Many philosophers considered the nature of knowledge and human intellectual capacities from different perspectives. Aristotle proposed the most influential theories that later became the basis for interpretations and discussions. Saint Bonaventure articulated a theory of the agent and possible intellect, which attributes the possibility of knowledge generation to each individual human being based on God’s illuminations. Averroes proposed the different perspective claiming that there is a universal intellect which only uses individuals’ intellectual capacities to generate knowledge. These two theories are contrasting as they understand the role of the agent in the process of understanding differently and have separate perspectives on the nature of knowledge.
Saint Bonaventure’s theory of the agent and possible intellect is contrasting to the views of his contemporaries. The philosopher considered possible intellect as the entity which is not separated from the agent. In the philosopher’s opinion, the possible intellect is the integral part of the human soul. Nejeschleba (2017) notes that, according to Bonaventure, “only god can create thoughts and affections in the human soul, to which he is related as agens principalis” (p. 813). Abstract matters, as the philosopher claims, are the source of concepts of things for human beings. Thus, human intellectual capacities work to understand and comprehend the illuminations proposed by god. God itself cannot replace human intellectual faculties.
In general, Saint Bonaventure claims that the agent cannot be separated from the possible intellect. Hence, the philosopher underlines that God is the source of universal truth that can only be comprehended by the individual’s intellectual capacities (Nejeschleba, 2017, p. 814). Bonaventure claims that the properties of each man are unique and separated in each person (Quinn, 1977, p. 224). Human beings have their own perfect soul, which, in turn, plays a key role in perfecting their bodies. Bonaventure claims “the soul perfecting one body cannot also perfect another, because each man, as a man, has a unity and distinction in being from his rational soul” (Quinn, 1977, p. 224). This view is contrasting to the theory of Averroes, which is criticized by Bonaventure as not consistent with Christian perspectives.
Averroes’ theory of the intellect is developed in his long commentary on the Aristotelian work. The medieval philosopher proposed that “we humans do not each have our own intellect” (Cory, 2015, p. 3). Instead, people share one Agent Intellect that abstracts intelligible, as well as one common Material Intellect that receives them (Cory, 2015, p. 3). Thus, Averroes’ theory is different from all the previous philosophical perspectives as the philosopher assumes that there is one universal intellect for all humans. Previous philosophical thoughts proposed that such shared intellect is a superhuman, while all the individuals have their own separate intellects (Adamson, 2016, p. 189). The theory of Averroes is based on a particular view of shared capacities of individual human brains.
The central thesis of Averroes’ argument lies in the notion of intellectual unity. Adamson (2016) underlines that, according to the philosopher, “there is only one, single human capacity for human knowledge” (p. 189). This intellect is immortal and constantly thinks about all the matters that can be thought of (Adamson, 2016, p. 192). The basis for this universal process are human brains which are continuously involved in fikr or cognition. This process contains not universal knowledge but an “active consideration of particular things” (Adamson, 2016, p. 192). Thus, when a universal intellect uses the brain of a particular person for consideration of specific matter, this person also experiences the thinking process. Variations in interpretation, according to the philosopher, are possible due to the role of imagination (Quinn, 1977, p. 224). For Averroes, the universal knowledge is possible as there is a universal capacity for it.
Based on the consideration of both theories, it is possible to say that two philosophers have distinctly different views on the notions of the agent and possible intellect. First of all, Bonaventure is opposed to the view of universals in his philosophy, which contrasts him to Aristotle and other classical philosophers (Van Buren, 2021, p. 187). Saint Bonaventure attributes the possible intellect to the individual agent. In other words, God for him is the source of truth and knowledge, but only humans with their own intellectual capacities can comprehend these illuminations. Averroes, contrary to the philosopher, claims that there is a universal intellect that only uses the individual intellectual capacities of people in order to produce knowledge.
Bonaventure considers the agent and possible intellect as inseparable matters. Every human being has its individual soul with personal intellectual capacities, which are used to comprehend and interpret the knowledge. Averroes claims that every human shares the same intellect, which consists of a network of individual brains. The variations of interpretations are only possible due to imagination and cannot be influenced by the person itself. This view raises questions regarding the nature of knowledge and the role of the agent in the process of understanding. Bonaventure’s perspective is consistent with the Christian view of illumination and the agent’s comprehension.
Thus, the view of the agent and possible intellect proposed by Saint Bonaventure is contrasting with the theory developed by Averroes. While Bonaventure considers the human being as an active participant in the process of knowledge creation and understanding, Averroes attributes universal knowledge to the shared intelligence. Bonaventure suggests that people receive illuminations from God and interpret them to get knowledge. Averroes states that individual brains are only capacities used to generate shared knowledge.
References
Adamson, P. (2016). Philosophy in the Islamic world: A history of philosophy without any gaps. Oxford University Press.
Cory, T. S. (2015). Averroes and Aquinas on the agent intelligent’s causation of the intelligible. Recherches de théologie et philosophie médiévales, 82(1), 1-60. Web.
Nejeschleba, T. (2017). Bonaventure on the agent intellect. Rivista di Filosofia Neo-Scolastica, 4, 811-821.
Quinn, J. E. (1977). St. Bonaventure and arabian interpretations of two Aristotelean problems. Franciscan Studies, 37, 219-228. Web.
Van Buren, F. (2021). Bonaventure, Aristotle, and the being of universal forms. In R. Pasnau (ed.), Oxford studies in medieval philosophy (pp. 187-221). Oxford University Press. Web.