Abstract

Understanding of the actual existence of the material and spiritual antinomy, Scholastic philosophy is on the position to understand the main ideas, the knowledge of the object is external to the entity's sense of material there. . However, because the object is material, and to recognize the result is spiritual, in which there must be some kind of conversion, and this conversion is the key that perceptions among. This article will focus on perceptions of Scholastic philosophy for a preliminary discussion, attempts to explain the material and spiritual antinomy in the realism of the digestion. Points described by the following four dimensions: First, Juan feels like the discussion from the right, to indicate the emotional to the rational perception as well as connectivity possible. Second, perceptual objects but not of the main things, highlights the realism of the basic position. Four, but feel like the object representation of the true nature of the object, who wipe out the possibility of real understanding of the specific; hope through this article, and perceptions of Scholastic philosophy on an initial grasp. There is actually a paradox between the material and the spiritual regarding cognition. On the ground of ontology, scholasticism maintains that the object cognized by the cognitive subject is a material entity outside the subject's consciousness. Yet while the object belongs to the material and the result of cognition is spiritual, there must be some kind of transformation whose key lies in the sensible cognition. In this paper, we are to make a rudimentary exploration of the sensible epistemology of scholasticism in order to explain the resolution of the paradox between the material and the spiritual in ontology. And we will proceed along with four dimensions: first, to point out the possible link from sensibility to understanding and to reason by means of an discussion about the sense object; second, to present the most fundamental metaphysical structure of sensible cognition through demonstrating the conditions to form sensibility; third, to further stress the basic grounds of ontology by pointing out that the object of sensibility cognition id distinct from the subject; and fourth, the sense object indeed typifies the true nature of the object in order to point out the substantial possibility of cognition. It is hoped that through the discussion here, we can have a rudimentary understanding of the sensible epistemology of scholasticism