OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 05/19/2016, SPi Aquinas’s Theory of Perception OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 05/19/2016, SPi OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 05/19/2016, SPi Aquinas’s Theory of Perception An Analytic Reconstruction Anthony J. Lisska 1 OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 05/19/2016, SPi 3 Great Clarendon Street, Oxford, OX2 6DP, United Kingdom Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University’s objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide. Oxford is a registered trade mark of Oxford University Press in the UK and in certain other countries © Anthony J. Lisska 2016 The moral rights of the author have been asserted First Edition published in 2016 Impression: 1 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, without the prior permission in writing of Oxford University Press, or as expressly permitted by law, by licence or under terms agreed with the appropriate reprographics rights organization. Enquiries concerning reproduction outside the scope of the above should be sent to the Rights Department, Oxford University Press, at the address above You must not circulate this work in any other form and you must impose this same condition on any acquirer Published in the United States of America by Oxford University Press 198 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10016, United States of America British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data Data available Library of Congress Control Number: 2016931712 ISBN 978–0–19–877790–8 Printed in Great Britain by Clays Ltd, St Ives plc Links to third party websites are provided by Oxford in good faith and for information only. Oxford disclaims any responsibility for the materials contained in any third party website referenced in this work. OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 05/19/2016, SPi To Professor Robert G. Turnbull, who first convinced a then rather young philosopher not to abandon his work with Thomas Aquinas but to rethink through the lenses of linguistic analysis the philosophical chestnuts found plentifully in the texts of Thomas, and who, with a most gracious philosophical soul and a magnanimity of collegial spirit, encouraged this young philosopher to attempt a refutation of his own reading of Aquinas on phantasms, this book is gratefully and with deep appreciation dedicated. OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 05/19/2016, SPi OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 05/19/2016, SPi Preface This book is the result of several years spent undertaking research and writing on the difficult issues surrounding Thomas Aquinas’s theory of sensation and perception. It presents an attempt to ‘reconstruct’ and interpret the texts of Thomas on sense knowl- edge. The emphasis in this inquiry, accordingly, is directed towards developing a philo- sophical analysis of the internal and the external senses, with particular reference to the internal sense of the vis cogitativa. Approaching the texts of Aquinas from contem- porary analytic philosophy, this study suggests a modest ‘innate’ or ‘structured’ inter- pretation for the role of this inner sense faculty. Furthermore, this analysis sheds light on the workings of what Aquinas calls the ‘agent intellect’ (intellectus agens) and its corresponding cognitive process of abstraction. Inner sense and abstraction are two concepts in general Aristotelian epistemology and philosophy of mind that require rethinking and tough-minded analysis. The research that results in this book began several years ago under the thoughtful tutelage of the late Robert G. Turnbull. It has been refined over the years by many read- ings of papers at professional meetings, papers at all three divisions of the American Philosophical Association, and more than several publications, along with many sum- mers and two sabbaticals spent worrying about Aquinas on perception. Research was partly funded by a National Endowment for the Humanities Summer Research Grant. An earlier National Endowment for the Humanities Summer Seminar was undertaken with the late Roderick Chisholm at Brown University.1 Robert C. Good Grants from Denison University and the Denison Mellon Program in the Humanities enabled the author to augment regular sabbaticals with additional time affording the possibility to complete drafts of this book. The author acknowledges with sincere gratitude these sources of funding, all of which were indispensable for the completion of this extended study on Thomas Aquinas. The author’s first attempt at providing an elucidation of the principles of intentionality in Aquinas was written for Professor Chisholm. The analysis of phantasm and sense datum first was read at the Eastern Division Meetings of the American Philosophical Association. Earlier attempts at unearthing the ‘logic’ of the vis cogitativa and its role in perception were read as papers at the Central and Pacific Division Meetings of the American Philosophical Association with variations at other conferences. The author expresses his gratitude for invitations to contribute papers by the late Ralph McInerny and the late Norris Clark, SJ. The author’s 2006 Presidential Address for the American Catholic Philosophical Association discussed in some detail several issues treated in 1 Over the last quarter of the 20th c., Professor Chisholm was known as one of the foremost contempo- rary philosophers concerned with perception theory and the thesis of intentionality. OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 05/19/2016, SPi viii Preface this monograph.2 Essays central to this topic have appeared in Analytical Thomism (2006), Semiotica (2010), The Thomist (1973; 1976), International Philosophical Quarterly (1976), and Thomistic Sources (forthcoming). A major paper on the Vis Cogitativa and the perception of individuals was presented at the International St Thomas Aquinas Society’s meeting held in conjunction with the Eastern Division Meetings of the American Philosophical Association (1999). A sabbatical spent at the University of Oxford enabled the author to present his work to several philosophers in residence and to engage in productive discussions with Sir Anthony Kenny, the then Master of Balliol College. Over the years, Sir Anthony has been warmly supportive of this project, which overlaps in many areas with his own substantive work on Aquinas and the philosophy of mind. The author is grateful to him for his engaging conversa- tions in Oxford, in Granville, and more recently at his Headington retirement home, and for his suggestions of the role of inner sense in Aquinas. The author spent part of a Minnesota summer with a John Haldane seminar at the University of St Thomas; he expresses his profound gratitude to Professor Haldane, of the University of St Andrews and now of Baylor University, for stimulating conversations and astute criticisms on several issues considered in this monograph. On several occasions, both Professors Kenny and Haldane visited Denison University. The author has learned very much from the astute writings of Father Fergus Kerr, the former editor of Blackfriars at Oxford. Over the years, Robert Turnbull, Peter Machamer, Peter McCormick, Ron Santoni, Alan Hausman, John Boler, Joan Franks, Harry Heft, Norris Clarke, Mary Sirridge, Alasdair MacIntyre, Kevin White, John Deely, John Rist, Henry Veatch, Jonathan Jacobs, Douglas Rasmussen, and Ralph McInerny in the United States, Lawrence Dewan in Canada, Anthony Kenny, Brian Davies, John Haldane, and Dorian Scaltas in the United Kingdom, and Roger Pouviet in France have offered valuable comments and astute criticisms. Recent conversations with two philosophers interested in Aquinas on inner sense, James South of the Department of Philosophy at Marquette University and Leo White of Morgan State University, have been particularly fruitful and productive. Two younger scholars, Mark Barker and Daniel De Haan, have been keenly interested in the topics considered in this book. In particular, the author expresses his profound gratitude to his friends Alan Hausman and James South, both of whom undertook the supererogatory task of reading and commenting upon earlier drafts of this work. Professor South’s efforts are indeed noteworthy. He worked through the entire draft manuscript with thoughtful and critical eyes, and then he and the author undertook extensive and thorough conversations on the manuscript. Professor South’s insights have rendered this analysis more sophisticated both philosophically 2 ‘A Look at Inner Sense in Aquinas: A Long-Neglected Faculty Psychology’, in Michael Baur (ed.), Intelligence and the Philosophy of Mind: Proceedings of the American Catholic Philosophical Association 80 (2006), 1–19. In his role as president, the author selected as a general theme of this 2006 national meeting of the ACPA ‘Intelligence and the Philosophy of Mind’, with Sir Anthony Kenny and John Haldane along with the late Kurt Pritzl serving as plenary speakers. OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 05/19/2016, SPi Preface ix and historically, and have assisted in removing some serious potholes and muddles from the arguments in this book. My Denison Philosophy colleagues as well as many Denison academic administrators have been supportive of this ongoing project. The author received three sets of significant and thorough insights from anonymous reviewers for Oxford University Press; the author expresses his deep gratitude for the thoughtful analyses these reviewers offered for an earlier draft of this book. The author also expresses sincere appreciation to Ms Eleanor Collins from Oxford University Press for her marvellous assistance as editor with early drafts of this study, and to Ms Sarah Barrett for her outstanding copy-editing work. Of course, any philosophical problems and infelicities—or downright mistaken accounts—that remain rest squarely on the shoulders of the author. As always, the author depends on the deft proofreading eye of Marianne Lisska in order to render his writing style more direct and perspicuous. The constant attention and thoughtful encouragement over the last quarter of a cen- tury that Alan Hausman and Robert Turnbull have given to the author’s work on Aquinas and perception theory deserve special mention. The author’s first attempt to elucidate a consistent account of Aquinas’s theory of perception came while reading Descartes with Alan Hausman; the question kept haunting the author—how did Aquinas really differ on perception theory from Descartes? The first extensive study of Aquinas on phantasms took place with Robert Turnbull; his cogent remarks have made this work more consistent and less ridden with woolly arguments. It was Professor Turnbull who first urged the author to use analytic philosophy in order to look at the important texts of Aquinas through a different set of lenses. That advice indeed has made the author’s philosophical career. It is to the late Professor Robert G. Turnbull that this study of Aquinas on perception, covering issues so dear to his own philosophical soul, is warmly dedicated. Granville, OH, USA 25 March 2016