Quaestio 12/2012 Annuario di storia della metafisica Annuaire d’histoire de la métaphysique Jahrbuch für die Geschichte der Metaphysik Yearbook of the History of Metaphysics © 2013, Brepols Publishers n.v., Turnhout, Belgium © 2013, Pagina soc. coop., Bari, Italy Questo numero di Quaestio è stato realizzato anche grazie a un contributo del Consiglio di Amministrazione dell’Università degli Studi di Bari Aldo Moro. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without prior permission of the publisher. ISBN 978-2-503-54355-0 ISSN 1379-2547 D/2013/0095/238 Quaestio 12/2012 Intentionality and Reality Intenzionalità e realtà a cura di Costantino Esposito e Pasquale Porro Q Direzione Costantino Esposito e Pasquale Porro Università degli Studi di Bari «Aldo Moro» Comitato Scientifico / Comité Scientifique / Wissenschaftlicher Beirat / Advisory Board Jean-Robert Armogathe (École Pratique des Hautes Études - Paris) • Werner Beierwaltes (München) • Giulia Belgioioso (Università del Salento - Lecce) • Enrico Berti (Padova) • Olivier Boulnois (École Pratique des Hautes Études - Paris) • Mario Caimi (Buenos Aires) • Vincent Carraud (Paris-Sorbonne) • Mário Santiago de Carvalho (Coimbra) • Jean-François Courtine (Paris-Sorbonne) • Alain de Libera (Genève / Collège de France, Paris) • Giulio d’Onofrio (Salerno) • Kent Emery, Jr. (Notre Dame) • Jorge Gracia (State University of New York - Buffalo) • Miguel Angel Granada (Barcelona) • Dimitri Gutas (Yale) • Friedrich-Wilhelm von Herrmann (Albert-Ludwigs-Universität Freiburg i.Br.) • Norbert Hinske (Trier) • Maarten J.F.M. Hoenen (Albert-Ludwigs-Universität Freiburg i.Br.) • Ruedi Imbach (Paris-Sorbonne / Fribourg) • Alexei N. Krouglov (Russian State University for the Humanities - Moscow) • Jean-Luc Marion (Divinity School, University of Chicago) • Jean-Marc Narbonne (Laval) • Dominik Perler (HumboldtUniversität - Berlin / Princeton) • Gregorio Piaia (Padova) • Stefano Poggi (Firenze) • Paolo Ponzio (Bari «Aldo Moro») • Riccardo Pozzo (CNR Roma) • Jacob Schmutz (Université ParisSorbonne Abu Dhabi) • William Shea (Padova) • Andreas Speer (Köln) • Carlos Steel (Leuven) • Giusi Strummiello (Bari «Aldo Moro») • Loris Sturlese (Università del Salento - Lecce) Redazione Anna Arezzo • Marienza Benedetto • Annalisa Cappiello • Davide Cellamare • Donatella Colantuono • Giovanna D’Aniello • Giambattista Formica • Marialucrezia Leone • Marco Lamanna • Vincenzo Lomuscio • Francesco Marrone • Stefania Scardicchio • Michele Trizio Quaestio is a peer-reviewed journal, open to unsolicited contributions. The articles sent to the Editors are normally assessed by a member of the Advisory Board and another specialist chosen by the Board, or by two external specialists. The Editors will maintain records of the reviewers, though their identity will not be made public. Contributi e volumi per recensione vanno inviati alla Direzione di «Quaestio» (Please send contributions and review-copies to): Costantino Esposito • Pasquale Porro Dipartimento di Filosofia, Letteratura, Storia e Scienze Sociali (FLESS) Università degli Studi di Bari Aldo Moro Palazzo Ateneo - Piazza Umberto I, I-70121 - Bari (Italia) e-mail: costantino.esposito@uniba.it • pasquale.porro@uniba.it Abbonamenti / Abonnements / Subscriptions Brepols Publishers, Begijnhof 67 - B-2300 Turnhout (Belgium), tel. +32 14 44 80 20 - fax +32 14 42 89 19 e-mail: info.publishers@brepols.com Indice/Contents COSTANTINO ESPOSITO / PASQUALE PORRO Premessa IX Intentionality and Reality JÖRG ALEJANDRO TELLKAMP Francisco Suárez on the Intentional Species 3 FRANCESCO MARRONE Ontologia dei contenuti ideali. Essere oggettivo e realtà nel dibattito Descartes-Caterus 25 GIOVANNA D’ANIELLO L’intentio animi nella sintesi agostiniana di Cornelis Jansen 79 MARTIN LENZ Locke’s Theory of Ideas and the Myth of the Given 101 ALAIN DE LIBERA L’Ouverture écossaise : Brentano critique de Bain 123 DONATELLA COLANTUONO Conoscenza della realtà e realtà come conoscenza. Il punto di vista di Bernard Bolzano 153 LAURENT CESALLI / HAMID TAIEB The Road to ideelle Verähnlichung. Anton Marty’s Conception of Intentionality in the Light of its Brentanian Background 171 MAURO ANTONELLI Thoughts Concerning Anton Marty’s Early Conception of Intentionality. Was He Thinking what Brentano Was Thinking? 233 VI Indice PIERRE-JEAN RENAUDIE Le réel et ses signes : Brentano et Husserl sur l’engagement ontologique de l’intentionnalité 243 CARMINE DI MARTINO Husserl: intenzionalità versus realismo? 263 WOUTER GORIS Das historische Apriori bei Husserl und Foucault – Zur philosophischen Relevanz eines Leitbegriffs der historischen Epistemologie 291 MIGUEL GARCÍA-VALDECASAS Wittgenstein on Intentionality and Representation 343 OSCAR BARROSO FERNÁNDEZ Actualidad e intencionalidad en Zubiri 369 ELISABETTA SACCHI / ALBERTO VOLTOLINI To Think Is to Literally Have Something in One’s Thought 395 STEFANIA SCARDICCHIO Idealism, New-Realism and Pragmatism: The American Debate on Reality from Royce to Lewis 423 PAOLO PECERE Naturalizing Intentionality between Philosophy and Brain Science. A Survey of Methodological and Metaphysical Issues (1969-2011) 449 New Realism: A Debate PASQUALE PORRO A Few Questions about the New Realism 484 MAURIZIO FERRARIS Responses to Quaestio 485 MARIO DE CARO The Two Faces of Realism 503 COSTANTINO ESPOSITO Truth without Certainty? An Open Question into New Realism 515 MATTEO MORGANTI New Realism and Scientific Realism 535 ANDREA SERENI Mathematical Realism: What’s New? 551 Indice VII Varia MARIENZA BENEDETTO Da Atene a Baghdad (e oltre). Ancora sul rapporto tra filosofia araba ed eredità greca 569 BERND GOEHRING Henry of Ghent on Human Knowledge and Its Limits 589 Note Cronache Recensioni ROBERT THEIS Transzendentalphilosophie zwischen Scholastik und Kritik 617 SABINO PAPARELLA Gli “altri” Levinas: ontologia, tempo e politica a colloquio con la pensée nouvelle 620 Indice dei nomi 629 Intentionality and Reality Intenzionalità e realtà Jörg Alejandro Tellkamp Francisco Suárez on the Intentional Species 1. Introduction It has become somewhat customary to approach the Medieval and Early Modern history of intentionality with a brief characterization of Franz Brentano’s Psychologie vom empirischen Standpunkt1. In doing so it is easy to get the impression that intentionality is primarily concerned with the phenomenological study of mental contents2. Although Brentano mentions some of the precursors of his own theory of intentional inexistence – Aristotle and Aquinas – it seems that his stance is closer to Aureoli’s3. In this respect, it will be argued in this article that the Jesuit thinker Francisco Suárez (1548-1617) resembles Aureoli as well as Brentano and that he could be considered the missing link in the history of theories of intentionality closing the gap between the 14th and the 19th century. Historically speaking it is obvious that Medieval and Early Modern conceptions of intentionality are derived from the notion of intentio, which has initially been introduced by the Latin translation of Avicenna’s De anima in the 12th century. According to Avicenna perceptual as well as intellectual content is said to be intentional, when it points at a set of complex states of affairs, which cannot be grasped by the exterior senses. Therefore he thinks that intentiones have to be grasped not by the external senses, but by the inner senses, mainly the estimative power4. Intentiones have ultimately the purpose of clarifying a host of 1 Recent examples are T. AHO, Suárez on Cognitive Intentions, in P. BAKKER / J.M.M.H. THIJSEN (eds.), Mind, Cognition and Representation: the Tradition of Commentaries on Aristotle’s De anima, Ashgate, Aldershot 2007, pp. 179-203; D. PERLER, Theorien der Intentionalität im Mittelalter, Klostermann, Frankfurt am Main 2002, pp. 1-11 and pp. 399-411 and K. HEDWIG, Intention: Outlines for the History of a Phenomenological Concept, in Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 39 (1979), pp. 326-340. 2 Cf. F. BRENTANO, Psychologie vom empirischen Standpunkt, vol. 1, ed. O. Kraus, Meiner, Hamburg 1973 [reprint of the edition of 1924], p. 125. 3 As for instance in Peter Aureol’s theory of intentionality, cf. PERLER, Theorien der Intentionalität cit., pp. 253-294. 4 AVICENNA, De anima, I, 5, vol. 1, ed. S. van Riet, Peeters, Louvain / Brill, Leiden 1972, p. 89: «Quaestio», 12 (2012), 3-23 • 10.1484/J.QUAESTIO.1.103609 4 Jörg Alejandro Telkamp problems associated with the description of mental processes and contents and their relation to the material world5. Yet it has recently been vividly discussed what ontological status the intentiones have. Are they features of the material object?6 Are they produced by the sensible mind?7 If so, do they reveal anything relevant about the material world after all or should they be regarded only insofar as they are present in the cognizing subject? To those questions Suárez offers an account of how intentional knowledge comes actively about in the mind, while still pointing at the material world through a causal theory of his own. Suárez’s work is thought to be at very junction of Scholasticism and Modern Philosophy. While his style and method still shows his reliance on the traditional way of academic work, he nevertheless begins to adopt a different attitude, which can best be appreciated in the fact that he considers himself a philosopher. No medieval or later scholastic theologian dared to do so. His most important work, the Disputationes Metaphysicae, is not only an impressive monument to his thought, but it also went far beyond his own time influencing modern metaphysics8. There are, however, aspects of his thought that did not immediately transcend confessional and philosophical barriers, as the Disputationes Metaphysicae did, especially his psychology. In fact, his commentary on Aristotle’s De anima, although written in his early years as scholar was not published until 1621, four years after his death. In what follows, I shall focus mainly on this text9. “Deinde est vis aestimationis; quae est vis ordinata in summo mediae concavitatis cerebri, apprehendens intentiones non sensatas quae suret in singulis sensibilibus, sicut vis quae est in ove diiudicans quod ab hoc lupo est fugiendum, et quod huius agni est miserendum; videtur etiam haec vis operari in imaginatis compositionem et divisionem”. As will be shown below, Suárez dismisses the idea of sensibilia non sensata; cf. F. SUÁREZ, De anima, III, 30, 15, ed. D.M. André, Vivés, Paris 1856 (Francisco Suárez Opera Omnia 3), p. 708. 5 D.N. HASSE, Avicenna’s ‘De anima’ in the Latin West. The Formation of a Peripatetic Philosophy of the Soul 1160-1300, The Warburg Institute, London / Nino Aragno, Turin 2000. 6 Regarding Avicenna’s theory, Hasse has interpreted the intentiones as features of material objects, which have to be conceived as existing independently from the mind, thus coining the expression “connotational attributes”; cf. HASSE, Avicenna’s ‘De anima’ in the Latin West cit., pp. 132 sqq. 7 Albert the Great, for instance, thinks that the intentiones are brought about (elicitur) by the cognitive apparatus in particular by the estimative power; cf. ALBERTUS MAGNUS, De anima, II, 4, 8, ed. C. Stroick, Aschendorff, Münster 1968 (Opera Omnia, 7/1), p. 158, 17-20: “In prima autem parte mediae cellae cerebri, quae calida est ex motu multi spiritus ad ipsam, posuerunt aestimativam, quae elicitiva et activa est intentionum”. 8 On Suárez, see J. GRACIA, Francisco Suárez: The Man in History, in American Catholic Philosophical Quarterly, 65 (1991), pp. 259-266; R. MINER, Suárez as Founder of Modernity: Reflections in a Topos in Recent Historiography, in History of Philosophy Quarterly, 18 (2001), pp. 17-36. 9 C. LEIJENHORST, Cajetan and Suárez on agent sense: Metaphysics and epistemology in late Aristotelean thought, in H. LAGERLUND (ed.), Forming the Mind: Essays on the Internal Senses and the Mind/Body Problem from Avicenna to the Medical Enlightment, Springer, Dordrecht 2007, p. 250, note 31, notes that the differences between the Vivès edition and the newer critical edition prepared by Salvador Castellote texts are considerable. And although the Vivès edition is based on the first print of 1621, being the ver- Francisco Suárez on the Intentional Species 5 The Commentary on De anima is not what the reader of medieval texts would expect of a commentary. Rather than commenting ad litteram Aristotle’s text, he uses it as a platform in order to shed light on a series of problems regarding the nature of the soul, perception and intellectual knowledge. In this respect his Commentary resembles much more Avicenna’s De anima than, for instance, Albert the Great’s Commentary on De anima. Yet the point of departure of many of the topics Suárez discusses is not only medieval, but there are also many writers of the Italian Renaissance and the Spanish Humanism to whom he refers as well as to many Dominican and Jesuit contemporaries, such as Francisco Toledo and Domingo Bañez. He copiously quotes the likes of Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, John Duns Scotus, Durandus of St. Pourçain, Thomas de Vio (Cajetan), and also Agostino Nifo, Marcantonio Zimara y Juan Luis Vives. Although his commentary denotes the fresh attitude towards philosophical sources typical of someone at the beginning of his academic career, it is a notoriously difficult text, mainly because it preserves the formal characteristics worthy of any Scholastic text, but also because of the sheer number of citations and references inserted in it. Also does Suárez’s own sometimes cumbersome style impede an easy access, being a far cry, for instance, from Descartes’ fluid prose. In this article, I intend to draw a picture of Suárez’s epistemology in which it will be crucial to assess his point of view regarding realism, causality and the role of the intentional species. The key issue, which Suárez takes from medieval discussions, consists in asking what mental content is and how it refers to the external world. This question, however, entails a description of the relationship between the mental powers, i.e. the inner senses and the intellectual powers. Although those questions seem to have a quite medieval tone to it, they lead to solutions, which already seem to be modern. At the core of Suárez’s debate regarding the nature of perception and intellection is his notion of intentional species that helps explaining the following thesis, which shall be addressed in the present article: (1) The senses, external as well as internal, and the intellect are active potencies; the mental content they produce is not necessarily, yet sufficiently dependent upon external causes. (2) The intellect, which in the hierarchy of cognitive powers is supreme, depends formally, although not causally on the imagination. (3) A brief account of Suárez’s theory of accidental causality paves the way sion that has been historically received, I will cite Castellote’s edition in full and indicate in brackets the corresponding passage of the Vivès edition whenever both texts coincide. 6 Jörg Alejandro Telkamp for a proper understanding of the relation between the material objects and the external senses and also as to how the inner senses and the intellect are conjoined with the experience of particular sense objects. Since Suárez rejects the passivity of the senses and the intellect on ontological grounds, he offers a novel causal explanation for the acquisition of knowledge, suggesting that the conjunction of material objects and cognitive processes is brought about by an intrinsic congruence (sympathia, consensus) of both. In the first place I will give a sketch of the historical background for Suárez’s theory of the intentional species, in which the Dominican Durandus of St. Pourçain plays a fundamental role. Secondly, I will dwell on Suárez’s own theory of the intentional species examining (a) its meaning, then (b) the causal conditions for the production of the intentional species, (c) the role of the inner senses and (d) of the intellect. All this should ultimately show that Suárez sustains a realist theory of cognition, which, however, is based on his peculiar way of accounting for causality, with which he set himself apart from the 13th century paradigm regarding the efficacy of the species in medio. 2. Species intentionalis The concept of species has many meanings not only in metaphysical contexts, but also in relation with epistemological concerns. In the medieval tradition the term species is generally used to clarify how the intellect does refer to particular or universal properties of material objects10. In introducing the term species intentionalis, Suárez not only is keen to show that the content of sense knowledge is about something, but that it also plays a fundamental role in the explanation of how sense knowledge is produced. This is the main sense Suárez prefers to confer it, i.e., as explaining the cognitive content human beings acquire when they know something. Hence, according to the medieval tradition species can be defined functionally as that by which the process of knowing leads to the knowledge of individual or universal substances11. Insofar as the species is the mental representation of a cognitive content, its function consists in being the quo of knowledge, and not the quod. This means that the species are the means of knowing the external world under particular or universal aspects, but they are not themselves the objects known. It seems that Suárez agrees with this traditional 10 Cf. L. SPRUIT, Species Intelligibilis. From Perception to Knowledge; vol. 1: Classical Roots and Medieval Discussions, Brill, Leiden 1994, p. 4. 11 SPRUIT, Classical Roots and Medieval Discussions cit., p. 6. Francisco Suárez on the Intentional Species 7 Thomasian assumption. It has to be noted that in the following I will not always make a clear distinction between sensible and intelligible species, mainly because both types of species are comparable insofar they are intentional in nature12. a. The species intentionalis according to Durandus of St.-Pourçain In order to adequately understand Suárez’s theory of the intentional species, it proves to be useful to go back to one of his main sources on this matter, Durandus of St.-Pourçain (c. 1270-1332)13. His influence on Suárez is obvious due to the continuous mentions he makes of the Dominican’s Commentary on the Sentences; he considers him a valuable source even when he disagrees with him. Nevertheless, on the issue of the intentional species, Durandus is Suárez’s main source, with whom he disagrees only occasionally. Also is his stance more concise than Suárez’s, and given his relevance a short analysis of his theory of the intentional species will be given14. According to Durandus, the concept species generally stands for representations or images; yet the question has to be answered as to why and how representations can lead to the knowledge of that which is represented. In order to produce knowledge, the species need to reflect in a significant way that which is being represented. The assumption, however, that the representation achieved by the species is a sufficient condition for producing knowledge is rejected by Durandus, since no representation does in itself imply knowledge15. It seems more plausible to assume that knowledge of an object is achieved on the basis 12 F. SUÁREZ, De anima, vol. 2, d. 5, q. 1, ed. S. Castellote, Editorial Labor, Madrid 1981, p. 286, ll. 51-54: “Haec est fere communis omnium philosophorum et theologorum qui in potentiis cognoscitivis ponunt similitudines [quasdam] objectorum, ut per [illas] objecta [uniantur] potentiis; et eas vocant species intentionales” [SUÁREZ, De anima, III, 1, ed. Vivès, p. 314]. See also SPRUIT, Classical Roots and Medieval Discussions cit., p. 297. 13 The edition referred to here is: DURANDI A SANCTO PORCIANO, Petri Lombardi Sententias Theologicas Commentariorum Libri IIII, ex Typographia Guerreae, Venetiis 1571. Recently the volumes II/1 (ed. Retucci) and IV/4 (ed. Jeschke) of the critical edition of Durandus’s Commentary on the Sentences have been published; DURANDI A SANCTO PORCIANO, Scriptum super IV Libros Sententiarum, editio curandae praesidet Andreas Speer, Peeters, Leuven-Paris-Walpole 2012. Unfortunately the tome containing the theory of the intentional species is still being prepared. 14 Cf. SPRUIT, Classical Roots and Medieval Discussions cit., pp. 281-283. 15 DURANDUS, In Sent. II, d. 6, q. 6, n. 11, ed. Venetiis, f. 139va: “Item talis species si duceret in cognitionem alterius hoc faceret ratio similitudinis. Unde communiter vocatur similitudo rei, et sic haberet rationem imaginis, imago autem ducens in cognitionem illius cuius est imago est primo cognita quod non potest dici de tali specie, ergo etc. Et sine dubio de se videtur absurdum quod potentia cognitiva ducatur in cognitionem alicuius per tale repreaesentativum, quod est sibi totaliter incognitum”. 8 Jörg Alejandro Telkamp of a previously acquired knowledge of what the object grasped is16. No species, which according to Durandus has to have an esse reale, has per se an intrinsic property such as to represent in a significant way an exterior object; this can only be achieved when the species contains a certain directionality, which he identifies with the notion of intentional being (esse intentionale). There are two aspects, which imply a distinction between the real and the intentional being of a species17. In all this Durandus quite consciously sets forth an interpretation of the intentional being that differs from that of his fellow Dominican Thomas Aquinas18. The intentional being of the species has a primary meaning, which is based on the way the intellect works (per operationem intellectus)19. In this regard, Durandus thinks of logical intentiones, like genus, species, etc. This meaning of intentional being, however, does not bear any significance on the acquisition of knowledge. The notion of species intentionalis also refers to something with a diminished or imperfect being (esse imperfectum)20. This imperfect being allows for three different interpretations21. (a) It means that it does not have to have a permanent being (esse permanens) very much like movements and, generally, events in time that are not permanent22. (b) It can also refer to things which, in order to exist, require a proximate natural cause (causa proxima naturalis)23. Durandus notes, however, that these two meanings of esse imperfectum do not explain how knowledge is acquired and constituted. (c) Its third meaning does, insofar as the species’ imperfect being not only refers to the proximate natural cause, but also to that which perfects it. Hence it could be said that light or the species in medio have somehow (aliquo modo) an intentional being24. Since no species has the in- 16 DURANDUS, In Sent. II, d. 6, q. 6, n. 11, ed. Venetiis, f. 139va: “Contrarium enim verissimum est, videlicet quod per notum ducitur in cognitionem ignoti”. 17 DURANDUS, In Sent. II, d. 13, q. 2, ed. Venetiis, f. 155rb: “Esse intentionale potest dupliciter accipi. Uno modo prout distinguitur contra esse reale [...]”. 18 See J. TELLKAMP, Aquinas on Intentions in the Medium and in the Mind, in Proceedings of the American Catholic Philosophical Association, 80 (2006), pp. 275-289. 19 DURANDUS, In Sent. II, d. 13, q. 2, ed. Venetiis, f. 155rb: “[...] Propius modus accipiendi intentionem, et esse intentionale”. 20 DURANDUS, In Sent. II, d. 13, q. 2, ed. Venetiis, f. 155va: “Esse autem intentionale est esse imperfec-tum”. 21 DURANDUS, In Sent. II, d. 13, q. 2, ed. Venetiis, f. 155rb: “Alio modo dicitur aliquid habere esse intentionale large, quia habet esse debile adhuc tripliciter”. 22 DURANDUS, In Sent. II, d. 13, q. 2, ed. Venetiis, f. 155rb: “[...] Quia non habent suum esse simul sive permanens, sed in successione ut motus et tempus [...]”. 23 DURANDUS, In Sent. II, d. 13, q. 2, ed. Venetiis, f. 155va: “[...] Quia ad sui existentiam requirunt prae-sentiam suae causae proximae naturalis [...]”. 24 DURANDUS, In Sent. II, d. 13, q. 2, ed. Venetiis, f. 155va: “[...] Dicitur aliquid habere esse debile Francisco Suárez on the Intentional Species 9 trinsic property of referring to something exterior, it seems that Durandus has to deny the existence of species in medio as having intentional content. This forces him to emphasize the fact that the intentional being of the species is not independent from the mind25. Light and the species in medio are thus described according to the function they accomplish: they are the quo whereby the soul tends towards an object of cognition26. This functional characterization of the species as the quo of knowledge also indicates that an intentional content has to be attached to them, and in this regard they can produce material change in the world, i.e., in the cognitive apparatus, because species with such a intentional content are truly natural things (cum sint vere res naturales)27. To say that the intentional species are truly natural things seems to be at odds with Durandus’ emphasis on the complete dependence of the intentional species on the functioning of the mind. But it has to be kept in mind that the intentional species play a causal role in the mind’s directing itself to exterior objects. It what follows the influence of Durandus on Suárez should be pretty obvious. 3. The species intentionalis according to Francisco Suárez In medieval discussions about the nature of knowledge, usually a great deal of en-ergy has been used to show how human beings and animals are able to cognize the exterior world. Whereas during the first half of the 13th century different forms of direct realism dominated the discussion, it is not until the end of that century that the assumptions of that realism, mainly its recurrence to the species in medio are criticized by thinkers like Henry of Ghent, and later on, by Aureoli and Ockham28. Direct realism is understood as “the view that physical objects are after all themselves directly or immediately perceived in a way that allegedly avoids the need for any sort of justificatory inference from sensory experience to physical non solum per comparationem ad causam proximam, sed quia deficit a perfectione propriae speciei. Et sic lumen et species in medio habent esse debile quod etiam potest dici aliquo modo intentionale”. 25 DURANDUS, In Sent. II, d. 13, q. 2, ed. Venetiis, f. 155va: “Istud autem potest dici aliqualiter intentionale, sicut enim dictum est prius intentio propriissime ad actum animae pertinet, illud igitur potest aliqualiter dici intentionale quo anima tendit in alterum. Hoc etiam alludit nomini”. 26 DURANDUS, In Sent. II, d. 13, q. 2, ed. Venetiis, f. 155va: “Intentionale enim dicitur quo in alterum tenditur, sed lumen in medio, et species coloris sunt huiusmodi, ratione enim imperfecti non terminant actum animae, sed sunt illud quo anima tendit in obiectum”. 27 DURANDUS, In Sent. II, d. 13, q. 2, ed. Venetiis, f. 155vb: “[...] Mediantibus eis [v.g. intentiones-J.T.] tendit anima in obiectum. Tales autem formae intentionales cum sint vere res naturales possunt esse principium realium actionum, non solum animalium, sed etiam naturalium. Nam et animales actiones sunt”. 28 See again PERLER, Theorien der Intentionalität cit. 10 Jörg Alejandro Telkamp reality”29. If we add the causal explanation, as it is set forth by authors like Thomas Aquinas, then it might be concluded that sense knowledge and even intellectual knowledge depicts the exterior world ceteris paribus exactly as it is. Furthermore, the qualitative features of the material objects are the cause for their being represented in the mind. Those representations, which are located in the inner senses (fantasy, memory and cogitativa or aestimativa), are individual, but through the activity of the agent intellect their material features – Aquinas calls them appendices materiae – can be abstracted from their individuality, thus becoming universals. Having this traditional 13th century view in mind, Suárez goes about distinguishing four aspects. (1) Matter individualizes extramental things. (2) The mental representations (phantasmata) of individual objects are material in nature. Since those objects are, ontologically speaking, of an inferior kind, they are not capable of having a causal influence upon the intellect30. (3) The universal representations, of which Suárez occasionally talks of as intelligible species, do not have material properties and they refer to the substantial core of material objects. (4) Sensible or intelligible species exert a certain causality in the sense that, generally speaking, a representation Y causes a representation Y’. The concept of species helps to characterize mental representations generally. The species, however, have to be distinguished from the raw sense data (colors, sounds, etc.), since those data are the immediate result of organic changes (e.g., in the eyes or ears). Yet intelligible species are not concomitant with organic change and do not depend on it31. Accordingly the intelligible species cannot be related to the qualitative and quantitative properties of material objects, despite the fact that the sensible species share certain properties of material objects, insofar as they are perishable, divisible and material. By contrast, the intelligible species are indivisible and spiritual, i.e., immaterial in nature32. 29 L. BONJOUR, Epistemological Problems of Perception, in E.N. ZALTA (ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2011 Edition), http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2011/entries/ perception-episprob/ 30 SUÁREZ, De anima, d. 5, q. 1, ed. S. Castellote, vol. 2, p. 294, ll. 169-175: “Quia phantasma cum sit quid materiale et [in] inferiori potentia existens, non potest esse sufficiens ad operationem spiritualem potentiae superioris. Item phantasma non potest determinare intellectum, ut forma inhaerens illi, quia est materiale, neque etiam ut objectum, quia intellectus non cognoscit rem in phantasmate, neque denique ut cooperans intellectui, quia cum sit materiale non posset cooperari ad actum spiritualem: ergo” [De anima, III, 1, 9, ed. Vivès, p. 615]. Here, I take it that sensible intentional species and phantasmata are synonymous. 31 Cf. SUÁREZ, De anima, d. 5, q. 1, ed. Castellote, vol. 2., p. 294 [SUÁREZ, De anima, III, 1, 9, ed. Vivès, p. 616]. 32 SUÁREZ, De anima, d. 5, q. 2, ed. Castellote, vol. 2, p. 316, ll. 295-297: “Species intentionales in Francisco Suárez on the Intentional Species 11 It is an essential property of the intentional species to represent an object under the aspect of its formal similitude in such a way as to complete the object itself (ut suppleat vicem obiecti)33. Yet this preliminary characterization of the intentional species gives way to two questions: (1) If the intentional species contains the similitude of a material object, then it has to be less perfect than the object itself, since it would be a copy of its accidental features; but then how can the intentional species lead to perfect intellectual knowledge?34 (2) If those species have an essentially formal mode of existence, how is it possible to conceive of them as similitudes of material objects? Suárez answers these questions emphasizing that the intentional species are accidental in nature and that they represent the qualitative features of material objects35. Here it has to be taken for granted that a definite description of the qualitative features allow for a complete account of the object, just in the same way someone answers the question regarding the nature of a tiger by saying that it is furry, orange with black stripes, fast, etc. Apart from its function of representing material objects, the intentional species explain how a known object is conjoined with its respective mental content36. According to Suárez the conjunction (unio) of cognitive power and object is a fact, and both are being “glued” together by the intentional species. Here the influence of Durandus is obvious: since the intentional species display an intermediary function, they do not have an existence independent from the cognitive powers, but they rather depend on them37. The intentional species mirror the accidental properties of material objects, but not their substance, because no substance can be represented on the sensory level38. Although the conjunction of species and sensory power is acciden- solo intellectu sunt spirituales et indivisibiles: in aliis autem potentiis cognoscitivis sunt materiales et divisibiles” [De anima, III, 2, 16, ed. Vivès, p. 619]. 33 The critical edition states this issue boldly; see SUÁREZ, De anima, d. 5, q. 2, ed. Castellote, vol. 2, p. 322, l. 374 sqq.: “[...] Istae species intentionales sunt similitudines formales obiectorum”. There is no paral-lel text to this one in the Vivès edition. 34 SUÁREZ, De anima, d. 5, q. 2, ed. Castellote, vol. 2, p. 322, ll. 382-384. 35 SUÁREZ, De anima, d. 5, q. 2, ed. Castellote, vol. 2, p. 324, l. 411 sqq.; L. SPRUIT, Species Intelligibilis. From Perception to Knowledge; vol. 2: Renaissance Controversies, Later Scholasticism, and the Elimination of the Intelligible Species in Modern Philosophy, Brill, Leiden 1995, p. 297. 36 SUÁREZ, De anima, d. 5, q. 1, ed. Castellote, vol. 2, p. 290, ll. 116-118: “Constat ergo dari in omnibus potentiis species rerum cognoscibilium, et hoc non alia ratione, nisi ut obiectum cognoscibile uniatur potentiae; ergo haec unio necessaria est” [De anima, III, 1, 6, ed. Vivès, p. 615]. 37 SUÁREZ, De anima, d. 5, q. 1, ed. Castellote, vol. 2, p. 292, ll. 136-138: “Quando obiectum unitur potentiae, media specie, necesse est ipsam speciem esse intrinsece in potentia cognoscente” [De anima, III, 1, 8, ed. Vivès, p. 615]; cf. also SPRUIT, Renaissance Controversies, Later Scholasticism cit., p. 296. 38 SUÁREZ, De anima, d. 5, q. 2, ed. Castellote, vol. 2, p. 298, ll. 15-18: “Item, quia fingi non potest quae [substantia] sint, nec est necesse quod sint substantiae ad munus ad quod ordinantur nempe ad 12 Jörg Alejandro Telkamp tal39, it appears that the species depend necessarily on the sensory powers, so that no intentional species exists if no corresponding sensory power existed as well. The intentional species are, then, accidents regarding the substance of a corresponding sensory power. The fact that the intentional species qua accidents depend essentially on the cognitive powers of the soul qua substances will be of particular importance, because it shows the reasons Suárez has to hold, on Aristotelian grounds, that the intentional species are more intrinsically related to the sensory powers than to the material objects themselves. The results thus far are: (a) intentional species are directed towards material objects and state of affairs; (b) they contain a formal, though no material similitude with the object and (c) they necessarily, but not sufficiently depend on the material object represented. Yet if the intentional species does not completely depend on the material objects they represent, it will be crucial to scrutinize the exact nature of their relation with the material world. 4. How are the intentional species acquired? During the 13th century most theories of cognition followed a realistic stance insofar as the senses and the intellect are passive powers that necessarily require an external object to impinge on them, so that it is grasped in the same way as it exists. The qualitative properties of a material object, e.g. the color red, are causally responsible for the experience of red in the outer and inner senses. Thomas Aquinas, for instance, follows the Aristotelian tenets in that the senses and the intellect have to be seen as passive powers. The vocabulary to describe the process of knowledge includes words like, alteratio, immutatio, motio etc., all of which indicate that the recipient of an accidental or substantial form is passive40. Says Aquinas in his Commentary on the Physics: “All change is brought about by a sensible quality, which is the third species of the quality. The bodies are changed according to what differentiates the bodies from each other in the first place, i.e. the sensible qualities [...]. Being changed according to those qualities is common to all sensible bodies, animate as well as inanimate. And since in an animate body some parts are animate, i.e. sensitive, such as the eye and the hand, movendum [sensum] et actuandum illum, sed satis est quod sint qualitates” [De anima, III, 2, 2, ed. Vivès, p. 616]. 39 SUÁREZ, De anima, d. 5, q. 2, ed. Castellote, vol. 2 p. 300, l. 62 sqq: “[...] Unio inter potentiam et speciem intentionalem est accidentalis […]” [De anima, III, 1, 8, ed. Vivès, p. 615]. 40 See J. TELLKAMP, Sinne, Gegenstände und Sensibilia. Zur Wahrnehmungstheorie des Thomas von Aquin, Brill, Leiden 1999, pp. 37-55. Francisco Suárez on the Intentional Species 13 others are, however, inanimate, i.e. not sensitive, as hair and bones. Therefore passion and alteration are more properly said of the senses than of the intellect, whose operation is not that of a bodily organ [...]”41. In a very contracted fashion, Aquinas acknowledges that the sensible qualities inherent in material objects bring about change in living and in non-living bodies. In this sense it seems to account for a necessary condition, which is only actualized as the knowledge of something if a sensory power intervenes. It is well known that this stance regarding the passivity of the cognitive powers and the role of intermediary species or qualities has been severely criticized mainly due to the objection that entities such as species in medio lead into a conceptual muddle. Ockham, for instance, contends that “If you say that everything that is seen per se and which has real being is light and color, but if it has intentional being it is not necessary, as it is in the proposition, then [one might] say against: this species is in the genus of quality either per se or per reductionem. It is not per reductionem, because it is not an essential part of something that essentially is in a genus. Therefore it is per se in a genus and in the third species [of quality], and consequently it is a passion and a passible quality, therefore having truly real being. It is strange how it is a true material and bodily quality and truly extended in matter and having, however, only spiritual or intentional being”42. It will be shown that Suárez, though following the critique regarding the causal role of the species, intends at least to preserve their core function of pointing at something that is objectively the case, i.e. independently from the mind. 41 THOMAS DE AQUINO, In octo libros Physicorum Aristotelis, lib. 7, l. 4, n. 2, Typographia Polyglotta, Rome 1884 (Opera Omnia, 2), p. 335: “Omnis alteratio fit secundum qualitatem sensibilem, quae est tertia species qualitatis. Secundum illa enim alterantur corpora, quibus primo corpora ab invicem differunt; quae sunt sensibiles qualitates [...]. Alterari autem secundum huiusmodi qualitates, est omnium corporum sensibilium, tam animatorum quam inanimatorum. Et quia in corporibus animatis quaedam partes sunt animatae, idest sensitivae, ut oculus et manus, quaedam autem inanimatae, idest non sensitivae, ut capilli et ossa [...]. Unde passio et alteratio magis proprie dicitur in sensu quam in intellectu, cuius operatio non est per aliquod organum corporeum [...]”. 42 GUILLELMUS DE OCKHAM, Quaestiones in librum tertium Sententiarum (Reportatio), ed. F. Kelley / G. Etzkorn, St. Bonaventure University, St. Bonaventure 1982 (Opera Theologica, 6), pp. 56-57: “Si dicas quod omne quod videtur per se et habet esse reale est lux vel color, sed si habeat esse intentionale non oportet; sic est in proposito, igitur etc., contra: haec species est in genere qualitatis. Aut igitur per se, aut per reductionem. Non per reductionem, quia non est pars essentialis alicuius quod est per se in genere. Igitur est per se in genere, et in tertia specie, et per consequens est passio vel passibilis qualitas, igitur habet verum esse reale. Mirum est quomodo illud est vera qualitas materialis et corporalis et vere extensa in materia, tamen solum habet esse spirituale sive intentionale”. See also C. PANACCIO, Ockham on Concepts, Ashgate, Aldershot 2004, p. 27. 14 Jörg Alejandro Telkamp 5. The role of causality Although the species-in-medio-model and its causal role had historically fallen into disrepute, it is striking to note that Suárez employs precisely the criticized vocabulary. While in his Commentary on De anima he repeatedly goes into details regarding the causal relation between object and cognizing subject, it is only in his mature Disputationes Metaphysicae that he establishes the conceptual background for a complete account of causality43. Disputations 16-18 contain an intricate and complex theory of formal and efficient causality, but here I shall only be concerned with those issues that are relevant for a proper understanding of the intentional species. In the first place it has to be borne in mind that for Suárez the intentional species are accidents and this obviously precludes them from bringing about any kind of substantial change. As the accidental causes are obviously not substantial causes, they cannot be real causes44. Although some indications have already been given to that effect, two interconnected questions can now be answered in greater detail: (1) Is there a causal relationship between the external, material object and the intentional species? (2) Do the intentional species themselves play a causal role in the process of cognition? As to question (1) it already has been noted that there seem to be, at first glance, no reasons to suppose that a causal relationship between material object and intentional species exists, mainly because the species are conceived of accidents of the cognitive powers and because no qualitative property in itself brings about the knowledge of the object of which it is a quality45. Yet, in a curious turn, Suárez acknowledges that one can say that sense knowledge is brought about causally, if it is understood as leading to the immaterial alteration or change of the sense power as, e.g., in the case of the transmission of qualitative features such as color or sound46. The material object seems to stand in a re- 43 F. SUÁREZ, Disputationes metaphysicae, Latin-Spanish, vol. 3, Editorial Gredos, Madrid 1961. There is also an English translation of disputations 16 to 18; cf. F. SUÁREZ, Metaphysical Disputations 17, 18, and 19, trans. A. Freddoso, Yale University Press, New Haven 1994. 44 SUÁREZ, Disputationes metaphysicae, d. 17, II, vol. 6, Editorial Gredos, Madrid 1964, p. 54: “Causa autem per accidens, cum non sit vera causa, sed per quamdam habitudinem vel similitudinem aut coniunctionem cum causa sic appelletur, non potest commode una communi descriptione definiri, sed variis modis dicitur. Aliquando enim dicitur causa per accidens ex parte causae, aliquando vero ex parte effectus”. 45 Cf. W. HOERES, Bewußtsein und Erkenntnisbild bei Suárez, in Scholastik, 36 (1961), pp. 192-216, especially p. 198. 46 Cf. HOERES, Bewußtsein und Erkenntnisbild bei Suárez cit., p. 199. Francisco Suárez on the Intentional Species 15 lation to the cognitive powers while transmitting its qualitative properties. This process, which Suárez does not explain in full, leads to the existence of species impressae in the sense power, and they end up being accidental qualities of the human mind47. It seems, therefore, that were someone to have the mental image of a chimera, a correlation with an extramental object would have to hold, even if no relatio realis existed between object and cognizing subject48. Very much like in 13th century theories of imagination, does Suárez think that the correspondence between fictitious image and material object is achieved through the composition and division of the various features that produce the image of a chimera49. Apart from the possibility of representing non-existent objects, there is a need for a relatio realis between object and cognizing subject50. What this exactly means is not altogether clear, but Suárez gives us some hints as to what to make of it. In the first place “relation” is an accident within the Aristotelian framework of the categories and its function consists in explaining how something reaches out to something (ad aliquid)51. Insofar as it reaches out a relation can either be conceptual (rationis) or real (realis)52. Yet it is only the real relation that properly points at something, because a relatio rationis can designate anything non-existent, such as entia rationis, thus establishing a relation ad aliquid in an analogical way53. Now the material objects as well as the cognitive powers exist in nature and 47 HOERES, Bewußtsein und Erkenntnisbild bei Suárez cit., p. 200. De anima, d. 5, q. 2, ed. Castellote, vol. 2, p. 328, 465 sqq.: “[...] Res non existens optime potest repraesentari, neque semper inter repraesentans et repraesentatum est relatio realis [...]” [De anima, III, 2, 27, ed. Vivès, p. 622 sqq.]. Something very similar is anticipated by Scotus; cf. D. PERLER, What Am I Thinking About? John Duns Scotus and Peter Aureol on Intentional Objects, in Vivarium, 32 (1994), pp. 72-89; see p. 78. 49 Cf. SUÁREZ, De anima, d. 5, q. 2, ed. Castellote, vol. 2, p. 328, l. 468 sqq. [De anima III, 2, 27, ed. Vivès, p. 622 sqq.]. 50 SUÁREZ, De anima, d. 5, q. 2, ed. Castellote, vol. 2, p. 328, l. 458 sqq.: “Repraesentantis enim ad repraesentatum debet esse relatio realis” [De anima, III, 2, 27, ed. Vivès, p. 622]. 51 SUÁREZ, Disputationes Metaphysicae, d. 47, III, ed. Gredos, vol. 6, p. 666: “Patet, nam relativa esse dicuntur, quorum totum esse est ad aliud se habere; hoc autem omnino et propriissime convenit respectibus rationis; nam licet esse eorum sit magis imperfectum ac diminutum, quam esse relativorum realium, tamen illud esse qualecunque est, tam proprie consistit totum in habitudine ad aliud, sicut esse relationis realis. Unde fit ut relatio rationis nec cognosci possit, nec definiri sine habitudine ad aliud, aeque ac relatio realis”. 52 SUÁREZ, Disputationes Metaphysicae, d. 47, III, ed. Gredos, vol. 6, p. 665 sqq. See also Disputationes Metaphysicae, d. 7, I, ed.Gredos, vol. 2, p. 11. 53 SUÁREZ, Disputationes Metaphysicae, d. 47, III, ed. Gredos, vol. 6, p. 668: “Dicendum ergo est solam relationem realem esse vere et proprie ad aliquid; relationem autem rationis non esse, sed concipi ac si esset ad aliquid, ideoque solas relationes reales ad proprium praedicamentum Ad aliquid pertinere; relationes autem rationis non constitui in reali praedicamento, sed per analogiam et proportionem ad veras relationes declarari [...]”. 48 SUÁREZ, 16 Jörg Alejandro Telkamp Suárez can therefore safely assume that they relate to each other realiter. Yet the cognitive powers are undetermined as long as they are not actualized by the formal and qualitative features of an object. The object, then, possesses in actu what the cognitive power is able to become in actu and hence, from an ontological point of view, the external object is necessary for the sensory powers to complete their proper functions. But it has to be taken into account that for Suárez the relation between external object and cognizing subject, although real, does not imply any change within the cognitive powers, because an object deemed inferior cannot by itself cause a superior kind of process54. Although the principle of the impossibility of inferior powers to produce superior effects is an ancient one, it is Suárez who, unlike Aquinas, applies it stringently. Aquinas himself had further developed Averroes’s dual notion of the species as having either a natural mode of being when it produces physical changes in a body or a spiritual. i.e. intentional mode of being, when it produces a cognitive change in a sense power55. Suárez disagrees with this dual theory of the species as being either material or spiritual, i.e. intentional, because its proponents “do not understand how a spiritual species can be the similitude of a material thing”56. Also if the species were spiritual, it would be impossible to explain how sound is able represent anything, given that it is based on the matter of air57. Because matter as such does not produce cognitive change in the cognitive powers, Suárez has to exclude it as the determining aspect in the production of sense knowledge. If neither the spiritual nor the material mode of being of the species can be admitted for an explanation of the production of intentional species, what can? Again we have to look at his theory of accidental causality. Although ontologically inferior instances cannot produce as causae integrae a superior effect, he thinks the species plays a crucial role in conjoining with the cognitive power. Only both together account for the causa integra Suárez has 54 SUÁREZ, De anima, d. 5, q. 4, ed. Castellote, vol. 2, p. 366, ll. 247-251: “[...] Imperfectum non potest attingere productionem perfectioris tamquam totale principium immediatum neque principale neque instrumentale, naturaliter loquendo, tamen potest attingere ut partialiter complens immediatum instrumentum, et [attingendo] in effectu aliquid non perfectius [se]” [De anima, III, 4, 14, ed. Vivès, p. 630]. 55 THOMAS DE AQUINO, Sentencia libri de anima, II, 14, Commissio Leonina, Rome / Vrin, Paris 1984 (Opera Omnia, 45/1), p. 169: “Quandoque uero forma recipitur in paciente secundum alium modum essendi quam sit in agente, quia dispositio materialis pacientes ad recipiendum non est similis dispositioni materiali que erat in agente, et ideo forma recipitur in paciente sine materia in quantum paciens assimilatur agenti secundum formam et non secundum materiam; et per hunc modum sensus recipit formam sine materia, quia alterius modi esse habet forma in sensu et in re sensibili: nam in re sensibili habet esse naturale, in sensu autem habet esse intentionale sine spirituale [...]”. 56 SUÁREZ, De anima, d. 5, q. 4, ed. Castellote, vol. 2, p. 324, l. 400: “[...] Non intelligunt quomodo species spiritualis sit similitudo rei materialis”. 57 SUÁREZ, De anima, d. 5, q. 4, ed. Castellote, vol. 2, p. 324, l. 400. Francisco Suárez on the Intentional Species 17 been looking for: “The integral productive principle of knowledge is a power informed by a species”58. The qualitative features of material objects do exert a sort of efficient causality on the sense powers, yet it is not a complete cause. And since the cognitive powers themselves play a central role in the production of cognition, it seems that Suárez holds a position contrary to an externalized epistemology, stressing instead the role of the cognitive faculties of the mind. This shift towards the mind’s relevance in the production of knowledge has in fact led to a recent surge of publications regarding Suárez’s “mentalism”59, which presupposes that metaphysical entities as such only exist within the mind60. Contrary to this position it has been contended that Suárez holds a traditional metaphysical realism in that termini such as species, genus etc. are based on the objective reality61. Taking into consideration what has been discussed so far, it is easy to see that the debate about mentalism vs. realism can be applied to Suárez’s theory of cognition in general and, in particular, to the notion of intentional species. 6. The role of mental processes The external material objects, although exerting causality by means of their qualitative features, do not describe completely the production of sense cognition; they are necessary, but not sufficient. In fact, if they were sufficient as well, so contends Suárez, it would be impossible to explain the presence of fictitious objects in the mind. Since not only fictitious objects, but also “ordinary” sense experiences, say of dogs, are insufficiently described by their external causal conditions, it has to assumed that the cognitive powers themselves play a role in bringing about cognition as much as the material objects. In this respect Suárez empathically holds that sense perception is active, putting the notion of attention (attentio) to the forefront. This means that the senses, external or internal, pick actively out the features and objects to be cog- 58 SUÁREZ, De anima, d. 5, q. 4, ed. Castellote, vol. 2, p. 364, l. 227 sqq.: “Principium integrum productivum cognitionis est potentia informata specie” [De anima, III, 2, 27, ed. Vivès, p. 622]. 59 A positive stance towards mentalism is defended by N.J. WELLS, ‘Esse Cognitum’ and Suárez Revisited, in American Catholic Philosophical Quarterly, 67 (1993), pp. 339-348. Gracia has a more subtle approach insofar as he claims that Suárez leaves the door open to some kind realism: J. GRACIA, Suárez’s Conception of Metaphysics: A Step in the Direction of Mentalism?, in American Catholic Philosophical Quarterly, 65 (1991), pp. 287-309; and J. GRACIA, Suárez and Metaphysical Mentalism: The Last Visit, in American Catholic Philosophical Quarterly, 67 (1993), pp. 349-354. 60 Cf. GRACIA, Suárez’s Conception of Metaphysics cit., p. 349. 61 Cf. GRACIA, Suárez’s Conception of Metaphysics cit. 18 Jörg Alejandro Telkamp nized. Therefore, in overstepping the traditional Aristotelian limitation of the cognitive powers conceived of as passive, Suárez explains how we grasp real as well as fictitious objects. This active reaching out of the cognitive powers is as crucial to cognition as the existence of the external objects they grasp. In order to explain succinctly Suárez’s theory of attentio, the following points should be taken into consideration: (1) An object, be it real or fictitious, has to be given. (2) The qualitative features of the external object, understood as accidental causes, are effective regarding the cognitive change in a perceiving subject. (3) It is the conjunction of (1) and (2) that explains how mental representations (phantasmata or species), which subsist either in an indeterminate manner in the outer senses or in a determinate manner in the inner senses, are brought about62. As mentioned before, the causality originating in the material object’s qualitative features only accounts for the necessary condition of sense knowledge. But in order to describe the causa integra of knowledge it is necessary to point at the causality exerted by the cognitive powers63. If the passivity of the senses is not sufficient for the production of intentional species, then it seems to be necessary to add an active component by which the senses direct their attention to those issues that are cognitively relevant. Suárez introduces therefore the notion of attentio, according to which the cognitive powers not only depend on causal influences, but also reach out to what they intend to grasp. Since cognition is intentional in nature, i.e. it points at objects or states of affairs, it is clear that cognition has essentially a mind-world-relation and not just, in the sense of its causal conditions, a world-mind-relation. The change brought about in the sense powers through the aforementioned causal link with the external object, does not yet constitute intentional knowledge of that object. The sensible species derived from that causal relationship have rather to be thought of as an instrumental part through which that kind of intentional knowledge is acquired; it is the quo of cognition. Having discussed the relevance of that causal relationship, it is all the more important to underline those aspects, which render the sufficient conditions for cognition. One condition – attentio – has already been named, but an account of the intentional 62 It will be made clear that Suárez does not think that the outer senses are sufficient to yield knowledge. To achieve knowledge, the inner senses have to direct themselves to what the sensus exteriores grasp: cf. SUÁREZ, Disputationes Metaphysicae, d. 18, 6, 2, ed. Gredos, vol. 3, p. 170. 63 Cf. HOERES, Bewußtsein und Erkenntnisbild bei Suárez cit., p. 208 and J. LUDWIG, Das akausale Zusammenwirken (sympathia) der Seelenvermögen in der Erkenntnislehre des Suarez, Karl Ludwig Verlag, Munich 1929, p. 23 sqq. Francisco Suárez on the Intentional Species 19 species can only be complete when taking into consideration the theory of the inner senses64. Their importance lies in the fact that intentional knowledge can only be achieved within the mind, i.e. through the activity of the inner senses. In a quite traditional way, Suárez assumes that the inner senses are located in the brain65 and that there are seven: common sense, imagination, phantasy, estimation, cogitation, memory and reminiscence. The functions of each also follow, at first sight, a traditional pattern. Phantasy, for instance, as opposed to the common sense, grasps what is absent66, while the estimative power apprehends what is becoming or unbecoming67. The important aspect of the inner sense for the present purpose is not so much an outline of their function, but the idea that the inner senses do not differ on account of having different objects68. There are two arguments that Suárez brings to bear. (1) If, as mentioned before, there is no point in distinguishing sensed and non-sensed species, then there is no point in distinguishing inner powers that grasp either sensed or non-sensed species. (2) If, for argument’s sake, the distinction is meaningful, then any power that grasps non-sensed species should obviously sense them and consequently all the inner senses would end up having the same object, i.e. sensed species. In an interesting twist of Avicenna’s famous wolf-sheep-example, Suárez thinks that recognizing that a wolf is dangerous is nothing over and above what the senses grasp. If the external senses necessarily see the qualitative features of a wolf, then it is also necessary to see it as dangerous. Therefore if it is said that “this is an enemy” is based on a posterior judgment, it would nevertheless have to be assumed that it, namely the dangerous wolf, had already been cognized69. As a consequence, a distinction of the inner sense powers as having different objects is uncalled for. 64 Cf. J. SOUTH, Francisco Suárez on Imagination, in Vivarium, 39 (2001), pp. 119-158 for a detailed account of the inner senses in Suárez. 65 SUÁREZ, De anima, d. 6, q. 2, 9, ed. Castellote, vol. 2, p. 478, l. 136: “[...] Suppono sensum interiorem esse in cerebro [...]” [SUÁREZ, De anima, III, 9, 5, ed. Vivès, p. 648]. 66 SUÁREZ, De anima, d. 8, q. 1, ed. S. Castellote, vol. 3, Editorial Labor, Madrid 1991, p. 18, ll. 8586: “Phantasia est sensus interior potens cognoscere omnia, etiam sensibilia exterior, in eorum absentia [...]” [De anima, III, 30, 4, ed. Vivès, p. 704]. 67 SUÁREZ, De anima, d. 8, q. 1, ed. Castellote, vol. 3, p. 22 [De anima, III, 30, 7, ed. Vivès, p. 705]. 68 SUÁREZ, De anima, d. 8, q. 1, 19, ed. Castellote, vol. 3, p. 38, ll. 398-399: “Probabilius est etiam aestimativam et memoriam non esse potentias realiter a phantasia distinctas” [De anima, III, 30, 15, ed. Vivès, p. 708]. Cf. SOUTH, Francisco Suárez on Imagination cit., p. 129 sqq. 69 SUÁREZ, De anima, d. 8, q. 1, 19, ed. Castellote, vol. 3, p. 38, ll. 407-418: “[...] Nam potentia cognoscens lupum ut inimicum, non alia ratione id cognoscit, nisi cognoscendo nisi cognoscendo figuram et alia accidentia illius exterior. Quomodo enim potest cognoscere esse inimicum, nisi illum qui est inimicus? Non cognoscit autem illum, nisi per exterior accidentia; cognoscere autem illum per exterior accidentia est cognoscere sub ratione sensate; ergo potential cognoscens sub ratione insensate. Forte dicitur satis esse quod una potentia cognoscat lupum ut sic, ut alia iudicet esse inimicum. Sed hoc non in- 20 Jörg Alejandro Telkamp Returning to the importance of the sense’s attention, Suárez thinks, given that material object and cognitive powers concur in the process of acquiring intentional species, that it is impossible to separate the active and passive ingredients that lead to knowledge70. In fact, one and the same process can be described as being active as well as passive, i.e. as the passive reception of information originating in the material world and the concurrent active attention to that information71. Suárez underscores this point: “The cognitive power exerts a proper and immediate activity regarding its act”72. In this respect activity and passivity are related to each other in one and the same cognitive process73. If the cognitive powers were exclusively passive, such as required by the Aristotelian line of thought, then it would be possible for them to grasp simultaneously the intentional species of different objects. Suárez, however, excludes this possibility, because the intentional species would have to multiply according to the number of objects grasped when, for instance, many men are grasped through one human-specific species and not many74. The implication of this is that not only the sense powers but also the intellect use the same intentional species in order to refer to the same kind of external objects so that, in the end, the intentional species serves to grasp an individual human being as well as the universal notion of human being. 7. Intellect Before concluding, a brief outlook into Suárez’s theory of the intellect is called for. In the received medieval Aristotelian tradition knowledge of universals is brought about by the agent intellect as the result of a layered process of ab- telligitur, nam hoc iudicium: ‘Hic est inimicus’ includit intrinsece cognitionem huius qui est inimicus; ergo non sunt actus separabiles ad diversas potentias pertinentes.” [De anima, III, 30, 15, ed. Vivès, p. 708]. 70 SUÁREZ, De anima, d. 5, q. 4, ed. Castellote, vol. 2, p. 352, l. 29 sqq.: “Quare impossibile [est] haec duo, scilicet [agere] et recipere, separare omnino et diversis potentiis tribuere”. There is no matching passage in the Vivès edition. 71 In this sense it seems that SPRUIT, Renaissance Controversies, Later Scholasticism cit., p. 297 is mistaken in saying that “[...] human cognition is ‘actio’ and not ‘passio’”. Even though Suárez gives the active role of the senses a greater importance, he does not exclude passivity in the process of acquiring knowledge. 72 SUÁREZ, De anima, d. 5, q. 4, ed. Castellote, vol. 2, p. 360, l. 148 sqq.: “Potentia cognoscitiva habet propriam et immediatam activitatem circa actum suum” [De anima, III, 4, 9, ed. Vivès, p. 628]. 73 Cf. SPRUIT, Renaissance Controversies, Later Scholasticism cit., p. 299. 74 SUÁREZ, De anima, d. 5, q. 7, ed. Castellote, vol. 2, p. 440, ll. 39-42: “Quia una potentia tantum potest informari in actu unica specie intentionali, ut videns visus plures homines, per unicam speciem illos videt, alias haberet plures species solo numero differentes; ergo etiam tantum potest efficere unum actum” [De anima, III, 7, 2, ed. Vivès, p. 641]. Francisco Suárez on the Intentional Species 21 straction. Through the conversio ad phantasmata the essential core of the objects perceived is extracted, but in agreement with Aristotle’s tenet that the intellect is ultimately passive, the agent intellect seems to lack the capacity of putting active attention to what it is about to grasp. According to Suárez the agent intellect is actually active, but not insofar as it illuminates the phantasms. Illumination has to be excluded, because it would mean that the phantasms illuminated could act on the intellect. But as the phantasms belong to an inferior ontological order, since they still contain traces of matter (apparently the appendices materiae that can also be found in Albert the Great and Aquinas), they cannot exert any influence on the intellect, even if the intellect itself “illuminates” them. In this respect the notion of sympathia or consensus potentiorum emerges as a way of explaining how both inferior and superior powers are related to each other in a congruent fashion so that, whenever the inferior power is actualized, the superior is actualized concomitantly. What Suárez seems to have in mind is that any causal relationship by means of conversio ad phantasmata has to be excluded75. Although the intellect is an immaterial cognitive power with very different ontological properties from that of the external and internal senses, it is important to hold a continuity of sorts between both types of powers in order to explain the coherence and unity of human knowledge, mainly because any knowledge, be it singular or universal, is about the same kind of things, even though the knowledge of the singular is prior to knowing the universal. Hence, even though intellectual knowledge is mediated by abstraction, it does denote the same states of affairs at which sense knowledge points as well, but it does so under a common aspect, which not even very inexpert people can fail to achieve76. 75 SUÁREZ, De anima, IV, 3, 7, ed. Vivès, p. 724: “Rogo autem, qua ratione per conversionem hanc per phantasma singulare cognoscatur: et per quam speciem. Nam vel cognoscitur per phantasma, tanquam per objectum, seu medium cognitum: vel tanquam per speciem. Tanquam per objectum cognosci, est impossibile primo, quia alioquin prius foret cognoscendum ab intellectu phantasma ipsum, quam singulare in eo repraesentatum, quod est contra experientiam; multi siquidem singularia norunt, ac de illis ratiocinantur, qui nihil noverunt de phantasmatibus. Secundo, quia rationi dissonum est, ut intellectus in re materiali, et inferioris ordinis, tanquam in objecto quippiam cognoscat. [...] Quia res materialis et inferiores ordinis non potest concurrere in actum spiritualem”. There is no corresponding passage in Castellote’s critical edition. 76 SUÁREZ, De anima IV, 3, 15, ed. Vivès, p. 727: “Eo ipso, quod sensus cognoscit singulare, potest intellectus facillime illud cognoscere, universale vero non ita facile, siquidem prius requiritur cognitio singularium, et convenientia illorum, ut ab illis abstrahatur natura communis: ergo prius concipitur singulare, quam universale. Confirmatur: nam rudes, quia unicum vident solem, conceptum Solis in communi non formant, sed illius tantum quem vident, ut quisque etiam apud se compertum habebit, antequam hasce abstractiones noverit: ergo formatur prius conceptus hujus Solis, quam Solis in communi, ille autem conceptus apud intellectum est, cum ridiculum sit existimare rusticos homines nunquam intellectu solem concipere, cum circa illum utrumque ratiocinetur, etc.”. There is no corresponding passage in Castellote’s critical edition. 22 Jörg Alejandro Telkamp In excluding any immediate causal link between the phantasms and the intellect, even through the conversio ad phantasmata, Suárez is again left with the notion of attention77. The phantasms would thus present the intellect with the occasion of knowing a universal related to them78. The activities of phantasia and intellect are parallel and strictly speaking never intersect causally, but they are related to each other by means of the intellect’s attention to the phantasms79. 8. Conclusion Despite Suárez’s dense and sometimes seemingly contradictory account of cognition, it emerges that his notion of intentional species pushes the envelope. Deeply rooted in the philosophical tradition, he does not hesitate to point at problems and incoherencies based, e.g., on the stringent reading of the principle that lower powers cannot entirely bring about change in superior powers. His interpretation of causality in the process of cognition does away with the Thomasian explanation of the species in medio thus construing an epistemological realism that relies as much on the presence of the external object as on the active reaching out of the senses. In this way he can preserve the Aristotelian model according to which nothing inferior produces changes in superior entities, but he can nevertheless argue that the external, inferior objects are necessary, though not sufficient in the process of producing knowledge. Interestingly Suárez is also committed to applying this model to the relation between the inner senses and the intellect. The phantasms, as products of phantasia, are occasions for the intellect’s action, but they are not its cause. It could be said that Suárez’s epistemological stance advances a kind of realism that owes to Thomas Aquinas as much as it does to Durandus or Ockham. In integrating, criticizing and ultimately going beyond his medieval models, he culminates the traditional discourse on intentionality, at the same time showing a path towards a modern theory of intentionality. 77 Cf. HOERES, Bewußtsein und Erkenntnisbild bei Suárez cit., p. 212 sqq. Cf. SPRUIT, Renaissance Controversies, Later Scholasticism cit., p. 303. 79 SPRUIT, Renaissance Controversies, Later Scholasticism cit., p. 302. 78 Francisco Suárez on the Intentional Species 23 Abstract: With his notion of the intentional species, Francisco Suárez reevaluates the role of causality within a realist theory of knowledge. Taking into account various traditional accounts, e.g. Avicenna’s, Aquinas’s and Durandus’s, he develops a novel approach according to which the accidental features of material objects are necessary, though not sufficient causes for knowledge. In rejecting the Aristotelian claim that cognitive processes are passive, he thinks that knowing is essentially an active reaching out to the objects known. His interpretation of causality in cognitive processes also leads him not only to reassess the mind-world-relation, but also to advance a theory as to how higher and lower cognitive capacities are intertwined. The dependency of the higher ones, such as the intellect, on perceptual processes requires to accommodate the traditional dictum that lower entities do not cause essential effects in higher ones. Hence Suárez stresses the intrinsic congruence (sympathia, harmonia) of all cognitive powers on a rather non-causal footing. Key words: Intentional Species; Realism; Perception; Inner Senses; Intellect; Causality; Attention; Activity and Passivity of the Senses. Mailing address: Universidad Autónoma Metropolitana Departamento de Filosofía Av. San Rafael Atlixco 186 Col. Vicentina 09340 México D.F. - México tlkp@xanum.uam.mx