QUESTION SIX: The methods of speculative science
Article 1: Must we Proceed according to the Mode of Reason in Natural Science, according to the Mode of Learning in Mathematics, and according to the Mode of Intellect in Divine Science?
Article 2: Should We Entirely Abandon the Imagination in Divine Science?
Article 3: Can Our Intellect Behold the Divine Form Itself?
Article 4: Can Our Intellect Behold the Divine Form by Means of Some Speculative Science?
| Latin | English |
|---|---|
| Sancti Thomae de Aquino | Thomas Aquinas |
| Super Boetium De Trinitate | On Boethius on the Trinity |
| Textum a Bruno Decker Lugduni Batauorum 1959 editum ac automato translatum a Roberto Busa SJ in taenias magneticas denuo recognovit Enrique Alarcón atque instruxit | Questions 5-6, translated by Armand Mauer (Toronto, 1953) |
| Quaestio 6 | QUESTION SIX |
| Prooemium | |
| Pars 3 q. 6 pr. | |
| Deinde quaeritur de modis quos scientiis speculativis attribuit. Et circa hoc quaeruntur quattuor. | The next question concerns the methods ascribed by Boethius to the speculative sciences. There are four points of inquiry in this connection: |
| Pars 3 q. 6 pr. 1 | |
| Primo. Utrum oporteat versari in naturalibus rationabiliter, in mathematicis disciplinabiliter, in divinis intellectualiter. | 1. Must we proceed according to the mode of reason in natural science, according to the mode of learning in mathematics, and according to the mode of intellect in divine science? |
| Pars 3 q. 6 pr. 2 | |
| Secundo. Utrum in divinis sit omnino imaginatio relinquenda. | 2. Should we entirely abandon the imagination in divine science? |
| Pars 3 q. 6 pr. 3 | |
| Tertio. Utrum intellectus noster possit ipsam formam divinam inspicere. | 3. Can our intellect behold the divine form itself? |
| Pars 3 q. 6 pr. 4 | |
| Quarto. Utrum hoc possit fieri per viam alicuius scientiae speculativae. | 4. Can our intellect behold the divine form by means of some speculative science? |
| Articulus 1 | ARTICLE ONE Must we Proceed according to the Mode of Reason in Natural Science, according to the Mode of Learning in Mathematics, and according to the Mode of Intellect in Divine Science? |
| Pars 3 q. 6 a. 1 arg. 1 | |
| Ad primum sic proceditur. Videtur quod non oporteat in naturalibus rationabiliter versari. Philosophia enim rationalis contra naturalem dividitur. Sed rationabiliter procedere videtur proprie ad rationalem pertinere. Ergo non competenter attribuitur naturali. | (a) On the first point we proceed as follows: lt seems that we must no proceed according to the mode of reason in natural science, for: 1. Rational philosophy is contra-distinguished from natural philosophy. But it seems to belong properly to rational philosophy to proceed according to the mode of reason. So this method is not appropriately ascribed to natural philosophy. |
| Pars 3 q. 6 a. 1 arg. 2 | |
| Praeterea, philosophus frequenter in libro physicorum distinguit processus ad aliquas conclusiones rationales et physicas. Ergo non est proprium naturali scientiae rationabiliter procedere. | 2. Again, in the Physics the Philosopher frequently distinguishes between the methods of arriving at rational conclusions and physical conclusions. Therefore it is not the special characteristic of natural science to proceed rationally. |
| Pars 3 q. 6 a. 1 arg. 3 | |
| Praeterea, illud, quod est commune omnibus scientiis, non debet uni appropriari. Sed quaelibet scientia ratiocinando procedit discurrendo vel ex effectibus in causas vel ex causis in effectus vel ex aliquibus signis. Ergo non debet naturali appropriari. | 3. Again, what is common to all the sciences should not be reserved to one. But every science proceeds by reasoning, advancing from effects to causes or from causes to effects or from certain signs So this method should not be reserved to natural science. |
| Pars 3 q. 6 a. 1 arg. 4 | |
| Praeterea, ratiocinativum in VI Ethicorum contra scientificum distinguitur a philosopho. Sed philosophia naturalis ad scientificum pertinet. Ergo non convenienter attribuitur ei rationabiliter procedere. | 4. Again, in the Ethics the Philosopher distinguishes the reasoning part of the soul from the scientific part. But natural philosophy belongs to the scientific part. Therefore it is not appropriately said to proceed according to the mode of reason. |
| Pars 3 q. 6 a. 1 s. c. 1 | |
| Sed contra est quod dicitur in libro de spiritu et anima quod ratio circa formas corporum versatur. Sed considerare corpora maxime pertinet ad naturalem. Ergo convenienter attribuitur ei rationabiliter procedere. | On the contrary, the De Spiritu et Anima says that reason is concerned with the forms of bodies. Now it belongs most especially to natural philosophy to consider bodies. Therefore the rational method is appropriately attributed to it. |
| Pars 3 q. 6 a. 1 s. c. 2 | |
| Praeterea, in V de consolatione Boethius dicit: ratio cum quid universale respicit, nec imaginatione nec sensu utens imaginabilia tamen et sensibilia comprehendit. Sed imaginabilia et sensibilia comprehendere ad solum naturalem pertinet. Ergo rationalis processus convenienter naturali attribuitur. | Moreover, Boethius says: "When reason contemplates some universal nature, using neither imagination nor sense, it nevertheless comprehends imaginable and sensible things." Now it belongs to the natural philosopher alone to comprehend what is imaginable and sensible. Therefore the rational method is suitably attributed to natural philosophy. |
| Pars 3 q. 6 a. 1 arg. 11 | |
| Ulterius videtur quod inconvenienter dicatur mathematica disciplinabiliter procedere. Disciplina enim nihil aliud esse videtur quam acceptio scientiae. Sed in qualibet parte philosophiae accipitur scientia, quia omnes demonstrative procedunt. Ergo procedere disciplinaliter est commune omnibus partibus philosophiae, et ita non debet appropriari mathematicae. | (b) In the second place, it seems inappropriate to say that mathematics proceeds according to the mode of learning, for: 1. Learning seems to be nothing else than the receiving knowledge. But we receive scientific knowledge in all branches of philosophy, because all proceed by means of demonstration. So it is common to all parts of philosophy to proceed according to the mode of learning; and so this procedure should not be made exclusive to mathematics. |
| Pars 3 q. 6 a. 1 arg. 12 | |
| Praeterea, quanto est aliquid certius, tanto facilius esse videtur, ut de eo sit disciplina. Sed naturalia sunt certiora, ut videtur, quam mathematica, quia capiuntur sensu, a quo omnis nostra cognitio ortum habet. Ergo hic modus magis competit naturali quam mathematico. | 2. Again, the more certain something is, the easier it seems to learn it. But natural things seem to be more certain than mathematics because they are apprehended by the senses, from which all our knowledge takes its origin. Therefore this method belongs to the natural philosopher rather than to the mathematician. |
| Pars 3 q. 6 a. 1 arg. 13 | |
| Praeterea, ut dicitur in V metaphysicae, initium in scientiis est, a quo fit facilior disciplina. Sed initium addiscendi accipitur a logica, quam oportet praeaddiscere mathematicae et omnibus aliis. Ergo disciplinalis modus magis convenit logicae quam aliis. | 3. Again, as the Metaphysics says, in the sciences we begin at the point from which we learn more easily. But learning begins with logic, which must be mastered before mathematics and all the other sciences. Therefore it belongs to logic rather than to the other sciences to proceed according to the mode of learning. |
| Pars 3 q. 6 a. 1 arg. 14 | |
| Praeterea, modus naturalis scientiae et divinae assumitur a potentiis animae, scilicet a ratione et intellectu. Ergo similiter et modus mathematicae ab aliqua animae potentia sumi deberet, et sic non convenienter ponitur eius modus disciplinabiliter versari. | 4. Again, the methods of natural and divine science are taken from powers of the soul, namely from reason and intellect. Therefore in the same way the method of mathematics ought to be taken from some power of the soul. So it is not appropriate to say that its method is to proceed according to the mode of learning. |
| Pars 3 q. 6 a. 1 s. c. 11 | |
| Sed contra, disciplinaliter procedere est demonstrative procedere et per certitudinem. Sed, sicut Ptolemaeus in principio Almagesti dicit, solum mathematicum genus, si quis huic diligentiam exhibeat inquisitionis, firmam stabilemque fidem intendentibus notitiam dabit, velut demonstratione per indubitabiles vias facta. Ergo disciplinaliter procedere maxime proprium est mathematici. | On the contrary, to proceed according to the mode of learning is to proceed by demonstration and with certitude. But as Ptolemy says, "Mathematics alone, if one applies himself diligently to it, will give the inquirer after knowledge firm and unshaken certitude by demonstrations carried out with unquestionable methods." Therefore it is most characteristic of mathematics to proceed according to the mode of learning. |
| Pars 3 q. 6 a. 1 s. c. 12 | |
| Praeterea, hoc patet per philosophum, qui in pluribus locis suorum librorum scientias mathematicas disciplinas nominat. | Moreover, this is evident from the Philosopher who, in several places in his works, calls the mathematical sciences disciplines. |
| Pars 3 q. 6 a. 1 arg. 21 | |
| Ulterius videtur quod non sit conveniens modus divinae scientiae intellectualiter procedere. Intellectus enim secundum philosophum est principiorum, scientia autem conclusionum. Sed non omnia, quae in scientia divina traduntur, sunt principia, sed quaedam etiam conclusiones. Ergo intellectualiter procedere non est conveniens scientiae divinae. | (c) In the third place, it seems that it is not appropriate to divine science to proceed according to the mode of intellect, for: 1. According to the Philosopher," there is understanding (intellectus) of principles, whereas there is science of conclusions. But principles alone are not considered in divine science; some conclusions are also considered. Therefore to proceed according to the mode of intellect is not appropriate to divine science. |
| Pars 3 q. 6 a. 1 arg. 22 | |
| Praeterea, in illis, quae omnem intellectum excedunt, intellectualiter versari non possumus. Sed divina excedunt omnem intellectum, ut Dionysius dicit 1 c. de divinis nominibus et philosophus in libro de causis. Ergo intellectualiter tractari non possunt. | 2. Again, we cannot proceed intellectually with regard to those things that transcend every intellect. But divine things transcend every intellect, as Dionysius and the Philosopher say. Therefore they cannot be dealt with intellectually. |
| Pars 3 q. 6 a. 1 arg. 23 | |
| Praeterea, Dionysius dicit 7 c. de divinis nominibus quod Angeli habent intellectualem virtutem, in quantum divinam cognitionem non congregant a sensibilibus aut a rebus divisis. Sed hoc est supra animae potestatem, ut ibidem subditur. Cum ergo divina scientia, de qua nunc agitur, sit scientia humanae animae, videtur quod non sit proprius modus eius intellectualiter tractare. | 3. Again, Dionysius says that angels have intellectual power inasmuch as they do not gather their divine knowledge from what is sensible and divided; but, as he adds, this is beyond the power of the soul. Therefore, since the divine science that is now under discussion is a science belonging to the human soul, it appears that its proper method is not to proceed intellectually. |
| Pars 3 q. 6 a. 1 arg. 24 | |
| Praeterea, theologia praecipue videtur esse de his, quae fidei sunt. Sed in his, quae fidei sunt, intelligere est finis. Unde dicitur Is. 7 secundum aliam litteram: nisi credideritis, non intelligetis. Ergo intellectualiter versari circa divina non debet poni theologiae modus, sed finis. | 4. Again, theology seems particularly concerned with the things of faith. But understanding (intelligere) is the goal of the things of faith. Thus it is said in lsaiah, according to another version, "Unless you believe, you will not understand." So we should not say that proceeding intellectually about divine things is the method of theology but the goal. |
| Pars 3 q. 6 a. 1 s. c. 21 | |
| Sed contra est quod dicitur in libro de spiritu et anima quod intellectus est spirituum creatorum, intelligentia vero ipsius Dei. De his autem praecipue est scientia divina. Ergo intellectualiter procedere videtur esse ipsius proprium. | On the contrary, the De Spiritu et Anima says that intellect (intellectus) has for its object created spirits, while understanding (intelligentia) has for its object God himself. Now divine science is principally concerned with them. Therefore it seems proper to it to proceed intellectually. |
| Pars 3 q. 6 a. 1 s. c. 22 | |
| Praeterea, modus scientiae debet respondere materiae. Sed res divinae sunt res intelligibiles per se ipsas. Ergo modus conveniens divinae scientiae est intellectualiter procedere. | Moreover, the method of a science must correspond to its subject matter. But divine things are intelligible in virtue of themselves. Therefore the method appropriate to divine science is to proceed intellectually. |
| Pars 3 q. 6 a. 1 co. 1 | |
| Responsio. Dicendum ad primam quaestionem quod processus aliquis, quo proceditur in scientiis, dicitur rationabilis tripliciter. | Reply: To the first question (a) I reply that a method of proceeding in the sciences is called rational in three ways: |
| Uno modo ex parte principiorum, ex quibus proceditur, ut cum aliquis procedit ad aliquid probandum ex operibus rationis, cuiusmodi sunt genus et species et oppositum et huiusmodi intentiones, quas logici considerant. Et sic dicetur aliquis processus esse rationabilis, quando aliquis utitur in aliqua scientia propositionibus, quae traduntur in logica, prout scilicet utimur logica, prout est docens, in aliis scientiis. Sed hic modus procedendi non potest proprie competere alicui particulari scientiae, in quibus peccatum accidit, nisi ex propriis procedatur. Contingit autem hoc proprie et convenienter fieri in logica et metaphysica, eo quod utraque scientia communis est et circa idem subiectum quodammodo. | In one way, because of the principles from which we begin; for instance, when we proceed to prove something beginning with mental beings, like genus, species, opposite, and concepts of this sort, which the logicians study. In this sense a method will be called rational when in a science we use the propositions taught in logic; namely, when we use logic as having a teaching function in the other sciences. But this method of proceeding cannot belong properly to any particular science: it will fall into error unless it proceeds from its own proper principles. However, logic and metaphysics may properly and suitably use this method, because both are universal sciences and in a sense treat of the same subject. |
| Pars 3 q. 6 a. 1 co. 2 | |
| Alio modo dicitur processus rationalis ex termino in quo sistitur procedendo. Ultimus enim terminus, ad quem rationis inquisitio perducere debet, est intellectus principiorum, in quae resolvendo iudicamus; quod quidem quando fit non dicitur processus vel probatio rationabilis, sed demonstrativa. Quandoque autem inquisitio rationis non potest usque ad praedictum terminum perduci, sed sistitur in ipsa inquisitione, quando scilicet inquirenti adhuc manet via ad utrumlibet; et hoc contingit, quando per probabiles rationes proceditur, quae natae sunt facere opinionem vel fidem, non scientiam. Et sic rationabilis processus dividitur contra demonstrativum. Et hoc modo rationabiliter procedi potest in qualibet scientia, ut ex probabilibus paretur via ad necessarias probationes. Et hic est alius modus, quo logica utimur in scientiis demonstrativis, non quidem ut est docens, sed ut est utens. Et his duobus modis denominatur processus rationalis a scientia rationali; his enim modis usitatur logica, quae rationalis scientia dicitur, in scientiis demonstrativis, ut dicit Commentator in I physicorum. | In a second way, a method is called rational because of the end that terminates the thinking process. (1) For the ultimate end that rational inquiry ought to reach is the understanding of principles, in which we resolve our judgments. And when this takes place, it is not called a rational procedure or proof but a demonstration. (2) Sometimes, however, rational inquiry, cannot arrive at the ultimate end, but stops in the course of the investigation itself; that is to say, when several possible solutions still remain open to the investigator. This happens when we proceed by means of probable arguments, which by their nature produce opinion or belief, but not science. In this sense, rational method is opposed to demonstrative method. We can proceed by this rational method in all the sciences, preparing the way for necessary, proofs by probable arguments. This is another use of logic in the demonstrative sciences; not indeed as having a teaching function, but as being an instrument. ln these two ways, then, a method is called rational from rational science, for, as the Commentator says, in both of them logic (which is another name for rational science) is used in the demonstrative sciences. |
| Pars 3 q. 6 a. 1 co. 3 | |
| Tertio modo dicitur aliquis processus rationalis a potentia rationali, in quantum scilicet in procedendo sequimur proprium modum animae rationalis in cognoscendo, et sic rationabilis processus est proprius scientiae naturalis. Scientia enim naturalis in suis processibus servat proprium modum rationalis animae quantum ad duo. Primo quantum ad hoc, quod sicut anima rationalis a sensibilibus, quae sunt nota magis quoad nos, accipit cognitionem intelligibilium, quae sunt magis nota secundum naturam, ita scientia naturalis procedit ex his, quae sunt nota magis quoad nos et minus nota secundum naturam, ut patet in I physicorum, et demonstratio, quae est per signum vel effectum, maxime usitatur in scientia naturali. Secundo, quia cum rationis sit de uno in aliud discurrere, hoc maxime in scientia naturali observatur, ubi ex cognitione unius rei in cognitionem alterius devenitur, sicut ex cognitione effectus in cognitionem causae. | In a third way, a method is called rational from the rational power, that is, inasmuch as in our procedure we follow the manner proper to the rational soul in knowing, and in this sense the rational method is proper to natural science. For in its procedures natural science keeps the characteristic method of the rational soul in two ways. (1) First, in this respect, that just as the rational soul receives from sensible things (which are more knowable relatively to us) knowledge of intelligible things (which are more knowable in their nature), so natural science proceeds from what is better known to us and less knowable in its own nature. This is evident in the Physics. Moreover, demonstration by means of a sign or an effect is used especially in natural science. (2) Secondly, natural science uses a rational method in this respect, that it is characteristic of reason to move from one thing to another; and this method is observed particularly in natural science, where we go from the knowledge of one thing to the knowledge of another; for example, from the knowledge of an effect to the knowledge of its cause. |
| Et non solum proceditur ab uno in aliud secundum rationem, quod non est aliud secundum rem, sicut si ab animali procedatur ad hominem. In scientiis enim mathematicis proceditur per ea tantum, quae sunt de essentia rei, cum demonstrent solum per causam formalem; et ideo non demonstratur in eis aliquid de una re per aliam rem, sed per propriam diffinitionem illius rei. Etsi enim aliquae demonstrationes dentur de circulo ex triangulo vel e converso, hoc non est nisi in quantum in circulo est potentia triangulus et e converso. | (a) And the procedure in natural science is not only a movement from one thing to another distinct from it in the mind and not in reality, as when we go from the concept animal to the concept man. In the mathematical sciences we proceed only by means of what is of the essence of a thing, since they demonstrate only through a formal cause. In these sciences, therefore, we do not demonstrate something about one thing through another thing, but through the proper definition of that thing. It is true that some demonstrations about the circle are made by means of the triangle or vice versa, but this is only because the triangle is potentially in the circle and vice versa. |
| Sed in scientia naturali, in qua fit demonstratio per causas extrinsecas, probatur aliquid de una re per aliam rem omnino extrinsecam. Et ita modus rationis maxime in scientia naturali observatur, et propter hoc scientia naturalis inter alias est maxime hominis intellectui conformis. Attribuitur ergo rationabiliter procedere scientiae naturali, non quia ei soli conveniat, sed quia ei praecipue competit. | (b) But in natural science, where demonstration takes place through extrinsic causes, something is proved of one thing through another thing entirely external to it. So the method of reason is particularly observed in natural science; and on this account natural science among all the others is most in conformity with the human intellect. Consequently, we say that natural science proceeds rationally, not because this is true of it alone, but because it is especially characteristic of it. |
| Pars 3 q. 6 a. 1 ad 1 | |
| Ad primum ergo dicendum quod ratio illa procedit de processu, qui dicitur rationabilis secundum primum modum. Sic enim processus rationabilis est proprius rationali scientiae et divinae, non autem naturali. | Reply to 1. That argument is based on the method that is called rational in the first way. In this sense a rational method is proper to rational and divine science, but not to natural science. |
| Pars 3 q. 6 a. 1 ad 2 | |
| Ad secundum dicendum quod ratio illa procedit de processu, qui dicitur rationabilis secundo modo. | Reply to 2. That argument is based on the method that is called rational in the second way. |
| Pars 3 q. 6 a. 1 ad 3 | |
| Ad tertium dicendum quod in omnibus scientiis servatur quantum ad hoc modus rationis, quod proceditur de uno in aliud secundum rationem, non autem quod procedatur de una re in aliam, sed hoc est proprium naturalis scientiae. Et sic ei rationabiliter procedere attribuitur, ut dictum est. | Reply to 3. The method of reason is observed in all the sciences insofar as they proceed from one item to another that is mentally distinct from it, but not in the sense that they go from one thing to another thing. As has been said, that is proper to natural science. |
| Pars 3 q. 6 a. 1 ad 4 | |
| Ad quartum dicendum quod philosophus ibi pro eodem ponit ratiocinativum et opinativum, unde patet quod pertinet ad secundum modum assignatum. Ratiocinativo autem vel opinativo attribuit philosophus ibidem agibilia humana, de quibus est scientia moralis, ratione suae contingentiae. Unde potest ex dictis colligi quod primus modus rationabilitatis est maxime proprius scientiae rationali, secundus scientiae morali, tertius scientiae naturali. | Reply to 4. In that place the Philosopher considers the reasoning and deliberative parts of the soul to be identical: so it is clear that they are related to the second mode of rational procedure mentioned above. In the same place, moreover, because of their contingency he assigns human actions, which are the objects of moral science, to the reasoning or deliberative part of the soul. From what has been said, then, we can gather that the first mode of rationality is most characteristic of rational science, the second of moral science, and the third of natural science. |
| Pars 3 q. 6 a. 1 co. 11 | |
| Ad secundam quaestionem dicendum quod disciplinaliter procedere attribuitur scientiae mathematicae, non quia ipsa sola disciplinaliter procedat, sed quia hoc ei praecipue competit. Cum enim discere nihil sit aliud quam ab alio scientiam accipere, tunc dicimur disciplinabiliter procedere, quando processus noster ad certam cognitionem perducit, quae scientia dicitur; quod quidem maxime contingit in mathematicis scientiis. Cum enim mathematica sit media inter naturalem et divinam, ipsa est utraque certior. | To the second question (b) I reply that mathematical science is said to proceed according to the mode of learning, not because it alone does so, but because this is especially characteristic of it. For, since learning is nothing else than the taking of knowledge from another, we are said to proceed according to the mode of learning when our procedure leads to certain knowledge, which is called science. Now this occurs particularly in the mathematical sciences. Because mathematics is situated between natural and divine science, it is more certain than either. |
| Naturali quidem propter hoc quod eius consideratio est a motu et materia absoluta, cum naturalis consideratio in materia et motu versetur. Ex hoc autem quod consideratio naturalis est circa materiam, eius cognitio a pluribus dependet, scilicet ex consideratione materiae ipsius et formae et dispositionum materialium et proprietatum quae consequuntur formam in materia. Ubicumque autem ad aliquid cognoscendum oportet plura considerare, est difficilior cognitio; unde in I posteriorum dicitur quod minus certa scientia est quae est ex additione, ut geometria arithmetica. Ex hoc vero quod eius consideratio est circa res mobiles et quae non uniformiter se habent, eius cognitio est minus firma, quia eius demonstrationes frequenter procedunt, ut in maiori parte, ex hoc quod contingit aliquando aliter se habere. Et ideo etiam quanto aliqua scientia magis appropinquat ad singularia, sicut scientiae operativae, ut medicina, alchimia et moralis, minus possunt habere de certitudine propter multitudinem eorum quae consideranda sunt in talibus scientiis, quorum quodlibet si omittatur, sequetur error, et propter eorum variabilitatem. | It is more certain than natural science because its investigation is not bound up with motion and matter, while the investigation of natural science centers upon matter and motion. Now from the very fact that natural science deals with matter, its knowledge depends upon many factors, upon the consideration of matter itself, of form, and of the material dispositions and properties accompanying form in matter. And whenever there are many factors to be considered in order to know something, knowledge is more difficult. Thus the Posterior Analytics says that a science is less certain that results from adding on some item, as geometry adds something to arithmetic. If the inquiry in a science is about things that are mobile and lack uniformity, its knowledge is less exact because its demonstrations are often valid only in the majority of cases, owing to the fact that things sometimes happen differently. So, too, the more a science draws close to particulars (as do practical sciences like medicine, alchemy, and ethics), the less certain they can be because of the many factors to be taken into account in these sciences, the omission of any one of which will lead to error, and also because of their variability. |
| Pars 3 q. 6 a. 1 co. 12 | |
| Est etiam processus mathematicae certior quam processus scientiae divinae, quia ea, de quibus est scientia divina, sunt magis a sensibilibus remota, a quibus nostra cognitio initium sumit, et quantum ad substantias separatas, in quarum cognitionem insufficienter inducunt ea, quae a sensibilibus accipimus, et quantum ad ea quae sunt communia omnibus entibus, quae sunt maxime universalia et sic maxime remota a particularibus cadentibus sub sensu. Mathematica autem ipsa in sensu cadunt et imaginationi subiacent, ut figura, linea et numerus et huiusmodi. Et ideo intellectus humanus a phantasmatibus accipiens facilius capit horum cognitionem et certius quam intelligentiae alicuius vel etiam quam quiditatem substantiae et actum et potentiam et alia huiusmodi. | The method of mathematics is also more certain than the method of divine science, because the objects of divine science are further removed from sensible things, from which our knowledge takes its origin. This is true both in the case of the separate substances (to which our knowledge of the sense world gives us inadequate access), and also in the case of the principles common to all things (which are most universal and therefore furthest removed from the particular things falling under the senses). But mathematical entities do fall under the senses and they are objects of our imagination; for example, figures, lines, numbers, and the like. So the human intellect, which takes its knowledge from images, knows these things with greater ease and certainty than it does a separate Intelligence, or even the nature of substance, act, potency, and the like. |
| Et sic patet quod mathematica consideratio est facilior et certior quam naturalis et theologica, et multo plus quam scientiae aliae operativae, et ideo ipsa maxime dicitur disciplinaliter procedere. Et hoc est quod Ptolemaeus dicit in principio Almagesti: alia duo genera theorici potius quis opinionem quam conceptionem scientialem dicat: theologicum quidem propter inapparens ipsius et incomprehensibile, physicum vero propter materiae instabile et immanifestum. Solum autem mathematicum inquisitionis firmam stabilemque fidem intendentibus dabit, velut utique demonstratione per indubitabiles vias facta. | It is clear, then, that mathematical inquiry, is easier and more certain than physical and theological, and much more so than that of the other sciences that are practical, and for this reason it is said especially to proceed according to the mode of learning. This is what Ptolemy asserts in the beginning of the Almagest: "Let us call the other two kinds of theoretical knowledge opinion rather than science: theology because of its obscurity and incomprehensibility, physics because of the instability and obscurity of matter. The mathematical type of investigation alone will give the inquirer firm and unshaken certainty through demonstrations carried out by unquestionable methods." |
| Pars 3 q. 6 a. 1 ad 11 | |
| Ad primum ergo dicendum quod quamvis in qualibet scientia disciplina accipiatur, tamen in mathematica facilius et certius, ut dictum est. | Reply to 1. Although we learn in all the sciences, nevertheless, as we have said, we do so with greater ease and certitude in mathematics. |
| Pars 3 q. 6 a. 1 ad 12 | |
| Ad secundum dicendum quod naturalia quamvis sensui subiaceant, tamen propter sui fluxibilitatem non habent magnam certitudinem, cum extra sensum fiunt, sicut habent mathematica, quae sunt absque motu et tamen sunt in materia sensibili secundum esse, et sic sub sensu et imaginatione cadere possunt. | Reply to 2. Natural things come under the senses; but because of their instability when they begin to exist in reality they do not have the great certitude of the objects of mathematics. These latter are not subject to change; and yet they exist in sensible matter, and as such they can come under the senses and imagination. |
| Pars 3 q. 6 a. 1 ad 13 | |
| Ad tertium dicendum quod in addiscendo incipimus ab eo quod est magis facile, nisi necessitas aliud requirat. Quandoque enim necessarium est in addiscendo incipere non ab eo quod est facilius, sed ab eo, a cuius cognitione sequentium cognitio dependet. Et hac ratione oportet in addiscendo a logica incipere, non quia ipsa sit facilior ceteris scientiis, habet enim maximam difficultatem, cum sit de secundo intellectis, sed quia aliae scientiae ab ipsa dependent, in quantum ipsa docet modum procedendi in omnibus scientiis. Oportet autem primo scire modum scientiae quam scientiam ipsam, ut dicitur in II metaphysicae. | Reply to 3. In learning we begin with what is easier, unless necessity dictates otherwise. For sometimes in learning it is necessary to start, not with what is easier, but with that on which the knowledge of subsequent matters depends. That is why in acquiring knowledge we must begin with logic, not because it is easier than other sciences (for it involves the greatest difficulty, concerned as it is with second intentions), but because the sciences depend on it inasmuch as it teaches the method of proceeding in all the sciences. And, as the Metaphysics says, we must know the method of science before science itself. |
| Pars 3 q. 6 a. 1 ad 14 | |
| Ad quartum dicendum quod a potentiis animae sumitur modus scientiarum propter modum quem habent potentiae animae in agendo. Unde modi scientiarum non respondent potentiis animae, sed modis quibus potentiae animae procedere possunt, qui non solum diversificantur penes potentias tantum, sed etiam penes obiecta; et sic non oportet quod modus cuiuslibet scientiae denominetur ab aliqua potentia animae. Potest tamen dici quod sicut modus physicae sumitur a ratione, secundum quod a sensu accipit, modus autem divinae scientiae ab intellectu, secundum quod nude aliquid considerat, ita etiam et modus mathematicae potest sumi a ratione, secundum quod accipit ab imaginatione. | Reply to 4. The method of the sciences is taken from the powers of the soul because of the way in which these powers operate. So the methods of the sciences do not correspond to the soul’s powers, but rather to the ways in which these powers can operate, and these are diversified not only according to the powers, but also according to their objects. So it is not necessary that the method of every science be named after a power of the soul. However, we can say that just as the method of physics is taken from reason inasmuch as it gets its objects from the senses, and the method of divine science is taken from the intellect inasmuch as it understands something purely and simply (nude), so also the method of mathematics can be taken from reason inasmuch as it obtains its objects from the imagination. |
| Pars 3 q. 6 a. 1 co. 21 | |
| Ad tertiam quaestionem dicendum quod sicut rationabiliter procedere attribuitur naturali philosophiae, eo quod in ipsa maxime observatur modus rationis, ita intellectualiter procedere attribuitur divinae scientiae, eo quod in ipsa maxime observatur modus intellectus. Differt autem ratio ab intellectu, sicut multitudo ab unitate. Unde dicit Boethius in IV de consolatione quod similiter se habent ratio ad intelligentiam et tempus ad aeternitatem et circulus ad centrum. Est enim rationis proprium circa multa diffundi et ex eis unam simplicem cognitionem colligere. Unde Dionysius dicit 7 c. de divinis nominibus quod animae secundum hoc habent rationalitatem quod diffusive circueunt exsistentium veritatem, et in hoc deficiunt ab Angelis; sed in quantum convolvunt multa ad unum, quodam modo Angelis aequantur. Intellectus autem e converso per prius unam et simplicem veritatem considerat et in illa totius multitudinis cognitionem capit, sicut Deus intelligendo suam essentiam omnia cognoscit. Unde Dionysius ibidem dicit quod angelicae mentes habent intellectualitatem, in quantum uniformiter intelligibilia divinorum intelligunt. | To the third question (c) I reply that just as we attribute the rational method to natural philosophy because it adheres most closely to the method of reason, so we attribute the intellectual method to divine science because it adheres most closely to the method of intellect. Now reason differs from intellect as multitude does from unity. Thus Boethius says that reasoning is related to understanding as time to eternity and as a circle to its center. For it is distinctive of reason to disperse itself in the consideration of many things, and then to gather one simple truth from them. Thus Dionysius says, "Souls have the power of reasoning in that they approach the truth of things from various angles, and in this respect they are inferior to the angels; but inasmuch as they gather a multiplicity into unity they are in a way equal to the angels." Conversely, intellect first contemplates a truth one and undivided and in that truth comprehends a whole multitude, as God, by knowing his essence, knows all things. Thus Dionysius says: "Angelic minds have the power of intellect in that they understand divine truths in a unified way." |
| Pars 3 q. 6 a. 1 co. 22 | |
| Sic ergo patet quod rationalis consideratio ad intellectualem terminatur secundum viam resolutionis, in quantum ratio ex multis colligit unam et simplicem veritatem. Et rursum intellectualis consideratio est principium rationalis secundum viam compositionis vel inventionis, in quantum intellectus in uno multitudinem comprehendit. Illa ergo consideratio, quae est terminus totius humanae ratiocinationis, maxime est intellectualis consideratio. | It is clear, then, that rational thinking ends in intellectual thinking, Following the process of analysis, in which reason gathers one simple truth from many things. And again, intellectual thinking is the beginning of rational thinking, following the process of synthesis, in which the intellect comprehends a multiplicity in unity. So the thinking that is the terminus of all human reasoning is supremely intellectual. |
| Tota autem consideratio rationis resolventis in omnibus scientiis ad considerationem divinae scientiae terminatur. Ratio enim, ut prius dictum est, procedit quandoque de uno in aliud secundum rem, ut quando est demonstratio per causas vel effectus extrinsecos: componendo quidem, cum proceditur a causis ad effectus; quasi resolvendo, cum proceditur ab effectibus ad causas, eo quod causae sunt effectibus simpliciores et magis immobiliter et uniformiter permanentes. Ultimus ergo terminus resolutionis in hac via est, cum pervenitur ad causas supremas maxime simplices, quae sunt substantiae separatae. Quandoque vero procedit de uno in aliud secundum rationem, ut quando est processus secundum causas intrinsecas: componendo quidem, quando a formis maxime universalibus in magis particulata proceditur; resolvendo autem quando e converso, eo quod universalius est simplicius. Maxime autem universalia sunt, quae sunt communia omnibus entibus. Et ideo terminus resolutionis in hac via ultimus est consideratio entis et eorum quae sunt entis in quantum huiusmodi. Haec autem sunt, de quibus scientia divina considerat, ut supra dictum est, scilicet substantiae separatae et communia omnibus entibus. Unde patet quod sua consideratio est maxime intellectualis. | Now all rational thinking in all the sciences, following the way of analysis, terminates in the knowledge of divine science. For, as we have said, reason sometimes advances from one thing to another in the order of reality; for example, when a demonstration is made through external causes or effects, by synthesis when we go from causes to effects, by analysis when we proceed from effects to causes, for causes are more simple, unchangeable, and uniformly constant than their effects. Consequently, the ultimate end of analysis in this process is attainment d the highest and most simple causes, which are the separate substances. At other times, however, reason advances from one item to another distinct in the mental order, as when we proceed according to intrinsic causes, by synthesis when we go from the most universal forms to the more particular ones, by analysis when we proceed conversely, because what is more universal is more simple. Now that which is most universal is common to all beings; and so the ultimate end of analysis in this process is the consideration of being and the properties of being as being. And, as we said above, these are the objects of divine science; namely, the separate substances and that which is common to all beings. It is evident, therefore, that its thinking is supremely intellectual. |
| Et exinde etiam est quod ipsa largitur principia omnibus aliis scientiis, in quantum intellectualis consideratio est principium rationalis, propter quod dicitur prima philosophia; et nihilominus ipsa addiscitur post physicam et ceteras scientias, in quantum consideratio intellectualis est terminus rationalis, propter quod dicitur metaphysica quasi trans physicam, quia post physicam resolvendo occurrit. | It also follows that divine science gives principles to all the other sciences, because intellectual thinking is the starting point of rational thinking; and for this reason it is called first philosophy. Nevertheless it is learned after physics and the other sciences, because intellectual thinking is the terminus of rational thinking. For this reason it is called metaphysics, as if to say beyond physics, for in the process of analysis it comes after physics. |
| Pars 3 q. 6 a. 1 ad 21 | |
| Ad primum ergo dicendum quod intellectualiter procedere non attribuitur scientiae divinae, quasi ipsa non ratiocinetur procedendo de principiis ad conclusiones, sed quia eius ratiocinatio est intellectuali considerationi propinquissima et conclusiones eius principiis. | Reply to 1. We say that divine science proceeds intellectually not as though it makes no use of reason, moving forward from principles to conclusions, but because its reasoning most closely approaches intellectual consideration and its conclusions are closest to its principles. |
| Pars 3 q. 6 a. 1 ad 22 | |
| Ad secundum dicendum quod Deus est supra omnem intellectum creatum quantum ad comprehensionem, non autem supra intellectum increatum, cum ipse se ipsum intelligendo comprehendat. Est vero supra omnem intellectum viatoris quantum ad cognitionem, qua cognoscitur quid est, non autem quantum ad cognitionem, qua cognoscitur an est. A beatis autem cognoscitur etiam quid est, quia vident eius essentiam. Et tamen scientia divina non est solum de Deo, sed et de aliis quae intellectum humanum etiam secundum statum viae non excedunt quantum ad quid est cognoscendum de eis. | Reply to 2. God is beyond the comprehension of every created intellect, but he is not beyond the uncreated intellect, since in knowing himself he comprehends himself. However, he is above the intellect of everyone here on earth as regards knowing what he is, but not as regards knowing that he is, The blessed in heaven, however, also know what he is, because they see his essence. Nevertheless divine science is not only about God. It is concerned with other things as well, which are not beyond the human intellect even in its present state as regards knowing what they are. |
| Pars 3 q. 6 a. 1 ad 23 | |
| Ad tertium dicendum quod, sicut supra dictum est, humana consideratio quantum ad sui terminum quodammodo pertingit ad angelicam cognitionem, non secundum aequalitatem, sed secundum quandam assimilationem. Unde Dionysius dicit 7 c. de divinis nominibus quod animae multorum convolutione ad unum sunt dignae habitae intellectibus aequalibus Angelis, in quantum animabus est proprium et possibile. | Reply to 3. As we said above, human thought at its terminus in a way approaches angelic knowledge; not that it equals it, but bears a resemblance to it. So Dionysius says: "Souls, by reducing multitude to unity, are rightly considered the equal of the angelic intelligences, as far as this is proper and possible to souls. |
| Pars 3 q. 6 a. 1 ad 24 | |
| Ad quartum dicendum quod cognitio etiam fidei maxime pertinet ad intellectum. Non enim ea rationis investigatione accipimus, sed simplici acceptione intellectus tenemus. Dicimur autem ea non intelligere, in quantum intellectus eorum plenariam cognitionem non habet; quod quidem nobis in praemium repromittitur. | Reply to 4. The knowledge of faith also belongs in a special way to understanding (intellectus). For we do not possess the things of faith through the investigation of reason, but we hold them by simply receiving understanding. But we are said not to understand them because the intellect does not have a full knowledge of them. That indeed is promised to us as our reward. |
| Articulus 2 | ARTICLE TWO Should We Entirely Abandon the Imagination in Divine Science? |
| Pars 3 q. 6 a. 2 arg. 1 | |
| Ad secundum sic proceditur. Videtur quod in divinis oporteat ad imaginationes deduci. Scientia enim divina numquam competentius traditur quam in sacra Scriptura. Sed in sacra Scriptura in divinis deducimur ad imaginationes, dum divina nobis sub figuris sensibilibus describuntur. Ergo oportet in divinis ad imaginationes deduci. | We proceed as follows to the second article: lt seems that in divine science we must turn to images, for: 1. Divine science was never more appropriately taught than in Sacred Scripture. But treating of the divine in Sacred Scripture we resort to images when divine things are described for us under sensible figures. Therefore in divine science we must turn to images. |
| Pars 3 q. 6 a. 2 arg. 2 | |
| Praeterea, divina non capiuntur nisi intellectu, unde et in eis intellectualiter versari oportet, ut dictum est. Sed non est intelligere sine phantasmate, ut dicit philosophus in I et III de anima. Ergo in divinis oportet ad imaginationes deduci. | 2. Again, we grasp divine things only by the intellect; and this is why, as we have said, we must proceed intellectually when treating of them. But, as the Philosopher says, it is impossible to understand without the imagination. Therefore in divine science we must resort to images. |
| Pars 3 q. 6 a. 2 arg. 3 | |
| Praeterea, divina nobis innotescunt maxime per illustrationem divini radii. Sed, sicut dicit Dionysius in 1 c. caelestis hierarchiae, impossibile est nobis aliter superlucere divinum radium nisi varietate sacrorum velaminum circumvelatum; et vocat sacra velamina sensibilium imagines. Ergo in divinis oportet ad imaginationes deduci. | 3. Again, we know the divine especially through divine illumination. But as Dionysius says, "It is impossible for the divine light to illumine us from above unless it be hidden within the covering of many sacred veils." And he calls these sacred veils "images of sensible things." So in divine science we must turn to images. |
| Pars 3 q. 6 a. 2 arg. 4 | |
| Praeterea, circa sensibilia oportet imaginabiliter versari. Sed divinorum cognitionem ex sensibilibus effectibus accipimus, secundum illud Rom. 1: invisibilia Dei per ea quae facta sunt intellecta conspiciuntur. Ergo in divinis oportet ad imaginationes deduci. | 4. Again. when dealing with what is sensible we must make use of the imagination. But we know divine things from sensible effects, according to the statement of the Epistle to the Romans: "The invisible things of God... are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made." Therefore in divine science we must resort to images. |
| Pars 3 q. 6 a. 2 arg. 5 | |
| Praeterea, in cognoscitivis maxime regulamur per id quod est cognitionis principium, sicut in naturalibus per sensum, a quo nostra cognitio incipit. Sed principium intellectualis cognitionis in nobis est imaginatio, cum phantasmata hoc modo comparentur ad intellectum nostrum sicut colores ad visum, ut dicitur in III de anima. Ergo in divinis oportet ad imaginationem deduci. | 5. Again, in cognitive matters we are guided especially by the starting point of knowledge; for instance in the sciences of nature we are guided by the senses, from which our knowledge begins. Now in us intellectual knowledge begins in the imagination, since images are related to our intellect as colors to sight, as the De Anima says. Therefore in divine science we must go to the imagination. |
| Pars 3 q. 6 a. 2 arg. 6 | |
| Praeterea, cum intellectus non utatur organo corporali, ex laesione organi corporalis non impeditur actio intellectus, nisi quatenus ad imaginationem convertitur. Sed per laesionem organi corporalis, scilicet cerebri, impeditur intellectus in consideratione divinorum. Ergo intellectus divina considerans ad imaginationem deducitur. | 6. Again, since the intellect does not use a bodily organ, an injury to such an organ hinders the action of the intellect only insofar as it turns to the imagination. Now the intellect is hindered in its consideration of divine things through an injury of a bodily organ, namely the brain. Therefore in considering divine things the intellect resorts to the imagination. |
| Pars 3 q. 6 a. 2 s. c. 1 | |
| Sed contra est quod Dionysius dicit 1 c. mysticae theologiae ad Timotheum loquens: tu, inquit, o amice Timothee, circa mysticas visiones sensus derelinque. Sed imaginatio non est nisi sensibilium, cum sit motus factus a sensu secundum actum, ut dicitur in II de anima. Ergo cum divinorum considerationes sint maxime mysticae, in eis non debemus ad imaginationes deduci. | On the contrary, Dionysius says in his Mystical Theology, speaking to Timothy: "O beloved Timothy, in mystic contemplation abandon the senses." But the imagination has to do only with the sensible, for it is a movement produced by the sense in act, as the De Anima says. Therefore, since the considerations of divine things are eminently mystical, we should not have recourse to images in them. |
| Pars 3 q. 6 a. 2 s. c. 2 | |
| Praeterea, in cuiuslibet scientiae consideratione vitandum est illud quod in ea errorem facit. Sed, sicut dicit Augustinus in I libro de Trinitate, primus error circa divina est eorum, qui ea, quae de corporalibus rebus noverunt, ad res divinas transferre conantur. Cum ergo imaginatio non sit nisi corporalium rerum, videtur quod in divinis non debeamus ad imaginationes deduci. | Moreover, in the procedure of any science we should avoid what leads to error in it. But, as Augustine says, the principal error regarding divine things is the mistake of those who try transfer to them what they know of the corporeal world. Therefore, since the imagination has to do only with the corporeal, it seems that in divine science we should not go to images. |
| Pars 3 q. 6 a. 2 s. c. 3 | |
| Praeterea, virtus inferior non se extendit in id quod est superioris proprium, ut patet per Boethium in V de consolatione. Sed cognoscere divina et spiritualia pertinet ad intellectum et intelligentiam, ut dicitur in libro de spiritu et anima. Cum ergo, ut ibidem dicitur, imaginatio sit infra intelligentiam et intellectum, videtur quod in divinis et spiritualibus non debeamus ad imaginationem deduci. | Moreover, as is clear from Boethius, a lower power does not extend to that which is proper to a higher power. But it belongs to an intellect and to an intelligence to know the divine and the spiritual, as is sid in the De Spiritu et Anima. Therefore, since, as is said in the same work, imagination is below intelligence and intellect, it seems that in the domain of the divine and the spiritual we should no go to the imagination. |
| Pars 3 q. 6 a. 2 co. 1 | |
| Responsio. Dicendum quod in qualibet cognitione duo est considerare, scilicet principium et terminum. Principium quidem ad apprehensionem pertinet, terminus autem ad iudicium; ibi enim cognitio perficitur. | Reply: In all knowledge two factors must be taken into account: the beginning and the end. Knowledge begins with apprehension but it ends with judgment, for it is there that knowledge is completed. |
| Principium igitur cuiuslibet nostrae cognitionis est in sensu, quia ex apprehensione sensus oritur apprehensio phantasiae, quae est motus a sensu factus, ut dicit philosophus, a qua iterum oritur apprehensio intellectiva in nobis, cum phantasmata sint intellectivae animae ut obiecta, ut patet in III de anima. | Now all our knowledge begins in the senses; from sense perception results the apprehension of the imagination (which is a movement arising from sensory knowledge, as the Philosopher says), and from it in turn springs our intellectual apprehension, for images are like objects to the intellectual soul, as is clear in the De Anima. |
| Pars 3 q. 6 a. 2 co. 2 | |
| Sed terminus cognitionis non semper est uniformiter: quandoque enim est in sensu, quandoque in imaginatione, quandoque autem in solo intellectu. Quandoque enim proprietates et accidentia rei, quae sensu demonstrantur, sufficienter exprimunt naturam rei, et tunc oportet quod iudicium de rei natura quod facit intellectus conformetur his quae sensus de re demonstrat. Et huiusmodi sunt omnes res naturales, quae sunt determinatae ad materiam sensibilem, et ideo in scientia naturali terminari debet cognitio ad sensum, ut scilicet hoc modo iudicemus de rebus naturalibus, secundum quod sensus eas demonstrat, ut patet in III caeli et mundi; et qui sensum neglegit in naturalibus, incidit in errorem. Et haec sunt naturalia quae sunt concreta cum materia sensibili et motu et secundum esse et secundum considerationem. | But knowledge does not always terminate in the same way. Sometimes it terminates in the senses, sometimes in the imagination, and sometimes in the intellect alone. In some cases the properties and accidents of a thing disclosed by the senses adequately reveal its nature, and then the intellect’s judgment of that nature must conform to what the senses reveal about it. All natural things, which are bound up with sensible matter, are of this kind. So the terminus of knowledge in natural science must be in the senses, with the result that we judge of natural beings as the senses manifest them, as is evident in the De Caelo et Mundo. Accordingly, the man who neglects the senses when dealing with natural things falls into error. By natural things I mean those that are bound up with sensible matter and motion both in existence and in thought. |
| Pars 3 q. 6 a. 2 co. 3 | |
| Quaedam vero sunt, quorum iudicium non dependet ex his quae sensu percipiuntur, quia quamvis secundum esse sint in materia sensibili, tamen secundum rationem diffinitivam sunt a materia sensibili abstracta. Iudicium autem de unaquaque re potissime fit secundum eius diffinitivam rationem. Sed quia secundum rationem diffinitivam non abstrahunt a qualibet materia, sed solum a sensibili et remotis sensibilibus condicionibus remanet aliquid imaginabile, ideo in talibus oportet quod iudicium sumatur secundum id quod imaginatio demonstrat. Huiusmodi autem sunt mathematica. Et ideo in mathematicis oportet cognitionem secundum iudicium terminari ad imaginationem, non ad sensum, quia iudicium mathematicum superat apprehensionem sensus. Unde non est idem iudicium quandoque de linea mathematica quod est de linea sensibili, sicut in hoc quod recta linea tangit sphaeram solum secundum punctum, quod convenit rectae lineae separatae, non autem rectae lineae in materia, ut dicitur in I de anima. | Our judgment about some things, however, does not depend upon what the sense perceives, because even though they exist in sensible matter they abstract from it when their essences are defined, and we judge of anything chiefly according to the definition of its essence. But because they do not abstract from every kind of matter when their essences are defined but only from sensible matter, and because an object for the imagination remains after sensible characteristics have been set aside, we must judge about such things according to what the imagination reveals. Now the objects of mathematics are of this kind. Accordingly, the knowledge we have through judgment in mathematics must terminate in the imagination and not in the senses, because mathematical judgment goes beyond sensory perception. Thus, the judgment about a mathematical line is not always the same as that about a sensible line. For example, that a straight line touches a sphere at only one point is true of an abstract straight line but not of a straight line in matter, as is said in the De Anima. |
| Pars 3 q. 6 a. 2 co. 4 | |
| Quaedam vero sunt quae excedunt et id quod cadit sub sensu et id quod cadit sub imaginatione, sicut illa quae omnino a materia non dependent neque secundum esse neque secundum considerationem, et ideo talium cognitio secundum iudicium neque debet terminari ad imaginationem neque ad sensum. | There are other beings, however, that transcend both that which falls under the senses and that which falls under the imagination; namely, those that are entirely independent of matter both with respect to their being and with respect to their being understood. So, when we know things of this kind through judgment, our knowledge must terminate neither in the imagination nor in the senses. |
| Sed tamen ex his, quae sensu vel imaginatione apprehenduntur, in horum cognitionem devenimus vel per viam causalitatis, sicut ex effectu causa perpenditur, quae non est effectui commensurata, sed excellens, vel per excessum vel per remotionem, quando omnia, quae sensus vel imaginatio apprehendit, a rebus huiusmodi separamus; quos modos cognoscendi divina ex sensibilibus ponit Dionysius in libro de divinis nominibus. | Nevertheless we reach some knowledge of them through the objects of the senses and the imagination, either by way of causality (as when from an effect we come to know its cause, which is not proportionate to the effect but transcends it), or by way of transcendence, or by way of negation (as when we separate from such beings whatever the sense or imagination apprehends). These are the means of knowing divine things from the sensible world proposed by Dionysius in his Divine Names. |
| Uti ergo possumus in divinis et sensu et imaginatione sicut principiis nostrae considerationis, sed non sicut terminis, ut scilicet iudicemus talia esse divina, qualia sunt quae sensus vel imaginatio apprehendit. Deduci autem ad aliquid est ad illud terminari. Et ideo in divinis neque ad imaginationem neque ad sensum debemus deduci, in mathematicis autem ad imaginationem et non ad sensum, in naturalibus autem etiam ad sensum. Et propter hoc peccant qui uniformiter in his tribus speculativae partibus procedere nituntur. | It follows that we can use the senses and the imagination (+) as the starting points but not (~) as the termini of our knowledge of divine things, so that we judge them to be the sort of objects the sense or the imagination apprehends. Now to go to something is to terminate at it. Therefore, we should go neither to the imagination nor to the senses in divine science, to the imagination and not to the senses in mathematics, and to the senses in the natural sciences. For this reason they aree in error who try to proceed in the same way in these three parts of speculative science. |
| Pars 3 q. 6 a. 2 ad 1 | |
| Ad primum ergo dicendum quod sacra Scriptura non proponit nobis divina sub figuris sensibilibus, ut ibi intellectus noster remaneat, sed ut ab his ad immaterialia ascendat. Unde etiam per vilium rerum figuras divina tradit, ut minor praebeatur occasio in talibus remanendi, ut dicit Dionysius in 2 c. caelestis hierarchiae. | Reply to 1. Sacred Scripture does not present divine things to us under sensible images so that our intellect may stop with them, but that it may rise from them to the immaterial world. Thus, as Dionysius says, it even teaches the divine through symbols of base objects in order to offer less occasion of stopping with them. |
| Pars 3 q. 6 a. 2 ad 2 | |
| Ad secundum dicendum quod intellectus nostri operatio non est in praesenti statu sine phantasmate quantum ad principium cognitionis; non tamen oportet quod nostra cognitio semper ad phantasmata terminetur, ut scilicet illud, quod intelligimus, iudicemus esse tale quale est illud quod phantasia apprehendit. | Reply to 2. The operation of our intellect in its present state is never without an image as regards the beginning of knowledge. But our knowledge need not always terminate at images, so that, in other words, we judge the objects of our understanding to be of the same kind as the objects of the imagination. |
| Pars 3 q. 6 a. 2 ad 3 | |
| Ad tertium dicendum quod auctoritas illa Dionysii loquitur quantum ad principium cognitionis et non quantum ad terminum. | Reply to 3. The text of Dionysius refers to the beginning of knowledge and not to its end, which is reached when we know divine things from their sensible effects by the three methods described above; but not in such a way that we must form our judgment of the divine according to the manner of being of these sensible effects. |
| [84795a] | |
| Pars 3 q. 6 a. 2 ad 4 | |
| Ad quartum dicendum quod ex effectibus sensibilibus venimus in cognitionem divinorum tribus modis praedictis; non autem ita quod oporteat iudicium formari de divinis secundum modum, quo se habent isti sensibiles effectus. | ?? |
| Pars 3 q. 6 a. 2 ad 5 | |
| Ad quintum dicendum quod ratio illa procedit, quando principium cognitionis est sufficienter ducens in id, cuius cognitio quaeritur, et sic est principium sensus in naturalibus, non autem in divinis, ut dictum est. | Reply to 4. That argument is valid when the starting point of knowledge adequately leads to the object we seek to know. This is the way the senses are the starting point in the natural sciences, but not, as we have said, in divine science. |
| Pars 3 q. 6 a. 2 ad 6 | |
| Ad sextum dicendum quod phantasma est principium nostrae cognitionis, ut ex quo incipit intellectus operatio non sicut transiens, sed sicut permanens ut quoddam fundamentum intellectualis operationis; sicut principia demonstrationis oportet manere in omni processu scientiae, cum phantasmata comparentur ad intellectum ut obiecta, in quibus inspicit omne quod inspicit vel secundum perfectam repraesentationem vel per negationem. Et ideo quando phantasmatum cognitio impeditur, oportet totaliter impediri cognitionem intellectus etiam in divinis. Patet enim quod non possumus intelligere Deum esse causam corporum sive supra omnia corpora sive absque corporeitate, nisi imaginemur corpora, non tamen iudicium divinorum secundum imaginationem formatur. Et ideo quamvis imaginatio in qualibet divinorum consideratione sit necessaria secundum statum viae, numquam tamen ad eam deduci oportet in divinis. | Reply to 5. An image is the starting point of our knowledge, for it is that from which the operation of the intellect begins; not that it passes away, but it remains as the foundation of intellectual activity, just as the principles of demonstration must remain throughout the whole process of science. This is because images are related to the intellect as objects in which it sees whatever it sees, either through a perfect representation or through a negation. Consequently, when our knowledge of images is impeded, we must be completely incapable of knowing anything with our intellect even about divine things. Clearly, we cannot know that God causes bodies, or transcends all bodies, or is not a body, if we do not form an image of bodies; but our judgment of what is divine is not made according to the imagination. Consequently, even though in our present state of life the imagination is necessary in all our knowledge of the divine, with regard to such matters we must never terminate in it. |
| Articulus 3 | ARTICLE THREE Can Our Intellect Behold the Divine Form Itself? |
| Pars 3 q. 6 a. 3 arg. 1 | |
| Ad tertium sic proceditur. Videtur quod non possimus ipsam formam divinam ad minus in statu viae inspicere. Ut enim dicit Dionysius in prima epistula ad Gaium monachum, si quis videntium Deum intellexit quod vidit, non ipsum vidit, sed aliquid eorum quae sunt eius. Sed forma divina est ipse Deus. Ergo non possumus ipsam formam divinam inspicere. | We proceed as follows to the third article: It seems that we are unable to behold the divine form itself, at least in this life, for: 1. As Dionysius says, "If anyone seeing God understood what he saw, he did not see God himself but one of his creations." Now the divine form is God himself. Therefore we are not able to behold the divine form itself. |
| Pars 3 q. 6 a. 3 arg. 2 | |
| Praeterea, forma divina est ipsa divina essentia. Sed Deum per essentiam nemo in statu viae videre potest, ergo nec ipsam divinam formam inspicere. | 2. Again, the divine form is the divine essence itself. Now no one in the present life can see God through his essence. Therefore neither can he behold the divine form. |
| Pars 3 q. 6 a. 3 arg. 3 | |
| Praeterea, quicumque inspicit formam alicuius rei, aliquid de ipsa re cognoscit. Sed secundum Dionysium in 1 c. mysticae theologiae intellectus noster secundum quod melius potest Deo unitur, quando omnino nihil eius cognoscit. Ergo non possumus divinam formam inspicere. | 3. Again, if we see the form of something, we have some knowledge of that thing. But according to Dionysius, our intellect is most united to God when it knows absolutely nothing of him. Therefore we are unable to behold the divine form. |
| Pars 3 q. 6 a. 3 arg. 4 | |
| Praeterea, sicut dictum est, totius nostrae cognitionis principium est a sensu. Sed ea, quae sensu percipimus, non sunt sufficientia ad demonstrandum formam divinam nec etiam aliarum substantiarum separatarum. Ergo non possumus ipsam divinam formam inspicere. | 4. Again, as was said above, all our knowledge begins from the senses. But what we perceive by the senses is inadequate to reveal the divine form or even the other separate substances. Therefore we are unable to behold the divine form itself. |
| Pars 3 q. 6 a. 3 arg. 5 | |
| Praeterea, secundum philosophum in II metaphysicae intellectus noster se habet ad rerum manifestissima sicut oculus noctuae ad solem. Sed oculus noctuae nullo modo potest videre solem, ergo nec intellectus noster formam ipsam divinam et alias formas separatas quae sunt naturae manifestissima. | 5. Again, according to the Philosopher, our intellect is related to what is most evident as the eye of an owl to the sun. But the eye of an owl cannot see the sun at all. Therefore neither can our intellect see the divine form itself or other separate forms, which are nature’s most evident beings. |
| Pars 3 q. 6 a. 3 s. c. 1 | |
| Sed contra est quod apostolus dicit Rom. 1 quod invisibilia Dei per ea quae facta sunt intellecta conspiciuntur a creatura mundi, id est homine, sempiterna quoque virtus eius et divinitas. Nihil autem aliud est forma divina quam ipsa divinitas. Ergo ipsam formam divinam cognoscere intellectu aliquo modo possumus. | On the contrary, the Apostle says in the Epistle to the Romans: "The invisible things of God are clearly seen by a creature of the world" (that is, by man), "...his eternal power also and divinity." Now the divine form is simply the divinity itself. Therefore in some way we can know the divine form with our intellect. |
| Pars 3 q. 6 a. 3 s. c. 2 | |
| Praeterea, Gen. 32 super illud: vidi dominum facie etc., dicit Glossa Gregorii: nisi homo illam, scilicet veritatem divinam, utcumque conspiceret, non eam conspicere se non posse sentiret. Sed nos sentimus divinam essentiam non posse perfecte conspicere. Ergo aliquo modo ipsam conspicimus. | Moreover, commenting on the text of Genesis, "I have seen God face to face," the gloss of Gregory says, "Unless a person somehow beheld it" (namely, divine truth), "he would not feel himself incapable of beholding it." But we feel that we cannot perfectly see the divine essence. Therefore in some way we do behold it. |
| Pars 3 q. 6 a. 3 s. c. 3 | |
| Praeterea, Dionysius dicit 2 c. caelestis hierarchiae quod humanus animus assuescit extendi per visibilia in supermundanas altitudines, quae nihil aliud sunt quam ipsae formae separatae. Ergo formas separatas possumus aliquo modo cognoscere. | Moreover, Dionysius says that "the human mind gradually becomes accustomed to rise from the world of sense to heights beyond this world," which are nothing else than the separate forms. Therefore we can somehow know the separate forms. |
| Pars 3 q. 6 a. 3 co. 1 | |
| Responsio. Dicendum quod dupliciter aliquid cognoscitur: uno modo, dum scitur de eo an est, alio modo, dum scitur de eo quid est. Ad hoc autem quod de aliqua re sciamus quid est, oportet quod intellectus noster feratur in ipsius rei quiditatem sive essentiam vel immediate vel mediantibus aliquibus quae sufficienter eius quiditatem demonstrent. Immediate quidem intellectus noster ferri non potest secundum statum viae in essentiam Dei et in alias essentias separatas, quia immediate extenditur ad phantasmata, ad quae comparatur sicut visus ad colorem, ut dicitur in III de anima. Et sic immediate potest concipere intellectus quiditatem rei sensibilis, non autem alicuius rei intelligibilis. Unde dicit Dionysius 2 c. caelestis hierarchiae quod nostra analogia non valet immediate extendi in invisibiles contemplationes. Sed quaedam invisibilia sunt, quorum quiditas et natura perfecte exprimitur ex quiditatibus rerum sensibilium notis. Et de his etiam intelligibilibus possumus scire quid est, sed mediate, sicut ex hoc quod scitur quid est homo et quid est animal, sufficienter innotescit habitudo unius ad alterum et ex hoc scitur, quid est genus et quid est species. | Reply: We know a thing in two ways: in one way when we know that it is, and in another way when we know what it is. Now in order to know what anything is, our intellect must penetrate its quiddity or essence either directly or by means of other things that adequately reveal its quiddity. But in this life our intellect cannot directly penetrate the essence of God or other separate essences, because it directly extends to images, to which it bears the same relation as sight does to color, as the De Anima says. So the intellect can directly conceive the quiddity of a sensible reality but not of an intelligible reality. Thus Dionysius says, "According to our way of knowing, we cannot immediately attain to the contemplation of the invisible." There are some invisible things, however, whose quiddity or nature is perfectly revealed by the known quiddities of sensible things; and we can also know what these intelligible objects are, although indirectly. For instance, from the fact that we know what man and animal are, we come to know adequately the relation of one to the other, and from this we know what a genus and a species are. |
| Sensibiles autem naturae intellectae non sufficienter exprimunt essentiam divinam neque etiam alias essentias separatas, cum non sint unius generis naturaliter loquendo et quiditas et omnia huiusmodi nomina fere aequivoce dicantur de sensibilibus et de illis substantiis. Unde similitudines rerum sensibilium ad substantias immateriales translatas vocat Dionysius 2 c. caelestis hierarchiae dissimiles similitudines alio modo intellectualibus habentibus quae sensibilibus aliter distributa sunt. Et sic per viam similitudinis non sufficienter illae substantiae ex his innotescunt. Neque etiam per viam causalitatis, quia ea, quae ab illis substantiis inveniuntur effecta in his inferioribus, non sunt effectus adaequantes earum virtutes, ut sic perveniri possit ad sciendum quod quid est de causa. | But the sensible natures known to us do not adequately reveal the divine essence or even other separate essences, since naturally considered they do not belong to one genus; and quiddity and all such terms predicated almost equivocally of sensible things and of these substances. That is why Dionysius calls the likenesses of sensible things, transferred to immaterial substances, "unlike likenesses, which intellectual beings participate in one way and sensible beings in another." Consequently, we cannot have adequate knowledge of the former from the latter by way of likeness or even by way of causality, because the effects of those substances found in lower beings do not measure up to their powers so that we can come to know the essence of their cause in this way. |
| Pars 3 q. 6 a. 3 co. 2 | |
| Unde de substantiis illis immaterialibus secundum statum viae nullo modo possumus scire quid est non solum per viam naturalis cognitionis, sed etiam nec per viam revelationis, quia divinae revelationis radius ad nos pervenit secundum modum nostrum, ut Dionysius dicit. Unde quamvis per revelationem elevemur ad aliquid cognoscendum, quod alias esset nobis ignotum, non tamen ad hoc quod alio modo cognoscamus nisi per sensibilia. Unde dicit Dionysius in 1 c. caelestis hierarchiae quod impossibile est nobis superlucere divinum radium nisi circumvelatum varietate sacrorum velaminum. Via autem quae est per sensibilia non sufficit ad ducendum in substantias immateriales secundum cognitionem quid est. Et sic restat quod formae immateriales non sunt nobis notae cognitione quid est, sed solummodo cognitione an est, sive naturali ratione ex effectibus creaturarum sive etiam revelatione quae est per similitudines a sensibilibus sumptas. | Accordingly, in the present life it is absolutely impossible to know the essence of immaterial substances, not only (~) by natural knowledge but also (~) by revelation; for, as Dionysius say, the light of divine revelation comes to us adapted to our condition. Thus even though revelation elevates us to know something of which we should otherwise be ignorant, it does not elevate us to know in any other way than through sensible things. Thus Dionysius says: "It is impossible for the divine light to illumine us from above unless it be hidden within the covering of many sacred veils." Now knowledge by way of the sensible is inadequate to enable us to know the essences of immaterial substances. So we conclude that we do not know what immaterial forms are, but only that they are, whether by natural reason based upon created effects or even by revelation, by means of likenesses taken from sensible things. |
| Pars 3 q. 6 a. 3 co. 3 | |
| Et tamen sciendum quod de nulla re potest sciri an est, nisi quoquo modo sciatur de ea quid est vel cognitione perfecta vel saltem cognitione confusa, prout philosophus dicit in principio physicorum quod diffinita sunt praecognita partibus diffinitionis. Oportet enim scientem hominem esse et quaerentem quid est homo per diffinitionem scire quid hoc nomen homo significat. Nec hoc esset, nisi aliquam rem quoquo modo conciperet quam scit esse, quamvis nesciat eius diffinitionem. Concipit enim hominem secundum cognitionem alicuius generis proximi vel remoti et aliquorum accidentium quae extra apparent de ipso. Oportet enim diffinitionum cognitionem, sicut et demonstrationum, ex aliqua praeexsistenti cognitione initium sumere. | It should be noticed, however, that we cannot know that a thing is without knowing in some way what it is, either perfectly or at least confusedly, as the Philosopher says we know things defined before we know the parts of their definition. For if a person knows that man exists and wants to find out what man is by definition, he must know the meaning of the term "man." And this is possible only if he somehow forms a concept of what he knows to exist, even though he does not know its definition. That is to say, he forms a concept of man by knowing a proximate or remote genus and accidental characteristics which reveal him externally. For our knowledge of definitions, like that of demonstrations, must begin with some previous knowledge. |
| Sic ergo et de Deo et aliis substantiis immaterialibus non possemus scire an est, nisi sciremus quoquo modo de eis quid est sub quadam confusione. | Similarly, therefore, we cannot know that God and other immaterial substances exist unless we know somehow, in some confused way, what they are. (~) |
| Pars 3 q. 6 a. 3 co. 4 | |
| Hoc autem non potest esse per cognitionem alicuius generis proximi vel remoti, eo quod Deus in nullo genere est, cum non habeat quod quid est aliud a suo esse, quod requiritur in omnibus generibus, ut Avicenna dicit. | Now we cannot do this by knowing a proximate or remote genus, for God is in no genus, since his essence is not distinct from his being; a condition required in all genera, as Avicenna says. |
| Aliae autem substantiae immateriales creatae sunt quidem in genere, et quamvis logice considerando conveniant cum istis substantiis sensibilibus in genere remoto quod est substantia, naturaliter tamen loquendo non conveniunt in eodem genere, sicut nec etiam corpora caelestia cum istis inferioribus. Corruptibile enim et incorruptibile non sunt unius generis, ut dicitur in X metaphysicae. Logicus enim considerat absolute intentiones, secundum quas nihil prohibet convenire immaterialia materialibus et incorruptibilia corruptibilibus. Sed naturalis et philosophus primus considerant essentias secundum quod habent esse in rebus, et ideo ubi inveniunt diversum modum potentiae et actus et per hoc diversum modum essendi, dicunt esse diversa genera. Similiter etiam Deus non habet aliquod accidens, ut infra probabitur. Aliae vero immateriales substantiae si habent aliqua accidentia, non sunt nobis nota. | Created immaterial substances, however, are indeed in a genus; but even though from the viewpoint of logic they share the same remote genus of substance with sensible substances, from the viewpoint of physics they do not belong to the same genus, as neither do heavenly and terrestrial bodies. For the corruptible and the incorruptible do not belong to the same genus, as the Metaphysics says. For the logician considers concepts in themselves; and from this point of view nothing prevents the immaterial and the material, or the incorruptible and the corruptible, from having something in common. But the philosopher of nature and the metaphysician treat of essences as existing in reality; and therefore they say that there are different genera wherever they find diverse modes of potency and act, and consequently diverse modes of being. Neither has God any accidental characteristics, as we will prove later. If other immaterial substances have such characteristics, we do not know them. |
| Pars 3 q. 6 a. 3 co. 5 | |
| Et ideo non possumus dicere quod confusa cognitione cognoscantur a nobis substantiae immateriales per cognitionem generis et apparentium accidentium. Sed loco cognitionis generis habemus in istis substantiis cognitionem per negationes, ut cum scimus quod huiusmodi substantiae sunt immateriales, incorporeae non habentes figuras et alia huiusmodi. Et quanto plures negationes de eis cognoscimus, tanto et minus confusa est earum cognitio in nobis, eo quod per negationes sequentes prior negatio contrahitur et determinatur, sicut genus remotum per differentias. Unde etiam et corpora caelestia, in quantum sunt alterius generis ab istis inferioribus, a nobis ut plurimum per negationes cognoscuntur, utpote quia neque sunt levia neque gravia neque calida neque frigida. Loco autem accidentium habemus in substantiis praedictis habitudines earum ad substantias sensibiles vel secundum comparationem causae ad effectum vel secundum comparationem excessus. | Accordingly, we cannot say that we know immaterial substances obscurely by knowing their genus and observable accidents. Instead of knowing the genus of these substances, we know them (+) by negations; for example, by understanding that they are immaterial, incorporeal, without shapes, and so on. The more negations we know of them the less vaguely we understand them, for subsequent negations limit and determine a previous negation as differences do a remote genus. Our knowledge of the heavenly bodies is also negative for the most part, because they belong to a different genus from that of inferior bodies. We know, for instance, that they are not light or heavy, or hot or cold. And instead of accidental characteristics in these substances we have their connections with sensible ones, either with regard to (+) the relationship of cause to effect or with regard to (+) the relationship of transcendence. |
| Ita ergo de formis immaterialibus cognoscimus an est et habemus de eis loco cognitionis quid est cognitionem per negationem, per causalitatem et per excessum, quos etiam modos Dionysius ponit in libro de divinis nominibus. Et hoc modo Boethius intelligit esse inspiciendam ipsam divinam formam per remotionem omnium phantasmatum, non ut sciatur de ea quid est. Et per hoc patet solutio ad obiecta, quia primae rationes procedunt de cognitione quid est perfecta, aliae autem de cognitione imperfecta, qualis dicta est. | We conclude, then, that in the case of immaterial forms we know that they exist; and instead of knowing what they are we have knowledge of them by way of negation, by way of causality, and by way of transcendence. These are the same ways Dionysius proposes in his Divine Names; and this is how Boethius understands that we can know the divine form by removing all images, and not that we know that it is. The solution of the opposing arguments is clear from what has been said: for the first arguments are based on perfect knowledge of what a thing is, the others on imperfect knowledge of the sort described. |
| Articulus 4 | ARTICLE FOUR Can Our Intellect Behold the Divine Form by Means of Some Speculative Science? |
| Pars 3 q. 6 a. 4 arg. 1 | |
| Ad quartum sic proceditur. Videtur quod ad formam divinam inspiciendam per scientias speculativas perveniri possit. Theologia enim pars scientiae speculativae est, ut hic Boethius dicit. Sed ad theologiam pertinet ipsam formam inspicere divinam, ut hic dicitur. Ergo ad cognoscendam divinam formam potest perveniri per scientias speculativas. | We proceed as follows to the fourth article: It seems that we can come to behold the divine form through the speculative sciences, for: 1. As Boethius says here, theology is a part of speculative science. But, as he says, it belongs to theology to behold the divine form itself. Therefore we can arrive at a knowledge of that form through the speculative sciences. |
| Pars 3 q. 6 a. 4 arg. 2 | |
| Praeterea, de substantiis immaterialibus in aliqua scientia speculativa determinatur, quia in scientia divina. Sed quaecumque scientia determinat de aliqua substantia, inspicit formam illius substantiae, quia omnis cognitio est per formam et omnis demonstrationis secundum philosophum principium est quod quid est. Ergo inspicere formas separatas possumus per scientias speculativas. | 2. Again, there is a speculative science treating of immaterial substances, namely divine science. Now any science treating of a substance beholds the form of that substance, because all knowledge is by means of form, and according to the Philosopher all demonstration begins with essence. Therefore we can behold separate forms through the speculative sciences. |
| Pars 3 q. 6 a. 4 arg. 3 | |
| Praeterea, ultima felicitas hominis secundum philosophos consistit in intelligendo substantias separatas. Cum enim felicitas sit operatio perfectissima, oportet quod sit optimorum sub intellectu cadentium, ut potest accipi ex philosopho in X Ethicorum. Est autem felicitas illa, de qua philosophi loquuntur, operatio a sapientia procedens, cum sapientia sit perfectissima virtus perfectissimae potentiae, scilicet intellectus, et haec operatio sit felicitas, ut dicitur in X Ethicorum. Ergo per sapientiam intelliguntur substantiae separatae. Sed sapientia est scientia quaedam speculativa, ut patet in principio metaphysicae et in VI Ethicorum. Ergo per scientias speculativas possumus intelligere substantias separatas. | 3. Again, according to the philosophers, the ultimate happiness of man is to understand the separate substances For, since happiness is the most perfect activity, it must have to do with the most excellent things falling under the intellect, as we can learn from the Philosopher in the Ethics. Now the happiness described by the philosophers is an activity springing from wisdom, since wisdom is the most perfect virtue of the most perfect power - the intellect; and, as the Ethics says, this activity is happiness. Through wisdom, therefore, we understand the separate substances. Now wisdom is a speculative science, as is clear in the Metaphysics and Ethics. So we can understand the separate substances through the speculative sciences. |
| Pars 3 q. 6 a. 4 arg. 4 | |
| Praeterea, frustra est quod non potest pertingere ad finem propter quem est. Sed omnium scientiarum speculativarum consideratio ordinatur sicut in finem in cognitionem substantiarum separatarum, quia perfectissimum in quolibet genere est finis. Ergo si per scientias speculativas huiusmodi substantiae intelligi non possent, omnes scientiae speculativae essent frustra, quod est inconveniens. | 4. Again, if something is unable to reach the end for which it exists it is to no purpose. But the inquiry in all the speculative sciences is directed to a knowledge of the separate substances as to its end, because in any class of things the most perfect is the goal [of all the rest], Therefore if substances of this sort cannot be understood through the speculative sciences, all of them would be to no purpose, which is absurd. |
| Pars 3 q. 6 a. 4 arg. 5 | |
| Praeterea, omne, quod ordinatur naturaliter in finem aliquem, habet sibi indita aliqua principia, quibus potest pervenire in finem illum, ex quibus inclinatur etiam in finem illum; naturalium enim motionum principia sunt intra. Sed homo naturaliter est ordinatus ad cognitionem substantiarum immaterialium sicut ad finem, ut a sanctis et a philosophis traditur. Ergo habet in se aliqua principia illius cognitionis naturaliter indita. Sed omne illud, in quod possumus devenire ex principiis naturaliter notis, pertinet ad considerationem alicuius scientiae speculativae. Ergo cognitio substantiarum immaterialium ad aliquas scientias speculativas pertinet. | 5. Again, everything directed by nature to an end has been previously endowed with principles by which it is able to arrive at that end and by which it also tends toward that end; for the Principles of natural motions are within a thing. Now the end of man to which he is directed by nature is to know the immaterial substances, as both the saints and the philosophers teach. So man is naturally endowed with principles of that knowledge. But everything we can arrive at from naturally known principles is included in one of the speculative sciences. Therefore the knowledge of immaterial substances pertains to some speculative sciences. |
| Pars 3 q. 6 a. 4 s. c. 1 | |
| Sed contra est quod Commentator dicit in III de anima quod ad hanc positionem sequitur vel quod scientiae speculativae nondum sint perfectae, cum illae scientiae nondum sint inventae, quibus possimus substantias separatas intelligere, et hoc, si contingat ex ignorantia aliquorum principiorum quod nondum substantias praedictas intelligamus; vel si contingat ex defectu naturae nostrae quod non possimus illas scientias speculativas invenire, quibus praedictae substantiae intelligantur, sequetur quod si aliqui nati sunt huiusmodi scientias invenire, quod nos et ipsi simus aequivoce homines; quorum primum est improbabile, secundum autem est impossibile. Ergo non potest hoc per aliquas speculativas scientias esse quod substantias praedictas intelligamus. | On the contrary, the Commentator says that there are two possible consequences of this position. (1) Either the speculative sciences are not yet perfect, because we have not discovered the sciences by which we can know the separate substances, and this owing to the fact we do not yet understand these substances because of our ignorance of some principles; or (2) if it happens because of some defect in our nature that we cannot discover the speculative sciences by which these substances may be known, it follows that, if some men can discover these sciences, we and they are men only in an equivocal sense. The first of these is improbable; the second is impossible. So we cannot understand these substances through some speculative sciences. |
| Pars 3 q. 6 a. 4 s. c. 2 | |
| Praeterea, in scientiis speculativis investigantur diffinitiones, quibus rerum essentiae intelliguntur per viam divisionis generis in differentias et per investigationem causarum rei et accidentium ipsius quae magnam partem conferunt ad cognoscendum quod quid est. Sed haec non possumus de substantiis immaterialibus cognoscere, quia, ut iam dictum est, naturaliter loquendo non conveniunt in genere cum istis sensibilibus substantiis nobis notis; causam autem vel non habent, ut Deus, vel est nobis occultissima, sicut causa Angelorum; accidentia etiam eorum sunt nobis ignota. Ergo non potest aliqua scientia speculativa esse, per quam perveniamus ad intelligendas substantias immateriales. | Moreover, in the speculative sciences we search after definitions, by which we understand the essences of things through the division of a genus into differences and through the examination of a thing’s causes and accidents, which contribute a great deal to our knowledge of the essence. But we cannot know these in the case of immaterial substances, because, as we have already said, from the viewpoint of physics they have no (~) genus in common with the sensible substances known to us. And either they do not have a (~) cause, as in the case of God, or their cause is deeply hidden from us, as in the case of the angels, Their (~) accidents are also unknown to us. So there can be no speculative science through which we may come to understand immaterial substances. |
| Pars 3 q. 6 a. 4 s. c. 3 | |
| Praeterea, in scientiis speculativis rerum essentiae per diffinitiones cognoscuntur. Diffinitio autem est sermo quidam compositus ex genere et differentiis. Substantiarum autem illarum essentiae sunt simplices, nec intercidit in earum quiditatibus aliqua compositio, ut videtur per philosophum et Commentatorem in IX metaphysicae. Ergo per scientias speculativas non possumus substantias praedictas intelligere. | Moreover, in the speculative sciences we know the essences of things through definitions. Now a definition is a phrase made up of a genus and differences. But the essences of these substances are simple and there is no composition in their quiddities, as is clear from the Philosopher and the Commentator. So we cannot understand these substances through the speculative sciences. |
| Pars 3 q. 6 a. 4 co. 1 | |
| Responsio. Dicendum quod in scientiis speculativis semper ex aliquo prius noto proceditur tam in demonstrationibus propositionum quam etiam in inventionibus diffinitionum. Sicut enim ex propositionibus praecognitis aliquis devenit in cognitionem conclusionis, ita ex conceptione generis et differentiae et causarum rei aliquis devenit in cognitionem speciei. Hic autem non est possibile in infinitum procedere, quia sic omnis scientia periret et quantum ad demonstrationes et quantum ad diffinitiones, cum infinita non sit pertransire. Unde omnis consideratio scientiarum speculativarum reducitur in aliqua prima, quae quidem homo non habet necesse addiscere aut invenire, ne oporteat in infinitum procedere, sed eorum notitiam naturaliter habet. Et huiusmodi sunt principia demonstrationum indemonstrabilia, ut omne totum est maius sua parte et similia, in quae omnes demonstrationes scientiarum reducuntur, et etiam primae conceptiones intellectus, ut entis et unius et huiusmodi, in quae oportet reducere omnes diffinitiones scientiarum praedictarum. | Reply: In the speculative sciences we always proceed from something previously known, both in demonstrating propositions and also in finding definitions. For just as one comes to know a conclusion by means of propositions previously known, so also from the concept of a genus and difference and from the causes of a thing he comes to know its species. But it is impossible to go on to infinity in this case, because then all science would cease, both as regards demonstrations and as regards definitions, since the infinite cannot be traversed. So inquiry in all the speculative sciences works back to something first given, which one does not have to learn or discover (otherwise he would have to go on to infinity), but which he knows naturally. Such are the indemonstrable principles of demonstration (for example, Every whole is greater than its part, and the like), to which all demonstrations in the sciences are reducible. Such, too, are the first conceptions of the intellect (for example, being, one, and the like), to which all definitions in the sciences must be reduced. |
| Pars 3 q. 6 a. 4 co. 2 | |
| Ex quo patet quod nihil potest sciri in scientiis speculativis neque per viam demonstrationis neque per viam diffinitionis nisi ea tantummodo, ad quae praedicta naturaliter cognita se extendunt. Huiusmodi autem naturaliter cognita homini manifestantur ex ipso lumine intellectus agentis, quod est homini naturale, quo quidem lumine nihil manifestatur nobis, nisi in quantum per ipsum phantasmata fiunt intelligibilia in actu. Hic enim est actus intellectus agentis, ut dicitur in III de anima. Phantasmata autem a sensu accipiuntur; unde principium cognitionis praedictorum principiorum est ex sensu et memoria, ut patet per philosophum in fine posteriorum, et sic huiusmodi principia non ducunt nos ulterius nisi ad ea quorum cognitionem accipere possumus ex his quae sensu comprehenduntur. | From this it is clear that the only things we can know in the speculative sciences, either through demonstration or definition, are those that lie within the range of these naturally known principles. Now these principles are revealed to man by the light of the agent intellect, which is something natural to him; and this light makes things known to us only to the extent that it renders images actually intelligible; for in this consists the operation of the agent intellect, as the De Anima says. Now images are taken from the senses. So our knowledge of the above-mentioned principles begins in the senses and memory, as is evident from the Philosopher. Consequently, these principles do not carry us beyond that which we can know from the objects grasped by the senses. |
| Pars 3 q. 6 a. 4 co. 3 | |
| Quiditas autem substantiarum separatarum non potest cognosci per ea quae a sensibus accipimus, ut ex praedictis patet, quamvis per sensibilia possimus devenire ad cognoscendum praedictas substantias esse et aliquas earum condiciones. Et ideo per nullam scientiam speculativam potest sciri de aliqua substantia separata quid est, quamvis per scientias speculativas possimus scire ipsas esse et aliquas earum condiciones, utpote quod sunt intellectuales, incorruptibiles et huiusmodi. Et haec est etiam sententia Commentatoris in III de anima, quamvis Avempace contrarium dixerit ex hoc quod aestimabat quiditates rerum sensibilium sufficienter exprimere quiditates immateriales, quod patet esse falsum, ut ibidem Commentator dicit, cum quiditas de utrisque dicatur quasi aequivoce. | Now we cannot know the essence of the separate substances through that which we take from the senses. This is clear from what was said above. But through sensible things we can arrive at a knowledge of the existence of these substances and of some of their characteristics. So we cannot know the quiddity of any separate substance by means of a speculative science, though the speculative sciences enable us to know the existence of these substances and some of their traits; for instance, that they are intellectual, incorruptible, and the like. This is also the teaching of the Commentator. Avempace (Ibn-Bajja) was of the opposite opinion; he thought that the quiddities of sensible things adequately reveal immaterial quiddities; but, as the Commentator says, this is clearly false, because quiddity is predicated of both almost in an equivocal sense. |
| Pars 3 q. 6 a. 4 ad 1 | |
| Ad primum ergo dicendum quod Boethius non intendit dicere quod per scientiam theologiae possumus ipsam formam divinam contemplari quid est, sed solum eam esse ultra omnia phantasmata. | Reply to 1. Boethius does not intend to say that through the science of theology we can contemplate the essence of the divine form itself, but only that is transcends all images. |
| Pars 3 q. 6 a. 4 ad 2 | |
| Ad secundum dicendum quod quaedam res sunt a nobis per se ipsas cognoscibiles, et in talibus manifestandis scientiae speculativae utuntur earum diffinitionibus ad demonstrandum ipsarum proprietates, sicut accidit in scientiis quae demonstrant propter quid. Quaedam vero res sunt, quae non sunt nobis cognoscibiles ex se ipsis, sed per effectus suos. Et si quidem effectus sit adaequans causam, ipsa quiditas effectus accipitur ut principium ad demonstrandum causam esse et ad investigandum quiditatem eius, ex qua iterum proprietates eius ostenduntur. Si autem sit effectus non adaequans causam, tunc diffinitio effectus accipitur ut principium ad demonstrandum causam esse et aliquas condiciones eius, quamvis quiditas causae sit semper ignota, et ita accidit in substantiis separatis. | Reply to 2. Some things are knowable to us through themselves; and in clarifying them the speculative sciences use the definitions of these objects to demonstrate their properties, as in the case of the sciences that demonstrate through causes. Other things are not knowable to us through themselves but through their effects. If the effect is proportionate to its cause, we take the quiddity itself of the effect as our starting point to prove that the cause exists and to investigate its quiddity, from which in turn its properties are demonstrated. But if the effect is not proportionate to its cause, we take the definition of the effect as the starting point to prove only the existence of the cause and some of its properties, while the quiddity of the cause remains unknown. This is what happens in the case of the separate substances. |
| Pars 3 q. 6 a. 4 ad 3 | |
| Ad tertium dicendum quod duplex est felicitas hominis. Una imperfecta quae est in via, de qua loquitur philosophus, et haec consistit in contemplatione substantiarum separatarum per habitum sapientiae, imperfecta tamen et tali, qualis in via est possibilis, non ut sciatur ipsarum quiditas. Alia est perfecta in patria, in qua ipse Deus per essentiam videbitur et aliae substantiae separatae. Sed haec felicitas non erit per aliquam scientiam speculativam, sed per lumen gloriae. | Reply to 3. Man’s happiness is twofold. One is the imperfect happiness found in this life, of which the Philosopher speaks, and this consists in contemplating the separate substances through the habit of wisdom. But this contemplation is imperfect and such as is possible in our present life, not such that we can know their quiddity. The other is the perfect happiness of heaven, where we will see God himself through his essence and the other separate substances. But this happiness will not come through a speculative science; it will come through the light of glory. |
| Pars 3 q. 6 a. 4 ad 4 | |
| Ad quartum dicendum quod scientiae speculativae ordinantur in cognitionem substantiarum separatarum imperfectam, ut dictum est. | Reply to 4. As we have said, the speculative sciences are directed to an imperfect knowledge of the separate substances. |
| Pars 3 q. 6 a. 4 ad 5 | |
| Ad quintum dicendum quod nobis sunt indita principia, quibus nos possimus praeparare ad illam cognitionem perfectam substantiarum separatarum, non autem quibus ad eam possimus pertingere. Quamvis enim homo naturaliter inclinetur in finem ultimum, non tamen potest naturaliter illum consequi, sed solum per gratiam, et hoc est propter eminentiam illius finis. | Reply to 5. We are endowed with principles by which we can prepare for that perfect knowledge of separate substances but not with principles by which to reach it. For even though by his nature man is inclined to his ultimate end, he cannot reach it by nature but only by grace, and this owing to the loftiness of that end. |
THE LOGIC MUSEUM
Copyright (html and introduction only) (C) E.D.Buckner 2010.