Philosophy of the Human Person

Taylor Bearden

Philosophy of the Human Person

Prof. Williams

Fall 2016

First Paper Assignment

“Turning now to the part of the soul with which the soul knows and thinks (whether this is separable from the others in definition only, or spatially as well) we have to inquire (1) what differentiates this part, and (2) how thinking can take place.  

If thinking is like perceiving, it must be either a process in which the soul is acted upon by what is capable of being thought, or a process different from but analogous to that. The thinking part of the soul must therefore be, while impassible, capable of receiving the form of an object; that is, must be potentially identical in character with its object without being the object. Mind must be related to what is thinkable, as sense is to what is sensible.” (Aristotle, De Anima).

First premise:  Either perceiving and thinking are univocal processes or perceiving and thinking are analogous processes.

Second Premise: Perceiving and thinking are not univocal processes.

Conclusion: Therefore, perceiving and thinking are analogous process.

Argument Explanation

        The form of Aristotle’s argument is deductively valid, which is represented by the information introduced by him.  In the first premise, Aristotle identifies the difference between a univocal process and an analogous process in respect to perceiving and thinking.  Univocal means that a word only has one meaning or is unambiguous.  Oppositely, analogous means two things are comparable in certain respects which make the things being compared (thinking and perceiving) more clear.  Thinking brings about a problem analogous to that of perceiving because the perceiver could be potentially be (but not actually) like the object it is perceiving (prior to perceiving it), and yet become like the object (be actually like it) in the process of perceiving it.  (from Aristotle on Thinking).  At the same time, both thinking and perceiving take on similar forms without matter. In other words, the perceiver and thinker of an object have or are the object potentially, but not actually.  This would represent the analogous process.

        The second premise concludes that thinking and perceiving are not univocal processes.  Intellect, also known as thinking, is a broader term and process than perception in the sense that intellect can understand things that can and cannot be perceived or objects of perception.  Also, Aristotle says intellect is solely potential, so it has no nature of its own, otherwise it would not be able to think of that nature.  These processes do not refer to the same terms, which Aristotle states in his valid argument, because the thought is capable of thinking of itself, which is not possible for perception to accomplish.  Therefore, Thinking and perceiving cannot be univocal processes.