|
ARTICLE I
The question treats of the knowledge of the soul after death.
In the first article we ask:
Can the soul understand after death?
[ARTICLE III Sent., 31, 2, 4; IV Sent., 50, 1, 1; Quodl., III, 9, 21; XII, 9, 12; S.T., II, 81; III, 45; 1 Cor., c. 13, lect. 3; S.T., I, 89, 1-3; Q.D. de anima, aa. 15, 17, 18.]
|
| Quaestio est de cognitione animae post mortem. Et primo quaeritur utrum anima post mortem possit intelligere
| Difficulties
|
| Et videtur quod non.
| It seems that it cannot, for
|
| Nulla enim operatio communis animae et corpori potest remanere in anima post mortem. Sed intelligere est operatio animae et corpori communis; dicit enim philosophus in I de anima, quod dicere animam intelligere, simile est ac si dicatur texere vel aedificare. Ergo anima post mortem non potest intelligere.
| 1. No activity common to soul and body can remain in the soul after death. But understanding is an activity common to soul and body. For the Philosopher says: “To say that the soul understands is like saying that it weaves or builds.” Therefore, after death the soul cannot understand.
|
| Sed dicebat, quod philosophus loquitur de actu intelligendi qui competit animae secundum faciem inferiorem, non autem de illo qui sibi competit secundum faciem superiorem.- Sed contra: facies superior animae est secundum quam ad divina convertitur. Sed homo, etiam cum intelligit aliquid ex divina revelatione, suum intelligere dependet a corpore, quia oportet quod intelligere etiam illud sit per conversionem ad phantasmata, quae in organo corporali sunt. Ut enim dicit Dionysius I cap. caelestis hierarchiae: impossibile est nobis aliter lucere divinum radium nisi varietate sacrorum velaminum circumvelatum; et appellat velamina ipsas corporales formas sub quibus spiritualia, revelantur. Ergo intelligere quod animae competit secundum superiorem faciem, a corpore dependet; et sic nullo modo intelligere in anima post mortem manet.
| 2. It was said that the Philosopher is speaking of the act of understanding which befits the soul in its lower aspect, but not about the act which befits it in its higher aspect.—On the contrary, the higher aspect of the soul is that according to which it turns to the things of God. However, even when man understands something by reason of divine revelation, his understanding depends on the body, because he must understand through conversion to phantasms, which are in a bodily organ. For, as Dionysius says: “It is impossible for the divine radiance to shine on us unless it is shrouded with a variety of sacred veils. For him, veils are the bodily forms under which spiritual things are revealed. Therefore, the act of understanding which belongs to the soul according to its higher aspect depends on the body. Consequently, understanding in no way remains in the soul after death.
|
| Praeterea, Eccle., IX, 5: dicitur: viventes sciunt se esse morituros; mortui vero nihil noverunt amplius; Glossa: quia non proficiunt amplius. Ergo videtur quod anima post mortem vel nihil cognoscat, si ly amplius temporaliter sumatur, vel quod saltem nihil possit intelligere eorum quae prius non intellexit; sic enim proficeret, quod est contra Glossam.
| 3. In Ecclesiastes (9:5) it is said: “For the living know that they shall die, but the dead know nothing more.” The Gloss reads: “For they make no more progress.”Therefore, it seems that after death the soul either knows nothing, if we take “more” in a temporal sense, or at least that it can understand nothing it did not understand before. For it thus would make more progress, which is contrary to the Gloss.
|
| Praeterea, secundum philosophum in III de anima, sicut se habet sensus ad sensibilia, ita se habet anima intellectiva ad phantasmata. Sed sensus nihil potest sentire nisi sensibilia ei praesententur. Ergo nec anima humana aliquid potest intelligere nisi praesententur ei phantasmata. Sed phantasmata non praesentabuntur ei post mortem; quia illa non praesentantur nisi in aliquo organo corporali. Ergo anima post mortem non potest intelligere.
| 4. According to the Philosopher, the understanding is related to phantasms as the senses are to sensible things. But sense can have sensation only when sensible things are presented to it. Therefore, neither can the human soul understand anything unless phantasms are presented to it. But they are not presented to it after death, because they are presented only in a bodily organ. Therefore, after death the soul cannot understand.
|
| Sed dicebat, quod philosophus loquitur de anima secundum statum quo est in corpore.- Sed contra: obiectum determinatur potentiae secundum naturam ipsius potentiae. Sed eadem est natura animae intellectivae ante mortem et post. Ergo, si anima intellectiva ante mortem ordinatur ad phantasmata sicut ad obiecta, videtur quod et post mortem similiter; et sic idem quod prius.
| 5. It was said that the Philosopher is speaking of the soul according to the state in which it is in the body.—On the contrary, the object of a power is determined by the nature of the power itself. But the nature of the intellective soul is the same before and after death. Therefore, if the intellective soul has an ordination to phantasms as objects before death, it seems that it will likewise have it after death. We conclude as before.
|
| Praeterea, anima non potest intelligere si ab ea potentia intellectiva removeatur. Sed post mortem, potentiae intellectivae, scilicet agens intellectus et possibilis, non manent in anima. Huiusmodi enim potentiae competunt ei secundum unionem ad corpus; si enim non esset unita corpori, non haberet huiusmodi potentias, sicut nec Angelus habet. Ergo anima post mortem non potest intelligere.
| 6. The soul cannot understand if the intellective power is taken away from it. But, after death, the intellective powers, agent and possible intellect, do not remain in the soul, for these powers belong to it by reason of its union with the body. For, if it were not united to the body, it would not have these powers, just as an angel does not have them. Therefore, after death the soul cannot understand.
|
| Praeterea, philosophus dicit in I de anima, quod intelligere corrumpitur quodam interius corrupto. Istud autem interius de quo philosophus loquitur, corrumpitur in morte. Ergo et intelligere post mortem non erit.
| 7. The Philosopher says: “Understanding is destroyed when something within us is destroyed.” But that thing within us, about which the Philosopher is speaking, is destroyed in death. Therefore, there will be no understanding after death.
|
| Praeterea, si anima post mortem intelligit, oportet quod intelligat per aliquam potentiam; quia omne quod agit, agit per potentiam activam, et quod patitur, patitur per potentiam passivam. Aut igitur per eamdem potentiam quam habuit in via, aut per aliam. Si per aliam, tunc videtur quod quando a corpore separatur, novae potentiae ei aggenerentur; quod non videtur esse probabile. Si autem per eamdem, hoc iterum non videtur, cum potentiae quas nunc habet, insint ei ex ratione unionis ad corpus; quae quidem unio in morte cessat. Ergo anima post mortem intelligere non potest.
| 8. If the soul understands after death, it must understand through some power, because everything which acts, acts through some active power, and everything which is acted upon is acted upon through some passive power. Therefore, it will understand either through the same power which it had in this life or through another. If through another, it seems that new powers are produced in it when it is separated from the body. But this does not seem probable. However, if it understands through the same power, this does not seem correct either, since the powers which it has are in it by reason of its union with the body. And this union ceases with death. Therefore, the soul cannot understand after death.
|
| Praeterea, si potentia intellectiva in ipsa maneat: aut manet solum secundum quod fundatur in substantia animae, aut secundum quod comparatur ad actum. Sed non secundum quod fundatur in substantia animae: quia si solum sic remaneret, tunc non posset intelligere aliud nisi se. Nec iterum secundum quod comparatur ad actum: quia secundum quod comparatur ad actum, perficitur per habitus quos in corpore acquisivit, qui quidem habitus a corpore dependent. Ergo videtur quod potentia intellectiva post mortem non remaneat; et sic post mortem anima non intelliget.
| 9. If the intellective power remains in the soul, it remains only in so far as it is grounded in the substance of the soul, or in so far as it has reference to act. But it does not remain in so far as it is grounded in the substance of the soul, since, if it remained only in this way, after death it would be able to understand nothing but itself. Nor does it remain in so far as it has reference to act, for, in so far as it has reference to act, it is brought to completion through the habits which it has acquired in the body, and these habits depend on the body. Therefore, it seems that the intellective power does not remain after death; hence, the soul will not understand after death.
|
| Praeterea, omne quod intelligitur, vel intelligitur per essentiam intelligentis, vel per essentiam rei intellectae, vel per similitudinem rei intellectae in intelligente existentis. Sed non potest dici quod anima intelligat res solum per essentiam ipsius rei intellectae: quia sic non intelligeret nisi seipsam, et habitus, et alia quorum essentiae praesentialiter sunt in ipsa. Similiter non potest dici quod intelligat solum per essentiam sui intelligentis: quia sic, si intelligeret alia a se, oporteret quod essentia sua esset exemplar aliarum rerum, sicut essentia divina est exemplar omnium rerum, ratione cuius Deus intelligendo essentiam suam omnia alia intelligit: quod de anima dici non potest. Similiter nec per similitudines rerum intellectarum in anima existentes: quia maxime videretur quod intelligeret per species quas in corpore acquisivit. Nec potest dici quod per eas solum intelligat: quia sic animae puerorum, quae nihil a sensibus acceperunt, nihil post mortem intelligerent. Ergo videtur quod anima nullo modo post mortem possit intelligere.
| 10. Everything which is understood is understood through the essence of the thing understanding, through the essence of the thing understood, or through a likeness of the thing understood which exists in the one understanding. But it cannot be said that the soul understands things only through the essence of the thing understood, for thus it would understand only itself, its habits, and other things the essences of which are present in the soul. Likewise, it cannot be said to understand only through the essence of itself as understanding for, if it understood things beside itself in this way, its essence would have to be the exemplar of other things, just as the divine essence is the exemplar of all things, for which reason God understands all other things by understanding His essence. But this cannot be said of the soul. Again, it cannot be said to understand through likenesses of the things understood which exist in the soul, since it would seem that above all it understands through the species which it has acquired in the body. And it cannot be said to understand only through them, because the souls of children, which have received nothing from the senses, would thus understand nothing after death. Therefore, it seems that the soul cannot understand in any way after death.
|
| Praeterea, si dicatur quod cognoscet per species concreatas; contra: quidquid est animae concreatum, aequaliter competit ei existenti in corpore, et a corpore separatae. Si igitur animae humanae concreatae sunt species quibus cognoscere possit, cognoscere per huiusmodi species non solum competit ei postquam est a corpore separata, sed dum est in corpore; et sic videtur quod superfluerent species quas a rebus accipit.
| 11. If it be said that it knows through species with which it is created, the answer is that whatever is created along with the soul belongs to it just as much when it is existing in the body as when it is separated from the body. Therefore, if species through which it can know are created along with the human soul, to know through these species befits the soul not only after it is separated from the body but also while it is in the body. Thus, it seems that the species which it receives from things would be superfluous.
|
| Si autem dicatur, quod dum est coniuncta corpori, impeditur a corpore ne eis uti possit; contra: si corpus impedit usum istarum specierum: aut hoc erit ratione corporeae naturae, aut ratione corruptionis. Sed non ratione naturae corporeae: quia nullam habet contrarietatem ad intellectum: nihil autem est natum impediri nisi a suo contrario. Similiter nec ratione corruptionis: quia sic in statu innocentiae, quando huiusmodi corruptio non erat, homo huiusmodi innatis speciebus uti potuisset, et sic sensibus non eguisset, quibus mediantibus a rebus anima species acciperet; quod videtur esse falsum. Ergo videtur quod anima separata per species innatas non intelligat.
| 12. If it be said that the body makes it impossible for the soul to use these while it is joined to the body, the answer is that if the body keeps the soul from using these species, this will be either because of the body’s nature, or because of corruption. But it is not because of the body’s nature, since that is not directly opposed to understanding. And nothing is naturally impeded except by its opposite. Likewise, it is not because of corruption, since, if it were, in the state of innocence, when there was none of this corruption, man would have been able to use these species, and so would not have needed his senses in order that through them the soul might receive species from things. But this seems to be false. Therefore, it does not seem that the separated soul understands through innate species.
|
| Si autem dicatur quod intelligit per species infusas; contra: huiusmodi species vel sunt ei infusae a Deo, vel ab Angelo. Sed non ab Angelo: quia sic oporteret quod huiusmodi species ab Angelo in anima crearentur. Similiter nec a Deo: quia non est probabile quod Deus infunderet dona sua existentibus in Inferno; unde sequeretur quod animae in Inferno non intelligerent. Et ita non videtur quod per species infusas anima separata intelligat.
| 13. If it be said that the soul understands through infused species, the answer is that such species were infused either by God or by an angel. But not by an angel, because, if they were, these species would have to be created in the soul by the angel. Similarly, they are not infused by God, because it is not probable that God would infuse His gifts into souls existing in hell. Hence, it would follow that the souls in hell would not understand. Therefore, it does not seem that the separated soul understands through infused species.
|
| Praeterea, Augustinus in X de Trin., cap. V, assignans modum quo anima cognoscit, sic dicit: quia anima non secum potest introrsus tamquam in regionem incorporeae naturae ipsa corpora inferre, imagines eorum convolvit et rapit factas in semetipsa de semetipsa; dat enim eis formandis quiddam substantiae suae; servat autem aliquid quo libere de specie talium imaginum iudicet; et hoc est magis mens, idest rationalis intelligentia, quae servatur et iudicet. Nam illas animae partes quae corporum similitudinibus informantur, etiam cum bestiis nos communes habere sentimus. In quibus verbis exprimitur, quod iudicium animae rationalis est de imaginibus, quibus informantur potentiae sensitivae. Sed huiusmodi imagines non manent post mortem, cum sint receptae in organo corporali. Ergo nec animae rationalis iudicium, quod est eius intelligere, post mortem remanet in anima.
| 14. Augustine gives the mode in which the soul knows when he says: “Since the soul cannot bring bodies themselves into itself, as though it brought them within the limits of incorporeal nature, it fashions likenesses of bodies and seizes upon these likenesses which are made in the soul by itself. For, in forming them, it gives them something of its own substance. However, it saves something with which freely to judge of the species of such images. This is mind, that is, the rational intelligence, which is kept to judge. For we perceive that we have in common with beasts those parts of the soul which are informed by bodily likenesses.” In these words he says that the judgment of the rational soul deals with the images with which the sensitive powers are informed. But these images do not remain after death, since they are received in a bodily organ. Therefore, neither does the judgment of the rational soul, which is its understanding, remain in the soul after death.
|
| Sed contra.
| To the Contrary
|
| Secundum Damascenum, nulla substantia destituitur propria operatione. Sed propria operatio animae rationalis est intelligere. Ergo post mortem anima intelligit.
| 1. According to Damascene, no substance is deprived of its proper activity. But the proper activity of the rational soul is to understand. Therefore, the soul understands after death.
|
| Praeterea, sicut aliquid ex coniunctione ad corpus materiale redditur passivum, ita per separationem ab eodem redditur activum: calidum enim et agit et patitur propter coniunctionem caloris ad materiam; si autem esset calor sine materia, ageret et non pateretur. Ergo et anima per separationem a corpore redditur omnino activa. Sed quod potentiae animae non possint per seipsas cognoscere sine exterioribus obiectis, hoc eis competit in quantum sunt passivae sicut philosophus dicit de sensu, Lib. II de anima. Ergo anima post separationem a corpore poterit per seipsam intelligere non accipiendo ab aliquibus obiectis.
| 2. just as something is made passive by its union with a material body, so it is made active by its separation from the same body. For something hot acts and is acted upon because of the union of heat with matter. But, if there were heat without matter, it would act and not be acted upon. Therefore, the soul is made completely active by its separation from the body. But it is due to the passivity of the powers of the soul that they cannot know of themselves without exterior objects, as the Philosopher says” of the senses. Therefore, after the separation from the body, the soul will be able to understand of itself without reception from any objects.
|
| Praeterea, Augustinus dicit in IX de Trinitate, quod mens ipsa sicut corporearum rerum notitias per sensus corporis colligit, sic incorporearum rerum per semetipsam. Sed ipsa semper sibi praesens erit. Ergo poterit ad minus intelligentiam habere de incorporeis rebus.
| 3. Augustine says: “Just as the mind itself obtains knowledge of bodily things through the senses of the body, so it obtains knowledge of incorporeal things through itself.” But it will always be present to itself. Therefore, it will be able to have understanding at least of incorporeal things.
|
| Praeterea, ut ex auctoritate Augustini inducta apparet, secundum hoc anima cognoscit res corporeas quod earum imagines convolvit et rapit in seipsa. Sed hoc liberius facere poterit post separationem a corpore; maxime cum hoc de semetipsa facere eam dicat Augustinus in auctoritate inducta. Ergo a corpore separata poterit melius intelligere.
| 4. As is clear from the passage quoted above from Augustine, the soul knows bodily things in so far as it fashions likenesses of these things and draws them within itself. But it can do this more freely after its separation from the body, especially since Augustine there says that it does this by itself. Therefore, the soul can understand better when separated from the body.
|
| Praeterea, in libro de spiritu et anima dicitur, quod anima a corpore separata trahit secum suas potentias. Sed ratione suarum potentiarum dicitur cognoscitiva. Ergo post mortem cognoscere poterit.
| 5. In Spirit and Soul it is said that the soul takes its powers along with it when it is separated from the body. But it is called cognoscitive because of its powers. Therefore, it will be able to know after death.
|
| Responsio.
| REPLY
|
| Dicendum, quod sicut dicit philosophus in I de anima, si nulla operationum ipsius animae est ei propria, ut scilicet possit eam sine corpore habere, impossibile est ipsam animam separari a corpore. Operatio enim cuiuslibet rei est quasi finis eius, cum sit optimum in ipsa. Unde, sicut firmiter secundum fidem Catholicam sustinemus quod anima post mortem remaneat a corpore separata; ita etiam sustinere necesse est quod sine corpore existens intelligere possit. Sed modum intelligendi difficile est considerare, eo quod necesse est ponere eam habere alium modum intelligendi quam nunc habeat; cum nunc manifeste appareat quod intelligere non possit nisi ad phantasmata convertatur, quae post mortem omnino non manent.
| As the Philosopher says, if none of the activities of the soul is proper to it, that is to say, in such a way that it would not be able to have it without the body, it is impossible for the soul to be separated from the body. For the activity of anything is its end, in a sense, since it is what is best in it. Hence, just as we firmly maintain according to the Catholic faith that the soul continues to exist after being separated from the body, so must we maintain that it can understand when it exists without the body. But it is hard to see the way in which it understands, because we have to say that it has a different mode of understanding than it has now, since it is quite clear that it can understand now only if it turns to phantasms, and these will not remain in any way after death.
|
| Quidam enim dicunt, quod sicut nunc a sensibilibus rebus species accipit mediantibus sensibus, ita tunc accipere poterit nullo sensu interveniente. Sed hoc videtur impossibile, quia ab extremo in extremum non fit transitus nisi per media. Species autem in ipsa re sensibili habet esse maxime materiale, in intellectu autem summe spirituale; unde oportet quod in hanc spiritualitatem transeat mediantibus quibusdam gradibus, utpote quod in sensu habet spiritualius esse quam in re sensibili, in imaginatione autem adhuc spiritualius quam in sensu, et sic deinceps ascendendo.
| Accordingly, some say, that, just as the soul now receives species from sensible things through the mediation of the senses, so, then, it will be able to receive them without the intervention of any sense. But this seems to be impossible, because a thing cannot pass from one extreme to the other except through the intermediate things. But in the sensible thing the species has an extremely material existence, but, in the understanding, a very highly spiritual existence. Hence, it has to pass to this spirituality through certain intermediate levels, inasmuch as it has a more spiritual existence in sense than in the sensible thing, and a still more spiritual existence in imagination than in sense, and so on as it goes higher.
|
| Unde alii dicunt, quod per species rerum a sensibus receptas dum erat in corpore, et in ipsa anima conservatas, post mortem intelligit. Sed haec opinio a quibusdam sequentibus opinionem Avicennae improbatur. Cum enim anima intellectiva non utatur corporali organo ratione intellectus, non potest aliquid esse in parte intellectiva animae nisi in ratione intelligibilis. In virtutibus autem utentibus organo corporali potest aliquid conservari non in ratione cognoscibilis, sed sicut in quodam subiecto corporali; ratione cuius contingit quod quaedam potentiae sensitivae sunt, quae non semper actu apprehendunt species vel intentiones in se conservatas, sicut patet de imaginatione et memoria. Et sic videtur quod in parte intellectiva nihil conservetur nisi quod actu apprehenditur; et sic nullo modo per species prius receptas a rebus anima post mortem intelligere possit.
| Hence, others, therefore, say that the soul understands after death through the species which were received from the senses while it was in the body, and which are retained within the soul itself. But this opinion is attacked by some who follow Avicenna’s opinion. For, since the intellective soul does not use a bodily organ in order to understand, there cannot be anything in the intellective part of the soul except in so far as it is intelligible. In powers which use a physical organ, however, something can be retained, not in so far as it is knowable, but as in some kind of physical subject. It is because of this that there are certain sensitive powers which do not always actually apprehend the species or intentions which are retained in them. This is clearly the case with imagination and memory. Thus, it seems that only what is actually perceived is retained in the intellective part of the soul. Accordingly, after death the soul can in no way understand through the species which it previously received from things.
|
| Sed hoc non videtur verum, quia omne quod recipitur in aliquo, recipitur in eo per modum recipientis. Cum autem substantia immaterialis habeat esse magis fixum et stabile quam substantia corporea, in parte intellectiva recipientur species firmius et immobilius quam in aliqua re materiali. Et quamvis recipiantur in ea secundum rationem intelligibilis, non tamen oportet quod semper actu intelligantur, quia non semper sunt in ea in actu perfecto, nec in potentia pura; sed in actu incompleto, qui est medius inter potentiam et actum, quod est esse aliquid habitualiter in intellectu. Unde etiam philosophus vult, quod anima intellectiva sit locus specierum in III de anima, utpote eas in se retinens et conservans. Sed tamen huiusmodi species receptae prius et conservatae non sufficiunt ad cognitionem quam necesse est ponere in anima separata; tum propter animas puerorum, tum etiam propter hoc quod multa erunt cognita ab anima separata quae nunc non cognoscuntur a nobis, ut poenae Inferni, et alia huiusmodi.
| But this does not seem to be true, because everything which is received in a thing is received in it according to the mode of the recipient. However, since an immaterial substance has a more stable existence than a physical substance, the species will be received with greater firmness and immobility in the intellective part than in any material thing. And, although they are received in it in so far as they have the character of an intelligible, it is not necessary for the soul actually to understand them at all times, because they are not always in the soul in perfect act. Nor are they there in pure potency, but in incomplete act, which is intermediate between potency and act, which is to say that something exists habitually in the understanding. For this reason, also, the Philosopher” wants to make the intellective soul “the place of the species,” inasmuch as it retains and preserves them in itself. However, such species, previously received and preserved, do not suffice for the knowledge which we must ascribe to the separated soul because of the souls of children and because of the fact that there are many things now not known to us, such as the punishments of hell and so forth, which will be known by the separated souls.
|
| Et ideo alii dicunt, quod anima separata quamvis a rebus non accipiat, habet tamen potestatem ut seipsam rebus cognoscendis conformet apud rerum praesentiam; sicut videmus quod imaginatio aliquas formas componit ex seipsa, quas nunquam per sensus accepit. Sed hoc etiam non potest stare, quia impossibile est quod sit idem aliquid quod educat se de potentia in actum. Anima autem nostra est in potentia ad similitudines rerum quibus cognoscit. Unde oportet quod efficiantur in actu non per ipsam animam, sed per aliquid quod habet illas similitudines in actu; vel per res ipsas, vel per Deum, in quo sunt omnes formae in actu. Unde nec etiam imaginatio aut intellectus aliquam formam de novo componit nisi ex aliquibus praeexistentibus; sicut componit formam montis aurei ex praeexistentibus similitudinibus auri et montis.
| Therefore, others say that, although the separated soul does not receive anything from things, still, in their presence it has the power to conform itself to the things it is to know. We see that the imagination of itself makes up forms in this way which it has never received through the senses. But this cannot stand either, for it is impossible to have something which reduces itself from potency into act. And our soul is in potency to the likenesses of the things by which it knows. Consequently, they have to be made actual, not through the soul, but through something which has these likenesses actually, either through the things themselves or through God, in whom all forms are in actuality. Thus, neither imagination nor understanding constructs a new form except from those already in existence, as it fashions the form of a golden mountain from the pre-existing likenesses of gold and mountain.
|
| Et ideo alii dicunt, quod formae quibus anima separata intelligit, sunt ei impressae a Deo ab ipsa sua creatione, per quas, secundum quosdam, etiam nunc intelligimus; ita quod per sensus non acquiruntur animae novae species, sed tantummodo excitatur anima ad species quas in se habet intuendas, secundum quod Platonici dixerunt, qui volebant quod addiscere nihil erat nisi reminisci. Sed huic opinioni experientia contradicit. Videmus enim quod qui caret uno sensu, caret una scientia, utpote carens visu non potest scientiam habere de coloribus; quod non esset, si anima non indigeret a sensibus accipere species quibus cognoscat.
| Therefore, others say that the forms by which the separated soul knows are imprinted on it by God from its very creation, and according to some, we now understand through these forms in such a way that no new species are acquired for the soul through the senses, but the soul is only aroused to look at the species which it has within itself. And the Platonists, who wanted learning to be nothing but remembering, have spoken in this way. But experience contradicts this opinion, for we see that one who lacks one sense lacks one type of knowledge, so that one who does not have sight cannot have knowledge of colors. But this would not be so if the soul did not need to receive from the senses the species by which it knows.
|
| Secundum alios vero, per has species concreatas anima corpori coniuncta nihil intelligit a corpore impedita; intelliget autem per eas cum erit a corpore separata. Sed hoc etiam durum videtur ut species quae naturaliter inditae sunt animae, totaliter a corpore impediantur, cum tamen coniunctio corporis ad animam non sit accidentalis animae, sed naturalis. Non enim invenimus duorum quae sunt naturalia uni rei unum esse totaliter alterius impeditivum; alias alterum esset frustra. Dissonat etiam haec positio ab opinione philosophi, III de anima, qui comparat intellectum humanae animae tabulae in qua nihil est scriptum.
| However, according to others, while the soul is joined to the body and is hindered by the body, it understands nothing through these concreated species. But it does understand through them once it is separated from the body. But, again, it seems difficult to admit that species which are naturally implanted in the soul should be hindered completely by the body, even though the union of body and soul is natural to the soul and not adventitious. For we do not find that one of two elements which are natural to a given thing hinders the other in every respect. Otherwise, the second element would be to no purpose. This position also disagrees with that of the Philosopher, who compares the understanding of the human soul to “a tablet on which nothing is written.”
|
| Et ideo aliter dicendum est, quod unumquodque recipit influentiam a suo superiori per modum sui esse. Esse autem animae rationali acquiritur quodam modo medio inter formas separatas et formas materiales. Formae enim separatae, scilicet Angeli, recipiunt esse a Deo non dependens ab aliqua materia, nec in aliqua materia. Formae vero materiales esse a Deo accipiunt et in materia existens, et a materia dependens, quia sine materia conservari non potest. Anima vero rationalis acquirit esse a Deo in materia quidem existens, in quantum est forma corporis, ac per hoc secundum esse corpori unita: non autem a corpore dependens, quia esse animae sine corpore conservari potest. Et ideo etiam influentiam a Deo medio modo recipit anima rationalis inter Angelos et substantias materiales.
| Therefore, we must give a different answer, namely, that each thing is influenced by that which is above it according to the mode of its own being. But the rational soul receives its being in a mode midway between separated forms and material forms. For immaterial forms, that is to say, angels, receive from God a being which does not depend on matter and is not in any matter. But material forms receive from God a being which is in matter and depends on matter, since they cannot be conserved without matter. The soul, however, receives from God a being which is in matter, for it exists in matter in so far as it is the form of the body, and through this it is united to the body in its being, but it is not dependent on matter, since the being of the soul can be maintained without the body. Therefore, the rational soul receives God’s influence in a manner midway between that of angels and that of material things.
|
| Recipit enim intellectuale lumen hoc modo ut eius intellectiva cognitio habeat ordinem ad corpus, in quantum a corporeis potentiis accipit (phantasmata), et ad ea respicere habeat in actu considerando; in quo inferior Angelis invenitur. Et tamen hoc lumen non est corpori obligatum, ut eius operatio per organum corporeum compleatur; in quo invenitur superior omni materiali forma, quae non operatur nisi operationem cui communicat materia. Sed quando anima erit a corpore separata, sicut esse suum habebit neque a corpore dependens neque in corpore existens, ita etiam influentiam intellectualis cognitionis recipiet, ut nec sit corpori obligata quasi per corpus exerceatur, neque omnino aliquem ordinem ad corpus habeat.
| For it receives intellectual light in such way that its intellective knowledge has an ordination to the body, in so far as it receives something from the powers of the body and has to refer to them in the act of consideration. In this it is lower than the angels. Nevertheless, this light is not so confined to the body that its activity is performed by means of a bodily organ. In this it is above every material form, which performs only the activity in which matter has a share. But, when the soul will be separated from the body, just as it will have its being neither dependent on the body nor existing in the body, so, too, it will receive an influx of intellectual knowledge in such a way that it will neither be confined to the body, as though it had to be exercised through the body, nor will it have any ordination to the body at all.
|
| Et ideo, quando anima primo creata corpori infunditur, non datur ei aliquid de intellectuali cognitione nisi per ordinem ad corporeas potentias; utpote quod per intellectum agentem possit facere phantasmata intelligibilia in actu, quae sunt potentia intelligibilia, et per intellectum possibilem recipere species intelligibiles sic abstractas. Et inde est, quod quamdiu habet esse coniunctum corpori in statu huius viae, non cognoscit etiam illa quorum species in ipsa reservantur nisi inspiciendo ad phantasmata. Et propter hoc etiam nec revelationes ei aliquae divinitus fiunt nisi sub speciebus phantasmatum, nec etiam ipsas substantias separatas intelligere potest, utpote quae sufficienter per sensibilium species cognosci non possunt.
| Therefore, when at its creation the soul is infused in the body, the only intellectual knowledge that is given it is ordained to the powers of the body. Thus, through the agent intellect it can make potentially intelligible phantasms actually intelligible, and through the possible intellect it can receive the intelligible species thus abstracted. Hence it is, too, that, as long as it has being united to the body in the state of this life, it does not know even those things whose species are preserved in it except by insight into phantasms. And for this reason, also, God does not make any revelations to it except under the species of phantasms, nor is it able to understand separated substances, inasmuch as these cannot be sufficiently known through the species of sensible things.
|
| Sed quando habebit esse a corpore absolutum, tunc recipiet influentiam intellectualis cognitionis hoc modo quo Angeli recipiunt sine aliquo ordine ad corpus, ut scilicet species rerum ab ipso Deo recipiat, nec oporteat ad intelligendum in actu per has species, vel per eas quas prius acquisivit, ad aliqua phantasmata converti. Possit nihilominus ipsas substantias separatas, scilicet Angelos vel Daemones, naturali cognitione videre, quamvis non Deum, quod nulli creaturae conceditur sine gratia.
| But, when it will have its being free of the body, then it will receive the influx of intellectual knowledge in the way in which angels receive it, without any ordination to the body. Thus, it will receive species of things from God himself, in order not to have to turn to any phantasms actually to know through these species or through those which it acquired previously. Nevertheless, it will be able to see separated substances, as the angels and demons, with natural knowledge, although it will not be able to see God in this way, for, without grace this is not given to any creature.
|
| Ex quibus colligi potest quod anima post mortem tribus modis intelligit: uno modo per species quas recepit a rebus dum erat in corpore; alio modo per species in ipsa sua separatione a corpore sibi divinitus infusas; tertio modo videndo substantias separatas, et in eis species rerum intuendo. Sed hoc ultimum non subiacet eius arbitrio, sed magis arbitrio substantiae separatae, quae suam intelligentiam aperit loquendo et claudit tacendo; quae quidem locutio qualis sit, alibi dictum est.
| From all this we can conclude that the soul understands in three ways after death. In one, it understands through species which it received from things while it was in the body. In the second, through species which God infuses in it at the time of its separation from the body. In the third, by seeing separated substances and looking at the species of things which are in them. But this last mode does not lie within their free choice but within that of the separated substance, which opens its intelligence when it speaks and closes it when it is silent. We have said before what sort of speech this is.
|
|
| Answers to Difficulties
|
| Ad primum igitur dicendum, quod operatio intellectus quae est communis animae et corpori, est operatio quae modo animae intellectivae competit in ordine ad corporeas potentias, sive hoc accipiatur secundum superiorem partem animae, sive secundum inferiorem. Sed post mortem habebit anima a corpore separata operationem quae nec fiet per organum corporale, nec aliquem ordinem habebit ad corpus.
| 1. The activity of understanding which is common to soul and body is that activity which now belongs to the intellective soul in its relation to the powers of the body, whether we take this with reference to the higher part of the soul or to the lower part. But, after death, the soul, separated from the body, will have an activity which will not take place through a bodily organ and will have no ordination to the body.
|
| Et per hoc patet solutio ad secundum.
| 2. The solution to the second difficulty is clear from the first response.
|
| Ad tertium dicendum, quod auctoritas illa loquitur de profectu meriti; quod patet ex alia Glossa quae, ibidem, dicit: quidam asserunt post mortem crescere et decrescere merita, ut intelligatur quod nihil proficiunt amplius in cognoscendo; ut scilicet sint maioris meriti vel praemii, vel quod limpidior cognitio eis debeatur; non autem sic quod nihil prius ignotum postea cognoscant: constat enim quod poenas Inferni, quas nunc non cognoscunt, tunc cognoscent.
| 3. This authoritative citation is speaking of progress in merit, as it is clear from another gloss on the same passage which says: “Some assert that merit increases and decreases after death, so that it be understood that there is no further advance in knowledge, which is to say, that they have more merit or reward, or that they deserve clearer knowledge, but it does not mean that they will not then know anything which was previously unknown. For it is clear that they will then know the punishments of hell, which they do not know now.
|
| Ad quartum dicendum, quod philosophus, in III de anima non loquitur nisi de intellectu corpori coniuncto; alias enim consideratio de intellectu ad naturalem non pertineret.
| 4. The Philosopher is here speaking only of the understanding united to the body. Otherwise, the consideration of understanding would not belong to natural science.
|
| Ad quintum dicendum, quod quamvis eadem sit natura animae ante mortem et post mortem quantum ad rationem speciei; tamen non est idem modus essendi, et per consequens nec idem modus operandi.
| 5. Although the nature of the soul is specifically the same before and after death, its mode of being is not the same. Consequently, its mode of activity is not the same.
|
| Ad sextum dicendum, quod in anima separata remanebit potentia intellectiva, et intellectus agens et possibilis: huiusmodi enim potentiae non causantur in anima ex corpore; quamvis in anima corpori unita existentes aliquem ordinem habeant ad corpus, quem non habebunt in anima separata.
| 6. The power of understanding and the agent and possible intellects will remain in the separated soul. For the existence of these powers is not caused in the soul by the body, although, while they exist in the soul united to the body, they do have an ordination to the body which they will not have in the separated soul.
|
| Ad septimum dicendum, quod philosophus loquitur de intelligere quod nunc nobis competit in ordine ad phantasmata: hoc enim et impeditur, impedito organo corporali et totaliter, corrumpitur, eo corrupto.
| 7. The Philosopher is speaking of the act of understanding which is now proper for us with our dependence on phantasms. For this is hindered when the bodily organ is inhibited and it is completely destroyed when the organ is destroyed.
|
| Ad octavum dicendum, quod eaedem potentiae intellectivae quae nunc sunt in anima, erunt in anima separata, quia sunt naturales; naturalia autem oportet manere, quamvis nunc habeant ordinem ad corpus, quem tunc non habebunt, ut dictum est.
| 8. The same intellective powers which are now in the soul will be in the separated soul because they are natural. And things which are natural have to remain, although they now have an ordination to the body which they will not have then, as has been said.
|
| Ad nonum dicendum, quod potentiae intellectivae remanent in anima separata, et ex parte illa qua radicantur in essentia animae, et ex parte illa qua comparantur ad actum; nec oportet quod habitus illi qui in corpore sunt acquisiti, destruantur; nisi forte secundum opinionem praetactam, quae dicit, quod nulla species remanet in intellectu nisi dum actu intelligitur. Dato etiam quod habitus illi non remanerent, remaneret potentia intellectiva ordinata ad actus alterius modi.
| 9. The intellective powers remain in the separated soul both in their radication in the essence of the soul and in their relation to act. Nor is it necessary that the habits which were acquired in the body be destroyed, except, perhaps, according to the opinion mentioned above, which says that no species remains in the understanding, unless actual intellection continues. But, even granting that those habits would not remain, the intellective power with an ordination to acts of a different type would remain.
|
| Ad decimum dicendum, quod anima post mortem intelligit per aliquas species. Et potest quidem intelligere per species quas in corpore acquisivit, quamvis illae non usquequaque sufficiant, ut obiectio tangit.
| 10. After death, the soul understands through certain species. It can, indeed, understand through the species which it has acquired in the body, although these are not entirely adequate, as the difficulty points out.
|
| Alia autem duo concedimus.
| 11-12. We concede these two difficulties.
|
| Ad decimumtertium dicendum, quod infusio donorum gratuitorum non pertingit ad eos qui sunt in Inferno; sed eorum quae ad statum naturae pertinent, participatione non privantur: nihil enim est universaliter boni participatione privatum, ut Dionysius dicit in II cap. Cael. Hierar. Praedicta autem specierum infusio quae fit in separatione animae a corpore, pertinet ad conditionem naturae substantiae separatae; et ideo huiusmodi infusione nec animae damnatorum privantur.
| 13. The infusion of the gifts of grace does not reach those who are in hell, but these souls are not deprived of the things which belong to the state of nature. “For nothing is completely deprived of a share in the good,” as Dionysius says. But the infusion of species mentioned above, which is given when the soul is separated from the body, belongs to the natural state of separated substances. Therefore, the souls of the damned are not deprived of this infusion.
|
| Ad decimumquartum dicendum, quod Augustinus in verbis illis intendit ostendere quomodo anima sibi circumponat corporalium rerum similitudines, ut quandoque se aestimet esse corpus, ut patet in opinionibus antiquorum philosophorum. Quod quidem ex hoc contingere dicit, quod anima intenta corporibus, per sensus exteriores ad ea afficitur, ratione cuius ipsa corpora ad se introducere nititur quantum possibile est. Cum autem ipsa sit incorporea, non potest ad seipsa corpora introducere, sed similitudines corporum introducit quasi in regionem incorporeae naturae, dum formae existentes in imaginatione sunt absque materia, nondum tamen pertingunt usque ad regionem incorporeae naturae, propter hoc quod nondum sunt ab appendiciis materiae absolutae.
| 14. Augustine is here trying to show how the soul clothes itself with likenesses of physical things, so that it sometimes thinks it is itself a body, as appears in the opinion of the ancient philosophers. He says that this happens because the soul with its attention focused on bodies is attracted to them through the external senses. For this reason, it strives to bring these bodies into itself in so far as possible. However, since the soul is incorporeal, it cannot bring the bodies themselves into itself, but it does bring likenesses of bodies into the domain of incorporeal nature, as it were, in so far as the forms existing in imagination are without matter; however, they do not yet reach the limits of incorporeal nature, because they are still not free of the conditions of matter.
|
| Has autem similitudines dicitur rapere, in quantum eas quasi subito a sensibilibus abstrahit. Dicitur autem convolvere eas, in quantum eas simplificat, vel in quantum eas componit et dividit. In semetipsa autem eas facit, in quantum in potentia animae, scilicet imaginativa, recipiuntur. De semetipsa autem eas facit, quia ipsa anima est quae huiusmodi imaginationes in seipsa format, ut ly de denotet principium efficiens. Et ideo subiungit, quod anima quiddam substantiae suae dat formandis huiusmodi speciebus, quia scilicet aliqua pars animae in substantia eius radicata, huic formationis imaginum officio deputatur.
| The soul is said to seize upon these likenesses in so far as it immediately abstracts them from sensible things. And it is said to fashion them to the extent that it simplifies them, or in so far as it joins and divides them. It constructs them in itself in so far as it receives them in a power of the soul, the imagination. It constructs them by itself because the soul itself is that which fashions imaginations of this sort in itself, so that the word by denotes the efficient principle. Therefore, he adds that the soul gives these species something of its substance when it forms them, since a part of the soul, rooted in As substance, is given this role of forming images.
|
| Quia vero omne quod iudicat de aliquo, oportet ab eo esse liberum, ratione cuius intellectus factus est purus et immixtus, ut omnia iudicet, secundum philosophum; ideo ad hoc quod anima iudicet de talibus imaginibus, quod non sunt ipsae res, sed rerum similitudines, oportet esse aliquid in anima superius, quod istis imaginibus non occupatur: et hoc est mens, quae de talibus imaginibus iudicare potest. Non tamen oportet quod mens de solis his imaginibus iudicet; sed etiam de his, quae neque sunt corpora neque corporum similitudines, interdum iudicat.
| But, since everything which passes judgment on a thing has to be free from that thing, understanding has been made pure and unmixed in order to judge of all things, according to the Philosopher. Therefore, for the soul to judge of these images, which are not things themselves, but likenesses of things, there has to be something higher in the soul which is not occupied by these images. This is the mind, which can judge of such images. However, it is not necessary that the mind judge only of these images, but at times it also judges of things which are neither bodies nor the likeness of bodies.
|