|
Objection 1: It would seem that the intellectual virtues do not
remain after this life. For the Apostle says (1 Cor.
13:8,9) that "knowledge shall be destroyed," and he states the
reason to be because "we know in part." Now just as the knowledge of
science is in part, i.e. imperfect; so also is the knowledge of the
other intellectual virtues, as long as this life lasts. Therefore all
the intellectual virtues will cease after this life.
Objection 2: Further, the Philosopher says (Categor. vi) that
since science is a habit, it is a quality difficult to remove: for it
is not easily lost, except by reason of some great change or sickness.
But no bodily change is so great as that of death. Therefore science
and the other intellectual virtues do not remain after death.
Objection 3: Further, the intellectual virtues perfect the
intellect so that it may perform its proper act well. Now there seems
to be no act of the intellect after this life, since "the soul
understands nothing without a phantasm" (De Anima iii, text.
30); and, after this life, the phantasms do not remain, since
their only subject is an organ of the body. Therefore the intellectual
virtues do not remain after this life.
On the contrary, The knowledge of what is universal and necessary is
more constant than that of particular and contingent things. Now the
knowledge of contingent particulars remains in man after this life; for
instance, the knowledge of what one has done or suffered, according to
Lk. 16:25: "Son, remember that thou didst receive good things
in thy life-time, and likewise Lazarus evil things." Much more,
therefore, does the knowledge of universal and necessary things
remain, which belong to science and the other intellectual virtues.
I answer that, As stated in the FP, Question 79, Article 6,
some have held that the intelligible species do not remain in the
passive intellect except when it actually understands; and that so long
as actual consideration ceases, the species are not preserved save in
the sensitive powers which are acts of bodily organs, viz. in the
powers of imagination and memory. Now these powers cease when the body
is corrupted: and consequently, according to this opinion, neither
science nor any other intellectual virtue will remain after this life
when once the body is corrupted.
But this opinion is contrary to the mind of Aristotle, who states
(De Anima iii, text. 8) that "the possible intellect is in act
when it is identified with each thing as knowing it; and yet, even
then, it is in potentiality to consider it actually." It is also
contrary to reason, because intelligible species are contained by the
"possible" intellect immovably, according to the mode of their
container. Hence the "possible" intellect is called "the abode of
the species" (De Anima iii) because it preserves the intelligible
species.
And yet the phantasms, by turning to which man understands in this
life, by applying the intelligible species to them as stated in the
FP, Question 84, Article 7; FP, Question 85, Article
1, ad 5, cease as soon as the body is corrupted. Hence, so far as
the phantasms are concerned, which are the quasi-material element in
the intellectual virtues, these latter cease when the body is
destroyed: but as regards the intelligible species, which are in the
"possible" intellect, the intellectual virtues remain. Now the
species are the quasi-formal element of the intellectual virtues.
Therefore these remain after this life, as regards their formal
element, just as we have stated concerning the moral virtues (Article
1).
Reply to Objection 1: The saying of the Apostle is to be
understood as referring to the material element in science, and to the
mode of understanding; because, to it, neither do the phantasms
remain, when the body is destroyed; nor will science be applied by
turning to the phantasms.
Reply to Objection 2: Sickness destroys the habit of science as to
its material element, viz. the phantasms, but not as to the
intelligible species, which are in the "possible" intellect.
Reply to Objection 3: As stated in the FP, Question 89,
Article 1, the separated soul has a mode of understanding, other
than by turning to the phantasms. Consequently science remains, yet
not as to the same mode of operation; as we have stated concerning the
moral virtues (Article 1).
|
|