Those who see the light are in the light
(Some cryptic musings:)
Those who see the argument to be reasonable, have reason to argue it. (How can one see an argument one doesn’t argue? What makes an argument reasonable, other than its conclusions being true?)
Those who see the likeness to be agreeable, agree to like it. (How can one see a likeness one doesn’t like? What makes a likeness agreeable, other than the things likened falling under a common genus?)
Those who see the choice to be optionable, opt to choose it. (How can one see a choice one doesn’t choose? What makes a choice optionable, other than the its means leading to a good end?)
How can we find something reasonable, agreeable, optionable, without finding it to be a good argument, a good likeness, a good choice? How, when it comes to the immaterial intellect, can there be any gap between seeing that something can be done, and doing it?
I’m reminded of a line from Irenaeus of Lyon:
For as those who see the light are in the light, and partake of its splendour, so those who see God are in God, partaking of his splendour.
And I find myself compelled, finally, to read St. Thomas’s commentary on De Anima.