著者

三谷 鳩子

出版者

日本哲学会

雑誌

哲学 (ISSN:03873358)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.2006, no.57, pp.227-239,13, 2006

---

<I>In De Veritate</I>, Thomas mentions the "habitual self-cognition" along with the "actual self-cognition". However, he does not deal with the "habitual self-cognition" in <I>Summa Theologiae</I> any more. How should we interpret this change?<BR>He insists in <I>Summa Theologiae</I> that everything is known through its act, and not through its potentiality. As a habit fails in being a perfect act, it is also insufficient to be knowable. Therefore, "habitual self-cognition" can not be called a "self-cognition" in a strict sense, but it should be called a "self-knowledge".<BR>Moreover, Thomas says that a habit is present in our intellect, not as its "object", but as its "form". Thus, in <I>Summa Theologiae</I>, the "habitual self-cognition" lost its place as a "cognition", but plays a role of its "form".<BR>Along with these affirmations, Thomas states that there are two kinds of self-cognition, a particular one and a universal one. In the former case, the mere "presence of the mind" suffices, since the "habitual self-knowledge" plays a role of its "form"; one knows itself reflexively. In the latter case, one knows itself understanding through the act of cognition of other being, so that its possible intellect can be activated by its "species". Thus, one has to examine its nature carefully in order to determine what one should be, and even to "the image of God" in the light of the divine Truth.<BR>When we return to ourselves through the self-cognition, and reach the "Existence Itself" as a principle of intelligibility, we will find out what we should be, as participants of this "Existence". Hence, Thomas re-organized the frame of "self-cognition" in the manner of act, and re-defined more clearly the nature of man and the image of God in <I>Summa Theologiae</I>.