Joseph Magee

In his essay, “Intentionality and Physiological Processes,” Richard Sorabji claims that Aristotle maintains a sharp distinction between the formal and material causes of sensation.1 To that end, Sorabji interprets a cluster of Aristotelian formulae about sensation as descriptions that exclusively pertain to perception's material cause. This material cause, according to Sorabji, is the process that the sense organ undergoes during an episode of sensation. These Aristotelian formulae fall roughly into three main groups: the claim that what perceives receives form (which I will call the formal reception thesis), the claim that what perceives receives form without matter (which I will call the anahylic reception thesis2), and the claim that what perceives becomes actually like or such as its object from being potentially like or such (which I will call the likeness thesis). According to Sorabji, when Aristotle asserts any of these three theses, he is referring to one and the same physiological process by which the organ becomes actually and literally black or white, hot or cold, dry or fluid. In this paper, I show that this is not the case, because on a careful reading of _De Anima_ III. 4, _nous_ or mind is also receptive of form without matter for Aristotle, and that this, in fact, is essential for his arguments' success in this chapter.

Saint Thomas Aquinas often argues for the immateriality of the intellect and often employs one argument in particular, which he also attributes to Aristotle. As he explains in his Commentary on the De Anima, "Anything that is in potency with respect to an object, and able to receive it into itself, is, as such, without that object; thus the pupil of the eye, being potential to colors and able to receive them, is itself colorless. ... Since then (the intellect) naturally understands all bodily things, it must be lacking in every bodily nature; just as the sense of sight, being able to know color, lacks all color" (Bk. III, Lect. 7, no. 680). The intellect has no bodily nature since it understands all bodily natures, and it is a condition of knowing a power that it lacks the nature it knows. Thomas Russman, however, in A Prospectus for the Triumph of Realism, argues that what we know about the nature of perception invalidates the assumptions of Aristotle and Aquinas, and because this argument for the immateriality of the intellect depends on an analogy with sensation, its conclusion is undermined. Russman reasons that just as a pink retina can receive the form of green without any hindrance, so a material intellect can receive the forms of all material things without any hindrance. Since Aristotle and Aquinas turned out to be wrong about their understanding of the senses and used this mistake as a basis for their reasoning about the intellect, there is no reason to accept their conclusion that the intellect is immaterial. Although Aquinas and Russman attribute this argument to Aristotle, the version found in De Anima 3. 4 differs from it in one crucial respect. Whereas Thomas claims that the intellect is immaterial because it knows all bodies, Aristotle says that mind is 'unmixed' because it thinks all things (panta noei).(429a18-20) This difference, I contend, makes the argument as Aristotle actually formulated it immune from the criticism of Russman, for Aristotle can draw on his own distinction between being subject to a material alteration (taking on a form in a material way) and engaging in the activity of knowing (taking on the form of an object without matter by becoming one with it).

In recent years, Aristotle’s views on sensation and mental activities have received increased interest from philosophers for their apparent similarities to contemporary theories in the philosophy of mind. Instead of seeking to explain mental states (feelings, beliefs, desires) as mere properties of the material constitution of an organism (i.e., brains and nervous system of higher animals), the most popular theories in the philosophy of mind focus on the function which mental states perform in life of an organism, and the organization of the matter which allows the mental states to play this functional role. Theorists have seen in this focus on function and organization an affinity to the central place Aristotle gives to form over matter, and to his defining capacities in terms of their functional realization. While certainly similarities exist between contemporary theories of mind and Aristotle’s philosophical views on perception and mind, the description of the nature of mental states which contemporary theories give us is fundamentally at odds with Aristotle’s understanding of them. This is most clearly seen in the case of sensation, since Aristotle has most to say about it. Despite the difficulty in claiming that Aristotle’s views fit the requirements of contemporary theories, his insights into the actual nature of mental activities and states are nevertheless valuable precisely for illuminating these limitations of current theories, and for suggesting ways of overcoming some difficulties. In this presentation, I will briefly describe the theories for which Aristotle is thought to be relevant and their common, salient features and assumptions. Next, I will examine the details of some interpretations of Aristotle’s thoughts on sensation which allegedly support the contemporary theories. In the course of this examination, I will indicate the fundamentally different view Aristotle has of the physical processes involved in sensation, and try to indicate how these differences might help overcome problems in the contemporary views.

In the Third of his celebrated Five Ways in Summa Theologiae Ia, q. 2, a. 3, St. Thomas Aquinas argues for the existence of God from contingency and necessity noting that the world contains possible beings which are able not to be since, being generated and corrupted, they at some time do not exist. He claims to show that there must be some necessary being since it is impossible that all things are possible beings. Scholars have long found this part of the Third Way problematic, since it appears that Aquinas is committing a logical fallacy. He seems to be arguing that all members of a group have one common attribute since they each have their own particular instance of that attribute, as one might argue that since everybody has a birthday, i.e., one day on which each was born, therefore, there is one (and the same) day on which everyone was born. This paper will show that the accusation that Aquinas commits the alleged Birthday Fallacy would mean he was arguing for a temporal beginning for all material things, and so believed that such claim was philosophically demonstrable. Aquinas, however, argued against our ability to naturally know physical creation had a beginning in time; such knowledge requires God’s revelation of it. Instead Aquinas in the Third Way is allowing for the possibility that the physical universe could be temporally infinite, as Aristotle argued, but that this possibility would still support Aquinas’ contention that some necessary being must exist.

After presenting the “first and more manifest way” of proving the existence of God by reason alone in Summa Theologiae Ia, 2, 3, Saint Thomas Aquinas continues this project by turning in the “Second Way” to what he somewhat enigmatically calls “the nature of the efficient cause.” The greatest obstacle to understanding his Second Way, though, is determining precisely what Aquinas means by “the nature of the efficient cause” and “an order of efficient causes,” and how the Second Way is distinct from the First and Third Ways. This paper shows that instead of purporting to demonstrate God's existence as the cause of metaphysical being, as is commonly supposed, Aquinas is actually searching for the ultimate cause of immanent activity in rational beings. It argues for this reading both from textual evidence internal to the Second Way and in the First Way.

Amid the ongoing debate over the proper interpretation of Aristotle's theory of sense perception in the "De Anima," Steven Everson has recently presented a well-documented and ambitious treatment of the issue, arguing in favor of Richard Sorabji's controversial position that sense organs literally take on the qualities of their proper objects. Against the interpretation of M. F. Burnyeat, Everson and others make a compelling case the Aristotelian account of sensation requires some physical process to occur in sense organs. A detailed examination of the interpretation by Everson and Sorabji of Aristotle's theory, however, shows that their reading cannot be the correct one, since it involves many textual and philosophical difficulties. Their interpretation, for instance, would require abandoning Aristotle's requirement that only a transparent substance is suitable matter for an eye. Likewise, their understanding of the Aristotle's doctrine of sensation as the reception of form without matter in "DA 2.12" cannot be reconciled with other texts of his from "On Generation and Corruption." An analysis of these texts, as well as "DA 2.7" and "De Sensu 6" on the roles of light and the transparent medium in vision, show that, for Aristotle, the physical processes which sense organs undergo are not standard qualitative changes (i.e. alterations), but activities or the actualizations of potencies in the material constituents of living animal bodies.