147. Knowledge of Universals: Confused Before Distinct

Subscribe in Podcast App | Download Transcript

Lecture Notes

Main Topics #

The Order of Knowledge: Confused to Distinct #

• Knowledge proceeds from potency to act, passing through imperfect/confused knowledge before reaching perfect/distinct knowledge
• The more universal is known before the less universal in our knowledge
• This order in our knowledge is contrary to the order of being, where the more perfect/actual is prior by nature
• Sensory knowledge follows the same pattern: from distance we perceive “body,” then “animal,” then “man,” then “Socrates”
• Example: A child sees “something moving,” then “a dog,” then “Joe’s dog”

Certitude vs. Precision (Pierre Duhem’s Principle) #

• There is an inverse relationship: the more precise we try to be, the less certain we become
• We are more certain someone is “over 40” than that they are exactly age 47
• We are more certain wine is “red wine” than “Cabernet Sauvignon from Napa Valley, 1973”
• We are more certain a measurement is “about 7 feet 3 inches longer” than the precise measurement itself
• Reflects the nature of moving from confused to distinct knowledge

The Universal as Whole and Part #

• The universal can be considered in two distinct ways:
  • As a whole: Animal includes man, dog, horse, elephant (universal whole)
  • As a part: Animal is part of man’s definition (composed whole)
• The universal whole is said of more than its particulars
• The composed whole contains more in its definition than any single part
• Things defining something are known before the thing defined (absolutely considered)
• But according as they are parts of a definition, they are known afterwards
• Example: The student knows “number” before knowing what a “perfect number” is; but before understanding the full definition, the student has confused knowledge of “perfect number”

Knowledge of Singulars vs. Universals #

• Singular knowledge (through senses) comes first in our knowledge
• Universal knowledge (through understanding) comes after
• Among universals, the more universal comes before the less universal
• Example: We know the difference between “tree” and “grass” before knowing the difference between different kinds of grass or different kinds of trees

Why the Distinction Matters: Against Platonic Realism #

• Plato confused two senses of “universal”:
  1. The universal according to the intention of universality (mental abstraction)
  2. The universal according to the nature itself as found in particulars
• The universal with the intention of universality is posterior to singulars—it exists only in the mind after we have compared singulars
• The nature itself (animal, humanity) exists in particulars; universality is an accident of the nature as understood
• Aristotle: “Animal universally is either nothing or it’s after these singulars”

Two Orders of Nature #

• Order of generation and time: Imperfect and more common things are before. Example: In human development, growth appears before sensation, sensation before understanding
• Order of being/perfection: Act is before potency; perfect before imperfect. Example: Man (with understanding) is more perfect than animal (mere sensation)
• Form is more nature than matter because form actualizes the thing
• The intention of nature is directed to the species (through form), not to the individual or genus

Comparison to Mathematical Knowledge (Descartes, Spinoza, Hegel’s Error) #

• In mathematics, we often know causes (principles) before effects (conclusions)
• Example: We know “these lines are straight” before knowing “these angles are equal”
• In most other knowledge, effects are known before causes—we know effects and reason backward
• Descartes, Spinoza, and Hegel mistakenly generalized the mathematical method to all knowledge
• Spinoza’s axiom: “The order in thoughts is the same as the order in things”—not true for our knowledge generally
• Hegel’s mistake: Identified the most confused notion of being (what is said of everything) with God—confusing what is first in our knowledge with what is first in reality
• Thomas refutes this: The common being exists only in the mind, not in reality; it is not what we mean by God

Key Arguments #

Why Confused Knowledge Precedes Distinct Knowledge #

• Indistinct knowledge is between potency and act—it is an imperfect act
• The person who knows something indistinctly is still in potency to know the principles of distinction
• Example: Knowing the genus “poem” puts one in potency to know the specific difference (14 lines, etc.)
• As one knows more, one passes from ignorance → confused knowledge → distinct knowledge

The Universal as Both Whole and Part (Resolving an Apparent Contradiction) #

• Animal is a whole considered absolutely (includes more than man: dog, horse, elephant)
• Animal is a part of man’s definition (man is animal + rational)
• Therefore: Animal is known before man (as a whole is known before its particulars), but man is known in confusion before animal is distinguished as part of man’s definition
• Distinction: We know clarinet by itself before hearing a symphony, but we know the symphony confusedly before we distinguish the clarinet within it

Against the Objection That Universals Are Before Particulars #

• First response: The universal with the intention of universality (as mind makes it universal) is posterior to singulars, since mind must compare singulars to abstract the universal
• Second response: The nature itself considered in singulars has a prior status according to order of perfection (the species is the end of nature), but in order of generation the more common (imperfect) appears first
• Third response: Things defining something are known before what is defined, but only when considered absolutely by themselves; as they are parts of a definition, they are known afterwards

Why Effects Are Usually Known Before Causes #

• Most of our knowledge begins with what is obvious to the senses: effects
• Why something falls is hidden; that it falls is obvious
• We know the effect and reason backward: “We have to reason backwards” (Sherlock Holmes)
• Exception: Mathematics, where we proceed from principles to conclusions
• Philosophical inquiry is ordered to knowing the first cause at the end—what is first in being is last known

Important Definitions #

Confused Knowledge (Scientia Confusa) #

• Knowledge of something indistinctly; knowing it in a general or universal way
• Still true knowledge, but imperfect
• Intermediate between potency (not knowing) and act (knowing distinctly)
• Example: Knowing “this is wine” vs. knowing “this is Cabernet Sauvignon from Napa Valley, 1973”

Distinct Knowledge (Scientia Distincta) #

• Knowledge of something with all its principles of distinction clearly separated
• Perfectly knowing the thing
• Requires knowing genus, specific difference, and all defining characteristics
• Example: Knowing “perfect number” requires understanding “number,” “sum,” “divisors,” etc.

The Universal (Universale) #

• The nature (animal, humanity, whiteness) that is common to many particulars
• Must be distinguished from universality, which is the predicate of being “one and the same in many”—this belongs to the mind
• The nature exists in singulars; universality exists only in the mind through abstraction

Potency (Potentia) and Act (Actus) #

• Potency: Capacity to know; not yet knowing
• Act: Actually knowing
• Knowledge proceeds from potency through intermediate stages toward perfect act
• Indistinct knowledge is an imperfect act (between pure potency and full act)

Examples & Illustrations #

Distant Perception (“It’s a bird, it’s a plane, it’s Superman!”) #

• At horizon: First perception is “something flying/moving”
• Then: “Is it a bird or a plane?”
• Finally: “It’s Superman”
• Demonstrates progression from more universal to less universal in sensory knowledge
• Parallels: “It’s a bird…it’s a plane…it’s Superman”

The Child and Fathers #

• A small child calls Berquist “Daddy” in the supermarket
• Proves Aristotle’s point: the child distinguishes “man” from non-man before distinguishing individual men
• Children call all men “father” before learning to distinguish particular men
• Shows confused knowledge precedes distinct knowledge

Wine Identification #

• Knowing it is “red wine”: very certain
• Knowing it is “Cabernet Sauvignon”: less certain
• Knowing it is from “Napa Valley, 1973”: even less certain
• Demonstrates inverse relationship between precision and certitude

Age Estimation #

• “Am I over 20?” → Certain yes
• “Am I over 40?” → Certain yes
• “Am I exactly 57?” → Not sure
• More certain of decade than exact year; more certain of general range than precise number

The Perfect Number #

• Student knows what numbers are; doesn’t initially know what a perfect number is
• Definition: A number equal to the sum of all its divisors (6 = 1+2+3)
• Student knows all the parts of the definition before grasping the whole
• Yet student has some confused knowledge of “perfect number” before the definition is explained
• Parts (number, sum, divisors) are known by themselves before recognized as parts of the definition

Measurement and Certainty #

• Which is longer: this way or that way? → Very sure it’s this way
• How much longer? → Not so sure (7 feet 3 inches?)
• Different instruments give slightly different readings
• The measurement (7 feet 3 inches) is actually wrong (it’s 7 feet 3 inches and 1/10 inch, etc.)
• We are more sure of the confused judgment than the precise measurement

The Shakespearean Sonnet #

• To define it: first, “it’s a poem” (genus)
• Then: “What’s the difference?” Distinguishing features
• Requires knowing what poems are before distinguishing this particular type
• Genus known before specific differences

Ingredients in a Recipe #

• One knows an herb by itself
• Same herb in a salad dressing may not be recognized
• The salad dressing is known confusedly before the ingredients are distinguished within it
• Herb known absolutely; herb as part of dressing known afterwards

The Supermarket Incident (Berquist’s Experience) #

• Teaching at St. Mary’s, Berquist saw a child in a supermarket cart call him “Daddy”
• Proves Aristotle’s point about how children learn distinctions
• Shows sensory confusion before intellectual distinction

Notable Quotes #

“I think it’s a bird, it’s a plane! No, it’s Superman!” - Berquist, illustrating progression from confused to distinct knowledge

“The one who knows something indistinctly is still in potency that he might know the principle of distinction.” - Thomas/Aristotle, explaining intermediate knowledge

“Animal universally is either nothing or it’s after these singulars.” - Aristotle (cited by Thomas), against Platonic realism

“There’s a kind of a balance between certitude and precision. The more precise you get, the less certain you get.” - Berquist, explaining Pierre Duhem’s principle

“We have to reason backwards.” - Sherlock Holmes (cited by Berquist, contrasting with Spinoza’s method)

“The order in thoughts is the same as the order in things.” - Spinoza, Ethica Mori Geometrica Demonstrata (criticized by Berquist)

“When we study reality, he says we never start at the beginning.” - Heisenberg (cited by Berquist)

“Are we on the way from the beginning, or are we on the way to the beginning?” - Plato (cited by Aristotle and Berquist)

“Too late have I come to know thee.” - Augustine (cited by Berquist on late knowledge of God)

“Nothing is more misleading than a clear and distinct idea.” - Louis de Broglie (cited by Berquist, criticizing Descartes)

Questions Addressed #

How can the universal be both whole and part? #

• Answer: Two different senses of “whole.” As a universal whole, animal is said of more things (man, dog, horse). As a composed whole, man contains animal as a part of its definition. The confusion arises from equivocal use of “whole” and “part.”

Why is what is more known absolutely less known to us? #

• Answer: Because we proceed from potency to imperfect act to perfect act. Perfect act corresponds to perfect knowledge (distinct); imperfect act corresponds to imperfect knowledge (confused). Since imperfect knowledge comes first for us, what is perfectly known is less known to us.

Is it true that things defining something must be known before that thing? #

• Answer: Yes and no. Things defining something are known before when considered absolutely by themselves. But as they are parts of a definition, they are known afterwards. Example: We know “number” before knowing “perfect number,” but we know the symphony confusedly before we distinguish the clarinet within it.

Why do Descartes, Spinoza, and Hegel make the same mistake? #

• Answer: They were impressed by mathematics and tried to generalize the mathematical method to all knowledge. In mathematics, causes (principles) are known before effects (conclusions). But in most knowledge, effects are known before causes. They wrongly assumed the mathematical order applies everywhere.

Why is God the last thing we learn in philosophy? #

• Answer: Because God is the first cause. We know effects before causes. We begin with sensible effects and reason backward to causes. The first cause is reached only at the end of philosophical inquiry. What is first in being is last known to us.

Can we be certain of something we don’t know distinctly? #

• Answer: Yes. We are more certain of confused judgments than precise ones. We are more certain “I am over 40” than “I am exactly 47.” We are more certain “wine” than “Cabernet Sauvignon from Napa Valley, 1973.” Certitude and precision are inversely related.