Divine Illumination

The method of attaining knowledge has been a topic of debate though out philosophy since as far as it has been recorded. A certain perception of this method, which held rule over all others during the medieval era was the proposition of divine illumination. Two philosophers who have dealt with divine illumination are Henry of Ghent in his “Summa of Ordinary Questions” and John Duns Scotus in his “Ordinatio”. While these two men were not the only ones to voice their opinions on the matter, they and their works shall be the focus in the following assessment of the two sides regarding the issue. Henry of Ghent is of the view that divine illumination is necessary for man to truly know anything. John Duns Scotus, who from here on will be referred to as Duns Scotus, holds the opposite view that divine illumination is not the reason for why human have the ability to cognize truth.

Before moving on to the discussion regarding divine illumination and its plausibility or not, it is crucial to define divine illumination itself. Divine illumination essentially states that a special divine assistance is required by humans in ordinary cognition of the truth. This is the simplest outline of divine illumination. From here it is prudent to consider arguments for divine illumination and then consider this arguments against. From there is an assessment of both opinion can be made and a crude conclusion may be form, or at the least that is the hope.

Since we should look at the arguments for why divine illumination is true, we turn to Henry of Ghent and his “Summa of Ordinary Questions”. In the simplest of terms, Henry of Ghent held that it is possible to know whether an object is true. This is agreed upon by most, but Henry goes further to say that any truth at all which is to be cognized requires intervention on God’s part for complete cognition to occur. To explain the first part of the Ghent’s opinion to be able to know what is true of a thing is different than knowing the truth of the same thing. He means that knowing what is true of a thing is to be able to represent the thing as it appears to be; and by knowing the truth of a thing is synonymous of knowing its nature. For Ghent, the first requires nothing to be knowing, but to know the nature of the thing, that is what requires God’s divine hand in human cognition. The key point of debate, as should have been apparent, is regarding this latter part, where divine illumination is necessary to know the nature of a thing. For Ghent and others, like Aristotle, only knowing the nature of a thing counts as having knowledge. Ghent holds that to be able to know anything the essence of the object should be grasped, and for him this cannot be done within the cognitive ability found in man, it requires the illumination of mind only God can provide. The key point of Ghent’s argument is that he says God is an intellect, much like what Aristotle says, he goes on to say that human intellect is from the divine intellect of God, however as human, we are not on the same cognizing ability level of God, this is the reason why we cannot cognize the nature of things without God’s assistance. From here we move on to John Duns Scotus, the opponent to Ghent’s divine illumination argument.

Duns Scotus argues that divine illumination is not necessary, and may in fact not be able to work if everyone was to take Ghent’s reasoning to heart. In his “Ordinatio”, Duns Scotus says that if without divine illumination no certain knowledge is possible, then even with divine illumination no certain knowledge is possible. This is explained as the infallibility attributed to humans in this aspect, is not something which is acute and contained, it would be an infallibility that affected the whole of the human cognition. Therefore, if humans cannot have certain knowledge without divine illumination, they should be able to have knowledge with divine illumination. Scotus, himself, holds the view that the human mind is capable of knowing truth on its own, without divine illumination. He goes on to outline four kinds of cognition in which there would appear to be necessary certainty. The first kind of cognition that is necessarily certain is regarding first principles. He says that the terms of the first principle are so self-evident that it is necessary for all of them to exist together, and when we cognize the terms it is not some great mystery as to what the terms entail, since one always includes the others. He goes onto say about the first kind that sense are not required to be able to compose formally these self-evident principles. With just the intellect alone, it is possible to know the that which is self-evident. The second kind of cognition comes from experience had by the individual. This it, seems, Scotus is trying to say is not as strong as the first kind, but is still necessarily certain. He says that we know, with infallibility, things from experience; and from experience which principles can be derived. He says experience allows us to makes conclusion even without the principle to guide us. This is sort of an inductive kind of cognition which relies of the past endeavors of the human mind to reach certain conclusions. The third kind of cognition is the cognition of self-action, a self awareness. Duns Scotus, likens the certainty of this kind of cognition to the first, self-evident kind of cognition. He says that even without the sense the intellect is aware of itself and the action it takes up. The last kind of cognition is the sensory kind. This is simple for Scotus to explain, but it also has the potential to be the most problematic. We are, for the most part, certain of what our sense tell us. Humans live through their sense, and consider anyone that is deprived of a sense to be disabled. This is the end of Scotus’ view on how divine illumination is not necessary for humans to be able to cognize the truth of things.

It is important to take both these views into account, especially Scotus’ since it is said that he was the one who officially closed the philosophical debate on divine illumination. Ghent’s view is derived from Aristotle and Augustine. Aristotelean philosophy was greatly important during the Medieval times, so it is easy to see the influence he would have had on the topic. Augustine was credited to be the first medieval philosopher to bring divine illumination back to the surface of debate. The idea that Ghent proposes that God is the perfect intellectual agent comes from Aristotle. Aristotle says that the Divine being is the first principle of all. Everything is is causally rooted in God. Ghent then goes onto say that humans cannot fully know the truth of a thing without God’s guidance. This follows from the claim that God is the first principle of all and therefore all truths can be known by him and through him. While to the theistic philosopher this is very appealing, the rest of philosophy,  may find Scotus’ view on divine illumination much acceptable. Scotus says that humans have the ability to know truths, especially truth that are necessarily certain, such as first principles and self-awareness. This appeals to the nature of the human being which wants to know. The curiosity of man, as it were.

Between the two views of divine illumination, the latter, as presented by Scotus against divine illumination, seems to hold a larger place in the realm of discussion so far. At the time, Scotus seemed to shut the door on any further debate. While Henry of Ghent’s view may not be all that popular there is something to it, the fusion of Aristotelean and Augustinian doctrine, that appeals to the religious philosopher.

Good and Evil

The line dividing between good and evil has always been in debate; even the definition of good in its true form has never been adequately explained. During the Middle ages, the common belief of good and evil was called Manichean Dualism. Augustine of Hippo presented his own philosophical argument against Manichean Dualism and he is correct in doing so, however there are still some flaws within his argument.

! Manichean dualism presents a direct split between good and evil. The dualism defines good and evil as two separate forces which exist in contrast to each other. It is important to note that evil is an enhanced type of bad. Evil is defined as bad action done through the conscious exercise of an individualʼs will. Bad are negative occurrences in reality. So to simply Manichean Dualism, the concepts explains that there are two contrasting forces in perpetual conflict against each other, these two forces are called good and bad.

! Augustine, disagrees with this assessment of good and bad. Augustine proposes the thought that there is only one beginning for everything. According to him the point of creation for all existence in God, the Judeo-Christian god. Augustine asserts that God is perpetually good and cannot be bad, or evil. Augustine assumes that the bad, or the evil, is a privation, or lack, of some good that should exist by nature. To make sure of Augustineʼs theory consider this: all things that exist independently can be called substances; all substances have natures, or characteristics; therefore if something is lacking from the nature of a substance which prevents it from being constantly good it is bad. In other words, bad is a simple absence of a part from a whole, the have the whole would equal being in the state of constant good. God would be the best definition for the

whole, or the good, according to Augustine. ! This is Augustineʼs basic argument, God is the only perfectly good being, and is the creator of everything else in existence. All things that exist are meant to be good things, but due to the lack of some of the good, they become bad. Instead of constantly explaining the idea “lack of some good”, Augustine begins to call this privation a corruption. To explain this terms he goes back to the attribute of God being the perfect being and therefore incorruptible. The term incorruptible in this context implies that the substance has some good that can be lost, this begs the question of whether a substance which has no good at all is corruptible. Augustine answers by saying that if something has the nature of not being good in anyway it does not exist. Now it is possible to ask what things are corruptible, to this his reply is that everything that is good, but not the perfect good is corruptible. By this answer it is implied that everything can be corrupted and is corrupted, and God is the only substance, or being that is forever perfect. Augustineʼs reasoning in this is quite amazing. It is a fact that he simply states. According to his argument there should be no substance that can attain perfection. If any substance had the ability to attain perfection, would it already not be in its perfect state. Perfection ceases to exist as soon as privation enters. Substances can only be perfect from their conception to their end. If a perfect substance has room to be corrupted it is not perfect. In an indirect method, Augustine is telling us that perfection is impossible, but that we should still attempt to reach the level closest to it. ! Leaving Augustineʼs view on corruption aside there is still one flaw in his initial argument. According to the Manichaeans, there are two principles, good and bad, which are in conflict. Augustine refutes this by saying all things are inherently goos and that

bad is the simple lack of good. If this is so, then no one should willing commit a bad action. If the source of the action originates from the will of the individual it becomes evil, as mentioned previously. Following this process of thought would not the individual also be evil for exercising such an act, but then that would imply that evil exists as a separate nature. Augustineʼs argument does not account for the separate existence for nature, he says it is the lack of good within the individual that is the origin for evil. According to the Judeo-Christian tradition, God created all things. That would mean he is the creator for something that is lacking in good and therefore God would cease to be the perfect being. This begins to make the argument collapse upon itself. The main problem here would be that God allowed for imperfect being to decide on their actions; from this it can be inferred that God indirectly created evil.

The main objection here is that God is ultimately responsible for the existence of evil, or the bad. While this may be held to be fundamental flaw, Augustine is correct in saying that Manichean Dualism is not the correct theory needed to understand the existence of good and evil. However, even with Augustineʼs philosophical discourse defining good and evil, a proper, concrete and accepted explanation is still to be agreed upon by scholars.