An Eye Truer Than the Eye
If light is what lets us see, which of our powers deserves the name? The first chapter ranks the eye below the intellect by listing everything sight cannot do.
Light, the book begins, is what is seen and makes other things seen, and the name belongs most to whatever does the seeing. That makes the intellect a truer eye than the eye. Sight cannot see itself, cannot see far, cannot see behind a veil, sees only surfaces and misjudges size, taking the sun for something the size of a shield. The intellect knows itself and its own knowing, reaches past every distance and grasps causes and purposes. When it errs, the fault lies with imagination or false belief passing for understanding.
- perception
- intellect
- epistemology
- knowledge
- imagination
- reasoning
- human nature
Enter a dialogue
- If the intellect is a truer eye than sight, why do clever people so often reason their way into error?
- Light is so obvious that people notice it only when shadows fall. What do we fail to notice in the same way, on your account?
- Prophets and scholars, you write, are lamps because they help others see. Does a teacher who keeps knowledge to himself stop being a light?
- The eye cannot see itself, but the intellect knows itself and even knows that it knows. Why does that make the intellect more deserving of the name light?