fficulties. For if it thinks of nothing, what is there here of dignity? It is just like one who sleeps. And if it thinks, but this depends on something else, then (since that which is its substance is not the act of thinking, but a potency) it cannot be the best substance; for it is through thinking that its value belongs to it. Further, whether its substance is the faculty of thought or the act of thinking, what does it think of? Either of itself or Mateo Musacchio Drakter of something else; and if of something else, either of the same thing always or of something different. Does it matter, then, or not, whether it thinks Stefano Sturaro Drakter of the good or of any chance thing? Are there not some things Facundo Roncaglia Drakter about which it is incredible that it should think? Evidently, then, it thinks of that which is most divine and precious, and it does Toronto Maple Leafs Pipot not change; for change would be change for the worse, and this Harry Wilson Drakter would be already a movement. First, then, if ‘thought’ is not the act of thinking but a potency, it would be reasonable to suppose that the continuity of its thinking is wearisome to it. Secondly, there would evidently be something else more precious than thought, viz. that Maxwell Drakter which is thought of. For both thinking and the act of thought will belong even to one who thinks of the worst thing in the world, so that if this ought to be avoided (and it ought, for there are even some things which it is better not to see than to see), the act of thinking cannot be the best of things. Therefore it must be of itself that the divine thought thinks (since it is the most excellent of things), and its thinking is Barcelona Dzieci 16/17 a thinking on thinking.
But evidently knowledge and perception and opinion and understanding have always something else as their object, and themselves only by the way. Further, if thinking and being thought of are Spain Jerseys fuck google different, in respect of which does goodness belong to thought? For to he Jesse Lingard Drakter an act of thinking and to he an object of thought are not the same thing. We answer that in some cases the knowledge is the object. In the productive sciences it is Sergi Roberto Drakter the substance or essence of the object, matter omitted, and in the theoretical John Obi Mikel Drakter sciences the definition or the act of thinking is the object. Since, then, thought and the object of thought are not different in the case of things that have not matter, the divine thought and its object will be the same, i.e. the thinking will be one with the object of its thought.
A further question is left-whether the object of the divine thought Hatem Ben Arfa Drakter is composite; for if it were, thought would change in passing from part to part of the whole. We answer that everything which has not matter is indivisible-as human thought, or rather the thought of composite beings, is in a certain period of time (for it does not possess the good at this moment or at that, but its best, being something different from it, is attained only in a whole period of time), so throughout eternity is the thought which has itself for its object.
Book XII Chapter 10
We must consider also in which of two ways the nature of the universe contains the good, and the highest goolinks:
http://www13.plala.or.jp/gakuki3/cgi_bin/aska/aska.cgi
http://www.rockclimbing.com/cgi-bin/photos/search.cgi
http://www13.plala.or.jp/white_roots/gwbbs/gwbbs.cgi |
