De Anima (On the Soul)
Lecture 161: The Separated Soul's Knowledge of Substances and Natural Things

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

and he exemplifies, you know, the end of the military art is victory, right? The end of the household art, he says, is wealth. That's a common opinion, right? But when you get to his consideration, a more formal consideration of the household there in the beginning of the politics, he says, that's false. He's used it as an example of how each art has its own end, right? So Aristotle does, in fact, sometimes give examples, right, that will be accepted by his, what, students, right, even though he doesn't, what, think that they are true, right? But they illustrate the point nevertheless, huh? Okay? So this might be another example of that. That's one explanation Thomas gives. Because Aristotle is very clear in the third book when he takes up the understanding and comes to the end of the consideration of the possible understanding, the undergoing understanding, and the acting upon understanding, that this part of the soul is immortal, right? It's quite clear about that. But he has to have shown before, in the beginning of book three, that reason is not a form of sensing and not even a form of what? Imagining him. Okay? Now, if you look at the kind of prologue there in Henry V, have you ever read the Henry V of Shakespeare? Well, he's going to represent Henry V going over to France and the big war between the French and English in the Hundred Years' War, right? And he's appealing to the audience, right? You see? Like the chorus, so to speak, in the Greek thing. He's appealing to the audience, you know, to fill out the numbers of those on the stage, right? How can we do justice to this great battle between the French and the English, you know, with a few little bang-bangs on the thing, you know? And so he's appealing to your what? Imagination, right? But sometimes he'll say your imagination, sometimes your thoughts. He's using them interchangeably as he do, right? And in daily life, I might say, if I'm not too sure about something, and I say, is George Bush going to be re-elected, you know? I say, I think so. I imagine so, you know? I might use imagine or thinking, you know, without making a distinction, right? But there are other passages, you know, where Shakespeare says, you know, he's very clear about the distinction between the imagination and what reason, huh? Lovers and madmen have such shaping fantasies, you know? They apprehend more than cool reason ever comprehends. So he distinguishes between hot imagination and cool reason, right? So he knows there's a difference, right? But when he's appealing to the audience there, right, to use your imagination, he'll sometimes say imagination, sometimes, what? You know, fill out with thoughts, you know? You see? Because he'll speak it that way, right? It could be said that he speaks about that way of understanding, which is by, what? Turning oneself to, what? Images, right? Which is what the second argument was saying, right? But he's already answered that in the body of the article, huh? Now, I think elsewhere he gives a third explanation of it, that Aristotle might be talking about the, what? That inward sense that we call the cogitative power, right? That we talk about in the article in the interior senses, huh? Because that's sometimes called reason, too, huh? Okay? Just like I sometimes might speak of the cat's mind, huh? It's that universal mind that we have, right? It's something bodily, right? It's an inward sense, huh? The cat's mind, huh? Let's try to understand the cat's mind, sure. Okay, now, how does it understand, huh? To the third, it should be said that the separated soul does not understand by inborn forms, huh? Like the angels do, right? They're created with their forms. Nor by forms which it then separates, right? Nor does it understand only by forms that are conserved, right, from this life, as objection proves. But by forms from the influence of the divine might that are partaken of. Of which the soul becomes partaker just as the, what? Other, see? Although in a lesser way, right? Whence, immediately, when it seizes its conversion to the body, it is, what? Turned around towards the higher things. Nevertheless, huh? On account of this, one shouldn't say that its knowledge is not natural because God is the author not only of the, what? Influence of the gratuitous light, but also of the, what? Natural light, right? If you read Plato in the public, you see, he thinks that in this life, the soul can, what? Turn away from the material world and start to look at the, what? Immaterial world. But look first at the mathematical world, which is sort of in between the material world and the immaterial world, right? And then fine tune all around and look at the material things. Well, to a certain extent, in Christian asceticism, right, in what they call the dark night of the soul, the soul, in a way, is turning away from the, what? Bodily, right, huh? Okay? But even in the prophets and people like that in the Old Testament, very often they receive the prophet, prophecy under a, what? Sensible or imaginable form, huh? You know, like Isaiah sees the man sitting on the throne and so on. But in a sense, the dark night of the soul is kind of the soul turning away from the body, huh? And maybe it doesn't receive then something from above, right? And, you know, Augustine and Thomas thought that actually Moses and St. Paul were given a transitory vision of God, huh? In himself, huh? That's what St. Paul talks about in the epistles there, huh? Man caught up to the third heaven, right? Whether in the body or not, he did not know, right? But he suddenly turned away his attention from the body, huh? Okay? But those are not usual happenings, huh? So we take a little break here before we do Article 2. To the second one proceeds thus, it seems that the separated soul does not understand the separated substances, meaning the angels mainly, huh? For the soul is more perfect being joined to the body than separated from the body. For since the soul is naturally a part of human nature, and every part is more perfect, right? in its whole, huh? But the soul joined to the body does not understand the separated substances, as has been had above, shown above, therefore much less when it is, what, separated from the, what, body, right? But notice in some way the soul is, what, more perfect separated from the body than in the body, right? Even though simply it's better in the body, huh? As far as I understand the separated substances, it might be better off, huh? Moreover, everything that is known is either known through its presence or through its form. But the separated substances cannot be known by the soul through their presence, because nothing is inside the soul except God alone. God is closer to you than you are to yourself, as they say, huh? Nor through some forms which the soul is able to abstract from the angel, because the angel is more simple than the soul, right? So you can't abstract any form from them. What you abstract is always simpler than what you abstract it from, right? So what we abstract from images is simpler than the images, huh? But the angels are simpler than us, so, because the angel is more simple than the soul. Therefore, in no way can the separated soul understand separated substances. Moreover, some philosophers laid down that in a knowledge of the separated substances, the ultimate happiness of man consists. If, therefore, the separated soul is able to understand the separated substances, which is, the eternal happiness is, the eternal happiness From this separation alone, there would follow happiness, which is inconvenient, huh? But against this is that separated souls know other separated souls. As a rich man in hell, placed in hell, saw what? Lazarus and the bosom of Abraham, right? You remember when you want to give me a drop of water, right? You remember that? And Abraham explains, you know, there's a gulf between us that you can't overcome. If, therefore, the separated soul is able to understand the separated substances, separation alone would follow happiness. Okay, we are solid already, excuse me. I answer, it should be said that as Augustine says in the ninth book of the Trinity, our mind, meaning our soul, gets knowledge of bodiless things or incorporeal things to itself. That is by knowing itself, right? Okay, so that's why they say a knowledge of the soul is kind of a gateway to understanding so far as we can, the angels and what? Even God, right? We have to understand our own understanding and our own willing before we can understand the understanding and the willing of an angel. By this, therefore, that the separated soul knows itself, one can take in what way it knows the other separated substances. For it has been said that as long as the soul is joined or united to the body, it understands by turning itself towards images. And, therefore, neither is it able to understand itself, in this life, except insofar as it becomes actually understanding through a form abstracted from the, what, images. And, thus, through its own act, it understands itself as has been said above. So, through the objects, we know the acts, and through the acts of powers, and through the powers, the soul is the full way to become the knowledge in this life, right? Okay? I've got to understand what a triangle is, right? And then I understand what it is to understand what a triangle is. And then what it is to have the ability to understand what a triangle is. And then I come to some understanding of my soul, right? Which has that ability. But when it is separated from the body, it will understand, not by turning itself towards images, right? But to those things which in themselves are understandable. Whence it will understand itself through itself. It's like an angel understands itself through itself, huh? Well, in this life, the soul understands itself through knowing other things, right? And then knowing, it's knowing of them. It is overcommon to every separated substance that it understands that which is above itself and that which is below itself by way of its own substance. For thus something is understood according as it is in the one understanding. But something is in another in the way of that in which it is. There is received as received according to the way of the receiver. But the way of the substance of the separated soul is below the way of the angelic substance. But it is conformed in some way, huh? To the other separated souls. And therefore, about other separated souls, it will have a perfect knowledge. But about the angels, an imperfect and, what? Deficient knowledge. Speaking of that is to say the natural knowledge of the separated soul, right? But about the knowledge of glory and the vision, there is another, what? Account, right? Okay? Because some saints are raised above some angels, right? In the supernatural order, right? Okay? So my soul will understand your souls perfectly, but not the angels perfectly, huh? At least by my natural knowledge that I have. My soul is separated. Now, the first objection was saying, hey, isn't the soul less perfect when it's separated from the body? Because it's only a part, then, huh? Well, Thomas distinguished this here. To the first, therefore, it should be said that the separated soul is more imperfect if one considers the nature by which it communicates with the nature of body. But nevertheless, in some way, it is freer for understanding, insofar as through the weight and occupation of the body, it is, what? Impeded from the purity of understanding, huh? Okay? What does his name say? Proclus? He says, mathematics purificat oculumentis. That mathematics purifies the eye of the, what? Mind, the soul, the mind's eye. Once you dance, it says, and logic does even more so. Because logic is even more, what? Immaterial than geometry, huh? So the Pythagoreans, you know, have this great devotion to the soul as well as to geometry, right? And they saw geometry and mathematics as a way of, what? Purifying the eye of the mind, huh? Turning it away from the sensible, right? Now, in the second objection there, how does the soul understand the angels, right? To the second, it should be said that the separated soul understands the angels through likenesses impressed upon it by, what? God, right? Which, nevertheless, falls short of a perfect representation of the angels, on account of the fact that the nature of the soul is below that of the, what? Angels, right? Okay? So you have some knowledge of the angels, right? Through forms poured into your soul by God, right? But you will not have as perfect an understanding of the angels as the angels have of themselves, right? But my old teacher, Kassarik, said when you see your angel, you know, you kind of say, this is God, wow, this is the vision, right? And the angels say, no, no, no, no. I think I've got a long ways to go, I guess. Perfect. Then we'll see about you. Seeing God, okay? Now, the third one, huh? Was based upon the fact that some of the Arab philosophers thought that our ultimate happiness consisted in being joined to the angels, right? And Thomas, of course, is correcting that, as he does in the treatise on happiness. To the third, it should be said that in the knowledge of separated substances, not of just anyone, is the ultimate happiness of man, but in God, what, alone, right? Who is not able to be seen except by grace, huh? In a knowledge, however, of the other separated substances, there is magna flicitas, great happiness, nevertheless, huh? Although not the, what, final, huh? If, however, they are perfectly understood. Nevertheless, the human soul, by its natural knowledge, does not perfectly understand them, huh? Okay? This is when he says, oh, magna flicitas, right? I remember saying to my teacher, I want to study the angels, right? He says, anytime, he says. So, very much more interesting than we are, huh? Not as interesting as God, huh? I gave you that little thing of Thomas, where he says, I studied the body so I can understand the soul. I studied the soul so I can understand the angels. I studied the angels so I can understand God. That's it. Or as Augustine says, huh? Happy the man who, what, understands God if he understands nothing else. Miserable the man who understands all the things, but doesn't understand God, right? Blessed also the man who understands God and other things, but not the more so for understanding other things, but for knowing God, what, alone, right? Okay, he'll be only an omnibus, as they say, right? He'll be all things and all in heaven, huh? Okay. That was smooth as for myself, huh? So look at Article 3 here. I've got time for the article. Okay. I've got time for the article. I've got time for the article. Whither the separated soul knows all natural things. To the third one proceeds thus. It seems that the separated soul knows all natural things. But they are. First objection. For in the separated substances are the thoughts or the notions of all natural things. But the separated souls know the separated substances. Therefore they know all natural things, right? When I see my guardian angel, I see all his ideas, right? These ideas have complete knowledge of the natural world. Maybe I won't see my guardian angel that perfectly, right? Moreover, who understands something more understandable, much more is able to understand something less understandable. But the separated soul understands the separated substances, which are most understandable. Therefore, much more is able to understand all natural things, which are less understandable. But against this, it is said that in the demons, natural knowledge is more vigorous than in the separated soul. But the demons do not know all natural things, but they learn many things through the experience of a long time, as Isidore says. Therefore, neither do the separated souls know all natural things. Moreover, if the soul at once, when it is separated, knew all natural things, in vain would men, what? Study to getting a knowledge of things. But this is inconvenient. Therefore, the separated soul does not know all natural things. I answer it should be said that it has been said above. The separated soul understands through forms which it receives from the inflowing of the divine light, just as the, what, angels. But nevertheless, because the nature of the soul is below the nature of the angel, to whom this way of knowing is connatural, right? It's natural for the angel to know by what? Forms that flow into the angel, or come to the angel, from God, right? We get them from things themselves, right? So this is the natural way for him, right? Therefore, the separated soul, through forms of this sort, does not get a perfect knowledge of things, but one, as it were, in a somewhat common community and confused way, right? Just, therefore, as the angels have themselves to a perfect knowledge of natural things through these forms, so the separated souls to an imperfect and confused knowledge, right? For the angels, through these forms, know by a perfect knowledge all natural things, because all the things which God made in their own natures, he made in the angelic understanding as well, as Augustine says in his book on Genesis to the letter. Whence the separated souls about all natural things have knowledge, not a certain and particular knowledge, but a common one and a, what, confused one, right? Okay, now to the first objection, huh? The first, therefore, it should be said, that neither does the angel itself, through his own substance, know all natural things, but through some forms, as has been said. And therefore, on account of this, it does not follow, that the soul knows all natural things, because it knows in some way the separated substance, huh? So because I know the angel in some way, I don't necessarily know all his, what, thoughts, right? All the forms that inform his mind. Okay, and the second objection, huh? One understands the more understandable, understands the less understandable. The second should be said, that just as a separated soul does not perfectly understand the separated substances, so not all natural things does perfectly understand, but under a certain, what, confusion, huh? Now to the third, it should be said, that text of Isidore, that Isidore speaks of a knowledge of future things, which neither the angels, nor the demons, nor the separated substances know, except in their causes, or through revelation divine. But now we speak of, what, the knowledge of natural things. Okay? So they don't know when the day of the last judgment is to the angels, huh? Unless God specially reveals that to them, huh? Now, the fourth objection is saying, you know, why would we bother studying for in this life, right? To the fourth, it should be said, that the knowledge which is acquired here by study is particular, right? And perfect. But the knowledge there is confused. Once it does not foul that the effort of learning and studying is, what, in vain, huh? So observe that cat, right, and get a particular knowledge of that cat, huh? A particular, right? I don't have a confused knowledge of the cat in the next world, huh? In fact, I probably have a confused knowledge of the horse, right? I don't have much experience with the horse. But the entomologist has got a distinct knowledge of all kinds of insects, right? I don't have a very confused knowledge of insects, so. Okay, let's look at article four here now. It's kind of short articles. Very interesting. Whether the separated soul knows singulars. To the fourth one proceeds thus, it seems that the soul separated does not know singulars. For no knowing power remains in the separated soul except the understanding. But the understanding doesn't know singulars, as has been had above. The atheist says the thing is singular when sensed, right? Universal understood. Therefore, the separated soul does not know singulars, huh? Moreover, that knowledge is more determinate by which is known something in the singular and by which it is known in the universal. But the separated soul does not have a distinct knowledge of the forms of all natural things, much more, therefore, less would know singular things. Moreover, if it knows singular things, and not by sins, for the same reason it would know all singulars. But it doesn't know all singulars. Therefore, it knows none. But against this is what is said about the, what? Rich man placed in hell, saying, I have five brothers, right? So he knows the singular, right? I answer, it should be said that the separated souls know some singulars, but not all, even those which are, what? Present, huh? Not in the past and the future. To it, for the evidence of this, it should be considered that there is a two-fold way of understanding. One is by separation or abstraction from images. And according to this way, singularities cannot be known by the understanding directly, right? Okay, we saw that before, right? Knowing the universal. But indirectly, as has been said above, huh? The reason for that is that you're separating them from what makes them singular in order to understand them, huh? Because the source of their singularity is their matter. And they have to be separated from matter to become actually understandable. But there's another way of understanding, which is by the influx of forms from God. And through this way, the intellect is able to understand singulars. Because, you see, the forms of God are productive of not only form, but of what? Matter itself, right? And so through the forms that God has, you know the singular as well as the universal. And you're sharing the knowledge of God that is a cause of things, right? In the angels and in the separated soul, when these forms flow into the soul from God, there are forms that are productive of the, what? The whole creature, huh? Even in singularity. So through those forms, we know, we can know, to some extent, the singularity right thing. In the same way the angel knows the singular, right? Not through senses, but through these forms derived from God. For just as God himself, through his own essence or nature, insofar as he is the cause of the universals and of individual principles, right? He knows all things, both the universals and the singulars. Notice Tom Sears preceding the theological order. He's already talked about God, so one would know that if one was doing the whole theology in a theological order, right? So also the separate substances, through forms which are not derived from things, right? But our likenesses partaken of the very divine essence, right? They are also able to know, what? Singulars, huh? Okay? In other words, the forms by which God knows are not derived from the things that he makes, but the things that he makes proceed from his forms, right? He understands. And so his forms, then, are a likeness of what? Even what's individual in these things that he creates, because he creates individuals, right? So when the angels, or the separated soul, receives a form from God, it has something in the character of the divine form, right? Which is a likeness of what is individual in the creature, as well as what's universal. But our forms in this life are separated from the images and from what makes the thing individual. And therefore we can't know directly through the forms abstracted from the things that are singular. But the forms that are received from God are a certain, what, likeness of the divine forms, right? And those, the divine form is productive of the whole creature in its individuality, as well as in its universality. And so we know the singular insofar as we have those forms, to some extent, directly. Interesting, right? I know you provide universal form, right? I know you guys. Okay. But not all. In this, however, there is a difference between angels and separated souls, because the angels through these forms have a perfect and particular knowledge of things, but the separated souls are a somewhat confused one. Whence the angels, on account of the strength, efficacy of their understanding, through these forms not only are able to know the nature of things in particular, but also the singulars contained under the, what, species. But the separated souls are not able to know through these forms, except those singulars to which in some way, right, they are determined, either through preceding knowledge, right, or through some affection, right, or through some natural relation, or through divine ordination, because everything that is received in someone is determining it according to the way of the, what, receiver, right? I always remember that movie about St. John Bosco, you know, when I was a child, and here's that one, the one where he's in the seminary, and he has a very good friend there, and they make an agreement that if one of them dies, he will come back and tell the other one if he has been saved, right? And so the other guy dies, right? And of course, St. John Bosco is praying at night, and it's kind of in a dormitory, a lot of people, everybody else is asleep, of course. And he's just praying, you know, and praying for the soul of his friend who's departed, you know. And then there's a doorway over there, right? And you see kind of a light behind the doorway, you know. And he moves towards the door, and over the door, you know, and this flood of light, John Bosco, I am saved! And that's the end of the scene, you know. And oh, I made an impression upon him as a kid, you know, seeing that, huh? It's a tremendous scene, you know. But that's what comes to talking about here, right, huh? Because there would be a certain, what, precedentum cognitionum, a knowledge you have this person in this life, right? Or you have this particular affection of this person, right? And even in this life, sometimes, you know, they say that mothers, you know, have felt something when their son has died in the battlefield on the other side of the world, right? You see? So, um... But there's got to be something particular that attaches you to this, what, person, right? Okay? Or some kind of divine movement, right? You know? Perkos is praying again for illumination, Thomas. Okay? So that, uh... It has to be something particular, right? You want to know all singulars, huh? Okay? So the first objection was taken from the way we know in this life. To the first it should be said, therefore, that the soul, by way of abstraction, right? Now you get something simpler. Does not know singulars. But in this way, the soul doesn't... the separated soul doesn't understand, huh? By abstraction, huh? So the fact that by abstraction we can't know the singular directly, right, is not an objection to say that the soul cannot in some other way know the singular in the next life, huh? By the inflowing of forms that come from, what? God, right, huh? They are a likeness of the divine form, huh? Which is productive of what is singular in things as well as what is universal in things. Okay? Okay. The second one is saying, you know, that the soul doesn't have a determined knowledge of the species of things and therefore much less of the singulars. To the second it should be said that to, um... the species of those things or the individual knowledge of the separated soul is determined, uh... excuse me, I'm not reading it right. To the second it should be said, huh? That to the species or to the individuals of those things the knowledge of the separated soul is determined when the separated soul has some determined relation to those, right? And those are spelled out in the body of the article, right? Okay? So I had a special knowledge of this person or I had a special affection for this person, right? Or he was my son or my brother I had some natural relation to him, right? Or God has, what? Wanted to unite my soul in some way with his soul, right? Okay? So sometimes, you know, the fathers of religious orders, right? You know? Like when St. Dominic was dying, you know? I'll be more useful to you on the other side, he says, right? Than I was to you even in this life, right? Because they're obviously concerned that this man who has started the order, right? And has directed it, right? He's dying now. He's leading the order, right? But there's a, what? Divine ordering there, right? So St. Dominic is undoubtedly watching over all Dominicans, right? Okay? In the same way for the head of any, you know, any order, right? And Werner of Clairvaux, I'm sure, is watching over the Cistercians, huh? Okay? Do you see that? Now, the third objection is saying if it knows Singulars, it would know all Singulars. But it doesn't know all Singulars. And Thomas says, To the third it should be said that the separated soul does not have itself equally to all Singulars. But to some it has some relation that it does not have to others, right? So my father or my mother or my brother or my son or my daughter or something, right? I have a relation to, right? I have some knowledge of them already, right? I have some affection for them, right? Okay? I have some natural relation to them, right? I generated them or they generated me, right? Or we were generated by the same man or woman and so on, right? Or God is what? You know some of these images that saints have, you know, where you have the two saints and Christ has the two hearts to them. You've seen that? You've read those, huh? And he's welding them together, right? What are you doing? He's joining these two, what? Saints together, right? You know, giving them a special affection, right? So there's a...