75. Mystical Knowledge, Charity, and the Multiplicity of Souls

Subscribe in Podcast App | Download Transcript

Lecture Notes

Part I: Mystical Knowledge and Charity #

Two Ways of Judging About Divine Things #

First Way: Through Wisdom (Gift of the Holy Spirit)

• Pertains to those who possess and experience divine things through union with God
• Exemplified in 1 Corinthians 2:15: “the spiritual man judges all”
• Dionysius describes Herotheus as being taught not merely by learning (διὰ μαθήσεως) but by undergoing divine things (ὑποπάσχων τὰ θεῖα)
• This is knowledge through suffering, experience, and love

Second Way: Through Doctrine

• Pertains to knowledge acquired through study and intellectual comprehension
• Principles derived from Revelation through reasoned reflection
• Like the moral scientist who can judge about virtue acts without possessing virtue

The Primacy of Love in Mystical Knowledge #

• Goethe: “We are shaped and fashioned by what we love”
• In mystical experience, understanding is perfected through love of God
• By charity, we love God as He is in Himself, not merely as known through faith
• Faith knows God “as He is not” (via negativa), but charity achieves a higher form of knowledge through the inclination of the will toward God
• The impression God makes upon the will enables knowledge higher than theology alone

St. Teresa of Avila: The Mystical Doctor #

• Titled “Mater Spiritualium” (Mother of Spirituals)
• Possessed the art of expounding mystical secrets to a degree placing her among great spiritual teachers
• Her doctrine came from: intelligence, culture, spiritual education, theological conversation, intense sensibility, ascetic discipline, contemplative meditation, and response to grace
• Crucial distinction: Her doctrine also came from facts and states undergone by her—not generated by her intellect but suffered and experienced
• Both she and St. Thérèse of Lisieux received mystical wounding of divine love (the angel’s dart)
• These are acts of the Holy Spirit, not products of human psychology

Women and the Gift of Charity #

• Women possess by nature greater capacity for love and mercy
• This natural inclination provides the foundation for the gift of charity
• St. Francis de Sales recognized women’s special capacity for mystical prayer
• Mary as “Mother of Mercy” exemplifies this (cf. Dante: “Nel cui fine ogne nobil mente è quella Tav pietà, tavola di mercede”)

Augustine and the Intellectual Life #

• Augustine’s motto: “intellectum valde ama” (love understanding very much)
• Contrasts with Teresa’s path of mystical love
• Both point to the ultimate union of intellect and love in the beatific vision

From Vision to Love in Eternity #

• By faith and theology, we know God “as He is not” (via negativa)
• In the beatific vision (Vedic vision), we shall see God as He is in Himself (1 John 3:2)
• When we see God as He is, we will love Him more perfectly than in this life
• In heaven, the relationship reverses: we will love God through knowing Him as He is
• Charity remains eternal; faith will be replaced by vision (1 Corinthians 13)
• In this life, we love God less perfectly because we know Him only through faith, which is dark

Part II: The Multiplicity of Souls vs. Averroism #

The Averroist Objection #

Thesis: There is one understanding soul shared by all humans, not many individual souls.

Primary Argument:

• No immaterial substance is multiplied numerically in one species
• The human soul is immaterial
• Therefore, there cannot be many human souls; there must be one for all

Plato’s Insight and Internal Inconsistency #

What Plato saw correctly:

• In immaterial substances (Forms), there cannot be two of the same kind
• In immaterial substances, the individual and its essence are identical (e.g., Gabriel is what Gabriel is)
• This contrasts with material things, where essence and individuation differ

Plato’s inconsistency:

• He held both that Forms cannot be multiplied (correct for complete immaterial substances)
• And that the human soul is a complete immaterial substance (incorrect)
• These positions are incompatible

Thomas’s Solution: The Soul as Substantial Form #

Key principle: The human soul is not a complete immaterial substance. It is the substantial form of a material body.

How matter grounds distinction without being the cause of individuation:

• Matter with quantity (continuous quantity with “part outside of part”) allows numerical multiplication of the same form
• Example: Euclid’s Proposition 1 shows two circles of identical size and shape, differing only in position
• Example: Grandmother’s cookie dough and cutter—one form stamped many times on continuous matter
• Example: One eye sees a color through different rays; many eyes see the same color through different likenesses

The soul’s proportion to the body:

• My soul is proportioned (fitted) to my body; your soul to your body
• This proportion grounds the distinction between souls
• The distinction is not caused by matter but corresponds to different bodies
• Compare: two bolts of different sizes fit different nuts. When separated, the bolts remain distinct because they are proportioned to different nuts

Unity follows being (unitas sequitur ens):

• The soul has its own being, not merely the body’s being
• Therefore, its unity and multiplicity are preserved even when separated from the body
• The body shares in the soul’s existence but does not fully attain it

Against the Averroist Objection on Universals #

The Problem: If my understanding differs numerically from yours, then understanding would be particular and individual, unable to grasp universals. But understanding by definition grasps universals.

Thomas’s Response:

• The Averroist thesis contradicts itself: if there is one immaterial intellect for all, that intellect is still an individual substance
• An individual substance cannot know universals any better than many individual substrates
• The problem applies equally to the supposed “separated intellect”

The True Solution:

• Universality comes from the immaterial character of the intelligible form (species intelligibilis), not from the multiplicity of knowers
• An individual intellect abstracts the universal intelligible form from particular phantasms (images)
• The form, separated from individuating conditions of matter, represents what is common to many
• Example: Many see the same triangle through different phantasms (imaginings), but they grasp one universal understanding of triangularity
• The diversity of phantasms does not create diversity of understanding

The Heraclitean Parallel #

• Heraclitus argued: if hard becomes soft, then hard and soft are the same thing
• Therefore day and night are the same, wet and dry are the same
• But this undermines change itself: if hard and soft were identical, there would be no change from hard to soft
• In trying to save change, he denies change
• The Averroist makes a parallel error: in trying to save knowledge of universals, he makes individual understanding impossible for any intellect, including the separated one

The Reception of Universal Knowledge #

• The principle: “everything received in something is in it according to the manner of the receiver”
• The Averroist argues: if understanding is received in individual minds, it must be received individually and therefore cannot be universal
• Counter: Individual intellects receive intelligible forms immaterially. The form itself, being immaterial and abstracted from matter’s individuating conditions, is received universally
• Multiple minds can receive the same universal form precisely because the form is immaterial

Important Distinctions #

Immaterial Substance (Complete vs. Incomplete) #

Complete immaterial substance:

• Exists entirely independent of matter (e.g., angels, God)
• Cannot be multiplied numerically within the same species
• For any complete immaterial substance, its essence and individuation are identical

Incomplete immaterial substance:

• The human soul: immaterial and subsistent, but naturally the form of a body
• Can be multiplied because it is proportioned to different material bodies
• Retains its individuation through proportion to its body, even when separated from it

Continuous Quantity (Part Outside of Part) #

• The principle allowing numerical multiplication of identical forms
• Present in matter; absent in immaterial substances
• Enables one nut-and-bolt to differ from another by position while remaining the same form

Intelligible Form (Species Intelligibilis) vs. Phantasm #

• Phantasm: The sensible image or imagination of a particular thing (e.g., “my image of Socrates”)
• Intelligible Form: The immaterial likeness as it exists in intellect, abstracted from individuating matter (e.g., “what it is to be a man”)
• Understanding operates on intelligible forms; imagination operates on phantasms
• The diversity of phantasms in different minds does not prevent the unity of intelligible form grasped

Notable Quotes #

“We are shaped and fashioned by what we love.” — Goethe (cited by Berquist)

“If you love disgusting things, you’re already disgusting. If you love ugly things, you’re ugly yourself. If you love beautiful things, you’re already a bit beautiful.” — Berquist, elaborating on Goethe

“Herotheus, doctus, et non solum discens, sed et patiens divina” — Dionysius, on learning through both reason and undergoing/suffering divine things

“The spiritual man judges all.” — 1 Corinthians 2:15 (cited on mystical wisdom)

“We shall see him as he is.” — 1 John 3:2 (cited on the beatific vision)

“Mater Spiritualium” — Title of St. Teresa of Avila (Mother of Spirituals)

“Intellectum valde ama” — Augustine (cited by Paul VI, meaning “love understanding very much”)