170. Intellectual Virtues and the Separated Soul

Subscribe in Podcast App | Download Transcript

Lecture Notes

Main Topics #

• Persistence of Intellectual Virtues After Death: Whether scientia, sapientia, and other intellectual virtues remain when the soul separates from the body
• Intelligible Forms vs. Phantasms: The critical distinction between intelligible species (which persist in the possible intellect) and phantasms/images (which depend on bodily organs and are corrupted at death)
• Material vs. Formal Aspects of Knowledge: How intellectual virtues have both a material aspect (the use of phantasms) and a formal aspect (the ordering of intelligible forms)
• The Separated Soul’s Mode of Understanding: How the soul will understand directly through intelligible forms rather than by conversion to images, analogous to angelic knowledge
• The Principle of Opposition: How perfection and imperfection that pertain to the essential definition of a thing exclude one another

Key Arguments #

Objection 1: St. Paul’s Teaching on Science Being Destroyed #

• Citation: 1 Corinthians 13
• Argument: St. Paul states that science is destroyed. Since we know imperfectly now, when perfection comes, imperfect knowledge ceases.
• Conclusion: All intellectual virtues cease after this life

Objection 2: Death as the Greatest Bodily Change #

• Source: Aristotle, Categories (Predicamenta)
• Argument: Science is a quality difficultly moved to change, not easily lost except by great change or sickness. Death is the greatest change of the human body.
• Conclusion: Science and other intellectual virtues cannot remain after death

Objection 3: Dependence on Phantasms #

• Source: Aristotle, De Anima, Book III
• Argument: The soul understands nothing without phantasms or images. Phantasms reside in bodily organs and are corrupted when the body dies.
• Conclusion: Intellectual virtues cannot remain after this life

Counter-Argument from Scripture (Luke 16) #

• Citation: Luke 16 (Rich Man and Lazarus)
• Argument: The separated souls in glory retain knowledge of contingent, particular things (their earthly deeds and sufferings)
• Inference: If knowledge of contingent particulars remains, much more will knowledge of universal, necessary things remain (which constitutes scientia and other intellectual virtues)
• Method: This uses a dialectical place—arguing from what is less apt to remain to what is more apt to remain

Thomas Aquinas’s Response: The Formal-Material Distinction #

• Central Principle: Opposition (particularly perfect vs. imperfect) that pertains to the very definition of a thing necessarily excludes one thing from another. But opposition that does not pertain to the definition may coexist with its removal.
• Application to Science: Imperfection of knowledge is of the very definition of faith (“conviction of things not seen”), but not of the definition of scientia itself.
• Conclusion: Scientia remains after death in its formal aspect (the intelligible forms and their ordering), though not in its material aspect (the use of phantasms)

Important Definitions #

Intelligible Forms (Species/Intelligible Species - εἴδη/Species Intelligibiles) #

• Received in the possible intellect in an immobile way (ἀκινήτως), according to the way of the receiver
• Conserved and preserved in the intellect even when not in actual use
• The possible intellect itself is called “the place of forms” (χώρα τῶν εἰδῶν/locus formarum)
• Remain after death because they are immaterial and do not depend on bodily organs

Phantasms (Images - Φαντάσματα/Phantasmata) #

• Bodily images that the intellect turns toward and applies intelligible forms to during this life
• Acts of bodily organs—particularly imagination (vis imaginativa) and memory (vis memorativa)
• Corrupted and destroyed when the body is corrupted
• Not necessary for the existence of intellectual virtues, only for their operation in this present life

Scientia (Science - Ἐπιστήμη) #

• In the strict sense: certain knowledge acquired through demonstrative syllogism
• An ordering of intelligible forms rather than dependent on particular phantasms
• Remains formally (in its intelligible content) after death, but not according to the same mode of operation (not by conversion to images)
• The Greek word ἐπιστήμη comes from the root meaning “to come to a halt/stop,” related to the English word “understanding” (to “stand”)

Two Acts of Understanding (First and Second Act) #

• First Act: Reception of the intelligible form into the possible intellect
• Second Act: Using that form to actually understand and know something
• When not engaged in the second act, the form remains in the intellect; it is not lost

The Separated Soul’s Understanding #

• Will occur without conversion to images (sine conversione ad phantasmata)
• Will be analogous to angelic knowledge (more direct and intuitive rather than discursive)
• The soul itself will be actually intelligible to itself (ipsa anima actu intelligibilis)
• Unlike angels, may still retain the ability to understand the content of reasoning, though not the discursive process of reasoning itself

Examples & Illustrations #

The Geometry/Demonstration Example #

• Joshua can give a probable argument (dialectical) that Euclid says the interior angles of a triangle equal two right angles
• Joshua can also demonstrate the theorem on a board, giving the demonstrative syllogism
• This demonstrates that perfect knowledge (demonstrative, certain) and imperfect knowledge (probable opinion) can coexist in the same person about the same conclusion
• The separated soul will retain this knowledge of geometry, though not by applying it to imagined triangles

The Drunk or Sleeping Man #

• A drunk or sleeping person cannot think clearly because the images are disordered or absent
• Yet the person does not lose reason itself—only the use of reason
• Sleep, drunkenness, or emotional disturbance impede the use of reason without destroying reason’s essential nature
• When the person wakes or sobers up, reason remains and can resume its operation
• This is distinct from how a dog or cow lacks reason by definition—they cannot reason even if conditions improve

Recognition Among Separated Souls #

• Berquist’s teacher Eric joked: How would you recognize your friend among the separated souls?
• Answer: By how they think—their characteristic ordering of thoughts and understanding
• If someone always thinks in a “disorderly way,” you’d recognize them by that distinctive mental characteristic
• This illustrates that the ordering of intelligible forms (which constitutes scientia and the intellectual virtues) persists and is observable

Rest and Clear Images #

• When lying in bed at night with a quiet mind and rested body, images become clear and still
• In this state, a person can contemplate something philosophically without distraction
• Contrast: A person who has been drinking sees images “all moving around,” nothing at rest
• The intelligible forms require stable images for their proper application in this life

The Role of Imagination in Error (Shelley, Poets, and Likeness) #

• The poet sees likenesses between things, while reason sees differences
• During WWII, Hollywood created images of Russia as a wonderful place where people go to church
• These images remained influential despite not corresponding to reality
• Politicians worry primarily about their “image” rather than reality
• C.S. Lewis’s example: An uncle in England criticizes his nephew for imagining what a place would be like before visiting
• Likeness without recognition of difference is the cause of deception

Questions Addressed #

Q: How can the separated soul understand without phantasms if Aristotle says the soul understands nothing without phantasms? #

A: Aristotle speaks of human understanding in this life, bound to a body. The separated soul will have another mode of understanding (alia modus intelligendi), not through conversion to images but through intelligible forms themselves, as angels understand. The soul becomes actually intelligible to itself when separated from the body.

Q: Does the separated soul retain the ability to reason from principle to conclusion? #

A: The separated soul will understand in the manner of angels—more intuitively and directly. Angels do not go from principle to conclusion in discursive reasoning. The separated soul will no longer reason in that way as its normal mode of knowing. However, it may still know about reasoning and understand syllogistic content, just as God understands syllogisms without syllogizing.

Q: If death destroys phantasms, isn’t the entire intellectual virtue destroyed? #

A: No. The intellectual virtue consists formally in the ordering of intelligible forms in the possible intellect. This ordering remains. What is destroyed is only the material aspect—the mode of using those forms by turning toward bodily images. It is analogous to how sickness destroys the use of a habit without destroying the habit itself in the soul.

Q: Can faith remain together with the knowledge of glory? #

A: No. Imperfection that pertains to the very definition of a thing must be excluded when that perfection is attained. Faith is defined as “conviction of things not seen” (Hebrews 11). The beatific vision is face-to-face knowledge of God. The defining imperfection of faith (non-seeing) is removed in vision, so faith cannot remain. However, this does not prevent other forms of perfect knowledge from remaining.

Notable Quotes #

“The understandable forms, or understandable species, are received in the possible understanding in an immobile way, according to the way of the receiver.” — Thomas Aquinas (quoted by Berquist), on the immobility and permanence of intelligible forms in the intellect

“Science is an ordering of those understandable forms.” — Berquist’s synthesis of Thomas’s teaching, clarifying that scientia is not dependent on particular phantasms

“Opposition is the per se and proper cause that one thing is excluded from another.” — Thomas Aquinas, on the principle used to resolve questions about what remains and what ceases

“The imperfection of knowledge is of the very notion of faith.” — Thomas Aquinas, explaining why faith cannot coexist with the beatific vision

“When you see God as he is face to face, are you believing anymore that he is three in one? You’re convinced that what you don’t see? No, you’re seeing it.” — Berquist, illustrating why faith must cease when vision arrives

“Imagination is the main cause of deception.” — Berquist’s summary of the lecture’s theme regarding the role of phantasms in error