John the Canon on Objective and Subjective Being

[Update: The following text is a verbatim quote from Petrus Thomae. So the title of the post should be John the Canon secundum Petrum Thomae on Objective and Subjective being.]

John the Canon was a secular priest (not a Franciscan as is commonly assumed) who taught at Toulouse in the 1330's. He was a Catalan, as can be seen by the various examples of Catalonia he cites. His only extant work is a commentary on the Physics. In this work he quotes a great deal of material from Peter Auriol, Francis of Meyronnes, Francis of Marchia, and Petrus Thomae, and probably others as well. The following is a text in which he defines objective and subjective being, which I post out of my interest in the divine ideas and fourteenth-century debates concerning them. In a later post I will post the text that follows this definition, in which he argues in favor of a series of conclusions based on it.

Ioannes Canonicus, Quaestiones super libros Physicorum II q. 3 (ed. 1520, f. 29rb): “Quantum ad secundum punctum de nobilitate esse subiectivi et obiectivi est primo sciendum quod est esse subiectivum et obiectivum, et unde dicantur ista vocabula non bene inest memorie nostre; ubi sciendum quod secundum Hylarium ‘sermo rei non est rei subiciendus et ideo non est curandum de vocabulis’, tamen secundum Philosophum necessarium est scire quod per nomen significatur ideo dico primo de subiectivo esse quod esse subiectivum venit a subiecto. Subiectum autem dicitur aliquod ut materia vel sicut in quo vel sicut de quo vel circa quod vel ipsum quod. Primo modo dicitur ‘subiectivum’ illud de quo fit aliquod ut de ipsa materia. Secundo modo in quo existit aliquod. Tertio modo circa quod versatur actio. Quarto illud quod in se subsistit vel substat, et tamen advertendum est quod licet istis quatuor modis dicatur subiectum, tamen esse subiectivum, de quo hic queritur, dicitur a subiecto quarto modo sumpto. Ad cuius evidentiam est advertendum quod omne substans vel substat a se et per se, ut ipse deus, vel per se et non a se, et sic est substantia, vel non a se nec per se sed in alio, tamen absolute ut accidens absolutum; aliud est quod non substat neque a se neque per se neque in alio absolute sed in alio ad aliud, ut omnis forma relativa. Secundum hoc potest distingui quadruplex esse subiectivum, scilicet essentie divine, esse subiectivum substantie et accidentis absoluti et accidentis respectivi.

Viso ergo quod est esse subiectivum videndum est quod est esse obiectivum, ubi dico quod esse obiectivum secundum proprietatem vocabuli nihil aliud est quam esse obiectum alicui, unde esse obiectivum potest distingui sic: quoddam enim est quod habet tantum esse in fictione, puta cum secundum communiter loquentes aliqua potentia fingit sibi aliquod quod ex se nullum habet esse nisi esse obiectivum, aliud quod vere habet esse representativum in aliquo ipsum continente modo representativo et ad hunc modum sequitur esse intelligibile et intellectivum. Secundum ergo hoc potest dici quod duplex est esse obiectivum: unum quod est simpliciter fictum et hoc habent figmenta, aliud quod est esse representativum, et hoc habent solum illa que ex natura rei in aliquo representantur non ex aliqua fictione potentie ficitive et ad istud esse sequitur intelligibile et intellectivum.

“As far as the second point, concerning the nobility of subjective and objective being, it should first be known what subjective and objective being are, and why this terminology is used, which is hard to remember. It should be known that according to Hilary, ‘speech about a thing is not subjected to the thing, and therefore we should not worry about terms’ nevertheless, according to the Philosopher it is necessary to know that is signified by a name and therefore first I say about subjective being that it comes from ‘subject’. Something is called a subject, however, as matter, or as ‘in which’ or as ‘from which’ or ‘around which’ or just the thing itself. In the first way something is called ‘subjective’ from which something is made, as from its matter. In the second way, in which something exists. In the third way concerning which an action is directed. Fourth, that which subsits or stands under itself. And it must be noted that although ‘subject’ is said in those four modes, subjective being, about which it is asked here, is said from subject in the fourth way. As evidence of this, it should b entoed that every thing standing under does so either from itself and through itself, as God, or not from itself but through itself, as substance, or not from itself nor through itself but in another, absolutely as an absolute accident, another which does not stand under neither from itself nor through itself neither in another absolutely, but in another and to another, as every relative form. According to this we must distinguish four kinds of subjective being, namely of the divine essence, of substance, and of absolute and relative accidents.

Now that we have seen what subjective being is, we must see what objective being is. I say that objective being according to the meaning of its term is nothing other than to be an object of something, whence objective being can be distinuished thus: for there is a certain kind which has being only as a fiction, for example, according to the common way of expressing it, when a power is able to attain something which of itself has no being other than objective being, another [kind of objective being] which truly has representative being in the manner in which it is contained in a representative way, and this is intelligible and intellective being. According to this it can be said that there are two kinds of objective being: one which is simply a fiction and this is the kind of being that figments have, and another, which is representative being, which only those things have which from their own nature are represented, and not falsely as a result of being a fiction of a power, and this is intelligible and intellective being.”

More on the knowability of Substance

Petrus Thomae, Quaestiones de transcendentibus, q. 10 (W f. 27va-b)

2^o sic: nichil est univocam substantie et accidenti, ergo intellectus viatoris non potest habere conceptum quidditativum de substantia. Consequentia est falsum,ergo antecedens. Falsitas consequentis patet. Probatio consequentie: substantia non immutat immediate intellectum nostrum ad intellectum sui, set tantum accidens sensibile; cuius ratio est quia quidquid presens immutat intellectum illius absentia potest naturaliter cognosci ab intellectu; set absentia substantie non potest naturaliter cognosci ab intellectu viatoris; ergo ipsa substantia presens non immutat intellectum viatoris.

Maior patet: visus enim est absentie lucis perceptivus ex 2 De anima et ideo immutari potest a luce presente. Minor probatur: nam absentia substantie panis in hostia consecrata non potest naturaliter cognosci ab intellectu viatoris.

Ex hoc probo consequentiam intentam sic: nullus conceptus quidditativus substantie potest haberi per immutationem accidentis sensibilis nisi ille possit abstrahi a conceptu accidentis; set si nullus conceptus est univocus substantie et accidenti, non potest ab ipsis aliquis conceptus abstrahi; ergo si nullus conceptus est univocus substantie et accidenti per immutationem factam ab accidente, nullus conceptus quidditativus substantie potest haberi ab intellectu nostro.

Maior patet: nisi enim aliquis conceptus substantie posset abstrahi ab accidente numquam accidens immutaret intellectum ad conceptum substantie. Ratio tamen predicta requireret prolixiorem tractatum.

Translation:

Second: nothing is univocal to substance and accident, therefore the intellect of a wayfarer cannot have a quidditative concept of substance. The consequent is false, therefore so is the antecedent. The falsity of the consequence is clear. Proof of the consequence: substance does not immediately change our intellect for understanding itself, but only sensible accidents. The reason of this is that whatever present changes the intellect, the absence of it can naturally be known by the intellect; but the absence of substance cannot be naturally known by the intellect of a wayfarer; therefore substance itself when it is present does not change the intellect of a wayfarer.

The major is clear: for sight is perceptive of the absence of light from II De anima and therefore it can be changed by present light. The minor is proved: for the absence of the substance of the bread in a consecrated host cannot be naturally known by the intellect of a wayfarer.

From this I prove the intended consequence thus: no quidditative concept of substance can be had through the change of a sensible accident unless that can be abstracted from the concept of an accident; but if no concept is univocal to substance and accident, a concept cannot be abstracted from them; therefore is no concept is univocal to substance and accident by the change made by an accident, no quidditative concept of substance can be had by our intellect.

The major is clear: for unless some concept of substance can be abstracted from an accident, an accident will never change the intellect to the concept of substance. The aforesaid argument requires a more prolix treatise.

Comment:

The obvious rejoinder here is to deny univocity between substance and accident and posit some kind of analogy in its place. Peter does mention this in a later argument in this section, but as he had spent the last three (very lengthy) questions on accepting and denying various kinds of analogy, this possibility is not on the table here.

True Principles Can Be Derived From Deceived Senses

This is the point I was making in this post, and at the moment I thought I was thinking for myself, but it turns out that for some of the metaphysics and epistemology post I was vaguely recollecting things I'd read in Ordinatio I.3.4 a few weeks ago. Look at the following from Scotus [mildly paraphrased]:

"As far as the knowledge of principles is concerned, the senses are not the cause, but the occasion, of understanding. The intellect is not able to have the knowledge of simple notions unless this is accepted from the senses; but once these simple notions are accepted, the intellect can put them together by its own power and, if from the nature of these simple notions there is an evidently true complex concept, the intellect, by its own power and by that of the terms, can assent to that complex - but not in virtue of the sense from which it accepted the terms from without. For example: if the notion of "whole" and of "greater" is received from the sense power, and if the intellect puts together this proposition: Every whole is greater than its part, the intellect, in virtue of itself and of these terms, will assent to this complex notion with certitude, and not only because it sees these terms conjoined in reality (as if for instance it assents to the proposition Socrates is white, because he sees the terms [i.e. Socrates and whiteness] to be united in reality).

No, rather I say that if all the senses from which such terms were derived were false, or (what would be even more deceptive), if some senses were false and some true, still the intellect would not be deceived about such principles, because it would always have with it the terms which were the cause of the truth. For instance, if a man born blind were to be miraculously impressed with the appearances of whiteness and blackness in a dream, and if they remained in his imagination upon awakening, his intellect, abstracting from them, would compose this proposition: White is not black. And his intellect would not be deceived about this, although the terms were derived from an erring sense, because the formal ratio of the terms which he attained is itself the necessary cause of the truth of this negative proposition."

I think this is both true, and very similar to what I was saying in the previous post. But yesterday I'd forgotten all about having read it, even though it was fairly recently. It just goes to show that the modern academic obsession with footnoting is misplaced to some extent. I may never have an original thought, and if I did it would be impossible to prove, because what I believe I just thought up on my own may well be and probably is a composted sediment from something someone else once said or wrote. So why be so obsessed with attribution?

nihil sub sole novum nec valet quisquam dicere ecce hoc recens est iam enim praecessit in saeculis quae fuerunt ante nos
non est priorum memoria sed nec eorum quidem quae postea futura sunt erit recordatio apud eos qui futuri sunt in novissimo

Metaphysics Prior to Epistemology

It seems to be generally accepted that metaphysics is posterior to epistemology. After Descartes and Kant nearly everyone seems to take it for granted, even scholastics. For instance, the two books in the previous post, Degrees of Knowledge and Insight, both attempt, each in its own way, to construct a Thomistic-type metaphysics on the foundation of an analysis of the intellect and intellectual processes.

On the other hand, I'm very tempted to argue that the assumption that ever since the formation of the "critical problem" any future metaphysics must be constructed over an epistemological substratum is false, both according to 1) the order of being and 2) the order of knowing.

1). A. Metaphysics is first philosophy. But if it's posterior to epistemology then it's second philosophy. Ergo, etc.

B. Metaphysics is conceived by Aristotle as a science. But according to Aristotle science is certain knowledge logically derived from self-evident necessary first principles. But no singular contingent truth is necessary. Therefore no singular contingent truth is a principle of metaphysics. But the "critical problem" - how can I trust my senses, how do I know I'm not a brain in a vat, therefore how do I know my concepts conform to reality, etc. - is concerned with our knowledge of contingent truths. Therefore a resolution of the "critical problem" is not a necessary precursor to metaphysics.

C. Metaphysics is a science of the necessary, not of the contingent. There is no science strictly speaking of the contingently true. Therefore metaphysics is concerned with a) what is necessarily actual, and b) what is necessarily possible, but not with what is contingently actual. But however the "critical problem" is resolved, it is resolved to a contingently actual truth. For instance, if my senses are generally reliable and I usually perceive the world as it is, taking into account the ordinary risk of error, the fact that this world exists and that I know it is still contingently true. But if I am a brain in a vat and my perception is an illusion, this is also contingently true. Therefore the science of the necessarily actual and possible does not depend on the solution of the problem either way.

D. An accurate metaphysics can persist even if all of my judgments about contingent facts are false. For instance, if I were a brain in a vat, my conception of substance and accidents would remain unaffected. I would be in error about particular substances, but not about the underlying theory. A brain in a vat remains a substance, and its color an accident.

2. A. The possibility of attaining knowledge is not dependent on a proof that the knowledge is possible. A child does not learn semiotics before learning his letters. Phenomenology does not come prior to perception. If I can't prove I'm not a brain in a vat, that doesn't mean that I don't really know who the President is. So, to generalize, a proof that knowledge about reality is possible is not necessary in order to have knowledge about reality.

B. Furthermore, it is licit to argue from actuality to possibility. So: I do know who the President is. Therefore some knowledge about reality is possible. How? That's another question. The fact that I can't show how doesn't prove that it isn't so. A radical doubt which refuses to admit that I know who the President is or whether I have two hands is not asking for epistemology, but something else. It also redefines "knowledge", since it is obviously and trivially (pre-philosophically) apparent that I have knowledge of this kind. If Cartesian radical doubt insists that it is not knowledge in the most perfect sense of "science," then I readily grant this.

C. Even brain-in-a-vat type questions presume a metaphysics. If I am a brain in a vat, then there are bodies with certain properties, and a distinction between material and formal causes, and essentially ordered causal chains, and so forth. A radical skepticism which eschews all metaphysics whatsoever, which makes no claims at all about reality, can be nothing but simple negation. But no science can be founded on a negation. Ergo, etc.

I could go on about why I think the whole notion of Cartesian doubt (as opposed to something like Husserlian epoche) is a serious mistake, but that would take me away from the present topic. As for the thesis, I'd be very happy to read any refutations.