De Anima (On the Soul)
Lecture 108: The Agent Intellect: Unity and Multiplicity

Transcript
================================================================================

And you can study that, you know, because you know how they speak of the Holy Spirit, you know, groaning in us, you know, praying. Sometimes you attribute that to the Holy Spirit, right? You can go into reasons for that. Keep yourselves in the love of God, right? So you have the three theological virtues there touched upon. By name you have faith and love, but the other one is indicated there by the middle. And then what does it say, right? It goes on, it says, just reading this one translation, looking for the mercy of our Lord, Jesus Christ, unto eternal life, right? There in one verse, you have the connection between the three theological virtues and what? Eternal life, yeah, see? Now look a little more carefully at the Greek here. He says, humes yude agapetor, you beloved, ep oikodomuntas, right? It's very, well translated, building up, right? And of course we speak of faith as being the, what? Foundation, right, huh? See, the whole life, huh? You know how sometimes when they take those words of the psalm there, unless the Lord build the house, they labor in vain who build it, right? And sometimes they take the house to refer to the church, right? But sometimes they understand it to refer to the individual soul, too. And then the foundation is faith. The walls are hope and the roof is, what? Charity, right, huh? So, in fact, faith is defined there in the piece of the Hebrews, right, as the substantia, right, the hypostasis, right? Of things hoped for, conviction of what is not seen. So it's called a foundation. So he says, ep oikodomuntas, building up, autos, yourselves, te, huh, in the hajiotate, the most holy, you moan, piste, in your faith, right? Okay, that's the first thing. Piste is that same word in St. Paul, you know, the famous one, you know, these three remain, right? Okay, then he goes on to say, in penuma te hajiyo, in the Holy Spirit, prosyuko menoi, praying in the Holy Spirit, right? That refers to what? Hope, right? Whose act is to pray. And then, heautas, yourselves, in agape, that's the word that St. Paul uses to, keeping yourselves in agape, theo, te ras, e sate, keeping yourselves in the love of God, right, huh? And then, prosyuko menoi, awaiting, right, the mercy, right, to Elias, right, to Elias, to curio hemon, Jesu Christus, of the Lord, our Lord Jesus Christ, e zoe naonion, right, huh? You see? That'd be a beautiful verse to bring together with the, what? Premium, right, to de verbo, right? Okay. Now, if you go to St. Paul there now, in that famous passage there, where these three remain, huh? I was going back and looking at it again, you know, and if you look at the context there, huh? See, just before he talks about that, what does he do? He's talking about seeing God face to face, right? Which is the eternal life, see? So, um, he leads up to, and he says, um, when I was a child, I spoke with a child, that part, right? This is a child now. And then he contrasts now. Uh, for now we see through a glass darkly, right? Okay. And, uh, glass means there a mirror, right? Greek word for mirror, it's top throw. For we see, uh, uh, yeah, in a riddle, an enigma, then we will see what? Face to face, right? post upon, post upon. Now I know, mirror said part, that's what I was saying before, they say, apologies, the word in part, did you mean imperfectly, right? It doesn't mean we know a part of God, or something like that, right? We know him imperfectly. Then, what? I shall know, even as I am known, right? Well, that's, that's partly because you will see what God, to God being joined to your mind, is a very form of your mind, right? So God knows all things by knowing himself, right? And we'll see God through God, rather than through some created, uh, form, right? Okay? So we'll know him as we are known. It's very expensive the way Paul puts it there, huh? Okay. And then he says, now there remains pistis, meaning faith, right? Elpis, hope, agape, right? These three things, but the greatest of these is what? Love, right, huh? See? And see, if you, um, see that connection between the things, then you, you know, unfold it more, right, huh? Because we're talking, you weren't here, Father, but we're talking about the text in the Catechism, the Catholic Church there, the definition more or less of, of hope there in the Catechism. And, uh, it begins by saying, you know, it's a theological virtue, virtue by which we desire the kingdom of heaven and eternal life, right? Okay. It goes on, you know, I'm talking about our dependence upon God. Um, so, um, there's obviously a connection between hope and eternal life, that hope is a desire, is a virtue by which we desire eternal life, as our last end, the Catechism says, right, huh? Uh, trusting in the promises of Christ and relying not on our own, uh, abilities, but on the grace of God and so on, right, huh? But obviously, you know, if hope is a very desire, right, for that eternal life, you see a connection between the two, huh? But in the case of faith, huh? When Thomas is explaining the articles of faith, he'll take the definition of eternal life in the words of Christ, in chapter 17 of John, right, where he says, this is eternal life to know you, the one true God, and him whom you have sent, Jesus Christ, and that's when Thomas divides the articles of faith according to the divinity of Christ and the humanity of Christ, huh? Okay? But that's when he also explains, you see, the definition of faith that is in the words of Paul in the epistle to the Hebrews, right? That it's the, what, substance of things hoped for, the conviction of what is not seen, and when Thomas explains that first part of the definition, substance, right, it's like a foundation of the things hoped for, the beatific vision, I mean, eternal life, right? It's kind of like a foundation insofar as we believe what we shall see later. And what is it that we believe? In the divinity and humanity of Christ, right? And that's the way you divide the articles of faith, the one way to divide them anyway, right? And that's what we'll see in the, what, in eternal life, huh? And, you know, there's other words that St. Christ says, you know, that, talking about the good shepherd and so on, and they will find nourishment going in and coming out, and Thomas says, coming in to contemplate the divinity of Christ, coming out to contemplate his humanity, they'll find nourishment in both, you know? It's beautiful, right? So, you know, as Thomas often says, even in human things, you know, belief comes before understanding, right? But if it's the origin in the supernatural order there, right? But the very fact that belief is divided by what it is that we will know in eternal life, huh? What we believe, you know, in this life is what we shall see in eternal life, huh? So it's beautiful. And then you get to charity, agape, then it's a new and entirely different connection with eternal life, huh? Because charity will be found in eternal life, except it'll be even more perfect than it is now, right? Faith and hope will disappear, right? But faith will be replaced by the vision itself of God, and the hope will be replaced by the firm position of him, right? But the charity will both make us, what, fitting to receive the beat of the vision, right? But it will also be perfected there, huh? Okay? And of course, that's kind of hinted at when you say, hallowed be thy name, because praise proceeds from love, huh? And he prays it's worth, worthy God, Okay? Well, then I looked at the other passage, I said, let's look at the other passage there, which is the famous one that they always quote from St. John's, one, three, two, is it? John's epistle, where he talks about not seeing God face to face, but seeing God, what? As he is, right? As opposed to what we do in theology, where we see God as he is not, huh? I don't mean falsely, but he's not, right? You know, he's not composed, he's not limited, he's not da-da-da-da. So, um, what is John? Oh, the letter, the letter. Yeah, John. Okay. Yeah, one, three, two, I think it is. Yeah, so anyway, he says, chapter 3 there, 1st epistle of John. Behold what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God. Therefore the world knoweth us not, because it knew him not. Now in the second verse here, 1, 3, 2, that's why I remember it on, 1, 3, 2. 1st epistle of John, 3rd chapter, 2nd verse. Beloved, now are we the sons of God, right? And it doth not yet appear what we shall be. But we know that when he shall appear, we shall be like him. That's very interesting, we shall be like him, right? For we shall see him as he is, right? In his light we shall see light, right? So we're going to be like him in order to see him. And he will be what? The form of our mind, right? Just as he's the understandable form, whereby he understands. But notice how Paul goes on now. It doesn't go, I mean, John, it doesn't go on to all the theological virtues, but he says, right? And everyone having this hope, right? In him, right? Okay? So he goes right on to one of the theological virtues, right? Everyone having this hope in him purifies himself, right? Like that one, I mean, God, I guess, is pure, right? He goes on about deferring sin and so on. But even there there's a connection with the theological virtues, the other time he mentions it, huh? I was kind of struck by this one of John, I mean, of Jude, because it seemed to me that that came right at the end of the epistles, right? Now, I was struck by, you know, I started rereading some of the commentaries on the epistles, you know, and I was struck by how central this idea of faith, hope, and charity is. But one thing that struck me very much was, you know, I started to move back. I started to read Thessalonians, right? And then Colossians, I worked my way back, right? And then Philippians and so on. And what struck me was that the first epistle of Thessalonians and the first epistle of Colossians, they both began, you know, with the greeting, you know, and then he's giving thanks, but giving thanks for their faith, hope, and charity. Just look at the Thessalonians here. Right after the second verse of the first epistle of Thessalonians, right after he's greeting them, he says, We give thanks to God always for you all, making mention of you in our prayers, right? And then the third verse. Remembering without seizing your work of faith, right? And labor of love, huh? And patience of hope in our Lord Jesus Christ. That's a principal thing to thank, to be thankful for, that he has in them, that he sees that they have faith, hope, and charity, huh? Beautifully said. Well, then you look at the first epistle of the Colossians, and we're at the education, right? First two verses, huh? Verse 3 says, We give thanks to God, huh? And the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, praying always for you. Since we've heard of your faith in Jesus Christ, right? And of the love which he had to all the saints, for the hope which is laid up for you in heaven. Right? You know? Because Thomas, in one of these ones where that comes up, he just says, you know, well, these are our chief goods, faith, hope, and charity, right? And if you go to the end, you know, of the Gospel of Matthew, where he sends them forth, right? You know, make disciples of all nations. Thomas says, that refers to what? Faith. And then baptizing them, right? Well, that's a certain connection with hope, because just as we attribute prayer to hope, because you're, you know, relying upon God's help, right? So we go to the sacraments for God's help, too, right? Mother Teresa was saying there to Margaret, right? She'd go astray. She didn't go to communion every day. She'd just lose her way, she said. Okay? And then the third thing was, what did the text was I have now? I forget. Last time you mentioned Matthew, the end of Matthew. Oh, yeah. And then the last thing he says is teaching them to what? Obey the commandments, right? So the first thing refers to faith, the second one, third thing, obviously, to charity, right? And then the middle one to something that could be appropriated to hope, especially. And, of course, you get that a little bit when you look at the epistle to Timothy there, you know, that, you know, the first thing he's got to establish is the faith, hope, and charity of the citizens there, of the flock, and then he has to, you know, after that he's got to take care of some of the material needs, too. But it's such a central thing. So that's really very good, that premium to Dei Verbum, right? It's really, really, you could illustrate it with what Jude says there, you know. That's kind of a nice one verse, you know, where he's very explicit about. He's wanting them to believe and to hope and to love, and therefore seamlessly meant to eternal life, yeah. Father, and Son, and Holy Spirit, amen. Father of lights, enlighten us. Guardian angels, strengthen the lights of our minds, order in whom our images, and arouse us to consider it more correctly. St. Thomas Aquinas, Angelic Doctor. Pray for us. Help us to understand all that you have written. In the name of the Father, and Son, and Holy Spirit, amen. So we're up to the fifth article here in question 79. Interesting to know in those first four articles that the questions are reversed now, in the order there. Because the first article is whether the understanding, meaning the possible understanding, is some power of the soul. And then he asks whether it's an undergoing power. And then he talks about whether there is an agent intellect, and then whether there's something of the soul, kind of the reverse order, huh? But you figure that out, why that might be so. The one about whether there's something of the soul, right, is reversed in the order. As if there's more of a problem, right, of people seeing the agent intellect as part of the soul. So I think this is reversed from what order? Well, if you look at the first two articles, one is asking about the possible understanding, what is the power of the soul, right? And that's the first article. The second article is more on the nature of the possible understanding, right? The third article is about the existence of the agent intellect. And then the corresponding article to Article I is Article IV, so it's the second in place. Well, I'm saying I'm going to leave that to you to decide, huh? Although, in a way, in Article III, he's not so much asking so much the nature of the agent intellect, although that comes out in that, right, but the very existence of it, right? Right, yeah. Because people in general might know that we have the ability to understand and reason, on one hand, and we have the ability to choose, but we have this third power in our soul that most people wouldn't be aware of, right? So he doesn't really have an article on whether we have the ability to understand, you know? Although that's something questionable, too, sometimes. But that we have this ability to make understandable and act, right? What is in the images is something that people might not recognize us as having. So the fifth article. To the fifth, he proceeds thus. It seems that the active, or the agent understanding, is one in all men. For nothing that is separated from the body is multiplied according to the multiplication of bodies. But the active understanding is separated. It's not a material thing, as is said in the third book about the soul. Therefore, it is now multiplied in the many bodies of men, but there's one of them in all. That's in a way we did to the question of how there can be many, what, souls, right? When these souls can exist apart from the body, huh? And we'll see if Thomas, you know, souls are partly along those same lines, but... Moreover, the second objection. The active understanding, the agent understanding, makes the universal, which is something one in many. But that which is the cause of unity is more something one, huh? Notice that old principle there, right, huh? When the same is said of two things, but one of them because of the other belongs more to the cause, right? So, let's take a look at it. So, let's take a look at it. So, let's take a look at it. So, let's take a look at it. So, let's take a look at it. So, let's take a look at it. So, let's take a look at it. So if the agent-elect makes something to be one out of many, then it itself must even more so be something one, just as if sugar makes coffee to be sweet. Before it's the order, sugar itself must be sweet, right? As well as coffee. Therefore, the agent-elect is one in all. Or there, to a certain extent, maybe he's, what, the objector is kind of playing with one, huh? I always quote that fragment of Heraclitus. It's wise, he says, listening not to me, but to reason, to agree that all things are one. Now some people think that by that he means, you know, the dog and the cat and the tree are all one thing, right? Which would be kind of stupid, I would say, in this part. And so you're not somebody that reasonably leads you to see. But maybe he means that all things are one in the sense that each thing in itself is, what, unified, huh? Okay? And, of course, in wisdom you learn that one is kind of like a property of being, huh? Whatever is, is one, huh? As Thomas would explain, say, in the Summa here, whatever is, is simple or composed, right? And what is composed isn't, unless it's, what, parts are together, are unified, right? And if it's composed, must be one, in order to be, even more so, is a simple one, huh? So whatever he is, is one. That could be one meaning he has in mind, right? That would be true, right? Another meaning would be, you know, the whole universe of things has some kind of, what, unity, a unity of order, right? And it's one in its origin, right? And one in its ultimate end, and so on, huh? So one has many, what, senses here, right? I mean, you could say, well, yeah, your age intellect and my age intellect must be one if it makes something one in our, what, thinking, right? If it makes something one out of many images. But that doesn't mean that my age intellect and your age intellect is, what, numerically one and the same age intellect, huh? Okay? You find that same kind of argument, though, sometimes when they say, you know, we understand the same things, we must have one and the same understanding, right? Which is not really true, huh? That interesting expression, you're talking about love, huh? Return your love, what does that mean? Love the one that loved you first? Yeah. But notice, you say, you know, someone loves you first, right? And then you return their love, huh? Well, there's two ways, maybe, that you can understand that text. One would be in an unfriendly sense, right? If you return your love, I don't want it. That's not what you mean, though, right? When you say, return your love. But you mean that, what? I love you in return, but is my love, your love, handed back to you? No. But notice the way we speak in English. We say, and maybe other languages, too, I'm going to return your love, right? So if you love me, and then I love you in return, we speak of what? I'm returning your love, okay? Just like if you give me, you know, lend me your book, and then I return your book, right? It's sort of the same love whereby you love me, and whereby I love you in return. But is that really what we mean? Hmm? Right? In turn, I'm loving you, too. If I'm not returning, you know, the love whereby I, what, love you in return is not a returning of the love that you've given me. But in a way it is, huh? A little bit like that, huh? I think the word of expression is kind of interesting, huh? Because it has some likeness there to, what, justice, right? Where you give me something and I have to give it back to you, right? It's kind of an interesting way of speaking, but we'll leave that to love and friendship, of course. But, you know, in the prologue to Roman Juliet, huh? You know, where Shakespeare's kind of preparing for this tragedy, a pair of star-crossed lovers take their life, right? Remember that line in the prologue? A pair of star-crossed lovers take their life. It's life in the singular there, right? Oh. See? Yeah. As if the lovers had only what? One life. Yeah. Yeah. You see? That's interesting, huh? Yeah. Yeah. Like in Shakespeare's play there, a poem about the phoenix and the turtle there, right? Yeah. No reason can't figure out that the two have become one. Mm-hmm. And therefore, you know, that love has, what, murdered number, right? Mm-hmm. Okay. So, you've got to watch some of those ways of speaking, huh? Mm-hmm. Moreover, all men come together in the first, the first thoughts of the understanding, the first concepts, huh? We all know, for example, that a whole is more than a part, right? Mm-hmm. Anybody here who doesn't know that? Mm-hmm. Anybody in the world who doesn't know a whole is more than a part? See? Mm-hmm. And if someone says he doesn't know that, he's not telling the truth. Mm-hmm. And so we'll give him only a part of his salary this week, huh? Mm-hmm. Give him a part of the meal he ordered, a part of the automobile he bought, right? And he'll scream and rave and rant, huh? Showing that he thinks that the whole is more than a part, huh? But what do you mean? I mean, you know, I gave you the potato but not the steak or something, right? But for you, the part is equal to the whole, so we can make some money off you, by the money. What do you mean? You didn't get your whole salary, you know? I mean, you were shortchanged? What do you mean? Huh? Because the part is not shorter than the whole, is it? I mean, you see? Although you do have the sophists, you know, like Lord Bertrand Russell, right, who denied that the whole is more than the part, huh? Oh, yeah. You had a nice mystic argument that my old teacher, the deconic there, refuted, you know? Mm-hmm. Anyway. But we assent to these things, right, the same things, through the agent intellect, huh? So those first things we understand, it's through the agent intellect that we understand them, huh? Therefore, since we're all understanding and agreeing on the same thought, we all come together in one agent intellect, huh? Okay? It's kind of strange, you know, this agreement that you have there among men. This is just kind of rare, right? Oh, yeah, yeah. Yeah. I was telling you, you know, how I was one time saying to my friend Warren Murray there, I don't see why my mother, when she was a widow, and my aunt Margaret was a widow, why they just couldn't just set up a house together, you know, rather than maintain two separate houses. Well, it seems that all women have different ways of doing things, even sisters. And I said, well, you know, I mean, so he says, well, he says, would two of us ever teach the same course the same way? And I remember when the chairman, I first came to assumption, you know, sometimes when you teach a course you haven't ever taught, you kind of talk to somebody who's taught it or something, you know, and so on. And Father Freudier says, you know, nobody can teach somebody else's course, right? So there's no two professors who teach a course or present the same material in exactly the same way. I mean, it's kind of interesting the way, you know, to have these discrepancies, even among people who aren't generally in agreement, huh? That's a stupid way to teach the course. I mean, you should do it this way. There's just so much. And that's why sometimes I wonder and I think about the Trinity, because God the Father and God the Son, God the Holy Spirit, they have one mind, right? But literally one mind, huh? You know? That's kind of unusual. Now, it says in Scripture that the early church said they had, you know, one, you know, one soul, you know, one heart, you know, huh? I mean, unanimous means what? One soul, right? But is it really one soul? Yeah? Huh? You see? Is it? No? See? But notice the way we speak there, right? So we all understand the same thing by the age intellect, huh? It must have really one age intellect, huh? It's making us all think the same thing about these things. But against this is what the philosopher says in the third book about... ...the soul. ...the soul. that the agent intellect, the acting upon understanding, is like a light, but there is not the same light in diverse things illuminated. Therefore, there is not the same act of understanding or agent intellect in diverse men. I answer it ought to be said that the truth of this question depends upon the things that have gone before. For if the agent understanding, the acting upon understanding, was not something of the soul, but were a certain, what, separated substance, right, like an angel or a god, then there would be one agent intellect of all men. And sometimes they compare that to the sun, right? It's the same sun, in a sense, that enables all of us to see, right? So if you think of the agent intellect as something separated from all of us, like the sun is from our eyes, right, then you might have one in number, right? But it had been shown in the previous article, right, that the agent intellect was something of the soul, right? It was the power of the soul. And this is what they understand who lay down the, or who posit the unity of the agent intellect. If, however, the agent intellect is something of the soul, as a certain power of it, it is necessary to say that there are many agent intellects, according to the, what, plurality of souls, which are multiplied according to the multiplication of men, as has been said above. Therefore, for it is not possible that there be one in the same power in number of diverse, what, substances, huh? Okay? So, no, she's drawing this conclusion from the previous, what, article, right? Where you've shown that the agent intellect is a power of the human soul, huh? So the power of my soul can't be the power of your soul, huh? Even though it might be like in some way, huh? Could you explain? I think, I never, I couldn't figure out this last sentence, how it fit in, and what exactly, I didn't call something, that last sentence didn't click with me. Well, he's saying that... Which one is that? Non-Ainem Potest. Okay, well, that's, it is necessary because he's saying, if the agent intellect is something of the soul, if there be a power of it, then he's drawing the conclusion, right? It's necessary to say that there are many agent intellects, huh? But part of the reason in order to draw the conclusion is the one that he supplies in the last sentence, huh? Last sentence. Because there can't be one in the same power in number, right? Of diverse substances, huh? Oh, yeah, okay, since the... So it has to be like a premise, along with the si, autum intellectus, the if part there, the if-then statement, huh? Right, okay. Okay, yeah. Now, he's going to reply to the first objection. To the first, therefore, it should be said that the philosopher proves that the agent intellect is separated through this that the possible understanding is what's separated, huh? Okay, and I recall that from our study of the third book of the soul, huh? And Aristotle then said, if the possible understanding is not a body, huh? And you remember the reason he gave for that, right? The reason he gave it in the third book is that the possible understanding is able to receive the natures of all material things. Oh, yeah. Just like the eye is able to receive all colors, huh? Yeah. And the eye could not receive all colors if it already had a color in the fluid there, right? Yeah. And likewise, my tongue could not receive all tastes if my tongue was sugary or sweet and sour tongue or something, right? That would prevent me from tasting all tastes, huh? So just as each sense is lacking in the object that it receives, huh? So likewise, the universal understanding, right? The possible understanding, as he calls it, that is able to, what? Know all material things by receiving the natures of all these things in it must be itself lacking any material nature, huh? Okay? That's the reason he gives there. There are other reasons you can give besides that, huh? And then when he comes to the fact that the proper object of this possible understanding is that what it is, is something sensed or imagined, huh? And then you realize that what is sensed or imagined is not actually understandable, and you see the need then for the agent, intellect, right? Well, if that makes things that are not actually understandable, things that are material, actually immaterial, right? Then a fortiori, it must be what? It's self-immaterial. And it's even more, what? Like an agent, huh? With respect to the possible understanding, and the agent, of course, is more perfect than the one it acts upon, huh? So if the one it acts upon is immaterial, then even more so, Rastau argues, must the agent elect be immaterial, okay? So it's a power or an ability that our soul has, but not in the body, right? Okay? In that sense, it's separated, right? Okay? But not separated in the sense of what the Greeks call a separated substance, an immaterial substance by itself, huh? So he reasons from the way in which the possible understanding, the one that understands, is immaterial to the other one being immaterial, and from one being separated to the other being separated. But the possible understanding is said to be separated because it is not the act of some bodily organ, huh? And according to this, and in this way also, the acting upon or the act of understanding is said to be separated, not in the sense that it be a, what, separated substance, huh? So the angels, in philosophy, are usually called separated substances, huh? Oh, yeah. Okay? Immaterial substances, huh? Mm-hmm. There's a joke about Father Boulay, right? Okay. I come back to Laval there, you know, visit my professors and so on. And we go out to dinner there, Father Boulay and myself and one of the lady students, right, and so on, the others. So in the course of the conversation, Father Boulay says, you're married yet, Burkwest, he says. And I said, no, and he looks at the girl, he says, pray at me, he says, substance separate, he says. I'm not quite a substance separate, right? But Thomas, you could say, you know, the angelic doctor, right? No, it's a compliment, is what he once said, but I mean, he's making fun of me in that sense. I tell you, I heard them use that expression. I was one day in class there, Deconic happened to, in passing, you know, refer to Bach and Mozart, right? And so afterwards, I said to him, I noticed you mentioned Bach and Mozart together. I said, would you put Bach on the same level as Mozart? He said, oh, no, no, no. He says, Mozart, substance separate. You know, he's like a, he's like, yeah. So, you see, what we call them in theology, we call them usually, what, angels, right? But because we know the angels through sacred scripture, and when they are in their role as what? Messengers. Messengers, right? But scripture does call them also ministers, looking back towards God, right? They're ministers of God. So that's what you apply to the first objection, right? Which misunderstands in what way the agent elect is said to be separated. But people constantly misunderstand things. Now, the second objection, that it makes something one, the second it should be said that the agent intellect, is the way they translate that sometimes, but the acting upon understanding, is the way I would translate it, the acting upon understanding causes the universal by abstraction or separation from matter, but to this it is not required, or for this it is not necessary, that there be, what, one acting upon understanding in all those having an understanding, but rather that it be one in all, according to the relation, right, to all the things in which it abstracts the universal with respect to which the universal is something.