Does the Agent Intellect Coincide with the Divine?
A ModestProposal Based on the Aristotelian Concept of “Most Divine”
Keywords:
agent intellect, Aristotelianism, Aristotle, divine intellect, soulAbstract
This article aims to evaluate the exegesis of Victor Caston’s classic and “modest” text on the identification of the agent intellect with the divine intellect in Aristotle. According to Caston, the similarity of various adjectives used in De animaIII, 5, when describing the agent intellect, with those present in Metaphysica XII, 7-9, relating to the divine intellect, would ratify such an identification. Although there is a long divergent tradition that defends the agent intellect as a part of the soul, this question has not yet been investigated using the method proposed in this study. It is a question of analyzing the adjective “divine”, i.e. the highest possible, in its comparative and superlative form (“most divine”), to see if it is explicitly applicable to both the agent intellect and the divine intellect. In this case, it does not seem plausible to accept that other less elevated adjectives, as suggested by Caston, could justify such an identification of intellects. In fact, taking the Nicomachean Ethics as a reading key, aided by the exegesis of Alexander of Aphrodisias, Michael of Ephesus, Albert the Great and Thomas Aquinas, as well as other authors, we conclude that neither Caston’s proposal nor Enrico Berti’s reformulation are credible. Rather, there are many indications for the opposite thesis that the agent intellect is part of the soul.References
Albertus Magnus. Super Ethica. Edição de Wilhelmus Kübel. Coloniae: Aschendorff, 1968-1972. (Opera Omnia, v. 14.1). (= Col.).
Alessandro di Afrodisia. L’anima. Edição de Piero Accattino e Pierluige Donini. Roma: Laterza, 1996.
Alexander Aphrodisiensis. Aristotelis metaphysica commentaria. Edição de Maximilian Hayduck. Berlin: Reimer, 1891. (Commentaria in Aristotelem Graeca, v. 1)(= In Met.).
Alexander Aphrodisiensis. Alexandri Aphrodisiensis praeter commentaria scripta minora: De anima. Edição de Ivo Bruns. Berlin: Reimer, 1887. (Commentaria in Aristotelem Graeca, suppl. v. 2.1. ). (= De an.).
Aristóteles. Aristóteles graece. Edição de Immanuel Bekker. Berlin: Reimer, 1831-1870. v. 5.
Aristóteles. De anima. In: Ross, W. D. (ed.). Aristotle: De anima, Oxford: OUP, 1961. p. 402a1-435b25. (= De an.).
Aristóteles. De anima. Tradução de Maria Cecília Gomes dos Reis. São Paulo: Ed. 34, 2006.
Aristóteles. Ethica Nicomachea. In: Bywater, I. (ed.). Aristotelis ethica Nicomachea, Oxford: OUP, 1894. p. 1-224 (Paginação Bekker: 1094a1-1181b23). (= EN).
Aristóteles. Metaphysica. In: Ross, W. D. (ed.). Aristotle’s Metaphysics, Oxford: OUP 1953 (Bekker: 1:980a21-1028a6; 2:1028a10-1093b29). (= Met.).
ARISTÓTELES. Metafísica. Tradução de Marcelo Perine e Giovanni Reale. São Paulo: Loyola, 2002. v. 2.
Aristóteles. Problemata: In: Bekker, Immanuel (ed.). Aristóteles Graece. Berlim: Academia Regia Scientiarum, 1831. v. 2.
Berti, E. Aristotle’s Nous poiêtikos: Another Modest Proposal. In: Sillitti, G.; Stella, F.; Fronterotta, F. (ed.). Il Noûs di Aristotele. Sankt Augustin: Academia Verlag, 2016. p. 137-153.
Burnyeat, M. F. Aristotle’s Divine Intellect. Milwaukee: Marquette University Press, 2008.
Caston, V. Aristotle’s Two Intellects: A Modest Proposal. Phronesis, v. 44, n. 3, 1999. p. 199-227.
Frede, M. La théorie aristotélicienne de l’intellect agent. In: Dherbey, G. R. Corps et âme: Sur le de Anima d’Aristote Paris: Vrin, 1996. p. 377-390.
García Bacca, J. D. Gnoseología y ontología en Aristóteles. Caracas: Universidad Central de Venezuela, 1957.
García-Lorente, J. A. El intelecto activo de Aristóteles: otra aún más modesta propuesta. Revista Anales del Seminario de Historia de la Filosofía, v. 40, 2023. p. 429-442.
Gerson, L. P. The Unity of Intellect in Aristotle’s De Anima. Phronesis, v. 49, 2004. p. 348-373.
Haggerty, D., The Agent Intellect and the Energies of Intelligence. In: Ramos, A. (ed.). Beauty, Art, and the Polis. Washington, D.C.: American Maritain Association; Catholic University of America Press, 2000. p. 20-33.
Hamelin, O. La théorie de l’Intellect d’après Aristote et ses commentateurs. Paris: Vrin, 1953.
Herrera, R. El entendimiento agente en Maimónides y Santo Tomás: secuelas para la interpretación de la profecía. La ciudad de Dios, v. 206, p. 859-871, 1993.
Judson, L. Aristotle Metaphysics Book Λ. Clarendon; Oxford: OUP, 2019.
Martínez Sánchez, A. La interpretación de Enrico Berti sobre el nous poietikós: una modesta crítica. Convivium, v. 35, p. 49-74, 2022.
Michael Ephesius. In Ethica Nicomachea IX–X Commentaria. Eustratii et Michaelis et anonyma in ethica Nicomachea commentaria. Edição de Gustav Heylbut. Berlin: Reimer, 1892. (Commentaria in Aristotelem Graeca, 20) (In EN).
Papadis, D. L’intellect agent selon Alexandre d’Aphrodise. Revue de Philosophie Ancienne, v. 9, p. 133-151, 1991.
Plato. Alcibiades II. In: BURNET, J. (ed.). Platonis Opera. Oxford: Clarendon, 1901. v. 2.
Plato. Leges. In: BURNET, J. (ed.). Platonis Opera. Oxford: Clarendon, 1901. v. 5.
Plato. Timaeus. In: BURNET, J. (ed.). Platonis Opera. Oxford: Clarendon, 1902. v. 4.
Ramírez, J. M. De habitibus in communi. In: Rodríguez, V. (ed.). Summae Theologiae Divi
Thomae Expositio (QQ. XLIX-LIV). Edición de la Obras Completas de Santiago Ramírez. Madrid: Luis Vives, 1973. v. 6.
Sellés, J. F. El carácter distintivo del hábito de los primeros principios. Tópicos, v. 26, p. 153-176, 2004.
Sellés, J. F. El intelecto agente y los filósofos: Venturas y desventuras del supremo hallazgo aristotélico sobre el hombre, III: ss. XVIII-XXI. Pamplona: Eunsa, 2017.
Thomas de Aquino. Quaestiones disputatae de veritate. Roma: Sanctae Sabinae, 1970-1976. v. 3. (ed. Leonina = Leon.). (= De ver.).
Thomas de Aquino. Quaestiones disputatae de virtutibus. In: Pession, P. M. et al. (ed.).
Quaestiones disputatae. Taurini; Romae: Marietti, 1965. 2 v. p. 707-828. (= De virt.).
Thomas de Aquino. Sententia libri Ethicorum. Romae: Sanctae Sabinae, 1969. 2 v. (= Sent. Eth.).
Thomas de Aquino. Summa Theologiae cum Supplemento et commentariis Caietani. Romae: Sanctae Sabinae, 1888-1906. v. 4-12. (= S. Th.).
White, M. J. The Problem of Aristotle’s Nous Poiêtikos. The Review of Metaphysics, v. 57, n. 4, p. 725-739, 2004.
Zagal, H. On Intellectus Agens and Aristotelian Separate Substances: Aquinas’ Waterloo. Kriterion, v. 46, p. 117-137, 2005.
Zucca, D. Di cosa parla De Anima Γ 5? Una modestissima proposta. La cultura, v. 54, p. 47-75, 2016.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Felipe de Azevedo Ramos (Autor)
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
