Exploring Aquinas's Argument: Is the Human Intellect Immaterial? - Essay Sample

Introduction

The question of whether the human intellect is immaterial has always been addressed in religious, faith, or belief context. Different scholars have tried to explain this topic with varying perspectives due to basing their argument only on the spiritual perspective. However, human nature has become a contentious issue among contemporary philosophers. In the aspect of intellect, most of them tend to focus on Aquinas's conception of mind being immaterial as it seems more realistic. However, apparent inconsistency in Aquinas's conception sometimes makes some philosophers disillusioned. Besides, even after they can overcome the inconsistency disillusion, some end up perceiving Aquinas's conception as weak. As it may, the arguments applied by Aquinas in justification of immateriality of intellect are strong enough to support his position. Aquinas uses an intense debate about why mind is a substantial form while intellect is not. Besides, the evidence drawn from the Holy Scripture can also be used to back up the argument made by Aquinas's. This paper aims to show that human intellect is immaterial as Aquinas suggests and that contemporary philosopher needs to adopt his idea. To achieve this, arguments provided by Aquinas in support of his claim will be analyzed.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

Intellect Power Can Know the Nature of All the Bodily Parts

Exposition

A human being can know all bodily natures utilizing that part of it through which its intellect power is exercised. Intellect is the aspect of understanding and reasoning about something or an idea. According to Aquinas's conception, human beings usually use intellect power to determine the nature of all the other parts of the body. As such, a human being can only depend on an organ that possesses intellect power for it to be able to know the nature of other elements. This is based on the assumption that the part of the body that possesses intellect power has the potency of becoming any of the body organs. In other words, intellect power can assume the role of other organs to determine whether they are operating as expected or not. For example, the work of the tongue is to sense the taste of various substances that contact with it. This is achieved by the tongue receiving the sensation of any substance and then sending it into the brain. The brain will then interpret the sensation received by the tongue. However, if a tongue is corrupted it might lose the ability to sense, and since the mind depends on the tongue to receive sensation, it will also have accidental corruption caused by failure of the subject it relies on. However, intellect cannot be corrupted since it does not rely on any subject. In such a man can only use his intellect power to know that something is amiss with his tongue. It shows that the part that has potent power can assume the role of any bodily part and realize its nature. It is trough intellect power that one can know that a certain substance is bitter even when the tongue is not functional.

Major Premise

If a substance exercises some power of knowledge through some part of itself, then that part cannot have in its nature any of the natures that can be known with that power. The substance that poses intellect power can know the nature of all the mortal things. However, it cannot understand its own nature. The most crucial aspect, in this case, is the realization that intellect can know all the parts in the body. This presumption helps to exclude all the bodily organs as the parts that possess intellectual power.

The mind being the part of the body that constitutes intellectual power is also excluded. There have been arguments by some of the philosophers that the mind contains intellectual power. However, the fact that the part that exercises intellectual ability cannot hold the nature that can be known by its intellectual power makes such an argument absurd. Besides, the mind cannot be in a position to understand or reason about the nature of other corporeal things without the help of the sensory being sent by those parts. As such, it is essential to note the difference between the sensory interpretation, which is done by the mind and knowing the form of all the mortal things. For example, the brain cannot interpret a sensation of something sour whenever the tongue is sick since such sensation will be received. However, intellect power can help a human being understand that, though no taste sensation is felt by the tongue, a substance is still bitter.

Minor Premise

The part of the human being through which the intellectual powers are exercised does not have a bodily nature. It is clear from the above discussion that it is through a part that possesses intellect power that one can know the nature of all bodily things. It is also clear that such a part cannot have a nature that can be identified by its power. It hence falls that this part does not have any bodily nature. Aquinas uses the sense of sight and taste to elaborate the immateriality of intellect. He first uses taste to show the immateriality demanded by its potency to all sensible things. He argued that tongue as one of the body organ usually depend on the balance put in flavour for it to sense all the flavours. If, in any case, one of the flavours is too much, the tongue will not be in a position to detect the other flavours. As such, if intellect was made of material substance, it could also be relying on certain subjects which would make it hard for it to know the nature of other organs.

The other elaboration that was used by Aquinas to show that intellect does not have physical nature is by showing the limited character of bodily organs using sight as an example. This analogy was used to rule out the aspect of intellect being dependent on any material thing. While the power of the view depends on the eyes, the intellect does not depend on any bodily organ. As such, it is also impossible for it to be a bodily organ.

Conclusion

There is no one particular body that not has a physical nature. To start with, let's look at the brain, which is sometimes argued to be the organ that exercises intellect power. The fact that intellect can be able to know the nature of the mind makes it a part of the body with known intellect power. Through exercising intellect power, an individual can be able to know the nature of his brain. According to Aquinas's argument, intellect power can be able to understand whenever the mind is not functioning as expected. There is no way the brain can be able to realize that it is not performing well by itself. It calls for an external intervention of intellect power to understand such an occurrence. For an instant, whenever somebody is having some mental problem, he/she cannot rely on the brain, which is already not functioning well to realize that the brain is not working as expected. However, people quickly realize such occurrence and understand that the nature of their brains has been altered and may need some medical attention. If the mind is the organ that exercises intellect power, it could never understand its nature, especially whenever it experiences some disorder.

Objections and Response

The human intellectual powers are not exercised through a part of the human body. There is no single part of the body that intellect power cannot able to understand its nature. Since a part that exercises intellect power cannot be able to follow its character, it falls that it is not one of the body parts. However, we cannot deny existence of such power in our lives. The implication is that an immaterial part of the body exercises intellect power.

All Material Things Are Corruptible

Exposition

To be corruptible means possibility to be altered from original form. The form is the aspect that brings the essence of being. For a material to be incorruptible, it must have the characteristics that can never be altered by any means. This is because corruption can only occur by changing form from that matter used to make a particular substance. Two types of corruption are possible to matter. One of them is relative corruption, which can occur when a material loses its form by accident. For example, it is known that a coin should be round. However, a currency can lose its roundness through accidental deformation. The other method that corruption can occur to a substance is through absolute corruption. In this case, a matter used to make something is wholly separated, making its form no more extended existence. For example, if a circle loses its roundness, this will be absolute corruption. Since the type of a substance is the recipient of the act of being, an essence ceases to exist only when its form is corrupted. If a circle loses its style of being circular, it ceases to exist because it cannot exist in any other way. However, even when a substance loses its shape, it still retains the potentiality of being. This means that something can be done for it to regain its form again.

A form of material can be corrupted, through three things. Firstly, a structure can be damaged by the action of its contrary. Contrary actions are those that can never occur at the same time. For one of them to exist, the other one must cease existing. In such a case, being of one of the contrary forms will corrupt the structure of the other. For example, the form of a beat can be destroyed by the action of cold. The second thing that can damage a substance from its structure is through corruption of its subject. This occurs when the object that gives a specific aspect of its form is destroyed. For example, one can lose sight due to sickness that leads to eye destruction. The last thing that can corrupt a substance is by the failure of its cause. For example, this can occur when air illumination fails due to its origins, such as the sun to be present.

None of the material things can be corrupted. What may vary is the type of elements used to corrupt something. It can be ascertained by the fact that, even when a substance cannot receive absolute corruption, it can still be corrupted through accidental form. Besides, none of the immaterial substances can escape all the three things that usually can cause its destruction.

Major Premise

Intellect Substances Are Incorruptible

Based on the discussion on how the corruption of elements occurs, it would contain only material thing can be corrupted. As it may, there is enough to prove that intellect substances are immaterial. It means that they cannot be damaged by all the means and things that lead to the destruction of materials.

When a substance is corrupted, it cannot lose its potentiality even when the act of being is removed. Even the things that are made out of matter, the action that corrupt their form cannot dissolve them to non-entity. It means that, even after being corrupted, the potentiality of gaining their form remains. For example, if a circle loses its roundness, the matter used to make it stay. It implies that this matter can be shaped again, and the act of being will be restored. As such, this means that in the material substances, the act is potentiality. Contrary to this, the action in intellectual substances is being itself. It would imply that even when intellectual substances are destroyed, it would still exist, which is not possible.

For everything that is corrupted, the potentiality of non-being must be there. This means that any substance that does not have the possibility of non-being is non-corruptible. As it may, there is no potentiality of non-being in all the intellectual things. This can be ascertained by the fact that a complete substance is an excellent recipient of being itself. Nevertheless, the potentiality cannot be the opposite of the act as such would not be a proper recipient. For example, fire can never be a potent...