The following comprises a very brief sketch of how to begin the science of metaphysics as I understand it thus far, in light of my study under John Nieto. Anything that is true and clear, herein, must be directly credited to his teaching. Any errors or ambiguity are all my own. Please comment if possible and present any questions that might occur to you, as this will help further my understanding and clarity on the matter, and allow me to pose questions that I cannot answer to our teacher.


I will put aside at this point, the first question that is dealt with by Aristotle, the need for a science that is wisdom. The only reason for this, is that I believe that is sufficiently intelligible to my mind and to yours, fellow quaerentes. As interesting as the question is, in itself and to me; and though I am certain to profit from greater inquiry into the question, what immediately is on my mind is considering the subject of metaphysics. There are two principle questions that arise: 1.) How can the proposed subject of metaphyscis, ens, be a genus? 2.) How can it be one? These questions might, in the end be the same question, but at least at this point it seems helpful to consider them distinctly as it will bring clarity to our understanding. This has the added benefit of familiarizing us with something that metaphysics is concerned with, perhaps more than any other science, considering separately things that are one.

I. We are, then, seeking a science of being. Of things that are, it is clear that there are those things that exist per se, and those that things that exist only accidentally (i.e., white man), or secundum quid, (i.e., non-being, or potential being) . The science that we seek will certainly consider all of these kinds of beings, but we are principally concerned with things that exist per se, since such things give rise to the others.
1. The things that we see exist per se are:
1. Substances
2. Accidents
3. Mental Being
4. The Soul (maybe, or in a certain respect)
5. The first mover
2. Each of these things seems to exist in a different way. For now, for clarity (and because I don't understand these matters fully) we will put aside mental being and immaterial being. These are of course important, but are not necessary to consider in order to see that we can consider ens as the subject of our science. (N.B. Settling this question, by no means settles the question as to whether a science of metaphysics is possible. It is merely among the first in a long series of questions that must be answered.)

DIGRESSION: An interesting digression that we will do well to bear in mind. This was pointed out to me by John Nieto: Consider St. Thomas' work De Ente et Essentia. If the distinction in metaphysics is between esse and essentia, then why isn't that the title of St. Thomas's work? The answer: esse can never be considered as a subject. Existence is always in the predicate position in our speech and understanding. I believe that this is a very profound truth, that reveals a great deal about the way we know, and exist. We cannot consider existence as subject, we always must consider somethhing as existing or having existence. ~end digression

II. We are able to see that there is some ens that is apt to exist substantially. This being we understand as what exists through another. This is the definition of substance.
III. There are other entes that are such that they exist in another. Such beings are called accidents.
IV. Therefore he have
1. ens that exists through another.
2. ens that exists in another
1. ens is the subject of our thought and speech and of existence. It is not a predicable.
2. existence is never the subject, but is always a predicable (The same is manifestly true of the the other kinds of beings, i.e. mental and immaterial beings).
V. Therefore, for ens to be a proper genus for our science, it must not be considered as a predicate genus, but as a subject genus.
VI. A subject genus differs from a predicate genus in this way.
1. A subject genus is actualized or determined by something in a different category, or more properly, a subject genus is a whole with respect to another whole.
2. A predicate genus is actualized or determined by something in the same category. It is a whole with respect to its parts.
1. Example from mathematics
1. Figure is a predicate genus. It is actualized by being determined as this kind of figure or that. It is a whole with respect to its parts, namely the various kinds of figures. Thus, a circle and a triangle are two different figures.
2. Surface is a subject genus. It is a whole with respect to all figures. The determination that it has is by another kind of being, namely figure. (Surface belonging properly to the category of quantity, and figure belonging to the category of quality). A circle is not another kind of surface than a triangle. Rather, it is a surface that is supposed under this sort of figure, namely one in which its boundary lies at an equal distance from its' center, etc...
VII. Ens is, therefore a subject genus. Substance and accidents are not different kinds of entes, in the sense that ens is divided into these as parts. Rather,
1. A substance is an ens that is supposed to exist through its accidents.
2. An accident is an ens that is supposed to exist in a substance.
Therefore ens is a genus.
My notes/thoughts on the second question will follow shortly.

St. Thomas, awesome as always. Would like your comments.

Lectio 1. In his prooemium, St. Thomas provides a division of the sciences with an eye to discussing the division of philosophia moralis. What is interesting is that this division follows upon four kinds of order related to mind, two of which are found, and three of which are made, (the order of things, the order of the mind’s acts, the order made in human acts, and the order made in exterior things—hence, since logic is in a way an art and a science, but more of an art, this seems to be an order that is found and made). Hence, since ratio is a natural power that seeks order, it is perfected according to these orders. However, these perfections are the excellences of various sciences. Hence a division of the sciences results. This is related to the division provided in De Trinitate. In that place, St. Thomas begins by dividing the speculative from the practical sciences based upon the intellect’s relationship to truth: either in itself or for the sake of something. However, the mind insofar as it is related to order is also a division according to truth, for this order is always in a “thing” to which the mind is adequated (even in rationalis philosophia, namely second intentions). Hence, one can relate what St. Thomas here calls naturalis philosophia to the three speculative sciences, and the practical sciences to philosophia moralis and artes mechanicas. Also, the division of the sciences based upon the ways in which the mind is related to order fits with the further division of the speculative sciences, for the mind insofar as it is perfected by being adequated to such order receives that order according to its mode of receiving, namely immaterially. However, this immaterial reception is ‘graduated’ into degrees which follow the immateriality present in the things in which said order resides.

Lectio 2. St. Thomas resolves the demonstration that there is a best end [optimum finem] in human affairs to the First Mover, “quia naturale desiderium nihil aliud est quam inclinatio inhaerens rebus ex ordinatione primi moventis, quae non potest esse supervacua.” What implication does this have for the Fifth Way as compared to the First Way? What implication does this have for scientific accounts of the natural law?

Lectio 3. The observation that “auditor bene disciplinatus nec debet maiorem certitudinem requirere nec minori esse contentus quam sit conveniens rei de qua agitur,” in the place where Aristotle is discussing the qualities required of a student of ethics, given the mode in which ethics must proceed (I.3), when put in conjunction with St. Thomas’ analogy of the matter proper to various arts, seems to offer an argument that every science has its own “sapiential part.” For if the good auditor of any science must know the limits of the matter dealt with in the science, he participates in the architectonic office, for the sapiential office holder must inspect the matter in order to use it to his own ends. (It is finely put by St. Thomas where he states the two requirements of an architectonic as that it command the lower, and use them to its own ends. Also finely put is the example St. Albert the Great provides of the various modes in which various arts use their respective matters: "sicut forma hominis in auro per liquefactionem, sed in cera per molliationem, in lingo per decavationem." So just as a rhetorizing mathematician and a mathematizing rhetorician are improper modes, so also attempting to soften gold will not be sufficient, and melting wood will be too extreme, when one is attempting to craft an imitation of the human body.)

A few random reflections on EN I.

“Nevertheless, even in these circumstances the quality of fineness shines through, when someone bears repeated and great misfortunes calmly, not because he is insensitive to them but because he is a person of nobility and greatness of soul.” - EN, I.10, 1100b30-33

This passage reflects the difference between Stoicism and Aristotelian virtue ethics in a revealing way. The magnanimous man bears great misfortunes calmly not through insensitivity but on account of his excellence. This excellence, as Aristotle has already been discussing in Book I, c.8, consists primarily in those goods of the soul, and these activities bring about happiness. Thus, the excellent or virtuous soul is not insensitive because he is completed by his surroundings. In a way this is necessary and in a way not. It is necessary that a man have surroundings (perhaps the discussion of happiness and death is apropos here). However, the core of happiness is not principled by the “surroundings” of soul. Again, soul is the form of a living body. While it may not matter insofar as determining the virtues is concerned whether hylomorphism or Platonic dualism is right (for the same “ruling” structure will still result---and it is interesting that Cartesian substance dualism results in a different ruling structure and a different account of happiness), is will matter insofar as beatitudo is concerned, for happiness follows what a thing is by nature. So a Platonist can regard the body as a prison, while the Aristotelian must affirm the context and completion of happiness, the complete life, for life here is principled by soul, the form of the naturally organized body.

This is the revised draft of the preface to my thesis. I might not include it at all, but it was helpful pre-writing. Please let me know what you think, including whether or not I should include this, or something like this. Thank you!


The following thesis is admittedly much influenced by the thought of Aristotle. While Aristotle's influence can be seen in many ways in this thesis rather overtly, nevertheless there is an underlying principle which is at work that cannot (and should not, to my mind) be addressed during the course of the thesis properly speaking. Most generally this principle is that there is an order to the various philosophical disciplines. While there is much to be said about this order, most specifically the order with which I am concerned is the Philosophy of Nature precedes Metaphysics, or first philosophy, in the order of learning.
As contemporary commentator Glen Coughlin claims, “If there is to be any understanding of metaphysics as Aristotle conceived it, or even of Aristotle's conception of metaphysics, it will have to be preceded by a careful study of natural philosophy...” This is for the simple truth that immaterial being does not evidently exist and according to Aristotle “If there were no substances other than those formed by nature, physics (natural philosophy) would be the first science.” Further, it is through the study of mobile being that we arrive at our understanding of immaterial being, as in Aristotle's De Anima, that presupposes much of the Physics. Also at the end of the Physics Aristotle concludes to the first mover and states “Therefore it is apparent that it is indivisible and partless and a thing having no magnitude.” Our knowledge of immaterial being is largely knowledge by negation. The Physics, therefore, concludes to immaterial being, and can say no more about it since its object if mobile being. It is from here that one is must begin first philosophy, or metaphysics.
From these considerations it is clear that in the order of learning, Natural Philosophy must precede Metaphysics. This is simply how to move from the more known to the less known. This is a formative principle behind this thesis.
Throughout this thesis I will be focused on treating the methodology of Natural Philosophy as a natural philosopher, not a metaphysician. The principles I intend to resolve to in order to make my argument will belong to the disciplines of Logic and Natural Philosophy. This approach has both weaknesses and advantages, yet it is important to maintain.
The possible weaknesses that can be encountered by such an approach is that there may be metaphysical objections or problems to some arguments, that will not be sufficiently dealt with. This does not mean that the arguments should lack their proper certainty, or not conclude properly, but rather that there may be what Aristotle terms, ἀπορία, that cannot be resolved, which nevertheless does not disprove what was said.
The great advantage of this approach is that it will assure a narrow and focused discussion that will not be weighed down by digression or confusing side arguments that do not immediately pertani to the task at hand. This will mean that this thesis will likely end with more questions than it began with, but as long as the questions with which I end are different from the ones I began with, I shall consider my work successful.

This is paper that I wrote for a couple of classes last semester. So far it has been warmly appreciated by the ones who have reviewed it and I am thinking about submitting a modified version for my writing sample to doctoral programs. I realize that it is rather long, but if you get the opportunity to read it I would appreciate your criticisms and comments.



Introduction


Thomas Nagel's influential article, What is it like to be a bat? poses a standard by which all other discussions about the mind-body problem must now be measured. His straightforward and honest critique of reductionism as it is now pursued, especially in the mind-body problem, opens up pathways for dialogue on this matter which formerly might not have been admitted. An important aspect of his article is what he calls a “speculative proposal.” It is here he that suggests another way to bridge the gap between subjective and objective. This solution relies on developing a new phenomenology that would allow us to describe mental events with new concepts.[1]

The enunciation of this difficulty, namely the gap between subjective and objective, is a relatively recent occurrence in the world of philosophy. Nevertheless, the problem though differently formulated in ages past, has been present from the beginning of philosophical inquiry. Classical thought framed this question by asking something like the following: “How do we know things?” or perhaps more pointedly, “How do we know natures?”[2] Prominent among such philosophers is Aristotle, who established a nuanced epistemology which at once allowed for knowing things, and yet respected the limits of our knowledge. St. Thomas, taking Aristotle's lead, establishes an even clearer description of how we know the natures of things and this largely in his historic work De Veritate.

Now the classical formulations betray a very different sort of hermeneutic than what we are confronted with in Nagel's question. The philosophies of Aristotle and St. Thomas have traveled over great distances and times, and are perhaps seen as strangers to the contemporary discussion. It is necessary for us, therefore, to at once respect the differences of the authors and not assume that all are on common ground, and yet to bring these minds together in a productive way that will shed light upon the question at hand. Therefore, this paper will not be a refutation of any one position, but rather we will bring in classical thoughts for the explanatory power of some of their positions, and then bring together the observations of Nagel, and St. Thomas and Aristotle to suggest further conclusions.

Already, from what has been said, it seems that the question of how to bridge the gap between the subjective and objective might be aided by a contribution from our classical visitors, namely, the idea of natures. It is with a view to the Aristotelian-Thomistic view of natures and how we can know them that makes it seem to my mind, that Nagel's hope for a new phenomenology of new concepts will ultimately be frustrated. Nevertheless, using principles that Nagel has put forth in this article together with Thomistic and Aristotelian insights, it is possible to see that this gap, in a way has already been bridged, and in another way, can never be bridged.

In order to address this question I will first discuss Nagel's critique of reductionism and his “speculative proposal” for what a different mode of reductionism might look like. I will attempt to argue that Nagel's hoped for reform must either reduce to the kind of reductionism he critiqued or that it can never be attained. To fully argue this last point I will suggest that what Nagel really wants is what Aristotle and St. Thomas call nature. Consequently, any sort of reductionistic mode of proceeding has, as it were, an infinite distance to traverse. I will then manifest the impediments to knowing natures according to a Thomistic epistemology and how the gap between the objective and subjective is thus crossed and yet not crossed. Having shown the “negative” side of the argument, I will then make a positive argument about what would be necessary according to a Thomistic conception of mind to know natures as Nagel seems to want to. I will suggest that St. Thomas would argue that the kind of knowledge that Nagel is searching for is akin to angelic knowledge. Finally, I will propose a possible exception to the limitations on humanity's inability to bridge the gap between subjective and objective with regard to human persons.





Nagel, Reductionism, and Natures

Nagel's article focuses on consciousness as the phenomena which, as he says, “makes the mind-body problem really intractable.”[3] He points to mental phenomena as the particular aspect of the mind-body problem which is very poorly understood. This leads to what I consider to be the thesis of his paper: “And careful examination will show that no currently available concept of reduction is applicable to [mental phenomena].” [4]

The next paragraph of Nagel's article is very important as it resolves to a common principle. While the tone of the paragraph takes on an hypothetical sense, nevertheless I think that Nagel is appealing to fundamental experience that we cannot soon deny. We will look at this paragraph more carefully below. For now, it is important to point out that Nagel here claims that “conscious experience is a widespread phenomena,” and that “fundamentally an organism has conscious mental states if and only if there is something that it is to be that organism.”[5]

Nagel goes on to describes this as “the subjective character of experience.”[6] Nagel begins to point out that current reductive analyses are not up to the task of accounting for this experience as they are “logically compatible with its absence.” He goes on to say “It is useless to base the defense of materialism on any analysis of mental phenomena that fails to deal explicitly with their subjective character.”[7]

Nagel then makes it very clear that his critique of reductionism is by no means driven by a desire to move away from physicalism, but rather to point out what rigors such a reduction must obtain to account for this, seemingly, undeniable experience. In order to illustrate more fully what he means Nagel turns to bats. He has very good reason for choosing bats to manifest his point. They are sufficiently close to us on the phylogenetic tree and yet their mode of experiencing is very obviously different than our own.[8] A sign of this is that bats depend on echolocation. It is therefore, as Nagel points out, not sufficient for me to imagine what it would be like for me to behave as a bat, he “wants to know what it is like for a bat to be a bat.” [9]

I will let Nagel's own words describe more fully what it is he is looking for:

“We cannot form more than a schematic conception of what it is like [to be a bat]. For example, we may ascribe general types of experience on the basis of the animal’s structure and behavior. Thus we describe bat sonar as a form of three dimensional forward perception; we believe that bats feel some versions of pain, fear, hunger, and lust, and that they have other, more familiar types of perception besides sonar. But we believe that these experiences also have in each case a specific subjective character, which it is beyond our ability to conceive.” [10]



Nagel then briefly touches upon the relation of facts to conceptual schemes. He rightly acknowledges that this is a large topic and he by no means intends to address it fully. He merely points out that, “Whatever may be the status of facts about what it is like to be a human being or a bat, or a Martian, these appear to be facts that embody a particular point of view.”[11] Nor does he hold that this is just a matter of the “alleged privacy of experience to its possessor.” He says that the point of view is a type. It is possible, according to Nagel, to describe the quality of experience of another person.[12] However, he admits that this objective ascription of experience is only possible for someone sufficiently similar to the object of ascription.[13]

The discussion in the article then turns to the dichotomy of a reductionist attempt to grasp subjective experience. Reduction's usual mode is to move away from the subjective to the objective. Precisely what is sought here, however, is the subjective experience. Thus, such a move towards the more objective seems ill suited to the task. Nagel goes so far as to say, “If we acknowledge that a physical theory of mind must account for the subjective character of experience, we must admit that no presently available conception gives us a clue how this could be done.”[14] A little further on Nagel seems to capture the essence of the problem when he says, “Does it make sense, in other words, to ask what my experiences are really like, as opposed to how they appear to me?”[15]

He closes his article with his speculative proposal that was mentioned above, that it may be possible to close the gap between the subjective and the objective. He claims that this can be done if one were to develop an objective phenomenology that is not dependant on empathy or imagination. “Though presumably it would not capture everything, its goal would be to describe, at least in part, the subjective character of experiences in a form comprehensible to beings incapable of having those experiences.”[16]

With all due respect to a very adept thinker, it does seem that Nagel is attempting to hold together that which he just destroyed. His striking critique of reductionism seems to far out weigh the slim hope proposed by this hypothetical new phenomenology. Nagel wants to hold on to physicalism even though he has seemingly silenced it forever. He is right to say that it is a “mistake to conclude that physicalism must be false.” Nothing he has said as dealt it a death blow. He has merely effectively dismissed it as source for ever really explaining what it is to be something. It cannot obtain this. It has nothing to say on the matter. So also, this new phenomenology, on which Nagel pins his rather slim hopes, will either reduce to that which he just critiqued, or is simply impossible.

When Nagel speaks of trying to “develop concepts that could be used to explain to a person blind from birth what it was like to see,”[17] it is as if he is hoping that this new phenomenology will give humanity a new kind of consciousness, the likes of which we cannot grasp in our present condition.

The problem with this view, is that this new consciousness must develop from our current consciousness. What is more, it can only ever be artificial, and at root will have to resolve to the consciousness that is given as a fact of human existence. To put it another way, an attempt to describe the first person experiences of another must always resolve to our necessarily third person descriptions of objective claims. Therefore, it reduces back to the kind of reduction he just dismissed as insufficient for the task. We must be resigned to this undeniable given of our consciousness.

It is here that I wish to turn to our two guests from the 4th century B.C. and 13th century A.D. While I am afraid that I will here neglect Nagel as long as he is holding on to his physicalism, it is not my purpose to disprove such a theory here. I do intend to argue, however, that what Nagel is really seeking is the Aristotelian-Thomistic concept of nature; and while this will not answer all his wants, it will give a cause for the insufficiency of reductionism and offer an explanation for certain limits on well we can know others.

I will here quote in full a paragraph that we briefly referenced in the above summary.

Conscious experience is a widespread phenomenon. It occurs at many levels of animal life, though we cannot be sure of its presence in the simpler organisms, and it is very difficult to say in general what provides evidence of it. (Some extremists have been prepared to deny it even of mammals other than man.) No doubt it occurs in countless forms totally unimaginable to us, on other planets in other solar systems throughout the universe. But no matter how the form may vary, the fact that an organism has conscious experience at all means, basically, that there is something it is like to be that organism. There may be further implications about the form of the experience; there may even (though I doubt it) be implications about the behavior of the organism. But fundamentally an organism has conscious mental states if and only if there is something that it is to be an organism -something it is like for the organism.[18]


In this paragraph Nagel reveals that he wants the “what it is to be” of an organism and to really grasp that with his mind.

Compare this with a claim by Aristotle, “Nature is a certain principle and cause of moving and resting in that in which it is, primarily, in virtue of itself, and not accidentally.”[19] Prima facie, these claims have very little in common. While respecting the obvious differences, let us look more carefully at Aristotle's claim. First of all, this arises in the context of his Physics and here he is studying mobile being. [20]Consequently, his definitions are going to pertain to this end. Notice, however, that he holds that it is in the thing primarily, in virtue of the thing itself, not accidentally. In other words, the nature pertains essentially to the account of what a thing is.

A little further on Aristotle begins to explain analogous uses of the term nature. In particular he identifies nature with the form or species of things. “Whence, in another way, nature would be the form and species of things which have in themselves a principle of motion, [which species is] not separable except according to account. What is from these is not nature, but by nature, e.g. man. And this [form] is more nature than the material.”[21] The form, however, is the actuality or, the what is to be of the thing and this he identifies with nature. We see, therefore, that Aristotle's account of nature is much closer to what Nagel wants than it may have first appeared.

We should note that this use of nature is far different from our common idea of Nature, as in Mother Nature. For Aristotle (and St. Thomas, as we will see below), nature is not some existing force encompassing all non-human creation. Rather it is an intrinsic principle of the thing; the what is to be of something. Consequently, rather than speaking of Nature, we will speak of natures, or a nature.

Here we will turn to St. Thomas in order to see a concise account of the final developments of the use of the word nature.

“[Essence] is also called by another name, nature, by taking nature according to the first way of those four ways which Boethius assigns in De Duabus Naturae, namely, according as everything that is able to be grasped of each thing by the intellect is able to be called nature. For a thing is not intelligible except through its definition and essence.[22]


Thomas says further, “Nevertheless the same name nature taken in this way signifies the essence of the thing according as it has an order towards some proper operation of the thing; since no thing is without its own proper operation.”[23] Therefore we see that the Aristotelian-Thomistic concept of nature is the what it is to be a thing that Nagel wants to possess so thoroughly. However, while acknowledging that we can know these natures in one way, both Aristotle and St. Thomas are quick to point out, at the same time, our inability to understand such natures perfectly. In particular, St. Thomas in his De Veritate, indicates several impediments to knowing the natures of things.

The rest of this paper, therefore, divides into two main parts. The first will be to point out the limits of knowing the natures of others. The second will point out the possible exception to understanding the subjective experiences of others in the case of the human person.

Impediments to Knowing Natures

In order to understand the impediments to knowing natures, it is necessary to give a brief (very brief) outline of a Thomistic epistemology. For St. Thomas, the object of our thought is things. First of all we sense some thing. From this sense impression we form a phantasm which is the likeness of the thing. Finally we abstract the essence of the thing from the phantasm, and thus we know the thing itself. It is important to note here that the essence is an immaterial principle, first of the thing, and then as known by the intellect. Knowing, for the St. Thomas, is the immaterial possession of another as other.

A corollary principle that is derived from this is that to the degree something is immaterial is to the extent it is knowable.

With this brief outline we can then begin to consider the impediments there are to knowing the natures of things. There are seven impediments to knowing natures, and some of these have variations under them. First of all there is the thing itself. A dog, for example, is a composite being, composed of matter and form. To the extent, therefore, that the dog is material, it is not knowable. Therefore, we cannot posses the what it is to be this dog since we cannot possess it wholly as other.

The nature of the thing must be expressed through its sensible accidents.[24] These sensible accidents, therefore, must attempt to express the nature of the thing, even though they may not be able to express the nature fully. Often, no single accident is sufficient to express the nature of the thing. Consequently it requires a number of accidents taken together in order to express the nature.

These accidents are sometimes not adequate to express the nature of the thing. This can either be what is intended by the nature, or by some defect in the nature. In the first case it is clear that some things by nature attempt to deceive as to what their nature is.[25] Take, for example, the insect the walking stick. It is an insect, however, in order to deceive predators, etc., its nature is not adequately expressed by its accidents so that it looks like a twig. As to the second case there are some occasions where the thing is deformed so dramatically that the nature of the thing is only discerned with great difficulty. Such a thing might happen in the case of sever dismemberment.

These are the three impediments to knowing a nature that can arise on the part of the thing itself. There are also, however, impediments in the medium. All sensing must be done through a medium.[26] This medium might not be well suited to transmit the sensible accidents of the thing. For example, trying to see what color a thing is under a black-light, or attempting to hear during a wind storm. In both these instances, the medium is ill suited to transmit the sensible accident of the thing.

This brings us to the sense organs of the thing itself. There are occasions when the sense organ itself is not capable of receiving the sensible accidents of the thing in a way sufficient to grasp the nature of the thing. This deficiency can be in three ways: first, according to nature, second, according to defect and third, according to habituation. An example of the first way is found when the eye by nature can only see so far, or within such a light spectrum. Consequently, for a man, the sensible accidents of a thing that is a mile away might be received in a poor way due to the power of the sense organ, whereas an eagle might be able to perceive it quite clearly. The second way arises when the sense organ is damaged either wholly or partially. The third way is found when we sense something that we are not accustomed to seeing or that we are not accustomed to seeing in a certain way. Here, the habituation of the sense organ might make it unable to adequately receive the sensible accidents of the thing.

Once the sensible accidents have been received it then belongs to the common sense to unite these accidents. The common sense however, can fail either according to defect or according to habituation. Defects in the common sense most often are seen to arise with some sort of brain damage. Habituation of the common sense, similar to habituation of the senses, can cause someone to not observe something because they are not expecting it.

Then a phantasm is formed of the thing. This phantasm is a likeness of the thing but can become abstracted from particular determinations of the thing, such as determinate dimensions. Therefore, while it is certainly a likeness of the thing, and the essence of the thing itself is present in the phantasm, nevertheless, it is present under and through this indeterminate likeness.

The agent intellect abstracts the essence, or nature of the thing, from the phantasm. While the agent intellect does this unerringly, it does not necessarily do it completely. This imperfection can arise on the part of the object, as has been seen, or on the part of the agent intellect itself. When the imperfection is on the part of the object, the agent intellect can only abstract what is clearly present. Thus, if the sensible accidents of a thing are poorly expressed through an improper medium and at a great distance, the intellect might only be able to abstract something like “a being.” It seems possible also, that some agent intellect might be stronger than another, and therefore more apt to abstract the nature of the thing.[27]

Finally the will can effect our knowledge of nature. According to the scholastic dictum, all error lies in the will. That is to say, one might want to know a thing so much that he neglects to be attentive to what he actually knows of the thing and presume to make more determinate statements than is in accord with what is in his intellect. This is not a movement by the intellect, but a movement of the will. This can cause us to cease reflecting on experience because we imagine that we know something that we do not. This in turn will make it so that we do not strive to reflect on our experience more carefully and understand the natures of things better.

At the end, this process seems to be quite perilous to ever knowing a nature. While this must be granted, nevertheless, it will behoove us to see what kind of knowledge we have at the end of this process. This knowledge is not quite so intimate a knowledge as Nagel seems to be wanting. We are still separated from the thing itself. However, we are able to recognize an instance of this nature versus that nature, in most instances. For example, I am not usually puzzled as to whether the thing in front of me is a dog or a cat. I feel quite certain that they each have a different nature. I am prevented, however, from giving a proper definition of each. To be frank, any definition is going to be a description of accidents which to pertain to the nature more directly.

Moreover, there may be cases where I can be confused about the nature of the thing before me.[28] This is clear from the litany of impediments given above. These hard cases should not be the measure. For example, I may be confused about whether a venus fly trap is a plant or an animal, but that does not mean that I do not know what an animal or a plant is, or that I cannot recognize them in most other cases. Again, looking above to all the possible impediments, we should not be surprised to run into difficult cases. Exceptions are not the foundations of knowledge.

This is not at all the same as a reductionist view. The reductionist wants to reduce the 'what it is to be' to such a description and he is justly criticized by Nagel. The Aristotelian-Thomistic position agrees with the reductionist to this point: we might never be able to give a better definition of the thing than to describe its more essential accidents. This is as far as the two positions will go together. The Aristotelian-Thomistic position might be content with such description as what we can say as to the definition of a thing, but it will insist that this is not the, ‘what it is to be’ a thing. We are naming things that flow from the essence of the thing, even if we do not grasp it perfectly. We can recognize natures, give accounts for them, but we cannot fully grasp them.

Therefore, we see that there are seven impediments to knowing the natures of things, some of these necessary; others, possible, and still others, likely. There are three on the part of the thing itself: it is a composite, the nature of the thing is expressed through sensible accidents of the thing, and these can sometimes deceive, either through defect, or intent. On the part of the medium through which the sensible accidents must be sensed it may be unable to adequately carry the sensible accidents to the sense organs. The subject who is desiring to know likewise can cause impediments to knowing the nature of the thing. First on the part of his senses, and second because he must abstract the essence of the thing. Finally, because his will can blind him to his own experience.

Therefore, we see that there is a certain way in which the gap between the subjective and objective is crossed, in that we have the nature as understood is the same as the nature of the thing, essentially. However, since we must know the nature through our senses, the way we grasp the nature of the thing will always be impeded. Nagel's desire to “know what it is like for a bat to be a bat,” appears to be impossible for us to satisfy. To see what it would entail to possess such a knowledge, we must look to intellects that are something more than human.

Angelic Knowledge

The subject matter of this section might be quite distressing for a physicalist, such as Nagel was when he wrote the article we are here considering. Be that as it may, St. Thomas would hold that the kind of knowledge that Nagel is seeking about natures belongs to the angels. Nagel wants to know what it is like for a bat to be a bat; he wants an objective first person view, a perspective inside the very consciousness of a bat. As we saw, a Thomistic epistemology does not give a favorable impression as to the likelihood of ever obtaining such knowledge. Therefore in order to better appreciate the limitations and achievements of human knowing we will set it in contrast to an angelic mode of knowing, as conceived by St. Thomas. What is important about this consideration is not to discuss angels. In fact, one need not even necessarily believe that there are such beings in order to see the three main points of this section: first, that an Arisotelian-Thomistic view of knowing leaves room for different modes of knowing. Second, human knowing is by no means an exemplar. Third, the kind of 'first person' knowledge of the mental events of another is a mode of knowing proper to angels. Thus, even if angels are here considered only hypothetically, nevertheless we can see what it would take to know things as Nagel seems to want to.

Angelic knowledge is possibly the most difficult and most essential part of the study of the angels. The difficulty is trying to understand beings that in a way are like us, and in another way are completely beyond us. In order to get as close as possible to Nagel's first person experiences we want to address how it is that these glorious beings can consider the actions of men. Are they constantly present among us, watching? Or perhaps this is superstitious medieval fancy, and they know us only because they reason to our existence from their own. Both of these accounts are lacking, but hold some element of the truth. As will be shown, angels, according to a Thomistic account know individual human acts through intelligible species handed down to them by God.

We shall proceed by following, for the most part, St. Thomas' own order of treatment of angels as found in his Summa Theologiae. St. Thomas does not have an article which directly pertains to angelic knowledge of human actions. Therefore, as my topic is far narrower than his treatment I will of course skip those articles that are not to my purpose. First we will consider the medium of angelic knowledge. Then, skipping angelic knowledge of immaterial things, we will proceed directly to the knowledge of material things. There will then be a brief discussion of human actions in general and then the argument for the thesis. We will then take a brief moment to dwell on the consequences of the preceding arguments.

A medium of knowledge is the species through which an intellect knows some thing. Now in man, as is seen in Book III of Aristotle's De Anima, knowledge is had through a universal species that is abstracted from a phantasm in the imagination, present there from an object sensed. This cannot be so in angels. Angels are held to be pure intellects, i.e. separated forms that are their own natures.[29] Consequently, the medium for angelic knowledge must be more carefully examined.
That the angel might be distinguished clearly from God, it should be made clear that he does not know all things through his own substance; for the angel possesses a particular substance, and this substance does not contain the perfection of being in itself. As the Angelic Doctor says himself,

However, the essence of the angel does not comprehend in itself all things, since the existence of a essence is determined to some genus and species. But this is proper to the divine essence, that is infinite in itself simply and comprehends the perfections of all things. Therefore, only God knows all things through his essence.[30]

Therefore, it is clear that the angels must know by some other medium, and that their intellects must be perfected by some species in order to know.[31]

Already, from what has been said, we can see that it is not through some abstracted species that an angel knows. As St. Thomas says, “The species through which an angel understands is not taken from things but is con-natural to them.”[32] St. Thomas argues that human souls, since they are united to matter, are perfected through matter, otherwise their union with matter would be in vain. However, angels are not in matter in any way. Therefore, in order for angels to be perfected by some intelligible species, it must come from an intelligible “efflux,” that comes from God directly.[33] This is not surprising insofar as God is the cause of being and perfection of all things.[34] Therefore, God as he is causing things in existence is at the same time informing the angels with the intelligible species of the existing things.

Now, St. Thomas says that the species of things are con-natural to the angels. It is not that the species come from the very nature of the angel, it is that the nature of the angel requires species to obtain its perfection. Note that St. Thomas makes his argument through perfection, but he is not speaking of the supernatural perfection of eternal beatitude, but simply the perfections which belong to a thing. For example, if God were to create a lion and put no other animals on earth, this would be highly unfitting. To eat meat belongs to the nature of the lion. Therefore, it is con-natural to the lion that there be some animal to eat, otherwise the nature is in vain and cannot obtain its natural perfection. So also, the angel must have some intelligible species granted to them by God directly, otherwise they can in no way obtain their natural perfection and their nature is in vain.

It remains then to see how angels are able to know singulars. Necessarily then, we must take under consideration things in matter. St. Thomas argues from the order of things in nature. The superior beings are more perfect than the inferior and contain the perfections of the inferior eminently, wholly and simply. This is as much to say, anything a man can do, an angel can do better. There is a gradation in the order of things. God is the source of all things and all perfections. The angels are nearest to God in the order of being. St. Thomas then says,

Thus, therefore, all material things are in angels, preexisting simply. Indeed and more immaterially than in things themselves; but more multiplied and more imperfect than they exist in God.[35]

St. Thomas then concludes, in the same place, that since God knows material things, then the angels know them by some intelligible species given by God.

It is important to emphasize that, while God is the cause of being of things, and thus it is clear that creatures exist in Him above all things, the angels are not a cause of our being. Their knowledge of us is given to them directly by God, not as though they are necessary agents of His causality,[36] but because in order for these creatures to know it must come from God, not from creatures simply. See how clearly St. Thomas puts it in his reply to the first back in Question 55, Article 2

In the mind of an angel there are similitudes of creatures, not indeed, as taken from the creature, but from God, who is the cause of creatures and in which the first similitudes of things exist. Whence Augustine says in [The Literal Interpretation of Genesis] that just as the ratio by which a creature is fashioned, first is in the Word of God before it is fashioned in the creature, so the same ratio is made first in the intellectual creatures [i.e. the Angels] and then is itself fashioned in the creature.

We can now consider how angels know singulars. St. Thomas begins his discussion of this question by addressing two common errors. The first of which is the outright denial of knowledge of singulars in angels. This is against the Catholic faith, which holds that angels minister to individual humans; these we call guardian angels. Others have stated that angels know singulars through universal causes. St. Thomas shows that this does not end the difficulty, because to know through universal causes is not the same as to know the thing in the here and now. He gives the example of the astronomer knowing through causes that an eclipse is going to happen, but does not know it in its singularity unless he senses it.[37]

St. Thomas again appeals to the superiority of angels to show that they must know singulars if we do, since there is a certain perfection in knowing singulars in the here and now. He therefore argues that God causes all things, not just universally, but in their very individuality; is the cause of each individual substance. Therefore, even the very individual must exist in God preeminently. Socrates, exists in God first and foremost. Thus the angels know Socrates in his very singularity through a species given by God.[38]

Human actions are caused by God's agency through the will. Human actions begin in deliberation. This deliberation is about the means to the final end which belongs to man by nature. The deliberation necessarily results in choice.[39] That choice terminates in action. It is important to realize, in order to avoid the Pelagian error, that God must be the cause of any and all actions because there is in fact some being there. Moreover, that the first movements of deliberation are caused by God's direct action upon the human will There is no human action without God's causing it immediately, just as there is no being of any sort without God's causing it directly.

We are left, therefore, with the question of how angels can know these particular actions of men. Remember above what St. Thomas concludes about angelic knowledge of singulars, that it is precisely the thing its singularity, the here and now, that the angel knows. This follows for all kinds of being caused by God. As was discussed above, God is the immediate cause of being of every action. Therefore, the angel knows individual actions of men as made known to them by God himself, through some intelligible species.
There is an inclination is to say that angels must in some way make the individual actions of man present to himself in some immaterial way, even though it cannot be asserted how it is done. This view supported by considering the way demons are able to judge human thoughts by outward appearances. For as Augustine says demons “sometimes are able with the greatest facility learn man's dispositions, not only through speech, but also as conceived in thought when the soul expresses them by certain signs in the body”[40]. It seems therefore that the angels (and demons) are able to somehow consider man's actions directly. Moreover, to say that the knowledge is from some intelligible species of the individual it seems that one necessarily falls into some form of determinism. Angels would be able to conclude to individual actions from the intelligible forms of individuals. However, as St. Thomas argues, angels are unable to know that secret thoughts of men. For the will is moved by God alone and directly.[41] Therefore angels cannot perceive the principle of human action, so likewise, they cannot conclude to human actions from intelligible forms of individuals. Therefore, it seems that angels must in some way understand the individual human action from the man's action directly and since there is no form to abstract, the angel is not knowing it through abstraction, and thus this does not contradict what was said before.

The source of this difficulty seems to arise from the mode of human knowing. We know particulars directly from the particulars as sensed. This seems to us the most direct and simple way to know things. However, like most things man does, this is backwards. God knows things perfectly since He knows things in the order of being and through the cause of being, i.e. Himself. Angels, even naturally speaking are much more like to God than we are, and also know according to the mode of being. As was shown above, they cannot abstract. There is no agent or passive intellect, nor imagination in which to hold a phantasm.

The solution lies in this: God is the cause of being for every being, even accidental being. Therefore, He is even the cause of the being of actions. Therefore, as He is causing the action to be, sense there is some new ens, qualified though it may be, he reveals this to the angel through an intelligible species. Not that the angel sees this particular action as necessarily resulting from what is to be Socrates, but rather, since there is this particular man Socrates, he must necessarily act in some particular way here and now. The ens Socrates, is the occasion for the ens running, or cutting in Socrates. The angel cannot see into the deliberation of Socrates, but he is able know the action of Socrates as caused by God directly.

This is a mind blowing and staggering conclusion. We can imagine that an angel must be flooded with virtually infinite number of intelligible species as every single creature in the world, and every accidental being belonging to it (list the categories of a given moment) at every moment. However, this not simply the case. St. Thomas shows that an angel cannot understand many things at the same time. For the unity of an operation requires the unity of the object. Angels cannot know all things at once, because they are not infinite. Therefore they are only able to have one object for the operation of their vis intellectiva. To fill this out we can look at St. Thomas' consideration of whether the higher angels understand by fewer species. He argues that since God understands all things through himself in an absolute unity, inferior creatures know through many. Thus, those that are closer to Him know must by so much the fewer species understand all intelligible things. Therefore, his intelligible species are more universal.[42] Angels, therefore are not then attentive to all particulars accept in so far as the fall under the account of the universal species that they are considering.

Let us consider some speculative corollaries of this to help put the magnificence of this mode of knowing into perspective. Some have suggested that the highest angels are able to understand all creatures through the single species, created being. This does not seem unlikely especially considering what Dionysius says about the first hierarchy of angels in Chapter 7 of The Celestial Hierarchy.

They [Seraphim, Cherubim and Thrones] are perfect then not because of an enlightened understanding which enables them to analyze the many sacred things, but rather because of a primary and supreme deification, a transcendent and angelic understanding of God's work. They have been directed hierarchically not through other holy beings but directly from God Himself and they have achieved this thanks to the capacity which compared to others is the mark of their superior order. Hence they are found next to perfect and unfailing purity and are led, as permitted, into contemplation regarding the immaterial and intellectual splendor.

Dionysius is here speaking of the beatified angels, but what is most telling is that he attributes their proximity to God to “the capacity which compared to others is the mark of their superior order.” It is not hard to imagine, then, that the higher angels can take up the entire universe in a single glance; that they are so powerful that the universe itself is able to be a locus of their power. Through the one species, created being, they understand the natures of every created being now in existence. Thus, the spiritual realm is vastly beyond our own meagre material existence.

In light of the above it would behoove us to take a brief look at angelic intelligible species. Intelligible species is not said univocally of man and angels, but analogously. First, consider that every intelligible species we possess carries with it the account of abstracted, and therefore universal. Angels labour under no such deficiency. They do not require that something be made universal in order for it to be understood. They understand it precisely in its particularity. The greatest angels are able to grasp Socrates-ness through the species created being.

We therefore see according to St. Thomas' thought that angels are subsisting intellects. From their nature they must receive intelligible species con-natural to them from God directly and these species are of all created being, even accidental being. Therefore it is through these species handed down by God that they understand human actions in the here and now. In this way, they can have knowledge through the cause of even particular actions. Among particular human actions we can include many of the phenomena proper to consciousness. Angels, therefore, are able to have objective knowledge of even first person experiences.

This conclusion seems to correspond with what Nagel wants in his knowledge of things. Nagel is emphatic that he is not just “adverting here to the alleged privacy of experience to its possessor. The point of view in question is not one accessible only to a single individual. Rather it is a type.”[43] So also the knowledge that angels have of individual human acts cannot violate the “inner sanctum” of human consciousness as St. Thomas points out when he says that angels cannot know the secret thoughts of men. This would seem to keep them from knowing what it is like for Socrates to be a man. However, they are still privy to what it is like for a man to be a man.

A Speculative Proposal

In this section I am going to follow Nagel's lead and offer my own speculative proposal. My own speculative proposal will at first look very much like Nagel's: there may be a way that man is able to more fully bridge the gap between the subjective and objective. I will go further with Nagel and say that its success seems to depend upon the development of a phenomenology. At this point, however our paths diverge. Nagel wants a phenomenology that would still lie in physical considerations. The phenomenology that I would look to is that which may subsist in the relationships between two human persons.

While an Aristotelian-Thomistic epistemology seems to exclude the kind of knowledge that Nagel wants as a possibility for human intellects, nevertheless, it does leave open a possibility that Nagel himself seems to suggest, namely, that knowledge of another's first person experience may be more realizable the more similar it is to ourselves. As was quoted above Nagel holds, “the objective ascription of experience is possible only for someone sufficiently similar to the object of ascription to be able to hold this point of view.” Nagel the goes on to state the principle negatively, “The more different from oneself the other experiencer is, the less success one can expect with [being able to hold the point of view of the other].[44]

It seems to me that an Arisotelian-Thomistic view would allow for such a position, but determine it more. This view holds that every human person has the same nature. That is to say, each instance of a human is likewise a distinct instantiation of human nature, but each instantiation is essentially the same. There is, however, a great deal of difference between each instantiation. This difference is not in the nature, but lies somewhere else.

According to St. Thomas, the principle of individuation is matter. While this is the principle of our individuation, it by no means needs to be considered as the perfection of our individation. We are not merely distinct individuals, we are unique. Now the perfection of the uniqueness of each instance of a human nature, belongs to the personhood of that nature. It is here that we find what St. Thomas holds to be the incommunicable part of our existence.

It seems, therefore, quite possible to imagine that the inter relationship of persons can provide for a more intimate knowledge of the experiences of the other. There is not the impediment of knowing a different nature. It seems possible, therefore, that there may be a chance to bridge the gap between subject and object in a more profound way.

I would be surprised if this entailed finding new concepts and ways of describing color as Nagel seems to want. Rather, the kind of development, as I see it, would develop a kind of empathy between persons. Perhaps philosophy and science will still only be able to describe this kind of knowledge. I can imagine that this kind of empathy will be found to be pre-philosophical. Perhaps this kind of knowing has actually been going on from the beginning, and I am merely reinventing the wheel. For, it was in the beginning that “Adam knew Eve, his wife.”[45]

Conclusion

We began this paper with a summary of Thomas Nagel's article, What is it like to be a bat? In the summary of this article we pointed out his critique of physicalist reductionism, but I attempted to emphasize that what Nagel was really trying to get to was the 'what it is to be' of a bat. It was in his quest for this where he found reductionist theories wanting.

From this we turned to Aristotle and St. Thomas, both of whom held a concept of nature. As we saw, this is not an idea of nature like Mother Nature, or some mysterious presence/force. Rather, it began as “a certain principle and cause of moving and resting in that in which it is, primarily, in virtue of itself, and not accidentally,” and finally developed into “the essence of the thing according as it has an order towards some proper operation of the thing.”

We then had to consider in what mode we understood these natures and consequently examined the seven major impediments to knowing natures. There are three on the part of the thing itself: it is a composite, the nature of the thing is expressed through sensible accidents of the thing, and these can sometimes deceive, either through defect, or intent. On the part of the medium through which the sensible accidents must be sensed it can possibly me unable to adequately carry the sensible accidents to the sense organs. The subject who desires to know likewise can cause impediments to knowing the nature of the thing. First, on the part of his senses; second, because he must abstract the essence of the thing; finally, because his will can blind him to his own experience.

This led us to look at angelic knowledge. For, while the Aristotelian-Thomistic account of human knowing seems to point to something less than what Nagel was seeking, we saw that waht is required for such knowledge is proper to angelic intellects. These immaterial beings are subsisting intellects, and from their nature they must receive intelligible species con-natural to them from God directly. These species are of all created being, even accidental being. Therefore it is through these species handed down by God that they understand human actions in the here and now. In this way, they can have knowledge through the cause of even particular actions. Such knowledge would therefore extend even to certain mental events.

Finally, I made my own speculative proposal, pointing out that since between two human persons there is not a difference in nature, it may be possible to have greater knowledge of another's first person experience, though this knowledge may take on something different than what belongs to philosophical or scientific pursuits.

Therefore, the question of bridging the gap between the subjective and objective is not so neat a problem as we might hope. According to classical thought, Thomas Nagel will have to be content with something less than what he has hoped for in his inquiry into the 'what it is to be of things.' Perhaps also, the sheer ability of the Aristotelian-Thomistic account to explain why we cannot get to the 'what it is to be' of things may be cause enough to consider more carefully their thought.



24



[1] Nagel, Thomas. What is it like to be a Bat? From The Philosophical Review LXXXIII, 4 (October 1974);435-50. I am using the article from a personal source; therefore the page numbers referenced will not correspond to the afore referenced publication.

[2] Cf. Aristotle, De Anima, III, 5.

[3] Nagel, What is it like to be a Bat?, p. 1.

[4] Ibid.

[5] Ibid.

[6] Ibid.

[7] Ibid., p. 2.

[8] Ibid.

[9] Ibid., p. 3.

[10] Ibid.

[11] Ibid., p. 4.

[12] Ibid.

[13] Ibid.

[14] Ibid., p. 6.

[15] Ibid., p. 8.

[16] Ibid.

[17] Ibid.

[18] Ibid., p. 1.

[19] Aristotle. Physics or Natural Hearing: William of Moerbeke Translation Series. Translated and edited by Glen Coughlin. South Bend, IN: St. Augustine’s Press, 2005.

[20] Ibid., I, 2.

[21] Ibid.

[22] Aquinas, Thomas. De Ente et Essentia, Cap. I.: [Essentia] etiam alio nomine natura dicitur accipiendo naturam secundum primum modum illorum quattor, quos Boethius in libro De Duabus Naturae assignat, secundum scilicet quod natura dicitur omne illud quod intellectu quoquo mod capi potest. Non enim res est intelligibilis nisi per diffinitionem et essentiam suam.

[23] Ibid., Tamen nomen naturae hoc modo sumptae videtur significare essentiam rei, secundum quod habet ordinem ad propriam operationem rei, cum nulla res propria operatione destituatur.

[24] Aquinas, Thomas. De Veritate, Q. 1, a. 10, c.

[25] Ibid.

[26] Ibid.

[27] Aquinas, De Veritate, Q. 1, a. 12 c.

[28] Cf. Ibid.

[29] Aquinas, Summa Thologiae, pp. Q.. 50, aa. 1,2,4,.

[30] Ibid., pp Q. 55, a. 1. c. Ipsa autem essential angeli non comprehendit in se omnia, cum sit essential determinate ad genus et ad speciem. Hoc autem proprium est essentiae divinae, qua infinita est, ut in se simpliciter omnia comprehendat perfecte. Et ideo solus Deus cognoscit onia per suam essentiam. Though an interesting question, we will leave aside what is meant by an angel being determined to a genus and species in this paper.

[31] Ibid.

[32] Ibid. a. 2.

[33] Ibid.

[34] Ibid.

[35] Ibid. pp. Q. 57, a. 1: Sic igitur omnia materialia in ipsis angelis praeexistun, simplicius quidem et immaterialius quam in ipsis rebus; multiplicius autem et imperfectus quam in Deo.

[36] This is not to say that God cannot use angels as a mediation for His direct causality, but it is not necessary. Furthermore, it seems that in certain ways God cannot use the angels to cause at all, such as in the case of esse We will avoid this digression.

[37] Ibid. a. 2.

[38] Ibid.

[39] This assuming that the deliberation comes to an end. One might be able to imagine a case where someone is in the grocery store indefinitely, but there is not need to dwell on what is on the least part.

[40] De Divinatione Daemonum as referenced by St. Thomas, Summa Theologiae, pp. Q. 57, a 4.

[41] Ibid.

[42] Ibid., Q. 55, a. 3.

[43] Nagel, What is it like to be a Bat? P. 2.

[44] Ibid. p. 3.

[45] Genesis 4:1.

I have been called upon to give a fellow philosopher who is not familiar with our Stagirite friend a quick run-down on the soul from an Aristotelian perspective. I have to do it in about four minutes, but there will be time for discussion after, and he is especially interested in contrasting it with Plato's view, which he is more familiar with. Obviously with such a short time allowance, the main difficulty here is pedagogical. This is what I've got so far, and I'd appreciate your input:

*** BEGIN PRESENTATION ***
First, there is a methodological point that should govern the whole discussion. As Aristotle argues in the first chapter of the Physics, the proper way to proceed in a science is from confused general notions to more determine ones. This has two ramifications for the study of the soul:

1. The study of the soul, since it concerns a particular kind of body (living bodies), presupposes the general study of nature.
   
2. Within the study of the soul, we should define the soul in general before discussing particular kinds of souls or distinguishing the different powers precisely.

So, beginning the examination of the soul in general, we can say that the first phenomenon in need of explanation is the difference between living and non-living creatures. That there is a difference is obvious and need not be argued; rather, it is the reason there is a science here at all. And since this difference is seen among bodily things, the only things we have experience of, this investigation falls to the natural philosopher.

This phenomena can be further specified: in demarcating some creatures as "living," we are first of all observing various activities, principally local motion and perception. But since a living thing is different than a non-living thing even when it is not engaging its activities, as when it sleeps, what we are looking for is deeper than the activities themselves. In trying to define the soul, therefore, we are chiefly looking for the principle of these activities of life. Since there may be many secondary causes which come together to produce a given action, we can also specify that we are looking for the first principle of the activities of life, the root of all other differences we might point to between the living and non-living.

If you are convinced that there are only three things to be discussed in the nature of a thing (namely: form, matter, and the composite), it is not too hard to see that the soul, or the first principle of the activities of life, is the form. For the principle is not the composite, which is the very thing that needs explaining. Neither can it be the matter. It is true that both matter and form are principles of a thing. We might, for instance say that we are healthy by means of the body as a principle, or by means of health as a principle. But having a body is what the living and non-living have in common, not what makes them differ. The form, however, is that by
which the living thing differs from the non-living and principles the activities of life. And it principles these activities by being act, as opposed to the body, which is a principle by being receptive. So we define the soul as the first act of a living body.
*** END PRESENTATION ***

Given the time constraints, is there anything you would add, take away, or phrase differently?

Plato, philosopher and teacher of Aristotle, once taught that, "There is a real distinction between existence and essence." Note that, of the two predications in the preceding statement, the truth of each is evaluated by two different disciplines. An individual man could conceivably argue to falsity of the main clause, and the truth of the quotation, but he would require two different sciences, history and philosophy respectively, each with differing degrees of certitude as to their judgments.

Consider this sentence: St. Thomas held that "A demonstration of the existence of an immaterial, first, and unmoved mover is required to differentiate the science of physics and the science of metaphysics as to their subjects." It succumbs to an identical analysis as the statement concerning Plato. As a further consequence, the student of philosophy ought to invest his time secondarily seeking the answer to the historical question, and primarily the philosophical one. However, when it comes to knowing and defending the authority of one's teachers, and whom one's teacher indicates as teachers, the answer to the former question takes on more importance.

The disciples of St. Thomas take a broad spectrum of positions concerning the Angelic Doctor as the Expositor of Aristotle, the Philosopher. At one extreme, everything St. Thomas writes concerning Aristotle's philosophy in the commentaries is to be taken as (permit me the use of a dirty word) "Thomistic philosophy" (e.g., Weisheipl), unless St. Thomas explicity states otherwise in the same or parallel contexts. The other extreme holds that St. Thomas was only a theologian, and no such Thomistic philosophy can be found (Gilson). A more moderate position states that "When the views [Thomas] presents in more independent writings agree with those he exposes in a particular commentary on Aristotle, we may assume that he accepts the latter as his own position as well. When there is disagreement between the two discussions, we should be very hesitant in assigning such a position from one of his commentaries to Thomas himself, unless there is also some evidence pointing to change or development in his thinking on that point." [1] This view leans to the Gilsonian extreme, stating that St. Thomas agrees with what he says in commentaries on Aristotle only where explicitly stated elsewhere. Otherwise, the Expositor is merely expositing what Aristotle thought was philosophy, and isn't making any "truth-value judgments."

However, one could bend the stick towards the "River Forest" extreme and take what is (too strongly) named "The McInerny Identity Thesis": that St. Thomas agrees with what he says concerning what Aristotle said, unless he explicitly states otherwise (in any place). That this seems to be the case can be evidenced from the following place.

Concerning the disagreement over the distinction of the subject of physics from metaphysics, Wippel's position concerning the texts from Metaphysics IV, VI, and XI as St. Thomas treats of it in his commentary is that: "In these cases we have Thomas's explanation of Aristotle's text, but not Thomas's personal position concerning the conditions of possibility for separation and hence for the discovery of the subject of metaphysics." [2] Metaphysics VI.1 states:

...if there is no substance other than those which are formed by nature, natural science will be the first science; but if there is an immovable substance, the science of this must be prior and must be first philosophy, and universal in this way, because it is first. [1026a27]

St. Thomas, in his commentary, does "little more than repeat the Stagirite's text." [3] Now, without going into the intricacies of this issue philosophically, one can argue from the opponent's own grounds that St. Thomas in fact holds Aristotle's position. For, if there is another text (an independent text) where St. Thomas sustains this view, then it can be attributed to his own philosophical teaching.

In Summa Contra Gentiles, I.12, St. Thomas argues against those who hold that the existence of God can only be held by faith, and cannot be demonstrated by reason. Three arguments for fideism are brought up, and before they are answered in order, St. Thomas presents the four following arguments for the truth of the matter:

Huius autem sententiae falsitas nobis ostenditur, tum ex demonstrationis arte, quae ex effectibus causas concludere docet. Tum ex ipso scientiarum ordine. Nam, si non sit aliqua scibilis substantia supra substantiam sensibilem, non erit aliqua scientia supra naturalem, ut dicitur in IV Metaph. Tum ex philosophorum studio, qui Deum esse demonstrare conati sunt. Tum etiam apostolica veritate asserente, Rom. 1-20: invisibilia Dei per ea quae facta sunt intellecta conspiciuntur.

These arguments seem to be arranged in descending order of philosophical force: 1) from the teachings of logic, causes are to be concluded to from their effects; 2) from the order of the sciences, which argument will be considered in a moment; 3) from the desire or zeal of the philosophers; 4) from the authority of Scripture.

In the third argument, St. Thomas argues that the order of the sciences shows that fideism is false: "For if there are not any knowable substances above sensible substances, there would be no science higher than natural [science], as is said in Metaphysics IV." But, modus tollens, there is a science of metaphysics. Therefore there are knowable separate substances, hence fideism does not hold.

Note that St. Thomas quotes Metaphysics IV, whereas the passage he paraphrases clearly occurs in Metaphysics VI. The passage cited by the Pegis translation of the Summa Contra Gentiles is from Metaphysics IV.3, 1005a18ff, a passage Wippel includes in his dismissal. This misquotation I cannot explain. Concerning this misquoted text, in his commentary (written after SCG) St. Thomas also mentions the same difficulty: the reason for why the naturalists sought to treat of first principles: because they thought that there were no separate substances.

For our purposes, this text shows that St. Thomas must agree with what he states in his commentary on Aristotle concerning the texts in question (Metaphysics IV.3 and VI.1). The force of the argument in SCG depends upon an order of the sciences considered from the rank of their objects. By paraphrasing Aristotle, St. Thomas appeals contextually to the difficulty of distinguishing the subject of physics from metaphysics as part of that order. If they can be distinguished, fideism fails. If they cannot be distinguished, fideism holds. However, the solution to the difficulty (as St. Thomas indicates himself in his commentary, following Aristotle) is that the argument from Physics VIII for an immaterial prime mover establishes the subject of metaphysics.

If St. Thomas did in fact disagree with the Philosopher concerning this point, it is very misleading for him to paraphrase a well-known passage of Aristotle, importing its contextual solutions, in refutation of an error concerning the Catholic faith.

There are at least two replies that could be offered: 1) St. Thomas is appealing only to the order of learning, and 2) St. Thomas is using Aristotle's authority in a merely dialectical fashion: St. Thomas could still hold a "personal solution" to the problem of differentiating the subjects of physics and metaphysics.

Contra 1.: St. Thomas cannot be relying solely on the order of learning for this difficulty: in order to refute fideism, the existence of a science posterior to physics must hold (the order of teaching such a science in relation to physics would be posterior to such a consideration: nobody cares about the order you teach non-existent sciences).

Contra 2.: St. Thomas cannot offer merely dialectical responses to fideism. Philosophy as handmaiden must (in its defensive mode) show this to be (paradoxically) an error pernicious to the faith. Now, the argument from the "desire of the philosophers" is dialectical: "Surely all these men are not hunting in vain." The argument from logic is (in a like fashion, though stronger) dialectical, for while it teaches that effects prove the existence of causes, logic as a science cannot demonstrate the existence of those causes. The way to demonstratively refute fideism is to show the science itself. Now, if St. Thomas is quoting Aristotle as his authority for this, but disagrees with the Stagirite's solution (which solution must be clear, for St. Thomas indicates it in his commentary), all the while making no mention of it, his argument fails his hearers. It is greatly irresponsible for a teacher to introduce a difficulty in the presence of his students which he himself cannot solve.

Now, none of these arguments are demonstrative, and such arguments never will be. However, in the interest of clinging to St. Thomas a the Expositor, it seems that they lend support to following him as he follows the Philosopher.

[1] John F. Wippel, Metaphysical Thought of Thomas Aquinas, p.xx
[2] ibid., p.59
[3] ibid., p.57

Below is the paper I recently gave at this conference at the University of Denver. I suggest reading this other linked paper when you get to the part on Averroes. Please excuse the half-baked-ness of my paper...

“The Locus of Intellectual Beatitude in Aquinas” By Andrew Lang

Here is my term paper, "Dialectical Considerations of Ens Commune for the Beginner of Metaphysics," written for the SRC Metaphysics course FA & I just finished. This paper was an attempt for me to sort of speculatively assess and place where my current understanding falls with regard to metaphysics. I am posting it as a PDF so I hopefully don't make a big mess. Just click on the link if the flash doesn't load. Of course, your input is welcome!

Ens Commune Final SRC Paper for Vega by Andrew Lang

This is in addendum to the previous discussion-- I am making this a new thread per FA's suggestion.


First I want to review some things from the previous discussion for the sake of the continuity of my thought. Then some new ideas.

The first thing I want to state once again is that ens commune 'est genus.' I think St. Thomas should be read formally here, i.e. putting ens commune in the order of Porphyrian genus and species. This is the first meaning of the word 'genus', after all. Perhaps the second more convincing sign that this reading is correct is in the next clause: ens commune is differentiated as the 'of which' of the substances which are, quite distinctly, a common and universal cause. This is to disagree with FA's previous statement that ens commune is "considered under the formality of universal cause." According to my reading here, the formality of ens commune is as a genus.

Vince. has objections to similar statements in the previous discussion, which I see as simply resolved by his further distinguishing that ens commune is a non-univocal genus. It is precisely because ens commune is the universal cause's 'of which' that we can say that ens commune is "related to one common nature," and therefore has in a sense "one common notion." Hence we avoid Hegelian idealistic tendencies.

STh I-I q. 3 art. 4 contains some further distinctions about ens commune I'd like to draw out. Ad. 1 states: "Ad primum ergo dicendum quod aliquid cui non fit additio potest intelligi dupliciter. Uno modo, ut de ratione eius sit quod non fiat ei additio; sicut de ratione animalis irrationalis est, ut sit sine ratione. Alio modo intelligitur aliquid cui non fit additio, quia non est de ratione eius quod sibi fiat additio, sicut animal commune est sine ratione, quia non est de ratione animalis communis ut habeat rationem; sed nec de ratione eius est ut careat ratione. Primo igitur modo, esse sine additione, est esse divinum, secundo modo, esse sine additione, est esse commune."

Ens commune has nothing added to it because it isn't required, being what it is, to have any addition. Ens commune and animal commune are analogues because neither require that anything be added to it; nor do either precisely indicate a deficiency of such an addition. This is, once again, a very Porphyrian way of putting things-- Porphyry himself states that "genus is a certain principle of things under it, and seems also to comprehend all the multitude under itself." This statement seems to amount to the same as that implied in Aquinas' text above: a genus is a principle which differs from the many as standing above them without their addition, and yet does not exclude the multitude by comprehending them.

It should be obvious at this point that I am making a sustained argument that ens commune is "made up" or a "notional grouping" as was stated in the previous discussion. However, an important question remains: in what way can we say ens commune is a being?

Again, STh I-I q. 3 art. 4 has the answer (somewhat less directly): esse dupliciter dicitur, uno modo, significat actum essendi; alio modo, significat compositionem propositionis, quam anima adinvenit coniungens praedicatum subiecto.

Logical concepts exist as the real conjunction which is the act of predication. By predication commune of ens we have a notion of the being shared by all beings, without difference, and yet without opposition to difference. Of course, such a predication is logical and not metaphysical. That is to say, the terms respectively give foundation to the predication which per se has no direct foundation.

This, for me, seems right, and yet leads to a serious textural difficulty right where we started: "Unde oportet quod ad eamdem scientiam pertineat considerare substantias separatas, et ens commune, quod est genus..." Why would metaphysics consider ens commune if its essence is ultimatly logical? The answer seems to be that metaphysics is at most indirectly interested in ens commune as such, and rather is interested directly in investigating the sepreated substance which is in fact the universal cause of all the many different degrees of speciality of beings (be as it may that each may have its own set of proper causes, i.e. physics has physical causes, etc.).

So then, what is the relevance of considering ens commune in metaphysics? This is my conjecture. Utilizing the method of limits in the study of mathematics you can consider many things in a reduced and unified manner. Pascal does not merely look at each of the conics through a circle; he pursues one means to through which he can view them all. The circle contains all the conics, because all of the conics have a tendency to infinity, and the circle is that conic where such tendencies have met their term, and have met. Though the things know are know less perfectly when considered in this manner, the mode of knowing one operates from is superior. For Pascal, the circle is that to which the other conics are reduced to, in a way that all conics are seen by the one single form and concept of the circle. This is, of course, likened to the Divine mode of knowing which contains everything and yet is expressed in a single Concept.
In the consideration of any subjects as ens commune, the subjects would be considered commune without the exclusion or addition of what makes it specifically what it is. This makes ens commune unique in that by including in its ratio the notion precisely of 'commune,' it indicates neither deficiency or of addition--rather it comprehends it, containing all the differences somehow. Consequently, the consideration of ens commune is of importance to metaphysics not because ens commune is the subject of metaphysics, but rather the ratio of ens commune is more comparable to the mode of knowing of metaphysics' subject. If this is right, then ens commune is profoundly important for metaphysics.

Anyway, these are my conjectures. It's not all sorted out: I wonder what weird things I am implicating in my last paragraph. Suggestions and corrections welcome.

Aristotle gives the proper order of investigation in 415a 15-23: object, operation, power, soul. But in considering the intellect, he first considers the power (429a 10 – 430a 26), then its operation (430a 27 – 431a 4). Again, in considering the possible intellect, he first considers the power of the possible intellect (429a 10 – 429b 9), then its object (429b 10-23). Any thoughts?

This article is meant to be a reflection upon the principle, "the higher cannot stand without the lower." In particular, I will examine this principle in light of Aristotle's first chapter of the Metaphysics. This examination will, please God, manifest this principle as both a principle of our knowing and of the created order of being itself. This article is not a defense, because I am not aware of any significant objection to this principle. Consequently, I am not going to be answering any particular objections. It is merely a reflection on this principle: my contemplation written out for all to see, and join in as they are willing and able.

The first question that might confront us as we consider the principle, the higher cannot stand without the lower, is what each of the terms mean. "Higher," "lower," "stand," each of these seem rather vague. It seems that if we are going to allow for the widest application of this principle then we must allow that these terms can be used differently in different circumstances. Just as in the principle "the whole is greater than the part." For there can be many different kinds of wholes, and parts. So also these terms, "higher," "lower," and "stands" will have a certain meaning when applied to our knowing, quite another when applied to the order of being. I would assume the uses to be analogous if there is to be any truth to the principle.
Since being is the broadest account (all things being a certain kind of being) then it seems that the most general account one can give of these terms is that higher refers to a more excellent form of being and lower to the contrary of this. The measure of excellence will be relative to the kind of being that is being considered Stands will mean some sort of dependent existence.
Beginning with this rather vague account of our principle, let us see how it might play out in Aristotle's first chapter of his Metaphysics. "All men by nature desire to know." He starts us out by laying down a principle that will be operational throughout this first chapter. Note also that he begins with our end. The final cause is the cause of the agent causes' causing. So we see the purpose of the entire inquiry of the metaphysics and likewise the more immediate goal of this chapter, defining what Wisdom is, "But the purpose of our present discussion is to bring out this: all men beleive that what is called "wisdom" is concerned with the first causes and principles." (Metaphys. 981b27) Thus he ends the chapter with the definition of wisdom, "a science of certain causes and principles." (Metaphys. 982a2)
To obtain this goal he begins with sensations. Even here though, he looks to the end of the senses, looking to our goal before proceeding. Thus he speaks of the end of the senses as both for the sake of knowledge and for their own sake. He then shows that the end of knowledge is the higher end because sight is the most favored of all the senses, because this enables knowledge most certainly, and is itself the closest to knowledge.
It is then that Aristotle begins his inquiry in earnest. He begins, as our principle would suggest, with the lowest. Here the lowest is as the lowest common denominator in those things which could possibly be said to have some sort of knowledge. Consequently he excludes plants and inanimate things. He begins with sensitive beings and then distinguishes these into sensitive beings with memory and those with none. Those with memory he distinguishes into teachable and non-teachable, attributing this potency to the power of hearing. Since we are seeking knowledge, as was said, we are consequently going to be concerned with those animals that are teachable.
He begins again with something common: memories and appearances. Animals live by these alone while men live also by art and judgements. Many memories give rise to an experience, and art and science come to men through experience. Aristotle then moves a step further and distinguishes art and experience. Art being more excellent than experience because it knows causes, and is able to teach. In all of this Aristotle is moving step by step from the most fundamental idea of sensation which have in common with all animals.
He then distinguishes between arts saying that those that are for their own sake are more excellent than those that are necessary for survival, because the former give rise to knowledge. So we come to our end and Aristotle summarizes the journey from where we started considering men, "a man of experience seems to be wiser than a man who has any of the sensations, a man of art wiser than a man of experience, a master-artist[that is one who possesses the art more fully] than a manual worker, and theoretical sciences to be wisdom to a higher degree than productive sciences."
From this chapter, therefore, we are able to see how Aristotle uses the principle "the higher cannot stand without the lower." For, he begins with what is lowest, simple sensation, and proceeds to what is highest, knowledge of causes and principles. This consideration also manifests an order in material being. For we see how our ability to know is dependent on our ability to sense which is dependent on there being other things to sense.
This order of lower to higher, and the necessity of the lower to make a foundation for the higher has wide implications. It shows how the lower participate in the excellence of the higher, and how there is certain dignity that pertains to the lower in virtue of this. For a clear example of this consider the Aristotelian state, where all participate in contemplation to the degree he can.
In a less known context we can consider the angels. The glory of the higher angels is their ability to share their knowledge of God with those below, and so on down to man, the bridge between to different orders of being. It is worth pointing out here that this principle is used in a very different way when speaking of material being and immaterial beings as might be clear from the example. The reason for this is that there is a decreasing degree of multiplicity until we come to God who is utter unity and simplicity and the principle no longer holds, giving way to a higher principle: God.