The Radical Academy Discussion Forum

Ivo Cerckel

Sep 28, 07 - 6:28 PM

Species, shapes and principles

LATIN-ENGLISH DICTIONARY
SPECIES -ei f.: act. [a seeing , view]; pass. [sight, look; shape, form, outward appearance; beauty; a vision, phantom; a representation, image, statue]. Transf. [pretext, pretence; notion, idea; kind, species].
http://www.archives.nd.edu/cgi-bin/lookup.pl?stem=species&ending=

Webster’s ENGLISH DICTIONARY defines species as
1. a distinct sort or kind
2. a basic category of biological classification composed of related individuals that are able to breed among themselves.

“Species” does NOT have the same meaning in Latin as in English.
The Latin word can thus not be translated by the English word.

Lambros Couloubaritsis translates “species” as “spécifité” (“Histoire de la philosophie ancienne et medievale“, Grasset, 1998, p. 1194)

He goes on to say on p. 1212 that “specificity” is the solution to the problem of universals. (Ivo: universals are not sensible/touchable.)

The page contains a footnote which refers to pp. 451 – 453 of his book “Aux Origines de la philosophie EUROPEENNE” (De Boeck, 2003, 4th ed. – don’t ask me how a 1998 book can refer to pages in a 2003 book).

The section on pp. 451-453 concerns the knowledge of principles.

It opposes
Chapter II (Alpha the Lesser) of the “Metaphysics”:
“For as the eyes of bats are to the blaze of day, so is the reason in our soul to the things which are by nature most evident of all.” (993b10)
(W.D. Ross translation)
http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/metaphysics.2.ii.html
to
Plato’s Cave.

It concludes that it’s up to the philosopher to discern the things (principles) which are by nature the most evident of all and to organise them by using processes which are ruled by the One and the Many, which are supposed by the diversity and the search for unity.

Things change into one another – therefore there must be some common substratum, some ultimate PRINCIPLE, some unity underlying diversity. (Copleston, I, p. 76)

Yes, a Latin species,
a sight, look; shape, form, outward appearance,
can be sensible.

How can an English species,
a distinct sort or kind,
be sensible?

Is a principle sensible/touchable?

Kevin

Sep 28th, 2007 - 9:15 PM

Re: Species, shapes and principles

Species, shapes and principles

LATIN-ENGLISH DICTIONARY
SPECIES -ei f.: act. [a seeing , view]; pass. [sight, look; shape, FORM, outward appearance; beauty; a vision, phantom; a representation, IMAGE, statue]. Transf. [pretext, pretence; notion, IDEA; KIND, species].
http://www.archives.nd.edu/cgi-bin/lookup.pl?stem=species&ending=

Webster’s ENGLISH DICTIONARY defines species as
1. a distinct sort or KIND
2. a basic category of biological classification composed of related individuals that are able to breed among themselves.

“Species” does NOT have the same meaning in Latin as in English. The Latin word can thus NOT be translated by the English word.

REPLY:
Yes it can. Check the capitalized terms in both definitions. Both said KIND!!!

But, MORE TO THE POINT:
Your Dominican friends translated SPECIES into IMAGE, as in sensible-IMAGE. Find a dictionary which suggests that IMAGE means "SPECIES". That is our argument. And the word SPECIES does have the same meaning in Latin and English. But the term SPECIES can have many MEANINGS because there are both (1) sensible-species, based upon material distinctions and (2) intelligible-species, based upon formal/ideal distinctions.

The term SPECIES, in Latin, English or Greek, where the actual term is EIDOS (to distinguish Aristotle's idea of "bound-up-with-matter-ideas", termed EIDOS from Plato's entirely separate from matter "IDEAS") is the second most GENERAL term in all of creation behind GENUS. Thus, many meanings!!!

Everybody knows the Linaeus Latin "Genus - Species" classification scheme developed from Aristotle's GENOS-EIDOS doctrine --- at least every botanist and zoologist on the planet.

And everybody knows that our GENUS, as human beings, is HOMINID ANIMAL, whereas our SPECIES is SAPIENTAE, or Homo Sapiens for short. Can you draw me an IMAGE of "wisdom seeking" (Specific difference = Sapiens; capacity for wisdom), as a "sensible IMAGE" sort of species?

Can you draw me an IMAGE of "rational" which is another way of talking about our "species".

But you should be able to draw an IMAGE of some kinds of sensible-SPECIES, like a dog vs. a cat, or different SPECIES of geometrical objects, such as equilateral, scalene and OBTUSE triangles.

See, Ivo, you are not even distinguishing sensible SPECIES from intelligible SPECIES.

But even with such a completely unnecssary grammar lesson, about various kinds of "species" (2nd most general term in all of Creation), when the argument is about the meaning of IMAGE, you have to KNOW that your Dominican friend's TRANSLATION of "species sensibilus" as "SENSIBLE-IMAGE", necessarily means a PERCEIVABLE OR PERCEPTIBLE or a SENSIBLE OBJECT, completely and utterly OBVIOUS to the sense of SIGHT.

But St. Thomas Aquinas clearly writes, requote:

AQUINAS: (Pegis translation):
"...But the SENSIBLE SPECIES is ***NOT-WHAT-IS-PERCEIVED***, but, rather, that ***BY WHICH*** the sense perceives."

AQUINAS: (Dominican translation):
"...But the SENSIBLE IMAGE is ***NOT-WHAT-IS-PERCEIVED***, but, rather, that ***BY WHICH*** the sense perceives."

Can you, now, answer one simple question, about IMAGES, Ivo, since you believe that translation?

Q. Who in their wildest possible ignorance actually thinks that SENSIBLE IMAGES are NOT what is perceived????? (when SENSIBLE IMAGES are (in truth and fact) what is perceived!!!)

See, Ivo. You have heard of the PRINCIPLE OF CONTRADICTION. But you can't seem to apply it to IMAGES. So, huge "philosophical" question on a multiple choice philosophy exam, to wit

IMAGES are... (mark your X next your choice)
(1) NOT perceived;
(2) perceived;
(3) None of the above;
(4) All of the above;
(5) I dunno;
(6) This stuff is too hard;
(7) I refuse to answer on the grounds that my answer may tend to incriminate me;
(6) I want to talk to a lawyer before answering;
(7) Uncle Bertie Russell told me there are, as a rule, NO TRUE ANSWERS to "philosophical" questions;
(8) I believe Russell on this hard question;
(9) There is insufficient data to answer;
(10) Eeny, meeny, miny mex, where in heck should I place my X;

Ivo
Lambros Couloubaritsis translates “species” as “spécifité” (“Histoire de la philosophie ancienne et medievale“, Grasset, 1998, p. 1194)

He goes on to say on p. 1212 that “specificity” is the solution to the problem of universals. (Ivo: universals are not sensible/touchable.)

And SENSIBLE IMAGES are sensibly visible!!! That's good clue to my multiple choice "philosophy" test!!!

But you are still confused about SENSIBLE SPECIES (really small; since nerve endings, rods and cones in our eyes, smell receptors in our noses, etc. are tiny. So they are, likewise, sensitive to very tiny things, like molecules, and angstrom wavelengths) vs. INTELLIGIBLE SPECIES, which are "no size" at all being immaterial IDEAS.

Hence IDEAS may CLASSIFY, eg. 6 Billion human beings, and still have "room" for "infinities

Ivo Cerckel

Sep 29th, 2007 - 7:47 AM

Re: Species, shapes and principles

1.
Is this a joke or what?

The translation by the Dominican Fathers is 50 years old and Mr Kevin, who doesn't know Latin, criticises it.

2.
"And everybody knows that our GENUS, as human beings, is HOMINID ANIMAL, whereas our SPECIES is SAPIENTAE, or Homo Sapiens for short"

“Sapientiae” is our species? Sapiens is used here as an adjective. Even if it was used vas a noun, there’s no way in Latin it can become sapientiae.

Sapiens wise, judicious.
Sapiens (subs.) a wise man, philosopher.
http://www.freedict.com/onldict/onldict.php

If there was a noun sapientia then the nominative (and vocative) plural could be sapientiae

The dictionary says
http://www.freedict.com/onldict/onldict.php
there is no such noun
sapientia No matches found

Dictionary is WRONG.
Kevin who “knows” Latin only from dictionaries is always RIGHT.

The Sedes Sapientiae is a medieval statue of Our Lady, Seat of Wisdom. Nicolaas De Bruyne carved the statue out of wood in 1442.

It is located in the church of Saint Peter in heart of the city of Leuven (I, Ivo, know .That’s where they couldn’t destroy my mind if any), Belgium. The statue was shattered in the Second World War, though a replica is still on display in the church. It is the symbol of the Catholic University of Leuven.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sedes_Sapientiae

The seat Of WISDOM. Sapientiae is the genitive of sapientia.

Even if I accept that you meant the nominative sapientia,
how can a noun, like “wisdom”, be a species.

What are you talking about?

Also if the adjective was sapientius, it could become sapientiae in the nominative (and vocative) FEMALE plural, but the adjective is “sapiens”.

3.
There's also something not kosher with your classification.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human

SCIENTIFIC CLASSIFICATION
Kingdom:Animalia

Phylum: Chordata

Class: Mammalia

Order: Primates

Family: Hominidae

Genus: Homo

Species: H. sapiens
Subspecies: H. s. sapiens

TRINOMIAL NAME
Homo sapiens sapiens

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinomial_nomenclature
In biology, trinomial nomenclature refers to names for taxa below the rank of species. This is different for animals and plants:
for animals see trinomen. There is only one rank allowed below the rank of species: subspecies.
for plants see ternary name. There is an indeterminate number of infraspecific ranks allowed below the level of species: subspecies is the highest ranked of these.

4.
Please do your homework

Perhaps, you could start with giving the reference of the Pegis translation
and tell us why that translation could not possibly be wrong.
Please tell us also who is/was Pegis.

Kevin

Oct 3rd, 2007 - 2:52 AM

Re: Re: Species, shapes and principles

Re: Species, shapes and principles
Name: Ivo Cerckel
Date Posted: Sep 29, 07 - 7:47 AM
Email: ivocerckel@siquijor.ws
Message: 1.
Is this a joke or what?

REPLY:
My multiple choice test was a joke, which you apparently didn't "get". Every image is perceivable. Aquinas says "sensible species" are NOT WHAT we perceive. They are THAT BY WHICH we perceive IMAGES. Similarly INTELLIGIBLE SPECIES (ideas) are NOT WHAT we understand, but THAT BY WHICH we understand both sensible and intelligible OBJECTS. Our debate is about IMAGES, not about the Latin term "species", since you and the Dominicans insist that "species sensibilus" means "sensible IMAGE."

The translation by the Dominican Fathers is 50 years old and Mr Kevin, who doesn't know Latin, criticises it.

REPLY:
Of course I criticize that translation for two reasons, which are:
(1) Because Pegis translated Aquinas's terms "species sensibilus" as "sensible species", following Aquinas, literally.

(2) Secondly, Pegis, as well as the Dominicans, identically translated Aquinas's Latin which comes after "Species sensiblilis" as (tanslation--->) "NOT what we perceive, but rather, 'that by which' we perceive (sensible things)"

ARGUMENT:
Since "sensible IMAGES" (The Dominican mistranslation) are WHAT WE PERCEIVE, but Aquinas's assertion is that "Species sensibilus" (Direct Latin) are NOT WHAT IS PERCEIVED, it must be a wrong translation since "SENSIBLE IMAGES ARE among other sensed things (smells, sounds) WHAT WE PERCEIVE".

Hence, the key term in disputed translation is IMAGE --- not species.

IVO:
KEVIN (requoted):
"And everybody knows that our GENUS, as human beings, is HOMINID ANIMAL, whereas our SPECIES is SAPIENTAE, or Homo Sapiens for short"

IVO:
“Sapientiae” is our species? Sapiens is used here as an adjective. Even if it was used vas a noun, there’s no way in Latin it can become sapientiae.

REPLY:
Yes we are "Sapientiate" (English transliteration) animals. But this is still more IRRELEVANT Latin Grammar, of which I have admitted my ignorance. I also said that "sapiens" is our species and you still cannot draw an IMAGE of WISDOM (or, more correctly, "capacity for wisdom"), whether or not it is an "adjective". I can say black bird or white bird and even draw such IMAGES of either crows or swans. But you cannot draw me an IMAGE of either "capacity-for-wisdom" (an intelligible species; or specific dIfference) or of "wave lengths of light" (sensible species by which we see COLORS, but DO NOT SEE the "specific wavelengths of light").

IVO:
Sapiens wise, judicious.
Sapiens (subs.) a wise man, philosopher.
http://www.freedict.com/onldict/onldict.php

If there was a noun sapientia then the nominative (and vocative) plural could be sapientiae.

REPLY:
Yes! But that is still irrelevant GRAMMAR. The critical question concerns IMAGES and NOT either Greek, Latin, French, German or English grammar. The question is ARE IMAGES PERCEIVEABLE?

The answer is YES. But Aquinas, in his original Latin, says "species sensibilus" are NOT WHAT IS PERCEIVED. Hence he is not talking about IMAGES which are PERCEIVED. So the translation "sensible IMAGE" for "species sensibilus" is a WRONG translation.

IVO:
The dictionary says
http://www.freedict.com/onldict/onldict.php
there is no such noun
sapientia No matches found.

REPLY:
I gave you the term SAPIENS as well as my Latin misspelling of "sapientiae" as "sapientae". I made a mistake in Latin spelling. Perhaps you should beat me with a "Latin Grammarian's" stick. But that doesn't change the FACT that IMAGES ARE SENSIBLE and actually PERCEIVED, whereas Aquinas's "species sensibilus" are NOT WHAT WE PERCEIVE, according to Aquinas and NOT WHAT WE PERCEIVE "according to me, a Latin ignoramous" (ME), who actually understands English translations of Aquinas.

Dictionary is WRONG.
Kevin who “knows” Latin only from dictionaries is always RIGHT.

REPLY:
Aquinas, Pegis and Kevin are RIGHT about IMAGES being both perceived and perceptible, whereas "species sensibilus" are the means by which we perceive we sense things. They are NOT what we perceive. Same thing with IDEAS. They are NOT "what we understand", but that by which (the means; hence the derivative term "meaning") we understand both sensible and intelligible OBJECTS, including imperceptible "ideas", as well as imperceptible "light wavelengths" among other things.

IVO:
The Sedes Sapientiae is a medieval statue of Our Lady, Seat of Wisdom. Nicolaas De Bruyne carved the statue out of wood in 1442.

REPLY:
So there is such a word as SAPIENTIAE. And an excellent example too. Your irrelevant grammar lesson also fails. SEDES SAPIENTIAE:- a perceptible IMAGE which represents an imperceptible capacity --- to store all things up in her heart, and, eventually understand what those perceptions actually mean.

contd.
Kevin

Kevin

Oct 3rd, 2007 - 3:12 AM

Re: Re: Species, shapes and principles

IVO:
(SEDES SAPENTIAE):
It is located in the church of Saint Peter in heart of the city of Leuven (I, Ivo, know. That’s where they couldn’t destroy my mind if any), Belgium. The statue was shattered in the Second World War, though a replica is still on display in the church. It is the symbol of the Catholic University of Leuven.

REPLY:
Very good --- a perceivable non-verbal SYMBOL/image of a now imperceptible Lady's WISDOM. And her WISDOM was not perceivable by her Son's enemies either. Nor was His Wisdom.

IVO:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sedes_Sapientiae

The seat Of WISDOM. Sapientiae is the genitive of sapientia.

Even if I accept that you meant the nominative sapientia, how can a noun, like “wisdom”, be a species.

REPLY:
Now you confuse words, like adjectives and nouns with both IMAGES and SPECIES. O.K. You seem to be the SUM of every philosophical confusion, between things thought and words. Now we are on the TOPIC of "mere names", the most common FALLACY.

Q. What is "wise" in the exression "wise man"? Is "wise" the adjective or the noun? Once again, we have more trivial grammar, specifically designed to entirely miss the point concerning IMAGES, which are THAT WHICH we perceive. Hence when Aquinas says that "species sensiblilus" (direct Latin) are NOT what we perceive, he is NOT talking about IMAGES, which are PERCEIVED. Hence the translation "senible-IMAGE" is wrong.

But speaking=grammatically of adjectives turned into nouns and vice versa, when I say "Turkey Gravy", is TURKEY the adjective or the noun? It is the adjective, for GRAVY is the noun. But when I say, "Every TURKEY is a bird", the term "TURKEY" is employed as a noun. So nouns and adjectives may be "switched" in meaning.

IVO:
What are you talking about?

ANSWER:
Whether or not IMAGES are perceived!!! Aquinas says that "species sensibilus" are NOT WHAT WE PERCEIVE, but, rather, THAT BY WHICH we perceive (IMAGES). Read the article, Ivo, and try to understand not only what he writes but exactly what Aquinas MEANS, so that you may, eventually, UNDERSTAND what he means.

IVO:
Also if the adjective was sapientius, it could become sapientiae in the nominative (and vocative) FEMALE plural, but the adjective is “sapiens”.

REPLY:
The question is about IMAGES and not about grammar.

IVO:
3. There's also something not kosher with your classification.

REPLY:
Nonsense. Remote and proximate GENERA are irrelevant to translating "sensible species" as "sensible IMAGE". There is, quite equally, something NOT intelligible about your refusal to refer to IMAGES in your grammar and classification lessons which still come out as Homo/genus Sapiens/species. Irrelevant "classification" lesson snipped.

4.
Please do your homework.

REPLY:
Please answer the relevant question, which is, ARE IMAGES PERCEIVED? Aquinas says "species sensibilus" are NOT WHAT WE PERCEIVE. Hence when he writes of "species sensibilus" being NOT WHAT WE PERCEIVE, he is NOT talking about IMAGES or "sensible IMAGES", which are perceived. The translation "sensible IMAGE" is, therefore, WRONG --- dead wrong.

IVO:
Perhaps, you could start with giving the reference of the Pegis translation and tell us why that translation could not possibly be wrong. Please tell us also who is/was Pegis.

REPLY:
The Pegis translation is in INTRODUCTION TO ST. THOMAS AQUINAS, Modern Library, previously cited. Summa I, Q. 85. Article 2. I also told you that he was a professor of "medieval studies" at the Pontifical Academy of Medieval Studies in Toronto, Ontario Canada. He was also a friend of both Etienne Gilson and Jacques Maritain. In short, the guy knew how to translate medieval Latin.

ANSWER:
Pegis's translation is NOT WRONG from Aquinas's own context, to wit, Aquinas says "species sensibilus" are NOT WHAT WE PERCEIVE, etc. The mistranslation "sensible-IMAGE/s" is a wrong translation because IMAGES are PERCEIVED. So, from Aquinas's own context and the equal translations of both Pegis and the English Dominicans, that "species sensibilus" are "NOT what we perceive", it is IMPOSSIBLE to believe that Aquinas "thought" that "species sensibilus" are "sensible IMAGES", which we all may perceive.

IN SUM:
I have answered all your questions and "criticisms". Now you do me the same favor. Tell me whether or not we perceive "sensible IMAGES". Then tell me whether or not you think that Aquinas was so DUMB as to assert that "sensible IMAGES" are NOT what we perceive, but rather that by which we perceive "sensible IMAGES". That would make "sensible IMAGES" both "the means" (that by which) and "the end" (that which). And Aquinas never confused a "means" with an "end", nor did he ever confuse a CAUSE with an EFFECT, nor words with ideas, nor ideas with images --- like you do Ivo.

Kevin

Ivo Cerckel

Sep 29th, 2007 - 4:46 PM

Re: Species, shapes and principles

5.
Start perhaps by trying to find a Latin-English dictionary (on the web) which translates "species" as "species".
At least then, we will have a basis for our diskussion.

Kevin

Oct 3rd, 2007 - 3:27 AM

Re: Re: Species, shapes and principles

5.
Start perhaps by trying to find a Latin-English dictionary (on the web) which translates "species" as "species". At least then, we will have a basis for our diskussion.

REPLY:
Try finding any dictionary which translates "species" as "IMAGE", because that is the translation you prefer. Try finding a dictionary which translates IMAGE as "species". And you will find them because people have been confusing ideas with images since the time of Locke and Descartes.

The question remains:- Are "species" perceivable, like "sensible IMAGES"? The are. So when Aquinas continues that "species sensibilus" are NOT WHAT IS PERCEIVED, then he is either a dunce or he has been mistranslated. I say mistranslated because Aquinas was no dunce and I have read the same THESIS correctly translated from Aristotle's Greek into English by better Greek scholars than the Dominicans were Latin scholars in this one little instance.

The question turns on the meaning of IMAGE (perceivable or not perceivable). Since IMAGES are perceived and perceivable, when Aquinas wrote that "species sensibilus" are NOT WHAT IS PERCEIVED, it follows that he was not talking about "sensible IMAGES", he was talking about "sensible species", which are NOT WHAT IS PERCEIVED, but rather THE MEANS BY WHICH we perceive IMAGES.

Start reading Summa I, Q. 85, Article 2. in either French or German. You may understand those languages because, so far, you fail to understand Aquinas in English translation, English mistranslation or Latin original, of which you say you had 6 years of training. Try French, but quit reading dictionaries and do read Aquinas.

Kevin

Ivo Cerckel

Sep 30th, 2007 - 7:11 AM

Re: Species, shapes and principles

6.
I must apologise for having asked in section 4 what was the Pegis translation.

You gave the answer in the thread "species impressa et expressa".

Kevin

Oct 3rd, 2007 - 4:15 AM

Re: Re: Species, shapes and principles

Re: Species, shapes and principles
Name: Ivo Cerckel
Date Posted: Sep 30, 07 - 7:11 AM
Email: ivocerckel@siquijor.ws

Message: 6.
I must apologise for having asked in section 4 what was the Pegis translation. You gave the answer in the thread "species impressa et expressa".

REPLY:
Apology accepted.

Message:
7. It makes no sense that we battle over the Pegis and Dominican translations.

REPLY:
It makes "sense" because the fundamental modern philosophical error, by both Descartes and Locke is that IDEAS are perceived, when it is actually IMAGES which are perceived. IDEAS are neither perceived nor perceptible. And the equivalent terms "species(Latin)" and "eidos(Greek)" essentially refer to imperceptible MEANS "by which" both sensible-objects and intelligible-objects are, respectively, SENSED and KNOWN.

IVO
We must fight over the "Aquinistic" original.

REPLY:
YES. Aquinas says "species sensibilus" are NOT what is perceived. They are "that by which" we perceive. Hence, he is not talking about "sensible IMAGES", which WE PERCEIVE!!!

IVO:
What means “species” in Latin?

REPLY:
"Species" is the Latin word for the Greek word "eidos" which means Class or Kind. But I already told you that it is an entirely AMBIGUOUS term because it is a GENERAL NAME.

And the critical question is not WHAT "species" means since you have already accepted the meaning "IMAGE" as in "sensible-IMAGE". Hence, you "know" that "species" means IMAGE. But since you have accepted a mistranslation for your meaning of "species", now you do not know what species means!

The correct question to consider is:- What does IMAGE mean in Latin or in any other language? Since you have already accepted that "species sensiblilus" means "sensible-IMAGE", you or the Dominicans "mean" that "species" are IMAGES! But the fact is that "species/eidos" are NOT images in either Aristotle's Greek, nor Aquinas's Latin, nor in English Genus-Species classifications. IMAGES are always of INDIVIDUALS and not of CLASSES or KINDS.

IMAGES are perceived. Aquinas says "species sensibilus" (direct Latin) are NOT THAT WHICH WE PERCEIVE. Hence he is not talking about "sensible IMAGES". "Species", in Latin, or in any correct translation of Aristotle's "EIDOS", is a correction of what Plato meant by "idea", a "means-by-which" we sense (sensible species) or understand (intelligible species)OBJECTS of physical or mental kinds.

IVO:
Hence, I asked you in section 5 to find a Latin-English dictionary (on the web) which translates "species" as "species".

REPLY:
The critical point in question is whether or not IMAGES are perceived. When Aquinas writes that "species sensibilus" are NOT what we perceive, it follows that he is NOT talking about IMAGES, because we do PERCEIVE IMAGES. To repeat ---- IMAGES --- which are PERCEIVABLE objects, is the question at issue since you accept "sensible-IMAGE" as the translation of "species-sensibilus".

IVO:
I also understand that if you are, as I suspect, monolingual, it is difficult for you to understand how languages can differ. Nevertheless, those differences are facts of reality.

REPLY:
It is not difficult to understand either the FALLACY OF AMBIGUITY, or the FALLACY OF NAMES, even if one is only "monolingual". I have also repeatedly asked you to find any translation of Summa I, Q. 85, Article 2. in any language which you actually UNDERSTAND since you are so "multilingual".

Try a French or German translation. If the French or German translator says "species sensibilus" means the French or German equivalent of "sensible IMAGE", then that will be a WRONG translation as well because IMAGES are perceivable, whereas IDEAS/Eidos are NOT perceivable.

Neither Socrates, nor Plato, nor Aristotle, nor Aquinas ever confused IDEAS with IMAGES.

In Contrast: All of so-called "modern philosophy" begins with both Locke's and Descartes's confusion of IDEAS with IMAGES. Descartes says he can't be wrong about the CLEAR AND DISTINCT IDEAS which he "perceives" (senses). Locke asserts that IDEAS are what we perceive. Both men are wrong, according to Socrates, Plato, Aristotle and Aquinas. All these "ancients" agree that "species" (whether sensible or intelligible) are "that-by-which" and NOT "that which" we perceive or understand. That which we perceive are sensed objects. That which we understand are intelligible objects. Sensed objects, of course, can also be understood or in other words intelligible-objects as well.

Thus the 2 questions you repetitively REFUSE to answer:-

(1) Do you see your eyes?
No! They are "that by which" you see things which are NOT your eyes. You see visible OBJECTS and NOT your eyes.

(2) Do you see your ideas?
No! They are "that by which" you understand things which are NOT your (or anyone's) ideas. That which you understand by means of ideas are intelligible objects of sensation or of thought or of both.

Kevin

Ivo Cerckel

Sep 30th, 2007 - 6:35 PM

Re: Species, shapes and principles

7.
It makes no sense that we battle over the Pegis and Dominican translations.

We must fight over the “Aquinistic” original.

What means “species” in Latin?

Hence, I asked you in section 5 to find a Latin-English dictionary (on the web) which translates "species" as "species".

I also understand that if you are, as I suspect, monolingual,
it is difficult for you to understand how languages can differ.
Nevertheless, those differences are facts of reality.

Kevin

Oct 3rd, 2007 - 5:07 AM

Re: Re: Species, shapes and principles

7.
It makes no sense that we battle over the Pegis and Dominican translations.

We must fight over the “Aquinistic” original.

READ Q. 85., Article 2. again --- the entire article which is all 3 objections the SED CONTRARY, his answer and the replies to all 3 objections.

What means “species” in Latin?

It doesn't mean IMAGE and the Dominicans have translated SPECIES as IMAGE. For they clearly write "sensible-IMAGE" for Aquinas's "SPECIES-sensibilus". Sensible (English) = sensibilus (Latin). Hence they have translated "species" (Latin) as IMAGE (English).

That is a mistranslation because the Latin term "species" is the direct Latin equivalent of Aristotle's term "eidos". He used the term "Eidos" as an equivalent to Plato's "Idea", but with a distinct difference. He coined a separate word to MEAN an "idea" which was not "separate" from a material object, whereas Plato's "IDEAS" were all entirely separate from material objects. Neither Socrates nor Aristotle "separated" the "forms" (Latin word for "idea"). In Plato's doctrine material objects "participated" in "ideas".

SPECIES in Latin means EIDOS in Greek and vice versa. The difference in Platonic doctrine and Aristotelian doctrine, led to a distinction between "sensible species" (not perceived but the causes of objects being perceived) and "intelligible species" (not perceived but the FORMAL CAUSES which actualize "informed matter" to give it being).

Hence, I asked you in section 5 to find a Latin-English dictionary (on the web) which translates "species" as "species".

You "Kantians" and even "anti-Kantians" so love your tautologies. To "translate" species as species is to reiterate but NOT "to translate". On the one hand you define "species" to mean IMAGE, as in "sensible IMAGE". But, on the other hand, you don't have a definition for "species". But if you don't have a definition of "species" then how come you insist on the translation "sensible IMAGE" for AQuinas's "species sensibilus".

So, in one sense you think you KNOW what "species" means (Image), but, on the other hand, you don't KNOW what "species" means. You are in that half-way postion where you KNOW "indiscriminately" and "confusedly". Later on you may learn to distinguish between THINGS, thoughts and words.

But not so far, even though you are multilingual.

Kevin

I also understand that if you are, as I suspect, monolingual, it is difficult for you to understand how languages can differ. Nevertheless, those differences are facts of reality.

But IDEAS never differ. IMAGES never differ. Languages differ, but the correct MEANINGS of terms do not differ. You either understand a MEANING or do NOT understand a meaning.

And you do not KNOW what "species" means if you think it means IMAGE. Aristotle did NOT throw all of Plato "out with the bathwater". He simply transferred Plato's world of the forms/ideas into our souls, calling them EIDOS (Latin = species), rather than Plato's IDEAS which, according to Plato, had an entirely "separate" existence from anything in the material world.

Aristotle, in contrast, said that IDEAS rested in an entirely separate power of the human psyche/soul into which (possible intellect) they can be "abstracted" and by which (agent intellect) they are abstracted, according to the "mode" of the human psyche. Thus his dictum that the human psyche is the "form of forms". (ie. Ideal world of ideas). They were also the FORMAL CAUSES of things, in the extramental world, or real world.

They are different DOCTRINES. But what both doctrines have in common, whether Plato's separate IDEAS or Aristotle's non-separate-in-being-from- matter (form-matter-composites), but separable "in thought", EIDOS, is that neither IDEAS nor EIDOS are perceived objects, such as IMAGES.

Once again, this time on Platonic and Aristotelian "grounds" and "distinctions", the Latin equivalent of EIDOS, which is SPECIES, cannot be an IMAGE, as in "sensible IMAGE", which is, for the umteenth time, a "mistranslation", because neither sensible species, nor intelligible species are IMAGES, in any of Plato's Aristotle's or Aquinas's actual theories of WHAT WE KNOW and HOW we know.

Read Aquinas again. IMAGES are "that which" we perceive. Species-sensibilus are NOT "that which" we perceive but rather "that-by-which" we perceive sensible objects, like OAK TREES in your example from a Belgian compatriot.

Kevin

Author	Comment
Ivo Cerckel Sep 28, 07 - 6:28 PM	Species, shapes and principles LATIN-ENGLISH DICTIONARY SPECIES -ei f.: act. [a seeing , view]; pass. [sight, look; shape, form, outward appearance; beauty; a vision, phantom; a representation, image, statue]. Transf. [pretext, pretence; notion, idea; kind, species]. http://www.archives.nd.edu/cgi-bin/lookup.pl?stem=species&ending= Webster’s ENGLISH DICTIONARY defines species as 1. a distinct sort or kind 2. a basic category of biological classification composed of related individuals that are able to breed among themselves. “Species” does NOT have the same meaning in Latin as in English. The Latin word can thus not be translated by the English word. Lambros Couloubaritsis translates “species” as “spécifité” (“Histoire de la philosophie ancienne et medievale“, Grasset, 1998, p. 1194) He goes on to say on p. 1212 that “specificity” is the solution to the problem of universals. (Ivo: universals are not sensible/touchable.) The page contains a footnote which refers to pp. 451 – 453 of his book “Aux Origines de la philosophie EUROPEENNE” (De Boeck, 2003, 4th ed. – don’t ask me how a 1998 book can refer to pages in a 2003 book). The section on pp. 451-453 concerns the knowledge of principles. It opposes Chapter II (Alpha the Lesser) of the “Metaphysics”: “For as the eyes of bats are to the blaze of day, so is the reason in our soul to the things which are by nature most evident of all.” (993b10) (W.D. Ross translation) http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/metaphysics.2.ii.html to Plato’s Cave. It concludes that it’s up to the philosopher to discern the things (principles) which are by nature the most evident of all and to organise them by using processes which are ruled by the One and the Many, which are supposed by the diversity and the search for unity. Things change into one another – therefore there must be some common substratum, some ultimate PRINCIPLE, some unity underlying diversity. (Copleston, I, p. 76) Yes, a Latin species, a sight, look; shape, form, outward appearance, can be sensible. How can an English species, a distinct sort or kind, be sensible? Is a principle sensible/touchable? Email: ivocerckel@siquijor.ws
Kevin Sep 28th, 2007 - 9:15 PM	Re: Species, shapes and principles Species, shapes and principles LATIN-ENGLISH DICTIONARY SPECIES -ei f.: act. [a seeing , view]; pass. [sight, look; shape, FORM, outward appearance; beauty; a vision, phantom; a representation, IMAGE, statue]. Transf. [pretext, pretence; notion, IDEA; KIND, species]. http://www.archives.nd.edu/cgi-bin/lookup.pl?stem=species&ending= Webster’s ENGLISH DICTIONARY defines species as 1. a distinct sort or KIND 2. a basic category of biological classification composed of related individuals that are able to breed among themselves. “Species” does NOT have the same meaning in Latin as in English. The Latin word can thus NOT be translated by the English word. REPLY: Yes it can. Check the capitalized terms in both definitions. Both said KIND!!! But, MORE TO THE POINT: Your Dominican friends translated SPECIES into IMAGE, as in sensible-IMAGE. Find a dictionary which suggests that IMAGE means "SPECIES". That is our argument. And the word SPECIES does have the same meaning in Latin and English. But the term SPECIES can have many MEANINGS because there are both (1) sensible-species, based upon material distinctions and (2) intelligible-species, based upon formal/ideal distinctions. The term SPECIES, in Latin, English or Greek, where the actual term is EIDOS (to distinguish Aristotle's idea of "bound-up-with-matter-ideas", termed EIDOS from Plato's entirely separate from matter "IDEAS") is the second most GENERAL term in all of creation behind GENUS. Thus, many meanings!!! Everybody knows the Linaeus Latin "Genus - Species" classification scheme developed from Aristotle's GENOS-EIDOS doctrine --- at least every botanist and zoologist on the planet. And everybody knows that our GENUS, as human beings, is HOMINID ANIMAL, whereas our SPECIES is SAPIENTAE, or Homo Sapiens for short. Can you draw me an IMAGE of "wisdom seeking" (Specific difference = Sapiens; capacity for wisdom), as a "sensible IMAGE" sort of species? Can you draw me an IMAGE of "rational" which is another way of talking about our "species". But you should be able to draw an IMAGE of some kinds of sensible-SPECIES, like a dog vs. a cat, or different SPECIES of geometrical objects, such as equilateral, scalene and OBTUSE triangles. See, Ivo, you are not even distinguishing sensible SPECIES from intelligible SPECIES. But even with such a completely unnecssary grammar lesson, about various kinds of "species" (2nd most general term in all of Creation), when the argument is about the meaning of IMAGE, you have to KNOW that your Dominican friend's TRANSLATION of "species sensibilus" as "SENSIBLE-IMAGE", necessarily means a PERCEIVABLE OR PERCEPTIBLE or a SENSIBLE OBJECT, completely and utterly OBVIOUS to the sense of SIGHT. But St. Thomas Aquinas clearly writes, requote: AQUINAS: (Pegis translation): "...But the SENSIBLE SPECIES is *NOT-WHAT-IS-PERCEIVED, but, rather, that BY WHICH* the sense perceives." AQUINAS: (Dominican translation): "...But the SENSIBLE IMAGE is *NOT-WHAT-IS-PERCEIVED, but, rather, that BY WHICH* the sense perceives." Can you, now, answer one simple question, about IMAGES, Ivo, since you believe that translation? Q. Who in their wildest possible ignorance actually thinks that SENSIBLE IMAGES are NOT what is perceived????? (when SENSIBLE IMAGES are (in truth and fact) what is perceived!!!) See, Ivo. You have heard of the PRINCIPLE OF CONTRADICTION. But you can't seem to apply it to IMAGES. So, huge "philosophical" question on a multiple choice philosophy exam, to wit IMAGES are... (mark your X next your choice) (1) NOT perceived; (2) perceived; (3) None of the above; (4) All of the above; (5) I dunno; (6) This stuff is too hard; (7) I refuse to answer on the grounds that my answer may tend to incriminate me; (6) I want to talk to a lawyer before answering; (7) Uncle Bertie Russell told me there are, as a rule, NO TRUE ANSWERS to "philosophical" questions; (8) I believe Russell on this hard question; (9) There is insufficient data to answer; (10) Eeny, meeny, miny mex, where in heck should I place my X; Ivo Lambros Couloubaritsis translates “species” as “spécifité” (“Histoire de la philosophie ancienne et medievale“, Grasset, 1998, p. 1194) He goes on to say on p. 1212 that “specificity” is the solution to the problem of universals. (Ivo: universals are not sensible/touchable.) And SENSIBLE IMAGES are sensibly visible!!! That's good clue to my multiple choice "philosophy" test!!! But you are still confused about SENSIBLE SPECIES (really small; since nerve endings, rods and cones in our eyes, smell receptors in our noses, etc. are tiny. So they are, likewise, sensitive to very tiny things, like molecules, and angstrom wavelengths) vs. INTELLIGIBLE SPECIES, which are "no size" at all being immaterial IDEAS. Hence IDEAS may CLASSIFY, eg. 6 Billion human beings, and still have "room" for "infinities Email: PaedoSocrates@aol.com
Ivo Cerckel Sep 29th, 2007 - 7:47 AM	Re: Species, shapes and principles 1. Is this a joke or what? The translation by the Dominican Fathers is 50 years old and Mr Kevin, who doesn't know Latin, criticises it. 2. "And everybody knows that our GENUS, as human beings, is HOMINID ANIMAL, whereas our SPECIES is SAPIENTAE, or Homo Sapiens for short" “Sapientiae” is our species? Sapiens is used here as an adjective. Even if it was used vas a noun, there’s no way in Latin it can become sapientiae. Sapiens wise, judicious. Sapiens (subs.) a wise man, philosopher. http://www.freedict.com/onldict/onldict.php If there was a noun sapientia then the nominative (and vocative) plural could be sapientiae The dictionary says http://www.freedict.com/onldict/onldict.php there is no such noun sapientia No matches found Dictionary is WRONG. Kevin who “knows” Latin only from dictionaries is always RIGHT. The Sedes Sapientiae is a medieval statue of Our Lady, Seat of Wisdom. Nicolaas De Bruyne carved the statue out of wood in 1442. It is located in the church of Saint Peter in heart of the city of Leuven (I, Ivo, know .That’s where they couldn’t destroy my mind if any), Belgium. The statue was shattered in the Second World War, though a replica is still on display in the church. It is the symbol of the Catholic University of Leuven. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sedes_Sapientiae The seat Of WISDOM. Sapientiae is the genitive of sapientia. Even if I accept that you meant the nominative sapientia, how can a noun, like “wisdom”, be a species. What are you talking about? Also if the adjective was sapientius, it could become sapientiae in the nominative (and vocative) FEMALE plural, but the adjective is “sapiens”. 3. There's also something not kosher with your classification. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human SCIENTIFIC CLASSIFICATION Kingdom:Animalia Phylum: Chordata Class: Mammalia Order: Primates Family: Hominidae Genus: Homo Species: H. sapiens Subspecies: H. s. sapiens TRINOMIAL NAME Homo sapiens sapiens http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinomial_nomenclature In biology, trinomial nomenclature refers to names for taxa below the rank of species. This is different for animals and plants: for animals see trinomen. There is only one rank allowed below the rank of species: subspecies. for plants see ternary name. There is an indeterminate number of infraspecific ranks allowed below the level of species: subspecies is the highest ranked of these. 4. Please do your homework Perhaps, you could start with giving the reference of the Pegis translation and tell us why that translation could not possibly be wrong. Please tell us also who is/was Pegis. Email: ivocerckel@siquijor.ws
Kevin Oct 3rd, 2007 - 2:52 AM	Re: Re: Species, shapes and principles Re: Species, shapes and principles Name: Ivo Cerckel Date Posted: Sep 29, 07 - 7:47 AM Email: ivocerckel@siquijor.ws Message: 1. Is this a joke or what? REPLY: My multiple choice test was a joke, which you apparently didn't "get". Every image is perceivable. Aquinas says "sensible species" are NOT WHAT we perceive. They are THAT BY WHICH we perceive IMAGES. Similarly INTELLIGIBLE SPECIES (ideas) are NOT WHAT we understand, but THAT BY WHICH we understand both sensible and intelligible OBJECTS. Our debate is about IMAGES, not about the Latin term "species", since you and the Dominicans insist that "species sensibilus" means "sensible IMAGE." The translation by the Dominican Fathers is 50 years old and Mr Kevin, who doesn't know Latin, criticises it. REPLY: Of course I criticize that translation for two reasons, which are: (1) Because Pegis translated Aquinas's terms "species sensibilus" as "sensible species", following Aquinas, literally. (2) Secondly, Pegis, as well as the Dominicans, identically translated Aquinas's Latin which comes after "Species sensiblilis" as (tanslation--->) "NOT what we perceive, but rather, 'that by which' we perceive (sensible things)" ARGUMENT: Since "sensible IMAGES" (The Dominican mistranslation) are WHAT WE PERCEIVE, but Aquinas's assertion is that "Species sensibilus" (Direct Latin) are NOT WHAT IS PERCEIVED, it must be a wrong translation since "SENSIBLE IMAGES ARE among other sensed things (smells, sounds) WHAT WE PERCEIVE". Hence, the key term in disputed translation is IMAGE --- not species. IVO: KEVIN (requoted): "And everybody knows that our GENUS, as human beings, is HOMINID ANIMAL, whereas our SPECIES is SAPIENTAE, or Homo Sapiens for short" IVO: “Sapientiae” is our species? Sapiens is used here as an adjective. Even if it was used vas a noun, there’s no way in Latin it can become sapientiae. REPLY: Yes we are "Sapientiate" (English transliteration) animals. But this is still more IRRELEVANT Latin Grammar, of which I have admitted my ignorance. I also said that "sapiens" is our species and you still cannot draw an IMAGE of WISDOM (or, more correctly, "capacity for wisdom"), whether or not it is an "adjective". I can say black bird or white bird and even draw such IMAGES of either crows or swans. But you cannot draw me an IMAGE of either "capacity-for-wisdom" (an intelligible species; or specific dIfference) or of "wave lengths of light" (sensible species by which we see COLORS, but DO NOT SEE the "specific wavelengths of light"). IVO: Sapiens wise, judicious. Sapiens (subs.) a wise man, philosopher. http://www.freedict.com/onldict/onldict.php If there was a noun sapientia then the nominative (and vocative) plural could be sapientiae. REPLY: Yes! But that is still irrelevant GRAMMAR. The critical question concerns IMAGES and NOT either Greek, Latin, French, German or English grammar. The question is ARE IMAGES PERCEIVEABLE? The answer is YES. But Aquinas, in his original Latin, says "species sensibilus" are NOT WHAT IS PERCEIVED. Hence he is not talking about IMAGES which are PERCEIVED. So the translation "sensible IMAGE" for "species sensibilus" is a WRONG translation. IVO: The dictionary says http://www.freedict.com/onldict/onldict.php there is no such noun sapientia No matches found. REPLY: I gave you the term SAPIENS as well as my Latin misspelling of "sapientiae" as "sapientae". I made a mistake in Latin spelling. Perhaps you should beat me with a "Latin Grammarian's" stick. But that doesn't change the FACT that IMAGES ARE SENSIBLE and actually PERCEIVED, whereas Aquinas's "species sensibilus" are NOT WHAT WE PERCEIVE, according to Aquinas and NOT WHAT WE PERCEIVE "according to me, a Latin ignoramous" (ME), who actually understands English translations of Aquinas. Dictionary is WRONG. Kevin who “knows” Latin only from dictionaries is always RIGHT. REPLY: Aquinas, Pegis and Kevin are RIGHT about IMAGES being both perceived and perceptible, whereas "species sensibilus" are the means by which we perceive we sense things. They are NOT what we perceive. Same thing with IDEAS. They are NOT "what we understand", but that by which (the means; hence the derivative term "meaning") we understand both sensible and intelligible OBJECTS, including imperceptible "ideas", as well as imperceptible "light wavelengths" among other things. IVO: The Sedes Sapientiae is a medieval statue of Our Lady, Seat of Wisdom. Nicolaas De Bruyne carved the statue out of wood in 1442. REPLY: So there is such a word as SAPIENTIAE. And an excellent example too. Your irrelevant grammar lesson also fails. SEDES SAPIENTIAE:- a perceptible IMAGE which represents an imperceptible capacity --- to store all things up in her heart, and, eventually understand what those perceptions actually mean. contd. Kevin Email: PaedoSocrates@aol.com
Kevin Oct 3rd, 2007 - 3:12 AM	Re: Re: Species, shapes and principles IVO: (SEDES SAPENTIAE): It is located in the church of Saint Peter in heart of the city of Leuven (I, Ivo, know. That’s where they couldn’t destroy my mind if any), Belgium. The statue was shattered in the Second World War, though a replica is still on display in the church. It is the symbol of the Catholic University of Leuven. REPLY: Very good --- a perceivable non-verbal SYMBOL/image of a now imperceptible Lady's WISDOM. And her WISDOM was not perceivable by her Son's enemies either. Nor was His Wisdom. IVO: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sedes_Sapientiae The seat Of WISDOM. Sapientiae is the genitive of sapientia. Even if I accept that you meant the nominative sapientia, how can a noun, like “wisdom”, be a species. REPLY: Now you confuse words, like adjectives and nouns with both IMAGES and SPECIES. O.K. You seem to be the SUM of every philosophical confusion, between things thought and words. Now we are on the TOPIC of "mere names", the most common FALLACY. Q. What is "wise" in the exression "wise man"? Is "wise" the adjective or the noun? Once again, we have more trivial grammar, specifically designed to entirely miss the point concerning IMAGES, which are THAT WHICH we perceive. Hence when Aquinas says that "species sensiblilus" (direct Latin) are NOT what we perceive, he is NOT talking about IMAGES, which are PERCEIVED. Hence the translation "senible-IMAGE" is wrong. But speaking=grammatically of adjectives turned into nouns and vice versa, when I say "Turkey Gravy", is TURKEY the adjective or the noun? It is the adjective, for GRAVY is the noun. But when I say, "Every TURKEY is a bird", the term "TURKEY" is employed as a noun. So nouns and adjectives may be "switched" in meaning. IVO: What are you talking about? ANSWER: Whether or not IMAGES are perceived!!! Aquinas says that "species sensibilus" are NOT WHAT WE PERCEIVE, but, rather, THAT BY WHICH we perceive (IMAGES). Read the article, Ivo, and try to understand not only what he writes but exactly what Aquinas MEANS, so that you may, eventually, UNDERSTAND what he means. IVO: Also if the adjective was sapientius, it could become sapientiae in the nominative (and vocative) FEMALE plural, but the adjective is “sapiens”. REPLY: The question is about IMAGES and not about grammar. IVO: 3. There's also something not kosher with your classification. REPLY: Nonsense. Remote and proximate GENERA are irrelevant to translating "sensible species" as "sensible IMAGE". There is, quite equally, something NOT intelligible about your refusal to refer to IMAGES in your grammar and classification lessons which still come out as Homo/genus Sapiens/species. Irrelevant "classification" lesson snipped. 4. Please do your homework. REPLY: Please answer the relevant question, which is, ARE IMAGES PERCEIVED? Aquinas says "species sensibilus" are NOT WHAT WE PERCEIVE. Hence when he writes of "species sensibilus" being NOT WHAT WE PERCEIVE, he is NOT talking about IMAGES or "sensible IMAGES", which are perceived. The translation "sensible IMAGE" is, therefore, WRONG --- dead wrong. IVO: Perhaps, you could start with giving the reference of the Pegis translation and tell us why that translation could not possibly be wrong. Please tell us also who is/was Pegis. REPLY: The Pegis translation is in INTRODUCTION TO ST. THOMAS AQUINAS, Modern Library, previously cited. Summa I, Q. 85. Article 2. I also told you that he was a professor of "medieval studies" at the Pontifical Academy of Medieval Studies in Toronto, Ontario Canada. He was also a friend of both Etienne Gilson and Jacques Maritain. In short, the guy knew how to translate medieval Latin. ANSWER: Pegis's translation is NOT WRONG from Aquinas's own context, to wit, Aquinas says "species sensibilus" are NOT WHAT WE PERCEIVE, etc. The mistranslation "sensible-IMAGE/s" is a wrong translation because IMAGES are PERCEIVED. So, from Aquinas's own context and the equal translations of both Pegis and the English Dominicans, that "species sensibilus" are "NOT what we perceive", it is IMPOSSIBLE to believe that Aquinas "thought" that "species sensibilus" are "sensible IMAGES", which we all may perceive. IN SUM: I have answered all your questions and "criticisms". Now you do me the same favor. Tell me whether or not we perceive "sensible IMAGES". Then tell me whether or not you think that Aquinas was so DUMB as to assert that "sensible IMAGES" are NOT what we perceive, but rather that by which we perceive "sensible IMAGES". That would make "sensible IMAGES" both "the means" (that by which) and "the end" (that which). And Aquinas never confused a "means" with an "end", nor did he ever confuse a CAUSE with an EFFECT, nor words with ideas, nor ideas with images --- like you do Ivo. Kevin Email: PaedoSocrates@aol.com
Ivo Cerckel Sep 29th, 2007 - 4:46 PM	Re: Species, shapes and principles 5. Start perhaps by trying to find a Latin-English dictionary (on the web) which translates "species" as "species". At least then, we will have a basis for our diskussion. Email: ivocerckel@siquijor.ws
Kevin Oct 3rd, 2007 - 3:27 AM	Re: Re: Species, shapes and principles 5. Start perhaps by trying to find a Latin-English dictionary (on the web) which translates "species" as "species". At least then, we will have a basis for our diskussion. REPLY: Try finding any dictionary which translates "species" as "IMAGE", because that is the translation you prefer. Try finding a dictionary which translates IMAGE as "species". And you will find them because people have been confusing ideas with images since the time of Locke and Descartes. The question remains:- Are "species" perceivable, like "sensible IMAGES"? The are. So when Aquinas continues that "species sensibilus" are NOT WHAT IS PERCEIVED, then he is either a dunce or he has been mistranslated. I say mistranslated because Aquinas was no dunce and I have read the same THESIS correctly translated from Aristotle's Greek into English by better Greek scholars than the Dominicans were Latin scholars in this one little instance. The question turns on the meaning of IMAGE (perceivable or not perceivable). Since IMAGES are perceived and perceivable, when Aquinas wrote that "species sensibilus" are NOT WHAT IS PERCEIVED, it follows that he was not talking about "sensible IMAGES", he was talking about "sensible species", which are NOT WHAT IS PERCEIVED, but rather THE MEANS BY WHICH we perceive IMAGES. Start reading Summa I, Q. 85, Article 2. in either French or German. You may understand those languages because, so far, you fail to understand Aquinas in English translation, English mistranslation or Latin original, of which you say you had 6 years of training. Try French, but quit reading dictionaries and do read Aquinas. Kevin Email: PaedoSocrates@aol.com
Ivo Cerckel Sep 30th, 2007 - 7:11 AM	Re: Species, shapes and principles 6. I must apologise for having asked in section 4 what was the Pegis translation. You gave the answer in the thread "species impressa et expressa". Email: ivocerckel@siquijor.ws
Kevin Oct 3rd, 2007 - 4:15 AM	Re: Re: Species, shapes and principles Re: Species, shapes and principles Name: Ivo Cerckel Date Posted: Sep 30, 07 - 7:11 AM Email: ivocerckel@siquijor.ws Message: 6. I must apologise for having asked in section 4 what was the Pegis translation. You gave the answer in the thread "species impressa et expressa". REPLY: Apology accepted. Message: 7. It makes no sense that we battle over the Pegis and Dominican translations. REPLY: It makes "sense" because the fundamental modern philosophical error, by both Descartes and Locke is that IDEAS are perceived, when it is actually IMAGES which are perceived. IDEAS are neither perceived nor perceptible. And the equivalent terms "species(Latin)" and "eidos(Greek)" essentially refer to imperceptible MEANS "by which" both sensible-objects and intelligible-objects are, respectively, SENSED and KNOWN. IVO We must fight over the "Aquinistic" original. REPLY: YES. Aquinas says "species sensibilus" are NOT what is perceived. They are "that by which" we perceive. Hence, he is not talking about "sensible IMAGES", which WE PERCEIVE!!! IVO: What means “species” in Latin? REPLY: "Species" is the Latin word for the Greek word "eidos" which means Class or Kind. But I already told you that it is an entirely AMBIGUOUS term because it is a GENERAL NAME. And the critical question is not WHAT "species" means since you have already accepted the meaning "IMAGE" as in "sensible-IMAGE". Hence, you "know" that "species" means IMAGE. But since you have accepted a mistranslation for your meaning of "species", now you do not know what species means! The correct question to consider is:- What does IMAGE mean in Latin or in any other language? Since you have already accepted that "species sensiblilus" means "sensible-IMAGE", you or the Dominicans "mean" that "species" are IMAGES! But the fact is that "species/eidos" are NOT images in either Aristotle's Greek, nor Aquinas's Latin, nor in English Genus-Species classifications. IMAGES are always of INDIVIDUALS and not of CLASSES or KINDS. IMAGES are perceived. Aquinas says "species sensibilus" (direct Latin) are NOT THAT WHICH WE PERCEIVE. Hence he is not talking about "sensible IMAGES". "Species", in Latin, or in any correct translation of Aristotle's "EIDOS", is a correction of what Plato meant by "idea", a "means-by-which" we sense (sensible species) or understand (intelligible species)OBJECTS of physical or mental kinds. IVO: Hence, I asked you in section 5 to find a Latin-English dictionary (on the web) which translates "species" as "species". REPLY: The critical point in question is whether or not IMAGES are perceived. When Aquinas writes that "species sensibilus" are NOT what we perceive, it follows that he is NOT talking about IMAGES, because we do PERCEIVE IMAGES. To repeat ---- IMAGES --- which are PERCEIVABLE objects, is the question at issue since you accept "sensible-IMAGE" as the translation of "species-sensibilus". IVO: I also understand that if you are, as I suspect, monolingual, it is difficult for you to understand how languages can differ. Nevertheless, those differences are facts of reality. REPLY: It is not difficult to understand either the FALLACY OF AMBIGUITY, or the FALLACY OF NAMES, even if one is only "monolingual". I have also repeatedly asked you to find any translation of Summa I, Q. 85, Article 2. in any language which you actually UNDERSTAND since you are so "multilingual". Try a French or German translation. If the French or German translator says "species sensibilus" means the French or German equivalent of "sensible IMAGE", then that will be a WRONG translation as well because IMAGES are perceivable, whereas IDEAS/Eidos are NOT perceivable. Neither Socrates, nor Plato, nor Aristotle, nor Aquinas ever confused IDEAS with IMAGES. In Contrast: All of so-called "modern philosophy" begins with both Locke's and Descartes's confusion of IDEAS with IMAGES. Descartes says he can't be wrong about the CLEAR AND DISTINCT IDEAS which he "perceives" (senses). Locke asserts that IDEAS are what we perceive. Both men are wrong, according to Socrates, Plato, Aristotle and Aquinas. All these "ancients" agree that "species" (whether sensible or intelligible) are "that-by-which" and NOT "that which" we perceive or understand. That which we perceive are sensed objects. That which we understand are intelligible objects. Sensed objects, of course, can also be understood or in other words intelligible-objects as well. Thus the 2 questions you repetitively REFUSE to answer:- (1) Do you see your eyes? No! They are "that by which" you see things which are NOT your eyes. You see visible OBJECTS and NOT your eyes. (2) Do you see your ideas? No! They are "that by which" you understand things which are NOT your (or anyone's) ideas. That which you understand by means of ideas are intelligible objects of sensation or of thought or of both. Kevin Email: PaedoSocrates@aol.com
Ivo Cerckel Sep 30th, 2007 - 6:35 PM	Re: Species, shapes and principles 7. It makes no sense that we battle over the Pegis and Dominican translations. We must fight over the “Aquinistic” original. What means “species” in Latin? Hence, I asked you in section 5 to find a Latin-English dictionary (on the web) which translates "species" as "species". I also understand that if you are, as I suspect, monolingual, it is difficult for you to understand how languages can differ. Nevertheless, those differences are facts of reality. Email: ivocerckel@siquijor.ws
Kevin Oct 3rd, 2007 - 5:07 AM	Re: Re: Species, shapes and principles 7. It makes no sense that we battle over the Pegis and Dominican translations. We must fight over the “Aquinistic” original. READ Q. 85., Article 2. again --- the entire article which is all 3 objections the SED CONTRARY, his answer and the replies to all 3 objections. What means “species” in Latin? It doesn't mean IMAGE and the Dominicans have translated SPECIES as IMAGE. For they clearly write "sensible-IMAGE" for Aquinas's "SPECIES-sensibilus". Sensible (English) = sensibilus (Latin). Hence they have translated "species" (Latin) as IMAGE (English). That is a mistranslation because the Latin term "species" is the direct Latin equivalent of Aristotle's term "eidos". He used the term "Eidos" as an equivalent to Plato's "Idea", but with a distinct difference. He coined a separate word to MEAN an "idea" which was not "separate" from a material object, whereas Plato's "IDEAS" were all entirely separate from material objects. Neither Socrates nor Aristotle "separated" the "forms" (Latin word for "idea"). In Plato's doctrine material objects "participated" in "ideas". SPECIES in Latin means EIDOS in Greek and vice versa. The difference in Platonic doctrine and Aristotelian doctrine, led to a distinction between "sensible species" (not perceived but the causes of objects being perceived) and "intelligible species" (not perceived but the FORMAL CAUSES which actualize "informed matter" to give it being). Hence, I asked you in section 5 to find a Latin-English dictionary (on the web) which translates "species" as "species". You "Kantians" and even "anti-Kantians" so love your tautologies. To "translate" species as species is to reiterate but NOT "to translate". On the one hand you define "species" to mean IMAGE, as in "sensible IMAGE". But, on the other hand, you don't have a definition for "species". But if you don't have a definition of "species" then how come you insist on the translation "sensible IMAGE" for AQuinas's "species sensibilus". So, in one sense you think you KNOW what "species" means (Image), but, on the other hand, you don't KNOW what "species" means. You are in that half-way postion where you KNOW "indiscriminately" and "confusedly". Later on you may learn to distinguish between THINGS, thoughts and words. But not so far, even though you are multilingual. Kevin I also understand that if you are, as I suspect, monolingual, it is difficult for you to understand how languages can differ. Nevertheless, those differences are facts of reality. But IDEAS never differ. IMAGES never differ. Languages differ, but the correct MEANINGS of terms do not differ. You either understand a MEANING or do NOT understand a meaning. And you do not KNOW what "species" means if you think it means IMAGE. Aristotle did NOT throw all of Plato "out with the bathwater". He simply transferred Plato's world of the forms/ideas into our souls, calling them EIDOS (Latin = species), rather than Plato's IDEAS which, according to Plato, had an entirely "separate" existence from anything in the material world. Aristotle, in contrast, said that IDEAS rested in an entirely separate power of the human psyche/soul into which (possible intellect) they can be "abstracted" and by which (agent intellect) they are abstracted, according to the "mode" of the human psyche. Thus his dictum that the human psyche is the "form of forms". (ie. Ideal world of ideas). They were also the FORMAL CAUSES of things, in the extramental world, or real world. They are different DOCTRINES. But what both doctrines have in common, whether Plato's separate IDEAS or Aristotle's non-separate-in-being-from- matter (form-matter-composites), but separable "in thought", EIDOS, is that neither IDEAS nor EIDOS are perceived objects, such as IMAGES. Once again, this time on Platonic and Aristotelian "grounds" and "distinctions", the Latin equivalent of EIDOS, which is SPECIES, cannot be an IMAGE, as in "sensible IMAGE", which is, for the umteenth time, a "mistranslation", because neither sensible species, nor intelligible species are IMAGES, in any of Plato's Aristotle's or Aquinas's actual theories of WHAT WE KNOW and HOW we know. Read Aquinas again. IMAGES are "that which" we perceive. Species-sensibilus are NOT "that which" we perceive but rather "that-by-which" we perceive sensible objects, like OAK TREES in your example from a Belgian compatriot. Kevin Email: PaedoSocrates@aol.com

	The Radical Academy Discussion Forum Philosophy, Politics, and the Human Condition
Search For Similar Forums · Return to Website