158. Knowledge of Immaterial Substances and the Agent Intellect

Subscribe in Podcast App | Download Transcript

Lecture Notes

Main Topics #

The Question of Knowledge of Immaterial Substances #

• Whether human understanding can know immaterial substances (angels) by themselves in this life
• The natural relation of human understanding to material things through images
• The principle that what is more understandable in itself may be less understandable to us

Platonic vs. Aristotelian Approaches #

• Platonic view: Immaterial forms are the proper object of understanding; knowledge requires turning away from material things
• Aristotelian view: Knowledge naturally proceeds through material things; we reason our way to immaterial substances through abstraction and negation
• Berquist notes that Church Fathers favored Platonic language (via the dark night of the soul) for supernatural knowledge, but natural knowledge follows Aristotelian principles

Averroes’s Agent Intellect Theory and Thomas’s Refutation #

• Averroes’s position: The agent intellect is a separated substance (an angel) that illuminates human understanding; perfect union with it allows knowledge of separated substances
• Thomas’s central objection: A separated substance cannot be the formal cause of our understanding; understanding requires a form within the knower, not external to it
• Second objection: A separated substance’s understanding cannot make us understand something; we must understand by our own ability to understand
• Third objection: Even if united with us, a separated substance’s light would not extend to knowledge of separated substances themselves, only illumination of material things
• Fourth objection: If understanding all material things were required first, almost no one would achieve happiness
• Fifth objection: Aristotle clearly states happiness consists in knowledge through speculative sciences, not through continuation with an agent intellect
• Conclusion: The agent intellect is a power of the soul, not a separated substance; both possible and agent intellects are naturally related to material things only

The Problem of Likeness vs. Proportion #

• Likeness of nature alone is insufficient for knowing; what matters is likeness as a form received in the knower
• The possible understanding (intellectus possibilis) is naturally apt to receive likenesses of material things only
• The likenesses by which angels know come from God at creation, whereas human understanding must derive likenesses from material things through imagination and images

The Bat Analogy #

• Our soul is to the most understandable things (God, angels) as a bat’s eyes are to daylight
• The bat cannot see in bright daylight; similarly, what is most understandable in itself is least understandable to us

Key Arguments #

Arguments That We Can Know Immaterial Substances (Objections) #

1. Augustine’s argument: The mind gains knowledge of bodiless things through itself as it gains knowledge of bodily things through the senses
2. Likeness argument: The human mind is more like immaterial things than material things; therefore, it should understand immaterial things better
3. Sensible excellence argument: Excessive sensible things corrupt the senses, but excessive understandable things do not corrupt understanding; therefore, the most understandable things should be most understood by us

Thomas’s Responses #

1. On Augustine: Knowledge of our own understanding soul provides an imperfect gateway to understanding angels and God, but not perfect knowledge of what they are in themselves. A knowledge of the soul is a beginning to knowing immaterial substances, but not a complete knowing.
2. On likeness: Likeness of nature is not sufficient; what is required is that there be a likeness of the thing known in the knower as a form. Our possible understanding is apt to be informed by likenesses of material things taken from images.
3. On sensible excellence: The response requires understanding the principle of proportion between knowing power and object known. The issue is not whether understanding can be corrupted, but whether immaterial substances are proportioned to our understanding in this life.

Important Definitions #

Intellectus Possibilis (Possible Understanding) #

• The receptive power of the soul that receives likenesses of things as forms
• Naturally apt to receive likenesses of material things only in the present life
• Like a blank tablet (tabula rasa) awaiting the impress of forms

Intellectus Agens (Agent Intellect) #

• The active power of the soul that makes material things understandable in act
• Acts upon images to abstract universal forms
• A power of the soul, NOT a separated substance

Proportio (Proportion) #

• The required relationship between a knowing power and its object
• As the active is to the passive, as perfection is to the perfectible
• Immaterial substances are not proportioned to human understanding in this life

Separated Substances (Substantiae Separatae) #

• Beings that exist without matter; immaterial substances
• In theology, identified as angels
• Naturally understand all separated substances by themselves; do not depend on images or imagination

Via Negationis (Way of Negation) #

• Knowledge of immaterial things through negation of material properties
• We know what immaterial things are NOT rather than what they ARE in themselves

Examples & Illustrations #

The Difference Between What is More Knowable to Us vs. In Itself #

• Motion: Motion is most known to us (catches the eye) yet is hardly actual (part always past, part always future). God as pure act is most knowable in itself but least knowable to us.
• Art development: Children are captivated by simple pictures and Little Red Riding Hood; as they mature, they appreciate Hamlet, which contains far more to be imagined and understood. What is more tastable/imaginable to the child is less rich in itself.
• Wine tasting: An ordinary drinker cannot distinguish subtle differences; an expert can identify wines blind-tasted. These differences are real and knowable, but not to everyone.
• Painting colors: Painters have a refined sense of subtle color distinctions that most people lack; they can name distinctions (aqua vs. blue) that others cannot perceive.
• Tea appreciation: The seller of fine teas can distinguish subtle differences blind-tasted; the average person cannot.
• Mozart’s principle: Mozart wrote music such that connoisseurs can appreciate subtleties, yet everybody likes it—but philosophy cannot be written this way.
• Shakespeare’s accessibility: A package store worker who had not read since high school still recalled and was impressed by “the seven ages of man” from As You Like It, though he missed the subtleties of Shakespeare

The Guardian Angel Comparison #

• Kassirik: “The regarded angel watching you make a decision is like you watching an angleworm decide what to do”—illustrates the vast superiority of angelic understanding to human understanding

The Habitual Knowledge of the Learned #

• Berquist himself has taught certain geometrical theorems repeatedly and can understand them immediately upon reflection
• But angels habitually understand everything they naturally understand immediately and effortlessly
• Most people, even those who studied Euclid, lose the habit and must reread to recall proofs

The Parallel Lines Theorem #

• Berquist references Euclid’s fundamental theorem: when a straight line falls upon parallel lines, it makes the alternate angles equal
• This theorem requires understanding of prior theorems about triangles and their angles
• Such knowledge must be habitually retained or it “almost seems to disappear”

Questions Addressed #

Main Question: Can We Understand Immaterial Substances in This Life? #

• Resolution: No, not by themselves. We can know them only through material things, by way of negation and relation, in an imperfect manner.
• The human understanding is naturally related to material things and understands nothing except by turning to images.
• Immaterial substances do not come under sense and imagination and therefore cannot be understood by us in themselves, according to the natural status of this life.

Secondary Question: What Does Averroes’s Theory of Agent Intellect Claim? #

• That the agent intellect is a separated substance (angel) naturally understanding separated substances
• That when perfectly united to us, through it we would understand both material and immaterial things
• That this union happens as we understand all material things and the agent intellect becomes perfectly united to us

Theoretical Distinctions on Equivocal Naming #

Berquist develops the doctrine of how a name becomes equivocal by reason when applied to two things with the same meaning but where one possesses it fully and the other defectively:

First Mode: Defective vs. Complete Possession #

• Intellect (intellectus) in human vs. angelic understanding: The angel possesses full intellectual understanding; humans possess it defectively (through reason, ratio, and discursive thinking)
• Knowing (scire) vs. thinking (opinari): Certain thinking is called knowing; uncertain thinking is distinguished as mere opinion
• Sensing (sensus) vs. knowing (scientia): Sensing is an imperfect knowing; knowing is distinguished as certain
• Disposition (habitus) vs. state (dispositio): Habit is a firm disposition not easily lost; state is easily lost
• Habit vs. mood: A habit is firm; a mood passes quickly
• Plant vs. tree: Trees are the most magnificent plants and sometimes get a new name; smaller plants keep the common name
• Thing vs. person: Persons are things, but because they possess rational nature significantly, sometimes person is distinguished from thing
• Finger vs. thumb: Four fingers keep the common name; the thumb gets a new name because of what distinguishes it

Second Mode: Carried Over by Relation #

• Healthy applied to body, diet, exercise, complexion: Diet is called healthy because it preserves health; complexion is called healthy because it is a sign of health

Relevance to the Lecture #

Because the human intellect is a defective form of understanding compared to angelic intellect, the term intellectus is applied to each but with different force. The angel possesses perfect understanding; the human has understanding mixed with discursive reason.