It is alleged that some time during the Medieval Ages it was debated “how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?” Of course, there is no evidence any question was actually asked, but merely reflects the enlightenment and radical reformation snubbing of any of the thinking of the great medieval minds.
On another note, it is a legitimate question, as it is a test case for beliefs about angelic metaphysics. What does it mean for an angel to be “at a place”? Are angels “subtle bodies” or bodiless minds? If the former, then how subtle is subtle? If the latter, then how do they interact in a physical world?
Taking the Thomistic approach as a incorporeal intelligence, two theologian-philosophers came up with two solutions:
I.
“since place does not confine spirit, any number of angels can dance (mentally, not physically) on the head of a pin a the same time” –Peter Kreeft (Angels and Demons) p.70
But goes on to note that if the pinhead is one “undivided place” then because angels are finite, only one finite spirit can contain one place at one time. Kreeft then says he doubts this answer: two people can concentrate one the same place at the same time, so why not angels? And if angels cooperate to do battle, then why not when “dancing”?
II.
“when an angel acts spiritually on a particular body [or thing], its presence at that place occupied by that body is also an occupation of that place. The body occupies that particular place extensively by filling it with its bulk. In contrast, the angel occupies that place intensively by surrounding it with its power. The body is enveloped by the place it occupied. In contrast the place is enveloped by the angel that is present there by its power…two angels cannot occupy the same place at the same time…one angel intensively occupying the head of a pin excludes all others from being spiritually present there.” –Mortimer Adler (The Angels and Us)
I say:
What would it mean for them to Dance:
First we would have to define “dancing”. Certainly if this is done via assumed bodies, then the question changes, and the answer is likely as many as the minimum size of an assumed body divided by area of pinhead. But on an incorporeal level, “dancing” is an angel exerting itself on a place.
How an Angel occupies a corporal place:
Aquinas argues this is not continual occupation: “Accordingly there is no need for saying that an angel can be deemed commensurate with a place, or that he occupies a space in the continuous; for this is proper to a located body which is endowed with dimensive quantity” (Summa I.52.1) an angel is in a place by “application of the angelic power in any manner whatever to any place.” (Summa I.52.1) This he argues against the idea that an angel cannot occupy a place at all, by quoting the Dominican Breviary “let thy Holy Angels who dwell herein, keep us in peace”. Is this not a statement of continual occupation? Surely “dwelling” implies more then exertion of causal power.
I argue that there are two kinds of power for an angel to exert, passive and active. Passive power is “dwelling” proper. This is when an angel is in continual awareness of a place, such as a Church or the guardian angel of a person (grant hypothetically). Active power however, is when an angel is exerting causative action on a place, such as moving a rock.
More then one Angel in the same place at the same time:
In Article 3, where Aquinas covers the question of if several angels can be at the same time in the same place, he answers no because it is “impossible for two complete causes to be the causes immediately of one and the same thing.” I have two objections to Aquinas here. First: I hold the distinction between active and passive power is valid, and therefore passive power, not being causal, is possible of more then one angel at the same time. Second: It would seem that more then one angel could cooperate in causing the same effect, such as moving a rock.
He anticipates this by saying:
“nor there is one proximate form of one thing, and there is one proximate mover, although there may be several remote movers. Nor can it be objected that several individuals may row a boat, since no one of them is a perfect mover, because no one man's strength is sufficient for moving the boat; while all together are as one mover, in so far as their united strengths all combine in producing the one movement.”
However, in the case of a row boat, a single person can move it by themselves, just not as well. So for humans, there can be more then one mover per thing, even complete mover. And because angels do differ in both power and glory, then it would seem that no one angel is always powerful enough for every action. Example: angelic combat such as in Daniel 10:13 “But the prince of the kingdom of Persia opposed me twenty-one days. So Michael, one of the chief princes, came to help me, and I left him there with the prince of the kingdom of Persia,” In this case, not all angels are perfect movers when conflicting with another angel. Hence, Aquinas’ objection seems to be invalid, and leaves open the possibility of more then one angel being the mover of a thing.
Dancing on the head of a pin:
Therefore, if the occupation by the angels is passive, the answer to the question is: infinite. Many spiritual beings can be aware of the same physical objects at the same time, knowing them intuitively of course, but still being continually aware of the particular place.
If the occupation is active, so that the angels are exerting power on the pinhead, then the question remains “infinite” but not in the same way. Kreeft’s observations are helpful here (see above). More then one angel can exert power on the location, contra Adler who doesn’t see any room for cooperative or competitive power being exerted by more then one angel. Several angels can move the pinhead, and several demons can work in opposition.
This helps solve a dilemma that could arise from Adler’s position. Can only one angel dwell in a Church? What is the nature of an individual place? Can an angel exert power on a pew, and thus prevent another from exerting power on the entire Church because part of the “place” is taken up by another power? How about the idea of Daniel where angels are in combat? Or multiple demons possessing a person? Limiting the occupation to “one” would seem to create unnecessary problems. Whereas, the better answer is infinite on better arguments.
Posts
2 comments:
Good post! Two quick points:
1. I too am inclined to agree with Kreeft on this issue. I'm not sure if Aquinas addresses this elsewhere in some commentary or what not but I am not at all convinced by his arguments in the Summa I.52.3. That an angel can act in a place as a complete mover does not, it seems to me, rule out more than one angel co-operating to act in the same place.
In his analogy of the men rowing, he reasons that angels, unlike humans, are more than equipped to act on any spatial object by virtue of their surpassing power. But inability/strength isn't the only reason persons co-operate to perform a task. One reason is for the sheer delight in the others company, or at least the delight in the act of co-operation. Such is the case, for instance, when a man and wife join in preparing a meal instead of leaving the task to one or the other. Certainly, either spouse may be perfectly capable of preparing the meal, but they share in the task as an expression of friendship.
Further, as you have pointed out concerning evil angels, I do not see (on the metaphysics alone) what it is that prevents one angel from opposing the act of another in the same place.
2. On another matter, I am not familiar with your use of the terms "active" and "passive power" here. I do know the scholastics often speak of active and passive potencies. Passive potencies refer to the power of a subject to receive an action and active potencies tells of the power of a subject to perform an action on something (God, for instance by virtue of his simplicity, has no passive potencies but an infinitude of active potency).
It sounds like what you call "passive power" is simply an angel cognizing an object (say, a Church) and "active power" an angel willing a certain effect on that object. Did I get you right?
Thanks!
I liked your point about co-operation for its own sake. I would think this would be especially true of the holy angels.
The "active" and "passive" I coined to explain the concept in my head as to why I disagreed with Aquinas. But yes, passive would be an angel cognizing, and active would be actual interaction with an object.
Post a Comment