140. How the Soul Knows Bodies: Against Empedocles and Plato

Subscribe in Podcast App | Download Transcript

Lecture Notes

Main Topics #

The Problem of Material Knowledge #

• How can an immaterial soul know material bodies?
• Does material content require material reception in the knower?
• What distinguishes knowledge from mere physical impression?

Empedocles’ Materialist Position #

• Empedocles posited four material elements (earth, air, fire, water) and two movers (love and hate)
• Claimed the soul is composed of these material principles
• Therefore believed knowledge of material things requires material composition in the soul
• Motto: “By earth we know earth; by fire we know fire”

The Fundamental Problem with Materialism #

If the soul must be materially composed of what it knows:

• The soul could know the simple elements but not composite things (flesh, bone)
• All words are potentially present in the letters of the alphabet, but knowing the letters does not mean knowing all words actually
• If material composition were necessary for knowledge, then material things outside the soul (like a marble statue with a person’s shape) would also know, which is absurd

The Key Principle: Reception According to the Mode of the Receiver #

• Whatever is received is received according to the manner of the receiver (Quid quid recipitur, recipitur secundum modum recipientis)
• Material things exist in matter as their own forms (e.g., marble takes on a statue’s shape)
• The knower receives forms as other forms, not as its own
• This opposition between materiality and knowledge is fundamental

The Nature of Immaterial Knowledge #

• Things known must exist in the knower, but not materially
• Knowledge extends to things outside the knower; matter determines form to something singular
• The more immaterially something receives a form, the more perfectly it knows
• Plants do not know because they receive forms only materially
• Sense knowledge is more perfect than plant reception because it is less material
• Understanding is more perfect than sense knowledge because it is most immaterial

Against Platonic Recollection #

• If the soul naturally possessed all intelligible forms, it would not experience such great forgetfulness
• A person born blind cannot have knowledge of colors, contradicting innate species theory
• It would be inconvenient for the natural operation of the soul to be totally impeded through what is natural to it (embodiment)
• The ordered questioning in Plato’s Meno does not prove recollection but shows how reason proceeds from common principles to particular conclusions

The Meno Dialogue Reconsidered #

• Socrates questions a slave boy about doubling a square
• The boy first answers incorrectly (doubling the side), then through ordered questioning comes to see the truth
• This is learning, not recollection—the boy acquires knowledge through understanding how the parts fit together
• Example: knowing the length and width of a table does not mean actually knowing the area until one multiplies them
• The conclusion is newly seen, not recalled from prior actual knowledge

Potency vs. Act in Knowledge #

• Man begins in potency to knowledge, not in act
• Knowledge is acquired through learning (from teachers) or discovery (through one’s own effort)
• The intellect is initially like a blank tablet on which nothing is written
• Unlike prime matter, the human intellect does not require a form to be, but requires intelligible forms to understand

Key Arguments #

Argument 1: The Insufficiency of Material Composition #

1. If knowledge requires material composition of the knower, then potency would suffice for knowing actuality
2. But things are not known as they are in potency, only as they are in act (per Metaphysics IX)
3. Knowing the letters of the alphabet does not mean knowing all words, though words are only combinations of letters
4. Therefore, the soul must possess not merely the material principles but the forms and natures of all effects (flesh, bone, etc.)
5. This is impossible; therefore, material composition cannot explain knowledge

Argument 2: The Absurdity of External Things Knowing #

1. If the thing known must exist materially in the knower to be known
2. Then a material thing existing outside the soul (a marble statue with a human shape) would also know, since it has the material form
3. But material things do not know
4. Therefore, the premise is false; material existence in the knower is not necessary for knowledge

Argument 3: The Distinction Between Material Reception and Knowing Reception #

1. Matter receives a form as its own (marble receives the form of a human shape)
2. The knower receives a form as other (the mind knows the human shape while retaining its own nature)
3. Through matter, a form is determined to something singular
4. Through knowing, a form is received as universal and as belonging to another
5. These are opposed modes of receiving; therefore, knowing is not material reception

Argument 4: The Perfection of Immateriality #

1. The more immaterially something receives a form, the more perfectly it knows
2. Plants receive forms only materially and do not know
3. Sense receives forms without matter but with individuating material conditions and therefore knows singulars
4. Understanding abstracts from matter and individuating conditions and therefore knows universals
5. Therefore, knowledge is proportional to immateriality

Argument 5: Why Sensation is Necessary #

1. If the soul received intelligible forms from separated substances (as Avicenna claims), the body would be unnecessary
2. But a blind man cannot have knowledge of colors
3. If forms flowed from separated substances independent of bodily sensation, blindness would not prevent color knowledge
4. Therefore, the senses are not merely an arousal but necessary for acquiring the very content of understanding

Important Definitions #

Potency (Potentia) vs. Act (Actus) #

• Potency: The capacity to be or to act; unrealized capability
• Act: Realized state; actualized being or operation
• Things are known through their actualization, not their mere potentiality
• Example: The letters of the alphabet are only potentially present in a word; actualizing the word requires combining them in act

Material Reception #

• The mode by which matter receives a form as its own determining principle
• Example: Marble loses its irregular shape and takes on the form of a statue
• The form becomes intrinsic to the material subject

Immaterial Reception (in Knowing) #

• The mode by which the intellect receives a form as other, not as its own
• The knower maintains its own nature while receiving the form of another
• The form is received universally and intelligibly, not singularly and materially

Intelligible Species (Intelligibilis Forma) #

• The immaterial likeness by which the intellect knows a thing
• Not the thing itself, but a representation received immaterially in the intellect
• Distinct from sensible forms, which are received with material conditions

Examples & Illustrations #

The Letters and Words #

• Knowing all the letters of the alphabet does not mean knowing all words
• All words are potentially present in the letters, but only in potency, not in act
• To know a word actually, one must know the specific combination and arrangement of letters
• Applied to Empedocles: Knowing earth, air, fire, and water does not mean knowing flesh and bone, which are specific combinations in specific ratios

The Marble Statue #

• A sculptor shapes marble into a human form
• The marble receives the shape as its own shape; it becomes intrinsically formed
• By contrast, a person looking at the statue receives the shape as other—as the statue’s shape, not their own
• This illustrates the fundamental difference between material and intellectual reception

The Blind Man #

• A man born blind cannot have knowledge of colors
• This refutes both Plato’s theory of innate species and any theory claiming forms flow from separated substances
• If knowledge came from innate forms or external separated substances, sensory deprivation would not prevent understanding
• Therefore, the senses are necessary for acquiring knowledge of sensible content

The Meno’s Square Problem #

• Socrates asks: if you have a square and want one twice as large, what should you do?
• The slave boy initially thinks: double the side (incorrect)
• Through ordered questioning, the boy discovers: draw three additional squares equal to the first, forming a larger square; then take the diagonal of this larger square
• The diagonal divides the larger square (which is four times the original) in half, giving a square twice the size
• Each step follows from what precedes; the conclusion is newly understood, not recollected

The Table’s Area #

• If you know the length and width of a table, do you know the area?
• Answer: Only in potency, not in act
• You have the principles but must actually multiply length by width to know the area in act
• Applied to the slave boy: He knows the statements that will enable him to see the answer, but he must put them together to understand it for the first time

Notable Quotes #

“Whatever is received is received according to the manner of the receiver” (Quid quid recipitur, recipitur secundum modum recipientis)

• The fundamental principle explaining how the immaterial intellect can know material things without material reception

“Things are not known as they are in potency, only as they are in act.”

• From Metaphysics IX; establishes why mere material composition (potency) cannot suffice for knowledge (actuality)

“The understanding is like a tablet on which nothing is written.”

• Aristotle’s principle emphasizing the intellect’s initial potentiality, refuting Plato’s recollection theory

“The whole is greater than its part.”

• A per se known principle used to demonstrate how the slave boy reasons through geometric problems from common principles to particular conclusions

Questions Addressed #

Q1: Can the soul know material bodies? #

• Posed by: Empedocles and materialist philosophers
• Thomas’s Answer: Yes, but through immaterial reception, not material composition
• Reasoning: If material composition were necessary, then external material things would also know, which is absurd. The soul knows through reception of immaterial intelligible forms.

Q2: Must the soul possess material elements to know them? #

• Posed by: Empedocles
• Thomas’s Answer: No. The soul must know things through forms, but not materially.
• Reasoning: Material composition only establishes potency; knowing requires actuality. Furthermore, knowing composite things (flesh, bone) requires knowing the specific ratios in which simple elements are combined—a task impossible through mere material composition.

Q3: Does the soul recollect innate knowledge? #

• Posed by: Plato (recollection theory in the Meno)
• Thomas’s Answer: No. The slave boy learns through ordered questioning; he does not recollect.
• Reasoning: If innate knowledge existed, the soul would not experience such great forgetfulness. A blind man would still know colors if they were innate. Ordered questioning shows how the mind proceeds from common principles to particular conclusions, causing new knowledge, not recollection.

Q4: What distinguishes knowing reception from material reception? #

• The Opposition: Matter receives a form as its own; the knower receives a form as other.
• The Consequence: Through matter, a form is determined to something singular. Through knowing, the form is universal and other. These are opposed modes; knowing cannot be material reception.

Pedagogical Notes #

Key Insight on Likeness and Difference #

• Berquist emphasizes Aristotle’s placement of the tool of difference before the tool of likeness in the Topics (Book I)
• Seeing likeness without difference is a primary source of deception
• The analogy between the intellect and prime matter illustrates this: they are alike in being in potency, but differ because the intellect is a power of a substance, while prime matter is substance itself in potency

The Hierarchy of Knowing #

• Plants: Know nothing (material reception only)
• Senses: Know singulars (immaterial reception with material conditions)
• Understanding: Knows universals (immaterial reception without material conditions)
• God: Knows all things through His essence (pure act and perfect immateriality)

Transitions and Digressions #

• Berquist digresses into discussion of the sin of the angels (pride) and the importance of ordering one’s own beatitude to God’s glory
• He also discusses St. John Damascene’s influence on Shakespeare’s The Merchant of Venice (the three caskets)
• These digressions, while interesting, are tangential to the core epistemological argument about how the soul knows bodies