134. Whether the Will Moves the Understanding

Subscribe in Podcast App | Download Transcript

Lecture Notes

Main Topics #

The Problem: Can the Will Move the Understanding? #

• Objection: The mover is more noble than the moved; understanding is more noble than will; therefore will cannot move understanding
• Objection: Understanding moves will; therefore will cannot move understanding in return (apparent mutual causality problem)
• Objection: If will moves understanding, then willing to understand requires prior understanding, leading to infinite regress

The Solution: Two Senses of “Moving” #

Thomas resolves the problem by distinguishing two fundamentally different senses of the term “to move”:

1. Moving as an End (Formal/Final Causality): The understanding moves the will

   • The desirable object (good understood) moves as an end or purpose
   • Augustine: “It is more divine to give than to receive”
   • Example: Juliet’s beauty moves Romeo, not by pulling him physically, but as the end for which he climbs the wall
   • The word “attract” illustrates this distinction: a performer “attracts” crowds (final causality) differently than lassoing and pulling (efficient causality)

2. Moving as an Agent/Efficient Cause: The will moves the understanding

   • The will moves all powers of the soul (except vegetative powers, which are not subject to judgment)
   • Like fire softening wax or one thing physically pushing another
   • The will commands the understanding to attend to particular objects

The Universality Principle #

Key Insight: Powers ordered to universal ends move powers ordered to particular ends

• In Natural Philosophy: The heavens (universal cause) move all inferior bodies to their particular conservations
• In Politics: The king (intending common good) commands governors of cities (intending particular goods)
• In Arts and Sciences: Higher arts command lower arts (medicine commands pharmacy toward the end of health)
• Application to Soul: The will, whose object is good in general, commands all particular powers whose objects are particular goods

Understanding and Will: A Reciprocal Containment #

Understanding and will contain each other in different ways:

If comparing by the universality of their objects:

• Understanding is more universal (true, being) than will (good, end)
• Understanding is higher and more noble
• The will and its acts are contained under the understanding’s universal object
• Reason can know the truth about the will as one particular truth among many

If comparing as particular determined powers:

• Will is more universal (good in general) than understanding (as one particular power)
• Will is higher and more noble
• The understanding is contained under the will’s universal object as one good among others
• The understanding’s act and object (truth, knowing) constitute one particular good

Resolution of the Objections #

First Objection: The understanding is more noble in one sense (considering its universal object), but the will is more noble in another sense (considering the understanding as a particular power under the universal good). There is no contradiction—they are superior in different respects.

Second Objection: The understanding moves the will as an end; the will moves the understanding as an agent. These are different senses of “cause” and “mover,” so there is no logical impossibility in mutual causality.

• Analogy: Chaucer is before Shakespeare in time, but Shakespeare is before Chaucer in excellence. No contradiction when “before” means different things.
• Different senses of causality allow things to be causes of each other without absurdity

Third Objection: Not all understanding requires a prior act of will. Rather, some grasp or knowing must be first. But this is supplied by God, the ultimate principle of understanding, not by an infinite chain of willing-to-understand.

• God provides the ultimate intelligible principles (nous, first principles)
• This is another argument for an unmoved mover (Aristotle, Euddemian Ethics VII)

Immateriality and Universality #

The reason understanding and will can contain each other is because they are immaterial powers with universal objects:

• Unlike material senses (sight sees only colors; hearing only sounds), understanding can grasp being and truth universally
• Unlike material bodies (my body cannot be inside your body), immaterial minds can contain each other through knowledge
• The soul is in some way “all things” (Aristotle, De Anima III)
• This universality reflects the image of God in the human soul

Key Arguments #

The Equivocation of “Mover” #

• The word “mover” and “to move” are used equivocally for different kinds of causality
• Final causality: End moves efficient cause (e.g., health moves one to exercise)
• Efficient causality: Agent moves patient (e.g., exercise produces health)
• Things can move each other without contradiction if they move in different senses

The Universality Argument #

1. Powers ordered to universal ends command powers ordered to particular ends
2. The will’s object is good in general (the most universal practical object)
3. The understanding’s object is a particular good (one truth among many)
4. Therefore, the will can move (command) the understanding

The Immateriality Argument #

1. Material things cannot contain each other (my body cannot be in your body)
2. Immaterial powers can contain each other through knowledge and desire
3. Understanding understands the will; will wills the understanding
4. This is possible only for immaterial, universal powers

Important Definitions #

Four Kinds of Causes (Aristotelian Framework) #

1. Material Cause (ὕλη, materia): That from which a thing is made
2. Formal Cause (μορφή, forma): The essence or structure that makes something what it is
3. Efficient Cause (ποιητής, efficiens): The maker or agent that produces the effect
4. Final Cause (τέλος, finis): That for the sake of which; the end or purpose

Note: Thomas and Berquist emphasize that words like “to move,” “maker,” and “mover” are transferred from efficient causality to other kinds of causality, causing equivocation.

Key Distinctions #

• Unmoved Mover: That which moves others without itself being moved (as end moves efficient cause)
• Moved Mover: That which is moved while also moving others (efficient cause)
• Universal Object vs. Particular Object: Understanding grasps universal truth; will pursues particular good
• Power vs. Act: The understanding and will as potential faculties vs. their acts of understanding and willing

Examples & Illustrations #

Romeo and Juliet #

Juliet’s beauty moves Romeo to climb the garden wall—not by physical force but as the end for which he acts. This exemplifies final causality: the end (seeing Juliet) moves the efficient cause (Romeo’s will to climb).

The Word “Attract” #

• A performer “attracts” crowds: they come for the sake of seeing/hearing him (final causality)
• A lasso “attracts” (draws toward): physical pulling or efficient causality
• Same word, fundamentally different kinds of causality

Political Hierarchy #

The president (or king) commands all department heads not because he is their physical superior in strength, but because he intends the common good (universal end) while they intend particular departmental goods (particular ends). The universal end commands the particular ends.

Before and After #

• Chaucer is “before” Shakespeare in time
• Shakespeare is “before” Chaucer in excellence
• No contradiction: “before” means different things
• Similarly: A is a cause of B as an end; B is a cause of A as an efficient cause

Studying and Knowing #

• Did you study in order to know, or do you know because you studied?
• Answer: Both—but in different senses of causality
• Knowing is the cause of studying as an end (you study for the sake of knowing)
• Studying is the cause of knowing as an efficient cause (studying produces knowledge)

Multiplying Length by Width #

• Is multiplying length by width the cause of knowing the area, or vice versa?
• Multiplying is the cause in the sense of efficient causality (it produces knowledge)
• Knowing the area is the cause in the sense of final causality (it is why you multiply)

Exercise and Health #

• Is exercise a cause of health, or is health a cause of exercise?
• Exercise causes health in the sense of efficient causality (it makes you healthy)
• Health causes exercise in the sense of final causality (it is why you exercise)

Syllogism and Conclusion #

• You put two premises together and draw a conclusion
• Do you know the conclusion because you assembled the premises, or do you assemble premises to reach the conclusion?
• Both: premises cause conclusion efficiently; conclusion is the final cause of assembling premises

Student Inattention #

Berquist jokes that students don’t want to think about some things, illustrating the point that the will can command the understanding to attend or not attend to particular objects.

Notable Quotes #

“The mover is more noble and before the moved. Because the mover is the one who acts upon the moved.” — Objection to Article 4, citing Augustine and Aristotle

“It is more divine to give than to receive.” — Augustine, Genesis to the Letter XII, cited on the superiority of the mover

“The desirable thing, when it’s been grasped by the understanding, is an unmoved mover. But the desire is a moved mover.” — Second objection (Aristotelian principle)

“We can will to perceive in the art and to not receive… we can think about something or not think about it when we want to.” — St. John of Damascus, Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, on human voluntary control of understanding

“In one way, by way of the end… the understanding moves the will. So it’s the beauty of Juliet that moved Romeo to climb over the garden wall.” — Thomas Aquinas (via Berquist), explaining final causality

“The soul is in some way all things.” — Aristotle, De Anima III, cited on the universality of understanding

“Challenge authority… challenge reality.” — Berquist’s observation on the progression of bumper stickers, illustrating modern confusion

“What is a man, if his chief good and market of his time be but to sleep and feed, a beast no more?” — Implied (Shakespearean exhortation about human reason)

Questions Addressed #

Primary Question #

Does the will move the understanding?

Yes, but in the sense of efficient causality: the will commands the understanding to attend to particular objects and to understand particular things. This is compatible with the understanding moving the will as a final cause.

Secondary Questions #

Q: If understanding is more noble than will, how can will move it? A: Understanding is more noble in one respect (its universal object), but will is more universal in another respect (commanding all particular goods). Nobility and universality apply differently to each.

Q: How can understanding move will if will also moves understanding? Doesn’t this violate the principle that mover and moved are distinct? A: They move each other in different senses: understanding as a final cause (end), will as an efficient cause (agent). The same principle holds—just applied to different causalities.

Q: If willing to understand requires prior understanding, doesn’t this create infinite regress? A: No. Not every act of understanding is preceded by an act of will. Some understanding (of first principles) is supplied by God as the ultimate principle of intelligibility.

Connections to Previous Material #

• Previous Article (83.3): Established that understanding is more noble than will (when comparing by universality of objects)
• On the Four Causes: Foundational to understanding why equivocation occurs in the term “mover”
• Aristotelian Metaphysics: The discussion relies on Aristotle’s doctrine of four causes and the unmoved mover

Preview of Subsequent Material #

Berquist indicates that the next article (Article 5) will address the sensible appetites (concupiscible and irascible), distinguishing emotions and passions that follow upon sense perception.