Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae

Objection 1: It would seem that there are no habits in the intellect. For habits are in conformity with operations, as stated above (Article 1). But the operations of man are common to soul and body, as stated in De Anima i, text. 64. Therefore also are habits. But the intellect is not an act of the body (De Anima iii, text. 6). Therefore the intellect is not the subject of a habit.

Objection 2: Further, whatever is in a thing, is there according to the mode of that in which it is. But that which is form without matter, is act only: whereas what is composed of form and matter, has potentiality and act at the same time. Therefore nothing at the same time potential and actual can be in that which is form only, but only in that which is composed of matter and form. Now the intellect is form without matter. Therefore habit, which has potentiality at the same time as act, being a sort of medium between the two, cannot be in the intellect; but only in the "conjunction," which is composed of soul and body.

Objection 3: Further, habit is a disposition whereby we are well or ill disposed in regard to something, as is said (Metaph. v, text. 25). But that anyone should be well or ill disposed to an act of the intellect is due to some disposition of the body: wherefore also it is stated (De Anima ii, text. 94) that "we observe men with soft flesh to be quick witted." Therefore the habits of knowledge are not in the intellect, which is separate, but in some power which is the act of some part of the body.

On the contrary, The Philosopher (Ethic. vi, 2,3,10) puts science, wisdom and understanding, which is the habit of first principles, in the intellective part of the soul.

I answer that, concerning intellective habits there have been various opinions. Some, supposing that there was only one "possible" intellect for all men, were bound to hold that habits of knowledge are not in the intellect itself, but in the interior sensitive powers. For it is manifest that men differ in habits; and so it was impossible to put the habits of knowledge directly in that, which, being only one, would be common to all men. Wherefore if there were but one single "possible" intellect of all men, the habits of science, in which men differ from one another, could not be in the "possible" intellect as their subject, but would be in the interior sensitive powers, which differ in various men.

Now, in the first place, this supposition is contrary to the mind of Aristotle. For it is manifest that the sensitive powers are rational, not by their essence, but only by participation (Ethic. i, 13). Now the Philosopher puts the intellectual virtues, which are wisdom, science and understanding, in that which is rational by its essence. Wherefore they are not in the sensitive powers, but in the intellect itself. Moreover he says expressly (De Anima iii, text. 8,18) that when the "possible" intellect "is thus identified with each thing," that is, when it is reduced to act in respect of singulars by the intelligible species, "then it is said to be in act, as the knower is said to be in act; and this happens when the intellect can act of itself," i.e. by considering: "and even then it is in potentiality in a sense; but not in the same way as before learning and discovering." Therefore the "possible" intellect itself is the subject of the habit of science, by which the intellect, even though it be not actually considering, is able to consider. In the second place, this supposition is contrary to the truth. For as to whom belongs the operation, belongs also the power to operate, belongs also the habit. But to understand and to consider is the proper act of the intellect. Therefore also the habit whereby one considers is properly in the intellect itself.

Reply to Objection 1: Some said, as Simplicius reports in his Commentary on the Predicaments, that, since every operation of man is to a certain extent an operation of the "conjunctum," as the Philosopher says (De Anima i, text. 64); therefore no habit is in the soul only, but in the "conjunctum." And from this it follows that no habit is in the intellect, for the intellect is separate, as ran the argument, given above. But the argument is no cogent. For habit is not a disposition of the object to the power, but rather a disposition of the power to the object: wherefore the habit needs to be in that power which is principle of the act, and not in that which is compared to the power as its object.

Now the act of understanding is not said to be common to soul and body, except in respect of the phantasm, as is stated in De Anima, text. 66. But it is clear that the phantasm is compared as object to the passive intellect (De Anima iii, text. 3,39). Whence it follows that the intellective habit is chiefly on the part of the intellect itself; and not on the part of the phantasm, which is common to soul and body. And therefore we must say that the "possible" intellect is the subject of habit, which is in potentiality to many: and this belongs, above all, to the "possible" intellect. Wherefore the "possible" intellect is the subject of intellectual habits.

Reply to Objection 2: As potentiality to sensible being belongs to corporeal matter, so potentiality to intellectual being belongs to the "possible" intellect. Wherefore nothing forbids habit to be in the "possible" intellect, for it is midway between pure potentiality and perfect act.

Reply to Objection 3: Because the apprehensive powers inwardly prepare their proper objects for the "possible intellect," therefore it is by the good disposition of these powers, to which the good disposition of the body cooperates, that man is rendered apt to understand. And so in a secondary way the intellective habit can be in these powers. But principally it is in the "possible" intellect.

Articulus 4

Argumentum 1

Ad quartum sic proceditur. Videtur quod in intellectu non sint aliqui habitus.

Habitus enim operationibus conformantur, ut dictum est.

Sed operationes hominis sunt communes animae et corpori, ut dicitur in I de anima.

Ergo et habitus.

Sed intellectus non est actus corporis, ut dicitur in III de anima.

Ergo intellectus non est subiectum alicuius habitus.

Argumentum 2

Praeterea, omne quod est in aliquo, est in eo per modum eius in quo est. Sed id quod est forma sine materia, est actus tantum, quod autem est compositum ex forma et materia, habet potentiam et actum simul. Ergo in eo quod est forma tantum, non potest esse aliquid quod sit simul in potentia et actu, sed solum in eo quod est compositum ex materia et forma. Sed intellectus est forma sine materia. Ergo habitus, qui habet potentiam simul cum actu, quasi medium inter utrumque existens, non potest esse in intellectu; sed solum in coniuncto, quod est compositum ex anima et corpore.

Argumentum 3

Praeterea, habitus est dispositio secundum quam aliquis bene vel male disponitur ad aliquid, ut dicitur in V metaph..

Sed quod aliquis bene vel male sit dispositus ad actum intellectus, provenit ex aliqua corporis dispositione, unde etiam in II de anima dicitur quod molles carne bene aptos mente videmus.

Ergo habitus cognoscitivi non sunt in intellectu, qui est separatus; sed in aliqua potentia quae est actus alicuius partis corporis.

Sed Contra

Sed contra est quod philosophus, in VI ethic., ponit scientiam et sapientiam et intellectum, qui est habitus principiorum, in ipsa intellectiva parte animae.

Corpus

Respondeo dicendum quod circa habitus cognoscitivos diversimode sunt aliqui opinati. Quidam enim, ponentes intellectum possibilem esse unum in omnibus hominibus, coacti sunt ponere quod habitus cognoscitivi non sunt in ipso intellectu, sed in viribus interioribus sensitivis. Manifestum est enim quod homines in habitibus diversificantur, unde non possunt habitus cognoscitivi directe poni in eo quod, unum numero existens, est omnibus hominibus commune.

Unde si intellectus possibilis sit unus numero omnium hominum, habitus scientiarum, secundum quos homines diversificantur, non poterunt esse in intellectu possibili sicut in subiecto, sed erunt in viribus interioribus sensitivis, quae sunt diversae in diversis. Sed ista positio, primo quidem, est contra intentionem Aristotelis. Manifestum est enim quod vires sensitivae non sunt rationales per essentiam, sed solum per participationem, ut dicitur in I ethic.. Philosophus autem ponit intellectuales virtutes, quae sunt sapientia, scientia et intellectus, in eo quod est rationale per essentiam. Unde non sunt in viribus sensitivis, sed in ipso intellectu.

Expresse etiam dicit, in III de anima, quod intellectus possibilis, cum sic fiat singula, idest cum reducatur in actum singulorum per species intelligibiles, tunc fit secundum actum eo modo quo sciens dicitur esse in actu, quod quidem accidit cum aliquis possit operari per seipsum, scilicet considerando.

Est quidem igitur et tunc potentia quodammodo; non tamen similiter ut ante addiscere aut invenire. Ipse ergo intellectus possibilis est in quo est habitus scientiae quo potest considerare etiam cum non considerat.

Secundo etiam, haec positio est contra rei veritatem.

Sicut enim eius est potentia cuius est operatio, ita etiam eius est habitus cuius est operatio.

Intelligere autem et considerare est proprius actus intellectus.

Ergo et habitus quo consideratur, est proprie in ipso intellectu.

Ad 1

Ad primum ergo dicendum quod quidam dixerunt, ut simplicius refert in commento praedicamentorum, quod quia omnis operatio hominis est quodammodo coniuncti, ut philosophus dicit in I de anima; ideo nullus habitus est animae tantum, sed coniuncti. Et per hoc sequitur quod nullus habitus sit in intellectu, cum intellectus sit separatus, ut ratio proposita procedebat.

Sed ista ratio non cogit. Habitus enim non est dispositio obiecti ad potentiam, sed magis dispositio potentiae ad obiectum, unde habitus oportet quod sit in ipsa potentia quae est principium actus, non autem in eo quod comparatur ad potentiam sicut obiectum. Ipsum autem intelligere non dicitur commune esse animae et corpori, nisi ratione phantasmatis, ut dicitur in I de anima. Patet autem quod phantasma comparatur ad intellectum possibilem ut obiectum, ut dicitur in III de anima.

Unde relinquitur quod habitus intellectivus sit principaliter ex parte ipsius intellectus, non autem ex parte phantasmatis, quod est commune animae et corpori. Et ideo dicendum est quod intellectus possibilis est subiectum habitus, illi enim competit esse subiectum habitus, quod est in potentia ad multa; et hoc maxime competit intellectui possibili. Unde intellectus possibilis est subiectum habituum intellectualium.

Ad 2

Ad secundum dicendum quod, sicut potentia ad esse sensibile convenit materiae corporali, ita potentia ad esse intelligibile convenit intellectui possibili. Unde nihil prohibet in intellectu possibili esse habitum, qui est medius inter puram potentiam et actum perfectum.

Ad 3

Ad tertium dicendum quod, quia vires apprehensivae interius praeparant intellectui possibili proprium obiectum; ideo ex bona dispositione harum virium, ad quam cooperatur bona dispositio corporis, redditur homo habilis ad intelligendum.

Et sic habitus intellectivus secundario potest esse in istis viribus. Principaliter autem est in intellectu possibili.