Part I (Prima Pars) Part 137 (2/2)
86, A. 1). Therefore the separated soul cannot know singulars.
Obj. 2: Further, the knowledge of the singular is more determinate than knowledge of the universal. But the separated soul has no determinate knowledge of the species of natural things, therefore much less can it know singulars.
Obj. 3: Further, if it knew the singulars, yet not by sense, for the same reason it would know all singulars. But it does not know all singulars. Therefore it knows none.
_On the contrary,_ The rich man in h.e.l.l said: ”I have five brethren”
(Luke 16:28).
_I answer that,_ Separated souls know some singulars, but not all, not even all present singulars. To understand this, we must consider that there is a twofold way of knowing things, one by means of abstraction from phantasms, and in this way singulars cannot be directly known by the intellect, but only indirectly, as stated above (Q. 86, A. 1). The other way of understanding is by the infusion of species by G.o.d, and in that way it is possible for the intellect to know singulars. For as G.o.d knows all things, universal and singular, by His Essence, as the cause of universal and individual principles (Q. 14, A. 2), so likewise separate substances can know singulars by species which are a kind of partic.i.p.ated similitude of the Divine Essence. There is a difference, however, between angels and separated souls in the fact that through these species the angels have a perfect and proper knowledge of things; whereas separated souls have only a confused knowledge. Hence the angels, by reason of their perfect intellect, through these species, know not only the specific natures of things, but also the singulars contained in those species; whereas separated souls by these species know only those singulars to which they are determined by former knowledge in this life, or by some affection, or by natural apt.i.tude, or by the disposition of the Divine order; because whatever is received into anything is conditioned according to the mode of the recipient.
Reply Obj. 1: The intellect does not know the singular by way of abstraction; neither does the separated soul know it thus; but as explained above.
Reply Obj. 2: The knowledge of the separated soul is confined to those species or individuals to which the soul has some kind of determinate relation, as we have said.
Reply Obj. 3: The separated soul has not the same relation to all singulars, but one relation to some, and another to others. Therefore there is not the same reason why it should know all singulars.
_______________________
FIFTH ARTICLE [I, Q. 89, Art. 5]
Whether the Habit of Knowledge Here Acquired Remains in the Separated Soul?
Objection 1: It would seem that the habit of knowledge acquired in this life does not remain in the soul separated from the body: for the Apostle says: ”Knowledge shall be destroyed” (1 Cor. 13:8).
Obj. 2: Further, some in this world who are less good enjoy knowledge denied to others who are better. If, therefore, the habit of knowledge remained in the soul after death, it would follow that some who are less good would, even in the future life, excel some who are better; which seems unreasonable.
Obj. 3: Further, separated souls will possess knowledge by influence of the Divine light. Supposing, therefore, that knowledge here acquired remained in the separated soul, it would follow that two forms of the same species would co-exist in the same subject which cannot be.
Obj. 4: Further, the Philosopher says (Praedic. vi, 4, 5), that ”a habit is a quality hard to remove: yet sometimes knowledge is destroyed by sickness or the like.” But in this life there is no change so thorough as death. Therefore it seems that the habit of knowledge is destroyed by death.
_On the contrary,_ Jerome says (Ep. liii, ad Paulinum), ”Let us learn on earth that kind of knowledge which will remain with us in heaven.”
_I answer that,_ Some say that the habit of knowledge resides not in the intellect itself, but in the sensitive powers, namely, the imaginative, cogitative, and memorative, and that the intelligible species are not kept in the pa.s.sive intellect. If this were true, it would follow that when the body is destroyed by death, knowledge here acquired would also be entirely destroyed.
But, since knowledge resides in the intellect, which is ”the abode of species,” as the Philosopher says (De Anima iii, 4), the habit of knowledge here acquired must be partly in the aforesaid sensitive powers and partly in the intellect. This can be seen by considering the very actions from which knowledge arises. For ”habits are like the actions whereby they are acquired” (Ethic. ii, 1). Now the actions of the intellect, by which knowledge is here acquired, are performed by the mind turning to the phantasms in the aforesaid sensitive powers.
Hence through such acts the pa.s.sive intellect acquires a certain facility in considering the species received: and the aforesaid sensitive powers acquire a certain apt.i.tude in seconding the action of the intellect when it turns to them to consider the intelligible object. But as the intellectual act resides chiefly and formally in the intellect itself, whilst it resides materially and dispositively in the inferior powers, the same distinction is to be applied to habit.
Knowledge, therefore, acquired in the present life does not remain in the separated soul, as regards what belongs to the sensitive powers; but as regards what belongs to the intellect itself, it must remain; because, as the Philosopher says (De Long. et Brev. Vitae ii), a form may be corrupted in two ways; first, directly, when corrupted by its contrary, as heat, by cold; and secondly, indirectly, when its subject is corrupted. Now it is evident that human knowledge is not corrupted through corruption of the subject, for the intellect is an incorruptible faculty, as above stated (Q. 79, A. 2, ad 2). Neither can the intelligible species in the pa.s.sive intellect be corrupted by their contrary; for there is no contrary to intelligible ”intentions,” above all as regards simple intelligence of ”what a thing is.” But contrariety may exist in the intellect as regards mental composition and division, or also reasoning; so far as what is false in statement or argument is contrary to truth. And thus knowledge may be corrupted by its contrary when a false argument seduces anyone from the knowledge of truth. For this reason the Philosopher in the above work mentions two ways in which knowledge is corrupted directly: namely, ”forgetfulness” on the part of the memorative power, and ”deception” on the part of a false argument.
But these have no place in the separated soul. Therefore we must conclude that the habit of knowledge, so far as it is in the intellect, remains in the separated soul.
Reply Obj. 1: The Apostle is not speaking of knowledge as a habit, but as to the act of knowing; and hence he says, in proof of the a.s.sertion quoted, ”Now, I know in part.”
Reply Obj. 2: As a less good man may exceed a better man in bodily stature, so the same kind of man may have a habit of knowledge in the future life which a better man may not have. Such knowledge, however, cannot be compared with the other prerogatives enjoyed by the better man.
Reply Obj. 3: These two kinds of knowledge are not of the same species, so there is no impossibility.
Reply Obj. 4: This objection considers the corruption of knowledge on the part of the sensitive powers.
_______________________
<script>