ARTICLE I
The problem under discussion is truth,
and in the first article we ask:
What is truth?
[Cf. S.T., I. 16, aa. 1, 3; I Sent., 19, 5, 1; C.G., I, 60; I Perih., lect. 3, nn. 3-10; VI Metaph., lect. 4, nn. 1230-44.]
|
| Quaestio est de veritate. Et primo quaeritur quid est veritas?
| Difficulties
|
| Videtur autem quod verum sit omnino idem quod ens.
| It seems that the true is exactly the same as being, for
|
| Augustinus in Lib. Solil. dicit, quod verum est id quod est. Sed id quod est, nihil est nisi ens. Ergo verum significat omnino idem quod ens.
| 1. Augustine says: “The true is that which is.” But that which is, is simply being. The true, therefore, means exactly the same as being.
|
| Respondens dicebat quod sunt idem secundum supposita, sed ratione differunt. Contra, ratio cuiuslibet rei est id quod significatur per suam definitionem. Sed id quod est, assignatur ab Augustino, ut definitio veri, quibusdam aliis definitionibus reprobatis. Cum ergo secundum id quod est, conveniant verum et ens, videtur quod sint idem ratione.
| 2. It was said in reply that the true and being are the same materially but differ formally.—On the contrary the nature of a thing is signified by its definition; and the definition of the true, according to Augustine, is ”that which is.” He rejects all other definitions. Now, since the true and being are materially the same, it seems that they are also formally the same.
|
| Praeterea, quaecumque differunt ratione, ita se habent quod unum illorum potest intelligi sine altero: unde Boetius in libro de hebdomadibus dicit, quod potest intelligi Deus esse, si separetur per intellectum paulisper bonitas eius. Ens autem nullo modo potest intelligi si separetur verum: quia per hoc intelligitur quod verum est. Ergo verum et ens non differunt ratione.
| 3. Things which differ conceptually are so related to each other that one of them can be understood without the other. For this reason, Boethius says that the existence of God can be understood if for a moment we mentally separate His goodness from His existence. Being, however can in no way be understood apart from the true, for being is known only in so far as it is true. Therefore, the true and being do not differ conceptually.
|
Praeterea, si verum non est idem quod ens, oportet quod sit entis dispositio. Sed non potest esse entis dispositio. Non enim est dispositio totaliter corrumpens, alias sequeretur: est verum, ergo est non ens; sicut sequitur: est homo mortuus, ergo non est homo.
Similiter non est dispositio diminuens, alias non sequeretur: est verum, ergo est; sicut non sequitur: est albus dentes, ergo est albus. Similiter non est dispositio contrahens, vel specificans: quia sic non converteretur cum ente. Ergo verum et ens omnino sunt idem.
| 4. If the true is not the same as being, it must be a state of being. But it cannot be a state of being. It is not a state that entirely corrupts—otherwise, this would follow: “It is true. Therefore, it is non-being”—as it follows when we say: “This man is dead. Therefore, this is not a man.”
Similarly, the true is not a state that limits. If it were, one could not say: “It is true. Therefore it is.” For one cannot say that a thing is white simply because it has white teeth. Finally, the true is not a state which contracts or specifies being, for it is convertible with being. It follows, therefore, that the true and being are entirely the same.
|
| Praeterea, illa quorum est una dispositio, sunt eadem. Sed veri et entis est eadem dispositio. Ergo sunt eadem. Dicitur enim in II Metaphysic.: dispositio rei in esse est sicut sua dispositio in veritate. Ergo verum et ens sunt omnino idem.
| 5. Things in the same state are the same. But the true and being are in the same state. Therefore, they are the same. For Aristotle writes: “The state of a thing in its act of existence is the same as its state in truth.” Therefore, the true and being are entirely the same.
|
| Praeterea, quaecumque non sunt idem, aliquo modo differunt. Sed verum et ens nullo modo differunt: quia non differunt per essentiam, cum omne ens per essentiam suam sit verum; nec differunt per aliquas differentias, quia oporteret quod in aliquo communi genere convenirent. Ergo sunt omnino idem.
| 6. Thing not the same differ in some respect. But the true and being differ in no respect. They do not differ essentially, for every being is true by its very essence. And they do not differ in any other ways, for they must belong to some common genus. Therefore, they are entirely the same.
|
| Item, si non sunt omnino idem, oportet quod verum aliquid super ens addat. Sed nihil addit verum super ens, cum sit etiam in plus quam ens: quod patet per philosophum, IV Metaphys., ubi dicit quod: verum definientes dicimus quod dicimus esse quod est; aut non esse quod non est; et sic verum includit ens et non ens. Ergo verum non addit aliquid super ens; et sic videtur omnino idem esse verum quod ens.
| 7. If they were not entirely the same, the true would add something to being. But the true adds nothing to being, even though it has greater extension than being. This is borne out by the statement of the Philosopher that we define the true as: “That which affirms the existence of what is, and denies the existence of what is not.” Consequently, the true includes both being and non-being; since it does not add anything to being, it seems to be entirely the same as being.
|
| Sed contra.
| To the Contrary
|
| Nugatio est eiusdem inutilis repetitio. Si ergo verum esset idem quod ens, esset nugatio, dum dicitur ens verum; quod falsum est. Ergo non sunt idem.
| 1. Useless repetition of the same thing is meaningless; so, if the true were the same as being, it would be meaningless to say: “Being is true.” This, however, is hardly correct. Therefore, they are not the same.
|
| Item, ens et bonum convertuntur. Sed verum non convertitur cum bono; aliquod est enim verum quod non est bonum, sicut aliquem fornicari. Ergo nec verum cum ente convertitur, et ita non sunt idem.
| 2. Being and the good are convertible. The true and the good, however, are not interchangeable, for some things, such as fornication, are true but not good. The true, therefore, and being are not interchangeable. And so they are not the same.
|
| Praeterea, secundum Boetium in libro de hebdomadibus: in omnibus creaturis diversum est esse et quod est. Sed verum significat esse rei. Ergo verum est diversum a quod est in creatis. Sed quod est, est idem quod ens. Ergo verum in creaturis est diversum ab ente.
| 3. In all creatures, as Boethius has pointed out, “to be is other than that which is.” Now, the true signifies the existence of things. Consequently, in creatures it is different from that which is. But that which is, is the same as being. Therefore, in creatures the true is different from being.
|
| Praeterea, quaecumque se habent ut prius et posterius, oportet esse diversa. Sed verum et ens modo praedicto se habent, quia, ut in libro de causis dicitur, prima rerum creatarum est esse; et Commentator in eodem libro dicit quod omnia alia dicuntur per informationem de ente, et sic ente posteriora sunt. Ergo verum et ens sunt diversa.
| 4. Things related as before and after must differ. But the true and being are related in the aforesaid manner; for, as is said in The Causes: “The first of all created things is the act of existence.” In a study of this work, a commentator writes as follows: “Everything else is predicated as a specification of being.” Consequently, everything else comes after being. Therefore, the true and being are not the same.
|
| Praeterea, quae communiter dicuntur de causa et causatis, magis sunt unum in causa quam in causatis, et praecipue in Deo quam in creaturis. Sed in Deo ista quatuor, ens, unum, verum et bonum, hoc modo appropriantur: ut ens ad essentiam pertineat, unum ad personam patris, verum ad personam filii, bonum ad personam spiritus sancti. Personae autem divinae non solum ratione, sed etiam re distinguuntur; unde de invicem non praedicantur. Ergo multo fortius in creaturis praedicta quatuor debent amplius quam ratione differre.
| 5. What are predicated of a cause and of the effects of the cause are more united in the cause than in its effects—and more so in God than in creatures. But in God four predicates—being, the one, the true, and the good—are appropriated as follows: being, to the essence; the one, to the Father; the true, to the Son; and the good, to the Holy Spirit. Since the divine Persons are really and not merely conceptually distinct, these notions cannot be predicated of each other; if really distinct when verified of the divine Persons, the four notions in question are much more so when verified of creatures.
|
| Respondeo.
| REPLY
|
| Dicendum, quod sicut in demonstrabilibus oportet fieri reductionem in aliqua principia per se intellectui nota, ita investigando quid est unumquodque; alias utrobique in infinitum iretur, et sic periret omnino scientia et cognitio rerum.
| When investigating the nature of anything, one should make the same kind of analysis as he makes when he reduces a proposition to certain self-evident principles. Otherwise, both types of knowledge will become involved in an infinite regress, and science and our knowledge of things will perish.
|
| Illud autem quod primo intellectus concipit quasi notissimum, et in quod conceptiones omnes resolvit, est ens, ut Avicenna dicit in principio suae metaphysicae. Unde oportet quod omnes aliae conceptiones intellectus accipiantur ex additione ad ens. Sed enti non possunt addi aliqua quasi extranea per modum quo differentia additur generi, vel accidens subiecto, quia quaelibet natura est essentialiter ens; unde probat etiam philosophus in III Metaphys., quod ens non potest esse genus, sed secundum hoc aliqua dicuntur addere super ens, in quantum exprimunt modum ipsius entis qui nomine entis non exprimitur. Quod dupliciter contingit:
| Now, as Avicenna says, that which the intellect first conceives as, in a way, the most evident, and to which it reduces all its concepts, is being. Consequently, all the other conceptions of the intellect are had by additions to being. But nothing can be added to being as though it were something not included in being—in the way that a difference is added to a genus or an accident to a subject—for every reality is essentially a being. The Philosopher has shown this by proving that being cannot be a genus. Yet, in this sense, some predicates may be said to add to being inasmuch as they express a mode of being not expressed by the term being. This happens in two ways.
|
| uno modo ut modus expressus sit aliquis specialis modus entis. Sunt enim diversi gradus entitatis, secundum quos accipiuntur diversi modi essendi, et iuxta hos modos accipiuntur diversa rerum genera. Substantia enim non addit super ens aliquam differentiam, quae designet aliquam naturam superadditam enti, sed nomine substantiae exprimitur specialis quidam modus essendi, scilicet per se ens; et ita est in aliis generibus.
| First, the mode expressed is a certain special manner of being; for there are different grades of being according to which we speak when we speak of different levels of existence, and according to these grades different things are classified. Consequently, substance does not add a difference to being by signifying some reality added to it, but substance simply expresses a special manner of existing, namely, as a being in itself. The same is true of the other classes of existents.
|
| Alio modo ita quod modus expressus sit modus generalis consequens omne ens; et hic modus dupliciter accipi potest: uno modo secundum quod consequitur unumquodque ens in se; alio modo secundum quod consequitur unum ens in ordine ad aliud. Si primo modo, hoc est dupliciter quia vel exprimitur in ente aliquid affirmative vel negative. Non autem invenitur aliquid affirmative dictum absolute quod possit accipi in omni ente, nisi essentia eius, secundum quam esse dicitur; et sic imponitur hoc nomen res, quod in hoc differt ab ente, secundum Avicennam in principio Metaphys., quod ens sumitur ab actu essendi, sed nomen rei exprimit quidditatem vel essentiam entis. Negatio autem consequens omne ens absolute, est indivisio; et hanc exprimit hoc nomen unum: nihil aliud enim est unum quam ens indivisum.
| Second. some are said to add to being because the mode they express is one that is common, and consequent upon every being. This mode can be taken in two ways: first, in so far as it follows upon every being considered absolutely; second, in so far as it follows upon every being considered in relation to another. In the first, the term is used in two ways, because it expresses something in the being either affirmatively or negatively. We can, however, find nothing that can be predicated of every being affirmatively and, at the same time, absolutely, with the exception of its essence by which the being is said to be. To express this, the term thing is used; for, according to Avicenna, ”thing differs from being because being gets its name from to-be, but thing expresses the quiddity or essence of the being.” There is, however, a negation consequent upon every being considered absolutely: its undividedness, and this is expressed by one. For the one is simply undivided being.
|
| Si autem modus entis accipiatur secundo modo, scilicet secundum ordinem unius ad alterum, hoc potest esse dupliciter. Uno modo secundum divisionem unius ab altero; et hoc exprimit hoc nomen aliquid: dicitur enim aliquid quasi aliud quid; unde sicut ens dicitur unum, in quantum est indivisum in se, ita dicitur aliquid, in quantum est ab aliis divisum. Alio modo secundum convenientiam unius entis ad aliud; et hoc quidem non potest esse nisi accipiatur aliquid quod natum sit convenire cum omni ente: hoc autem est anima, quae quodammodo est omnia, ut dicitur in III de anima. In anima autem est vis cognitiva et appetitiva. Convenientiam ergo entis ad appetitum exprimit hoc nomen bonum, ut in principio Ethic. dicitur quod bonum est quod omnia appetunt. Convenientiam vero entis ad intellectum exprimit hoc nomen verum. Omnis autem cognitio perficitur per assimilationem cognoscentis ad rem cognitam, ita quod assimilatio dicta est causa cognitionis: sicut visus per hoc quod disponitur secundum speciem coloris, cognoscit colorem.
| If the mode of being is taken in the second way—according to the relation of one being to another—we find a twofold use. The first is based on the distinction of one being from another, and this distinctness is expressed by the word something, which implies, as it were, some other thing. For, just as a being is said to be one in so far as it is without division in itself, so it is said to be something in so far as it is divided from others. The second division is based on the correspondence one being has with another. This is possible only if there is something which is such that it agrees with every being. Such a being is the soul, which, as is said in The Soul, “in some way is all things.” The soul, however, has both knowing and appetitive powers. Good expresses the correspondence of being to the appetitive power, for, and so we note in the Ethics, the good is “that which all desire.” True expresses the correspondence of being to the knowing power, for all knowing is produced by an assimilation of the knower to the thing known, so that assimilation is said to be the cause of knowledge. Similarly, the sense of sight knows a color by being informed with a species of the color.
|
| Prima ergo comparatio entis ad intellectum est ut ens intellectui concordet: quae quidem concordia adaequatio intellectus et rei dicitur; et in hoc formaliter ratio veri perficitur. Hoc est ergo quod addit verum super ens, scilicet conformitatem, sive adaequationem rei et intellectus; ad quam conformitatem, ut dictum est, sequitur cognitio rei. Sic ergo entitas rei praecedit rationem veritatis, sed cognitio est quidam veritatis effectus.
| The first reference of being to the intellect, therefore, consists in its agreement with the intellect. This agreement is called “the conformity of thing and intellect.” In this conformity is fulfilled the formal constituent of the true, and this is what the true adds to being, namely, the conformity or equation of thing and intellect. As we said, the knowledge of a thing is a consequence of this conformity; therefore, it is an effect of truth, even though the fact that the thing is a being is prior to its truth.
|
| Secundum hoc ergo veritas sive verum tripliciter invenitur diffiniri. Uno modo secundum illud quod praecedit rationem veritatis, et in quo verum fundatur; et sic Augustinus definit in Lib. Solil.: verum est id quod est; et Avicenna in sua Metaphysic.: veritas cuiusque rei est proprietas sui esse quod stabilitum est ei; et quidam sic: verum est indivisio esse, et quod est. Alio modo definitur secundum id in quo formaliter ratio veri perficitur; et sic dicit Isaac quod veritas est adaequatio rei et intellectus; et Anselmus in Lib. de veritate: veritas est rectitudo sola mente perceptibilis. Rectitudo enim ista secundum adaequationem quamdam dicitur, et philosophus dicit in IV Metaphysic., quod definientes verum dicimus cum dicitur esse quod est, aut non esse quod non est.
| Consequently, truth or the true has been defined in three ways. First of all, it is defined according to that which precedes truth and is the basis of truth. This is why Augustine writes: “The true is that which is”; and Avicenna: “The truth of each thing is a property of the act of being which has been established for it.” Still others say: “The true is the undividedness of the act of existence from that which is.” Truth is also defined in another way—according to that in which its intelligible determination is formally completed. Thus, Isaac writes: “Truth is the conformity of thing and intellect”; and Anselm: “Truth is a rectitude perceptible only by the mind.” This rectitude, of course, is said to be based on some conformity. The Philosopher says that in defining truth we say that truth is had when one affirms that “to be which is, and that not to be which is not.”
|
| Tertio modo definitur verum, secundum effectum consequentem; et sic dicit Hilarius, quod verum est declarativum et manifestativum esse; et Augustinus in Lib. de vera Relig.: veritas est qua ostenditur id quod est; et in eodem libro: veritas est secundum quam de inferioribus iudicamus.
| The third way of defining truth is according to the effect following upon it. Thus, Hilary says that the true is that which manifests and proclaims existence. And Augustine says: “Truth is that by which that which is, is shown”; and also: “Truth is that according to which we, judge about inferior things.”
|
|
| Answers to Difficulties
|
| Ad primum ergo dicendum, quod definitio illa Augustini datur de veritate secundum quod habet fundamentum in re, et non secundum id quod ratio veri completur in adaequatione rei ad intellectum. Vel dicendum, quod cum dicitur, verum est id quod est, li est non accipitur ibi secundum quod significat actum essendi, sed secundum quod est nota intellectus componentis, prout scilicet affirmationem propositionis significat, ut sit sensus: verum est id quod est, id est cum dicitur esse de aliquo quod est, ut sic in idem redeat definitio Augustini cum definitione philosophi supra inducta.
| 1. That definition of Augustine is given for the true as it has its foundation in reality and not as its formal nature is given complete expression by conformity of thing and intellect. An alternative answer would be that in the statement, “The true is that which is,” the word is is not here understood as referring to the act of existing, but rather as the mark of the intellectual act of judging, signifying, that is, the affirmation of a proposition. The meaning would then be this: “The true is that which is—it is had when the existence of what is, is affirmed.” If this is its meaning, then Augustine’s definition agrees with that of the Philosopher mentioned above.
|
| Ad secundum patet solutio ex dictis.
| 2. The answer is clear from what has been said.
|
| Ad tertium dicendum, quod aliquid intelligi sine altero, potest accipi dupliciter. Uno modo quod intelligatur aliquid, altero non intellecto: et sic, ea quae ratione differunt, ita se habent, quod unum sine altero intelligi potest. Alio modo potest accipi aliquid intelligi sine altero, quod intelligitur eo non existente: et sic ens non potest intelligi sine vero, quia ens non potest intelligi sine hoc quod concordet vel adaequetur intellectui. Sed non tamen oportet ut quicumque intelligit rationem entis intelligat veri rationem, sicut nec quicumque intelligit ens, intelligit intellectum agentem; et tamen sine intellectu agente nihil intelligi potest.
| 3. “Something can be understood without another” can be taken in two ways. It can mean that something can be known while another remains unknown. Taken in this way, it is true that things which differ conceptually are such that one can be understood without the other. But there is another way that a thing can be understood without another: when it is known even though the other does not exist. Taken in this sense, being cannot be known without the true, for it cannot be known unless it agrees with or conforms to intellect, It is not necessary, however, that everyone who understands the formal notion of being should also understand the formal notion of the true—just as not everyone who understands being understands the agent intellect, even though nothing can be known without the agent intellect.
|
| Ad quartum dicendum, quod verum est dispositio entis non quasi addens aliquam naturam, nec quasi exprimens aliquem specialem modum entis, sed aliquid quod generaliter invenitur in omni ente, quod tamen nomine entis non exprimitur; unde non oportet quod sit dispositio vel corrumpens vel diminuens vel in partem contrahens.
| 4. The true is a state of being even though it does not add any reality to being or express any special mode of existence. It is rather something that is generally found in every being, although it is not expressed by the word being. Consequently, it is not a state that corrupts, limits, or contracts.
|
| Ad quintum dicendum, quod dispositio non accipitur ibi secundum quod est in genere qualitatis, sed secundum quod importat quemdam ordinem; cum enim illa quae sunt causa aliorum essendi sint maxime entia, et illa quae sunt causa veritatis sint maxime vera; concludit philosophus, quod idem est ordo alicui rei in esse et veritate; ita, scilicet, quod ubi invenitur quod est maxime ens, est maxime verum. Unde nec hoc ideo est quia ens et verum ratione sunt idem, sed quia secundum hoc quod aliquid habet de entitate, secundum hoc est natum adaequari intellectui; et sic ratio veri sequitur rationem entis.
| 5. In this objection, condition should not be understood as belonging to the genus of quality. It implies, rather, a certain order; for those which are the cause of the existence of other things are themselves beings most completely, and those which are the cause of the truth of other things are themselves true most completely. It is for this reason that the Philosopher concludes that the rank of a thing in its existence corresponds to its rank in truth, so that when one finds that which is most fully being, he finds there also that which is most fully true. But this does not mean that being and the true are the same in concept. It means simply that in the degree in which a thing has being, in that degree it is capable of being proportioned to intellect. Consequently, the true is dependent upon the formal character of being.
|
| Ad sextum dicendum, quod verum et ens differunt ratione per hoc quod aliquid est in ratione veri quod non est in ratione entis; non autem ita quod aliquid sit in ratione entis quod non sit in ratione veri; unde nec per essentiam differunt, nec differentiis oppositis ab invicem distinguuntur.
| 6. There is a conceptual difference between the true and being since there is something in the notion of the true that is not in the concept of the existing—not in such a way, however, that there is something in the concept of being which is not in the concept of the true. They do not differ essentially nor are they distinguished from one another by opposing differences.
|
| Ad septimum dicendum, quod verum non est in plus quam ens; ens enim aliquo modo acceptum dicitur de non ente, secundum quod non ens est apprehensum ab intellectu; unde in IV Metaphys., dicit philosophus, quod negatio vel privatio entis uno modo dicitur ens; unde Avicenna etiam dicit in principio suae metaphysicae, quod non potest formari enuntiatio nisi de ente, quia oportet illud de quo propositio formatur, esse apprehensum ab intellectu; ex quo patet quod omne verum est aliquo modo ens.
| 7. The true does not have a wider extension than being. Being is, in some way, predicated of non-being in so far as non-being is apprehended by the intellect. For, as the Philosopher says, the negation or the privation of being may, in a sense, be called being. Avicenna supports this by pointing out that one can form propositions only of beings, for that about which a proposition is formed must be apprehended by the intellect. Consequently, it is clear that everything true is being in some way.
|
|
| Answers to Contrary Difficulties
|
| Ad primum vero eorum, quae contra obiiciuntur, dicendum, quod ideo non est nugatio cum dicitur ens verum, quia aliquid exprimitur nomine veri quod non exprimitur nomine entis; non propter hoc quod re differant.
| 1. The reason why it is not tautological to call a being true is that something is expressed by the word true that is not expressed by the word being, and not that the two differ in reality.
|
| Ad secundum dicendum, quod quamvis istum fornicari sit malum, tamen secundum quod aliquid habet de entitate, natum est hoc conformari intellectui, et secundum hoc consequitur ibi ratio veri; et ita patet quod nec verum excedit nec exceditur ab ente.
| 2. Although fornication is evil, it possesses some being and can conform to intellect. Accordingly, the formal character of the true is found here. So it is clear that true is coextensive with being.
|
| Ad tertium dicendum, quod cum dicitur: diversum est esse, et quod est, distinguitur actus essendi ab eo cui ille actus convenit. Nomen autem entis ab actu essendi sumitur, non ab eo cui convenit actus essendi, et ideo ratio non sequitur.
| 3. In the statement, “To be is other than that which is,” the act of being is distinguished from that to which that act belongs. But the name of being is taken from the act of existence, not from that whose act it is. Hence, the argument does not follow.
|
| Ad quartum dicendum, quod secundum hoc verum est posterius ente, quod ratio veri differt ab entis ratione modo praedicto.
| 4. The true comes after being in this respect, that the notion of the true differs from that of being in the manner we have described.
|
| Ad quintum dicendum, quod ratio illa deficit in tribus. Primo, quia quamvis personae divinae re distinguantur, appropriata tamen personis non differunt re, sed tantum ratione. Secundo, quia etsi personae realiter ad invicem distinguantur, non tamen realiter ab essentia distinguuntur; unde nec verum quod appropriatur personae filii, ab ente quod se tenet ex parte essentiae. Tertio, quia, etsi ens, unum, verum et bonum magis uniantur in Deo quam in rebus creatis, non tamen oportet, quod ex quo distinguuntur in Deo, quod in rebus creatis etiam distinguantur realiter. Hoc enim contingit de illis quae non habent ex ratione sua quod sint unum secundum rem, sicut sapientia et potentia, quae, cum in Deo sint unum secundum rem, in creaturis realiter distinguuntur: sed ens, unum, verum et bonum secundum rationem suam habent quod sint unum secundum rem; unde ubicumque inveniantur, realiter unum sunt, quamvis sit perfectior unitas illius rei secundum quam uniuntur in Deo, quam illius rei secundum quam uniuntur in creaturis.
| 5. This argument has three flaws. First, although the Persons are really distinct, the things appropriated to each Person are only conceptually, and not really, distinct. Secondly, although the Persons are really distinct from each other, they are not really distinct from the essence; so, truth appropriated to the Person of the Son is not distinct from the act of existence He possesses through the divine essence. Thirdly, although being, the true, the one, and the good are more united in God than they are in created things, it does not follow from the fact that they are conceptually distinct in God that they are really distinct in created beings. This line of argument is valid only when it is applied to things which are not by their very nature one in reality, as wisdom and power, which, although one in God, are distinct in creatures. But being, the true, the one, and the good are such that by their very nature they are one in reality. Therefore, no matter where they are found, they are really one. Their unity in God, however, is more perfect than their unity in creatures.
|
ARTICLE II
In the second article we ask:
Is truth found principally in the intellect or in things?
[Parallel readings: C.G., I, 59; III De anima, lect. 11, nn. 746-51, 760-64; S.T., I, 16, 2. See also readings given for preceding article.]
|
| Secundo quaeritur utrum veritas principalius inveniatur in intellectu quam in rebus.
| Difficulties
|
| Et videtur quod non.
| It seems that it is found principally in things, for:
|
| Verum enim, ut dictum est, convertitur cum ente. Sed ens principalius invenitur in rebus quam apud animam. Ergo et verum.
| 1. It was pointed out that the true is convertible with being. But being is found more principally in things than in the soul. The true, therefore, is principally outside the soul.
|
| Praeterea, res sunt in anima non per essentiam, sed per suam speciem, ut dicit philosophus in III de anima. Si ergo veritas principaliter in anima invenitur, non erit essentia rei sed similitudo et species eius, et verum erit species entis extra animam existentis. Sed species rei existens in anima, non praedicatur de re quae est extra animam, sicut nec cum ipsa convertitur: converti enim est conversim praedicari; ergo nec verum convertetur cum ente; quod est falsum.
| 2. Things are not in the soul through their essences but, as pointed out by the Philosopher, through species. If, therefore, truth is found principally in the soul, truth will not be the essence of a thing but merely its likeness or species; and the true will be the species of a being existing outside the soul. But the species of a thing existing in the soul is not predicated of a thing outside the soul and is not convertible with it; for, if this were so, the true could not be converted with being—which is false.
|
| Praeterea, omne quod est in aliquo, consequitur id in quo est. Si ergo veritas principaliter est in anima, tunc iudicium de veritate erit secundum aestimationem animae; et ita redibit antiquorum philosophorum error, qui dicebant, omne quod quis opinatur in intellectu esse verum, et duo contradictoria simul esse vera; quod est absurdum.
| 3. That which is in something is based upon that in which it is. If truth, then, is principally in the soul, judgments about truth will have as their criterion the soul’s estimation. This would revive that error of the ancient philosophers who said that any opinion a person has in his intellect is true and that two contradictories can be true at the same time. This, of course, is absurd.
|
| Praeterea, si veritas principaliter est in intellectu, oportet quod aliquid quod ad intellectum pertinet, in definitione veritatis ponatur. Sed Augustinus huiusmodi definitionem reprobat in Lib. Solil., sicut istam: verum est quod ita est ut videtur: quia secundum hoc, non esset verum quod non videtur; quod patet esse falsum de occultissimis lapillis, qui sunt in visceribus terrae; et similiter reprobat et improbat istam: verum est quod ita est ut cognitori videtur, si velit et possit cognoscere, quia secundum hoc non esset aliquid verum, nisi cognitor vellet et posset cognoscere. Ergo et eadem ratio esset de quibuscumque aliis definitionibus in quibus aliquid ad intellectum pertinens poneretur. Ergo veritas non est principaliter in intellectu.
| 4. If truth is principally in the intellect, anything which pertains to the intellect should be included in the definition of truth. Augustine, however, sharply criticizes such definitions, as, for example, “The true is that which is as it is seen.” For, according to this definition, something would not be true if it were not seen. This is clearly false of rocks hidden deep in the earth. Augustine similarly criticizes the following definition: “The true is that which is as it appears to the knower, provided he is willing and able to know.” For, according to this definition, something would not be true unless the knower wished and were able to know. The same criticism can be leveled against other definitions that include any reference to intellect. Truth, therefore, is not principally in the intellect.
|
|
| To the Contrary
|
| Contra. Philosophus dicit in VI Metaphysic.: non est falsum et verum in rebus sed in mente.
| 1. The Philosopher says: “The true and the false are not in things but in the mind.”
|
| Praeterea, veritas est adaequatio rei et intellectus. Sed haec adaequatio non potest esse nisi in intellectu. Ergo nec veritas est nisi in intellectu.
| 2. Truth is “the conformity of thing and intellect.” But since this conformity can be only in the intellect, truth is only in the intellect.
|
|
| REPLY
|
| Solutio. Dicendum, quod non oportet in illis quae dicuntur per prius et per posterius de multis, quod illud prius recipiat praedicationem communis, quod est ut causa aliorum, sed illud in quo est primo ratio illius communis completa; sicut sanum per prius dicitur de animali, in quo primo perfecta ratio sanitatis invenitur, quamvis medicina dicatur sana ut effectiva sanitatis. Et ideo, cum verum dicatur per prius et posterius de pluribus, oportet quod de illo per prius dicatur in quo primo invenitur completa ratio veritatis.
| When a predicate is used primarily and secondarily of many things, it is not necessary that that which is the cause of the others receive the primary predication of the common term, but rather that in which the meaning of the common term is first fully verified. For example, healthy is primarily predicated of an animal, for it is in an animal that the nature of health is first found in its fullest sense. But inasmuch as medicine causes health, it is also said to be healthy. Therefore, since truth is predicated of many things in a primary and a secondary sense, it ought to be primarily predicated of that in which its full meaning is primarily found.
|
| Complementum autem cuiuslibet motus vel operationis est in suo termino. Motus autem cognitivae virtutis terminatur ad animam: oportet enim quod cognitum sit in cognoscente per modum cognoscentis: sed motus appetitivae terminatur ad res; inde est quod philosophus in III de anima ponit circulum quemdam in actibus animae, secundum, scilicet, quod res quae est extra animam, movet intellectum, et res intellecta movet appetitum, et appetitus tendit ad hoc ut perveniat ad rem a qua motus incepit. Et quia bonum, sicut dictum est, dicit ordinem entis ad appetitum, verum autem dicit ordinem ad intellectum; inde est quod philosophus dicit VI Metaphys., quod bonum et malum sunt in rebus, verum autem et falsum sunt in mente. Res autem non dicitur vera nisi secundum quod est intellectui adaequata; unde per posterius invenitur verum in rebus, per prius autem in intellectu.
| Now, the fulfillment of any motion is found in the term of the motion; and, since the term of the motion of a cognitive power is, the soul, the known must be in the knower after the manner of the knower. But the motion of an appetitive power terminates in things. For this reason the Philosopher speaks of a sort of circle formed by the acts of the soul: for a thing outside the soul moves the intellect, and the thing known moves the appetite, which tends to reach the things from which the motion originally started. Since good, as mentioned previously, expresses a relation to appetite, and true, a relation to the intellect, the Philosopher says that good and evil are in things, but true and false are in the mind. A thing is not called true, however, unless it conforms to an intellect. The true, therefore, is found secondarily in things and primarily in intellect.
|
| Sed sciendum, quod res aliter comparatur ad intellectum practicum, aliter ad speculativum. Intellectus enim practicus causat res, unde est mensura rerum quae per ipsum fiunt: sed intellectus speculativus, quia accipit a rebus, est quodammodo motus ab ipsis rebus, et ita res mensurant ipsum. Ex quo patet quod res naturales, a quibus intellectus noster scientiam accipit, mensurant intellectum nostrum, ut dicitur X Metaph.: sed sunt mensuratae ab intellectu divino, in quo sunt omnia sicut omnia artificiata in intellectu artificis. Sic ergo intellectus divinus est mensurans non mensuratus; res autem naturalis, mensurans et mensurata; sed intellectus noster mensuratus et non mensurans res quidem naturales, sed artificiales tantum.
| Note, however, that a thing is referred differently to the practical intellect than it is to the speculative intellect. Sine the practical intellect causes things, it is a measure of what it causes. But, since the speculative intellect is receptive in regard to things, it is, in a certain sense, moved by things and consequently measured by them. It is clear, therefore, that, as is said in the Metaphysics, natural things from which our intellect gets its scientific knowledge measure our intellect. Yet these things are themselves measured by the divine intellect, in which are all created things—just as all works of art find their origin in the intellect of an artist. The divine intellect, therefore, measures and is not measured; a natural thing both measures and is measured; but our intellect is measured, and measures only artifacts, not natural things.
|
| Res ergo naturalis inter duos intellectus constituta, secundum adaequationem ad utrumque vera dicitur; secundum enim adaequationem ad intellectum divinum dicitur vera, in quantum implet hoc ad quod est ordinata per intellectum divinum, ut patet per Anselmum in Lib. de Verit. et per Augustinum in Lib. de vera religione, et per Avicennam in definitione inducta, scilicet: veritas cuiusque rei est proprietas sui esse quod stabilitum est ei;
| A natural thing, therefore, being placed between two intellects is called true in so far as it conforms to either. It is said to be true with respect to its conformity with the divine intellect in so far as it fulfills the end to which it was ordained by the divine intellect. This is clear from the writings of Anselm and Augustine, as well as from the definition of Avicenna, previously cited: “The truth of anything is a property of the act of being which has been established for it.”
|
| secundum autem adaequationem ad intellectum humanum dicitur res vera, in quantum est nata de se facere veram aestimationem; sicut e contrario falsa dicuntur quae sunt nata videri quae non sunt, aut qualia non sunt, ut dicitur in V Metaphysic.
| With respect to its conformity with a human intellect, a thing is said to be true in so far as it is such as to cause a true estimate about itself; and a thing is said to be false if, as Aristotle says, “by nature it is such that it seems to be what it is not, or seems to possess qualities which it does not possess.”
|
| Prima autem ratio veritatis per prius inest rei quam secunda, quia prius est eius comparatio ad intellectum divinum quam humanum; unde, etiam si intellectus humanus non esset, adhuc res verae dicerentur in ordine ad intellectum divinum. Sed si uterque intellectus, rebus remanentibus per impossibile, intelligeretur auferri, nullo modo ratio veritatis remaneret.
| In a natural thing, truth is found especially in the first, rather than in the second, sense; for its reference to the divine intellect comes before its reference to a human intellect. Even if there were no human intellects, things could be said to be true because of their relation to the divine intellect. But if, by an impossible supposition, intellect did not exist and things did continue to exist, then the essentials of truth would in no way remain.
|
|
| Answers to Difficulties
|
Responsio ergo ad primum quod, sicut ex iam dictis patet, verum per prius dicitur de intellectu vero, et per posterius de re sibi adaequata; et utroque modo convertitur cum ente, sed diversimode, quia secundum quod dicitur de rebus, convertitur cum ente per praedicationem: omne enim ens est adaequatum intellectui divino, et potens adaequare sibi intellectum humanum, et e converso.
Si autem accipiatur prout dicitur de intellectu, sic convertitur cum ente quod est extra animam, non per praedicationem, sed per consequentiam; eo quod cuilibet intellectui vero oportet quod respondeat aliquod ens, et e converso.
| 1. As is clear from the discussion, true is predicated primarily of a true intellect and secondarily of a thing conformed with intellect. True taken in either sense, however, is interchangeable with being, but in different ways. Used of things, it can be interchanged with being through a judgment asserting merely material identity, for every being is conformed with the divine intellect and can be conformed with a human intellect. The converse of this is also true.
But if true is understood as used of the intellect, then it can be converted with being outside the soul—not as denominating the same subject, but as expressing conformity. For every true act of understanding is referred to a being, and every being corresponds to a true act of understanding.
|
| Per hoc patet solutio ad secundum.
| 2. The solution of the second argument is clear from the solution of the first.
|
| Ad tertium dicendum, quod illud quod est in aliquo non sequitur illud in quo est, nisi quando causatur ex principiis eius; unde lux quae causatur in aere ab extrinseco, scilicet sole, sequitur motum solis magis quam aerem. Similiter et veritas quae est in anima causata a rebus, non sequitur aestimationem animae, sed existentiam rerum: quoniam eo quod res est vel non est, dicitur oratio vera vel falsa similiter et intellectus.
| 3. What is in another does not depend on that other unless it is caused by the principles of that other. For example, even though light is in the air, it is caused by something extrinsic, the sun; and it is based on the motion of the sun rather than on air. In the same way, truth which is in the soul but caused by things does not depend on what one thinks but on the existence of things. For from the fact that a thing is or is not, a statement or an intellect is said to be true or false.
|
| Ad quartum dicendum, quod Augustinus loquitur de visione intellectus humani, a qua rei veritas non dependet. Sunt enim multae res quae nostro intellectu non cognoscuntur; nulla tamen res est quam intellectus divinus non cognoscat actu, et intellectus humanus in potentia; cum intellectus agens dicatur quo est omnia facere, intellectus possibilis quo est omnia fieri. Unde in definitione rei verae potest poni visio in actu intellectus divini, non autem intellectus humani nisi in potentia, sicut ex superioribus patet.
| 4. Augustine is speaking of a thing’s being seen by the human intellect. Truth, of course, does not depend on this, for many things exist that are not known by our intellects. There is nothing, however, that the divine intellect does not actually know, and nothing that the human intellect does not know potentially, for the agent intellect is said to be that “by which we make all things knowable,” and the possible intellect, as that “by which we become all things.” For this reason, one can place in the definition of a true thing its actually being seen by the divine intellect, but not its being seen by a human intellect, except potentially, as is clear from our earlier discussion.
|
| ARTICLE IV
In the fourth article we ask:
Is there only one truth by which all things are true?
[Parallel readings: De ver., 21, 4, ad 5; 27, 1, ad 7; S.T., I, 16, 6; I-II, 33, 1, ad 3; C.G., III, 47; Quodl., X, 4, 7; I Sent., 19, 5, 2.]
|
| Quarto quaeritur utrum sit tantum una veritas qua omnia sunt vera.
| Difficulties
|
| Et videtur quod sic.
| It seems that this is so, for
|
| Anselmus enim dicit in libro de veritate quod sicut tempus se habet ad temporalia, ita veritas ad res veras. Sed tempus ita se habet ad omnia temporalia quod est unum tempus tantum. Ergo ita se habebit veritas ad omnia vera quod erit tantum una veritas.
| 1. Anselm says that the relation of truth to all true things is like that of time to all temporal things. But there is only one time to which all temporal things are related. Therefore there will be only one truth to which all true things are related.
|
Sed dicebat, quod veritas dupliciter dicitur. Uno modo secundum quod est idem quod entitas rei, ut definit eam Augustinus in Lib. Solil.: verum est id quod est; et sic oportet esse plures veritates secundum quod sunt plures essentiae rerum. Alio modo prout exprimit se in intellectum, prout definit eam Hilarius: verum est declarativum esse; et hoc modo, cum nihil possit aliquid manifestare intellectui nisi secundum virtutem primae veritatis divinae, omnes veritates quodammodo sunt unum in movendo intellectum, sicut et omnes colores sunt unum in movendo visum, in quantum movent ipsum, in ratione scilicet unius luminis.-
Sed contra, tempus est unum numero omnium temporalium. Si ergo ita se habet veritas ad res veras sicut tempus ad temporalia, oportet omnium verorum unam esse numero veritatem; nec sufficit omnes veritates esse unum in movendo, vel esse in exemplari unam.
| 2. But it was said that truth is used in two ways. In one, it means the entity of a thing, as when Augustine says: “The true is that which is.” If truth be understood in this sense, then there should be as many truths as there are essences of things. In the second way in which truth is used, it signifies truth as it is expressed in the intellect. Consequently, Hilary writes: “The true affirms existence.” But since nothing can manifest anything to the intellect except in virtue of the first divine truth, all truths are, in some sense, one, inasmuch as they all move the intellect—just as colors are one in moving the sense of sight, since they all move it because of one thing: light.
On the contrary, however, time, the measure of all temporal things, is numerically one; and if truth is related to true things as time is related to temporal things, the truth of all true things must also be numerically one. It will not be sufficient for all truths to be one in their action of moving the intellect or to be one in their exemplary cause.
|
| Praeterea, Anselmus in Lib. de veritate sic argumentatur: si plurium verorum sunt plures veritates, oportet veritates variari secundum varietates verorum. Sed veritates non variantur per variationem rerum verarum, quia destructis rebus veris vel rectis adhuc remanet veritas et rectitudo, secundum quam sunt vera vel recta. Ergo est una tantum veritas. Minorem probat ex hoc quia, destructo signo, adhuc remanet rectitudo significationis, quia rectum est ut significetur hoc quod illud signum significabat; et eadem ratione, destructo quolibet vero vel recto, eius rectitudo vel veritas remanet.
| 3. Anselm argues as follows: If there are as many truths as there are true things, then truths should change as true things change. But truths do not change with the changes of true things, for, even when true and correct things are destroyed, the truth and correctness by which they are true or correct remain. There is, therefore, only one truth. He proves the minor from this: When a sign is destroyed, the correctness of the signification remains, for it remains correct that the sign should signify that which it did signify. For the same reason, rectitude or truth remains even when a true or correct thing has been destroyed.
|
| Praeterea, in creatis nihil est id cuius est veritas, sicut veritas hominis non est homo, nec veritas carnis est caro. Sed quodlibet ens creatum est verum. Ergo nullum ens creatum est veritas; ergo omnis veritas est increatum, et ita est tantum una veritas.
| 4. With regard to created things, nothing is identical with that whose truth it is. The truth of a man is not the man; the truth of flesh is not the flesh. But every created thing is true. No created thing, therefore, is truth. Consequently, every truth is uncreated, and so there is only one truth.
|
| Praeterea, nihil est maius mente humana nisi Deus, ut dicit Augustinus. Sed veritas, ut probat Augustinus in Lib. Solil., est maior mente humana, quia non potest dici quod sit minor. Sic enim haberet mens humana de veritate iudicare, quod falsum est. Non enim de ea iudicat, sed secundum eam, sicut et iudex non iudicat de lege, sed secundum eam, ut idem dicit in Lib. de vera Relig. Similiter nec etiam dici potest quod sit ei aequalis, quia anima iudicat omnia secundum veritatem; non autem iudicat omnia secundum seipsam. Ergo veritas non est nisi Deus; et ita est tantum una veritas.
| 5. As Augustine says, only God is greater than the human mind. But, as he proves elsewhere, truth is greater than the human mind, for truth certainly cannot be said to be less than the human mind. If this were so, it would be within the competence of the mind to pass judgment on truth. This, of course, is false, for the mind does not judge truth but judges according to the truth, like a magistrate who does not pass judgment upon the law but, as Augustine himself says, judges according to the law. Similarly, the mind of man cannot be said to be equal to truth, for it judges everything according to truth. It does not judge everything according to itself. Truth, therefore, must be God Alone, and so there is only one truth.
|
Praeterea, Augustinus probat in Lib. LXXXIII quaestionum, quod veritas non percipitur sensu corporis, hoc modo: nihil percipitur a sensu nisi mutabile. Sed veritas est immutabilis. Ergo sensu non percipitur.
Similiter argui potest: omne creatum est mutabile. Sed veritas non est mutabilis. Ergo non est creatura; ergo est res increata; ergo est tantum una veritas.
| 6. Augustine has proved that truth is not perceived by any bodily sense. His proof is that nothing is perceived by sense unless it is changeable. But truth is unchangeable. Truth, therefore, is not perceived by sense.
One could similarly argue that everything created is changeable. But truth is not changeable. Therefore, it is not a creature but is something uncreated. Consequently, there is only one truth.
|
Praeterea, ibidem Augustinus argumentatur ad idem hoc modo: nullum sensibile est quod non habeat aliquid simile falso, ita ut internosci non possit; nam, ut alia praetermittam, omnia quae per corpus sentimus, etiam cum ea non adsunt sensibus, imagines tamen eorum patimur tamquam prorsus adsint, velut in somno, vel in furore. Sed veritas non habet aliquid simile falso. Ergo veritas sensu non percipitur.
Similiter argui potest: omne creatum habet aliquid simile falso, in quantum habet aliquid de defectu. Ergo nullum creatum est veritas; et sic est una tantum veritas.
| 7. Augustine offers another proof in the same place: “There is no sensible thing that does not have some similarity to what is false, and, as a result, the two cannot be distinguished. To mention only one example: all that we sense through the body. Even when these objects are not present to the senses, we experience their images as though they were present, as when we are asleep or become delirious.” Truth, however, has no resemblance to what is false. Therefore, truth is not perceived by a sense.
One could similarly argue that every created thing has some similarity to what is false in so far as it has some defect. Nothing created, therefore, is truth, and so there is only one truth.
|
| Sed contra.
| To the Contrary
|
| Augustinus in libro de vera religione: sicut similitudo est forma similium, ita veritas est forma verorum. Sed plurium similium plures similitudines. Ergo plurium verorum plures veritates.
| 1. Augustine writes: “As likeness is the form of like things, so truth is the form of true things.” But for many like things there are many likenesses. Therefore, for many true things there are many truths.
|
| Praeterea, sicut omnis veritas creata derivatur a veritate increata exemplariter, et ab ea suam veritatem habet, ita omne lumen intelligibile a prima luce increata derivatur exemplariter, et vim manifestandi habet. Dicimus tamen esse plura lumina intelligibilia, ut patet per Dionysium. Ergo videtur consimili modo concedendum simpliciter esse plures veritates.
| 2. Just as every created truth is derived from the uncreated truth as its model, and has its truth from it, so all intelligible light is derived from the first uncreated light as from its exemplary cause, and from it possesses its power of making things known. But we say that there are many intelligible lights, as is clear from the writings of Dionysius. Therefore, following this analogy, it seems we must likewise simply concede that there are many truths.
|
| Praeterea, colores quamvis habeant ex virtute lucis quod moveant visum, tamen simpliciter dicuntur esse plures colores et differentes, nec possunt dici esse unum nisi secundum quid. Ergo quamvis et omnes veritates creatae se intellectui exprimant virtute primae veritatis, non tamen ex hoc dici poterit una veritas nisi secundum quid.
| 3. Although all colors are able to affect the sense of sight in virtue of light, nevertheless, in themselves colors are distinct and different, and cannot be said to be one, except from a particular point of view. Consequently, even though all created truths manifest themselves in the intellect by virtue of the first truth, we cannot for this reason say that there is one truth, unless considered under this one aspect.
|
| Praeterea, sicut veritas creata non potest se intellectui manifestare nisi virtute veritatis increatae, ita nulla potentia in creatura potest aliquid agere nisi virtute potentiae increatae. Nec aliquo modo dicimus esse unam potentiam omnium habentium potentiam. Ergo nec dicendum est aliquo modo esse unam veritatem omnium verorum.
| 4. Just as a created truth can manifest itself to the intellect only by virtue of the uncreated truth, so no power in a creature can act except by virtue of the uncreated power. Yet we do not say that somehow or other there is one power for all powers; so, in the same manner, we should not say that in some way there is one truth for all truths.
|
| Praeterea, Deus comparatur ad res in habitudine triplicis causae: scilicet effectivae, exemplaris et finalis; et per quamdam appropriationem entitas rerum refertur ad Deum ut ad causam efficientem, veritas ut ad causam exemplarem, bonitas ut ad causam finalem, quamvis etiam singula possunt ad singula referri secundum locutionis proprietatem. Sed non dicimus aliquo modo locutionis esse unam bonitatem omnium bonorum, aut unam entitatem omnium entium. Ergo nec dicere debemus unam veritatem omnium verorum.
| 5. God as a cause is related to things in three ways: as an efficient, an exemplary, and as a final cause. Consequently, by a kind of appropriation, the entity of things is referred to God as efficient cause, their truth to Him as an exemplary cause, their goodness to Him as a final cause—even though, properly speaking, each single one could be referred to each single cause. But in no manner of speaking do we say that there is one goodness for all good things, or one entity for all beings. Therefore, we should not say that there is one truth for all true things.
|
| Praeterea, quamvis sit una veritas increata, a qua omnes veritates creatae exemplantur, non tamen eodem modo exemplantur ab ipsa; quia, quamvis ipsa similiter se habeat ad omnia, non tamen similiter omnia se habent ad ipsam, ut dicitur in Lib. de causis; unde alio modo exemplatur ab ipsa veritas necessariorum et contingentium. Sed diversus modus imitandi exemplar divinum facit diversitatem in rebus creatis, ergo sunt simpliciter plures veritates creatae.
| 6. Although there is one uncreated truth from which all created truths take their model, these truths are not modeled on it in the same way. For while it is true that the uncreated truth has the same relation to all, all do not have the same relation to it—as pointed out in The Causes. Necessary and contingent truths are modeled on the uncreated truth in quite different ways. But different ways of imitating the divine model cause diversity among created things. Consequently, there are many created truths.
|
| Praeterea, veritas est adaequatio rei et intellectus. Sed diversorum specie non potest esse una adaequatio rei ad intellectum. Ergo, cum res verae sint specie diversae, non potest esse una veritas omnium verorum.
| 7. Truth is “the conformity of thing and intellect.” But since things differ specifically, there cannot be a single conformity to the intellect. So, since true things are specifically different, there cannot be one truth for all true things.
|
| Praeterea, Augustinus dicit in libro XII de Trinitate: credendum est, mentis humanae naturam rebus intelligibilibus sic esse connexam, ut in quadam luce sui generis omnia quae cognoscit, intueatur. Sed lux per quam anima cognoscit omnia, est veritas. Ergo veritas est de genere ipsius animae, et ita oportet veritatem esse rem creatam; unde in diversis creaturis erunt diversae veritates.
| 8. Augustine writes as follows: “One must believe that the nature of the human mind is so connected with intelligible things that it gazes upon all it knows by means of a unique light.” Now, the light by whose means the soul knows all things is truth. Truth, therefore, belongs to the same genus as the soul and must be a created thing. Consequently, in different creatures there are different truths.
|
| Responsio.
| REPLY
|
| Dicendum, quod sicut ex praedictis, art. 2, patet, veritas proprie invenitur in intellectu humano vel divino, sicut sanitas in animali. In rebus autem aliis invenitur veritas per relationem ad intellectum, sicut et sanitas dicitur de quibusdam aliis in quantum sunt effectiva vel conservativa sanitatis animalis. Est ergo veritas in intellectu divino quidem primo et proprie; in intellectu vero humano proprie quidem sed secundario; in rebus autem improprie et secundario, quia non nisi per respectum ad alteram duarum veritatum.
| From our previous discussion it is clear that truth is properly found in the human or divine intellect, as health is found in an animal. In things, however, truth is found because of some relation to intellect—just as health is said to be in things other than animals in so far as they bring about or preserve animal health. Truth, therefore, is properly and primarily in the divine intellect. In the human intellect, it exists properly but secondarily, for it exists there only because of a relation to either one of the two truths just mentioned.
|
| Veritas ergo intellectus divini est una tantum, a qua in intellectu humano derivantur plures veritates, sicut ab una facie hominis resultant plures similitudines in speculo, sicut dicit Glossa super illud: diminutae sunt veritates a filiis hominum. Veritates autem quae sunt in rebus, sunt plures, sicut et rerum entitates. Veritas autem quae dicitur de rebus in comparatione ad intellectum humanum, est rebus quodammodo accidentalis, quia posito quod intellectus humanus non esset nec esse posset, adhuc res in sua essentia permaneret. Sed veritas quae de eis dicitur in comparatione ad intellectum divinum eis inseparabiliter communicatur: cum nec subsistere possint nisi per intellectum divinum eas in esse producentem. Per prius etiam inest rei veritas in comparatione ad intellectum divinum quam humanum, cum ad intellectum divinum comparetur sicut ad causam, ad humanum autem quodammodo sicut ad effectum, in quantum intellectus scientiam a rebus accipit.
| In his gloss on these words of Psalm 11 (v. 2), “Truths are decayed from among the children of men,” Augustine writes” that the truth of the divine intellect is one, and from it are drawn the many truths that are in the human intellect—“just as from one man’s face many likenesses are reflected in a mirror.” Now, there are many truths in things, just as there are many entities of things. But truth predicated of things because of their relation to the human intellect is, as it were, accidental to those things; for, supposing that the human intellect did not or could not exist, things would still remain essentially the same. But truth predicated of things because of their relation to the divine intellect is inseparably attendant on them, for they cannot exist except by reason of the divine intellect which keeps bringing them into being. Again, truth is primarily in a thing because of its relation to the divine intellect, not to the human intellect, because it is related to the divine intellect as to its cause, but to the human intellect as to its effect in the sense that the latter receives its knowledge from things. For this reason, a thing is said to be true principally because of its order to the truth of the divine intellect rather than because of its relation to the truth of a human intellect.
|
| Sic ergo res aliqua principalius dicitur vera in ordine ad veritatem intellectus divini quam in ordine ad veritatem intellectus humani. Si ergo accipiatur veritas proprie dicta secundum quam sunt omnia principaliter vera, sic omnia sunt vera una veritate, scilicet veritate intellectus divini; et sic Anselmus de veritate loquitur in Lib. de veritate. Si autem accipiatur veritas proprie dicta, secundum quam secundario res verae dicuntur, sic sunt plurium verorum plures veritates et etiam unius veri plures veritates in animabus diversis. Si autem accipiatur veritas improprie dicta, secundum quam omnia dicuntur vera, sic sunt plurium verorum plures veritates; sed unius veri tantum una veritas.
| So, if truth in its proper sense be taken as that by which all things are primarily true, then all things are true by means of one truth, the truth of the divine intellect. This is the truth which Anselm writes about. But if truth in its proper sense be taken as that by which things are said to be true secondarily, then there are many truths about many true things, and even many truths in different minds about one true thing. Finally, if truth in its improper sense be taken as that by which all things are said to be true, then there are many truths for many true things, but only one truth for one true thing.
|
| Denominantur autem res verae a veritate quae est in intellectu divino vel in intellectu humano, sicut denominatur cibus sanus a sanitate quae est in animali, et non sicut a forma inhaerente; sed a veritate quae est in ipsa re, quae nihil aliud est quam entitas intellectui adaequata, vel intellectum sibi adaequans, denominatur sicut a forma inhaerente, sicut cibus denominatur sanus a qualitate sua, a qua sanus dicitur.
| Things are called true from the truth in the divine or human intellect, just as food is called healthy, not because of any inherent form, but because of the health which is in an animal. If, however, a thing is called true because of the truth in the thing, which is simply its entity conformed with intellect, then it is so called because of something inhering in it after the manner of a form, as food is said to be healthy because of a quality of its own—which is the reason for its being said to be healthy.
|
|
| Answers to Difficulties
|
| Ad primum ergo dicendum, quod tempus comparatur ad temporalia sicut mensura ad mensuratum; unde patet quod Anselmus loquitur de illa veritate quae est mensura omnium rerum verarum; et ista est una numero tantum, sicut tempus unum, ut in II arg. concluditur. Veritas autem quae est in intellectu humano vel in ipsis rebus, non comparatur ad res sicut mensura extrinseca et communis ad mensurata, sed vel sicut mensuratum ad mensuram, ut est de veritate intellectus humani, et sic oportet eam variari secundum varietatem rerum; vel sicut mensura intrinseca, sicut est de veritate quae est in ipsis rebus: et has etiam mensuras oportet plurificari secundum pluralitatem mensuratorum, sicut diversorum corporum sunt diversae dimensiones.
| 1. Time is related to temporal things as a measure is related to the measured. It is clear, therefore, that Anselm is referring to that truth which is only the measure of all true things. There is only one such truth numerically, just as there is only one time—as the second argument concludes. However, the truth in the human intellect or in things themselves is not related to things as an extrinsic or common measure is related to those it measures. It is related as a measured thing is related to a measure, for such is the relation of truth in a human intellect to things, and it must, as a consequence, vary as things vary. Or, it is related as an intrinsic measure to the thing itself, as is the case with the truth that is in things themselves. Intrinsic measures must be multiplied as the number of things measured is multiplied—just as dimensions must be multiplied with the multiplicity of bodies.
|
| Secundum concedimus.
| 2. We concede the second argument.
|
| Ad tertium dicendum, quod veritas quae remanet destructis rebus, est veritas intellectus divini; et haec simpliciter est una numero: veritas autem quae est in rebus vel in anima, variatur ad varietatem rerum.
| 3. The truth which remains after things are destroyed is the truth of the divine intellect, and this is numerically one. However, the truth which is in things or in the soul is diversified according to the diversity of things.
|
| Ad quartum dicendum, quod cum dicitur: nulla res est sua veritas: intelligitur de rebus quae habent esse completum in natura; sicut et cum dicitur: nulla res est suum esse: et tamen esse rei quaedam res creata est; et eodem modo veritas rei aliquid creatum est.
| 4. The proposition “Nothing is its own truth” is understood of things having a complete act of existence in reality. It is likewise said that “Nothing is its own act of existence,” yet the act of existence of a thing is, in a sense, something created. In the same way, the truth of a thing is something created.
|
| Ad quintum dicendum, quod veritas secundum quam anima de omnibus iudicat, est veritas prima. Sicut enim a veritate intellectus divini effluunt in intellectum angelicum species rerum innatae, secundum quas omnia cognoscunt; ita a veritate intellectus divini procedit exemplariter in intellectum nostrum veritas primorum principiorum secundum quam de omnibus iudicamus. Et quia per eam iudicare non possemus nisi secundum quod est similitudo primae veritatis, ideo secundum primam veritatem dicimur de omnibus iudicare.
| 5. The truth by which the soul passes judgment on all things is the first truth; for, just as from the truth of the divine intellect there flow into the angelic intellects those intelligible species by which angels know all things, so does the truth of the first principles by which we judge everything proceed from the truth of the divine intellect as from its exemplary cause. Since we can judge by means of the truth of these first principles only in so far as this truth is a likeness of the first truth, we are said to judge everything according to the first truth.
|
| Ad sextum dicendum, quod veritas illa immutabilis, est veritas prima; et haec neque sensu percipitur, neque aliquid creatum est.
| 6. That immutable truth is the first truth, which is neither perceptible by sense nor something created.
|
| Ad septimum dicendum, quod ipsa etiam veritas creata non habet aliquid simile falso, quamvis creatura quaelibet aliquid simile falso habeat; in tantum enim creatura aliquid simile falso habet, in quantum deficiens est. Sed veritas non ex ea parte rem consequitur creatam qua deficiens est, sed secundum quod a defectu recedit primae veritati conformata.
| 7. Although every creature has some similarity to what is false, created truth itself does not have this similarity. For a creature has some similarity to what is false in so far as it is deficient. Truth, however, does not depend on a creature in so far as it is deficient, but in so far as it rises above its deficiency by being conformed to the first truth.
|
|
| Answers to Contrary Difficulties
|
| Ad primum vero eorum quae contra obiiciuntur, dicendum est, quod similitudo proprie invenitur in utroque similium; veritas autem, cum sit quaedam convenientia intellectus et rei, non proprie invenitur in utroque, sed in intellectu; unde, cum sit unus intellectus, scilicet divinus, secundum cuius conformitatem omnia vera sunt et dicuntur, oportet omnia vera esse secundum unam veritatem, quamvis in pluribus similibus sint diversae similitudines.
| 1. Properly speaking, when two things are similar, likeness is found in both. Truth, however, being a certain agreement of intellect and thing, is not, properly speaking, found in both, but only in intellect; and since all things are true and said to be true in so far as they are in conformity with one intellect, the divine intellect, everything must be true according to one truth, even though in many Eke things there are many different likenesses.
|
| Ad secundum dicendum, quod quamvis lumen intelligibile exempletur a lumine divino, tamen lumen proprie dicitur de intelligibilibus luminibus creatis; non autem veritas proprie dicitur de rebus exemplatis ab intellectu divino; et ideo non dicimus unum lumen, sicut dicimus, unam veritatem.
| 2. Although intelligible light has the divine light for its exemplary cause, light is nevertheless predicated in the proper sense of created intelligible lights. Truth, however, is not predicated in the proper sense of things having the divine intellect as their exemplary cause. Consequently, we do not say that there is one light in the same way that we say that there is one truth.
|
| Et similiter dicendum ad tertium de coloribus; quia colores etiam proprie visibiles dicuntur, quamvis non videantur nisi per lucem.
| 3. Our reply given immediately above will answer the argument taken from colors, for visible is properly predicated of colors, also, even though they are not seen except by means of light.
|
| Et similiter dicendum ad quartum de potentia, et ad quintum de entitate.
| 4-5. Our answer to the fourth argument (from the nature of power) and to the fifth (from the nature of being) is the same.
|
| Ad sextum dicendum, quod quamvis exemplentur difformiter a veritate divina, non tamen propter hoc excluditur quin res una veritate sint verae, et non pluribus, proprie loquendo; quia illud quod diversimode recipitur in rebus exemplatis, non proprie dicitur veritas, sicut proprie dicitur veritas in exemplari.
| 6. Even though things are modeled in different ways upon the divine truth, this does not keep things from being true in the proper sense of the term by a single truth—not by many truths. For that which is received in different ways in the things modeled upon the exemplar is not properly called truth with the same propriety as truth is said to be in the exemplar itself.
|
| Ad septimum dicendum, quod quamvis ea quae sunt diversa specie, ex parte ipsarum rerum una adaequatione non adaequentur divino intellectui, intellectus tamen divinus, cui omnia adaequantur, est unus; et ex parte eius est una adaequatio ad res omnes, quamvis non omnia sibi eodem modo adaequentur; et ideo modo praedicto omnium rerum veritas una est.
| 7. Although things differing specifically are not on their own part conformed with the divine intellect by one conformity, the divine intellect to which all things are conformed is one, and on its part there is one conformity with all things—even though all things are not conformed to it in the same way. The truth of all things, therefore, is one in the manner described.
|
| Ad octavum dicendum, quod Augustinus loquitur de veritate quae est exemplata ab ipsa mente divina in mente nostra, sicut similitudo faciei resultat in speculo; et huiusmodi veritates resultantes in animabus nostris a prima veritate, sunt multae, ut dictum est. Vel dicendum, quod veritas prima quodammodo est de genere animae large accipiendo genus, secundum quod omnia intelligibilia vel incorporalia unius generis esse dicuntur, per modum quo dicitur Act., XVII, 28: ipsius enim Dei et nos genus sumus.
| 8. Augustine is speaking of truth in our mind as it is modeled upon the divine mind as the likeness of a face is reflected in a mirror; and, as we said, there are many reflections of the first truth in our souls. Or one can say that the first truth belongs to the genus of the soul if genus be taken in a broad sense, namely, in so far as everything intelligible or incorporeal is said to belong to one genus. Genus is used in this way in the Acts of the Apostles (17:2 8) where we read: “For we are also his offspring [genus].”
|
| ARTICLE V
In the fifth article we ask:
Is some truth besides the first truth eternal?
[Parallel readings: S.T., I, 10, 3, ad 3; 16,7; I Sent., 19, 5, 3; C. G., II, cc. 36, 83-84; De pot, 3,17, ad 27-29.]
|
| Quinto quaeritur utrum aliqua alia veritas praeter primam veritatem sit aeterna
| Difficulties
|
| Et videtur quod sic.
| It seems that there is some such truth, for
|
| Anselmus enim in Monologion, de veritate enuntiabilium loquens dicit: sive intelligatur veritas habere, sive dicatur veritas non habere principium vel finem, nullo claudi potest veritas principio vel fine. Sed omnis veritas intelligitur habere principium vel finem, vel non habere principium vel finem. Ergo nulla veritas clauditur principio et fine. Sed omne quod est huiusmodi, est aeternum. Ergo omnis veritas est aeterna.
| 1. When treating the truth of propositions, Anselm says: “Whether truth be said to have, or whether it is understood not to have, a beginning or end, it cannot be circumscribed by a beginning or end.”’ But every truth is understood either to have or not to have a beginning or end. Therefore, no truth is circumscribed by a beginning or end, and, since anything like this is eternal, every truth is eternal.
|
| Praeterea, omne illud cuius esse sequitur ad destructionem sui esse, est aeternum, quia sive ponatur esse, sive non esse, sequitur quod est: et oportet secundum quodcumque tempus ponere de unoquoque quod sit vel non sit. Sed ad destructionem veritatis sequitur veritatem esse; quia si veritas non est, veritatem non esse est verum, et nihil potest esse verum nisi veritate. Ergo veritas est aeterna.
| 2. Anything whose existence is a consequence of the destruction of its existence is eternal; for, whether it is taken as existing or not existing, it follows that it is. Moreover, at any given time each and every thing must be held as either existing or not existing. Now, a consequence of the destruction of truth is that truth is; for, if truth is not, the fact that truth is not is true, and nothing can be true except by truth. Therefore, truth is eternal.
|
| Praeterea, si veritas enuntiabilium non est aeterna, ergo erat assignare quando non erat enuntiabilium veritas. Sed tunc hoc enuntiabile erat verum, nullam veritatem enuntiabilium esse. Ergo veritas enuntiabilium erat; quod est contrarium ei quod fuit datum. Ergo non potest dici veritatem enuntiabilium non esse aeternam.
| 3. If the truth of propositions is not eternal, then a time must be assigned when their truth was not. But at that time it was true to say: “There is no truth of propositions.” Therefore, truth of propositions exists—which contradicts the supposition. Therefore, one cannot say that the truth of propositions is not eternal.
|
| Praeterea, philosophus probat materiam esse aeternam in I Phys., (quamvis hoc falsum sit), per hoc quod remanet post sui corruptionem, et est ante suam generationem; eo quod si corrumpitur, in aliquid corrumpitur, et si generatur, ex aliquo generatur; illud autem ex quo aliquid generatur, et illud in quod aliquid corrumpitur, est materia. Sed similiter veritas si ponatur corrumpi vel generari, sequitur quod sit ante suam generationem et post suam corruptionem; quia si generatur, mutata est de non esse in esse, et si corrumpitur, mutata est de esse in non esse. Quando autem non est veritas, verum est veritatem non esse, quod utique non potest esse, nisi veritas sit. Ergo veritas est aeterna.
| 4. The Philosopher’s proof that matter is eternal (which is false) rests on the fact that matter remains after its corruption and exists prior to its generation, since, if it corrupts, it corrupts into something, and if it is generated, it is generated out of something. But that from which something is generated and that into which it corrupts is matter. The same would be true of truth if it were said to undergo corruption or generation: it would exist before its generation and after its corruption. If it were generated, it would be changed from non-being to being, and if it corrupted, it would change from being to non-being. However, when truth did not exist, it would have been true that it did not exist—which could not be unless there was truth. Therefore, truth is eternal.
|
| Praeterea, omne quod non potest intelligi non esse, est aeternum, quia quicquid potest non esse, potest intelligi non esse. Sed veritas etiam enuntiabilium, non potest intelligi non esse, quia intellectus non potest intelligere aliquid, nisi intelligat hoc esse verum. Ergo veritas etiam enuntiabilium est aeterna.
| 5. Whatever cannot be conceived as not existing is eternal, for whatever is able not to exist can be conceived as not existing. The truth of propositions, however, cannot be conceived as not existing, because the intellect cannot understand anything unless it understands it to be true. Therefore, the truth of propositions is eternal.
|
| Praeterea, illud quod est futurum semper fuit futurum, et quod est praeteritum semper erit praeteritum. Sed ex hoc propositio de futuro est vera, quia aliquid est futurum; et ex hoc propositio de praeterito est vera, quia aliquid est praeteritum. Ergo veritas propositionis de futuro semper fuit, et veritas propositionis de praeterito semper erit; et ita non solum veritas prima est aeterna, sed etiam multae aliae.
| 6. That which is future always was future, and that which is past will always be past. Consequently, a proposition about the future is true since something is future, and a proposition about the past is true since something is past. Therefore, the truth of a future proposition always was, as the truth of a proposition concerning the past always will be. Hence, not only the first truth is eternal, but also many other truths are eternal.
|
| Praeterea, Augustinus dicit in Lib. de libero arbitrio, quod nihil magis est aeternum quam ratio circuli, et duo et tria esse quinque. Sed horum veritas est veritas creata. Ergo aliqua veritas praeter primam veritatem est aeterna.
| 7. St. Augustine says that nothing is more eternal than the nature of a circle and that two and three are five. Since these are created truths, some truth besides the first truth is eternal.
|
| Praeterea, ad veritatem enuntiationis non requiritur quod actu enuntietur aliquid, sed sufficit quod sit illud de quo potest enuntiatio formari. Sed antequam mundus esset, fuit aliquid de quo potuit enuntiari etiam praeter Deum. Ergo antequam mundus fieret, fuit enuntiabilium veritas. Quod autem fuit ante mundum, est aeternum. Ergo enuntiabilium veritas est aeterna. Probatio mediae. Mundus factus est ex nihilo, id est post nihil. Ergo antequam mundus esset, erat eius non esse. Sed enuntiatio vera non solum formatur de eo quod est, sed etiam de eo quod non est, sicut enim contingit vere enuntiari quod est, esse, ita contingit vere enuntiari quod non est, non esse, ut patet in I Periher. Ergo antequam mundus esset, fuit unde vera enuntiatio formari potuit.
| 8. For a proposition to be true, it is not necessary that something be actually stated. It is sufficient that something exist about which a proposition can be formed. But, even before the world existed, there was something, even apart from God, about which a proposition could be formed. Hence, before the world existed, the truth of propositions existed, and, since what existed before the world is eternal, the truth of propositions is eternal. The minor is proved thus: The world is made from nothing, that is, after nothing. Hence, before the world was, there was its non-existence. But a true proposition is formed not only about that which is, but also about that which is not; for, just as what is, is truly stated to be, so that which is not is truly stated not to be—as is clearly shown in Interpretation. Hence, before the world existed, there was that from which a true proposition could be formed.
|
| Praeterea, omne quod scitur, est verum dum scitur. Sed Deus ab aeterno scivit omnia enuntiabilia. Ergo omnium enuntiabilium veritas est ab aeterno; et ita plures veritates sunt aeternae.
| 9. Whatever is known is true while it is known. But from all eternity God knew all possible propositions. Therefore, from all eternity the truth of all propositions has existed, and so there are many eternal truths.
|
| Sed dicebat, quod ex hoc non sequitur quod illa sint vera in seipsis, sed in intellectu divino.- Sed contra, secundum hoc oportet aliqua esse vera secundum hoc quod sunt scita. Sed ab aeterno omnia sunt scita a Deo non solum secundum quod sunt in mente eius, sed etiam in propria natura existentia. Eccli. cap. XXIII, 29: domino Deo nostro, antequam crearentur, nota sunt omnia, sic et post perfectum cognoscit omnia; et ita non aliter cognoscit res postquam perfectae sunt quam ab aeterno cognoverit. Ergo ab aeterno fuerunt plures veritates non solum in intellectu divino, sed secundum se.
| 10. It was said, however, that from this it follows that those propositions are true in the divine intellect—not in themselves.—On the contrary, things must be true in the way in which they are known. But from eternity all things are known by God not only in so far as they are in His mind, but also as they exist in their proper nature; for Sirach (23:29) says: “All things were known to the Lord God before they were created: so also after they were perfected, he beholds all things.” He accordingly knows things in no other way after they are perfected than He did from eternity. Therefore, from eternity there were many truths existing not only in the divine intellect but in themselves.
|
| Praeterea, secundum hoc dicitur esse aliquid simpliciter, secundum quod est in sui complemento. Sed ratio veritatis completur in intellectu. Si ergo in intellectu divino fuerunt ab aeterno plura vera simpliciter, concedendum est plures veritates esse aeternas.
| 11. A thing is said to exist simply in so far as it is in that which gives it its formal perfection. But the character of truth finds its formal perfection in the intellect. Hence, if from eternity there were many things simply true in the divine intellect, it must be granted that there are many eternal truths.
|
| Praeterea, Sapient., I, 15: iustitia perpetua est et immortalis. Sed veritas est pars iustitiae, ut dicit Tullius in rhetorica. Ergo est perpetua et immortalis.
| 12. Wisdom (1:15) states: “For justice is perpetual and immortal.” As Cicero says, however, truth is a part of justice. Hence, truth is perpetual and immortal.
|
| Praeterea, universalia sunt perpetua et incorruptibilia. Sed verum est maxime universale, quia convertitur cum ente. Ergo veritas est perpetua et incorruptibilis.
| 13. Universals are perpetual and immortal. But the true is most universal, for it is interchangeable with being. Therefore, truth is perpetual and immortal.
|
| Sed dicebat, quod universale non corrumpitur per se, sed per accidens.- Sed contra, magis debet denominari aliquid per id quod convenit ei per se, quam per id quod convenit ei per accidens. Si ergo veritas per se loquendo est perpetua et incorruptibilis, non autem corrumpitur vel generatur nisi per accidens, concedendum est quod veritas universaliter dicta sit aeterna.
| 14. It was said, however, that, although a universal does not cease of itself, it may cease accidentally.—On the contrary, a thing ought to be denominated by that which belongs to it essentially rather than by that which belongs to it accidentally. Therefore, if truth taken essentially is perpetual and incorruptible, and does not cease or begin to be except accidentally, truth taken universally must be eternal.
|
| Praeterea, ab aeterno Deus fuit prior mundo. Ergo relatio prioritatis in Deo fuit ab aeterno. Sed posito uno relativorum, necesse est poni et reliquum. Ergo ab aeterno fuit posterioritas mundi ad Deum. Ergo ab aeterno fuit aliquid aliud extra Deum cui aliquo modo competit veritas; et sic idem quod prius.
| 15. Since from eternity God was prior to the world, this relation of priority in God was eternal. But when one member of a relation is posited, the other must also be posited. Therefore, from eternity the posteriority of the world with respect to God existed; consequently, there was from all eternity something outside of God to which truth belonged in some way. Hence, our original position stands.
|
| Sed dicebat, quod illa relatio prioritatis et posterioritatis non est aliquid in rerum natura, sed in ratione tantum.- Contra sicut dicit Boetius in fine de Consolat., Deus est prior mundo natura, etsi mundus semper fuisset. Ergo illa relatio prioritatis est relatio naturae, et non rationis tantum.
| 16. It must be said that that relation of before and after is not something in nature but merely a rational relation.—On the contrary, as Boethius says, God is by nature prior to the world, even if the world had always existed. Therefore, that relation of priority is a relation of nature and not of reason alone.
|
| Praeterea, veritas significationis est rectitudo significationis. Sed ab aeterno fuit rectum aliquid significari. Ergo veritas significationis fuit ab aeterno.
| 17. The truth of signification is correctness of signification. But from eternity it was correct that something is signified. Therefore, the truth of signification was from eternity.
|
| Praeterea, ab aeterno fuit verum, patrem genuisse filium, et spiritum sanctum processisse ab utroque. Sed ista sunt plura vera. Ergo plura vera sunt ab aeterno.
| 18. From eternity it was true that the Father generates the Son, and that the Holy Spirit proceeds from both. Since these are a number of truths, a number of truths exist from eternity.
|
| Sed dicebat, quod ista sunt vera una veritate; unde non sequitur plures veritates esse ab aeterno.- Sed contra, alio pater est pater et generat filium; alio filius est filius et spirat spiritum sanctum. Sed eo quo pater est pater, haec est vera: pater generat filium, vel pater est pater; eo autem quo filius est filius, haec est vera: filius est genitus a patre. Ergo huiusmodi propositiones non sunt una veritate verae.
| 19. It was said, however, that these are true by one truth; hence, it does not follow that several truths existed from eternity.—On the contrary, that by which the Father is Father and generates the Son is not that by which the Son is Son and breathes the Holy Spirit. But by that by which the Father is Father it is true that the Father generates the Son, or that the Father is the Father; and by that by which the Son is the Son it is true that the Son is generated by the Father. Hence, propositions of this kind are not true by one truth.
|
| Praeterea, quamvis homo et risibile convertantur, non tamen est eadem veritas utriusque semper istarum propositionum: homo est homo; et: homo est risibile; propter hoc quod non est eadem proprietas quam praedicat hoc nomen homo, et quam praedicat hoc nomen risibile: sed similiter non est eadem proprietas quam importat hoc nomen pater, et hoc nomen filius. Ergo non est eadem veritas dictarum propositionum.
| 20. Although man and capable of laughter are interchangeable, the same truth is not found in each of the two following propositions: “Man is man” and “Man is capable of laughter”; for the property which the word man predicates is not the same as that predicated by capable of laughter. Similarly, the property implied in the word Father is not that implied in the word Son. Therefore, the truth is not the same in the propositions mentioned above.
|
| Sed dicebat, quod istae propositiones non fuerunt ab aeterno.- Sed contra, quandocumque est intellectus qui potest enuntiare, potest esse enuntiatio. Sed ab aeterno fuit intellectus divinus intelligens patrem esse patrem, et filium esse filium, et ita enuntians sive dicens; cum, secundum Anselmum, summo spiritui idem sit dicere quod intelligere. Ergo enuntiationes praedictae fuerunt ab aeterno.
| 21. It was said, however, that those propositions were not from eternity.—On the contrary, whenever there is an intellect able to make a proposition, there can be a proposition. But from eternity the divine intellect existed, understanding the Father to be the Father, and the Son to be the Son, and thus forming propositions or speaking—since, according to Anselm, “for the most high Spirit to speak is the same as to understand.” Therefore, the propositions previously mentioned existed from eternity.
|
| Sed contra.
| To the Contrary
|
| Nullum creatum est aeternum. Veritas omnis praeter primam est creata. Ergo sola prima veritas est aeterna.
| 1. No creature is eternal, and every truth, except the first, is created. Therefore, only the first truth is eternal.
|
| Praeterea, ens et verum convertuntur. Sed solum unum ens est aeternum. Ergo sola una veritas est aeterna.
| 2. Being and the true are interchangeable. But only one being is eternal. Therefore, only one truth is eternal.
|
| Responsio.
| REPLY
|
| Dicendum, quod sicut prius dictum est, veritas adaequationem quandam et commensurationem importat; unde secundum hoc denominatur aliquid verum, sicut et denominatur aliquid commensuratum. Mensuratur autem corpus et mensura intrinseca, ut linea, vel superficie, vel profunditate, et mensura extrinseca, sicut locatum loco, et motus tempore, et pannus ulna. Unde et aliquid potest denominari verum dupliciter: uno modo a veritate inhaerente; alio modo ab extrinseca veritate: et sic denominantur omnes res verae a prima veritate. Et quia veritas quae est in intellectu, mensuratur a rebus ipsis; sequitur quod non solum veritas rei, sed etiam veritas intellectus, vel enuntiationis, quae intellectum significat, a veritate prima denominetur.
| As mentioned previously, truth means a proportion and commensuration. Hence, something is said to be true just as something is said to be commensurate. A body, however, is measured both by an intrinsic measure, such as a line, surface, or depth, and by an extrinsic measure, such as happens when a located body is measured by place, or when motion is measured by time, or a piece of cloth by an elbow length. Similarly, a thing can receive the name true in two ways: by its inherent truth or by an extrinsic truth. In this latter way, all things receive the name true from the first truth; and since truth in the intellect is measured by things themselves, it follows that not only the truth of things, but also the truth of the intellect or of a proposition signifying what is understood, gets its name from the first truth.
|
| In hac autem adaequatione vel commensuratione intellectus ac rei non requiritur quod utrumque extremorum sit in actu. Intellectus enim noster potest nunc adaequari his quae in futurum erunt, nunc autem non sunt; aliter non esset haec vera: Antichristus nascetur; unde hoc denominatur verum a veritate quae est in intellectu tantum, etiam quando non est res ipsa. Similiter etiam intellectus divinus adaequari potuit ab aeterno his quae ab aeterno non fuerunt, sed in tempore sunt facta; et sic ea quae sunt in tempore, denominari possunt vera ab aeterno a veritate aeterna.
| In this commensuration or conformity of intellect and thing it is not necessary that each of the two actually exist. Our intellect can be in conformity with things that, although not existing now, will exist in the future. Otherwise, it would not be true to say that “the Anti-Christ will be born.” Hence, a proposition is said to be true because of the truth that is in the intellect alone even when the thing stated does not exist. Similarly, the divine intellect can be in conformity with things that did not exist eternally but were created in time; thus, those in time can be said to be true from eternity because of the eternal truth.
|
| Si ergo accipimus veritatem creatorum verorum eis inhaerentem, quam invenimus in rebus, et intellectu creato, sic veritas non est aeterna, nec rerum, nec enuntiabilium; cum ipsae res, vel intellectus, quibus ipsae veritates inhaerent, non sint ab aeterno. Si autem accipiatur veritas verorum creatorum, qua denominantur omnia vera, sicut extrinseca mensura, quae est veritas prima, sic omnium, et rerum, et enuntiabilium, et intellectuum, veritas est aeterna; et huiusmodi veritatis aeternitatem venatur Augustinus in Lib. Soliloq. et Anselmus in Monolog.; unde Anselmus in libro de veritate: intelligere potes quomodo summam veritatem in meo Monologio probavi non habere principium vel finem, per veritatem orationis.
| If we take truth, therefore, as meaning the inherent truth of true created things—the truth we find in things and in a created intellect—then truth is not eternal whether it be that of things or that of propositions; for neither the things themselves nor the intellect in which these truths inhere exists from all eternity. On the other hand, if we take it to mean the truth of true created things, by which all are said to be true—their extrinsic measure, as it were, which is the first truth then the truth of everything—of things, propositions, and intellects—is eternal. Both Augustine and Anselm search for an eternal truth of this sort; the latter writes: “You can understand how I have proved in my Monologion that the highest truth does not have a beginning or end from the truth that is in speech.”
|
| Haec autem veritas prima non potest esse de omnibus nisi una. In intellectu enim nostro non diversificatur veritas nisi dupliciter: uno modo propter diversitatem cognitorum, de quibus diversas cognitiones habet quas diversae veritates in anima consequuntur; alio modo ex diverso modo intelligendi. Cursus enim Socratis est res una, sed anima quae componendo et dividendo cointelligit tempus, ut dicitur in III de anima, diversimode intelligit cursum Socratis ut praesentem, praeteritum, et futurum; et secundum hoc diversas conceptiones format, in quibus diversae veritates inveniuntur. Uterque autem dictorum modorum diversitatis inveniri non potest in divina cognitione. Non enim de diversis rebus diversas cognitiones habet; sed una cognitione cognoscit omnia, quia per unum, scilicet per essentiam suam, omnia cognoscit, non singulis suam cognitionem immittens, ut dicit Dionysius in libro de divinis nominibus. Similiter etiam sua cognitio non concernit aliquod tempus, cum aeternitate mensuretur, quae abstrahit ab omni tempore, omne tempus continens. Unde relinquitur quod non sunt plures veritates ab aeterno.
| This first truth must be one for all things. For in our intellect truth is multiplied in only two ways: first, by the multiplicity of the things known, for this results in a multiplicity of conceptions upon which there follows a multiplicity of truths in our soul; second, by the multiplicity of our ways of knowing, for even though Socrates’ running is one thing, the soul understands time along with it by joining and separating—as it is said in The Soul. Consequently, the soul knows his running as present, as past, and as future—each in a different way. Accordingly, it forms separate conceptions in which separate truths are found. In divine knowledge, however, neither of these two kinds of diversity can be found. For God does not have separate acts of knowing for separate things, but by one act He knows all, since He knows all by a single principle, that is, by His essence, as Dionysius points out, and He does not direct His act of knowing toward things one by one. Similarly, too, His own act of knowing does not involve time, since it is measured by eternity, which abstracts from all time inasmuch as it embraces all. It remains, therefore, that there are not many truths from eternity, but one alone.
|
|
| Answers to Difficulties
|
| Ad primum ergo dicendum, quod sicut Anselmus seipsum exponit in libro de veritate, ideo dixit quod veritas enuntiationum non clauditur principio et fine, non quia absque principio oratio fuerit, sed quia non potest intelligi quando oratio esset, et veritas illi deesset; illa scilicet oratio de qua agebat, qua significatur vere aliquid esse futurum. Unde per hoc apparet quod noluit adstruere veritatem rei creatae inhaerentem, vel orationem, esse sine principio et fine; sed veritatem primam, a qua sicut a mensura extrinseca enuntiatio vera dicitur.
| 1. As Anselm explains his meaning in another place, he said that the truth of statements is not circumscribed by a beginning or end, “not because the statement itself has no beginning but because no time can be conceived at which the statement could exist. and truth be absent from it.” The statement referred to here is one discussed previously, namely, one by which it is truly signified that something will take place in the future. Hence, it is quite clear that Anselm did not want to imply that either the truth inherent in a created thing or a proposition itself is without a beginning and end. Be held simply that the first truth by which a proposition is said to be true by a sort of extrinsic measure is without beginning or end.
|
Ad secundum dicendum, quod extra animam duo invenimus, scilicet rem ipsam, et negationes et privationes rei; quae quidem duo non eodem modo se habent ad intellectum. Res enim ipsa ex specie quam habet, divino intellectui adaequatur, sicut artificiatum arti; et ex virtute eiusdem speciei nata est sibi intellectum nostrum adaequare, in quantum, per similitudinem sui receptam in anima, cognitionem de se facit. Sed non ens extra animam consideratum, neque habet aliquid unde intellectui divino coaequetur, neque unde cognitionem sui faciat in intellectu nostro. Unde quod intellectui cuicumque aequetur, non est ex ipso non ente, sed ex ipso intellectu, qui rationem non entis accipit in seipso.
Res ergo quae est aliquid positive extra animam, habet aliquid in se unde vera dici possit. Non autem non esse rei, sed quidquid veritatis ei attribuitur est ex parte intellectus. Cum dicitur ergo: veritatem non esse, est verum; cum veritas quae hic significatur, sit de non ente, nihil habet nisi in intellectu. Unde ad destructionem veritatis quae est in re, non sequitur nisi esse veritatem quae est in intellectu. Et ita patet quod ex hoc non potest concludi nisi quod veritas quae est in intellectu, est aeterna; et oportet utique quod sit in intellectu aeterno; et haec est veritas prima. Unde ex praedicta ratione ostenditur, sola veritas prima esse aeterna.
| 2. Outside the mind we find two things: the thing itself, and its privations and negations. These two are not related to truth in the same way, for they do not have the same relation to intellect. Because of the species it possesses, the thing itself is proportioned to the divine intellect as a product of art is to art. Because of the same species, moreover, the thing is able to conform our intellect to it, in so far as its likeness, being received into the soul, causes the thing itself to be known. But non-being, considered outside the soul, has nothing by which it can be proportioned to the divine intellect or cause itself to be known in our intellects. Hence, if non-being is in conformity with any intellect, it is not because of itself but because of the intellect which forms within itself the notion of non-being.
Anything existing positively outside the soul has something in itself by which it can be called true; but this is not the case with the nonexistence of a thing: whatever truth is attributed to it comes from the intellect. When it is said, therefore, “It is true that truth does not exist,” the truth here signified has no reality except in the intellect, since it is about a non-being. Hence, from the fact that the truth in a thing is destroyed nothing follows except that there is a truth which is in the intellect. And so it is clear that from this argument we can conclude only that the truth which is in the intellect is eternal. This truth must, of course, be in an eternal intellect, and it is the first truth. Consequently, from the argument given only the first truth is shown to be eternal.
|
| Et per hoc patet solutio ad tertium et quartum.
| 3-4. The explanation just given also makes clear the solution to the third and fourth arguments.
|
| Ad quintum dicendum, quod non potest intelligi simpliciter veritatem non esse; potest tamen intelligi nullam veritatem creatam esse, sicut et potest intelligi nullam creaturam esse. Intellectus enim potest intelligere se non esse et se non intelligere, quamvis numquam intelligat sine hoc quod sit vel intelligat; non enim oportet quod quidquid intellectus intelligendo habet, intelligendo intelligat, quia non semper reflectitur super seipsum; et ideo non est inconveniens, si veritatem creatam, sine qua non potest intelligere, intelligat non esse.
| 5. Truth, taken without any qualification, cannot be understood as not existing; but all created truth can be conceived as not existing, just as it can be conceived that no creature exists. For the intellect can conceive itself as not existing and not understanding, even though it can never conceive without existing or understanding. It is not necessary, however, that, in its act of understanding, the intellect understand everything that it has in its act of understanding, because it does not always reflect upon itself. Hence, there is no contradiction if it understands created truth as not existing, even though, without it, it cannot understand.
|
| Ad sextum dicendum, quod illud quod est futurum, in quantum est futurum, non est, et similiter quod est praeteritum, in quantum huiusmodi. Unde eadem ratio est de veritate praeteriti et futuri, sicut et de veritate non entis; ex qua non potest concludi aeternitas alicuius veritatis, nisi primae, ut dictum est supra.
| 6. Since the future as such is not, and the past as such is not, the same reasoning holds for the truth of the past and future as for the truth of non-being. From this, as has been said, the eternity of no truth other than the first can be concluded.
|
| Ad septimum dicendum, quod verbum Augustini est intelligendum, quod illa sunt aeterna secundum quod sunt in mente divina; vel accipit aeternum pro perpetuo.
| 7. The words of Augustine must be understood in the sense that the truths mentioned are eternal in so far as they are in the divine mind. Or Augustine takes eternal in the sense of perpetual.
|
| Ad octavum dicendum, quod quamvis enuntiatio vera fiat de ente et de non ente, non tamen ens et non ens eodem modo se habent ad veritatem, ut ex praedictis patet; ex quibus patet solutio eius quod obiicitur.
| 8. Although a true proposition can be made about being and non-being, being and non-being are not similarly related to truth, as is clear from what was said above. From it, also, the solution to this difficulty is clear.
|
| Ad nonum dicendum, quod ab aeterno scivit Deus plura enuntiabilia, sed tamen illa plura scivit una cognitione. Unde ab aeterno non fuit nisi una veritas, per quam divina cognitio vera fuit de rebus pluribus futuris in tempore.
| 9. Although God knew many propositions from eternity, He knew them by one act of knowing. Hence, from eternity there was only one truth by which the divine cognition was true of many things that would come about in time.
|
| Ad decimum dicendum, quod sicut ex praedictis patet, intellectus non solum adaequatur his quae sunt in actu, sed etiam his quae actu non sunt, praecipue intellectus divinus, cui nihil est praeteritum et futurum. Unde quamvis res non fuerint ab aeterno in propria natura, intellectus tamen divinus fuit adaequatus rebus in propria natura futuris in tempore; et ideo veram cognitionem habuit de rebus ab aeterno etiam in propria natura, quamvis rerum veritates ab aeterno non fuerint.
| 10. As is clear from our previous discussion, intellect is in conformity not only with things actually existing but also with those not actually existing—especially the divine intellect to which the past and the future are the same. Hence, although things did not exist from eternity in their own proper nature, the divine intellect was conformed with things in their proper nature even though they would come into being in time. In this way, from eternity, God had true knowledge of things, even in their proper natures, although the truths of things did not exist from eternity.
|
| Ad undecimum dicendum, quod quamvis ratio veritatis compleatur in intellectu, non tamen ratio rei in intellectu completur. Unde quamvis concedatur simpliciter, quod veritas rerum omnium fuit ab aeterno, per hoc quod fuit in intellectu divino; non tamen potest concedi simpliciter quod res verae fuerint ab aeterno, propter hoc quod fuerunt in intellectu divino.
| 11. Truth finds its formal perfection in the intellect, but a thing does not. Hence, although we must concede without qualification that the truth of all things was from eternity, since it was in the divine intellect, we cannot concede without qualification that there were true things from eternity merely because they existed in the divine intellect.
|
| Ad duodecimum dicendum, quod illud intelligitur de iustitia divina; vel si intelligatur de iustitia humana, tunc dicitur esse perpetua, sicut et res naturales dicuntur esse perpetuae, sicut dicimus quod ignis semper movetur sursum propter inclinationem naturae, nisi impediatur; et quia virtus, ut dicit Tullius, est habitus in modum naturae rationi consentaneus; quantum ex natura virtutis est, habet indeficientem inclinationem ad actum suum, quamvis aliquando impediatur; et ideo etiam in principio Digestorum dicitur, quod iustitia est constans et perpetua voluntas unicuique ius suum tribuens. Et tamen veritas de qua nunc loquimur, non est pars iustitiae, sed veritas quae est in confessionibus in iudicio faciendis.
| 12. The definition refers to divine justice; or, if it refers to human justice, then it is said to be perpetual in the way in which natural things are said to be perpetual. For example, we say that fire always moves upwards, unless impeded, because of its natural inclination. Now, because a virtue is, as Cicero says, “a habit resembling a nature and in harmony with reason,” in so far as the nature of the virtue goes, it has an unfailing inclination to its act, even though this is sometimes impeded. Hence, in the Digest one reads that justice is: “the constant and perpetual will to give each one his due.” However, the truth which is a part of justice is found in the testimony of legal trials. But we are not now discussing that kind of truth.
|
| Ad tertium decimum dicendum, quod hoc quod dicitur, universale perpetuum esse et incorruptibile, Avicenna dupliciter exponit: uno modo ut dicatur esse perpetuum et incorruptibile, ratione particularium, quae nunquam inceperunt nec deficient secundum tenentes aeternitatem mundi; generatio enim ad hoc est, secundum philosophos ut salvetur perpetuum esse in specie, quod in individuo salvari non potest. Alio modo ut dicatur esse perpetuum, quia non corrumpitur per se, sed per accidens ad corruptionem individui.
| 13. The statement that a universal is perpetual and incorruptible is explained by Avicenna in two ways. First, a universal is said to be incorruptible and perpetual because, according to those who hold the eternity of the world, particulars had no beginning and will have no end. For, according to the philosophers, generation is for the purpose of conserving the perpetual existence of the species—since it cannot be preserved by the individual. Second, a universal is said to be perpetual in so far as it does not cease of itself but accidentally—because of the corruption of the individual.
|
Ad quartum decimum dicendum, quod aliquid attribuitur alicui per se dupliciter. Uno modo positive, sicut igni attribuitur ferri sursum; et a tali per se magis denominatur aliquid quam ab illo quod est per accidens; magis enim dicimus ignem sursum ferri, et esse eorum quae sursum feruntur, quam eorum quae deorsum, quamvis ignis per accidens aliquando deorsum feratur, ut patet in ferro ignito.
Quandoque vero attribuitur aliquid per se alicui per modum remotionis, per hoc scilicet quod removentur ab eo illa quae nata sunt contrariam dispositionem inducere. Unde si per accidens aliquid eorum adveniat, illa dispositio contraria simpliciter enunciabitur; sicut unitas per se attribuitur materiae primae, non per positionem alicuius formae unientis, sed per remotionem formarum diversificantium. Unde quando adveniunt formae distinguentes materiam, magis simpliciter dicitur esse plures materias quam unam. Et sic est in proposito; non enim dicitur universale incorruptibile, quasi habeat aliquam formam incorruptionis, sed quia non conveniunt ei secundum se dispositiones materiales, quae sunt causa corruptionis in individuis; unde universale in rebus particularibus existens simpliciter dicitur corrumpi in hoc et in illo.
| 14. A thing is predicated of another essentially in two ways. First, it is done positively, as when we say of fire that it is carried upwards. A thing gets its name from this kind of essential predicate rather than from an accidental predicate; for we say rather that fire is carried upwards and belongs to the class of things carried upwards than that it belongs to the class of those that are carried downwards, even though it may happen, accidentally, that fire is carried downwards—as would evidently be the case of red-hot iron.
The second type of essential predication is by “removal”—when there is removed from a thing those things which bring on a contrary disposition. If one of those things should happen to be present, the contrary disposition will be predicated absolutely. For example, unity is predicated essentially of first matter, not by positing some unifying form, but by removing diversifying forms. Hence, when forms occur which differentiate matter, we say, without qualification, that there are several matters rather than that there is only one. Such is the case in the difficulty; for a universal is said to be incorruptible, not because it possesses some form giving it incorruptibility, but because those material qualities which cause corruption in individuals do not belong to it as a universal. Hence, a universal existing in particular things is said, without qualification, to be corrupted in this or that individual.
|
Ad quintum decimum dicendum, quod cum alia genera, in quantum huiusmodi, aliquid ponant in rerum natura (quantitas enim ex hoc ipso quod quantitas est, aliquid dicit), sola relatio non habet, ex hoc quod est huiusmodi, quod aliquid ponat in rerum natura, quia non praedicat aliquid, sed ad aliquid. Unde inveniuntur quaedam relationes, quae nihil in rerum natura ponunt, sed in ratione tantum; quod quidem quadrupliciter contingit, ut ex dictis philosophi et Avicennae sumi potest.
Uno modo, ut quando aliquid ad seipsum refertur, ut cum dicitur idem eidem idem; si enim haec relatio aliquid in rerum natura poneret additum ei quod dicitur idem, esset in infinitum procedere in relationibus, quia ipsa relatio per quam aliqua res diceretur eadem, esset eadem sibi per aliquam relationem, et sic in infinitum. Secundo, quando ipsa relatio ad aliquid refertur. Non enim potest dici quod paternitas referatur ad subiectum suum per aliquam relationem mediam, quia illa etiam relatio media indigeret alia media relatione, et sic in infinitum. Unde illa relatio quae significatur in comparatione paternitatis ad subiectum, non est in rerum natura, sed in ratione tantum. Tertio, quando unum relativorum pendet ab altero, et non e converso, sicut scientia dependet a scibili, et non e converso; unde relatio scientiae ad scibile est aliquid in rerum natura, non autem relatio scibilis ad scientiam, sed in ratione tantum. Quarto, quando ens comparatur ad non ens; ut cum dicimus, quod nos sumus priores his qui sunt futuri post nos; alias sequeretur quod possent esse infinitae relationes in eodem, si generatio in infinitum protenderetur in futurum.
Ex duobus igitur ultimis apparet quod relatio illa prioritatis nihil ponit in rerum natura, sed in intellectu tantum; tum quia Deus non dependet a creaturis, tum quia talis prioritas dicit comparationem entis ad non ens. Unde ex hoc non sequitur quod sit aliqua veritas aeterna, nisi in intellectu divino, qui solus est aeternus; et haec est veritas prima.
| 15. All genera as such, with the exception of relation, posit something in reality. For example, quantity by its very nature posits something. But relation, alone, because of what it is, does not posit anything in reality, for what it predicates is not something but to something. Hence, there are certain relations which posit nothing in reality, but only in reason. This occurs in four ways, as can be seen in the writings of the Philosopher and Avicenna.
First, there occurs a relation merely in reason when a thing is referred to itself; for example, when we say that a thing is identical with itself. If this relation posited something in reality in addition to the thing which is declared to be identical with itself, we should have an infinite process in relations; for the very relation by which something is said to be identical with itself would also be identical with itself through an added relation, and so on to infinity. Second, a relation existing only in reason occurs when the relation itself is referred to something. For example, one cannot say that paternity is referred to its subject by some intermediate relation; for that mediate relation would need another intermediate relation, and so on to infinity. Consequently, the relation signified when paternity is compared to its subject is not real but only rational. Third, a relation existing in reason alone occurs when one of the related things depends on the other and not conversely. For example, knowledge depends on the thing known but not the other way about. Hence, the relation of knowledge to a thing known is something real, but the relation of the thing known to knowledge is merely rational. Fourth, a rational relation occurs when a being is compared with a non-being. For example, we say that we are prior to those who are to come after us. If this were a real relation, it would follow (if future generations were infinite) that there could be an infinite number of relations in the same thing.
From the last two types it is clear that that relation of priority posits nothing in reality but only in the intellect, because God does not depend on creatures and because such a priority is a relation of being to non-being. From this argument, therefore, it does not follow that there is an eternal truth except in the divine intellect, which alone is eternal. This is the first truth.
|
| Ad sextum decimum dicendum, quod quamvis Deus natura prior sit rebus creatis, non tamen sequitur quod illa relatio sit relatio naturae; sed quia intelligitur ex consideratione naturae, eius quod prius dicitur, et eius quod posterius dicitur; sicut et scibile dicitur prius natura quam scientia, quamvis relatio scibilis ad scientiam non sit aliquid in rerum natura.
| 16. Although God is prior by nature to created beings, it does not follow that this relation is real. Since it arises merely from a consideration of what is naturally prior and what is naturally posterior—in the way in which a thing known is said to be naturally prior to knowledge—the relation of the thing known to knowledge is not a real relation.
|
| Ad septimum decimum dicendum, quod cum dicitur: significatione non existente rectum est aliquid significari; intelligitur secundum ordinationem rerum in intellectu divino existentem; sicut arca non existente rectum est arcam cooperculum habere, secundum dispositionem artis in artifice. Unde nec ex hoc haberi potest quod alia veritas sit aeterna quam prima.
| 17. The statement that, even when signification does not exist, it is nevertheless correct that something is signified, is taken with respect to the order of things existing in the divine intellect. For example, even when a trunk does not exist, it is correct to say that a trunk has a lid according to the plan conceived by the craftsman. Consequently, this argument also does not prove that there is an eternal truth other than the first.
|
| Ad duodevicesimum dicendum, quod ratio veri fundatur supra ens. Quamvis autem in divinis ponantur plures personae et proprietates; non tamen ponitur ibi nisi unum esse, quia esse in divinis nonnisi essentialiter dicitur; et omnium istorum enuntiabilium: patrem esse vel generare, et filium esse vel genitum esse et similium; secundum quod ad rem referuntur, est veritas una, quae est prima et aeterna veritas.
| 18. The intelligible character of the true is based upon being. Although several persons and properties are posited in God, only one act of being is posited in Him, for the act of being is predicated essentially of Him; so, all those propositions, such as that the Father is or generates, and that the Son is or is generated, and so on,—in so far as they are related to the divine essence—all have one truth, the first and eternal truth.
|
| Ad undevicesimum dicendum, quod quamvis alio pater sit pater, et filius sit filius, quia hoc est paternitate, illud filiatione; tamen idem est quo pater est, et quo filius est, quia utrumque est per essentiam divinam, quae est una. Ratio autem veritatis, non fundatur super rationem paternitatis et filiationis in quantum huiusmodi, sed super rationem entitatis; paternitas autem et filiatio sunt una essentia et ideo una est veritas utriusque.
| 19. Although that by which the Father is Father, and that by which the Son is Son, are different, since one is paternity, the other, filiation, that by which the Father is, and that by which the Son is, is the same. For each is because of the divine essence, which is one. Moreover, the intelligible character of truth is not based upon the character of paternity and sonship as such, but upon the character of being. Here, moreover, paternity and sonship are the one essence. Therefore, there is one truth for both.
|
| Ad vigesimum dicendum, quod proprietas quam praedicat hoc nomen homo, et hoc nomen risibile, non sunt idem per essentiam, nec habent unum esse, sicut est de paternitate et filiatione; et ideo non est simile.
| 20. The property predicated by man and capable of laughter is not the same essentially, nor does it have one act of existence, as is the case of paternity and sonship. Hence, there is no analogy.
|
| Ad vigesimum primum dicendum, quod intellectus divinus, quantumcumque diversa non cognoscit nisi unica cognitione, et quae in seipsis habent diversas veritates. Unde multo amplius non cognoscit nisi una cognitione omnia huiusmodi quae de personis intelliguntur. Unde etiam omnium eorum non est nisi una veritas.
| 22. The divine intellect knows things, no matter how diverse they be, by one act of knowing, even if they have different truths considered in themselves. Hence, He knows with only one act of knowing all the various propositions about the persons even to a greater degree. Consequently, there is only one truth for these, also.
|
| ARTICLE VI
In the sixth article we ask:
Is created truth immutable?
[Parallel readings: S.T., I, 16, 8; I Sent., 19,5, 3; Quodl., X, 4,7.]
|
| Sexto quaeritur an veritas creata sit immutabilis.
| Difficulties
|
| Et videtur quod sic.
| It seems that it is, for
|
| Anselmus in Lib. de veritate dicit: video hac ratione probari veritatem immobilem permanere. Praemissa autem ratio fuit de veritate significationis, ut ex praemissis, apparet. Ergo veritas enuntiabilium est immutabilis; et eadem ratione veritas rei quam significat.
| 1. Anselm says: “By this argument, I see that truth persists immutable.”’ The argument he refers to is that taken from the truth of Signification, which we discussed earlier. Hence, the truth of propositions is immutable; for the same reason, so is the truth of the thing which it signifies.
|
| Praeterea, si veritas enuntiationis mutatur, maxime mutatur ad mutationem rei. Sed re mutata, veritas propositionis manet. Ergo veritas enuntiationis est immutabilis. Probatio mediae. Veritas, secundum Anselmum est rectitudo quaedam, in quantum aliquid implet hoc quod accepit in mente divina. Sed haec propositio: Socrates sedet; accepit in mente divina ut significaret sessionem Socratis, quam significat etiam Socrate non sedente. Ergo etiam Socrate non sedente manet in ea veritas; et ita veritas praedictae propositionis non mutatur, etiam si res mutetur.
| 2. If the truth of a proposition changes; it changes especially when a thing changes. But when a thing has been changed, the truth of the proposition remains. Therefore, the truth of a proposition is immutable. Proof of the minor: Truth according to Anselm is “a certain correctness—inasmuch as the thing fulfills that which it receives in the divine mind. But the fact that the proposition, “Socrates is sitting,” signifies the sitting of Socrates comes from the divine mind, and this proposition will signify his sitting even when Socrates does not sit. Therefore, even when Socrates does not sit, truth remains in that proposition. Consequently, the truth of the proposition is not changed, even if the thing be changed.
|
| Praeterea, si veritas mutatur, hoc non potest esse nisi mutatis his quibus veritas inest, sicut nec aliquae formae mutari dicuntur nisi suis subiectis mutatis. Sed veritas non mutatur ad mutationem verorum, quia destructis veris, adhuc remanet veritas, ut Augustinus et Anselmus probant. Ergo veritas est omnino immutabilis.
| 3. If truth is changed, this can be only because the subjects in which truth inheres have previously been changed—just as certain forms cannot be said to be changed unless their subjects have changed. But truth is not changed with the change of true things; for, as both Augustine and Anselm prove, when true things have been destroyed, truth still remains. Therefore, truth is entirely immutable.
|
| Praeterea, veritas rei causa est veritatis propositionis; ex eo enim quod res est vel non est, dicitur oratio vera vel falsa. Sed veritas rei est immutabilis. Ergo veritas propositionis. Probatio mediae. Anselmus in Lib. de veritate probat veritatem enuntiationis immobilem permanere, secundum quam implet illud quod accepit in mente divina. Sed similiter quaelibet res implet illud quod accepit in mente divina ut haberet. Ergo cuiuslibet rei veritas est immutabilis.
| 4. The truth of a thing is the cause of the truth of a proposition, for a statement is said to be true or false in so far as a thing exists or does not exist. But the truth of a thing is immutable. Therefore, the truth of a proposition is also immutable. Proof of the minor: Anselm proves that the truth of a proposition remains fixed to the extent that it fulfills that which it has received in the divine mind. But each thing likewise fulfills that which it has been ordained in the divine mind to have. Therefore, the truth of each and every thing is immutable.
|
| Praeterea, illud quod semper manet omni mutatione perfecta, nunquam mutatur; in alteratione enim colorum non dicimus superficiem mutari, quia manet qualibet mutatione colorum facta. Sed veritas manet in re, qualibet rei mutatione facta, quia ens et verum convertuntur. Ergo veritas est immutabilis.
| 5. That which always remains when every change has been made is never changed. For example, when colors are changed, we do not say that the surface is changed, for it remains no matter what change of colors is made. Now, truth remains in a thing, no matter what change a thing undergoes, for being and the true are interchangeable. Therefore, truth is immutable.
|
| Praeterea, ubi est eadem causa, et idem effectus. Sed eadem est causa veritatis harum trium propositionum: Socrates sedet; sedebit; et sedit: scilicet Socratis sessio. Ergo eadem est earum veritas. Sed si unum trium praedictorum est verum, oportet similiter alterum duorum semper esse verum; si enim aliquando est verum: Socrates sedet; semper fuit et erit verum: Socrates sedit vel Socrates sedebit. Ergo una veritas trium propositionum semper uno modo se habet, et ita est immutabilis; ergo eadem ratione quaelibet alia veritas.
| 6. Where there is the same cause, there is the same effect. But the same thing is the cause of the truth of these three propositions: “Socrates sits,” “Socrates will sit,” and “Socrates sat”—namely, the sitting of Socrates. Therefore, the truth of each is the same. Now, if one of these three propositions is true, one of the other two must always be true; for, if at some time it is true that Socrates sits, it always was true and will be true that Socrates sat or will sit. Therefore, one truth remains constant for the three propositions, and, consequently, is immutable. For the same reason, any other truth is immutable.
|
| Sed contra,
| To the Contrary
|
| mutatis causis mutantur effectus. Sed res, quae sunt causa veritatis propositionis, mutantur. Ergo et propositionum veritas mutatur.
| Effects are changed when their causes are changed. But things, which cause the truth of a proposition, undergo changes. Therefore, the truth of propositions changes.
|
| Responsio.
| REPLY
|
| Dicendum est, quod aliquid dicitur mutari dupliciter. Uno modo, quia est subiectum mutationis, sicut dicimus corpus esse mutabile, et sic nulla forma est mutabilis; et sic dicitur quod forma est invariabili essentia consistens; unde, cum veritas significetur per modum formae, praesens quaestio non est, an veritas sit mutabilis hoc modo. Alio modo dicitur aliquid mutari, quia secundum ipsum fit mutatio, sicut dicimus albedinem mutari, quia secundum ipsam corpus alteratur; et sic quaeritur de veritate, an sit mutabilis.
| A thing is said to be changed in two ways. First, because it is the subject of a change, as when we say that a body is changeable. In this meaning, no form is said to be changeable. Consequently, a form is said to be something steadfast in an unchanging essence; since truth consists in a form, the present question is not whether truth is mutable in this sense. Second, a thing is said to be changed because something else changes according to it, as when we say that whiteness is changed because a body is changed in its whiteness. It is in this sense that we ask whether or not truth is changeable.
|
| Ad cuius evidentiam sciendum est, quod illud secundum quod est mutatio, quandoque quidem mutari dicitur, quandoque autem non. Quando enim est inhaerens ei quod movetur secundum ipsum, tunc et ipsum mutari dicitur, sicut albedo vel quantitas mutari dicuntur, quando aliquid secundum ipsa mutatur, eo quod ipsamet secundum hanc mutationem succedunt sibi invicem in subiecto. Quando autem illud, secundum quod est mutatio est extrinsecum, tunc in illa mutatione non movetur, sed immobile perseverat, sicut locus non dicitur moveri quando aliquis secundum locum movetur. Unde et in III Physic. dicitur, quod locus est immobilis terminus continentis, eo quod per localem motum non dicitur esse successio locorum in uno locato, sed magis multorum locatorum in uno loco.
| To clarify this point, we should note that the thing according to which there is a change is sometimes said to be changed and sometimes not. For, when it is inhering in a thing which is affected in its respect, then it is said to be changed itself—as whiteness or quantity is said to be changed when something is changed in their respect because they succeed each other in a subject. When, however, that according to which the change occurs is extrinsic, the thing itself is not changed but remains unaffected throughout the whole change. For example, a place is not said to be moved when a thing moves with respect to it. For this reason, it is said in the Physics that place is “the unchangeable boundary of the container,” because local motion does not mean a succession of loci in regard to one located body, but a succession of many located bodies in one place.
|
| Sed formarum inhaerentium, quae mutari dicuntur ad mutationem subiecti, duplex est mutationis modus; aliter enim dicuntur mutari formae generales, et aliter formae speciales. Forma enim specialis post mutationem non remanet eadem nec secundum esse nec secundum rationem, sicut albedo, facta alteratione, nullo modo manet; sed forma generalis facta mutatione manet eadem secundum rationem, sed non secundum esse; sicut facta mutatione de albo in nigrum, manet quidem color secundum communem rationem coloris, sed non eadem species coloris.
| Now, there are two ways in which inhering forms are said to be changed with respect to a change of their subject; for general forms are said to be changed in one way and special forms in another. After a change, a special form does not remain the same either according to its act of existing or according to its intelligible character. For example, when a qualitative change has been made, whiteness does not remain at all. But, after a change has been made, a general form retains the same intelligible character, though not the same act of existing. For example, after a change from white to black has taken place, color, according to the general character of color, remains unchanged; but the same species of color does not remain.
|
| Dictum est autem superius quod aliquid denominatur verum veritate prima quasi mensura extrinseca, sed veritate inhaerente quasi mensura intrinseca. Unde res creatae variantur quidem in participatione veritatis primae; ipsa tamen veritas prima, secundum quam dicuntur vera, nullo modo mutatur; et hoc est quod Augustinus dicit in Lib. de libero Arbit.: mentes nostrae aliquando plus, aliquando minus vident de ipsa veritate; sed ipsa in se manens nec proficit nec deficit.
| It was noted previously,” however, that a thing is said to be true by the first truth as by an extrinsic measure; but it is said to be true by an inherent truth as by an intrinsic measure. Consequently, created things change in their participation of the first truth, yet the first truth itself, according to which they are said to be true, does not change in any way. This is what Augustine says: “Our minds sometimes see more, sometimes less, of truth itself; but truth itself remains, and neither increases nor decreases.”
|
| Si autem accipiamus veritatem inhaerentem rebus, sic veritas mutari dicitur, secundum quod aliqua secundum veritatem mutantur. Unde, ut prius dictum est, veritas in creaturis invenitur in duobus: in rebus ipsis, et in intellectu: veritas enim actionis sub veritate rei comprehenditur, et veritas enuntiationis sub veritate intellectus quam significat. Res autem dicitur vera et per comparationem ad intellectum divinum et humanum.
| If we take truth as inherent in things, however, then truth is said to be changed inasmuch as some things are said to be changed with respect to truth. For, as pointed out previously, truth in creatures is found in two different subjects: in things themselves and in intellect. The truth of an action is included in the truth of a thing, and the truth of a proposition is included in the truth of the understanding which it signifies. A thing, however, is said to be true by its relation to intellect, divine and human.
|
| Si ergo accipiatur veritas rei secundum ordinem ad intellectum divinum, tunc quidem mutatur veritas rei mutabilis non in falsitatem sed in aliam veritatem, veritas enim est forma maxime generalis, cum verum et ens convertantur: unde sicut facta qualibet mutatione res manet ens, quamvis alia secundum aliam formam, per quam habet esse; ita semper remanet vera, sed alia veritate, quia, quamcumque formam, vel privationem acquirat per mutationem, secundum eam intellectui divino conformatur, qui eam ita cognoscit ut est secundum quamcumque dispositionem.
| Consequently, if the truth of a thing is considered according to its reference to the divine intellect, then, indeed, the truth of a changeable thing is changed into another truth, but not into falsity. For truth is a most general form because the true and being are interchangeable. Hence, just as, even after any change has been made, a thing nevertheless remains a being, although it is other as a result of the other form by which it has existence; so, also, a thing always remains true—but by another truth; for, no matter what form or what privation it acquires through the change, it is conformed in that respect to the divine intellect, which knows it as it is, whatever may be its state.
|
| Si autem consideretur veritas rei in ordine ad intellectum humanum, vel e converso, tunc quandoque fit mutatio de veritate in falsitatem, quandoque autem de una veritate in aliam. Cum enim veritas sit adaequatio rei et intellectus, ab aequalibus autem si aequalia tollantur, adhuc aequalia remanent quamvis non eadem aequalitate, oportet quod quando similiter mutatur intellectus et res, remaneat quidem veritas, sed alia; sicut si Socrate sedente intelligatur Socrates sedere, et postmodum non sedente intelligatur non sedere. Sed quia ab uno aequalium si aliquid tollatur, et nihil a reliquo, vel si ab utroque inaequalia tollantur, necesse est inaequalitatem provenire, quae se habet ad falsitatem sicut aequalitas ad veritatem;
| If, however, the truth of a thing is considered in its reference to a human intellect, or conversely, then sometimes there is a change from truth into falsity, sometimes from one truth to another. For truth is “an equation of thing and intellect”; and, if equal amounts are taken from things that are equal, these things remain equal, although the equality is not the same. Hence, when intellect and thing are similarly changed, truth remains; but it is another truth. For example, when Socrates sits, what is understood is that Socrates is sitting. Afterwards, when he does not sit, what is understood is that he is not sitting. But, if something is taken from one of two equal things, and nothing from the other, or if unequal amounts are taken from each, then inequality must result; and this corresponds to falsity, just as equality corresponds to truth.
|
| inde est quod si intellectu vero existente mutetur res non mutato intellectu, vel e converso, aut utrumque mutetur, sed non similiter, proveniet falsitas; et sic erit mutatio de veritate in falsitatem, sicut si Socrate existente albo, intelligatur esse albus, verus est intellectus; si autem postea intelligat eum esse nigrum, Socrate albo remanente, vel e converso Socrate mutato in nigredinem, adhuc albus intelligatur; vel eo mutato in pallorem, intelligatur esse rubeus, falsitas erit in intellectu. Et sic patet qualiter veritas mutetur, et qualiter veritas non mutatur.
| Consequently, if an intellect is true, and it is not changed when a thing is changed, or vice versa, or if each is changed but not similarly, falsity results, and there will be a change from truth to falsity. For example, if, when Socrates is white, he is understood to be white, the intellect is true. If, however, the intellect later understands him to be black, although Socrates still is white; or if, conversely, he is still understood to be white, although he has turned black; or if, when he has turned pale, he is understood to be reddish—then there will be falsity in the intellect. Accordingly, it is clear how truth changes and how it does not.
|
|
| Answers to Difficulties
|
| Ad primum ergo dicendum, quod Anselmus ibi loquitur de veritate prima, prout secundum eam omnia dicuntur vera quasi mensura extrinseca.
| 1. Anselm is speaking here of the first truth according to which all things are said to be true as by an extrinsic measure.
|
| Ad secundum dicendum, quod quia intellectus reflectitur in seipsum, et intelligit se sicut et alias res, ut dicitur in III de anima; ideo quae ad intellectum pertinent, secundum quod ad rationem veritatis spectat, possunt dupliciter considerari. Uno modo, secundum quod sunt res quaedam; et sic eodem modo dicitur de eis veritas sicut de aliis rebus; ut scilicet, sicut res dicitur vera, quia implet hoc quod accepit in mente divina retinendo naturam suam, ita enuntiatio dicatur vera retinendo naturam suam quae est ei dispensata in mente divina, nec potest ab ea removeri, enuntiatione ipsa manente. Alio modo secundum quod comparantur ad res intellectas, et sic dicitur enuntiatio vera quando adaequatur rei; et talis veritas mutatur ut dictum est.
| 2.Since the intellect reflects upon itself and knows itself as it knows other things (as said in The Soul), the things belonging to the intellect as regards the intelligible character of truth can be considered in two ways. First, in so far as they are things; in this way, truth is predicated of them in the same way in which it is predicated of other things. Consequently, as a thing is said to be true because it fulfills what was assigned to it in the divine mind by retaining its own nature, so a proposition is also said to be true by retaining its own nature, which was also allotted to it in the divine mind; and this cannot be taken from it as long as the proposition itself remains. Second, these may be considered in their reference to things that are known. In this way, a proposition is said to be true when it is proportioned to a thing. This kind of truth is changed, as has been said.
|
| Ad tertium dicendum, quod veritas quae remanet destructis rebus veris, est veritas prima, quae etiam rebus mutatis non mutatur.
| 3. Truth which remains after true things have been destroyed is the first truth, which does not change even when things change.
|
| Ad quartum dicendum, quod manente re, non potest fieri circa eam mutatio quantum ad ea quae sunt sibi essentialia, sicut enuntiationi est essentiale ut significet illud ad quod significandum est instituta. Unde non sequitur quod veritas rei nullo modo sit mutabilis, sed quod sit immutabilis quantum ad essentialia rei remanente re. In quibus tamen accidit mutatio per rei corruptionem. Sed quantum ad accidentalia, mutatio potest accidere etiam manente re; et ita quantum ad accidentalia potest fieri mutatio veritatis rei.
| 4. As long as a thing remains, no change can take place in it concerning its essentials. For example, it is essential to a proposition that it signify that which it has been made to signify. Consequently, it does not follow that the truth of a thing is in no way changeable, but only that it is unchangeable with respect to the essentials of the thing while the thing remains. Nevertheless, in those cases in which a change occurs through corruption of a thing, but only with respect to its accidentals, this accidental change can take place even though the thing remains. In this way, a change can take place in the truth of a thing in regard to its accidentals.
|
| Ad quintum dicendum, quod facta omni mutatione, manet veritas, sed non eadem, ut ex praedictis patet.
| 5. When every change has been made, truth remains, but not the same truth—as is clear from what has been said.
|
| Ad sextum dicendum, quod identitas veritatis non tantum dependet ex identitate rei, sed ex identitate intellectus, sicut et identitas effectus dependet ex identitate agentis et patientis. Quamvis autem sit eadem res quae significatur illis tribus propositionibus, non tamen est idem intellectus earum, quia in intellectus compositione adiungitur tempus; unde secundum variationem temporis sunt diversi intellectus.
| 6. The identity of the truth depends not only on the identity of the thing but also on the identity of the intellect—the same way that identity of an effect depends on the identity of the agent and that of the patient. Moreover, even though the same thing is signified by those three propositions, the understanding of each is not the same; for time enters into the intellect’s conjunctive operation, and the understandings of things differ with the differences of time.
|
| ARTICLE VII
In the seventh article we ask:
Is truth as applied to god predicated personally or essentially?
[Parallel readings: S.T., I, 16, 5, ad 2; 39, 8.]
|
| Septimo quaeritur utrum veritas in divinis dicatur essentialiter vel personaliter
| Difficulties
|
| Et videtur quod dicatur personaliter.
| It seems that it is predicated personally, for
|
| Quidquid enim in divinis importat relationem principii, personaliter dicitur. Sed veritas est huiusmodi, ut patet per Augustinum in Lib. de vera religione: ubi dicit, quod veritas divina est summa similitudo principii sine ulla dissimilitudine, unde falsitas oritur. Ergo veritas in divinis personaliter dicitur.
| 1. In regard to God, whatever implies the relation of origin is predicated personally. But truth belongs to this class, as is clear from Augustine;’ for he says that the divine truth is “the greatest possible likeness of its source, without any unlikeness” from which falseness arises. Therefore, truth is predicated personally of God.
|
| Praeterea, sicut nihil est sibi simile, ita nihil est sibi aequale. Sed similitudo in divinis importat distinctionem personarum, secundum Hilarium, ex hoc quod nihil est sibi simile. Ergo eadem ratione, et aequalitas. Sed veritas est aequalitas quaedam. Ergo importat personalem distinctionem in divinis.
| 2. Just as nothing is similar to itself, so also, nothing is equal to itself. But, according to Hilary, from the fact that nothing is similar to itself, likeness in God implies a distinction of persons. The same reasoning can be applied to equality. But truth is a certain equality. Therefore, truth implies a distinction of persons in God.
|
| Praeterea, omne quod importat in divinis emanationem, personaliter dicitur. Sed veritas importat quamdam emanationem, quia significat conceptionem intellectus, sicut et verbum. Ergo, sicut et verbum personaliter dicitur, ita et veritas.
| 3. Whatever implies procession in God is predicated personally of Him. But truth implies a certain procession since it signifies an intellectual concept just as a word does. Therefore, just as the Word is predicated personally, so also is truth.
|
| Sed contra,
| To the Contrary
|
| trium personarum est una veritas, ut dicit Augustinus in Lib. VIII de Trinitate. Ergo est essentiale, et non personale.
| Augustine says that of the three Persons there is but one truth. Therefore, it is something essential, not personal.
|
|
| REPLY
|
| Responsio. Dicendum, quod veritas in divinis dupliciter accipi potest: uno modo proprie, alio modo quasi metaphorice. Si enim proprie accipiatur veritas, tunc importabit aequalitatem intellectus divini et rei. Et quia intellectus divinus primo intelligit rem quae est essentia sua, per quam omnia alia intelligit, ideo et veritas in Deo principaliter importat aequalitatem intellectus divini et rei, quae est essentia eius, et consequenter intellectus divini ad res creatas.
| In regard to God, truth can be taken in two ways: properly and, as it were, metaphorically. If truth is taken properly, then it will imply an equality of the divine intellect and of a thing. Since the first thing the divine intellect knows is its own essence, through which it knows all other things, truth in God principally implies an equality between the divine intellect and a thing which is its essence; and, in a secondary sense, truth likewise implies an equality of the divine intellect with created things.
|
| Intellectus autem divinus et essentia sua non adaequantur ad invicem sicut mensurans et mensuratum, cum unum non sit principium alterius, sed sunt omnino idem; unde veritas ex tali aequalitate resultans nullam principii rationem importat, sive accipiatur ex parte essentiae, sive ex parte intellectus, quae una et eadem ibi est; sicuti enim ibi est idem intelligens et res intellecta, ita est ibi eadem veritas rei et veritas intellectus, sine aliqua connotatione principii.
| The divine intellect and the divine essence are not, however, made equal to each other in the way in which a measure is related to what is measured, since one is not the source of the other, but both are entirely identical. Consequently, the truth resulting from such equality does not involve its having the character of a source, whether it be considered from the standpoint of the essence or from that of the intellect, since both in this case are one and the same. For, just as in God the knower and the thing known are the same, so also in Him the truth of the thing and that of intellect are the same, without any connotation of origin.
|
| Sed si accipiatur veritas intellectus divini secundum quod adaequatur rebus creatis, sic adhuc remanebit eadem veritas, sicut per idem intelligit Deus se et alia; sed tamen additur in intellectu veritatis ratio principii ad creaturas, ad quas intellectus divinus comparatur ut mensura et causa. Omne autem nomen quod in divinis rationem principii vel quod est a principio, non importat, vel etiam importans rationem principii ad creaturas, essentialiter dicitur. Unde in divinis si veritas proprie accipiatur, essentialiter dicitur; tamen appropriatur personae filii, sicut ars et cetera quae ad intellectum pertinent.
| But if the truth of the divine intellect be considered in its conformity to created things, the same truth will still remain; for God knows Himself and other things through the same means. However, there is added to the concept of truth the note of origin with respect to creatures, to which the divine intellect is compared as a measure and cause. Moreover, in theological matters every name which does not imply the notion of origin or of being from a principle is predicated essentially. And even if the name implies the notion of origin of creatures, it still is also predicated essentially. Consequently, if truth is taken properly in whatever pertains to God, it is predicated essentially; yet it is appropriated to the person of the Son, as are also art and all else pertaining to intellect.
|
| Metaphorice vel similitudinarie accipitur veritas in divinis, quando accipimus eam ibi secundum illam rationem qua invenitur in rebus creatis, in quibus dicitur veritas, secundum quod res creata imitatur suum principium, scilicet intellectum divinum. Unde et similiter hoc modo veritas dicitur in divinis summa imitatio principii, quae filio convenit; et secundum hanc acceptionem veritatis, veritas proprie convenit filio, et personaliter dicitur; et sic loquitur Augustinus in Lib. de vera religione.
| Truth is taken metaphorically or figuratively in divine matters when we take it according to that formal character by which truth is found in created things. For in these, truth is said to exist inasmuch as a created thing imitates its source, the divine intellect. Similarly, when truth is applied to God and is said to be the highest possible imitation of its principle, this is attributed to the Son. Taken in this way, truth properly belongs to the Son and is predicated personally; and this, too, is what Augustine says.
|
|
| Answers to Difficulties
|
| Unde patet responsio ad primum.
| 1. The response is clear from the reply.
|
| Ad secundum dicendum, quod aequalitas in divinis quandoque importat relationem quae designat distinctionem personalem, sicut cum dicimus, quod pater et filius sunt aequales; et secundum hoc, in nomine aequalitatis, realis distinctio intelligitur. Quandoque autem in nomine aequalitatis non intelligitur realis distinctio, sed rationis tantum, sicut cum dicimus sapientiam et bonitatem divinam esse aequales. Unde non oportet quod distinctionem personalem importet; et talis est aequalitas importata per nomen veritatis, cum sit aequalitas intellectus et essentiae.
| 2. When equality is referred to divine things it sometimes implies a relation that indicates a distinction of Persons—as when we say that the Father and the Son are equal. In this respect a real distinction is understood in the word equality. Sometimes, however, a real distinction is not understood in the word equality, but merely a rational distinction, as when we say that the divine wisdom and the divine goodness are equal. Hence, equality does not necessarily imply a distinction of persons. Such also is the distinction implied in the word truth, since truth is an equality of intellect and essence.
|
| Ad tertium dicendum, quod quamvis veritas sit concepta per intellectum, nomine tamen veritatis non exprimitur ratio conceptionis, sicut nomine verbi; unde non est simile.
| 3. Although truth is conceived by the intellect, the notion of a concept is not expressed by the word truth as it is by the term word. Hence, no analogy can be drawn.
|
| ARTICLE VIII
In the eighth article we ask:
Is every other truth from the first truth?
[Parallel readings: De ver., 21, 4, ad 5; 27, 1, ad 7; S.T., I, 16, aa. 5-6; C.G., III, 47; Quodl., X, 4,7; I Sent., 19,5, aa- 1-2; II Sent., 37, 1, 2, ad 1; X Metaph., lect. 2, nn. 1956-59.]
|
| Octavo quaeritur utrum omnis veritas alia sit a veritate prima.
| Difficulties
|
| Et videtur quod non.
| It seems not, for
|
| Istum enim fornicari est verum; sed hoc non est a veritate prima. Ergo non omnis veritas est a veritate prima.
| 1. Fornication is a true thing; yet it is not from the first truth. Therefore, not every truth is from the first truth.
|
| Sed dicebat, quod veritas signi vel intellectus, secundum quam hoc dicitur verum, est a Deo, non autem secundum quod refertur ad rem.- Sed contra, praeter veritatem primam non solum est veritas signi, aut intellectus, sed etiam est veritas rei. Si ergo hoc verum non sit a Deo secundum quod refertur ad rem, haec veritas rei non erit a Deo; et sic habetur propositum, quod non omnis veritas alia sit a Deo.
| 2. The answer was given that fornication is said to be true by reason of the truth of the sign or concept, and this is from God. Its truth as a thing, however, is not from God.—On the contrary, besides the first truth, there is not only the truth of the sign or of the concept, but also the truth of the thing. Therefore, if its truth as a thing is not from God, then there is a truth of a thing not from God, and our proposition that not every truth other than the first is from God will have to be granted.
|
| Praeterea, sequitur: iste fornicatur; ergo istum fornicari est verum; ut fiat descensus a veritate propositionis ad veritatem dicti, quae exprimit veritatem rei. Ergo veritas praedicta consistit in hoc quod iste actus componitur isti subiecto. Sed veritas dicti non esset ex compositione talis actus cum subiecto, nisi intelligeretur compositio actus sub deformitate existentis. Ergo veritas rei non solum est quantum ad ipsam essentiam actus, sed etiam quantum ad deformitatem. Sed actus sub deformitate consideratus nullo modo est a Deo. Ergo non omnis veritas rei est a Deo.
| 3. From “He fornicates,” it follows that “fornication is true.” Therefore, a transition can be made from the truth of a proposition to the truth of what is said, which in turn expresses the truth of the thing. Consequently, the truth mentioned consists in this: that that act is joined to that subject. But the truth of what is said would not arise from the conjunction of such an act with a subject unless the conjunction of the act, which has the deformity, were understood. Therefore, the truth of the thing regards not only the very essence of an act but also its deformity. But an act considered as having a deformity is by no means from God. Not all truth of things, therefore, is from God.
|
| Praeterea, Anselmus dicit, quod res dicitur vera secundum quod est ut debet esse; et inter modos quibus potest dici quod debet esse res, ponit unum, secundum quem dicitur, quod res debet esse, quia Deo permittente accidit. Sed permissio Dei extendit se etiam ad deformitatem actus. Ergo veritas rei etiam ad deformitatem illam pertingit. Sed deformitas illa nullo modo est a Deo. Ergo non omnis veritas est a Deo.
| 4. Anselm says that a thing is called true if it is as it ought to be. Among the ways in which a thing can be said to be what it ought to be he mentions one, namely, that it happens with God’s permission. Now, God’s permission extends even to the deformity in an act. Therefore, the truth of the thing reaches as far as that deformity. But deformity is in no way from God. Therefore, not every truth is from God.
|
| Sed dicebat, quod sicut deformitas, vel privatio dicitur ens non simpliciter, sed secundum quid, ita et dicitur habere veritatem, non simpliciter, sed secundum quid; et talis veritas secundum quid non est a Deo.- Sed contra, verum addit supra ens ordinem ad intellectum. Sed deformitas vel privatio, quamvis in se non sit simpliciter ens, tamen est simpliciter apprehensa per intellectum. Ergo, quamvis non habeat simpliciter entitatem, habet tamen simpliciter veritatem.
| 5. It was said, however, that just as a deformity or privation cannot be called a being without qualification, but only a being in a certain respect, so also a deformity or privation cannot be said to have truth without qualification, but only in a certain respect. Such a restricted truth is not from God.—On the contrary, to being, the true adds a reference to intellect. Now, although privation or deformity in itself is not being absolutely, it is apprehended absolutely by the intellect. Therefore, even though it does not have entity absolutely, it does have truth absolutely.
|
| Praeterea, omne secundum quid ad simpliciter reducitur; sicut hoc quod est Aethiopem esse album dente, reducitur ad hoc, quod est dentem Aethiopis esse album simpliciter. Si ergo aliqua veritas secundum quid, non est a Deo, non omnis simpliciter veritas erit a Deo; quod est absurdum.
| 6. Everything qualified is reduced to something unqualified. For example, “An Ethiopian is white with respect to teeth” is reduced to this: “The teeth of an Ethiopian are white without qualification.” Consequently, if some limited truth is not from God, then not every qualified truth will be from God—which is absurd.
|
| Praeterea, quod non est causa causae, non est causa effectus; sicut Deus non est causa deformitatis peccati, quia non est causa defectus in libero arbitrio, ex quo deformitas peccati accidit. Sed sicut esse est causa veritatis affirmativarum propositionum, ita non esse negativarum. Cum ergo Deus non sit causa eius quod est non esse, ut dicit Augustinus in Lib. LXXXIII quaestionum, relinquitur quod Deus non sit causa negativarum propositionum; et sic non omnis veritas est a Deo.
| 7. What is not the cause of the cause is not the cause of the effect. For example, God is not the cause of the deformity of sin, for He is not the cause of the defect in a free choice from which the deformity of sin arises. Now, just as the act of existing is the cause of the truth of affirmative propositions, so non-existing is the cause of negative propositions. Now, as Augustine says, since God is not the cause of this non-existing, it follows that He is not the cause of negative propositions. Hence, not every truth is from God.
|
| Praeterea, Augustinus dicit in libro Solil. quod verum est quod ita se habet ut videtur. Sed malum aliquod ita se habet ut videtur. Ergo aliquod malum est verum. Sed nullum malum est a Deo. Ergo non omne verum est a Deo.
| 8. Augustine says: “The true is that which is as it appears.”3 Now, an evil thing is as it appears. Therefore, something evil is true. But no evil is from God. Therefore, not every true thing is from God.
|
| Sed dicebat, quod malum non videtur per speciem mali, sed per speciem boni.- Sed contra. Species boni nunquam facit apparere nisi bonum. Si ergo malum non videtur nisi per speciem boni, nunquam appareret malum nisi bonum; quod est falsum.
| 9. But it was said that evil is not seen through the species of evil but through the species of a good.—On the contrary, the species of a good never makes anything appear but that good. Consequently, if evil is seen only through the species of a good, evil will appear only as a good. But this is false.
|
| Sed contra.
| To the Contrary
|
| I Cor. super illud, nemo potest dicere etc., dicit Ambrosius: omne verum, a quocumque dicatur, a spiritu sancto est.
| 1. Commenting on the text, “And no man can say the Lord Jesus...” (1 Cor. 12:3), Ambrose says: “Every true thing, no matter who says it, is from the Holy Spirit.”
|
| Praeterea, omnis bonitas creata, est a prima bonitate increata, quae est Deus. Ergo eadem ratione omnis alia veritas est a prima veritate, quae est Deus.
| 2. All created goodness is from the first uncreated goodness, God. For the same reason, all other truth is from the first truth, God.
|
| Praeterea, ratio veritatis completur in intellectu. Sed omnis intellectus est a Deo. Ergo omnis veritas est a Deo.
| 3. The formal character of truth finds its completion in the intellect. But every intellect is from God. Hence, every truth is from God.
|
| Praeterea, Augustinus in Lib. Solil. dicit quod verum est id quod est. Sed omne esse est a Deo. Ergo omnis veritas.
| 4. Augustine says: “The true is that which is.” But every act of existing is from God. Therefore, every truth is from Him.
|
| Praeterea, sicut verum convertitur cum ente, ita et unum et e converso. Sed omnis unitas est a prima unitate ut dicit Augustinus in libro de vera religione; ergo et omnis veritas est a prima veritate.
| 5. just as the one is interchangeable with being, so is the true, and conversely. But all unity is from the first unity, as Augustine says. Therefore, every truth also is from the first truth.
|
|
| REPLY
|
| Responsio. Dicendum, quod in rebus creatis invenitur veritas in rebus et in intellectu, ut ex dictis patet: in intellectu quidem secundum quod adaequatur rebus quarum notionem habet; in rebus autem secundum quod imitantur intellectum divinum, qui est earum mensura, sicut ars est mensura omnium artificiatorum; et alio modo secundum quod sunt natae facere de se veram apprehensionem in intellectu humano, qui per res mensuratur, ut dicitur in X Metaph. Res autem existens extra animam, per formam suam imitatur artem divini intellectus, et per eandem nata est facere veram apprehensionem in intellectu humano, per quam etiam formam unaquaeque res esse habet; unde veritas rerum existentium includit in sui ratione entitatem earum, et superaddit habitudinem adaequationis ad intellectum humanum vel divinum. Sed negationes vel privationes existentes extra animam non habent aliquam formam, per quam vel imitentur exemplar artis divinae, vel ingerant sui notitiam in intellectu humano; sed quod adaequantur intellectui, est ex parte intellectus, qui earum rationes apprehendit.
| As is clear from what has been said among created things truth is found both in things and in intellect. In the intellect it is found according to the conformity which the intellect has with the things whose notions it has. In things it is found according as they imitate the divine intellect, which is their measure—as art is the measure of all products of art—and also in another way, according as they can by their very nature bring about a true apprehension of themselves in the human intellect, which, as is said in the Metaphysics, is measured by things. By its form a thing existing outside the soul imitates the art of the divine intellect; and, by the same form, it is such that it can bring about a true apprehension in the human intellect. Through this form, moreover, each and every thing has its act of existing. Consequently, the truth of existing things includes their entity in its intelligible character, adding to this a relation of conformity to the human or divine intellect. But negations or privations existing outside the soul do not have any form by which they can imitate the model of divine art or introduce a knowledge of themselves into the human intellect. The fact that they are conformed to intellect is due to the intellect, which apprehends their intelligible notes.
|
| Sic ergo patet quod cum dicitur lapis verus et caecitas vera, non eodem modo veritas se habet ad utrumque: veritas enim de lapide dicta claudit in sui ratione lapidis entitatem, et superaddit habitudinem ad intellectum, quae causatur etiam ex parte ipsius rei, cum habeat aliquid secundum quod referri possit; sed veritas dicta de caecitate non includit in seipsam privationem quae est caecitas, sed solummodo habitudinem caecitatis ad intellectum; quae etiam non habet aliquid ex parte ipsius caecitatis in quo sustentetur, cum caecitas non aequetur intellectui ex virtute alicuius quod in se habeat.
| It is clear, therefore, that when a stone and blindness are said to be true, truth is not related to both in the same way; for truth predicated of the stone includes in its notion the entity of the stone, adding a reference to intellect, which is also caused by the thing itself since it has something by which it can be referred to intellect. As predicated of blindness, however, truth does not include in itself that privation which is blindness, but only the relation of blindness to intellect. This relation, moreover, is not supported by anything in the blindness itself, since blindness is not conformed to intellect by virtue of anything which it has in itself.
|
| Patet ergo quod veritas in rebus creatis inventa nihil aliud potest comprehendere quam entitatem rei, et adaequationem rei ad intellectum vel aequationem intellectus ad res vel ad privationes rerum; quod totum est a Deo, quia et ipsa forma rei, per quam adaequatur, a Deo est, et ipsum verum sicut bonum intellectus; ut dicitur in VI Ethic. quia bonum uniuscuiusque rei consistit in perfecta operatione ipsius rei. Non est autem perfecta operatio intellectus, nisi secundum quod verum cognoscit; unde in hoc consistit eius bonum, in quantum huiusmodi. Unde, cum omne bonum sit a Deo, et omnis forma, oportet absolute dicere, quod omnis veritas sit a Deo.
| Hence, it is clear that the truth found in created things can include nothing more than the entity of a thing and conformity of the thing to intellect or conformity of intellect to things or to the privations of things. All this is entirely from God, because both the very form of a thing, through which it is conformed, is from God, and the truth itself in so far as it is the good of the intellect, as is said in the Ethics; for the good of any thing whatsoever consists in its perfect operation. But since the perfect operation of the intellect consists in its knowing the true, that is its good in the sense just mentioned. Hence, since every good and every form is from God, one must say, without any qualification, that every truth is from God.
|
|
| Answers to Difficulties
|
| Ad primum ergo dicendum, quod cum sic arguitur: omne verum est a Deo; istum fornicari est verum; ergo etc., incidit fallacia accidentis, ut enim ex iam dictis patere potest. Cum dicimus: istum fornicari est verum; non hoc dicimus quasi ipse defectus qui implicatur in actu fornicationis includatur in ratione veritatis: sed verum praedicat tantum adaequationem huius ad intellectum. Unde non debet concludi: istum fornicari est a Deo; sed quod veritas eius sit a Deo.
| 1. The argument—“Every true thing is from God. But to fornicate is true. Therefore.”—falls into the fallacy of accident. For, as is evident from our discussion above,* when we say that fornicating is true, we do not imply that the defect involved in the act of fornication is included in the notion of truth. True predicates merely the conformity of that act to an intellect. Hence, one cannot conclude that fornicating is from God, but merely that its truth is from God.
|
| Ad secundum dicendum, quod deformitates et alii defectus non habent veritatem sicut et aliae res, ut ex praedictis patet; et ideo, quamvis veritas defectuum sit a Deo, non ex hoc potest concludi, quod deformitas sit a Deo.
| 2. As is clear from our reply just above, deformities and other defects do not possess truth in the same say that other things do. Consequently, even though the truth of defects is from God, it does not follow that the deformity is from God.
|
| Ad tertium dicendum, quod secundum philosophum, VI Metaph., veritas non consistit in compositione quae est in rebus, sed in compositione quam facit anima; et ideo veritas non consistit in hoc quod iste actus cum deformitate sua inhaeret subiecto, hoc enim pertinet ad rationem boni vel mali, sed ex hoc quod actus sic inhaerens subiecto apprehensioni animae adaequatur.
| 3. According to the Philosopher, truth does not consist in the composition found in things but in that made by the soul. Hence, truth does not consist in this, that the act with its deformity inheres in a subject (for this is proper, rather, to the character of good and evil). It consists in the conformity of the act, inherent in its subject, to the soul’s apprehension.
|
| Ad quartum dicendum, quod bonum, debitum, et rectum, et huiusmodi omnia alio modo se habent ad permissionem divinam, et alio modo ad alia signa voluntatis. In aliis enim refertur et ad id quod cadit sub actu voluntatis, et ad ipsum voluntatis actum; sicut cum Deus praecipit honorem parentum; et ipse honor parentum bonum quoddam est, et ipsum etiam praecipere bonum est. Sed in permissione refertur tantum ad actum permittentis, et non ad id quod sub permissione cadit; unde rectum est quod Deus permittat deformitates incidere; non tamen sequitur ex hoc quod ipsa deformitas aliquam rectitudinem habeat.
| 4. The good, the due, the right, and all other things of this sort are related in one way to the divine permission, and in another, to other manifestations of the divine will. In the latter, there is a reference to the object of the will act, as well as to the will act itself. For example, when God commands that parents be honored, both the honor to be given parents and the act of commanding are goods. But in a divine permission there is a reference only to the subjective act of permitting, and not to the object of the permission. Hence, it is right that God should permit deformities, but it does not follow from this that the deformity itself has some rectitude.
|
| Ad quintum dicendum, quod veritas secundum quid quae competit negationibus et defectibus, reducitur ad veritatem simpliciter, quae est in intellectu, quae a Deo est; et ideo veritas defectuum a Deo est, quamvis ipsi defectus a Deo non sint.
| 5. The qualified truth which belongs to negations and defects is reducible to that unqualified truth which is in the intellect and from God. Consequently, the truth of defects is from God, although the defects themselves are not from Him.
|
| Ad sextum dicendum, quod non esse non est causa veritatis propositionum negativarum quasi faciens eas in intellectu; sed ipsa anima hoc facit conformans se non enti, quod est extra animam; unde non esse extra animam existens, non est causa efficiens veritatis in anima, sed quasi exemplaris. Obiectio autem procedebat de causa efficiente.
| 6. Non-existing is not the cause of the truth of negative propositions in the sense that it causes them to exist in the intellect. The soul itself does this by conforming itself to a non-being outside the soul. Hence, this non-existing outside the soul is not the efficient cause of truth in the soul, but, as it were, its exemplary cause. The difficulty is based upon the efficient cause.
|
| Ad septimum dicendum, quod quamvis malum non sit a Deo, tamen quod malum videatur tale quale est, est quidem a Deo; unde veritas qua verum est malum esse, est a Deo.
| 7. Although evil is not from God, that evil is seen to be what it is, is from God. Hence, the truth by which it is true that there is evil is from God.
|
| Ad octavum dicendum, quod quamvis malum non agat in animam nisi per speciem boni; quia tamen est bonum deficiens, anima deprehendit in se rationem defectus, et in hoc concipit rationem mali; et sic malum videtur malum.
| 8. Although evil does not act on the soul except through the species of good, nevertheless, since evil is a deficient good, the soul grasps t e intelligible character of the defect, and so conceives the character of evil. Accordingly, evil is seen as evil.
|
| ARTICLE X
In the tenth article we ask:
Is there any false thing?
[Parallel readings: S.T., I, 16, aa. 1, 6; I Sent., 19, 5, 1; IV Metaph., lect. 12, n. 681 seq.; V Metaph., lect. 22, nn. 1128-29; VI Metaph., lect, 4, n. 1237 seq.]
|
| Decimo quaeritur utrum aliqua res sit falsa.
| Difficulties
|
| Et videtur quod non.
| It seems not, for
|
| Augustinus enim dicit in Lib. Solil., verum est id quod est. Ergo falsum est id quod non est. Sed quod non est, non est res aliqua. Ergo nulla res est falsa.
| 1. According to Augustine: “The true is that which is.”’ Hence, the false is that which is not. Now, what is not is not a thing. Therefore, no thing is false.
|
| Sed dicebat, quod verum est differentia entis; et ita, sicut verum est quod est, ita et falsum.- Sed contra, nulla differentia divisiva convertitur cum eo cuius est differentia. Sed verum convertitur cum ente, ut supra dictum est. Ergo verum non est differentia divisiva entis, ut res aliqua falsa dici possit.
| 2. It was said that the true is a differentia of being; consequently, the false, like the true, is that which is.—On the contrary, no dividing differentia is interchangeable with that whose differentia it is. Now, as was said, the true is interchangeable with being. Consequently, the true is not a dividing differentia of being, for this would make it possible to call some thing false.
|
| Praeterea, veritas est adaequatio rei et intellectus. Sed omnis res est adaequata intellectui divino, quia nihil potest esse in se aliter quam intellectus divinus cognoscit. Ergo omnis res est vera; ergo nulla res est falsa.
| 3. Truth is a conformity of thing and intellect. Now, an things are conformed to the divine intellect, since in itself nothing can be other than it is known to be by the divine intellect. Hence, all things are true, and nothing is false.
|
| Praeterea, omnis res habet veritatem a forma sua; ex hoc enim homo dicitur verus, quod habet veram hominis formam. Sed nulla est res quae non habeat aliquam formam, quia omne esse est a forma. Ergo quaelibet res est vera; ergo nulla res est falsa.
| 4. All things possess truth from their forms. For example, one is said to be a true man if he has the true form of a man. But there is nothing which does not have some form, for every act of existing comes from form. Hence, everything is true, and there is no thing which is false.
|
| Praeterea, sicut se habet bonum et malum, ita se habet verum et falsum. Sed quia malum invenitur in rebus, malum non substantificatur nisi in bono, ut Dionysius et Augustinus dicunt. Ergo si falsitas invenitur in rebus, falsitas non substantificabitur nisi in vero; quod non videtur esse possibile, quia sic idem esset verum et falsum, quod est impossibile; sicut idem est homo et album, propter hoc quod albedo substantificatur in homine.
| 5. Good and evil are related as true and false are related. Now, since evil is found in things, it has concrete reality only in something good, as Dionysius and Augustine say. Therefore, if falseness is found in things, it can have reality only in what is true. But this does not seem possible, for then the same thing would be both true and false; but this is impossible. This would mean, for example, that man and white are the same because whiteness is made real in a man.
|
| Praeterea, Augustinus in Lib. Soliloq. sic obiicit. Si aliqua res nominatur falsa: aut hoc est ex eo quod est simile, aut ex eo quod est dissimile. Si ex eo quod est dissimile, nihil est quod falsum dici non possit; nihil enim est quod alicui dissimile non sit. Si ex eo quod simile, omnia reclamant, quae ex eo vera sunt quo similia. Ergo nullo modo falsitas in rebus inveniri potest.
| 6. Augustine proposes the following difficulty. If a thing is called false, it is either because it is similar or because it is dissimilar. “If because it is dissimilar, there is nothing that cannot be called false, for there is nothing that is not unlike something else. If because it is similar, all things loudly protest, for they are true because they are similar.” Therefore, falsity cannot be found in things in any way.
|
| Sed contra.
| To the Contrary
|
| Augustinus ita definit falsum: falsum est quod ad similitudinem alicuius accommodatum est, et non pertingit ad illud cuius similitudinem gerit. Sed omnis creatura gerit similitudinem Dei. Ergo cum nulla creatura pertingat ad ipsum Deum per modum identitatis, videtur quod omnis creatura sit falsa.
| 1. Augustine defines the false as follows: “The false is that which approaches the likeness of something else without being that whose likeness it bears. But every creature bears the likeness of God. Therefore, since no creature is identical with God Himself, it seems that every creature is false.
|
| Praeterea, Augustinus, in libro de vera religione: omne corpus est verum corpus, et falsa unitas. Sed hoc pro tanto dicitur, quia imitatur unitatem, et tamen non est unitas. Cum ergo quaelibet creatura, secundum quamlibet sui perfectionem, divinam perfectionem imitetur et ab eo nihilominus in infinitum distet; videtur quod quaelibet creatura sit falsa.
| 2. Augustine says that “Every body is a true body and a false unity. Now, a body is said to be false because it imitates unity, yet is not a unity. Therefore, since every creature, in so far as it is perfect, imitates the divine perfection, and, nevertheless, in any perfection which it has, remains infinitely distant from it, it seems that every creature is false.
|
| Praeterea, sicut verum convertitur cum ente, ita et bonum. Sed ex hoc quod bonum convertitur cum ente, non prohibetur quin aliqua res inveniatur mala. Ergo nec ex hoc quod verum convertitur cum ente, prohibetur quin aliqua res inveniatur falsa.
| 3. The good, like the true, is interchangeable with being. But the interchangeability of the good and being does not stand in the way of a thing’s being evil. Therefore, the fact that the true is interchangeable with being does not stand in the way of a thing’s being false.
|
| Praeterea, Anselmus dicit in libro de veritate quod duplex est propositionis veritas; una quia significat quod accepit significare, sicut haec propositio: Socrates sedet; significat Socratem sedere, sive Socrates sedeat, sive non sedeat; alia, quando significat illud ad quod facta est; est enim ad hoc facta ut significet esse, quando est; et secundum hoc proprie dicitur enuntiatio vera. Ergo, eadem ratione, quaelibet res dicetur vera, quando implet hoc ad quod est; falsa autem quando non implet. Sed omnis res quae deficit a fine suo, non implet illud propter quod est. Cum ergo multae res sint tales, videtur quod multae sint falsae.
| 4. Anselm says that there are two kinds of truth in propositions. “The first type occurs when the proposition has the meaning which was given to it.” For example, this proposition, “Socrates sits,” means that Socrates is sitting, whether he is actually sitting or not. “The second type of truth occurs when the proposition signifies that for which it was formed”—and it has been formed to signify that something is when it is. In this respect, a proposition is properly said to be true. In the same way, a thing may be called true when it fulfills its purpose, and false when it does not do so. But everything which falls short of its end does not fulfill its purpose; and, since there are many things of this sort, it seems that many things are false.
|
|
| REPLY
|
| Responsio. Dicendum, quod sicut veritas consistit in adaequatione rei et intellectus, ita falsitas consistit in eorum inaequalitate. Res autem comparatur ad intellectum divinum et humanum, ut supra dictum est; intellectui autem divino comparatur uno modo sicut mensuratum mensurae, quantum ad ea quae in rebus positive dicuntur vel inveniuntur, quia omnia huiusmodi ab arte divini intellectus proveniunt; alio modo sicut cognitum ad cognoscens; et sic etiam negationes et defectus divino intellectui adaequantur, quia omnia huiusmodi Deus cognoscit, quamvis ea non causet. Patet ergo quod res qualitercumque se habeat sub quacumque forma existat, vel privatione aut defectu, intellectui divino adaequatur. Et sic patet quod res quaelibet in comparatione ad intellectum divinum vera est, unde Anselmus dicit in Lib. de veritate: est igitur veritas in omnium quae sunt essentia, quia hoc sunt quod in summa veritate sunt. Unde per comparationem ad intellectum divinum nulla res potest dici falsa;
| Just as truth consists in an equation of thing and intellect, so falsity consists in an inequality between them. Now, as was said, a thing is related to divine and human intellects. In regard to everything that is positively predicated of things or found in them, it is related to the divine in one way as the measured to its measure; for all such things come from the divine intellect’s art. A thing is related in another way to the divine intellect: as a thing known is related to the knower. In this way even negations and defects are equated to the divine intellect, since God knows all these even though He does not cause them. It is clear, then, that a thing is conformed to the divine intellect in whatever way it exists, under any for in whatsoever or even under a privation or a defect. Consequently, it is clear that everything is true in its relation to the divine intellect. Hence, Anselm says: “There is, then, truth in the essence of all things which are, for they are what they are in the highest truth.” Therefore, in its relation to the divine intellect, nothing can be false.
|
| sed secundum comparationem ad intellectum humanum invenitur interdum inaequalitas rei ad intellectum quae quodammodo ex ipsa re causatur; res enim notitiam sui facit in anima per ea quae de ipsa exterius apparent, quia cognitio nostra a sensu initium sumit, cui per se obiectum sunt sensibiles qualitates; unde et in I de anima dicitur, quod accidentia magnam partem conferunt ad cognoscendum quod quid est: et ideo quando in aliqua re apparent sensibiles qualitates demonstrantes naturam quae eis non subest, dicitur res illa esse falsa; unde Philos. dicit VI Metaph., quod illa dicuntur falsa quae nata sunt videri aut qualia non sunt, aut quae non sunt; sicut dicitur aurum falsum, in quo exterius apparet color auri, et alia huiusmodi accidentia, cum tamen interius natura auri non subsit. Nec tamen res est hoc modo causa falsitatis in anima, quod necessario falsitatem causet; quia veritas et falsitas praecipue in iudicio animae existunt, anima vero in quantum de rebus iudicat, non patitur a rebus, sed magis quodammodo agit. Unde res non dicitur falsa quia semper de se faciat falsam apprehensionem, sed quia nata est facere per ea quae de ipsa apparent.
| In its relation to a human intellect, however, an inequality of thing with intellect, caused in some way by the thing, is occasionally found; for a thing makes itself known in the soul by its exterior appearance, since our cognition takes its beginning from sense, whose direct object is sensible qualities. For this reason it is said in The Soul: “Accidents greatly contribute to our knowledge of the quiddity.” Consequently, when there are manifested in any object sensible qualities indicating a nature which does not actually underlie them, that thing is said to be false. Hence, the Philosopher says that those things are called false “which are such as to seem to be what they are not, or of a kind which they are not.” For example, that is called “false” gold which has in its external appearance the color and other accidents of genuine gold, whereas the nature of gold does not interiorly underlie them. But a thing is not to be the cause of falsity in the soul in the sense that it necessarily causes falsity; for truth and falsity exist principally in the soul’s judgment; and the soul, inasmuch as it judges about things, is not acted upon by things, but rather, in a sense, acts upon them. Hence, a thing is not said to be false because it always of itself causes a false apprehension, but rather because its natural appearance is likely to cause a false apprehension.
|
| Sed quia, ut dictum est comparatio rei ad intellectum divinum est ei essentialis, et secundum eam per se dicitur vera; sed comparatio ad intellectum humanum est ei accidentalis, secundum quam non dicitur absolute vera sed quasi secundum quid et in potentia, ideo simpliciter loquendo omnis res est vera, et nulla res est falsa; sed secundum quid, scilicet in ordine ad intellectum nostrum, aliquae res dicuntur falsae; et ita oportet rationibus utriusque partis respondere.
| As was pointed out previously,” however, the relation to the divine intellect is essential to a thing; and in this respect a thing is said to be true in itself. Its relation to the human intellect is accidental to it; and in this respect a thing is not true, absolutely speaking but, as it were, in some respect and in potency. Therefore, all things are true absolutely speaking, and nothing is false. But in a certain respect, that is, with reference to our intellect, some things are said to be false. Hence, it is necessary to answer the arguments of both sides.
|
|
| Answers to Difficulties
|
| Ad primum ergo dicendum, quod ista definitio, verum est id quod est, non perfecte exprimit rationem veritatis, sed quasi materialiter tantum, nisi secundum quod li esse significat affirmationem propositionis, ut scilicet dicatur id esse verum quod sic esse dicitur vel intelligitur ut in rebus est; et sic etiam falsum dicatur quod non est, id est quod non est ut dicitur vel intelligitur; et hoc in rebus inveniri potest.
| 1. The definition, “The true is that which is,” does not perfectly express the intelligible character of truth. It expresses it, as it were, only materially, unless is here signifies the affirmation of a proposition, and means that a thing is said to be true when it is said to be or to be understood as it is in reality. Taken in this sense, the false may be said to be that which does not exist; it is not as it is said or understood to be. And this type of falsity can be found in things.
|
| Ad secundum dicendum, quod verum, proprie loquendo, non potest esse differentia entis; ens enim non habet aliquam differentiam, ut probatur in III Metaph.; sed aliquo modo verum se habet ad ens per modum differentiae, sicut et bonum; in quantum, videlicet, exprimunt aliquid circa ens quod nomine entis non exprimitur; et secundum hoc intentio entis est indeterminata respectu intentionis veri; et sic intentio veri comparatur ad intentionem entis quodammodo ut differentia ad genus.
| 2. Properly speaking, the true cannot be a differentia of being, for being does not have any differentia, as is proved in the Metaphysics. But in some sense the true, as well as the good, is related to being in the manner of a differentia, since it expresses something about being which is not expressed by the noun being; and in this sense the meaning of being is indeterminate with respect to the meaning of the true. Consequently, the meaning of the true is compared to the notion of being somewhat as a differentia is compared to its genus.
|
| Ad tertium dicendum, quod ratio illa concedenda est; procedit enim de re in ordine ad intellectum divinum.
| 3. That argument must be conceded, since it treats a thing in its relation to the divine intellect.
|
| Ad quartum dicendum, quod quamvis quaelibet res habeat aliquam formam, non tamen omnis res habet illam formam cuius indicia exterius ostenduntur per sensibiles qualitates; et secundum haec falsa dicitur, in quantum de se falsam existimationem facere apta nata est.
| 4. All things have some form, yet not everything has that form whose characteristics are externally manifested by sensible qualities; and it is in regard to these that a thing is said to be false if it is naturally apt to produce a false estimation about itself.
|
| Ad quintum dicendum, quod aliquid existens extra animam pro tanto dicitur falsum, ut ex dictis, in corp. art., patet, quia natum est de se facere falsam existimationem, quod autem nihil est non est natum de se facere aliquam extimationem quia non movet virtutem cognitivam; unde oportet quod illud quod falsum dicitur, aliquod ens sit. Unde cum omne ens, in quantum huiusmodi, sit verum, oportet falsitatem in rebus existentem, supra aliquam veritatem fundari; unde dicit Augustinus in Lib. Soliloquiorum, quod tragoedus qui repraesentat alienas personas in theatris, non esset falsus, (Hector) nisi esset verus tragoedus; similiter equus pictus non esset falsus equus, nisi esset pura pictura. Nec tamen sequitur contradictoria esse vera, quia affirmatio et negatio, secundum quas dicitur verum et falsum, non referuntur ad idem.
| 5. As is clear from what has been said, something outside the soul is said to be false if it is naturally such as to give a false impression of itself. But what is nothing is not capable of making any impression, since it does not move a knowing power. What is said to be false, therefore, must be a being; and since every being, in so far as it is a being, is true, falsity must exist in things and be based upon some truth. For this reason Augustine says” that a tragedian representing true persons in dramas would not be false without being a true tragedian. Similarly, a painting of a horse would not be a false horse were it not a true picture. It does not follow, however, that contradictories are true, because the affirmation and the negation in expressing the true and the false do not refer to the same reality.
|
| Ad sextum dicendum, quod res falsa dicitur secundum quod nata est fallere; cum autem fallere dico, significo actionem quamdam defectum inducentem. Nihil autem natum est agere nisi secundum quod est ens; omnis autem defectus est non ens. Unumquodque autem, secundum quod est ens, habet similitudinem veri; secundum autem quod non est, recedit ab eius similitudine. Et ideo hoc quod dico fallere, quantum ad id quod importat de actione, originem habet ex similitudine; sed quantum ad id quod importat defectum, in quo formaliter ratio falsitatis consistit, ex dissimilitudine surgit; et ideo dicit Augustinus in Lib. de vera religione, quod ex dissimilitudine falsitas oritur.
| 6. A thing is said to be false in so far as, by its nature, it is likely to deceive. When I say deceive, however, I mean an action that brings on some defect; for nothing can act except to the extent that it is being, and every defect is non-being. Moreover, everything has some likeness to the true to the extent that it is a being; and in so far as it does not exist it departs from this likeness. Consequently, this deceiving as implying action arises from likeness; but the defect it implies (and in which the intelligible character of falsity formally consists) arises from unlikeness. Hence, Augustine says that falsity arises from unlikeness.
|
|
| Answers to Contrary Difficulties
|
| Ad primum ergo eorum quae contra obiiciuntur, dicendum, quod non ex qualibet similitudine nata est anima decipi, sed ex magna similitudine, in qua dissimilitudo de facili inveniri non potest; et ideo ex similitudine maiori vel minori decipitur anima secundum maiorem vel minorem perspicacitatem ad dissimilitudinem inveniendum. Nec tamen simpliciter debet enuntiari aliqua res falsa ex eo quod quemcumque in errorem inducit; sed ex eo quod nata est plures vel sapientes nata est fallere. Creaturae autem, quamvis aliquam Dei similitudinem gerant in seipsis, tamen maxima dissimilitudo subest, ut non nisi ex magna insipientia contingat quod ex tali similitudine mens decipiatur. Unde ex praedicta similitudine et dissimilitudine creaturarum ad Deum non sequitur quod omnes creaturae debeant dici falsae.
| 1. The soul is not so constituted as to be deceived by any likeness whatsoever, but only by a considerable resemblance which makes it difficult to discover the unlikeness. Hence, the soul is deceived by similarities, more or less great, according to the varying degrees of its acuteness in discovering unlikenesses. A thing, however, should not be said to be absolutely false because it leads into error, however much it may do that, but only because it is such as to deceive many or highly intelligent men. Now, although creatures bear some resemblance to God in themselves, so great is the dissimilarity between the two that only because of great stupidity could it happen that a mind would be deceived by such similarity. Hence, from the similarity and dissimilarity between creatures and God, it does not follow that all creatures should be called false.
|
| Ad secundum dicendum, quod quidam existimaverunt Deum esse corpus; et cum Deus sit unitas, qua omnia sunt unum, existimaverunt per consequens corpus esse unitatem ipsam, propter ipsam similitudinem unitatis. Secundum hoc ergo corpus falsa unitas dicitur, in quantum aliquos in errorem induxit vel inducere potuit, ut unitas crederetur.
| 2. Some have thought that God is a body; and, since He is the unity by which all things are one, they consequently thought that body was unity itself, because of its likeness to unity. Therefore, a body is called a false unity for this reason, that it has led or could lead some into the error of believing it to be unity.
|
| Ad tertium dicendum, quod duplex est perfectio; scilicet prima, et secunda: prima perfectio est forma uniuscuiusque, per quam habet esse; unde ab ea nulla res destituitur dum manet; secunda perfectio est operatio, quae est finis rei, vel id per quod ad finem devenitur et hac perfectione interdum res destituitur. Ex prima autem perfectione resultat ratio veri in rebus; ex hoc enim quod res formam habet, artem divini intellectus imitatur, et sui notitiam in anima gignit. Sed ex perfectione secunda consequitur in ipsa ratio bonitatis, quae consurgit ex fine; et ideo malum simpliciter invenitur in rebus, non autem falsum.
| 3. There are two kinds of perfection, first and second. First perfection is the form of each thing, and that by which it has its act of existing. Nothing is without it while it continues in existence. Second perfection is operation, which is the end of a thing or the means by which a thing reaches its end; and a thing is sometimes deprived of this perfection. The note of truth in things results from first perfection; for it is because a thing has a form that it imitates the art of the divine intellect and produces knowledge of itself in the soul. But the note of goodness in things results from its second perfection, for this goodness arises from the end. Consequently, evil, but not falsity, is found in things absolutely.
|
| Ad quartum dicendum, quod secundum philosophum in VI Ethic., ipsum verum est bonum intellectus; secundum hoc enim intellectus operatio est perfecta, quod sua conceptio est vera; et quia enuntiatio est signum intellectus, ideo veritas eius est finis ipsius. Non autem ita est in rebus aliis; et propter hoc non est simile.
| 4. According to the Philosopher,”’ the true itself is the good of the intellect, for an operation of intellect is perfect because its concept is true. And since a proposition is a sign of what is understood, truth is its end. But this is not the case with other things, and so there is no similarity.
|
| ARTICLE XI
In the eleventh article we ask:
Is falsity in sense?
[Parallel readings: See readings given for q. 1, a. 9.]
|
| Undecimo quaeritur utrum falsitas sit in sensibus.
| Difficulties
|
| Et videtur quod non.
| It seems that it is not, for
|
| Intellectus enim semper est rectus, ut dicitur in III de anima. Sed intellectus est superior pars in homine. Ergo et aliae partes eius rectitudinem sequuntur, sicut et in mundo maiori inferiora disponuntur secundum superiorum motum. Ergo et sensus, qui est inferior pars animae, semper erit rectus: non ergo in eo erit falsitas.
| 1. As is said in The Soul: “The intellect is always correct.”’ Now, since the intellect is the superior part of man, his other parts must also pursue correctness—just as the disposition of lower bodies in the universe depends on the motion of the higher bodies. Therefore, sense, which is the inferior part of the soul, will also always be correct there is, then, no falsity in it.
|
| Praeterea, Augustinus dicit in Lib. de vera Relig.: ipsi oculi non fallunt nos; non enim enuntiare possunt animo nisi affectionem suam. Quod si et omnes corporis sensus ita enuntiant ut afficiuntur, quid ab eis amplius exigere debemus ignoro. Ergo in sensibus non est falsitas.
| 2. Augustine says: “Our eyes do not deceive us: they can report to the mind only their own modification, And if all the bodily senses report as they are affected, I do not know what more we can require of them.” Hence, there is no falsity in the senses.
|
| Praeterea, Anselmus in Lib. de veritate dicit: videtur mihi veritas vel falsitas in sensu esse, sed in opinione; et sic habetur propositum.
| 3. Anselm says: “It seems to me that truth or falsity is not in the sense but in opinion.” This confirms our thesis.
|
| Sed contra.
| To the Contrary
|
| Est quod Anselmus dicit: est quidem in sensibus nostris veritas, sed non semper; nam fallunt nos aliquando.
| 1. Anselm says: “Truth is, indeed, in our senses, but not always; for they sometimes deceive us.
|
| Praeterea, secundum Augustinum in Lib. Soliloquiorum, falsum solet dici quod a verisimilitudine longe abest, sed tamen habet ad verum nonnullam imitationem. Sed sensus habet quandoque similitudinem aliquarum rerum, quae non sunt ita in rerum natura; sicut est quandoque quod unum duo videatur, ut cum oculus comprimitur. Ergo in sensu est falsitas.
| 2. According to Augustine: “A thing is called false because it is far from being a likeness of the true, even though it does in some way imitate the true.” Now, a sense has at times a likeness of certain things other than they are in reality. For example, when the eye is pressed, one thing is sometimes seen as two. Consequently, there is falsity in sense.
|
| Sed dicebat, quod sensus non decipitur in propriis sensibilibus, sed de communibus.- Sed contra, quandocumque aliquid apprehenditur de aliquo aliter quam sit, est apprehensio falsa. Sed quando corpus album videtur mediante vitro viridi, sensus apprehendit aliter quam sit, quia apprehendit illud ut viride, et ita iudicat, nisi superius iudicium adsit, per quod falsitas detegatur. Ergo sensus decipitur etiam in propriis sensibilibus.
| 3. The answer was given that sense is not deceived with regard to proper sensibles, but only with regard to common sensibles.—On the contrary, whenever something is apprehended about a thing other than it is, the apprehension is false. Now, when a white body is seen through a green glass, the sense apprehends it other than it is, for it sees it as green and judges accordingly—unless a higher judgment is present, detecting the falsity. Therefore, sense is deceived even with regard to proper sensibles.
|
| Responsio.
| REPLY
|
| Dicendum, quod cognitio nostra quae a rebus initium sumit, hoc ordine progreditur, ut primo incipiatur in sensu, et secundo perficiatur in intellectu; ut sic sensus inveniatur quodammodo medius inter intellectum et res: est enim, rebus comparatus, quasi intellectus; et intellectui comparatus, quasi res quaedam: et ideo in sensu dicitur esse veritas vel falsitas dupliciter. Uno modo secundum ordinem sensus ad intellectum; et sic dicitur sensus esse falsus vel verus sicut et res; in quantum, videlicet, faciunt existimationem veram in intellectu, vel falsam. Alio modo secundum ordinem sensus ad res; et sic dicitur esse veritas vel falsitas in sensu, sicut et in intellectu; in quantum videlicet iudicat esse quod est, vel quod non est.
| Our knowledge, taking its start from things, proceeds in this order. First, it begins in sense; second, it is completed in the intellect. As a consequence, sense is found to be in some way an intermediary between the intellect and things; for with reference to things, it is, as it were, an intellect, and with reference to intellect, it is, as it were, a thing. Hence, truth or falsity is said to be in sense in two respects. The first is in the relation of sense to intellect. In this respect, the sense is said to be true or false as a thing is, namely, in so far as it causes a true or false judgment in the intellect. The second respect is in the relation of sense to things. In this, truth and falsity are said to be in sense as they are said to be in the intellect, namely, in so far as the sense judges that what is, is or is not.
|
| Si ergo loquamur de sensu secundum primum modum, sic in sensu quodammodo est falsitas, et quodammodo non est falsitas: sensus enim et est res quaedam in se, et est indicativum alterius rei. Si ergo comparetur ad intellectum secundum quod est res quaedam, sic nullo modo est falsitas in sensu intellectui comparato: quia secundum quod sensus disponitur, secundum hoc dispositionem suam intellectui demonstrat; unde Augustinus dicit in auctoritate inducta, quod non possunt animo enuntiare nisi affectionem suam. Si autem comparetur ad intellectum secundum quod est repraesentativum rei alterius, cum quandoque repraesentet ei aliter quam sit, secundum hoc sensus falsus dicitur, in quantum natus est facere falsam existimationem in intellectu, quamvis non necessario faciat, sicut et de rebus dictum est: quia intellectus iudicat sicut de rebus, ita et de his quae a sensibus offeruntur.
| Hence, if we speak of a sense in the first meaning, in a way there is falsity in sense, and in a way there is not. For sense, in itself, is a thing; and it also passes judgment on other things. If, in its relation to the intellect, it is considered as a thing, then there is no falsity in sense; for a sense reveals its state to the intellect exactly as it is affected. Hence, Augustine says, in the passage referred to: “The senses can report to the mind only how they are affected.” On the other hand, if sense is considered in its relation to the intellect as representing some other thing, it may be called false in view of the fact that it sometimes represents a thing to the intellect other than it actually is. For, in that case, as we said about things, it is such as to cause a false judgment in the intellect—but not necessarily, since the intellect judges on what is presented by sense just as it judges about things. Thus, in its relation to the intellect, sense always produces a true judgment in the intellect with respect to its own condition, but not always with respect to the condition of things.
|
| Sic ergo sensus intellectui comparatus semper facit veram existimationem in intellectu de dispositione propria, sed non semper de dispositione rerum. Si autem consideretur sensus secundum quod comparatur ad res, tunc in sensu est falsitas et veritas per modum quo est in intellectu. In intellectu autem primo et principaliter invenitur veritas et falsitas in iudicio componentis et dividentis; sed in formatione quidditatum non nisi per ordinem ad iudicium quod ex formatione praedicta consequitur; unde et in sensu proprie veritas et falsitas dicitur secundum hoc quod iudicat de sensibilibus; sed secundum hoc quod sensibile apprehendit, non est ibi proprie veritas vel falsitas sed solum secundum ordinem ad iudicium; prout scilicet ex apprehensione tali natum est sequi tale vel tale iudicium.
| If sense is considered in its relation to things, however, then there are truth and falsity in sense in the manner in which these are in the intellect. For truth and falsity are found primarily and principally in the judgment of the intellect as it associates and dissociates, and in the formation of quiddities, only in their relation to the judgment following upon this formation. Hence, truth and falsity are properly said to be in sense inasmuch as it judges about sensible objects, but inasmuch as it apprehends a sensible object, there is not properly truth or falsity, except in the relation of this apprehension to the judgment, in so far as a judgment of this or that sort naturally follows upon a particular apprehension.
|
| Sensus autem iudicium de quibusdam est naturale, sicut de propriis sensibilibus; de quibusdam autem quasi per quamdam collationem, quam facit in homine vis cogitativa, quae est potentia sensitivae partis, loco cuius in aliis animalibus est aestimatio naturalis; et sic iudicat vis sensitiva de sensibilibus communibus et de sensibilibus per accidens. Naturalis autem actio alicuius rei semper est uno modo, nisi per accidens impediatur, vel propter defectum intrinsecus, vel extrinsecus impedimentum; unde sensus iudicium de sensibilibus propriis semper est verum, nisi sit impedimentum in organo, vel in medio; sed de sensibilibus communibus vel per accidens interdum iudicium sensus fallitur. Et sic patet qualiter in iudicio sensus potest esse falsitas.
| The judgment of sense about certain things—for example, proper sensibles—takes place spontaneously. About other things, however, it takes place by means of a certain comparison, made in man by the cogitative power, a sense power, whose place in animals is taken by a spontaneous estimation. This sensitive power judges about common sensibles and accidental sensibles. However, the spontaneous action of a thing always takes place in one way, unless by accident it is impeded intrinsically by some defect or extrinsically by some impediment. Consequently, the judgment of sense about proper sensibles is always true unless there is an impediment in the organ or in the medium; but its judgment about common or accidental sensibles is sometimes wrong. Thus, it is clear how there can be falsity in the judgment of sense.
|
| Sed circa apprehensionem sensus sciendum est, quod est quaedam vis apprehensiva, quae apprehendit speciem sensibilem sensibili re praesente, sicut sensus proprius; quaedam vero quae apprehendit eam re absente, sicut imaginatio; et ideo semper sensus apprehendit rem ut est, nisi sit impedimentum in organo, vel in medio; sed imaginatio ut plurimum apprehendit rem ut non est, quia apprehendit eam ut praesentem, cum sit absens; et ideo dicit philosophus in IV Metaph., quod sensus non est dicens falsitatis, sed phantasia.
| As regards the apprehension of the senses, it must be noted that there is one type of apprehensive power, for example, a proper sense, which apprehends a sensible species in the presence of a sensible thing; but there is also a second type, the imagination, for example, which apprehends a sensible species when the thing is absent. So, even though the sense always apprehends a thing as it is, unless there is an impediment in the organ or in the medium, the imagination usually apprehends a thing as it is not, since it apprehends it as present though it is absent. Consequently, the Philosopher says: “Imagination, not sense, is the master of falsity.”
|
|
| Answers to Difficulties
|
| Ad primum ergo dicendum, quod in maiori mundo superiora nihil accipiunt ab inferioribus, sed e converso; sed in homine intellectus, qui est superior, aliquid accipit a sensu; et ideo non est simile.
| 1. In the macrocosm the higher bodies do not receive anything from the lower. just the opposite occurs. In man, the microcosm, the intellect, which is superior, does receive something from sense. Hence, no parallel can be made.
|
| Ad alia patet solutio de facili ex dictis.
| 2-3- Our previous discussion will easily answer the other difficulties.
|