24. Relations of Reason and Five Kinds of Defective Relations

Subscribe in Podcast App | Download Transcript

Lecture Notes

Main Topics #

Relations of Reason vs. Real Relations #

• Real relations exist in things outside the mind and have a real foundation
• Relations of reason exist only through the act of the understanding
• The understanding attributes order to things that may not have that order in reality
• Relations of reason fall into two primary classes: those attributed to things only insofar as they are in the understanding, and those attributed to things as they are outside the reason

Five Kinds of Relations of Reason #

Thomas distinguishes five kinds of defective relations (relationes rationis) that depart from what is required for true relation:

1. Relations where one or both things do not exist outside the mind

   • Example: “the first day before the second day” (two future things)
   • Neither the past nor future things exist when we understand them in order
   • Yet the understanding must arrange them ordinately for history and discourse

2. Relations where things are not distinct outside the soul

   • Example: “Socrates is the same as Socrates”
   • Requires two things for a relation, but here there is only one
   • The relation of identity to itself is a relation of reason only

3. Relations where one thing is essentially a relation or order itself

   • Example: a relation related to its subject
   • This creates a regress problem: if the creature’s relation to God were real, then the relation itself would need to be created, requiring a relation for the relation ad infinitum
   • Violates the principle that both things must be beings capable of order

4. Relations where the foundation exists only in one of the relatives

   • Example: the relation of the knowable to knowledge
   • Knowledge is really related to the known (the knower truly knows it)
   • The known thing is not really related back to knowledge (it undergoes no change by being known)
   • Yet the mind necessarily attributes the relation reciprocally
   • The mind cannot understand one thing as related to another without turning around and relating it back

5. Relations understood as limits of order rather than ordered to something

   • Example: the knowable as the limit of the order of knowledge to it
   • The thing serves as a terminus or endpoint of an order, not as something ordered to another

Two Universal Distinctions in Relations #

First Distinction: Every relation is either a real relation (secundum rem) or a relation of reason (secundum rationem)

Second Distinction: Every relative is either a relative secundum dici (according to being said) or a relative secundum esse (according to being)

• Secundum esse: The whole nature is to be towards another (e.g., “double” and “half”)
• Secundum dici: Something fundamentally something else but has a relation following upon it (e.g., knowledge is fundamentally a quality but is said relative to the known)
• These distinctions must NOT be confused with each other

Three Necessary Conditions for True Relation #

For a relation to be true (secundum esse), three things are necessary:

1. Both things must be beings (entia)
2. Both must be distinct outside the mind
3. Both must be capable of being ordered to the other - nothing can be related to itself

When any of these is lacking, the relation is a relation of reason only.

Key Arguments #

The Historian’s Problem #

• The historian understands events in temporal order (first World War before second)
• But the events themselves do not exist simultaneously—neither exists when both are understood
• Yet the understanding is not false; it reflects the real order of events
• This shows how a relation of reason can be true without being a real relation

God as Lord and Creator #

• God is truly Lord (Dominus), which signifies a relation
• God is not Lord “according to reason only” (non secundum rationem solum)
• Yet God cannot have a real relation to creatures, as this would imply change in God
• Solution: The relation is real in the creature (who depends on God) but a relation of reason in God
• The creature’s being itself as dependent is the foundation of God’s being as Creator
• God’s power (potentia coercens) is really in God and ordered to subjects, but our understanding understands this order on account of the order of subjects to Him
• The relation is one of reason only, but truly predicated of God because founded on God’s real creative power

The Knowable and Knowledge #

• Knowledge is really related to the knowable (a true cognitive act)
• The knowable is not really related to knowledge (the thing undergoes no change by being known)
• Yet we can truly say the thing “is knowable”
• This is because the mind necessarily attributes the relation back based on the real relation of knowledge to it
• The understanding does not understand the relation to be there because of false attribution, but because of the real order of knowledge to the thing

The Principle of Before and After #

• “Reason looks before and after” (from Shakespeare)
• Nothing can be before or after itself; distinction is presupposed to order
• For things to have order, both must exist as beings and be distinct
• If there is no distinction between what is before and what is after, there is no true order

Important Definitions #

• Relatio rationis (relation of reason): A relation that exists only in the mind through the understanding’s act of attribution
• Relatio secundum rem (real relation): A relation that exists in things outside the mind
• Relativum secundum esse: A relative whose whole being is to be towards another
• Relativum secundum dici: Something that is fundamentally something else (like a quality) but is said to have a relation
• Entia rationis (beings of reason): Things that have being only in the mind, including relations of reason, negations, and privations

Examples & Illustrations #

Temporal Order in History #

• Saying “the first day before the second day” when discussing future events
• Or: “the first World War before the second World War”
• Neither event exists when we understand them in order
• Yet the historian must understand them ordinately to make sense of causality and consequence
• The relation of “before” is a relation of reason, but not a false one

The Radio Program “You Are There” #

• An old radio program that would recreate historical events as if the listener were present
• Example: Socrates’ trial in Athens
• Berquist uses this to illustrate God’s perspective in eternity: “You are there” for all times simultaneously
• All past, present, and future are present to God in the eternal now
• We share in this eternity, though not in the way God does

The Farmer and the Machine Relationship #

• Autobiographical: Berquist’s father would go to farms to fix machines
• A relation of reason would be difficult to explain to a farmer
• The farmer is concerned with real practical problems, not subtle philosophical distinctions
• Illustrates the gap between abstract reasoning and concrete reality

Identity to Itself #

• “Socrates is the same as Socrates”
• While this is true, the relation of identity is a relation of reason only
• A real relation requires two things; here there is only one
• However, it is not false to say Socrates is the same as himself

Knowledge vs. Emotion in Marriage #

• A priest does not ask couple at an altar: “Do you have wonderful feelings about this woman?”
• Rather: “Do you take so-and-so to be your wife?”
• It is the choice, not the emotion, that truly marries you
• Choice is more truly “you” than emotion because it expresses your deliberate will
• This illustrates how foundational realities (choice, being) are more real than derivative ones (emotion)

Notable Quotes #

“Reason looks before and after.” — Shakespeare (quoted by Berquist to illustrate how reason must think of things in order even when that order doesn’t exist in the things themselves)

“Nothing is before or after itself; distinction is presupposed to order.” — Thomistic principle cited by Berquist

“The relation is one of reason only, but it is truly predicated of God because it is founded on God’s real creative power.” — Berquist’s summary of how to resolve the God-creature relation problem

“The historian is forced to understand things ordinately, but the order really isn’t there.” — Berquist on relations of reason in history

Questions Addressed #

Can relations of reason be true if they don’t exist in things? #

• Yes. A relation of reason is not false if it reflects a real foundation, even if the relation itself is only in the mind.
• Example: the temporal order of World War I before World War II is truly understood, though neither war exists now.
• The understanding is not inventing the order; it’s reflecting the real causal and temporal priority that did exist.

How can God be truly the Creator if He has no real relation to creatures? #

• The relation is real in the creature (who is truly dependent on God) but a relation of reason in God.
• God truly creates, but creation introduces no change in God.
• The understanding attributes the relation to God based on the real order of creatures to Him.
• No infinite regress occurs because relations essentially ordered (one to the other) don’t require each to be really related.

Why must both things be distinct for a true relation? #

• Nothing can be ordered to itself (nothing is before or after itself).
• Order requires multiplicity: a before and an after, a greater and a lesser.
• If there is no distinction, there is no true relation, only a relation of reason.

How does the mind attribute relations that aren’t really in things? #

• The mind, when understanding one thing as related to another, must turn around and attribute the relation back.
• This happens even when only one side has a real relation (e.g., knowledge to the known).
• The attribution is not false if founded on a real order, but it is a relation of reason, not a real relation.

Why do some philosophers think relations in God create an infinite regress? #

• If the creature’s relation to God were real, that relation itself would be created (as an accident added to the creature).
• If a relation needs a relation to be related, an infinite series would result.
• Solution: Relations essentially ordered (not accidentally ordered) to each other don’t each need their own relation.
• The creature’s very being as dependent is its relation to God; no additional relation is needed.