Classical Theism, Philosophy, and Religion Forum / The Beatific vision, and the cognoscibility of non-spatial entities

**Posted by Dan K.** 1/21/2016 11:59 pm

I understand that man's final end is the Beatific vision, whereby our intellect will receive complete illumination from God's essence, so that we see him as he is. I have a problem with understanding how this is logically possible though, because it seems that it would be impossible for our minds to see or conceive of a non-spatial or non-composite entity, without also being completely simple. I guess my question boils down to how can it be possible to see or conceive of a non-spatial thing? Does God's essence somehow expand in our mind according to its mode of conception?

**Posted by DanielCC** 1/22/2016 5:00 am

A quick clarification: do you mean intuit or directly perceive a non-spatial entity? Because to say we cannot is both question-begging and by no means intuitively obvious; it would require the defence of a very strong Physicalism, one which would also fall afoul of differences between visual spatiality and the equivocally spatial entities of theoretical physics.

Or do you mean how can we directly perceive it experience as opposed to causally infer a non-spatial entity? Here Thomas would likely say that in the natural course of things we couldn't though I would argue we already enjoy some direct perception of at least one immaterial entity I.e. our own minds.

Or do you mean something like the above question but specifically pertaining to an absolutely simple being?

**Posted by quotidian** 2/11/2016 12:34 am

There is a saying in the wisdom traditions and spiritual philosophy, of 'seeing with the eye of the heart'. It is also called the 'wisdom eye'. I think that is the inner meaning of the verse 'when thine eye be single then thy body will be full of light'. It refers to a different mode or way of seeing that can only be known through meditation.

**Posted by iwpoe** 2/11/2016 12:44 am

I'm inclined to say something like γνῶσις exists and is the means of intellection (both for Platonic and Hegelian reasons). Would we say this is equivalent to the Beatific vision or is it a special mode of γνῶσις or something else entirely?

**Posted by quotidian** 2/11/2016 5:16 am

I think such questions of comparison are very hard, in part because to actually reach such states requires utter commitment to a chosen discipline, which means that the aspirant will naturally understand it in the terms of that particular 'domain of discourse'. And then there's the whole question about whether the mystical vision is a universal, or if it's always culturally conditioned. I would like to think the beatific vision is universal whilst still recognizing the possibility of a plurality or variety (which is perhaps one meaning of 'in my Father's house there are many mansions'.) At least seeing it that way, the intellectuals will see it intellectually, the devotionals will see it 'erotically', Greeks will see it as Greeks, Indians will see it as Indians, all the while seeing the same thing, but seeing it differently. (Sorry if I'm drifting off into a bit of an epiphany.)

Last edited by quotidian (2/11/2016 5:17 am)

**Posted by iwpoe** 2/11/2016 7:41 am

It's hard for me to see how the final beatific vision could permit perspectival difference, unless our vision in death is not eternal but remains finite.