Skip to main content

The Unity of the Intellect II


 Let us continue the thoughts we expounded yesterday. For the "Latin" thinkers most inspired by Averroes had another trick up their sleeves, by way of remaining orthodox Roman Catholics while expounding on the unity of the intellect. They didn't have to go with doubling truth. They could also double up what is meant by "intellect." 

For it isn't the intellect that needs to be saved in order not to be damned, according to that orthodoxy. It is the soul. And the intellectuals intent upon introducing Averroes' ideas north of the Mediterranean distinguished between the active or agent intellect on the one hand and the individual or passive intellect to be another. Aristotle speaks tersely of a passive intellect that "is what it is by becoming all things." He appears to mean that one aspect of the intellect becomes a balloon when it looks upon a balloon, becomes the 'popping' sound when it hears that. etc.  

In my life, I have "become" different things than you have in yours, due to the different histories of our bodies. So, you and I have different passive intellects in this sense, and accordingly different souls. But conceptual thought swoops in upon us from some sort of above> And it is always the SAME above, the single active mind. So, at any rate, the argument ran.  

This is where we get back to the book I discussed in yesterday's post. Ogden makes the case that the active/passive distinction was foreign to what Averroes meant. Ogden says that the Andalusian theorist took an "all-or-nothing" approach. Either our whole intellect is one, or each individual intellect is one ots own. There is no splitting the difference here.

In the review, Fisher says that Ogden makes some good points in defending the all-or-nothing view. This is something Averroes and Aquinas shared. Each thought the unitary intellect was all-or-nothing. To Averroes it was all, to the Parisian it was nothing. But this is not just a difference, it is a commonality, given the ease with which thinkers to this 21st century day still tend to adopt a split-level view of the soul/intellect that they both oppose.  

Ogden thinks they were right. The active/passive or perceptual/conceptual distinction is hard to render airtight. So: when seeking to answer the question "is there one human intellect or are there many" one should work from the all-or-nothing premise. 



Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

A Story About Coleridge

This is a quote from a memoir by Dorothy Wordsworth, reflecting on a trip she took with two famous poets, her brother, William Wordsworth, and their similarly gifted companion, Samuel Taylor Coleridge.   We sat upon a bench, placed for the sake of one of these views, whence we looked down upon the waterfall, and over the open country ... A lady and gentleman, more expeditious tourists than ourselves, came to the spot; they left us at the seat, and we found them again at another station above the Falls. Coleridge, who is always good-natured enough to enter into conversation with anybody whom he meets in his way, began to talk with the gentleman, who observed that it was a majestic waterfall. Coleridge was delighted with the accuracy of the epithet, particularly as he had been settling in his own mind the precise meaning of the words grand, majestic, sublime, etc., and had discussed the subject with William at some length the day before. “Yes, sir,” says Coleridge, “it is a maj...
9 comments
Read more

Searle: The Chinese Room

John Searle has become the object of accusations of improper conduct. These accusations even have some people in the world of academic philosophy saying that instructors in that world should try to avoid teaching Searle's views. That is an odd contention, and has given rise to heated exchanges in certain corners of the blogosphere.  At Leiter Reports, I encountered a comment from someone describing himself as "grad student drop out." GSDO said: " This is a side question (and not at all an attempt to answer the question BL posed): How important is John Searle's work? Are people still working on speech act theory or is that just another dead end in the history of 20th century philosophy? My impression is that his reputation is somewhat inflated from all of his speaking engagements and NYRoB reviews. The Chinese room argument is a classic, but is there much more to his work than that?" I took it upon myself to answer that on LR. But here I'll tak...
17 comments
Read more

Recent Controversies Involving Nassim Taleb, Part I

I've written about Nassim Taleb on earlier occasions in this blog. I'll let you do the search yourself, dear reader, for the full background. The short answer to the question "who is Taleb?" is this: he is a 57 year old man born in Lebanon, educated in France, who has been both a hedge fund manager and a derivatives trader. He retired from active participation from the financial world sometime between 2004 and 2006, and has been a full-time writer and provocateur ever since. Taleb's writings for the general public began where one might expect -- in the field where he had made his money -- and he explained certain financial issues to a broad audiences in a very dramatic non-technical way. Since then, he has widened has fields of study, writing about just about everything, applying the intellectual tools he honed in that earlier work. As you might have gather from the above, I respect Taleb, though I have sometimes been critical of him when my own writing ab...
4 comments
Read more