{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.030780243378668574, 'fraction_numerical': 0.008589835361488905, 'mean_word_length': 4.923728813559322, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
A Note: Aquinas’s Use of Phantasia

1 Julius Weinberg, A Short History of Medieval, Philosophy (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1964), p. 201. •I suspect that Weinberg's reference here is either a misprint or a mistake. In the Summa Contra Gentiles, Chapter 58 of Book IV is a discussion entitled " On the Number of the Sacraments of the New Law," which contains no reference at all to the faculties of the internal senses let alone affirming that the phantasia is a distinct faculty of internal sense. It is Book II of the Summa Contra Gentiles which contains much discussion of epistemological issues together with explicit reference to the faculties of the internal senses. Yet Chapter 58 of Book II cannot justify Weinberg's analysis either. It is a discussion entitled "That in Human Beings there are not Three Souls: Nutritive, Sensitive, and Intellective." Although there is some discussion of epistemological questions in this chapter, nevertheless there is no explicit reference to any faculties of internal sense. Furthermore, in my reading of the Summa Contra Gentiles, I have never found a reference to the phantasia as a distinct faculty of the internal senses distinct from the imagination. Furthermore, when referring to the imagination in the Summa Contra Gentiles, Aquinas usually makes use of the Latin terms, " vis imaginativa " or "imaginatio " rather than " phantasia."