SUMMA THEOLOGIAE IIa - QUESTIONS XXII-XXV

Index

Question 22.1 The subject of the soul's passions
Question 22.2
Question 22.3

Question 23.1 The differences of the soul's passions
Question 23.2
Question 23.3
Question 23.4

Question 24.1 The goodness and malice of the soul's passions
Question 24.2
Question 24.3
Question 24.4

Question 25.1 The relations of the soul's passions
Question 25.2
Question 25.3
Question 25.4

LatinEnglish
q. 22 pr. Post hoc considerandum est de passionibus animae, et primo, in generali; secundo, in speciali. In generali autem, quatuor occurrunt circa eas consideranda, primo quidem, de subiecto earum; secundo, de differentia earum; tertio, de comparatione earum ad invicem; quarto, de malitia et bonitate ipsarum. Circa primum quaeruntur tria. Primo, utrum aliqua passio sit in anima. Secundo, utrum magis in parte appetitiva quam in apprehensiva. Tertio, utrum magis sit in appetitu sensitivo quam intellectivo, qui dicitur voluntas. Question 22. The subject of the soul's passions Is there any passion in the soul? Is passion in the appetitive rather than in the apprehensive part? Is passion in the sensitive appetite rather than in the intellectual appetite, which is called the will?
q. 22 a. 1 arg. 1 Ad primum sic proceditur. Videtur quod nulla passio sit in anima. Pati enim est proprium materiae. Sed anima non est composita ex materia et forma, ut in primo habitum est. Ergo nulla passio est in anima. Objection 1. It would seem that there is no passion in the soul. Because passivity belongs to matter. But the soul is not composed of matter and form, as stated in the I, 75, 5. Therefore there is no passion in the soul.
q. 22 a. 1 arg. 2 Praeterea, passio est motus, ut dicitur in III Physic. Sed anima non movetur, ut probatur in I de anima. Ergo passio non est in anima. Objection 2. Further, passion is movement, as is stated in Phys. iii, 3. But the soul is not moved, as is proved in De Anima i, 3. Therefore passion is not in the soul.
q. 22 a. 1 arg. 3 Praeterea, passio est via in corruptionem, nam omnis passio, magis facta, abiicit a substantia, ut dicitur in libro topicorum. Sed anima est incorruptibilis. Ergo nulla passio est in anima. Objection 3. Further, passion is the road to corruption; since "every passion, when increased, alters the substance," as is stated in Topic. vi, 6. But the soul is incorruptible. Therefore no passion is in the soul.
q. 22 a. 1 s. c. Sed contra est quod apostolus dicit, ad Rom. VII, cum essemus in carne, passiones peccatorum, quae per legem erant, operabantur in membris nostris. Peccata autem sunt proprie in anima. Ergo et passiones, quae dicuntur peccatorum, sunt in anima. On the contrary, The Apostle says (Romans 7:5): "When we were in the flesh, the passions of sins which were by the law, did the work in our members." Now sins are, properly speaking, in the soul. Therefore passions also, which are described as being "of sins," are in the soul.
q. 22 a. 1 co. Respondeo dicendum quod pati dicitur tripliciter. Uno modo, communiter, secundum quod omne recipere est pati, etiam si nihil abiiciatur a re, sicut si dicatur aerem pati, quando illuminatur. Hoc autem magis proprie est perfici, quam pati. Alio modo dicitur pati proprie, quando aliquid recipitur cum alterius abiectione. Sed hoc contingit dupliciter. Quandoque enim abiicitur id quod non est conveniens rei, sicut cum corpus animalis sanatur, dicitur pati, quia recipit sanitatem, aegritudine abiecta. Alio modo, quando e converso contingit, sicut aegrotare dicitur pati, quia recipitur infirmitas, sanitate abiecta. Et hic est propriissimus modus passionis. Nam pati dicitur ex eo quod aliquid trahitur ad agentem, quod autem recedit ab eo quod est sibi conveniens, maxime videtur ad aliud trahi. Et similiter in I de Generat. dicitur quod, quando ex ignobiliori generatur nobilius, est generatio simpliciter, et corruptio secundum quid, e converso autem quando ex nobiliori ignobilius generatur. Et his tribus modis contingit esse in anima passionem. Nam secundum receptionem tantum dicitur quod sentire et intelligere est quoddam pati. Passio autem cum abiectione non est nisi secundum transmutationem corporalem, unde passio proprie dicta non potest competere animae nisi per accidens, inquantum scilicet compositum patitur. Sed et in hoc est diversitas, nam quando huiusmodi transmutatio fit in deterius, magis proprie habet rationem passionis, quam quando fit in melius. Unde tristitia magis proprie est passio quam laetitia. I answer that, The word "passive" is used in three ways. First, in a general way, according as whatever receives something is passive, although nothing is taken from it: thus we may say that the air is passive when it is lit up. But this is to be perfected rather than to be passive. Secondly, the word "passive" is employed in its proper sense, when something is received, while something else is taken away: and this happens in two ways. For sometimes that which is lost is unsuitable to the thing: thus when an animal's body is healed, and loses sickness. At other times the contrary occurs: thus to ail is to be passive; because the ailment is received and health is lost. And here we have passion in its most proper acceptation. For a thing is said to be passive from its being drawn to the agent: and when a thing recedes from what is suitable to it, then especially does it appear to be drawn to something else. Moreover in De Generat. i, 3 it is stated that when a more excellent thing is generated from a less excellent, we have generation simply, and corruption in a particular respect: whereas the reverse is the case, when from a more excellent thing, a less excellent is generated. In these three ways it happens that passions are in the soul. For in the sense of mere reception, we speak of "feeling and understanding as being a kind of passion" (De Anima i, 5). But passion, accompanied by the loss of something, is only in respect of a bodily transmutation; wherefore passion properly so called cannot be in the soul, save accidentally, in so far, to wit, as the "composite" is passive. But here again we find a difference; because when this transmutation is for the worse, it has more of the nature of a passion, than when it is for the better: hence sorrow is more properly a passion than joy.
q. 22 a. 1 ad 1 Ad primum igitur dicendum quod pati, secundum quod est cum abiectione et transmutatione, proprium est materiae, unde non invenitur nisi in compositis ex materia et forma. Sed pati prout importat receptionem solam, non est necessarium quod sit materiae, sed potest esse cuiuscumque existentis in potentia. Anima autem, etsi non sit composita ex materia et forma, habet tamen aliquid potentialitatis, secundum quam convenit sibi recipere et pati, secundum quod intelligere pati est, ut dicitur in III de anima. Reply to Objection 1. It belongs to matter to be passive in such a way as to lose something and to be transmuted: hence this happens only in those things that are composed of matter and form. But passivity, as implying mere reception, need not be in matter, but can be in anything that is in potentiality. Now, though the soul is not composed of matter and form, yet it has something of potentiality, in respect of which it is competent to receive or to be passive, according as the act of understanding is a kind of passion, as stated in De Anima iii, 4.
q. 22 a. 1 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod pati et moveri, etsi non conveniat animae per se, convenit tamen ei per accidens, ut in I de anima dicitur. Reply to Objection 2. Although it does not belong to the soul in itself to be passive and to be moved, yet it belongs accidentally as stated in De Anima i, 3.
q. 22 a. 1 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod ratio illa procedit de passione quae est cum transmutatione ad deterius. Et huiusmodi passio animae convenire non potest nisi per accidens, per se autem convenit composito, quod est corruptibile. Reply to Objection 3. This argument is true of passion accompanied by transmutation to something worse. And passion, in this sense, is not found in the soul, except accidentally: but the composite, which is corruptible, admits of it by reason of its own nature.
q. 22 a. 2 arg. 1 Ad secundum sic proceditur. Videtur quod passio magis sit in parte animae apprehensiva quam in parte appetitiva. Quod enim est primum in quolibet genere videtur esse maximum eorum quae sunt in genere illo, et causa aliorum, ut dicitur in II Metaphys. Sed passio prius invenitur in parte apprehensiva quam in parte appetitiva, non enim patitur pars appetitiva, nisi passione praecedente in parte apprehensiva. Ergo passio est magis in parte apprehensiva quam in parte appetitiva. Objection 1. It would seem that passion is in the apprehensive part of the soul rather than in the appetitive. Because that which is first in any genus, seems to rank first among all things that are in that genus, and to be their cause, as is stated in Metaph. ii, 1. Now passion is found to be in the apprehensive, before being in the appetitive part: for the appetitive part is not affected unless there be a previous passion in the apprehensive part. Therefore passion is in the apprehensive part more than in the appetitive.
q. 22 a. 2 arg. 2 Praeterea, quod est magis activum, videtur esse minus passivum, actio enim passioni opponitur. Sed pars appetitiva est magis activa quam pars apprehensiva. Ergo videtur quod in parte apprehensiva magis sit passio. Objection 2. Further, what is more active is less passive; for action is contrary to passion. Now the appetitive part is more active than the apprehensive part. Therefore it seems that passion is more in the apprehensive part.
q. 22 a. 2 arg. 3 Praeterea, sicut appetitus sensitivus est virtus in organo corporali, ita et vis apprehensiva sensitiva. Sed passio animae fit, proprie loquendo, secundum transmutationem corporalem. Ergo non magis est passio in parte appetitiva sensitiva quam in apprehensiva sensitiva. Objection 3. Further, just as the sensitive appetite is the power of a corporeal organ, so is the power of sensitive apprehension. But passion in the soul occurs, properly speaking, in respect of a bodily transmutation. Therefore passion is not more in the sensitive appetitive than in the sensitive apprehensive part.
q. 22 a. 2 s. c. Sed contra est quod Augustinus dicit, in IX de Civ. Dei, quod motus animi, quos Graeci pathe, nostri autem quidam, sicut Cicero, perturbationes, quidam affectiones vel affectus, quidam vero, sicut in Graeco habetur, expressius passiones vocant. Ex quo patet quod passiones animae sunt idem quod affectiones. Sed affectiones manifeste pertinent ad partem appetitivam, et non ad apprehensivam. Ergo et passiones magis sunt in appetitiva quam in apprehensiva. On the contrary, Augustine says (De Civ. Dei ix, 4) that "the movement of the soul, which the Greeks called pathe, are styled by some of our writers, Cicero [Those things which the Greeks call pathe, we prefer to call disturbances rather than diseases (Tusc. iv. 5)] for instance, disturbances; by some, affections or emotions; while others rendering the Greek more accurately, call them passions." From this it is evident that the passions of the soul are the same as affections. But affections manifestly belong to the appetitive, and not to the apprehensive part. Therefore the passions are in the appetitive rather than in the apprehensive part.
q. 22 a. 2 co. Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut iam dictum est, in nomine passionis importatur quod patiens trahatur ad id quod est agentis. Magis autem trahitur anima ad rem per vim appetitivam quam per vim apprehensivam. Nam per vim appetitivam anima habet ordinem ad ipsas res, prout in seipsis sunt, unde philosophus dicit, in VI Metaphys., quod bonum et malum, quae sunt obiecta appetitivae potentiae, sunt in ipsis rebus. Vis autem apprehensiva non trahitur ad rem, secundum quod in seipsa est; sed cognoscit eam secundum intentionem rei, quam in se habet vel recipit secundum proprium modum. Unde et ibidem dicitur quod verum et falsum, quae ad cognitionem pertinent, non sunt in rebus, sed in mente. Unde patet quod ratio passionis magis invenitur in parte appetitiva quam in parte apprehensiva. I answer that, As we have already stated (1) the word "passion" implies that the patient is drawn to that which belongs to the agent. Now the soul is drawn to a thing by the appetitive power rather than by the apprehensive power: because the soul has, through its appetitive power, an order to things as they are in themselves: hence the Philosopher says (Metaph. vi, 4) that "good and evil," i.e. the objects of the appetitive power, "are in things themselves." On the other hand the apprehensive power is not drawn to a thing, as it is in itself; but knows it by reason of an "intention" of the thing, which "intention" it has in itself, or receives in its own way. Hence we find it stated (Metaph. vi, 4) that "the true and the false," which pertain to knowledge, "are not in things, but in the mind." Consequently it is evident that the nature of passion is consistent with the appetitive, rather than with the apprehensive part.
q. 22 a. 2 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod e contrario se habet in his quae pertinent ad perfectionem, et in his quae pertinent ad defectum. Nam in his quae ad perfectionem pertinent, attenditur intensio per accessum ad unum primum principium, cui quanto est aliquid propinquius, tanto est magis intensum, sicut intensio lucidi attenditur per accessum ad aliquid summe lucidum, cui quanto aliquid magis appropinquat, tanto est magis lucidum. Sed in his quae ad defectum pertinent, attenditur intensio non per accessum ad aliquod summum, sed per recessum a perfecto, quia in hoc ratio privationis et defectus consistit. Et ideo quanto minus recedit a primo, tanto est minus intensum, et propter hoc, in principio semper invenitur parvus defectus, qui postea procedendo magis multiplicatur. Passio autem ad defectum pertinet, quia est alicuius secundum quod est in potentia. Unde in his quae appropinquant primo perfecto, scilicet Deo, invenitur parum de ratione potentiae et passionis, in aliis autem consequenter, plus. Et sic etiam in priori vi animae, scilicet apprehensiva, invenitur minus de ratione passionis. Reply to Objection 1. In things relating to perfection the case is the opposite, in comparison to things that pertain to defect. Because in things relating to perfection, intensity is in proportion to the approach to one first principle; to which the nearer a thing approaches, the more intense it is. Thus the intensity of a thing possessed of light depends on its approach to something endowed with light in a supreme degree, to which the nearer a thing approaches the more light it possesses. But in things that relate to defect, intensity depends, not on approach to something supreme, but in receding from that which is perfect; because therein consists the very notion of privation and defect. Wherefore the less a thing recedes from that which stands first, the less intense it is: and the result is that at first we always find some small defect, which afterwards increases as it goes on. Now passion pertains to defect, because it belongs to a thing according as it is in potentiality. Wherefore in those things that approach to the Supreme Perfection, i.e. to God, there is but little potentiality and passion: while in other things, consequently, there is more. Hence also, in the supreme, i.e. the apprehensive, power of the soul, passion is found less than in the other powers.
q. 22 a. 2 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod vis appetitiva dicitur esse magis activa, quia est magis principium exterioris actus. Et hoc habet ex hoc ipso ex quo habet quod sit magis passiva, scilicet ex hoc quod habet ordinem ad rem ut est in seipsa, per actionem enim exteriorem pervenimus ad consequendas res. Reply to Objection 2. The appetitive power is said to be more active, because it is, more than the apprehensive power, the principle of the exterior action: and this for the same reason that it is more passive, namely, its being related to things as existing in themselves: since it is through the external action that we come into contact with things.
q. 22 a. 2 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod, sicut in primo dictum est, dupliciter organum animae potest transmutari. Uno modo, transmutatione spirituali, secundum quod recipit intentionem rei. Et hoc per se invenitur in actu apprehensivae virtutis sensitivae, sicut oculus immutatur a visibili, non ita quod coloretur, sed ita quod recipiat intentionem coloris. Est autem alia naturalis transmutatio organi, prout organum transmutatur quantum ad suam naturalem dispositionem, puta quod calefit aut infrigidatur, vel alio simili modo transmutatur. Et huiusmodi transmutatio per accidens se habet ad actum apprehensivae virtutis sensitivae, puta cum oculus fatigatur ex forti intuitu, vel dissolvitur ex vehementia visibilis. Sed ad actum appetitus sensitivi per se ordinatur huiusmodi transmutatio, unde in definitione motuum appetitivae partis, materialiter ponitur aliqua naturalis transmutatio organi; sicut dicitur quod ira est accensio sanguinis circa cor. Unde patet quod ratio passionis magis invenitur in actu sensitivae virtutis appetitivae, quam in actu sensitivae virtutis apprehensivae, licet utraque sit actus organi corporalis. Reply to Objection 3. As stated in the I, 78, 3 the organs of the soul can be changed in two ways. First, by a spiritual change, in respect of which the organ receives an "intention" of the object. And this is essential to the act of the sensitive apprehension: thus is the eye changed by the object visible, not by being colored, but by receiving an intention of color. But the organs are receptive of another and natural change, which affects their natural disposition; for instance, when they become hot or cold, or undergo some similar change. And whereas this kind of change is accidental to the act of the sensitive apprehension; for instance, if the eye be wearied through gazing intently at something or be overcome by the intensity of the object: on the other hand, it is essential to the act of the sensitive appetite; wherefore the material element in the definitions of the movements of the appetitive part, is the natural change of the organ; for instance, "anger is" said to be "a kindling of the blood about the heart." Hence it is evident that the notion of passion is more consistent with the act of the sensitive appetite, than with that of the sensitive apprehension, although both are actions of a corporeal organ.
q. 22 a. 3 arg. 1 Ad tertium sic proceditur. Videtur quod passio non magis sit in appetitu sensitivo quam in appetitu intellectivo. Dicit enim Dionysius, II cap. de Div. Nom., quod Hierotheus ex quadam est doctus diviniore inspiratione, non solum discens, sed etiam patiens divina. Sed passio divinorum non potest pertinere ad appetitum sensitivum, cuius obiectum est bonum sensibile. Ergo passio est in appetitu intellectivo, sicut et in sensitivo. Objection 1. It would seem that passion is not more in the sensitive than in the intellectual appetite. For Dionysius declares (Div. Nom. ii) Hierotheus "to be taught by a kind of yet more Godlike instruction; not only by learning Divine things, but also by suffering [patiens] them." But the sensitive appetite cannot "suffer" Divine things, since its object is the sensible good. Therefore passion is in the intellectual appetite, just as it is also in the sensitive appetite.
q. 22 a. 3 arg. 2 Praeterea, quanto activum est potentius, tanto passio est fortior. Sed obiectum appetitus intellectivi, quod est bonum universale, est potentius activum quam obiectum appetitus sensitivi, quod est bonum particulare. Ergo ratio passionis magis invenitur in appetitu intellectivo quam in appetitu sensitivo. Objection 2. Further, the more powerful the active force, the more intense the passion. But the object of the intellectual appetite, which is the universal good, is a more powerful active force than the object of the sensitive appetite, which is a particular good. Therefore passion is more consistent with the intellectual than with the sensitive appetite.
q. 22 a. 3 arg. 3 Praeterea, gaudium et amor passiones quaedam esse dicuntur. Sed haec inveniuntur in appetitu intellectivo, et non solum in sensitivo, alioquin non attribuerentur in Scripturis Deo et Angelis. Ergo passiones non magis sunt in appetitu sensitivo quam in intellectivo. Objection 3. Further, joy and love are said to be passions. But these are to be found in the intellectual and not only in the sensitive appetite: else they would not be ascribed by the Scriptures to God and the angels. Therefore the passions are not more in the sensitive than in the intellectual appetite.
q. 22 a. 3 s. c. Sed contra est quod dicit Damascenus, in II libro, describens animales passiones, passio est motus appetitivae virtutis sensibilis in imaginatione boni vel mali. Et aliter, passio est motus irrationalis animae per suspicionem boni vel mali. On the contrary, Damascene says (De Fide Orth. ii, 22), while describing the animal passions: "Passion is a movement of the sensitive appetite when we imagine good or evil: in other words, passion is a movement of the irrational soul, when we think of good or evil."
q. 22 a. 3 co. Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut iam dictum est, passio proprie invenitur ubi est transmutatio corporalis. Quae quidem invenitur in actibus appetitus sensitivi; et non solum spiritualis, sicut est in apprehensione sensitiva, sed etiam naturalis. In actu autem appetitus intellectivi non requiritur aliqua transmutatio corporalis, quia huiusmodi appetitus non est virtus alicuius organi. Unde patet quod ratio passionis magis proprie invenitur in actu appetitus sensitivi quam intellectivi; ut etiam patet per definitiones Damasceni inductas. I answer that, As stated above (Article 1) passion is properly to be found where there is corporeal transmutation. This corporeal transmutation is found in the act of the sensitive appetite, and is not only spiritual, as in the sensitive apprehension, but also natural. Now there is no need for corporeal transmutation in the act of the intellectual appetite: because this appetite is not exercised by means of a corporeal organ. It is therefore evident that passion is more properly in the act of the sensitive appetite, than in that of the intellectual appetite; and this is again evident from the definitions of Damascene quoted above.
q. 22 a. 3 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod passio divinorum ibi dicitur affectio ad divina, et coniunctio ad ipsa per amorem, quod tamen fit sine transmutatione corporali. Reply to Objection 1. By "suffering" Divine things is meant being well affected towards them, and united to them by love: and this takes place without any alteration in the body.
q. 22 a. 3 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod magnitudo passionis non solum dependet ex virtute agentis, sed etiam ex passibilitate patientis, quia quae sunt bene passibilia, multum patiuntur etiam a parvis activis. Licet ergo obiectum appetitus intellectivi sit magis activum quam obiectum appetitus sensitivi, tamen appetitus sensitivus est magis passivus. Reply to Objection 2. Intensity of passion depends not only on the power of the agent, but also on the passibility of the patient: because things that are disposed to passion, suffer much even from petty agents. Therefore although the object of the intellectual appetite has greater activity than the object of the sensitive appetite, yet the sensitive appetite is more passive.
q. 22 a. 3 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod amor et gaudium et alia huiusmodi, cum attribuuntur Deo vel Angelis, aut hominibus secundum appetitum intellectivum, significant simplicem actum voluntatis cum similitudine effectus, absque passione. Unde dicit Augustinus, IX de Civ. Dei, sancti Angeli et sine ira puniunt et sine miseriae compassione subveniunt. Et tamen, istarum nomina passionum, consuetudine locutionis humanae, etiam in eos usurpantur, propter quandam operum similitudinem, non propter affectionum infirmitatem. Reply to Objection 3. When love and joy and the like are ascribed to God or the angels, or to man in respect of his intellectual appetite, they signify simple acts of the will having like effects, but without passion. Hence Augustine says (De Civ. Dei ix, 5): "The holy angels feel no anger while they punish . . . no fellow-feeling with misery while they relieve the unhappy: and yet ordinary human speech is wont to ascribe to them also these passions by name, because, although they have none of our weakness, their acts bear a certain resemblance to ours."
q. 23 pr. Deinde considerandum est de passionum differentia ad invicem. Et circa hoc quaeruntur quatuor. Primo, utrum passiones quae sunt in concupiscibili, sint diversae ab his quae sunt in irascibili. Secundo, utrum contrarietas passionum irascibili sit secundum contrarietatem boni et mali. Tertio, utrum sit aliqua passio non habens contrarium. Quarto, utrum sint aliquae passiones differentes specie, in eadem potentia, non contrariae ad invicem. Question 23. How the passions differ from one another Are the passions of the concupiscible part different from those of the irascible part? Is the contrariety of passions in the irascible part based on the contrariety of good and evil? Is there any passion that has no contrary? In the same power, are there any passions, differing in species, but not contrary to one another?
q. 23 a. 1 arg. 1 Ad primum sic proceditur. Videtur quod passiones eaedem sint in irascibili et in concupiscibili. Dicit enim philosophus, in II Ethic., quod passiones animae sunt quas sequitur gaudium et tristitia. Sed gaudium et tristitia sunt in concupiscibili. Ergo omnes passiones sunt in concupiscibili. Non ergo sunt aliae in irascibili, et aliae in concupiscibili. Objection 1. It would seem that the same passions are in the irascible and concupiscible parts. For the Philosopher says (Ethic. ii, 5) that the passions of the soul are those emotions "which are followed by joy or sorrow." But joy and sorrow are in the concupiscible part. Therefore all the passions are in the concupiscible part, and not some in the irascible, others in the concupiscible part.
q. 23 a. 1 arg. 2 Praeterea, Matth. XIII, super illud, simile est regnum caelorum fermento etc., dicit Glossa Hieronymi, in ratione possideamus prudentiam, in irascibili odium vitiorum, in concupiscibili desiderium virtutum. Sed odium est in concupiscibili, sicut et amor, cui contrariatur, ut dicitur in II Topic. Ergo eadem passio est in concupiscibili et irascibili. Objection 2. Further, on the words of Matthew 13:33, "The kingdom of heaven is like to leaven," etc., Jerome's gloss says: "We should have prudence in the reason; hatred of vice in the irascible faculty; desire of virtue, in the concupiscible part." But hatred is in the concupiscible faculty, as also is love, of which it is the contrary, as is stated in Topic. ii, 7. Therefore the same passion is in the concupiscible and irascible faculties.
q. 23 a. 1 arg. 3 Praeterea, passiones et actus differunt specie secundum obiecta. Sed passionum irascibilis et concupiscibilis eadem obiecta sunt, scilicet bonum et malum. Ergo eaedem sunt passiones irascibilis et concupiscibilis. Objection 3. Further, passions and actions differ specifically according to their objects. But the objects of the irascible and concupiscible passions are the same, viz. good and evil. Therefore the same passions are in the irascible and concupiscible faculties.
q. 23 a. 1 s. c. Sed contra, diversarum potentiarum actus sunt specie diversi, sicut videre et audire. Sed irascibilis et concupiscibilis sunt duae potentiae dividentes appetitum sensitivum, ut in primo dictum est. Ergo, cum passiones sint motus appetitus sensitivi, ut supra dictum est, passiones quae sunt in irascibili, erunt aliae secundum speciem a passionibus quae sunt in concupiscibili. On the contrary, The acts of the different powers differ in species; for instance, to see, and to hear. But the irascible and the concupiscible are two powers into which the sensitive appetite is divided, as stated in the I, 81, 2. Therefore, since the passions are movements of the sensitive appetite, as stated above (Question 22, Article 3), the passions of the irascible faculty are specifically distinct from those of the concupiscible part.
q. 23 a. 1 co. Respondeo dicendum quod passiones quae sunt in irascibili et in concupiscibili, differunt specie. Cum enim diversae potentiae habeant diversa obiecta, ut in primo dictum est, necesse est quod passiones diversarum potentiarum ad diversa obiecta referantur. Unde multo magis passiones diversarum potentiarum specie differunt, maior enim differentia obiecti requiritur ad diversificandam speciem potentiarum, quam ad diversificandam speciem passionum vel actuum. Sicut enim in naturalibus diversitas generis consequitur diversitatem potentiae materiae, diversitas autem speciei diversitatem formae in eadem materia; ita in actibus animae, actus ad diversas potentias pertinentes, sunt non solum specie, sed etiam genere diversi; actus autem vel passiones respicientes diversa obiecta specialia comprehensa sub uno communi obiecto unius potentiae, differunt sicut species illius generis. Ad cognoscendum ergo quae passiones sint in irascibili, et quae in concupiscibili, oportet assumere obiectum utriusque potentiae. Dictum est autem in primo quod obiectum potentiae concupiscibilis est bonum vel malum sensibile simpliciter acceptum, quod est delectabile vel dolorosum. Sed quia necesse est quod interdum anima difficultatem vel pugnam patiatur in adipiscendo aliquod huiusmodi bonum, vel fugiendo aliquod huiusmodi malum, inquantum hoc est quodammodo elevatum supra facilem potestatem animalis; ideo ipsum bonum vel malum, secundum quod habet rationem ardui vel difficilis, est obiectum irascibilis. Quaecumque ergo passiones respiciunt absolute bonum vel malum, pertinent ad concupiscibilem; ut gaudium, tristitia, amor, odium, et similia. Quaecumque vero passiones respiciunt bonum vel malum sub ratione ardui, prout est aliquid adipiscibile vel fugibile cum aliqua difficultate, pertinent ad irascibilem; ut audacia, timor, spes, et huiusmodi. I answer that, The passions of the irascible part differ in species from those of the concupiscible faculty. For since different powers have different objects, as stated in the I, 77, 3, the passions of different powers must of necessity be referred to different objects. Much more, therefore, do the passions of different faculties differ in species; since a greater difference in the object is required to diversify the species of the powers, than to diversify the species of passions or actions. For just as in the physical order, diversity of genus arises from diversity in the potentiality of matter, while diversity of species arises from diversity of form in the same matter; so in the acts of the soul, those that belong to different powers, differ not only in species but also in genus, while acts and passions regarding different specific objects, included under the one common object of a single power, differ as the species of that genus. In order, therefore, to discern which passions are in the irascible, and which in the concupiscible, we must take the object of each of these powers. For we have stated in the I, 81, 2, that the object of the concupiscible power is sensible good or evil, simply apprehended as such, which causes pleasure or pain. But, since the soul must, of necessity, experience difficulty or struggle at times, in acquiring some such good, or in avoiding some such evil, in so far as such good or evil is more than our animal nature can easily acquire or avoid; therefore this very good or evil, inasmuch as it is of an arduous or difficult nature, is the object of the irascible faculty. Therefore whatever passions regard good or evil absolutely, belong to the concupiscible power; for instance, joy, sorrow, love, hatred, and such like: whereas those passions which regard good or bad as arduous, through being difficult to obtain or avoid, belong to the irascible faculty; such are daring, fear, hope and the like.
q. 23 a. 1 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod, sicut in primo dictum est, ad hoc vis irascibilis data est animalibus, ut tollantur impedimenta quibus concupiscibilis in suum obiectum tendere prohibetur, vel propter difficultatem boni adipiscendi, vel propter difficultatem mali superandi. Et ideo passiones irascibilis omnes terminantur ad passiones concupiscibilis. Et secundum hoc, etiam passiones quae sunt in irascibili, consequitur gaudium et tristitia, quae sunt in concupiscibili. Reply to Objection 1. As stated in the I, 81, 2, the irascible faculty is bestowed on animals, in order to remove the obstacles that hinder the concupiscible power from tending towards its object, either by making some good difficult to obtain, or by making some evil hard to avoid. The result is that all the irascible passions terminate in the concupiscible passions: and thus it is that even the passions which are in the irascible faculty are followed by joy and sadness which are in the concupiscible faculty.
q. 23 a. 1 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod odium vitiorum attribuit Hieronymus irascibili, non propter rationem odii, quae proprie competit concupiscibili; sed propter impugnationem, quae pertinet ad irascibilem. Reply to Objection 2. Jerome ascribes hatred of vice to the irascible faculty, not by reason of hatred, which is properly a concupiscible passion; but on account of the struggle, which belongs to the irascible power.
q. 23 a. 1 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod bonum inquantum est delectabile, movet concupiscibilem. Sed si bonum habeat quandam difficultatem ad adipiscendum, ex hoc ipso habet aliquid repugnans concupiscibili. Et ideo necessarium fuit esse aliam potentiam quae in id tenderet. Et eadem ratio est de malis. Et haec potentia est irascibilis. Unde ex consequenti passiones concupiscibilis et irascibilis specie differunt. Reply to Objection 3. Good, inasmuch as it is delightful, moves the concupiscible power. But if it prove difficult to obtain, from this very fact it has a certain contrariety to the concupiscible power: and hence the need of another power tending to that good. The same applies to evil. And this power is the irascible faculty. Consequently the concupiscible passions are specifically different from the irascible passions.
q. 23 a. 2 arg. 1 Ad secundum sic proceditur. Videtur quod contrarietas passionum irascibilis non sit nisi secundum contrarietatem boni et mali. Passiones enim irascibilis ordinantur ad passiones concupiscibilis, ut dictum est. Sed passiones concupiscibilis non contrariantur nisi secundum contrarietatem boni et mali; sicut amor et odium, gaudium et tristitia. Ergo nec passiones irascibilis. Objection 1. It would seem that the contrariety of the irascible passions is based on no other contrariety than that of good and evil. For the irascible passions are ordained to the concupiscible passions, as stated above (01, ad 1). But the contrariety of the concupiscible passions is no other than that of good and evil; take, for instance, love and hatred, joy and sorrow. Therefore the same applies to the irascible passions.
q. 23 a. 2 arg. 2 Praeterea, passiones differunt secundum obiecta; sicut et motus secundum terminos. Sed contrarietas non est in motibus nisi secundum contrarietatem terminorum, ut patet in V Physic. Ergo neque in passionibus est contrarietas nisi secundum contrarietatem obiectorum. Obiectum autem appetitus est bonum vel malum. Ergo in nulla potentia appetitiva potest esse contrarietas passionum nisi secundum contrarietatem boni et mali. Objection 2. Further, passions differ according to their objects; just as movements differ according to their termini. But there is no other contrariety of movements, except that of the termini, as is stated in Phys. v, 3. Therefore there is no other contrariety of passions, save that of the objects. Now the object of the appetite is good or evil. Therefore in no appetitive power can there be contrariety of passions other than that of good and evil.
q. 23 a. 2 arg. 3 Praeterea, omnis passio animae attenditur secundum accessum et recessum, ut Avicenna dicit, in sexto de naturalibus. Sed accessus causatur ex ratione boni, recessus autem ex ratione mali, quia sicut bonum est quod omnia appetunt, ut dicitur in I Ethic., ita malum est quod omnia fugiunt. Ergo contrarietas in passionibus animae non potest esse nisi secundum bonum et malum. Objection 3. Further, "every passion of the soul is by way of approach and withdrawal," as Avicenna declares in his sixth book of Physics. Now approach results from the apprehension of good; withdrawal, from the apprehension of evil: since just as "good is what all desire" (Ethic. i, 1), so evil is what all shun. Therefore, in the passions of the soul, there can be no other contrariety than that of good and evil.
q. 23 a. 2 s. c. Sed contra, timor et audacia sunt contraria, ut patet in III Ethic. sed timor et audacia non differunt secundum bonum et malum, quia utrumque est respectu aliquorum malorum. Ergo non omnis contrarietas passionum irascibilis est secundum contrarietatem boni et mali. On the contrary, Fear and daring are contrary to one another, as stated in Ethic. iii, 7. But fear and daring do not differ in respect of good and evil: because each regards some kind of evil. Therefore not every contrariety of the irascible passions is that of good and evil.
q. 23 a. 2 co. Respondeo dicendum quod passio quidam motus est, ut dicitur in III Physic. Unde oportet contrarietatem passionum accipere secundum contrarietatem motuum vel mutationum. Est autem duplex contrarietas in mutationibus vel motibus, ut dicitur in V Physic. Una quidem secundum accessum et recessum ab eodem termino, quae quidem contrarietas est proprie mutationum, idest generationis, quae est mutatio ad esse, et corruptionis, quae est mutatio ab esse. Alia autem secundum contrarietatem terminorum, quae proprie est contrarietas motuum, sicut dealbatio, quae est motus a nigro in album, opponitur denigrationi, quae est motus ab albo in nigrum. Sic igitur in passionibus animae duplex contrarietas invenitur, una quidem secundum contrarietatem obiectorum, scilicet boni et mali; alia vero secundum accessum et recessum ab eodem termino. In passionibus quidem concupiscibilis invenitur prima contrarietas tantum, quae scilicet est secundum obiecta, in passionibus autem irascibilis invenitur utraque. Cuius ratio est quia obiectum concupiscibilis, ut supra dictum est, est bonum vel malum sensibile absolute. Bonum autem, inquantum bonum, non potest esse terminus ut a quo, sed solum ut ad quem, quia nihil refugit bonum inquantum bonum, sed omnia appetunt ipsum. Similiter nihil appetit malum inquantum huiusmodi, sed omnia fugiunt ipsum, et propter hoc, malum non habet rationem termini ad quem, sed solum termini a quo. Sic igitur omnis passio concupiscibilis respectu boni, est ut in ipsum, sicut amor, desiderium et gaudium, omnis vero passio eius respectu mali, est ut ab ipso, sicut odium, fuga seu abominatio, et tristitia. Unde in passionibus concupiscibilis non potest esse contrarietas secundum accessum et recessum ab eodem obiecto. Sed obiectum irascibilis est sensibile bonum vel malum, non quidem absolute, sed sub ratione difficultatis vel arduitatis, ut supra dictum est. Bonum autem arduum sive difficile habet rationem ut in ipsum tendatur, inquantum est bonum, quod pertinet ad passionem spei; et ut ab ipso recedatur, inquantum est arduum vel difficile, quod pertinet ad passionem desperationis. Similiter malum arduum habet rationem ut vitetur, inquantum est malum, et hoc pertinet ad passionem timoris, habet etiam rationem ut in ipsum tendatur, sicut in quoddam arduum, per quod scilicet aliquid evadit subiectionem mali, et sic tendit in ipsum audacia. Invenitur ergo in passionibus irascibilis contrarietas secundum contrarietatem boni et mali, sicut inter spem et timorem, et iterum secundum accessum et recessum ab eodem termino, sicut inter audaciam et timorem. I answer that, Passion is a kind of movement, as stated in Phys. iii, 3. Therefore contrariety of passions is based on contrariety of movements or changes. Now there is a twofold contrariety in changes and movements, as stated in Phys. v, 5. One is according to approach and withdrawal in respect of the same term: and this contrariety belongs properly to changes, i.e. to generation, which is a change "to being," and to corruption, which is a change "from being." The other contrariety is according to opposition of termini, and belongs properly to movements: thus whitening, which is movement from black to white, is contrary to blackening, which is movement from white to black. Accordingly there is a twofold contrariety in the passions of the soul: one, according to contrariety of objects, i.e. of good and evil; the other, according to approach and withdrawal in respect of the same term. In the concupiscible passions the former contrariety alone is to be found; viz. that which is based on the objects: whereas in the irascible passions, we find both forms of contrariety. The reason of this is that the object of the concupiscible faculty, as stated above (Article 1), is sensible good or evil considered absolutely. Now good, as such, cannot be a term wherefrom, but only a term whereto, since nothing shuns good as such; on the contrary, all things desire it. In like manner, nothing desires evil, as such; but all things shun it: wherefore evil cannot have the aspect of a term whereto, but only of a term wherefrom. Accordingly every concupiscible passion in respect of good, tends to it, as love, desire and joy; while every concupiscible passion in respect of evil, tends from it, as hatred, avoidance or dislike, and sorrow. Wherefore, in the concupiscible passions, there can be no contrariety of approach and withdrawal in respect of the same object. On the other hand, the object of the irascible faculty is sensible good or evil, considered not absolutely, but under the aspect of difficulty or arduousness. Now the good which is difficult or arduous, considered as good, is of such a nature as to produce in us a tendency to it, which tendency pertains to the passion of "hope"; whereas, considered as arduous or difficult, it makes us turn from it; and this pertains to the passion of "despair." In like manner the arduous evil, considered as an evil, has the aspect of something to be shunned; and this belongs to the passion of "fear": but it also contains a reason for tending to it, as attempting something arduous, whereby to escape being subject to evil; and this tendency is called "daring." Consequently, in the irascible passions we find contrariety in respect of good and evil (as between hope and fear): and also contrariety according to approach and withdrawal in respect of the same term (as between daring and fear).
q. 23 a. 2 ad arg. Et per hoc patet responsio ad obiecta. From what has been said the replies to the objections are evident.
q. 23 a. 3 arg. 1 Ad tertium sic proceditur. Videtur quod omnis passio animae habeat aliquid contrarium. Omnis enim passio animae vel est in irascibili vel in concupiscibili, sicut supra dictum est. Sed utraeque passiones habent contrarietatem suo modo. Ergo omnis passio animae habet contrarium. Objection 1. It would seem that every passion of the soul has a contrary. For every passion of the soul is either in the irascible or in the concupiscible faculty, as stated above (Article 1). But both kinds of passion have their respective modes of contrariety. Therefore every passion of the soul has its contrary.
q. 23 a. 3 arg. 2 Praeterea, omnis passio animae habet vel bonum vel malum pro obiecto, quae sunt obiecta universaliter appetitivae partis. Sed passioni cuius obiectum est bonum, opponitur passio cuius obiectum est malum. Ergo omnis passio habet contrarium. Objection 2. Further, every passion of the soul has either good or evil for its object; for these are the common objects of the appetitive part. But a passion having good for its object, is contrary to a passion having evil for its object. Therefore every passion has a contrary.
q. 23 a. 3 arg. 3 Praeterea, omnis passio animae est secundum accessum vel secundum recessum, ut dictum est. Sed cuilibet accessui contrariatur recessus, et e converso. Ergo omnis passio animae habet contrarium. Objection 3. Further, every passion of the soul is in respect of approach or withdrawal, as stated above (Article 2). But every approach has a corresponding contrary withdrawal, and vice versa. Therefore every passion of the soul has a contrary.
q. 23 a. 3 s. c. Sed contra, ira est quaedam passio animae. Sed nulla passio ponitur contraria irae, ut patet in IV Ethic. Ergo non omnis passio habet contrarium. On the contrary, Anger is a passion of the soul. But no passion is set down as being contrary to anger, as stated in Ethic. iv, 5. Therefore not every passion has a contrary.
q. 23 a. 3 co. Respondeo dicendum quod singulare est in passione irae, quod non potest habere contrarium, neque secundum accessum et recessum, neque secundum contrarietatem boni et mali. Causatur enim ira ex malo difficili iam iniacente. Ad cuius praesentiam, necesse est quod aut appetitus succumbat, et sic non exit terminos tristitiae, quae est passio concupiscibilis, aut habet motum ad invadendum malum laesivum, quod pertinet ad iram. Motum autem ad fugiendum habere non potest, quia iam malum ponitur praesens vel praeteritum. Et sic motui irae non contrariatur aliqua passio secundum contrarietatem accessus et recessus. Similiter etiam nec secundum contrarietatem boni et mali. Quia malo iam iniacenti opponitur bonum iam adeptum, quod iam non potest habere rationem ardui vel difficilis. Nec post adeptionem boni remanet alius motus, nisi quietatio appetitus in bono adepto, quae pertinet ad gaudium, quod est passio concupiscibilis. Unde motus irae non potest habere aliquem motum animae contrarium, sed solummodo opponitur ei cessatio a motu, sicut philosophus dicit, in sua rhetorica, quod mitescere opponitur ei quod est irasci, quod non est oppositum contrarie, sed negative vel privative. I answer that, The passion of anger is peculiar in this, that it cannot have a contrary, either according to approach and withdrawal, or according to the contrariety of good and evil. For anger is caused by a difficult evil already present: and when such an evil is present, the appetite must needs either succumb, so that it does not go beyond the limits of "sadness," which is a concupiscible passion; or else it has a movement of attack on the hurtful evil, which movement is that of "anger." But it cannot have a movement of withdrawal: because the evil is supposed to be already present or past. Thus no passion is contrary to anger according to contrariety of approach and withdrawal. In like manner neither can there be according to contrariety of good and evil. Because the opposite of present evil is good obtained, which can be no longer have the aspect of arduousness or difficulty. Nor, when once good is obtained, does there remain any other movement, except the appetite's repose in the good obtained; which repose belongs to joy, which is a passion of the concupiscible faculty. Accordingly no movement of the soul can be contrary to the movement of anger, and nothing else than cessation from its movement is contrary thereto; thus the Philosopher says (Rhet. ii, 3) that "calm is contrary to anger," by opposition not of contrariety but of negation or privation.
q. 23 a. 3 ad arg. Et per hoc patet responsio ad obiecta. From what has been said the replies to the objections are evident.
q. 23 a. 4 arg. 1 Ad quartum sic proceditur. Videtur quod non possint in aliqua potentia esse passiones specie differentes, et non contrariae ad invicem. Passiones enim animae differunt secundum obiecta. Obiecta autem passionum animae sunt bonum et malum, secundum quorum differentiam passiones habent contrarietatem. Ergo nullae passiones eiusdem potentiae, non habentes contrarietatem ad invicem, differunt specie. Objection 1. It would seem that there cannot be, in the same power, specifically different passions that are not contrary to one another. For the passions of the soul differ according to their objects. Now the objects of the soul's passions are good and evil; and on this distinction is based the contrariety of the passions. Therefore no passions of the same power, that are not contrary to one another, differ specifically.
q. 23 a. 4 arg. 2 Praeterea, differentia speciei est differentia secundum formam. Sed omnis differentia secundum formam, est secundum aliquam contrarietatem, ut dicitur in X Metaphys. Ergo passiones eiusdem potentiae quae non sunt contrariae, non differunt specie. Objection 2. Further, difference of species implies a difference of form. But every difference of form is in respect of some contrariety, as stated in Metaph. x, 8. Therefore passions of the same power, that are not contrary to one another, do not differ specifically.
q. 23 a. 4 arg. 3 Praeterea, cum omnis passio animae consistat in accessu vel recessu ad bonum vel ad malum, necesse videtur quod omnis differentia passionum animae sit vel secundum differentiam boni et mali; vel secundum differentiam accessus et recessus; vel secundum maiorem vel minorem accessum aut recessum. Sed primae duae differentiae inducunt contrarietatem in passionibus animae, ut dictum est. Tertia autem differentia non diversificat speciem, quia sic essent infinitae species passionum animae. Ergo non potest esse quod passiones eiusdem potentiae animae differant specie, et non sint contrariae. Objection 3. Further, since every passion of the soul consists in approach or withdrawal in respect of good or evil, it seems that every difference in the passions of the soul must needs arise from the difference of good and evil; or from the difference of approach and withdrawal; or from degrees in approach or withdrawal. Now the first two differences cause contrariety in the passions of the soul, as stated above (Article 2): whereas the third difference does not diversify the species; else the species of the soul's passions would be infinite. Therefore it is not possible for passions of the same power to differ in species, without being contrary to one another.
q. 23 a. 4 s. c. Sed contra, amor et gaudium differunt specie, et sunt in concupiscibili. Nec tamen contrariantur ad invicem, quin potius unum est causa alterius. Ergo sunt aliquae passiones eiusdem potentiae quae differunt specie, nec sunt contrariae. On the contrary, Love and joy differ in species, and are in the concupiscible power; and yet they are not contrary to one another; rather, in fact, one causes the other. Therefore in the same power there are passions that differ in species without being contrary to one another.
q. 23 a. 4 co. Respondeo dicendum quod passiones differunt secundum activa, quae sunt obiecta passionum animae. Differentia autem activorum potest attendi dupliciter, uno modo, secundum speciem vel naturam ipsorum activorum, sicut ignis differt ab aqua; alio modo, secundum diversam virtutem activam. Diversitas autem activi vel motivi quantum ad virtutem movendi, potest accipi in passionibus animae secundum similitudinem agentium naturalium. Omne enim movens trahit quodammodo ad se patiens, vel a se repellit. Trahendo quidem ad se, tria facit in ipso. Nam primo quidem, dat ei inclinationem vel aptitudinem ut in ipsum tendat, sicut cum corpus leve, quod est sursum, dat levitatem corpori generato, per quam habet inclinationem vel aptitudinem ad hoc quod sit sursum. Secundo, si corpus generatum est extra locum proprium, dat ei moveri ad locum. Tertio, dat ei quiescere, in locum cum pervenerit, quia ex eadem causa aliquid quiescit in loco, per quam movebatur ad locum. Et similiter intelligendum est de causa repulsionis. In motibus autem appetitivae partis, bonum habet quasi virtutem attractivam, malum autem virtutem repulsivam. Bonum ergo primo quidem in potentia appetitiva causat quandam inclinationem, seu aptitudinem, seu connaturalitatem ad bonum, quod pertinet ad passionem amoris. Cui per contrarium respondet odium, ex parte mali. Secundo, si bonum sit nondum habitum, dat ei motum ad assequendum bonum amatum, et hoc pertinet ad passionem desiderii vel concupiscentiae. Et ex opposito, ex parte mali, est fuga vel abominatio. Tertio, cum adeptum fuerit bonum, dat appetitus quietationem quandam in ipso bono adepto, et hoc pertinet ad delectationem vel gaudium. Cui opponitur ex parte mali dolor vel tristitia. In passionibus autem irascibilis, praesupponitur quidem aptitudo vel inclinatio ad prosequendum bonum vel fugiendum malum, ex concupiscibili, quae absolute respicit bonum vel malum. Et respectu boni nondum adepti, est spes et desperatio. Respectu autem mali nondum iniacentis, est timor et audacia. Respectu autem boni adepti, non est aliqua passio in irascibili, quia iam non habet rationem ardui, ut supra dictum est. Sed ex malo iam iniacenti, sequitur passio irae. Sic igitur patet quod in concupiscibili sunt tres coniugationes passionum, scilicet amor et odium, desiderium et fuga gaudium et tristitia. Similiter in irascibili sunt tres, scilicet spes et desperatio, timor et audacia, et ira, cui nulla passio opponitur. Sunt ergo omnes passiones specie differentes undecim, sex quidem in concupiscibili, et quinque in irascibili; sub quibus omnes animae passiones continentur. I answer that, Passions differ in accordance with their active causes, which, in the case of the passions of the soul, are their objects. Now, the difference in active causes may be considered in two ways: first, from the point of view of their species or nature, as fire differs from water; secondly, from the point of view of the difference in their active power. In the passions of the soul we can treat the difference of their active or motive causes in respect of their motive power, as if they were natural agents. For every mover, in a fashion, either draws the patient to itself, or repels it from itself. Now in drawing it to itself, it does three things in the patient. Because, in the first place, it gives the patient an inclination or aptitude to tend to the mover: thus a light body, which is above, bestows lightness on the body generated, so that it has an inclination or aptitude to be above. Secondly, if the generated body be outside its proper place, the mover gives it movement towards that place. Thirdly, it makes it to rest, when it shall have come to its proper place: since to the same cause are due, both rest in a place, and the movement to that place. The same applies to the cause of repulsion. Now, in the movements of the appetitive faculty, good has, as it were, a force of attraction, while evil has a force of repulsion. In the first place, therefore, good causes, in the appetitive power, a certain inclination, aptitude or connaturalness in respect of good: and this belongs to the passion of "love": the corresponding contrary of which is "hatred" in respect of evil. Secondly, if the good be not yet possessed, it causes in the appetite a movement towards the attainment of the good beloved: and this belongs to the passion of "desire" or "concupiscence": and contrary to it, in respect of evil, is the passion of "aversion" or "dislike." Thirdly, when the good is obtained, it causes the appetite to rest, as it were, in the good obtained: and this belongs to the passion of "delight" or "joy"; the contrary of which, in respect of evil, is "sorrow" or "sadness." On the other hand, in the irascible passions, the aptitude, or inclination to seek good, or to shun evil, is presupposed as arising from the concupiscible faculty, which regards good or evil absolutely. And in respect of good not yet obtained, we have "hope" and "despair." In respect of evil not yet present we have "fear" and "daring." But in respect of good obtained there is no irascible passion: because it is no longer considered in the light of something arduous, as stated above (Article 3). But evil already present gives rise to the passion of "anger." Accordingly it is clear that in the concupiscible faculty there are three couples of passions; viz. love and hatred, desire and aversion, joy and sadness. In like manner there are three groups in the irascible faculty; viz. hope and despair, fear and daring, and anger which has not contrary passion. Consequently there are altogether eleven passions differing specifically; six in the concupiscible faculty, and five in the irascible; and under these all the passions of the soul are contained.
q. 23 a. 4 ad arg. Et per hoc patet responsio ad obiecta. From this the replies to the objections are evident.
q. 24 pr. Deinde considerandum est de bono et malo circa passiones animae. Et circa hoc quaeruntur quatuor. Primo, utrum bonum et malum morale possit in passionibus animae inveniri. Secundo, utrum omnis passio animae sit mala moraliter. Tertio, utrum omnis passio addat, vel diminuat, ad bonitatem vel malitiam actus. Quarto, utrum aliqua passio sit bona vel mala ex sua specie. Question 24. Good and evil in the passions of the soul Can moral good and evil be found in the passions of the soul? Is every passion of the soul morally evil? Does every passion increase or decrease the goodness or malice of an act? Is any passion good or evil specifically?
q. 24 a. 1 arg. 1 Ad primum sic proceditur. Videtur quod nulla passio animae sit bona vel mala moraliter. Bonum enim et malum morale est proprium hominis, mores enim proprie dicuntur humani, ut Ambrosius dicit, super Lucam. Sed passiones non sunt propriae hominum, sed sunt etiam aliis animalibus communes. Ergo nulla passio animae est bona vel mala moraliter. Objection 1. It would seem that no passion of the soul is morally good or evil. For moral good and evil are proper to man: since "morals are properly predicated of man," as Ambrose says (Super Luc. Prolog.). But passions are not proper to man, for he has them in common with other animals. Therefore no passion of the soul is morally good or evil.
q. 24 a. 1 arg. 2 Praeterea, bonum vel malum hominis est secundum rationem esse, vel praeter rationem esse, ut Dionysius dicit, IV cap. de Div. Nom. Sed passiones animae non sunt in ratione, sed in appetitu sensitivo, ut supra dictum est. Ergo non pertinent ad bonum vel malum hominis, quod est bonum morale. Objection 2. Further, the good or evil of man consists in "being in accord, or in disaccord with reason," as Dionysius says (Div. Nom. iv). Now the passions of the soul are not in the reason, but in the sensitive appetite, as stated above (Question 22, Article 3). Therefore they have no connection with human, i.e. moral, good or evil.
q. 24 a. 1 arg. 3 Praeterea, philosophus dicit, in II Ethic., quod passionibus neque laudamur neque vituperamur. Sed secundum bona et mala moralia, laudamur et vituperamur. Ergo passiones non sunt bonae vel malae moraliter. Objection 3. Further, the Philosopher says (Ethic. ii, 5) that "we are neither praised nor blamed for our passions." But we are praised and blamed for moral good and evil. Therefore the passions are not morally good or evil.
q. 24 a. 1 s. c. Sed contra est quod Augustinus dicit, in XIV de Civ. Dei, de passionibus animae loquens mala sunt ista, si malus est amor; bona, si bonus. On the contrary, Augustine says (De Civ. Dei xiv, 7) while speaking of the passions of the soul: "They are evil if our love is evil; good if our love is good."
q. 24 a. 1 co. Respondeo dicendum quod passiones animae dupliciter possunt considerari, uno modo, secundum se; alio modo, secundum quod subiacent imperio rationis et voluntatis. Si igitur secundum se considerentur, prout scilicet sunt motus quidam irrationalis appetitus, sic non est in eis bonum vel malum morale, quod dependet a ratione, ut supra dictum est. Si autem considerentur secundum quod subiacent imperio rationis et voluntatis, sic est in eis bonum et malum morale. Propinquior enim est appetitus sensitivus ipsi rationi et voluntati, quam membra exteriora; quorum tamen motus et actus sunt boni vel mali moraliter, secundum quod sunt voluntarii. Unde multo magis et ipsae passiones, secundum quod sunt voluntariae, possunt dici bonae vel malae moraliter. Dicuntur autem voluntariae vel ex eo quod a voluntate imperantur, vel ex eo quod a voluntate non prohibentur. I answer that, We may consider the passions of the soul in two ways: first, in themselves; secondly, as being subject to the command of the reason and will. If then the passions be considered in themselves, to wit, as movements of the irrational appetite, thus there is no moral good or evil in them, since this depends on the reason, as stated above (18, 05). If, however, they be considered as subject to the command of the reason and will, then moral good and evil are in them. Because the sensitive appetite is nearer than the outward members to the reason and will; and yet the movements and actions of the outward members are morally good or evil, inasmuch as they are voluntary. Much more, therefore, may the passions, in so far as they are voluntary, be called morally good or evil. And they are said to be voluntary, either from being commanded by the will, or from not being checked by the will.
q. 24 a. 1 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod istae passiones secundum se consideratae, sunt communes hominibus et aliis animalibus, sed secundum quod a ratione imperantur, sunt propriae hominum. Reply to Objection 1. These passions, considered in themselves, are common to man and other animals: but, as commanded by the reason, they are proper to man.
q. 24 a. 1 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod etiam inferiores vires appetitivae dicuntur rationales, secundum quod participant aliqualiter rationem, ut dicitur in I Ethic. Reply to Objection 2. Even the lower appetitive powers are called rational, in so far as "they partake of reason in some sort" (Ethic. i, 13).
q. 24 a. 1 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod philosophus dicit quod non laudamur aut vituperamur secundum passiones absolute consideratas, sed non removet quin possint fieri laudabiles vel vituperabiles secundum quod a ratione ordinantur. Unde subdit, non enim laudatur aut vituperatur qui timet aut irascitur, sed qui aliqualiter, idest secundum rationem vel praeter rationem. Reply to Objection 3. The Philosopher says that we are neither praised nor blamed for our passions considered absolutely; but he does not exclude their becoming worthy of praise or blame, in so far as they are subordinate to reason. Hence he continues: "For the man who fears or is angry, is not praised . . . or blamed, but the man who is angry in a certain way, i.e. according to, or against reason."
q. 24 a. 2 arg. 1 Ad secundum sic proceditur. Videtur quod omnes passiones animae sint malae moraliter. Dicit enim Augustinus, IX de Civ. Dei, quod passiones animae quidam vocant morbos vel perturbationes animae. Sed omnis morbus vel perturbatio animae est aliquid malum moraliter. Ergo omnis passio animae moraliter mala est. Objection 1. It would seem that all the passions of the soul are morally evil. For Augustine says (De Civ. Dei ix, 4) that "some call the soul's passions diseases or disturbances of the soul" [Those things which the Greeks call pathe, we prefer to call disturbances rather than diseases (Tusc. iv. 5)]. But every disease or disturbance of the soul is morally evil. Therefore every passion of the soul is evil morally.
q. 24 a. 2 arg. 2 Praeterea, Damascenus dicit quod operatio quidem qui secundum naturam motus est, passio vero qui praeter naturam. Sed quod est praeter naturam in motibus animae, habet rationem peccati et mali moralis, unde ipse alibi dicit quod Diabolus versus est ex eo quod est secundum naturam, in id quod est praeter naturam. Ergo huiusmodi passiones sunt malae moraliter. Objection 2. Further, Damascene says (De Fide Orth. ii, 22) that "movement in accord with nature is an action, but movement contrary to nature is passion." But in movements of the soul, what is against nature is sinful and morally evil: hence he says elsewhere (De Fide Orth. ii, 4) that "the devil turned from that which is in accord with nature to that which is against nature." Therefore these passions are morally evil.
q. 24 a. 2 arg. 3 Praeterea, omne quod inducit ad peccatum, habet rationem mali. Sed huiusmodi passiones inducunt ad peccatum, unde Rom. VII dicuntur passiones peccatorum. Ergo videtur quod sint malae moraliter. Objection 3. Further, whatever leads to sin, has an aspect of evil. But these passions lead to sin: wherefore they are called "the passions of sins" (Romans 7:5). Therefore it seems that they are morally evil.
q. 24 a. 2 s. c. Sed contra est quod Augustinus dicit, in XIV de Civ. Dei, quod rectus amor omnes istas affectiones rectas habet. Metuunt enim peccare, cupiunt perseverare, dolent in peccatis, gaudent in operibus bonis. On the contrary, Augustine says (De Civ. Dei xiv, 9) that "all these emotions are right in those whose love is rightly placed . . . For they fear to sin, they desire to persevere; they grieve for sin, they rejoice in good works."
q. 24 a. 2 co. Respondeo dicendum quod circa hanc quaestionem diversa fuit sententia Stoicorum et Peripateticorum, nam Stoici dixerunt omnes passiones esse malas; Peripatetici vero dixerunt passiones moderatas esse bonas. Quae quidem differentia, licet magna videatur secundum vocem, tamen secundum rem vel nulla est, vel parva, si quis utrorumque intentiones consideret. Stoici enim non discernebant inter sensum et intellectum; et per consequens nec inter intellectivum appetitum et sensitivum. Unde non discernebant passiones animae a motibus voluntatis secundum hoc quod passiones animae sunt in appetitu sensitivo, simplices autem motus voluntatis sunt in intellectivo; sed omnem rationabilem motum appetitivae partis vocabant voluntatem, passionem autem dicebant motum progredientem extra limites rationis. Et ideo, eorum sententiam sequens, Tullius, in III libro de Tusculanis quaestionibus, omnes passiones vocat animae morbos. Ex quo argumentatur quod qui morbosi sunt, sani non sunt; et qui sani non sunt, insipientes sunt. Unde et insipientes insanos dicimus. Peripatetici vero omnes motus appetitus sensitivi passiones vocant. Unde eas bonas aestimant, cum sunt a ratione moderatae; malas autem, cum sunt praeter moderationem rationis. Ex quo patet quod Tullius, in eodem libro, Peripateticorum sententiam, qui approbabant mediocritatem passionum, inconvenienter improbat, dicens quod omne malum, etiam mediocre, vitandum est, nam sicut corpus, etiamsi mediocriter aegrum est, sanum non est; sic ista mediocritas morborum vel passionum animae, sana non est. Non enim passiones dicuntur morbi vel perturbationes animae, nisi cum carent moderatione rationis. I answer that, On this question the opinion of the Stoics differed from that of the Peripatetics: for the Stoics held that all passions are evil, while the Peripatetics maintained that moderate passions are good. This difference, although it appears great in words, is nevertheless, in reality, none at all, or but little, if we consider the intent of either school. For the Stoics did not discern between sense and intellect; and consequently neither between the intellectual and sensitive appetite. Hence they did not discriminate the passions of the soul from the movements of the will, in so far as the passions of the soul are in the sensitive appetite, while the simple movements of the will are in the intellectual appetite: but every rational movement of the appetitive part they call will, while they called passion, a movement that exceeds the limits of reason. Wherefore Cicero, following their opinion (De Tusc. Quaest. iii, 4) calls all passions "diseases of the soul": whence he argues that "those who are diseased are unsound; and those who are unsound are wanting in sense." Hence we speak of those who are wanting in sense of being "unsound." On the other hand, the Peripatetics give the name of "passions" to all the movements of the sensitive appetite. Wherefore they esteem them good, when they are controlled by reason; and evil when they are not controlled by reason. Hence it is evident that Cicero was wrong in disapproving (De Tusc. Quaest. iii, 4) of the Peripatetic theory of a mean in the passions, when he says that "every evil, though moderate, should be shunned; for, just as a body, though it be moderately ailing, is not sound; so, this mean in the diseases or passions of the soul, is not sound." For passions are not called "diseases" or "disturbances" of the soul, save when they are not controlled by reason.
q. 24 a. 2 ad 1 Unde patet responsio ad primum. Hence the reply to the First Objection is evident.
q. 24 a. 2 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod in omni passione animae additur aliquid, vel diminuitur a naturali motu cordis, inquantum cor intensius vel remissius movetur, secundum systolen aut diastolen, et secundum hoc habet passionis rationem. Non tamen oportet quod passio semper declinet ab ordine naturalis rationis. Reply to Objection 2. In every passion there is an increase or decrease in the natural movement of the heart, according as the heart is moved more or less intensely by contraction and dilatation; and hence it derives the character of passion. But there is no need for passion to deviate always from the order of natural reason.
q. 24 a. 2 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod passiones animae, inquantum sunt praeter ordinem rationis, inclinant ad peccatum, inquantum autem sunt ordinatae a ratione, pertinent ad virtutem. Reply to Objection 3. The passions of the soul, in so far as they are contrary to the order of reason, incline us to sin: but in so far as they are controlled by reason, they pertain to virtue.
q. 24 a. 3 arg. 1 Ad tertium sic proceditur. Videtur quod passio quaecumque semper diminuat de bonitate actus moralis. Omne enim quod impedit iudicium rationis, ex quo dependet bonitas actus moralis, diminuit per consequens bonitatem actus moralis. Sed omnis passio impedit iudicium rationis, dicit enim Sallustius, in Catilinario, omnes homines qui de rebus dubiis consultant, ab odio, ira, amicitia atque misericordia vacuos esse decet. Ergo omnis passio diminuit bonitatem moralis actus. Objection 1. It would seem that every passion decreases the goodness of a moral action. For anything that hinders the judgment of reason, on which depends the goodness of a moral act, consequently decreases the goodness of the moral act. But every passion hinders the judgment of reason: for Sallust says (Catilin.): "All those that take counsel about matters of doubt, should be free from hatred, anger, friendship and pity." Therefore passion decreases the goodness of a moral act.
q. 24 a. 3 arg. 2 Praeterea, actus hominis, quanto est Deo similior, tanto est melior, unde dicit apostolus, Ephes. V, estote imitatores Dei, sicut filii carissimi. Sed Deus et sancti Angeli sine ira puniunt, sine miseriae compassione subveniunt ut Augustinus dicit, in IX de Civ. Dei. Ergo est melius huiusmodi opera bona agere sine passione animae, quam cum passione. Objection 2. Further, the more a man's action is like to God, the better it is: hence the Apostle says (Ephesians 5:1): "Be ye followers of God, as most dear children." But "God and the holy angels feel no anger when they punish . . . no fellow-feeling with misery when they relieve the unhappy," as Augustine says (De Civ. Dei ix, 5). Therefore it is better to do such like deeds without than with a passion of the soul.
q. 24 a. 3 arg. 3 Praeterea, sicut malum morale attenditur per ordinem ad rationem, ita et bonum morale. Sed malum morale diminuitur per passionem, minus enim peccat qui peccat ex passione, quam qui peccat ex industria. Ergo maius bonum operatur qui operatur bonum sine passione, quam qui operatur cum passione. Objection 3. Further, just as moral evil depends on its relation to reason, so also does moral good. But moral evil is lessened by passion: for he sins less, who sins from passion, than he who sins deliberately. Therefore he does a better deed, who does well without passion, than he who does with passion.
q. 24 a. 3 s. c. Sed contra est quod Augustinus dicit, IX de Civ. Dei, quod passio misericordiae rationi deservit, quando ita praebetur misericordia, ut iustitia conservetur, sive cum indigenti tribuitur, sive cum ignoscitur poenitenti. Sed nihil quod deservit rationi, diminuit bonum morale. Ergo passio animae non diminuit bonum moris. On the contrary, Augustine says (De Civ. Dei ix, 5) that "the passion of pity is obedient to reason, when pity is bestowed without violating right, as when the poor are relieved, or the penitent forgiven." But nothing that is obedient to reason lessens the moral good. Therefore a passion of the soul does not lessen moral good.
q. 24 a. 3 co. Respondeo dicendum quod Stoici, sicut ponebant omnem passionem animae esse malam, ita ponebant consequenter omnem passionem animae diminuere actus bonitatem, omne enim bonum ex permixtione mali vel totaliter tollitur, vel fit minus bonum. Et hoc quidem verum est, si dicamus passiones animae solum inordinatos motus sensitivi appetitus, prout sunt perturbationes seu aegritudines. Sed si passiones simpliciter nominemus omnes motus appetitus sensitivi, sic ad perfectionem humani boni pertinet quod etiam ipsae passiones sint moderatae per rationem. Cum enim bonum hominis consistat in ratione sicut in radice, tanto istud bonum erit perfectius, quanto ad plura quae homini conveniunt, derivari potest. Unde nullus dubitat quin ad perfectionem moralis boni pertineat quod actus exteriorum membrorum per rationis regulam dirigantur. Unde, cum appetitus sensitivus possit obedire rationi, ut supra dictum est, ad perfectionem moralis sive humani boni pertinet quod etiam ipsae passiones animae sint regulatae per rationem. Sicut igitur melius est quod homo et velit bonum, et faciat exteriori actu; ita etiam ad perfectionem boni moralis pertinet quod homo ad bonum moveatur non solum secundum voluntatem, sed etiam secundum appetitum sensitivum; secundum illud quod in Psalmo LXXXIII, dicitur, cor meum et caro mea exultaverunt in Deum vivum, ut cor accipiamus pro appetitu intellectivo, carnem autem pro appetitu sensitivo. I answer that, As the Stoics held that every passion of the soul is evil, they consequently held that every passion of the soul lessens the goodness of an act; since the admixture of evil either destroys good altogether, or makes it to be less good. And this is true indeed, if by passions we understand none but the inordinate movements of the sensitive appetite, considered as disturbances or ailments. But if we give the name of passions to all the movements of the sensitive appetite, then it belongs to the perfection of man's good that his passions be moderated by reason. For since man's good is founded on reason as its root, that good will be all the more perfect, according as it extends to more things pertaining to man. Wherefore no one questions the fact that it belongs to the perfection of moral good, that the actions of the outward members be controlled by the law of reason. Hence, since the sensitive appetite can obey reason, as stated above (Question 17, Article 7), it belongs to the perfection of moral or human good, that the passions themselves also should be controlled by reason. Accordingly just as it is better that man should both will good and do it in his external act; so also does it belong to the perfection of moral good, that man should be moved unto good, not only in respect of his will, but also in respect of his sensitive appetite; according to Psalm 83:3: "My heart and my flesh have rejoiced in the living God": where by "heart" we are to understand the intellectual appetite, and by "flesh" the sensitive appetite.
q. 24 a. 3 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod passiones animae dupliciter se possunt habere ad iudicium rationis. Uno modo, antecedenter. Et sic, cum obnubilent iudicium rationis, ex quo dependet bonitas moralis actus, diminuunt actus bonitatem, laudabilius enim est quod ex iudicio rationis aliquis faciat opus caritatis, quam ex sola passione misericordiae. Alio modo se habent consequenter. Et hoc dupliciter. Uno modo, per modum redundantiae, quia scilicet, cum superior pars animae intense movetur in aliquid, sequitur motum eius etiam pars inferior. Et sic passio existens consequenter in appetitu sensitivo, est signum intensionis voluntatis. Et sic indicat bonitatem moralem maiorem. Alio modo, per modum electionis, quando scilicet homo ex iudicio rationis eligit affici aliqua passione, ut promptius operetur, cooperante appetitu sensitivo. Et sic passio animae addit ad bonitatem actionis. Reply to Objection 1. The passions of the soul may stand in a twofold relation to the judgment of reason. First, antecedently: and thus, since they obscure the judgment of reason, on which the goodness of the moral act depends, they diminish the goodness of the act; for it is more praiseworthy to do a work of charity from the judgment of reason than from the mere passion of pity. In the second place, consequently: and this in two ways. First, by way of redundance: because, to wit, when the higher part of the soul is intensely moved to anything, the lower part also follows that movement: and thus the passion that results in consequence, in the sensitive appetite, is a sign of the intensity of the will, and so indicates greater moral goodness. Secondly, by way of choice; when, to wit, a man, by the judgment of his reason, chooses to be affected by a passion in order to work more promptly with the co-operation of the sensitive appetite. And thus a passion of the soul increases the goodness of an action.
q. 24 a. 3 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod in Deo et in Angelis non est appetitus sensitivus, neque etiam membra corporea, et ideo bonum in eis non attenditur secundum ordinationem passionum aut corporeorum actuum, sicut in nobis. Reply to Objection 2. In God and the angels there is no sensitive appetite, nor again bodily members: and so in them good does not depend on the right ordering of passions or of bodily actions, as it does in us.
q. 24 a. 3 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod passio tendens in malum, praecedens iudicium rationis, diminuit peccatum, sed consequens aliquo praedictorum modorum, auget ipsum, vel significat augmentum eius. Reply to Objection 3. A passion that tends to evil, and precedes the judgment of reason, diminishes sin; but if it be consequent in either of the ways mentioned above (Reply to Objection 1), it aggravates the sin, or else it is a sign of its being more grievous.
q. 24 a. 4 arg. 1 Ad quartum sic proceditur. Videtur quod nulla passio animae, secundum speciem suam, sit bona vel mala moraliter. Bonum enim et malum morale attenditur secundum rationem. Sed passiones sunt in appetitu sensitivo, et ita id quod est secundum rationem, accidit eis. Cum ergo nihil quod est per accidens, pertineat ad speciem rei; videtur quod nulla passio secundum suam speciem sit bona vel mala. Objection 1. It would seem that no passion of the soul is good or evil morally according to its species. Because moral good and evil depend on reason. But the passions are in the sensitive appetite; so that accordance with reason is accidental to them. Since, therefore, nothing accidental belongs to a thing's species, it seems that no passion is good or evil according to its species.
q. 24 a. 4 arg. 2 Praeterea, actus et passiones habent speciem ex obiecto. Si ergo aliqua passio secundum suam speciem esset bona vel mala, oporteret quod passiones quarum obiectum est bonum, bonae essent secundum suam speciem, ut amor, desiderium et gaudium; et passiones quarum obiectum est malum essent malae secundum suam speciem, ut odium, timor et tristitia. Sed hoc patet esse falsum. Non ergo aliqua passio est bona vel mala ex sua specie. Objection 2. Further, acts and passions take their species from their object. If, therefore, any passion were good or evil, according to its species, it would follow that those passions the object of which is good, are specifically good, such as love, desire and joy: and that those passions, the object of which is evil, are specifically evil, as hatred, fear and sadness. But this is clearly false. Therefore no passion is good or evil according to its species.
q. 24 a. 4 arg. 3 Praeterea, nulla species passionum est quae non inveniatur in aliis animalibus. Sed bonum morale non invenitur nisi in homine. Ergo nulla passio animae bona est vel mala ex sua specie. Objection 3. Further, there is no species of passion that is not to be found in other animals. But moral good is in man alone. Therefore no passion of the soul is good or evil according to its species.
q. 24 a. 4 s. c. Sed contra est quod Augustinus dicit, IX de Civ. Dei, quod misericordia pertinet ad virtutem. Philosophus etiam dicit, in II Ethic., quod verecundia est passio laudabilis. Ergo aliquae passiones sunt bonae vel malae secundum suam speciem. On the contrary, Augustine says (De Civ. Dei ix, 5) that "pity is a kind of virtue." Moreover, the Philosopher says (Ethic. ii, 7) that modesty is a praiseworthy passion. Therefore some passions are good or evil according to their species.
q. 24 a. 4 co. Respondeo dicendum quod sicut de actibus dictum est, ita et de passionibus dicendum videtur, quod scilicet species actus vel passionis dupliciter considerari potest. Uno modo, secundum quod est in genere naturae, et sic bonum vel malum morale non pertinet ad speciem actus vel passionis. Alio modo, secundum quod pertinent ad genus moris, prout scilicet participant aliquid de voluntario et de iudicio rationis. Et hoc modo bonum et malum morale possunt pertinere ad speciem passionis, secundum quod accipitur ut obiectum passionis aliquid de se conveniens rationi, vel dissonum a ratione, sicut patet de verecundia, quae est timor turpis; et de invidia, quae est tristitia de bono alterius. Sic enim pertinent ad speciem exterioris actus. I answer that, We ought, seemingly, to apply to passions what has been said in regard to acts (18, 5,6; 20, 1)--viz. that the species of a passion, as the species of an act, can be considered from two points of view. First, according to its natural genus; and thus moral good and evil have no connection with the species of an act or passion. Secondly, according to its moral genus, inasmuch as it is voluntary and controlled by reason. In this way moral good and evil can belong to the species of a passion, in so far as the object to which a passion tends, is, of itself, in harmony or in discord with reason: as is clear in the case of "shame" which is base fear; and of "envy" which is sorrow for another's good: for thus passions belong to the same species as the external act.
q. 24 a. 4 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod ratio illa procedit de passionibus secundum quod pertinent ad speciem naturae, prout scilicet appetitus sensitivus in se consideratur. Secundum vero quod appetitus sensitivus obedit rationi, iam bonum et malum rationis non est in passionibus eius per accidens, sed per se. Reply to Objection 1. This argument considers the passions in their natural species, in so far as the sensitive appetite is considered in itself. But in so far as the sensitive appetite obeys reason, good and evil of reason are no longer accidentally in the passions of the appetite, but essentially.
q. 24 a. 4 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod passiones quae in bonum tendunt, si sit verum bonum, sunt bonae, et similiter quae a vero malo recedunt. E converso vero passiones quae sunt per recessum a bono, et per accessum ad malum, sunt malae. Reply to Objection 2. Passions having a tendency to good, are themselves good, if they tend to that which is truly good, and in like manner, if they turn away from that which is truly evil. On the other hand, those passions which consist in aversion from good, and a tendency to evil, are themselves evil.
q. 24 a. 4 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod in brutis animalibus appetitus sensitivus non obedit rationi. Et tamen inquantum ducitur quadam aestimativa naturali, quae subiicitur rationi superiori, scilicet divinae, est in eis quaedam similitudo moralis boni, quantum ad animae passiones. Reply to Objection 3. In irrational animals the sensitive appetite does not obey reason. Nevertheless, in so far as they are led by a kind of estimative power, which is subject to a higher, i.e. the Divine reason, there is a certain likeness of moral good in them, in regard to the soul's passions.
q. 25 pr. Deinde considerandum est de ordine passionum ad invicem. Et circa hoc quaeruntur quatuor. Primo, de ordine passionum irascibilis ad passiones concupiscibilis. Secundo, de ordine passionum concupiscibilis ad invicem. Tertio, de ordine passionum irascibilis ad invicem. Quarto, de quatuor principalibus passionibus. Question 25. The order of the passions to one another The relation of the irascible passions to the concupiscible passions The relation of the concupiscible passions to one another The relation of the irascible passions to one another The four principal passions
q. 25 a. 1 arg. 1 Ad primum sic proceditur. Videtur quod passiones irascibilis sint priores passionibus concupiscibilis. Ordo enim passionum est secundum ordinem obiectorum. Sed obiectum irascibilis est bonum arduum, quod videtur esse supremum inter alia bona. Ergo passiones irascibilis videntur praeesse passionibus concupiscibilis. Objection 1. It would seem that the irascible passions precede the concupiscible passions. For the order of the passions is that of their objects. But the object of the irascible faculty is the difficult good, which seems to be the highest good. Therefore the irascible passions seem to precede the concupiscible passions.
q. 25 a. 1 arg. 2 Praeterea, movens est prius moto. Sed irascibilis comparatur ad concupiscibilem sicut movens ad motum, ad hoc enim datur animalibus, ut tollantur impedimenta quibus concupiscibilis prohibetur frui suo obiecto, ut supra dictum est; removens autem prohibens habet rationem moventis, ut dicitur in VIII Physic. Ergo passiones irascibilis sunt priores passionibus concupiscibilis. Objection 2. Further, the mover precedes that which is moved. But the irascible faculty is compared to the concupiscible, as mover to that which is moved: since it is given to animals, for the purposed of removing the obstacles that hinder the concupiscible faculty from enjoying its object, as stated above (23, 1, ad 1; I, 81, 2). Now "that which removes an obstacle, is a kind of mover" (Phys. viii, 4). Therefore the irascible passions precede the concupiscible passions.
q. 25 a. 1 arg. 3 Praeterea, gaudium et tristitia sunt passiones concupiscibilis. Sed gaudium et tristitia consequuntur ad passiones irascibilis, dicit enim philosophus, in IV Ethic., quod punitio quietat impetum irae, delectationem loco tristitiae faciens. Ergo passiones concupiscibilis sunt posteriores passionibus irascibilis. Objection 3. Further, joy and sadness are concupiscible passions. But joy and sadness succeed to the irascible passions: for the Philosopher says (Ethic. iv, 5) that"retaliation causes anger to cease, because it produces pleasure instead of the previous pain." Therefore the concupiscible passions follow the irascible passions.
q. 25 a. 1 s. c. Sed contra, passiones concupiscibilis respiciunt bonum absolutum, passiones autem irascibilis respiciunt bonum contractum, scilicet arduum. Cum igitur bonum simpliciter sit prius quam bonum contractum, videtur quod passiones concupiscibilis sint priores passionibus irascibilis. On the contrary, The concupiscible passions regard the absolute good, while the irascible passions regard a restricted, viz. the difficult, good. Since, therefore, the absolute good precedes the restricted good, it seems that the concupiscible passions precede the irascible.
q. 25 a. 1 co. Respondeo dicendum quod passiones concupiscibilis ad plura se habent quam passiones irascibilis. Nam in passionibus concupiscibilis invenitur aliquid pertinens ad motum, sicut desiderium; et aliquid pertinens ad quietem, sicut gaudium et tristitia. Sed in passionibus irascibilis non invenitur aliquid pertinens ad quietem, sed solum pertinens ad motum. Cuius ratio est quia id in quo iam quiescitur, non habet rationem difficilis seu ardui, quod est obiectum irascibilis. Quies autem, cum sit finis motus, est prior in intentione, sed posterior in executione. Si ergo comparentur passiones irascibilis ad passiones concupiscibilis quae significant quietem in bono; manifeste passiones irascibilis praecedunt, ordine executionis, huiusmodi passiones concupiscibilis, sicut spes praecedit gaudium, unde et causat ipsum, secundum illud apostoli, Rom. XII, spe gaudentes. Sed passio concupiscibilis importans quietem in malo, scilicet tristitia, media est inter duas passiones irascibilis. Sequitur enim timorem, cum enim occurrerit malum quod timebatur, causatur tristitia. Praecedit autem motum irae, quia cum ex tristitia praecedente aliquis insurgit in vindictam, hoc pertinet ad motum irae. Et quia rependere vicem malis, apprehenditur ut bonum; cum iratus hoc consecutus fuerit, gaudet. Et sic manifestum est quod omnis passio irascibilis terminatur ad passionem concupiscibilis pertinentem ad quietem, scilicet vel ad gaudium vel ad tristitiam. Sed si comparentur passiones irascibilis ad passiones concupiscibilis quae important motum, sic manifeste passiones concupiscibilis sunt priores, eo quod passiones irascibilis addunt supra passiones concupiscibilis; sicut et obiectum irascibilis addit supra obiectum concupiscibilis arduitatem sive difficultatem. Spes enim supra desiderium addit quendam conatum, et quandam elevationem animi ad consequendum bonum arduum. Et similiter timor addit supra fugam seu abominationem, quandam depressionem animi, propter difficultatem mali. Sic ergo passiones irascibilis mediae sunt inter passiones concupiscibilis quae important motum in bonum vel in malum; et inter passiones concupiscibilis quae important quietem in bono vel in malo. Et sic patet quod passiones irascibilis et principium habent a passionibus concupiscibilis, et in passiones concupiscibilis terminantur. I answer that, In the concupiscible passions there is more diversity than in the passions of the irascible faculty. For in the former we find something relating to movement--e.g. desire; and something belonging to repose, e.g. joy and sadness. But in the irascible passions there is nothing pertaining to repose, and only that which belongs to movement. The reason of this is that when we find rest in a thing, we no longer look upon it as something difficult or arduous; whereas such is the object of the irascible faculty. Now since rest is the end of movement, it is first in the order of intention, but last in the order of execution. If, therefore, we compare the passions of the irascible faculty with those concupiscible passions that denote rest in good, it is evident that in the order of execution, the irascible passions take precedence of such like passions of the concupiscible faculty: thus hope precedes joy, and hence causes it, according to the Apostle (Romans 12:12): "Rejoicing in hope." But the concupiscible passion which denotes rest in evil, viz. sadness, comes between two irascible passions: because it follows fear; since we become sad when we are confronted by the evil that we feared: while it precedes the movement of anger; since the movement of self-vindication, that results from sadness, is the movement of anger. And because it is looked upon as a good thing to pay back the evil done to us; when the angry man has achieved this he rejoices. Thus it is evident that every passion of the irascible faculty terminates in a concupiscible passion denoting rest, viz. either in joy or in sadness. But if we compare the irascible passions to those concupiscible passions that denote movement, then it is clear that the latter take precedence: because the passions of the irascible faculty add something to those of the concupiscible faculty; just as the object of the irascible adds the aspect of arduousness or difficulty to the object of the concupiscible faculty. Thus hope adds to desire a certain effort, and a certain raising of the spirits to the realization of the arduous good. In like manner fear adds to aversion or detestation a certain lowness of spirits, on account of difficulty in shunning the evil. Accordingly the passions of the irascible faculty stand between those concupiscible passions that denote movement towards good or evil, and those concupiscible passions that denote rest in good or evil. And it is therefore evident that the irascible passions both arise from and terminate in the passions of the concupiscible faculty.
q. 25 a. 1 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod illa ratio procederet, si de ratione obiecti concupiscibilis esset aliquid oppositum arduo, sicut de ratione obiecti irascibilis est quod sit arduum. Sed quia obiectum concupiscibilis est bonum absolute, prius naturaliter est quam obiectum irascibilis, sicut commune proprio. Reply to Objection 1. This argument would prove, if the formal object of the concupiscible faculty were something contrary to the arduous, just as the formal object of the irascible faculty is that which is arduous. But because the object of the concupiscible faculty is good absolutely, it naturally precedes the object of the irascible, as the common precedes the proper.
q. 25 a. 1 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod removens prohibens non est movens per se, sed per accidens. Nunc autem loquimur de ordine passionum per se. Et praeterea irascibilis removet prohibens quietem concupiscibilis in suo obiecto. Unde ex hoc non sequitur nisi quod passiones irascibilis praecedunt passiones concupiscibilis ad quietem pertinentes. Reply to Objection 2. The remover of an obstacle is not a direct but an accidental mover: and here we are speaking of passions as directly related to one another. Moreover, the irascible passion removes the obstacle that hinders the concupiscible from resting in its object. Wherefore it only follows that the irascible passions precede those concupiscible passions that connote rest.
q. 25 a. 1 ad 3 De quibus etiam tertia ratio procedit. The third object leads to the same conclusion.
q. 25 a. 2 arg. 1 Ad secundum sic proceditur. Videtur quod amor non sit prima passionum concupiscibilis. Vis enim concupiscibilis a concupiscentia denominatur, quae est eadem passio cum desiderio. Sed denominatio fit a potiori, ut dicitur in II de anima. Ergo concupiscentia est potior amore. Objection 1. It would seem that love is not the first of the concupiscible passions. For the concupiscible faculty is so called from concupiscence, which is the same passion as desire. But "things are named from their chief characteristic" (De Anima ii, 4). Therefore desire takes precedence of love.
q. 25 a. 2 arg. 2 Praeterea, amor unionem quandam importat, est enim vis unitiva et concretiva, ut Dionysius dicit, in IV cap. de Div. Nom. Sed concupiscentia vel desiderium est motus ad unionem rei concupitae vel desideratae. Ergo concupiscentia est prior amore. Objection 2. Further, love implies a certain union; since it is a "uniting and binding force," as Dionysius says (Div. Nom. iv). But concupiscence or desire is a movement towards union with the thing coveted or desired. Therefore desire precedes love.
q. 25 a. 2 arg. 3 Praeterea, causa est prior effectu. Sed delectatio est quandoque causa amoris, quidam enim propter delectationem amant, ut dicitur in VIII Ethic. Ergo delectatio est prior amore. Non ergo prima inter passiones concupiscibilis est amor. Objection 3. Further, the cause precedes its effect. But pleasure is sometimes the cause of love: since some love on account of pleasure (Ethic. viii, 3,4). Therefore pleasure precedes love; and consequently love is not the first of the concupiscible passions.
q. 25 a. 2 s. c. Sed contra est quod Augustinus dicit, in XIV de Civ. Dei, quod omnes passiones ex amore causantur, amor enim inhians habere quod amatur, cupiditas est; id autem habens, eoque fruens, laetitia est. Amor ergo est prima passionum concupiscibilis. On the contrary, Augustine says (De Civ. Dei xiv, 7,9) that all the passions are caused by love: since "love yearning for the beloved object, is desire; and, having and enjoying it, is joy." Therefore love is the first of the concupiscible passions.
q. 25 a. 2 co. Respondeo dicendum quod obiectum concupiscibilis sunt bonum et malum. Naturaliter autem est prius bonum malo, eo quod malum est privatio boni. Unde et omnes passiones quarum obiectum est bonum, naturaliter sunt priores passionibus quarum obiectum est malum, unaquaeque scilicet sua opposita, quia enim bonum quaeritur, ideo refutatur oppositum malum. Bonum autem habet rationem finis, qui quidem est prior in intentione, sed est posterior in consecutione. Potest ergo ordo passionum concupiscibilis attendi vel secundum intentionem, vel secundum consecutionem. Secundum quidem consecutionem, illud est prius quod primo fit in eo quod tendit ad finem. Manifestum est autem quod omne quod tendit ad finem aliquem, primo quidem habet aptitudinem seu proportionem ad finem, nihil enim tendit in finem non proportionatum; secundo, movetur ad finem; tertio, quiescit in fine post eius consecutionem. Ipsa autem aptitudo sive proportio appetitus ad bonum est amor, qui nihil aliud est quam complacentia boni; motus autem ad bonum est desiderium vel concupiscentia; quies autem in bono est gaudium vel delectatio. Et ideo secundum hunc ordinem, amor praecedit desiderium, et desiderium praecedit delectationem. Sed secundum ordinem intentionis, est e converso, nam delectatio intenta causat desiderium et amorem. Delectatio enim est fruitio boni, quae quodammodo est finis sicut et ipsum bonum, ut supra dictum est. I answer that, Good and evil are the object of the concupiscible faculty. Now good naturally precedes evil; since evil is privation of good. Wherefore all the passions, the object of which is good, are naturally before those, the object of which is evil--that is to say, each precedes its contrary passion: because the quest of a good is the reason for shunning the opposite evil. Now good has the aspect of an end, and the end is indeed first in the order of intention, but last in the order of execution. Consequently the order of the concupiscible passions can be considered either in the order of intention or in the order of execution. In the order of execution, the first place belongs to that which takes place first in the thing that tends to the end. Now it is evident that whatever tends to an end, has, in the first place, an aptitude or proportion to that end, for nothing tends to a disproportionate end; secondly, it is moved to that end; thirdly, it rests in the end, after having attained it. And this very aptitude or proportion of the appetite to good is love, which is complacency in good; while movement towards good is desire or concupiscence; and rest in good is joy or pleasure. Accordingly in this order, love precedes desire, and desire precedes pleasure. But in the order of intention, it is the reverse: because the pleasure intended causes desire and love. For pleasure is the enjoyment of the good, which enjoyment is, in a way, the end, just as the good itself is, as stated above (11, 3, ad 3).
q. 25 a. 2 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod hoc modo nominatur aliquid, secundum quod nobis innotescit, voces enim sunt signa intellectuum, secundum philosophum. Nos autem, ut plurimum, per effectum cognoscimus causam. Effectus autem amoris, quando quidem habetur ipsum amatum, est delectatio, quando vero non habetur, est desiderium vel concupiscentia. Ut autem Augustinus dicit, in X de Trin., amor magis sentitur, cum eum prodit indigentia. Unde inter omnes passiones concupiscibilis, magis sensibilis est concupiscentia. Et propter hoc, ab ea denominatur potentia. Reply to Objection 1. We name a thing as we understand it, for "words are signs of thoughts," as the Philosopher states (Peri Herm. i, 1). Now in most cases we know a cause by its effect. But the effect of love, when the beloved object is possessed, is pleasure: when it is not possessed, it is desire or concupiscence: and, as Augustine says (De Trin. x, 12), "we are more sensible to love, when we lack that which we love." Consequently of all the concupiscible passions, concupiscence is felt most; and for this reason the power is named after it.
q. 25 a. 2 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod duplex est unio amati ad amantem. Una quidem realis, secundum scilicet coniunctionem ad rem ipsam. Et talis unio pertinet ad gaudium vel delectationem, quae sequitur desiderium. Alia autem est unio affectiva, quae est secundum aptitudinem vel proportionem, prout scilicet ex hoc quod aliquid habet aptitudinem ad alterum et inclinationem, iam participat aliquid eius. Et sic amor unionem importat. Quae quidem unio praecedit motum desiderii. Reply to Objection 2. The union of lover and beloved is twofold. There is real union, consisting in the conjunction of one with the other. This union belongs to joy or pleasure, which follows desire. There is also an affective union, consisting in an aptitude or proportion, in so far as one thing, from the very fact of its having an aptitude for and an inclination to another, partakes of it: and love betokens such a union. This union precedes the movement of desire.
q. 25 a. 2 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod delectatio causat amorem, secundum quod est prior in intentione. Reply to Objection 3. Pleasure causes love, in so far as it precedes love in the order of intention.
q. 25 a. 3 arg. 1 Ad tertium sic proceditur. Videtur quod spes non sit prima inter passiones irascibilis. Vis enim irascibilis ab ira denominatur. Cum ergo denominatio fiat a potiori, videtur quod ira sit potior et prior quam spes. Objection 1. It would seem that hope is not the first of the irascible passions. Because the irascible faculty is denominated from anger. Since, therefore, "things are names from their chief characteristic" (cf. 02, Objection 1), it seems that anger precedes and surpasses hope.
q. 25 a. 3 arg. 2 Praeterea, arduum est obiectum irascibilis. Sed magis videtur esse arduum quod aliquis conetur superare malum contrarium quod imminet ut futurum, quod pertinet ad audaciam; vel quod iniacet iam ut praesens, quod pertinet ad iram; quam quod conetur acquirere simpliciter aliquod bonum. Et similiter magis videtur esse arduum quod conetur vincere malum praesens, quam malum futurum. Ergo ira videtur esse potior passio quam audacia, et audacia quam spes. Et sic spes non videtur esse prior. Objection 2. Further, the object of the irascible faculty is something arduous. Now it seems more arduous to strive to overcome a contrary evil that threatens soon to overtake us, which pertains to daring; or an evil actually present, which pertains to anger; than to strive simply to obtain some good. Again, it seems more arduous to strive to overcome a present evil, than a future evil. Therefore anger seems to be a stronger passion than daring, and daring, than hope. And consequently it seems that hope does not precede them.
q. 25 a. 3 arg. 3 Praeterea, prius occurrit, in motu ad finem, recessus a termino, quam accessus ad terminum. Sed timor et desperatio important recessum ab aliquo, audacia autem et spes important accessum ad aliquid. Ergo timor et desperatio praecedunt spem et audaciam. Objection 3. Further, when a thing is moved towards an end, the movement of withdrawal precedes the movement of approach. But fear and despair imply withdrawal from something; while daring and hope imply approach towards something. Therefore fear and despair precede hope and daring.
q. 25 a. 3 s. c. Sed contra, quanto aliquid est propinquius primo, tanto est prius. Sed spes est propinquior amori, qui est prima passionum. Ergo spes est prior inter omnes passiones irascibilis. On the contrary, The nearer a thing is to the first, the more it precedes others. But hope is nearer to love, which is the first of the passions. Therefore hope is the first of the passions in the irascible faculty.
q. 25 a. 3 co. Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut iam dictum est, omnes passiones irascibilis important motum in aliquid. Motus autem ad aliquid in irascibili potest causari ex duobus, uno modo, ex sola aptitudine seu proportione ad finem, quae pertinet ad amorem vel odium; alio modo, ex praesentia ipsius boni vel mali, quae pertinet ad tristitiam vel gaudium. Et quidem ex praesentia boni non causatur aliqua passio in irascibili, ut dictum est, sed ex praesentia mali causatur passio irae. Quia igitur in via generationis seu consecutionis, proportio vel aptitudo ad finem praecedit consecutionem finis; inde est quod ira, inter omnes passiones irascibilis, est ultima, ordine generationis. Inter alias autem passiones irascibilis, quae important motum consequentem amorem vel odium boni vel mali, oportet quod passiones quarum obiectum est bonum, scilicet spes et desperatio, sint naturaliter priores passionibus quarum obiectum est malum, scilicet audacia et timore. Ita tamen quod spes est prior desperatione, quia spes est motus in bonum secundum rationem boni quod de sua ratione est attractivum, et ideo est motus in bonum per se; desperatio autem est recessus a bono, qui non competit bono secundum quod est bonum, sed secundum aliquid aliud, unde est quasi per accidens. Et eadem ratione, timor, cum sit recessus a malo, est prior quam audacia. Quod autem spes et desperatio sint naturaliter priores quam timor et audacia, ex hoc manifestum est, quod, sicut appetitus boni est ratio quare vitetur malum, ita etiam spes et desperatio sunt ratio timoris et audaciae, nam audacia consequitur spem victoriae, et timor consequitur desperationem vincendi. Ira autem consequitur audaciam, nullus enim irascitur vindictam appetens, nisi audeat vindicare, secundum quod Avicenna dicit, in sexto de naturalibus. Sic ergo patet quod spes est prima inter omnes passiones irascibilis. Et si ordinem omnium passionum secundum viam generationis, scire velimus, primo occurrunt amor et odium; secundo, desiderium et fuga; tertio, spes et desperatio; quarto, timor et audacia; quinto, ira; sexto et ultimo, gaudium et tristitia, quae consequuntur ad omnes passiones, ut dicitur in II Ethic. Ita tamen quod amor est prior odio, et desiderium fuga, et spes desperatione, et timor audacia, et gaudium quam tristitia, ut ex praedictis colligi potest. I answer that, As stated above (Article 1) all irascible passions imply movement towards something. Now this movement of the irascible faculty towards something may be due to two causes: one is the mere aptitude or proportion to the end; and this pertains to love or hatred, those whose object is good, or evil; and this belongs to sadness or joy. As a matter of fact, the presence of good produces no passion in the irascible, as stated above (23, 3,4); but the presence of evil gives rise to the passion of anger. Since then in order of generation or execution, proportion or aptitude to the end precedes the achievement of the end; it follows that, of all the irascible passions, anger is the last in the order of generation. And among the other passions of the irascible faculty, which imply a movement arising from love of good or hatred of evil, those whose object is good, viz. hope and despair, must naturally precede those whose object is evil, viz. daring and fear: yet so that hope precedes despair; since hope is a movement towards good as such, which is essentially attractive, so that hope tends to good directly; whereas despair is a movement away from good, a movement which is consistent with good, not as such, but in respect of something else, wherefore its tendency from good is accidental, as it were. In like manner fear, through being a movement from evil, precedes daring. And that hope and despair naturally precede fear and daring is evident from this--that as the desire of good is the reason for avoiding evil, so hope and despair are the reason for fear and daring: because daring arises from the hope of victory, and fear arises from the despair of overcoming. Lastly, anger arises from daring: for no one is angry while seeking vengeance, unless he dare to avenge himself, as Avicenna observes in the sixth book of his Physics. Accordingly, it is evident that hope is the first of all the irascible passions. And if we wish to know the order of all the passions in the way of generation, love and hatred are first; desire and aversion, second; hope and despair, third; fear and daring, fourth; anger, fifth; sixth and last, joy and sadness, which follow from all the passions, as stated in Ethic. ii, 5: yet so that love precedes hatred; desire precedes aversion; hope precedes despair; fear precedes daring; and joy precedes sadness, as may be gathered from what has been stated above.
q. 25 a. 3 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod, quia ira causatur ex aliis passionibus sicut effectus a causis praecedentibus, ideo ab ea, tanquam a manifestiori, denominatur potentia. Reply to Objection 1. Because anger arises from the other passions, as an effect from the causes that precede it, it is from anger, as being more manifest than the other passions, that the power takes its name.
q. 25 a. 3 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod arduum non est ratio accedendi vel appetendi, sed potius bonum. Et ideo spes, quae directius respicit bonum, est prior, quamvis audacia aliquando sit in magis arduum, vel etiam ira. Reply to Objection 2. It is not the arduousness but the good that is the reason for approach or desire. Consequently hope, which regards good more directly, takes precedence: although at times daring or even anger regards something more arduous.
q. 25 a. 3 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod appetitus primo et per se movetur in bonum, sicut in proprium obiectum; et ex hoc causatur quod recedat a malo. Proportionatur enim motus appetitivae partis, non quidem motui naturali, sed intentioni naturae; quae per prius intendit finem quam remotionem contrarii, quae non quaeritur nisi propter adeptionem finis. Reply to Objection 3. The movement of the appetite is essentially and directly towards the good as towards its proper object; its movement from evil results from this. For the movement of the appetitive part is in proportion, not to natural movement, but to the intention of nature, which intends the end before intending the removal of a contrary, which removal is desired only for the sake of obtaining the end.
q. 25 a. 4 arg. 1 Ad quartum sic proceditur. Videtur quod non sint istae quatuor principales passiones, gaudium et tristitia, spes et timor. Augustinus enim, in XIV de Civ. Dei, non ponit spem, sed cupiditatem loco eius. Objection 1. It would seem that joy, sadness, hope and fear are not the four principal passions. For Augustine (De Civ. Dei xiv, 3,[7 sqq.) omits hope and puts desire in its place.
q. 25 a. 4 arg. 2 Praeterea, in passionibus animae est duplex ordo, scilicet intentionis, et consecutionis seu generationis. Aut ergo principales passiones accipiuntur secundum ordinem intentionis, et sic tantum gaudium et tristitia, quae sunt finales, erunt principales passiones. Aut secundum ordinem consecutionis seu generationis, et sic amor erit principalis passio. Nullo ergo modo debent dici quatuor principales passiones istae quatuor, gaudium et tristitia, spes et timor. Objection 2. Further, there is a twofold order in the passions of the soul: the order of intention, and the order of execution or generation. The principal passions should therefore be taken, either in the order of intention; and thus joy and sadness, which are the final passions, will be the principal passions; or in the order of execution or generation, and thus love will be the principal passion. Therefore joy and sadness, hope and fear should in no way be called the four principal passions.
q. 25 a. 4 arg. 3 Praeterea, sicut audacia causatur ex spe, ita timor ex desperatione. Aut ergo spes et desperatio debent poni principales passiones, tanquam causae, aut spes et audacia, tanquam sibi ipsis affines. Objection 3. Further, just as daring is caused by hope, so fear is caused by despair. Either, therefore, hope and despair should be reckoned as principal passions, since they cause others: or hope and daring, from being akin to one another.
q. 25 a. 4 s. c. Sed contra est illud quod Boetius, in libro de Consol., enumerans quatuor principales passiones, dicit, gaudia pelle, pelle timorem, spemque fugato, nec dolor adsit. On the contrary, Boethius (De Consol. i) in enumerating the four principal passions, says: "Banish joys: banish fears: Away with hope: away with tears."
q. 25 a. 4 co. Respondeo dicendum quod hae quatuor passiones communiter principales esse dicuntur. Quarum duae, scilicet gaudium et tristitia, principales dicuntur, quia sunt completivae et finales simpliciter respectu omnium passionum, unde ad omnes passiones consequuntur, ut dicitur in II Ethic. Timor autem et spes sunt principales, non quidem quasi completivae simpliciter, sed quia sunt completivae in genere motus appetitivi ad aliquid, nam respectu boni, incipit motus in amore, et procedit in desiderium, et terminatur in spe; respectu vero mali, incipit in odio, et procedit ad fugam, et terminatur in timore. Et ideo solet harum quatuor passionum numerus accipi secundum differentiam praesentis et futuri, motus enim respicit futurum, sed quies est in aliquo praesenti. De bono igitur praesenti est gaudium; de malo praesenti est tristitia; de bono vero futuro est spes; de malo futuro est timor. Omnes autem aliae passiones, quae sunt de bono vel de malo praesenti vel futuro, ad has completive reducuntur. Unde etiam a quibusdam dicuntur principales hae praedictae quatuor passiones, quia sunt generales. Quod quidem verum est, si spes et timor designant motum appetitus communiter tendentem in aliquid appetendum vel fugiendum. I answer that, These four are commonly called the principal passions. Two of them, viz. joy and sadness, are said to be principal because in them all the other passions have their completion and end; wherefore they arise from all the other passions, as is stated in Ethic. ii, 5. Fear and hope are principal passions, not because they complete the others simply, but because they complete them as regards the movement of the appetite towards something: for in respect of good, movement begins in love, goes forward to desire, and ends in hope; while in respect of evil, it begins in hatred, goes on to aversion, and ends in fear. Hence it is customary to distinguish these four passions in relation to the present and the future: for movement regards the future, while rest is in something present: so that joy relates to present good, sadness relates to present evil; hope regards future good, and fear, future evil. As to the other passions that regard good or evil, present or future, they all culminate in these four. For this reason some have said that these four are the principal passions, because they are general passions; and this is true, provided that by hope and fear we understand the appetite's common tendency to desire or shun something.
q. 25 a. 4 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod Augustinus ponit desiderium vel cupiditatem loco spei, inquantum ad idem pertinere videntur, scilicet ad bonum futurum. Reply to Objection 1. Augustine puts desire or covetousness in place of hope, in so far as they seem to regard the same object, viz. some future good.
q. 25 a. 4 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod passiones istae dicuntur principales, secundum ordinem intentionis et complementi. Et quamvis timor et spes non sint ultimae passiones simpliciter, tamen sunt ultimae in genere passionum tendentium in aliud quasi in futurum. Nec potest esse instantia nisi de ira. Quae tamen non potest poni principalis passio, quia est quidam effectus audaciae, quae non potest esse passio principalis, ut infra dicetur. Reply to Objection 2. These are called principal passions, in the order of intention and completion. And though fear and hope are not the last passions simply, yet they are the last of those passions that tend towards something as future. Nor can the argument be pressed any further except in the case of anger: yet neither can anger be reckoned a principal passion, because it is an effect of daring, which cannot be a principal passion, as we shall state further on (Reply to Objection 3).
q. 25 a. 4 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod desperatio importat recessum a bono, quod est quasi per accidens, et audacia importat accessum ad malum, quod etiam est per accidens. Et ideo hae passiones non possunt esse principales, quia quod est per accidens, non potest dici principale. Et sic etiam nec ira potest dici passio principalis, quae consequitur audaciam. Reply to Objection 3. Despair implies movement away from good; and this is, as it were, accidental: and daring implies movement towards evil; and this too is accidental. Consequently these cannot be principal passions; because that which is accidental cannot be said to be principal. And so neither can anger be called a principal passion, because it arises from daring.




THE LOGIC MUSEUM II