43. Universals, Reason, and the Immateriality of Mind

Subscribe in Podcast App | Download Transcript

Lecture Notes

Main Topics #

Universals and the Rejection of Platonic Forms #

• Aristotle rejects Plato’s theory of separate, transcendent Forms
• The proper name is not “Forms” but “universal forms” (κοσμός εἰδῶν)
• Universals exist in the mind (reason) as immaterial intelligible forms, not in a separate reality
• When we understand what a man is, we mentally separate what is common to all men from individual differences
• This mental separation does NOT require that the universal exists separately in reality

The Mind as “Place of Species” (τόπος τῶν εἰδῶν) #

• Boethius correctly identifies the soul (specifically the understanding part) as the place of species
• Things are singular when sensed, but universal when understood
• The mind is where universals exist and have their being
• This is the solution to the problem of universals: universals exist immaterially in the intellect, not transcendently

The Order of Knowing vs. the Order of Being #

• A critical principle: the order in which we know things need NOT match the order in which things are
• Example: We know the student before knowing the student’s parents, yet the parents existed first
• This is not false knowledge—falsity arises only if we claim that because we know A before B, therefore A must have come to be before B
• In causality: we typically know the effect before the cause, yet our knowledge is not false
• The detective knows a murder has occurred (effect) before knowing who committed it (cause)
• This principle prevents confusing the logical/epistemological order with the ontological order

The Immateriality of Reason Demonstrated Through Matter and Quantity #

• Bodies are characterized by continuous quantity: they have part outside of part (extension)
• Because of this continuity, multiple individuals of the same kind can exist (here and there)
• Example: To make many window panes of the same kind, you need enough glass; many chairs require enough wood; many cookies require enough dough
• Whatever is received in continuous matter is received as singular (here or there), not as universal
• Therefore: if reason receives universals (not singulars), reason cannot be continuous matter
• Conclusion: The mind/reason is NOT a body

Reason Understands the Continuous in a Non-Continuous Way #

• When we understand what a line is, reason does not understand it with any particular length
• If understanding assigned a definite length, it would not apply to all lines
• Similarly, understanding what a triangle is does not make it equilateral, isosceles, or scalene—it is universal
• A definition (e.g., “a square is an equilateral right-angled quadrilateral”) is not continuous and not divisible infinitely
• Therefore: reason understands continuous things in a non-continuous way
• This indicates reason itself is non-continuous and immaterial

The Source of Non-Continuous Understanding #

• The non-continuous mode of understanding cannot come from the object (which is continuous)
• It must come from the understanding subject itself
• Therefore: the reason/mind itself must be non-continuous
• If reason were continuous/material, it would understand continuous things in a continuous way (as the eye perceives part of an object with part of itself)

Key Arguments #

Argument from Universal Reception #

1. Reason is able to understand/receive the natures of all material things
2. Whatever is received in continuous matter is received as singular (here or there)
3. Universals are received in reason as universal, not singular
4. Therefore, reason is not continuous matter
5. Therefore, reason is immaterial

Argument from Definition #

1. When reason understands a square, it understands it through definition
2. A definition is not continuous (lacks infinite divisibility and common boundaries)
3. Reason understands continuous mathematical objects in this non-continuous way
4. The mode of understanding reflects the nature of the understanding subject
5. Therefore, reason itself must be non-continuous
6. Therefore, reason is immaterial

Argument from Separation in Knowledge #

1. We can know things in separation that do not exist in separation
2. This separation is in the mode of knowing, not in reality
3. There is no falsity in this unless we claim that what is mentally separated is also separated in reality
4. Therefore, the mind’s ability to understand universals does not require universals to exist separately in reality

Important Definitions #

Universals (τὰ καθόλου) #

• What is common to many individual things
• Exists in the mind as an immaterial intelligible form
• Contrasted with singulars, which exist in continuous matter as “here or there”

Species (εἶδος / species) #

• The immaterial form received by the intellect
• Not Platonic Forms, but intelligible forms existing in the mind
• The mind is called the “place of species” because universals exist there

Continuous Quantity (quantitas continua) #

• Property of bodies: having part outside of part
• Enables extension and divisibility
• Responsible for individuation: multiple individuals of the same kind can exist at different locations

Understanding/Intellect (νοῦς / intellectus) #

• The power to receive and contemplate universal intelligible forms
• Distinguished from sensation by receiving universals rather than singulars
• Must be immaterial because it receives all material natures

The ‘What It Is’ (τὸ τί ἦν εἶναι / quod quid erat esse) #

• The essence or definition of a thing
• The proper object of reason’s understanding
• Distinguished from the individual thing itself (e.g., “circle” vs. individual circles)

Examples & Illustrations #

Matter and Quantity: Manufacturing Multiple Individuals #

• Glass and window panes: To make many identical window panes, you need enough glass to divide into multiple pieces
• Metal and chairs: To make multiple metal chairs of the same design, you need sufficient material (metal) to divide
• Dough and cookies: To make a dozen Christmas cookies of the same shape, you need enough dough to divide
• Wood and chairs: Wooden chairs of the same kind require enough wood as divisible matter
• All these examples show: multiple individuals of the same kind require continuous matter that can be divided into “here” and “there”

Order of Knowledge vs. Order of Being #

• Parent and child: We often know the child before knowing the parents, yet the parents existed first
• Detective reasoning: Sherlock Holmes finds a body (effect) but doesn’t yet know who committed the murder (cause). He must “reason backwards” from effect to cause. This is not false reasoning; the falsity would come only if he claimed the body caused the murder
• Cause and effect generally: We usually know effects before causes (we’re puzzled by the effect and seek its cause), yet our knowledge is not false

Understanding Definitions vs. Understanding Particulars #

• Understanding “line”: When reason understands what a line is, it does not assign a particular length. If it did, the definition wouldn’t apply to all lines (two-foot lines, one-foot lines, etc.)
• Understanding “triangle”: When reason understands what a triangle is, it doesn’t imagine it as equilateral, isosceles, or scalene—it understands the universal nature applicable to all triangles
• Understanding “square”: A square is defined as “equilateral and right-angled quadrilateral.” This definition (three parts: genus and differences) is itself not continuous

Notable Quotes #

“Things are what? As Boethius says, singular when sense, but what? Universal when what? Understood, right?”

“The falsity would come if I said that because I know you before your parents, therefore you must have come before your parents.”

“Whatever is received in the body continuous is received as here or there right and any triangle you put here or there in the continuous will be what singular so it’s received as universal and not as what singular therefore it’s what that’s a sign that the mind or reason is not a what body.”

“If reason itself is continuous then it would understand continuous in a continuous way way like my eye does.”

“[Reason] is not just in place in the original sense right… the universal is not in place in the original sense of the word place there’d be something what some singular body right.”

Questions Addressed #

How can Aristotle preserve the reality of universals without accepting Platonic Forms? #

• Universals exist in the mind as immaterial intelligible forms
• They are real (genuine knowledge of them), but their existence is in the intellect, not in a transcendent realm
• This avoids both nominalism (denying universals) and Platonism (separating universals from reality)

Why must reason be immaterial? #

• If reason had a definite material nature, that nature would obstruct understanding of other material natures (as a green-tinted eye sees everything as green)
• Reason must be able to receive the natures of all material things
• Therefore, reason cannot have any definite material nature itself
• Reason must be immaterial and unmixed

How can we know universals if they don’t exist separately in reality? #

• The mind can know things in separation that do not exist in separation without falsity
• The separation occurs in the mode of knowing, not in reality
• When we understand “man” as universal, we separate what is common to all men from individual differences—this is a true, immaterial understanding

What is the distinction between sensation and understanding regarding singular vs. universal? #

• Sensation receives particulars: this white thing, this hot thing, this individual dog
• Understanding receives universals: whiteness, heat, dogness (what a dog is)
• Both receive without material alteration, but sensation receives in the continuous (as here or there) while understanding receives immaterially

How can reason understand continuous mathematical objects (like triangles and lines) when reason itself is non-continuous? #

• Reason understands them through definition
• Definition captures the universal essence without assigning particular sensible properties
• For example, “triangle” means “three-sided rectilineal figure,” not any particular triangle
• The non-continuous mode of understanding comes from the non-continuous nature of reason itself

Why does the fact that reason understands things in a non-continuous way prove reason is non-continuous? #

• The mode of reception reflects the nature of the receiving subject
• If reason were continuous/material, it would receive continuous things in a continuous way
• But reason receives continuous objects in a universal (non-continuous) way
• Therefore, the reason itself must be non-continuous