic acquisitae partim sit in praedictis viribus sensitivis, et partim in ipso intellectu. Et hoc potest considerari ex ipsis actibus ex quibus habitus scientiae acquiritur, nam habitus sunt similes actibus ex quibus acquiruntur, ut dicitur in II Ethic. Actus autem intellectus ex quibus in praesenti vita scientia acquiritur, sunt per conversionem intellectus ad phantasmata, quae sunt in praedictis viribus sensitivis. Unde per tales actus et ipsi intellectui possibili acquiritur facultas quaedam ad considerandum per species susceptas; et in praedictis inferioribus viribus acquiritur quaedam habilitas ut facilius per conversionem ad ipsas intellectus possit intelligibilia speculari. Sed sicut actus intellectus principaliter quidem et formaliter est in ipso intellectu, materialiter autem et dispositive in inferioribus viribus, idem etiam dicendum est de habitu. Quantum ergo ad id quod aliquis praesentis scientiae habet in inferioribus viribus, non remanebit in anima separata, sed quantum ad id quod habet in ipso intellectu, necesse est ut remaneat. Quia, ut dicitur in libro de longitudine et brevitate vitae, dupliciter corrumpitur aliqua forma, uno modo, per se, quando corrumpitur a suo contrario, ut calidum a frigido; alio modo, per accidens, scilicet per corruptionem subiecti. Manifestum est autem quod per corruptionem subiecti, scientia quae est in intellectu humano, corrumpi non potest, cum intellectus sit incorruptibilis, ut supra ostensum est. Similiter etiam nec per contrarium corrumpi possunt species intelligibiles quae sunt in intellectu possibili, quia intentioni intelligibili nihil est contrarium; et praecipue quantum ad simplicem intelligentiam, qua intelligitur quod quid est. Sed quantum ad operationem qua intellectus componit et dividit, vel etiam ratiocinatur, sic invenitur contrarietas in intellectu, secundum quod falsum in propositione vel in argumentatione est contrarium vero. Et hoc modo interdum scientia corrumpitur per contrarium, dum scilicet aliquis per falsam argumentationem abducitur a scientia veritatis. Et ideo philosophus, in libro praedicto, ponit duos modos quibus scientia per se corrumpitur, scilicet oblivionem, ex parte memorativae, et deceptionem, ex parte argumentationis falsae. Sed hoc non habet locum in anima separata. Unde dicendum est quod habitus scientiae, secundum quod est in intellectu manet in anima separata. ||I answer that, Some say that the habit of knowledge resides not in the intellect itself, but in the sensitive powers, namely, the imaginative, cogitative, and memorative, and that the intelligible species are not kept in the passive intellect. If this were true, it would follow that when the body is destroyed by death, knowledge here acquired would also be entirely destroyed. But, since knowledge resides in the intellect, which is "the abode of species," as the Philosopher says (De Anima iii, 4), the habit of knowledge here acquired must be partly in the aforesaid sensitive powers and partly in the intellect. This can be seen by considering the very actions from which knowledge arises. For "habits are like the actions whereby they are acquired" (Ethic. ii, 1). Now the actions of the intellect, by which knowledge is here acquired, are performed by the mind turning to the phantasms in the aforesaid sensitive powers. Hence through such acts the passive intellect acquires a certain facility in considering the species received: and the aforesaid sensitive powers acquire a certain aptitude in seconding the action of the intellect when it turns to them to consider the intelligible object. But as the intellectual act resides chiefly and formally in the intellect itself, whilst it resides materially and dispositively in the inferior powers, the same distinction is to be applied to habit. Knowledge, therefore, acquired in the present life does not remain in the separated soul, as regards what belongs to the sensitive powers; but as regards what belongs to the intellect itself, it must remain; because, as the Philosopher says (De Long. et Brev. Vitae ii), a form may be corrupted in two ways; first, directly, when corrupted by its contrary, as heat, by cold; and secondly, indirectly, when its subject is corrupted. Now it is evident that human knowledge is not corrupted through corruption of the subject, for the intellect is an incorruptible faculty, as above stated (79, 2, ad 2). Neither can the intelligible species in the passive intellect be corrupted by their contrary; for there is no contrary to intelligible "intentions," above all as regards simple intelligence of "what a thing is." But contrariety may exist in the intellect as regards mental composition and division, or also reasoning; so far as what is false in statement or argument is contrary to truth. And thus knowledge may be corrupted by its contrary when a false argument seduces anyone from the knowledge of truth. For this reason the Philosopher in the above work mentions two ways in which knowledge is corrupted directly: namely, "forgetfulness" on the part of the memorative power, and "deception" on the part of a false argument. But these have no place in the separated soul. Therefore we must conclude that the habit of knowledge, so far as it is in the intellect, remains in the separated soul.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 89 a. 5 ad 1 </b>Ad primum ergo dicendum quod apostolus non loquitur ibi de scientia quantum ad habitum, sed quantum ad cognitionis actum. Unde ad huius probationem inducit, nunc cognosco ex parte. ||Reply to Objection 1. The Apostle is not speaking of knowledge as a habit, but as to the act of knowing; and hence he says, in proof of the assertion quoted, "Now, I know in part."
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 89 a. 5 ad 2 </b>Ad secundum dicendum quod, sicut secundum staturam corporis aliquis minus bonus erit maior aliquo magis bono; ita nihil prohibet aliquem minus bonum habere aliquem scientiae habitum in futuro, quem non habet aliquis magis bonus. Sed tamen hoc quasi nullius momenti est in comparatione ad alias praerogativas quas meliores habebunt. ||Reply to Objection 2. As a less good man may exceed a better man in bodily stature, so the same kind of man may have a habit of knowledge in the future life which a better man may not have. Such knowledge, however, cannot be compared with the other prerogatives enjoyed by the better man.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 89 a. 5 ad 3 </b>Ad tertium dicendum quod utraque scientia non est unius rationis. Unde nullum inconveniens sequitur. ||Reply to Objection 3. These two kinds of knowledge are not of the same species, so there is no impossibility.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 89 a. 5 ad 4 </b>Ad quartum dicendum quod ratio illa procedit de corruptione scientiae quantum ad id quod habet ex parte sensitivarum virium. ||Reply to Objection 4. This objection considers the corruption of knowledge on the part of the sensitive powers.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 89 a. 6 arg. 1 </b>Ad sextum sic proceditur. Videtur quod actus scientiae hic acquisitae non maneat in anima separata. Dicit enim philosophus, in I de anima, quod corrupto corpore, anima neque reminiscitur neque amat. Sed considerare ea quae prius aliquis novit, est reminisci. Ergo anima separata non potest habere actum scientiae quam hic acquisivit. ||Objection 1. It would seem that the act of knowledge here acquired does not remain in the separated soul. For the Philosopher says (De Anima i, 4), that when the body is corrupted, "the soul neither remembers nor loves." But to consider what is previously known is an act of memory. Therefore the separated soul cannot retain an act of knowledge here acquired.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 89 a. 6 arg. 2 </b>Praeterea, species intelligibiles non erunt potentiores in anima separata quam sint in anima corpori unita. Sed per species intelligibiles non possumus modo intelligere, nisi convertendo nos super phantasmata, sicut supra habitum est. Ergo nec anima separata hoc poterit. Et ita nullo modo per species intelligibiles hic acquisitas anima separata intelligere poterit. ||Objection 2. Further, intelligible species cannot have greater power in the separated soul than they have in the soul united to the body. But in this life we cannot understand by intelligible species without turning to phantasms, as shown above (84, 7). Therefore the separated soul cannot do so, and thus it cannot understand at all by intelligible species acquired in this life.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 89 a. 6 arg. 3 </b>Praeterea, philosophus dicit, in II Ethic., quod habitus similes actus reddunt actibus per quos acquiruntur. Sed habitus scientiae hic acquiritur per actus intellectus convertentis se supra phantasmata. Ergo non potest alios actus reddere. Sed tales actus non competunt animae separatae. Ergo anima separata non habebit aliquem actum scientiae hic acquisitae. ||Objection 3. Further, the Philosopher says (Ethic. ii, 1), that "habits produce acts similar to those whereby they are acquired." But the habit of knowledge is acquired here by acts of the intellect turning to phantasms: therefore it cannot produce any other acts. These acts, however, are not adapted to the separated soul. Therefore the soul in the state of separation cannot produce any act of knowledge acquired in this life.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 89 a. 6 s. c. </b>Sed contra est quod Luc. XVI, dicitur ad divitem in Inferno positum, recordare quia recepisti bona in vita tua. ||On the contrary, It was said to Dives in hell (Luke 16:25): "Remember thou didst receive good things in thy lifetime."
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 89 a. 6 co. </b>Respondeo dicendum quod in actu est duo considerare, scilicet speciem actus, et modum ipsius. Et species quidem actus consideratur ex obiecto in quod actus cognoscitivae virtutis dirigitur per speciem, quae est obiecti similitudo, sed modus actus pensatur ex virtute agentis. Sicut quod aliquis videat lapidem, contingit ex specie lapidis quae est in oculo, sed quod acute videat, contingit ex virtute visiva oculi. Cum igitur species intelligibiles maneant in anima separata, sicut dictum est; status autem animae separatae non sit idem sicut modo est, sequitur quod secundum species intelligibiles hic acquisitas, anima separata intelligere possit quae prius intellexit; non tamen eodem modo, scilicet per conversionem ad phantasmata, sed per modum convenientem animae separatae. Et ita manet quidem in anima separata actus scientiae hic acquisitae, sed non secundum eundem modum. ||I answer that, Action offers two things for our consideration--its species and its mode. Its species comes from the object, whereto the faculty of knowledge is directed by the (intelligible) species, which is the object's similitude; whereas the mode is gathered from the power of the agent. Thus that a person see a stone is due to the species of the stone in his eye; but that he see it clearly, is due to the eye's visual power. Therefore as the intelligible species remain in the separated soul, as stated above (5), and since the state of the separated soul is not the same as it is in this life, it follows that through the intelligible species acquired in this life the soul apart from the body can understand what it understood formerly, but in a different way; not by turning to phantasms, but by a mode suited to a soul existing apart from the body. Thus the act of knowledge here acquired remains in the separated soul, but in a different way.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 89 a. 6 ad 1 </b>Ad primum ergo dicendum quod philosophus loquitur de reminiscentia, secundum quod memoria pertinet ad partem sensitivam, non autem secundum quod memoria est quodammodo in intellectu, ut dictum est. ||Reply to Objection 1. The Philosopher speaks of remembrance, according as memory belongs to the sensitive part, but not as belonging in a way to the intellect, as explained above (79, 6).
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 89 a. 6 ad 2 </b>Ad secundum dicendum quod diversus modus intelligendi non provenit ex diversa virtute specierum, sed ex diverso statu animae intelligentis. ||Reply to Objection 2. The different mode of intelligence is produced by the different state of the intelligent soul; not by diversity of species.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 89 a. 6 ad 3 </b>Ad tertium dicendum quod actus per quos acquiritur habitus, sunt similes actibus quos habitus causant, quantum ad speciem actus, non autem quantum ad modum agendi. Nam operari iusta, sed non iuste, idest delectabiliter, causat habitum iustitiae politicae, per quem delectabiliter operamur. ||Reply to Objection 3. The acts which produce a habit are like the acts caused by that habit, in species, but not in mode. For example, to do just things, but not justly, that is, pleasurably, causes the habit of political justice, whereby we act pleasurably. (Cf. Aristotle, Ethic. v, 8: Magn. Moral. i, 34).
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 89 a. 7 arg. 1 </b>Ad septimum sic proceditur. Videtur quod distantia localis impediat cognitionem animae separatae. Dicit enim Augustinus, in libro de cura pro mortuis agenda, quod animae mortuorum ibi sunt, ubi ea quae hic fiunt scire non possunt. Sciunt autem ea quae apud eos aguntur. Ergo distantia localis impedit cognitionem animae separatae. ||Objection 1. It would seem that local distance impedes the separated soul's knowledge. For Augustine says (De Cura pro Mort. xiii), that "the souls of the dead are where they cannot know what is done here." But they know what is done among themselves. Therefore local distance impedes the knowledge in the separated soul.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 89 a. 7 arg. 2 </b>Praeterea, Augustinus dicit, in libro de divinatione Daemonum, quod Daemones, propter celeritatem motus, aliqua nobis ignota denuntiant. Sed agilitas motus ad hoc nihil faceret, si distantia localis cognitionem Daemonis non impediret. Multo igitur magis distantia localis impedit cognitionem animae separatae, quae est inferior secundum naturam quam Daemon. ||Objection 2. Further, Augustine says (De Divin. Daemon. iii), that "the demon's rapidity of movement enables them to tell things unknown to us." But agility of movement would be useless in that respect unless their knowledge was impeded by local distance; which, therefore, is a much greater hindrance to the knowledge of the separated soul, whose nature is inferior to the demon's.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 89 a. 7 arg. 3 </b>Praeterea, sicut distat aliquis secundum locum, ita secundum tempus sed distantia temporis impedit cognitionem animae separatae, non enim cognoscunt futura. Ergo videtur quod etiam distantia secundum locum animae separatae cognitionem impediat. ||Objection 3. Further, as there is distance of place, so is there distance of time. But distance of time impedes knowledge in the separated soul, for the soul is ignorant of the future. Therefore it seems that distance of place also impedes its knowledge.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 89 a. 7 s. c. </b>Sed contra est quod dicitur Luc. XVI, quod dives cum esset in tormentis, elevans oculos suos, vidit Abraham a longe. Ergo distantia localis non impedit animae separatae cognitionem. ||On the contrary, It is written (Luke 16:23), that Dives, "lifting up his eyes when he was in torment, saw Abraham afar off." Therefore local distance does not impede knowledge in the separated soul.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 89 a. 7 co. </b>Respondeo dicendum quod quidam posuerunt quod anima separata cognosceret singularia abstrahendo a sensibilibus. Quod si esset verum, posset dici quod distantia localis impediret animae separatae cognitionem, requireretur enim quod vel sensibilia agerent in animam separatam, vel anima separata in sensibilia; et quantum ad utrumque, requireretur distantia determinata. Sed praedicta positio est impossibilis, quia abstractio specierum a sensibilibus fit mediantibus sensibus et aliis potentiis sensitivis, quae in anima separata actu non manent. Intelligit autem anima separata singularia per influxum specierum ex divino lumine, quod quidem lumen aequaliter se habet ad propinquum et distans. Unde distantia localis nullo modo impedit animae separatae cognitionem. ||I answer that, Some have held that the separated soul knows the singular by abstraction from the sensible. If that were so, it might be that local distance would impede its knowledge; for either the sensible would need to act upon the soul, or the soul upon the sensible, and in either case a determinate distance would be necessary. This is, however, impossible because abstraction of the species from the sensible is done through the senses and other sensible faculties which do not remain actually in the soul apart from the body. But the soul when separated understands singulars by species derived from the Divine light, which is indifferent to what is near or distant. Hence knowledge in the separated soul is not hindered by local distance.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 89 a. 7 ad 1 </b>Ad primum ergo dicendum quod Augustinus non dicit quod propter hoc quod ibi sunt animae mortuorum, ea quae hic sunt videre non possunt, ut localis distantia huius ignorantiae causa esse credatur, sed hoc potest propter aliquid aliud contingere, ut infra dicetur. ||Reply to Objection 1. Augustine says that the souls of the departed cannot see what is done here, not because they are 'there,' as if impeded by local distance; but for some other cause, as we shall explain (8).
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 89 a. 7 ad 2 </b>Ad secundum dicendum quod Augustinus ibi loquitur secundum opinionem illam qua aliqui posuerunt quod Daemones habent corpora naturaliter sibi unita, secundum quam positionem, etiam potentias sensitivas habere possunt, ad quarum cognitionem requiritur determinata distantia. Et hanc opinionem etiam in eodem libro Augustinus expresse tangit, licet eam magis recitando quam asserendo tangere videatur, ut patet per ea quae dicit XXI libro de Civ. Dei. ||Reply to Objection 2. Augustine speaks there in accordance with the opinion that demons have bodies naturally united to them, and so have sensitive powers, which require local distance. In the same book he expressly sets down this opinion, though apparently rather by way of narration than of assertion, as we may gather from De Civ. Dei xxi, 10.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 89 a. 7 ad 3 </b>Ad tertium dicendum quod futura, quae distant secundum tempus, non sunt entia in actu. Unde in seipsis non sunt cognoscibilia, quia sicut deficit aliquid ab entitate, ita deficit a cognoscibilitate. Sed ea quae sunt distantia secundum locum, sunt entia in actu, et secundum se cognoscibilia. Unde non est eadem ratio de distantia locali, et de distantia temporis. ||Reply to Objection 3. The future, which is distant in time, does not actually exist, and therefore is not knowable in itself, because so far as a thing falls short of being, so far does it fall short of being knowable. But what is locally distant exists actually, and is knowable in itself. Hence we cannot argue from distance of time to distance of place.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 89 a. 8 arg. 1 </b>Ad octavum sic proceditur. Videtur quod animae separatae cognoscant ea quae hic aguntur. Nisi enim ea cognoscerent, de eis curam non haberent. Sed habent curam de his quae hic aguntur; secundum illud Luc. XVI, habeo quinque fratres, ut testificetur illis, ne et ipsi veniant in hunc locum tormentorum. Ergo animae separatae cognoscunt ea quae hic aguntur. ||Objection 1. It would seem that separated souls know what takes place on earth; for otherwise they would have no care for it, as they have, according to what Dives said (Luke 16:27-28), "I have five brethren . . . he may testify unto them, lest they also come into the place of torments." Therefore separated souls know what passes on earth.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 89 a. 8 arg. 2 </b>Praeterea, frequenter mortui vivis apparent, vel dormientibus vel vigilantibus, et eos admonent de iis quae hic aguntur; sicut Samuel apparuit Sauli, ut habetur I Reg. XXVIII. Sed hoc non esset si ea quae hic sunt non cognoscerent. Ergo ea quae hic aguntur cognoscunt. ||Objection 2. Further, the dead often appear to the living, asleep or awake, and tell them of what takes place there; as Samuel appeared to Saul (1 Samuel 28:11). But this could not be unless they knew what takes place here. Therefore they know what takes place on earth.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 89 a. 8 arg. 3 </b>Praeterea, animae separatae cognoscunt ea quae apud eas aguntur. Si ergo quae apud nos aguntur non cognoscerent, impediretur earum cognitio per localem distantiam. Quod supra negatum est. ||Objection 3. Further, separated souls know what happens among themselves. If, therefore, they do not know what takes place among us, it must be by reason of local distance; which has been shown to be false (7).
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 89 a. 8 s. c. </b>Sed contra est quod dicitur Iob XIV, sive fuerint filii eius nobiles, sive ignobiles, non intelliget. ||On the contrary, It is written (Job 14:21): "He will not understand whether his children come to honor or dishonor."
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 89 a. 8 co. </b>Respondeo dicendum quod, secundum naturalem cognitionem, de qua nunc hic agitur, animae mortuorum nesciunt quae hic aguntur. Et huius ratio ex dictis accipi potest. Quia anima separata cognoscit singularia per hoc quod quodammodo determinata est ad illa, vel per vestigium alicuius praecedentis cognitionis seu affectionis, vel per ordinationem divinam. Animae autem mortuorum, secundum ordinationem divinam, et secundum modum essendi, segregatae sunt a conversatione viventium, et coniunctae conversationi spiritualium substantiarum quae sunt a corpore separatae. Unde ea quae apud nos aguntur ignorant. Et hanc rationem assignat Gregorius in XII Moralium, dicens, mortui vita in carne viventium post eos, qualiter disponatur, nesciunt, quia vita spiritus longe est a vita carnis; et sicut corporea atque incorporea diversa sunt genere, ita sunt distincta cognitione. Et hoc etiam Augustinus videtur tangere in libro de cura pro mortuis agenda, dicens quod animae mortuorum rebus viventium non intersunt. Sed quantum ad animas beatorum, videtur esse differentia inter Gregorium et Augustinum. Nam Gregorius ibidem subdit, quod tamen de animabus sanctis sentiendum non est, quia quae intus omnipotentis Dei claritatem vident, nullo modo credendum est quod sit foris aliquid quod ignorent. Augustinus vero, in libro de cura pro mortuis agenda, expresse dicit quod nesciunt mortui, etiam sancti, quid agant vivi et eorum filii, ut habetur in Glossa, super illud, Abraham nescivit nos, Isaiae LXIII. Quod quidem confirmat per hoc quod a matre sua non visitabatur, nec in tristitiis consolabatur, sicut quando vivebat; nec est probabile ut sit facta vita feliciore crudelior. Et per hoc quod dominus promisit Iosiae regi quod prius moreretur ne videret mala quae erant populo superventura, ut habetur IV Reg. XXII. Sed Augustinus hoc dubitando dicit, unde praemittit, ut volet, accipiat quisque quod dicam. Gregorius autem assertive, quod patet per hoc quod dicit, nullo modo credendum est. Magis tamen videtur, secundum sententiam Gregorii, quod animae sanctorum Deum videntes, omnia praesentia quae hic aguntur cognoscant. Sunt enim Angelis aequales, de quibus etiam Augustinus asserit quod ea quae apud vivos aguntur non ignorant. Sed quia sanctorum animae sunt perfectissime iustitiae divinae coniunctae, nec tristantur, nec rebus viventium se ingerunt, nisi secundum quod iustitiae divinae dispositio exigit. ||I answer that, By natural knowledge, of which we are treating now, the souls of the dead do not know what passes on earth. This follows from what has been laid down (4), since the separated soul has knowledge of singulars, by being in a way determined to them, either by some vestige of previous knowledge or affection, or by the Divine order. Now the souls departed are in a state of separation from the living, both by Divine order and by their mode of existence, whilst they are joined to the world of incorporeal spiritual substances; and hence they are ignorant of what goes on among us. Whereof Gregory gives the reason thus: "The dead do not know how the living act, for the life of the spirit is far from the life of the flesh; and so, as corporeal things differ from incorporeal in genus, so they are distinct in knowledge" (Moral. xii). Augustine seems to say the same (De Cura pro Mort. xiii), when he asserts that, "the souls of the dead have no concern in the affairs of the living." Gregory and Augustine, however, seem to be divided in opinion as regards the souls of the blessed in heaven, for Gregory continues the passage above quoted: "The case of the holy souls is different, for since they see the light of Almighty God, we cannot believe that external things are unknown to them." But Augustine (De Cura pro Mort. xiii) expressly says: "The dead, even the saints do not know what is done by the living or by their own children," as a gloss quotes on the text, "Abraham hath not known us" (Isaiah 63:16). He confirms this opinion by saying that he was not visited, nor consoled in sorrow by his mother, as when she was alive; and he could not think it possible that she was less kind when in a happier state; and again by the fact that the Lord promised to king Josias that he should die, lest he should see his people's afflictions (2 Kings 22:20). Yet Augustine says this in doubt; and premises, "Let every one take, as he pleases, what I say." Gregory, on the other hand, is positive, since he says, "We cannot believe." His opinion, indeed, seems to be the more probable one--that the souls of the blessed who see God do know all that passes here. For they are equal to the angels, of whom Augustine says that they know what happens among those living on earth. But as the souls of the blessed are most perfectly united to Divine justice, they do not suffer from sorrow, nor do they interfere in mundane affairs, except in accordance with Divine justice.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 89 a. 8 ad 1 </b>Ad primum ergo dicendum quod animae mortuorum possunt habere curam de rebus viventium, etiam si ignorent eorum statum; sicut nos curam habemus de mortuis, eis suffragia impendendo, quamvis eorum statum ignoremus. Possunt etiam facta viventium non per seipsos cognoscere, sed vel per animas eorum qui hinc ad eos accedunt; vel per Angelos seu Daemones; vel etiam spiritu Dei revelante, sicut Augustinus in eodem libro dicit. ||Reply to Objection 1. The souls of the departed may care for the living, even if ignorant of their state; just as we care for the dead by pouring forth prayer on their behalf, though we are ignorant of their state. Moreover, the affairs of the living can be made known to them not immediately, but the souls who pass hence thither, or by angels and demons, or even by "the revelation of the Holy Ghost," as Augustine says in the same book.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 89 a. 8 ad 2 </b>Ad secundum dicendum quod hoc quod mortui viventibus apparent qualitercumque, vel contingit per specialem Dei dispensationem, ut animae mortuorum rebus viventium intersint, et est inter divina miracula computandum. Vel huiusmodi apparitiones fiunt per operationes Angelorum bonorum vel malorum, etiam ignorantibus mortuis, sicut etiam vivi ignorantes aliis viventibus apparent in somnis, ut Augustinus dicit in libro praedicto. Unde et de Samuele dici potest quod ipse apparuit per revelationem divinam; secundum hoc quod dicitur Eccli. XLVI, quod dormivit, et notum fecit regi finem vitae suae. Vel illa apparitio fuit procurata per Daemones, si tamen Ecclesiastici auctoritas non recipiatur, propter hoc quod inter canonicas Scripturas apud Hebraeos non habetur. ||Reply to Objection 2. That the dead appear to the living in any way whatever is either by the special dispensation of God; in order that the souls of the dead may interfere in affairs of the living--and this is to be accounted as miraculous. Or else such apparitions occur through the instrumentality of bad or good angels, without the knowledge of the departed; as may likewise happen when the living appear, without their own knowledge, to others living, as Augustine says in the same book. And so it may be said of Samuel that he appeared through Divine revelation; according to Ecclus. 46:23, "he slept, and told the king the end of his life." Or, again, this apparition was procured by the demons; unless, indeed, the authority of Ecclesiasticus be set aside through not being received by the Jews as canonical Scripture.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 89 a. 8 ad 3 </b>Ad tertium dicendum quod ignorantia huiusmodi non contingit ex locali distantia, sed propter causam praedictam. ||Reply to Objection 3. This kind of ignorance does not proceed from the obstacle of local distance, but from the cause mentioned above.
| |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | |} [[Category:Logic Museum Parallel Texts]]
| |
