Abstract Aristotle, as we have seen, posited an intellect in man which is “potential”; which “is what it is by virtue of becoming all things,” that is, by virtue of learning all thoughts; and which is a kind of “matter.”3 But nothing Aristotle said about what came to be known as the potential or material intellect reveals the kind of entity he supposed it to be, and one can only guess whether the question concerned him at all. The question of the nature of the potential human intellect did capture the attention of Alexander of Aphrodisias and Themistius, and they reached opposite conclusions. Alexander construed the human potential or material intellect as a mere disposition in the human organism, and Themistius construed it as a substance. The issue did not, however, carry any special import for Averroes’