79. Falsity in Understanding and the Kinds of Opposition

Subscribe in Podcast App | Download Transcript

Lecture Notes

Main Topics #

Falsity in the Understanding #

• Falsity is not in the understanding regarding the quidditas (whatness) of a thing, just as the senses are not deceived about proper sensibles
• The understanding cannot be deceived about essences unless there is some composition mixed in
• Falsity in understanding occurs through composition and division (affirmation and negation)
• Two ways falsity occurs in composition:
  1. Attributing the definition of one thing to another (e.g., defining man as a circle)
  2. Putting together parts of a definition that cannot be compatible (e.g., “four-footed rational animal”)
• In knowing simple essences, understanding is either true or absent entirely—there cannot be false understanding of simple things

The Equivocation of Intellectus (Understanding) #

• The Latin word intellectus and Greek nous have two distinct meanings:
  1. The faculty or power to understand
  2. Natural understanding—the fundamental habit of the mind
• Natural understanding (nous): what we grasp naturally without reasoning; understanding of first principles
• Reasoned-out understanding (episteme): understanding that comes after thinking and reasoning out something
• Must be natural understanding before reasoning, otherwise there would be nothing to reason from
• Aristotle uses nous for the understanding of first principles and episteme for scientific knowledge derived through reasoning

The Four Kinds of Opposition #

• Opposition is fundamental to understanding formal distinction and metaphysical difference
• Contradiction: opposition between being and non-being; the greatest opposition; everything must be either one or the other
  • Axiom: it is impossible to be and not be (at the same time in the same way)
  • Axiom: everything must either be or not be
• Privation (Lack): opposition between having and lacking; presupposes a common subject capable of having what is lacked
  • Example: blindness and sight—both apply only to creatures naturally capable of sight
  • The chair is not blind; it simply does not see
• Contrariety: opposition between contraries; they share a common genus but are furthest apart within it
  • Example: virtue and vice—both are real habits, but vice is lacking what virtue possesses
  • Less opposed than privation because both posit something positive
• Relation (prosti, “towards something”): the least opposed kind; relatives share a common genus but one posits the other
  • Example: father and son; teacher and student
  • Cannot exist without the correlative (a father must have a son)
  • Different from other oppositions because the relatives do not tend to eliminate each other

Application to Divine Distinction #

• The Father and Son must be distinguished in God
• Cannot be distinguished by contradiction (both are God)
• Cannot be distinguished by privation (no lack in God, who is absolute fullness)
• Cannot be distinguished by contrariety (both share the same divine nature/form)
• Must be distinguished by relation: the Logos is “towards” (prosti) the Father
• St. John’s Gospel confirms this: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was towards God”

Reasoning and Understanding as Rest and Motion #

• Proportionality: reasoning is to understanding as motion is to rest
• When reasoning, the mind is in motion, moving from one thing to another (the word discourse reflects this etymologically)
• When understanding, the mind is standing still (etymologically, standing in understanding)
• Two kinds of rest: before motion and after motion
• Understanding after reasoning (episteme) is distinct from natural understanding before reasoning (nous)

Key Arguments #

Against Falsity in the Understanding (Objections) #

• Augustine’s argument: “Everyone who is deceived does not understand that which is deceived”—therefore there is no falsity in the understanding
• Aristotle’s argument: “The understanding is always correct”—therefore there is no falsity in the understanding
• Aristotle’s argument: Where there is composition and division (affirmation and negation), truth and falsity exist, but composition and division occur in the understanding, so falsity is in the understanding

Thomas’s Resolution #

• The proper object of understanding is the whatness (quiditas) of a thing
• When properly understanding the essence of a thing, one cannot be deceived about that essence
• Properly understanding requires reducing something to its whatness, as happens in demonstration
• In demonstration (true reasoning from true definitions), there is no falsity
• Augustine’s statement should be understood as applying to proper understanding of essences, not to all operations of the understanding
• Falsity in understanding occurs not in knowing simple essences but in the composition and division of understood things

The Argument from Understanding Requirements #

• If the intellect understood nothing before reasoning, there would be nothing to reason from
• Therefore, there must be natural understanding (nous) of first principles before reasoning (episteme)
• This natural understanding is what Aristotle discusses in the sixth book of the Nicomachean Ethics under the five virtues of reason

Important Definitions #

Quidditas (Whatness) #

• The essence or nature of a thing
• The proper and direct object of the intellect
• What the intellect grasps through the likeness of the thing
• Distinct from accidental properties or compositions

Intellectus (Understanding) - Two Senses #

• As faculty: the power or ability to understand
• As habit: natural understanding (nous), the fundamental grasp of first principles without need of reasoning

Episteme (Reasoned-out Understanding) #

• Scientific knowledge obtained through reasoning
• Understanding that comes after thinking out something
• Derived from the Greek word meaning “to come to a halt/stop”
• Different from but built upon natural understanding

Nous (Natural Understanding) #

• The immediate grasp of first principles
• Understanding of axioms and their parts
• Does not involve reasoning but is foundational for all reasoning
• Aristotle’s term for one of the five virtues of reason

Composition and Division (Compositio et Divisio) #

• The second act of reason (after simple apprehension of essences)
• Composition: putting together understood things in affirmation (e.g., “man is an animal”)
• Division: separating understood things in negation (e.g., “man is not a dog”)
• The level at which falsity enters the understanding

Privation (Privatio) / Lack #

• An unbeing in a subject naturally capable of having what is lacked
• Presupposes both the subject and the capacity for what is lacked
• Distinguished from simple negation (which has no subject)
• Example: blindness is not merely the absence of sight but the absence of sight in a creature capable of sight

Examples & Illustrations #

Deception Through Equivocation #

• If someone uses the word “dog” to mean only “animal” and “cat” to mean only “animal,” saying “dog is cat” is not false—just a tautology (animal is animal)
• True error requires understanding the specific difference between dog and cat, yet still making the error
• Example: “An odd number is an even number”—this is false only if one truly understands odd and even as different; otherwise, one is just saying “number is number”

The Ink Bottle Example #

• A child places a piece of metal that looks like ink on a white tablecloth
• The mother is not deceived about the color (she sees color correctly); she is deceived about what the thing is (metal, not ink)
• This illustrates deception about the sensible, not about the sense itself

The Four-Footed Rational Animal #

• This definition attributes incompatible properties (four-footedness and rationality) to a single nature
• The understanding is false not only in relation to something else but in itself
• Shows how falsity can occur in the very formation of a definition through improper composition

Circle Defined as Man #

• Attributing the definition of a circle (a round shape) to man (a rational animal)
• Illustrates the first way falsity occurs in understanding: applying one thing’s definition to another

Contradiction in Life Stages #

• Expecting college, graduate school, and teaching to be different than they actually are
• The imagination forms false opinions about future experiences
• Shows how composition of imagined things leads to falsity before actual experience

The Witches’ Prophecy (Macbeth) #

• “Fair is foul, and foul is fair. / Through the fog and filthy air”
• Illustrates two causes of deception: fog (confused mind) and filthy air (corrupted appetite/will)
• Shows how falsity in understanding can result from either intellectual or moral disorder

The Axioms of Being #

• “It is impossible to be and not be”
• “Everything must either be or not be”
• These are foundational first principles (nous) that cannot be false because they are grasped naturally and do not involve composition
• Known immediately once the terms are understood

Common Axioms in Ethics #

• “Do good and avoid evil”
• “Honor your father and mother”
• These are like the axioms of knowledge—foundational principles grasped naturally
• Someone who does not assent to these needs punishment, not argument, because they are self-evident

Relatives Positing One Another #

• Father must have a son; son must have a father
• Double must have a half; half must have a double
• Baptism formula order: the names themselves posit the order (Father, Son, Holy Spirit); inverting the order would not necessarily invalidate because the relational terms posit their order inherently

Notable Quotes #

“Everyone who is deceived does not understand that which is deceived.” - Augustine, cited by Thomas

“The understanding is always correct.” - Aristotle, cited by Thomas

“Fair is foul, and foul is fair. / Through the fog and filthy air.” - Shakespeare, Macbeth, cited to illustrate the causes of deception

“To be or not to be? That is the question.” - Shakespeare, Hamlet, cited to illustrate the principle of contradiction and the axiom that everything must either be or not be

“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was towards God.” - St. John’s Gospel, cited regarding the relational distinction between the Father and the Son

“Reasoning is to understanding as motion is to rest.” - Paraphrased from Aristotelian proportion, used by Berquist to explain the difference between episteme and nous

Questions Addressed #

Is Falsity in the Understanding? #

• Resolution: Falsity is not in the understanding regarding the whatness (essence) of things, but only in the composition and division of understood things. When the intellect incorrectly attributes properties to things or composes incompatible elements, falsity enters. Augustine’s statement that the deceived do not understand should be understood as referring to proper understanding of essences, not all intellectual operations.

What Is the Equivocation in the Word “Understanding” (Intellectus)? #

• Resolution: The word intellectus (and Greek nous) can mean either the faculty of understanding or natural understanding as a fundamental habit. This distinction is critical: natural understanding grasps first principles without reasoning, while reasoned-out understanding (episteme) comes after thinking. Both are genuine understanding but operate at different levels.

Why Must There Be Natural Understanding Before Reasoning? #

• Resolution: If the intellect understood nothing before reasoning, there would be nothing from which to reason. Therefore, there must be a natural understanding of first principles (nous) that is foundational and prior to all discursive reasoning (episteme).

How Are the Four Kinds of Opposition Distinguished? #

• Resolution: (1) Contradiction (being/non-being) is the greatest opposition; (2) Privation presupposes a subject and lacks something it should have; (3) Contrariety posits something real in both terms within the same genus; (4) Relation is the least opposed because relatives share a genus but one posits the other necessarily. The Father and Son are distinguished by relation, not by the other three kinds.

How Can One Be Deceived If One Really Understands? #

• Resolution: True deception requires that one understand the difference between things yet mistake one for the other. But if one truly understands what a dog is and what a cat is, one cannot mistake them because understanding the difference is already part of understanding them. Therefore, deception presupposes some failure in understanding the specific difference, even while using the words.