How do we come to know things?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Linusthe2nd
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
L

Linusthe2nd

Guest
We come to know things when the mind receives sense data from the outside world through the senses, collates this data into a sense image and stores it for reference. These images are then retrieved when needed by the intellect and forms an idea of it and then judges it to be something which really exists in particular objects the senses are contacting now or did in the past.
.
For example, each time the senses encounter a flower, data is transferred through our sense receptors ( eyes, nose, touch, taste, sound ) to a common sense ( the intellect )… All kinds of data is received over a period of time, data on nutrition, growth, reproduction, color, reaction to sun, rain, temperature, etc. Each time we receive data, a phantasm or sense image is formed by the active intellect ( agent intellect ) and stored in memory. Each time we receive new data the passive intellect ( possible intellect ) takes a look at the phantasms the active intellect has stored and begins to form an idea ( concept or universal ) of that object being sensed. This act by the passive intellect is called abstraction because the passive intellect is abstracting phantasms from memory and forming an idea or concept ( which are known formally as universals ). The universal is called universal because it represents the nature or essence of this particular species of flower and has been gained through an examination of many such flowers.

( Essence or nature is a wide topic. Let it suffice to say that every substance has an essence or nature, it is real and actual. In material substances it is the matter-form composite. Each material substance is an example of Aristotle’s hylomorphic theory, which is based on the principles of potency and act. Thomas said, “Potency and Act divide being in such a way that whatever is, is either pure act, or of necessity it is composed of potency and act as primary and intrinsic principles.” )

And from the essence/nature flow all the characteristics and behaviors of a substance, including its accidents.

Now the will enters the picture and judges that the particular flower we are now looking at has the particular nature the passive intellect has abstracted. But the flower has this nature, not in a universal way but in a particular way, as the nature of all flowers is instantiated in this particular flower. Just as Socrates and Plato are both men, but each is a man in a particular way.

Now as to how we know the flower is beautiful, that is a little more mysterious. God has given human nature, our intellect the capacity to recognize what is good, it is in built. Obviously beauty is something good. So when we meet something in the world that is beautiful, we instinctively recognize it. This in built ability is closely connected to the intellect’s ability to recognize truth as seen when the will judges as to the nature of the flower…

Obviously we don’t begin life with a perfect ability to know the essence of a particular substance. We develop the ability with time, experience, and education. But even with the first moment that we become aware of the essential difference between substances ( between Dad and a tree ) we have true knowledge in its nascent stage. We at least know there is something essentially different.

The outlines of this explanation is based on Edward Fewer’s book Aquinas, pgs 143-148, which, in turn, is based on the teaching of Thomas Aquinas.

Linus2nd
 
:twocents: borrowing from elements of Linus’ description:

We are relational beings, existing in relation to God, participating within and relating to creation.

What exists here is the mystery of the relationship between the rational soul and what is other, all brought into being by the Word, in union with the Father though the Holy Spirit.

As physical beings, continuous with the material world, physical events affect receptors which are the peripheral sensors of the neurochemical network that forms the nervous system. This network is organized in such a manner that various areas of the brain have particular functional roles such as directing attention, forming images and words, organizing and initiating intent and action, among others. It is through this system, that the spirit-matter unity that is a human being, materially is able to perceive, understand and function within, essentially connect to, the universe.

In terms of mind/soul, we can understand our experience as emerging from this connection to the outside world through the senses. A sensory image is formed and stored for reference, to be retrieved by the intellect, which forms an idea of the original object. The mind, having the rational soul as its foundation, is not only able to conceptualize the particular nature of the object (Man gives name to what has been created.), but to further abstract the encounter to be able to understand it in such terms as: sense receptors, intellect, time, data, nutrition, growth, reproduction, color, reaction to sun, rain, temperature, phantasm. memory, passive intellect, idea, object, abstraction and universal. We thus are able to understand reality as consisting of actual substances having an essence or nature, being matter-form composites based on the principles of potency and act.

It is within the relationship,
through the connection with the “beingness” of the object,
to the degree that we give ourselves over to that object,
the degree to which we love,
that our soul has the capacity to commune with its truth, its beauty, its goodness.

Growing in Christ, we grow in the joy that comes with loving all creation, and primarily our Creator, whose glory it reveals.
 
Linusthe2nd said:
We come to know things when the mind receives sense data from the outside world through the senses, collates this data into a sense image and stores it for reference. These images are then retrieved when needed by the intellect and forms an idea of it and then judges it to be something which really exists in particular objects the senses are contacting now or did in the past.
.
For example, each time the senses encounter a flower, data is transferred through our sense receptors ( eyes, nose, touch, taste, sound ) to a common sense ( the intellect )… All kinds of data is received over a period of time, data on nutrition, growth, reproduction, color, reaction to sun, rain, temperature, etc. Each time we receive data, a phantasm or sense image is formed by the active intellect ( agent intellect ) and stored in memory. Each time we receive new data the passive intellect ( possible intellect ) takes a look at the phantasms the active intellect has stored and begins to form an idea ( concept or universal ) of that object being sensed. This act by the passive intellect is called abstraction because the passive intellect is abstracting phantasms from memory and forming an idea or concept ( which are known formally as universals ). The universal is called universal because it represents the nature or essence of this particular species of flower and has been gained through an examination of many such flowers.

( Essence or nature is a wide topic. Let it suffice to say that every substance has an essence or nature, it is real and actual. In material substances it is the matter-form composite. Each material substance is an example of Aristotle’s hylomorphic theory, which is based on the principles of potency and act. Thomas said, “Potency and Act divide being in such a way that whatever is, is either pure act, or of necessity it is composed of potency and act as primary and intrinsic principles.” )

And from the essence/nature flow all the characteristics and behaviors of a substance, including its accidents.

Now the will enters the picture and judges that the particular flower we are now looking at has the particular nature the passive intellect has abstracted. But the flower has this nature, not in a universal way but in a particular way, as the nature of all flowers is instantiated in this particular flower. Just as Socrates and Plato are both men, but each is a man in a particular way.

Now as to how we know the flower is beautiful, that is a little more mysterious. God has given human nature, our intellect the capacity to recognize what is good, it is in built. Obviously beauty is something good. So when we meet something in the world that is beautiful, we instinctively recognize it. This in built ability is closely connected to the intellect’s ability to recognize truth as seen when the will judges as to the nature of the flower…

Obviously we don’t begin life with a perfect ability to know the essence of a particular substance. We develop the ability with time, experience, and education. But even with the first moment that we become aware of the essential difference between substances ( between Dad and a tree ) we have true knowledge in its nascent stage. We at least know there is something essentially different.

The outlines of this explanation is based on Edward Fewer’s book Aquinas, pgs 143-148, which, in turn, is based on the teaching of Thomas Aquinas.

Linus2nd
Click to expand...
Hi Linus!

Please, just to begin with, have a look at the Summa Theologiae Part I, Question 85, Article 1, answer to the fourth objection:

" Reply to Objection 4: Not only does the active intellect throw light on the phantasm: it does more; by its own power it abstracts the intelligible species from the phantasm. It throws light on the phantasm, because, just as the sensitive part acquires a greater power by its conjunction with the intellectual part, so by the power of the active intellect the phantasms are made more fit for the abstraction therefrom of intelligible intentions. Furthermore, the active intellect abstracts the intelligible species from the phantasm, forasmuch as by the power of the active intellect we are able to disregard the conditions of individuality, and to take into our consideration the specific nature, the image of which informs the passive intellect."

Compare it to what you have said. I would like to discuss it, but I think you will have to correct your text first concerning the roles of the passive and active intellects.

Best regards
JuanFlorencio
 
Primary words do not signjfy things, but they intimate relations. Primary words do not describe something that might exist independently of them, but being spoken they bring about existence.
Primary words are spoken from the being. If Thou is said, the I of the combination I-Thou is
said along the I of the combination I-It is said along with it.
The primary word I-Thou can only be spoken with the whole being.
The primary word I-It can never be spoken 'with the whole being.

I AND THOU
BY
MARTIN BUBER

Peace
 
We come to know things by using the heads on our bodies, which are equipped with our human senses, and where the mind resides.

We extract knowledge from the mass of sense information by the use of categorization, some of which is innate, and other parts we have to learn.

ICXC NIKA
 
Aloysium said:
:twocents: borrowing from elements of Linus’ description:

We are relational beings, existing in relation to God, participating within and relating to creation.

What exists here is the mystery of the relationship between the rational soul and what is other, all brought into being by the Word, in union with the Father though the Holy Spirit.

As physical beings, continuous with the material world, physical events affect receptors which are the peripheral sensors of the neurochemical network that forms the nervous system. This network is organized in such a manner that various areas of the brain have particular functional roles such as directing attention, forming images and words, organizing and initiating intent and action, among others. It is through this system, that the spirit-matter unity that is a human being, materially is able to perceive, understand and function within, essentially connect to, the universe.

In terms of mind/soul, we can understand our experience as emerging from this connection to the outside world through the senses. A sensory image is formed and stored for reference, to be retrieved by the intellect, which forms an idea of the original object. The mind, having the rational soul as its foundation, is not only able to conceptualize the particular nature of the object (Man gives name to what has been created.), but to further abstract the encounter to be able to understand it in such terms as: sense receptors, intellect, time, data, nutrition, growth, reproduction, color, reaction to sun, rain, temperature, phantasm. memory, passive intellect, idea, object, abstraction and universal. We thus are able to understand reality as consisting of actual substances having an essence or nature, being matter-form composites based on the principles of potency and act.

It is within the relationship,
through the connection with the “beingness” of the object,
to the degree that we give ourselves over to that object,
the degree to which we love,
that our soul has the capacity to commune with its truth, its beauty, its goodness.

Growing in Christ, we grow in the joy that comes with loving all creation, and primarily our Creator, whose glory it reveals.
Click to expand...
That’s very good but I am puzzled by this clause: " but to further abstract the encounter to be able to understand it in such terms as: sense receptors, intellect, time, data, nutrition, growth, reproduction, color, reaction to sun, rain, temperature, phantasm. memory, passive intellect, idea, object, abstraction and universal. " The list beginning with " sense receptors and ending with " universal, " are primarily the means by which we know and abstracted nature or universal. This clause does not seem to follow from the preceeding clause.

Linus2nd .
 
First of all, sensory (name removed by moderator)ut does not reveal substance or essence. Those are ideas added by the mind to what is sensed.

For example, an image is just a two dimensional map of colors. You may think that a picture definitely shows a dog, but it does not. Your mind or brain interprets the image to say that it shows a dog.

So our sensory (name removed by moderator)uts give us feelings unto which we ascribe substances and essences. There is no guarantee that such substances or essences exist objectively in the location we feel.
 
I have to make some corrections, so I will restate my explanation.

We come to know things when the mind receives sense data from the outside world through the senses, collates this data into a sense image and stores it for reference. These images are then retrieved when needed by the intellect and forms an idea of it and then judges it to be something which really exists in particular objects the senses are contacting now or did in the past.
.
For example, each time the senses encounter a flower, data is transferred through our sense receptors ( eyes, nose, touch, taste, sound ) to a common sense ( the intellect )… All kinds of data is received over a period of time, data on nutrition, growth, reproduction, color, reaction to sun, rain, temperature, etc. Each time we receive data, a phantasm or sense image is formed. ( I’m not sure how, if anyone knows post a comment). The phantasm is stored in memory to be recalled by the agent intellect. Each time we receive new data the active intellect takes a look at the phantasms and forms an idea or concept ( universal ) of the nature of the individual which has been reduced to a phantasm. This act by the active intellect is called abstraction because the active intellect is abstracting universal natures form the phantasms stored in memory… The universal is called universal because it represents the nature or essence of this particular species of flower and has been gained through an examination of many such flowers.

The passive or possible intellect apprehends or grasps this universal and the will judges whether of not what it has apprehended is true or false.

Now the will enters the picture and judges that the particular flower we are now looking at has the particular nature the passive intellect has abstracted. But the flower has this nature, not in a universal way but in a particular way, as the nature of all flowers is instantiated in this particular flower. Just as Socrates and Plato are both men, but each is a man in a particular way.

Now as to how we know the flower is beautiful, that is a little more mysterious. God has given human nature, our intellect the capacity to recognize what is good, it is in built. Obviously beauty is something good. So when we meet something in the world that is beautiful, we instinctively recognize it. This in built ability is closely connected to the intellect’s ability to recognize truth as seen when the will judges as to the nature of the flower…

Obviously we don’t begin life with a perfect ability to know the essence of a particular substance. We develop the ability with time, experience, and education. But even with the first moment that we become aware of the essential difference between substances ( between Dad and a tree ) we have true knowledge in its nascent stage. We at least know there is something essentially different.

Anyway this is the general idea of how we come to know the natures of individual things we come in contact with.

No, I can’t tell you what the nature or essence of the flower, I’m not a botanist. But it shares a common nature with all other flowers, adjusted to its specific kind and its particular existence.

The outlines of this explanation is based on Edward Fewer’s book Aquinas, pgs 143-148, which, in turn, is based on the teaching of Thomas Aquinas.

( Essence or nature is a wide topic. Let it suffice to say that every substance has an essence or nature, it is real and actual. In material substances it is the matter-form composite. Each material substance is an example of Aristotle’s hylomorphic theory, which is based on the principles of potency and act. Thomas said, “Potency and Act divide being in such a way that whatever is, is either pure act, or of necessity it is composed of potency and act as primary and intrinsic principles.” )

And from the essence/nature flow all the characteristics and behaviors of a substance, including its accidents.

Linus2nd
 
I think you mean Feser as opposed to Fewer. Which was apparent from your first few sentences. The guy likes a bit of honest to goodness Aritotelian metaphysics. Everything has a form and everything has a final cause (that of water is apparently to condense and form rain - I wonder if it knows).

If you enjoy reading badly written, spittle flecked diatribes against anything philosophical that came after Aquinas then he’s da man!
 
Linusthe2nd said:
I have to make some corrections, so I will restate my explanation.

We come to know things when the mind receives sense data from the outside world through the senses, collates this data into a sense image and stores it for reference. These images are then retrieved when needed by the intellect and forms an idea of it and then judges it to be something which really exists in particular objects the senses are contacting now or did in the past.
.
For example, each time the senses encounter a flower, data is transferred through our sense receptors ( eyes, nose, touch, taste, sound ) to a common sense ( the intellect )… All kinds of data is received over a period of time, data on nutrition, growth, reproduction, color, reaction to sun, rain, temperature, etc. Each time we receive data, a phantasm or sense image is formed. ( I’m not sure how, if anyone knows post a comment). The phantasm is stored in memory to be recalled by the agent intellect. Each time we receive new data the active intellect takes a look at the phantasms and forms an idea or concept ( universal ) of the nature of the individual which has been reduced to a phantasm. This act by the active intellect is called abstraction because the active intellect is abstracting universal natures form the phantasms stored in memory… The universal is called universal because it represents the nature or essence of this particular species of flower and has been gained through an examination of many such flowers.

The passive or possible intellect apprehends or grasps this universal and the will judges whether of not what it has apprehended is true or false.

Now the will enters the picture and judges that the particular flower we are now looking at has the particular nature the passive intellect has abstracted. But the flower has this nature, not in a universal way but in a particular way, as the nature of all flowers is instantiated in this particular flower. Just as Socrates and Plato are both men, but each is a man in a particular way.

Now as to how we know the flower is beautiful, that is a little more mysterious. God has given human nature, our intellect the capacity to recognize what is good, it is in built. Obviously beauty is something good. So when we meet something in the world that is beautiful, we instinctively recognize it. This in built ability is closely connected to the intellect’s ability to recognize truth as seen when the will judges as to the nature of the flower…

Obviously we don’t begin life with a perfect ability to know the essence of a particular substance. We develop the ability with time, experience, and education. But even with the first moment that we become aware of the essential difference between substances ( between Dad and a tree ) we have true knowledge in its nascent stage. We at least know there is something essentially different.

Anyway this is the general idea of how we come to know the natures of individual things we come in contact with.

No, I can’t tell you what the nature or essence of the flower, I’m not a botanist. But it shares a common nature with all other flowers, adjusted to its specific kind and its particular existence.

The outlines of this explanation is based on Edward Fewer’s book Aquinas, pgs 143-148, which, in turn, is based on the teaching of Thomas Aquinas.

( Essence or nature is a wide topic. Let it suffice to say that every substance has an essence or nature, it is real and actual. In material substances it is the matter-form composite. Each material substance is an example of Aristotle’s hylomorphic theory, which is based on the principles of potency and act. Thomas said, “Potency and Act divide being in such a way that whatever is, is either pure act, or of necessity it is composed of potency and act as primary and intrinsic principles.” )

And from the essence/nature flow all the characteristics and behaviors of a substance, including its accidents.

Linus2nd
Click to expand...
How many flowers are needed to “abstract” the universal of “flower”, Linus?
 
Bradski said:
I think you mean Feser as opposed to Fewer. Which was apparent from your first few sentences. The guy likes a bit of honest to goodness Aritotelian metaphysics. Everything has a form and everything has a final cause (that of water is apparently to condense and form rain - I wonder if it knows).

If you enjoy reading badly written, spittle flecked diatribes against anything philosophical that came after Aquinas then he’s da man!
Click to expand...
Yes, he has a temper. But he lays out the basic groundwork pretty well. I used another book by George Klubertanz S. J., a text book from the 50’s, but it is dry as old bones and almost as difficult to read as Thomas and Aristotle.

Linus2nd
 
JuanFlorencio said:
How many flowers are needed to “abstract” the universal of “flower”, Linus?
Click to expand...
You start with one, then as experience grows your knowledge of the universal " flower " becomes more and more accurate. But even the first abstraction gives you some true content of the universal.

I’m curious, why did you ask me to show you the essence or nature of a flower when you knew that was impossible? We never " see " the essence, all we " see " are the accidents which flow from the essence…

Linus2nd
 
40.png
Linusthe2nd:
So when we meet something in the world that is beautiful, we instinctively recognize it.
Click to expand...
Are all things in the world either beautiful or not beautiful? Or are there degrees of beauty? Is beauty objective or subjective?

Also, could you explain why you included mention of beauty in your explanation of how we come to know things? Is how we know if something is good or beautiful intrinsically different to how we know something is, for example, dangerous, useful, interesting or attractive?
 
I found a really good web site that explains things better than I have explained them.

aquinasonline.com/Topics/psychic.html

Just point and click on the topic that you want to know more about.
It basically follows what Thomas says in S.T. and in his Commentary on The Soul but explains it more simply. For example, I was unsure exactly about " Common Sense " and Phantasms. Where was common sense and what produced phantasms? The author explains this and much more.

It appears that not only do we have sense organs but we have certain internal senses . It appears the common sense has a physical location in the brain and the data it receives is " viewed " and collated by a corresponding power of the intellect. Whereas the other internal senses are purely powers of the intellect.

So it appears that there are three internal senses, the common sense, the imagination, the estimative, and the memorative.
  1. Common sense.
    To know all the sensations of the external senses which are known separately by the external senses.
    To compare and distinguish these qualities, e.g., color and taste.
    To be aware of the operations of the external senses.
    To distinguish the real objects from the images of the fantasy, e.g., to know whether we are dreaming, and to realize that our dreams are not reality.
    To send its results ( impressed species ) to the Imaginative sense
  2. Imaginative sense or imagination.
The imagination is, as it were, a storehouse of forms received through the senses. (ST I, 78, 4.) The existence of this power is obvious through introspection. The imagination is really distinct from the external senses, because an external sense cannot retain the impression of the sense object when this object is no longer acting upon the organ. And it is also distinct from the common sense because the common sense operates only when the external senses are sensing an object. The imagination, on the other hand, produces images of objects even when these objects are absent.

2.The imaginative sense does the following.

Receives the impressed species from the common sense. It retains these species when actuated by them. The imagination produces as the term of its action an expressed species, called a phantasm. When we use our imagination, we always have an image of the object in which we know the real object.

Forms and combines images or phantasms to form unreal images (artistic ability).
To know quantity. (Thus the imagination plays an important role in mathematics
  1. Estimative power in animals ( called cognative in humans )
The operation of the estimative power is similar to what is called “knowledge through affinity,” which inclines the human being through immediate intuition to avoid what is evil and to tend towards the good. For example, we instantaneously withdraw our hand from a hot oven. The estimative power depends upon the disposition of the body in its judgment. This is obvious, for example, in the case of the mating season of animals.

It knows sensibles per accidens in individuals, e.g., to know that the red color belongs to that man.
It considers individual things that sharing a common nature:

The cogitative faculty apprehends the individual thing as existing in a common nature. It is able to do this because it is united to intellect in one and the same subject. Hence it is aware of a man as this man, and of a tree as this tree; To prepare the phantasm for the intellect.

It deduces individual conclusions from universal and particular premises, as:

To steal is evil.
This is to steal.
Therefore, this is evil.
The cogitative power is thus a sort of bridge between the intellect and the senses
  1. The memorative power
The memorative sense has the following functions:

To retain the perceptions of the estimative sense, namely, to remember what is harmful and beneficial for the animal.
To recognize the experiences of the past as concretely past.
In man, to help the recollection of memories by way of a sort of syllogism, or by way of a spontaneous recollection, like association. This is called reminiscence in man:

As to the memorative power, man has not only memory,… but also reminiscence by syllogistically, as it were, seeking for a recollection of the pest by the application of individual intentions. (( ST I, 78, 4; cf: Aristotle, De anima, III, 2; De memoria et reminiscentia.)

I would urge everyone who wants to undersand how we come to know to read and study the information on the link. It is invaluable.

Linus2nd
 
Linusthe2nd said:
You start with one, then as experience grows your knowledge of the universal " flower " becomes more and more accurate. But even the first abstraction gives you some true content of the universal.

I’m curious, why did you ask me to show you the essence or nature of a flower when you knew that was impossible? We never " see " the essence, all we " see " are the accidents which flow from the essence…

Linus2nd
Click to expand...
Dear Linus:

If, as you say, everything has an essence, and, according to Aristotle, the essence can finally be reduced to the definition, then everything can be defined. As you seemed so sure of it, I decided to ask you about an object (flowers) that, being you someone who likes gardening, must be very familiar to you.

You still have to correct several aspects of your description if you want to express St. Thomas doctrine on human understanding. However, you have mentioned the functional elements that participate in the cognitive process of material things, according to the Thomist philosophy: the senses, the fantasy, the memory, the active intellect and the passive intellect. According to this doctrine, the fantasy is in charge of the production of phantasms; and I would like to ask you why are phantasms so important to St. Thomas for the cognition of material entities given the fact that those things are in front of us?

Can you explain?

Regards
JuanFlorencio
 
JuanFlorencio said:
Dear Linus:

If, as you say, everything has an essence, and, according to Aristotle, the essence can finally be reduced to the definition, then everything can be defined. As you seemed so sure of it, I decided to ask you about an object (flowers) that, being you someone who likes gardening, must be very familiar to you.
Click to expand...
I don’t think a flower can be defined much differently that any other ordinary plant other than grasses and bushes and trees. I’m not a botanist so I wouldn’t attempt to go further. I’m sure a good scientific text on flowers would help you there, or perhaps google…
You still have to correct several aspects of your description if you want to express St. Thomas doctrine on human understanding. However, you have mentioned the functional elements that participate in the cognitive process of material things, according to the Thomist philosophy: the senses, the fantasy, the memory, the active intellect and the passive intellect. According to this doctrine, the fantasy is in charge of the production of phantasms; and I would like to ask you why are phantasms so important to St. Thomas for the cognition of material entities given the fact that those things are in front of us?
Click to expand...
Well, I corrected a number of things in my last two posts, I think you should be able to put them together and understand the process. Outside of that what is missing or wrong? You know I’m not writing a dissertation, I’m just trying to give an overview of how Thomas ( following Aristotle ) defined the process. If you think I’m not hitting the mark, why don’t you try it in the space allotted for one post? You can stretch it to two, I won’t complain but it is against the rules.

As far as fantasms are concerned, these they are ideas of the reality that lays behind the coalated data the common sense has been receiving from the senses. These ideas are expressed but vague ideas of the species that exists in an individual which the imagination stores and later compares with other phantasms it receives - I guess until it comes up with something the cognative intellect judges as reflective of reality. There is a lot of give and take going on betwee the imaginative, the estimative and the memorative internal senses.

This whole subject is quite complex and we can only brush the surface on this forum. I’ve got an old text by George Klubertanz S.J., The Psychology of Human Nature that runs to 444 pages and it is for undergraduates. And I’ve never read the whole thing - I’m not all that interested. I accept the fact that I have a soul and I know the real world around me, why do I need to be " fighting trim " in regard to all the minutia? I only brought it up because for the past year there has been a lot of loose talk here about soul and consciousness And I wanted to show everone what a real philosopher like Thomas had to say.

Linus2nd
 
Linusthe2nd said:
How do we come to know things?
Click to expand...
Do Catholic parents get taught the model you describe to help them raise their children? Do Catholic teachers use that model when designing art, math, English, etc. syllabuses for kids? Do Catholic psychologists and psychiatrists use that model to help them understand the mind and diagnose problems? Do Catholic neuroscientists use it?

What I’m getting at is there are many wrong models of the mind, and unless professionals actively use this one, I suggest they have found better models and this one is only of interest to historians as one of the failures, whereas if they do use it then it is of wider interest.
 
Linusthe2nd said:
I don’t think a flower can be defined much differently that any other ordinary plant other than grasses and bushes and trees. I’m not a botanist so I wouldn’t attempt to go further. I’m sure a good scientific text on flowers would help you there, or perhaps google…

Well, I corrected a number of things in my last two posts, I think you should be able to put them together and understand the process. Outside of that what is missing or wrong? You know I’m not writing a dissertation, I’m just trying to give an overview of how Thomas ( following Aristotle ) defined the process. If you think I’m not hitting the mark, why don’t you try it in the space allotted for one post? You can stretch it to two, I won’t complain but it is against the rules.

As far as fantasms are concerned, these they are ideas of the reality that lays behind the coalated data the common sense has been receiving from the senses. These ideas are expressed but vague ideas of the species that exists in an individual which the imagination stores and later compares with other phantasms it receives - I guess until it comes up with something the cognative intellect judges as reflective of reality. There is a lot of give and take going on betwee the imaginative, the estimative and the memorative internal senses.

This whole subject is quite complex and we can only brush the surface on this forum. I’ve got an old text by George Klubertanz S.J., The Psychology of Human Nature that runs to 444 pages and it is for undergraduates. And I’ve never read the whole thing - I’m not all that interested. I accept the fact that I have a soul and I know the real world around me, why do I need to be " fighting trim " in regard to all the minutia? I only brought it up because for the past year there has been a lot of loose talk here about soul and consciousness And I wanted to show everone what a real philosopher like Thomas had to say.

Linus2nd
Click to expand...
You are right, Linus! Given the fact that you are not a philosopher, you don’t need to get involved in discussions similar to this one. This is not for you. You are just a Catholic who cares, and all you have to do is to obey the commandments. That is it!

Best regards!
JuanFlorencio
 
inocente said:
Do Catholic parents get taught the model you describe to help them raise their children? Do Catholic teachers use that model when designing art, math, English, etc. syllabuses for kids? Do Catholic psychologists and psychiatrists use that model to help them understand the mind and diagnose problems? Do Catholic neuroscientists use it?

What I’m getting at is there are many wrong models of the mind, and unless professionals actively use this one, I suggest they have found better models and this one is only of interest to historians as one of the failures, whereas if they do use it then it is of wider interest.
Click to expand...
It is of philosophical interest only. Catholic parents just tell their kids to obey the Commandments and follow the Church. And that is all I do personally. On further reflection I think my comments above reflect two different philosophical explanations and what is needed is an explanation that collates the two explanations. Juan just told me to give up :o, maybe he is right. At any rate I don’t have the time to do that now 🤷.

Linus2nd.
 
Flowers are the fertilization bodies of their plant. They send and receive pollen, which is the male sex cell, (yes, some plants have sexual reproduction), absorb it and enable the plant to generate the seed body.

But that is not what our eyes and nose perceive, but the accidents, ie, the color and the smell (which are there to help perform its function, ie by calling in insects to carry the pollen).

If we have studied botany, we can “perceive” the essence of them, but not with our senses, rather by the mind in our head. And our mind can do that only if we have put other knowledge in our head first.

ICXC NIKA.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top