That is the limit of the intellectual power of the soul. Is it,
besides, capable of turning upon itself, and cognizing itself, or
must this knowledge be sought for only within intelligence? If we
assign this knowledge to the intellectual part of the soul; we will
be making an intelligence out of it; and we will then have to study
in what it differs from the superior Intelligence. If again, we
refuse this knowledge to this part of the soul, we will, by reason,
rise to Intelligence, and we will have to examine the nature of
self-consciousness. Further, if we attribute this knowledge both to
the inferior and to the superior intelligences, we shall have to
distinguish self-consciousness according as it belongs to the one
or to the other; for if there were no difference between these two
kinds of intelligence, discursive reason would be identical with pure
Intelligence. Does discursive reason, therefore, turn upon itself?
Or does it limit itself to the comprehension of the types received
from both (sense and intelligence); and, in the latter case, how does
it achieve such comprehension? This latter question is the one to be
examined here.
THE HIGHEST PART OF DISCURSIVE REASON RECEIVES IMPRESSIONS FROM
INTELLIGENCE.
3. Now let us suppose that the senses have perceived a man, and have
furnished an appropriate image thereof to discursive reason. What will
the latter say? It may say nothing, limiting itself to taking notice
of him. However, it may also ask itself who this man is; and, having
already met him, with the aid of memory, decide that he is Socrates. If
then discursive reason develop the image of Socrates, then it divides
what imagination has furnished. If discursive reason add that Socrates
is good, it still deals with things known by the senses; but that which
it asserts thereof, namely, his goodness, it has drawn from itself,
because within itself it possesses the rule of goodness. But how does
it, within itself, possess goodness? Because it conforms to the Good,
and receives the notion of it from the Intelligence that enlightens
itself; for (discursive reason), this part of the soul, is pure, and
receives impressions from Intelligence.[101]
WHY DISCURSIVE REASON SHOULD BELONG TO THE SOUL RATHER THAN TO
INTELLIGENCE.
But why should this whole (soul-) part that is superior to sensation
be assigned to the soul rather than to intelligence? Because the power
of the soul consists in reasoning, and because all these operations
belong to the discursive reason. But why can we not simply assign to
it, in addition, self-consciousness, which would immediately clear
up this inquiry? Because the nature of discursive reason consists in
considering exterior things, and in scrutinizing their diversity, while
to intelligence we attribute the privilege of contemplating itself, and
of contemplating its own contents. But what hinders discursive reason,
by some other faculty of the soul, from considering what belongs to
it? Because, in this case, instead of discursive reason and reasoning,
we would have pure Intelligence. But what then hinders the presence
of pure Intelligence within the soul? Nothing, indeed. Shall we then
have a right to say that pure Intelligence is a part of the soul? No
indeed; but still we would have the right to call it "ours." It is
different from, and higher than discursive reason; and still it is
"ours," although we cannot count it among the parts of the soul. In one
respect it is "ours," and in another, is not "ours;" for at times we
make use of it, and at other times we make use of discursive reason;
consequently, intelligence is "ours" when we make use of it; and it
is not "ours" when we do not make use of it. But what is the meaning
of "making use of intelligence"? Does it mean becoming intelligence,
and speaking in that character, or does it mean speaking in conformity
with intelligence? For we are not intelligence; we speak in conformity
with intelligence by the first part of discursive reason, the part that
receives impressions from Intelligence. We feel through sensation, and
it is we who feel. Is it also we who conceive and who simultaneously
are conceived? Or is it we who reason, and who conceive the
intellectual notions which enlighten discursive reason? We are indeed
essentially constituted by discursive reason. The actualizations of
Intelligence are superior to us, while those of sensation are inferior;
as to us, "we" are the principal part of the soul, the part that forms
a middle power between these two extremes, now lowering ourselves
towards sensation, now rising towards Intelligence.[102] We acknowledge
sensibility to be ours because we are continually feeling. It is not
as evident that intelligence is ours, because we do not make use of it
continuously, and because it is separated, in this sense, that it is
not intelligence that inclines towards us, but rather we who raise our
glances towards intelligence. Sensation is our messenger, Intelligence
is our king.[99]