ARTICLE I
Ideas are the object of our inquiry,
and in the first article we ask:
Are there ideas in God?
[ARTICLE S.T., I, 151 1; 44, 3; I Sent., 36, 2, 1; I Metaph., lect. 15, nn. 232-33.]
|
| Quaestio est de ideis.
| Difficulties
|
| Et videtur quod non.
| It seems that there are no ideas in Him, for
|
| Quia scientia Dei est perfectissima. Sed perfectior est cognitio quae habetur de re per essentiam eius, quam quae habetur per eius similitudinem. Ergo Deus non cognoscit res per suas similitudines, sed magis per essentias earum; et ita similitudines rerum, quae ideae dicuntur, non sunt in Deo.
| 1. God’s knowledge is most perfect. Now, knowledge had from the essence of a thing is more perfect than knowledge had from its likeness. Consequently, God knows things, not by means of their likenesses, but by means of their essences. Hence, those likenesses of things which are called ideas do not exist in God.
|
| Sed dicebat, quod Deus scit res perfectius cognoscens eas per essentiam suam, quae est similitudo rerum, quam si cognosceret res per earum essentias.- Sed contra, scientia est assimilatio ad scitum. Ergo quanto medium cognoscendi est magis simile et unitum rei cognitae, tanto perfectius res per id cognoscitur. Sed essentia rerum creatarum magis est unita eis quam essentia divina. Ergo perfectius cognosceret res si sciret res per essentias earum, quam ex hoc quod scit eas per essentiam suam.
| 2. But it was said that God knows things more perfectly by knowing them through His essence, which is a likeness of things, than He would if He knew them through their own essences.—On the contrary, knowledge is an assimilation to the thing known. Hence, the more the medium of knowing resembles and is united with the thing known, the more perfectly is the thing known by means of that medium. But the essence of created things is more united with things than the divine essence is. Consequently, God would know things more perfectly if He knew them by means of their essences than He does by knowing them through His own essence.
|
| Sed dicebat, quod perfectio scientiae non consistit in unione medii cognoscendi ad rem cognitam, sed magis ad cognoscentem.- Sed contra, species rei quae est in intellectu, secundum quod habet esse in eo, est particulata; secundum autem quod comparatur ad scitum, habet rationem universalis, quia est similitudo rei secundum naturam communem, et non secundum conditiones particulares; et tamen cognitio quae est per illam speciem, non est singularis, sed universalis. Ergo cognitio magis sequitur relationem speciei ad rem scitam quam ad scientem.
| 3. But it was said that the perfection of knowledge consists in the union of the medium of knowledge with the knower, not with the thing known.—On the contrary, the species of a thing, which is in the intellect, is rendered individual by the act of existence it has in the intellect; but in relation to the thing known it has the character of a universal, since it is a likeness of the thing according to its common nature and not according to its particular conditions. Yet the knowledge which is made possible by means of that species is not singular but universal. Hence, knowledge follows the relation of the species to the thing known rather than its relation to the knower.
|
| Praeterea, propter hoc improbatur a philosopho opinio Platonis quam habuit de ideis, quia posuit formas rerum materialium existere sine materia. Sed multo magis sunt sine materia si sunt in intellectu divino, quam si essent extra ipsum, quia intellectus divinus est in summo immaterialitatis. Ergo etiam multo magis inconveniens est ponere ideas in intellectu divino.
| 4. The Philosopher criticizes Plato’s theory of ideas because the latter asserted that the forms of material things existed without matter. Now, these forms would exist without matter to a much greater extent were they in the divine intellect instead of being outside of it, because the divine intellect is the acme of immateriality. Therefore, it is much more inconsistent to say that ideas exist in the divine intellect.
|
| Praeterea, philosophus improbat opinionem Platonis de ideis per hoc quod ideae positae a Platone non possunt generare nec generari, et ita sunt inutiles. Sed ideae, si ponantur in mente divina, non generantur, quia omne generatum est compositum; similiter nec generant, quia, cum generata sint composita, et generantia sint similia generatis, oportet etiam generantia esse composita. Ergo inconveniens est ponere ideas etiam in mente divina.
| 5. The Philosopher criticizes Plato’s theory of ideas because the ideas he posited can neither generate nor be generated, and hence are useless. But, if the ideas are said to be in the divine mind, they also will not be generated—because whatever is generated is composite—nor will they generate, for, since whatever is generated is composite and whatever generates resembles what is generated, that which generates must also be composite. Hence, it would be inconsistent to say that there are ideas in the divine mind.
|
| Item, Dionysius dicit, in VII cap. de divinis nominibus, quod Deus noscit existentia ex non existentibus, et non cognoscit res secundum ideam. Sed ideae non ponuntur ad aliud in Deo, nisi ut per eas cognoscantur res. Ergo ideae non sunt in mente Dei.
| 6. Dionysius says that God knows existing things by means of the non-existing, and that He does not know them by means of ideas. But the only reason for affirming the existence of ideas in God is so He can know things by their means. Hence, ideas do not exist in God’s mind.
|
| Praeterea, omne exemplatum est proportionatum suo exemplari. Sed nulla est proportio creaturae ad Deum, sicut nec finiti ad infinitum. Ergo in Deo non potest esse creaturarum exemplar; ergo, cum ideae sint formae exemplares, videtur quod non sint ideae rerum in Deo.
| 7. Whatever has been modeled upon an. archetype is proportionate to it. But there is no proportion of a creature with God, just as there is no proportion between what is finite and what is infinite. Therefore, in God there cannot be any archetypes of creatures; consequently, since ideas are exemplary forms, it seems that ideas of things do not exist in God.
|
| Praeterea, idea est regula cognoscendi et operandi. Sed illud quod non potest deficere in cognoscendo vel operando, ad neutrum regula indiget. Cum igitur Deus sit huiusmodi. Videtur quod non oporteat ponere ideas in eo.
| 8. Ideas are the rule of knowledge and action. But that which cannot err in its knowledge or action does not need a rule for either; and, since God is this kind of being, it seems out of place to say that there are ideas in him.
|
| Praeterea, sicut unum in quantitate facit aequalitatem, ita unum in qualitate facit similitudinem, ut dicitur in V Metaphys. Sed propter diversitatem quae est inter Deum et creaturam, creatura nullo modo Deo potest esse aequalis, vel e converso; ergo nec in Deo est aliqua similitudo ad creaturam. Cum ergo idea nominet similitudinem rei, videtur quod rerum ideae non sint in Deo.
| 9. We read in the Metaphysics that just as being one in quantity causes equality, so being one in quality causes resemblance. Now, because of the difference between God and a creature, a creature can in no way be said to be equal to God, nor can God be said to be equal to a creature. Therefore, there is nothing in God that resembles a creature. Consequently, since idea means a likeness of a thing, it seems that there are no ideas of things in God.
|
| Praeterea, si ideae sunt in Deo, hoc non erit nisi ad producendum creaturas. Sed Anselmus dicit in Monolog.: satis manifestum est in verbo, per quod facta sunt omnia, similitudines rerum non esse, sed veram et simplicem essentiam. Ergo videtur quod ideae, quae dicuntur rerum similitudines, in Deo non sunt.
| 10. If ideas are in God, they are there only for the production of creatures. But Anselm says: “It is sufficiently clear that in the Word, through which all things have been made, likenesses of things do not exist. Only the one simple essence is present.” Therefore, it seems that ideas, which are called the likenesses of things, do not exist in God.
|
| Praeterea, Deus eodem modo cognoscit se et alia; alias sua scientia multiplex et divisibilis esset. Sed Deus seipsum non cognoscit per ideam. Ergo nec alia.
| 11. God knows Himself in the same way in which He knows other things; otherwise, His knowledge would be multiple and divisible. Now, God does not know Himself by means of an idea. Therefore, He does not know other things by means of ideas.
|
| Sed contra.
| To the Contrary
|
| Augustinus dicit in libro de civitate Dei: qui negat ideas esse, infidelis est, quia negat filium esse. Ergo, et cetera.
| 1. Augustine says: “Whoever denies that there are ideas is an infidel, since he denies the existence of the Son.” Therefore.
|
| Praeterea, omne agens per intellectum habet rationem sui operis apud se, nisi ignoret quid agat. Sed Deus est agens per intellectum, et non ignorans hoc quod agit. Ergo apud ipsum sunt rationes rerum quae ideae dicuntur.
| 2. Every intellectual agent possesses within himself a plan of his work; otherwise, he would not know what he was doing. But God acts through His intellect, and He is not ignorant of what He is doing. Therefore, there exist within Him intelligible characters of things, and these are called ideas.
|
| Praeterea, sicut dicitur in II physicorum, tres causae incidunt in unam: scilicet efficiens, finalis et formalis. Sed Deus est causa efficiens et finalis rerum. Ergo etiam est causa formalis exemplaris; non enim potest esse forma quae sit pars rei, et sic idem quod prius.
| 3. As is said in the Physics: “The three causes, namely, the efficient, final, and formal causes, are ultimately identical.”Now, God is the efficient and final cause of things. Hence, He is also their formal cause —but as an exemplary cause, since He cannot be a form that is part of a creature. We conclude as before.
|
| Praeterea, effectus particularis non producitur a causa universali, nisi causa universalis sit propria vel appropriata. Sed omnes particulares effectus sunt a Deo, qui est causa universalis omnium. Ergo oportet quod sint ab eo secundum quod est causa propria uniuscuiusque, vel appropriata. Sed hoc non potest esse nisi per rationes rerum proprias in ipso existentes. Ergo oportet in eo rationes rerum, id est ideas, existere.
| 4. A particular effect is not produced by a universal cause unless the universal cause is proper or appropriated. Now, all particular effects are from God, who is the universal cause of all things. Hence, they should come from Him in so far as He is the proper or appropriated cause of each and every one of them. But this would not be possible unless the intelligible characters of things existed in Him. Hence, the intelligible characters of things, that is, ideas, must exist in Him.
|
| Praeterea, Augustinus dicit in Lib. de ordine: piget me dixisse, duos esse mundos: scilicet sensibilem, et intelligibilem, non quin hoc verum sit; sed quia hoc dixi tamquam ex me, cum tamen a philosophis dictum fuerit; et quia modus iste loquendi non est consuetus in sacra Scriptura. Sed mundus intelligibilis nihil aliud est quam idea mundi. Ergo verum est ponere ideas.
| 5. Augustine says: “I regret that I said that there are two worlds, one the object of sense, the other the object of intellect—not because this is not true, but because I said it as though it were an original idea, when in fact it had been previously pointed out by philosophers, and because this manner of speaking is not usual in Holy Scripture. Now, the intelligible world is nothing other than the idea of the world. Hence, it is true that there are ideas.
|
| Praeterea, Boetius dicit in III de consolatione loquens ad Deum: tu cuncta superno ducis ab exemplo, mundum mente gerens pulchrum pulcherrimus ipse. Ergo mundi, et omnium quae in eo sunt, est exemplar in Deo; et sic idem quod prius.
| 6. Speaking to God, Boethius says: “You have drawn all things from the highest pattern, having in your mind the glorious world—you, the most glorious of all.” Therefore, the pattern of the world, and of all that is in the world, is in God; and our conclusion is the same as before.
|
| Praeterea, Ioann. I, 3, dicitur: quod factum est, in ipso vita erat; hoc, quia, ut Augustinus dicit, omnes creaturae sunt in mente divina, sicut arca in mente artificis. Sed arca in mente artificis est per suam similitudinem et ideam. Ergo omnium rerum ideae sunt in Deo.
| 7. In the Gospel according to John (1:3-4), we read: “What was made in him was life...” This means, as Augustine says,”, that all creatures are in the divine mind as a piece of furniture is in the mind of a cabinetmaker. Now, a piece of furniture is in the mind of a cabinetmaker by means of its idea and likeness. Therefore, ideas of all things are in God.
|
| Praeterea, speculum non ducit in cognitionem aliquorum, nisi eorum similitudines in eo resplendeant. Sed verbum increatum est speculum ducens in cognitionem omnium creatorum, quia eo pater se et omnia alia dicit. Ergo in eo sunt similitudines rerum omnium.
| 8. A mirror does not lead us to the knowledge of things unless their likenesses are reflected in it. Now, the uncreated Word is a mirror that leads to the knowledge of all creatures, because by the Word the Father utters Himself and all other things. Therefore, likenesses of all things are in the Word.
|
| Praeterea, Augustinus dicit in VI de Trinitate, quod filius est ars patris plena omnium rationum viventium. Sed rationes illae nihil aliud sunt quam ideae. Ergo, ideae sunt in Deo.
| 9. Augustine says: “The Son is the Father’s art, containing the living forms of all things.” Now, those forms are nothing other than ideas. Therefore, ideas exist in God.
|
| Praeterea, secundum Augustinum, duplex est modus cognoscendi res; scilicet per essentiam, et per similitudinem. Sed Deus non cognoscit res per earum essentiam, quia sic cognoscuntur solum illa quae sunt in cognoscente per sui essentiam. Ergo, cum scientiam de rebus habeat, ut ex praedictis, patet, relinquitur quod sciat res per earum similitudines; et sic idem quod prius.
| 10. Augustine says that there are two ways of knowing things: through an essence and through a likeness. Now, God does not know things by means of their essence, because only those things which are present in the knower are known in this manner. Therefore, since He does know things, as is clear from what has been said previously, He must know them by means of their likenesses. Hence, our conclusion is the same as before.
|
|
| REPLY
|
| Responsio. Dicendum, quod, sicut dicit Augustinus in Lib. LXXXIII Quaestion., ideas Latine possumus vel formas, vel species dicere, ut verbum ex verbo transferre videamur. Forma autem alicuius rei potest dici tripliciter. Uno modo a qua formatur res, sicut a forma agentis procedit effectus formatio. Sed quia non est de necessitate actionis ut effectus pertingant ad completam rationem formae agentis, cum frequenter deficiant, maxime in causis aequivocis; ideo forma a qua formatur aliquid, non dicitur esse idea vel forma. Alio modo dicitur forma alicuius secundum quam aliquid formatur, sicut anima est forma hominis, et figura statuae est forma cupri; et quamvis forma, quae est pars compositi, vere dicatur esse illius forma, non tamen consuevit dici eius idea; quia videtur hoc nomen idea significare formam separatam ab eo cuius est forma. Tertio modo dicitur forma alicuius ad quam aliquid formatur; et haec est forma exemplaris, ad cuius imitationem aliquid constituitur; et in hac significatione consuetum est nomen ideae accipi, ut idem sit idea quod forma quam aliquid imitatur.
| As Augustine says: “We can literally translate ιδεαι as species or forms. Now, the form of a thing has three meanings. First, it can mean that from which a thing gets its form, as when we say that the informing of an effect proceeds from the form of the agent. Now, an action does not necessarily result in effects that attain the complete character of the form of the agent, for effects often fall short of this, especially in the case of equivocal causes. Consequently, the form from which something gets its form is not said to be its idea or form. Second, the form of a thing can mean that by which a thing is informed, as when we say that the soul is the form of man, and the shape of a statue is the form of the bronze. Now, although form, which is part of the composite, is truly said to be the form of a thing, we do not usually call it its idea, because it seems that the word idea signifies a form separate from that whose form it is. Third, the form of a thing can mean that according to which a thing is informed. This is the exemplary form in imitation of which a thing is made. It is in this meaning that idea is ordinarily used. Hence, the idea of a thing is the form which a thing imitates.
|
| Sed sciendum, quod aliquid potest imitari aliquam formam dupliciter. Uno modo ex intentione agentis; sicut pictura ad hoc fit a pictore ut imitetur aliquem cuius figura depingitur: aliquando vero talis praedicta imitatio per accidens praeter intentionem, et a casu fit; sicut frequenter pictores a casu faciunt imaginem alicuius, de quo non intendunt. Quod autem aliquam formam imitatur a casu, non dicitur ad illam formari, quia ly ad videtur importare ordinem ad finem; unde, cum forma exemplaris, vel idea, sit ad quam formatur aliquid, oportet quod formam exemplarem vel ideam aliquid imitetur per se, et non per accidens.
| Note, however, that a thing can imitate a form in two ways. It can imitate it because of the agent’s intention, as an artist makes his painting imitate someone whose portrait he is making. It happens at times, however, that such an imitation is not intentional, but happens by chance or by accident. For example, painters frequently paint something resembling someone when they have not intended to do so. Now, what imitates a form by chance is not said to be formed according to that form, because according to seems to imply direction to an end. Hence, since the exemplary form or idea is that according to which a thing is formed, the exemplary form or idea should imitate something intentionally, not accidentally.
|
| Videmus etiam quod aliquid propter finem dupliciter operatur. Uno modo ita quod ipsum agens determinat sibi finem, sicut est in omnibus agentibus per intellectum: aliquando autem agenti determinatur finis ab alio principali agente; sicut patet in motu sagittae, quae movetur ad finem determinatum, sed hic finis determinatur ei a proiiciente; et similiter operatio naturae, quae est ad determinatum finem, praesupponit intellectum, praestituentem finem naturae, et ordinantem ad finem illum naturam, ratione cuius omne opus naturae dicitur esse opus intelligentiae. Si ergo aliquid fiat ad imitationem alterius per agens quod non determinat sibi finem, non ex hoc forma imitata habebit rationem exemplaris vel ideae. Non enim dicimus quod forma hominis generantis sit idea vel exemplar hominis generati; sed solum hoc dicimus quando agens propter finem determinat sibi finem, sive illa forma sit in agente, sive extra agentem. Dicimus enim formam artis in artifice esse exemplar vel ideam artificiati; et similiter etiam formam quae est extra artificem, ad cuius imitationem artifex aliquid facit. Haec ergo videtur esse ratio ideae, quod idea sit forma quam aliquid imitatur ex intentione agentis, qui praedeterminat sibi finem.
| We see also that a thing acts because of an end in two ways. The agent himself may determine his end—and this is true of all intellectual agents—or the end of the agent may be determined by another principal agent. For example, the flight of an arrow is toward a definite end, but this end is determined by the archer. Similarly, an operation of a nature which is for a definite end presupposes an intellect that has pre-established the end of the nature and ordered it to that end. For this reason, every work of nature is said to be a work of intelligence. Consequently, if a thing imitating something else comes into existence through an agent which has not itself determined the end, the form imitated will not have the character of an exemplar or idea merely because of what has happened. For example, we do not say that the form of the man who generates is the idea or exemplar of the man who is generated; but we use these terms only when an agent acting for an end has determined the end himself—whether the form imitated be within him or outside of him. For we say that the form of art in the artist is the plan or idea of the artistic product, and we also say that a form outside the artist is a plan if he imitates it when he makes a thing. This, therefore, seems to constitute the character of an idea: It must be a form which something imitates because of the intention of an agent who antecedently determines the end himself.
|
| Secundum hoc ergo patet quod illi qui ponebant omnia casu accidere, non poterant ideam ponere. Sed haec opinio a philosophis reprobatur; quia quae sunt a casu, non se habent eodem modo nisi ut in paucioribus: naturae autem cursum videmus semper eodem modo progredi, aut ut in pluribus.
| Consequently, it is clear that those who say that all things happen by chance cannot admit the existence of ideas. This opinion, however, is criticized by philosophers, because things which happen by chance do not happen uniformly, but happen only in a few instances. We see, however, that the course of nature always, or at least in most cases, proceeds in an uniform manner.
|
| Similiter etiam secundum eos qui posuerunt quod a Deo procedunt omnia per necessitatem naturae, et non per arbitrium voluntatis, non possunt ponere ideas: quia ea quae ex necessitate naturae agunt, non praedeterminant sibi finem. Sed hoc esse non potest; quia omne quod agit propter finem si non determinat sibi finem, determinatur ei finis ab alio superiore; et sic erit aliqua causa eo superior: quod non potest esse, quia omnes loquentes de Deo intelligunt eum esse causam primam entium.
| Similarly, those who say that all things proceed from God by a necessity of nature and not by a decision of will cannot admit ideas, because those who act impelled by the necessity of nature do not determine the end for themselves. This cannot be the case here, however, because, if a thing acts for an end but does not determine that end itself, it has its end determined for it by something else superior to it; and thus there would be a cause superior to God. This, of course, is impossible, since all those who speak of God understand Him to be the first cause of beings.
|
| Et ideo Plato refugiens Epicuri opinionem, qui ponebat omnia casu accidere, et Empedoclis et aliorum qui ponebant omnia accidere ex necessitate naturae, posuit ideas esse. Et hanc etiam rationem ponendi ideas, scilicet propter praedefinitionem operum agendorum, innuit Dionysius in V cap. de divinis nominibus, dicens: exemplaria dicimus in Deo existentium rationes substantificas, et singulariter praeexistentes: quas theologia praedefinitiones vocat, et divinas et bonas voluntates existentium praedeterminativas et effectivas: secundum quas supersubstantialis essentia omnia praedefinivit et produxit. Sed quia forma exemplaris vel idea habet quodammodo rationem finis, et ab ea accipit artifex formam qua agit si sit extra ipsum; non est autem conveniens ponere Deum agere propter finem alium a se, et accipere aliunde, unde sit sufficiens ad agendum; ideo non possumus ponere ideas esse extra Deum, sed in mente divina tantum.
| For these reasons, Plato affirmed the existence of ideas, avoiding the opinion of the Epicureans, who asserted that everything happens by chance, and that of Empedocles and others who asserted that everything happens because of a natural necessity. This reason for affirming ideas, namely, on account of the previous planning of the works that are to be done, is suggested by Dionysius, who says: “We say that exemplars in God are the intelligible characters of things that come to be, the individually pre-existing causes of subsistent beings. These, theology calls ‘predefinitions.’ They predetermine and cause godly and good inclinations in creatures. It is according to these that the super-substance predefines and produces all things. However, because an exemplary form or idea has, in some sense, the nature of an end, and because an artist receives the form by which he acts—if it is outside of him—we cannot say that the divine ideas are outside of God. They can be only within the divine mind, for it is unreasonable to say that God acts on account of an end other than Himself or that He receives that which enables Him to act from a source other than Himself.
|
|
| Answers to Difficulties
|
| Ad primum igitur dicendum, quod perfectio cognitionis potest attendi vel ex parte cognoscentis, vel ex parte cogniti. Quod ergo dicitur quod perfectior est cognitio quae est per essentiam, quam per similitudinem, est intelligendum ex parte cogniti. Illud enim quod per seipsum est cognoscibile, est per se magis notum quam illud quod non est cognoscibile ex seipso, sed solum secundum quod est in cognoscente per sui similitudinem. Et hoc non est inconveniens ponere quod res creatae sint minus cognoscibiles quam essentia divina, quae per seipsam cognoscibilis est.
| 1. The perfection of knowledge can be considered either with reference to the knower or with reference to the thing known. When it is said, therefore, that knowledge by means of an essence is more perfect than that had by means of a likeness, this is to be understood as referring to what is known. For that which is knowable in itself is, in itself, known more than that which, not knowable in itself, is known only in so far as it is in a knower by means of its likeness. In this sense, it is not inconsistent to say that created things are less knowable than the divine essence, which is knowable by its very nature.
|
| Ad secundum dicendum, quod ad speciem quae est medium cognoscendi duo requiruntur: scilicet repraesentatio rei cognitae, quae competit ei secundum propinquitatem ad cognoscibile; et esse spirituale, vel immateriale, quod ei competit secundum quod habet esse in cognoscente. Unde per speciem quae est in intellectu, melius cognoscitur aliquid quam per speciem quae est in sensu, quia est immaterialior. Et similiter melius cognoscitur aliquid per speciem rei quae est in mente divina, quam per ipsam eius essentiam cognosci posset; etiam dato quod essentia rei posset esse medium cognoscendi, non obstante materialitate ipsius.
| 2. Two things are required for a species which is a medium of knowledge. First, it must represent the thing known. This belongs to a species in so far as it approaches the nature of what is known. Second, it must have a spiritual or immaterial act of existing. This belongs to a species in so far as it has its act of existing in the knower. For this reason, a thing is known better by means of an intellectual species than by means of the species in sense, since the former is more immaterial. Similarly, a thing is known better by means of the species in the divine mind than it could be known by means of its own essence—even granting that the essence of a thing could be the medium of knowledge despite its materiality.
|
| Ad tertium dicendum, quod in cognitione duo est considerare: scilicet ipsam naturam cognitionis; et haec sequitur speciem secundum comparationem quam habet ad intellectum in quo est; et determinatio cognitionis ad cognitum, et haec sequitur relationem speciei ad rem ipsam: unde quanto est similior species rei cognitae per modum repraesentationis, tanto est cognitio determinatior; et quanto magis accedit ad immaterialitatem, quae est natura cognoscentis inquantum huiusmodi, tanto efficacius cognoscere facit.
| 3. Two elements of knowledge must be considered. First, we must consider its nature; and this is determined by the relation of the species to the intellect in which it exists. Second, we must consider the determinate character which the knowledge has with respect to its object; and this follows the relation that the species has to the thing itself. Hence, the more similar the species is as a representation to the thing known, the more determinate is the knowledge; and the more it approaches immateriality, which belongs to the nature of the knower in so far as he knows, the more efficacious it is in the production of knowledge.
|
| Ad quartum dicendum, quod hoc est contra rationem formarum naturalium quod ex seipsis immateriales sint; non est autem inconveniens quod ex alio immaterialitatem acquirant, in quo sint; unde in intellectu nostro formae rerum naturalium immateriales sunt. Unde inconveniens est ponere ideas rerum naturalium esse per se subsistentes; non est autem inconveniens ponere eas in mente divina.
| 4. It is contrary to the nature of natural forms that they should be immaterial in themselves; but it is not inconsistent for them to acquire immateriality from the one in whom they exist. Consequently, in our intellects, the forms of natural things are immaterial. Hence, while it would be incorrect to assert that ideas of natural things have a separate subsistence, it would be correct to say that they are in the divine mind.
|
| Ad quintum dicendum, quod ideae existentes in mente divina non sunt generatae, nec sunt generantes, si fiat vis in verbo; sed sunt creativae et productivae rerum; unde dicit Augustinus in Lib. LXXXIII quaestionum: cum ipsae neque oriantur neque intereant, secundum eas tamen informari dicitur omne quod oriri et interire potest. Nec oportet agens primum in compositione esse simile generato; oportet autem hoc de agente proximo; et sic ponebat Plato ideas esse generationis principium scilicet proximum; et ideo contra ipsum procedit ratio praedicta.
| 5. Strictly speaking, the ideas existing in the divine mind neither generate nor are generated, but rather create or produce things. Hence, Augustine says: “Although they themselves neither begin nor cease to be, nevertheless, whatever can begin or cease to be is said to be informed according to them.” Nor is it necessary, when composite things are made, for the first efficient cause to resemble what is generated: this is true only of the proximate efficient cause. Since Plato asserted that the ideas are the proximate principle of generation, the argument mentioned in the difficulty is directed against him.
|
| Ad sextum dicendum, quod intentio Dionysii est dicere quod ipse non cognoscit per ideam acceptam a rebus, vel hoc modo quod divisim res per ideam cognoscat; unde alia translatio loco huius dicit: neque per visionem singulis se immittit. Unde per hoc non excluditur omnino ideas esse.
| 6. Dionysius wished to say merely that God does not know by means of an idea received from things or in such a manner that He would know a thing differently by means of an idea. For this reason, another translation of this passage reads: “Nor does He by His vision come into contact with individual things.” Hence, from this argument, it is not impossible for ideas to exist.
|
| Ad septimum dicendum, quod quamvis non possit esse aliqua proportio creaturae ad Deum, tamen potest esse proportionalitas; quod in praecedenti quaestione frequenter expositum est.
| 7. Although there can be no proportion between God and a creature, there can be a proportionality, as we have previously shown.
|
| Ad octavum dicendum, quod sicut Deus, quia non potest non esse, non indiget essentia quae sit aliud quam suum esse; ita quia non potest deficere in cognoscendo vel operando, non indiget alia regula a seipso: sed propter hoc deficere non potest, quia ipse est sui ipsius regula; sicut propter hoc non potest non esse, quia sua essentia est suum esse.
| 8. Just as God does not need an essence other than His act of existence, because He cannot not be, neither does He need a norm other than Himself, because He cannot know or act in a way that would be faulty. The reason for this perfection is that He is His own norm, just as the reason for the necessity of His existence is that His essence is His act of existence.
|
| Ad nonum dicendum, quod in Deo non est quantitas dimensiva, ut secundum eam aequalitas attendi possit; sed est ibi quantitas per modum intensivae quantitatis; sicut albedo dicitur magna, quia perfecte attingit ad naturam suam. Intensio autem alicuius formae respicit modum habendi formam illam. Quamvis autem aliquo modo illud quod est Dei ad creaturas derivetur; nullo tamen modo potest concedi quod creatura habeat aliquid per modum illum quo habet illud Deus: et ideo quamvis aliquo modo concedamus esse similitudinem inter creaturam et Deum, nullo tamen modo concedimus ibi esse aequalitatem.
| 9. In God there is no dimensional quantity on whose basis an equality could be established. There is in Him, however, quantity after the manner of intensive quantity. For example, whiteness is said to be great when it attains the perfect fullness of its nature. The intensity of a form, moreover, refers to the manner in which that form is possessed. Now, although that which is divine may in some way be passed on to creatures, we can never grant that a creature possesses it in the same way in which God possesses it. Hence, although we grant that there exists a likeness between a creature and God in some way, we do not grant that they are equal in any way whatsoever.
|
| Ad decimum dicendum, quod intentio Anselmi est dicere, ut patet inspicienti verba eius, quod in verbo non sit similitudo sumpta a rebus ipsis, sed omnes rerum formae sunt sumptae a verbo; et ideo dicit quod verbum non est similitudo rerum, sed res sunt imitationes verbi. Unde per hoc non removetur idea; cum idea sit forma quam aliquid imitatur.
| 10. As will be evident to one who carefully considers Anselm’s words, Anselm means to say merely that in the Word there exists no likeness drawn from things themselves, but, instead, all the forms of things are taken from the Word. Accordingly, he means that the Word is not a likeness of things, but things are imitations of the Word. Consequently, this argument does not dispense with the ideas, since an idea is a form which something imitates.
|
| Ad undecimum dicendum, quod Deus eodem modo cognoscit se et alia, si accipiatur modus cognitionis ex parte cognoscentis; non autem si accipiatur ex parte rei cognitae, quia creatura quae a Deo cognoscitur, non est idem secundum rem cum medio quo Deus cognoscit sed ipse est idem re cum eo; unde nulla multiplicitas in eius essentia sequitur.
| 11. The statement that God knows Himself in the same way in which He knows other things is true if we are speaking about the way of knowing with reference to the knower. It is not true, however, if we are speaking about the way of knowing with reference to the thing known, because the creature which is known by God is not the same in the real order as the medium by which God knows. But He Himself is really the same as it. Consequently, it does not follow that there is multiplicity in His essence. |
ARTICLE II
In the second article we ask:
Are there many ideas?
[ARTICLE S.T., I, 15, 7; 44, 3; 47, 1, ad 2; I Sent., 36, 2, 2; III Sent., 14, 2, sol. 2; C.G., I, 54; De pot., 3, 16, ad 12-14; Quodl., IV, 1, 1.]
|
| Secundo quaeritur utrum sit ponere plures ideas.
| Difficulties
|
| Et videtur quod non.
| It seems not, for
|
| Quia ea quae essentialiter dicuntur in Deo, non minus sunt vere in eo quam illa quae dicuntur in ipso personaliter. Sed pluralitas proprietatum personalium inducit pluralitatem personarum, secundum quas Deus dicitur trinus. Cum ergo ideae sint essentiales, quia sunt communes tribus personis, si sint plures in Deo secundum pluralitatem rerum, sequitur quod non solum sint tres personae in ipso, sed infinitae.
| 1. The things which are predicated essentially of God are not less true of Him than those which are predicated personally of Him. Now, a plurality of personal properties involves a plurality of persons, and for this reason God is said to be triune. Consequently, since ideas are essential perfections because common to all three Persons, if the number of ideas is determined by the number of things that there are, it follows that there are not only three Persons but an infinite number of them.
|
| Sed dicebat, quod ideae non sunt essentiales, quia sunt ipsa essentia.- Sed contra, bonitas sapientia et potentia Dei sunt eius essentia, et tamen dicuntur essentialia attributa. Ergo et ideae, quamvis sint ipsa essentia, possunt essentiales dici.
| 2. It was said, however, that ideas are not essential properties, since they are the essence itself.—On the contrary, God’s goodness, wisdom, and power are His essence, yet they are said to be essential attributes. Therefore, even though they are His essence, ideas can be called His essential properties.
|
| Praeterea, quidquid Deo attribuitur, debet ei nobilissimo modo attribui. Sed Deus est principium rerum; ergo debet poni in eo omne illud quod ad nobilitatem principii pertinet, in summo. Sed unitas est huiusmodi, quia omnis virtus unita plus est infinita quam multiplicata, ut dicitur in libro de causis. Ergo in Deo est summa unitas; ergo non solum est unus re, sed ratione; quia magis est unum quod est unum utroque modo, quam quod altero istorum tantum; et sic non sunt in eo plures rationes, sive ideae.
| 3. Whatever is attributed to God should be attributed to Him as existing in the most noble manner possible. Now, God is the principle of all things; hence, whatever pertains to the nobility of a principle should be said to exist in Him in the highest possible degree. However, unity is a perfection of this sort, because, as is said in The Causes: “Every power is more infinite when it has unity than when it is multiplied.” Hence, the highest unity is in God. He is, therefore, not only one in reality, but also one in concept, because that which is one in both respects is more one than that which is one merely in one respect. Consequently, many intelligible characters or ideas do not exist in God.
|
| Praeterea, philosophus dicit in V Metaphys.: quod omnino est unum, quod non potest separari neque intellectu, neque tempore, neque loco, neque ratione; et maxime in substantia. Si ergo Deus est maxime unum, quia est maxime ens, non potest separari ratione; et ita idem quod prius.
| 4. The Philosopher says: “What is entirely one cannot be separated either by intellect, time, place, or concept—especially with regard to its substance.” Consequently, if God is one in the highest degree because He is being in the highest degree, conceptual distinctions are not applicable to Him; so, our original position stands.
|
| Praeterea, si plures ideae, sequitur eas esse inaequales; quia una idea continebit esse tantum, alia autem esse et vivere, alia vero insuper intelligere, secundum quod res cuius est idea, in pluribus assimilatur Deo. Cum ergo inconveniens sit in Deo aliquam inaequalitatem ponere, videtur quod non possint esse in eo plures ideae.
| 5. If there are many ideas, they must be unequal, because one idea will contain only the act of existence, another, both existence and life, a third, both of these and intellection besides—according as the thing, whose idea it is, resembles God in one or many respects. But, since it is inconsistent to say that there is any inequality in God, it seems that there cannot be many ideas in Him.
|
| Praeterea, in causis materialibus est status ad unam primam materiam, et similiter in efficientibus et finalibus. Ergo et in formalibus est status ad unam primam formam. Sed est status ad ideas, quia ut dicit Augustinus in libro LXXXIII quaestionum, ideae sunt principales formae vel rationes rerum. Ergo in Deo non est nisi una tantum idea.
| 6. Material causes can be reduced to one first matter, and efficient and final causes can be reduced in a similar manner. Consequently, formal causes can also be reduced to one first form. The end-term of this reduction, however, will be ideas, because, as Augustine says: “these are the principal forms or intelligible characters of things.” Hence, there is only one idea in God.
|
| Sed dicebat, quod quamvis sit una prima forma, tamen ideae dicuntur plures secundum diversos respectus ipsius.- Sed contra, non potest dici quod ideae multiplicentur secundum respectum ad Deum in quo sunt, qui est unus; neque secundum respectum ad ideata, secundum quod sunt in causa prima, quia in ea sunt unum, ut Dionysius dicit; nec per respectum ad ideata, secundum quod in propria natura existunt, quia sic res ideatae sunt temporales, ideae vero aeternae sunt. Ergo nullo modo per respectum formae primae possunt ideae dici plures.
| 7. But it was said that, although there is only one first form, ideas are nevertheless said to be many because of the different relations this form has.—On the contrary, it cannot be said that ideas are multiplied because of their relation to God in whom they exist, for He is one; nor can they be multiplied because of their relation to what is made according to them and as these creatures exist in the first cause, since, as Dionysius says, in the first cause creatures exist as one. Finally, ideas cannot be multiplied because of their relation to what is made according to them and as these things exist in their own natures, because creatures are temporal and ideas are eternal. Hence, there is no possible way of saying that the ideas are many because of their relation to the first form.
|
| Praeterea, nulla relatio quae est inter Deum et creaturam, est in Deo, sed in creatura tantum. Sed idea vel exemplar importat relationem Dei ad creaturam. Ergo ista relatio non est in Deo, sed in creatura. Cum ergo idea sit in Deo, per huiusmodi respectus ideae multiplicari non possunt.
| 8. The relation between God and creature does not exist in God; it exists only in the creature. But an idea or exemplar implies a relation of God to a creature. Therefore, that relation is not in God but only in the creature. Now, since the idea is in God, ideas cannot be multiplied by relations of this sort.
|
| Praeterea, intellectus qui pluribus intelligit, est compositus, et transiens de uno in aliud. Sed haec a divino intellectu sunt procul. Cum ergo ideae sint rationes rerum, quibus Deus intelligit, videtur quod non sint plures ideae in Deo.
| 9. An intellect that knows by means of many species is composite and moves from one to another. But this way of knowing is far from God’s way. Therefore, since ideas are the intelligible characters of things by which God understands, it seems that there are not many ideas in Him.
|
| Sed contra.
| To the Contrary
|
| Idem secundum idem non est natum facere nisi idem. Sed Deus facit multa et diversa. Ergo non secundum eamdem rationem, sed secundum plures, res causat. Sed rationes quibus res producuntur a Deo, sunt ideae. Ergo plures ideae sunt in Deo.
| 1. The same thing under the same aspect can, of its very nature, produce only one and the same reality. But God produces many and different things. Hence, God causes things, not according to one concept, but according to many concepts. But the concepts by which God produces things are ideas. Therefore, there are many ideas in God.
|
| Praeterea, Augustinus dicit in Lib. LXXXIII quaestionum: restat ut omnia ratione sint condita; nec eadem ratione homo qua equus; hoc enim absurdum est existimari. Singula igitur propriis sunt creata rationibus; ergo sunt plures ideae.
| 2. Augustine says: “It remains, therefore, that all things are created by plan, but a man not by the same plan as a horse. So to think would be absurd.” Each thing is therefore created according to its own plan; hence, there are many ideas.
|
| Praeterea, Augustinus dicit in epistola ad Nebridium, quod sicut inconveniens est dicere quod eadem sit ratio anguli et quadrati, ita inconveniens est dicere quod eadem sit ratio in Deo hominis et huius hominis. Ergo videtur quod sint plures rationes ideales in Deo.
| 3. Augustine says” that it is just as wrong to say that the plan which God has of man in general is the same as that of this man in particular as it is to say that the idea of an angle is the same as that of a square. It seems, therefore, that there are many plans in God’s ideas.
|
| Praeterea, Hebr. XI, 3 dicitur: fide credimus aptata esse saecula verbo Dei, ut ex invisibilibus visibilia fierent. Invisibilia autem pluraliter appellat species ideales. Ergo sunt plures.
| 4. The Epistle to the Hebrews (11:3) states: “By faith we understand that the world was framed by the word of God; that from invisible things visible things might be made.” Note that he refers to the ideal species as invisible things (plural). Hence, there are many ideas.
|
| Praeterea, ideae a sanctis significantur nomine artis et mundi, ut patet ex auctoritatibus inductis. Sed ars pluralitatem quamdam importat; est enim collectio praeceptorum ad unum finem tendentium; et similiter etiam mundus, cum importet collectionem omnium creaturarum. Ergo oportet ponere plures ideas in Deo.
| 5. The saints call ideas art and the world, as is clear from the authorities cited. But art implies plurality, for art is a collection of precepts converging toward one end. World has a similar connotation, since it implies the collection of all creatures. Hence, we should affirm the existence of many ideas in God.
|
|
| REPLY
|
| Responsio. Dicendum, quod quidam ponentes Deum per intellectum agere, et non ex necessitate naturae, posuerunt eum habere intentionem unam tantum, scilicet creaturae in universali; sed creaturarum distinctio facta est per causas secundas. Dicunt enim, quod Deus primo condidit unam intelligentiam, quae produxit tria: scilicet animam, et orbem, et aliam intelligentiam; et sic progrediendo, processit pluralitas rerum ab uno primo principio. Et secundum hanc opinionem esset quidem in Deo idea, sed una tantum creaturae toti communis; sed propriae ideae singulorum essent in causis secundis, sicut etiam Dionysius narrat in V cap. de divinis nominibus, quod quidam Clemens philosophus posuit principaliora entia exemplaria inferiorum esse.
| While admitting that God acts through His intellect and not under the compulsion of His nature, some have said that He intends only one thing, namely, creature in general, and the distinction between creatures is brought about by secondary causes. They declare that God first established one intelligence that produced three things: a soul, the world, and another intelligence; and by means of this procession a plurality of things issued forth from the one first principle. According to this position, there would, indeed, be an idea in God, but only one common to all creation. The proper idea of each individual thing would exist only in secondary causes. This opinion, Dionysius says, was held by a certain philosopher named Clement, who maintained that higher beings were the archetypes of lower.
|
| Sed hoc stare non potest: quia si intentio alicuius agentis feratur ad aliquid unum tantum, praeter intentionem eius erit, et quasi casuale, quidquid sequatur, quod accidit ei quod est principaliter intentum ab eo; sicut si aliquis intenderet facere aliquod triangulatum, praeter intentionem eius esset quod esset magnum vel parvum. Cuilibet autem communi accidit speciale contentum sub eo; unde si intentio agentis est ad aliquod commune tantum, praeter intentionem eius esset quod qualitercumque determinaretur per aliquod speciale; sicut si natura intenderet generare solum animal, praeter intentionem naturae esset quod generatum sit homo vel equus. Unde si intentio Dei operantis respiciat tantum ad creaturam in communi, tota distinctio creaturae casualiter accidet. Inconveniens autem est dicere quod sit per accidens per comparationem ad causam primam; et sit per se per comparationem ad causas secundas: quia quod est per se, prius est eo quod est per accidens; prius autem est comparatio alicuius ad causam primam quam ad causam secundam, ut patet in libro de causis; unde impossibile est quod sit per accidens respectu causae primae, et per se respectu secundae. Potest autem accidere e converso, sicut videmus quod ea quae sunt casualiter quoad nos, sunt Deo praecognita, et ordinata ab ipso. Unde necesse est dicere, quod tota distinctio rerum sit praedefinita ab eo. Et ideo necesse est in Deo ponere singulorum proprias rationes, et propter hoc necesse est ponere in eo plures ideas.
| This opinion, however, cannot stand, because if the intention of an agent is directed toward one thing only, whatever else that follows is apart from his intention and, as it were, a chance happening, which happens accidentally in conjunction with that which he principally intended. This would make the agent like someone who wants to produce something that is triangular, and whether it is small or large is a matter of indifference to him. Now, to whatever is general something special is indirectly connected. Hence, if an agent intends merely something general, in whatever way it is determined by something special it is entirely apart from his intention. For example, if nature intends to generate only an animal, it is apart from nature’s intention that what is generated be a man or a horse. Consequently, if God’s intention when He acts regards only creatures in general, then all distinction between creatures happens by chance. But it is hardly correct to say that this difference between creatures is related only accidentally to the first cause and essentially to second causes, since what is essential is previous to what is accidental, and the relation of a thing to the first cause is previous to its relation to a second cause, as is clear from The Causes. Consequently, it is impossible for the distinction between creatures to be related only accidentally to the first cause and essentially to a second cause. The opposite, however, can happen; for we see that those things that happen by chance as far as we are concerned are foreknown by God and ordained by Him. Hence, we must say that all the distinction between things is predefined by God. Consequently, we must affirm that intelligible characters proper to individual things exist in God and that for this reason there are in Him many ideas.
|
| Modus autem pluralitatis hinc accipi potest. Forma enim in intellectu dupliciter esse potest. Uno modo ita quod sit principium actus intelligendi, sicut forma, quae est intelligentis in quantum est intelligens; et haec est similitudo intellecti in ipso. Alio modo ita quod sit terminus actus intelligendi, sicut artifex intelligendo excogitat formam domus; et cum illa forma sit excogitata per actum intelligendi, et quasi per actum effecta, non potest esse principium actus intelligendi, ut sit primum quo intelligatur; sed magis se habet ut intellectum, quo intelligens aliquid operatur. Nihilominus tamen est forma praedicta secundum quo intelligitur: quia per formam excogitatam artifex intelligit quid operandum sit; sicut etiam in intellectu speculativo videmus quod species, qua intellectus informatur ut intelligat actu, est primum quo intelligitur; ex hoc autem quod est effectus in actu, per talem formam operari iam potest formando quidditates rerum et componendo et dividendo; unde ipsa quidditas formata in intellectu, vel etiam compositio et divisio, est quoddam operatum ipsius, per quod tamen intellectus venit in cognitionem rei exterioris; et sic est quasi secundum quo intelligitur. Si autem intellectus artificis aliquod artificiatum produceret ad similitudinem sui ipsius, tunc quidem ipse intellectus artificis esset idea, non quidem ut est intellectus, sed inquantum intellectum.
| From this the plurality of ideas can be understood. A form can exist in the intellect in two ways. First, it can exist there so as to be a principle of the act of understanding, as is the form had by a knower in so far as he understands. This is the likeness of what is understood, existing in him. Second, the form can exist in the intellect so as to be the end-term of the act of understanding. For example, by understanding an architect thinks out the form of a house; and since that form has been thought out by means of an act of understanding and is, as it were, effected by that act, it cannot be a principle of the act of understanding and thus the first means by which the understanding takes place. It is, instead, the understood, by which the knower makes something. Nevertheless, it is the second means by which understanding takes place, because it is by means of the excogitated form that the architect understands what he is to make. Similarly, with respect to the speculative intellect, we see that the species by which the intellect is informed so that it can actually understand is the first means by which understanding takes place; and because the intellect is brought into act by means of this form, it can now operate and form quiddities of things, as well as compose and divide. Consequently, the quiddities formed in the intellect, or even the affirmative and negative propositions, are, in a sense, products of the intellect, but products of such a kind that through them the intellect arrives at the knowledge of an exterior thing. Hence, this product is, in a fashion, a second means by which understanding takes place. If, however, the intellect of an artist were to produce a work that resembled itself, then, indeed, the very intellect of the artist would be an idea, not in so far as it is an intellect, but in so far as it is understood.
|
| In his autem quae ad imitationem alterius producuntur, quandoque quidem id quod alterum imitatur, perfecte imitatur ipsum; et tunc intellectus operativus praeconcipiens formam operati, habet ut ideam ipsam formam rei imitatae, prout est illius rei imitatae: quandoque vero quod est ad imitationem alterius, non perfecte imitatur illud; et tunc intellectus operativus non acciperet formam rei imitatae absolute ut ideam vel exemplar rei operandae; sed cum proportione determinata, secundum quam exemplatum a principali exemplari deficeret vel imitaretur.
| Now, with respect to those things made in imitation of something else, we sometimes find that they imitate their archetype perfectly. In such a case, the operative intellect when preconceiving the form of what was made, possesses as an idea the very form of the thing imitated precisely as the form of the thing imitated. At other times, however, we find that that which is made in imitation of another is not a perfect imitation. In this case, the operative intellect would not take as its idea or archetype the form of the archetype itself, absolutely and exactly as it is, but it takes it with a definite proportion varying according to the degree of closeness with which the copy imitates the original.
|
| Dico ergo, quod Deus per intellectum omnia operans, omnia ad similitudinem essentiae suae producit; unde essentia sua est idea rerum; non quidem ut est essentia, sed ut est intellecta. Res autem creatae non perfecte imitantur divinam essentiam; unde essentia non accipitur absolute ab intellectu divino ut idea rerum, sed cum proportione creaturae fiendae ad ipsam divinam essentiam, secundum quod deficit ab ea, vel imitatur ipsam. Diversae autem res diversimode ipsam imitantur; et unaquaeque secundum proprium modum suum, cum unicuique sit esse distinctum ab altera; et ideo ipsa divina essentia, cointellectis diversis proportionibus rerum ad eam, est idea uniuscuiusque rei. Unde, cum sint diversae rerum proportiones, necesse est plures esse ideas; et est quidem una omnium ex parte essentiae; sed pluralitas invenitur ex parte diversarum proportionum creaturarum ad ipsam.
| I say, therefore, that God, who makes all things by means of His intellect, produces them all in the likeness of His own essence. Hence, His essence is the idea of things—not, indeed, His essence considered as an essence, but considered as it is known. Created things, however, do not perfectly imitate the divine essence. Consequently, His essence as the idea of things is not understood by the divine intellect unqualifiedly, but with the proportion to the divine essence had by the creature to be produced, that is, according as the creature falls short of, or imitates, the divine essence. Now, different things imitate the divine essence in different ways, each one according to its own proper manner, since each has its own act of existence, distinct from that of another. We can say, therefore, that the divine essence is the idea of each and every thing, understanding, of course, the different proportions that things have to it. Hence, since there are in things different proportions to- the divine essence, there must necessarily be many ideas. If we consider the essence alone, however, there is but one idea for all things; but if we consider the different proportions of creatures to the divine essence, then there can be said to be a plurality of ideas.
|
|
| Answers to Difficulties
|
| Ad primum ergo dicendum, quod proprietates personales ideo inducunt distinctionem personarum in divinis, quia ad invicem opponuntur oppositione relationis; unde proprietates non oppositae non distinguunt personas, ut communis spiratio, et paternitas. Ideae autem, nec alia essentialia attributa, non habent ad invicem aliquam oppositionem; et ideo non est simile.
| 1. Personal properties introduce a distinction of persons in God because they are opposed to each other by relative opposition. But properties that are not opposed, such as common spiration and paternity, do not distinguish one person from another. Moreover, neither the ideas nor other essential attributes are opposed by relative opposition. Hence, there is no similarity.
|
| Ad secundum dicendum, quod non est simile de ideis et essentialibus attributis. Attributa enim essentialia nihil habent de principali intellectu suo praeter essentiam creatoris; unde etiam non plurificantur, quamvis secundum ea Deus ad creaturas comparetur, prout secundum bonitatem facit bonos, secundum sapientiam sapientes. Sed idea de suo principali intellectu habet aliquid aliud praeter essentiam, scilicet ipsam proportionem creaturae ad essentiam, in quo etiam completur formaliter ratio ideae, ratione cuius dicuntur plures ideae: nihilominus tamen secundum quod ad essentiam pertinent, nihil prohibet ideas essentiales dici.
| 2. The same thing is not true of ideas and essential attributes. In their principal meaning, the essential attributes do not signify anything more than the essence of the Creator. Hence, strictly speaking, they are not plural, although God is compared to creatures with reference to them. For example, with reference to His goodness, we say that creatures are good; with reference to His wisdom, we say that they are wise. An idea, however, in its principal meaning signifies something other than God’s essence, namely, the proportion a creature has to His essence; and this completes the formal notion of an idea. Because of this there are said to be many ideas. Nevertheless, the ideas may be called essential attributes inasmuch as they are related to the essence.
|
| Ad tertium dicendum, quod pluralitas rationis quandoque reducitur ad aliquam diversitatem rei, sicut Socrates et Socrates sedens differunt ratione; et hoc reducitur ad diversitatem substantiae et accidentis; et similiter homo et animal ratione differunt; et haec differentia reducitur ad diversitatem formae et materiae, quia genus sumitur a materia, differentia vero specifica a forma; unde talis differentia secundum rationem repugnat maxime unitati vel simplicitati. Quandoque vero differentia secundum rationem non reducitur ad aliquam rei diversitatem, sed ad veritatem rei, quae est diversimode intelligibilis; et sic ponimus pluralitatem rationum in Deo; unde hoc non repugnat maximae unitati, vel simplicitati.
| 3. A plurality of concepts is sometimes reduced to a diversity in the thing. For example, there is a rational distinction between Socrates and Socrates sitting, and this is reduced to the difference that there is between substance and accident. Similarly, man and animal differ rationally; and this difference is reduced to the difference between form and matter, because genus is taken from matter but the specific difference from form. Consequently, such a conceptual difference is repugnant to the highest unity or simplicity. On the other hand, a conceptual difference sometimes is reduced not to any diversity in the thing, but to its truth, which can be understood in different ways. It is in this sense that we say that there is a plurality of intelligible characters in God. Hence, this plurality is not repugnant to His highest unity or simplicity.
|
| Ad quartum dicendum, quod philosophus appellat ibi rationem definitionem; in Deo autem non est accipere plures rationes quasi definitiones, quia nulla rationum illarum essentiam divinam comprehendit; et ideo non est ad propositum.
| 4. In this passage, the Philosopher speaks of intelligible characters as definitions. But we cannot talk of there being many intelligible characters in God as though these were definitions, for none of these comprehends the divine essence. Hence, this passage is not to the point.
|
| Ad quintum dicendum, quod forma quae est in intellectu, habet respectum duplicem: unum ad rem cuius est, alium ad id in quo est. Ex primo autem respectu non dicitur aliqualis, sed alicuius tantum: non enim materialium est forma materialis, nec sensibilium sensibilis. Sed secundum alium respectum aliqualis dicitur, quia sequitur modum eius in quo est; unde ex hoc quod rerum ideatarum quaedam aliis perfectius essentiam divinam imitantur, non sequitur quod ideae sint inaequales, sed inaequalium.
| 5. The form in the intellect has a double relationship. It is related not only to the thing whose form it is, but also to the intellect in which it exists. On the basis of its first relation, the form is not said to be of a certain kind but rather of a certain thing, for the intellectual form of material things is not a material form, nor is the intellectual form of sensible things sensible. It is on the basis of its second relationship that the intellectual form is said to be “of a certain kind,” because its kind is determined by that in which it exists. Hence, from the fact that some of the things of which ideas are had imitate the divine essence more perfectly than others, it does not follow that the ideas are unequal, but that they are ideas of unequal things.
|
| Ad sextum dicendum, quod una prima forma, ad quam omnia reducuntur, est ipsa divina essentia secundum se considerata; ex cuius consideratione intellectus divinus adinvenit, ut ita dicam, diversos modos imitationis ipsius, in quibus pluralitas idearum consistit.
| 6. The one first form to which all things are reduced is the divine essence, considered in itself. Reflecting upon this essence, the divine intellect devises—if I may use such an expression—different ways in which it can be imitated. The plurality of ideas comes from these different ways.
|
| Ad septimum dicendum, quod ideae plurificantur secundum diversos respectus ad res in propria natura existentes; nec tamen oportet quod, si res sunt temporales, quod illi respectus sint temporales, quia actio intellectus, etiam humani, se extendit ad aliquid etiam quando illud non est, sicut cum intelligimus praeterita. Actionem autem relatio consequitur, ut in V Metaphysic. dicitur; unde et respectus ad res temporales in intellectu divino sunt aeterni.
| 7. The ideas are multiplied according to the different relations they have to things existing in their own natures. It is not necessary that these relations be temporal even if the things are temporal, because the action of the intellect—even of the human intellect—can extend to something even when it does not exist, as, for example, when we know the past. Moreover, as is said in the Metaphysics, a relation follows upon action; hence, even relations to temporal things are eternal in the divine intellect.
|
| Ad octavum dicendum, quod relatio quae est inter Deum et creaturam, non est in Deo secundum rem; est tamen in Deo secundum intellectum nostrum; et similiter potest esse in eo secundum intellectum suum, prout scilicet, intelligit respectum rerum ad essentiam suam; et sic respectus illi sunt in Deo ut intellecti ab ipso.
| 8. The relation existing between God and creature is not a real relation in God. However, it is in God according to our manner of understanding Him; similarly, it can be in Him according to His own manner of understanding Himself, that is, in so far as He understands the relation things have to His essence. Thus, these relations exist in God as known by Him.
|
| Ad nonum dicendum, quod idea non habet rationem eius quo primo aliquid intelligitur, sed habet rationem intellecti in intellectu existentis. Uniformitas autem intellectus sequitur unitatem eius quo primo aliquid intelligitur; sicut unitas actionis sequitur unitatem formae agentis, quae est principium ipsius; unde, quamvis respectus intellecti a Deo sint multi, in quibus pluralitas idearum consistit; quia tamen illos omnes per unam suam essentiam intelligit, intellectus eius non est multiplex, sed unus.
| 9. An idea does not have the character of that by which a thing is first understood, but, rather, of that which is understood and is existing in the intellect. Moreover, whether or not there is to be but one form in the understanding is determined by the unity of that by which a thing is first understood, just as the unity of an action is determined by the unity of the form of the agent which is its principle. Hence, although the relations understood by God are many (and it is in these relations that the plurality of ideas consists), nevertheless, because e understands all things by means of His essence, His understanding is not multiple but one. |
ARTICLE III
In the third article we ask:
Do ideas belong to speculative or only to practical knowledge?
[ARTICLE S.T., I, 14, 16; 15, 3; I Sent., 36, 2, 3; De div. nom., c. 5, lect. 3 (P. 15:352a seq.); De pot., 1, 5, ad 10-11; 3, 1, ad 13.]
|
| Tertio quaeritur utrum ideae pertineant ad cognitionem speculativam, vel practicam tantum.
| Difficulties
|
| Et videtur quod tantum ad practicam.
| It seems that they belong only to practical knowledge, for
|
| Quia, ut dicit Augustinus in l. LXXXIII quaestionum, ideae sunt formae rerum principales, secundum quas formatur omne quod oritur aut interit. Sed secundum speculativam cognitionem nihil formatur. Ergo speculativa cognitio non habet ideam.
| 1. According to Augustine: “Ideas are the principal forms of things, according to which everything is formed that has a beginning or an end.” But, since nothing is formed by reason of speculative knowledge, ideas do not belong to this type of knowledge.
|
| Sed dicebat, quod ideae non solum habent respectum ad id quod oritur aut interit, sed ad id quod oriri vel interire potest, ut ibidem Augustinus dicit; et sic idea se habet ad ea quae nec sunt, nec erunt, nec fuerunt, tamen esse possunt, de quibus Deus speculativam cognitionem habet.- Sed contra, practica scientia dicitur secundum quam aliquis scit modum operis, etiam si nunquam operari intendat; et sic dicitur practica esse pars medicinae. Sed Deus scit modum operandi ea quae potest facere, quamvis facere non proponat. Ergo etiam de eis Deus habet practicam cognitionem; et sic utroque modo idea ad practicam cognitionem pertinet.
| 2. It was said, however, that ideas are related not only to those things which have a beginning or an end, but also to those which can have a beginning or end, as Augustine says in the same passage. Consequently, ideas are related to those things which do not exist, will not exist, and never have existed, but nevertheless can exist. Of these, God has speculative knowledge.—On the contrary, practical knowledge is said to be that knowledge according to which one knows how a thing is done, even if he never intends to do it. This is why part of medical study is called practical. Now, God knows how the things which He can make are to be made, even though He does not intend to make them. Therefore, God has practical knowledge of them. Hence, in both ways, ideas pertain to practical knowledge.
|
| Praeterea, idea nihil est aliud quam exemplaris forma. Sed forma exemplaris non potest dici nisi in practica cognitione, quia exemplar est ad cuius imitationem fit aliud. Ergo ideae solum practicam cognitionem respiciunt.
| 3. An idea is nothing but the exemplary form. Now, one can speak of the exemplary form only in connection with practical knowledge, because an exemplar is that upon which a thing else is modeled. Therefore, ideas pertain only to practical knowledge.
|
| Praeterea, secundum philosophum, practicus intellectus est eorum quorum principia sunt in nobis. Sed ideae in intellectu divino existentes sunt ideatorum principia. Ergo ad practicum intellectum pertinent.
| 4. According to the Philosopher, the practical intellect pertains to those things whose principles are within us. But the ideas existing in the divine intellect are principles of the things that are modeled on the ideas. Therefore, they belong to the practical intellect.
|
| Praeterea, omnes formae intellectus vel sunt a rebus, vel sunt ad res: quae autem sunt ad res, sunt practici intellectus; quae vero a rebus, speculativi. Sed nullae formae intellectus divini sunt a rebus, cum nihil a rebus accipiat. Ergo sunt ad res; et sic sunt practici intellectus.
| 5. All the forms in the intellect either are from things or have a relation to things. The latter type of forms belongs to the practical intellect; the former, to the speculative. But no forms in the divine intellect are from things, since it receives nothing from things. Therefore, the forms in the divine intellect have a relation to things, and thus belong to the practical intellect.
|
| Praeterea, si est alia idea intellectus practici, et alia speculativi in Deo, diversitas ista non potest esse per aliquid absolutum, quia omne huiusmodi est unum tantum in Deo; nec per respectum identitatis, ut cum dicimus idem eidem idem, quia talis respectus nullam pluralitatem inducit; nec per respectum diversitatis, quia causa non plurificatur, quamvis effectus sint plures. Ergo nullo modo potest distingui alia idea speculativae cognitionis ab idea practicae cognitionis.
| 6. If in God an idea of the practical intellect were other than an idea of the speculative intellect, this diversity could not be based on something absolute in Him; for everything of this kind in God is one and one only; nor could it be based on a relation of identity such as exists when a thing is said to be identical with itself, because such a relation involves no plurality. Finally, it could not be based on a relation of diversity, since a cause is not multiplied even when its effects are multiple. Therefore, there is no possible way of distinguishing an idea of speculative knowledge from an idea of practical knowledge.
|
| Sed dicebat, quod in hoc utraque idea distinguitur, quod idea practica est principium essendi, sed speculativa cognoscendi.- Sed contra, eadem sunt principia essendi et cognoscendi. Ergo ex hoc idea speculativa a practica non distinguitur.
| 7. But it was said that these ideas are distinguished because a practical idea is a principle of being, while a speculative idea is a principle of knowing.—On the contrary, principles of being and of knowing are the same. Therefore, a speculative idea cannot be distinguished from a practical idea on the basis suggested.
|
| Praeterea, cognitio speculativa nihil aliud videtur esse in Deo quam simplex ipsius notitia. Sed simplex notitia nihil praeter notitiam aliud habere potest. Ergo, cum idea addat respectum ad res, videtur quod non pertineat ad speculativam cognitionem, sed ad practicam tantum.
| 8. God’s speculative knowledge seems to be the same as His simple knowledge. God’s simple knowledge, however, is nothing other than bare knowledge. Now, since an idea adds a relation to things, it seems that an idea does not belong to His speculative knowledge but only to His practical knowledge.
|
| Praeterea, finis practici est bonum. Sed respectus ideae non potest determinari nisi ad bonum, quia mala praeter intentionem accidunt. Ergo idea solum practicum intellectum respicit.
| 9. The end of the practical intellect is the good. Now, the reference of an idea can be determined only to a good; for, if evil occurs, that is outside of God’s intention. Consequently, an idea pertains only to the practical intellect.
|
| Sed contra.
| To the Contrary
|
| Cognitio practica non extendit se nisi ad facienda. Sed Deus per ideas non solum scit facienda, sed praesentia et facta. Ergo ideae non se extendunt solum ad practicam cognitionem.
| 1. Practical knowledge extends only to those things which are to be made. But by His ideas God knows not only what things are to be made, but also those things that are made and have been made. Therefore, ideas are not restricted merely to practical knowledge.
|
| Praeterea, Deus perfectius cognoscit creaturas quam artifex artificiata. Sed artifex creatus, per formas quibus operatur, habet speculativam cognitionem de operatis; ergo multo fortius Deus.
| 2. God knows creatures more perfectly than an artist knows the products of his craftsmanship. But by means of the forms through which he acts, an artist, who is merely a creature, has speculative knowledge of his handicraft. How much more must this be true of God!
|
| Praeterea, cognitio speculativa est quae considerat principia et causas rerum, et passiones earumdem. Sed Deus per ideas cognoscit omnia quae in rebus cognosci possunt. Ergo ideae in Deo pertinent non ad practicam solum, sed speculativam cognitionem.
| 3. Speculative knowledge is that which considers the principles and causes of things, as well as their properties. But by ideas God knows all that can be known of things. Therefore, the divine ideas pertain not only to practical, but also to speculative knowledge.
|
| Responsio.
| REPLY
|
| Dicendum, quod, sicut dicitur in III de anima, intellectus practicus differt a speculativo fine; finis enim speculativi est veritas absolute, sed practici est operatio ut dicitur in II Metaphys. Aliqua ergo cognitio, practica dicitur ex ordine ad opus: quod contingit dupliciter. Quandoque enim ad opus actu ordinatur, sicut artifex praeconcepta forma proponit illam in materiam inducere; et tunc est actu practica cognitio, et cognitionis forma. Quandoque vero est quidem ordinabilis cognitio ad actum, non tamen actu ordinatur; sicut cum artifex excogitat formam artificii, et scit modum operandi, non tamen operari intendit; et tunc est practica habitu vel virtute, non actu. Quando vero nullo modo est ad actum ordinabilis cognitio, tunc est pure speculativa; quod etiam dupliciter contingit. Uno modo, quando cognitio est de rebus illis quae non sunt natae produci per scientiam cognoscentis, sicut cum nos cognoscimus naturalia; quandoque vero res cognita est quidem operabilis per scientiam, tamen non consideratur ut est operabilis; res enim per operationem in esse producitur. Sunt autem quaedam quae possunt separari secundum intellectum, quae non sunt separabilia secundum esse. Quando ergo consideratur res per intellectum operabilis distinguendo ab invicem ea quae secundum esse distingui non possunt, non est practica cognitio nec actu nec habitu, sed speculativa tantum; sicut si artifex consideret domum investigando passiones eius, et genus et differentias, et alia huiusmodi, quae secundum esse indistincte inveniuntur in re ipsa. Sed tunc consideratur res ut est operabilis, quando considerantur in ipsa omnia quae ad eius esse requiruntur simul.
| As is said in The Soul: “Practical knowledge differs from speculative knowledge in its end.” For the end of speculative knowledge is simply truth, but the end of practical knowledge, as we read in the Metaphysics, is action. Now, some knowledge is called practical because it is directed to a work. This happens in two ways. In the first way, it is directed in act—that is, when it is actually directed to a certain work, as the form is which an artist preconceives and intends to introduce into matter. This is called actual practical knowledge and is the form by which knowledge takes place. At other times, however, there is a type of knowledge that is capable of being ordered to an act, but this ordering is not actual. For example, an artist thinks out a form for his work, knows how it can be made, yet does not intend to make it. This is practical knowledge, not actual, but habitual or virtual. At still other times, knowledge is utterly incapable of being ordered to execution. Such knowledge is purely speculative. This also happens in two ways. First, the knowledge is about those things whose natures are such that they cannot be produced by the knowledge of the knower, as is true for example, when we think about natural things. Second, it may happen that the thing known is something that is producible through knowledge but is not considered as producible; for a thing is given existence through a productive operation, and there are certain realities that can be separated in understanding although they cannot exist separately. Therefore, when we consider a thing which is capable of production through the intellect and distinguish from each other realities that cannot exist separately, this knowledge is not practical knowledge, either actual or habitual, but only speculative. This is the kind of knowledge a craftsman has when he thinks about a house by reflecting only on its genus, differences, properties, and other things of this sort which have no separate existence in the thing itself. But a thing is considered as something capable of execution when there are considered in its regard all the things that are simultaneously required for its existence.
|
| Et secundum hos quatuor modos cognitio divina se habet ad res. Scientia enim eius est causativa rerum. Quaedam ergo cognoscit ordinando ea proposito suae voluntatis ad hoc quod sint secundum quodcumque tempus, et horum habet practicam cognitionem in actu. Quaedam vero cognoscit quae nullo tempore facere intendit, scit enim ea quae nec fuerunt, nec sunt, nec erunt, ut in praecedenti quaestione, dictum est; et de his habet quidem scientiam in actu, non autem actu practicam, sed virtute tantum. Et quia res quas facit vel facere potest, non solum considerat secundum quod sunt in proprio esse, sed secundum omnes etiam intentiones quas intellectus humanus resolvendo in eis apprehendere potest; ideo habet cognitionem de rebus operabilibus a se etiam eo modo quo non sunt operabiles. Scit etiam et quaedam quorum sua scientia causa esse non potest, sicut mala. Unde verissime in Deo et practicam et speculativam cognitionem ponimus.
| God’s knowledge is related to things in these four ways. Since His knowledge causes things, He knows some things by ordaining by a decree of His will that they come into existence at a certain time. Of these things He has actual practical knowledge. Moreover, He knows other things which He never intends to make, for He knows those things which do not exist, have not existed, and never will exist, as we said in the preceding question. Of these things He has actual knowledge, not actually practical knowledge, however, but merely virtually practical. Again, since He knows the things which He makes or is able to make, not only as they exist in their own act of existence, but also according to all the notes which the human intellect can find in them by analysis, He knows things that He can make even under an aspect in which they are incapable of execution. Finally, He knows certain things of which His knowledge cannot be the cause—evils, for example. Therefore, it is very true to say that there is both practical and speculative knowledge in God.
|
| Nunc ergo videndum, secundum quem modum praedictorum, idea in divina cognitione possit poni. Idea ergo, ut Augustinus dicit, secundum proprietatem vocabuli forma dicitur; sed si rem attendamus, idea est rei ratio, vel similitudo. Invenimus autem in quibusdam formis duplicem respectum: unum ad id quod secundum eas formatur, sicut scientia respicit scientem; alium ad id quod est extra, sicut scientia respicit scibile; hic tamen respectus non est omni formae communis, sicut primus. Hoc igitur nomen forma importat solum primum respectum; et inde est quod forma semper notat habitudinem causae. Est enim forma quodammodo causa eius quod secundum ipsam formatur; sive talis formatio fiat per modum inhaerentiae, ut in formis intrinsecis, sive per modum imitationis, ut in formis exemplaribus. Sed similitudo et ratio respectum etiam secundum habent, ex quo non competit eis habitudo causae. Si ergo loquamur de idea secundum propriam nominis rationem, sic non se extendit nisi ad illam scientiam secundum quam aliquid formari potest; et haec est cognitio actu practica, vel virtute tantum, quae etiam quodammodo speculativa est. Sed tamen si ideam communiter appellemus similitudinem vel rationem, sic idea etiam ad speculativam cognitionem pure pertinere potest. Vel magis proprie dicamus, quod idea respicit cognitionem practicam actu vel virtute; similitudo autem et ratio tam practicam quam speculativam.
| Now we must see which of the preceding ways is proper to the ideas which must be attributed to God’s knowledge. As Augustine says if we consider the proper meaning of the word itself, an idea is a form; but if we consider what the thing itself is, then an idea is an intelligible character or likeness of a thing. We find, moreover, in certain forms, a double relation: one relation to that which is informed by these forms, and this is the kind of relation that knowledge has to the knower; another to that which is outside, and this is the kind of a relation that knowledge has to what is known. This latter relationship, however, is not common to all forms, as the first is. Therefore, the word form implies only the first relation. This is why a form always has the nature of a cause, for a form is, in a sense, the cause of that which it informs—whether this informing takes place by inherence, as it does in the case of intrinsic forms, or by imitation, as it does in the case of exemplary forms. But an intelligible character and a likeness also have the second relationship, which does not give them the nature of a cause. If we speak, therefore, of an idea, considering only the notion that is properly conveyed by that word, then an idea includes only that kind of knowledge according to which a thing can be made. This is knowledge that is actually practical, or merely virtually practical, which, in some way, is speculative. On the other hand, if we call an idea an intelligible character or likeness in a wide sense, then an idea can also pertain to purely speculative knowledge. Or, if we wish to speak more formally, we should say that an idea belongs to knowledge that is practical, either actually or virtually; but an intelligible character or likeness belongs to both practical and speculative knowledge.
|
|
| Answers to Difficulties
|
| Ad primum igitur dicendum, quod Augustinus formationem ideae refert non tantum ad ea quae fiunt, sed etiam ad ea quae fieri possunt; de quibus, si nunquam fiant, est cognitio aliquo modo speculativa, ut ex dictis, patet.
| 1. Augustine is referring the formative action of ideas not only to those things which are made but also to those which can be made. For, even if these latter never exist, they are, in a certain sense, known, speculatively, as is clear from what has been said.
|
| Ad secundum dicendum, quod ratio illa procedit de cognitione illa quae est practica virtute, non actu; quam nihil prohibet aliquo modo speculativam dici, secundum quod recedit ab operatione secundum actum.
| 2. This argument refers only to knowledge which is practical virtually, not actually. Nothing prevents us from calling this speculative in some sense in so far as it falls short of actual execution.
|
| Ad tertium dicendum, quod exemplar, quamvis importet respectum ad id quod est extra, tamen ad illud extrinsecum importat habitudinem causae; et ideo, proprie loquendo, ad cognitionem pertinet quae est practica habitu vel virtute; non autem solum ad illam quae est actu practica: quia aliquid potest dici exemplar ex hoc quod ad eius imitationem potest aliquid fieri, etsi nunquam fiat; et similiter est de ideis.
| 3. Although an exemplar implies a relation to something outside, it is related as a cause to that extrinsic thing. Therefore, properly speaking, it belongs to knowledge that is practical, either habitually or virtually. But an exemplar is not necessarily restricted to that which is actually practical, because a thing can be called an exemplar merely if something else can be made in imitation of it—even though this other thing is never made. The same is true of ideas.
|
| Ad quartum dicendum, quod practicus intellectus est de his quorum principia sunt in nobis non quocumque modo, sed in quantum sunt per nos operabilia. Unde et de eis quorum causae sunt in nobis, habere possumus speculativam scientiam, ut ex dictis, patet.
| 4. The practical intellect pertains to those things whose principles are within us not in any manner whatsoever, but as being capable of being executed by us, Hence, as is evident from what we have said, we can also have speculative knowledge of those things whose causes are within us.
|
| Ad quintum dicendum, quod intellectus speculativus et practicus non distinguuntur per hoc quod est habere formas a rebus aut ad res; quia etiam in nobis intellectus practicus quandoque habet formas a rebus sumptas; ut cum aliquis artifex ex artificio aliquo viso concipit formam secundum quam operari intendit. Unde non etiam oportet ut omnes formae quae sunt intellectus speculativi, sint acceptae a rebus.
| 5. The speculative intellect is not differentiated from the practical because one has its forms from things, and the other, forms related to things, because our practical intellect, at times, also receives its forms from things, as happens, for example, when an artist, having seen some work of art, conceives a form according to which he intends to make something. Therefore, it is not necessary, either, that all the forms which pertain to the speculative intellect be received from things.
|
| Ad sextum dicendum, quod idea practica et speculativa in Deo non distinguuntur quasi duae ideae; sed quia secundum rationem intelligendi, practica addit super speculativam ordinem ad actum; sicut homo addit super animal rationale; nec homo tamen et animal sunt duae res.
| 6. God’s practical and speculative ideas should not be distinguished as though they were two kinds of ideas. They are distinguished because, according to our way of understanding, to the speculative idea the practical adds a relation to an operation. It is just as we say that man adds rational to animal, even though man and animal are not two things.
|
| Ad septimum dicendum, quod pro tanto dicuntur eadem esse principia essendi et cognoscendi, quia quaecumque sunt principia essendi, sunt etiam principia cognoscendi; non autem e converso, cum effectus interdum sint principia cognoscendi causas. Unde nihil prohibet formas intellectus speculativi esse tantum principia cognoscendi; formas autem intellectus practici esse principia essendi et cognoscendi simul.
| 7. Principles of being and principles of knowing are said to be the same, because whatever is a principle of being is also a principle of knowing. The opposite, however, is not true, since effects are not infrequently principles of knowing causes. Consequently, there is no reason why the forms of the speculative intellect should not be merely principles of knowing, while the forms of the practical intellect are principles both of knowing and of being.
|
| Ad octavum dicendum, quod simplex notitia dicitur non ad excludendum respectum scientiae ad scitum, qui inseparabiliter omnem scientiam comitatur, sed ad excludendum admixtionem eius quod est extra genus notitiae; sicut est existentia rerum, quam addit scientia visionis; vel ordo voluntatis ad res scitas producendas, quem addit scientia approbationis; sicut etiam ignis dicitur corpus simplex, non ad excludendum partes essentiales eius, sed commixtionem extranei.
| 8. We speak of God’s simple knowledge, not to exclude the relation which His knowledge has to what He knows, for such a relation is inseparably joined to all knowledge, but to exclude from it things that are outside the genus of knowledge. Such things are the existence of things (which is added by His knowledge of vision) and the relation of His will to the things that He knows and will produce (which is added by His knowledge of approval). It is just as we call fire a simple body, not to deny that it has essential parts, but rather to exclude foreign elements from its definition.
|
| Ad nonum dicendum, quod verum et bonum se invicem circumincedunt, quia et verum est quoddam bonum, et bonum omne est verum; unde et bonum potest considerari cognitione speculativa, prout consideratur veritas eius tantum: sicut cum definimus bonum et naturam eius ostendimus; potest etiam considerari practice, si consideretur ut bonum; hoc autem est, si consideretur in quantum est finis motus vel operationis. Et sic patet quod non sequitur ideas vel similitudines aut rationes divini intellectus ad practicam tantum notitiam pertinere, ex hoc quod respectus terminatur ad bonum.
| 9. The true and the good include each other, since the true is a good and every good is true. Therefore, the good can be considered speculatively when only its truth is considered. For example, we can define the good and show what its nature is. But the good can also be considered practically if it is considered as a good, that is, as an end of a motion or operation. Consequently, it clearly does not follow that the ideas or likenesses or intelligible characters in the divine intellect belong only to practical knowledge simply because they have a relation terminating in a good.
|
|
| Answers to Contrary Difficulties
|
| Ad primum vero quod contra obiicitur, dicendum quod apud Deum non currunt tempora neque decurrunt, quia ipse sua aeternitate, quae totum est simul, totum tempus includit; et sic eodem modo cognoscit praesentia, praeterita et futura; et hoc est quod dicitur Eccli., XXIII, 29: domino Deo nostro antequam crearentur nota sunt omnia; sic et post perfectum cognoscit omnia. Et sic non oportet quod idea proprie accepta limites practicae cognitionis excedat, ex hoc quod per eam etiam praeterita cognoscuntur.
| 1. Time has no ebb or flow in God, because His eternity, which is entirely simultaneous, includes all time. Hence, He knows the past, present, and future in the same way. This is precisely what Sirach (2 3:2 9) says: “For all things were known to the Lord God, before they were created: so also after they were perfected he beholds all things.” Hence, it is not necessary that an idea properly so called should exceed the limits of practical knowledge merely because the past is known by means of it.
|
| Ad secundum dicendum, quod illa cognitio quam artifex creatus habet per formas operativas de suo artificio, si cognoscit ipsum ut est producibile in esse, quamvis operari non intendat, non est usquequaque speculativa cognitio, sed habitualiter practica; cognitio autem artificis qua cognoscit artificiata non ut sunt productibilia ab ipso, quae est pure speculativa, non habet ideas respondentes sibi, sed forte rationes vel similitudines.
| 2. If the knowledge of his handicraft which an artist, who is a creature, has by means of forms referred to action is a knowledge of his work as it can be produced, although he does not intend to produce it, then that knowledge is not speculative in all respects but is habitually practical. But that knowledge by which the artist knows, works, not, however, as he can produce them, is purely speculative. It does not contain ideas corresponding to the work, although it might possibly contain likenesses or intelligible characters of it.
|
| Ad tertium dicendum, quod est commune practicae et speculativae scientiae quod sit per principia et causas; unde ex hac ratione non potest probari de aliqua scientia neque quod sit speculativa, neque quod sit practica.
| 3. Both speculative and practical knowledge are had by means of principles and causes. Consequently, this argument cannot prove that a science is speculative or that it is practical. |
ARTICLE IV
In the fourth article we ask:
Is there in god an idea of evil?
[ARTICLE De ver., 2, 15; S.T., I, 14, 10; 15, 3, ad 1; I Sent., 36, 1, 2; C.G., I, 7 1; Quodl., XI, 2, 2.]
|
| Quarto quaeritur utrum malum habeat ideam in Deo.
| Difficulties
|
| Et videtur quod sic.
| It seems that there is, for
|
| Deus enim habet scientiam simplicis notitiae de malis. Sed idea aliquo modo respondet scientiae simplicis notitiae, secundum quod large sumitur pro similitudine vel ratione. Ergo malum habet ideam in Deo.
| 1. God knows evil things in His science of simple knowledge. But the ideas belong to His science of simple knowledge in some way if idea is taken in its broader meaning of a likeness or intelligible character. Therefore, there is an idea of evil in God.
|
| Praeterea, malum nihil prohibet esse in bono quod non est ei oppositum. Sed similitudo mali non opponitur bono, sicut nec similitudo nigri albo, quia species contrariorum in anima non sunt contrariae. Ergo nihil prohibet, in Deo, quamvis sit summum bonum, ponere ideam vel similitudinem mali.
| 2. There is no reason why evil cannot be in a good not opposed to it. Now, the likeness of evil is not opposed to the good, just as the likeness of black is not opposed to white, because the species of contraries in the soul are not contrary. Therefore, there is no reason why there cannot be an idea or likeness of evil in God, even though He is the highest good.
|
| Praeterea, ubicumque est aliqua communitas, ibi est aliqua similitudo. Sed ex hoc ipso quod aliquid est privatio entis, suscipit entis praedicationem; unde dicitur in IV metaphysicorum, quod negationes et privationes dicuntur entia. Ergo ex hoc ipso quod malum est privatio boni, habet aliquam similitudinem in Deo, qui est summum bonum.
| 3. Wherever there is any community, there is likeness. Now, from the fact that a thing is a privation of being, being can be predicated of it; hence it is said in the Metaphysics that negations and privations are called beings. Therefore, from the fact that evil is the privation of good, some likeness of it exists in God, who is the highest good.
|
| Praeterea, omne illud quod per seipsum cognoscitur, habet ideam in Deo. Sed falsum per seipsum cognoscitur, sicut et verum; sicut enim prima principia sunt per se nota in sua veritate, ita eorum opposita sunt per se nota in sua falsitate. Ergo falsum habet ideam in Deo. Falsum autem est quoddam malum, sicut et verum est intellectus bonum, ut dicitur in VI Ethicorum. Ergo malum habet ideam in Deo.
| 4. Whatever is known in itself has its idea in God. But the false, like the true, is known in itself; for, just as first principles are known in themselves in their truth, so also are the opposites of these principles known in themselves in their falsity. Hence, the false has its idea in God. Now, the false is a kind of evil, just as the true is the good of the intellect, as we read in the Ethics. Therefore, evil has an idea in God.
|
| Praeterea, quidquid habet naturam aliquam, habet ideam in Deo. Sed vitium, cum sit virtuti contrarium, ponit aliquam naturam in genere qualitatis. Ergo habet ideam in Deo. Sed ex hoc ipso quod est vitium, est malum. Ergo malum habet ideam in Deo.
| 5. Whatever has a nature has an idea in God. Now, since vice is the contrary of virtue, it has a nature which belongs to the genus of quality. Therefore, it has an idea in God. But because it is vice, it is evil. Therefore, evil has an idea in God.
|
| Praeterea, si malum non habet ideam, non est hoc nisi quia malum non est ens. Sed formae cognitivae possunt esse de non entibus; nihil enim prohibet imaginari montes aureos, aut Chimaeram. Ergo nihil etiam prohibet mali ideam esse in Deo.
| 6. If evil has no idea, the only reason for this is that evil is non-being. But the forms by which one knows can have non-beings as their objects. There is nothing to prevent us, for example, from imagining golden mountains or chimeras. Therefore, there is no reason why evil cannot have an idea in God.
|
| Praeterea, inter res signatas non habere signum est esse signatum, ut patet in ovibus quae signantur. Sed idea est quoddam signum ideati. Ergo ex hoc ipso quod, rebus bonis habentibus ideam in Deo, malum non habet, debet dici ipsum esse ideatum vel formatum.
| 7. If a thing has no mark upon it and exists among other things that are marked, the very lack of a mark becomes its mark, as is clear in sheep which are marked. Now, an idea is, in a way, a sign of that of which it is an idea. Therefore, since all good things have an idea in God, and evil does not, evil itself should be said to be modeled upon or formed in the likeness of an idea.
|
| Praeterea, quidquid est a Deo, habet ideam in eo. Sed malum est a Deo, poenae scilicet. Ergo habet ideam in ipso.
| 8. Whatever comes from God has its idea in Him. But evil, that is, the evil of punishment, comes from God. Therefore, it has an idea in God.
|
| Sed contra.
| To the Contrary
|
| Omne ideatum habet esse terminatum per ideam. Sed malum non habet esse terminatum, cum non habeat esse, sed privatio sit entis. Ergo malum non habet ideam in Deo.
| 1. All effects of an idea have an act of existence determined by that idea. But evil does not have a determined act of existence, since it does not have any existence, and is, instead, a privation of being. Therefore, evil does not have an idea in God.
|
| Praeterea, secundum Dionysium, idea vel exemplar est praedefinitio divinae voluntatis. Sed voluntas Dei non habet se nisi ad bona. Ergo malum non habet ideam in Deo.
| 2. According to Dionysius, the divine exemplar or idea is a pre-definition of the divine will. But the divine will is related only to what is good. Therefore, evil has no exemplar in God.
|
| Praeterea, malum est privatio speciei, modi et ordinis, secundum Augustinum. Sed ipsas ideas Plato species appellavit. Ergo malum non potest habere ideam.
| 3. “Evil,” according to Augustine, “is the privation of form, measure, and order.” Now, Plato says that ideas themselves are beautiful. Consequently, evil can have no idea.
|
| Responsio.
| REPLY
|
| Dicendum, quod idea secundum propriam sui rationem, ut patet ex dictis, importat formam, quae est principium formationis alicuius rei. Unde, cum nihil quod est in Deo, possit esse mali principium, non potest malum ideam habere in Deo, si proprie accipiatur idea. Sed nec etiam si accipiatur communiter pro ratione vel similitudine; quia, secundum Augustinum, malum dicitur ex hoc ipso quod non habet formam. Unde, cum similitudo attendatur secundum formam aliquo modo participatam, non potest esse quod malum similitudinem aliquam in Deo habeat, cum aliquid dicatur malum ex hoc ipso quod a participatione divinitatis recedit.
| As pointed out previously, an idea, according to its proper nature, implies a form that is the principle of informing a thing. Consequently, since there is nothing in God that can be a principle of evil, evil cannot have an idea in God if idea is taken in its proper sense. This is likewise true if it is taken in its broad sense as meaning a likeness or intelligible character, because, as Augustine says, evil gets its name from the fact that it lacks form. Hence, since a likeness is considered as a form that is in some way shared by others, evil can have no likeness in God, because a thing is called evil for the very reason that it falls short of any participation in divinity.
|
|
| Answers to Difficulties
|
| Ad primum igitur dicendum, quod scientia simplicis notitiae non solum est de malis, sed etiam de quibusdam bonis, quae nec sunt, nec erunt, nec fuerunt: et respectu horum ponitur idea in scientia simplicis notitiae, non autem respectu malorum.
| 1. God’s science of simple knowledge has as its object, not only evil, but also certain good things that do not exist, will not exist, and never did exist. It is with respect to these non-existing things that there is an idea in God’s simple knowledge, but there is no idea in it of evil things.
|
| Ad secundum dicendum, quod non negatur malum habere ideam in Deo ratione oppositionis tantum; sed quia non habet aliquam naturam per quam aliquo modo participet aliquid quod sit in Deo, ut sic similitudo eius accipi possit.
| 2.We deny that evil has an exemplar in God, not just because of its opposition, but because evil has no nature through which it could in some way participate in something that is in God and which could, therefore, be called a likeness of it.
|
| Ad tertium dicendum, quod illa communitas qua aliquid communiter praedicatur de ente et non ente, est rationis tantum, quia negationes et privationes non sunt nisi entia rationis: talis autem communitas non sufficit ad similitudinem de qua nunc loquimur.
| 3. That community by which something is predicated both of being and of non-being is a community merely of reason, because negations and privations are merely beings of reason. Such a community is not enough for the likeness of which we are now speaking.
|
| Ad quartum dicendum, quod hoc principium: nullum totum est maius sua parte, esse falsum, quoddam verum est; unde cognoscere hoc esse falsum, est cognoscere quoddam verum. Falsitas tamen eius principii non cognoscitur nisi per privationem veritatis, sicut caecitas per privationem visus.
| 4. That this principle, “No whole is greater than its part,” is false is a truth. Therefore, to know that it is false is to know something true. However, the falsity of this principle is known only by its privation of truth, just as blindness is known by its being a privation of sight.
|
| Ad quintum dicendum, quod sicut actiones malae quantum ad id quod habent de entitate, bonae sunt, et a Deo sunt, ita est etiam et de habitibus qui sunt earum principia vel effectus; unde ex hoc quod sunt mala, non ponunt aliquam naturam, sed solum privationem.
| 5. Just as evil actions are good in so far as they have existence and come from God, so also in this sense are the habits good which are the principles or effects of these actions. Therefore, the fact that they are bad does not posit any nature but only a privation.
|
| Ad sextum dicendum, quod aliquid dicitur non ens dupliciter. Uno modo, quia non esse cadit in definitione eius, sicut caecitas dicitur non ens; et talis non entis non potest concipi aliqua forma neque in intellectu neque in imaginatione; et huiusmodi non ens est malum. Alio modo, quia non invenitur in rerum natura, quamvis ipsa privatio entitatis non claudatur in eius definitione; et sic nihil prohibet imaginari non entia, et eorum formas concipere.
| 6. A thing is called a non-being for two reasons. First, because nonexistence is included in its definition; and this is why blindness is called a non-being. It is impossible to conceive, either in our imagination or in our intellect, any form for such non-beings; and evil is a non-being of this type. Second, because the non-being is not found in the realm of nature, even though the privation of existence is not included in its definition. Here, however, there is no reason why we cannot imagine such non-beings and conceive their forms.
|
| Ad septimum dicendum, quod ex hoc ipso, quod malum non habet ideam in Deo, a Deo cognoscitur per ideam boni oppositi; et per hunc modum se habet ad cognitionem ac si haberet ideam; non autem ita quod privatio ideae respondeat ei pro idea, quia in Deo privatio esse non potest.
| 7. Because evil has no idea in God, God knows it by means of the idea of the good opposed to it. In this way, evil is related to His knowledge as though it had an idea-not that the privation of an idea stands in the place of an idea, however, because there can be no privation in God.
|
| Ad octavum dicendum, quod poenae malum exit a Deo sub ratione ordinis iustitiae; et sic bonum est, et ideam habet in Deo.
| 8. The evil of punishment proceeds from God as part of His order of justice. Hence, it is good and has an idea in Him. |
ARTICLE V
In the fifth article we ask:
Is there in God an idea of first matter?
[ARTICLE S.T., I, 15, 3, ad 3; I Sent., 36, 1, 1.]
|
| Quinto quaeritur utrum materia prima habeat ideam in Deo.
| Difficulties
|
| Et videtur quod non.
| It seems not, for
|
| Idea enim, secundum Augustinum, forma est. Sed materia prima nullam habet formam. Ergo idea in Deo nulla ei respondet.
| 1. According to Augustine: “An idea is a form.”’ But matter has no form. Therefore, in God there is no idea corresponding to matter.
|
| Praeterea, materia non est ens nisi in potentia. Si ergo idea debet ideato respondere si habet ideam, oportet quod eius idea sit in potentia tantum. Sed in Deum potentialitas non cadit. Ergo materia prima non habet ideam in ipso.
| 2. Matter is merely a being in potency. Now, if an idea has to correspond to its effect, if matter has an idea, the idea of matter will be merely in potency. There is, however, no potentiality in God. Therefore, first matter has no idea in Him.
|
| Praeterea, ideae sunt in Deo eorum quae sunt vel esse possunt. Sed materia prima nec est per se separata existens, neque esse potest. Ergo non habet ideam in Deo.
| 3. As they exist in God, the ideas are of those things which are or can be. But first matter does not exist separately, that is, by itself, nor can it so exist. Therefore, it has no idea in God.
|
| Praeterea, idea est ut secundum ipsam aliquid formatur. Sed materia prima nunquam potest formari, ita ut forma sit de essentia eius. Ergo si haberet ideam, frustra esset idea illa in Deo; quod est absurdum.
| 4. An idea is that according to which a thing is informed. But first matter can never be informed so that a form would belong to its essence. Therefore, if it did have an idea, that idea would be useless in God. This, however, is absurd.
|
| Sed contra.
| To the Contrary
|
| Omne quod procedit in esse a Deo, habet ideam in ipso. Materia est huiusmodi. Ergo habet ideam in Deo.
| 1. Whatever derives its act of existence from God has an idea in God. Matter belongs to this class of beings. Therefore, it has an idea in God.
|
| Praeterea, omnis essentia derivatur ab essentia divina. Ergo quidquid habet aliquam essentiam, habet ideam in Deo. Sed materia prima est huiusmodi. Ergo, et cetera.
| 2. Every essence is derived from the divine essence. Therefore whatever has an essence has an exemplar in God. Matter belongs to this class of beings. Therefore.
|
| Responsio.
| REPLY
|
| Dicendum, quod Plato, qui invenitur primo locutus fuisse de ideis, non posuit materiae primae aliquam ideam, quia ipse ponebat ideas ut causas ideatorum; materia autem prima non erat causatum ideae, sed erat ei concausa. Posuit enim duo principia ex parte materiae, scilicet magnum et parvum; sed unum ex parte formae, scilicet ideam. Nos autem ponimus materiam esse causatam a Deo; unde necesse est ponere quod aliquo modo sit eius idea in Deo, cum quidquid ab ipso causatur, similitudinem ipsius utcumque retineat. \
| Plato, who was the first to speak about ideas, did not posit any idea for first matter, because he asserted that the ideas were the causes of the things modeled upon them, and first matter is not caused by an idea but, instead, is its co-cause. For he said that there are two principles to be found in matter, “the great” and “the small,” but only on principle to be found in form, namely, the idea. We, however, assert that matter is caused by God. Hence, it is necessary to affirm that it exemplar in some way exists in God, since He possesses a likeness o whatever He causes.
|
| Sed tamen, si proprie de idea loquamur, non potest poni quod materia prima habeat per se ideam in Deo distinctam ab idea formae vel compositi: quia idea proprie dicta respicit rem secundum quod est producibilis in esse; materia autem non potest exire in esse sine forma, nec e converso. Unde proprie idea non respondet materiae tantum, neque formae tantum; sed toti composito respondet una idea, quae est factiva totius et quantum ad formam et quantum ad materiam. Si autem large accipiamus ideam pro similitudine vel ratione, tunc illa possunt per se distinctam habere ideam quae possunt distincte considerari, quamvis separatim esse non possint; et sic nihil prohibet materiae primae etiam secundum se ideam esse.
| On the other hand, if we take idea in its strict sense, we cannot say that first matter of itself has an idea in God that is distinct from the idea of the form or of the composite. For an idea, properly speaking is related to a thing in so far as it can be brought into existence; an matter cannot come into existence without a form, nor can a form come into existence without matter. Hence, properly speaking, there is no idea corresponding merely to matter or merely to form; but one idea corresponds to the entire composite—an idea that causes the whole, both its form and its matter. On the other hand, if we take idea in its broader sense as meaning an intelligible character or likeness, then both matter and form of themselves can be said to have an idea by which they can be known distinctly, even though they cannot exist separately. In this sense, there is no reason why there cannot be an idea of first matter, even taken in itself.
|
|
| Answers to Difficulties
|
| Ad primum igitur dicendum, quod quamvis materia prima sit informis, tamen inest ei imitatio primae formae: quantumcumque enim debile esse habeat, illud tamen est imitatio primi entis; et secundum hoc potest habere similitudinem in Deo.
| 1. Although first matter has no form, there is in it an imitation of the first form; for, even though its act of existence may be very feeble, it is an imitation of the first being. For this reason, its likeness can be in God.
|
| Ad secundum dicendum, quod ideam et ideatum non oportet esse similia secundum conformitatem naturae, sed secundum repraesentationem tantum; unde et rerum compositarum est simplex idea; et similiter existentis in potentia est idealis similitudo actu.
| 2. The idea and its copy need not be similar according to a conformity in nature. It is enough that one represent the other. For this reason, the idea of even composite things is simple, and, similarly, the idea of a potential being is actual.
|
| Ad tertium dicendum, quod quamvis materia secundum se esse non possit, tamen potest secundum se considerari; et sic potest habere per se similitudinem.
| 3, Even though matter cannot exist by itself, it can be considered in itself. Thus, it can, in itself, have a likeness.
|
| Ad quartum dicendum, quod ratio illa procedit de idea practica actu vel virtute, quae est rei prout est in esse producibilis; et talis idea materiae primae non convenit.
| 4. That argument refers to the idea inasmuch as it is actually or virtually practical, and is related to a thing in so far as it can be brought into being. First matter does not have an idea of this kind.
|
|
| Answers to Contrary Difficulties
|
| Ad primum quod in contrarium obiicitur, dicendum, quod materia non procedit in esse a Deo nisi in composito; et sic ei idea, proprie loquendo, respondet.
| 1. Matter derives its act of existence from God only in so far as it is part of a composite. In this sense, it does not, properly speaking, have an idea in God.
|
| Et similiter dicendum ad secundum, quod materia, proprie loquendo, non habet essentiam, sed est pars essentiae totius.
| 2. Similarly, matter does not properly have an essence. It is, rather, part of the essence of the whole. |
ARTICLE VI
In the sixth article we ask:
Are there ideas in god of those things which do not exist, will not exist, and have not existed?
[ARTICLE S.T., I, 15, 3, ad 2. See also readings given for q. 2, a. 8.]
|
| Sexto quaeritur utrum in Deo sit idea eorum quae nec sunt, nec erunt, nec fuerunt.
| Difficulties
|
| Et videtur quod non.
| It seems not, for
|
| Quia nihil habet ideam nisi quod habet esse determinatum. Sed illud quod nec fuit, nec est, nec erit, nullo modo habet esse terminatum. Ergo nec ideam.
| 1. Nothing has an idea in God unless it has a determined act of existence. But that which does not exist, never has existed, and never will exist has no determinate act of existence at all. Therefore, neither does it have an idea in God.
|
| Sed dicebat, quod quamvis non habeat esse terminatum in se, habet tamen esse terminatum in Deo. Sed contra, ex hoc est aliquid terminatum quod unum ab alio distinguitur. Sed omnia, prout sunt in Deo, sunt unum, et ab invicem indistincta. Ergo nec etiam in Deo habet esse terminatum.
| 2. But it was said that, even though it does not have a determinate act of existence in itself, it has, nevertheless, such a determinate act in God.—On the contrary, a thing is determinate in so far as it is distinguished from another. But all things as they exist in God are one and are not distinct from each other. Therefore, even in God it does not have a determinate act of existence.
|
| Praeterea, Dionysius dicit, quod exemplaria sunt divinae et bonae voluntates, quae sunt praedeterminativae et effectivae rerum. Sed illud quod nec fuit, nec est, nec erit, nunquam fuit praedeterminatum a divina voluntate. Ergo non habet ideam vel exemplar in Deo.
| 3. According to Dionysius, exemplars are those good acts of the divine will which cause and predetermine things. But the things which are not, have not been, nor will be were never predetermined by the divine will. Therefore, they do not have an idea or exemplar in God.
|
| Praeterea, idea ordinatur ad rei productionem. Si ergo sit idea eius quod nunquam in esse producitur, videtur quod sit frustra; quod est absurdum; ergo et cetera.
| 4. An idea is ordained to the production of a thing. If there is, therefore, an idea of something which will never be given existence, it seems that such an idea is useless. But this would be absurd. Therefore.
|
| Sed contra.
| To the Contrary
|
| Deus habet cognitionem de rebus per ideas. Sed ipse cognoscit ea quae nec sunt, nec erunt, nec fuerunt, ut dictum est supra in quaestione de scientia Dei. Ergo est in eo idea etiam eorum quae nec sunt, nec fuerunt, nec erunt.
| 1. God knows things by means of ideas. But as we said above. He knows those things which are not, have not been, nor will be. Therefore, there is an idea in God of all that does not exist, has not existed and never will exist.
|
| Praeterea, causa non dependet ab effectu. Sed idea est causa essendi rem. Ergo non dependet ab esse rei aliquo modo: potest igitur esse etiam de his quae nec sunt, nec erunt, nec fuerunt.
| 2. A cause does not depend on its effect. Now, an idea is a cause o the existence of things. Therefore, it does not depend in any way on their existence. Consequently, there can be ideas of those things which do not exist, have not existed, and never will exist.
|
| Responsio.
| REPLY
|
| Dicendum, quod idea proprie dicta respicit practicam cognitionem non solum in actu, sed in habitu. Unde, cum Deus de his quae facere potest, quamvis nunquam sint facta nec futura, habeat cognitionem virtualiter practicam, relinquitur quod idea possit esse eius quod nec est, nec fuit, nec erit; non tamen eodem modo sicut est eorum quae sunt, vel erunt, vel fuerunt; quia ad ea quae sunt, vel erunt, vel fuerunt, producenda, determinatur ex proposito divinae voluntatis, non autem ad ea quae nec sunt, nec erunt, nec fuerunt; et sic huiusmodi habent quodammodo indeterminatas ideas.
| Properly speaking, an idea belongs to practical knowledge that is not only actually but also habitually practical. Therefore, since God has virtually practical knowledge of those things which He could make, even though He never makes them or never will make them, there must be ideas of those things which are not, have not been, nor will be. But these ideas will not be the same as those of the things which are, have been, or will be, because the divine will determines to pro duce the things that are, have been, and will be, but not to produce those which neither are, have been, nor will be. The latter, therefore have, in a certain sense, indeterminate ideas.
|
|
| Answers to Difficulties
|
| Ad primum igitur dicendum, quod quamvis quod nec est, nec fuit, nec erit, non habeat esse determinatum in se, est tamen determinate in Dei cognitione.
| 1. Even though that which never existed, does not exist, and will no exist lacks a determined act of existence in itself, it exists determinately in God’s knowledge.
|
| Ad secundum dicendum, quod aliud est esse in Deo, et aliud in cognitione Dei: malum enim non est in Deo, sed est in scientia Dei. Secundum hoc enim aliquid esse dicitur in Dei scientia quod a Deo cognoscitur; et quia Deus cognoscit omnia distincte, ut in praecedenti quaestione dictum est, ideo in eius scientia res distinctae sunt, quamvis in ipso sint unum.
| 2. It is One thing to be in God, another to be in His knowledge. Evil is not in God; it is, however, contained in His knowledge. Now, a,, thing is said to be in God’s knowledge if God knows it; and because God knows all things distinctly, as we said in the previous question, things are distinct in His knowledge even though in Him they are one,
|
| Ad tertium dicendum, quod quamvis Deus nunquam voluerit producere huiusmodi res in esse quarum ideas habet, tamen vult se posse eas producere, et se habere scientiam eas producendi; unde et Dionysius non dicit quod ad rationem exemplaris exigeretur voluntas praedefiniens et efficiens, sed definitiva et effectiva.
| 3. Even though God may never will to bring into existence things of this class, whose ideas He possesses, He wills that He be able to produce them and that He possess the knowledge necessary for producing them. Consequently, Dionysius is saying that the nature of an exemplar demands, not a will that is predefining and effecting, but merely a will that can define and effect.
|
| Ad quartum dicendum, quod ideae illae non sunt ordinatae a divina cognitione ad hoc ut secundum eas aliquid fiat, sed ad hoc quod secundum eas aliquid fieri possit.
| 4. Those ideas are not directed by God’s knowledge to the production of something in their likeness, but rather to this, that something can be produced in their likeness. |
ARTICLE VII
In the seventh article we ask:
Are there in God ideas of accidents?
[ARTICLE S.T., I, 15, 3, ad 4; I Sent., 36, 1, 1.]
|
| Septimo quaeritur utrum accidentia habeant ideam in Deo.
| Difficulties
|
| Et videtur quod non.
| It seems not, for
|
| Quia idea non est nisi ad cognoscendum et ad causandum res. Sed accidens cognoscitur per substantiam, et ex eius principiis causatur. Ergo non oportet quod in Deo ideam habeat.
| 1. An idea is for knowing and causing things. But an accident is known by means of its substance, and is caused by the principles of the substance. Hence, it need not have an idea in God.
|
| Sed dicebat, quod accidens cognoscitur per substantiam cognitione quia est, non autem cognitione quid est.- Sed contra, quod quid est significat definitio rei, et maxime ratione generis. Sed in definitionibus accidentium ponitur substantia, ut dicitur VII Metaphysicor., et subiectum, ita quod subiectum ponitur loco generis, ut Commentator ibidem dicit, ut cum dicitur: simum est nasus curvus. Ergo etiam quantum ad cognitionem quid est accidens per substantiam cognoscitur.
| 2. But it was stated that the existence, not the essence, of an accident is known by means of its subject.—On the contrary, the definition of a thing signifies what it is, especially by giving its genus. But, in the definitions of accidents, as is said in the Metaphysics, are placed substance and the subject, in the sense in which subject is used instead of the genus, as the Commentator notes. For example, we say: “Snub means a curved nose.” Consequently, we know the essence of an accident by knowing the substance.
|
| Praeterea, omne quod habet ideam, est participativum ipsius. Sed accidentia nihil participant; cum participare sit tantum substantiarum, quae aliquid recipere possunt; ergo non habent ideam.
| 3. Whatever has an idea participates in it. But accidents do not participate in anything, because participation is proper only to substances since they alone can receive something. Accidents, therefore, do not have ideas.
|
| Praeterea, in illis quae dicuntur per prius et posterius, non est accipere ideam communem, sicut in numeris et figuris, secundum opinionem Platonis, ut patet in III Metaphys. et in I Ethic.; et hoc ideo quia primum est quasi idea secundi. Sed ens dicitur de substantia et accidente per prius et posterius. Ergo accidens non habet ideam sed substantia est ei loco ideae.
| 4. In regard to those things that are predicated as prior and subsequent, in Plato’s opinion an idea should not be taken as common, e.g., as applied to numbers and geometrical figures. This is clear from the Metaphysics and Ethics. The reason for this is that the first is, as it were, the exemplar of the second. Now, being is predicated of substance and accident as prior and subsequent. Therefore, an accident does not have an idea, but has substance in the place of an idea.
|
| Sed contra.
| To the Contrary
|
| Omne quod est causatum a Deo, habet ideam in ipso. Sed Deus causa est non solum substantiarum, sed etiam accidentium. Ergo accidentia habent ideam in Deo.
| 1. Whatever is caused by God has its idea in God. Now, God causes not only substances but accidents as well. Therefore, accidents have an idea in God.
|
| Praeterea, omne quod est in aliquo genere, oportet reduci in primum illius generis, sicut omne calidum ad calidum ignis. Sed ideae sunt principales formae, ut Augustinus dicit in libro LXXXIII quaestionum. Ergo, cum accidentia sint formae quaedam, videtur quod habeant ideas in Deo.
| 2. Every inferior of a genus should be reduced to the first of that genus, just as everything that is hot is reduced to the heat of fire. Now, as Augustine says: “Ideas are principal forms.” Consequently, since accidents are forms, it seems that they have ideas in God.
|
| Responsio.
| REPLY
|
| Dicendum, quod Plato, qui primus introduxit ideas, non posuit ideas accidentium, sed solum substantiarum, ut patet per philosophum in I Metaphys. Cuius ratio fuit, quia Plato posuit ideas esse proximas causas rerum; unde illud cui inveniebat proximam causam praeter ideam, non ponebat habere ideam; et inde est quod ponebat, in his quae dicuntur per prius et posterius, non esse communem ideam, sed primum esse ideam secundi. Et hanc etiam opinionem tangit Dionysius, in V cap. de divinis nominibus, imponens eam cuidam Clementi philosopho, qui dicebat, superiora in entibus esse inferiorum exemplaria; et hac ratione, cum accidens immediate a substantia causetur, accidentium ideas Plato non posuit.
| As the Philosopher says, Plato, who first introduced the notion of ideas, posited ideas, not for accidents, but only for substances. The reason for this was that Plato thought that the ideas were the proximate causes of things. Hence, when he found a proximate cause other than an idea for a thing, he held that the thing did not have an idea. This also is the reason why he said that there is no common idea for those things that are predicated as being prior and subsequent, but that the first is the idea of the second. Dionysius also mentions this opinion, attributing it to a certain Clement the Philosopher, who said that superior beings were the exemplars for inferior. Using this argument, namely, that accidents are caused directly by substances, Plato did not posit ideas of accidents.
|
| Sed quia nos ponimus Deum immediatam causam uniuscuiusque rei secundum quod in omnibus causis secundis operatur, et quod omnes effectus secundi ex eius praedefinitione proveniant: ideo non solum primorum entium, sed etiam secundorum in eo ideas ponimus et sic substantiarum et accidentium; sed diversorum accidentium diversimode.
| On the other hand, since we affirm that God is the direct cause of each and every thing because He works in all secondary causes and since all secondary effects are results of His pre-definition, we posit ideas in Him not only of first beings but also of second beings, and, consequently, both of substances and of accidents, but of different accidents in different ways.
|
| Quaedam enim sunt accidentia propria ex principiis subiecti causata, quae secundum esse nunquam a suis subiectis separantur. Et huiusmodi una operatione in esse producuntur cum suo subiecto. Unde, cum idea, proprie loquendo, sit forma rei operabilis inquantum huiusmodi, non erit talium accidentium idea distincta, sed subiecti cum omnibus accidentibus eius erit una idea; sicut aedificator unam formam habet de domo et omnibus quae domui accidunt inquantum huiusmodi, per quam, domum cum omnibus talibus suis accidentibus simul in esse producit, cuiusmodi accidens est quadratura ipsius, et alia huiusmodi.
| First, there are proper accidents, which are caused by the principles of their subjects and never have existence apart from their subjects. These accidents are brought into existence together with their subject by one operation. Consequently, since an idea, properly speaking, is a form of something that can be made, considered precisely under this aspect, there will not be distinct ideas of such accidents. There will be only one idea, that of the subject with all its accidents—just as an architect has one form of a house and of all the accidents that pertain to a house as such, and by means of this one form brings into being the house and all its accidents, such as its square shape and the like.
|
| Quaedam vero sunt accidentia, quae non sequuntur inseparabiliter suum subiectum, nec ex eius principiis dependent. Et talia producuntur in esse alia operatione praeter operationem qua producitur subiectum; sicut non ex hoc ipso quod homo fit homo sequitur quod sit grammaticus, sed per aliquam aliam operationem. Et talium accidentium est idea in Deo distincta ab idea subiecti, sicut etiam artifex concipit formam picturae domus praeter formam domus.
| There are other accidents, however, that are not inseparable from their subject and do not depend on its principles. These are brought into existence by an operation other than that by which the subject is produced. For example, it does not follow from the fact that a man is made a man that he is a grammarian; this is the result of another operation. Now, the ideas in God of such accidents are distinct from the idea of the subject, just as the form of a picture of a house, which an artist conceives, is distinct from the form he conceives of the house itself.
|
| Sed si large accipiamus ideam pro similitudine vel ratione, sic utraque accidentia habent ideam distinctam in Deo, quia per se distincte considerari possunt; unde et philosophus dicit in I Metaphysic., quod quantum ad rationem sciendi, accidentia debent habere ideam sicut et substantiae; sed quantum ad alia, propter quae Plato ponebat ideas, ut scilicet essent causae generationis et essendi, ideae videntur esse substantiarum tantum.
| If we take idea in its broader sense, however, as meaning a likeness, then we can say that both types of accidents have distinct ideas in God, because He can know each one in itself distinctly. This is why the Philosopher says that, with respect to their manner of being known, accidents should, like substances, have ideas; but with respect to the other reasons why Plato posited exemplars, namely, to be the causes of generation and of being, it seems that only substances have ideas.
|
|
| Answers to Difficulties
|
| Ad primum igitur dicendum, quod, sicut dictum est, in Deo non est idea solum primorum effectuum, sed etiam secundorum; unde, quamvis accidentia habeant esse per substantiam, non excluditur quin habeant ideas.
| 1. As we said above, there is in God an idea not only of first effects but also of second effects. Hence, even though accidents have their act of existence by means of substances, this does not prevent their having ideas.
|
| Ad secundum dicendum, quod accidens dupliciter potest accipi. Uno modo in abstracto; et sic consideratur secundum propriam rationem; sic enim assignamus in accidentibus genus et speciem; et hoc modo subiectum non ponitur in definitione accidentis ut genus, sed ut differentia, ut cum dicitur: simitas est curvitas nasi. Alio modo possunt accipi in concreto; et sic accipiuntur secundum quod sunt unum per accidens cum subiecto; unde sic non assignantur eis nec genus nec species, et ita verum est quod subiectum ponitur ut genus in definitione accidentis.
| 2. An accident can be taken in two ways. First, it can be taken in the abstract. In this way, it is considered according to its proper nature, a genus and species are given it, and its subject is not placed in its definition as a genus but rather as a specific difference. In this sense we say: “Snubness is a curvature of the nose.” On the other hand, an accident can be taken in the concrete. In this way, it is considered according as it has an accidental unity with its subject. Hence, neither a genus nor a species is assigned to it. Here it is true that the subject is put in the place of the genus in the definition of an accident.
|
| Ad tertium dicendum, quod, quamvis accidens non sit participans, est tamen ipsa participatio; et sic patet quod ei etiam respondet idea in Deo, vel similitudo.
| 3. Although an accident is not that which participates, it is, however, a participation. Hence, it is clear that in God there is an idea or likeness corresponding to it.
|
| Ad quartum patet responsio ex dictis.
| 4. The response to this difficulty is clear from what has been said. |
ARTICLE VIII
In the eighth article we ask:
Are there in God ideas of singulars?
[ARTICLE S.T., I, 15, 3, ad 4; De ver., 2, aa. 4-5.]
|
| Octavo quaeritur utrum singularia habeant ideam in Deo.
| Difficulties
|
| Et videtur quod non.
| It seems not, for
|
| Quia singularia sunt infinita in potentia. Sed in Deo est idea non solum eius quod est, sed etiam eius quod esse potest. Si ergo singularium esset idea in Deo, essent in ipso ideae infinitae; quod videtur absurdum, cum non possint esse actu infinita.
| 1. Singulars are potentially infinite in number. Now, in God there is an idea, not merely of what exists, but also of what can exist. If, therefore, there were ideas of singulars in God, there would be an infinite number of ideas in Him. This seems absurd, since they could not be actually infinite.
|
| Praeterea, si singularia habent ideam in Deo; aut est eadem idea singularis et speciei, aut alia et alia. Si alia et alia: tunc unius rei sunt multae ideae in Deo, quia idea speciei est etiam idea singularis. Si autem est una et eadem; cum in idea speciei omnia singularia quae sunt eadem specie, conveniant, tunc omnium singularium non erit nisi una idea tantum; et sic singularia non habebunt ideam distinctam in Deo.
| 2. If singulars have ideas in God, either there is one idea for the individual and the species, or there are distinct ideas for them. If there were distinct ideas, then there would be many ideas in God for one thing, because the idea of the species is also that of the individual. On the other hand, if there is but one and the same idea for the individual and the species, then, since all the individuals of the same species have the same idea, there would be only one idea for all, and, consequently, singulars would not have distinct ideas in God.
|
| Praeterea, multa singularium casu accidunt. Sed talia non sunt praedefinita. Cum ergo idea requirat praedefinitionem, ut ex praedictis, patet, videtur quod non omnia singularia habeant ideam in Deo.
| 3. Many singulars happen by chance. Now, such beings are not predefined. Since, as is evident from what has been said previously, namely, that an idea postulates pre-definition, it seems that not all singulars have an idea in God.
|
| Praeterea, quaedam singularia sunt ex duabus speciebus commixta, sicut mulus ex asino et equo. Si ergo talia habent ideam, videtur quod unicuique eorum respondeat duplex idea; et hoc videtur absurdum, cum inconveniens sit ponere multitudinem in causa, et unitatem in effectu.
| 4. Certain singulars are combinations of two species. For example, a mule is a combination of a horse and an ass. Now, if such things had ideas in God, it would seem that there would be two ideas for each one. This seems absurd, since it is unreasonable to affirm multiplicity in the cause and unity in the effect.
|
| Sed contra.
| To the Contrary
|
| Ideae sunt in Deo ad cognoscendum et operandum. Sed Deus est cognitor et operator singularium. Ergo in ipso sunt eorum ideae.
| 1. Ideas are in God for the purpose of knowing and making. But God is one who knows and makes singulars. Therefore, there are in God ideas of singulars.
|
| Praeterea, ideae ordinantur ad esse rerum. Sed singularia habent verius esse quam universalia, cum universalia non subsistant, nisi in singularibus. Ergo singularia magis debent habere ideas quam universalia.
| 2. Ideas are directed to the existence of things. But singulars have acts of existence more truly than universals do, because the latter subsist only in singulars. Therefore, it is more necessary for singulars to have exemplars than it is for universals.
|
|
| REPLY
|
| Responsio. Dicendum, quod Plato, non posuit ideas singularium, sed specierum tantum; cuius duplex fuit ratio. Una, quia, secundum ipsum, ideae non erant factivae materiae, sed formae tantum in his inferioribus. Singularitatis autem principium est materia; secundum formam vero unumquodque singulare collocatur in specie; et ideo idea non respondet singulari inquantum singulare est, sed ratione speciei tantum. Alia ratio esse potuit, quia idea non est nisi eorum quae per se sunt intenta, ut ex dictis, patet. Intentio autem naturae est principaliter ad speciem conservandam; unde, quamvis generatio terminetur ad hunc hominem, tamen intentio naturae est quod generet hominem. Et propter hoc etiam philosophus dicit in XIX de animalibus, quod in accidentibus specierum sunt assignandae causae finales, non autem in accidentibus singularium, sed efficientes et materiales tantum; et ideo idea non respondet singulari, sed speciei. Et eadem ratione Plato non ponebat ideas generum, quia intentio naturae non terminatur ad productionem formae generis, sed solum formae speciei. Nos autem ponimus Deum causam esse singularis et quantum ad formam et quantum ad materiam. Ponimus etiam, quod per divinam providentiam definiuntur omnia singularia; et ideo oportet nos etiam singularium ponere ideas.
| Plato did not posit ideas of singulars but only of species. There were two reasons for this. First, according to him, ideas did not cause the matter but only the forms of things here below. Now, the principle of individuation is matter, and it is because of the form that each singular is placed under a species. Consequently, his ideas did not correspond to a singular in so far as it is singular but only by reason of its species. His second reason may have been this: An idea is related only to those things that are intended directly, as is clear from what was said. But the intention of nature is principally to preserve the species. Consequently, even though generation terminates in this or in that man, the intention of nature is simply to generate man. For this reason, the Philosopher also says that final causes should be assigned for the accidents common to a species, but not for the accidents found in singulars. For the latter, only efficient and material causes can be assigned; consequently, an idea does not correspond to a singular but to a species. Using the same argument, moreover, Plato did not posit-‘ ideas for genera, alleging that nature does not intend to produce the form of a genus but only that of a species. We, however, assert that God is the cause of singulars, both of their form and of their matter. We also assert that all individual things are determined by His divine providence. Hence, we must also posit ideas for all singulars.
|
|
| Answers to Difficulties
|
| Ad primum ergo dicendum, quod ideae non plurificantur nisi secundum diversos respectus ad res: non est autem inconveniens relationes rationis in infinitum multiplicari, ut Avicenna dicit.
| 1. Ideas are multiplied only in so far as they have different relations to things. As Avicenna says, however, it is not contradictory to multiply conceptual relations infinitely.
|
| Ad secundum dicendum, quod si loquamur de idea proprie, secundum quod est rei, eo modo quo est in esse producibilis; sic una idea respondet singulari, speciei, et generi, individuatis in ipso singulari, eo quod Socrates, homo et animal non distinguuntur secundum esse. Si autem accipiamus ideam communiter pro similitudine vel ratione, sic, cum diversa sit consideratio Socratis ut Socrates est, et ut homo est, et ut est animal, respondebunt ei secundum hoc plures ideae vel similitudines.
| 2. If we speak of idea in the proper sense, namely, inasmuch as it is the idea of a thing in so far as that thing is capable of being produced, then there is but one idea for the singular, the species, the genus, and for whatever is individuated in that singular, because Socrates the man and Socrates the animal do not have separate acts of existence. If, however, we are speaking of idea in its broader sense of a likeness or intelligible character, then, since the considerations of Socrates as Socrates, as a man, and as an animal all differ, a number of ideas or likenesses will correspond to him in this respect.
|
| Ad tertium dicendum, quod quamvis aliquid sit a casu respectu proximi agentis, nihil tamen est a casu respectu agentis qui omnia praecognoscit.
| 3. Although some things may happen by chance with respect to their proximate agent, nothing happens by chance with respect to the agent who knows all things beforehand.
|
| Ad quartum dicendum, quod mulus habet speciem mediam inter asinum et equum; unde non est in duabus speciebus, sed in una tantum, quae est effecta per commixtionem seminum, inquantum virtus activa maris non potuit perducere materiam feminae ad terminos propriae speciei perfectae, propter materiae extraneitatem, sed perduxit ad aliquid propinquum suae speciei; et ideo eadem ratione assignatur idea mulo et equo.
| 4. The mule has a separate species, halfway between that of a horse and that of an ass. Therefore, the mule is not in two species but in one. This fact is due to the mixture of seeds, because the generative powers of the male cannot bring the material provided by the female to the perfection of his own species, since the material is outside his own species; so, instead, the male brings it to a term that is close to his species. For this reason, a separate idea is assigned to the mule and to the horse.
|