41. History as Incomplete Knowledge and the Undergoing Understanding

Subscribe in Podcast App | Download Transcript

Lecture Notes

Main Topics #

• History as Incomplete Investigation: Why historical knowledge differs from other sciences in being perpetually incomplete and subject to revision
• The Etymology of ‘History’: The word originally means “investigation” and retains this sense in how we understand historical knowledge
• Grasping vs. Judging: Two distinct operations within knowing itself—understanding what something means versus determining its truth or falsity
• The Undergoing Understanding (Intellectus Possibilis): Introduction to the receptive or passive intellect that receives intelligible forms
• The Structure of Knowing: The distinction between apprehension and judgment as presupposed and perfecting operations

Key Arguments #

History as Necessarily Incomplete #

• The Nature Argument: It is impossible to know every detail, thought, feeling, or action of even a single person, let alone entire historical events
• Evidence from Examples:
  • New biographies of famous figures (Lincoln, Churchill, Kennedy, Roosevelt) constantly emerge
  • Chronological questions (Mozart’s compositions, Shakespeare’s plays) remain perpetually contested among scholars
  • Physical evidence (manuscript papers, discovered documents) continually revises previous conclusions
• Contrast with Other Sciences: Unlike geometry, which achieves closure through theorems and demonstrations, history perpetually opens to new investigation and revision
• The Scope Problem: Historical investigation necessarily involves particular facts and contingent details that can never be exhaustively catalogued

Grasping and Judging as Distinct Operations #

• Definition of Grasping (Apprehensio): Understanding what someone means; grasping the content or meaning of a proposition
• Definition of Judging (Iudicium): Determining whether what is grasped is true or false by reference to some beginning of knowledge (ultimately sense experience)
• The Order of Operations: Grasping is prior and necessary; judgment presupposes successful apprehension
• The Modern Problem: Many modern philosophers fail at the first step by writing obscurely, making it impossible for readers to judge their claims because the claims cannot be grasped
• Example: One cannot judge whether “the interior angles of a triangle equal two right angles” without first grasping what a triangle, angle, and right angle are

Judgment According to Different Sciences #

• Natural Science: Judges by returning to sense experience
• Geometry: Judges by returning to imagination (e.g., visualizing whether one or two lines can pass through two points)
• Logic: Judges by returning to reason itself, since universals cannot be sensed or imagined

Important Definitions #

• History (Ἱστορία/historia): Originally means “investigation” (from Thomas Aquinas’s understanding); extended to mean the study of human affairs characterized by perpetual incompleteness
• Grasping (Apprehensio): The operation by which the mind receives and understands the meaning of something
• Judging (Iudicium): The operation by which the mind separates the true from the false, returning to some beginning of knowledge
• Undergoing Understanding (Intellectus Possibilis): The receptive power of the intellect that undergoes the reception of intelligible forms; also called the “possible intellect”

Examples & Illustrations #

Historical Examples of Incompleteness #

• Mozart’s Chronology: Scholars determine composition dates by analyzing the type of paper used, yet continue to discover new evidence that revises earlier conclusions
• Shakespeare’s Plays: Editions include extensive introductions debating when plays were written; scholars perpetually disagree and cannot reach definitive dates
• WWII Historical Interpretation: John Keegan’s analysis shows how historians debate whether the Balkans campaign delayed the invasion of Russia; the weather patterns and logistics remain contested even with extensive documentation
• Lincoln and Churchill: Perpetual new biographies attempt to reveal “the true Lincoln” or a previously unknown side of Churchill, showing that historical revision is endless

The Historian’s Problem #

• Berquist recounts a conversation with historian Mr. Stage: when asked what he teaches, the historian must increasingly narrow the scope from “American history” to a specific century, decade, aspect of a decade—showing the endless particularity of historical investigation

The Obscurity Problem in Modern Philosophy #

• Berquist gives an anecdote about Derrida: when he would deliver public talks, people would praise obscure sentences that had no meaning even to him, highlighting how obscurity masks lack of understanding
• Example from Sherlock Holmes: once a mystery is explained simply, people say “it’s so obvious,” but before explanation, no one could figure it out
• Student paper example: a science major’s paper using the word “desiccation” instead of the simpler English “drying out” obscures rather than clarifies meaning

Notable Quotes #

“History is always more complicated than we think.” — Keegan (cited by Berquist)

“The nature of history to be, what, incomplete.” — Thomas Aquinas on why the word ‘history’ means investigation

“Grasping what it means is presupposed to what? Judging whether it’s true or not.” — Berquist on the order of operations in knowing

“If you don’t know what a triangle is, or what a right angle is, or what an angle is, period, you’re in no position to begin to judge whether that’s true or not.” — Berquist on the necessity of grasping before judging

Questions Addressed #

Why Is Historical Knowledge Necessarily Incomplete? #

• Because individual facts, thoughts, feelings, and actions always escape complete documentation. Unlike mathematical truths that can be definitively proven, historical truths depend on contingent details that cannot be exhaustively known.

What Is the Distinction Between Grasping and Judging? #

• Grasping is understanding what something means (apprehension of content); judging is determining whether it is true or false (separating truth from falsehood). Grasping is prior and presupposed; judging is the perfection of knowing.

Why Do Different Sciences Judge Differently? #

• Because they have different objects and different ways of accessing their beginnings of knowledge. Natural science returns to sensation; geometry to imagination; logic to reason itself (since universals cannot be sensed or imagined).

What Is the Undergoing Understanding? #

• It is the receptive or passive power of the intellect (intellectus possibilis) that receives and undergoes intelligible forms. It is distinguished from both sensation and from active intellection, and will be the subject of chapters 4-6 of the text.

Connections to Thomistic Philosophy #

• Thomas Aquinas’s distinction between apprehensio and iudicium is foundational to understanding how human knowing operates
• Thomas’s commentary on Aristotle’s De Anima structures the investigation of the soul’s powers
• The four inward senses (common sense, estimative power, imagination, memory) are mentioned as part of Thomas’s psychology and will be relevant to understanding how judgment operates
• The text indicates that Chapter 8 will synthesize the understanding of reason with sensation to show how the human soul is “all things” through its dual powers