Augustine: Earlier Writings
formulated to give the discussion some order, we are now engaged with the first, namely, How is it to be made evident that God exists, a proposition which is most firmly to be accepted in faith. Aug,—You are quite right. But I want you to keep firm hold of this too. When I asked you whether you know that you exist, it appeared that you know not only this but two other things as well. Ev.—I remember that too. Aug.—Now to which of the three do you understand all that impinges on the bodily senses to pertain? I mean, in which class of things would you put all that we perceive by means of the eyes or any other bodily organ? Would you say that all this belongs to the class that merely exists, or to that which also has life, or to that which has intelligence as well? Ev.—In that which merely exists. Aug.— And where would you put the senses? Ev.—In that which has life. Aug.—And which do you judge to be superior, the senses or their objects? Ev.—The senses surely. Aug.—Why? Ev.—Because that which has life is superior to what merely exists.
12. Aug.—What about the interior sense, which we have discovered to be inferior to reason, and possessed by us in common with the beasts? Do you have any hesitation in putting it higher than the senses by means of which we come into contact with corporeal objects, and which you have said are to be reckoned superior to corporeal objects? Ev.— I should have no hesitation. Aug.—I should like to know why not. You cannot say that the interior sense is to be placed in the category of intelligent things, for it is found in beasts which have no intelligence. This being so, I ask why you put the interior sense higher than the senses which perceive corporeal objects, since both belong to the class of things that have life. You put the bodily senses above corporeal objects just because they belong to the kind of things which merely exist, while it belongs to the kind which also live. So also does the interior sense. Tell me, then, why you think it superior. If you say it is because the interior sense perceives the other senses, I do not believe you will be able to find a rule by which we can establish that every perceiving thing is superior to what it perceives. That would mean that we should be compelled to say that every intelligence is superior to that which it knows. But that is false; for man knows wisdom but is not superior to wisdom. Wherefore consider for what reason you think that the interior sense is superior to the senses by which we perceive corporeal objects. Ev.—It is because I recognize that it is in some kind of way a ruler and judge among the other senses. If they failed in their duty it
ON FREE WILL 1^3 would be like a master demanding a debt from a servant, as we just recently were saying. The eye cannot see whether it has vision or not and therefore it cannot judge where it is defective or where it is sufficient. That is what the interior sense does, as when it teaches a beast to open its eyes and supply what it perceives is lacking. No one doubts that he who judges is superior to that over which he exercises judgment. Aug.—You observe, then, that a bodily sense also judges in a manner corporeal objects? Pleasure and pain fall within its jurisdiction, when the body is affected gently or harshly. Just as the interior sense judges whether the sight of the eyes is defective or adequate, so sight judges what is defective or adequate in colours. Just as the interior sense judges of our hearing whether it is sufficient or defective, so the sense of hearing judges voices, whether they flow smoothly or are noisily harsh. We need not go over the other senses. You observe already, I think, what I wish to say. The interior sense judges the bodily senses, approving their integrity and demanding that they do their duty, just as the bodily senses judge corporeal objects approving of gentleness and reproving the opposite. Ev,—I see that and agree that it is true, vi, 13. Aug,—Now consider whether reason also judges of the interior sense. I am not asking whether you have any doubts as to its superiority, for I have no doubt that you judge it to be superior. Nor perhaps is it worth inquiring whether reason judges of the interior sense. For about those things which are inferior to reason, that is, about corporeal objects, bodily senses and the interior sense, reason alone tells us how one is superior to another and how reason is more excellent than them all. How could it do so if it were not a judge over them? Ev.—That is obvious. Aug.—A nature which not only exists but also lives, like that of the beast, though it have not intelligence, is higher than a nature which merely exists and has no life, like an inanimate object. And higher still is a nature which exists and lives and has intelligence, like the rational mind in man. Surely you do not think that in us, that is, in a complete human nature, anything can be found more excellent than that which we have put third among these three levels of being? Obviously we have a body, and life which animates the body. These two things we recognize that beasts also have. But there is a third thing, the head, as it were, or the eye of our soul, or whatever else more fitly describes reason and intelligence, which beasts do not have.
Can you, I pray, find anything in human nature higher than reason? Ev.—I see nothing at all that could be superior.
144 Augustine: earlier wr.itings
14. Aug,—Ifj now, we could find something which you could unhesitatingly recognize not only as existing but also as superior to our reason, would you have any hesitation in calling it, whatever it may be, God? Ev.—Well, I should not without hesitation give the name, God, to anything that I might find better than the best element in my natural composition. I do not wish to say simply that God is that to which my reason is inferior, but that above which there is no superior. Aug.—Clearly so, for it is God who has given to your reason to have these true and pious views of him. But, I ask, supposing you find nothing superior to our reason save what is eternal and unchangeable, will you hesitate to call that God? You realize that bodies are mutable; and it is evident that life which animates the body is not without mutability by reason of its varying affections. Even reason is proved to be mutable, for sometimes it strives to reach the truth and sometimes it does not so strive. Sometimes it reaches the truth and sometimes it does not. If without the aid of any bodily organ, neither by touch nor by taste nor by smell, neither by the ears nor the eyes, but by itself alone reason catches sight of that which is eternal and unchangeable, it must confess its own inferiority, and that the eternal and unchangeable is its God. Ev,—This I will certainly confess to be God than whom there is nothing superior. Aug.—Very well. It will be enough for me to show that there is something of this nature which you will be ready to confess to be God; or if there be something higher still that at least you will allow to be God. However that may be, it will be evident that God exists when with his aid I have demonstrated to you, as I promised, that there is something above reason. Ev.—Then proceed with your demonstration as you promise. vii, 15. Aug.—I shall do so. But I first ask you this. Is my bodily sense identical with yours, or is mine mine and yours yours only? If the latter were not the case I should not be able to see anything with my eyes which you also would not see. Ev.— admit that at once, though while each of us has severally the senses of sight, hearing and the rest, your senses and mine belong to the same class of things. For one man can both see and hear what another does not see or hear, and with any of the other senses can perceive what another does not perceive. Hence it is evident that your sense is yours alone and mine mine alone. Aug.—Will you make the same reply about the interior sense? Ev,—Exactly. My interior sense perceives my perceiving, and yours perceives yours. Often someone who sees something will