Reply Obj. 3: As one power arises from the soul by means of another, as we have seen above (Q. 77, A. 7), so also the soul is the subject of one power through another. In this way the imagination and the memory are called pa.s.sions of the "first sensitive."
Reply Obj. 4: Although the operation of the intellect has its origin in the senses: yet, in the thing apprehended through the senses, the intellect knows many things which the senses cannot perceive. In like manner does the estimative power, though in a less perfect manner.
Reply Obj. 5: The cogitative and memorative powers in man owe their excellence not to that which is proper to the sensitive part; but to a certain affinity and proximity to the universal reason, which, so to speak, overflows into them. Therefore they are not distinct powers, but the same, yet more perfect than in other animals.
Reply Obj. 6: Augustine calls that vision spiritual which is effected by the images of bodies in the absence of bodies. Whence it is clear that it is common to all interior apprehensions.
_______________________
QUESTION 79
OF THE INTELLECTUAL POWERS (In Thirteen Articles)
The next question concerns the intellectual powers, under which head there are thirteen points of inquiry:
(1) Whether the intellect is a power of the soul, or its essence?
(2) If it be a power, whether it is a pa.s.sive power?
(3) If it is a pa.s.sive power, whether there is an active intellect?
(4) Whether it is something in the soul?
(5) Whether the active intellect is one in all?
(6) Whether memory is in the intellect?
(7) Whether the memory be distinct from the intellect?
(8) Whether the reason is a distinct power from the intellect?
(9) Whether the superior and inferior reason are distinct powers?
(10) Whether the intelligence is distinct from the intellect?
(11) Whether the speculative and practical intellect are distinct powers?
(12) Whether "synderesis" is a power of the intellectual part?
(13) Whether the conscience is a power of the intellectual part?
_______________________
FIRST ARTICLE [I, Q. 79, Art. 1]
Whether the Intellect Is a Power of the Soul?
Objection 1: It would seem that the intellect is not a power of the soul, but the essence of the soul. For the intellect seems to be the same as the mind. Now the mind is not a power of the soul, but the essence; for Augustine says (De Trin. ix, 2): "Mind and spirit are not relative things, but denominate the essence." Therefore the intellect is the essence of the soul.
Obj. 2: Further, different genera of the soul"s powers are not united in some one power, but only in the essence of the soul. Now the appet.i.tive and the intellectual are different genera of the soul"s powers as the Philosopher says (De Anima ii, 3), but they are united in the mind, for Augustine (De Trin. x, 11) places the intelligence and will in the mind. Therefore the mind and intellect of man is of the very essence of the soul and not a power thereof.
Obj. 3: Further, according to Gregory, in a homily for the Ascension (xxix in Ev.), "man understands with the angels." But angels are called "minds" and "intellects." Therefore the mind and intellect of man are not a power of the soul, but the soul itself.
Obj. 4: Further, a substance is intellectual by the fact that it is immaterial. But the soul is immaterial through its essence. Therefore it seems that the soul must be intellectual through its essence.
_On the contrary,_ The Philosopher a.s.signs the intellectual faculty as a power of the soul (De Anima ii, 3).
_I answer that,_ In accordance with what has been already shown (Q.
54, A. 3; Q. 77, A. 1) it is necessary to say that the intellect is a power of the soul, and not the very essence of the soul. For then alone the essence of that which operates is the immediate principle of operation, when operation itself is its being: for as power is to operation as its act, so is the essence to being. But in G.o.d alone His action of understanding is His very Being. Wherefore in G.o.d alone is His intellect His essence: while in other intellectual creatures, the intellect is a power.
Reply Obj. 1: Sense is sometimes taken for the power, and sometimes for the sensitive soul; for the sensitive soul takes its name from its chief power, which is sense. And in like manner the intellectual soul is sometimes called intellect, as from its chief power; and thus we read (De Anima i, 4), that the "intellect is a substance." And in this sense also Augustine says that the mind is spirit and essence (De Trin. ix, 2; xiv, 16).
Reply Obj. 2: The appet.i.tive and intellectual powers are different genera of powers in the soul, by reason of the different formalities of their objects. But the appet.i.tive power agrees partly with the intellectual power and partly with the sensitive in its mode of operation either through a corporeal organ or without it: for appet.i.te follows apprehension. And in this way Augustine puts the will in the mind; and the Philosopher, in the reason (De Anima iii, 9).
Reply Obj. 3: In the angels there is no other power besides the intellect, and the will, which follows the intellect. And for this reason an angel is called a "mind" or an "intellect"; because his whole power consists in this. But the soul has many other powers, such as the sensitive and nutritive powers, and therefore the comparison fails.
Reply Obj. 4: The immateriality of the created intelligent substance is not its intellect; and through its immateriality it has the power of intelligence. Wherefore it follows not that the intellect is the substance of the soul, but that it is its virtue and power.
_______________________
SECOND ARTICLE [I, Q. 79, Art. 2]
Whether the Intellect Is a Pa.s.sive Power?
Objection 1: It would seem that the intellect is not a pa.s.sive power.
For everything is pa.s.sive by its matter, and acts by its form. But the intellectual power results from the immateriality of the intelligent substance. Therefore it seems that the intellect is not a pa.s.sive power.
Obj. 2: Further, the intellectual power is incorruptible, as we have said above (Q. 79, A. 6). But "if the intellect is pa.s.sive, it is corruptible" (De Anima iii, 5). Therefore the intellectual power is not pa.s.sive.
Obj. 3: Further, the "agent is n.o.bler than the patient," as Augustine (Gen. ad lit. xii, 16) and Aristotle (De Anima iii, 5) says. But all the powers of the vegetative part are active; yet they are the lowest among the powers of the soul. Much more, therefore, all the intellectual powers, which are the highest, are active.
_On the contrary,_ The Philosopher says (De Anima iii, 4) that "to understand is in a way to be pa.s.sive."
_I answer that,_ To be pa.s.sive may be taken in three ways. Firstly, in its most strict sense, when from a thing is taken something which belongs to it by virtue either of its nature, or of its proper inclination: as when water loses coolness by heating, and as when a man becomes ill or sad. Secondly, less strictly, a thing is said to be pa.s.sive, when something, whether suitable or unsuitable, is taken away from it. And in this way not only he who is ill is said to be pa.s.sive, but also he who is healed; not only he that is sad, but also he that is joyful; or whatever way he be altered or moved. Thirdly, in a wide sense a thing is said to be pa.s.sive, from the very fact that what is in potentiality to something receives that to which it was in potentiality, without being deprived of anything. And accordingly, whatever pa.s.ses from potentiality to act, may be said to be pa.s.sive, even when it is perfected. And thus with us to understand is to be pa.s.sive. This is clear from the following reason. For the intellect, as we have seen above (Q. 78, A. 1), has an operation extending to universal being. We may therefore see whether the intellect be in act or potentiality by observing first of all the nature of the relation of the intellect to universal being. For we find an intellect whose relation to universal being is that of the act of all being: and such is the Divine intellect, which is the Essence of G.o.d, in which originally and virtually, all being pre-exists as in its first cause. And therefore the Divine intellect is not in potentiality, but is pure act. But no created intellect can be an act in relation to the whole universal being; otherwise it would needs be an infinite being. Wherefore every created intellect is not the act of all things intelligible, by reason of its very existence; but is compared to these intelligible things as a potentiality to act.
Now, potentiality has a double relation to act. There is a potentiality which is always perfected by its act: as the matter of the heavenly bodies (Q. 58, A. 1). And there is another potentiality which is not always in act, but proceeds from potentiality to act; as we observe in things that are corrupted and generated. Wherefore the angelic intellect is always in act as regards those things which it can understand, by reason of its proximity to the first intellect, which is pure act, as we have said above. But the human intellect, which is the lowest in the order of intelligence and most remote from the perfection of the Divine intellect, is in potentiality with regard to things intelligible, and is at first "like a clean tablet on which nothing is written," as the Philosopher says (De Anima iii, 4). This is made clear from the fact, that at first we are only in potentiality to understand, and afterwards we are made to understand actually. And so it is evident that with us to understand is "in a way to be pa.s.sive"; taking pa.s.sion in the third sense. And consequently the intellect is a pa.s.sive power.
Reply Obj. 1: This objection is verified of pa.s.sion in the first and second senses, which belong to primary matter. But in the third sense pa.s.sion is in anything which is reduced from potentiality to act.
Reply Obj. 2: "Pa.s.sive intellect" is the name given by some to the sensitive appet.i.te, in which are the pa.s.sions of the soul; which appet.i.te is also called "rational by partic.i.p.ation," because it "obeys the reason" (Ethic. i, 13). Others give the name of pa.s.sive intellect to the cogitative power, which is called the "particular reason." And in each case "pa.s.sive" may be taken in the two first senses; forasmuch as this so-called intellect is the act of a corporeal organ. But the intellect which is in potentiality to things intelligible, and which for this reason Aristotle calls the "possible" intellect (De Anima iii, 4) is not pa.s.sive except in the third sense: for it is not an act of a corporeal organ. Hence it is incorruptible.
Reply Obj. 3: The agent is n.o.bler than the patient, if the action and the pa.s.sion are referred to the same thing: but not always, if they refer to different things. Now the intellect is a pa.s.sive power in regard to the whole universal being: while the vegetative power is active in regard to some particular thing, namely, the body as united to the soul. Wherefore nothing prevents such a pa.s.sive force being n.o.bler than such an active one.
_______________________
THIRD ARTICLE [I, Q. 79, Art. 3]
Whether There Is an Active Intellect?
Objection 1: It would seem that there is no active intellect. For as the senses are to things sensible, so is our intellect to things intelligible. But because sense is in potentiality to things sensible, the sense is not said to be active, but only pa.s.sive. Therefore, since our intellect is in potentiality to things intelligible, it seems that we cannot say that the intellect is active, but only that it is pa.s.sive.
Obj. 2: Further, if we say that also in the senses there is something active, such as light: on the contrary, light is required for sight, inasmuch as it makes the medium to be actually luminous; for color of its own nature moves the luminous medium. But in the operation of the intellect there is no appointed medium that has to be brought into act. Therefore there is no necessity for an active intellect.