De Anima (On the Soul)
158. Summa I, Q.89 a.1–4: Replies on the Separated Soul; Its Knowledge of Angels, Natural Things and Particular People
https://berquistcourse.com/course/philosophy/4-de-anima/158-summa-i-q-89-a-1-4-replies-on-the-separated-soul-its-knowledge/

[0:00] Now the first objection was based in a text of Aristotle. What does he mean? Thomas gives two explanations of this text of Aristotle in the first book. To the first, therefore, should be said that if the words of the philosopher are diligently discussed, the philosopher says this from a certain supposition, right, previously made, to wit, that to understand is a motion of the what conjunction of soul and body, just as to sense is.

[0:42] For he has not yet shown the difference between the understanding and sense. Now that might seem kind of gratuitous at this point here, but as Thomas. Points out in other works of Aristotle, Aristotle will sometimes speak according to the opinions of his contemporaries until he's shown that this is not the truth. Right? Okay. And so he may be in Book One there, right, where he's talking about the early Greeks and so on, and where the common opinion is that understanding, like sensing, is something what bodily, right?

[1:22] Okay. Just like I sometimes speak about my brain, right, being my reason, right, even though I don't think that the brain is my reason. I sometimes speak according to the opinion of people with whom I live, right. And I remember the first time I noticed Aristotle pointing or Thomas Be pointed this out. In the beginning, Nicomachean Ethics, right? Aristotle is talking about how different arts and sciences aim at different what goods, right? And he exemplifies, you know, the end of the military art is victory, right?

[2:01] The end of the household art, he says, is wealth. That's a common opinion, right? But when you get to his consideration, a more formal consideration of the household, there in the beginning of the politics, he says that's false. He uses as an example of how each art has its own end.

[2:25] So Aristotle does, in fact, sometimes give examples, right? That would be accepted by his what students, right? Even though he doesn't what think that they are true, right? But to illustrate the point, nevertheless, okay.

[2:50] So this might be another example that that's one explanation Thomas gives. Because Aristotle is very clear in the in the third book where he takes up the understanding and comes to the end of the consideration of the

[3:02] possible understanding, the undergoing understanding, and the acting upon understanding. That the this part of the soul is immortal, right? He's quite clear about that. But he has to have shown before, in the beginning of Book Three, that reason is not a form of sensing and not even a form of what imagining, huh? Okay.

[3:29] Now, if you look at at the kind of prologue there in Henry the Fifth, you read Henry the Fifth of Shakespeare. Well, he's going to represent Henry the Fifth, over to France, and the big war between the French and English, in the Hundred Years War, right? And he's appealing to the audience, right? You see, like the chorus, so to speak, in the Greek thing, appealing to the audience, you know, to to fill out the numbers of those on the stage, right?

[4:01] How can we do justice to this great battle between the French and English? You know, with a few little bang bangs on the thing, you know. And so he's appealing to your what imagination, right? But sometimes he'll say your imagination, sometimes your thoughts, using them interchangeably as he do, right? And in daily life, I might say I'm not too sure about something. I say, is George Bush going to be reelected?

[4:26] You know, I say I think so. I imagine so. You know, I might use imagine or thinking, you know, without making distinction, right? But there are other passages, you know, where Shakespeare says, you know, he's very clear about the distinction between the imagination and what reason, huh? Lovers and madmen have such shaping fantasies, you know, apprehend more than cool reason ever comprehends. So he distinguishes between hot imagination and cool reason, right?

[4:58] So he knows there's a difference, right? But when he's appealing to the audience, there right to use the imagination, he'll sometimes say imagination, sometimes what you know, fill out with thoughts, you know. You see, Because he'll speak it that way, right? it could be said that he speaks about that way of understanding, which is by what turning oneself to what images, right? Which is what the second argument was saying, right?

[5:37] But he's already answered that in the body of the article. Now I think elsewhere he gives a third explanation of it that Aristotle might be talking about the what that inward sense that we call the cogitative power, right? We talked about in the article on the interior senses, huh? Because that's sometimes called reason too, huh? Okay.

[6:02] Just like I sometimes might speak of the cat's mind, huh? It's that universal mind that we have, right? It's something bodily, right? It's an inward sense, huh? Cat's mind. Let's try to understand the cat's mind.

[6:24] Okay, now how does it understand? To the third, it should be said that the separated soul does not understand by inborn forms, huh? Like the angels do, right? They're created with their forms. Nor by forms which it then separates, right? Nor does it understand only by forms that are conserved, right, from this life, as the objection proves. But by forms from the influence of the divine light that are partaken of, of which the soul becomes partaker, just as the what other see, although in a lesser way, right?

[7:09] Whence immediately when it seizes its conversion to the body, it is what turned around towards the higher things. Nevertheless, huh? On account of this, one shouldn't say that its knowledge is not natural, because God is the author not only of the what influence of the gratuitous light, but also of the what natural light. If you read Plato in the Republic, you see he thinks that in this life the soul can what turn away from the material world and start to look at the what immaterial world.

[7:57] But look first at the mathematical world, which is sort of in between the material world and the immaterial world, right? And then fine-tune all around and look at the material things. Well, to a certain extent, in Christian asceticism, right? And what they call the dark night of the soul, the soul in a way is turning away from the what bodily, right? Okay. But even in in in in the prophets and people like that in the Old Testament, very often they receive the prophet prophecy under a what sensible or imaginable form, huh?

[8:35] You know, like Isaiah sees the man you know sitting on the throne and so on, huh? Okay. But in a sense, the dark night of the soul is kind of the soul turning away from the body, huh? And maybe it doesn't receive then something from above, right? And you know, Augustine and Thomas thought that actually Moses and Saint Paul were given a transitory vision of God in himself, huh?

[9:04] That's what Saint Paul talks about in the epistles, there, huh? Man caught up to the third heaven, right? Whether in the body or not, he did not know, right? But he suddenly turned away his attention from the body, huh? Okay. But those are not usual happenings, huh? Okay.

[9:27] So we take a little break here before we do article two. The second one proceeds thus: It seems that the separated soul does not understand the separated substances, meaning the angels mainly.

[9:48] For the soul is more perfect being joined to the body than separated from the body. For since the soul is naturally a part of human nature, and every part is more perfect, right, in its whole.

[10:04] But the soul joined to the body does not understand the separated substances, as has been had above, shown above. Therefore, much less when it is what separated from the what body, right?

[10:22] But notice, in some way, the soul is what more perfect separated from the body than in the body, right? Even though simply it's better in the body, huh? As far as understanding separated substances, it might be better off, huh? Moreover, everything that is known is either known through its presence or through its form. But the separated substances cannot be known by the soul through their presence, because nothing is inside the soul except God alone.

[10:56] God is closer to you than you are to yourself, as they say. Nor through some forms which the soul is able to abstract from the angel, because the angel is more simple than the soul, right? So you can't abstract any form from them. What you abstract is always simpler than what you abstract it from, right? So what we abstract from images is simpler than images, but the angels are simpler than us, so because the angel is more simple than the soul.

[11:34] Therefore, in no way can the separated soul understand separated substances. Moreover, some philosophers laid down that in a knowledge of the separated substances, the ultimate happiness of man consists. If, therefore, the separated soul is able to understand the separated substances. From this separation alone, there would follow happiness, which is inconvenient.

[12:04] But against this is that separated souls know other separated souls. As a rich man in hell, placed in hell, saw what Lazarus and the bosom of Abraham, right?

[12:20] Remember when you want give me a drop of water, right? Remember that. And Abraham explains that there's a gulf between us that you can't overcome. If, therefore, the separated soul is able to understand the separated substances, From separation alone would follow happiness. Okay, we saw that already. Excuse me. I answer: It should be said, and that as Augustine says in the ninth book of the Trinity, our mind, meaning our soul, gets knowledge of bodiless things.

[12:55] things or incorporeal things through itself. That is by knowing itself, right? So that's why they say a knowledge of the soul is kind of a gateway to understanding, so far as we can, the angels and what, even God, right? We have to understand our own understanding and our own willing before we can understand the understanding and the willing of an angel. Okay.

[13:22] By this, therefore, that the separated soul knows itself, one can take in what way it knows the other separated substances. For it has been said that as long as the soul is joined or united to the body, it understands by turning itself towards images. And therefore, neither is it able to understand itself in this life, except in so far as it becomes actually understanding through a form abstracted from the what images, huh?

[14:01] And thus, through its own act, it understands itself, as has been said above, huh? So through the objects we know the acts, and through the acts the powers, and through the powers the soul, the full way to become the know. In this life, right? Okay. I've got to understand what a triangle is, right? And then understand what it is to understand what a triangle, and then what it is to have the ability to understand what a triangle is, and then I come to some understanding of my soul, right?

[14:27] Which has that ability. But when it is separated from the body, it will understand not by turning itself towards images, right? But to those things which in themselves are understandable, whence it will understand itself through itself. It's like an angel understands itself through itself, huh? While in this life, the soul understands itself through knowing other things, right? And then knowing its knowing of them. It is, however, common to every separated substance that it understands that which is above itself and that which is below itself by way of its own substance.

[15:14] For thus something is understood according as it is in the one understanding, but something is in another in the way of that in which it is. There is received is received according to way the receiver. But the way of the separated of the substance of the separated soul is below the way of the angelic substance. But it is conformed in some way, huh, to the other separated souls, and therefore about other separated souls it will have a perfect knowledge, but about the angels an imperfect and what deficient knowledge.

[15:56] Speaking that is to say the natural knowledge of the separated soul, right? But about the knowledge of glory and the vision, there is another what account, right? Okay, because some some saints are raised above some angels, right? In the supernatural order, right? Okay, so my soul will understand your souls perfectly, but not the angels perfectly, huh? At least by my natural knowledge they have my soul separated.

[16:33] Now the first objection was saying, hey, isn't the soul less perfect when it's separated from the body because it's only a part, then? Well, Thomas distinguishes here. To the first, therefore, it should be said that the separated soul is more imperfect if one considers the nature by which it communicates with the nature of body, but nevertheless, in some way, it is freer for understanding, in so far as through the weight and occupation of the body it is what impeded from the purity of understanding.

[17:12] Okay. What is what's his name say? Proclus. He says mathematics purificat oculum mentis. That mathematics purifies the eye of the what mind of the soul, the mind side. Manciodian says, and logic says even more so, because logic is even more what immaterial than geometry, huh?

[17:41] So the the Pythagoreans, you know, had this great devotion to the soul as well as to geometry, right? And they saw geometry and mathematics as a way of what purifying the the eye of the mind, turning it away from the the sensible, right?

[18:06] Now, in the second objection, there, how does the soul understand the angels, right? To the second, it should be said that the separated soul understands the angels through likenesses impressed upon it by what God, right?

[18:30] Which nevertheless falls short of a perfect representation of the angels on account of the fact that the nature of the soul is below that of the what angels, right? Okay, so you have some knowledge of the angels, right, through forms poured into your soul by God, right? But you will not have as perfect an understanding of the angels as the angels have of themselves, right? But my old teacher Kasurik said, when you see your angel, you know you've been to say, "This is God."

[19:02] Wow, this is the vision, right? And the angel say, "No, no, no, no." You got a long ways to go. Yes, sir. First, right, then we'll see about you seeing God, okay?

[19:21] Now, the third one was based upon the fact that some of the Arab philosophers thought that our ultimate happiness consisted in being joined to the angels, right?

[19:35] And Thomas, of course, is correcting that. Honestly, does in the treatise on happiness. To the third, it should be said that in the knowledge of separated substances, not of just anyone is the ultimate happiness of man, but in God, what alone, right? Who is not able to be seen except by grace.

[19:57] In a knowledge, however, of the other separated substances, there is magna felicitas, great happiness, nevertheless, although not the what final. If, however, they are perfect understood, nevertheless, the human soul, by its natural knowledge, does not perfectly understand them. Okay, This is when he says, "oh, magna flicitas, right? I remember saying to my teacher Caseric, "I want to study the angels," right? He says, "Anytime." He says, so very much more interesting than we are.

[20:44] Not as interesting as God, huh? But I give you that little thing of Thomas, right? He says, "I study the body, so I can understand the soul. I study the soul, so I can understand the angels. I study the angels, so I can understand God." That's it.

[21:05] Or as Augustine says, huh? Happy the man who what understands God if he understands nothing else. Miserable the man who understands all the things but doesn't understand God, right? Blessed also the man who understands God and other things, but not the more so for understanding other things, but for knowing God what alone, right? Okay, he'll be omnia omnibus as they say, right? He'll be all things and all in heaven, huh?

[21:40] Okay. That was nervous by itself, huh? Let's look at Article Three here. We got time for another article. Whether the separated soul knows natural all natural things. To the third one proceeds thus: It seems that the separated soul knows all natural things, but there.

[22:13] First objection: For in the separated substances are the thoughts or the notions of all natural things, but the separated souls know the separated substances; therefore, they know all natural things, right? When I see my guardian angel, I see all his ideas, right? These ideas have complete knowledge of the natural world. Maybe I don't see my guardian angel that perfectly, right?

[22:42] Moreover, who understands something more understandable, much more is able to understand something less understandable. But the separated soul understands the separated substances, which are most understandable. Therefore, much more is able to understand all natural things, which are less understandable.

[23:08] But against this, it is said that in the demons, natural knowledge is more vigorous than in the separated soul. But the demons do not know all natural things, but they learn many things through the experience of a long time, as Isidore says.

[23:28] Therefore, neither do the separated souls know all natural things. Moreover, if the soul at once, when it is separated, knew all natural things, in vain would men what study to getting a knowledge of things, but this is inconvenient. Therefore, the separated soul does not know all natural things.

[23:56] I answer: It should be said that has been said above. The separated soul understands through forms which it receives from the inflowing of the divine light, just as the what angels, huh? But nevertheless, because the nature of the soul is below the nature of the angel, to whom this way of knowing is natural, it is natural for the angel to know by what forms that flow into the angel or come to the angel from God, right?

[24:31] Why we get them from things themselves, right? So this is the natural way for him, right? Therefore, the separated soul, through forms of this sort, does not get a perfect knowledge of things, but one, as it were, in a somewhat common, community and confused way, right?

[24:57] Just therefore, as the angels have themselves to a perfect knowledge of natural things through these forms, so the separated souls to an imperfect and confused knowledge. Right? For the angels through these forms know by a perfect knowledge all natural things, because all the things which God made in their own natures He made in the angelic understanding as well, as Augustine says in his book on Genesis to

[25:31] Whence the separated souls about all natural things have knowledge, not a certain and particular knowledge, but a common one and a what? Confused one. Right.

[25:49] Okay. Now to the first objection. The first, therefore, should be said that neither does the angel itself, to his own substance, know all natural things, but through some forms, as has been said. And therefore, on account of this, it does not follow that the soul knows all natural things because it knows in some way the separated substance. So because I know the angel in some way, I don't necessarily know all his what?

[26:23] Thoughts. Right. All the forms that inform his mind. Okay. And the second objection. One understands the more understandable understands less understandable. The second should be said that just as the separated soul does not perfectly understand the separated substances, so not all natural things does perfectly understand, but under a certain what? Confusion.

[26:59] Now to the third, it should be said that text of Isidore, that Isidore speaks of a knowledge of future things, which neither the angels nor the demons nor the separated substances know, except in their causes or through revelation divine. But now we speak of what? The knowledge of natural things. Okay. So they don't know when the day of the last judgment is, do they? The angels, huh?

[27:26] Unless God specially reveals that to them, huh? Now the fourth objection is saying, you know, why do we bother studying for in this life, right? To the fourth, it should be said that the knowledge which is acquired here by study is particular, right, and perfect, but the knowledge there is confused. Once it does not follow that the effort of learning and studying is what in vain.

[28:00] So observe that cat, right? That particular knowledge of the cat. Particular. I have a confused knowledge of the cat in the next world. In fact, probably have a confused knowledge of the horse, right? Don't have much experience of the horse.

[28:19] Okay, but the entomologist has got a distinct knowledge of all kinds of insects, right? I have a very confused knowledge of insects. Okay, let's look at Article Four now. It's kind of short articles. Very interesting. Whether the separated soul knows singulars, the fourth one proceeds thus: It seems that the soul separated does not know singulars, for no knowing power remains in the separated soul except the understanding.

[28:56] But the understanding doesn't know singulars, as has been said above. Boethius says the thing is singular when sensed, right? Universal understood. Therefore, the separated soul does not know singulars.

[29:15] Moreover, that knowledge is more determinate by which is known something in the singular, and by which it is known in universal. But the separated soul does not have a distinct knowledge of the forms of all natural things, much more therefore less would know singular things. Moreover, if it knows singular things and not by sense, for the same reason it would know all singulars, but it doesn't know all singulars.

[29:46] Therefore, it knows none. But against this is what is said about the what rich man placed in hell, saying, "I have five brothers," right? So he knows the singular, right?

[30:04] I answer: It should be said that the separated souls know some singulars, but not all. Even those which are what present, huh? Not in the past and the future.

[30:19] To it, for the evidence of this, it should be considered that there is a twofold way of understanding. One is by separation or abstraction from images, and according to this way,

[30:36] singulars cannot be known by the understanding directly, right? Okay, we saw that before, right? Knowing universal, but indirectly, as has been said above, huh?

[30:49] The reason for that is that you're separating them from what makes them singular, in order to understand them, because the source of their singularity is their matter, and they have to be separated from matter to become actually understandable. But there's another way of understanding, which is by the influx of forms from God, and through this way the intellect is able to understand singulars, because you see the forms of God are productive of not only form but of what matter itself, right?

[31:24] And so through the forms that God has, you know the singular as well as the universal, and you're sharing the knowledge of God that is a cause of things, right? In the angels and in the separated soul, when these forms flow into the soul from God, there are forms that are productive of the what the whole creature, even in singularity. So through those forms, you know, can know to some extent the singular directly. In the same way, the angel knows the singular, right?

[31:58] Not through senses, but through these forms derived from God. For just as God Himself, through His own essence or nature, in so far as He is the cause of universals and of individual principles, right, He knows all things, both the universals and the singulars. No, some here is proceeding in the theological order. He's already talked about God, so one would know that if one was doing the whole theology in a theological order, right?

[32:32] So also the separate substances, through forms which are not derived from things, right, but are our likenesses, partaken of the very divine essence, right? They are also able to know what singulars, huh? Okay. In other words, the forms by which God knows are not derived from the things that He makes, but the things that He makes proceed from His forms. He understands, and so His forms then are a likeness of what what's individual in these things that He creates, because He creates individuals, right?

[33:11] So when the angels or the separated soul receives a form from God, it has something in the character of the divine form, right? Which is a likeness of what is individual in the creature, as well as what's universal. But our forms in this life are separated from the images and from what makes the thing individual, and therefore we can't know directly through the forms abstracted from the things that are singular.

[33:39] But the forms that are received from God are a certain what likeness of the divine forms, right? And those the divine form is productive of the whole creature in its individuality as well as in its universality, and so we know the singular in so far as we have those forms to some extent directly. Interesting, right? We know you by a universal form, right?

[34:12] Okay, At all. In this, however, there is a difference between angels and separated souls, because the angels, through these forms, have a perfect and particular knowledge of things, but the separated souls are a somewhat confused one. Whence the angels, on account of the strength, efficacy of their understanding, through these forms, not only are able to know the natures of things in particular, but also the singulars contained under the what species.

[34:51] But the separated souls are not able to know through these forms, except those singulars. To which, in some way, right, they are determined, either through preceding knowledge, right, or through some affection, right, huh, or through some natural relation, or through divine ordination. Because everything that is received in someone is determining it according to the way of the what receiver, right? I remember that that movie about Saint John Bosco, you know, when I was a child.

[35:33] You're still one, the one where he's in the seminary and he is a very good friend there, and they make an agreement that if one of them dies, he will come back and tell the other one if he has been saved, right? And so the other guy dies, right? And of course Saint John Bosco is praying at night, and it's kind of in a dormitory. A lot of people, everyone else is asleep, of course, and he's just praying, you know, and praying for the soul of his friend who has departed, you know.

[36:09] And then there's a doorway over there, right? And you see kind of a light behind the doorway, you know. And he moves towards the door and opens the door, you know, and there's a flood of light. John Bosco, I am saved, and that's the end of the scene, you know. Oh, that made an impression upon me as a kid, you know, seeing that, huh? It's tremendous scene, you know.

[36:30] But that's what Thomas is talking about here, right? Huh? Because there would be a certain what? Precedentum cognitionum of a knowledge you had of this person in this life, right? Or you had a particular affection for this person, right? And even in this life, sometimes, you know, they say that mothers, you know, have felt something when their son has died in the battlefield, other side of the world, right?

[36:54] You see, so but there's got to be something particular that attaches you to this what person, right? Okay, or some kind of divine movement, right? You know, Berquist is praying again for illumination, Thomas.

[37:12] Okay, so that has to be something particular, right? You want to know all singulars, okay? So the first objection was taken from the way we know in this life. To the first, it should be said, therefore, that the soul, by way of abstraction, right, now you get something simpler, does not know singulars. But in this way, the soul doesn't the separated soul doesn't understand huh? By abstraction, huh?

[37:50] So the fact that by abstraction we can't know the singular directly, right, is not an objection to say that the soul cannot, in some other way, know the singular. In the next life, by the inflowing of forms that come from what God, right? There are likenesses of the divine form, which is productive of what is singular in things as well as what is universal in things. Okay.

[38:24] Um. Okay. The second one is saying, you know, that the soul doesn't have a determined knowledge of the species of things, and therefore much less of the singulars.

[38:42] To the second, it should be said that to the species of those things, or the individual knowledge of the separated soul, is determined. Excuse me, I'm not reading it right. To the second, it should be said that to the species or to the individuals of those things, the knowledge of the separated soul is determined when the separated soul has some determined relation to those, right? And those are spelled out in the body of the article, right?

[39:19] Okay. So I had a special knowledge of this person, or I had a special affection for this person, right? Or he was my son or my brother. I had some natural relation to him, right? Or God has what

[39:34] wanted to unite my soul in some way with His soul, right? Okay. Um. So sometimes, you know, the the fathers of religious orders, right? You know, like when Saint Dominic was dying, you know, I'll be more useful to you on the other side, he says, right? Than I was to you even in this life, right? Because they're obviously concerned that this man who has started the order, right, and has directed it, right, he's dying now.

[40:05] He's he's leaving the order, right? Huh? But there's a what divine ordering there, right? So Saint Dominic is undoubtedly what watching over all Dominicans, right? Okay. In the same way, for the head of any you know any order, right? And Bernard of Clairvaux, I'm sure, is watching over the Cistercians, huh? Okay. Do you see that?

[40:39] Now, the third objection says that knows singulars, he would know all singulars, but it doesn't know all singulars. And Thomas says to the third, it should be said that the separated soul does not have itself equally to all singulars, but to some it has some relation that it does not have to others, right?

[41:03] So my father or my mother or my brother or my son or my daughter or something, right? I have a relation to, right? I have some knowledge of them already, right? I have some affection for them, right? Okay, I have some natural relation to them, right? I generated them, or they generated me, right? Or we were generated by the same man or woman, and so on, right?

[41:29] Or God is what? You know, you know some of these images the saints have. You know, where you have the two saints and Christ as the two hearts of them. You seen that? You read those, huh? And he's he's he's welding them together, right? What are you doing? Well, he's joining these two what saints together, right? You know, giving them special affection, right? So there's a. Like you know, Saint John Bosco and this fellow seminarian of his, right?

[42:01] Okay. I mean, I read that sometimes in the lives of the saints, you know, where they had this vision, you know, Christ is there. I know it was Margaret Mary Alacoque. Yeah, I think, yeah, I think that was a very explicit one there. Where he's Claude Colombière or something. You go up to the place. I went to the place where her body is, and there is another church just up the block where he is.

[42:24] I guess his body is. You know, it's interesting, you know. But the divine ordering, you know, you know, can I do these two right? And he'd go over to England. I guess he'd go to see Margaret Mary Alacoque first, and Christ would tell Margaret Mary who he's going to meet over there, and who he's going to interview, and who he's in contact. You know. So I mean, there is very particular relations between these two saints.

[42:50] What did Saint Teresa of Avila say about Saint John of the Cross? He's kind of a short guy, I guess. And of course, you know how they're always traveling in pairs Here comes that friar and a half, she'd say. Okay, so there's... Well, St. Teresa of Avila, you know, appeared to one of her sisters after she died. You know, she says, "You know, we're not really