DOCSLIB.ORG

The Agent Intellect in Aquinas: a Metaphysical Condition of Possibility of Human Understanding As Receptive of Objective Content

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

The Agent Intellect in Aquinas: A Metaphysical Condition of Possibility of Human Understanding as Receptive of Objective Content by Andres Ayala A Thesis submitted to the Faculty of Theology at St. Michael’s College and the Theology Department of the Toronto School of Theology in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Theology awarded by the University of St. Michael's College © Copyright by Andres Ayala 2018 The Agent Intellect in Aquinas: A Metaphysical Condition of Possibility of Human Understanding as Receptive of Objective Content Andres Ayala Doctor of Philosophy in Theology University of St. Michael’s College 2018 Abstract The following is an interpretation of Aquinas’ agent intellect focusing on Summa Theologiae I, qq. 75-89, and proposing that the agent intellect is a metaphysical rather than a formal a priori of human understanding. A formal a priori is responsible for the intelligibility as content of the object of human understanding and is related to Kant’s epistemological views; whereas a metaphysical a priori is responsible for intelligibility as mode of being of this same object. We can find in Aquinas’ text many indications that the agent intellect is not productive of the universal as content but is, rather, productive of the abstracted or intelligible mode of being of the universal nature. This is because for Aquinas the universal nature, which is the object of human understanding, is present in the things themselves but with a different mode of being. Chapter 1 is intended to establish the fact which requires for Aquinas an agent intellect, and provides two very important principles: one is that the object of human understanding (the universal nature) is present in the things themselves and, the other, that it is not in the ii things themselves with a mode of being which makes it available to the intellectual eye. These two principles lead us to the main point of Chapter 2, namely the distinction between the intelligible object and its intelligible mode of being. Now, because knowing is receptive of the intelligible object (Chapter 3), which is present in the things themselves (Chapter 1), the agent intellect is productive not of the object’s intelligible content, but of its abstracted or intelligible mode of being (Chapter 4). iii Acknowledgments Behind this dissertation and, on each page, I can see the contributions of many people. I want to thank particularly Nancy Marrocco, for the English corrections and inspirational advice; Amanda Wagner for the format corrections; Pat Fleming and the Institute of the Incarnate Word for their economic support; and Jeremy Wilkins for his advice to write on the agent intellect. For his constant support and wise advice, I thank Fr. Gilles Mongeau, SJ, my supervisor; I thank Professors R. Sweetman, J. Ginther, M. Levering, J. Berkman, Giulio Silano and Dennis O’Hara for their precious suggestions and corrections. For their prayers and their constant encouragement, I would like also to thank in particular the parishioners, Sisters and staff of St. Michael’s, Cobourg, and of St. John the Baptist and Sacred Heart, Peterborough (the parishes where I served as pastor during the writing process). A special thank you to Rita Marrocco and Margaret Newman. Thanks also to Fr. Gerardus Hauwert, IVE and Dr. Donald Graham, and many other priests and professors for their advice and support. I wish to thank also all those who, during my years of formation, handed on to me so generously that which they themselves had received. Finally, all those others who have supported and helped me, though not named here, are no less appreciated. iv Table of Contents Acknowledgments......................................................................................................... iv Table of Contents ........................................................................................................... v Abbreviated References............................................................................................... vii Opening Note ................................................................................................................ 1 Introduction .................................................................................................................. 2 1) Main Concepts, Method and Procedure .............................................................. 5 2) The Controversy with Latin Averroism ................................................................. 9 3) Some Renowned Scholars................................................................................... 12 Étienne Gilson ..................................................................................................... 12 Joseph Owens ..................................................................................................... 16 Eleonore Stump .................................................................................................. 20 Armand A. Maurer .............................................................................................. 24 W. Norris Clarke .................................................................................................. 32 John F. X. Knasas ................................................................................................. 37 4) Cornelio Fabro .................................................................................................... 44 4.1. A Metaphysical A Priori in The Metaphysical Notion of Participation ........ 45 4.2. A Metaphysical A Priori in La Svolta ........................................................... 47 4.3. Intellectual Knowing as Receptive in Fabro ................................................ 50 5) Other Relevant Authors ...................................................................................... 51 Chapter One: The Thomistic Fact and the Role of the Agent Intellect ....................... 57 1) The Thomistic Fact .............................................................................................. 57 2) The Object of Intelligence in its Formal Aspect: The Universal as Different from the Particular...................................................................................................... 66 3) The Object of Intelligence in its Real Aspect: The Universal is in the Things Themselves. ....................................................................................................... 83 4) The Role of the Agent Intellect and its Necessity: To Make Intelligible in Act the Universal in re ................................................................ 102 Chapter Two: The Thomistic Distinction between the Object and the Mode of Being of the Object (res intellecta and modus rei intellectae) ................... 110 1) The Distinction in 84, 1, c.: The “Platonic Problem” ........................................ 111 2) The Distinction in Other Texts .......................................................................... 115 3) The Two Meanings of Universal ....................................................................... 119 3.1. In the Summa ............................................................................................. 120 3.2. Two Meanings of “Universal” in other Works of Aquinas. ........................ 123 4) The Distinction between “ex parte rei intellectae” and “ex parte intelligentis” .............................................................................. 129 5) Concluding Remarks ........................................................................................ 130 v Chapter Three: Knowing as Receptive ...................................................................... 135 1) The Metaphysical Explanation of Knowing as a “Remedy” .............................. 137 2) Alterity and Identity in Human Knowing .......................................................... 144 2.1. Alterity........................................................................................................ 144 2.2. Identity: What Identity is Not .................................................................... 149 3) The Identity is by Means of the Species ........................................................... 151 3.1. The Aristotelian Identity ............................................................................ 155 3.2. Species, Identity and Alterity ..................................................................... 159 4) Knowing as Receptive ....................................................................................... 171 5) The Comparison between Intelligence and Sensitivity .................................... 190 6) Corollaries: Agent Intellect, Possible Intellect and Will .................................... 197 Chapter Four: The Thomistic Agent Intellect as a Metaphysical A Priori rather than a Formal A Priori ....................................................................... 209 1) The Text of St. Thomas: the Agent Intellect as a Formal A Priori? ................... 210 1.1. Infinity in the Human Intellect ................................................................... 210 1.2. “Quodammodo omnia” .............................................................................. 217 1.3. The Process of Learning ............................................................................. 221 1.4. The Natural Desire to Know ....................................................................... 222 1.5. “Naturaliter nota vel indita” .....................................................................
Recommended publications
  • International Congress

    International Congress

    Copertina_Copertina.qxd 29/10/15 16:17 Pagina 1 THE PONTIFICAL ACADEMY OF INTERNATIONAL SAINT THOMAS AQUINAS CONGRESS SOCIETÀ Christian Humanism INTERNAZIONALE TOMMASO in the Third Millennium: I N T D’AQUINO The Perspective of Thomas Aquinas E R N A T I O N Rome, 21-25 September 2003 A L C O N G R E S …we are thereby taught how great is man’s digni - S ty , lest we should sully it with sin; hence Augustine says (De Vera Relig. XVI ): ‘God has C h r i proved to us how high a place human nature s t i a holds amongst creatures, inasmuch as He n H appeared to men as a true man’. And Pope Leo u m says in a sermon on the Nativity ( XXI ): ‘Learn, O a n i Christian, thy worth; and being made a partici - s m i pant of the divine nature (2 Pt 1,4) , refuse to return n t by evil deeds to your former worthlessness’ h e T h i r d M i St. Thomas Aquinas l l e n Summa Theologiae III, q.1, a.2 n i u m : T h e P e r s p e c t i v e o f T h o m a SANCT s IA I T A M H q E O u D M i A n C A a E A s A A I Q C U I F I I N T A T N I O S P • PALAZZO DELLA CANCELLERIA – A NGELICUM The Pontifical Academy of Saint Thomas Aquinas (PAST) Società Internazionale Tommaso d’Aquino (SITA) Tel: +39 0669883195 / 0669883451 – Fax: +39 0669885218 E-mail: [email protected] – Website: http://e-aquinas.net/2003 INTERNATIONAL CONGRESS Christian Humanism in the Third Millennium: The Perspective of Thomas Aquinas Rome, 21-25 September 2003 PRESENTATION Since the beginning of 2002, the Pontifical Academy of Saint Thomas and the Thomas Aquinas International Society, have been jointly preparing an International Congress which will take place in Rome, from 21 to 25 September 2003.
  • The Agent Intellect in Aquinas: a Metaphysical Condition of Possibility of Human Understanding As Receptive of Objective Content

    The Agent Intellect in Aquinas: a Metaphysical Condition of Possibility of Human Understanding As Receptive of Objective Content

    The Agent Intellect in Aquinas: A Metaphysical Condition of Possibility of Human Understanding as Receptive of Objective Content by Andres Ayala A Thesis submitted to the Faculty of Theology at the University of St. Michael’s College and the Graduate Centre for Theological Studies of the Toronto School of Theology. In partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Theology awarded by the University of St. Michael’s College. © Copyright by Andres Ayala 2018 The Agent Intellect in Aquinas: A Metaphysical Condition of Possibility of Human Understanding as Receptive of Objective Content Andres Ayala Doctor of Philosophy in Theology University of St. Michael’s College 2018 Abstract The following is an interpretation of Aquinas’ agent intellect focusing on Summa Theologiae I, qq. 75-89, and proposing that the agent intellect is a metaphysical rather than a formal a priori of human understanding. A formal a priori is responsible for the intelligibility as content of the object of human understanding and is related to Kant’s epistemological views; whereas a metaphysical a priori is responsible for intelligibility as mode of being of this same object. We can find in Aquinas’ text many indications that the agent intellect is not productive of the universal as content but is, rather, productive of the abstracted or intelligible mode of being of the universal nature. This is because for Aquinas the universal nature, which is the object of human understanding, is present in the things themselves but with a different mode of being. Chapter 1 is intended to establish the fact which requires for Aquinas an agent intellect, and provides two very important principles: one is that the object of human understanding (the universal nature) is present in the things themselves and, the other, that it is not in the ii things themselves with a mode of being which makes it available to the intellectual eye.
  • International Journal of the Philosophical Association of Japan

    International Journal of the Philosophical Association of Japan

    Tetsugaku International Journal of the Philosophical Association of Japan Volume 1, 2017 Special Theme Philosophy and the University ISSN 2432-8995 ISSN 2432-8995 Tetsugaku International Journal of the Philosophical Association of Japan Volume 1 2017 Special Theme Philosophy and the University The Philosophical Association of Japan The Philosophical Association of Japan PRESIDENT KATO Yasushi (Hitotsubashi University) CHIEF OF THE EDITORIAL COMITTEE NAKAHATA Masashi (Kyoto University) Tetsugaku International Journal of the Philosophical Association of Japan EDITORIAL BOARD CHIEF EDITOR NOTOMI Noburu (University of Tokyo) DEPUTY CHIEF EDITORS Jeremiah ALBERG (International Christian University) BABA Tomokazu (Nagano Prefectural College) BOARD MEMBERS DEGUCHI Yasuo (Kyoto University) FUJITA Hisashi (Kyushu Sangyo University) MURAKAMI Yasuhiko (Osaka University) SAITO Naoko (Kyoto University) SAKAKIBARA Tetsuya (University of Tokyo) UEHARA Mayuko (Kyoto University) EDITORIAL ADVISOR Andrew J. MASOM SPECIAL THANKS TO G. R. F. FERRARI (UC Berkeley), Raquel BOUSO GARCIA (Universitat Pompeu Fabra Barcelona), Rossen ROUSSEV (University of Veliko Tarnovo), Gerhard SCHÖNRICH (TU Dresden), T. W. C. STONEHAM (University of York) Tetsugaku International Journal of the Philosophical Association of Japan Volume 1, Special Theme: Philosophy and the University April 2017 Edited and published by the Philosophical Association of Japan Faculty of Social Sciences, Hitotsubashi University 2-1, Naka, Kunitachi, Tokyo, 188-8601, Japan © The Philosophical Association of Japan, 2017 ISSN 2432-8995 Statement 5th December 2015 (http://philosophy-japan.org/en/international_journal/about-us/) KATO Yasushi President of the Philosophical Association of Japan Professor of Philosophy at Hitotsubashi University/Tokyo We are experiencing today the worldwide phenomena of crises in both the humanities and the social sciences, crises to which Japan is also subject.
  • Kriterion Miolo 111.P65 117 10/8/2005, 10:39 118 Hector Zagal

    Kriterion Miolo 111.P65 117 10/8/2005, 10:39 118 Hector Zagal

    ON INTELLECTUS AGENS AND ARISTOTELIAN SEPARATE SUBSTANCES: AQUINAS’ WATERLOO1 Hector Zagal* RESUMO Este artigo trata do comentário de São Tomás de Aquino ao De Anima III de Aristóteles, no qual se encontra a famosa analogia da luz. Sustenta-se que, devido às limitações da analogia, São Tomás é forçado a introduzir uma série de elementos neoplatônicos incompatíveis com a filosofia de Aristóteles. O intuito do autor é explicar essa “traição” à filosofia de Aristóteles, feita por um de seus comentadores mais abalizados. Conclui-se que, a fim de conciliar o mundo pagão com a teologia católica, Tomás de Aquino precisa redirecionar Aristóteles, através de uma argumentação menos econômica; isto é, através da introdução do Intellectus Agens. Palavras-chave Mente, Filosofia Medieval, Intelecto, Alma, Conhecimento ABSTRACT The present paper deals with Saint Thomas’s commentary to Aristotle’s De Anima III, in wich we find the famous analogy of light. It is sustained that due to the limitations of the analogy, Saint Thomas is forced to introduce a series of Neo-platonic elements incompatible with Aristotle’s philosophy. The author means to explain this “betrayal” to Aristotle’s philosophy by one of his most credited commentators. It is concluded that in order to reconcile the pagan world with the Catholic theology, Thomas Aquinas * Professor da Facultad de Filosofia da Universidad Panamerica, Mexico City. Artigo recebido em abril de 2004 e aprovado em abril de 2005. [email protected]. 1 I sincerely thank Alberto Amézquita (Universidad Panamericana) and José Luis Rivera (The Catholic University of America) for their valuable comments and suggestions in the writing of this paper.
  • Human Understanding and the Agent Intellect in Aquinas

    Human Understanding and the Agent Intellect in Aquinas

    The Radical Difference between Aquinas and Kant Human Understanding and the Agent Intellect in Aquinas ǡǤǤ Chillum – 2021 The Radical Difference between Aquinas and Kant: Human Understanding and the Agent Intellect in Aquinas Andres Ayala, IVE Cover Design IVE Press Cover Art Nancy Marrocco Text © Copyright by Andres Ayala 2021 Institute of the Incarnate Word, Inc. All rights reserved. Manufactured in the United States of America. IVE Press 5706 Sargent Road Chillum, MD 20782 http://www.ivepress.org ISBN-13: 978-1-947568-22-8 Library of Congress Control Number: 2020946494 Printed in the United States of America f Author’s Foreword I have always loved singing, and some people say I am a musician. But when I was eighteen and had my first contact with Philosophy and Theology, I discovered I also had a brain, and that there were things about reality and God worth my youthful excitement and energy. Philosophy and Theology were for me a new beauty to enjoy, the beauty of making sense of reality and faith, but without taking away the mystery. These two pursuits were for me a new encounter with reality, a true dialogue, in which the only way to possess the other was to respect the other’s integrity and mystery. I wanted to master Philosophy and Theology, but they resisted control and slavery: they wanted to be loved, not mastered, and so I became a true “philosopher”, someone who loves wisdom, even if not possessing it completely. I still believe that love of wisdom produces true knowledge, and can develop to produce in the scholar a deep and unifying vision of reality.