Averroes' Epistemology and its Critique by Aquinas

32 Pages·2016·0.61 MB·English

by  Richard C. Taylor

MMaarrqquueettttee UUnniivveerrssiittyy
ee--PPuubblliiccaattiioonnss@@MMaarrqquueettttee
Philosophy Faculty Research and Publications Philosophy, Department of
1999
AAvveerrrrooeess'' EEppiisstteemmoollooggyy aanndd iittss CCrriittiiqquuee bbyy AAqquuiinnaass
Richard C. Taylor
Marquette University, [email protected]
Follow this and additional works at: https://epublications.marquette.edu/phil_fac
Part of the Philosophy Commons
RReeccoommmmeennddeedd CCiittaattiioonn
Taylor, Richard C., "Averroes' Epistemology and its Critique by Aquinas" (1999). Philosophy Faculty
Research and Publications. 293.
https://epublications.marquette.edu/phil_fac/293
MEDIEVAL MASTERS AVERROES E I
PISTEMOLOGY AND TS
C A
RITIQUE BY QUINAS
Essays in Memory of Msgr. E. A. Synan
Richard C. Taylor
R. E. Houser
The critique by Thomas Aquinas of the
Editor
philosophical views of Averroes on the nature of human
beings and on the nature of human rational powers is
well-known and frequently confirmed as devastating to
the doctrines of Aquinas’s Andalusian adversary.’ The
doctrine attacked is found in Averroes’ mature thought
in the Long Commentary on the De Anima which was
translated in Latin in the early thirteenth century and
which provided the Latin West with its first line-by-line
analytical study of the psychology of Aristotle. There
Aven-oes holds for the existence of two separate
intellectual substances which make human rational
activity possible.* The Agent Intellect, f&niliar to
’ This view is what we fmd in the interpretive essays
accompanying a recent translation of the De Unit&e ZnteZZectus by
Ralph McInemy. See Aquinas Against the Averroists: On There
Being Only One Intellect (West Lafayette, Indiana: Purdue
University Press, 199 ) 188-211.
’ Alfied L. Ivry hold1 that Active Intellect and Material Intellect
are “two states of the same substance” in “La Logique de la
science de l’&me. Etude sur la m&ode dans le Commentaire
d’Averro&” in Penser avec Aristote (Paris: Editions Er&.s, 1991)
687-700. See 693. Davidson maintains that they are two distinct
substances in the account in the Long CommentaT on the De
CENTER FOR THOMISTIC STUDIES Anima. See Herbert A. Davidson, Afirabi, Avicenna, and
University of St. Thomas Averroes on Intellect (New York and Oxford: Oxford University
3800 Montrose Boulevard Press, 1992) 292-3; 332-333.The key text is Averrois Cordubensis
Houston, TX 77006 Commentarium Magnum in Aristotelis De Anima Libras, ed. F.
Stuart Crawford (Cambridge: Medieval Academy of America,
148 Richard C. Taylor Averroes’ Epistemology and Its Critique by Aquinas 149
Arabic and Latin readers who had studied the Aver-roes; it is more than a little difficult to believe
psychology of Avicenna and his doctrine of the Dater that many of his rather obvious criticisms could
formarum, “Giver of Forms,” plays the role of active properly represent sound refutations of the teachings of
agent in the realization of intellectual thinking. The Aver-roes, a philosopher acclaimed in Medieval Jewish
possible or Material Intellect, equally separate in and Christian intellectual circles for his intellectual
existence, is for Aver-roes that in which actual brilliance and insight* and widely recognized by Arabic
understanding of intellectual forms comes to be reading intellectuals of the Islamic world today as a role
realized. Understanding on the part of particular model of intellectual and scientific excellence.6
individuals is achieved only through an intimate albeit Something is amiss in this picture.
operational presence of this Material Intellect in the
soul of an individual human being. Since this doctrine
appears to entail the denial that individual human
beings have intellectual understanding (hit homo
inteZZigit), it was the key target of the extraordinary
’ See Edward P. Mahoney, “Aquinas’s Critique of Averroes’
textual and philosophical attack upon the teachings of Doctrine of the Unity of the Intellect,” in Thomas Aquinas and his
Averroes found in the De Unitate Intellectus Contra Legacy, ed. David M. Gallagher (Washington, DC: The Catholic
University of America Press, 1994) 83-106, for a descriptive
Averroistas of Aquinas.3 Nevertheless, even after
account of Aquinas’ critiques of Averroes throughout his Opera.
examination of the full range of Aquinas’s critique of
’ In his own Islamic cultural context Averroes was recognized as
brilliant and also by some as a significant threat to religious
1953) 450-1. I am in accord with Davidson that the Long orthodoxy. Although he was a Q&d& a religious judge, he was at
Commentary on the De Anima teaches that there are two intellects one point banished and his books were ordered burned.
existing as separate substantial entities. Rehabilitateh , he apparently died separated from his work and
’ “Aucune genre litteraire medievale n’offre le type de lecture writings. For an account of the life of Averroes and the historical,
pratique ici par Thomas. S’il y a quelque chose comme un ‘sujet pohtical and cultural context of his work, see Dominique Urvoy,
double’ c’est bien le double suject du geste interpretaif qu’il Ibn Rushd, Averroes, tr. Olivia Stewart. (London and New York:
accomplit ici: a la fois reconstruction de la pen&e d’Aristote et Routledge, 1991). Also see Dominque Urvoy, Averroes. Les
deconstruction d e l’exegese averroiste...L’exegese polemique ambitions d ‘un intellectuel mu&man (Paris: Flammarion, 1998)
pratiquee par Thomas dans le De unitate met cet opuscule a part and Roger Amaldez, Averroes. Un rationaliste en Islam (Paris:
dans son ceuvre d’interprete. Cette machine de guerre contre Editions Balland, 1998’).
l’averroisme est une machine textuelle: c’est le texte meme ’ For a study of the ways in which the thought of Averroes has
d’Aristote qui, re-lu, c’est-a-dire re-lie, denonce la proposition de been interpreted and used in modem times to further the cause of
lecture averroiste, c’est lui qui, dans son enchamement, some intellectual advancement, see Anke von Ktigelgen, Averroes und
deroule, fonctionne, avec un coup d’ecart, comme la meilleure die arabische Moderne. An&i&e zu einer Neubegriindung des
reponse possible aux errements du Commentateur.” Alain de Rationalismus im Islam (Leiden, New York, Cologne: 1994). Also
Libera in his introduction to his translation of Aquinas in Thomas see many of the essays in Averroes and the Enlightenment,
d’Aquin. L’Unite de l’bttellect Contre les Averrorstes (Paris: Mourad Wahba and Mona Abousenna, eds. (Buffalo, NY:
GF-Flammarion, 1994) 72. Prometheus Books, 1996).
148 Richard C. Taylor Averroes’ Epistemology and Its Critique by Aquinas 149
Arabic and Latin readers who had studied the Aver-roes; it is more than a little difficult to believe
psychology of Avicenna and his doctrine of the Dater that many of his rather obvious criticisms could
formarum, “Giver of Forms,” plays the role of active properly represent sound refutations of the teachings of
agent in the realization of intellectual thinking. The Aver-roes, a philosopher acclaimed in Medieval Jewish
possible or Material Intellect, equally separate in and Christian intellectual circles for his intellectual
existence, is for Aver-roes that in which actual brilliance and insight* and widely recognized by Arabic
understanding of intellectual forms comes to be reading intellectuals of the Islamic world today as a role
realized. Understanding on the part of particular model of intellectual and scientific excellence.6
individuals is achieved only through an intimate albeit Something is amiss in this picture.
operational presence of this Material Intellect in the
soul of an individual human being. Since this doctrine
appears to entail the denial that individual human
beings have intellectual understanding (hit homo
inteZZigit), it was the key target of the extraordinary
’ See Edward P. Mahoney, “Aquinas’s Critique of Averroes’
textual and philosophical attack upon the teachings of Doctrine of the Unity of the Intellect,” in Thomas Aquinas and his
Averroes found in the De Unitate Intellectus Contra Legacy, ed. David M. Gallagher (Washington, DC: The Catholic
University of America Press, 1994) 83-106, for a descriptive
Averroistas of Aquinas.3 Nevertheless, even after
account of Aquinas’ critiques of Averroes throughout his Opera.
examination of the full range of Aquinas’s critique of
’ In his own Islamic cultural context Averroes was recognized as
brilliant and also by some as a significant threat to religious
1953) 450-1. I am in accord with Davidson that the Long orthodoxy. Although he was a Q&d& a religious judge, he was at
Commentary on the De Anima teaches that there are two intellects one point banished and his books were ordered burned.
existing as separate substantial entities. Rehabilitateh , he apparently died separated from his work and
’ “Aucune genre litteraire medievale n’offre le type de lecture writings. For an account of the life of Averroes and the historical,
pratique ici par Thomas. S’il y a quelque chose comme un ‘sujet pohtical and cultural context of his work, see Dominique Urvoy,
double’ c’est bien le double suject du geste interpretaif qu’il Ibn Rushd, Averroes, tr. Olivia Stewart. (London and New York:
accomplit ici: a la fois reconstruction de la pen&e d’Aristote et Routledge, 1991). Also see Dominque Urvoy, Averroes. Les
deconstruction d e l’exegese averroiste...L’exegese polemique ambitions d ‘un intellectuel mu&man (Paris: Flammarion, 1998)
pratiquee par Thomas dans le De unitate met cet opuscule a part and Roger Amaldez, Averroes. Un rationaliste en Islam (Paris:
dans son ceuvre d’interprete. Cette machine de guerre contre Editions Balland, 1998’).
l’averroisme est une machine textuelle: c’est le texte meme ’ For a study of the ways in which the thought of Averroes has
d’Aristote qui, re-lu, c’est-a-dire re-lie, denonce la proposition de been interpreted and used in modem times to further the cause of
lecture averroiste, c’est lui qui, dans son enchamement, some intellectual advancement, see Anke von Ktigelgen, Averroes und
deroule, fonctionne, avec un coup d’ecart, comme la meilleure die arabische Moderne. An&i&e zu einer Neubegriindung des
reponse possible aux errements du Commentateur.” Alain de Rationalismus im Islam (Leiden, New York, Cologne: 1994). Also
Libera in his introduction to his translation of Aquinas in Thomas see many of the essays in Averroes and the Enlightenment,
d’Aquin. L’Unite de l’bttellect Contre les Averrorstes (Paris: Mourad Wahba and Mona Abousenna, eds. (Buffalo, NY:
GF-Flammarion, 1994) 72. Prometheus Books, 1996).
150 Richard C. Taylor Averroes’ Epistemology and Its Critique by Aquinas 151
I. Scholars on Aquinas’s Critique of Averroes had in fact been successfully refuted by Aquinas on the
matter of whether hit homo intelkgit, that is, whether
In 198 1, Bernard0 Carlos Bazan, working only thinking is something done by each individual human
from the Latin tradition, gave what is one of the most being: “The Arab Master is defeated on the ground that
thoughtful and carefully argued accounts of the he himself had chosen: since thought in act takes place
doctrines of Averroes and their critique by Aquinas. He only to the extent that the intelligible form is rendered
explained that many of the criticisms leveled by intelligible in act, and since we have this same form
Aquinas are not in fact based on a correct understanding only in potency, it cannot be said that we take part in
of positions held by Averroes. “The real problem the act of thinking.“g But Bazan’s analysis was shown
begins when we perceive that Saint Thomas identifies to be unsound by Deborah Black in a carefully reasoned
the Averroistic notion of the intellecturn specdativum
account of the thought of Averroes and the thought of
with his own notion of the species intelkgibilis. This Aquinas in 1993.” She directly showed the inade-
identification is already present in the Commentary on
quacy of the argument of Aquinas and also significant
the Sentences, and it is reaffirmed in all the later
difficulties in the epistemological teachings of Aquinas
works.“’ Since Averroes’ notion of the intelzectum
himself,” and indirectly also gave some indication of
specdativum is not the equivalent of the species
the considerable extent of Aquinas’ dependence on
intelligibilis in the thought of Aquinas, many arguments
Averroes’ psychological teachings. Yet the importance
against Averroes and founded on Aquinas’ notion of the
of Black’s article has not been sufficiently appreciated,
species intelkgibilis may indeed be cogent, although
perhaps in part because of the difficulty of Averroes’
they are not devastating against the thought of Averroes
complex and , somewhat unfamiliar philosophical
himself.8 Nevertheless, Bazan concluded that Averroes
psychology.
’ Bernard0 Carlos Bazan, “Intellectum Speculativum: Averroes, the separate Agent Intellect and the separate Material Intellect are
Thomas Aquinas, and Siger of Brabant on the Intelligible Object,”
eternal such that the Material Intellect is eternally actualized by the
Journal of the History of Philosophy 19 (1981) 432 Cf. ST light of the Agent Intellect. In Aquinas the intelligible species are
1.76.1~.
also described as intelhgibles in act but these exist in each human
’ This is discussed below at 178ff. The speculative intelligibles in
intellect as a consequence of intellectual abstraction from
the thought of Averroes differ from the intelligible species in the phantasms. In contrast to the speculative intelligibles, the
thought of Aquinas. The former are the unique intelligibles in act
intelligible species exist in a plurality of distinct created human
existing in the separate Material Intellect where they are the
intellects for Aquinas.
eternally existing referents of our scientific, that is, universal
’ Bazan 435.
terms. They are there as consequences of abstraction of lo Deborah Black, “Consciousness and Self-Knowledge in
intelligibles from denuded intentions presented before the Agent
Aquinas’s Critique of Averroes’ Psychology,” Journal of the
Intellect and impressed upon the receptive Material Intellect. In the
Histov of Philosophy 3 1 (1993) 349-385.
Material Intellect they are not separate things but rather
” See Black “Consciousness” 366-379, where she provides “A
actualizations of that Intellect’s noetic potency. For Averroes both
Response on Behalf of Aver-roes.”
150 Richard C. Taylor Averroes’ Epistemology and Its Critique by Aquinas 151
I. Scholars on Aquinas’s Critique of Averroes had in fact been successfully refuted by Aquinas on the
matter of whether hit homo intelkgit, that is, whether
In 198 1, Bernard0 Carlos Bazan, working only thinking is something done by each individual human
from the Latin tradition, gave what is one of the most being: “The Arab Master is defeated on the ground that
thoughtful and carefully argued accounts of the he himself had chosen: since thought in act takes place
doctrines of Averroes and their critique by Aquinas. He only to the extent that the intelligible form is rendered
explained that many of the criticisms leveled by intelligible in act, and since we have this same form
Aquinas are not in fact based on a correct understanding only in potency, it cannot be said that we take part in
of positions held by Averroes. “The real problem the act of thinking.“g But Bazan’s analysis was shown
begins when we perceive that Saint Thomas identifies to be unsound by Deborah Black in a carefully reasoned
the Averroistic notion of the intellecturn specdativum
account of the thought of Averroes and the thought of
with his own notion of the species intelkgibilis. This Aquinas in 1993.” She directly showed the inade-
identification is already present in the Commentary on
quacy of the argument of Aquinas and also significant
the Sentences, and it is reaffirmed in all the later
difficulties in the epistemological teachings of Aquinas
works.“’ Since Averroes’ notion of the intelzectum
himself,” and indirectly also gave some indication of
specdativum is not the equivalent of the species
the considerable extent of Aquinas’ dependence on
intelligibilis in the thought of Aquinas, many arguments
Averroes’ psychological teachings. Yet the importance
against Averroes and founded on Aquinas’ notion of the
of Black’s article has not been sufficiently appreciated,
species intelkgibilis may indeed be cogent, although
perhaps in part because of the difficulty of Averroes’
they are not devastating against the thought of Averroes
complex and , somewhat unfamiliar philosophical
himself.8 Nevertheless, Bazan concluded that Averroes
psychology.
’ Bernard0 Carlos Bazan, “Intellectum Speculativum: Averroes, the separate Agent Intellect and the separate Material Intellect are
Thomas Aquinas, and Siger of Brabant on the Intelligible Object,”
eternal such that the Material Intellect is eternally actualized by the
Journal of the History of Philosophy 19 (1981) 432 Cf. ST light of the Agent Intellect. In Aquinas the intelligible species are
1.76.1~.
also described as intelhgibles in act but these exist in each human
’ This is discussed below at 178ff. The speculative intelligibles in
intellect as a consequence of intellectual abstraction from
the thought of Averroes differ from the intelligible species in the phantasms. In contrast to the speculative intelligibles, the
thought of Aquinas. The former are the unique intelligibles in act
intelligible species exist in a plurality of distinct created human
existing in the separate Material Intellect where they are the
intellects for Aquinas.
eternally existing referents of our scientific, that is, universal
’ Bazan 435.
terms. They are there as consequences of abstraction of lo Deborah Black, “Consciousness and Self-Knowledge in
intelligibles from denuded intentions presented before the Agent
Aquinas’s Critique of Averroes’ Psychology,” Journal of the
Intellect and impressed upon the receptive Material Intellect. In the
Histov of Philosophy 3 1 (1993) 349-385.
Material Intellect they are not separate things but rather
” See Black “Consciousness” 366-379, where she provides “A
actualizations of that Intellect’s noetic potency. For Averroes both
Response on Behalf of Aver-roes.”
152 Richard C. Taylor Averroes’ Epistemology and Its Critique by Aquinas 153
My purpose here is to provide a short account of II. Averroes’ Mature Epistemology
some of Averroes’ fundamental epistemological doc-
trines on the human rational soul, with a view to For Averroes, like Aristotle, all knowledge
explaining important misunderstandings of his doctrine. begins with sense perception via the five external
I will consider two of the critical responses to the senses. Causally affected by the sensible object in
philosophical positions of Averroes made by Thomas accord with potentiality existing in the sense organ,
Aquinas, as expounded in a 1996 article by Lawrence the sense is actualized as a subject for the existence of
Dewan, O.P.‘* What becomes evident as a consequence the sensible form (or intention) in act. The object
of his account is a commonplace in the study of the which causally affects the sense has its sensible form in
history of philosophy: Great minds seldom make great actuality in the world, where it is sensible not in act but
mistakes in argumentation and seldom are deserving of in potency. This external sensible form existing in the
the disdain their critics heap upon them. Rather, world is the basis for the truth and reality of the sensible
differing understandings of key notions, foundational intention existing in actuality in the senses.13 The
principles, and starting points are more frequently the results of sensation are reported to the common sense,
reasons for what develop into doctrinal differences of which organizes sensations of both special and common
substantial and even monumental import. In the case of sensibles into a sensible image of the externally existing
Averroes and Aquinas,. their differences about the object. The four internal sense powers--common
rational soul are great, but these are not the sense, imagination, the cogitative power, and
consequences of faulty logic or poor argumentation. memory-taken together are the imaginative power as
They result from their chosen principles in a logical and concerned with images or the rational power as
coherent way, even in the case of Averroes’ much constituting the terrestrial psychological elements for
criticized teachings of the separate and unique Material rationality in humanbeings. Nevertheless, this use of
Intellect which is shared by all human beings. What is the term ‘rational power’ is not precise and is not to be
needed first, then, is an examination of fundamental taken literally, as we shall see. The most important of
notions, principles and starting points for the thought of these four powers for our present purposes is the
Averroes on this topic. cogitative power.
In his Long Commentary Averroes holds that
the cogitative power is a bodily power which is
” Lawrence Dewan, O.P., “St. Albert, St. Thomas, and Knowl- ” That the model for understanding Averroes’ doctrine of the
edge,” American Catholic Philosophical Quarterly 70 (1996) double-subject of intellection was sense perception is insightfully
12 1- 135. Fr. Dewan’s article is used here since it presents in a recognized by Michael Blaustein, Averroes on Imagination and the
concise and valuable way some of the central issues at stake in the Zntellect (AM Arbor, MI: University Microfilms International,
adversarial confrontation of the texts of Averroes by Aquinas. 1984) 60ff. Also see Black’s remarks in “Consciousness” 363-364.
152 Richard C. Taylor Averroes’ Epistemology and Its Critique by Aquinas 153
My purpose here is to provide a short account of II. Averroes’ Mature Epistemology
some of Averroes’ fundamental epistemological doc-
trines on the human rational soul, with a view to For Averroes, like Aristotle, all knowledge
explaining important misunderstandings of his doctrine. begins with sense perception via the five external
I will consider two of the critical responses to the senses. Causally affected by the sensible object in
philosophical positions of Averroes made by Thomas accord with potentiality existing in the sense organ,
Aquinas, as expounded in a 1996 article by Lawrence the sense is actualized as a subject for the existence of
Dewan, O.P.‘* What becomes evident as a consequence the sensible form (or intention) in act. The object
of his account is a commonplace in the study of the which causally affects the sense has its sensible form in
history of philosophy: Great minds seldom make great actuality in the world, where it is sensible not in act but
mistakes in argumentation and seldom are deserving of in potency. This external sensible form existing in the
the disdain their critics heap upon them. Rather, world is the basis for the truth and reality of the sensible
differing understandings of key notions, foundational intention existing in actuality in the senses.13 The
principles, and starting points are more frequently the results of sensation are reported to the common sense,
reasons for what develop into doctrinal differences of which organizes sensations of both special and common
substantial and even monumental import. In the case of sensibles into a sensible image of the externally existing
Averroes and Aquinas,. their differences about the object. The four internal sense powers--common
rational soul are great, but these are not the sense, imagination, the cogitative power, and
consequences of faulty logic or poor argumentation. memory-taken together are the imaginative power as
They result from their chosen principles in a logical and concerned with images or the rational power as
coherent way, even in the case of Averroes’ much constituting the terrestrial psychological elements for
criticized teachings of the separate and unique Material rationality in humanbeings. Nevertheless, this use of
Intellect which is shared by all human beings. What is the term ‘rational power’ is not precise and is not to be
needed first, then, is an examination of fundamental taken literally, as we shall see. The most important of
notions, principles and starting points for the thought of these four powers for our present purposes is the
Averroes on this topic. cogitative power.
In his Long Commentary Averroes holds that
the cogitative power is a bodily power which is
” Lawrence Dewan, O.P., “St. Albert, St. Thomas, and Knowl- ” That the model for understanding Averroes’ doctrine of the
edge,” American Catholic Philosophical Quarterly 70 (1996) double-subject of intellection was sense perception is insightfully
12 1- 135. Fr. Dewan’s article is used here since it presents in a recognized by Michael Blaustein, Averroes on Imagination and the
concise and valuable way some of the central issues at stake in the Zntellect (AM Arbor, MI: University Microfilms International,
adversarial confrontation of the texts of Averroes by Aquinas. 1984) 60ff. Also see Black’s remarks in “Consciousness” 363-364.
154 Richard C. Taylor Averroes’ Epistemology and Its Critique by Aquinas 155
concerned with individual intentions. Working with disengage within itself the particular intelligible form
images consequent upon sense perception, this which is responsible for the existence of the individual
individual power of soul yields individual intentions by in the world. It does so when it considers the form of
a process of distinction and discemment.14 This activity the particular being by prescinding from the individual
of distinction, discernment, and discrimination on the sensible characteristics revealed by the internal and
part of cogitation is only possible thanks to the prior external senses by way of the proper and common
role of the power of imagination.‘* The cogitative sensibles. While it is unable to prescind fully from the
power, as a particular power existing in a particular object and its nature and characteristics as an
body, that is, insofar as it is itself a ‘this,’ cannot form individual, the cogitative power sets its focus upon the
universal intentions infinite in their possible extension individual intention, the individual form of the
in the world. That is something which can only be done particular thing in the world.16 The result of its activity,
by a power which is not in a body, as Averroes sees it. the grasp of the form of the individual and of the
The cogitative power nevertheless seems to be able to particular form and intelligibility constituting the
existing essence of this individual, is what the
” “But it was already explained in Sense and Sensibitia that such is cogitative power then deposits in memory.17 What we
the order of those powers in the brain through a demonstration
find, then, in the faculty of memory is not a universal
giving the being and the cause. But that does not contradict what
notion or a grasp of the essence as universal, but rather
was said here. For the cogitative power according to Aristotle is an
an individual intention, one of the particular human
individual distinguishing power because it discerns things only in
an individual way, not in a universal way. For it was explained being, e.g., Zayd or Socrates, as an intention of his
there that the cogitative power is only a power which distinguishes
the intention of a sensible thing from its imagined image. That ” “the intention of this individual man and the intention of this
power is one which is such that its relation to those two intentions, individual horse.” Commentarium Magnum 225.47-48.
to the image of the thing and to the intention of its image, is just as I7 “That individual intention is what the cogitative power dis-
the relation of the common sense to the intentions of the five tinguishes from the imagined form. The cogitative power extracts
senses. The cogitative power, therefore, is of the genus of the it from the things which were adjoined to it from among those
powers existing in bodies. Aristotle explicitly said this in that common and proper sensibles and deposits it [ea/eam var.] in the
book, when he placed the individual distinguishing powers in four faculty of memory. This same [intention] is what the imaginative
orders. In the first he placed the common sense, next the power grasps, but the imaginative power grasps it as conjoined to
imaginative power, next the cogitative power, and afterwards the sensibles, although the grasp [of memory] is more spiritual, as has
power of memory. He made the power of memory the more been determined elsewhere.” Commentarium Magnum 225-226. I
spiritual, then the cogitative, then the imaginative, and last the read “reponit earn” with Crawford’s manuscripts BG. Cogitation
sensible.” Commentarium Magnum 4 15- 16. Only fragments of the here is deemed less spiritual than memory because it does not
Arabic original of this work are extant. See A. Ben Chahida in retain in itself the denuded individual intention but rather conveys
“Iktishaf al-nass al-<arabi li-ahamm ajzi? al-sharb al-kabir li-,&.a &- to memory what it worked to produce, the most spiritual and least
nz& ta’lif Abi al-Walid ibn Rushd,” AL&yZr aL72aqZfi~~ 35 sensible individual intention. See Deborah Black, “Memory,
(1985) 14-48. Individuals, and the Past in Averroes’ Psychology,” Medieval
” Commentarium Magnum 178. FWosophy and Z’YzeoZogv 5 (1996) 161-187.
154 Richard C. Taylor Averroes’ Epistemology and Its Critique by Aquinas 155
concerned with individual intentions. Working with disengage within itself the particular intelligible form
images consequent upon sense perception, this which is responsible for the existence of the individual
individual power of soul yields individual intentions by in the world. It does so when it considers the form of
a process of distinction and discemment.14 This activity the particular being by prescinding from the individual
of distinction, discernment, and discrimination on the sensible characteristics revealed by the internal and
part of cogitation is only possible thanks to the prior external senses by way of the proper and common
role of the power of imagination.‘* The cogitative sensibles. While it is unable to prescind fully from the
power, as a particular power existing in a particular object and its nature and characteristics as an
body, that is, insofar as it is itself a ‘this,’ cannot form individual, the cogitative power sets its focus upon the
universal intentions infinite in their possible extension individual intention, the individual form of the
in the world. That is something which can only be done particular thing in the world.16 The result of its activity,
by a power which is not in a body, as Averroes sees it. the grasp of the form of the individual and of the
The cogitative power nevertheless seems to be able to particular form and intelligibility constituting the
existing essence of this individual, is what the
” “But it was already explained in Sense and Sensibitia that such is cogitative power then deposits in memory.17 What we
the order of those powers in the brain through a demonstration
find, then, in the faculty of memory is not a universal
giving the being and the cause. But that does not contradict what
notion or a grasp of the essence as universal, but rather
was said here. For the cogitative power according to Aristotle is an
an individual intention, one of the particular human
individual distinguishing power because it discerns things only in
an individual way, not in a universal way. For it was explained being, e.g., Zayd or Socrates, as an intention of his
there that the cogitative power is only a power which distinguishes
the intention of a sensible thing from its imagined image. That ” “the intention of this individual man and the intention of this
power is one which is such that its relation to those two intentions, individual horse.” Commentarium Magnum 225.47-48.
to the image of the thing and to the intention of its image, is just as I7 “That individual intention is what the cogitative power dis-
the relation of the common sense to the intentions of the five tinguishes from the imagined form. The cogitative power extracts
senses. The cogitative power, therefore, is of the genus of the it from the things which were adjoined to it from among those
powers existing in bodies. Aristotle explicitly said this in that common and proper sensibles and deposits it [ea/eam var.] in the
book, when he placed the individual distinguishing powers in four faculty of memory. This same [intention] is what the imaginative
orders. In the first he placed the common sense, next the power grasps, but the imaginative power grasps it as conjoined to
imaginative power, next the cogitative power, and afterwards the sensibles, although the grasp [of memory] is more spiritual, as has
power of memory. He made the power of memory the more been determined elsewhere.” Commentarium Magnum 225-226. I
spiritual, then the cogitative, then the imaginative, and last the read “reponit earn” with Crawford’s manuscripts BG. Cogitation
sensible.” Commentarium Magnum 4 15- 16. Only fragments of the here is deemed less spiritual than memory because it does not
Arabic original of this work are extant. See A. Ben Chahida in retain in itself the denuded individual intention but rather conveys
“Iktishaf al-nass al-<arabi li-ahamm ajzi? al-sharb al-kabir li-,&.a &- to memory what it worked to produce, the most spiritual and least
nz& ta’lif Abi al-Walid ibn Rushd,” AL&yZr aL72aqZfi~~ 35 sensible individual intention. See Deborah Black, “Memory,
(1985) 14-48. Individuals, and the Past in Averroes’ Psychology,” Medieval
” Commentarium Magnum 178. FWosophy and Z’YzeoZogv 5 (1996) 161-187.