He said:

“As for the claim that His knowledge of what necessarily follows from Him is contained in His knowledge of His essence, this is empty talk. For in his view, His knowledge is negative in character; how, then, can knowledge of things be included in a negation? Being immaterial is negative in character, as is not being absent. Not being absent cannot mean being present, since a thing is not present to its own essence: what is present is distinct from that to which it is present. Presence can therefore be spoken of only in relation to two things—rather, its scope is broader. How, then, can knowledge of something other than oneself be included in a negation?

“Moreover, the capacity for laughter is distinct from humanity, so knowledge of it is distinct from knowledge of humanity. Our knowledge of the capacity for laughter is not contained in the concept of humanity, for that concept signifies this capacity neither as its entire meaning nor as part of its meaning, but through an external implication. Thus, knowing the capacity for laughter requires another mental form; without that form, we know it only potentially.”

He said:

“As for the example they have offered to distinguish between detailed knowledge