Page:Mind (Old Series) Volume 11.djvu/33

22 K. PEARSON : second begins and ends with the body and shares all its varied states. Unfortunately Aristotle has nowhere clearly explained what he understands by the relationship of these two reasons, and, as Zeller remarks (Die Philos. der GfierJn //, ii. Abth., 2. Theil, p. 572), it is not possible to reconcile his various statements by any consistent theory. Alexander of Aphrodisias endeavoured to obtain such a consistent theory by seeking the active reason not in the human soul, but in the divine spirit. This view, although probably not the interpretation Aristotle would have given of his own state- ments, is yet eagerly adopted by the Arabian commentators, and the comparatively insignificant distinction made by Aristotle becomes with Averroes the basis of all that is original in his ideas. While Alexander identifies the active reason or intellect, which brings the images (fyavrdaiJicna) before the passive intellect, with the divine spirit, Averroes looks upon it emanating from the last celestial intelligence. He considers, however, with Alexander that it is possible for the human or passive intellect to unite itself to the purely active intellect. This union takes place, this perfection or blessedness is at- tained, by long study, deep thought and renunciation of material pleasures. This process, consisting in the widening of human knowledge, is the religion of the philosopher. For what worthier cult can man offer to God than the knowledge of his works, through which alone he can attain to a knowledge of God himself in the fulness of his essence ? * But to recognise fully what is original in Eckehart ve must examine Averroes's views somewhat closer. Averroes holds that things perceived by the understanding (intdliyibilia) stand in the same relation to the material intellect (passive reason) as things perceived by sensation bear to the faculty of sensation. This faculty is purely receptive, and pure receptivity belongs also to the material intellect. Its nature is only in i>ut>-ntin, it is a capacity for intellectual perception. At this point Averroes introduc* statement which disagrees with Aristotle and brings obscurity into his theory ; he holds that, as this passive reason exists only in j>ntriiliit, it can neither come into being nor perish. Alexander's view, that the material intellect is perishahl' described as utterly false.- This statement was probably '(']>. l>r< i Alliniiilliiiii/f a iiln, >-tsmit dem MI ntcli'it run Jwrroe*, herauagegebeD von T. ]!!'/, I'.rilin, i 3 Ibid., p. 23.