Thomas began the Summa contra Gentiles before leaving Paris for Italy in 1259, writing fifty-three chapters of Book 1. Once back in Italy, he revised those chapters and pressed on with the planned four books of the great summary of Christian doctrine. A good portion of the work in Thomas’s hand has come down to us.
A recurring question about this Summa is what precisely is it – philosophy or theology? Thomas himself is quite clear on the matter. The first three books deal with truths accessible to unaided human reason, whereas Book 4 deals with truths of the faith which exceed the capacity of natural reason. The controversy continued none the less. If one’s conception of philosophy is antiseptically modern, any mention of the faith and revelation will be considered irrelevant to the establishing of truths on the basis of premisses available to all, believer and non-believer alike. To open those first three books is to enter a world very different from whatphilosophy has become. The pages are replete with references to Scripture. It is not surprising that some have felt that if this is philosophy, it is not philosophy in the sense the term has come to have in recent centuries.
Very early on in Book 1, Thomas draws a distinction between truths of God that can be known by reason alone and truths about God that can only be held to be such on the basis of the gift of supernatural faith. Many of the matters discussed in the first three books amount to things Thomas and other believers hold to be true on the basis of faith. The study of Aristotle had led Thomas to see that some of the things that had been revealed and were to be found in Scripture had been established by argument in the works of pagan philosophers. In effect, the first three books of the Summa contra Gentiles consist of philosophical arguments for these overlapping truths. Thomas’s phrase for them was ‘preambles of faith’ (praeambula fidei). The arguments are meant to be cogent for non-believers as well as believers.
The following chapters convey key concepts of Thomas’s moral philosophy.
SUMMA CONTRA GENTILES, BOOK 3
Chapter 1
For the Lord is a great God, and a great King over all the gods: in his hand are the depths of the earth, and the heights of the mountains are his. The sea is his: for he made it, and the dry land which his hands formed. Psalm 94.3–5
We have shown above that there is one first being possessing the full perfection of existence whom we call God and who from the abundance of his perfection grants being to all existing things. Thus not only is he the first of beings but the principle of all others. He grants existence to other things, not out of any necessity of nature, but of his free will, as is clear from the foregoing. The result is that he is the Lord of all the things he has made, for he rules over what is subject to his will. He has perfect dominion over the things produced by him, since in producing them he requires no external agent nor foundation of matter, since he is the cause of universal being.
Things which are voluntarily produced by an agent are each ordered to some end, for the good is the end and object of will, hence it is necessary that what proceeds from will is ordered to some end. But any thing attains its ultimate end through its action, which must be directed to the end by him who gives to things the principles through which they act.
Therefore it is necessary that God, who is completely perfect in himself and by his power grants existence to all beings, stand as the ruler of all beings and is directed by no one else. Nor is there anything outside his rule, since there is nothing that has not received existence from him. He is therefore perfect in ruling just as he is perfect in being and causing.
The effect of this rule is differently manifested in different things according to their different natures. There are some things produced by God that have intelligence and bear his likeness and represent his image. Hence they are not only directed but also direct their own actions to their proper end. And if by their own direction they are subject to divine rule, they are able to attain the ultimate end; but if by their own direction they depart from it, they are expelled. Things lacking intelligence do not direct themselves to the end but are directed by another. Some of these are incorruptible and neither in their natural being nor in their actions ever depart from the order to the end that has been set them, but are unfailingly subject to the first ruler: for example, celestial bodies whose motion is always uniform. Other such things are corruptible and can suffer defect in their nature – though this defect can be offset by something arising from it, as the corruption of one is the generation of another – and in their actions, which can deviate from the natural order, though this defect can be compensated for by a good arising from it. From which it is clear that these things do not depart from the order of the first ruler nor escape his power. These corruptible bodies, having been created by God, are perfectly subject to his power.
The Psalmist, therefore, filled with the Holy Spirit and pondering how he might show us the divine rule, first points out to us the perfection of the first ruler: perfection of nature, by calling him God; of power, by calling him the great Lord, as needing only his own power to produce his effect; of authority, by calling him the great King above all the gods, because, though many rule, all are subject to his dominion. Second, he describes for us the manner of his rule first with respect to intellectual beings which, by following his rule, achieve through Him their ultimate end, which is God himself: and therefore he says, because God will not forget his people. Then with respect to corruptible beings, because, even if from time to time they deviate in their proper activities, they are not removed from the power of the first ruler, so he says that the ends of the earth are in his hands. With respect to celestial bodies, which surpass the heights of the earth – that is, of corruptible bodies – and always abide by the right ordering of the first ruler, he says that the heights of the mountains are his. Third, he assigns the reason for this universal rule: it is necessary that the things God has made should be governed by him. And this is what he means when he says that the sea is his, etc.
Since in the first book we treated of the perfection of the divine nature and in the second of the perfection of his power, insofar as he is the maker and lord of all, it remains for us in this third book to treat of his perfect authority or dignity, insofar as he is the end and ruler of all things. This will be the order of procedure: first, to treat of him insofar as he is the end of all things; second, of his universal governance, insofar as he rules every creature; third, of his special governance, insofar as he rules creatures having intelligence.
Chapter 2: Every agent acts for an end.
It must first be shown that every agent, in acting, intends some end.
Of things which manifestly act for an end we say that that towards which they tend is their end, for the attainment of the end is the fulfilling of this and failure to fulfil it is to fall short of the end intended; for example a doctor acting to effect health and a man running towards a certain goal. In this respect, it doesn’t matter whether what intends the end does so knowingly or not, for the target is the end both of the archer and of the arrow’s flight. The bent of any agent tends to a definite thing: not just any sort of activity proceeds from an agent, whatever its kind, but heating from what is hot and cooling from what is cold. Thus activities are distinguished by the different kinds of agents. Sometimes an action terminates in a product, as construction in a house, healing in health; but sometimes not, as in the case of understanding and sensing. When an activity does end in a product, the bent of the agent tends by way of action to that product, but if it does not terminate in a product, the bent of the agent is to the activity itself, though in the former cases to a product by means of the activity.
Again, in all things acting for an end we call the ultimate end that beyond which the agent seeks nothing further, as the activity of the doctor extends to health and, when it is achieved, nothing further is striven for. But there is in any activity something beyond which the agent seeks nothing further; were this not so, actions would extend into infinity, which indeed is impossible, because, since the infinite cannot be traversed, the agent would not even begin to act, for nothing is moved towards that which it cannot attain. Therefore, every agent acts for an end.
Moreover, if the actions of an agent did proceed to infinity, either there is a product of such activities or not. If there is, its existence would be consequent upon an infinity of actions. But what requires an infinity of antecedents cannot be, for it is impossible for it to come to be, and what cannot possibly come into being it is impossible to do. That is why it is impossible for an agent to begin to do something which requires an infinity of actions. If on the other hand the actions have no product, their order either follows the order of the active powers, as when a man senses in order to imagine, imagines in order to understand, and understands in order to will; or it follows the order of objects, as when I consider body in order to consider soul, which I consider in order to consider a separate substance, which I consider in order to consider God. But it is impossible to proceed to infinity either in the order of active powers – any more than in the forms of things, as was shown in Metaphysics 2, and form is the principle of acting –or in the order of things, since there is a first being, as was proved earlier. It is impossible, therefore, for actions to proceed to infinity. There must then be something which, when had, brings the activity of the agent to rest. Therefore every agent acts for an end.
Again, in things which act for the sake of an end all the intermediates between the primary agent and the ultimate end are ends with respect to what is prior and active principles with respect to what follows. If then the effort of the agent is not directed to something definite, but actions, as has been suggested, proceed to infinity, active principles must be infinite in number. And this, as has been shown, is impossible. Therefore it is necessary that the striving of the agent be for something determinate.
Again, every agent acts either by nature or by intellect. But there is no doubt that things which act by intellect act for the sake of an end, for they act by preconceiving that which they pursue by their actions, acting on this preconception: this is what is meant by acting according to intellect. Now just as the whole likeness of the effect pre-exists in the intellect at which the knower aims by his actions, so in the natural agent there pre-exists the likeness of the natural effect by which the action is determined to an effect, for fire generates fire, and the olive an olive. Therefore, just as the intellectual agent tends to a determinate end by its action, so too does the natural agent. Therefore, every agent acts for the sake of an end.
Moreover, fault can only be found in things which are for the sake of an end, for fault is not imputed to something that fails to achieve what it is not aiming at. The doctor is at fault if he fails to cure, but not the builder or grammarian. But fault is to be found not only in things done according to art, as when the grammarian does not speak correctly, but also in things that occur by nature, as is evident when monsters are born. Therefore, both the natural agent and one who acts according to art and on purpose act for the sake of an end.
Again, if an agent were not to tend to some determinate effect, all effects would be indifferent to it. But something related indifferently to many does not do one of them rather than another, which is why in agents related equally to several, there can be no effect except insofar as it is brought about by something determined to one. Accordingly, it would be impossible [for the indifferent] to act. Therefore every agent tends to some determinate effect, which is called its end.
There are some actions which do not seem to be for the sake of an end, such as playful or contemplative activities and thoughtless deeds, such as scratching one’s beard and the like. For this reason some have thought that something can be done though not for the sake of an end. With respect to contemplative activities, however, it should be noted that while they are not done for the sake of any further end, they are their own end. Playful activities are sometimes engaged in for their own sake, as when one plays for the sake of the pleasure to be had in the game, but sometimes for the sake of an end, as when we play in order to study better afterwards. Acts which are without thought are not intended but arise from imagination or a natural principle, as when an indisposition of the humours causes an itch which is the cause of scratching, which comes about without thought. But this is to tend towards an end, though one outside the order of intellect.
This excludes the error of the ancients who completely removed the final cause from things and held that everything comes about from the necessity of matter.
Chapter 3: Every agent acts for the sake of the good.
That every agent acts for the sake of an end is manifest from the fact that every agent tends to something determinate and what it determinately tends towards must be fitting for it, because it would tend towards it only because of some fittingness to itself. But what is fitting to something is its good. Therefore every agent acts for the sake of the good.
Moreover, the end is that in which the appetite of the agent or mover, as well as of what is moved, comes to rest. But it is the mark of the good that it terminates appetite: the good is that which all things seek. Every action and motion, therefore, is for the sake of the good.
Again, every action and motion seems ordered to existence in some way, either that it might be preserved in the species or individual, or that it might be newly acquired. But existence itself is good, which is why all things desire to exist. Therefore, every action and motion is for the sake of the good.
Moreover, every action and motion is for the sake of some perfection. For if the action is itself the end, it is manifestly the second perfection of the agent. If however the action is a changing of external matter, it is manifest that the mover intends to bring about some perfection in the thing moved, to which the movable too tends, if it is a natural motion. But to be perfected is what we mean by being good. Therefore, every action and motion is for the sake of the good.
Again, every agent acts insofar as it is in act, but in acting it tends towards something similar to itself. Therefore, it tends towards some act, but act has the note of the good, for evil is found only in a potentiality falling short of act. Therefore every action is for the sake of the good.
Again, the intelligent agent acts for the sake of an end,determining itself to the end, but the natural agent, although it acts for an end, does not determine itself to the end, since it does not have the concept of end, but is moved to an end determined for it by another. The intelligent agent determines an end for itself only under the formality of the good, which is the object of will. Therefore, the natural agent neither moves nor acts for the sake of an end except insofar as it is good, since the end is determined for the natural agent by some appetite. Therefore, every agent acts for the sake of an end.
Again, to seek the good and to flee evil come to the same, just as to be moved from above and to move below receive the same account. But all things are seen to flee evil, for intelligent agents flee anything they apprehend as evil, and all natural agents, to the degree that they can, resist corruption, which is an evil for anything. Therefore all things act for the sake of the good.
Moreover, what any agent brings about outside its intention is said to come about by chance or fortune. But what we see come about in the works of nature is always or usually for the better, as in plants the leaves are designed to protect the fruit, and the parts of animals are designed for the safety of the animal. Now if this should come about apart from the intention of the natural agent, it would be by chance or fortune. But this is impossible, for things that happen always or usually are not chance or fortuitous events, but only what happens rarely, which is even more obvious in the case of intelligent agents. Therefore every agent in acting intends the good.
Again, whatever is moved is brought to the term of motion by the mover and agent. Therefore, mover and moved tend to the same. But what is moved, since it is in potency, tends to act, and thus to the perfect and good, and it is through motion that it passes from potency to act. Therefore, the mover and agent always intend the good when moving and acting.
That is why, when they defined the good, philosophers said that the good is what all things desire. And Dionysius, in On the Divine Names 4, says everything desires the good and the best.
Chapter 25: To know God is the end of every intellectual substance.
All creatures, even those lacking intelligence, are ordered to God as to their ultimate end, and they achieve this end insofar as they share some similarity with him. Intellectual creatures attain him in a more special manner, namely by understanding him through their proper activity. To understand God then must be the end of the intellectual creature.
For God is the ultimate end of every thing, as has been shown. Thus it is that a thing seeks to be united with God as to its ultimate end to the degree this is possible for it. But a thing is more intimately united with God insofar as it attains to his substance, which comes about when it knows something of the divine substance, which requires some likeness of him. Therefore the intellectual substance tends towards divine knowledge as to its ultimate end.
Moreover, the proper activity of anything is its end, for it is its second perfection, which is why something is called virtuous or good insofar as it performs its proper activity well. But understanding is the proper activity of the intellectual substance and is therefore its end, since the greatest perfection of that activity is the ultimate end, especially in those acts which like sensing and understanding are not ordered to effects. Since such activities are specified and differentiated by their objects, it follows that they are perfect to the degree that their objects are. Thus to understand the most perfect intelligible object, which is God, is the most perfect of acts of understanding. Therefore to know God by understanding is the ultimate end of the intellectual substance.
Someone might object that although the ultimate end of an intellectual substance consists in understanding the most intelligible object, what is most intelligible for this or that intellectual substance is not what is absolutely most intelligible; rather, the higher the intellectual substance, the higher will be what it can understand. The highest created intellectual substance might perhaps have as its highest object what is most intelligible simply, and its happiness would thus consist in understanding God, but the happiness of a lesser intellectual substance would consist in understanding a lesser object which would none the less be highest for it. It seems particularly true that the human intellect, because of its weakness, does not understand what is absolutely most intelligible, for it relates to the most intelligible as the eye of a night bird to the sun.
But clearly the end of any intellectual creature, even the least, is to understand God. For it was shown above that the ultimate end to which any creature tends is God. But the human intellect, although it is the least in the hierarchy of intellectual substances, is none the less above things lacking intellect. But since of more noble creatures there should not be a less noble end, to understand God is the end of human intellect too. Every intelligent thing attains its ultimate end by understanding it, as has been shown. Therefore it is by way of understanding that the human intellect attains to God as its ultimate end.
Moreover, just as things lacking intellect tend to God as their end by way of assimilation, so do intellectual substances by way of knowledge, as is clear from the foregoing. Although things lacking intellect tend towards a similitude with proximate agents, the intention of nature does not come to rest there, but has as end the assimilation with the highest good, as is clear from what has been said, although such things can attain this similitude only most imperfectly. Therefore, however little an intellect can grasp of divine knowledge, that little will be its ultimate end, rather than perfect knowledge of less intelligible things.
Moreover, a thing especially desires its ultimate end. But the human intellect desires and loves and takes more delight in knowledge of divine things, though it can grasp but a little of them, than in the perfect knowledge it has of lesser things. Therefore, to understand God in some way is man’s ultimate end.
Again, anything tends to a divine similitude as to its proper end, and that by which anything is made most like to God is its ultimate end. The intellectual creature is especially assimilated to God because it is intellectual: this similitude sets it apart from other creatures and includes all other [similitudes]. With respect to this type of similitude, however, the greater similarity lies in actually rather than merely potentially or habitually understanding God, because God is always actually understanding, as was proved in Book 1. But our actually understanding is most similar to God’s insofar as we understand God himself, for God in understanding himself understands all else, as was proved in Book 1. Therefore, to understand God is the ultimate end of every intellectual substance.
Again, what is lovable only for the sake of another is lovable for the sake of what is lovable in itself or there would be an infinite regress in natural appetite, and that cannot be since then the desire of nature would be frustrated, because an infinite series is inexhaustible. But all practical sciences and arts and powers are desirable only for the sake of something else, for their end is not to know but to do (or make). Speculative sciences are desirable for their own sake, for their end is knowing itself. Indeed there is no other human activity other than speculative thought that is not ordered to some further end, for even the playing of games, which doesn’t seem to be done for the sake of an end, has an appropriate end, namely mental relaxation, since after play we seem mentally keener and more studious. If play were engaged in for its own sake, we would play always, which is inappropriate. Therefore all practical arts are ordered to the speculative and similarly all human activities to the intellect’s speculation, as to their end. For the ultimate end of all ordered sciences and arts is found in that which orders and is architectonic with respect to them, just as the art of navigation, which pertains to the use of the ship, is architectonic and directive of shipbuilding. Just so first philosophy relates to the other speculative sciences, for all others depend on it, as it were, receiving their principles from it as well as help against those who deny the principles. But the whole of first philosophy is ordered to knowledge of God as to its ultimate end, which is why it is also called divine science. Therefore knowledge of God is the ultimate end of all human knowledge and activity.
Again, in all ordered agents and movers the end of the first agent and mover must be the ultimate end of all, as the end of the leader of the army is the end of all those serving under him. Of all the parts of man, the intellect is seen to be the higher mover, for intellect moves the appetite by proposing an object to it, and intellectual appetite, that is, will, moves the sensitive appetites, namely, the irascible and concupiscible, since we never obey concupiscence without a command of will; the sensitive appetites, the consent of will advening, then move the body. The end of intellect therefore is the end of all human activities, but the end and good of intellect is the true. Consequently, the ultimate end is the First Truth. Therefore the ultimate end of the whole man and of all his operations and desires, is to know the First Truth, which is God.
Furthermore, there is a natural desire in men to know the causes of what they see. Hence because of the wonder induced by what is seen, the causes of which are hidden, men first began to philosophize, and when they discovered the cause they were content. Nor did inquiry cease until they had come to the first cause. For we think ourselves to know perfectly when we know the first cause. Therefore man naturally desires to know the first cause as his ultimate end. But God is the first cause of all; therefore man’s ultimate end is to know God.
Moreover, given any effect man naturally desires to know its cause. Now the human intellect knows universal being, and therefore desires to know its cause, which is God alone, as was proved in Book 2. Therefore it is not just the attainment of any ultimate end that assuages natural desire. For it is not knowledge of just any intelligible thing that suffices for human happiness, which is the ultimate end, but divine knowledge, which terminates natural desire as its ultimate end. Therefore, man’s ultimate end is knowledge of God.
Moreover, a body which tends to its proper place by natural appetite, moves more vehemently and faster as it nears its end; hence Aristotle proves in On the Heavens I that straight natural motion cannot be infinite because it would not be moved more before than after; that which tends towards something more vehemently after than it did before, is not moved to infinity, but tends towards something determinate. We find this in the desire for knowing, for the more someone knows the more he wants to know. Therefore man’s natural desire for knowing tends to some determinate end, and this can only be the most noble of knowable objects, which is God. Therefore divine knowledge is the ultimate end of man.
The ultimate end of man, as of any intellectual substance, is called felicity or happiness. For it is this that every intellectual substance desires as its ultimate end and for its own sake. Therefore it is the happiness and felicity of every intellectual substance to know God.
Thus we read in Matthew 5.8, ‘Blessed are the clean of heart, for they shall see God,’ and in John 17.3, ‘This is life eternal, that they might know thee, the true God.’
Aristotle agrees with this judgement in the final book of the Ethics, where he says that man’s happiness is speculative, that is, speculation bearing on the best speculable object.
Chapter 26: Does happiness consist in an act of will?
Because the intellectual substance attains God by his own activity and not only by knowing but also through the act of will, desiring and loving him and taking its delight in him, it might seem that the ultimate end, and the ultimate happiness of man, should lie not in knowing God, but rather in loving him or in some other act of will relating to him. Especially since the object of the will is the good, which has the note of end, whereas the true, which is the object of intellect, has the note of end only insofar as it is a good. Thus it seems that man does not attain the ultimate end through an act of intellect but rather through an act of will.
Moreover, the ultimate perfection of an activity is pleasure, which perfects an operation the way beauty does youth, as the Philosopher says in Ethics 10. Therefore, if the perfect operation is the ultimate end, it seems that the ultimate end lies rather in the operation of will than of intellect.
Again, pleasure seems always to be desired for itself and not for the sake of something else, for it is silly to ask someone why he wants to be pleased. But to be sought for its own sake is a mark of the ultimate end. Therefore the end seems to lie in the activity of will rather than in that of intellect.
Again, all especially agree in desire of the ultimate end, since it is natural, but more seek pleasure than knowledge. Therefore, the end seems to be pleasure rather than knowledge.
Moreover, will seems to be a higher power than intellect, for the will moves intellect to its act: intellect actually considers what it habitually knows when one wills it to. Therefore, the ultimate end, which is happiness, seems to consist in an act of will rather than an act of intellect.
This can be clearly shown to be impossible.
Since happiness is the proper good of the intellectual nature, it must come to an intellectual nature according to what is peculiar to it. But appetite is not peculiar to intellectual nature since it is in everything, though differently in different things. But this difference arises from the fact that things are differently related to knowledge. For things which completely lack knowledge have only a natural appetite, and things which have sense knowledge have sensitive appetite, which includes the irascible and concupiscible. And things that have intellectual knowledge also have an appetite proportional to it, namely the will. Therefore the will, insofar as it is an appetite, is not peculiar to intellectual nature. Happiness, then, and felicity are found substantially and principally in the act of intellect rather than the act of will.
Again, in all powers which are moved by their objects, the objects are naturally prior to the acts of those powers, just as the mover is naturally prior to the mobile thing’s being moved. The will is a power of this kind, for the appetitible moves the will. Therefore, the object of will is naturally prior to its act and its first object precedes any of its acts. That is why the act of will cannot be the first thing willed. But that is just what the ultimate end or happiness is. Therefore it is impossible that happiness or felicity should lie in the act of will itself.
Moreover, in all powers which can reflect on their own acts, the act must first bear on some other object and only afterwards on its own act. For if intellect understands itself to understand, it must first be given that it understands some thing and then understands itself to understand: for the understanding that intellect understands is of some object. Thus, either we proceed to infinity or, if we come to some first thing understood, that cannot be understanding itself, but some intelligible thing. Similarly, the first thing willed cannot be the act itself of willing, but some good thing. But the first thing willed by an intellectual nature is happiness or felicity itself: it is for its sake that we will whatever we will. Therefore it is impossible for happiness to consist essentially in an act of will.
Moreover, the truth of anything’s nature is according to the things which make up its substance, for a true man differs from a picture in the things which constitute the substance of a man. But true happiness does not differ from false happiness according to an act of the will, for the will is the same in desiring and loving and taking delight, whatever it be that is proposed to it as the highest good, whether true or false. Whether what is proposed as the highest good is true or false is determined by intellect. Therefore, happiness or felicity consists essentially in intellect rather than in an act of will.
Again, if some act of will were itself happiness this act would be desiring or loving or taking delight. But it is impossible that desire should be the ultimate end, for desire occurs when the will tends to what it does not yet have, which is contrary to the meaning of ultimate end. For good is not only loved when it is had but also when it is not, for it is by love that the not-had is sought by desire, and if love of what is already had is more perfect, this follows from the fact that the good loved is had. Therefore, having the good, which is the ultimate end, is different from loving, which before possession is imperfect though perfect after possession. No more can pleasure be the ultimate end. For it is the having of the good which causes pleasure, either when we are aware that we now have the good, or when we remember having had it or when we hope to have it in the future. Pleasure therefore is not the ultimate end. Indeed no act of will can itself be what happiness substantially is.
Again, if pleasure were the ultimate end, it would be sought for its own sake, which is false. For the pleasure desired is gauged on the basis of the object on which the pleasure follows; if the pleasure follows on good activities that ought to be desired it is good and desirable, but if on evils it is evil and to be avoided. So pleasure is good and desirable because of something else. Therefore, it is not the ultimate end or happiness.
Again, the right order of things agrees with the order of nature, for natural things are ordered to their ends without error. But in natural things, pleasure is for the sake of operation, and not the reverse. For we observe that nature attaches pleasure to those operations of animals which are clearly ordered to necessary ends, such as taking food, which is ordered to the preservation of the individual, and venereal pleasure, which is ordered to the preservation of the species. If pleasure did not accompany them, animals might abstain from these necessary matters. Therefore, it is impossible for pleasure to be the ultimate end.
Again, pleasure is nothing but the will’s coming to rest in an agreeable good, just as desire is the inclination of will to attain some good. And just as a man is inclined through will to the end and rests in it, so natural bodies have natural inclinations to their proper ends and come to rest when those ends are attained. It is ridiculous to say that it is not the end of the heavy body to be in its proper place, but the repose of the inclination by which it tends to it. For if nature principally intended that its inclination should find repose, it would not give it, for it gives it in order that through it a body might tend to its proper place, which when attained, as an end, the repose of the inclination follows. Therefore the repose as such is not the end, but concomitant with the end. Nor can pleasure itself be the ultimate end, but it is a concomitant of it. So much the less can any act of will be happiness.
Moreover, if some exterior thing should be something’s end, the activity by which it first attained that thing would also be called its ultimate end, as having money is said to be the end of those whose end is money, not the wanting of it. But God is the ultimate end of the intellectual substance and that operation whereby a man first attains God is said to be substantially his happiness or felicity. But this is understanding, because we cannot will what we do not know. Therefore the ultimate felicity of man lies substantially in knowing God with his intellect, not in an act of will.
The solution to the earlier objections is clear from what has now been said.
It is not necessary, because happiness is defined as the highest good, that it must substantially be an act of will, as the first argument maintained. Indeed, from the fact that it is its first object, it follows that it is not its act, as is clear from the foregoing.
Nor is it necessary that everything by which a thing is perfected should be its end, as the second argument assumes, for a thing’s perfection is of two kinds: in one way, of a thing when it is constituted in a given species, in another way, of a thing already having a species, for example the perfection of something already a house is that for which a house is built, namely being lived in, for a house is only built for this purpose, and that is why to be lived in should be put in its definition for it to be complete.
The perfection with respect to the species of house is both what is required for it to be of that species, its substantial principles, and what serves to make it more fitting, such as the beauty of the house. But that which is the perfection of a thing as already constituted in a species is its end, as being lived in is of the house. Similarly, the proper activity of a thing, which is, as it were, its use, is its end. The perfection of a thing with regard to its species is not its end: rather it is their end for matter and form are for the sake of the species. For though form is the end of generation, it is not the end of the thing generated and having a species; in fact form is sought in order that the species might be complete. Similarly, what preserves a thing in its species, such as health and the nutritive power, though they perfect the animal, are not the end of the animal, but rather vice versa, like beauty of a man, strength of body, and the like, of which the Philosopher says in Ethics I that they serve happiness instrumentally. Pleasure, however, is the perfection of activity, not as if the activity were ordered to it according to its species, but it is ordered to other ends, as eating is ordered to the species of the thing for the preservation of the individual. It is similar to the perfection which is ordered to the species of the thing since because of pleasure we bend ourselves more attentively and properly to the activity in which we delight. Hence in Ethics 10 the Philosopher says that pleasure perfects activities as comeliness does youth, which indeed is for the sake of the one having youth, not the reverse.
The fact that men desire pleasure for its own sake and not because it is for the sake of something else is insufficient sign that pleasure is the ultimate end, as the third argument concludes. For pleasure, although it is not the ultimate end, is none the less a concomitant of the ultimate end, since pleasure follows on the attainment of the end.
There are not many who seek the pleasure to be found in knowing rather than knowledge itself, but many seek sensible pleasure rather than intellectual knowledge and the pleasure consequent upon it. For most men know external things, because of the fact that human knowledge takes its rise from sensible things.
The fifth argument which maintains that will is higher than intellect because it is its mover is manifestly false. It is intellect which as such and in the first place moves the will, for will, as such, is moved by its object, which is the good apprehended. The will moves intellect as it were accidentally, that is insofar as understanding itself is apprehended as a good, and thus it is desired by will, with the result that intellect actually understands. This is the reason that intellect precedes will, for will never desires to understand unless intellect first apprehends understanding as a good. Again, the will moves intellect actually to know in the way in which an agent is said to move; but intellect moves will in the way in which the end moves, since the known good is the end of will, but the agent is subsequent to the end in moving, for the agent moves only for the sake of the end. It is evident then that intellect is higher than will simply, but will is superior to intellect accidentally and in a certain respect.
Chapter 27: Human happiness does not lie in pleasure.
From the foregoing it is evident that it is impossible that human happiness should consist in bodily pleasures, the chief of which are found in food and sex.
For it was shown that according to the natural order pleasure is for the sake of activity and not conversely. Therefore, if activities were not the ultimate end, neither could the pleasures following on them be the ultimate end, nor those concomitant with the ultimate end. But the activities on which these pleasures follow are not the ultimate end, for they are ordered to certain obvious ends, eating to the preservation of the body and coition to the generation of a child. Therefore these pleasures are neither the ultimate end nor those concomitant with the ultimate end. Therefore the ultimate end should not be located in them.
Again, will is higher than sense appetite, for it moves it, as was said above. But happiness does not consist in an act of will, as has already been shown. Far less then will it be found in the aforementioned pleasures, which are in sense appetite.
Moreover, happiness is a good proper to man, for beasts cannot properly be called happy. But the pleasures in question are common to man and beast. Therefore, happiness is not to be sought in them.
Again, its ultimate end is the noblest among a thing’s features, for it has the note of the best. But these pleasures do not belong to man according to what is most noble in him, which is intellect, but according to sense. Therefore happiness is not to be sought in such pleasures.
Moreover, man’s highest perfection cannot lie in that which links him with lesser things, but rather in what links him to some higher thing, for the end is better than that which is for the sake of the end. But the pleasures in question consist in this that man is linked to things less than himself thanks to sense, namely to sensible things. Happiness, then, is not to be sought in such pleasures.
Moreover, what is good only insofar as it is moderated is not good of itself but receives goodness from the moderating. But the enjoyment of the aforementioned pleasures is only good for man as moderated, otherwise these pleasures would impede one another. Such pleasures, then, are not in themselves the good of man, but the highest good is that which is good of itself, and what is good in itself is better than that which is good through something else. Such pleasures, then, are not man’s highest good, which is happiness.
Again, in things taken in themselves, more follows on more, if both what follows and what is followed be taken simply as such. For example, if what is hot heats, the hotter will heat more, and the hottest will heat the most. Therefore, if such pleasures were good of themselves, the maximal enjoyment of them would be best. But this is clearly false, since excess is accounted vice and is harmful to the body as well as an obstacle to other such pleasures. They cannot, therefore, be man’s good as such, nor can human happiness consist of them.
Moreover, acts of virtue are praiseworthy because they are ordered to happiness. If then human happiness were to consist of such pleasures, acts of virtue would be praiseworthy by acceding to rather than abstaining from such pleasures. But this is false. For the act of temperance is especially praised for abstaining from pleasures, hence its name. Man’s happiness, therefore, is not found in such pleasures.
Moreover, God is the ultimate end of everything, as is clear from the foregoing. That then should be accounted man’s ultimate end by which he especially draws near to God. But by the pleasures in question a man is impeded from drawing closest to God, for that comes about through contemplation, which these pleasures especially impede, since they immerse a man in the sensible order, thereby drawing him away from intelligible things. It is not in bodily pleasures, therefore, that human happiness is to be sought.
The error of the Epicureans who held that happiness consists in sensual delights is thereby rejected. Solomon in Ecclesiastes 5.18, speaking in their name, says, ‘This therefore hath seemed good to me, that a man should eat and drink and enjoy the fruit of his labour… and this is his portion.’ And in Wisdom 2.9: ‘Let us everywhere leave tokens of joy: for this is our portion and this is our lot.’ The error of the Cerinthiani is also rejected: they held that in the ultimate happiness to be had after the resurrection there would be a thousand years of the reign of Christ according to carnal pleasure. That is why they are called Chiliasts or Millenarists. Also rejected are fables of Jews and Saracens that saw the reward of the just to lie in such pleasures. Happiness is the reward of virtue.
Chapter 28: Happiness does not consist of honours.
It is also clear from the foregoing that the highest good of man, or happiness, does not lie in honours.
Man’s ultimate end and his happiness lie in his most perfect activity, as is clear from the above. A man’s honour is not a matter of his own deed but of another’s towards him, who shows him reverence. That is why happiness ought not to be sought in honours.
Again, that which is desirable for the sake of some other good is not the ultimate end. But such is honour, for no one is rightly honoured save for some good in him, which is why men seek honour as though wishing to receive acknowledgement of some good in them, and why they rejoice more if they are honoured by the great and wise. Man’s happiness, therefore, is not to be sought in honours.
Moreover, one achieves happiness through virtue, and the acts of virtue are voluntary, since otherwise they would not be praiseworthy. Therefore it is necessary that happiness lie in some good that a man can voluntarily achieve. But it is not in a man’s power that he be honoured: that lies with the one bestowing honour. Therefore, human happiness ought not to be sought in honours.
Again, a man is worthy of honour only because of the good that is in him. But the evil too can be honoured. Therefore it is better to become worthy of honour than to be honoured and honour is not man’s highest good.
Moreover, the highest good is the perfect good which permits no alloy of evil. That in which there is no evil cannot be evil. Therefore there is no evil in the highest good. But a bad man can receive honour. Therefore honour is not man’s highest good.
Chapter 29: Human happiness does not consist of glory.
From this it is clear that man’s highest good cannot lie in glory either, which is the celebration of reputation.
Cicero says that glory is the constant praise of someone’s reputation and Ambrose calls it full acknowledgement with praise. Men seek the acknowledgement of praise and renown in order to be honoured by those to whom they become known. Glory, therefore, is sought for the sake of honour, so if honour is not the highest good, glory is even less so.
Again, goods are praiseworthy which show that one is ordered to the end, but what is ordered to the end has not yet reached the ultimate end. Therefore praise is not accorded to one who has already attained the ultimate end, but rather honour, as the Philosopher says in Ethics 1. Therefore, glory cannot be the highest good since it consists principally in praise.
Moreover, to know is nobler than to be known, for only the more noble of things know whereas the least are known. Therefore, man’s highest good cannot be glory, which comes about when someone is known.
Again, one only desires to be known for good things and wants his evil to be hidden. To be known is good and desirable on account of the goods that are recognized in someone. These then are better. Therefore the highest good of man is not glory which consists in someone’s being known.
Moreover, the highest good must be perfect since it assuages appetite; the knowledge of renown, in which human glory consists, is imperfect, for it is something full of uncertainties and error. Therefore such glory cannot be the highest good.
Again, that which is man’s highest good must be the most stable of human things, for the enduring constancy of the good is naturally desired. But glory, which consists in renown, is most unstable, since nothing is more mutable than human opinion and praise. Such glory, therefore, is not the highest good of man.
Chapter 30: Human happiness does not lie in riches.
It follows that riches cannot be the highest good of man for riches are only sought for the sake of something else; they carry nothing of the good in themselves but only when we use them, either to sustain the body or for something like. What is the highest good, however, is desired for its own sake and not for the sake of something else. Therefore riches cannot be the highest good of man.
Again, the possession and saving of things whose chief benefit for man lies in their being dispersed cannot be the highest good of man. But riches benefit most when they are expended, for this is their use. Therefore, the possession of riches cannot be the highest good of man.
Further, the act of virtue is praiseworthy insofar as it brings happiness. The acts of liberality and munificence are praiseworthy rather because they deal with the expenditure of money than with its conservation: hence the derivation of their names. Therefore happiness does not consist in the possession of riches.
Again, that the possession of which is man’s highest good must be better than man, but man is better than riches which are things ordered to man’s use. The highest good of man, therefore, does not lie in riches.
Moreover, man’s highest good is not subject to fortune, since the fortuitous comes about without the application of reason. But man must achieve his proper end through reason. But fortune plays a maximal role in the pursuit of wealth. Therefore human happiness does not lie in riches.
This becomes even more evident from the fact that riches are involuntarily lost, that they can bring evils which the highest good must lack, that they are unstable, and other like things which can be derived from our earlier arguments.
Chapter 31: Happiness does not consist in worldly power.
Similarly, worldly power cannot be man’s highest good because in obtaining it too a great deal of luck is involved, it is unstable, it is not subject to a man’s will, and many evils attend it – all of which are repugnant to the highest good, as is evident from what has gone before.
Again, a man is called good especially insofar as he attains the highest good. But he is called neither good nor bad because he has power, for nothing is good just because it can bring about good, nor bad just because it can bring about evils. And that is why the highest good cannot lie in the fact that one has power.
Again, all power is related to something else. But the highest good is not related to something else. Therefore, power is not man’s highest good.
Moreover, that which can be used well or badly cannot be man’s highest good, since what cannot be badly used is better. But power is something that can be used well or badly, for rational powers are open to opposites. Therefore human power is not man’s highest good.
Moreover, if any power were the highest good, it would have to be the most perfect. But human power is most imperfect, for it is rooted in the wills and opinions of men in which there is the greatest inconstancy. And the greater the power is thought to be the more it depends on man, which contributes to its weakness, since what depends on many can be destroyed in many ways. Therefore worldly power is not man’s highest good.
Man’s happiness, therefore, does not consist in any external good, since all external goods, which are called goods of fortune, are contained among those discussed.
Chapter 32: Happiness does not consist in bodily goods.
Similar considerations will show that man’s highest good does not lie in goods of the body, such as health, beauty and strength, for these too are common to the good and evil, are unstable and are not subject to will.
Moreover, the soul is better than the body, which only lives and has the aforementioned goods through the soul. Therefore since the good of the soul, such as understanding and the like, is better than the good of body, the good of body cannot be man’s highest good.
Again, these goods are common to man and other animals, but felicity is man’s proper good. Therefore man’s felicity cannot lie in such goods.
Moreover, many animals excel men with respect to goods of the body, for some are swifter than man, some more robust, and so on with others. Therefore, if man’s highest good were to lie in these, man would not be the best of animals, which is clearly false.
Chapter 33: Human happiness does not lie in the senses.
For much the same reasons it is apparent that man’s highest good cannot lie in goods of the sensitive part, for these goods too are common to man and other animals.
Again, intellect is better than sense; therefore the good of intellect is better than the good of sense. Man’s highest good, therefore, cannot lie in sense.
Again, the keenest sense pleasure lies in food and sex, in which the highest good would have to lie, if it were in sense. However, it does not lie in these, and therefore man’s highest good is not in sense.
Moreover, the senses are loved for their usefulness and for the sake of knowledge. But the whole usefulness of sense is with respect to goods of body. But sense knowledge is ordered to intellectual, hence animals lacking intellect delight in sensing only with reference to its usefulness with respect to body, insofar as good and sex are consequent upon sense knowledge. Therefore, man’s highest good, which is happiness, does not lie in the sensitive part.
Chapter 34: Man’s happiness does not lie in acts of the moral virtues.
It seems that man’s ultimate happiness does not lie in moral activities either.
Human happiness is not ordered to a further end if it is ultimate. But all moral activities are ordered to something else, which is evident from the chief among them. Acts of courage, which occur in warfare, are ordered to victory and peace, for it would be stupid to make war for its own sake. Similarly acts of justice are ordered to keeping the peace among men which comes about when everyone has what is his. Therefore human happiness does not consist in moral activity.
Again, moral virtues are for the sake of preserving the mean in inner passions and external things, but it could not be that the moderating of passions and of external goods is the ultimate end of human life. These passions and external things are ordered to something else, so it is not possible that the ultimate happiness of man should lie in acts of the moral virtues.
Moreover, since a man is a man because he possesses reason, it is necessary that his proper good, which is happiness, should be something proper to reason. But that which is intrinsic to reason is more proper to it than what it brings about in another. Therefore, since the good of moral virtue is something of reason established in other things, it could not be what is best for man as happiness is, which is rather some good situated in reason itself.
Again, it was shown above that the ultimate end of things is to be assimilated to God. Therefore, man’s happiness will lie in that which most assimilates him to God. But this does not come about through the moral virtues, since such acts can only be attributed to God metaphorically, because God does not have passions or anything like them, which are the subject of moral virtues. Therefore, man’s ultimate happiness, which is his ultimate end, does not consist in the moral acts.
Moreover, happiness is the proper good of man. Therefore his ultimate happiness must be sought in that good which is the most proper of all the human goods in contrast to the other animals, and the acts of moral virtues are not that, for some animals partake something of liberality or courage, but no animal partakes anything of intellectual activity. Therefore man’s ultimate happiness is not in moral acts.
Chapter 35: Ultimate happiness does not lie in the act of prudence.
From this it is also clear that man’s ultimate happiness does not lie in the act of prudence.
For the act of prudence deals only with moral virtues, and man’s ultimate happiness does not lie in acts of moral virtues. Therefore, not in the act of prudence.
Again, man’s ultimate happiness lies in his best activity, but the best activity of man, with respect to what is proper to him, relates to the most perfect objects. The activity of prudence does not bear on the most perfect objects of intellect or reason, for it deals with contingent things to be done, not necessary things. Therefore, man’s ultimate happiness does not lie in its activity.
Moreover, what is ordered to another as its end is not man’s ultimate happiness. But the act of prudence is ordered to another as to an end, both because all practical knowledge, which includes prudence, is ordered to activity, and also because prudence disposes a man to act well with regard to things to be chosen, as is clear in Aristotle, Ethics 6. Therefore, man’s ultimate happiness does not lie in the act of prudence.
Again, irrational animals partake nothing of happiness, as Aristotle proves in Ethics 1, but they do partake something of prudence, as is clear from the same author in Metaphysics I. Therefore, happiness does not consist in the activity of prudence.
Chapter 36: Happiness does not consist in artistic activity.
It is also clear that it cannot consist in artistic activity.
Because the knowledge of art is also practical and thus ordered to an end and cannot itself be the ultimate end.
Moreover, the artefact is the end of artistic activity, and it cannot be the ultimate end of human life, since we are rather the end of all artefacts, because all of them are made for the benefit of man. Therefore ultimate happiness cannot lie in artistic activity.
Chapter 37: Man’s ultimate happiness lies in the contemplation of God.
If man’s ultimate happiness does not lie in those external things which are called the goods of fortune, nor in goods of the body, nor in the goods of soul whether of the sensitive part or, in the intellectual part, in the acts of moral virtue, nor in any intellectual activities pertaining to action, namely, art and prudence, it remains that man’s ultimate happiness lies in the contemplation of truth.
This is the only activity of man that is peculiar to him and is in no way shared by the other animals.
Nor is it ordered to anything else as its end, since contemplation of truth is sought for its own sake.
By this activity man is linked with higher things by way of similitude, since only this among human activities is found in God and the separated substances.
And by this activity he attains those higher things by knowing them in some manner.
And man is sufficient to himself with respect to this activity, needing for it little help from external things.
To this all other human activities are seen to be ordered as to their end. For the perfection of contemplation requires a sound body to which are ordered all the artefacts necessary for life. It requires as well freedom from the disturbance of the passions, something secured by the moral virtues and prudence, and from external disturbance, to which civil governance is ordered. So, rightly considered, all human functions seem to be at the service of those contemplating the truth.
It is not possible, however, that man’s ultimate happiness should consist in the contemplation consequent on the understanding of principles, which is most imperfect because most universal, comprising the potential knowledge of all things; moreover, it is the beginning, not the end, of human study, granted to us by nature and not due to the pursuit of the truth. Nor could ultimate happiness be found in the sciences which have things below as their objects, since happiness must be located in that intellectual activity which bears on the most noble of intelligible things. It remains, then, that man’s ultimate happiness consists in the contemplation of wisdom, which is the consideration of things divine.
Thus what was proved earlier by argument is also clear from induction, namely that man’s ultimate happiness consists in the contemplation of God.
Chapter 38: Human happiness does not consist in the knowledge of God.
There remains to ask in what kind of knowledge of God the ultimate happiness of the intellectual substance consists. For there is a common and confused knowledge of God which is had by all men, whether because it is self-evident that God exists, like the principles of demonstration, which seemed so to some as we pointed out in Book 1, or which seems rather to be true, because by natural reason man can come straightaway to some kind of knowledge of God. For when men see natural things occurring in an orderly fashion, and there is no order without someone ordering, they perceive, for the most part, that there is something ordering the things they see. But what it be, or of what kind, or whether there be but one ordering nature is not known straightaway from this common consideration. For just as when we see a man move and accomplish other works, we perceive that there is in him some cause of these activities which is not in other things, and we call this cause the soul, still we don’t yet know what the soul is, whether it is a body, or how it brings about these activities.
It is not possible that this knowledge should be sufficient for happiness. For the activities of the happy person must be without defect, but this knowledge can have many errors mixed up in it, for some believed that the things of this world had nothing else ordering them than celestial bodies, so they called the celestial bodies gods. Some said the very elements from which these things are generated were gods, maintaining that the motion and other natural activities they manifest have no other cause of being than such things themselves, and other things are ordered by them. Some held that human acts are subject to no ordering other than the human, and they called the men who ordered others gods. This knowledge of God does not, then, suffice for happiness.
Moreover, happiness is the end of human acts, but human acts are not ordered to the foregoing knowledge as to their end; indeed it is had by all straightaway from the beginning. It is not in this knowledge of God, therefore, that happiness consists.
Again, no one seems blameworthy because he lacks happiness, rather those lacking it and striving for it are praised. But from the fact that one lacks the foregoing knowledge of God he appears especially blameworthy, for one would be accounted quite stupid if he did not perceive such manifest signs of God, just as someone who saw a man and did not grasp that he had a soul would be thought stupid. Thus the Psalmist says, ‘The fool has said in his heart, there is no God.’ Therefore it is not this knowledge of God that suffices for happiness.
Moreover, knowledge of what is common rather than proper to a thing is most imperfect, for example the knowledge of a man insofar as he moves, for by such knowledge he is known only potentially, since the proper is potentially contained in the common. But happiness is a perfect activity, and man’s highest good must be according to what is actual, not what is potential, for it is insofar as potency is perfected by act that it has the mark of the good. Therefore, this kind of knowledge of God is not sufficient for happiness.
Chapter 39: Human happiness does not consist in the knowledge of
God had through demonstration.
There is another kind of knowledge of God, higher than the former, which is had by way of demonstration by which we gain proper knowledge of him, for by demonstration many things are removed from him, by the denial of which his difference from others is understood. For demonstration shows God to be immobile, eternal, incorporeal, in every way simple, one, and the like, which we proved of God in Book 1. We arrive at proper knowledge of a thing not only through affirmations but also through negations, for just as it is proper to man to be a rational animal, so it is proper to him not to be inanimate or irrational. But there is this difference between these two modes of proper knowledge, that by affirmations we have proper knowledge of the thing, knowing that it is a thing and separate from others, whereas the proper knowledge of a thing achieved by negation tells us that the thing is distinct from others, but what it is remains unknown. Such is the proper knowledge of God that we have through demonstration and it is not sufficient for man’s ultimate happiness.
Members of a species by and large attain the end of that species, for what comes about by nature does so either always or for the most part, but fails in a few cases because of some defect. But happiness is the end of the human species, since all men naturally desire it. Happiness therefore is a certain common good which all men can attain unless they are handicapped by some impediment. But only a few attain to knowledge of God by way of demonstration, because of the obstacles to this knowledge which we touched on at the beginning of Book 1. Therefore, such knowledge of God is not what human happiness essentially is.
Again, it is the end of what is potential to be actual, as is clear from the foregoing. Happiness, however, which is the ultimate end, is an act which is not in potency to any further act. But the knowledge of God had by way of demonstration remains in potency with respect to knowing further what God is, or in a nobler manner, for those who come later strive to add to the knowledge of God that has been handed down to them from their predecessors. Such knowledge, then, is not ultimate human happiness.
Moreover, happiness excludes all misery, for no one can be at the same time miserable and happy. But deception and error are a large part of misery, for all naturally flee them. But many errors can be conjoined to the foregoing knowledge of God, which is clear in the case of many who knew some truths about God through demonstration but, following their opinions, fell into many errors where demonstration was wanting. If there were some who by way of demonstration discovered truth in divine matters with which no falsity was mixed because of their opinions, it is clear that they were very few, which is incompatible with happiness, which is the common end. Therefore, it is not in this knowledge that man’s ultimate happiness lies.
Moreover, happiness consists in perfect activity, but certainty is required for the perfection of knowledge, which is why we are not said to know a thing unless we know that it is impossible to be otherwise, as is evident from Posterior Analytics I. But the knowledge in question has much uncertainty, as is shown by the diversity of opinions concerning divine things which is learned by way of demonstration. Therefore, in such knowledge ultimate happiness does not lie.
Again, when the will attains the ultimate end, its desire is at rest. But the ultimate end of all human knowledge is happiness. That knowledge of God will be happiness essentially which, when it is had, knowledge of no other object will be desired. But the knowledge which philosophers can have through demonstration is not like that, because when it is had we yet desire to know other things, which are not yet known through this knowledge. Therefore, happiness does not lie in such knowledge of God.
Again, the end of anything existing in potency is to be made actual, and it tends to this through motion by which it is moved to the end. Anything that is in potency tends to become actual to the degree this is possible. For there is something existing in potency whose potentiality can be completely actuated, hence its end is to be made totally actual; for example, the heavy being found outside the centre is in potency to its proper place. But there is something whose complete potentiality cannot be reduced to act at one time, as is clear with prime matter: hence by motion it seeks successively to take on different forms which, because of their diversity, cannot simultaneously be in it. Our intellect, on the other hand, is in potency to all intelligible things, as was said in Book 2. But two intelligible objects can exist simultaneously in the possible intellect according to first act, which is knowledge, although perhaps not with respect to second act, which is their consideration. From which it is evident that the potency of the possible intellect can be simultaneously actualized. This is required for its ultimate end, which is happiness. But this does not come about by the knowledge of God gained by demonstration because, although it is had, we still do not know many things. That is why this knowledge of God is not sufficient for ultimate happiness.
Chapter 40: Human happiness does not consist in the knowledge of
God which is by faith.
There is another knowledge of God, that by which men know him through faith, which in one respect is superior to the foregoing, exceeding the knowledge of God gained through demonstration by an eminence that demonstrating reason could never attain, as was said at the beginning of this work. But man’s ultimate happiness cannot consist in this knowledge of God either.
Happiness is the perfect activity of intellect, as is clear from the foregoing. But in the knowledge of faith there is a most imperfect activity from the point of view of intellect although most perfect from the point of view of the object, because the intellect does not grasp that to which it gives assent. Therefore it is not in this knowledge of God either that man’s ultimate happiness can be found.
Again, it was shown above that ultimate happiness does not lie principally in the act of will. But will plays the chief role in the knowledge of faith, for in faith intellect assents to things which are proposed because it wills, but it is not moved necessarily by the very evidence of the truth. Therefore man’s ultimate happiness does not lie in this knowledge.
Again, he who believes gives his assent to what is proposed to him but which he does not see, hence faith is a knowledge more like hearing than seeing. But no one would believe things proposed to him by another which he does not see unless he thought the other to have more perfect knowledge of what is not seen than he who does not see. Either this estimate of the believer is false or the one proposing does have more perfect knowledge of what is proposed. And if he only knew these things by hearing them from another, this could not go endlessly on, for then the assent of faith would be vain and without certainty, since there would not be anything first and certain in itself to lend certainty to the faith of believers. But it is not possible for the knowledge of faith to be false or vain, as is evident from what was said at the beginning of this work. But if it were false and vain, happiness could not consist in such knowledge. Therefore, there is a knowledge higher than that of faith, either because the man proposing faith immediately sees the truth, as we believe in Christ, or because he accepts it from the one seeing it immediately, as we believe the apostles and prophets. Therefore, since man’s happiness consists in the highest knowledge of God, it is impossible that it should lie in the knowledge of faith.
Moreover, natural desire comes to rest in happiness, which is the ultimate end. But the knowledge of faith does not give rest to desire, but rather increases it, because everyone wants to see what he believes. Therefore, man’s ultimate happiness lies in the knowledge of faith.
Moreover, knowledge of God is said to be the end insofar as it unites us with the ultimate end of things, namely God. But through the knowledge of faith the thing believed does not come to be perfectly present to the intellect, because faith is of absent not of present things. Hence the Apostle says in 2 Corinthians 5 that so long as we walk in faith, we are exiled from the Lord. Through faith God becomes present to affection since the believer voluntarily assents to God, as is said in Ephesians 3.17: through faith Christ dwells in our hearts. Therefore, it is not possible that ultimate human happiness should lie in the knowledge of faith.
Chapter 41: Can man in this life understand separate substance by
means of the study and inquiry of speculative science?
There is yet another kind of knowledge of God that the intellectual substance can have, for it was said in Book 2 that the separate intellectual substance, in knowing its own essence, knows both what is above and below it according to the mode of its own substance. Which is particularly necessary if that which is above it is its cause, since the likeness of the cause must be discovered in effects. Hence, since God is the cause of all created intellectual substances, as is clear from the foregoing, it is necessary that separate intellectual substances, in knowing their own essence, should know God himself in the manner of a vision, for only something whose likeness exists in the intellect is known through knowledge of vision, just as the likeness of a thing seen bodily is in the sense of the one seeing. Therefore, any intellect that grasps separate substance, knowing of it what it is, sees God in a higher way than in any of the previous types of knowledge of him.
Therefore, since some held that man’s ultimate happiness was had in this life because he knew separate substances, it must be asked whether man can in this life know separate substances, for this is doubtful. Our intellect, in its present state, understands nothing without a phantasm which relates to the possible intellect, whereby we understand, as colours do to sight, as is evident from what was said in Book 2. If, therefore, any of us could come to know separate substances by means of the intellectual knowledge which is through phantasms, it would be possible for someone in this life to understand those separate substances and he would share in the knowledge by which the separate substance, in understanding himself, understands God. But if through the intellectual knowledge that is gained through phantasms we can in no way come to understand separate substances, it would not be possible for man in his present state of life to acquire this kind of knowledge of God.
There is a division of opinion as to our ability to achieve knowledge of such substances by the knowledge that involves phantasms, however. Avempace held that we can through the pursuit of the speculative sciences come to an understanding of separate substances from the things we know through phantasms. For we can by the act of the intellect extract the quiddity of anything having a quiddity which is not identical to its quiddity. For our intellect is designed to know some quiddity insofar as it is a quiddity, since the proper object of intellect is that which is. If then the first thing known by the possible intellect is something having a quiddity, we can by the possible intellect abstract the quiddity of that quiddity, and since this cannot be infinitely prolonged, it must come to an end somewhere. Therefore, by way of analysis our intellect can come to know a quiddity that does not have a quiddity. But such is the quiddity of separate substance. Therefore our intellect can, from the knowledge of sensible things gained through phantasms, come to an understanding of separate substances.
He goes about showing the same thing by another similar argument. For he says that the understanding of one thing, for example a horse, is multiplied in me and in you only by the multiplication of spiritual species, which are different in me and in you. Therefore it is necessary that an understanding which is not sustained by any such species should be the same in me and in you. But the quiddity of the thing known which our intellect is designed to abstract, as has been proved, does not have any spiritual and individual species, since the quiddity of the thing understood is the quiddity of the individual, neither spiritual nor corporeal, since the thing understood, as such, is universal. Therefore, our intellect is designed to understand a quiddity which is one in all. But such is the quiddity of separate substance. Therefore, our intellect is designed to know separate substance.
If these arguments be considered carefully they are seen to be frivolous. For if the thing understood were as such universal, the quiddity of the thing understood would have to be the quiddity of some universal, namely either of genus or of species. But the quiddity of the genus or species of these sensible things, of which we achieve intellectual knowledge through phantasms, comprises both matter and form. Therefore it is wholly unlike the quiddity of separate substance, which is simple and immaterial. Therefore it is not possible from the fact that the quiddity of the sensible thing is understood through phantasms that the quiddity of separate substance is understood.
Moreover, the form which cannot exist apart from some subject and that which can so exist are not forms in the same sense, even though both can be thought of without such a subject. Nor is there the same meaning of extension and of separate substance unless we posit separated extensions between species and sensible things, as some Platonists did. The quiddity of the genus and species of sensible things cannot exist separate from this individual matter, except perhaps if, following the Platonist, we hold the species of things to be separate, which is disproved by Aristotle. Therefore this quiddity is wholly unlike separate substances, which are in no way in matter. Therefore, separate substances cannot be understood just because these quiddities are understood.
Again, even if the quiddity of separate substance were granted to be the same as the quiddity of the genus or species of these sensible things, we could not say that it is of the same species unless we should say that the species of these sensible things were themselves separate substances, as the Platonists did. It remains that they are not of the same meaning except with respect to the definition of quiddity as quiddity. But this is a meaning common to species and substance. Therefore through these quiddities nothing could be understood of separate substances except the remote genus of them. But to know generically is not to know specifically, save in potency. Therefore, separate substances cannot be understood through an understanding of the quiddity of sensible things.
Moreover, there is a greater distance between separate and sensible substances than between one sensible substance and another. But to understand the quiddity of one sensible thing it does not suffice to know the quiddity of another, for one born blind in no way comes to know the quiddity of colour from the fact that he knows the quiddity of sound. Much less, therefore, from the fact that one understands the quiddity of sensible substance, is he able to understand the quiddity of separate substance.
Again, if we should hold that separate substances move the orbs by which motions the forms of sensible things are caused, this way of knowing separate substances from sensible things does not suffice to know their quiddity. For the cause is known from its effect either because of a similarity of effect to cause, or insofar as the effect shows the power of the cause. On the basis of similarity, however, one cannot know from the effect what the cause is unless it is a cause of the same species, but it is not in this way that separate substances are related to sensible things. On the basis of power, this is not possible except when the effect is equal to the cause, for then the whole power of the cause is known through the effect, and the power of a thing demonstrates its substance. But this cannot be said in the case in point, for the powers of separate substances exceed all the sensible effects which we comprehend with our intellect, as universal power exceeds a particular effect. Therefore, it is not possible that we can come to understand separate substances by understanding sensible things.
Again, all intelligible things that we come to know by inquiry and study pertain to one of the speculative sciences. Therefore, if from the fact that we understand the natures and quiddities of these sensible things we come to understand separate substances, this would occur in one of the speculative sciences. But we do not find this to be the case, for there is no speculative science which teaches what any separate substance is, but only that it is. Therefore, it is not possible from the fact that we understand the natures of sensible things that we can arrive at understanding of separate substances.
If it should be said that there could be such a speculative science, only it has not yet been discovered, this comes to nothing, for it is not possible to come to an understanding of such substances by means of any principles known to us. For all the proper principles of any science depend on the first indemonstrable and self-evident principles, knowledge of which we take from sensible things, as is clear at the end of the Posterior Analytics. Sensible things do not sufficiently lead to knowledge of immaterial things, as has been proved by the earlier arguments. Therefore it is not possible for there to be a science through which such separate substances could come to be understood.