73. Truth in the Understanding and Composition and Division

Subscribe in Podcast App | Download Transcript

Lecture Notes

Main Topics #

Truth and Its Location #

• Truth primarily in understanding: Following Aristotle’s teaching, truth is chiefly in the mind, though things are secondarily true by conformity to divine understanding
• Conformity as essential: Truth consists fundamentally in the conformity (agreement) of the understanding to the thing understood
• Things vs. understanding: Things can be conformed to reality but do not themselves know or consider this conformity

The Two Acts of Reason #

• First act: Simple apprehension—understanding what something is (e.g., understanding “man”)
• Second act: Composition and division—making affirmative or negative judgments (e.g., “Man is an animal”)
• Truth’s location: Truth properly resides only in the second act, when the understanding judges that a thing is as the form it apprehends indicates
• Why not in the first act: Simple understanding can be conformed to reality but does not know or express that conformity

Truth as Known vs. Truth as Conformity #

• Truth consists in two aspects: (1) the conformity of mind to thing (present in senses and simple understanding), and (2) knowing that conformity (present only in judgment)
• The perfection of understanding is truth as known—this occurs uniquely in the second act
• A sense has conformity to what it perceives but does not consider or know this conformity
• The understanding can know its own conformity only through judgment

Statements and Truth-Bearers #

• Statements vs. other sentence types: Only declarative statements (propositions) signify the true or false
• Questions, commands, prayers, and exhortations are not truth-bearers
• The logician is primarily concerned with statements (propositions), the product of the second act of reason
• Example: “What time is it?” is neither true nor false; “It is noon” is true or false

Convertibility of True and Being #

• Thesis: True and being are convertible—every being is knowable; everything knowable has some mode of being
• Apparent objections resolved:
  • Objection 1: True is in understanding; being is in things → Response: True is convertible with being as making-known is convertible with the thing made known
  • Objection 2: True extends to both being and non-being → Response: Non-being is knowable only as a being of reason (ens rationis), which has a mode of being in the mind
  • Objection 3: Being cannot be grasped without knowing it is knowable → Response: Something can be known without knowing that it is knowable; being can be understood without its knowability being understood

Beings of Reason (entia rationis) #

• Definition: Beings that exist only in the mind, not in reality
• Two kinds: (1) Negations (nothing, blindness, ignorance) and (2) certain relations
• Example—nothing: In things, nothing is not there; in the mind, nothing becomes something to think about and discuss
• Example—blindness: Not a positive quality but the absence of sight; the mind treats it as if it were a being
• How they are knowable: Non-being is knowable only because the understanding makes it knowable; it has being only in reason

Key Arguments #

Article 2: Is Truth Only in Putting Together and Dividing? #

Objection 1 (From Augustine/Aristotle):

• Just as sense about its proper sensibles is always true, so simple understanding of what something is is true
• Therefore truth is not only in composition and division

Objection 2 (From Isaac/Authority):

• Truth is equality of thing and understanding
• This equality applies to simple apprehensions and even sensations, not only to composition and division
• Therefore truth is not only in putting together and dividing

Counter-authority (From Aristotle, Metaphysics 6):

• Simple things and essences have no truth in the understanding or in things; truth is only in the second act

Aquinas’s Response:

• Senses have conformity to visible things but do not know or consider this conformity
• Simple understanding of what something is can be conformed to reality but does not know that conformity
• Only the understanding can know the conformity of itself to the thing understood
• This knowing of conformity occurs only when the mind judges a thing to be as the form it apprehends indicates
• This judging is done through composition and division
• Example: Understanding “man” is not true or false; “Man is an animal” is true; “Man is a stone” is false

Article 3: Are True and Being Convertible? #

Objection 1:

• True is properly in the understanding; being is properly in things
• Therefore they are not convertible

Objection 2:

• True extends to both being and non-being (it is true that what is, is; what is not, is not)
• Being does not extend to non-being
• Therefore true is more universal than being; they are not convertible

Objection 3:

• Being cannot be grasped except under the notion of true (being is not understood without being knowable)
• Therefore true is before being and they are not convertible

Counter-authority (From Aristotle, Metaphysics 2):

• The same disposition of things holds in being and in truth
• (This echoes biblical connection: “I AM” [being] in Old Testament; “I am truth” [truth] in New Testament)

Aquinas’s Response:

• True is convertible with being, just as good is convertible with being
• Each thing, insofar as it has being, is to that extent knowable
• True adds to being the notion of knowable/conformable to understanding
• Good adds to being the notion of desirable

Response to Objection 1:

• True is in things and understanding (as discussed in Article 1)
• The true that is convertible with being is true as it is in things (the conformity of things to divine understanding)
• But this is understood as making-known converting with the thing made known

Response to Objection 2:

• Non-being does not have in itself the wherewithal to be known
• Non-being is known only insofar as the understanding makes it knowable
• Therefore true is founded on being, insofar as non-being is a being of reason apprehended by reason
• Non-being has being only in reason, not in things

Response to Objection 3:

• When we say being cannot be grasped without knowing it is true, this can mean two things:
  • (1) Being is not grasped unless the notion of true follows upon grasping being (this is true)
  • (2) Being cannot be grasped unless the notion of true is grasped (this is false—true cannot be understood without being)
• One cannot avoid having something be knowable when one knows it
• But one can know something without knowing that it is knowable
• Being can be understood without its understandability being understood

Important Definitions #

Truth (Veritas) #

• Primary definition: The conformity or agreement of the mind to the thing understood
• Two aspects: (1) Conformity itself (present in senses and simple understanding) and (2) Knowing that conformity (present only in judgment/the second act)
• As perfection of understanding: Truth as known exists when the mind knows its own conformity to reality

Being of Reason (ens rationis) #

• A mode of being that exists only in the mind, not in the world
• Includes negations (nothing, blindness, ignorance) and certain relations
• Distinguished from real being (being in things) and the being of the mind itself

Proposition/Statement (Propositio) #

• Speech that signifies the true or the false
• Arises from the second act of reason (composition and division)
• Distinguished from other sentence types: questions, commands, prayers, exhortations (which are not truth-bearers)

Convertible Terms (Convertibilia) #

• Two terms are convertible when every instance of one is an instance of the other
• Example: Everything that is, is knowable; everything knowable has some mode of being (being and true are convertible)

Examples & Illustrations #

Truth-Bearers and Non-Truth-Bearers #

• “Man” alone → neither true nor false (simple apprehension)
• “Unicorn” → neither true nor false (simple apprehension)
• “Man is an animal” → true (composition/affirmative statement)
• “Man is not a stone” → true (division/negative statement)
• “Man is a stone” → false (composition/affirmative statement)
• “What time is it?” → neither true nor false (question)
• “Shut the door” → neither true nor false (command)
• “Give us this day our daily bread” → neither true nor false (prayer)
• “Let’s go to the movies” → neither true nor false (exhortation)

Conformity Without Knowing Conformity #

• A sense perceiving color: The sense is conformed to the color but does not know or consider this conformity
• Simple understanding of “man”: The intellect is conformed to what man is but does not know that it is conformed
• Contrast with judgment: Only in saying “Man is an animal” does the mind know and express its conformity

Being of Reason: Negations #

• Nothing: In things, nothing is not; in the mind, nothing is something to think and speak about (“Nothing is nothing”)
• Blindness: Not a positive quality in the blind person but absence of sight; the mind treats it as a subject to discuss
• Ignorance: In someone, ignorance is not something positive but absence of knowledge; yet we speak of “your ignorance” as if it were something
• The apparent paradox: How can nothing be something? Answer: In things, nothing is unbeing; in reason, it has being as an object of thought. The word “is” in “Nothing is nothing” signifies being-in-reason.

The Mind’s Universality #

• The mind distinguishes between something and nothing
• By understanding “You cannot get something from nothing,” one understands both something and nothing
• Everything that is is something; thus in some confused way, the mind knows everything (all things are beings)
• The mind can make statements about infinity: “No odd number is even” (statement about infinitely many numbers)
• “Man is an animal” applies to all men past, present, and future

Questions Addressed #

Q1: Is truth only in the understanding (not in things)? #

• Answer: Truth is chiefly in the understanding, but also secondarily in things insofar as they conform to divine understanding. The key distinction is between having conformity and knowing that conformity.

Q2: Is truth only in composition and division (not in senses or simple apprehension)? #

• Answer: While senses and simple understanding can have conformity to reality, truth as known exists only in the second act of reason (judgment). Truth as the perfection of understanding requires knowing the conformity, which occurs only in composition and division.

Q3: Are true and being convertible? #

• Answer: Yes. Each thing insofar as it has being is knowable. True adds to being the notion of knowable. Non-being is knowable only as a being of reason (existing in mind only), so it has a mode of being that makes it knowable.

Notable Quotes #

“The statement is speech signifying the true or the false.” — Definition of statement (propositio) in logic, arising from the second act of reason

“Just as sense about its own sensibles is always true, so the understanding of the what it is.” — Aristotle, On the Soul, Book 3 (cited as objection; Thomas accepts this but distinguishes knowing from having conformity)

“The same is the disposition of things in being and in truth.” — Aristotle, Metaphysics, Book 2 (establishing the connection between being and truth)

“True is the equality of thing and understanding.” — Isaac (cited as authority for why truth extends beyond composition and division)

“I am who am” [being] in Old Testament; “I am truth itself” [truth] in New Testament — Biblical reference showing connection between being and truth in God; noted as “a motive of credibility for Aristotle if he was to run into a Christian”

“Nothing is more true than when you say something is itself.” — Referenced statement illustrating that it is true both that being is being and non-being is non-being