summa-contra-gentiles

158 THE SUMMA CONTRA GENTILES
phantasms : and thus it is unable to understand separate
substances.
Moreover. The species of sensible things are in separate
substances intelligibly, and by those species they have
knowledge of sensibles. If therefore the possible intellect
understood separate substances, it would receive in them
the knowledge of sensibles. it
Consequently would not
receive this knowledge from phantasms, since nature's
abundance does not consist of superfluities.
If, however, it be said that separate substances have no
knowledge of sensibles, it must at least be granted that they
have a higher knowledge. And this knowledge must not
be lacking to the possible intellect, if it understands the
said substances. Consequently
it will have a twofold knowledge
one after the manner of :
separate substances, the other
received from the senses : one of which would be superfluous.
Further. It is the possible intellect whereby the soul
understands, as stated in 3 De Anima.^ If therefore the
possible intellect understands separate substances, we also
understand them. Yet this is clearly untrue, for we stand
in relation to them as the eye of the owl to the sun, as
Aristotle says.^
To these arguments it is replied according to the aforesaid
opinion.^ The possible intellect, so far as it is selfsubsistent,
understands separate substances, and is in
potentiality to them as a transparent body to the light.
Whereas in so far as it is in touch with us,
it is in potentiality
from the beginning to forms abstracted from the
phantasms. Hence we do not from the beginning understand
separate substances it.
by But this will not hold. For the
possible intellect, according to them, is said to be in touch
with us, through being perfected by intelligible species
abstracted from the phantasms. Consequently the intellect
is to be considered as in potentiality to these species before
being in touch with us. Wherefore it is not by its being in
touch with us that it is in potentiality to these species.
* la. Metaph. ii.
'
iv. 3.
* Averroes, Comment, on 3 De Atiima.