Monarchy of the Father

[thinkandmull]

[W]hat is receptive of color must be without color [sine colore], as what is receptive of sound must be without sound: for nothing receives what it already has: and so it is clear that the transparent must be without color. In De Anima II L.15, n.1. Cf.

Now the organ of any sense should not have in act the contraries of which the sense is perceptive, but should be in potency to them, so that it can receive them, since the recipient should be deprived of the thing received. . . . For the organ of vision, obviously the pupil, entirely lacks white and black and generally every kind of color; and it is the same in hearing and in smell.

Questiones De Anima Q8c.

 

[Vico]

thinkandmull;:

Ye I thought of that explanation after I posted the quote. Its more of an example of confusing choice of writing style than anything else.

What do you think about Aquinas’s comment in De Anima about the pupil not having color because it could see brown, for example, if it already had brown in it. Was Aquinas color blind? That’s my assumption. Even if he was, I would like to know how he thought a clear eye could see another clear eye.

[W]hat is receptive of color must be without color [sine colore], as what is receptive of sound must be without sound: for nothing receives what it already has: and so it is clear that the transparent must be without color. In De Anima II L.15, n.1. Cf.

Now the organ of any sense should not have in act the contraries of which the sense is perceptive, but should be in potency to them, so that it can receive them, since the recipient should be deprived of the thing received. . . . For the organ of vision, obviously the pupil, entirely lacks white and black and generally every kind of color; and it is the same in hearing and in smell.

Questiones De Anima Q8c.

A sensory receptor is different than the physical stimuli that it responds to. Just as with semiconductor devices, a light emitting diode converts current into light, and a photo-diode converts light into current. The eye is like the photo-diode not the light emitting diode. The rods and cones in the eye are different cells than the cells that make the pupil. One eye as an organ will receive light from a source directly or reflected from the surface of another eye. The other eye is not a direct light source but a reflective surface.

 

[thinkandmull]

The tongue can be tasted (in a kiss). Your explanation is dividing up the organ, like the eye, into a non-unified thing. Yet he says “For the organ of vision, **obviously **the pupil, entirely lacks white and black and generally every kind of color”.

 

[Vico]

This should be another thread because it does not seem to be related to monarchy of the Father. What do you think?

The tongue can be tasted (in a kiss). Your explanation is dividing up the organ, like the eye, into a non-unified thing. Yet he says “For the organ of vision, **obviously **the pupil, entirely lacks white and black and generally every kind of color”.

Aquinas breaks it down: “and so it is clear that the transparent must be without color”.

What is tasted and what tastes? The brain processes all sensory (name removed by moderator)ut, and the organs of taste are the taste cells. What the taste cells report is presence of chemical substance though a change in the proteins of the sensory cell wall.

 

[thinkandmull]

You are missing the point that he says “For the organ of vision, obviously the pupil, entirely lacks white and black and generally every kind of color”. He says the pupil, not a non-colored part, like a rod or cone. Even if the pupil was non-colored, how could it then see water?

 

[Vico]

You are missing the point that he says “For the organ of vision, obviously the pupil, entirely lacks white and black and generally every kind of color”. He says the pupil, not a non-colored part, like a rod or cone. Even if the pupil was non-colored, how could it then see water?

I doubt that I missed the point. You wrote before “I would like to know how he thought a clear eye could see another clear eye”?

He is giving one example of the pupil, for the eye. The eye is composed of parts and each part has its function. I gave a different example. Applied to his example, the pupil is the the opening in the center of the iris through which light enters, which “lacks white and black and generally every kind of color”, it is transparent, which allows all colors through.

 

[thinkandmull]

The pupil is black. If he is speaking of active parts of the pupil that are clear, then those actives parts could not see water which is clear. “Now the organ of any sense should not have in act the contraries of which the sense is perceptive, but should be in potency to them, so that it can receive them, since the recipient should be deprived of the thing received”.

 

[Vico]

The pupil is black. If he is speaking of active parts of the pupil that are clear, then those actives parts could not see water which is clear. “Now the organ of any sense should not have in act the contraries of which the sense is perceptive, but should be in potency to them, so that it can receive them, since the recipient should be deprived of the thing received”.

The eye in general is a receptor not a light source. There is no light coming from the back of the eye, except in the case of reflection, such as red eye in a photo, so the opening, called the pupil, usually appears as black, but the pupil is in the center of the iris and the lens there is transparent. The pupil is passive and not a receptor of light but the retina with rods and cones are are active parts.

ivyroses.com/HumanBody/Eye/Eye_Image-Formation.php

 

[thinkandmull]

So according to Aquinas’s reasoning the retina should have no color nor be clear, which is impossible

 

[Vico]

So according to Aquinas’s reasoning the retina should have no color nor be clear, which is impossible

No, that is not what he is saying. If you want to discuss it more, make a new thread, I will not respond on this one anymore.

 

[thinkandmull]

No, that is not what he is saying. If you want to discuss it more, make a new thread, I will not respond on this one anymore.

That is exactly what he is saying:

**W]hat is receptive of color must be without color [sine colore], as what is receptive of sound must be without sound: for nothing receives what it already has: and so it is clear that the transparent must be without color. In De Anima II L.15, n.1. Cf.

Now the organ of any sense should not have in act the contraries of which the sense is perceptive, but should be in potency to them, so that it can receive them, since the recipient should be deprived of the thing received. . . . For the organ of vision, obviously the pupil, entirely lacks white and black and generally every kind of color; and it is the same in hearing and in smell.**

Aquinas made a mistake, its not a big deal. We discussed this on the Philosophy forum already

 

[thinkandmull]

My point, just to clarify for the readers, is that Aquinas says the “organ of vision, obviously the pupil, entirely lacks white and black and generally every kind of color”. Now all parts of the eye, including the pupil, have a color. Even arguing that there is a colorless part of the pupil which sees, how can it see glass if “the organ of any sense should not have in act the contraries of which the sense is perceptive, but should be in potency to them, so that it can receive them, since the recipient should be deprived of the thing received.”

If someone argues further that this part of the pupil is beyond the transparency of glass, than I can still press the argument further and ask how it can see shape and extension if this part of the pupil has those. If it does not, then it is a power of the soul. However, Aquinas is saying that there is an ORGAN of vision.

Therefore Aquinas’s principle is unfounded. There is no physics proof that something that has matter cannot sense matter as he tries to set down here and elsewhere in his writings