Aristotle discusses the characteristics of the soul devoted to intellection, distinguishing it from the soul devoted to sensible things and emphasizing its potentiality and separation from sensory organs.
Extract
[...] As a disciple of Plato, Aristotle indeed thinks that there is on one side the intelligible world and on the other the sensible world. The intelligible world would gather all the elements of the universe that would exist in a perfect way, while the sensible world would gather the translation of these Ideas in the world as they reach men. The famous allegory of the cave illustrates this notion best. In this allegory, men are presented as chained at the bottom of a cave and unable to see the superior world, the world of ideas, except for the shadows of this world that are inaccessible to them, which are projected onto the wall in front of them. [...]
[...] Aristotle then returns to this fundamental distinction between body and mind. The body would effectively refer to intelligible things, to realized things, to things in act, while the mind, the intellect, would express things in potentiality, things not realized. If the intellect were mixed with the body, then the things it perceived would no longer exist only in potentiality. Indeed, as Aristotle explains, these things would be attributed particular qualities that would cause them to lose, in a way, their 'status' as 'beings in potentiality'. [...]
[...] Aristotle was a Greek philosopher of the 4th century BCE. A disciple of Plato, he presented himself as a thinker who had exercised a great influence on all Western and even global thought. He influenced philosophy with his works on logic, metaphysics, ethics, politics, and natural sciences, developing key concepts such as entelechy and substance. The excerpt given to us to study comes from a major work of the philosopher titled On the Soul and more specifically the chapter 4 titled 'The Passible Intellect' of Book III named 'The Noetic Faculties'. [...]
[...] Aristotle, while being a disciple of Plato, develops a distinct and original view of the relationship between the intellect and the senses. By emphasizing the purity and impassibility of the intellect, Aristotle underscores the need to separate the intellect from bodily influences to ensure a clear and universal knowledge of intelligible forms. This fundamental distinction between the intellect and the senses is crucial for understanding the unique capacity of the intellect to grasp the essences of things without being hindered by material conditions. [...]
[...] In the second sentence, Aristotle can however suppose a certain analogy between intellection and sensation. In other words, these two processes appeal to two distinct parts of the soul but the processes they lead to present similarities. Aristotle goes so far as to use a formula that could have an oxymoronic dimension in speaking of 'passion under the action of the intelligible'. In other words, the perception of the intelligible form of things would not be carried out in a purely intellectual and cold manner. [...]
