|
Objection 1: It would seem that the angels understand by composing
and dividing. For, where there is multiplicity of things understood,
there is composition of the same, as is said in De Anima iii, text.
21. But there is a multitude of things understood in the angelic
mind; because angels apprehend different things by various species,
and not all at one time. Therefore there is composition and division
in the angel's mind.
Objection 2: Further, negation is far more remote from affirmation
than any two opposite natures are; because the first of distinctions is
that of affirmation and negation. But the angel knows certain distant
natures not by one, but by diverse species, as is evident from what
was said (Article 2). Therefore he must know affirmation and
negation by diverse species. And so it seems that he understands by
composing and dividing.
Objection 3: Further, speech is a sign of the intellect. But in
speaking to men, angels use affirmative and negative expressions,
which are signs of composition and of division in the intellect; as is
manifest from many passages of Sacred Scripture. Therefore it seems
that the angel understands by composing and dividing.
On the contrary, Dionysius says (Div. Nom. vii) that "the
intellectual power of the angel shines forth with the clear simplicity
of divine concepts." But a simple intelligence is without composition
and division. Therefore the angel understands without composition or
division.
I answer that, As in the intellect, when reasoning, the conclusion
is compared with the principle, so in the intellect composing and
dividing, the predicate is compared with the subject. For if our
intellect were to see at once the truth of the conclusion in the
principle, it would never understand by discursion and reasoning. In
like manner, if the intellect in apprehending the quiddity of the
subject were at once to have knowledge of all that can be attributed
to, or removed from, the subject, it would never understand by
composing and dividing, but only by understanding the essence. Thus
it is evident that for the self-same reason our intellect understands
by discursion, and by composing and dividing, namely, that in the
first apprehension of anything newly apprehended it does not at once
grasp all that is virtually contained in it. And this comes from the
weakness of the intellectual light within us, as has been said
(Article 3). Hence, since the intellectual light is perfect in
the angel, for he is a pure and most clear mirror, as Dionysius says
(Div. Nom. iv), it follows that as the angel does not understand
by reasoning, so neither does he by composing and dividing.
Nevertheless, he understands the composition and the division of
enunciations, just as he apprehends the reasoning of syllogisms: for
he understands simply, such things as are composite, things movable
immovably, and material things immaterially.
Reply to Objection 1: Not every multitude of things understood
causes composition, but a multitude of such things understood that one
of them is attributed to, or denied of, another. When an angel
apprehends the nature of anything, he at the same time understands
whatever can be either attributed to it, or denied of it. Hence, in
apprehending a nature, he by one simple perception grasps all that we
can learn by composing and dividing.
Reply to Objection 2: The various natures of things differ less as
to their mode of existing than do affirmation and negation. Yet, as
to the way in which they are known, affirmation and negation have
something more in common; because directly the truth of an affirmation
is known, the falsehood of the opposite negation is known also.
Reply to Objection 3: The fact that angels use affirmative and
negative forms of speech, shows that they know both composition and
division: yet not that they know by composing and dividing, but by
knowing simply the nature of a thing.
|
|