PROPOSITION LXXV.

The conformity between the intellectual Judgment and its object, which constitutes Formal Conceptual Truth, is neither a real absolute perfection, nor a real or even (strictly speaking) logical relation, in the judicial act.

This proposition is composed of three Members, which it will be more convenient to consider separately.

I. First of all, the conformity, which constitutes Formal Conceptual Truth, is not a real absolute perfection.

It cannot be an essential perfection, as is plain. For, if it belonged to the entity of the act, every judicial Concept of the intellect would necessarily be true; and, consequently, it would be impossible to form a false Judgment. But neither can it be a real absolute accidental perfection. For a Judgment may remain intrinsically the same, the act entirely unchanged; and yet from being true it may become false, by a mere change in the object. Thus, we will suppose the following Judgment to have been formed -- It is very fine weather to-day. When the Judgment was first formed, the sky was cloudless; the Judgment was true. The same Judgment remains identically what it was before; but the weather is no longer identically what it was before. The wind veers round, and the sky is surcharged with clouds. What is the result? That same Judgment has become false. But it is impossible that an entity, in its ultimate act, should thus change qualities; because such a change involves a real, though accidental, modification. Yet, in the present case, the act is supposed to remain entitatively the same. Again: Formal Conceptual Truth consists, as has been seen, in a conformity with the object of cognition. But conformity is a word indicative of relation. Therefore, if Conceptual Truth adds anything real to the judicial act, it must be a relative perfection. Lastly, there is this objection to its being an absolute perfection; that nobody can tell what this real possible perfection is, which is supposed to be added to the act, or the reason why it is there.

II. The conformity, which constitutes Formal Conceptual Truth, is not a real predicamental relation.

A predicamental relation is an accident, and constitutes one of the nine Categories, or Predicamenta, under which all accidents are grouped; hence its name. As relation will be discussed at length in a subsequent Book, it suffices to say here very briefly, that real predicamental relation requires a real term and a real foundation, in the Subject, which foundation is really distinct from the other or correlative term, which must be also real. Thus, in the father the real foundation is the act of generation; and the act of generation is real and really distinct from the son, who is the other real term or correlative. Now, if the conformity by which Conceptual Truth is constituted, is a real predicamental relation; it follows that, wherever there is Conceptual Truth in such Concept, there must be a real term, which is the same as to say that there must be a real object. But this is notoriously not the case. For there are a vast number of Judgments conceptually true, which are representative of logical entities; as, for instance, Difference divides Genus, and constitutes Species. Then, again, nothing can be more certain than that the Divine Idea is in a pre-eminent way conceptually true; yet in It there can be no real relation. For if It is considered as representative of the Divine Nature, there is the most absolute identity between the Concept and Its object; and if It is taken as representative of created things, there still can be no relation. The reason is, that real relation connotes dependence of the relative on its correlative; and it is against the very Being of God, that He should be in any way dependent on His creatures.

III. The conformity, by which Formal Conceptual Truth is constituted, cannot be a logical relation in the strict sense of the word.

If it were; then only could a Judgment be regarded as conceptually true, when the mind is actually conceiving the conformity, and comparing its own act with the object represented. But it is surely evident that, independently of all such comparisons and cognition, a true Judgment is, and remains, simply true, so long as there is no change in the object.