PROPOSITION LVII.
Universal Unity is formally a simple creation of the intellect; though individual Entities contain within themselves a sufficient foundation for the concept.
Such is the unequivocal teaching of the Angelic Doctor; and, as it has been the author's intention, from the beginning to the end of this work, to exhibit before his readers not so much his own theories as the more approved Scholastic teaching, it will be well to recur, in the first instance, to the authority of St. Thomas. In the following quotation, St. Thomas principally confirms the first member of the Thesis. Taking man as his example, he says that 'The character of a Species attaches to human nature, according to the entity it has in the intellect. For this same nature has an entity in the intellect, which is abstracted from all individuating notes, and it has a uniform character relatively to all the individuals that are outside the mind; inasmuch as it is essentially the image of all and conducive to the knowledge of all, so far forth as they are men. And, for the reason that it bears such a relation to all the individuals, the (human) intellect invents the idea of Species, and offers it to itself. Hence, the Commentator (Averroes) says in his first Book on the Soul, that it is the intellect which creates universality in entities; and Avicenna says the same thing, in the eighth Book of his Metaphysics.'{1} In this passage St. Thomas teaches that the relative Universal, which is representative of the universal unity of a nature, is a pure creation of the intellect; though it is founded in the absolute Universal, which itself is based on a real foundation. The second quotation more immediately confirms the second member of the Proposition. 'When we speak of an abstract Universal,' says St. Thomas, 'there are two elements in the concept; to wit, the Nature itself of the thing, and the abstraction or Universality. The Nature, then, itself, whose lot it is to be apprehended, or to become subject of abstraction, or of the form of Universality, exists only in singulars; but the apprehension itself, or abstraction, or form of Universality, is in the intellect. This may be clearly seen from the analogy of the senses. For the sight perceives the colour of the apple, without its smell. If the question is put, where the colour is, which is perceived without the smell; it is manifest that the colour which is seen, is in the apple. But, that it is perceived without the smell, is attributable to the sense of sight; because, in sight, there is the sensible species of colour, but not of smell. In like manner, Humanity, which is the object of intellectual perception, is only in this or that (individual) man; but, that Humanity should be apprehended without its individual conditions, which is an act of abstraction, after which flows the form of Universality, is the result of its perception by the intellect, in which there is the species or likeness of the specific Nature, and not of the individual elements.'{2} In other words, as the smell and the colour (i.e. the causes of these sensations), are in the apple; but the reason why the colour is perceived apart from the smell, is to be found in the sense of sight which, so to speak, abstracts its own proper object from everything else with which that object is really united: so, the Nature is really in the individual man; though the abstraction of that Nature from its individual conditions, is attributable to the intellect, whose proper object is the Form or Essence, not the individual Differences. For these latter are the proper object of sense.
In the next quotation St. Thomas is giving a threefold division of objects, as represented by names. Some there are, as he says, which in their simple entirety are external to the mind. Others there are, in no respect external to the mind, such as a chimera. Lastly; 'There are others,' he adds, 'which have a real foundation external to the mind; but the complement of their nature, as regards its formal element, is the result of an intellectual operation, as we clearly see in a Universal. For Humanity is something real, but its form of Universality is not so; since, outside the mind, there is no Humanity that is common to many. But, in accordance with the mode of its apprehension by the intellect, there is added to it, by the operation of the intellect, a Form, by virtue of which it is called a Species.'{3}
The number of similar passages might be indefinitely increased; but those already cited are amply sufficient to show the mind of the Angelic Doctor touching the nature and origin of Universals. It remains, to confirm the truth of the present Proposition by reason.
I. THE FIRST MEMBER, viz, that Universal Unity is formally a simple creation of the mind, is thus proved. Let us suppose for a moment, that a Nature or Essence has a real universal Unity proper to itself; alike prior to, and independent of, any intellectual operation. In such case, this Unity would appertain to it, either as it exists in the individual or individuals, or as it is conceived to be in its own absolute entity. But either hypothesis is untenable; and, therefore, the supposition.
i. Universal Unity cannot belong to a Nature, as it exists in the individual or in individuals. For, plainly enough, it is incompatible with the Nature as individuated, i.e. as existing in a single individual; since there is a manifest contradiction. But neither can it belong to this Nature, as existing in a collection of individuals. For, first of all, there may be a Universal Nature which is to be found in one only subject. Then, again, there is no conceivable property belonging to all, which does not belong to each individual, excepting multitude or multiplicity. But bare multitude does not constitute Unity.
ii. Universal Unity cannot belong to any Nature, considered in its own absolute entity. For, antecedently to all operation of the intellect, that Nature is really undistinguishable from the individual or individuals in which alone it really exists, as has been already shown. If, however, it is not itself existing, it is a mere possible; and, as such, is nothing in itself, but exists only as an objective concept in some intellect. And, even in this state, it can have no transcendental relation to the reality of existence, till it has been conceived as individual.
There is an additional confirmatory argument, which may be put in the form of a dilemma. If universal Unity really belongs to a Nature, irrespective of any intellectual operation; then it belongs to that Nature either essentially or by accident. But neither is possible. Hence it follows, that such Unity cannot belong to a Nature really, but conceptually only.
The Minor is thus proved. If universal Unity really and essentially belongs to every created nature, then the nature must necessarily retain this Unity in each individual Subject; since it must ever retain its own essential property. But this involves a patent contradiction. Again: universal Unity cannot really belong to a Nature by accident; for, in such case, it would be a mere accident of that Nature. If, however, it is a mere accident; it must attach to that Nature by reason of some Singular or Individual. Further: if a positive accident, its genesis would be due to some action of a singular or individnal extrinsic agent, (extrinsic, that is, to the essential Nature itself). If it be a privative accident; then, to the absence of such action. But all these cases involve individuation, which is directly opposed to Universality. Lastly, even if the thing were intrinsically possible; it would puzzle any man to explain, or even imagine, what sort of an accident it could be. Hence, we may conclude that it is not; real, but a creation of the intellect.
II. THE SECOND MEMBER of the present Proposition needs only a passing reference; for it has been already sufficiently established in the foregoing Thesis. But it is repeated, because of its primary importance; for in it is to be found the fundamental point of difference between Peripatetic Conceptualism or moderate Realism, as it has been sometimes called, and pure Nominalism. There are, then, real notes in each and every individual, belonging to a certain definite order of Being, which are so precisely similar in each and all, as not to admit of other than numerical distinction, and at the same time to justify the concept of specific identity. Those notes, grouped together in orderly unity, are the sole proper object of intellectual intuition; and the concept, hence arising, exhibits, in consequence, the formal Unity of its object. If, by reflex thought, that formal Unity is considered in relation to the subjects in which it is to be actually found and to the subjects indefinitely in which it is capable of reproduction, the intellect conceives a true Universal. The concept itself is evidently reflex; and is purely logical in its form as a representative concept, not merely by virtue of its Second Intention. Still, it is based on the intuition of formal Unity. And that formal Unity is real; though it is defined and, as it were, projected into thought, by means of an intellectual abstraction, which, (leaving on one side all accidental and individual differences), assumes, for object of intellectual perception, those notes only which mark out the definite boundary of Being.
COROLLARY.
It follows, from the doctrine already established, that universal Beings may be real; whereas Universals, as such, can only be logical or conceptual.
NOTE.
St. Thomas says that 'Every Form existing in an individual Supposit' (or Subject) 'by which it is individuated, is common to many either really or, at least, conceptually. Thus, human nature is common to many both really and conceptually; but the nature of the sun is not common to many really, but only conceptually. For it is possible to conceive the nature of the sun as existing in several Supposits. The reason is, because the intellect intues the nature of every kind of Species by abstraction from the individual. Hence, the circumstance of being in one individual Supposit or in several, does not enter into the concept of a specific Nature.'{4} These words of St. Thomas, perhaps, require explanation; since it might seem, at first sight, as though he admitted, that a Nature, qua Universal, could exist in many Supposits. For he admits, that 'Human Nature is common to many both really and conceptually.' His meaning, however, is, on reflection, plain. There are, he reminds us, cases in which similar essential notes are discoverable in a multitude of individuals, and really belong to them; whereas there are other cases in which the essential notes, (or Nature), are really discoverable in one individual only, although the intellect can conceive them as participable by many. In the instance of the latter, the Nature is only conceptually common to many.
DIVISIONS OF UNIVERSAL UNITY.
There are three different divisions of Universals, which it will be profitable to enumerate. For, though the last is tbe only true and proper division; yet the others are so habitually referred to by the Scholastics, that it would not be safe entirely to ignore them.
I. The first division includes four sorts of Universals. These are, the Universal (i.) in causation, (ii.) in symbol or representation, (iii.) in Being, (iv.) in predication. The Universal in causation, is a term applied to a cause, which is capable of producing various effects differing in kind. Thus, the same heat melts wax, hardens clay, evaporates water; and the soul of a dog causes digestion, growth, scent, locomotion, barking. The Universal in symbol, i.e. in signification or representation, is a term applied to anything whatsoever that uniformly represents or symbolizes many things; such as are intelligible species, common terms, figures in arithmetic, algebraic signs, pictures in physical books. Both these kinds are excluded from the present inquiry; for, in each case, the thing which is called universal is necessarily singular in itself, and receives the name of universal by an extrinsic denomination, borrowed either from the effects produced or from the objects represented. The Universal in Being, save to the Platonist, is a nonentity; and may, therefore, be summarily dismissed. The Universal in predication is applied to those objective concepts, or their representative terms, which include many objects within the periphery of one identical Form. These constitute the subject of the present inquiry. They differ from the second class, or universals in symbol; not only because these latter include other things besides concepts and words, but, more particularly, for that in the fourth class the term, Universal, applies to the objective concept, whereas in the second it applies to the subjective. In like manner, as touching terms, the latter regards the material; the former, the formal supposition of the word.
II. The second division of Universals is into the Metaphysical, the Physical, and the Logical or Conceptual Universal. This same division is sometimes otherwise expressed by the School as the Universal prior to real existence (ante rem), in real existence (in re), and consequent on real existence (post rem). The first class is equivalent to the Universal in Being of the previous division; and must, therefore, be eliminated. The Physical Universal, (or as it is in real existence), is the Nature, as it actually exists in individual beings with its accidents and individual Differences. It is obvious that such a Nature is not formally, but only materially, a Universal; forasmuch as it affords a real foundation for the universal concept. In this way only does it present itself as a legitimate object of metaphysical or logical contemplation. The Conceptual, or Logical, Universal is the actual universal concept which has been formed by the operation of the intellect. This is a proper and formal object of metaphysical at once and logical investigation; but under different points of view. Logic deals with it purely and simply as a form or law of thought, and eliminates its matter or objective representation; while the metaphysical Science analyzes the objective representation, or the reality that is in the objective concept, and only considers the logical form in its relation to this its proper subject-matter.
III. The third is the well-known division of Universals or Predicables into Species, Genus, Difference, Property, and Accident. This last is the division which principally concerns us here. But the same observation, which was suffixed to the last member of the previous division, must be repeated. The metaphysician has no concern with these Predicables as formal laws of thought, with the rules of their distribution, with their properties, with their conceptual genesis. These are the proper province partly of Logic, partly of Ideology. Metaphysics will look at the objective concept of each, in order to determine the reality, and the nature of the reality, there represented. For instance, the important question at once arises; Are the objective concepts of Species, Genus, Difference, really distinct, or not, in the entities themselves whose nature is represented? Such, in fact, is the one point which will be discussed; for Property and Accident, as such, are outside the Essence or Nature, and have, therefore, no separate claims on the metaphysician. They are legitimately contained within the sphere of Physics or that of Logic, according as they are regarded subjectively or objectively; and will, accordingly, be left to the treatment of those Sciences.
{1} 'Relinquitur ergo quod ratio speciei accidat naturae humanae secundum illud esse quod habet in intellectu. Ipsa enim natura habet esse in intellectu abstractum ab omnibus individuantibus, et habet rationem uniformem ad omnia individua quae sunt extra animam, prout essentialiter est imago omnium et inducens in cognitionem omnium, in quantum sunt homines. Et ex hoc quod talem relationem habet ad omnia individua, intellectus adinvenit rationem speciei et attribuit sibi. Unde dicit commentator, 1o de Anima, quod intellectus est qui facit universalitatem in rebus. Hoc etiam Avicenna dicit in 8o Metaphysicorum.' Opusc. XXX (aliter XXVI), De Ente et Essentia, c. 4, in m.
{2} 'Cum dicitur universale abstractum, duo intelliguntur; scil. ipsa natura rei et abstractio, seu universalitas. Ipsa igitur natura cui accidit vel intelligi, vel abstrahi, vel intentio universalitatis, non est nisi in singularibus. Sed hoc ipsum quod est intelligi, vel abstrahi, vel intentio universalitatis, est in intellectu. Et hoc possumus videre per simile in sensu. Visus enim videt colorem pomi sine ejus odore. Si ergo quaeratur ubi sit color qui videtur sine odore, manifestum est quod color qui videtur non est nisi in pomo. Sed quod sit sine odore perceptus, hoc accidit ei ex parte visus, in quantum in visu est similitudo coloris et non odoris. Similiter humanitas quae intelligitur, non est nisi in hoc vel in illo homine; sed quod humanitas apprehendatur sine individualibus conditionibus, quod est ipsum abstrahi, ad quod sequitur intentio universalitatis, accidit humanitati secundum quod percipitur ab intellectu, in quo est similitudo naturae speciei et non individualium principiorum.' 1ae lxxxv, 2, ad 2m.
{3} 'Quaedam autem sunt quae habent fundameutum in re extra animam, sed complementum rationis eorum quantum ad id quod est formale, est per operationem animae; ut patet in universali. Humanitas enim est aliquid in re; non tamen ibi habet rationem universalis, cum non sit extra animam aliqua humanitas multis communis, sed secundum quod accipitur in intellectu, adjungitur ei per operationem intellectus intentio, secundum quam dicitur species.' In I, d. xix, Q. 5, a. 1, c.
{4} 'Omnis forma in supposito singulari existens, per quod individuatur, communis est multis vel secundum rem vel secundum rationem saltem; sicut natura humana communis est multis secundum rem et rationem, natura autem solis non est communis multis secundum rem, sed secundum rationem tantum. Potest enim natura solis intelligi ut in pluribus suppositis existens; et hoc ideo quia intellectus intelligit naturam cujuslibet speciei per abstractionem a singulari. Unde esse in uno supposito singulari vel in pluribus, est praeter intellectum naturae speciei.' 1ae xiii, 9, c.