We cannot but point out here a little more fully that according to general opinion the difference between theoretical and practical intellectual faculties is that the latter also have action as their object, but the former have contemplation as their ultimate end.
§24. Now this error is not only contrary to right reason, since all theoretical faculties have practical ends, as can easily be shown empirically. It also conflicts with true religion and is the result of the false opinion of the Gentiles, who believed that the essence of God consisted in contemplation.
§25. Various comments by the great Aristotle, whom they follow, are relevant here: “That beatitude based on contemplation is nobler than that based on practice; that the former is accompanied by a more sincere pleasure than practice; that theoretical contemplation joins humans more closely to God than practice does”; similarly: “That prudence serves wisdom …”4
§26. Instead of these trifles we prefer the saying of Paul, the wise Apostle who above all contemplation preferred love that is born from prudence.5
§27. This is all we have to say concerning the term prudence. The term right is understood in several ways. Above all, it is understood either as law or as an attribute of a person.
[print edition page 65]
§28. Law is defined in one way by Grotius, in another by Aristotle, and in yet another by jurists. The Scholastics, however, labor over this question in ways that are strange and inept at the same time. We define it thus: “A law is a command by a ruler obliging subjects to guide their actions in accordance with this command.”
§29. According to this definition, a law differs from advice and from a pact in various ways. And that is not controversial. You should, however, note the following in particular, because it is not commonly accepted: “A law is always binding, even without a pact; a pact never without a law,” though a law sometimes obliges via a pact. Then the pact is only the occasion for the obligation, just as opening the doors is the occasion for letting light into the room.
§30. The author of a law is always a ruler [imperans]. We would rather use this term than the term superior, as others do. For apart from the superiority associated with rule there are other superiorities, of order, for example, or of dignity, as well as superiority based on beneficence. Here we are not concerned with these.
§31. It follows that God does not act according to a law and that the eternal law is a fiction of the Scholastics.
§32. He on whom the law is imposed is the subject or the person obeying. This presupposes reason, and as brutes lack reason, they are not bound by law.
§33. Thus man remains. Therefore law is commonly termed a norm of human actions. But the action of man in conformity to law is, in one word, called duty.
§34. But there are different kinds of human actions. Some are specific to man, others are common to him and to animals and plants. Therefore, we must determine which ones law can regulate. And here we first need to form a clear idea of man himself and his essence and must rid ourselves of certain prejudices.
[print edition page 66]
§35. Man is a rational animal. This is how man is commonly defined. Nor does the scala praedicamentalis of substance in the books on logic allow any other definition, even though it neither corresponds to the intention of Aristotle nor is to the taste of Porphyrius, the inventor of this scale.6 But the same definition is subjected to a variety of criticisms by Chrysostomus, Cardano, van Helmont, Antoine le Grand, and others.7 We will retain it but add the necessary explanation.
§36. We do not believe an animal to be a living body with powers of sensation, but a living body endowed with locomotive powers. Indeed, as the most acute philosophers have shown us, animals lack sensation—that is, internal sensation—without which the external senses do not deserve the name of senses, and they are not moved in any other way than clockwork, except that the more subtle particles of air sometimes strike those animal organs which are the seat of the external senses in man and thereby cause internal movements.
§37. I know that this hypothesis will not please those who measure the truth of assertions by their antiquity. Yet, even if I could make no other reply to them, I would at least urge them to tell me, if, as I hope, they do not attribute powers of reasoning to beasts, what the difference is between [on one hand] basic sensation, the imagination and memory, which they attribute to beasts, and [on the other] human reason.
§38. Therefore, just as man has life in common with plants, he has the powers of locomotion in common with beasts. What remains is covered by the term rational. But human reason is nothing other than thought.
[print edition page 67]
See Descartes’ wise statement: “Man when he understands something, thinks; when he wills, thinks; when he feels, thinks.”8
§39. It follows automatically that the two functions of our reason that are usually listed, namely, the intellect and the will, need to be supplemented by a third, namely, sensation, which is distinct from locomotion but includes the sensitive appetite.
§40. Sense is commonly divided into internal and external. Vision, hearing, smelling, taste, and touch usually represent the external senses, to which some add sexual lust as a sixth; others add a seventh and eighth to all of these, thirst in the mouth and hunger in the stomach. The internal sensations are reduced to three kinds: basic sensation, imagination, and memory.
§41. All external senses, however many they are, are passions of the body, not actions of the soul. But insofar as there is a simple apprehension of these things, the result is a sense perception which we can accept being described as basic sensation, just as imagination is used to describe the sensation by which man forms ideas for himself from these passions or when he is prompted by them. Finally, memory is the term for the sensation by which man remembers a sense impression, while reminiscence is the term used if this act of remembering takes place by means of ratiocination.
§42. The Peripatetics, however, say and teach that all senses perceive sensible objects, the external senses passively, the internal actively. But just as passive perception is a fiction, so I do not understand how active perception can exist without thought; and so they who teach this must concede that the internal senses are identical to the power of perception of the rational soul, or else they themselves have no idea what they are teaching.
[print edition page 68]
§43. Furthermore, the sensitive appetite, as it is described in the schools, is nothing other than a will which approves of the object that delights the body. And if this desire is not contrary to the law, it is fine; if not, the will of man is perverted. Yet such a perversion of the will does not mean that it can be treated as part of a sensitive soul that is common to humans and beasts any more than perverted reason can. For in either case man still thinks, even when he reasons perversely and desires perversely.
§44. Intellect and will are left. If we disregard the ancient fables of some intellect acting outside man, intellect is understood either in a broad sense which includes intellective memory, or in a strict sense that is opposed to it. Indeed the intellect of man either apprehends the objects of the external senses directly, by forming a proposition on their nature or goodness from the accidental properties affecting the sense organs and delighting the body, or by forming unclear ideas of objects which it has perceived through the senses previously; or it reasons by meditating further on the
