133. Fallacies of Speech and the Distinction Between Simply and In Some Respect

Subscribe in Podcast App | Download Transcript

Lecture Notes

Main Topics #

Fallacy of Definition and Accidental Properties #

• When someone says “people sometimes want bad things, therefore the good is not what all desire,” they confuse the definition of good with its accidental properties
• A definition captures what belongs to something as such (secundum se), not what merely happens to accompany it
• Example: A square can be green, but greenness does not belong to the square as such—it is accidental
• People desire things not as bad, but as good in some way: robbery is desired for the money (a good), not for the robbery itself

The Simpliciter/Secundum Quid Distinction #

• Simpliciter (simply): considering something according to what it is in itself
• Secundum quid (in some respect): considering something in relation to another or under some qualification
• A white man’s eyes are black or brown, yet we call him a white man simply by reason of his skin (the principal part), not his eyes
• Not knowing something in one sense does not mean not knowing it in another sense
• Example: A girl does not know Berquist’s brother Mark as a particular person, but in knowing what a man and brother are, she knows him in a qualified sense

Application to Knowledge and Understanding #

• Do you know who is knocking at the door? No. It’s your mother. Yet you know your mother—the knocking mother is not known to you, but your mother is
• Do researchers know what they’re looking for? In a certain way yes (they know generally what cancer causes are), but if they knew simply/completely, no research would be needed
• This distinction appears in Plato’s Meno regarding the paradox of inquiry

Application to Good and Evil Actions #

• People commit bad acts (robbery, murder) because in some limited way they are good: robbery removes annoyance, so annoyance-removal is good
• People fail to do good things because in some way those acts would prevent other goods: every good act prevents something else from being done
• This is a very common mistake people make all day long

The Understanding vs. Will: Simply vs. In Some Respect #

• Simply (simpliciter): The understanding is higher than the will because its object (the true, being) is more simple and more abstract than the will’s object (the good)
• Simplicity and abstraction indicate nobility and perfection
• The object of understanding is the definition of the desirable good itself, whereas the object of will is the good whose definition is in the understanding
• In some respect (secundum quid): The will can be higher when considering the will’s universal object (good in general) versus the understanding as a particular power

Why Simplicity Indicates Nobility #

• What is more simple and more abstract is in itself more noble and higher
• God is the simplest thing there is, yet also the highest
• The higher contains what the lower does, but in a simpler way
• The understanding knows the universal and the “what it is” (quiddity) of a line—this is more simple and abstract than sensing or imagining a particular line
• In mathematics, we cannot ask “how long is what a line is?” because the definition transcends particular instances

Fine Arts Example: Tragedy vs. Epic #

• Both tragedy and epic represent humans greater than us and arouse pity and fear
• Tragedy accomplishes the same end as epic in a simpler and more condensed way
• One can read Sophocles’ tragedy in an hour, whereas the Iliad takes much longer
• In fewer means and in a simpler form, tragedy says more and accomplishes more—this shows perfection through simplicity

Formal Abstraction #

• The understanding grasps the formal aspect (the what-it-is, the form itself)
• What is abstracted is more like the form; the what-it-is and form are nearly the same
• Aristotle’s definition proceeds through the what-it-was-to-be (τὸ τί ἦν εἶναι, to ti ēn einai)
• Because of this formal abstraction, the understanding’s object is higher than the will’s object

Key Arguments #

Argument for Understanding’s Superiority (Simply) #

1. A power’s nobility is determined by its order to its object
2. The object of understanding (being, truth, definitions) is more simple and abstract than the object of will (good)
3. Simplicity and abstraction are marks of nobility and perfection
4. Therefore, by itself and simply, the understanding is higher and more noble than the will

Argument for Will’s Possible Superiority (In Some Respect) #

1. The will’s object is good in general, which is more universal
2. The understanding, as a particular power with a particular good (knowing), falls under the universal notion of good
3. In comparison to the will’s universal object, the understanding is a particular thing
4. Therefore, secundum quid, the will can be higher than the understanding

Argument from Examples #

• When comparing knowledge: Is it better to know well a lesser thing or know less a better thing?
• Aristotle’s answer: Even an imperfect knowledge of a better thing is better than perfect knowledge of a lesser thing
• Analogy: A glimpse of those we love is more valuable than a leisurely view of those we don’t care about
• Short conversation with a friend means more than a long conversation with someone we’re indifferent to

Important Definitions #

Secundum se / Simpliciter #

According to what something is in itself; the way a definition captures essential properties as opposed to accidents

Secundum quid #

In some respect; in relation to another thing; under qualification

Quiddity / Τὸ τί ἦν εἶναι (to ti ēn einai) #

The “what it is” of a thing; its essence or formal nature; the object of the understanding’s definition

Formal Abstraction #

The abstraction of form from matter; the understanding’s grasp of the formal aspect (the what-it-is) rather than the concrete particular instance

Examples & Illustrations #

The Colored Square #

• A square can be green, but greenness is not part of the definition of square
• Greenness is an accident, something that happens to be present but doesn’t belong to the square as such

The Blind and Deaf Man #

• A girl would prefer to lose her hearing rather than her sight for sensing a particular knocking person
• Yet this is because she loves music (a higher object) more, not because hearing is simply higher than sight
• If stranded on an island, one learns more through sight than through hearing
• Thus: the eye is the higher faculty simply, but the ear can be superior in some respect when the object is higher

The White Man’s Skin and Eyes #

• We call a man a “white man” simply by reason of his skin color (the principal part of the body)
• His eyes are black or brown, making him “black in his eyes”
• This is not contradictory because “white man” refers to the whole simply, not to every part

Knowing Someone’s Identity Through a Door #

• You don’t know who’s knocking at the door
• The door opens and it’s your mother
• You say: “I don’t know my own mother?”
• Resolution: You don’t know her as the person knocking at the door (secundum quid), but you do know your mother (simpliciter)

The Line in Sense, Imagination, and Understanding #

• Sense perceives a particular line with a specific length
• Imagination pictures a line
• Understanding grasps the what it is of a line—this is more simple and abstract
• The question “How long is what a line is?” shows that the understood essence transcends particular instances

Mozart vs. Da Vinci #

• It may be better to experience Mozart’s music than see Da Vinci’s paintings
• Yet sight is the higher faculty simply (more like understanding; we use the word “see” for intellectual understanding)
• Music affects the soul more powerfully and is more mathematical, approaching the beauty of formal order
• Therefore: Music (the object) is higher than painting, yet sight (the faculty) is higher than hearing simply

The Bank Robber #

• People rob banks because robbery is, in some limited way, good: it removes poverty or annoyance
• They desire the money (a good), not the robbery itself
• The object desired is good; the means is desired for the end

Research Scientists #

• Do cancer researchers know what they’re looking for?
• Secundum quid: Yes, they know generally what cancer causes are
• Simpliciter: No, if they knew completely, no research would be needed
• This shows why we pay them—they must investigate to move from potential to actual knowledge

Questions Addressed #

How Can People Desire Bad Things if Good is What All Desire? #

• People never desire something as bad; they desire it as good in some way
• The robbery is desired not for the robbery, but for the money or removal of annoyance
• Distinction of properties: Bad things may have some accidental good property, but badness is not what is desired
• This resembles how a square can be green (accidental) but greenness is not in the square’s definition

How Can Knowledge Be Both Perfect and Imperfect? #

• In one sense you have it (secundum quid); in another sense you don’t (simpliciter)
• If you know the length and width of a table, do you know its area? You are able to know it (potency), but you don’t know it simply until you multiply them
• Researchers know their object in some qualified sense but not completely
• The knocking mother is unknown, but your mother is known

Is Sight or Hearing the Superior Sense? #

• Simply: Sight is superior because we borrow language from sight for intellectual knowledge (“I see”; “enlightenment”; “Father of lights”)
• Sight is more spiritual and fine; sound is more gross
• In some respect: Hearing could be superior when the object is superior (e.g., beautiful music vs. mediocre paintings)
• Scripture speaks of the beatific vision (seeing God face to face), not beatific hearing

Notable Quotes #

“You don’t desire something as bad, right, but as good in some way”

“[A definition] belongs to something as such… And you don’t desire something as bad, right, but as good in some way”

“It’s better to know well a lesser thing or to know less a better thing? The latter… Even an imperfect knowledge of a better thing is better, right? Than a perfect knowledge of a lesser thing”

“[The understanding] knows the what it is of a line, right? Right. What it is to be a line, huh? And you see how that’s more simple and more abstract than a line, isn’t it?”

“In a simpler and more abstract way, I will say, gets what? It says more, right, huh? It accomplishes the same thing, but with fewer means”

“The object of the understanding is higher than the object of the will… by itself and simply, the understanding is higher and more noble than the will”