29. Distinctions in Logic: Per Se, Equivocation, and Qualified Being

Subscribe in Podcast App | Download Transcript

Lecture Notes

Main Topics #

Three Non-Divisional Distinctions #

Distinctions that are not divisions in the strict sense (i.e., not divisions of a whole into parts):

1. Distinction of Senses of a Word (Equivocation)

   • A word having multiple meanings
   • Unlike a genus said of its species with one meaning, an equivocal word is not said with one meaning of all its referents
   • Example: The word “being” and “thing” distinguished into multiple meanings when discussing the categories
   • Example: Three meanings of “true” corresponding to simple statements, conditional statements, and disjunctive statements

2. Distinction Between Per Se and Per Accidens (Through Itself and Through Happening)

   • Latin: per se vs. prope accidens; Greek: kath’auto
   • Sometimes translated as “as such” vs. “accidentally”
   • The distinction between what belongs to something essentially vs. accidentally

3. Distinction Between What Is Simply and What Is So in Some Qualified Way

   • Difference between absolute/unqualified truth and diminished/qualified truth
   • Example: Knowing something “simply” vs. knowing it “in some way”

The Per Se / Per Accidens Distinction #

Definition of Good and Apparent Evils:

• “The good is what all desires” - this appears contradicted by people desiring bad things
• However, people never desire something because it is bad; they desire it as appearing good
• The robber desires money (genuinely good), not robbery-as-unjust (the bad aspect)
• The reckless driver seeks the good time, not the wreck (even though that results)
• The person at a party who drinks too much seeks continued good time, not sickness
• Conclusion: People desire the good as such, not the bad as such

Examples of Per Se vs. Per Accidens:

• A house builder who plays piano: “A pianist built my house” - accidental, not as such
• The pianist built the house as house-builder, not as pianist
• Two belongs to four as such (it is half of four essentially)
• A triangle being green does not belong as such (it is accidental)
• Property vs. accident: Property belongs to something as such; accident does not

The Sick Becoming Healthy:

• “Can the sick become healthy?” seems contradictory
• But it is not the sick as sick that becomes healthy
• Rather, it is the body (to which sickness happens) that becomes healthy
• The body as such becomes healthy; sickness is accidental to the body

The Simply / In Some Way Distinction #

The Meno Problem:

• “Can you know what you don’t know?”
• If someone says “I don’t know the cause of cancer,” does he know what he doesn’t know?
• A researcher looking for the cause of cancer: does he know what he’s looking for?
• Answer: In some very diminished way, yes

Counting Example:

• “How many students are in class today?” (speaker doesn’t know)
• But the speaker can direct himself to knowing exactly
• Method: Count the students
• Result: 27 students
• How did he know to look for 27 if he didn’t know 27?
• Answer: He knew 27 in some way - he knew he was looking for the number of students in class
• Thus knowing the number of students is the same as knowing 27 in some qualified way

Knowing a Person:

• “Do you know my brother Mark?” “No.”
• “Do you know what a man is?” “Yes.”
• Therefore: In some way, you know every man in the world if you know what a man is
• Simply speaking: “No, I don’t know Mark”
• In a qualified way: Yes, through knowing what a man and brother are

Delicious Poison Example:

• “Is it good to drink this delicious poison?” Answer: No, it’s bad
• But in some very diminished sense, it is good (it tastes good)
• Robbing a bank is in some sense good (increases money in pocket), though simply it is bad
• Most daily actions: we do something bad because in some diminished sense it is good; or we don’t do what is good because in some way it’s bad

Key Arguments #

Why These Distinctions Matter #

Common Mistakes in Reasoning:

• Mixing up the senses of a word (equivocation)
• Mixing up per se and per accidens (confusing essential and accidental)
• Mixing up what is simply true and what is true in some qualified sense

These mistakes appear frequently enough that they form the basis for three of the most common logical errors. Berquist sometimes teaches these distinctions in the logic of the first act, but often delays them until the logic of the third act (reasoning) to show their connection to these mistakes.

The Meno’s Error and Socrates’ Response:

• Meno: “You can’t know what you don’t know, so you can’t look for it” (confuses simply not knowing with knowing in no way)
• Socrates tries to answer but makes the same mistake himself
• Both fail to distinguish between knowing simply and knowing in some way

Important Definitions #

Per se (kath’auto in Greek): What belongs to something essentially, as such, through itself

Per accidens (prope accidens): What belongs to something accidentally, incidentally, through happening

Simply (simpliciter): Absolutely, without qualification or diminishment

In some way (secundum quid): In a qualified, limited, or diminished sense

Equivocal (equivocation): A word said of multiple things but not with one single meaning

Examples & Illustrations #

Per Se / Per Accidens Examples #

• House builder and pianist: A pianist built my house (accidental) vs. A house-builder built my house (per se)
• Mathematics: Two is half of four (per se) vs. A triangle is green (per accidens)
• Health: The body becomes healthy (per se) vs. The sick becomes healthy (confusing per accidens with per se)

Simply / In Some Way Examples #

• Counting: Finding the number of students in class (knowing in one way, discovering in another)
• Universal knowledge: Knowing what a man is means knowing all men in some way
• Desire: Drinking poison because it tastes good (the good is per se, the bad is per accidens)
• Tasks: Doing daily actions for their good aspects while accepting their bad aspects

Questions Addressed #

How do people desire bad things if the good is what all desires? #

Answer: They don’t desire the bad as bad; they desire something under its aspect of goodness. The badness is per accidens.

How can we search for what we don’t know (Meno’s problem)? #

Answer: We don’t know it simply, but we know it in some way (we know we’re looking for the number of students, even if we don’t know that number is 27).

How can one know a person one has never met? #

Answer: Simply, one does not. But in a qualified way, by knowing what a man is, one knows every man—not by direct knowledge but through understanding the universal.

Connections to Other Topics #

Thomas Aquinas and Division vs. Distinction #

• Thomas rigorously distinguishes between “real distinction” (between Father, Son, Holy Spirit) and “division” (which wrongly implies parts)
• Division implies incompleteness and imperfection; the Trinity has neither
• There is a distinction, but not a division
• This shows the importance of precision in using these terms

Logic of the First Act #

• Definition concerns distinctions of senses (equivocation must be avoided in definition)
• Division into parts (composed whole: noun and verb; or universal whole: affirmation and negation)
• These distinctions are foundational for proper definition and division