51. Potency and Actuality: Understanding Through Contraries

Subscribe in Podcast App | Download Transcript

Lecture Notes

Main Topics #

The Mind as Potency for Contraries #

• The human mind understands potency and ability because the mind itself is in potency for contraries or opposites
• Unlike God’s mind (pure act, never in potency), human reason is capable of thinking “she loves me” and “she loves me not”
• The mind’s capacity for doubt and alternation between contrary thoughts is analogous to matter’s capacity to receive different forms
• This internal experience of potency helps reason grasp what potency is in things outside itself

The Distinction Between Ability and Actuality #

• Ability (potency): The capacity to know or do something
• Actuality (act): The realization of that capacity
• Knowing the length and width of a rectangle is NOT the same as knowing the area; one is able to calculate it
• This distinction is critical and frequently overlooked, leading to confusion in understanding learning and knowledge
• Example: Having a baby is different from being able to have a baby—a man cannot say to a priest “we have a baby” when he means “we are able to have a baby”

The Problem of Equivocation in Understanding #

• Many common errors in reasoning stem from confusing what is simply (haplos) true with what is true in a qualified sense
• Descartes confused what is more known by nature with what is more known to us (quoad nos)
• Plato confused matter with lack of form, similar to how we might confuse the mind with its ignorance
• The same term or concept can apply to different things in different ways, causing philosophical errors

Aristotle’s Distinction Between Simple and Qualified Truths #

• Haplos (simply): Without qualifications, true in itself
• Quoad nos: True relative to us or in a qualified sense
• Example: The best government haplos would require unusual circumstances; the best government for most men considers their actual capacities
• The road of geometry is best haplos, but not the best for every science
• In political philosophy: men may be equal haplos or unequal haplos, depending on the aspect considered

Nothing Is So Good That It Doesn’t Prevent Something Else #

• Any good act prevents one from doing other good acts (conflicts of obligation)
• Any good thing can be seen as bad in a diminished sense because it prevents other goods
• We choose bad things because they have some diminished goodness (making money through robbery increases pocket money)
• We avoid good things because they have some qualified badness (studying prevents sleeping or attending a party)
• Even heinous acts like murder have a diminished appearance of good (acquiring power, removing an obstacle)

The Sophistical Argument About Crime #

• Aristotle analyzes a famous rhetorical argument: “The likely man to commit a crime is unlikely to have committed it”
• The reasoning: a criminal wants to avoid detection, but the likely suspect would be caught; therefore the likely suspect probably didn’t do it
• This confuses “unlikely in one limited respect” with “unlikely haplos”
• Detective work rightly focuses on those with motive, means, and opportunity—the likely perpetrators
• The sophistical argument shows how the same term (“likely”) can be used equivocally

Meno’s Paradox and the Confusion of Ability with Knowledge #

• Meno asks: How can you aim at or investigate what you don’t know? How can there be an art directing us to know what we don’t know?
• Socrates replies through the slave boy dialogue, but conflates being able to know with actually knowing
• The slave boy was mistaken about doubling a square initially; later he came to know the correct answer
• Socrates incorrectly suggests the slave boy already knew it; actually, the boy was able to know it
• This same confusion appears when we ask students if they know the area of a rectangle given length and width—they confuse ability with knowledge

Key Arguments #

Argument 1: The Mind Understands Potency Through Its Own Potentiality #

1. The human mind is in potency for contraries and opposites (able to think opposing thoughts)
2. Potency is grasped through experience of what potency is
3. Therefore, the mind understands potency partly through its own nature as potent
4. This explains why reason can know material things (which are in potency) and why understanding potency is not mysterious to us

Argument 2: The Equivocation Fallacy in Reasoning #

1. Many terms have multiple meanings (haplos vs. quoad nos)
2. Sophistical arguments exploit this by using the same term in different senses
3. Valid reasoning requires maintaining consistent meaning throughout an argument
4. Therefore, philosophers must carefully distinguish the senses in which a term applies

Argument 3: All Goods Have Mixed Character #

1. Every good act prevents some other good act
2. Every good thing has some bad aspect (prevents something else good)
3. Therefore, nothing in this world is purely good—all goods are mixed
4. This is why we often choose apparent goods that are actually bad (crime for profit) or avoid actual goods that have qualified badness (studying instead of relaxing)

Argument 4: Ability Is Not the Same as Knowledge #

1. Knowledge requires actualization of the ability to know
2. Merely having the capacity to know something is not knowing it
3. The slave boy was able to understand doubling a square but did not know it initially
4. Therefore, Socrates’ claim that the boy already knew conflates potency with act
5. This error appears in education when we mistake a student’s ability to solve a problem with actual knowledge of the solution

Important Definitions #

Potency (δύναμις / potentia) #

• The capacity or ability to be or do something
• Distinguished from actuality: potency is the unrealized capacity; actuality is the realization
• The human mind is in potency for understanding contraries before it actually understands

Actuality (ἐνέργεια / actus) #

• The realization of a capacity or ability
• Pure act: God’s nature (never in potency, always actually understanding everything)
• For humans: the transition from ability to actual knowledge

Haplos (ἁπλῶς) #

• Simply, without qualification, in itself
• What is true absolutely or by nature
• Distinguished from what is true “quoad nos” (relative to us)

Quoad nos (relative to us) #

• True in relation to us or our circumstances
• What is known to us as opposed to what is known by nature
• Descartes confused these by treating what is known to us as if it were known simply

Equivocation #

• Using the same word in different senses within a single argument
• A logical fallacy that corrupts valid reasoning
• Many philosophical errors arise from undetected equivocation

Examples & Illustrations #

The “She Loves Me” Example #

• A young man with a flower plucking petals: “She loves me, she loves me not”
• His mind is in potency, able to think both thoughts alternately
• The mind is like matter in its capacity for opposites
• Illustrates how the mind’s own potentiality helps it understand potency in other things

Rectangle Area Problem #

• If you know the length and width of a rectangle, do you know the area?
• Students typically answer yes, conflating ability with knowledge
• Actually: knowing length and width means you are able to calculate the area, but you don’t know it until you multiply
• A practical man would reject this confusion and insist on the distinction

The Priest and the Engaged Couple #

• A couple tells a priest “we have a baby” when they mean “we are able to have a baby”
• The priest would be misunderstood if he treated these as the same
• This illustrates how the ability-actuality distinction matters in ordinary speech
• Shows that confusion of these terms leads to real misunderstanding

Crime and Criminal Detection #

• A man with a motive, means, and opportunity commits a crime
• The sophistical argument: “The likely suspect is unlikely to be caught, so the likely suspect probably didn’t do it”
• This confuses “unlikely in one respect” (wanting to avoid detection) with “unlikely haplos” (unlikely to be the perpetrator)
• Detectives rightly focus on likely suspects, not unlikely ones
• Shows how equivocation can lead to absurd conclusions

Insurance Murder Case #

• A man takes out large life insurance on his wife, then she dies suddenly
• Investigators suspect foul play because he had motive and means
• The likely man to commit murder is the likely one to have done it
• Illustrates how practical reasoning correctly uses probability about human motivation

The Hitchcock Film (Alec Guinness) #

• A character systematically murders heirs to inherit money
• Kills a woman suffragette in a balloon (removing an obstacle)
• Kills a man in a boat (obstacle to his love interest)
• Even these murders can be seen as having a diminished appearance of good (acquiring power, removing obstacles)
• Shows how evil acts can seem good in a limited sense

The Slave Boy in Plato’s Meno #

• Initially mistakes about how to double a square
• Later comes to know the correct answer (using the diagonal)
• Socrates claims the boy already knew it; actually the boy was able to know it
• The boy’s error was not ignorance but false opinion, and he was corrected
• Shows the distinction between knowledge and the ability to know through actual learning

Descartes and Clear and Distinct Ideas #

• Descartes claims that what is clear and distinct is more known
• He confuses what is more known by nature (haplos) with what is more known to us (quoad nos)
• Though he later acknowledges the distinction, his method treats what is known to us as foundational
• This creates confusion about the proper order of reasoning

The Best Government #

• The best government haplos (absolute) would require exceptional circumstances Aristotle calls “according to prayer or wish”
• The best government for most men considers their actual capacities
• The best government for a primitive or disordered people might require strong rule
• These three may differ entirely, showing the importance of distinguishing haplos from quoad nos

Mixology and Bartending #

• A bartender making a Manhattan must know the precise ratio (2:1)
• He doesn’t need to love the drink; reason must know the ratio
• The word “mixology” derives from logos (reason), showing that combining things in proper ratio is a work of reason
• Combining things requires knowledge of their proper proportion, which is intellectual not emotional

Questions Addressed #

How does the human mind understand potency? #

The mind understands potency through its own nature as a being in potency for contraries. Because the mind is capable of thinking opposing thoughts (“she loves me / she loves me not”), it has direct experience of what potency is. This self-awareness of its own capacity helps it grasp potency in external things.

What is the difference between ability and knowledge? #

Ability is the unrealized capacity to know something; knowledge is the actualization of that capacity. A student able to calculate an area (given length and width) is not the same as a student who knows the area. Knowledge requires the actual exercise of the faculty; mere ability falls short.

How does equivocation corrupt reasoning? #

When the same term is used in different senses within an argument, the reasoning appears valid but is actually fallacious. The sophistical argument about crime uses “likely” in two different senses: “likely to avoid detection” vs. “likely to be the perpetrator.” Detecting such equivocations requires careful attention to multiple meanings (haplos vs. quoad nos).

Why does every good have some badness? #

Because every good act prevents one from doing other good acts. Studying prevents sleeping and social activities. Mass attendance prevents sleeping. Nothing in this finite world is purely good without qualification. This is why we often choose apparent goods that are actually bad (crime for profit), or avoid actual goods that have qualified badness.

Notable Quotes #

“For what knows must be in potency, and one contrary must be in it.” — Aristotle, referenced by Berquist

“The divine mind is pure act. It’s never in any kind of potency.” — Berquist, summarizing Aristotle

“Everything good can be seen as what? Preventing you from doing something else that’s good.” — Berquist

“A practical man would like these distinctions.” — Berquist, on the importance of the ability-actuality distinction

“What is more known by nature is not the same as what is more known to us.” — Aristotle, cited by Berquist on Descartes’ confusion