The Distinction of the Powers of the Soul from the Essence of the Soul
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
University of Windsor Scholarship at UWindsor Electronic Theses and Dissertations Theses, Dissertations, and Major Papers 1-1-1964 The distinction of the powers of the soul from the essence of the soul. John M. Kiss University of Windsor Follow this and additional works at: https://scholar.uwindsor.ca/etd Recommended Citation Kiss, John M., "The distinction of the powers of the soul from the essence of the soul." (1964). Electronic Theses and Dissertations. 6355. https://scholar.uwindsor.ca/etd/6355 This online database contains the full-text of PhD dissertations and Masters’ theses of University of Windsor students from 1954 forward. These documents are made available for personal study and research purposes only, in accordance with the Canadian Copyright Act and the Creative Commons license—CC BY-NC-ND (Attribution, Non-Commercial, No Derivative Works). Under this license, works must always be attributed to the copyright holder (original author), cannot be used for any commercial purposes, and may not be altered. Any other use would require the permission of the copyright holder. Students may inquire about withdrawing their dissertation and/or thesis from this database. For additional inquiries, please contact the repository administrator via email ([email protected]) or by telephone at 519-253-3000ext. 3208. THE DISTINCTION OF THE POVERS OF THE SOUL FROM THE ESSENCE OF THE SOUL BY JOHN M. KISS B. Sc, Assumption University of Windsor, 1962. A Thesis Submitted to the Faculty of Graduate Studies through the Department of Philosophy, in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Arts at the University of Windsor Windsor, Ontario, Canada 1964 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. UMI Number: EC52535 INFORMATION TO USERS The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and photographs, print bleed-through, substandard margins, and improper alignment can adversely affect reproduction. In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. UMI UMI Microform EC52535 Copyright 2008 by ProQuest LLC. All rights reserved. This microform edition is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code. ProQuest LLC 789 E. Eisenhower Parkway PC Box 1346 Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. lA 0 F Approved by: . / I / ; ^ / < DC,, Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. ABSTRACT This thesis examines the distinction which St. Thomas Aquinas maintains between the powers of the soul and its essence, his critic ism of those who identify the powers with the essence, and the meta physical basis for both his own views and his criticisms. S t. Augustine, P eter the Lombard, and especially William of Auvergne, all hold "whole man" views which identify the powers of the soul with its essence. For William, the principle of every operation must be substantial, and the powers merely name the various operations of the one essence which acts immediately, Thomas distinguishes every creature's operations from its esse and consequently its powers from its essence. Also the ident ification of the powers with the essence would mean that every crea ture would always be exercising each of its operations. The powers of the soul are accidents of the second species of quality; as accidents, the powers have ontological reality. To call the powers natural properties is to speak only logically. Since action is naturally prior to potentiality, all of the powers are named from and distinguished by their operations. The operations are distinguished in turn by their objects, which there fore ultimately distinguish the powers. The powers, distinct from the essence of the soul, are also really distinct one from the other. i i i Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Finally, the distinctions between operations and esse, powers and essence, and esse and essence are seen to be required if man is to be different from God. The "whole man" view is seen to present man as though he were God. iv Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. PREFACE One outstanding feature of modern popular Catholicism is the di chotomy between the soul and the body. We are constantly enjoined from the pulpit and in religious literature to value only spiritual things and to put aside the desires of the body. The spirit alone is worth while : the body is evil. The two, as popularly portrayed, are two separate things which are to be kept separate at all costs. It hardly needs to be said that this radical dichotomy of mind and body is the result of three centuries of Cartesian thinking. Generally speaking, man for Descartes is a machine directed by a spiritual soul. His definitions of thinking and extended substances established the di chotomy, and his influence has been felt ever since. The mechanical and spiritual elements are completely separate but somehow the spiritual element rules the body, directing it to various actions. A modem reaction to the Cartesian mind-body dichotomy is the viewpoint that maintains that it is the "whole man" that acts. Man is a unity. It is in his unity, in his wholeness, that he performs his every action, whether it be thinking, or sensing, or growing, etc. By the "whole man" is generally meant that man is such a unity that there can be no distinction of parts or powers in him. No action is carried out by a part in him: man in his entirety carries out each and every action. This notion concerning the "whole man" is by no means novel. An especially outspoken upholder of this same notion in mediaeval times is the early thirteenth century theologian, William of Auvergne. William's Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. extreme view concerning the simplicity of the soul precluded any dis tinction of parts within the soul. There was no allowance for any dis tinction of the powers from the essence of the soul. For William no matter what actions man performed, he performed them in the entirety of his essence. The whole man acted always. Since it is the whole man acting, William maintained that the principle of each action had to be a substance. And since the whole man acting is only one substance there can be no real distinction of the principles of his diverse actions. William's identification of the powers with the essence of the soul aroused the critical ire of St. Thomas Aquinas. St. Thonas' dis tinguishing of the essence from esse, and his relating of essence to esse as potency to act, forced him to distinguish the powers of the soul from its essence. He could not accept the extreme unity of William's "whole man" theory of operation. In its place Thomas main tained that it was by accidental principles or powers of the soul, that man acted, with each specifically different operation requiring a really distinct power. Thomas would concur that it is the whole man that acts, but his meaning would be different from William's. For Thomas, man would be a whole composed of body and soul: the soul being the substantial form of the body. Man is one in the unity of his being; and he is one in the remote principle of his actions, namely, his essence, because it i s by the essence th a t the powers were able to a c t. But the powers are many, one for each specific action of man; and they are ordered one to the other, because the vegetative powers are necessary for sen sation to take place, and without sense knowledge, intellection cannot take place. v i Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. , I t w ill be the concern of th is th e sis to present the "whole man" viewpoint upheld by William of Auvergne, and then to present the criticism of it by St. Thomas Aquinas. St. Thomas' own views, point by point in opposition to William's, will be given, along with a dis cussion of his metaphysical notion of actus essendi, which is the ultim ate basis fo r h is theory of the powers of the soul. VIhile none of the basic ideas offered here purports to be original, one point has arisen that has not been explored before. This point is that in view of Thomas' theory of the powers of the soul and th e ir d istin c tio n from its essence, any theory which identifies the powers with the essence of the soul makes man operate in the same fashion as God. God alone is absolutely simple. In God alone is there no distinction of essence and esse. In God alone is his power the same as His opera tio n s. To say the same of man i s to make man in to God. In this thesis, all quotations are given in English transla tion, The translations from the Latin of St. Augustine, Peter the Lanbard, William of Auvergne, and St. Thomas Aquinas are either standard, or done by the author. In any case, the author fully endorses them and accepts all responsibility for them. The Latin for each quotation appears in the appropriate footnote. The Greek for Aristotle's references is not given.