Dans mon article, je vais essayer de développer une analyse de deux des plus importants chapitres du De anima d'Aristote : les chapitres 4 et 5 du livre III, où Aristote propose son traitement de la question de l'intellect (Nous). Sans entrer dans les détails de l'histoire de l'interprétation de ce texte, je propose d'identifier l'intellect dit ‘passif’ avec quelques traits distinctifs de la puissance de la phantasia ou imagination, et ce que l'on appelle ‘l'intelligence productive’ avec (...) l'environnement cosmique, qui, en vertu de ses régularités, produit les habitats qui vont agir sur la puissance sensorielle de l'être humain et qui, dans la production des expériences sensorielles de l'être humain, fera passer son esprit du statut d'intellect passif à celui d'intellectus in habitu. (shrink)

Dans mon article, je vais essayer de développer une analyse de deux des plus importants chapitres du De anima d'Aristote : les chapitres 4 et 5 du livre III, où Aristote propose son traitement de la question de l'intellect. Sans entrer dans les détails de l'histoire de l'interprétation de ce texte, je propose d'identifier l'intellect dit ‘passif’ avec quelques traits distinctifs de la puissance de la phantasia ou imagination, et ce que l'on appelle ‘l'intelligence productive’ avec l'environnement (...) cosmique, qui, en vertu de ses régularités, produit les habitats qui vont agir sur la puissance sensorielle de l'être humain et qui, dans la production des expériences sensorielles de l'être humain, fera passer son esprit du statut d'intellect passif à celui d'intellectus in habitu. (shrink)

Dans le cadre de sa théorie de la production des figures géométriques par projection des raisons innées, Proclus est le premier à assimiler la phantasia (imagination) au nous pathetikos (intellect passif) évoqué furtivement par Aristote en De Anima III,5. Tout en maintenant cette assimilation, Ammonius (ré)intègrera la notion d’ epinoia dans le processus d’abstraction, statut de la chose abstraite du monde sensible. L’introduction de cette notion provoquera une certaine confusion chez les commentateurs ultérieurs qui, tout en gardant l’assimilation (...) de Proclus, n’hésiteront pas à faire de la phantasia la faculté intellective permettant d’abstraire les formes de la matière en étroite collaboration avec l’intellect actif, de séparer les accidents d’un substrat et de composer des êtres et formes sans substrat. (shrink)

Le présent article vise à montrer qu'on ne peut ranger Aristote parmi les « intellectualistes tempérés » que si l'on privilégie la représentation de l'objet désirable par rapport à la faculté motrice elle-même, qui est bien la faculté désirante et elle seule. Si la phantasia semble être finalement la seule faculté cognitive dont on ne saurait se passer pour se mouvoir et agir, c'est parce qu'elle régit la forme de base du mode de présentation du désirable ou bien pratique, (...) qui est celle de l'apparaître. The present article is arguing that Aristotle can be ranked amongst the « moderate intellectualists » only if we put the stress on the representation of the desirable rather than on the faculty which produces movement, which is really the faculty of desire alone. If the phantasia seems to be ultimately the alone cognitive faculty which is needed for moving and acting, it is because it rules the most basic form of mode of presentation for the desirable or practical good, which is appearing. (shrink)

I reconstruct Aristotle’s reasons for thinking that the intellect cannot have a bodily organ. I present Aristotle’s account of the aboutness or intentionality of cognitive states, both perceptual and intellectual. On my interpretation, Aristotle’s account is based around the notion of cognitive powers taking on forms in a special preservative way. Based on this account, Aristotle argues that no physical structure could enable a bodily part or combination of bodily parts to produce or determine the full range of forms (...) that the human intellect can understand. For Aristotle, cognitive powers with bodily organs are always spatiotemporally limited, but the understanding is not. Aristotle claims that our understanding applies to all instances of the thing understood wherever and whenever they exist. On Aristotle’s own account the intellect in its nature is only “potential,” it does not actually possess any form. Thus nothing prevents it from possessing all forms. (shrink)

Dès l'aube de la pensée philosophique en occident, l'Ecole d'Elèe souligne le caractère absolu de l'être. Découverte des plus importante, qui ne cessera d'exercer une profonde influence sur tout le cours de la réflexion philosophique. Platon s'attache à réhabiliter l'intelligibilité du multiple : il y a « des idées » subsistantes; et Aristote dégage l'intelligibilité du multiple matériel : il y a « des catégories » obtenues au moyen de l'abstraction. L'un et l'autre s'efforce d'y découvrir un ordre : rapports (...) de participation, selon Platon ; rapports de causalité, selon Aristote. Platon se dégage de la tenaille de Parménide, — ou l'être, ou l'absurde néant, — en distinguant deux néants : l'un, qui est le contraire de l'être, est absurde ; mais l'autre, qui est l'altérité, est parfaitement intelligible, une idée, un être véritable. Ce non-être relatif, à savoir l'altéritê, est aussi universel que l'être correspondant, à savoir ceci, cela, êtres corrélatifs. Pour autant, l'unité fondamentale du monde des idées est une unité d'ordre, une multiplicité, et non plus l'unicité à la manière de Parménide. Il est vrai que de toute son âme Platon aspire à une unité suprême et unique, mais il ne réussit pas à l'intégrer techniquement dans son système. Aristote, qui pose carrément en principe que l'être a des sens multiples et irréductibles, notamment les catégories, découvre, lui aussi, un ordre qui unit les catégories entre elles, de même qu'un ordre qui unit toutes les réalités substantielles en les reliant à un Premier Moteur : il est vrai que cette dernière influence ne peut pénétrer jusqu'au fond de la réalité, puisque celle-ci est autre chose que du mouvement, et que par conséquent cette réalité, fondamentalement non unifiée, demeure fondamentalement inintelligible. Il est intéressant de rapprocher de ces deux systèmes « essentialistes » celui de Hegel, dont le mouvement dialectique part de l'être et se porte immédiatement vers le non-être correspondant, considéré comme intelligible : l'être s'en trouve radicalement « relative » . Aussi bien, c'est dans l'élaboration ultérieure de l'être qualifié, quidditatif, que Hegel cherche, mais en vain, l'idée absolue. Plotin réussit à formuler nettement le problème du relatif et de l'absolu et à s'orienter vers une solution : il souligne le caractère radicalement relatif de la réalité relative, ce qui implique le caractère radicalement indépendant de la réalité absolue. Comme il continue à entendre l'être à la manière essentialiste de Platon et d'Aristote, il va de soi qu'il ne lui est pas possible d'identifier l'être et l'absolu : la réalité suprême, l'Un, est donc au delà de l'être, de même qu'il est au delà de l'intelligence, dont l'objet propre est l'être. En distinguant la quiddité et l'existence, Avicenne introduit, à côté de la quiddité, une nouvelle dimension où pourra se mouvoir l'intelligence. Néanmoins c'est sur la quiddité qu'il met l'accent : considérée en elle-même et indépendamment de toute rapport virtuel ou actuel avec l'existence, la quiddité à un sens complet ; au contraire, l'existence ne se conçoit que se rapportant à la quiddité. C'est du côté de la quiddité que se trouve l'absolu. S. Thomas reprend la distinction avicennienne, mais en la retournant : car c'est à l'esse qu'il accorde la primauté : l'esse est acte, la quiddité est puissance ; l'esse est la perfection fondamentale de tout, à laquelle toute réalité participe. C'est dans la ligne de l'esse que se trouve l'absolu. Heidegger fait observer que depuis Platon la philosophie se trouve sur une mauvaise voie : c'est toujours de l « étant » qu'elle s'est occupée, c'est-à-dire, de l'être qualifié, tandis qu'elle a négligé l'étude de l'être lui-même. Sans doute a-t-il raison pour une bonne part, mais il ignore que S. Thomas a élaboré une philosophie authentique de Yesse, que beaucoup sont trop enclins à ne pas considérer. Comment justifier le point de départ et le point de vue d'une philosophie de l'être ? Où les trouver ? Non pas dans quelque secteur particulier où Ion rencontrerait l'être pur, mais dans tout secteur, dans toute expérience. C'est sur le fait qu'il faut s'appuyer, sur le fait dont l'homme de science déclare qu'il est plus fort que le Lord Maire de Londres. L'homme de science se borne à noter les faits et à en chercher la régularité ; le philosophe s'attache à découvrir la raison de la solidité absolue des faits et à dégager ce que cela implique. Lorsqu'on a exposé tout ce qu'est une réalité donnée, tout ce que sa quiddité comporte, on n'a nullement fini de dire ce que cette réalité contient d'intelligible, puisqu'on n'a pas encore déclaré que cette réalité est, qu'elle existe. Sans doute, Kant est-il d'avis que l'intelligibilité de cent thalers existants ne dépasse en rien celle de cent thalers possibles, mais il est pourtant certain que le jugement d'existence, qui est un jugement, est affaire d'intelligence, d'intelligibilité : il manifeste d'emblée la solidité irréfragable de l'être ; rien ne pourra plus jamais effacer ce qui a été et, désormais, absolument tout doit en tenir compte. C'est cela même qui est à la base de la connaissance vraie, à savoir de celle qui saisit « ce qui est ». Ceci ne contredit en rien la relativité des faits : c'est précisément le fait qui nous révèle l'absolu, c'est le relatif qui se montre comme étant absolument relatif. Tout comme c'est de la situation dans laquelle je me trouve que j'ai conscience et que c'est donc en elle que je domine et transcende la relativité qui est propre à cette situation. L'absolu que je saisis est celui qui me révèle le relatif. Mon point de vue, qui n'est qu'humain, n'est jamais celui de Dieu : cependant il contient une valeur d'absolu. Et la donnée qui m'est présentée n'est pas l'être divin : cependant elle manifeste une signification d'absolu, à savoir la signification d'être. Dans cette signification, tout coïncide, car ce qui ne s'y trouverait pas, serait pur néant. Tout se rencontre dans une identité fondamentale. C'est à raison de l'être qu'il contient que la réalité parle à l'intelligence, comme aussi à la vie appetitive : c'est grâce à sa signification d'être, que la réalité peut m'être « présente ». Aussi bien, pour y répondre, pour résoudre les problèmes qu'elle pose, il n'est que de s'en approcher et de se laisser guider par elle. On peut montrer que la signification absolue d'être que manifeste toute donnée exige un principe réel unique qui fonde toute réalité. Ce principe ne peut se concevoir, ni sur le mode d'une substance, ni sur celui d'une cause particulière, car l'une et l'autre sont essentiellement relatives. Il ne peut s'entendre que comme l'Absolu, dégagé de tout rapport : si toutes choses sont intégralement dépendantes de cet Absolu, lui-même ne peut dépendre de rien et il garde nécessairement son indépendance totale. Il apparaît clairement qu'il ne sert à rien de se mouvoir, « horizontalement », le long d'une série de causes dans l'espoir d'en découvrir une, par exemple la première de la série, qui permettrait davantage de se porter, « verticalement », vers l'Absolu ; car du fini à l'Infini la distance demeure partout la même et la difficulté est toujours égale : le passage du fini à l'Infini est unique et il exige d'être examiné et justifié avec soin. L'argument en question est d'une nature spéciale : il s'agit d'atteindre l'Infini à partir du fini et, de plus, au moyen d'une intelligence finie. Aussi bien, n'atteignons-nous jamais immédiatement l'Infini en lui-même, mais uniquement dans le fini et tel que le fini nous le révèle. Donc c'est tout en pensant le fini qu'il nous faut penser l'Infini, à savoir comme exigence fondamentale de ce fini. C'est en ce sens qu'on dit que de l'Infini au fini il y a relation logique. Cependant, par là-même nous comprenons que nulle relation réelle ne peut lier l'Infini au fini. Ceci ne signifie nullement que l'Absolu divin serait entièrement isolé et loin de toute réalité finie ; mais tout au contraire, que Dieu est plus près de la créature qu'aucun terme relatif ne peut jamais l'être du terme qui lui correspond : l'Absolu créateur, souverainement indépendant et transcendant, est tout aussi parfaitement immanent, c'est-à-dire toujours intimement et activement présent à ce qu'il pose dans le réel. (shrink)

RésuméL'article étudie les rapports que la théorie thomasienne de la vision béatifique entretient avec la noétique qu'Averroès expose dans sonGrand CommentaireduDe anima. DuCommentaire des Sentences, où le jeune Thomas propose une transposition explicite de l'intellection philosophique des substances séparées dans l'ordre théologique chrétien, aux œuvres de la maturité, qui n'en font plus mention, on tâche de présenter la nature exacte des emprunts et d'apprécier leur justesse en s'interrogeant sur la cohérence conceptuelle du geste de l'Aquinate: Thomas pouvait-il suspendre sa conception (...) de la vision de Dieu par essence à un dispositif noétique originairement actif dans un système jugé erroné et contraire à la foi? Pouvait-on théologiquement accorder au rapport entre essence divine et intellect ce que, philosophiquement, on refusait à celui entre l'intellect séparé et le corps? Si Thomas et ses partisans, dans la querelle qui s'ouvrait, l'assurent, on indique nonobstant ce que l'emprunt paradoxal d'origine conserve de conceptuellement problématique au cœur du thomisme. (shrink)

RésuméL'article étudie les rapports que la théorie thomasienne de la vision béatifique entretient avec la noétique qu'Averroès expose dans sonGrand CommentaireduDe anima. DuCommentaire des Sentences, où le jeune Thomas propose une transposition explicite de l'intellection philosophique des substances séparées dans l'ordre théologique chrétien, aux œuvres de la maturité, qui n'en font plus mention, on tâche de présenter la nature exacte des emprunts et d'apprécier leur justesse en s'interrogeant sur la cohérence conceptuelle du geste de l'Aquinate: Thomas pouvait-il suspendre sa conception (...) de la vision de Dieu par essence à un dispositif noétique originairement actif dans un système jugé erroné et contraire à la foi? Pouvait-on théologiquement accorder au rapport entre essence divine et intellect ce que, philosophiquement, on refusait à celui entre l'intellect séparé et le corps? Si Thomas et ses partisans, dans la querelle qui s'ouvrait, l'assurent, on indique nonobstant ce que l'emprunt paradoxal d'origine conserve de conceptuellement problématique au cœur du thomisme. (shrink)

The soul is an explanatory principle of Aristotle’s natural science, accounting both for the fact that living things are alive as well as for the diverse natural attributes that belong to them by virtue of being alive. I argue that the explanatory role of the soul in Aristotle’s natural science must be understood in light of his view, stated in a controversial passage from Parts of Animals (645b14–20), that the soul of a living thing is a “complex activity” of its (...) organic body. This paper explores the role of this “complex activity” model of soul in Aristotle’s study of soul in De Anima. I argue, first, that the model has its origins in De Anima II.4, where Aristotle argues that living things do all they do by nature for the sake of a single, teleologically primary end. I argue further that Aristotle uses this model to account for the psychological attributes naturally present in living things, including their capacities for vital activities like nutrition, reproduction, and perception, and that this is the task to which Aristotle devotes the obscure final chapters of De Anima III. (shrink)

Aristotle's De Anima is the first systematic philosophical account of the soul, which serves to explain the functioning of all mortal living things. In his commentary, Ronald Polansky argues that the work is far more structured and systematic than previously supposed. He contends that Aristotle seeks a comprehensive understanding of the soul and its faculties. By closely tracing the unfolding of the many-layered argumentation and the way Aristotle fits his inquiry meticulously within his scheme of the sciences, Polansky answers questions (...) relating to the general definition of soul and the treatment of each of the soul's principal capacities: nutrition, sense perception, phantasia, intellect, and locomotion. The commentary sheds light on every section of the De Anima and the work as a unit. It offers a challenge to earlier and current interpretations of the relevance and meaning of Aristotle's highly influential treatise. (shrink)

L'ame, c'est-a-dire pour Aristote la vie, est ici saisie dans son immanence au corps ou elle s'incarne, et decrite dans les differentes puissances, qui vont de la sensation a l'intellect, en passant par l'imagination et la motricite.Les etudes ici reunies, qui ont fait l'objet de communications et de discussion durant le seminaire 1990-1992 du Centre de Recherches sur la Pensee Antique (Centre Leon Robin ) de l'Universite Paris-Sorbonne, abordent les problemes selon l'ordre de leur surgissement dans le texte et (...) se presentent ainsi comme un veritable commentaire continu du traite De l'ame, fondement de la psychologie et de la noetique occidentales. (shrink)

The physicist defines anger in terms of heart, blood, and heat; the dialectician says it is the desire to inflict pain in retaliation. Both give fairly sure signs for its recognition; but neither can show why these signs must go together and in what they can cohere. Aristotelian physics is presumably a way to avoid such a split, and whatever defects his account of perception or intellection suffers from cannot be traced to it. Phantasia, however, seems to be dialectically (...) distinguished from other faculties of soul and physically defined as a kind of motion; and even if Aristotle could say at what speed it moves, we do not discern in such a definition the ground for its being the link between perception and intellection. The soul is the source of both motion and awareness; and since it cannot be the efficient cause of motion without destroying the possibility of awareness, something in its cognitive capacity must be able to translate the nonmotivating acts of perception or of intellection into causes of motion. That something seems to be again phantasia, which thus comes to light as the soul’s double bond, linking the aesthetic with the noetic and awareness with motion. Phantasia is as inseparable from desire as it is from thought. It is the closest Aristotle comes to acknowledging that self-moving motion is soul. (shrink)

Originally published in 1993. This book presents an amended version of R.D. Hick's classic translation of Aristotle's "De Anima" Books 2 and 3, with pertinent extracts from Book 1, together with an introduction and six papers by prominent international Aristotelian scholars. The editor brings together up-to-date discussions of Aristotle's "De Anima", examining central topics such as the nature of perception, perception and thought, thinking and the intellect, the nature of the soul and the relation between body and soul. These (...) papers draw attention to the importance and value of Aristotle's original contributions both to these topics and to philosophical psychology in general. They show the relevance of Aristotle's ancient classical philosophy to contemporary philosophical debate. This book also examines the key issues of Aristotle's thesis and aims to demonstrate its enduring significance. The "De Anima" is placed within a wider Aristotelian framework, and also within a more comprehensive structure, as a contribution to philosophical development and advance. (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:The "Thinking of Thinking" in MetaphysicsA.9 JOSEPH G. DE FILIPPO a+~6v &Qa voE[, e~eQ ~o~t ~6 XQ&~O~OV, xetl. I~o~tv ~1VdOloLgvo1]o~t0g v6"qotg. (A.9, 1o74b33-34) Therefore it thinks itself, if indeed it is most powerful, and its thinking is the thinking of thinking. Thus culminates Aristotle's treatment of God's activity in the twelfth book of the Metaphysics. The conclusion seems transparent. God is an intellect (vo~Sg); since he is also (...) the best thing, and it is absurd that he should think anything worse than himself, he therefore thinks himself. And since he is nothing other than a thinking (v6"qotg), what he thinks of is thinking (vo~loEe0g). "Thinking of thinking," however, is a notion that is as ambiguous in ancient Greek as it is in English. It is just not clear what sort of thing such a reflexively self-thinking mind would be, though it might seem natural to construe the activity of Aristotle's God as somehow an act of pure self-awareness, self-consciousness or self-knowledge. On such an understanding God would be a separately existing consciousness, with himself or his activity as the only object of that consciousness. In 196 9 R. Norman published a paper which disputed this sort of interpretation.' He argued that when one considers Aristotle's theory of, R. Norman, "Aristotle's Philosopher-God," Phronesis 14 (1969): 63-74 (reprinted in Articles on Aristotle, vol. 4, ed. J. Barnes, M. Schofield and R. Sorabji [London, 1979], 93-1o2). While I a-m indebted to Norman's basic approach, my treatment of God's self-thought differs substantially from his in two respects. First, although it isessential to recognize that in Aristotle human thought too thinks itself, this does not justify the conclusion that God's thinking is "of the same kind as our own normal abstract thought" (73). As 1shall argue below in section 4, the characterization of the Prime Mover as v6"qoLgvo~o~t0g is meant specifically to differentiate its activity from the selfthinking of human volSg;human thought could never be characterized as v6"qotgvofioEt0g.Secondly, Norman does not isolate the real source of A.9's argument, which, as l shall argue, is the potential conflict between Aristotle's own physical and psychological theories. M. Wedin, Mind and Imagination in Aristotle (New Haven, 1988), 229-45, also argues against Norman's thesis that human and divine thought are the same in kind. [543] 544 JOURNAL OF THE HISTORY OF PHILOSOPHY 33:4 OCTOBER 1995 volSg from De Anima III.4-8, it is clear that the conception of God as a selfthinking mind does not entail that he engages in self-contemplation in the normal sense of the term. On Norman's interpretation, God thinks himself because he thinks a definite content with which he is numerically identical, according to the well-known Aristotelian doctrine of the unity of vo~g with its object of thought (vo~lx6v). To describe this act simply as self-contemplation belies the fact that its object must have an intelligible content, which in the case of God is not adequately described as his "self," for this self would indeed be nothing more than an act of self-contemplation. While many commentators have followed Norman in recognizing that the description of God as "thinking himself" is drawn from the De Anima's characterization of self-thinking, there has persisted a tendency to interpret Aristotle 's God as engaged in an act of pure self-awareness or under some similar description.' The reason for this persistence is due, I believe, to a crucial difference between chapters 7 and 9 of book A. Whereas both chapters characterize the Prime Mover (PM) as a self-thinker, in chapter 9 he is also said to be ~1 v61]otg vo~loec0g V6tlOtg (the thinking of thinking), which understandably appears to be a much more specific delineation of his thought content. A. 7 tells us that the PM is a vofJg that thinks itself (to72b18-3o); according to De Anima III. 4 that simply is what voa)g does at the highest level of actuality, since it... (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:The "Thinking of Thinking" in MetaphysicsA.9 JOSEPH G. DE FILIPPO a+~6v &Qa voE[, e~eQ ~o~t ~6 XQ&~O~OV, xetl. I~o~tv ~1VdOloLgvo1]o~t0g v6"qotg. (A.9, 1o74b33-34) Therefore it thinks itself, if indeed it is most powerful, and its thinking is the thinking of thinking. Thus culminates Aristotle's treatment of God's activity in the twelfth book of the Metaphysics. The conclusion seems transparent. God is an intellect (vo~Sg); since he is also (...) the best thing, and it is absurd that he should think anything worse than himself, he therefore thinks himself. And since he is nothing other than a thinking (v6"qotg), what he thinks of is thinking (vo~loEe0g). "Thinking of thinking," however, is a notion that is as ambiguous in ancient Greek as it is in English. It is just not clear what sort of thing such a reflexively self-thinking mind would be, though it might seem natural to construe the activity of Aristotle's God as somehow an act of pure self-awareness, self-consciousness or self-knowledge. On such an understanding God would be a separately existing consciousness, with himself or his activity as the only object of that consciousness. In 196 9 R. Norman published a paper which disputed this sort of interpretation.' He argued that when one considers Aristotle's theory of, R. Norman, "Aristotle's Philosopher-God," Phronesis 14 (1969): 63-74 (reprinted in Articles on Aristotle, vol. 4, ed. J. Barnes, M. Schofield and R. Sorabji [London, 1979], 93-1o2). While I a-m indebted to Norman's basic approach, my treatment of God's self-thought differs substantially from his in two respects. First, although it isessential to recognize that in Aristotle human thought too thinks itself, this does not justify the conclusion that God's thinking is "of the same kind as our own normal abstract thought" (73). As 1shall argue below in section 4, the characterization of the Prime Mover as v6"qoLgvo~o~t0g is meant specifically to differentiate its activity from the selfthinking of human volSg;human thought could never be characterized as v6"qotgvofioEt0g.Secondly, Norman does not isolate the real source of A.9's argument, which, as l shall argue, is the potential conflict between Aristotle's own physical and psychological theories. M. Wedin, Mind and Imagination in Aristotle (New Haven, 1988), 229-45, also argues against Norman's thesis that human and divine thought are the same in kind. [543] 544 JOURNAL OF THE HISTORY OF PHILOSOPHY 33:4 OCTOBER 1995 volSg from De Anima III.4-8, it is clear that the conception of God as a selfthinking mind does not entail that he engages in self-contemplation in the normal sense of the term. On Norman's interpretation, God thinks himself because he thinks a definite content with which he is numerically identical, according to the well-known Aristotelian doctrine of the unity of vo~g with its object of thought (vo~lx6v). To describe this act simply as self-contemplation belies the fact that its object must have an intelligible content, which in the case of God is not adequately described as his "self," for this self would indeed be nothing more than an act of self-contemplation. While many commentators have followed Norman in recognizing that the description of God as "thinking himself" is drawn from the De Anima's characterization of self-thinking, there has persisted a tendency to interpret Aristotle 's God as engaged in an act of pure self-awareness or under some similar description.' The reason for this persistence is due, I believe, to a crucial difference between chapters 7 and 9 of book A. Whereas both chapters characterize the Prime Mover (PM) as a self-thinker, in chapter 9 he is also said to be ~1 v61]otg vo~loec0g V6tlOtg (the thinking of thinking), which understandably appears to be a much more specific delineation of his thought content. A. 7 tells us that the PM is a vofJg that thinks itself (to72b18-3o); according to De Anima III. 4 that simply is what voa)g does at the highest level of actuality, since it... (shrink)

In De Anima III.3 Aristotle presents his official discussion of phantasia (“imagination” in most translations). At the very outset of the discussion Aristotle offers as an endoxon that “phantasia is that in virtue of which we say that a phantasma occurs to us” (428a1-2). Now a natural reading of this claim, taken up by many commentators, can pose a problem for Aristotle’s overall account of perception. Here I argue that, although it would be silly to deny that Aristotle (...) considers phantasia to be that in virtue of which a phantasma occurs to someone, it is not silly to deny that phantasmata are present in every case in which phantasia is operative. This suggestion bolsters the idea that, according to Aristotle’s account of veridical perception, we can understand the world as making itself perceptually manifest to the perceiver. (shrink)

Book 1 of Aristotle’s De Anima extensively discusses two characteristics of the soul: the soul as the source of motion of the living being, and the soul as the seat of perception and cognition. The following conclusions are drawn on the nature and function of the soul. The soul is not a magnitude and not material; it is a substance and not an attribute; it is a unity, and the principle of unity is not material continuity. The soul is the (...) origin of perception and motion, and of psychological processes such as emotions and desires. An adequate account of how the soul causes perception, motion, and the like must not attribute motion to the soul. (shrink)

Là où on peut dater les commentaires d'Averroès sur Aristote, le Commentaire Moyen d'une œuvre donnée peut être considéré comme antérieur au Commentaire Long. En accompagnement de sa belle édition du Commentaire Moyen d'Averroès sur leDe anima, A. Ivry a soutenu que dans ce cas-ci les choses sont inversées et que le Commentaire Moyen duDe animaest “une version abrégée et révisée” du Commentaire Long de la même œuvre. Ivry développe sa thèse avec le plus de détails dansArabic Sciences and Philosophy, (...) 5. Là, il soutient que deux passages dans le Commentaire Moyen duDe animase rapportent nominalement au Commentaire Long, qu'un troisième passage fait allusion au Commentaire Long, et que dans d'autres passages le Commentaire Moyen et le Commentaire Long utilisent une phraséologie semblable et qu'on peut considérer que le premier a été la version abrégée du second. Le présent article répond à cette thèse de la manière suivante: les deux passages dans le Commentaire Moyen qui semblent selon d'lvry se rapporter explicitement au Commentaire Long peuvent vraisemblablement être compris comme des references a l'intérieur du Commentaire Moyen lui-même. Le passage qu'il comprend comme faisant allusion au Commentaire Long ne fait pas réellement allusion à cette œuvre, mais constitue une référence non-equivoque à une section ultérieure du Commentaire Moyen. II n'y a rien qui justifie le fait de regarder les passages dans le Commentaire Moyen cités par Ivry et utilisent une phraséologie semblable à celle du Commentaire Long comme des emprunts faits à ce dernier. Au cours de son argumentation, Ivry mentionne la position d'Averroes sur la nature de l'intellect materiel de l'homme, question qui a donne a Averroes le plus de peine dans ses commentaires sur le De anima d'Aristote et qui, depuis lors, a le plus intrigue ceux qui etudient Averroes. Le présent article souligne que sur le sujet de l'intellect materiel de l'homme, ni le Commentaire Moyen, ni le Commentaire Long sur leDe animan'empruntent I'un a l'autre, car les conceptions de l'intellect matériel qu'ils embrassent sont différentes et incompatibles. (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Journal of the History of Philosophy 41.1 (2003) 122-123 [Access article in PDF] Andreas Kamp. Philosophiehistorie als Rezeptionsgeschichte. Die Reaktion auf Aristoteles' De Anima-Noetik. Der frühe Hellenismus. Amsterdam: B. R. Grüner, 2001. Pp. viii + 315. Cloth, $82.00. This book is the first installment of an extraordinarily ambitious project. The plan is to investigate the reception of Aristotle's conception of the intellect, set out in De Anima 3.4-5, (...) in the subsequent history of philosophy, from Theophrastus to the present.The current volume deals with the natural starting-point for this project, philosophy in the early Hellenistic period, centering on Theophrastus and his tenure as head of the Peripatos, the school that Aristotle founded.Kamp begins with an engaging, somewhat lengthy introduction, which remains curiously remote from what one might expect it to concentrate on, namely Aristotle's conception of the intellect. Apart from presenting an outline of the reception of Aristotle's philosophical work in general from Theophrastus to Sigmund Freud, the introduction includes only one short paragraph specifically on the topic of the intellect (12). This paragraph, which comes closest to revealing Kamp's reason for focusing, of all things, on Aristotle's discussion of the intellect in De Anima3.4-5, simply makes two unsubstantiated claims. First, Kamp claims that the conception of the intellect, as presented in those chapters, is at the center of the Aristotelian system; and secondly, that this is, of all Aristotelian and perhaps all philosophical theories, the one that received the highest level of attention in the subsequent history of philosophy. The reader might be content to wait and let the second claim be borne out, in the present volume and beyond; but the first claim—concerning the centrality of the intellect, and of De Anima3.4-5, to Aristotle's thought—should at least have received some specification and illustration.The central part of the book, and philosophically by far the most interesting, concerns Theophrastus. Kamp begins with an extensive discussion of the political, social, and economic circumstances of Theophrastus's biography and of the history of the Peripatos. He then offers a reconstruction of Theophrastus's remarks on the nature of the intellect in the fifth book of his Physics. This reconstructive effort is based on a number of fragments [End Page 122] preserved in Themistius's De Anima paraphrase (written at about 350ad) and in Priscianus Lydus's Metaphrasis in Theophrastum (about 530ad). Kamp's discussion of these fragments is well informed, judicious, and illuminating throughout.It may be in order, though, to indicate one misgiving. One of the problems that Theophrastus addresses is that it might appear as if thinking were a matter of the intellect being changed by intelligibles, much as perceiving is, or may appear to be, a matter of sense being changed by sensibles. (If so, the question arises as to what the principle of thought is, the intellect itself or the intelligibles.) Kamp reconstructs the train of thought as follows (124-5).(1) The intellect stands to intelligibles the way sense stands to sensibles (intellect-sense analogy).(2) Sense is changed by sensibles.Therefore, the intellect is changed by intelligibles.Kamp proceeds to suggest (126) that Theophrastus attempted to avoid the conclusion by denying the first premise. According to Kamp, Theophrastus rejected the intellect-sense analogy by drawing attention to significant differences between (the activity of) the intellect and sense perception, one of these being that the intellect (in thinking) is changed only in a special sense, namely inasmuch as it undergoes a transition to activity, energeia. Kamp is right that the notion of a special kind of change that consists in a transition to activity is Aristotelian; it is presented in considerable detail in De Anima2.5 (417b2-16). But it would surely be puzzling if Theophrastus thought that one significant difference between (the activity of) the intellect and sense perception was that the intellect (in thinking) was changed in a special sense (whereas sense perception, to complete the... (shrink)

This monograph presents new material on Francisco Suárez’s comprehensive theory of sense perception. The core theme is perceptual intentionality in Suárez’s theory of the senses, external and internal, as presented in his Commentaria una cum quaestionibus in libros Aristotelis De anima published in 1621. The author targets the question of the multistage genesis of perceptual acts by considering the ontological “items” involved in the procession of sensory information. However, the structural issue is not left aside, and the nature of the (...) relationship due to which our perceptions are mental representations of this or that object is also considered. The heuristic historiographical background includes not only the theories of classical authors, such as Aristotle and Aquinas, but also those of late medieval authors of the fourteenth century. These are headed by John Duns Scotus, John of Jandun, Peter Auriol and Peter John Olivi. Readers will discover the differences between Suárez’s and Aquinas’s views, as well as other sources that may have served as positive inspiration for the Jesuit’s theory. By considering the late medieval philosophy of the fourteenth century, this book helps, to a certain extent, to fill a gap in the historiography of philosophy regarding the link between late medieval and early modern scholasticism. In the first part of the book, the metaphysics of the soul and powers is considered. Chapters on the external senses follow, covering topics such as the sensible species, the causes of sensation, self-awareness, and the ordering of the external senses. A further chapter is devoted to the internal senses and the author argues that by reducing the number and functional scope of the interior senses Suárez deepens the gap between the external senses and the intellect, but he reduces it through emphasizing the unifying efficacy of the soul.This book brings a synthetic and unifying perspective to contemporary research and will particularly appeal to graduate students and researchers in theology and philosophy, especially philosophy of mind. (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:“Garrulus sum et loquax et expedire nescio. Diu te tenui in istis, sed de cetero procedam.” These are the words of Richard Rufus of Cornwall, a thirteenth-century Scholastic and lecturer at the Universities of Paris and Oxford. Rufus is apologizing to his readers: “I am garrulous and loquacious, and I don’t know how to be efficient. I have detained you with these things a long while, but let me (...) now proceed to another topic.” This apology introduces the third part of the Speculum animae, a preliminary modern edition of which we publish here. In this short treatise, Rufus presents a unique Aristotelian theory of perception, describes what is and is not intelligible, and finally proves to his own satisfaction the immortality of the rational soul. To us this would hardly seem the place to apologize for being long-winded; indeed, we might wonder how Rufus could accomplish such an ambitious task in such a short treatise. We would certainly not accuse him of excessive verbosity. But Rufus was a man of exceptional humility, who once referred to himself as the least of the lesser thinkers of his time.1Despite Rufus’s humility, he was no minor figure in the development of Scholastic philosophy. A teacher at the Universities of Paris and Oxford ,2 he is the author of the earliest known, surviving lectures on several of Aristotle’s major texts, including the Metaphysics, the Physics, De generatione et corruptione, and De anima3 . In fact, Rufus was one of the very first lecturers to teach the libri naturales at Paris after a ban on such instruction was effectively lifted in 1231 A.D. His works were influential not only among his contemporaries, but also among later authors, particularly John Duns Scotus. Roger Bacon, though a harsh critic of Rufus, acknowledged Rufus’s influence and fame decades after his death, albeit among what Bacon termed the “vulgar multitude.”4The Speculum animae is one of Rufus’s later works. He begins the treatise by posing the following question: “In what way is the soul all things?” This refers, of course, to a familiar doctrine Aristotle establishes in the De anima—that the soul is, in some way, all things —and Rufus is here seeking to clarify it. But this is, in fact, only the first of five questions addressed in the Speculum. The five questions Rufus posits and answers in this treatise are, in order:1. In what manner is the soul all things?2. In what manner do a sensible and the sense, or an intelligible and the possible intellect, become one?3. What is predicated and of what is it predicated?4. What is intelligible?5. What is the cause of the immortality of the soul?In this short work, therefore, Rufus addresses apparently diverse topics including perception, understanding, logic, and the nature of the soul. But, in fact, the Speculum is principally a summary of Rufus’s theory of human perception and understanding. Like other medieval theories of perception and understanding, Rufus’s theory centers around the notion of species, a kind of form that is received in the soul when a person senses something or grasps something intellectually.5 In this, and in other aspects of the theory, Rufus was heavily dependent on Aristotle and St. Augustine. Rufus was working in a philosophical tradition based on Aristotle’s categories that had been accepted for centuries in the West. But in his lifetime, the Aristotelian corpus was enlarged to include Aristotle’s psychology and more generally his natural philosophy and metaphysics, together with the commentaries of Averroës . As is well known, this philosophical tradition was respected and continued not just by Rufus but by many authors after his time.So what makes Rufus’s theory.. (shrink)

Il s'agit du temoin le plus ancien d'un cours portant sur les livres II et III au complet du Traite de l'ame d'Aristote. Le cours, enseigne a la Faculte des Arts d'une Universite difficile a preciser (Paris?), est un exemple paradigmatique de la methode litterale (ce qui a permis de reconstituer la version de la Vetus utilisee par le maitre, que l'on pourra ajouter au dossier de l'Aristoteles Latinus) et un temoin precieux de la premiere reception d'Aristote. Le texte permet (...) de constater le retrait d'Avicenne et l'influence croissante d'Averroes (dont le role est cependant purement instrumental, subordonne a l'intelligence purement philosophique du texte d'Aristote). Aucune des grandes doctrines personnelles du commentateur n'est retenue par le maitre. Dans l'etude doctrinale du texte on met en valeur les points du commentaire (nature et puissances de l'ame, l'intellect et les modes de connaissance), et on offre un tableau des doctrines psychologiques professees par les maitres des arts avant 1250 : John Blund, Pierre d'Espagne et d'autres maitres anonymes (tableau complete par un apparat de sources tres riche). On critique la notion de premier Averroisme, car la notion de l'intellect agent comme puissance de l'ame semble etre une contribution proprement latine a l'exegese du De anima. Finalement, on prouve que saint Thomas a eu connaissance de ce commentaire anonyme et qu'il en depend dans sa propre lecture d'Aristote. Cela met en perspective l'originalite de saint Thomas et souligne la contribution des maitres des arts a l'histoire de l'Aristotelisme medieval. (shrink)

Le présent article vise à définir le rôle de l'imagination dans la philosophie aristotélicienne de l'action. Aristote dit souvent que les fins de l'action humaine sont déterminées par le désir, mais il fait aussi de l'intellect un facteur déterminant dans la production de l'action. Cette apparente incompatibilité est en grande partie réduite si l'on considère l'ensemble des facultés mentales qui interviennent dans la production de l'action et en particulier le rôle joué par les différentes formes d'imagination. This paper is (...) arguing that imagination plays an important role in Aristotle's philosophy of action. Aristotle often says that the ends of human action are determined by desire alone. But, on the other side, he gives intellect a real function in the production of actions. This apparent difficulty can be solved if we take into account the mental faculties, and especially the different forms of imagination, which play a part in the production of action. (shrink)

En plus de concevoir la vue et la pensée comme des processus empiriques capables de reproduire les caractéristiques des corps, Épicure reconnaît un processus psychophysique intermédiaire par le biais duquel les phantasiai ou représentations sont produites dans l’esprit et synthétisent les caractéristiques des objets sensibles. L’objectif de cet article est de monter qu’Épicure a retravaillé la doctrine de Démocrite dans cette direction, à la lumière de la critique aristotélicienne de certaines théories de la perception et de sa réflexion sur la (...) formation du phantasma. Nous étudions le processus physiologique à l’origine de la phantasia chez Épicure, et nous montrons son lien avec le processus psychophysique adopté par Aristote pour expliquer la représentation. (shrink)

In De Anima I 4, Aristotle describes the intellect (nous) as a sort of substance, separate and incorruptible. Myles Burnyeat and Lloyd Gerson take this as proof that, for Aristotle, the intellect is a separate eternal entity, not a power belonging to individual humans. Against this reading, I show that this passage does not express Aristotle’s own views, but dialectically examines a reputable position (endoxon) about the intellect that seems to show that it can be subject to (...) change. The passage’s argument for the indestructibility of intellect via an analogy to perception does not fit with Aristotle’s own views. Aristotle thinks that perception operates via bodily organs, but denies this of understanding. He also requires separability from the body for indestructibility, something this analogy rules out. However, Aristotle’s Platonist interlocutors may well endorse such an argument. My dialectical interpretation best resolves the interpretative difficulties and explains its place in the larger context, Aristotle’s discussion of Platonist views on the soul. Aristotle presents a challenge to his insistence that the soul is subject to change, dialectically resolves that challenge, and then ends by reserving the right to give a different account of the intellect. (shrink)

Est-il vrai que la notion chrétienne de création soit une notion complètement nouvelle par rapport à la philosophie grecque ? Telle est la question qu'on se pose dans l'article ci-dessus. Si d'habitude on est incliné à répondre à cette question par l'affirmative, c'est en admettant que, assez généralement, la philosophie grecque connaît l'idée d'une matière préexistante. C'est ainsi que les apologètes grecs du deuxième siècle, tels qu'Aristide et Théophile d'Antioche, se sont opposés à la philosophie grecque et spécialement à la (...) doctrine de Platon telle qu'ils l'ont comprise. L'auteur essaie de démontrer que, en fait, Platon n'a pas admis une matière préexistante dans le sens voulu par ses adversaires. Il n'a ni enseigné que les éléments préexistassent à l'œuvre créatrice du Démiurge , ni introduit sa notion d' espace dans le sens de matière, telle qu'Aristote, suivant sa propre terminologie, a voulu l'expliquer. C'est donc une erreur de dire que Platon ait admis une matière qui soit « coéternelle » et « du même âge », donc du même ordre que Dieu. Pour Platon, et pour Aristote également, le principe non déterminé ne saurait, comme tel, être du même orde que le premier Principe de l'être qui est comme tel un principe déterminant et déterminé. C'e'st une erreur, encore, de dire que, sur ce point comme sur beaucoup d'autres, Aristote était plus près de la vérité, donc du Christianisme, que Platon, le « Démiurge » du dernier n'étant pas une cause totale, tandis que le Premier Moteur d'Aristote était, dans un sens, vraiment une cause totale. Ce qui se voit clairement chez Platon, non seulement dans le Timée, mais aussi dans la République et dans le Philète , c'est qu'il est constamment et profondément préoccupé de fonder l'existence relative dans l'Existence absolue. Il a reconnu le rapport entre le monde visible et le Monde transcendant comme une relation de dépendance totale et essentielle. Or, si, dans son essence, la notion chrétienne de création n'est autre chose qu'une telle relation de dépendance, Platon, qui a fait de cette notion la base de toute sa philosophie, était par là-même près de la foi chrétienne. Aristote, d'autre part, bien qu'il ait dit une fois au moins que de son premier Principe tout l'univers dépend, a minimisé en fait le rapport entre le premier Principe et notre monde. Dans la notion chrétienne de création deux éléments se dissinguent : L'Etre Absolu, dont sort tout ce qui est relatif, se distingue dans son essence de tout ce qui n'est pas Lui. Le mode selon lequel l'être relatif sort de l'Absolu n'est pas celui d'une nécessité de nature, mais d'un acte de volonté. En partant de cette analyse, on peut déterminer exactement les degrés de différence ou d'affinité entre la notion chrétienne de création et les différents systèmes de philosophie grecque. En rapport avec la Stoa, la différence est dans la notion de Dieu : ne reconnaissant pas sa transcendance, on méconnaît l'opposition entre l'Absolu et l'être relatif. Quant à Aristote, il n'explique aucunement comment l'être relatif provient de l'Absolu : son premier Moteur n'est pas la cause de l'être, et les « formes » immanentes des objets naturels restent chez lui sans aucune explication. Sans doute, Platon explique davantage. Il est suivi par les Néoplatoniciens qui font provenir l'être relatif de l'Absolu, tout en connaissant une différence essentielle entre l'un et l'autre, mais n'admettant point d'acte de volonté de la part de l'Absolu. Platon qui, probablement, admettait un acte de volonté, se trouvait par là-même le plus près de la notion chrétienne de création. Il en différait, cependant, sur quelques points importants. Il n'enseigne qu'en partie une création directe : c'est que le Nous transcendant qui est le Démiurge, constitue des éléments le monde visible ; ces éléments, il ne les a pas trouvés comme tels, mais il les a faits de — « quelque chose » qu'on n'a pas le droit de nommre une chose. Il « fait » donc le monde dans son aspect intelligible. Mais il reste un aspect qui échappe à la pensée et qui, comme tel, ne saurait provenir du Principe Suprême qui domine la hiérarchie platonicienne de l'être. Ensuite, le Nous transcendant fait les âmes : l'âme du monde, les astres , les âmes humaines. Il ne fait ni les corps humains ni les êtres vivants d'un ordre inférieur à l'homme. Ceux-là, ils sont tous créés par les « dieux créés » et secondaires qui sont les Astres. Pour Platon, l'Esprit transcendant qui crée le monde n'est pas le Principe suprême. Il se trouve d'après ce qu'il paraît, à un degré plus bas dans la hiérarchie de l'être. Ce seront les penseurs chrétiens, ce sera tout d'abord Saint Athanase qui, en unifiant essentiellement le Père et son Logos, a réuni l'Un et le Nous transcendant qui est le Démiurge de Platon. Au lieu d'opposer au Platonisme la doctrine qu'il n'y a pas de matière préexistante, Dieu ayant « concréé » la matière, nous préférons de dire : Platon a éloigné la notion d'infini et d'indétermination de son principe suprême ; donc, il en a fait un autre principe, jamais du même ordre que l'Un, mais tout de même un principe fondamental. La notion chrétienne de Dieu, d'autre part, renferme et le caractère de l'Un et celui de l'Infini. (shrink)

Le XI.ème Congrès International de Philosophie Médiévale de la Société Internationale pour l’Étude de la Philosophie Médiévale (S.I.E.P.M..) s’est déroulé à Porto (Portugal), du 26 au 30 août 2002, sous le thème général: Intellect et Imagination dans la Philosophie Médiévale. A partir des héritages platonicien, aristotélicien, stoïcien, ou néo-platonicien (dans leurs variantes grecques, latines, arabes, juives), la conceptualisation et la problématisation de l’imagination et de l’intellect, ou même des facultés de l’âme en général, apparaissaient comme une ouverture possible (...) pour aborder les principaux points de la pensée médiévale. Les Actes du congrès montrent que « imagination » et « intellect » sont porteurs d’une richesse philosophique extraordinaire dans l’économie de la philosophie médiévale et de la constitution de ses spécificités historiques. Dans sa signification la plus large, la théorisation de ces deux facultés de l’âme permet de dédoubler le débat en au moins six grands domaines: — la relation avec le sensible, où la fantaisie/l’imagination joue le rôle de médiation dans la perception du monde et dans la constitution de la connaissance ; — la réflexion sur l’acte de connaître et la découverte de soi en tant que sujet de pensée ; — la position dans la nature, dans le cosmos, et dans le temps de celui qui pense et qui connaît par les sens externes, internes et par l’intellect ; — la recherche d’un fondement pour la connaissance et l’action, par la possibilité du dépassement de la distante proximité du transcendant, de l’absolu, de la vérité et du bien ; — la réalisation de la félicité en tant qu’objectif ultime, de même que la découverte d’une tendance au dépassement actif ou mystique de toutes les limites naturelles et des facultés de l’âme ; — la constitution de théories de l’image, sensible ou intellectuelle, et de ses fonctions. Les 3 volumes d’Actes incluent les 16 leçons plénières et 112 communications, ainsi que les index correspondants (manuscrits ; noms anciens et médiévaux ; noms modernes ; auteurs). Le volume IV des Actes, contenant 39 communications et des index, est publié par la revue " Mediaevalia. Textos e Estudos ", du Gabinete de Filosofia Medieval de l’Universidade do Porto (volume 23, de 2004). Ouvrage publié avec l’appui de l’Universidade do Porto, de la Faculdade de Letras da U.P., du Departamento de Filosofia - F.L.U.P. et de la Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia (Portugal). (shrink)

Para elaborar sua profetologia, Maimônides retoma conceitos relativos às teorias do intelecto de Al-Fārābī e de Avicena, que, por sua vez, se baseiam nas noções sobre a alma de Aristóteles. Dessa perspectiva, a Revelação divina deve ser considerada um fato natural inserido na totalidade da natureza criada por Deus. Compreender a Revelação significa, portanto, compreendê-la a partir do homem, uma vez que o profeta, apesar de se tratar de alguém que se destaca do conjunto da humanidade, é sempre um ser (...) humano, possuidor de uma natureza humana. Desse modo, a doutrina da profecia – central no "Guia dos Perplexos" ‒ é elaborada a partir da natureza humana à luz da filosofia racional greco-árabe. Os falāsifa – filósofos muçulmanos helenizantes – já ensinavam que a profecia é possível graças a certa perfeição da natureza humana . Esse ensinamento está fundamentado na teoria do intelecto apresentada por Aristóteles em "De Anima" III, 5, 430a 10 et seq. Contudo, para os filósofos de expressão árabe , a profecia é resultante de certas condições físicas e psíquicas determinadas pelo fluxo necessário das emanações, cuja teoria deriva da "Teologia Pseudo-Aristotélica", um tratado neoplatônico atribuído ao Estagirita que, durante a Idade Média, circulou amplamente nos ambientes filosóficos tanto dos judeus quanto dos muçulmanos. Na cosmovisão neoplatônica adotada por eles, o intelecto do profeta reflete a luz e o conhecimento divino derramado pelo fluxo emanatório do Ser primeiro no mundo celeste, composto pelas dez inteligências separadas, suas almas e esferas. No processo emanatório, a faculdade da imaginação do profeta recebe da última inteligência, o Intelecto Agente, as verdades dos preceitos positivos e culturais da religião, que a imaginação transforma em alegorias e símbolos a serem transmitidos para a humanidade. Maimônides faz da imaginação a pedra de toque de sua profetologia. To elaborate his prophetology, Maimonides uses concepts relating to Al-Fārābī and Avicenna's theories of the intellect which, in turn, are based on Aristotle's notions of the soul. Within this perspective, divine Revelation should be considered a natural fact within the totality of nature created by God. Understanding Revelation therefore means understanding it from a human standpoint, since the prophet ‒ despite being a figure who is set apart from the rest of humanity – is always a human being, with a human nature. Thus, the doctrine of prophecy ‒ central to "The Guide of the Perplexed" ‒ is elaborated based on human nature in light of the rational Greco-Arabic philosophy. The falāsifa – the Hellenizing Muslim philosophers – taught that prophecy is possible thanks to certain perfection of the human nature . This teaching is based on the theory of the intellect, as presented by Aristotle in "De Anima" III, 5, 430a 10 et seq. Therefore, for the philosophers of Arabic expression , prophecy is the result of certain physical and psychic conditions determined by the necessary flow of emanations, whose theory is derived from the "Pseudo-Aristotelian Theology", a Neoplatonic treatise attributed to the Stagyrite which, in the Middle Age, widely circulated in the philosophical milieu, among both Jewish and Muslim. In the Neoplatonic cosmic vision which they adopted, the prophet's intellect reflects the divine light and knowledge overflowing from the emanatory flow from the first Being in the celestial world, which is composed of the ten separate intelligences, their souls and their spheres. In the emanatory process, the prophet's faculty of imagination receives from the ultimate intelligence, the Active Intellect, the truths of the positive and cultural precepts of religion, which the imagination transforms into allegories and symbols to be transmitted to humanity. Maimonides makes the imagination the cornerstone of his prophetology. (shrink)

It is now common to explain some of incidental perception’s features by means of a different capacity, called phantasia. Phantasia, usually translated as ‘imagination,’ is thought to explain how incidental perception can be false and representational by being a constitutive part of perception. Through a close reading of De Anima 3.3, 428b10–29a9, I argue against this and for perception first: phantasia is always a product of perception, from which it initially inherits all its characteristics. No feature of (...) perception is explained directly by phantasia, and phantasia is never a part of perception. Phantasia is not imagination or representation, as many have thought, but perception-like appearance. Aristotle thus recognizes alongside three different types of perception three different types of perception-like appearance. (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Aristotle’s Phantasia in the Rhetoric:Lexis, Appearance, and the Epideictic Function of DiscourseNed O’GormanIntroductionThe well-known opening line of Aristotle's Rhetoric, where he defines rhetoric as a "counterpart" (antistrophos) to dialectic, has spurred many conversations on Aristotelian rhetoric and motivated the widespread interpretation of Aristotle's theory of civic discourse as heavily rationalistic. This study starts from a statement in the Rhetoric less discussed, yet still important, that suggests that a (...) visual aspect inheres in Aristotle's theory of rhetoric. Near the beginning of book 3, which deals with lexis (style, sometimes subsuming delivery1 ), Aristotle conjoins lexis and phantasia with the copula "is" (eimi): "The subject of expression [lexeôs], however, has some small necessary place in all teaching; for to speak in one way rather than another does make some difference in regard to clarity, though not a great difference; but all these things are forms of outward show [phantasia] and intended to affect the audience" (1404a).2 Whereas scholars exploring the relationship between rhetoric and dialectic have compared and contrasted the Rhetoric and the Topics, I explore rhetoric's relationship with phantasia by reading the Rhetoric alongside De Anima. De Anima is Aristotle's seminal account of the senses and their relationship to psychê (often translated "soul"). It addresses topics intimately connected to rhetoric: perception, cognition, deliberation, visualization, imagination, and the image. Phantasia is integral to each of these psychic processes and to Aristotle's understanding of the function of appearance in human experience. Hence, itis a lens suitable for exploring the relationship between Aristotle's conception of civic discourse and his notions of sight and appearances as they relate to perception, interpretation, deliberation, and judgment. I find in Aristotle's phantasia a tie between his art of rhetoric and his psychology and phenomenology (anachronistic though these terms are). Aristotle's psychological works, as Richard McKeon points out, are foundational to Aristotle's philosophy, and thus to his Rhetoric. [End Page 16] "Psychological inquiries occupy an extremely important position in the philosophy of Aristotle, for the conception of the psychê lays the foundation for the continuity of functions in nature" (1947, 142). De Anima, especially, articulates the psychological and phenomenological conceptions often tacitly at work in the Rhetoric.The importance of phantasia for the trajectory of ancient rhetorical and aesthetic theory is seen in the parallels between the visual arts, rhetoric, and poetics in Greek and Roman thought.3 As David Freedberg states (perhaps, slightly overstates), parallels between painting and poetry are "to be found everywhere in classical literature" (1989, 50). With respect to such visual-verbal parallels in Aristotle, D. Thomas Benediktson's reading of Aristotle's psychological, poetic, and rhetorical works concludes that phantasia ties together the visual and the literary. "[Aristotle's passages on phantasia] do help to see why Aristotle took for granted the similarity, almost the identity, of literature and the visual arts. Both types of art are imagistic; they present to the viewer either an image, as in visual art, or as in literature, a set of moving images that the soul then uses as raw data (phantasia) to enable thought to occur" (2000, 170). Phantasia developed a legacy in Hellenistic aesthetics, where it came to designate suprarealism in painting, moving art "beyond imitation" (Fowler 1989, 180–81). In later Greco-Roman works, phantasia was used to designate vivid imagery in written and oral discourse, imagery that could create sights and scenes in the minds of audience members. As Quintilian noted in his discussion of forensic rhetoric, in Latin phantasiai were termed visiones. Here, phantasiabecame a mode of displacing narrative in rhetorical discourse:There are certain experiences which the Greeks call phantasiai, and the Romans visions [visiones], whereby things absent are presented to our imagination with such extreme vividness that they seem actually to be before our very eyes.... From such impressions arises that enargeia which Cicero calls illumination [illustration] and actuality [evidential], which makes us seem not so much to narrate [dicere] as to exhibit [ostendere] the actual scene.(Institutio Oratoria 4.2.29, 32)Quintilian's invocations of phantasia and enargeia can be traced to Aristotle's discussion of rhetorical style in book... (shrink)

Le lecteur attentif du traité De l'âme et des Parva naturalia sera troublé par une ambiguïté profonde sous-jacente à toute la longue discussion de la perception dans ces œuvres. Il s'agit de savoir si la théorie d'Aristote se veut une théorie d'ordre physiologique prise au sens littéral, ou si elle se veut plutôt une théorie métaphysique, qui doit donc être prise au sens métaphorique. La doctrine en question se résume comme suit: un sens, en percevant, reçoit en lui-même la forme (...) de l'objet perçu sans la matière. Selon l'interprétation physiologique, il faudrait entendre par là que lorsqu'un homme regarde, sent, et écoute un âne, par exemple, il y aurait dans un endroit près de son cœur – dans l'organe central de la perception – une petite poupée d'âne qui braie et qui pue. Cette poupée serait reconstruite dans l'organe central à partir des composants sensoriels qui y seraient amenés des organes spéciaux: de l'œil la forme et la couleur, de l'organe olfactif l'odeur, et, de l'oreille le son. Un chirurgien qui ouvrirait la poitrine de l'homme percevant y verrait la poupée, la sentirait, et l'entendrait. La poupée serait comme celle de la princesse Leia dans le film Star Wars, à cette différence qu'elle jouirait non seulement de propriétés visuelles et auditives, mais aussi de propriétés olfactives et tactiles. (shrink)

This is a close scrutiny of De Anima II 5, led by two questions. First, what can be learned from so long and intricate a discussion about the neglected problem of how to read an Aristotelian chapter? Second, what can the chapter, properly read, teach us about some widely debated issues in Aristotle's theory of perception? I argue that it refutes two claims defended by Martha Nussbaum, Hilary Putnam, and Richard Sorabji: that when Aristotle speaks of the perceiver becoming like (...) the object perceived, the assimilation he has in mind is ordinary alteration of the type exemplified when fire heats the surrounding air, that this alteration stands to perceptual awareness as matter to form. Claim is wrong because the assimilation that perceiving is is not ordinary alteration. Claim is wrong because the special type of alteration that perceiving is is not its underlying material realisation. Indeed, there is no mention in the text of any underlying material realisation for perceiving. The positive aim of II 5 is to introduce the distinction between first and second potentiality, each with their own type of actuality. In both cases the actuality is an alteration different from ordinary alteration. Perception exemplifies one of these new types of alteration, another is found in the acquisition of knowledge and in an embryo's first acquisition of the power of perception. The introduction of suitably refined meanings of 'alteration' allows Aristotle to explain perception and learning within the framework of his physics, which by definition is the study of things that change. He adapts his standard notion of alteration, familiar from Physics III 1-3 and De Generatione et Corruptione I, to the task of accounting for the cognitive accuracy of perception and second potentiality knowledge: both are achievements of a natural, inborn receptivity to objective truth. Throughout the paper I pay special attention to issues of text and translation, and to Aristotle's cross-referencing, and I emphasise what the chapter does not say as well as what it does. In particular, the last section argues that the textual absence of any underlying material realisation for perceiving supports a view I have defended elsewhere, that Aristotelian perception involves no material processes, only standing material conditions. This absence is as telling as others noted earlier. Our reading must respect the spirit of the text as Aristotle wrote it. (shrink)

This is a close scrutiny of "De Anima II 5", led by two questions. First, what can be learned from so long and intricate a discussion about the neglected problem of how to read an Aristotelian chapter? Second, what can the chapter, properly read, teach us about some widely debated issues in Aristotle's theory of perception? I argue that it refutes two claims defended by Martha Nussbaum, Hilary Putnam, and Richard Sorabji: (i) that when Aristotle speaks of the perceiver becoming (...) like the object perceived, the assimilation he has in mind is ordinary alteration of the type exemplified when fire heats the surrounding air, (ii) that this alteration stands to perceptual awareness as matter to form. Claim (i) is wrong because the assimilation that perceiving is is not ordinary alteration. Claim (ii) is wrong because the special type of alteration that perceiving is is not its underlying material realisation. Indeed, there is no mention in the text of any underlying material realisation for perceiving. The positive aim of II 5 is to introduce the distinction between first and second potentiality, each with their own type of actuality. In both cases the actuality is an alteration different from ordinary alteration. Perception exemplifies one of these new types of alteration, another is found in the acquisition of knowledge and in an embryo's first acquisition of the power of perception. The introduction of suitably refined meanings of 'alteration' allows Aristotle to explain perception and learning within the framework of his physics, which by definition is the study of things that change. He adapts his standard notion of alteration, familiar from "Physics" III 1-3 and "De Generatione et Corruptione" I, to the task of accounting for the cognitive accuracy of (proper object) perception and second potentiality knowledge: both are achievements of a natural, inborn receptivity to objective truth. Throughout the paper I pay special attention to issues of text and translation, and to Aristotle's cross-referencing, and I emphasise what the chapter does not say as well as what it does. In particular, the last section argues that the textual absence of any underlying material realisation for perceiving supports a view I have defended elsewhere, that Aristotelian perception involves no material processes, only standing material conditions. This absence is as telling as others noted earlier. Our reading must respect the spirit of the text as Aristotle wrote it. (shrink)

Christopher Shields presents a new translation and commentary of Aristotle's De Anima, a work of interest to philosophers at all levels, as well as psychologists and students interested in the nature of life and living systems. The volume provides a full translation of the complete work, together with a comprehensive commentary. While sensitive to philological and textual matters, the commentary addresses itself to the philosophical reader who wishes to understand and assess Aristotle's accounts of the soul and body; perception; thinking; (...) action; and the character of living systems. It aims to present controversial aspects of the text in a neutral, fair-minded manner, so that readers can come to be equipped to form their own judgments. (shrink)

With regard to the importance and position of phone for thought and language in Aristotle, and his brief account of it in Περὶ Ψυχῆς / De Anima, here I am going to paraphrase his brief mentioning in the chapter eight of the second book of the mentioned treatise. When we read the pertinent section of 4201b - 421a, we see that Aristotle examines it in connection with “hearing” as a sense that is embedded in his wide discussion about “soul”. But (...) when we go into details under this general topic, we see that phone definition is connected with three concepts such as sound, phantasia and semantic. In other words, Aristotle considers human phone in a unit that consists of “hearing, sound, phantasia and semantic” and all of these within a broader specific discussion about human “soul” denotes to the texture and nature of his account. (shrink)

Aristotle's philosophy of mind has recently attracted renewed attention and respect from philosophers. This volume brings together outstanding new essays on De Anima by a distinguished international group of contributors including, in this paperback efdition, a new essay by Myles Burnyeat. The essays form a running commentary on the work, covering such topics as the relation between body and soul, sense-perception, imagination, memory, desire, and thought. the authors, writing with philosophical subtlety and wide-ranging scholarship, present the philosophical substance of Aristotle's (...) views to the modern reader. they locate their interpretations firmly within the context of Aristotle's thought as a whole. (shrink)

La nature du projet de Danielle Lories est exposée clairement dans les premières pages de l’ouvrage. L’auteure situe les origines de son entreprise dans la volonté d’affronter la difficulté que présente la notion de «sens commun», aux paragraphes 18, 22 et 40 de la Critique de la faculté de juger de Kant, mais aussi le propos de Hannah Arendt tiré de «La crise de la culture» qu’elle cite en page 2, sur la jonction des sens communs kantien et aristotélicien. Ce (...) qui préoccupe essentiellement l’auteure, dans la pers-pective d’une pensée de la «spécificité du jugement praxique», est ici la façon dont s’articulent le sens commun en tant qu’unification de l’expérience sensorielle par-delà la diversité des cinq sens, et le sens communautaire en vertu duquel nous communions dans une même appréhension du réel, la constitution d’un rapport au réel étant d’abord affaire de sens: «Chez Arendt, tout se passe comme si le partage des choses perçues avec autrui et donc leur réalité “objective” était le prolongement naturel du partage d’une même chose perçue par nos divers sens». En arrière-plan de l’entreprise figure un intérêt pour les rapports entre jugements pratique et esthétique. L’auteure se trouve amenée à traiter d’Aristote, et entend montrer que si chez lui le sens commun du De anima et des Parva naturalia est bien un sens global du réel, il n’a guère encore cette dimension communautaire que présente en revanche la φρόνησισ, «excellence du jugement pratique et excellence politique», laquelle φρόνησισ se trouve en continuité avec la discrimination perceptive unitaire, dans la mesure où pour l’une comme pour l’autre, l’objet est le particulier du monde réel perçu. Danielle Lories est également conduite à examiner si, entre le livre VI de l’Éthique à Nicomaque, d’une part, et la Critique de la faculté de juger d’autre part, il n’y a «rien qui vaille mention». Ayant travaillé sur Shaftesbury, un des pères britanniques de la philosophie du sens commun, sous l’espèce notamment du sens moral, par ailleurs précurseur du désintéressement esthétique kantien, et enfin lecteur d’Épictète, l’auteure se trouve orientée dans la direction de sa source stoïcienne. De là cette fois, malgré l’obstacle apparent que constitue le fait pour le stoïcisme de s’apparenter davantage au platonisme qu’à l’aristotélisme en concevant la φρόνησισ comme une science et en l’identifiant à la σοφία, tout en faisant en outre à peu près silence sur l’αἴσθησισ κοινή, l’idée d’«étudier l’éventuel apport du stoïcisme — ancien — à l’analyse du jugement pratique — celui du phronimos au sens où l’entendait Aristote», la thèse étant que la marque du stoïcisme dans l’histoire de la pensée occidentale du jugement pratique «consiste à faire converger dans ce jugement plusieurs formes de “sens commun” dont certaines sont dérivées de l’aisthèsis koinè ou encore de la phronèsis aristotéliciennes». (shrink)

Phantasia is viewed as a unified concept in Aristotle. When the metaphoric meaning of ‘phantisizing’ is excluded, the causal account for all imagination is the same: all phantasiai are motions in the soul caused by sense-perceptions. These are sensory images or imprints that can exist independently from their original source. Their history may be different, and their character and value may vary. Aristotle’s insistence on their sensory nature indicates that he saw them as a unitary phenomenon in the soul, (...) as sensory appearances. (shrink)

Christopher Shields presents a new translation and commentary of Aristotle's De Anima, a work of interest to philosophers at all levels, as well as psychologists and students interested in the nature of life and living systems. The volume provides a full translation of the complete work, together with a comprehensive commentary. While sensitive to philological and textual matters, the commentary addresses itself to the philosophical reader who wishes to understand and assess Aristotle's accounts of the soul and body; perception; thinking; (...) action; and the character of living systems. It aims to present controversial aspects of the text in a neutral, fair-minded manner, so that readers can come to be equipped to form their own judgments. (shrink)

Aristotle, De Anima: Translation, Introduction, and Commentary. By Shields Christopher.

I lay out and examine two sharply conflicting interpretations of Aristotle's claims about nous in the De Anima (DA). On the human separability approach, Aristotle is taken to have identified reasons for thinking that the intellect can, in some way, exist on its own. On the naturalist approach, the soul, including intellectual soul, is inseparable from the body of which it is the form. I discuss how proponents of each approach deal with the key texts from the DA, focusing (...) on four of the most important and interesting topics in this area. Two of these topics concern the activity of understanding (noêsis): first, what does Aristotle mean when he claims that the intellect cannot have a bodily organ and, secondly, what role does Aristotle think phantasmata (“images” or “representations”) play in understanding something? Two of the topics concern DA 3.5, one of the most difficult passages in Aristotle's corpus: first, what is the nature and role of the productive intellect (nous poiêtikos) introduced there and, secondly, what are this chapter's implications for the question of whether the intellect or intellectual soul can exist apart from the body? I conclude by identifying areas where further research is necessary. (shrink)

This new translation of Thomas Aquinas’s most important study of Aristotle casts bright light on the thinking of both philosophers. Using a new text of Aquinas’s original Latin commentary, Robert Pasnau provides a precise translation that will enable students to undertake close philosophical readings. He includes an introduction and notes to set context and clarify difficult points as well as a translation of the medieval Latin version of Aristotle’s _De anima _ so that readers can refer to the text Aquinas (...) had at hand. In his _De anima commentary_, Aquinas offers the first and most original of his studies of Aristotle. His influential, cogent reading of Aristotle’s notoriously difficult text not only contributes to our understanding of the Greek philosopher but also expresses in full detail Aquinas’s own views on central philosophical topics. Writing at the height of his intellectual powers, Aquinas considers in full detail the nature of the soul, the mind-body problem, the role of the intellect, the character of sensation, and many other related issues. (shrink)

Born in 1126 to a family of Maliki legal scholars, Ibn Rushd, known as Averroes, enjoyed a long career in religious jurisprudence at Seville and Cordoba while at the same time advancing his philosophical studies of the works of Aristotle. This translation of Averroes’ Long Commentary on Aristotle’s _De Anima_ brings to English-language readers the complete text of this influential work of medieval philosophy. Richard C. Taylor provides rich notes on the Long Commentary and a generous introduction that discusses Averroes’ (...) most mature reflections on Aristotle’s teachings as well as Averroes' comprehensive philosophical views on soul and intellect. It is only in the Long Commentary that Averroes finally resolves to his satisfaction the much vexed issue of the nature of intellect, Taylor shows. (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Reviewed by:Human Nature in Early Franciscan Thought: Philosophical Background and Theological Significance by Lydia SCHUMACHERJohn Marshall DiamondSCHUMACHER, Lydia. Human Nature in Early Franciscan Thought: Philosophical Background and Theological Significance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2023. xiv + 343 pp. Cloth, $120.00Lydia Schumacher’s recent work, Human Nature in Early Franciscan Thought: Philosophical Background and Theological Significance, is a welcome contribution to the study of the development of scholastic thought on the (...) subject of human nature. Schumacher’s work explores the various facets of theological anthropology in the first half of the thirteenth century by focusing primarily on scholars belonging to the Franciscan Order such as Philip the Chancellor, Alexander of Hales, and William of Auvergne, as well as early Dominican scholars such as Roland of Cremona and Hugh of St. Cher. Of central focus in the study is John of La Rochelle, whom the author notes “was the only member of his generation to deal robustly and comprehensively” with not only traditional questions on the soul but also matters of philosophy that had previously been considered beyond the purview of the theologian, topics that included the processes of the body and the psychological makeup of the human being. In addition, John was among the first to embrace the newly translated Arabic sources into his work, most notably the writings of Avicenna.The work is divided into eleven chapters, the first four of which provide a theological background on various authors and their views on the relation between the body and soul and the powers of the soul. The fifth and sixth chapters focus on two works of John of La Rochelle, the Tractatus and the Summa de anima, followed by a study of the reception of Averroes in the first half of the thirteenth century. The work concludes with chapters on the cognitive powers, the affections, free choice, and angels. Schumacher’s study is thorough, providing robust examinations of the individuals and topics, even those who are not central to the study, such as Roland of Cremona and Guerric of St. Quentin. [End Page 161]The book is well written and clearly elucidates the complex schemas of the topics at hand, particularly the nature of the intellect. This is particularly evident in the middle chapters, which examine the ideas of John of La Rochelle, in whose works one finds a multifaceted account of the human intellect. In addition, Schumacher notes an interesting facet of John’s view of cognition, according to which “the mind ‘predetermines’ or influences its understanding of the world.” Thus John’s theory of the act of human rationality, as Schumacher summarizes it, is “arguably achieved at the level of perception, and perception, in turn, is permeated and guided by reason’s quest to know the ‘thing in itself’ apart from matter.” John’s view is then briefly compared to that of William of Auvergne, who argued that perception is “virtually irrelevant” for human understanding. This comparison underscores the rifts that took place during the development of early thirteenth-century thought regarding the nature and function of the intellect as it underwent a profound change from traditionally Augustinian ideas to attempts to reconcile the former with the ideas found in the newly available works of Aristotle and his Arab commentators, namely, Avicenna.The only criticism one might have is that, at times, the chapters seem out of order. For example, after the two chapters that deal extensively with the works of John of La Rochelle, the following chapter is “The Reception of Averroes in Early Scholasticism,” which examines the possible sources “of the three-fold intellectual schema” that is found in John of La Rochelle’s works. Possible sources include not only Averroes but also Aristotle and Alexander of Aphrodisias, as well as two anonymous works that John knew and utilized. The chapter itself is presented effectively but makes the work feel somewhat disjointed. On occasion, readers might also find themselves wondering if Schumacher uses John of La Rochelle as a primary example of Franciscan thought in the early thirteenth century, or if the book is indeed about him, and the other figures are considered only to better explain John’s preceding and current... (shrink)

Ce texte examine l’affirmation d’Aristote qui se trouve dans les Seconds Analytiques II 19, que la perception porte sur l’universel. L’examen s’effectuera par le biais du De Anima II 6 et III 6-8 où Aristote décrit les objets de la perception et de l’intellect. L’auteur soutient que selon Aristote, la perception humaine porte toujours sur l’universel contenu dans le particulier parce que l’unité de la substance individuelle est garante de l’unité de l’acte de perception. Par conséquent, l’analyse en termes (...) de trois objets de perception n’est que le résultat de la méthode analytique qu’Aristote emploie afin d’étudier l’acte de perception. (shrink)