W
WannabeSaint
Guest
Could infused knowledge ever be false knowledge? Meaning, could a falsity ever be infused into us, and we think what has been infused is true?
- Status
Emeraldlady
New member
Wisdom comes with discernible fruits which is why we need to be attentive to what’s in our hearts and measure ourselves by the measures of love and mercy that the Scriiptures prescribe. James has this to say.
James 3 13 Who is wise and understanding among you? Show by your good life that your works are done with gentleness born of wisdom. 14 But if you have bitter envy and selfish ambition in your hearts, do not be boastful and false to the truth. 15 Such wisdom does not come down from above, but is earthly, unspiritual, devilish. 16 For where there is envy and selfish ambition, there will also be disorder and wickedness of every kind. 17 But the wisdom from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, willing to yield, full of mercy and good fruits, without a trace of partiality or hypocrisy. 18 And a harvest of righteousness is sown in peace for those who make peace.
Last edited:
P
Pat_Albertson
Guest
I don’t think there is anything infused about Mozart. He was just a talented composer.
Aside from the people I listed, let’s consider infusion from the opposite direction, demonic possession. Of course possession is not infusion, but when a demon takes control, entire languages, languages that were last spoken several millennia ago, come spewing out of the possessed person’s mouth fully formed, as if somebody had stuffed a CD into a computer. That . . . is infusion, or at least it’s similar.
Demons, having been angels at one time. have full infusion. Humans just have talent or skills, which they have to work at and practice in order to make use of.
Aside from the people I listed, let’s consider infusion from the opposite direction, demonic possession. Of course possession is not infusion, but when a demon takes control, entire languages, languages that were last spoken several millennia ago, come spewing out of the possessed person’s mouth fully formed, as if somebody had stuffed a CD into a computer. That . . . is infusion, or at least it’s similar.
Demons, having been angels at one time. have full infusion. Humans just have talent or skills, which they have to work at and practice in order to make use of.
R
rom
Guest
Up to a certain degree I would consider talent as natural. However, some individuals receive talent in an extraordinary degree, which would make me think that the talent was infused from above. By “extraordinary degree” I don’t just mean above-average; I mean exceptional.
Of course, even an inborn talent can still be developed and grow. And a person with an extraordinary talent might still show the habits of hard-working people. And I think this might be the reasons why some people had downplayed the genius of Mozart, for example. They say that as a young boy he received training from his Dad, who was also a musician. They also say that as an adult he was a hard-working musician, so his numerous compositions were the result of hard-work rather than talent. I do not agree with that. I think it is the result of both.
His musical talent might have started to manifest itself when his Dad began teaching him the rudiments of music. But being proficient in the piano and violin at the age of 5 was not something that you could justly attribute merely to the early training he received from his Dad. All his Dad probably did was show him how each note sounds on the piano. Then soon enough he already knew how to compose a melody, and could already figure the harmonic chords that will go with it! Yes, at age 5 he was not just tinkering with the keys on the keyboard. He was composing music and playing before European royalty. Do you honestly think that kind of talent was natural and not infused?
And, yes, Mozart was also a hard-working professional, always talking with other professional musicians and critics. But that will not explain how, in his short life of 35 years, he produced 600 works of music in all genres - symphonies, operas, concertos, chamber music, etc., many of which are still being studied today as masterpieces of music! and lavishly praised by equally talented composers, such as Joseph Haydn. What better compliment can a composer receive than those that come from his fellow composers?
No, I think that Mozart was a musical genius, but I praise God for it, not just Mozart. It was God who gave him the talent.
You are right. Demonic possession is not infusion. It is not even similar. What happens in demonic possession is that the demon takes control of your body, so that it is really the demon who is speaking several languages by means of your body, rather than you. If the demon is expelled, say by exorcism, you probably end up knowing only whatever language you knew before you were possessed. It is unlikely that he would teach you anything good (such as learn a new language), unless it serves his evil purposes.
W
Wesrock
Guest
St. Thomas (following Aristotle) taught that “nothing is in the intellect that was not first in the senses”. What this is specifically referring to is a human’s ability to know (or express) a concept in thought, with concepts being the universal forms of things abstracted from their material conditions and as the medium by which we know (and not just perceive) external objects. The human intellect does not have these forms a priori (contra the innatists of his day, and Plato who preceded him and the Idealists who would later follow). For St. Thomas, the human intellect comes into the world as a blank slate in potency to form, and it is brought to the actuality of possessing and expressing a form (as a concept) by objects acting on us and us detecting them through our senses. There is a discursive process from the senses to the human becoming able to express a concept which I won’t detail here.
In a sense, repeatedly encountering objects “impressed” their forms on our intellects, from which we can then move to expressing them as concepts. A human being might first learn to distinguish between different things as various bodies (with bodies as a universal form of understanding, and that this is not that, that there is a that at all, and that that is not me) before coming to know that this body is a stone and that body is a tree. Our knowledge of things is a posteriori.
Can a human being have infused knowledge? Well, God could certainly make it so. But that isn’t the natural way of things. At least, that’s not how St. Thomas and most philosophers in his tradition today see it. Whether our concepts are possessed a priori or a posteriori is not a matter of Catholic dogma, though.
An interesting side note, because I’ve been reading a lot about this lately, is that St. Thomas called the expressing of a concept in the intellect “diction” and often referred to a concept in thought as a “word” and “image”. The more familiar you are with St. Thomas’ notion of human intellection, the better you can understand St. Thomas’ thoughts on the generation of the Son (or Word/Logos) from the Father.
In a sense, repeatedly encountering objects “impressed” their forms on our intellects, from which we can then move to expressing them as concepts. A human being might first learn to distinguish between different things as various bodies (with bodies as a universal form of understanding, and that this is not that, that there is a that at all, and that that is not me) before coming to know that this body is a stone and that body is a tree. Our knowledge of things is a posteriori.
Can a human being have infused knowledge? Well, God could certainly make it so. But that isn’t the natural way of things. At least, that’s not how St. Thomas and most philosophers in his tradition today see it. Whether our concepts are possessed a priori or a posteriori is not a matter of Catholic dogma, though.
An interesting side note, because I’ve been reading a lot about this lately, is that St. Thomas called the expressing of a concept in the intellect “diction” and often referred to a concept in thought as a “word” and “image”. The more familiar you are with St. Thomas’ notion of human intellection, the better you can understand St. Thomas’ thoughts on the generation of the Son (or Word/Logos) from the Father.
Last edited:
R
rom
Guest
Thank you. That is exactly what I said in Post #8 above. Infused knowledge is not attained according to our natural mode of knowing, which is by way of concepts. I believe that infused knowledge is granted to us in a non-conceptual manner.
Besides infused knowledge, there are other examples of knowledge that are attained without the medium of concepts and rational thinking. The knowledge that saints acquire by being one with God in the act of charity, is one example. But non-conceptual knowledge is not limited to those granted to us in a supernatural way, such as the infused gifts of the Holy Spirit or knowledge acquired in mystical experience. In one of his essays Jacques Maritain mentioned natural cases of “knowledge through connaturality” (such as poetic knowledge in a poet, or the moral knowledge of a virtuous man) which comes to us without the use of concepts and discursive reasoning. See The Range of Reason, Ch. 3.
W
Wesrock
Guest
We should not equate connatural knowledge with infused knowledge. The knowledge of angels is infused. Infused knowledge in man would be made immediately present in the intellect by God or an angel. This is not simply revelation, for revelation can be made to man through some type of sensory or dream-like experience. We are referring to something much more immediate.
Connatural knowledge, meaning knowledge with or by nature, is not that. It is not knowledge reached through discursive reasoning process (such as syllogisms) or a rational argument. It is by intuition and inclination. I might have by nature an intuition that something is right and something else is wrong, or an intuition about a beautiful poetic meter or phrase, or even a spiritual intuition. Things not reached by a deliberate rational argument, and intuitions someone might feel that they are certain of without being able to articulate a reason. Someone who has studied no moral philosophy will still have moral intuitions and inclinations. But it stems from the inclinations of our individual natures, from nature and not from “above” in any supernatural or preternatural way. And this doesn’t mean we do it in an irrational way. While I might not be able to articulate why some particular act is wrong, I still have a minimum sense of right and wrong as concepts. While I might not have formal schooling in music, I might still have a minimum idea of beauty (in sound). Some people might be more inclined towards certain skills than others by nature (and this is in part biological, part will). Infused knowledge, on the other hand, isn’t inclinations but is just having those rational concepts and rational syllogisms and rational arguments immediately and not developed by any discursive reasoning or experience.
Of course all things are in the end from God and intended by God, that includes the natural order. But we have connatural knowledge and a capacity for learning conceptual knowledge through experience by nature, not by infusion.
Connatural knowledge, meaning knowledge with or by nature, is not that. It is not knowledge reached through discursive reasoning process (such as syllogisms) or a rational argument. It is by intuition and inclination. I might have by nature an intuition that something is right and something else is wrong, or an intuition about a beautiful poetic meter or phrase, or even a spiritual intuition. Things not reached by a deliberate rational argument, and intuitions someone might feel that they are certain of without being able to articulate a reason. Someone who has studied no moral philosophy will still have moral intuitions and inclinations. But it stems from the inclinations of our individual natures, from nature and not from “above” in any supernatural or preternatural way. And this doesn’t mean we do it in an irrational way. While I might not be able to articulate why some particular act is wrong, I still have a minimum sense of right and wrong as concepts. While I might not have formal schooling in music, I might still have a minimum idea of beauty (in sound). Some people might be more inclined towards certain skills than others by nature (and this is in part biological, part will). Infused knowledge, on the other hand, isn’t inclinations but is just having those rational concepts and rational syllogisms and rational arguments immediately and not developed by any discursive reasoning or experience.
Of course all things are in the end from God and intended by God, that includes the natural order. But we have connatural knowledge and a capacity for learning conceptual knowledge through experience by nature, not by infusion.
W
WannabeSaint
Guest
So would this mean that if the knowledge is infused, the person simply knows it and doesn’t wonder “is this knowledge infused?” ?
W
Wesrock
Guest
To me, it would not seem necessary that they realize it is infused, though it’s also not necessary that they never question it.Wesrock:
So would this mean that if the knowledge is infused, the person simply knows it and doesn’t wonder “is this knowledge infused?” ?
W
WannabeSaint
Guest
How would they be able to differentiate when something is acquired and infused then?
There are some words that I’ve known the meaning to for as long as I can remember. Words like “I”, “it”, “the”, “my”, “did”
I don’t remember exactly when I learned these words, because my memory can’t go back that far. I’m assuming my parents taught me those words, but I can’t remember.
So whenever I think the word “it”, how would I be able to know that word was acquired by the senses, and not something that was infused into me a long time ago and forgot about it?
There are some words that I’ve known the meaning to for as long as I can remember. Words like “I”, “it”, “the”, “my”, “did”
I don’t remember exactly when I learned these words, because my memory can’t go back that far. I’m assuming my parents taught me those words, but I can’t remember.
So whenever I think the word “it”, how would I be able to know that word was acquired by the senses, and not something that was infused into me a long time ago and forgot about it?
W
Wesrock
Guest
It’s not about when you learned the words. We have plenty of experiences before ever learning to recognize words in speech. Experiences that help us to learn to distinguish the various bodies affecting our senses, for primitive self reflection and intuition to let us know that we are something ourselves that is different than those external objects we experience, that we can be affected by them and we can affect them, that we can act.
Why would you suspect it was infused or that we possess the concept a priori? That’s really what it boils down to. We can’t measure the concepts in the intellect. The question just falls back to a general theory of knowledge and what position we can justify. There’s no strict demonstration on any account.
Why would you suspect it was infused or that we possess the concept a priori? That’s really what it boils down to. We can’t measure the concepts in the intellect. The question just falls back to a general theory of knowledge and what position we can justify. There’s no strict demonstration on any account.
R
rom
Guest
I think Wesrock answered your question adequately.
Of course, anyone who wants to express non-conceptual knowledge acquired through infusion or through connaturality will have to use words and concepts acquired through the senses. However, you will notice that both saints and poets seem to be grappling for words in trying to express what they learned in a non-conceptual way. The mystics, in particular, seem to be at a loss for words in trying to express their mystical experiences on account of the loftiness of the object of which they had the privilege of “tasting.” For example, St. Teresa of Avila in her Autobiography says this: “This satisfaction lies in the innermost part of the soul, and the soul knows not whence, nor how, it came, very often it knows not what to do, or wish, or pray for. It seems to find all this at once, and knoweth not what it hath found; nor do I know how to explain it…” Life, Ch. XIV, par. 9, p.88.
See what I mean?
S
Socrates92
Guest
That’s an interesting question though. Are these cases of extraordinary prodigal talent cases of infused knowledge? Would you classify any “knack” which seems out of the ordinary as a case of infused knowledge? Is it really something qualitatively different from just being good at something, or is it just a quantitative matter (Ie: Alma had ordinary talent, she just had a lot of it.)? I’m not convinced as of yet that it’s not the latter.
W
Wesrock
Guest
I know this was directed at rom, but I’ll give my take. This seems related to the connatural knowledge (or intuitive knowledge and inclinations) that were mentioned above. As such I would consider it to be explainable by the person’s human nature without appealing to infused knowledge.
R
rom
Guest
That is really a good question because it is not easy to distinguish natural from infused talent. However, I take my cue from the nature of what is known as a “third class miracle.” I know this is a little off topic, but please bear with me. What we Catholics call a “third class miracle” is one that nature can produce, but not in the manner in which it is produced. For example, the sudden or instantaneous healing of a wound would be considered as a third class miracle. Because, although nature usually could heal a wound sometimes even without medication, it normally accomplishes this gradually, not instantaneously. So, when healing happens suddenly or instantaneously, we know that God’s finger was involved. Similarly, people with natural talents manifest their special abilities, and often improve them, but this normally happens with the passage of time. When a remarkable skill or talent is exhibited at a very young age, or when there is not enough time for anyone to naturally develop the talent, then I can see how God is involved. In this case I would consider the talent as infused, although the talent itself is not beyond the natural ability of other people to develop on their own.
Wesrock has a point in thinking that many of what we call “talents” were actually the result of knowledge through connaturality. So, we must take this into consideration before declaring that talent is infused. However, when talent is extraordinary in its manifestation and results, and especially when it can be shown that the talent was present at a very young age when little or practically no effort was made to acquire it, then we should not hesitate to give God due praise for His generosity in infusing knowledge to our child prodigies.
S
STT
Guest
Each person construct knowledge by interacting with reality. In another word, knowledge is gained.
E
EndTimes
Guest
God’s law is written upon the heart…
Via Man’s Reason, Senses, Experiences and yes others - Man can gain Knowledge
- Status