Alberta Wielkiego koncepcja intelektu możnościowego i czynnego a ujęcie Tomasza z Akwinu
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this article is to present the concept of the possible and active intellect in the philosophical texts of Albert the Great. Subsequently, to note to what extent the divisions concerning the intellect were adopted by Thomas Aquinas. In his early work De homine, there is a presentation of various concepts from the Peripatetic tradition, which Albert interprets in his own way, using mainly the settlements of Avicenna and Algazel. It is noteworthy that, apart from the discussions that Averroes led, Albert the Great was the first to present a comprehensive account, while emphasizing that the solutions in some authors were divergent. In his treatise De anima, on the other hand, recognizing the importance of the solutions of Aristotle himself, in whom exclusively there were two intellects, he begins a critique of the alternative interpretations operating among the Peripatetics. At the same time, he develops the issue of the possible and active intellect, seeing that what happened next with this concept should always be reduced to the original Aristotelian distinction. In this work, the overall concept of the four intellects already appears, three of which are expressions of the gradual development of the original possibility. This will mean that Albert’s understanding of the intellect will go a long way toward showing the continuous growth of the intellect until the development of the sacred intellect (intellectus sanctus), the concept of which he also takes over from Avicenna. The treatise De intellectu et intelligibili will already be a mere synthetic justification and demonstration of specific intellectual activities that are directed toward the goal of approaching God through the form of the assimilated intellect (intellectus assimilativus).
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.128 | 0.039 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".