Thank you for the video! I am trying to learn philosophy for my high school debate resolution "the acquisition of knowledge is an intrinsic good". I have to argue both sides of this, but I was having difficulty coming up with reasons to agree with the resolution. A coach told me about potentiality and actuality and recommended I look into Thomas Aquinas, so I came across this video and it has been very helpful!
I'm so happy to hear this helped you in your preparations. Hope the debate is a success. Let us all know how it goes! The topic of epistemology runs throughout the Summa.... lots there about it regarding God, the angels, humans. God bless- Dave
Thanks for the feedback. Glad you enjoyed it. This is one of my favorite parts of the Summa- the whole part on human nature and epistemology. Really interesting stuff!
FYI, Book II of his Contra Gentiles does a great job of explaining this. Although the ST gets most of the attention, Contra Gentiles is at least as important to understanding God and Man.
Thanks for letting me know this. I've dedicated so much time to learning the Summa Theologica that quite honestly I've not spent much time in the Gentiles. One day I will so thanks for letting me know this. God bless- Dave
Hey Dave, first time watcher. Thanks for the video. Quick question (turned out to not be so quick as I typed it out): in regards to the baby, you mentioned that the baby sees dogness but can’t yet give a word that signifies the mind being “dog-nified” yet. I’m curious, would Aquinas agree that the baby knows “dogness” yet? The reason I ask is it seems to me that the intellect is only “active” in as much as it actually apprehends the sensible specie and makes it intelligible by the Agent Intellect. But if the specie isn’t yet “intelligible” to the child, since it doesn’t know the quiddity yet (unless it does and I am wrong), wouldn’t it seem that the dog is in the passive intellect by the sensible specie and not yet in the active intellect? For it seems the passive would indeed receive the accidental form produced by the sensible specie but the Agent Intellect would, for lack of a better word, still be sleeping until the child knows dogness as an intelligible specie? The reason I ask is I have been told that a phantasm is a conscious processing and ordering of the sensible specie data coming in via the five senses that the Agent intellect then acts upon to give it its quiddity. But the phantasm being formed in the phantasia seems to rely heavily upon the development of the brain. So if the brain isn’t to a certain stage in the development, then the medium through which the sensible specie is processed for the Agent intellect to act upon and become intelligible isn’t yet possible. Thus the intellect wouldn’t be in Act until the baby developed to a certain stage. What’s your thoughts?
Nick, thanks for the great question. It's going to take me a bit of time to process the question and provide a good answer so hang tight and I'll be back in touch soon. God bless you.
Nick, again thanks for the very good question. This all makes me think of the difference between a baby, such as in my example, and let's say a dog, who is able to experience something with sense experience but since it's lacking both a passive and an active intellect, according to St. Thomas Aquinas, is merely experiencing the object through sense experience and not coming to understand what it is it is experiencing. The baby, on the other hand, is in its species equipped with intellect, but as you point out, in a rudimentary form and an intellect that is not fully developed. That child will be able, however, to connect a word 'dog' with its sense experience and therefore understand, perhaps not as well as a more mature human, to some degree the quiddity of the 'dogness' that it just experienced. I think you're right that there is some developmental aspect to the intellect and perhaps a topic of potentiality is good to discuss. Also, we'd have to consider an adult human whose mind is still that of a child due to mental retardation, etc. These would be anomolies, of course, unlike the normally developing child. I want to continue this conversation and thanks again for bringing up such a good question. I think I need to do research on this! God bless- Dave
@@thethomist Dave, thanks for looking deeper into this. I haven’t yet seen someone use thomistic metaphysics in the context of a baby but you certainly have my mind thinking about it. Thanks again
@@thethomist As a side note, you also have me thinking about the anomalies such as those who never actually develop their brain to function in a rational capacity. Such as someone who is diagnosed with a learning disability (retarded). Perhaps, since the intellect is only in Act when it apprehends the intelligible specie, this is why those who have a defective instrument (such as brain) are not held culpable according to Catholic teaching in so far as they can’t commit a mortal sin since a mortal sin requires a will and intellect to be in Act against the rule of reason (proximate rule) and the divine rule (remote rule). Thanks for stirring up my mind to think deeper.
Thank you for the presentation. I'm a little confused about the example of reason vs intelligence with angels. So for example using learning about a person we would say we learn about them bit by bit? Job, hobbies, habits, early life, childhood, teenage years.etc. but when an angel learns about a person they apprehend the knowledge of a person and understand them all at once? So for you to learn about me I'd have to segment my life into a several narratives that I tell you them over time. But an angel can glance at me and know me instantly?
Dick, thanks for the question. It's a very good one. The angel would know all that it needs to know at the moment of its creation but some of the things you mention, such as hobbies, jobs, etc. happen in time. So, for example, my guardian angel would not know the future so when I was born it would not have known that I would get into radio or teach the Summa until those things actually happened. The angel would know the essences of things, like trees and laws of math and chemistry, etc. the kind of things we have to learn little by little. But things that actually happen in time they would not be aware of until they happen. Thanks for the question. I hope that helps a bit.
Thank you for the video! I am trying to learn philosophy for my high school debate resolution "the acquisition of knowledge is an intrinsic good". I have to argue both sides of this, but I was having difficulty coming up with reasons to agree with the resolution. A coach told me about potentiality and actuality and recommended I look into Thomas Aquinas, so I came across this video and it has been very helpful!
I'm so happy to hear this helped you in your preparations. Hope the debate is a success. Let us all know how it goes! The topic of epistemology runs throughout the Summa.... lots there about it regarding God, the angels, humans. God bless- Dave
Thank you for sharing this.
Thanks for the feedback. Glad you enjoyed it. This is one of my favorite parts of the Summa- the whole part on human nature and epistemology. Really interesting stuff!
As sun light helps eyes to see clearly, so divine light (active intellect) helps human intellect to know things clearly.
FYI, Book II of his Contra Gentiles does a great job of explaining this. Although the ST gets most of the attention, Contra Gentiles is at least as important to understanding God and Man.
Thanks for letting me know this. I've dedicated so much time to learning the Summa Theologica that quite honestly I've not spent much time in the Gentiles. One day I will so thanks for letting me know this. God bless- Dave
Imagine taking this as a class as a jr in highschool
What do you mean by that, Chloe? Are you taking this class as a junior? Please explain.
Nice class sir
Hey Dave, first time watcher. Thanks for the video.
Quick question (turned out to not be so quick as I typed it out): in regards to the baby, you mentioned that the baby sees dogness but can’t yet give a word that signifies the mind being “dog-nified” yet. I’m curious, would Aquinas agree that the baby knows “dogness” yet? The reason I ask is it seems to me that the intellect is only “active” in as much as it actually apprehends the sensible specie and makes it intelligible by the Agent Intellect. But if the specie isn’t yet “intelligible” to the child, since it doesn’t know the quiddity yet (unless it does and I am wrong), wouldn’t it seem that the dog is in the passive intellect by the sensible specie and not yet in the active intellect? For it seems the passive would indeed receive the accidental form produced by the sensible specie but the Agent Intellect would, for lack of a better word, still be sleeping until the child knows dogness as an intelligible specie?
The reason I ask is I have been told that a phantasm is a conscious processing and ordering of the sensible specie data coming in via the five senses that the Agent intellect then acts upon to give it its quiddity. But the phantasm being formed in the phantasia seems to rely heavily upon the development of the brain. So if the brain isn’t to a certain stage in the development, then the medium through which the sensible specie is processed for the Agent intellect to act upon and become intelligible isn’t yet possible. Thus the intellect wouldn’t be in Act until the baby developed to a certain stage. What’s your thoughts?
Nick, thanks for the great question. It's going to take me a bit of time to process the question and provide a good answer so hang tight and I'll be back in touch soon. God bless you.
Nick, again thanks for the very good question. This all makes me think of the difference between a baby, such as in my example, and let's say a dog, who is able to experience something with sense experience but since it's lacking both a passive and an active intellect, according to St. Thomas Aquinas, is merely experiencing the object through sense experience and not coming to understand what it is it is experiencing. The baby, on the other hand, is in its species equipped with intellect, but as you point out, in a rudimentary form and an intellect that is not fully developed. That child will be able, however, to connect a word 'dog' with its sense experience and therefore understand, perhaps not as well as a more mature human, to some degree the quiddity of the 'dogness' that it just experienced. I think you're right that there is some developmental aspect to the intellect and perhaps a topic of potentiality is good to discuss. Also, we'd have to consider an adult human whose mind is still that of a child due to mental retardation, etc. These would be anomolies, of course, unlike the normally developing child. I want to continue this conversation and thanks again for bringing up such a good question. I think I need to do research on this! God bless- Dave
@@thethomist
Dave, thanks for looking deeper into this. I haven’t yet seen someone use thomistic metaphysics in the context of a baby but you certainly have my mind thinking about it. Thanks again
@@thethomist As a side note, you also have me thinking about the anomalies such as those who never actually develop their brain to function in a rational capacity. Such as someone who is diagnosed with a learning disability (retarded). Perhaps, since the intellect is only in Act when it apprehends the intelligible specie, this is why those who have a defective instrument (such as brain) are not held culpable according to Catholic teaching in so far as they can’t commit a mortal sin since a mortal sin requires a will and intellect to be in Act against the rule of reason (proximate rule) and the divine rule (remote rule).
Thanks for stirring up my mind to think deeper.
Thank you for the presentation. I'm a little confused about the example of reason vs intelligence with angels.
So for example using learning about a person we would say we learn about them bit by bit? Job, hobbies, habits, early life, childhood, teenage years.etc. but when an angel learns about a person they apprehend the knowledge of a person and understand them all at once?
So for you to learn about me I'd have to segment my life into a several narratives that I tell you them over time. But an angel can glance at me and know me instantly?
Dick, thanks for the question. It's a very good one. The angel would know all that it needs to know at the moment of its creation but some of the things you mention, such as hobbies, jobs, etc. happen in time. So, for example, my guardian angel would not know the future so when I was born it would not have known that I would get into radio or teach the Summa until those things actually happened. The angel would know the essences of things, like trees and laws of math and chemistry, etc. the kind of things we have to learn little by little. But things that actually happen in time they would not be aware of until they happen. Thanks for the question. I hope that helps a bit.