5. The Six Attributes of Wisdom and Two Senses of Universality

Subscribe in Podcast App | Download Transcript

Lecture Notes

Main Topics #

The Six-Part Description of Wisdom #

Aristotle constructs a comprehensive outline by examining common human thoughts about wise men:

1. The wise man knows all things in some way (though not in particular)
2. He knows things difficult for man to know
3. He is more certain or sure about what he says
4. He is more able to teach
5. His knowledge is most desirable for its own sake
6. He orders and directs others and is not ordered by anyone else

Two Distinct Senses of “Common to All” #

Berquist emphasizes a critical distinction that prevents philosophical error:

• Universale in praedicando (what is said of all): Properties or characteristics predicated of many things. Example: “soldier” is said of all soldiers in an army
• Universale in causando (what is cause of all): The first principle or cause that commands and moves all things. Example: the general/commander who causes the whole army to move

These are fundamentally different. The general is NOT said of everybody in the army (no one else is the general), but the general IS the cause of the whole army’s movement.

The Critical Error: Confusing the Two Senses #

Berquist uses Hegel and Karl Marx as cautionary examples:

• Hegel confuses being (which is said of all things) with God (the cause of all things)
• This leads to a pantheistic notion where God is part of everything
• The confusion arises from equivocation in the word “universality” (like the word “general” in English, which means both “said of many” and “the military commander”)

Key Arguments #

From First Three Attributes to Knowledge of Universals #

Argument from knowing all things:

• The wise man knows all things in some way
• But man cannot know all things in particular (there are infinite things)
• Therefore, the wise man must know all things by knowing what is said of all things (universals)
• Example: When I say “no odd number is even,” I am speaking about all odd numbers—an infinity of things—without knowing each one individually

Argument from difficulty:

• The most universal things are most difficult for men to know
• Reason: they are furthest from the senses (our starting point of knowledge)
• We naturally begin with sensations of singular things and must work our way to universals
• Therefore, wisdom about the most universal involves knowledge of what is said of all

Argument from certainty:

• One science is more certain than another according to how many things must be considered
• The more universal a science, the fewer things it must consider
• Therefore, the most universal science is most certain
• Example hierarchy: Arithmetic is more certain than geometry (arithmetic considers unity without position; geometry must consider position). Geometry is more certain than natural philosophy, which must consider matter. Natural philosophy more certain than ethics, which must consider custom and contingency.

From Last Three Attributes to Knowledge of First Causes #

Argument from teaching:

• The wise man is most able to teach
• To teach fully is to know causes (the “why,” not merely the “that”)
• The man who knows the first cause can teach most fully
• Therefore, wisdom must include knowledge of the first cause

Argument from desirability:

• Knowledge pursued for its own sake seeks what most enlightens the mind
• Causes enlighten effects; first causes enlighten all causes
• Therefore, knowledge most desirable for itself must be knowledge of first causes

Argument from direction:

• The wise man directs all others and is not directed by anyone
• Direction always aims at an end or purpose (which is a kind of cause)
• The wise man must know the ultimate end of all things
• Therefore, wisdom includes knowledge of the first cause as ultimate end

Important Definitions #

Universale in praedicando: What is said of or predicated of many things; a common property shared by multiple things.

Universale in causando: What is the cause of all things; the commanding or moving principle (not said of the many, but causes the many).

Wisdom (sophia): The highest perfection of reason involving knowledge of both what is most universal (first principles) and what is the first cause of all things.

Examples & Illustrations #

The Army Analogy (Primary Example) #

• Soldier = what is said of all (every member is a soldier; universale in praedicando)
• General/Commander (e.g., General MacArthur) = what is cause of all (causes the whole army to move; universale in causando)
• The general is not said of everyone in the army (no one else is MacArthur)
• But the general causes the movement of the entire army
• This illustrates why the two senses must not be confused

Other Illustrations #

• Knowing odd numbers: One can know “no odd number is even” and thus know infinitely many odd numbers without knowing each one in particular
• Academic expertise hierarchy: When uncertain about a question, one goes to a specialist/wiser person who is more sure (example: going to a specialist in Boston for carotid cavernitis rather than asking the general practitioner)
• Shakespeare’s punning: “The general kissed her” vs. “she was kissed in general”—illustrating the distinction between the particular commander and general/universal application

Questions Addressed #

How can the wise man know all things if there are infinitely many things?

• Not by knowing all things in particular, but by knowing what is said of all things (universals)
• A universal statement can encompass infinite particulars

What is the relationship between knowing universals and knowing causes?

• These are two different aspects of wisdom
• Both must be included; they must not be confused
• Aristotle reasons from attributes 1-3 to universals and from attributes 4-6 to first causes

Why does Aristotle reason from separate sets of attributes to avoid confusion?

• He deliberately keeps the distinction clear by reasoning from the first three attributes exclusively to universals and from the last three exclusively to causes
• He could reason from attribute 2 (knowing difficult things) to first causes as well, but instead says “perhaps” to avoid the Hegelian confusion

Why is the most universal hardest to know?

• It is furthest from sensation, our starting point
• There is a special difficulty: we must transcend our imagination (which is tied to bodies) to grasp being itself
• Most people naturally think of being as bodies or in bodies because we cannot rise above bodily imagination

Why does Berquist call Hegel’s move “a terrible mistake”?

• Identifying being (said of all) with God (the cause of all) leads to pantheism
• It confuses two fundamentally different senses of universality
• This error propagates through Marx’s dialectical materialism