Intellect + Will

[KrazyKaiju]

Hello CAF,

I had a couple of quick questions about the intellect and will. What are they? How are they different? Are they immaterial, and if so, how do we know this?

I read an explanation about the latter question in Fr. Anthony Alexander’s College Apologetics. Unfortunately, I haven’t been entirely convinced yet. Any (name removed by moderator)ut would be appreciated.

• KrazyKaiju

 

[James_S_Saint]

One is an effort and the other is an ability. Both are “properties”. In reality all material is made only of properties, but that is not how it is normally thought of nor intended.

The idea of “material” is actually a logically false concept. The thought proposes that there is “stuff” that has properties. The reality is that there is no “stuff”, but only properties.

Accurate logic is how “you know this” (always).

 

[grannymh]

Hello CAF,

I had a couple of quick questions about the intellect and will. What are they? How are they different? Are they immaterial, and if so, how do we know this?

I read an explanation about the latter question in Fr. Anthony Alexander’s College Apologetics. Unfortunately, I haven’t been entirely convinced yet. Any (name removed by moderator)ut would be appreciated.

• KrazyKaiju

The intellect and will are two main powers of our spiritual soul. The intellect’s power is known by its tools of reason, self reflection, logical evaluation, and analytical thought. The will is the power by which a human is free to determine a course of action. As our soul is immaterial so also are the powers of intellect and will. There are different ways we can know their existence. Personally, I know they exist because I experience them. What explanation are you referring to?

Christmas Blessings,
granny

The shepherds sing; and shall I silent be?
from the poem “Christmas” by George Herbert

The “Twelve Days of Christmas” are meant to be celebrated.

 

[KrazyKaiju]

Hello again,

I should probably add the explanation by Fr. Anthony Alexander (as well as my disagreements with it) to complete my first post. Here is an explanation of the intellect:

Since an idea is immaterial it must be conceived by a power which is of the same order, that is to say, the intellect is an immaterial power. Being immaterial or devoid of parts, the intellect operates independently of the body. After it has been set in motion by the perception of a sensible thing such as a plant or animal, it does not need the brain in order to conceive an abstract idea of this thing.
There is another solid reason for saying that a man’s intellect is an immaterial power. It is the fact that it can reflect upon its own operations…

And one of the will:

Like the intellect, the will is an immaterial power. It can strive to possess anything which is presented to it as good or desirable. These goods need not be of the material order. They can be immaterial as well. Man can strive to possess such immaterial goods as justice and honor; he can exert himself to master an abstract science. Since the will can strive to possess any type of good, it must be an immaterial power. A material organ can only strive to possess a material thing.

Finally, one of the soul, which takes ideas from both:

A soul is an immaterial substance. By substance is meant something which can exist all by itself. It does not have to exist in something else. Color, for example, is not a substance. We never see color existing by itself. We always see things which are colored. The thing in which color inheres exists by itself. It is a substance. Noticing carefully what substance means, one can see that a substance need not be material, it need not have parts. If it exists by itself, it is a substance. The human soul is a substance which does not have parts. It is immaterial because it must be of the same order as its powers, namely the intellect and will which are immaterial powers. The soul, then, does not need the body to exists.

First, I don’t understand why something immaterial must be conceptualized by a power of “the same order” (immaterial vs. material). Why can’t a material mind be wired in such a way to recognize patterns in nature and organize them into abstractions and generalizations?

Secondly, there is a missing distinction between a concept and its representation in the physical world (although he hints at it). A color, for instance, cannot have its own representation in the physical world; it needs an accompanying object. One must see a red object in order to see the color red. Fr. Alexander explains that the human soul is of the same order as its powers, the intellect and the will. However, how do we know that the intellect and the will (hence the soul) are immaterial? How do we know that they can exist without an accompanying object? Perhaps an intellect and a will cannot exist by themselves. Rather, they can only be represented by objects with certain wirings and mental capacities (i.e. the brains of humans and perhaps cats, dolphins, and/or chimps).

And also, note that the intellect and will are called powers, not parts. What is the distinction between “powers” and “parts”?

 

[tonyrey]

I had a couple of quick questions about the intellect and will. What are they? How are they different? Are they immaterial, and if so, how do we know this?

If we tackle your questions from a strictly philosophical point of view and start from scratch all we know about the intellect and will must be based primarily on our personal experience and then compared with the experience of others. If this seems a weak foundation we should remember that the success of science is based on our knowledge of ourselves. Our starting point is what happens in our mind, not in the outside world. Physical events are inferred but mental events are known directly and are inescapable evidence of our reality as intangible persons.

The success of science demonstrates not only the power of our thoughts but also the power of our decisions. In theory we could understand physical reality but be unable to change it. In fact both our thoughts and our decisions do have a significant effect on the course of events. In this respect we are unique. Animals have an effect on their environment but it is strictly limited to their immediate surroundings whereas we cause changes to occur at enormous distances and with far-reaching consequences. This ability alone is sufficient to establish the inexplicable power of abstract reasoning and decision-making.

It is arbitrary to consider the intellect and the will separately because they are interdependent. Philosophers like Nietszche regarded the will, or will to power, as distinct from the intellect but surely the will without the intellect is blind and impotent as far as creative activity is concerned. This is a controversial issue but the principle of parsimony supports the view that the power of reasoning and decision-making ultimately originate in one intangible Creator. The intellect and the will belong to conscious agents not purposeless products of nature…

 

[Prodigal_Son]

*Since an idea is immaterial it must be conceived by a power which is of the same order, that is to say, the intellect is an immaterial power. *

Could be true, but isn’t logically required. It does seem very strange that a material being think of immaterial concepts, however; one might ask, “How?” This could be resolved in several ways: 1) There is no “material” (James’ answer above), so material/immaterial is a false dichotomy 2) God allows the material mind to fathom immaterial concepts (by “exerting” omnipotence), 3) There is no such thing as an “immaterial ideas”, because ideas are simply patterns drawn from experience.

I think #1 and #3 are compatible. #3 has some appeal to me, because it prioritizes experience. Interesting…now that I think about it, #3 seems to *entail *#1. If ideas are patterns drawn from experience, then the idea of “material” must be a pattern drawn from experience. But from what experience? If we have never truly experienced anything “immaterial”, then the concept of “material” itself becomes meaningless.

I wonder, is this what Bishop Berkeley was getting at?

There is another solid reason for saying that a man’s intellect is an immaterial power. It is the fact that it can reflect upon its own operations…

Doesn’t this just beg the question? If it’s operations are material, then second level reflection is material too. There’s no contradiction there.

A material organ can only strive to possess a material thing.

This is convincing premise, but once again not logically necessary. It doesn’t seem like a rock, for example, could ever seek to possess wealth; but wealth, looked at as a “pattern” or a “sum” might seem to be “material”.

First, I don’t understand why something immaterial must be conceptualized by a power of “the same order” (immaterial vs. material). Why can’t a material mind be wired in such a way to recognize patterns in nature and organize them into abstractions and generalizations?

Exactly.

Fr. Alexander explains that the human soul is of the same order as its powers, the intellect and the will. However, how do we know that the intellect and the will (hence the soul) are immaterial? How do we know that they can exist without an accompanying object?

We don’t. This is a subject that – absent revelation – we have to suspend judgment on. The Bible speaks about us getting a new body, but does it speak about us hanging out, immaterially, “in between”? I don’t think so. To my mind, it is perfectly reasonable to believe (in the context of Catholic eschatology) that a continuous consciousness can be “transferred” from one body to another, without loss of identity. No necessity to posit any “material” or “immaterial” realities, at all.

 

[grannymh]

And also, note that the intellect and will are called powers, not parts. What is the distinction between “powers” and “parts”?

A power to do something is like the ability to be a carpenter rather than the actual hammer and nails. The ability or power exists immaterially while the hammer and nails are material objects. The intellect and will are powers of the immaterial spiritual soul of the human being. Personally, the distinction between powers and parts is one of preference. Power is a better description of the activity involved. Parts are rather mundane.

In post 4’s explanation of the intellect there was this statement referring to the soul: “It is immaterial because it must be of the same order as its powers, namely the intellect and will which are immaterial powers.”

In my humble opinion, this explanation (while accurate) should be written in reverse. The spiritual soul is immaterial which is why its powers are immaterial. As material objects, the hammer and nails can produce a material object such as a table. Being immaterial, the intellect is not limited by matter or material; thus it can reason and conceptualize beyond what a hammer and nails can do.

The human being’s rational/corporeal nature is wonderfully unique in that it is an intimate unification of soul and body, spirit and matter.

The following comment was in post 4: “First, I don’t understand why something immaterial must be conceptualized by a power of “the same order” (immaterial vs. material).”

I tried, but I also don’t understand. Immaterial vs. material sounds like some of the modern adaptations of Cartesian dualism which are not considered Catholic philosophy. The material objects of life are limited by the composition of matter, space and time; thus their power is limited to the order of materialism so to speak. The intellect, being immaterial, is not limited by matter. That is why ants live in ant hills while humans can live in a beach house, a cabin on a mountain side, in a trailer or a skyscraper.

Christmas Blessings,
granny

The shepherds sing; and shall I silent be?
from the poem “Christmas” by George Herbert

The “Twelve Days of Christmas” are meant to be celebrated.