SUMMA THEOLOGIAE IIa - XXX-XXXIV

Index

Question 30.1 Concupiscience
Question 30.2
Question 30.3
Question 30.4

Question 31.1 Delight
Question 31.2
Question 31.3
Question 31.4
Question 31.5
Question 31.6
Question 31.7
Question 31.8

Question 32.1 The cause of delight
Question 32.2
Question 32.3
Question 32.4
Question 32.5
Question 32.6
Question 32.7
Question 32.8

Question 33.1 The effects of Delight
Question 33.2
Question 33.3
Question 33.4

Question 34.1 Goodness and malice of pleasure
Question 34.2
Question 34.3
Question 34.4

LatinEnglish
q. 30 pr. Deinde considerandum est de concupiscentia. Et circa hoc quaeruntur quatuor. Primo, utrum concupiscentia sit in appetitu sensitivo tantum. Secundo, utrum concupiscentia sit passio specialis. Tertio, utrum sint aliquae concupiscentiae naturales, et aliquae non naturales. Quarto, utrum concupiscentia sit infinita. Question 30. Concupiscence Is concupiscence in the sensitive appetite only? Is concupiscence a specific passion? Are some concupiscences natural, and some not natural? Is concupiscence infinite?
q. 30 a. 1 arg. 1 Ad primum sic proceditur. Videtur quod concupiscentia non solum sit in appetitu sensitivo. Est enim quaedam concupiscentia sapientiae, ut dicitur Sap. VI, concupiscentia sapientiae deducit ad regnum perpetuum. Sed appetitus sensitivus non potest ferri in sapientiam. Ergo concupiscentia non est in solo appetitu sensitivo. Objection 1. It would seem that concupiscence is not only in the sensitive appetite. For there is a concupiscence of wisdom, according to Wisdom 6:21: "The concupiscence [Douay: 'desire'] of wisdom bringeth to the everlasting kingdom." But the sensitive appetite can have no tendency to wisdom. Therefore concupiscence is not only in the sensitive appetite.
q. 30 a. 1 arg. 2 Praeterea, desiderium mandatorum Dei non est in appetitu sensitivo, immo apostolus dicit, Rom. VII, non habitat in me, hoc est in carne mea, bonum. Sed desiderium mandatorum Dei sub concupiscentia cadit, secundum illud Psalmi CXVIII, concupivit anima mea desiderare iustificationes tuas. Ergo concupiscentia non est solum in appetitu sensitivo. Objection 2. Further, the desire for the commandments of God is not in the sensitive appetite: in fact the Apostle says (Romans 7:18): "There dwelleth not in me, that is to say, in my flesh, that which is good." But desire for God's commandments is an act of concupiscence, according to Psalm 118:20: "My soul hath coveted [concupivit] to long for thy justifications." Therefore concupiscence is not only in the sensitive appetite.
q. 30 a. 1 arg. 3 Praeterea, cuilibet potentiae est concupiscibile proprium bonum. Ergo concupiscentia est in qualibet potentiae animae, et non solum in appetitu sensitivo. Objection 3. Further, to each power, its proper good is a matter of concupiscence. Therefore concupiscence is in each power of the soul, and not only in the sensitive appetite.
q. 30 a. 1 s. c. Sed contra est quod Damascenus dicit, quod irrationale obediens et persuasibile rationi, dividitur in concupiscentiam et iram. Haec autem est irrationalis pars animae, passiva et appetitiva. Ergo concupiscentia est in appetitu sensitivo. On the contrary, Damascene says (De Fide Orth. ii, 12) that "the irrational part which is subject and amenable to reason, is divided into the faculties of concupiscence and anger. This is the irrational part of the soul, passive and appetitive." Therefore concupiscence is in the sensitive appetite.
q. 30 a. 1 co. Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut philosophus dicit in I Rhetoric., concupiscentia est appetitus delectabilis. Est autem duplex delectatio, ut infra dicetur, una quae est in bono intelligibili, quod est bonum rationis; alia quae est in bono secundum sensum. Prima quidem delectatio videtur esse animae tantum. Secunda autem est animae et corporis, quia sensus est virtus in organo corporeo; unde et bonum secundum sensum est bonum totius coniuncti. Talis autem delectationis appetitus videtur esse concupiscentia, quae simul pertineat et ad animam et ad corpus, ut ipsum nomen concupiscentiae sonat. Unde concupiscentia, proprie loquendo, est in appetitu sensitivo; et in vi concupiscibili, quae ab ea denominatur. I answer that, As the Philosopher says (Rhet. i, 11), "concupiscence is a craving for that which is pleasant." Now pleasure is twofold, as we shall state later on (31, 3,4): one is in the intelligible good, which is the good of reason; the other is in good perceptible to the senses. The former pleasure seems to belong to soul alone: whereas the latter belongs to both soul and body: because the sense is a power seated in a bodily organ: wherefore sensible good is the good of the whole composite. Now concupiscence seems to be the craving for this latter pleasure, since it belongs to the united soul and body, as is implied by the Latin word "concupiscentia." Therefore, properly speaking, concupiscence is in the sensitive appetite, and in the concupiscible faculty, which takes its name from it.
q. 30 a. 1 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod appetitus sapientiae, vel aliorum spiritualium bonorum, interdum concupiscentia nominatur, vel propter similitudinem quandam, vel propter intensionem appetitus superioris partis, ex quo fit redundantia in inferiorem appetitum, ut simul etiam ipse inferior appetitus suo modo tendat in spirituale bonum consequens appetitum superiorem, et etiam ipsum corpus spiritualibus deserviat; sicut in Psalmo LXXXIII, dicitur, cor meum et caro mea exultaverunt in Deum vivum. Reply to Objection 1. The craving for wisdom, or other spiritual goods, is sometimes called concupiscence; either by reason of a certain likeness; or on account of the craving in the higher part of the soul being so vehement that it overflows into the lower appetite, so that the latter also, in its own way, tends to the spiritual good, following the lead of the higher appetite, the result being that the body itself renders its service in spiritual matters, according to Psalm 83:3: "My heart and my flesh have rejoiced in the living God."
q. 30 a. 1 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod desiderium magis pertinere potest, proprie loquendo, non solum ad inferiorem appetitum, sed etiam ad superiorem. Non enim importat aliquam consociationem in cupiendo, sicut concupiscentia; sed simplicem motum in rem desideratam. Reply to Objection 2. Properly speaking, desire may be not only in the lower, but also in the higher appetite. For it does not imply fellowship in craving, as concupiscence does; but simply movement towards the thing desired.
q. 30 a. 1 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod unicuique potentiae animae competit appetere proprium bonum appetitu naturali, qui non sequitur apprehensionem. Sed appetere bonum appetitu animali, qui sequitur apprehensionem, pertinet solum ad vim appetitivam. Appetere autem aliquid sub ratione boni delectabilis secundum sensum, quod proprie est concupiscere, pertinet ad vim concupiscibilem. Reply to Objection 3. It belongs to each power of the soul to seek its proper good by the natural appetite, which does not arise from apprehension. But the craving for good, by the animal appetite, which arises from apprehension, belongs to the appetitive power alone. And to crave a thing under the aspect of something delightful to the senses, wherein concupiscence properly consists, belongs to the concupiscible power.
q. 30 a. 2 arg. 1 Ad secundum sic proceditur. Videtur quod concupiscentia non sit passio specialis potentiae concupiscibilis. Passiones enim distinguuntur secundum obiecta. Sed obiectum concupiscibilis est delectabile secundum sensum; quod etiam est obiectum concupiscentiae, secundum philosophum, in I Rhetoric. Ergo concupiscentia non est passio specialis in concupiscibili. Objection 1. It would seem that concupiscence is not a specific passion of the concupiscible power. For passions are distinguished by their objects. But the object of the concupiscible power is something delightful to the senses; and this is also the object of concupiscence, as the Philosopher declares (Rhet. i, 11). Therefore concupiscence is not a specific passion of the concupiscible faculty.
q. 30 a. 2 arg. 2 Praeterea, Augustinus dicit, in libro octoginta trium quaest., quod cupiditas est amor rerum transeuntium, et sic ab amore non distinguitur. Omnes autem passiones speciales ab invicem distinguuntur. Ergo concupiscentia non est passio specialis in concupiscibili. Objection 2. Further, Augustine says (QQ. 83, qu. 33) that "covetousness is the love of transitory things": so that it is not distinct from love. But all specific passions are distinct from one another. Therefore concupiscence is not a specific passion in the concupiscible faculty.
q. 30 a. 2 arg. 3 Praeterea, cuilibet passioni concupiscibilis opponitur aliqua passio specialis in concupiscibili, ut supra dictum est. Sed concupiscentiae non opponitur aliqua passio specialis in concupiscibili. Dicit enim Damascenus quod expectatum bonum concupiscentiam constituit, praesens vero laetitiam, similiter expectatum malum timorem, praesens vero tristitiam, ex quo videtur quod, sicut tristitia contrariatur laetitiae, ita timor contrariatur concupiscentiae. Timor autem non est in concupiscibili, sed in irascibili. Non ergo concupiscentia est specialis passio in concupiscibili. Objection 3. Further, to each passion of the concupiscible faculty there is a specific contrary passion in that faculty, as stated above (Question 23, Article 4). But no specific passion of the concupiscible faculty is contrary to concupiscence. For Damascene says (De Fide Orth. ii, 12) that "good when desired gives rise to concupiscence; when present, it gives joy: in like manner, the evil we apprehend makes us fear, the evil that is present makes us sad": from which we gather that as sadness is contrary to joy, so is fear contrary to concupiscence. But fear is not in the concupiscible, but in the irascible part. Therefore concupiscence is not a specific passion of the concupiscible faculty.
q. 30 a. 2 s. c. Sed contra est quod concupiscentia causatur ab amore, et tendit in delectationem, quae sunt passiones concupiscibilis. Et sic distinguitur ab aliis passionibus concupiscibilis, tanquam passio specialis. On the contrary, Concupiscence is caused by love, and tends to pleasure, both of which are passions of the concupiscible faculty. Hence it is distinguished from the other concupiscible passions, as a specific passion.
q. 30 a. 2 co. Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut dictum est, bonum delectabile secundum sensum est communiter obiectum concupiscibilis. Unde secundum eius differentias, diversae passiones concupiscibilis distinguuntur. Diversitas autem obiecti potest attendi vel secundum naturam ipsius obiecti, vel secundum diversitatem in virtute agendi. Diversitas quidem obiecti activi quae est secundum rei naturam, facit materialem differentiam passionum. Sed diversitas quae est secundum virtutem activam, facit formalem differentiam passionum, secundum quam passiones specie differunt. Est autem alia ratio virtutis motivae ipsius finis vel boni, secundum quod est realiter praesens, et secundum quod est absens, nam secundum quod est praesens, facit in seipso quiescere; secundum autem quod est absens, facit ad seipsum moveri. Unde ipsum delectabile secundum sensum, inquantum appetitum sibi adaptat quodammodo et conformat, causat amorem; inquantum vero absens attrahit ad seipsum, causat concupiscentiam; inquantum vero praesens quietat in seipso, causat delectationem. Sic ergo concupiscentia est passio differens specie et ab amore et a delectatione. Sed concupiscere hoc delectabile vel illud, facit concupiscentias diversas numero. I answer that, As stated above (01; 23, 1), the good which gives pleasure to the senses is the common object of the concupiscible faculty. Hence the various concupiscible passions are distinguished according to the differences of that good. Now the diversity of this object can arise from the very nature of the object, or from a diversity in its active power. The diversity, derived from the nature of the active object, causes a material difference of passions: while the difference in regard to its active power causes a formal diversity of passions, in respect of which the passions differ specifically. Now the nature of the motive power of the end or of the good, differs according as it is really present, or absent: because, according as it is present, it causes the faculty to find rest in it; whereas, according as it is absent, it causes the faculty to be moved towards it. Wherefore the object of sensible pleasure causes love, inasmuch as, so to speak, it attunes and conforms the appetite to itself; it causes concupiscence, inasmuch as, when absent, it draws the faculty to itself; and it causes pleasure, inasmuch as, when present, it makes the faculty to find rest in itself. Accordingly, concupiscence is a passion differing "in species" from both love and pleasure. But concupiscences of this or that pleasurable object differ "in number." Now the nature of the motive power of the end or of the good, differs according as it is really present, or absent: because, according as it is present, it causes the faculty to find rest in it; whereas, according as it is absent, it causes the faculty to be moved towards it. Wherefore the object of sensible pleasure causes love, inasmuch as, so to speak, it attunes and conforms the appetite to itself; it causes concupiscence, inasmuch as, when absent, it draws the faculty to itself; and it causes pleasure, inasmuch as, when present, it makes the faculty to find rest in itself. Accordingly, concupiscence is a passion differing "in species" from both love and pleasure. But concupiscences of this or that pleasurable object differ "in number."
q. 30 a. 2 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod bonum delectabile non est absolute obiectum concupiscentiae, sed sub ratione absentis, sicut et sensibile sub ratione praeteriti, est obiectum memoriae. Huiusmodi enim particulares conditiones diversificant speciem passionum, vel etiam potentiarum sensitivae partis, quae respicit particularia. Reply to Objection 1. Pleasurable good is the object of concupiscence, not absolutely, but considered as absent: just as the sensible, considered as past, is the object of memory. For these particular conditions diversify the species of passions, and even of the powers of the sensitive part, which regards particular things.
q. 30 a. 2 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod illa praedicatio est per causam, non per essentiam, non enim cupiditas est per se amor, sed amoris effectus, vel aliter dicendum, quod Augustinus accipit cupiditatem large pro quolibet motu appetitus qui potest esse respectu boni futuri. Unde comprehendit sub se et amorem et spem. Reply to Objection 2. In the passage quoted we have causal, not essential predication: for covetousness is not essentially love, but an effect of love. We may also say that Augustine is taking covetousness in a wide sense, for any movement of the appetite in respect of good to come: so that it includes both love and hope.
q. 30 a. 2 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod passio quae directe opponitur concupiscentiae, innominata est, quae ita se habet ad malum, sicut concupiscentia ad bonum. Sed quia est mali absentis sicut et timor, quandoque loco eius ponitur timor, sicut et quandoque cupiditas loco spei. Quod enim est parvum bonum vel malum, quasi non reputatur, et ideo pro omni motu appetitus in bonum vel in malum futurum, ponitur spes et timor, quae respiciunt bonum vel malum arduum. Reply to Objection 3. The passion which is directly contrary to concupiscence has no name, and stands in relation to evil, as concupiscence in regard to good. But since, like fear, it regards the absent evil; sometimes it goes by the name of fear, just as hope is sometimes called covetousness. For a small good or evil is reckoned as though it were nothing: and consequently every movement of the appetite in future good or evil is called hope or fear, which regard good and evil as arduous.
q. 30 a. 3 arg. 1 Ad tertium sic proceditur. Videtur quod concupiscentiarum non sint quaedam naturales, et quaedam non naturales. Concupiscentia enim pertinet ad appetitum animalem, ut dictum est. Sed appetitus naturalis dividitur contra animalem. Ergo nulla concupiscentia est naturalis. Objection 1. It would seem that concupiscences are not divided into those which are natural and those which are not. For concupiscence belongs to the animal appetite, as stated above (01, ad 3). But the natural appetite is contrasted with the animal appetite. Therefore no concupiscence is natural.
q. 30 a. 3 arg. 2 Praeterea, diversitas materialis non facit diversitatem secundum speciem, sed solum secundum numerum, quae quidem diversitas sub arte non cadit. Sed si quae sint concupiscentiae naturales et non naturales, non differunt nisi secundum diversa concupiscibilia, quod facit materialem differentiam, et secundum numerum tantum. Non ergo dividendae sunt concupiscentiae per naturales et non naturales. Objection 2. Further, material differences makes no difference of species, but only numerical difference; a difference which is outside the purview of science. But if some concupiscences are natural, and some not, they differ only in respect of their objects; which amounts to a material difference, which is one of number only. Therefore concupiscences should not be divided into those that are natural and those that are not.
q. 30 a. 3 arg. 3 Praeterea, ratio contra naturam dividitur, ut patet in II Physic. Si igitur in homine est aliqua concupiscentia non naturalis, oportet quod sit rationalis. Sed hoc esse non potest, quia concupiscentia cum sit passio quaedam, pertinet ad appetitum sensitivum, non autem ad voluntatem, quae est appetitus rationis. Non ergo sunt concupiscentiae aliquae non naturales. Objection 3. Further, reason is contrasted with nature, as stated in Phys. ii, 5. If therefore in man there is a concupiscence which is not natural, it must needs be rational. But this is impossible: because, since concupiscence is a passion, it belongs to the sensitive appetite, and not to the will, which is the rational appetite. Therefore there are no concupiscences which are not natural.
q. 30 a. 3 s. c. Sed contra est quod philosophus, in III Ethic. et in I Rhetoric., ponit quasdam concupiscentias naturales, et quasdam non naturales. On the contrary, The Philosopher (Ethic. iii, 11 and Rhetor. i, 11) distinguishes natural concupiscences from those that are not natural.
q. 30 a. 3 co. Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut dictum est, concupiscentia est appetitus boni delectabilis. Dupliciter autem aliquid est delectabile. Uno modo, quia est conveniens naturae animalis, sicut cibus, potus, et alia huiusmodi. Et huiusmodi concupiscentia delectabilis dicitur naturalis. Alio modo aliquid est delectabile, quia est conveniens animali secundum apprehensionem, sicut cum aliquis apprehendit aliquid ut bonum et conveniens, et per consequens delectatur in ipso. Et huiusmodi delectabilis concupiscentia dicitur non naturalis, et solet magis dici cupiditas. Primae ergo concupiscentiae, naturales, communes sunt et hominibus et aliis animalibus, quia utrisque est aliquid conveniens et delectabile secundum naturam. Et in his etiam omnes homines conveniunt, unde et philosophus, in III Ethic., vocat eas communes et necessarias. Sed secundae concupiscentiae sunt propriae hominum, quorum proprium est excogitare aliquid ut bonum et conveniens, praeter id quod natura requirit. Unde et in I Rhetoric., philosophus dicit primas concupiscentias esse irrationales, secundas vero cum ratione. Et quia diversi diversimode ratiocinantur, ideo etiam secundae dicuntur, in III Ethic., propriae et appositae, scilicet supra naturales. I answer that, As stated above (Article 1), concupiscence is the craving for pleasurable good. Now a thing is pleasurable in two ways. First, because it is suitable to the nature of the animal; for example, food, drink, and the like: and concupiscence of such pleasurable things is said to be natural. Secondly, a thing is pleasurable because it is apprehended as suitable to the animal: as when one apprehends something as good and suitable, and consequently takes pleasure in it: and concupiscence of such pleasurable things is said to be not natural, and is more wont to be called "cupidity." Accordingly concupiscences of the first kind, or natural concupiscences, are common to men and other animals: because to both is there something suitable and pleasurable according to nature: and in these all men agree; wherefore the Philosopher (Ethic. iii, 11) calls them "common" and "necessary." But concupiscences of the second kind are proper to men, to whom it is proper to devise something as good and suitable, beyond that which nature requires. Hence the Philosopher says (Rhet. i, 11) that the former concupiscences are "irrational," but the latter, "rational." And because different men reason differently, therefore the latter are also called (Ethic. iii, 11) "peculiar and acquired," i.e. in addition to those that are natural.
q. 30 a. 3 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod illud idem quod appetitur appetitu naturali, potest appeti appetitu animali cum fuerit apprehensum. Et secundum hoc cibi et potus et huiusmodi, quae appetuntur naturaliter, potest esse concupiscentia naturalis. Reply to Objection 1. The same thing that is the object of the natural appetite, may be the object of the animal appetite, once it is apprehended. And in this way there may be an animal concupiscence of food, drink, and the like, which are objects of the natural appetite.
q. 30 a. 3 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod diversitas concupiscentiarum naturalium a non naturalibus, non est materialis tantum; sed etiam quodammodo formalis, inquantum procedit ex diversitate obiecti activi. Obiectum autem appetitus est bonum apprehensum. Unde ad diversitatem activi pertinet diversitas apprehensionis, prout scilicet apprehenditur aliquid ut conveniens absoluta apprehensione, ex qua causantur concupiscentiae naturales, quas philosophus in Rhetoric. vocat irrationales; et prout apprehenditur aliquid cum deliberatione, ex quo causantur concupiscentiae non naturales, quae propter hoc in Rhetoric. dicuntur cum ratione. Reply to Objection 2. The difference between those concupiscences that are natural and those that are not, is not merely a material difference; it is also, in a way, formal, in so far as it arises from a difference in the active object. Now the object of the appetite is the apprehended good. Hence diversity of the active object follows from diversity of apprehension: according as a thing is apprehended as suitable, either by absolute apprehension, whence arise natural concupiscences, which the Philosopher calls "irrational" (Rhet. i, 11); or by apprehension together with deliberation, whence arise those concupiscences that are not natural, and which for this very reason the Philosopher calls "rational" (Rhet. i, 11).
q. 30 a. 3 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod in homine non solum est ratio universalis, quae pertinet ad partem intellectivam; sed etiam ratio particularis, quae pertinet ad partem sensitivam, ut in primo libro dictum est. Et secundum hoc, etiam concupiscentia quae est cum ratione, potest ad appetitum sensitivum pertinere. Et praeterea appetitus sensitivus potest etiam a ratione universali moveri, mediante imaginatione particulari. Reply to Objection 3. Man has not only universal reason, pertaining to the intellectual faculty; but also particular reason pertaining to the sensitive faculty, as stated in the I, 78, 4; I, 81, 3: so that even rational concupiscence may pertain to the sensitive appetite. Moreover the sensitive appetite can be moved by the universal reason also, through the medium of the particular imagination.
q. 30 a. 4 arg. 1 Ad quartum sic proceditur. Videtur quod concupiscentia non sit infinita. Obiectum enim concupiscentiae est bonum; quod habet rationem finis. Qui autem ponit infinitum, excludit finem, ut dicitur in II Metaphys. Concupiscentia ergo non potest esse infinita. Objection 1. It would seem that concupiscence is not infinite. For the object of concupiscence is good, which has the aspect of an end. But where there is infinity there is no end (Metaph. ii, 2). Therefore concupiscence cannot be infinite.
q. 30 a. 4 arg. 2 Praeterea, concupiscentia est boni convenientis, cum procedat ex amore. Sed infinitum, cum sit improportionatum, non potest esse conveniens. Ergo concupiscentia non potest esse infinita. Objection 2. Further, concupiscence is of the fitting good, since it proceeds from love. But the infinite is without proportion, and therefore unfitting. Therefore concupiscence cannot be infinite.
q. 30 a. 4 arg. 3 Praeterea, infinita non est transire, et sic in eis non est pervenire ad ultimum. Sed concupiscenti fit delectatio per hoc quod attingit ad ultimum. Ergo si concupiscentia esset infinita, sequeretur quod nunquam fieret delectatio. Objection 3. Further, there is no passing through infinite things: and thus there is no reaching an ultimate term in them. But the subject of concupiscence is not delighted until he attain the ultimate term. Therefore, if concupiscence were infinite, no delight would ever ensue.
q. 30 a. 4 s. c. Sed contra est quod philosophus dicit, in I Polit., quod, in infinitum concupiscentia existente homines infinita desiderant. On the contrary, The Philosopher says (Polit. i, 3) that "since concupiscence is infinite, men desire an infinite number of things."
q. 30 a. 4 co. Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut dictum est, duplex est concupiscentia, una naturalis, et alia non naturalis. Naturalis quidem igitur concupiscentia non potest esse infinita in actu. Est enim eius quod natura requirit, natura vero semper intendit in aliquid finitum et certum. Unde nunquam homo concupiscit infinitum cibum, vel infinitum potum. Sed sicut in natura contingit esse infinitum in potentia per successionem, ita huiusmodi concupiscentiam contingit infinitam esse per successionem; ut scilicet, post adeptum cibum iterum alia vice desideret cibum, vel quodcumque aliud quod natura requirit, quia huiusmodi corporalia bona, cum adveniunt, non perpetuo manent, sed deficiunt. Unde dixit dominus Samaritanae, Ioan. IV, qui biberit ex hac aqua, sitiet iterum. Sed concupiscentia non naturalis omnino est infinita. Sequitur enim rationem, ut dictum est, rationi autem competit in infinitum procedere. Unde qui concupiscit divitias, potest eas concupiscere, non ad aliquem certum terminum, sed simpliciter se divitem esse, quantumcumque potest. Potest et alia ratio assignari, secundum philosophum in I Polit., quare quaedam concupiscentia sit finita, et quaedam infinita. Semper enim concupiscentia finis est infinita, finis enim per se concupiscitur, ut sanitas; unde maior sanitas magis concupiscitur, et sic in infinitum; sicut, si album per se disgregat, magis album magis disgregat. Concupiscentia vero eius quod est ad finem, non est infinita, sed secundum illam mensuram appetitur qua convenit fini. Unde qui finem ponunt in divitiis, habent concupiscentiam divitiarum in infinitum, qui autem divitias appetunt propter necessitatem vitae, concupiscunt divitias finitas, sufficientes ad necessitatem vitae, ut philosophus dicit ibidem. Et eadem est ratio de concupiscentia, quarumcumque aliarum rerum. I answer that, As stated above (Article 3), concupiscence is twofold; one is natural, the other is not natural. Natural concupiscence cannot be actually infinite: because it is of that which nature requires; and nature ever tends to something finite and fixed. Hence man never desires infinite meat, or infinite drink. But just as in nature there is potential successive infinity, so can this kind of concupiscence be infinite successively; so that, for instance, after getting food, a man may desire food yet again; and so of anything else that nature requires: because these bodily goods, when obtained, do not last for ever, but fail. Hence Our Lord said to the woman of Samaria (John 4:13): "Whosever drinketh of this water, shall thirst again." But non-natural concupiscence is altogether infinite. Because, as stated above (Article 3), it follows from the reason, and it belongs to the reason to proceed to infinity. Hence he that desires riches, may desire to be rich, not up to a certain limit, but to be simply as rich as possible. Another reason may be assigned, according to the Philosopher (Polit. i, 3), why a certain concupiscence is finite, and another infinite. Because concupiscence of the end is always infinite: since the end is desired for its own sake, e.g. health: and thus greater health is more desired, and so on to infinity; just as, if a white thing of itself dilates the sight, that which is more white dilates yet more. On the other hand, concupiscence of the means is not infinite, because the concupiscence of the means is in suitable proportion to the end. Consequently those who place their end in riches have an infinite concupiscence of riches; whereas those who desire riches, on account of the necessities of life, desire a finite measure of riches, sufficient for the necessities of life, as the Philosopher says (Polit. i, 3). The same applies to the concupiscence of any other things.
q. 30 a. 4 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod omne quod concupiscitur, accipitur ut quoddam finitum, vel quia est finitum secundum rem, prout semel concupiscitur in actu; vel quia est finitum secundum quod cadit sub apprehensione. Non enim potest sub ratione infiniti apprehendi, quia infinitum est, cuius quantitatem accipientibus, semper est aliquid extra sumere, ut dicitur in III Physic. Reply to Objection 1. Every object of concupiscence is taken as something finite: either because it is finite in reality, as being once actually desired; or because it is finite as apprehended. For it cannot be apprehended as infinite, since the infinite is that "from which, however much we may take, there always remains something to be taken" (Phys. iii, 6).
q. 30 a. 4 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod ratio quodammodo est virtutis infinitae inquantum potest in infinitum aliquid considerare, ut apparet in additione numerorum et linearum. Unde infinitum aliquo modo sumptum, est proportionatum rationi. Nam et universale, quod ratio apprehendit, est quodammodo infinitum, inquantum in potentia continet infinita singularia. Reply to Objection 2. The reason is possessed of infinite power, in a certain sense, in so far as it can consider a thing infinitely, as appears in the addition of numbers and lines. Consequently, the infinite, taken in a certain way, is proportionate to reason. In fact the universal which the reason apprehends, is infinite in a sense, inasmuch as it contains potentially an infinite number of singulars.
q. 30 a. 4 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod ad hoc quod aliquis delectetur, non requiritur quod omnia consequatur quae concupiscit, sed in quolibet concupito quod consequitur, delectatur. Reply to Objection 3. In order that a man be delighted, there is no need for him to realize all that he desires: for he delights in the realization of each object of his concupiscence.
q. 31 pr. Deinde considerandum est de delectatione et tristitia. Circa delectationem vero consideranda sunt quatuor, primo, de ipsa delectatione secundum se; secundo, de causis delectationis; tertio, de effectibus eius; quarto, de bonitate et malitia ipsius. Circa primum quaeruntur octo. Primo, utrum delectatio sit passio. Secundo, utrum sit in tempore. Tertio, utrum differat a gaudio. Quarto, utrum sit in appetitu intellectivo. Quinto, de comparatione delectationum superioris appetitus, ad delectationem inferioris. Sexto, de comparatione delectationum sensitivarum ad invicem. Septimo, utrum sit aliqua delectatio non naturalis. Octavo, utrum delectatio possit esse contraria delectationi. Question 31. Pleasure considered in itself Is pleasure a passion? Is pleasure subject to time? Does it differ from joy? Is it in the intellectual appetite? The pleasures of the higher appetite compared with the pleasure of the lower Sensible pleasures compared with one another Is any pleasure non-natural? Can one pleasure be contrary to another?
q. 31 a. 1 arg. 1 Ad primum sic proceditur. Videtur quod delectatio non sit passio. Damascenus enim, in II libro, distinguit operationem a passione, dicens quod operatio est motus qui est secundum naturam, passio vero est motus contra naturam. Sed delectatio est operatio, ut philosophus dicit, in VII et X Ethic. Ergo delectatio non est passio. Objection 1. It would seem that delight is not a passion. For Damascene (De Fide Orth. ii, 22) distinguishes operation from passion, and says that "operation is a movement in accord with nature, while passion is a movement contrary to nature." But delight is an operation, according to the Philosopher (Ethic. vii, 12; x, 5). Therefore delight is not a passion.
q. 31 a. 1 arg. 2 Praeterea, pati est moveri, ut dicitur in III Physic. Sed delectatio non consistit in moveri, sed in motum esse, causatur enim delectatio ex bono iam adepto. Ergo delectatio non est passio. Objection 2. Further, "To be passive is to be moved," as stated in Phys. iii, 3. But delight does not consist in being moved, but in having been moved; for it arises from good already gained. Therefore delight is not a passion.
q. 31 a. 1 arg. 3 Praeterea, delectatio consistit in quadam perfectione delectati, perficit enim operationem, ut dicitur in X Ethic. Sed perfici non est pati vel alterari, ut dicitur in VII Physic. et in II de anima. Ergo delectatio non est passio. Objection 3. Further, delight is a kind of a perfection of the one who is delighted; since it "perfects operation," as stated in Ethic. x, 4,5. But to be perfected does not consist in being passive or in being altered, as stated in Phys. vii, 3 and De Anima ii, 5. Therefore delight is not a passion.
q. 31 a. 1 s. c. Sed contra est quod Augustinus, in IX et XIV de Civ. Dei, ponit delectationem, sive gaudium vel laetitiam, inter alias passiones animae. On the contrary, Augustine (De Civ. Dei ix, 2; xiv, 5 seqq) reckons delight, joy, or gladness among the other passions of the soul.
q. 31 a. 1 co. Respondeo dicendum quod motus appetitus sensitivi proprie passio nominatur, sicut supra dictum est. Affectio autem quaecumque ex apprehensione sensitiva procedens, est motus appetitus sensitivi. Hoc autem necesse est competere delectationi. Nam, sicut philosophus dicit in I Rhetoric., delectatio est quidam motus animae, et constitutio simul tota et sensibilis in naturam existentem. Ad cuius intellectum, considerandum est quod, sicut contingit in rebus naturalibus aliqua consequi suas perfectiones naturales, ita hoc contingit in animalibus. Et quamvis moveri ad perfectionem non sit totum simul, tamen consequi naturalem perfectionem est totum simul. Haec autem est differentia inter animalia et alias res naturales, quod aliae res naturales, quando constituuntur in id quod convenit eis secundum naturam, hoc non sentiunt, sed animalia hoc sentiunt. Et ex isto sensu causatur quidam motus animae in appetitu sensitivo, et iste motus est delectatio. Per hoc ergo quod dicitur quod delectatio est motus animae, ponitur in genere. Per hoc autem quod dicitur constitutio in existentem naturam, idest in id quod existit in natura rei, ponitur causa delectationis, scilicet praesentia connaturalis boni. Per hoc autem quod dicitur simul tota, ostendit quod constitutio non debet accipi prout est in constitui, sed prout est in constitutum esse, quasi in termino motus, non enim delectatio est generatio, ut Plato posuit, sed magis consistit in factum esse, ut dicitur in VII Ethic. Per hoc autem quod dicitur sensibilis, excluduntur perfectiones rerum insensibilium, in quibus non est delectatio. Sic ergo patet quod, cum delectatio sit motus in appetitu animali consequens apprehensionem sensus, delectatio est passio animae. I answer that, The movements of the sensitive appetite, are properly called passions, as stated above (Question 22, Article 3). Now every emotion arising from a sensitive apprehension, is a movement of the sensitive appetite: and this must needs be said of delight, since, according to the Philosopher (Rhet. i, 11) "delight is a certain movement of the soul and a sensible establishing thereof all at once, in keeping with the nature of the thing." In order to understand this, we must observe that just as in natural things some happen to attain to their natural perfections, so does this happen in animals. And though movement towards perfection does not occur all at once, yet the attainment of natural perfection does occur all at once. Now there is this difference between animals and other natural things, that when these latter are established in the state becoming their nature, they do not perceive it, whereas animals do. And from this perception there arises a certain movement of the soul in the sensitive appetite; which movement is called delight. Accordingly by saying that delight is "a movement of the soul," we designate its genus. By saying that it is "an establishing in keeping with the thing's nature," i.e. with that which exists in the thing, we assign the cause of delight, viz. the presence of a becoming good. By saying that this establishing is "all at once," we mean that this establishing is to be understood not as in the process of establishment, but as in the fact of complete establishment, in the term of the movement, as it were: for delight is not a "becoming" as Plato [Phileb. 32,33 maintained, but a "complete fact," as stated in Ethic. vii, 12. Lastly, by saying that this establishing is "sensible," we exclude the perfections of insensible things wherein there is no delight. It is therefore evident that, since delight is a movement of the animal appetite arising from an apprehension of sense, it is a passion of the soul.
q. 31 a. 1 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod operatio connaturalis non impedita, est perfectio secunda, ut habetur in II de anima. Et ideo, quando constituitur res in propria operatione connaturali et non impedita, sequitur delectatio, quae consistit in perfectum esse, ut dictum est. Sic ergo cum dicitur quod delectatio est operatio, non est praedicatio per essentiam, sed per causam. Reply to Objection 1. Connatural operation, which is unhindered, is a second perfection, as stated in De Anima ii, 1: and therefore when a thing is established in its proper connatural and unhindered operation, delight follows, which consists in a state of completion, as observed above. Accordingly when we say that delight is an operation, we designate, not its essence, but its cause.
q. 31 a. 1 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod in animali duplex motus considerari potest, unus secundum intentionem finis, qui pertinet ad appetitum, alius secundum executionem, qui pertinet ad exteriorem operationem licet ergo in eo qui iam consecutus est bonum in quo delectatur, cesset motus executionis, quo tenditur ad finem; non tamen cessat motus appetitivae partis, quae, sicut prius desiderabat non habitum, ita postea delectatur in habito. Licet enim delectatio sit quies quaedam appetitus, considerata praesentia boni delectantis, quod appetitui satisfacit; tamen adhuc remanet immutatio appetitus ab appetibili, ratione cuius delectatio motus quidam est. Reply to Objection 2. A twofold movement is to be observed in an animal: one, according to the intention of the end, and this belongs to the appetite; the other, according to the execution, and this belongs to the external operation. And so, although in him who has already gained the good in which he delights, the movement of execution ceases, by which the tends to the end; yet the movement of the appetitive faculty does not cease, since, just as before it desired that which it had not, so afterwards does it delight in that which is possesses. For though delight is a certain repose of the appetite, if we consider the presence of the pleasurable good that satisfies the appetite, nevertheless there remains the impression made on the appetite by its object, by reason of which delight is a kind of movement.
q. 31 a. 1 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod, quamvis nomen passionis magis proprie conveniat passionibus corruptivis et in malum tendentibus, sicut sunt aegritudines corporales, et tristitia et timor in anima; tamen etiam in bonum ordinantur aliquae passiones, ut supra dictum est. Et secundum hoc delectatio dicitur passio. Reply to Objection 3. Although the name of passion is more appropriate to those passions which have a corruptive and evil tendency, such as bodily ailments, as also sadness and fear in the soul; yet some passions have a tendency to something good, as stated above (23, 1,4): and in this sense delight is called a passion.
q. 31 a. 2 arg. 1 Ad secundum sic proceditur. Videtur quod delectatio sit in tempore. Delectatio enim est motus quidam, ut in I Rhetoric. philosophus dicit. Sed motus omnis est in tempore. Ergo delectatio est in tempore. Objection 1. It would seem that delight is in time. For "delight is a kind of movement," as the Philosopher says (Rhet. i, 11). But all movement is in time. Therefore delight is in time.
q. 31 a. 2 arg. 2 Praeterea, diuturnum, vel morosum, dicitur aliquid secundum tempus. Sed aliquae delectationes dicuntur morosae. Ergo delectatio est in tempore. Objection 2. Further, a thing is said to last long and to be morose in respect of time. But some pleasures are called morose. Therefore pleasure is in time.
q. 31 a. 2 arg. 3 Praeterea, passiones animae sunt unius generis. Sed aliquae passiones animae sunt in tempore. Ergo et delectatio. Objection 3. Further, the passions of the soul are of one same genus. But some passions of the soul are in time. Therefore delight is too.
q. 31 a. 2 s. c. Sed contra est quod philosophus dicit, in X Ethic., quod secundum nullum tempus accipiet quis delectationem. On the contrary, The Philosopher says (Ethic. x, 4) that "no one takes pleasure according to time."
q. 31 a. 2 co. Respondeo dicendum quod aliquid contingit esse in tempore dupliciter, uno modo, secundum se; alio modo, per aliud, et quasi per accidens. Quia enim tempus est numerus successivorum, illa secundum se dicuntur esse in tempore, de quorum ratione est successio, vel aliquid ad successionem pertinens, sicut motus, quies, locutio, et alia huiusmodi. Secundum aliud vero, et non per se, dicuntur esse in tempore illa de quorum ratione non est aliqua successio, sed tamen alicui successivo subiacent. Sicut esse hominem de sui ratione non habet successionem, non enim est motus, sed terminus motus vel mutationis, scilicet generationis ipsius, sed quia humanum esse subiacet causis transmutabilibus, secundum hoc esse hominem est in tempore. Sic igitur dicendum est quod delectatio secundum se quidem non est in tempore, est enim delectatio in bono iam adepto, quod est quasi terminus motus. Sed si illud bonum adeptum transmutationi subiaceat, erit delectatio per accidens in tempore. Si autem sit omnino intransmutabile, delectatio non erit in tempore nec per se, nec per accidens. I answer that, A thing may be in time in two ways: first, by itself; secondly, by reason of something else, and accidentally as it were. For since time is the measure of successive things, those things are of themselves said to be in time, to which succession or something pertaining to succession is essential: such are movement, repose, speech and such like. On the other hand, those things are said to be in time, by reason of something else and not of themselves, to which succession is not essential, but which are subject to something successive. Thus the fact of being a man is not essentially something successive; since it is not a movement, but the term of a movement or change, viz. of this being begotten: yet, because human being is subject to changeable causes, in this respect, to be a man is in time. Accordingly, we must say that delight, of itself indeed, is not in time: for it regards good already gained, which is, as it were, the term of the movement. But if this good gained be subject to change, the delight therein will be in time accidentally: whereas if it be altogether unchangeable, the delight therein will not be in time, either by reason of itself or accidentally.
q. 31 a. 2 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod, sicut dicitur in III de anima, motus dupliciter dicitur. Uno modo, qui est actus imperfecti, scilicet existentis in potentia, inquantum huiusmodi, et talis motus est successivus, et in tempore. Alius autem motus est actus perfecti, idest existentis in actu; sicut intelligere, sentire et velle et huiusmodi, et etiam delectari. Et huiusmodi motus non est successivus, nec per se in tempore. Reply to Objection 1. As stated in De Anima iii, 7, movement is twofold. One is "the act of something imperfect, i.e. of something existing in potentiality, as such": this movement is successive and is in time. Another movement is "the act of something perfect, i.e. of something existing in act," e.g. to understand, to feel, and to will and such like, also to have delight. This movement is not successive, nor is it of itself in time.
q. 31 a. 2 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod delectatio dicitur diuturna vel morosa, secundum quod per accidens est in tempore. Reply to Objection 2. Delight is said to be long lasting or morose, according as it is accidentally in time.
q. 31 a. 2 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod aliae passiones non habent pro obiecto bonum adeptum, sicut delectatio. Unde plus habent de ratione motus imperfecti, quam delectatio. Et per consequens magis delectationi convenit non esse in tempore. Reply to Objection 3. Other passions have not for their object a good obtained, as delight has. Wherefore there is more of the movement of the imperfect in them than in delight. And consequently it belongs more to delight not to be in time.
q. 31 a. 3 arg. 1 Ad tertium sic proceditur. Videtur quod gaudium sit omnino idem quod delectatio. Passiones enim animae differunt secundum obiecta. Sed idem est obiectum gaudii et delectationis, scilicet bonum adeptum. Ergo gaudium est omnino idem quod delectatio. Objection 1. It would seem that delight is altogether the same as joy. Because the passions of the soul differ according to their objects. But delight and joy have the same object, namely, a good obtained. Therefore joy is altogether the same as delight.
q. 31 a. 3 arg. 2 Praeterea, unus motus non terminatur ad duos terminos. Sed idem est motus qui terminatur ad gaudium et delectationem, scilicet concupiscentia. Ergo delectatio et gaudium sunt omnino idem. Objection 2. Further, one movement does not end in two terms. But one and the same movement, that of desire, ends in joy and delight. Therefore delight and joy are altogether the same.
q. 31 a. 3 arg. 3 Praeterea, si gaudium est aliud a delectatione, videtur quod, pari ratione, et laetitia et exultatio et iucunditas significent aliquid aliud a delectatione, et sic erunt omnes diversae passiones. Quod videtur esse falsum. Non ergo gaudium differt a delectatione. Objection 3. Further, if joy differs from delight, it seems that there is equal reason for distinguishing gladness, exultation, and cheerfulness from delight, so that they would all be various passions of the soul. But this seems to be untrue. Therefore joy does not differ from delight.
q. 31 a. 3 s. c. Sed contra est quod in brutis animalibus non dicimus gaudium. Sed in eis dicimus delectationem. Non ergo est idem gaudium et delectatio. On the contrary, We do not speak of joy in irrational animals; whereas we do speak of delight in them. Therefore joy is not the same as delight.
q. 31 a. 3 co. Respondeo dicendum quod gaudium, ut Avicenna dicit in libro suo de anima, est quaedam species delectationis. Est enim considerandum quod, sicut sunt quaedam concupiscentiae naturales, quaedam autem non naturales, sed consequuntur rationem, ut supra dictum est; ita etiam delectationum quaedam sunt naturales, et quaedam non naturales, quae sunt cum ratione. Vel, sicut Damascenus et Gregorius Nyssenus dicunt, quaedam sunt corporales, quaedam animales, quod in idem redit. Delectamur enim et in his quae naturaliter concupiscimus, ea adipiscentes; et in his quae concupiscimus secundum rationem. Sed nomen gaudii non habet locum nisi in delectatione quae consequitur rationem, unde gaudium non attribuimus brutis animalibus, sed solum nomen delectationis. Omne autem quod concupiscimus secundum naturam, possumus etiam cum delectatione rationis concupiscere, sed non e converso. Unde de omnibus de quibus est delectatio, potest etiam esse gaudium in habentibus rationem. Quamvis non semper de omnibus sit gaudium, quandoque enim aliquis sentit aliquam delectationem secundum corpus, de qua tamen non gaudet secundum rationem. Et secundum hoc, patet quod delectatio est in plus quam gaudium. I answer that, Joy, as Avicenna states (De Anima iv), is a kind of delight. For we must observe that, just as some concupiscences are natural, and some not natural, but consequent to reason, as stated above (Question 30, Article 3), so also some delights are natural, and some are not natural but rational. Or, as Damascene (De Fide Orth. ii, 13) and Gregory of Nyssa [Nemesius, De Nat. Hom. xviii.] put it, "some delights are of the body, some are of the soul"; which amounts to the same. For we take delight both in those things which we desire naturally, when we get them, and in those things which we desire as a result of reason. But we do not speak of joy except when delight follows reason; and so we do not ascribe joy to irrational animals, but only delight. Now whatever we desire naturally, can also be the object of reasoned desire and delight, but not vice versa. Consequently whatever can be the object of delight, can also be the object of joy in rational beings. And yet everything is not always the object of joy; since sometimes one feels a certain delight in the body, without rejoicing thereat according to reason. And accordingly delight extends to more things than does joy.
q. 31 a. 3 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod, cum obiectum appetitus animalis sit bonum apprehensum, diversitas apprehensionis pertinet quodammodo ad diversitatem obiecti. Et sic delectationes animales, quae dicuntur etiam gaudia, distinguuntur a delectationibus corporalibus, quae dicuntur solum delectationes, sicut et de concupiscentiis supra dictum est. Reply to Objection 1. Since the object of the appetite of the soul is an apprehended good, diversity of apprehension pertains, in a way, to diversity of the object. And so delights of the soul, which are also called joys, are distinct from bodily delights, which are not called otherwise than delights: as we have observed above in regard to concupiscences (30, 3, ad 2).
q. 31 a. 3 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod similis differentia invenitur etiam in concupiscentiis, ita quod delectatio respondeat concupiscentiae, et gaudium respondeat desiderio, quod magis videtur pertinere ad concupiscentiam animalem. Et sic secundum differentiam motus, est etiam differentia quietis. Reply to Objection 2. A like difference is to be observed in concupiscences also: so that delight corresponds to concupiscence, while joy corresponds to desire, which seems to pertain more to concupiscence of the soul. Hence there is a difference of repose corresponding to the difference of movement.
q. 31 a. 3 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod alia nomina ad delectationem pertinentia, sunt imposita ab effectibus delectationis, nam laetitia imponitur a dilatatione cordis, ac si diceretur latitia; exultatio vero dicitur ab exterioribus signis delectationis interioris, quae apparent exterius, inquantum scilicet interius gaudium prosilit ad exteriora; iucunditas vero dicitur a quibusdam specialibus laetitiae signis vel effectibus. Et tamen omnia ista nomina videntur pertinere ad gaudium, non enim utimur eis nisi in naturis rationalibus. Reply to Objection 3. These other names pertaining to delight are derived from the effects of delight; for "laetitia" [gladness] is derived from the "dilation" of the heart, as if one were to say "latitia"; "exultation" is derived from the exterior signs of inward delight, which appear outwardly in so far as the inward joy breaks forth from its bounds; and "cheerfulness" is so called from certain special signs and effects of gladness. Yet all these names seem to belong to joy; for we do not employ them save in speaking of rational beings.
q. 31 a. 4 arg. 1 Ad quartum sic proceditur. Videtur quod delectatio non sit in appetitu intellectivo. Dicit enim philosophus, in I Rhetoric., quod delectatio est motus quidam sensibilis. Sed motus sensibilis non est in parte intellectiva. Ergo delectatio non est in parte intellectiva. Objection 1. It would seem that delight is not in the intellectual appetite. Because the Philosopher says (Rhet. i, 11) that "delight is a sensible movement." But sensible movement is not in an intellectual power. Therefore delight is not in the intellectual appetite.
q. 31 a. 4 arg. 2 Praeterea, delectatio est passio quaedam. Sed omnis passio est in appetitu sensitivo. Ergo delectatio non est nisi in appetitu sensitivo. Objection 2. Further, delight is a passion. But every passion is in the sensitive appetite. Therefore delight is only in the sensitive appetite.
q. 31 a. 4 arg. 3 Praeterea, delectatio est communis nobis et brutis. Ergo non est nisi in parte quae nobis et brutis communis est. Objection 3. Further, delight is common to us and to the irrational animals. Therefore it is not elsewhere than in that power which we have in common with irrational animals.
q. 31 a. 4 s. c. Sed contra est quod in Psalmo XXXVI, dicitur, delectare in domino. Sed ad Deum non potest extendi appetitus sensitivus, sed solum intellectivus. Ergo delectatio potest esse in appetitu intellectivo. On the contrary, It is written (Psalm 36:4): "Delight in the Lord." But the sensitive appetite cannot reach to God; only the intellectual appetite can. Therefore delight can be in the intellectual appetite.
q. 31 a. 4 co. Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut dictum est, delectatio quaedam sequitur apprehensionem rationis. Ad apprehensionem autem rationis, non solum commovetur appetitus sensitivus, per applicationem ad aliquid particulare; sed etiam appetitus intellectivus, qui dicitur voluntas. Et secundum hoc, in appetitu intellectivo, sive in voluntate, est delectatio quae dicitur gaudium, non autem delectatio corporalis. Hoc tamen interest inter delectationem utriusque appetitus, quod delectatio appetitus sensibilis est cum aliqua transmutatione corporali, delectatio autem appetitus intellectivi nihil aliud est quam simplex motus voluntatis. Et secundum hoc Augustinus dicit, in XIV de Civ. Dei, quod cupiditas et laetitia non est aliud quam voluntas in eorum consensione quae volumus. I answer that, As stated above (Article 3), a certain delight arises from the apprehension of the reason. Now on the reason apprehending something, not only the sensitive appetite is moved, as regards its application to some particular thing, but also the intellectual appetite, which is called the will. And accordingly in the intellectual appetite or will there is that delight which is called joy, but not bodily delight. However, there is this difference of delight in either power, that delight of the sensitive appetite is accompanied by a bodily transmutation, whereas delight of the intellectual appetite is nothing but the mere movement of the will. Hence Augustine says (De Civ. Dei xiv, 6) that "desire and joy are nothing else but a volition of consent to the things we wish."
q. 31 a. 4 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod in illa definitione philosophi, sensibile ponitur communiter pro quacumque apprehensione. Dicit enim philosophus in X Ethic., quod secundum omnem sensum est delectatio; similiter autem et secundum intellectum et speculationem. Vel potest dici quod ipse definit delectationem appetitus sensitivi. Reply to Objection 1. In this definition of the Philosopher, he uses the word "sensible" in its wide acceptation for any kind of perception. For he says (Ethic. x, 4) that "delight is attendant upon every sense, as it is also upon every act of the intellect and contemplation." Or we may say that he is defining delight of the sensitive appetite.
q. 31 a. 4 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod delectatio habet rationem passionis, proprie loquendo, inquantum est cum aliqua transmutatione corporali. Et sic non est in appetitu intellectivo, sed secundum simplicem motum, sic enim etiam est in Deo et in Angelis. Unde dicit philosophus, in VII Ethic., quod Deus una simplici operatione gaudet. Et Dionysius dicit, in fine Cael. Hier., quod Angeli non sunt susceptibiles nostrae passibilis delectationis, sed congaudent Deo secundum incorruptionis laetitiam. Reply to Objection 2. Delight has the character of passion, properly speaking, when accompanied by bodily transmutation. It is not thus in the intellectual appetite, but according to simple movement: for thus it is also in God and the angels. Hence the Philosopher says (Ethic. vii, 14) that "God rejoices by one simple act": and Dionysius says at the end of De Coel. Hier., that "the angels are not susceptible to our passible delight, but rejoice together with God with the gladness of incorruption."
q. 31 a. 4 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod in nobis non solum est delectatio in qua communicamus cum brutis, sed etiam in qua communicamus cum Angelis. Unde ibidem Dionysius dicit quod sancti homines multoties fiunt in participatione delectationum angelicarum. Et ita in nobis est delectatio non solum in appetitu sensitivo, in quo communicamus cum brutis; sed etiam in appetitu intellectivo, in quo communicamus cum Angelis. Reply to Objection 3. In us there is delight, not only in common with dumb animals, but also in common with angels. Wherefore Dionysius says (De Coel. Hier.) that "holy men often take part in the angelic delights." Accordingly we have delight, not only in the sensitive appetite, which we have in common with dumb animals, but also in the intellectual appetite, which we have in common with the angels.
q. 31 a. 5 arg. 1 Ad quintum sic proceditur. Videtur quod delectationes corporales et sensibiles sint maiores delectationibus spiritualibus intelligibilibus. Omnes enim aliquam delectationem sequuntur, secundum philosophum, in X Ethic. Sed plures sequuntur delectationes sensibiles, quam delectationes spirituales intelligibiles. Ergo delectationes corporales sunt maiores. Objection 1. It would seem that bodily and sensible pleasures are greater than spiritual and intelligible pleasures. For all men seek some pleasure, according to the Philosopher (Ethic. x, 2,4). But more seek sensible pleasures, than intelligible spiritual pleasures. Therefore bodily pleasures are greater.
q. 31 a. 5 arg. 2 Praeterea, magnitudo causae ex effectu cognoscitur. Sed delectationes corporales habent fortiores effectus, transmutant enim corpus, et quibusdam insanias faciunt, ut dicitur in VII Ethic. Ergo delectationes corporales sunt fortiores. Objection 2. Further, the greatness of a cause is known by its effect. But bodily pleasures have greater effects; since "they alter the state of the body, and in some they cause madness" (Ethic. vii, 3). Therefore bodily pleasures are greater.
q. 31 a. 5 arg. 3 Praeterea, delectationes corporales oportet temperare et refraenare, propter earum vehementiam. Sed delectationes spirituales non oportet refraenare. Ergo delectationes corporales sunt maiores. Objection 3. Further, bodily pleasures need to be tempered and checked, by reason of their vehemence: whereas there is no need to check spiritual pleasures. Therefore bodily pleasures are greater.
q. 31 a. 5 s. c. Sed contra est quod dicitur in Psalmo CXVIII, quam dulcia faucibus meis eloquia tua, super mel ori meo. Et philosophus dicit, in X Ethic., quod maxima delectatio est quae est secundum operationem sapientiae. On the contrary, It is written (Psalm 118:103): "How sweet are Thy words to my palate; more than honey to my mouth!" And the Philosopher says (Ethic. x, 7) that "the greatest pleasure is derived from the operation of wisdom."
q. 31 a. 5 co. Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut iam dictum est, delectatio provenit ex coniunctione convenientis quae sentitur vel cognoscitur. In operibus autem animae, praecipue sensitivae et intellectivae, est hoc considerandum, quod, cum non transeant in materiam exteriorem, sunt actus vel perfectiones operantis, scilicet intelligere, sentire, velle, et huiusmodi, nam actiones quae transeunt in exteriorem materiam, magis sunt actiones et perfectiones materiae transmutatae; motus enim est actus mobilis a movente. Sic igitur praedictae actiones animae sensitivae et intellectivae, et ipsae sunt quoddam bonum operantis, et sunt etiam cognitae per sensum vel intellectum. Unde etiam ex ipsis consurgit delectatio, et non solum ex eorum obiectis. Si igitur comparentur delectationes intelligibiles delectationibus sensibilibus, secundum quod delectamur in ipsis actionibus, puta in cognitione sensus et in cognitione intellectus; non est dubium quod multo sunt maiores delectationes intelligibiles quam sensibiles. Multo enim magis delectatur homo de hoc quod cognoscit aliquid intelligendo, quam de hoc quod cognoscit aliquid sentiendo. Quia intellectualis cognitio et perfectior est, et etiam magis cognoscitur, quia intellectus magis reflectitur supra actum suum quam sensus. Est etiam cognitio intellectiva magis dilecta, nullus enim est qui non magis vellet carere visu corporali quam visu intellectuali, eo modo quo bestiae vel stulti carent, sicut Augustinus dicit, in libro de Civ. Dei. Sed si comparentur delectationes intelligibiles spirituales delectationibus sensibilibus corporalibus, sic, secundum se et simpliciter loquendo, delectationes spirituales sunt maiores. Et hoc apparet secundum tria quae requiruntur ad delectationem, scilicet bonum coniunctum, et id cui coniungitur, et ipsa coniunctio. Nam ipsum bonum spirituale et est maius quam corporale bonum; et est magis dilectum. Cuius signum est quod homines etiam a maximis corporalibus voluptatibus abstinent, ut non perdant honorem, qui est bonum intelligibile. Similiter etiam ipsa pars intellectiva est multo nobilior, et magis cognoscitiva, quam pars sensitiva. Coniunctio etiam utriusque est magis intima, et magis perfecta, et magis firma. Intimior quidem est, quia sensus sistit circa exteriora accidentia rei, intellectus vero penetrat usque ad rei essentiam; obiectum enim intellectus est quod quid est. Perfectior autem est, quia coniunctioni sensibilis ad sensum adiungitur motus, qui est actus imperfectus, unde et delectationes sensibiles non sunt totae simul, sed in eis aliquid pertransit, et aliquid expectatur consummandum, ut patet in delectatione ciborum et venereorum. Sed intelligibilia sunt absque motu, unde delectationes tales sunt totae simul. Est etiam firmior, quia delectabilia corporalia sunt corruptibilia, et cito deficiunt; bona vero spiritualia sunt incorruptibilia. Sed quoad nos, delectationes corporales sunt magis vehementes, propter tria. Primo, quia sensibilia sunt magis nota, quoad nos, quam intelligibilia. Secundo etiam, quia delectationes sensibiles, cum sint passiones sensitivi appetitus, sunt cum aliqua transmutatione corporali. Quod non contingit in delectationibus spiritualibus, nisi per quandam redundantiam a superiori appetitu in inferiorem. Tertio, quia delectationes corporales appetuntur ut medicinae quaedam contra corporales defectus vel molestias, ex quibus tristitiae quaedam consequuntur. Unde delectationes corporales, tristitiis huiusmodi supervenientes, magis sentiuntur, et per consequens magis acceptantur, quam delectationes spirituales quae non habent tristitias contrarias, ut infra dicetur. I answer that, As stated above (Article 1), pleasure arises from union with a suitable object perceived or known. Now, in the operations of the soul, especially of the sensitive and intellectual soul, it must be noted that, since they do not pass into outward matter, they are acts or perfections of the agent, e.g. to understand, to feel, to will and the like: because actions which pass into outward matter, are actions and perfections rather of the matter transformed; for "movement is the act produced by the mover in the thing moved" (Phys. iii, 3). Accordingly the aforesaid actions of the sensitive and intellectual soul, are themselves a certain good of the agent, and are known by sense and intellect. Wherefore from them also does pleasure arise, and not only from their objects. If therefore we compare intellectual pleasures with sensible pleasures, according as we delight in the very actions, for instance in sensitive and in intellectual knowledge; without doubt intellectual pleasures are much greater than sensible pleasures. For man takes much more delight in knowing something, by understanding it, than in knowing something by perceiving it with his sense. Because intellectual knowledge is more perfect; and because it is better known, since the intellect reflects on its own act more than sense does. Moreover intellectual knowledge is more beloved: for there is no one who would not forfeit his bodily sight rather than his intellectual vision, as beasts or fools are deprived thereof, as Augustine says in De Civ. Dei (De Trin. xiv, 14). If, however, intellectual spiritual pleasures be compared with sensible bodily pleasures, then, in themselves and absolutely speaking, spiritual pleasures are greater. And this appears from the consideration of the three things needed for pleasure, viz. the good which is brought into conjunction, that to which it is conjoined, and the conjunction itself. For spiritual good is both greater and more beloved than bodily good: a sign whereof is that men abstain from even the greatest bodily pleasures, rather than suffer loss of honor which is an intellectual good. Likewise the intellectual faculty is much more noble and more knowing than the sensitive faculty. Also the conjunction is more intimate, more perfect and more firm. More intimate, because the senses stop at the outward accidents of a thing, whereas the intellect penetrates to the essence; for the object of the intellect is "what a thing is." More perfect, because the conjunction of the sensible to the sense implies movement, which is an imperfect act: wherefore sensible pleasures are not perceived all at once, but some part of them is passing away, while some other part is looked forward to as yet to be realized, as is manifest in pleasures of the table and in sexual pleasures: whereas intelligible things are without movement: hence pleasures of this kind are realized all at once. More firm; because the objects of bodily pleasure are corruptible, and soon pass away; whereas spiritual goods are incorruptible. On the other hand, in relation to us, bodily pleasures are more vehement, for three reasons. First, because sensible things are more known to us, than intelligible things. Secondly, because sensible pleasures, through being passions of the sensitive appetite, are accompanied by some alteration in the body: whereas this does not occur in spiritual pleasures, save by reason of a certain reaction of the superior appetite on the lower. Thirdly, because bodily pleasures are sought as remedies for bodily defects or troubles, whence various griefs arise. Wherefore bodily pleasures, by reason of their succeeding griefs of this kind, are felt the more, and consequently are welcomed more than spiritual pleasures, which have no contrary griefs, as we shall state farther on (35, 5).
q. 31 a. 5 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod ideo plures sequuntur delectationes corporales, quia bona sensibilia sunt magis et pluribus nota. Et etiam quia homines indigent delectationibus ut medicinis contra multiplices dolores et tristitias, et cum plures hominum non possint attingere ad delectationes spirituales, quae sunt propriae virtuosorum, consequens et quod declinent ad corporales. Reply to Objection 1. The reason why more seek bodily pleasures is because sensible goods are known better and more generally: and, again, because men need pleasures as remedies for many kinds of sorrow and sadness: and since the majority cannot attain spiritual pleasures, which are proper to the virtuous, hence it is that they turn aside to seek those of the body.
q. 31 a. 5 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod transmutatio corporis magis contingit ex delectationibus corporalibus, inquantum sunt passiones appetitus sensitivi. Reply to Objection 2. Bodily transmutation arises more from bodily pleasures, inasmuch as they are passions of the sensitive appetite.
q. 31 a. 5 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod delectationes corporales sunt secundum partem sensitivam, quae regulatur ratione, et ideo indigent temperari et refraenari per rationem. Sed delectationes spirituales sunt secundum mentem, quae est ipsa regula, unde sunt secundum seipsas sobriae et moderatae. Reply to Objection 3. Bodily pleasures are realized in the sensitive faculty which is governed by reason: wherefore they need to be tempered and checked by reason. But spiritual pleasures are in the mind, which is itself the rule: wherefore they are in themselves both sober and moderate.
q. 31 a. 6 arg. 1 Ad sextum sic proceditur. Videtur quod delectationes quae sunt secundum tactum, non sint maiores delectationibus quae sunt secundum alios sensus. Illa enim delectatio videtur esse maxima, qua exclusa, omne gaudium cessat. Sed talis est delectatio quae est secundum visum, dicitur enim Tobiae V, quale gaudium erit mihi, qui in tenebris sedeo, et lumen caeli non video? Ergo delectatio quae est per visum, est maxima inter sensibiles delectationes. Objection 1. It would seem that the pleasures of touch are not greater than the pleasures afforded by the other senses. Because the greatest pleasure seems to be that without which all joy is at an end. But such is the pleasure afforded by the sight, according to the words of Tobit 5:12: "What manner of joy shall be to me, who sit in darkness, and see not the light of heaven?" Therefore the pleasure afforded by the sight is the greatest of sensible pleasures.
q. 31 a. 6 arg. 2 Praeterea, unicuique fit delectabile illud quod amat, ut philosophus dicit, in I Rhetoric. Sed inter alios sensus maxime diligitur visus. Ergo delectatio quae est secundum visum, est maxima. Objection 2. Further, "every one finds treasure in what he loves," as the Philosopher says (Rhet. i, 11). But "of all the senses the sight is loved most" [Metaph. i, 1. Therefore the greatest pleasure seems to be afforded by sight.
q. 31 a. 6 arg. 3 Praeterea, principium amicitiae delectabilis maxime est visio. Sed causa talis amicitiae est delectatio. Ergo secundum visum videtur esse maxime delectatio. Objection 3. Further, the beginning of friendship which is for the sake of the pleasant is principally sight. But pleasure is the cause of such friendship. Therefore the greatest pleasure seems to be afforded by sight.
q. 31 a. 6 s. c. Sed contra est quod philosophus dicit, in III Ethic., quod maximae delectationes sunt secundum tactum. On the contrary, The Philosopher says (Ethic. iii, 10), that the greatest pleasures are those which are afforded by the touch.
q. 31 a. 6 co. Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut iam dictum est, unumquodque, inquantum amatur, efficitur delectabile. Sensus autem, ut dicitur in principio Metaphys., propter duo diliguntur, scilicet propter cognitionem, et propter utilitatem. Unde et utroque modo contingit esse delectationem secundum sensum. Sed quia apprehendere ipsam cognitionem tanquam bonum quoddam, proprium est hominis; ideo primae delectationes sensuum, quae scilicet sunt secundum cognitionem, sunt propriae hominum, delectationes autem sensuum inquantum diliguntur propter utilitatem, sunt communes omnibus animalibus. Si igitur loquamur de delectatione sensus quae est ratione cognitionis, manifestum est quod secundum visum est maior delectatio quam secundum aliquem alium sensum. Si autem loquamur de delectatione sensus quae est ratione utilitatis, sic maxima delectatio est secundum tactum. Utilitas enim sensibilium attenditur secundum ordinem ad conservationem naturae animalis. Ad hanc autem utilitatem propinquius se habent sensibilia tactus, est enim tactus cognoscitivus eorum ex quibus consistit animal, scilicet calidi et frigidi, et huiusmodi. Unde secundum hoc, delectationes quae sunt secundum tactum, sunt maiores, quasi fini propinquiores. Et propter hoc etiam, alia animalia, quae non habent delectationem secundum sensum nisi ratione utilitatis, non delectantur secundum alios sensus, nisi in ordine ad sensibilia tactus, neque enim odoribus leporum canes gaudent, sed cibatione; neque leo voce bovis, sed comestione, ut dicitur in III Ethic. Cum igitur delectatio tactus sit maxima ratione utilitatis, delectatio autem visus ratione cognitionis; si quis utramque comparare velit, inveniet simpliciter delectationem tactus esse maiorem delectatione visus, secundum quod sistit infra limites sensibilis delectationis. Quia manifestum est quod id quod est naturale in unoquoque, est potentissimum. Huiusmodi autem delectationes tactus sunt ad quas ordinantur concupiscentiae naturales, sicut cibi, et venerea, et huiusmodi. Sed si consideremus delectationes visus, secundum quod visus deservit intellectui; sic delectationes visus erunt potiores, ea ratione qua et intelligibiles delectationes sunt potiores sensibilibus. I answer that, As stated above (25, 2, ad 1; 27, 4, ad 1), everything gives pleasure according as it is loved. Now, as stated in Metaph. i, 1, the senses are loved for two reasons: for the purpose of knowledge, and on account of their usefulness. Wherefore the senses afford pleasure in both these ways. But because it is proper to man to apprehend knowledge itself as something good, it follows that the former pleasures of the senses, i.e. those which arise from knowledge, are proper to man: whereas pleasures of the senses, as loved for their usefulness, are common to all animals. If therefore we speak of that sensible pleasure by which reason of knowledge, it is evident that the sight affords greater pleasure than any other sense. On the other hand, if we speak of that sensible pleasure which is by reason of usefulness, then the greatest pleasure is afforded by the touch. For the usefulness of sensible things is gauged by their relation to the preservation of the animal's nature. Now the sensible objects of touch bear the closest relation to this usefulness: for the touch takes cognizance of those things which are vital to an animal, namely, of things hot and cold and the like. Wherefore in this respect, the pleasures of touch are greater as being more closely related to the end. For this reason, too, other animals which do not experience sensible pleasure save by reason of usefulness, derive no pleasure from the other senses except as subordinated to the sensible objects of the touch: "for dogs do not take delight in the smell of hares, but in eating them; . . . nor does the lion feel pleasure in the lowing of an ox, but in devouring it" (Ethic. iii, 10). Since then the pleasure afforded by touch is the greatest in respect of usefulness, and the pleasure afforded by sight the greatest in respect of knowledge; if anyone wish to compare these two, he will find that the pleasure of touch is, absolutely speaking, greater than the pleasure of sight, so far as the latter remains within the limits of sensible pleasure. Because it is evident that in everything, that which is natural is most powerful: and it is to these pleasures of the touch that the natural concupiscences, such as those of food, sexual union, and the like, are ordained. If, however, we consider the pleasures of sight, inasmuch sight is the handmaid of the mind, then the pleasures of sight are greater, forasmuch as intellectual pleasures are greater than sensible.
q. 31 a. 6 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod gaudium, sicut supra dictum est, significat animalem delectationem, et haec maxime pertinet ad visum. Sed delectatio naturalis maxime pertinet ad tactum. Reply to Objection 1. Joy, as stated above (Article 3), denotes pleasure of the soul; and this belongs principally to the sight. But natural pleasure belongs principally to the touch.
q. 31 a. 6 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod visus maxime diligitur propter cognitionem, eo quod multas rerum differentias nobis ostendit, ut ibidem dicitur. Reply to Objection 2. The sight is loved most, "on account of knowledge, because it helps us to distinguish many things," as is stated in the same passage (Metaph. i, 1).
q. 31 a. 6 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod alio modo delectatio est causa amoris carnalis, et alio modo visio. Nam delectatio, et maxime quae est secundum tactum, est causa amicitiae delectabilis per modum finis, visio autem est causa sicut unde est principium motus, inquantum per visum amabilis imprimitur species rei, quae allicit ad amandum et ad concupiscendum eius delectationem. Reply to Objection 3. Pleasure causes carnal love in one way; the sight, in another. For pleasure, especially that which is afforded by the touch, is the final cause of the friendship which is for the sake of the pleasant: whereas the sight is a cause like that from which a movement has its beginning, inasmuch as the beholder on seeing the lovable object receives an impression of its image, which entices him to love it and to seek its delight.
q. 31 a. 7 arg. 1 Ad septimum sic proceditur. Videtur quod nulla delectatio sit innaturalis. Delectatio enim in affectibus animae proportionatur quieti in corporibus. Sed appetitus corporis naturalis non quiescit nisi in loco connaturali. Ergo nec quies appetitus animalis, quae est delectatio, potest esse nisi in aliquo connaturali. Nulla ergo delectatio est non naturalis. Objection 1. It would seem that no pleasure is not natural. For pleasure is to the emotions of the soul what repose is to bodies. But the appetite of a natural body does not repose save in a connatural place. Neither, therefore, can the repose of the animal appetite, which is pleasure, be elsewhere than in something connatural. Therefore no pleasure is non-natural.
q. 31 a. 7 arg. 2 Praeterea, illud quod est contra naturam, est violentum. Sed omne violentum est contristans, ut dicitur in V Metaphys. Ergo nihil quod est contra naturam, potest esse delectabile. Objection 2. Further, what is against nature is violent. But "whatever is violent causes grief" (Metaph. v, 5). Therefore nothing which is unnatural can give pleasure.
q. 31 a. 7 arg. 3 Praeterea, constitui in propriam naturam, cum sentitur, causat delectationem; ut patet ex definitione philosophi supra posita. Sed constitui in naturam, unicuique est naturale, quia motus naturalis est qui est ad terminum naturalem. Ergo omnis delectatio est naturalis. Objection 3. Further, the fact of being established in one's own nature, if perceived, gives rise to pleasure, as is evident from the Philosopher's definition quoted above (Article 1). But it is natural to every thing to be established in its nature; because natural movement tends to a natural end. Therefore every pleasure is natural.
q. 31 a. 7 s. c. Sed contra est quod philosophus dicit, in VII Ethic., quod quaedam delectationes sunt aegritudinales et contra naturam. On the contrary, The Philosopher says (Ethic. vii, 5,6) that some things are pleasant "not from nature but from disease."
q. 31 a. 7 co. Respondeo dicendum quod naturale dicitur quod est secundum naturam, ut dicitur in II Physic. Natura autem in homine dupliciter sumi potest. Uno modo, prout intellectus et ratio est potissime hominis natura, quia secundum eam homo in specie constituitur. Et secundum hoc, naturales delectationes hominum dici possunt quae sunt in eo quod convenit homini secundum rationem, sicut delectari in contemplatione veritatis, et in actibus virtutum, est naturale homini. Alio modo potest sumi natura in homine secundum quod condividitur rationi, id scilicet quod est commune homini et aliis, praecipue quod rationi non obedit. Et secundum hoc, ea quae pertinent ad conservationem corporis, vel secundum individuum, ut cibus, potus, lectus, et huiusmodi, vel secundum speciem, sicut venereorum usus, dicuntur homini delectabilia naturaliter. Secundum utrasque autem delectationes, contingit aliquas esse innaturales, simpliciter loquendo, sed connaturales secundum quid. Contingit enim in aliquo individuo corrumpi aliquod principiorum naturalium speciei; et sic id quod est contra naturam speciei, fieri per accidens naturale huic individuo; sicut huic aquae calefactae est naturale quod calefaciat. Ita igitur contingit quod id quod est contra naturam hominis, vel quantum ad rationem, vel quantum ad corporis conservationem, fiat huic homini connaturale, propter aliquam corruptionem naturae in eo existentem. Quae quidem corruptio potest esse vel ex parte corporis, sive ex aegritudine, sicut febricitantibus dulcia videntur amara et e converso; sive propter malam complexionem, sicut aliqui delectantur in comestione terrae vel carbonum, vel aliquorum huiusmodi, vel etiam ex parte animae, sicut propter consuetudinem aliqui, delectantur in comedendo homines, vel in coitu bestiarum aut masculorum, aut aliorum huiusmodi, quae non sunt secundum naturam humanam. I answer that, We speak of that as being natural, which is in accord with nature, as stated in Phys. ii, 1. Now, in man, nature can be taken in two ways. First, inasmuch as intellect and reason is the principal part of man's nature, since in respect thereof he has his own specific nature. And in this sense, those pleasures may be called natural to man, which are derived from things pertaining to man in respect of his reason: for instance, it is natural to man to take pleasure in contemplating the truth and in doing works of virtue. Secondly, nature in man may be taken as contrasted with reason, and as denoting that which is common to man and other animals, especially that part of man which does not obey reason. And in this sense, that which pertains to the preservation of the body, either as regards the individual, as food, drink, sleep, and the like, or as regards the species, as sexual intercourse, are said to afford man natural pleasure. Under each kind of pleasures, we find some that are "not natural" speaking absolutely, and yet "connatural" in some respect. For it happens in an individual that some one of the natural principles of the species is corrupted, so that something which is contrary to the specific nature, becomes accidentally natural to this individual: thus it is natural to this hot water to give heat. Consequently it happens that something which is not natural to man, either in regard to reason, or in regard to the preservation of the body, becomes connatural to this individual man, on account of there being some corruption of nature in him. And this corruption may be either on the part of the body--from some ailment; thus to a man suffering from fever, sweet things seem bitter, and vice versa--or from an evil temperament; thus some take pleasure in eating earth and coals and the like; or on the part of the soul; thus from custom some take pleasure in cannibalism or in the unnatural intercourse of man and beast, or other such things, which are not in accord with human nature.
q. 31 a. 7 ad arg. Et per hoc patet responsio ad obiecta. This suffices for the answers to the objections.
q. 31 a. 8 arg. 1 Ad octavum sic proceditur. Videtur quod delectationi non sit delectatio contraria. Passiones enim animae speciem et contrarietatem recipiunt secundum obiecta. Obiectum autem delectationis est bonum. Cum igitur bonum non sit contrarium bono, sed bonum malo contrarietur, et malum malo, ut dicitur in praedicamentis; videtur quod delectatio non sit contraria delectationi. Objection 1. It would seem that one pleasure cannot be contrary to another. Because the passions of the soul derive their species and contrariety from their objects. Now the object of pleasure is the good. Since therefore good is not contrary to good, but "good is contrary to evil, and evil to good," as stated in Praedic. viii; it seems that one pleasure is not contrary to another.
q. 31 a. 8 arg. 2 Praeterea, uni unum est contrarium, ut probatur in X Metaphys. Sed delectationi contraria est tristitia. Non ergo delectationi contraria est delectatio. Objection 2. Further, to one thing there is one contrary, as is proved in Metaph. x, 4. But sadness is contrary to pleasure. Therefore pleasure is not contrary to pleasure.
q. 31 a. 8 arg. 3 Praeterea, si delectationi contraria est delectatio hoc non est nisi propter contrarietatem eorum in quibus aliquis delectatur. Sed haec differentia est materialis, contrarietas autem est differentia secundum formam, ut dicitur in X Metaphys. Ergo contrarietas non est delectationis ad delectationem. Objection 3. Further, if one pleasure is contrary to another, this is only on account of the contrariety of the things which give pleasure. But this difference is material: whereas contrariety is a difference of form, as stated in Metaph. x, 4. Therefore there is no contrariety between one pleasure and another.
q. 31 a. 8 s. c. Sed contra, ea quae se impediunt, in eodem genere existentia, secundum philosophum, sunt contraria. Sed quaedam delectationes se invicem impediunt ut dicitur in X Ethic. Ergo aliquae delectationes sunt contrariae. On the contrary, Things of the same genus that impede one another are contraries, as the Philosopher states (Phys. viii, 8). But some pleasures impede one another, as stated in Ethic. x, 5. Therefore some pleasures are contrary to one another.
q. 31 a. 8 co. Respondeo dicendum quod delectatio in affectionibus animae, sicut dictum est, proportionatur quieti in corporibus naturalibus. Dicuntur autem duae quietes esse contrariae, quae sunt in contrariis terminis; sicut quies quae est sursum, ei quae est deorsum, ut dicitur V Physic. Unde et contingit in affectibus animae duas delectationes esse contrarias. I answer that, Pleasure, in the emotions of the soul, is likened to repose in natural bodies, as stated above (Question 23, Article 4). Now one repose is said to be contrary to another when they are in contrary termini; thus, "repose in a high place is contrary to repose in a low place" (Phys. v, 6). Wherefore it happens in the emotions of the soul that one pleasure is contrary to another.
q. 31 a. 8 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod verbum illud philosophi est intelligendum secundum quod bonum et malum accipitur in virtutibus et vitiis, nam inveniuntur duo contraria vitia, non autem invenitur virtus contraria virtuti. In aliis autem nil prohibet duo bona esse ad invicem contraria, sicut calidum et frigidum, quorum unum est bonum igni, alterum aquae. Et per hunc modum delectatio potest esse delectationi contraria. Sed hoc in bono virtutis esse non potest, quia bonum virtutis non accipitur nisi per convenientiam ad aliquid unum, scilicet rationem. Reply to Objection 1. This saying of the Philosopher is to be understood of good and evil as applied to virtues and vices: because one vice may be contrary to another vice, whereas no virtue can be contrary to another virtue. But in other things nothing prevents one good from being contrary to another, such as hot and cold, of which the former is good in relation to fire, the latter, in relation to water. And in this way one pleasure can be contrary to another. That this is impossible with regard to the good of virtue, is due to the fact that virtue's good depends on fittingness in relation to some one thing--i.e. the reason.
q. 31 a. 8 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod delectatio se habet in affectibus animae, sicut quies naturalis in corporibus, est enim in aliquo convenienti et quasi connaturali. Tristitia autem se habet sicut quies violenta, tristabile enim repugnat appetitui animali, sicut locus quietis violentae appetitui naturali. Quieti autem naturali opponitur et quies violenta eiusdem corporis, et quies naturalis alterius, ut dicitur in V Physic. Unde delectationi opponitur et delectatio et tristitia. Reply to Objection 2. Pleasure, in the emotions of the soul, is likened to natural repose in bodies: because its object is something suitable and connatural, so to speak. But sadness is like a violent repose; because its object is disagreeable to the animal appetite, just as the place of violent repose is disagreeable to the natural appetite. Now natural repose is contrary both to violent repose of the same body, and to the natural repose of another, as stated in Phys. v, 6. Wherefore pleasure is contrary to both to another pleasure and to sadness.
q. 31 a. 8 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod ea in quibus delectamur, cum sint obiecta delectationis, non solum faciunt differentiam materialem, sed etiam formalem, si sit diversa ratio delectabilitatis. Diversa enim ratio obiecti diversificat speciem actus vel passionis, ut ex supradictis patet. Reply to Objection 3. The things in which we take pleasure, since they are the objects of pleasure, cause not only a material, but also a formal difference, if the formality of pleasurableness be different. Because difference in the formal object causes a specific difference in acts and passions, as stated above (23, 1,4; 30, 2).
q. 32 pr. Deinde considerandum est de causis delectationis. Et circa hoc quaeruntur octo. Primo, utrum operatio sit causa propria delectationis. Secundo, utrum motus sit causa delectationis. Tertio, utrum spes et memoria. Quarto, utrum tristitia. Quinto, utrum actiones aliorum sint nobis delectationis causa. Sexto, utrum benefacere alteri sit causa delectationis. Septimo, utrum similitudo sit causa delectationis. Octavo, utrum admiratio sit causa delectationis. Question 32. The cause of pleasure Is operation the proper cause of pleasure? Is movement a cause of pleasure? Do hope and memory cause pleasure? Does sadness cause pleasure? Are the actions of others a cause of pleasure to us? Is doing good to another a cause of pleasure? Is likeness a cause of pleasure? Is wonder a cause of pleasure?
q. 32 a. 1 arg. 1 Ad primum sic proceditur. Videtur quod operatio non sit propria et prima causa delectationis. Ut enim philosophus dicit, in I Rhetoric., delectari consistit in hoc quod sensus aliquid patiatur, requiritur enim ad delectationem cognitio, sicut dictum est. Sed per prius sunt cognoscibilia obiecta operationum quam ipsae operationes. Ergo operatio non est propria causa delectationis. Objection 1. It would seem that operation is not the proper and first cause of pleasure. For, as the Philosopher says (Rhet. i, 11), "pleasure consists in a perception of the senses," since knowledge is requisite for pleasure, as stated above (Question 31, Article 1). But the objects of operations are knowable before the operations themselves. Therefore operation is not the proper cause of pleasure.
q. 32 a. 1 arg. 2 Praeterea, delectatio potissime consistit in fine adepto, hoc enim est quod praecipue concupiscitur. Sed non semper operatio est finis, sed quandoque ipsum operatum. Non ergo operatio est propria et per se causa delectationis. Objection 2. Further, pleasure consists especially in an end gained: since it is this that is chiefly desired. But the end is not always an operation, but is sometimes the effect of the operation. Therefore operation is not the proper and direct cause of pleasure.
q. 32 a. 1 arg. 3 Praeterea, otium et requies dicuntur per cessationem operationis. Haec autem sunt delectabilia, ut dicitur in I Rhetoric. Non ergo operatio est propria causa delectationis. Objection 3. Further, leisure and rest consist in cessation from work: and they are objects of pleasure (Rhet. i, 11). Therefore operation is not the proper cause of pleasure.
q. 32 a. 1 s. c. Sed contra est quod philosophus dicit, VII et X Ethic., quod delectatio est operatio connaturalis non impedita. On the contrary, The Philosopher says (Ethic. vii, 12,13; x, 4) that "pleasure is a connatural and uninterrupted operation."
q. 32 a. 1 co. Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut supra dictum est, ad delectationem duo requiruntur, scilicet consecutio boni convenientis, et cognitio huiusmodi adeptionis. Utrumque autem horum in quadam operatione consistit, nam actualis cognitio operatio quaedam est; similiter bonum conveniens adipiscimur aliqua operatione. Ipsa etiam operatio propria est quoddam bonum conveniens. Unde oportet quod omnis delectatio aliquam operationem consequatur. I answer that, As stated above (Question 31, Article 1), two things are requisite for pleasure: namely, the attainment of the suitable good, and knowledge of this attainment. Now each of these consists in a kind of operation: because actual knowledge is an operation; and the attainment of the suitable good is by means of an operation. Moreover, the proper operation itself is a suitable good. Wherefore every pleasure must needs be the result of some operation.
q. 32 a. 1 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod ipsa obiecta operationum non sunt delectabilia, nisi inquantum coniunguntur nobis, vel per cognitionem solam, sicut cum delectamur in consideratione vel inspectione aliquorum; vel quocumque alio modo simul cum cognitione, sicut cum aliquis delectatur in hoc quod cognoscit se habere quodcumque bonum, puta divitias vel honorem vel aliquid huiusmodi; quae quidem non essent delectabilia, nisi inquantum apprehenduntur ut habita. Ut enim philosophus dicit, in II Polit., magnam delectationem habet putare aliquid sibi proprium; quae procedit ex naturali amore alicuius ad seipsum. Habere autem huiusmodi nihil est aliud quam uti eis, vel posse uti. Et hoc est per aliquam operationem. Unde manifestum est quod omnis delectatio in operationem reducitur sicut in causam. Reply to Objection 1. The objects of operations are not pleasurable save inasmuch as they are united to us; either by knowledge alone, as when we take pleasure in thinking of or looking at certain things; or in some other way in addition to knowledge; as when a man takes pleasure in knowing that he has something good--riches, honor, or the like; which would not be pleasurable unless they were apprehended as possessed. For as the Philosopher observes (Polit. ii, 2) "we take great pleasure in looking upon a thing as our own, by reason of the natural love we have for ourselves." Now to have such like things is nothing else but to use them or to be able to use them: and this is through some operation. Wherefore it is evident that every pleasure is traced to some operation as its cause.
q. 32 a. 1 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod etiam in illis in quibus operationes non sunt fines, sed operata, ipsa operata sunt delectabilia inquantum sunt habita vel facta. Quod refertur ad aliquem usum vel operationem. Reply to Objection 2. Even when it is not an operation, but the effect of an operation, that is the end, this effect is pleasant in so far as possessed or effected: and this implies use or operation.
q. 32 a. 1 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod operationes sunt delectabiles, inquantum sunt proportionatae et connaturales operanti. Cum autem virtus humana sit finita, secundum aliquam mensuram operatio est sibi proportionata. Unde si excedat illam mensuram, iam non erit sibi proportionata, nec delectabilis, sed magis laboriosa et attaedians. Et secundum hoc, otium et ludus et alia quae ad requiem pertinent, delectabilia sunt, inquantum auferunt tristitiam quae est ex labore. Reply to Objection 3. Operations are pleasant, in so far as they are proportionate and connatural to the agent. Now, since human power is finite, operation is proportionate thereto according to a certain measure. Wherefore if it exceed that measure, it will be no longer proportionate or pleasant, but, on the contrary, painful and irksome. And in this sense, leisure and play and other things pertaining to repose, are pleasant, inasmuch as they banish sadness which results from labor.
q. 32 a. 2 arg. 1 Ad secundum sic proceditur. Videtur quod motus non sit causa delectationis. Quia, sicut supra dictum est, bonum praesentialiter adeptum est causa delectationis, unde philosophus, in VII Ethic., dicit quod delectatio non comparatur generationi, sed operationi rei iam existentis. Id autem quod movetur ad aliquid, nondum habet illud; sed quodammodo est in via generationis respectu illius, secundum quod omni motui adiungitur generatio et corruptio, ut dicitur in VIII Physic. Ergo motus non est causa delectationis. Objection 1. It would seem that movement is not a cause of pleasure. Because, as stated above (Question 31, Article 1), the good which is obtained and is actually possessed, is the cause of pleasure: wherefore the Philosopher says (Ethic. vii, 12) that pleasure is not compared with generation, but with the operation of a thing already in existence. Now that which is being moved towards something has it not as yet; but, so to speak, is being generated in its regard, forasmuch as generation or corruption are united to every movement, as stated in Phys. viii, 3. Therefore movement is not a cause of pleasure.
q. 32 a. 2 arg. 2 Praeterea, motus praecipue laborem et lassitudinem inducit in operibus. Sed operationes, ex hoc quod sunt laboriosae et lassantes, non sunt delectabiles, sed magis afflictivae. Ergo motus non est causa delectationis. Objection 2. Further, movement is the chief cause of toil and fatigue in our works. But operations through being toilsome and fatiguing are not pleasant but disagreeable. Therefore movement is not a cause of pleasure.
q. 32 a. 2 arg. 3 Praeterea, motus importat innovationem quandam, quae opponitur consuetudini. Sed ea quae sunt consueta, sunt nobis delectabilia, ut philosophus dicit, in I Rhetoric. Ergo motus non est causa delectationis. Objection 3. Further, movement implies a certain innovation, which is the opposite of custom. But things "which we are accustomed to, are pleasant," as the Philosopher says (Rhet. i, 11). Therefore movement is not a cause of pleasure.
q. 32 a. 2 s. c. Sed contra est quod Augustinus dicit, in VIII Confess., quid est hoc, domine Deus meus, cum tu aeternum tibi tu ipse sis gaudium; et quaedam de te circa te semper gaudeant; quod haec rerum pars alterno defectu et profectu, offensionibus et conciliationibus gaudet? Ex quo accipitur quod homines gaudent et delectantur in quibusdam alternationibus. Et sic motus videtur esse causa delectationis. On the contrary, Augustine says (Confess. viii, 3): "What means this, O Lord my God, whereas Thou art everlasting joy to Thyself, and some things around Thee evermore rejoice in Thee? What means this, that this portion of things ebbs and flows alternately displeased and reconciled?" From these words we gather that man rejoices and takes pleasure in some kind of alterations: and therefore movement seems to cause pleasure.
q. 32 a. 2 co. Respondeo dicendum quod ad delectationem tria requiruntur, scilicet duo quorum est coniunctio delectabilis; et tertium, quod est cognitio huius coniunctionis. Et secundum haec tria motus efficitur delectabilis, ut philosophus dicit, in VII Ethic. et in I Rhetoric. Nam ex parte nostra qui delectamur, transmutatio efficitur nobis delectabilis propter hoc, quod natura nostra transmutabilis est; et propter hoc, quod est nobis conveniens nunc, non erit nobis conveniens postea; sicut calefieri ad ignem est conveniens homini in hieme, non autem in aestate. Ex parte vero boni delectantis quod nobis coniungitur, fit etiam transmutatio delectabilis. Quia actio continuata alicuius agentis auget effectum, sicut quanto aliquis diutius appropinquat igni, magis calefit et desiccatur. Naturalis autem habitudo in quadam mensura consistit. Et ideo quando continuata praesentia delectabilis superexcedit mensuram naturalis habitudinis, efficitur remotio eius delectabilis. Ex parte vero ipsius cognitionis, quia homo desiderat cognoscere aliquod totum et perfectum. Cum ergo aliqua non poterunt apprehendi tota simul, delectat in his transmutatio, ut unum transeat et alterum succedat, et sic totum sentiatur. Unde Augustinus dicit, in IV Confess., non vis utique stare syllabam, sed transvolare, ut aliae veniant, et totum audias. Ita semper omnia ex quibus unum aliquid constat, et non sunt omnia simul, plus delectant omnia quam singula, si possint sentiri omnia. Si ergo sit aliqua res cuius natura sit intransmutabilis; et non possit in ea fieri excessus naturalis habitudinis per continuationem delectabilis; et quae possit totum suum delectabile simul intueri, non erit ei transmutatio delectabilis. Et quanto aliquae delectationes plus ad hoc accedunt, tanto plus continuari possunt. I answer that, Three things are requisite for pleasure; two, i.e. the one that is pleased and the pleasurable object conjoined to him; and a third, which is knowledge of this conjunction: and in respect of these three, movement is pleasant, as the Philosopher says (Ethic. vii, 14 and Rhetor. i, 11). For as far as we who feel pleasure are concerned, change is pleasant to us because our nature is changeable: for which reason that which is suitable to us at one time is not suitable at another; thus to warm himself at a fire is suitable to man in winter but not in summer. Again, on the part of the pleasing good which is united to us, change is pleasant. Because the continued action of an agent increases its effect: thus the longer a person remains near the fire, the more he is warmed and dried. Now the natural mode of being consists in a certain measure; and therefore when the continued presence of a pleasant object exceeds the measure of one's natural mode of being, the removal of that object becomes pleasant. On the part of the knowledge itself (change becomes pleasant), because man desires to know something whole and perfect: when therefore a thing cannot be apprehended all at once as a whole, change in such a thing is pleasant, so that one part may pass and another succeed, and thus the whole be perceived. Hence Augustine says (Confess. iv, 11): "Thou wouldst not have the syllables stay, but fly away, that others may come, and thou hear the whole. And so whenever any one thing is made up of many, all of which do not exist together, all would please collectively more than they do severally, if all could be perceived collectively." If therefore there be any thing, whose nature is unchangeable; the natural mode of whose being cannot be exceeded by the continuation of any pleasing object; and which can behold the whole object of its delight at once--to such a one change will afford no delight. And the more any pleasures approach to this, the more are they capable of being continual.
q. 32 a. 2 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod id quod movetur, etsi nondum habeat perfecte id ad quod movetur, incipit tamen iam aliquid habere eius ad quod movetur, et secundum hoc, ipse motus habet aliquid delectationis. Deficit tamen a delectationis perfectione, nam perfectiores delectationes sunt in rebus immobilibus. Motus etiam efficitur delectabilis, inquantum per ipsum fit aliquid conveniens quod prius conveniens non erat, vel desinit esse, ut supra dictum est. Reply to Objection 1. Although the subject of movement has not yet perfectly that to which it is moved, nevertheless it is beginning to have something thereof: and in this respect movement itself has something of pleasure. But it falls short of the perfection of pleasure; because the more perfect pleasures regard things that are unchangeable. Moreover movement becomes the cause of pleasure, in so far as thereby something which previously was unsuitable, becomes suitable or ceases to be, as stated above.
q. 32 a. 2 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod motus laborem et lassitudinem inducit, secundum quod transcendit habitudinem naturalem. Sic autem motus non est delectabilis, sed secundum quod removentur contraria habitudinis naturalis. Reply to Objection 2. Movement causes toil and fatigue, when it exceeds our natural aptitude. It is not thus that it causes pleasure, but by removing the obstacles to our natural aptitude.
q. 32 a. 2 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod id quod est consuetum, efficitur delectabile, inquantum efficitur naturale, nam consuetudo est quasi altera natura. Motus autem est delectabilis, non quidem quo receditur a consuetudine, sed magis secundum quod per ipsum impeditur corruptio naturalis habitudinis, quae posset provenire ex assiduitate alicuius operationis. Et sic ex eadem causa connaturalitatis efficitur consuetudo delectabilis, et motus. Reply to Objection 3. What is customary becomes pleasant, in so far as it becomes natural: because custom is like a second nature. But the movement which gives pleasure is not that which departs from custom, but rather that which prevents the corruption of the natural mode of being, that might result from continued operation. And thus from the same cause of connaturalness, both custom and movement become pleasant.
q. 32 a. 3 arg. 1 Ad tertium sic proceditur. Videtur quod memoria et spes non sint causae delectationis. Delectatio enim est de bono praesenti, ut Damascenus dicit. Sed memoria et spes sunt de absenti, est enim memoria praeteritorum, spes vero futurorum. Ergo memoria et spes non sunt causa delectationis. Objection 1. It would seem that memory and hope do not cause pleasure. Because pleasure is caused by present good, as Damascene says (De Fide Orth. ii, 12). But hope and memory regard what is absent: since memory is of the past, and hope of the future. Therefore memory and hope do not cause pleasure.
q. 32 a. 3 arg. 2 Praeterea, idem non est causa contrariorum. Sed spes est causa afflictionis, dicitur enim Prov. XIII, spes quae differtur, affligit animam. Ergo spes non est causa delectationis. Objection 2. Further, the same thing is not the cause of contraries. But hope causes affliction, according to Proverbs 13:12: "Hope that is deferred afflicteth the soul." Therefore hope does not cause pleasure.
q. 32 a. 3 arg. 3 Praeterea, sicut spes convenit cum delectatione in eo quod est de bono, ita etiam concupiscentia et amor. Non ergo magis debet assignari spes causa delectationis, quam concupiscentia vel amor. Objection 3. Further, just as hope agrees with pleasure in regarding good, so also do desire and love. Therefore hope should not be assigned as a cause of pleasure, any more than desire or love.
q. 32 a. 3 s. c. Sed contra est quod dicitur Rom. XII, spe gaudentes; et in Psalmo LXXVI, memor fui Dei, et delectatus sum. On the contrary, It is written (Romans 12:12): "Rejoicing in hope"; and (Psalm 76:4): "I remembered God, and was delighted."
q. 32 a. 3 co. Respondeo dicendum quod delectatio causatur ex praesentia boni convenientis, secundum quod sentitur, vel qualitercumque percipitur. Est autem aliquid praesens nobis dupliciter, uno modo, secundum cognitionem, prout scilicet cognitum est in cognoscente secundum suam similitudinem; alio modo, secundum rem, prout scilicet unum alteri realiter coniungitur, vel actu vel potentia, secundum quemcumque coniunctionis modum. Et quia maior est coniunctio secundum rem quam secundum similitudinem, quae est coniunctio cognitionis; itemque maior est coniunctio rei in actu quam in potentia, ideo maxima est delectatio quae fit per sensum, qui requirit praesentiam rei sensibilis. Secundum autem gradum tenet delectatio spei, in qua non solum est delectabilis coniunctio secundum apprehensionem, sed etiam secundum facultatem vel potestatem adipiscendi bonum quod delectat. Tertium autem gradum tenet delectatio memoriae, quae habet solam coniunctionem apprehensionis. I answer that, Pleasure is caused by the presence of suitable good, in so far as it is felt, or perceived in any way. Now a thing is present to us in two ways. First, in knowledge--i.e. according as the thing known is in the knower by its likeness; secondly, in reality--i.e. according as one thing is in real conjunction of any kind with another, either actually or potentially. And since real conjunction is greater than conjunction by likeness, which is the conjunction of knowledge; and again, since actual is greater than potential conjunction: therefore the greatest pleasure is that which arises from sensation which requires the presence of the sensible object. The second place belongs to the pleasure of hope, wherein there is pleasurable conjunction, not only in respect of apprehension, but also in respect of the faculty or power of obtaining the pleasurable object. The third place belongs to the pleasure of memory, which has only the conjunction of apprehension.
q. 32 a. 3 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod spes et memoria sunt quidem eorum quae sunt simpliciter absentia, quae tamen secundum quid sunt praesentia, scilicet vel secundum apprehensionem solam; vel secundum apprehensionem et facultatem, ad minus aestimatam. Reply to Objection 1. Hope and memory are indeed of things which, absolutely speaking, are absent: and yet those are, after a fashion, present, i.e. either according to apprehension only; or according to apprehension and possibility, at least supposed, of attainment.
q. 32 a. 3 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod nihil prohibet idem, secundum diversa, esse causam contrariorum. Sic igitur spes, inquantum habet praesentem aestimationem boni futuri, delectationem causat, inquantum autem caret praesentia eius, causat afflictionem. Reply to Objection 2. Nothing prevents the same thing, in different ways, being the cause of contraries. And so hope, inasmuch as it implies a present appraising of a future good, causes pleasure; whereas, inasmuch as it implies absence of that good, it causes affliction.
q. 32 a. 3 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod etiam amor et concupiscentia delectationem causant. Omne enim amatum fit delectabile amanti, eo quod amor est quaedam unio vel connaturalitas amantis ad amatum. Similiter etiam omne concupitum est delectabile concupiscenti, cum concupiscentia sit praecipue appetitus delectationis. Sed tamen spes, inquantum importat quandam certitudinem realis praesentiae boni delectantis, quam non importat nec amor nec concupiscentia, magis ponitur causa delectationis quam illa. Et similiter magis quam memoria, quae est de eo quod iam transiit. Reply to Objection 3. Love and concupiscence also cause pleasure. For everything that is loved becomes pleasing to the lover, since love is a kind of union or connaturalness of lover and beloved. In like manner every object of desire is pleasing to the one that desires, since desire is chiefly a craving for pleasure. However hope, as implying a certainty of the real presence of the pleasing good, that is not implied either by love or by concupiscence, is reckoned in preference to them as causing pleasure; and also in preference to memory, which is of that which has already passed away.
q. 32 a. 4 arg. 1 Ad quartum sic proceditur. Videtur quod tristitia non sit causa delectationis. Contrarium enim non est causa contrarii. Sed tristitia contrariatur delectationi. Ergo non est causa delectationis. Objection 1. It would seem that sadness does not cause pleasure. For nothing causes its own contrary. But sadness is contrary to pleasure. Therefore it does not cause it.
q. 32 a. 4 arg. 2 Praeterea, contrariorum contrarii sunt effectus. Sed delectabilia memorata sunt causa delectationis. Ergo tristia memorata sunt causa doloris, et non delectationis. Objection 2. Further, contraries have contrary effects. But pleasures, when called to mind, cause pleasure. Therefore sad things, when remembered, cause sorrow and not pleasure.
q. 32 a. 4 arg. 3 Praeterea, sicut se habet tristitia ad delectationem, ita odium ad amorem. Sed odium non est causa amoris, sed magis e converso, ut supra dictum est. Ergo tristitia non est causa delectationis. Objection 3. Further, as sadness is to pleasure, so is hatred to love. But hatred does not cause love, but rather the other way about, as stated above (Question 29, Article 2). Therefore sadness does not cause pleasure.
q. 32 a. 4 s. c. Sed contra est quod in Psalmo XLI, dicitur, fuerunt mihi lacrimae meae panes die ac nocte. Per panem autem refectio delectationis intelligitur. Ergo lacrimae, quae ex tristitia oriuntur, possunt esse delectabiles. On the contrary, It is written (Psalm 41:4): "My tears have been my bread day and night": where bread denotes the refreshment of pleasure. Therefore tears, which arise from sadness, can give pleasure.
q. 32 a. 4 co. Respondeo dicendum quod tristitia potest dupliciter considerari, uno modo, secundum quod est in actu; alio modo, secundum quod est in memoria. Et utroque modo tristitia potest esse delectationis causa. Tristitia siquidem in actu existens est causa delectationis, inquantum facit memoriam rei dilectae, de cuius absentia aliquis tristatur, et tamen de sola eius apprehensione delectatur. Memoria autem tristitiae fit causa delectationis, propter subsequentem evasionem. Nam carere malo accipitur in ratione boni, unde secundum quod homo apprehendit se evasisse ab aliquibus tristibus et dolorosis, accrescit ei gaudii materia; secundum quod Augustinus dicit, XXII de Civ. Dei, quod saepe laeti tristium meminimus, et sani dolorum sine dolore, et inde amplius laeti et grati sumus. Et in VIII Confess. dicit quod quanto maius fuit periculum in proelio, tanto maius erit gaudium in triumpho. I answer that, Sadness may be considered in two ways: as existing actually, and as existing in the memory: and in both ways sadness can cause pleasure. Because sadness, as actually existing, causes pleasure, inasmuch as it brings to mind that which is loved, the absence of which causes sadness; and yet the mere thought of it gives pleasure. The recollection of sadness becomes a cause of pleasure, on account of the deliverance which ensued: because absence of evil is looked upon as something good; wherefore so far as a man thinks that he has been delivered from that which caused him sorrow and pain, so much reason has he to rejoice. Hence Augustine says in De Civ. Dei xxii, 31 [Gregory, Moral. iv.] that "oftentimes in joy we call to mind sad things . . . and in the season of health we recall past pains without feeling pain . . . and in proportion are the more filled with joy and gladness": and again (Confess. viii, 3) he says that "the more peril there was in the battle, so much the more joy will there be in the triumph."
q. 32 a. 4 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod contrarium quandoque per accidens est causa contrarii, sicut frigidum quandoque calefacit, ut dicitur in VIII Physic. Et similiter tristitia per accidens est delectationis causa, inquantum fit per eam apprehensio alicuius delectabilis. Reply to Objection 1. Sometimes accidentally a thing is the cause of its contrary: thus "that which is cold sometimes causes heat," as stated in Phys. viii, 1. In like manner sadness is the accidental cause of pleasure, in so far as it gives rise to the apprehension of something pleasant.
q. 32 a. 4 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod tristia memorata, inquantum sunt tristia et delectabilibus contraria, non causant delectationem, sed inquantum ab eis homo liberatur. Et similiter memoria delectabilium, ex eo quod sunt amissa, potest causare tristitiam. Reply to Objection 2. Sad things, called to mind, cause pleasure, not in so far as they are sad and contrary to pleasant things; but in so far as man is delivered from them. In like manner the recollection of pleasant things, by reason of these being lost, may cause sadness.
q. 32 a. 4 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod odium etiam per accidens potest esse causa amoris, prout scilicet aliqui diligunt se, inquantum conveniunt in odio unius et eiusdem. Reply to Objection 3. Hatred also can be the accidental cause of love: i.e. so far as some love one another, inasmuch as they agree in hating one and the same thing.
q. 32 a. 5 arg. 1 Ad quintum sic proceditur. Videtur quod actiones aliorum non sint nobis delectationis causa. Causa enim delectationis est proprium bonum coniunctum. Sed aliorum operationes non sunt nobis coniunctae. Ergo non sunt nobis causa delectationis. Objection 1. It would seem that the actions of others are not a cause of pleasure to us. Because the cause of pleasure is our own good when conjoined to us. But the actions of others are not conjoined to us. Therefore they are not a cause of pleasure to us.
q. 32 a. 5 arg. 2 Praeterea, operatio est proprium bonum operantis. Si igitur operationes aliorum sint nobis causa delectationis, pari ratione omnia alia bona aliorum erunt nobis delectationis causa. Quod patet esse falsum. Objection 2. Further, the action is the agent's own good. If, therefore, the actions of others are a cause of pleasure to us, for the same reason all goods belonging to others will be pleasing to us: which is evidently untrue.
q. 32 a. 5 arg. 3 Praeterea, operatio est delectabilis, inquantum procedit ex habitu nobis innato, unde dicitur in II Ethic., quod signum generati habitus oportet accipere fientem in opere delectationem. Sed operationes aliorum non procedunt ex habitibus qui in nobis sunt, sed interdum ex habitibus qui sunt in operantibus. Non ergo operationes aliorum sunt nobis delectabiles, sed ipsis operantibus. Objection 3. Further, action is pleasant through proceeding from an innate habit; hence it is stated in Ethic. ii, 3 that "we must reckon the pleasure which follows after action, as being the sign of a habit existing in us." But the actions of others do not proceed from habits existing in us, but, sometimes, from habits existing in the agents. Therefore the actions of others are not pleasing to us, but to the agents themselves.
q. 32 a. 5 s. c. Sed contra est quod dicitur in secunda canonica Ioannis, gavisus sum valde, quoniam inveni de filiis tuis ambulantes in veritate. On the contrary, It is written in the second canonical epistle of John (verse 4): "I was exceeding glad that I found thy children walking in truth."
q. 32 a. 5 co. Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut iam dictum est, ad delectationem duo requiruntur, scilicet consecutio proprii boni, et cognitio proprii boni consecuti. Tripliciter ergo operatio alterius potest esse delectationis causa. Uno modo, inquantum per operationem alicuius consequimur aliquod bonum. Et secundum hoc, operationes illorum qui nobis aliquod bonum faciunt, sunt nobis delectabiles, quia bene pati ab alio est delectabile. Alio modo, secundum quod per operationes aliorum efficitur nobis aliqua cognitio vel aestimatio proprii boni. Et propter hoc homines delectantur in hoc quod laudantur vel honorantur ab aliis, quia scilicet per hoc accipiunt aestimationem in seipsis aliquod bonum esse. Et quia ista aestimatio fortius generatur ex testimonio bonorum et sapientum, ideo in horum laudibus et honoribus homines magis delectantur. Et quia adulator est apparens laudator, propter hoc etiam adulationes quibusdam sunt delectabiles. Et quia amor est alicuius boni, et admiratio est alicuius magni, idcirco amari ab aliis, et in admiratione haberi, est delectabile; inquantum per hoc fit homini aestimatio propriae bonitatis vel magnitudinis, in quibus aliquis delectatur. Tertio modo, inquantum ipsae operationes aliorum, si sint bonae, aestimantur ut bonum proprium, propter vim amoris, qui facit aestimare amicum quasi eundem sibi. Et propter odium, quod facit aestimare bonum alterius esse sibi contrarium, efficitur mala operatio inimici delectabilis. Unde dicitur I ad Cor. XIII, quod caritas non gaudet super iniquitate, congaudet autem veritati. I answer that, As stated above (01; 31, 1), two things are requisite for pleasure, namely, the attainment of one's proper good, and the knowledge of having obtained it. Wherefore the action of another may cause pleasure to us in three ways. First, from the fact that we obtain some good through the action of another. And in this way, the actions of those who do some good to us, are pleasing to us: since it is pleasant to be benefited by another. Secondly, from the fact that another's action makes us to know or appreciate our own good: and for this reason men take pleasure in being praised or honored by others, because, to wit, they thus become aware of some good existing in themselves. And since this appreciation receives greater weight from the testimony of good and wise men, hence men take greater pleasure in being praised and honored by them. And because a flatterer appears to praise, therefore flattery is pleasing to some. And as love is for something good, while admiration is for something great, so it is pleasant to be loved and admired by others, inasmuch as a man thus becomes aware of his own goodness or greatness, through their giving pleasure to others. Thirdly, from the fact that another's actions, if they be good, are reckoned as one's own good, by reason of the power of love, which makes a man to regard his friend as one with himself. And on account of hatred, which makes one to reckon another's good as being in opposition to oneself, the evil action of an enemy becomes an object of pleasure: whence it is written (1 Corinthians 13:6) that charity "rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth with the truth."
q. 32 a. 5 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod operatio alterius potest esse mihi coniuncta vel per effectum, sicut in primo modo; vel per apprehensionem, sicut in secundo modo; vel per affectionem, sicut in tertio modo. Reply to Objection 1. Another's action may be conjoined to me, either by its effect, as in the first way, or by knowledge, as in the second way; or by affection, as in the third way.
q. 32 a. 5 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod ratio illa procedit quantum ad tertium modum, non autem quantum ad duos primos. Reply to Objection 2. This argument avails for the third mode, but not for the first two.
q. 32 a. 5 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod operationes aliorum etsi non procedant ex habitibus qui in me sunt, causant tamen in me aliquid delectabile; vel faciunt mihi aestimationem sive apprehensionem proprii habitus; vel procedunt ex habitu illius qui est unum mecum per amorem. Reply to Objection 3. Although the actions of another do not proceed from habits that are in me, yet they either produce in me something that gives pleasure; or they make me appreciate or know a habit of mind; or they proceed from the habit of one who is united to me by love.
q. 32 a. 6 arg. 1 Ad sextum sic proceditur. Videtur quod benefacere alteri non sit delectationis causa. Delectatio enim causatur ex consecutione proprii boni, sicut supra dictum est. Sed benefacere non pertinet ad consecutionem proprii boni, sed magis ad emissionem. Ergo magis videtur esse causa tristitiae quam delectationis. Objection 1. It would seem that doing good to another is not a cause of pleasure. Because pleasure is caused by one's obtaining one's proper good, as stated above (1,5; 31, 1). But doing good pertains not to the obtaining but to the spending of one's proper good. Therefore it seems to be the cause of sadness rather than of pleasure.
q. 32 a. 6 arg. 2 Praeterea, philosophus dicit, in IV Ethic., quod illiberalitas connaturalior est hominibus quam prodigalitas. Sed ad prodigalitatem pertinet benefacere aliis, ad illiberalitatem autem pertinet desistere a benefaciendo. Cum ergo operatio connaturalis sit delectabilis unicuique, ut dicitur in VII et X Ethic., videtur quod benefacere aliis non sit causa delectationis. Objection 2. Further, the Philosopher says (Ethic. iv, 1) that "illiberality is more connatural to man than prodigality." Now it is a mark of prodigality to do good to others; while it is a mark of illiberality to desist from doing good. Since therefore everyone takes pleasure in a connatural operation, as stated in Ethic. vii, 14 and x, 4, it seems that doing good to others is not a cause of pleasure.
q. 32 a. 6 arg. 3 Praeterea, contrarii effectus ex contrariis causis procedunt. Sed quaedam quae pertinent ad malefacere, sunt naturaliter homini delectabilia, sicut vincere, redarguere vel increpare alios, et etiam punire, quantum ad iratos, ut dicit philosophus in I Rhetoric. Ergo benefacere magis est causa tristitiae quam delectationis. Objection 3. Further, contrary effects proceed from contrary causes. But man takes a natural pleasure in certain kinds of ill-doing, such as overcoming, contradicting or scolding others, or, if he be angry, in punishing them, as the Philosopher says (Rhet. i, 11). Therefore doing good to others is a cause of sadness rather than pleasure.
q. 32 a. 6 s. c. Sed contra est quod philosophus dicit, in II Polit., quod largiri et auxiliari amicis aut extraneis, est delectabilissimum. On the contrary, The Philosopher says (Polit. ii, 2) that "it is most pleasant to give presents or assistance to friends and strangers."
q. 32 a. 6 co. Respondeo dicendum quod hoc ipsum quod est benefacere alteri, potest tripliciter esse delectationis causa. Uno modo, per comparationem ad effectum, quod est bonum in altero constitutum. Et secundum hoc, inquantum bonum alterius reputamus quasi nostrum bonum, propter unionem amoris, delectamur in bono quod per nos fit aliis, praecipue amicis, sicut in bono proprio. Alio modo, per comparationem ad finem, sicut cum aliquis, per hoc quod alteri benefacit, sperat consequi aliquod bonum sibi ipsi, vel a Deo vel ab homine. Spes autem delectationis est causa. Tertio modo, per comparationem ad principium. Et sic hoc quod est benefacere alteri, potest esse delectabile per comparationem ad triplex principium. Quorum unum est facultas benefaciendi, et secundum hoc, benefacere alteri fit delectabile, inquantum per hoc fit homini quaedam imaginatio abundantis boni in seipso existentis, ex quo possit aliis communicare. Et ideo homines delectantur in filiis et in propriis operibus, sicut quibus communicant proprium bonum. Aliud principium est habitus inclinans, secundum quem benefacere fit alicui connaturale. Unde liberales delectabiliter dant aliis. Tertium principium est motivum, puta cum aliquis movetur ab aliquo quem diligit, ad benefaciendum alicui, omnia enim quae facimus vel patimur propter amicum, delectabilia sunt, quia amor praecipua causa delectationis est. I answer that, Doing good to another may give pleasure in three ways. First, in consideration of the effect, which is the good conferred on another. In this respect, inasmuch as through being united to others by love, we look upon their good as being our own, we take pleasure in the good we do to others, especially to our friends, as in our own good. Secondly, in consideration of the end; as when a man, from doing good to another, hopes to get some good for himself, either from God or from man: for hope is a cause of pleasure. Thirdly, in consideration of the principle: and thus, doing good to another, can give pleasure in respect of a threefold principle. One is the faculty of doing good: and in this regard, doing good to another becomes pleasant, in so far as it arouses in man an imagination of abundant good existing in him, whereof he is able to give others a share. Wherefore men take pleasure in their children, and in their own works, as being things on which they bestow a share of their own good. Another principle is man's habitual inclination to do good, by reason of which doing good becomes connatural to him: for which reason the liberal man takes pleasure in giving to others. The third principle is the motive: for instance when a man is moved by one whom he loves, to do good to someone: for whatever we do or suffer for a friend is pleasant, because love is the principal cause of pleasure.
q. 32 a. 6 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod emissio, inquantum est indicativa proprii boni, est delectabilis. Sed inquantum evacuat proprium bonum potest esse contristans; sicut quando est immoderata. Reply to Objection 1. Spending gives pleasure as showing forth one's good. But in so far as it empties us of our own good it may be a cause of sadness; for instance when it is excessive.
q. 32 a. 6 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod prodigalitas habet immoderatam emissionem, quae repugnat naturae. Et ideo prodigalitas dicitur esse contra naturam. Reply to Objection 2. Prodigality is an excessive spending, which is unnatural: wherefore prodigality is said to be contrary to nature.
q. 32 a. 6 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod vincere, redarguere et punire, non est delectabile inquantum est in malum alterius, sed inquantum pertinet ad proprium bonum, quod plus homo amat quam odiat malum alterius. Vincere enim est delectabile naturaliter, inquantum per hoc homini fit aestimatio propriae excellentiae. Et propter hoc, omnes ludi in quibus est concertatio, et in quibus potest esse victoria, sunt maxime delectabiles, et universaliter omnes concertationes, secundum quod habent spem victoriae. Redarguere autem et increpare potest esse dupliciter delectationis causa. Uno modo, inquantum facit homini imaginationem propriae sapientiae et excellentiae, increpare enim et corripere est sapientum et maiorum alio modo, secundum quod aliquis, increpando et reprehendendo, alteri benefacit, quod est delectabile, ut dictum est. Irato autem est delectabile punire, inquantum videtur removere apparentem minorationem, quae videtur esse ex praecedenti laesione. Cum enim aliquis est ab aliquo laesus, videtur per hoc ab illo minoratus esse, et ideo appetit ab hac minoratione liberari per retributionem laesionis. Et sic patet quod benefacere alteri per se potest esse delectabile, sed malefacere alteri non est delectabile, nisi inquantum videtur pertinere ad proprium bonum. Reply to Objection 3. To overcome, to contradict, and to punish, give pleasure, not as tending to another's ill, but as pertaining to one's own good, which man loves more than he hates another's ill. For it is naturally pleasant to overcome, inasmuch as it makes a man to appreciate his own superiority. Wherefore all those games in which there is a striving for the mastery, and a possibility of winning it, afford the greatest pleasure: and speaking generally all contests, in so far as they admit hope of victory. To contradict and to scold can give pleasure in two ways. First, as making man imagine himself to be wise and excellent; since it belongs to wise men and elders to reprove and to scold. Secondly, in so far as by scolding and reproving, one does good to another: for this gives one pleasure, as stated above. It is pleasant to an angry man to punish, in so far as he thinks himself to be removing an apparent slight, which seems to be due to a previous hurt: for when a man is hurt by another, he seems to be slighted thereby; and therefore he wishes to be quit of this slight by paying back the hurt. And thus it is clear that doing good to another may be of itself pleasant: whereas doing evil to another is not pleasant, except in so far as it seems to affect one's own good.
q. 32 a. 7 arg. 1 Ad septimum sic proceditur. Videtur quod similitudo non sit causa delectationis. Principari enim et praeesse quandam dissimilitudinem importat. Sed principari et praeesse naturaliter est delectabile, ut dicitur in I Rhetoric. Ergo dissimilitudo magis est causa delectationis quam similitudo. Objection 1. It would seem that likeness is not a cause of pleasure. Because ruling and presiding seem to imply a certain unlikeness. But "it is natural to take pleasure in ruling and presiding," as stated in Rhetor. i, 11. Therefore unlikeness, rather than likeness, is a cause of pleasure.
q. 32 a. 7 arg. 2 Praeterea, nihil magis est dissimile delectationi quam tristitia. Sed illi qui patiuntur tristitias, maxime sequuntur delectationes, ut dicitur in VII Ethic. Ergo dissimilitudo est magis causa delectationis quam similitudo. Objection 2. Further, nothing is more unlike pleasure than sorrow. But those who are burdened by sorrow are most inclined to seek pleasures, as the Philosopher says (Ethic. vii, 14). Therefore unlikeness, rather than likeness, is a cause of pleasure.
q. 32 a. 7 arg. 3 Praeterea, illi qui sunt repleti aliquibus delectabilibus, non delectantur in eis, sed magis fastidiunt ea, sicut patet in repletione ciborum. Non ergo similitudo est delectationis causa. Objection 3. Further, those who are satiated with certain delights, derive not pleasure but disgust from them; as when one is satiated with food. Therefore likeness is not a cause of pleasure.
q. 32 a. 7 s. c. Sed contra est quod similitudo est causa amoris, ut dictum est supra. Amor autem est causa delectationis. Ergo similitudo est causa delectationis. On the contrary, Likeness is a cause of love, as above stated (27, 3): and love is the cause of pleasure. Therefore likeness is a cause of pleasure.
q. 32 a. 7 co. Respondeo dicendum quod similitudo est quaedam unitas, unde id quod est simile, inquantum est unum, est delectabile, sicut et amabile, ut supra dictum est. Et si quidem id quod est simile, proprium bonum non corrumpat, sed augeat, est simpliciter delectabile, puta homo homini, et iuvenis iuveni. Si vero sit corruptivum proprii boni, sic per accidens efficitur fastidiosum vel contristans; non quidem inquantum est simile et unum, sed inquantum corrumpit id quod est magis unum. Quod autem aliquid simile corrumpat proprium bonum, contingit dupliciter. Uno modo, quia corrumpit mensuram proprii boni per quendam excessum, bonum enim, praecipue corporale, ut sanitas, in quadam commensuratione consistit. Et propter hoc, superabundantes cibi, vel quaelibet delectationes corporales, fastidiuntur. Alio modo, per directam contrarietatem ad proprium bonum, sicut figuli abominantur alios figulos, non inquantum sunt figuli, sed inquantum per eos amittunt excellentiam propriam, sive proprium lucrum, quae appetunt sicut proprium bonum. I answer that, Likeness is a kind of unity; hence that which is like us, as being one with us, causes pleasure; just at it causes love, as stated above (Question 27, Article 3). And if that which is like us does not hurt our own good, but increase it, it is pleasurable simply; for instance one man in respect of another, one youth in relation to another. But if it be hurtful to our own good, thus accidentally it causes disgust or sadness, not as being like and one with us, but as hurtful to that which is yet more one with us. Now it happens in two ways that something like is hurtful to our own good. First, by destroying the measure of our own good, by a kind of excess; because good, especially bodily good, as health, is conditioned by a certain measure: wherefore superfluous good or any bodily pleasure, causes disgust. Secondly, by being directly contrary to one's own good: thus a potter dislikes other potters, not because they are potters, but because they deprive him of his own excellence or profits, which he seeks as his own good.
q. 32 a. 7 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod, cum sit quaedam communicatio principantis ad subiectum, est ibi quaedam similitudo. Tamen secundum quandam excellentiam, eo quod principari et praeesse pertinent ad excellentiam proprii boni, sapientum enim et meliorum est principari et praeesse. Unde per hoc fit homini propriae bonitatis imaginatio. Vel quia per hoc quod homo principatur et praeest, aliis benefacit, quod est delectabile. Reply to Objection 1. Since ruler and subject are in communion with one another, there is a certain likeness between them: but this likeness is conditioned by a certain superiority, since ruling and presiding pertain to the excellence of a man's own good: because they belong to men who are wise and better than others; the result being that they give man an idea of his own excellence. Another reason is that by ruling and presiding, a man does good to others, which is pleasant.
q. 32 a. 7 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod id in quo delectatur tristatus, etsi non sit simile tristitiae, est tamen simile homini contristato. Quia tristitiae contrariantur proprio bono eius qui tristatur. Et ideo appetitur delectatio ab his qui in tristitia sunt, ut conferens ad proprium bonum, inquantum est medicativa contrarii. Et ista est causa quare delectationes corporales, quibus sunt contrariae quaedam tristitiae, magis appetuntur, quam delectationes intellectuales, quae non habent contrarietatem tristitiae, ut infra dicetur. Exinde etiam est quod omnia animalia naturaliter appetunt delectationem, quia semper animal laborat per sensum et motum. Et propter hoc etiam iuvenes maxime delectationes appetunt; propter multas transmutationes in eis existentes, dum sunt in statu augmenti. Et etiam melancholici vehementer appetunt delectationes, ad expellendum tristitiam, quia corpus eorum quasi pravo humore corroditur, ut dicitur in VII Ethic. Reply to Objection 2. That which gives pleasure to the sorrowful man, though it be unlike sorrow, bears some likeness to the man that is sorrowful: because sorrows are contrary to his own good. Wherefore the sorrowful man seeks pleasure as making for his own good, in so far as it is a remedy for its contrary. And this is why bodily pleasures, which are contrary to certain sorrows, are more sought than intellectual pleasures, which have no contrary sorrow, as we shall state later on (35, 5). And this explains why all animals naturally desire pleasure: because animals ever work through sense and movement. For this reason also young people are most inclined to seek pleasures; on account of the many changes to which they are subject, while yet growing. Moreover this is why the melancholic has a strong desire for pleasures, in order to drive away sorrow: because his "body is corroded by a base humor," as stated in Ethic. vii, 14.
q. 32 a. 7 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod bona corporalia in quadam mensura consistunt, et ideo superexcessus similium corrumpit proprium bonum. Et propter hoc efficitur fastidiosum et contristans, inquantum contrariatur bono proprio hominis. Reply to Objection 3. Bodily goods are conditioned by a certain fixed measure: wherefore surfeit of such things destroys the proper good, and consequently gives rise to disgust and sorrow, through being contrary to the proper good of man.
q. 32 a. 8 arg. 1 Ad octavum sic proceditur. Videtur quod admiratio non sit causa delectationis. Admirari enim est ignorantis naturae, ut Damascenus dicit. Sed ignorantia non est delectabilis, sed magis scientia. Ergo admiratio non est causa delectationis. Objection 1. It would seem that wonder is not a cause of pleasure. Because wonder is the act of one who is ignorant of the nature of something, as Damascene says. But knowledge, rather than ignorance, is a cause of pleasure. Therefore wonder is not a cause of pleasure.
q. 32 a. 8 arg. 2 Praeterea, admiratio est principium sapientiae, quasi via ad inquirendum veritatem, ut dicitur in principio Metaphys. Sed delectabilius est contemplari iam cognita, quam inquirere ignota, ut philosophus dicit in X Ethic., cum hoc habeat difficultatem et impedimentum, illud autem non habeat; delectatio autem causatur ex operatione non impedita, ut dicitur in VII Ethic. Ergo admiratio non est causa delectationis, sed magis delectationem impedit. Objection 2. Further, wonder is the beginning of wisdom, being as it were, the road to the search of truth, as stated in the beginning of Metaph. i, 2. But "it is more pleasant to think of what we know, than to seek what we know not," as the Philosopher says (Ethic. x, 7): since in the latter case we encounter difficulties and hindrances, in the former not; while pleasure arises from an operation which is unhindered, as stated in Ethic. vii, 12,13. Therefore wonder hinders rather than causes pleasure.
q. 32 a. 8 arg. 3 Praeterea, unusquisque in consuetis delectatur, unde operationes habituum per consuetudinem acquisitorum, sunt delectabiles. Sed consueta non sunt admirabilia, ut dicit Augustinus, super Ioan. Ergo admiratio contrariatur causae delectationis. Objection 3. Further, everyone takes pleasure in what he is accustomed to: wherefore the actions of habits acquired by custom, are pleasant. But "we wonder at what is unwonted," as Augustine says (Tract. xxiv in Joan.). Therefore wonder is contrary to the cause of pleasure.
q. 32 a. 8 s. c. Sed contra est quod philosophus dicit, in I Rhetoric., quod admiratio est delectationis causa. On the contrary, The Philosopher says (Rhet. i, 11) that wonder is the cause of pleasure.
q. 32 a. 8 co. Respondeo dicendum quod adipisci desiderata est delectabile, ut supra dictum est. Et ideo quanto alicuius rei amatae magis crescit desiderium, tanto magis per adeptionem crescit delectatio. Et etiam in ipso augmento desiderii fit augmentum delectationis, secundum quod fit etiam spes rei amatae; sicut supra dictum est quod ipsum desiderium ex spe est delectabile. Est autem admiratio desiderium quoddam sciendi, quod in homine contingit ex hoc quod videt effectum et ignorat causam, vel ex hoc quod causa talis effectus excedit cognitionem aut facultatem ipsius. Et ideo admiratio est causa delectationis inquantum habet adiunctam spem consequendi cognitionem eius quod scire desiderat. Et propter hoc omnia mirabilia sunt delectabilia, sicut quae sunt rara, et omnes repraesentationes rerum, etiam quae in se non sunt delectabiles; gaudet enim anima in collatione unius ad alterum, quia conferre unum alteri est proprius et connaturalis actus rationis, ut philosophus dicit in sua poetica. Et propter hoc etiam liberari a magnis periculis magis est delectabile, quia est admirabile, ut dicitur in I Rhetoric. I answer that, It is pleasant to get what one desires, as stated above (Question 23, Article 4): and therefore the greater the desire for the thing loved, the greater the pleasure when it is attained: indeed the very increase of desire brings with it an increase of pleasure, according as it gives rise to the hope of obtaining that which is loved, since it was stated above (3, ad 3) that desire resulting from hope is a cause of pleasure. Now wonder is a kind of desire for knowledge; a desire which comes to man when he sees an effect of which the cause either is unknown to him, or surpasses his knowledge or faculty of understanding. Consequently wonder is a cause of pleasure, in so far as it includes a hope of getting the knowledge which one desires to have. For this reason whatever is wonderful is pleasing, for instance things that are scarce. Also, representations of things, even of those which are not pleasant in themselves, give rise to pleasure; for the soul rejoices in comparing one thing with another, because comparison of one thing with another is the proper and connatural act of the reason, as the Philosopher says (Poet. iv). This again is why "it is more delightful to be delivered from great danger, because it is something wonderful," as stated in Rhetor. i, 11.
q. 32 a. 8 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod admiratio non est delectabilis inquantum habet ignorantiam, sed inquantum habet desiderium addiscendi causam; et inquantum admirans aliquid novum addiscit, scilicet talem esse quem non aestimabat. Reply to Objection 1. Wonder gives pleasure, not because it implies ignorance, but in so far as it includes the desire of learning the cause, and in so far as the wonderer learns something new, i.e. that the cause is other than he had thought it to be. [According to another reading:--that he is other than he thought himself to be.]
q. 32 a. 8 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod delectatio duo habet, scilicet quietem in bono, et huiusmodi quietis perceptionem. Quantum igitur ad primum, cum sit perfectius contemplari veritatem cognitam quam inquirere ignotam, contemplationes rerum scitarum, per se loquendo, sunt magis delectabiles quam inquisitiones rerum ignotarum. Tamen per accidens, quantum ad secundum, contingit quod inquisitiones sunt quandoque delectabiliores, secundum quod ex maiori desiderio procedunt, desiderium autem maius excitatur ex perceptione ignorantiae. Unde maxime homo delectatur in his quae de novo invenit aut addiscit. Reply to Objection 2. Pleasure includes two things; rest in the good, and perception of this rest. As to the former therefore, since it is more perfect to contemplate the known truth, than to seek for the unknown, the contemplation of what we know, is in itself more pleasing than the research of what we do not know. Nevertheless, as to the second, it happens that research is sometimes more pleasing accidentally, in so far as it proceeds from a greater desire: for greater desire is awakened when we are conscious of our ignorance. This is why man takes the greatest pleasure in finding or learning things for the first time.
q. 32 a. 8 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod ea quae sunt consueta, sunt delectabilia ad operandum, inquantum sunt quasi connaturalia. Sed tamen ea quae sunt rara, possunt esse delectabilia, vel ratione cognitionis, quia desideratur eorum scientia, inquantum sunt mira; vel ratione operationis, quia ex desiderio magis inclinatur mens ad hoc quod intense in novitate operetur, ut dicitur in X Ethic.; perfectior enim operatio causat perfectiorem delectationem. Reply to Objection 3. It is pleasant to do what we are wont to do, inasmuch as this is connatural to us, as it were. And yet things that are of rare occurrence can be pleasant, either as regards knowledge, from the fact that we desire to know something about them, in so far as they are wonderful; or as regards action, from the fact that "the mind is more inclined by desire to act intensely in things that are new," as stated in Ethic. x, 4, since more perfect operation causes more perfect pleasure.
q. 33 pr. Deinde considerandum est de effectibus delectationis. Et circa hoc quaeruntur quatuor. Primo, utrum delectationis sit dilatare. Secundo, utrum delectatio causet sui sitim, vel desiderium. Tertio, utrum delectatio impediat usum rationis. Quarto, utrum delectatio perficiat operationem. Question 33. The effects of pleasure Is expansion an effect of pleasure? Does pleasure cause thirst or desire for itself? Does pleasure hinder the use of reason? Does pleasure perfect operation?
q. 33 a. 1 arg. 1 Ad primum sic proceditur. Videtur quod dilatatio non sit effectus delectationis. Dilatatio enim videtur ad amorem magis pertinere, secundum quod dicit apostolus, II ad Cor. VI, cor nostrum dilatatum est. Unde et de praecepto caritatis in Psalmo CXVIII, dicitur, latum mandatum tuum nimis. Sed delectatio est alia passio ab amore. Ergo dilatatio non est effectus delectationis. Objection 1. It would seem that expansion is not an effect of pleasure. For expansion seems to pertain more to love, according to the Apostle (2 Corinthians 6:11): "Our heart is enlarged." Wherefore it is written (Psalm 118:96) concerning the precept of charity: "Thy commandment is exceeding broad." But pleasure is a distinct passion from love. Therefore expansion is not an effect of pleasure.
q. 33 a. 1 arg. 2 Praeterea, ex hoc quod aliquid dilatatur, efficitur capacius ad recipiendum. Sed receptio pertinet ad desiderium, quod est rei nondum habitae. Ergo dilatatio magis videtur pertinere ad desiderium quam ad delectationem. Objection 2. Further, when a thing expands it is enabled to receive more. But receiving pertains to desire, which is for something not yet possessed. Therefore expansion seems to belong to desire rather than to pleasure.
q. 33 a. 1 arg. 3 Praeterea, constrictio dilatationi opponitur. Sed constrictio videtur ad delectationem pertinere, nam illud constringimus quod firmiter volumus retinere; et talis est affectio appetitus circa rem delectantem. Ergo dilatatio ad delectationem non pertinet. Objection 3. Further, contraction is contrary to expansion. But contraction seems to belong to pleasure, for the hand closes on that which we wish to grasp firmly: and such is the affection of appetite in regard to that which pleases it. Therefore expansion does not pertain to pleasure.
q. 33 a. 1 s. c. Sed contra est quod, ad expressionem gaudii, dicitur Isaiae LX, videbis, et affluens, et mirabitur et dilatabitur cor tuum. Ipsa etiam delectatio ex dilatatione nomen accepit ut laetitia nominetur sicut supra dictum est. On the contrary, In order to express joy, it is written (Isaiah 60:5): "Thou shall see and abound, thy heart shall wonder and be enlarged." Moreover pleasure is called by the name of "laetitia" as being derived from "dilatatio" [expansion], as stated above (31, 3, ad 3).
q. 33 a. 1 co. Respondeo dicendum quod latitudo est quaedam dimensio magnitudinis corporalis, unde in affectionibus animae non nisi secundum metaphoram dicitur. Dilatatio autem dicitur quasi motus ad latitudinem. Et competit delectationi secundum duo quae ad delectationem requiruntur. Quorum unum est ex parte apprehensivae virtutis, quae apprehendit coniunctionem alicuius boni convenientis. Ex hac autem apprehensione apprehendit se homo perfectionem quandam adeptum, quae est spiritualis magnitudo, et secundum hoc, animus hominis dicitur per delectationem magnificari, seu dilatari. Aliud autem est ex parte appetitivae virtutis, quae assentit rei delectabili, et in ea quiescit, quodammodo se praebens ei ad eam interius capiendam. Et sic dilatatur affectus hominis per delectationem, quasi se tradens ad continendum interius rem delectantem. I answer that, Breadth [latitudo] is a dimension of bodily magnitude: hence it is not applied to the emotions of the soul, save metaphorically. Now expansion denotes a kind of movement towards breadth; and it belongs to pleasure in respect of the two things requisite for pleasure. One of these is on the part of the apprehensive power, which is cognizant of the conjunction with some suitable good. As a result of this apprehension, man perceives that he has attained a certain perfection, which is a magnitude of the spiritual order: and in this respect man's mind is said to be magnified or expanded by pleasure. The other requisite for pleasure is on the part of the appetitive power, which acquiesces in the pleasurable object, and rests therein, offering, as it were, to enfold it within itself. And thus man's affection is expanded by pleasure, as though it surrendered itself to hold within itself the object of its pleasure.
q. 33 a. 1 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod nihil prohibet in his quae dicuntur metaphorice, idem diversis attribui secundum diversas similitudines. Et secundum hoc, dilatatio pertinet ad amorem ratione cuiusdam extensionis, inquantum affectus amantis ad alios extenditur, ut curet non solum quae sua sunt, sed quae aliorum. Ad delectationem vero pertinet dilatatio, inquantum aliquid in seipso ampliatur, ut quasi capacius reddatur. Reply to Objection 1. In metaphorical expressions nothing hinders one and the same thing from being attributed to different things according to different likenesses. And in this way expansion pertains to love by reason of a certain spreading out, in so far as the affection of the lover spreads out to others, so as to care, not only for his own interests, but also for what concerns others. On the other hand expansion pertains to pleasure, in so far as a thing becomes more ample in itself so as to become more capacious.
q. 33 a. 1 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod desiderium habet quidem aliquam ampliationem ex imaginatione rei desideratae, sed multo magis ex praesentia rei iam delectantis. Quia magis praebet se animus rei iam delectanti, quam rei non habitae desideratae, cum delectatio sit finis desiderii. Reply to Objection 2. Desire includes a certain expansion arising from the imagination of the thing desired; but this expansion increases at the presence of the pleasurable object: because the mind surrenders itself more to that object when it is already taking pleasure in it, than when it desires it before possessing it; since pleasure is the end of desire.
q. 33 a. 1 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod ille qui delectatur, constringit quidem rem delectantem, dum ei fortiter inhaeret, sed cor suum ampliat, ut perfecte delectabili fruatur. Reply to Objection 3. He that takes pleasure in a thing holds it fast, by clinging to it with all his might: but he opens his heart to it that he may enjoy it perfectly.
q. 33 a. 2 arg. 1 Ad secundum sic proceditur. Videtur quod delectatio non causet desiderium sui ipsius. Omnis enim motus cessat, cum pervenerit ad quietem. Sed delectatio est quasi quaedam quies motus desiderii, ut supra dictum est. Cessat ergo motus desiderii, cum ad delectationem pervenerit. Non ergo delectatio causat desiderium. Objection 1. It would seem that pleasure does not cause desire for itself. Because all movement ceases when repose is reached. But pleasure is, as it were, a certain repose of the movement of desire, as stated above (23, 4; 25, 2). Therefore the movement of desire ceases when pleasure is reached. Therefore pleasure does not cause desire.
q. 33 a. 2 arg. 2 Praeterea, oppositum non est causa sui oppositi. Sed delectatio quodammodo desiderio opponitur, ex parte obiecti, nam desiderium est boni non habiti, delectatio vero boni iam habiti. Ergo delectatio non causat desiderium sui ipsius. Objection 2. Further, a thing does not cause its contrary. But pleasure is, in a way, contrary to desire, on the part of the object: since desire regards a good which is not yet possessed, whereas pleasure regards the good that is possessed. Therefore pleasure does not cause desire for itself.
q. 33 a. 2 arg. 3 Praeterea, fastidium desiderio repugnat. Sed delectatio plerumque causat fastidium. Non ergo facit sui desiderium. Objection 3. Further, distaste is incompatible with desire. But pleasure often causes distaste. Therefore it does not cause desire.
q. 33 a. 2 s. c. Sed contra est quod dominus dicit, Ioan. IV, qui biberit ex hac aqua, sitiet iterum, per aquam autem significatur, secundum Augustinum, delectatio corporalis. On the contrary, Our Lord said (John 4:13): "Whosoever drinketh of this water, shall thirst again": where, according to Augustine (Tract. xv in Joan.), water denotes pleasures of the body.
q. 33 a. 2 co. Respondeo dicendum quod delectatio dupliciter potest considerari, uno modo, secundum quod est in actu; alio modo, secundum quod est in memoria. Item sitis, vel desiderium, potest dupliciter accipi, uno modo, proprie, secundum quod importat appetitum rei non habitae; alio modo, communiter, secundum quod importat exclusionem fastidii. Secundum quidem igitur quod est in actu, delectatio non causat sitim vel desiderium sui ipsius, per se loquendo, sed solum per accidens, si tamen sitis vel desiderium dicatur rei non habitae appetitus, nam delectatio est affectio appetitus circa rem praesentem. Sed contingit rem praesentem non perfecte haberi. Et hoc potest esse vel ex parte rei habitae, vel ex parte habentis. Ex parte quidem rei habitae, eo quod res habita non est tota simul, unde successive recipitur, et dum aliquis delectatur in eo quod habet, desiderat potiri eo quod restat; sicut qui audit primam partem versus, et in hoc delectatur, desiderat alteram partem versus audire, ut Augustinus dicit, IV Confess. Et hoc modo omnes fere delectationes corporales faciunt sui ipsarum sitim, quousque consummentur, eo quod tales delectationes consequuntur aliquem motum, sicut patet in delectationibus ciborum. Ex parte autem ipsius habentis, sicut cum aliquis aliquam rem in se perfectam existentem, non statim perfecte habet, sed paulatim acquirit. Sicut in mundo isto, percipientes aliquid imperfecte de divina cognitione, delectamur; et ipsa delectatio excitat sitim vel desiderium perfectae cognitionis; secundum quod potest intelligi quod habetur Eccli. XXIV, qui bibunt me, adhuc sitient. Si vero per sitim vel desiderium intelligatur sola intensio affectus tollens fastidium, sic delectationes spirituales maxime faciunt sitim vel desiderium sui ipsarum. Delectationes enim corporales, quia augmentatae, vel etiam continuatae, faciunt superexcrescentiam naturalis habitudinis, efficiuntur fastidiosae; ut patet in delectatione ciborum. Et propter hoc, quando aliquis iam pervenit ad perfectum in delectationibus corporalibus, fastidit eas, et quandoque appetit aliquas alias. Sed delectationes spirituales non superexcrescunt naturalem habitudinem, sed perficiunt naturam. Unde cum pervenitur ad consummationem in ipsis, tunc sunt magis delectabiles, nisi forte per accidens, inquantum operationi contemplativae adiunguntur aliquae operationes virtutum corporalium, quae per assiduitatem operandi lassantur. Et per hunc etiam modum potest intelligi quod dicitur Eccli. XXIV qui bibit me, adhuc sitiet. Quia etiam de Angelis, qui perfecte Deum cognoscunt, et delectantur in ipso, dicitur I Petri I, quod desiderant in eum conspicere. Si vero consideretur delectatio prout est in memoria et non in actu, sic per se nata est causare sui ipsius sitim et desiderium, quando scilicet homo redit ad illam dispositionem in qua erat sibi delectabile quod praeteriit. Si vero immutatus sit ab illa dispositione, memoria delectationis non causat in eo delectationem, sed fastidium, sicut pleno existenti memoria cibi. I answer that, Pleasure can be considered in two ways; first, as existing in reality; secondly, as existing in the memory. Again thirst, or desire, can be taken in two ways; first, properly, as denoting a craving for something not possessed; secondly, in general, as excluding distaste. Considered as existing in reality, pleasure does not of itself cause thirst or desire for itself, but only accidentally; provided we take thirst or desire as denoting a craving for some thing not possessed: because pleasure is an emotion of the appetite in respect of something actually present. But it may happen that what is actually present is not perfectly possessed: and this may be on the part of the thing possessed, or on the part of the possessor. On the part of the thing possessed, this happens through the thing possessed not being a simultaneous whole; wherefore one obtains possession of it successively, and while taking pleasure in what one has, one desires to possess the remainder: thus if a man is pleased with the first part of a verse, he desires to hear the second part, as Augustine says (Confess. iv, 11). In this way nearly all bodily pleasures cause thirst for themselves, until they are fully realized, because pleasures of this kind arise from some movement: as is evident in pleasures of the table. On the part of the possessor, this happens when a man possesses a thing which is perfect in itself, yet does not possess it perfectly, but obtains possession of it little by little. Thus in this life, a faint perception of Divine knowledge affords us delight, and delight sets up a thirst or desire for perfect knowledge; in which sense we may understand the words of Sirach 24:29: "They that drink me shall yet thirst." On the other hand, if by thirst or desire we understand the mere intensity of the emotion, that excludes distaste, thus more than all others spiritual pleasures cause thirst or desire for themselves. Because bodily pleasures become distasteful by reason of their causing an excess in the natural mode of being, when they are increased or even when they are protracted; as is evident in the case of pleasures of the table. This is why, when a man arrives at the point of perfection in bodily pleasures, he wearies of them, and sometimes desires another kind. Spiritual pleasures, on the contrary, do not exceed the natural mode of being, but perfect nature. Hence when their point of perfection is reached, then do they afford the greatest delight: except, perchance, accidentally, in so far as the work of contemplation is accompanied by some operation of the bodily powers, which tire from protracted activity. And in this sense also we may understand those words of Sirach 24:29: "They that drink me shall yet thirst": for, even of the angels, who know God perfectly, and delight in Him, it is written (1 Peter 1:12) that they "desire to look at Him." Lastly, if we consider pleasure, not as existing in reality, but as existing in the memory, thus it has of itself a natural tendency to cause thirst and desire for itself: when, to wit, man returns to that disposition, in which he was when he experienced the pleasure that is past. But if he be changed from that disposition, the memory of that pleasure does not give him pleasure, but distaste: for instance, the memory of food in respect of a man who has eaten to repletion.
q. 33 a. 2 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod, quando delectatio est perfecta, tunc habet omnimodam quietem, et cessat motus desiderii tendentis in non habitum. Sed quando imperfecte habetur, tunc non omnino cessat motus desiderii tendentis in non habitum. Reply to Objection 1. When pleasure is perfect, then it includes complete rest; and the movement of desire, tending to what was not possessed, ceases. But when it is imperfect, then the desire, tending to what was not possessed, does not cease altogether.
q. 33 a. 2 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod id quod imperfecte habetur, secundum quid habetur, et secundum quid non habetur. Et ideo simul de eo potest esse et desiderium et delectatio. Reply to Objection 2. That which is possessed imperfectly, is possessed in one respect, and in another respect is not possessed. Consequently it may be the object of desire and pleasure at the same time.
q. 33 a. 2 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod delectationes alio modo causant fastidium, et alio modo desiderium, ut dictum est. Reply to Objection 3. Pleasures cause distaste in one way, desire in another, as stated above.
q. 33 a. 3 arg. 1 Ad tertium sic proceditur. Videtur quod delectatio non impediat usum rationis. Quies enim maxime confert ad debitum rationis usum, unde dicitur in VII Physic., quod in sedendo et quiescendo fit anima sciens et prudens; et Sap. VIII, intrans in domum meam, conquiescam cum illa, scilicet sapientia. Sed delectatio est quaedam quies. Ergo non impedit, sed magis iuvat rationis usum. Objection 1. It would seem that pleasure does not hinder the use of reason. Because repose facilitates very much the due use of reason: wherefore the Philosopher says (Phys. vii, 3) that "while we sit and rest, the soul is inclined to knowledge and prudence"; and it is written (Wisdom 8:16): "When I go into my house, I shall repose myself with her," i.e. wisdom. But pleasure is a kind of repose. Therefore it helps rather than hinders the use of reason.
q. 33 a. 3 arg. 2 Praeterea, ea quae non sunt in eodem, etiam si sint contraria, non se impediunt. Sed delectatio est in parte appetitiva, usus autem rationis in parte apprehensiva. Ergo delectatio non impedit rationis usum. Objection 2. Further, things which are not in the same subject though they be contraries, do not hinder one another. But pleasure is in the appetitive faculty, while the use of reason is in the apprehensive power. Therefore pleasure does not hinder the use of reason.
q. 33 a. 3 arg. 3 Praeterea, quod impeditur ab alio, videtur quodammodo transmutari ab ipso. Sed usus apprehensivae virtutis magis movet delectationem quam a delectatione moveatur, est enim causa delectationis. Ergo delectatio non impedit usum rationis. Objection 3. Further, that which is hindered by another, seems to be moved, as it were, thereby. But the use of an apprehensive power moves pleasure rather than is moved by it: because it is the cause of pleasure. Therefore pleasure does not hinder the use of reason.
q. 33 a. 3 s. c. Sed contra est quod philosophus dicit, in VI Ethic., quod delectatio corrumpit existimationem prudentiae. On the contrary, The Philosopher says (Ethic. vi, 5), that "pleasure destroys the estimate of prudence."
q. 33 a. 3 co. Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut dicitur in X Ethic., delectationes propriae adaugent operationes, extraneae vero impediunt. Est ergo quaedam delectatio quae habetur de ipso actu rationis, sicut cum aliquis delectatur in contemplando vel ratiocinando. Et talis delectatio non impedit usum rationis, sed ipsum adiuvat, quia illud attentius operamur in quo delectamur; attentio autem adiuvat operationem. Sed delectationes corporales impediunt usum rationis triplici ratione. Primo quidem, ratione distractionis. Quia, sicut iam dictum est, ad ea in quibus delectamur, multum attendimus, cum autem attentio fortiter inhaeserit alicui rei, debilitatur circa alias res, vel totaliter ab eis revocatur. Et secundum hoc, si delectatio corporalis fuerit magna, vel totaliter impediet usum rationis, ad se intentionem animi attrahendo; vel multum impediet. Secundo, ratione contrarietatis. Quaedam enim delectationes, maxime superexcedentes, sunt contra ordinem rationis. Et per hunc modum philosophus dicit, in VI Ethic., quod delectationes corporales corrumpunt existimationem prudentiae, non autem existimationem speculativam, cui non contrariantur, puta quod triangulus habet tres angulos aequales duobus rectis. Secundum autem primum modum, utramque impedit. Tertio modo, secundum quandam ligationem, inquantum scilicet ad delectationem corporalem sequitur quaedam transmutatio corporalis, maior etiam quam in aliis passionibus, quanto vehementius afficitur appetitus ad rem praesentem quam ad rem absentem. Huiusmodi autem corporales perturbationes impediunt usum rationis, sicut patet in vinolentis, qui habent usum rationis ligatum vel impeditum. I answer that, As is stated in Ethic. x, 5, "appropriate pleasures increase activity . . . whereas pleasures arising from other sources are impediments to activity." Accordingly there is a certain pleasure that is taken in the very act of reason, as when one takes pleasure in contemplating or in reasoning: and such pleasure does not hinder the act of reason, but helps it; because we are more attentive in doing that which gives us pleasure, and attention fosters activity. On the other hand bodily pleasures hinder the use of reason in three ways. First, by distracting the reason. Because, as we have just observed, we attend much to that which pleases us. Now when the attention is firmly fixed on one thing, it is either weakened in respect of other things, or it is entirely withdrawn from them; and thus if the bodily pleasure be great, either it entirely hinders the use of reason, by concentrating the mind's attention on itself; or else it hinders it considerably. Secondly, by being contrary to reason. Because some pleasures, especially those that are in excess, are contrary to the order of reason: and in this sense the Philosopher says that "bodily pleasures destroy the estimate of prudence, but not the speculative estimate," to which they are not opposed, "for instance that the three angles of a triangle are together equal to two right angles." In the first sense, however, they hinder both estimates. Thirdly, by fettering the reason: in so far as bodily pleasure is followed by a certain alteration in the body, greater even than in the other passions, in proportion as the appetite is more vehemently affected towards a present than towards an absent thing. Now such bodily disturbances hinder the use of reason; as may be seen in the case of drunkards, in whom the use of reason is fettered or hindered.
q. 33 a. 3 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod delectatio corporalis habet quidem quietem appetitus in delectabili, quae quies interdum contrariatur rationi; sed ex parte corporis, semper habet transmutationem. Et quantum ad utrumque, impedit rationis usum. Reply to Objection 1. Bodily pleasure implies indeed repose of the appetite in the object of pleasure; which repose is sometimes contrary to reason; but on the part of the body it always implies alteration. And in respect of both points, it hinders the use of reason.
q. 33 a. 3 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod vis appetitiva et apprehensiva sunt quidem diversae partes, sed unius animae. Et ideo cum intentio animae vehementer applicatur ad actum unius, impeditur ab actu contrario alterius. Reply to Objection 2. The powers of the appetite and of apprehension are indeed distinct parts, but belonging to the one soul. Consequently when the soul is very intent on the action of one part, it is hindered from attending to a contrary act of the other part.
q. 33 a. 3 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod usus rationis requirit debitum usum imaginationis et aliarum virium sensitivarum, quae utuntur organo corporali. Et ideo ex transmutatione corporali usus rationis impeditur, impedito actu virtutis imaginativae et aliarum sensitivarum. Reply to Objection 3. The use of reason requires the due use of the imagination and of the other sensitive powers, which are exercised through a bodily organ. Consequently alteration in the body hinders the use of reason, because it hinders the act of the imagination and of the other sensitive powers.
q. 33 a. 4 arg. 1 Ad quartum sic proceditur. Videtur quod delectatio non perficiat operationem. Omnis enim humana operatio ab usu rationis dependet. Sed delectatio impedit usum rationis, ut dictum est. Ergo delectatio non perficit, sed debilitat operationem humanam. Objection 1. It would seem that pleasure does not perfect operation. For every human operation depends on the use of reason. But pleasure hinders the use of reason, as stated above (Article 3). Therefore pleasure does not perfect, but weakens human operation.
q. 33 a. 4 arg. 2 Praeterea, nihil est perfectivum sui ipsius, vel suae causae. Sed delectatio est operatio, ut dicitur in VII et X Ethic., quod oportet ut intelligatur vel essentialiter, vel causaliter. Ergo delectatio non perficit operationem. Objection 2. Further, nothing perfects itself or its cause. But pleasure is an operation (Ethic. vii, 12; x, 4), i.e. either in its essence or in its cause. Therefore pleasure does not perfect operation.
q. 33 a. 4 arg. 3 Praeterea, si delectatio perficit operationem, aut perficit ipsam sicut finis, aut sicut forma, aut sicut agens. Sed non sicut finis, quia operationes non quaeruntur propter delectationem, sed magis e converso, ut supra dictum est. Nec iterum per modum efficientis, quia magis operatio est causa efficiens delectationis. Nec iterum sicut forma, non enim perficit delectatio operationem ut habitus quidam, secundum philosophum, in X Ethic. Delectatio ergo non perficit operationem. Objection 3. Further, if pleasure perfects operation, it does so either as end, or as form, or as agent. But not as end; because operation is not sought for the sake of pleasure, but rather the reverse, as stated above (Question 4, Article 2): nor as agent, because rather is it the operation that causes pleasure: nor again as form, because, according to the Philosopher (Ethic. x, 4), "pleasure does not perfect operation, as a habit does." Therefore pleasure does not perfect operation.
q. 33 a. 4 s. c. Sed contra est quod dicitur ibidem, quod delectatio operationem perficit. On the contrary, The Philosopher says (Ethic. x, 4) that "pleasure perfects operation."
q. 33 a. 4 co. Respondeo dicendum quod delectatio dupliciter operationem perficit. Uno modo, per modum finis, non quidem secundum quod finis dicitur id propter quod aliquid est; sed secundum quod omne bonum completive superveniens, potest dici finis. Et secundum hoc dicit philosophus, in X Ethic., quod delectatio perficit operationem sicut quidam superveniens finis, inquantum scilicet super hoc bonum quod est operatio, supervenit aliud bonum quod est delectatio, quae importat quietationem appetitus in bono praesupposito. Secundo modo, ex parte causae agentis. Non quidem directe, quia philosophus dicit, in X Ethic., quod perficit delectatio operationem, non sicut medicus sanum, sed sicut sanitas. Indirecte autem, inquantum scilicet agens, quia delectatur in sua actione, vehementius attendit ad ipsam, et diligentius eam operatur. Et secundum hoc dicitur in X Ethic., quod delectationes adaugent proprias operationes, et impediunt extraneas. I answer that, Pleasure perfects operation in two ways. First, as an end: not indeed according as an end is that on "account of which a thing is"; but according as every good which is added to a thing and completes it, can be called its end. And in this sense the Philosopher says (Ethic. x, 4) that "pleasure perfects operation . . . as some end added to it": that is to say, inasmuch as to this good, which is operation, there is added another good, which is pleasure, denoting the repose of the appetite in a good that is presupposed. Secondly, as agent; not indeed directly, for the Philosopher says (Ethic. x, 4) that "pleasure perfects operation, not as a physician makes a man healthy, but as health does": but it does so indirectly; inasmuch as the agent, through taking pleasure in his action, is more eagerly intent on it, and carries it out with greater care. And in this sense it is said in Ethic. x, 5 that "pleasures increase their appropriate activities, and hinder those that are not appropriate."
q. 33 a. 4 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod non omnis delectatio impedit actum rationis, sed delectatio corporalis; quae non consequitur actum rationis, sed actum concupiscibilis, qui per delectationem augetur. Delectatio autem quae consequitur actum rationis, fortificat rationis usum. Reply to Objection 1. It is not every pleasure that hinders the act of reason, but only bodily pleasure; for this arises, not from the act of reason, but from the act of the concupiscible faculty, which act is intensified by pleasure. On the contrary, pleasure that arises from the act of reason, strengthens the use of reason.
q. 33 a. 4 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod, sicut dicitur in II Physic., contingit quod duo sibi invicem sunt causa, ita quod unum sit causa efficiens, et aliud causa finalis alterius. Et per hunc modum, operatio causat delectationem sicut causa efficiens; delectatio autem perficit operationem per modum finis, ut dictum est. Reply to Objection 2. As stated in Phys. ii, 3 two things may be causes of one another, if one be the efficient, the other the final cause. And in this way, operation is the efficient cause of pleasure, while pleasure perfects operation by way of final cause, as stated above.
q. 33 a. 4 ad 3 Ad tertium patet responsio ex dictis. The Reply to the Third Objection is evident for what has been said.
q. 34 pr. Deinde considerandum est de bonitate et malitia delectationum. Et circa hoc quaeruntur quatuor. Primo, utrum omnis delectatio sit mala. Secundo, dato quod non, utrum omnis delectatio sit bona. Tertio, utrum aliqua delectatio sit optimum. Quarto, utrum delectatio sit mensura vel regula secundum quam iudicetur bonum vel malum in moralibus. Question 34. The goodness and malice of pleasures Is every pleasure evil? If not, is every pleasure good? Is any pleasure the greatest good? Is pleasure the measure or rule by which to judge of moral good and evil?
q. 34 a. 1 arg. 1 Ad primum sic proceditur. Videtur quod omnis delectatio sit mala. Illud enim quod corrumpit prudentiam, et impedit rationis usum, videtur esse secundum se malum, quia bonum hominis est secundum rationem esse, ut Dionysius dicit, in IV cap. de Div. Nom. Sed delectatio corrumpit prudentiam, et impedit rationis usum, et tanto magis, quanto delectationes sunt maiores. Unde in delectationibus venereis, quae sunt maximae, impossibile est aliquid intelligere, ut dicitur in VII Ethic. Et Hieronymus etiam dicit, super Matth., quod illo tempore quo coniugales actus geruntur, praesentia sancti spiritus non dabitur, etiam si propheta esse videatur qui officio generationis obsequitur. Ergo delectatio est secundum se malum. Ergo omnis delectatio mala. Objection 1. It would seem that every pleasure is evil. For that which destroys prudence and hinders the use of reason, seems to be evil in itself: since man's good is to be "in accord with reason," as Dionysius says (Div. Nom. iv). But pleasure destroys prudence and hinders the use of reason; and so much the more, as the pleasure is greater: wherefore "in sexual pleasures," which are the greatest of all, "it is impossible to understand anything," as stated in Ethic. vii, 11. Moreover, Jerome says in his commentary on Matthew [Origen, Hom. vi in Num.] that "at the time of conjugal intercourse, the presence of the Holy Ghost is not vouchsafed, even if it be a prophet that fulfils the conjugal duty." Therefore pleasure is evil in itself; and consequently every pleasure is evil.
q. 34 a. 1 arg. 2 Praeterea, illud quod fugit virtuosus, et prosequitur deficiens a virtute, videtur esse secundum se malum, et fugiendum, quia, ut dicitur in X Ethic., virtuosus est quasi mensura et regula humanorum actuum; et apostolus dicit, I ad Cor. II, spiritualis iudicat omnia. Sed pueri et bestiae, in quibus non est virtus, prosequuntur delectationes, fugit autem eas temperatus. Ergo delectationes secundum se sunt malae, et fugiendae. Objection 2. Further, that which the virtuous man shuns, and the man lacking in virtue seeks, seems to be evil in itself, and should be avoided; because, as stated in Ethic. x, 5 "the virtuous man is a kind of measure and rule of human actions"; and the Apostle says (1 Corinthians 2:15): "The spiritual man judgeth all things." But children and dumb animals, in whom there is no virtue, seek pleasure: whereas the man who is master of himself does not. Therefore pleasures are evil in themselves and should be avoided.
q. 34 a. 1 arg. 3 Praeterea, virtus et ars sunt circa difficile et bonum, ut dicitur in II Ethic. Sed nulla ars ordinata est ad delectationem. Ergo delectatio non est aliquid bonum. Objection 3. Further, "virtue and art are concerned about the difficult and the good" (Ethic. ii, 3). But no art is ordained to pleasure. Therefore pleasure is not something good.
q. 34 a. 1 s. c. Sed contra est quod in Psalmo XXXVI, dicitur, delectare in domino. Cum igitur ad nihil mali auctoritas divina inducat, videtur quod non omnis delectatio sit mala. On the contrary, It is written (Psalm 36:4): "Delight in the Lord." Since, therefore, Divine authority leads to no evil, it seems that not every pleasure is evil.
q. 34 a. 1 co. Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut dicitur in X Ethic., aliqui posuerunt omnes delectationes esse malas. Cuius ratio videtur fuisse, quia intentionem suam referebant ad solas delectationes sensibiles et corporales, quae sunt magis manifestae, nam et in ceteris intelligibilia a sensibilibus antiqui philosophi non distinguebant, nec intellectum a sensu, ut dicitur in libro de anima. Delectationes autem corporales ut dicitur in libro de anima. Delectationes autem corporales arbitrabantur dicendum omnes esse malas, ut sic homines, qui ad delectationes immoderatas sunt proni, a delectationibus se retrahentes, ad medium virtutis perveniant. Sed haec existimatio non fuit conveniens. Cum enim nullus possit vivere sine aliqua sensibili et corporali delectatione, si illi qui docent omnes delectationes esse malas, deprehendantur aliquas delectationes suscipere; magis homines ad delectationes erunt proclives exemplo operum, verborum doctrina praetermissa. In operationibus enim et passionibus humanis, in quibus experientia plurimum valet, magis movent exempla quam verba. Dicendum est ergo aliquas delectationes esse bonas, et aliquas esse malas. Est enim delectatio quies appetitivae virtutis in aliquo bono amato, et consequens aliquam operationem. Unde huius ratio duplex accipi potest. Una quidem ex parte boni in quo aliquis quiescens delectatur. Bonum enim et malum in moralibus dicitur secundum quod convenit rationi vel discordat ab ea, ut supra dictum est, sicut in rebus naturalibus aliquid dicitur naturale ex eo quod naturae convenit, innaturale vero ex eo quod est a natura discordans. Sicut igitur in naturalibus est quaedam quies naturalis, quae scilicet est in eo quod convenit naturae, ut cum grave quiescit deorsum; et quaedam innaturalis, quae est in eo quod repugnat naturae, sicut cum grave quiescit sursum, ita et in moralibus est quaedam delectatio bona, secundum quod appetitus superior aut inferior requiescit in eo quod convenit rationi; et quaedam mala, ex eo quod quiescit in eo quod a ratione discordat, et a lege Dei. Alia ratio accipi potest ex parte operationum, quarum quaedam sunt bonae, et quaedam malae. Operationibus autem magis sunt affines delectationes, quae sunt eis coniunctae, quam concupiscentiae, quae tempore eas praecedunt. Unde, cum concupiscentiae bonarum operationum sint bonae, malarum vero malae; multo magis delectationes bonarum operationum sunt bonae, malarum vero malae. I answer that, As stated in Ethic. x, 2,[3]. some have maintained that all pleasure is evil. The reason seems to have been that they took account only of sensible and bodily pleasures which are more manifest; since, also in other respects, the ancient philosophers did not discriminate between the intelligible and the sensible, nor between intellect and sense (De Anima iii, 3). And they held that all bodily pleasures should be reckoned as bad, and thus that man, being prone to immoderate pleasures, arrives at the mean of virtue by abstaining from pleasure. But they were wrong in holding this opinion. Because, since none can live without some sensible and bodily pleasure, if they who teach that all pleasures are evil, are found in the act of taking pleasure; men will be more inclined to pleasure by following the example of their works instead of listening to the doctrine of their words: since, in human actions and passions, wherein experience is of great weight, example moves more than words. We must therefore say that some pleasures are good, and that some are evil. For pleasure is a repose of the appetitive power in some loved good, and resulting from some operation; wherefore we assign a twofold reason for this assertion. The first is in respect of the good in which a man reposes with pleasure. For good and evil in the moral order depend on agreement or disagreement with reason, as stated above (Question 18, Article 5): just as in the order of nature, a thing is said to be natural, if it agrees with nature, and unnatural, if it disagrees. Accordingly, just as in the natural order there is a certain natural repose, whereby a thing rests in that which agrees with its nature, for instance, when a heavy body rests down below; and again an unnatural repose, whereby a thing rests in that which disagrees with its nature, as when a heavy body rests up aloft: so, in the moral order, there is a good pleasure, whereby the higher or lower appetite rests in that which is in accord with reason; and an evil pleasure, whereby the appetite rests in that which is discordant from reason and the law of God. The second reason can be found by considering the actions, some of which are good, some evil. Now pleasures which are conjoined to actions are more akin to those actions, than desires, which precede them in point of time. Wherefore, since the desires of good actions are good, and of evil actions, evil; much more are the pleasures of good actions good, and those of evil actions evil.
q. 34 a. 1 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod, sicut supra dictum est, delectationes quae sunt de actu rationis, non impediunt rationem, neque corrumpunt prudentiam; sed delectationes extraneae, cuiusmodi sunt delectationes corporales. Quae quidem rationis usum impediunt, sicut supra dictum est, et per contrarietatem appetitus, qui quiescit in eo quod repugnat rationi, et ex hoc habet delectatio quod sit moraliter mala, vel secundum quandam ligationem rationis, sicut in concubitu coniugali delectatio, quamvis sit in eo quod convenit rationi, tamen impedit rationis usum, propter corporalem transmutationem adiunctam. Sed ex hoc non consequitur malitiam moralem, sicut nec somnus quo ligatur usus rationis, moraliter est malus, si sit secundum rationem receptus, nam et ipsa ratio hoc habet, ut quandoque rationis usus intercipiatur. Dicimus tamen quod huiusmodi ligamentum rationis ex delectatione in actu coniugali, etsi non habeat malitiam moralem, quia non est peccatum mortale nec veniale; provenit tamen ex quadam morali malitia, scilicet ex peccato primi parentis, nam hoc in statu innocentiae non erat, ut patet ex his quae in primo dicta sunt. Reply to Objection 1. As stated above (Question 33, Article 3), it is not the pleasures which result from an act of reason, that hinder the reason or destroy prudence, but extraneous pleasures, such as the pleasures of the body. These indeed hinder the use of reason, as stated above (Question 33, Article 3), either by contrariety of the appetite that rests in something repugnant to reason, which makes the pleasure morally bad; or by fettering the reason: thus in conjugal intercourse, though the pleasure be in accord with reason, yet it hinders the use of reason, on account of the accompanying bodily change. But in this case the pleasure is not morally evil; as neither is sleep, whereby the reason is fettered, morally evil, if it be taken according to reason: for reason itself demands that the use of reason be interrupted at times. We must add, however, that although this fettering of the reason through the pleasure of conjugal intercourse has no moral malice, since it is neither a mortal nor a venial sin; yet it proceeds from a kind of moral malice, namely, from the sin of our first parent; because, as stated in the I, 98, 2 the case was different in the state of innocence.
q. 34 a. 1 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod temperatus non fugit omnes delectationes, sed immoderatas, et rationi non convenientes. Quod autem pueri et bestiae delectationes prosequantur, non ostendit eas universaliter esse malas, quia in eis est naturalis appetitus a Deo, qui movetur in id quod est eis conveniens. Reply to Objection 2. The temperate man does not shun all pleasures, but those that are immoderate, and contrary to reason. The fact that children and dumb animals seek pleasures, does not prove that all pleasures are evil: because they have from God their natural appetite, which is moved to that which is naturally suitable to them.
q. 34 a. 1 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod non omnis boni est ars, sed exteriorum factibilium, ut infra dicetur. Circa operationes autem et passiones quae sunt in nobis, magis est prudentia et virtus quam ars. Et tamen aliqua ars est factiva delectationis; scilicet pulmentaria et pigmentaria, ut dicitur in VII Ethic. Reply to Objection 3. Art is not concerned with all kinds of good, but with the making of external things, as we shall state further on (57, 3). But actions and passions, which are within us, are more the concern of prudence and virtue than of art. Nevertheless there is an art of making pleasure, namely, "the art of cookery and the art of making arguments," as stated in Ethic. vii, 12.
q. 34 a. 2 arg. 1 Ad secundum sic proceditur. Videtur quod omnis delectatio sit bona. Sicut enim in primo dictum est, bonum in tria dividitur, scilicet honestum, utile et delectabile. Sed honestum omne est bonum; et similiter omne utile. Ergo et omnis delectatio est bona. Objection 1. It would seem that every pleasure is good. Because as stated in the I, 5, 6 there are three kinds of good: the virtuous, the useful, and the pleasant. But everything virtuous is good; and in like manner everything useful is good. Therefore also every pleasure is good.
q. 34 a. 2 arg. 2 Praeterea, illud est per se bonum, quod non quaeritur propter aliud, ut dicitur in I Ethic. Sed delectatio non quaeritur propter aliud, ridiculum enim videtur ab aliquo quaerere quare vult delectari. Ergo delectatio est per se bonum. Sed quod per se praedicatur de aliquo, universaliter praedicatur de eo. Ergo omnis delectatio est bona. Objection 2. Further, that which is not sought for the sake of something else, is good in itself, as stated in Ethic. i, 6,7. But pleasure is not sought for the sake of something else; for it seems absurd to ask anyone why he seeks to be pleased. Therefore pleasure is good in itself. Now that which is predicated to a thing considered in itself, is predicated thereof universally. Therefore every pleasure is good.
q. 34 a. 2 arg. 3 Praeterea, id quod ab omnibus desideratur, videtur esse per se bonum, nam bonum est quod omnia appetunt, ut dicitur in I Ethic. Sed omnes appetunt aliquam delectationem, etiam pueri et bestiae. Ergo delectatio est secundum se bonum. Omnis ergo delectatio est bona. Objection 3. Further, that which is desired by all, seems to be good of itself: because good is "what all things seek," as stated in Ethic. i, 1. But everyone seeks some kind of pleasure, even children and dumb animals. Therefore pleasure is good in itself: and consequently all pleasure is good.
q. 34 a. 2 s. c. Sed contra est quod dicitur Prov. II, qui laetantur cum malefecerint, et exultant in rebus pessimis. On the contrary, It is written (Proverbs 2:14): "Who are glad when they have done evil, and rejoice in most wicked things."
q. 34 a. 2 co. Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut aliqui Stoicorum posuerunt omnes delectationes esse malas, ita Epicurei posuerunt delectationem secundum se esse bonum, et per consequens delectationes omnes esse bonas. Qui ex hoc decepti esse videntur, quod non distinguebant inter id quod est bonum simpliciter, et id quod est bonum quoad hunc. Simpliciter quidem bonum est quod secundum se bonum est. Contingit autem quod non est secundum se bonum, esse huic bonum, dupliciter. Uno modo, quia est ei conveniens secundum dispositionem in qua nunc est, quae tamen non est naturalis, sicut leproso bonum est quandoque comedere aliqua venenosa, quae non sunt simpliciter convenientia complexioni humanae. Alio modo, quia id quod non est conveniens, aestimatur ut conveniens. Et quia delectatio est quies appetitus in bono, si sit bonum simpliciter illud in quo quiescit appetitus, erit simpliciter delectatio, et simpliciter bona. Si autem non sit bonum simpliciter, sed quoad hunc, tunc nec delectatio est simpliciter, sed huic, nec simpliciter est bona, sed bona secundum quid, vel apparens bona. I answer that, While some of the Stoics maintained that all pleasures are evil, the Epicureans held that pleasure is good in itself, and that consequently all pleasures are good. They seem to have thus erred through not discriminating between that which is good simply, and that which is good in respect of a particular individual. That which is good simply, is good in itself. Now that which is not good in itself, may be good in respect of some individual in two ways. In one way, because it is suitable to him by reason of a disposition in which he is now, which disposition, however, is not natural: thus it is sometimes good for a leper to eat things that are poisonous, which are not suitable simply to the human temperament. In another way, through something unsuitable being esteemed suitable. And since pleasure is the repose of the appetite in some good, if the appetite reposes in that which is good simply, the pleasure will be pleasure simply, and good simply. But if a man's appetite repose in that which is good, not simply, but in respect of that particular man, then his pleasure will not be pleasure simply, but a pleasure to him; neither will it be good simply, but in a certain respect, or an apparent good.
q. 34 a. 2 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod honestum et utile dicuntur secundum rationem, et ideo nihil est honestum vel utile, quod non sit bonum. Delectabile autem dicitur secundum appetitum, qui quandoque in illud tendit quod non est conveniens rationi. Et ideo non omne delectabile est bonum bonitate morali, quae attenditur secundum rationem. Reply to Objection 1. The virtuous and the useful depend on accordance with reason, and consequently nothing is virtuous or useful, without being good. But the pleasant depends on agreement with the appetite, which tends sometimes to that which is discordant from reason. Consequently not every object of pleasure is good in the moral order which depends on the order of reason.
q. 34 a. 2 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod ideo delectatio non quaeritur propter aliud, quia est quies in fine. Finem autem contingit esse bonum et malum quamvis nunquam sit finis nisi secundum quod est bonum quoad hunc. Ita etiam est de delectatione. Reply to Objection 2. The reason why pleasure is not sought for the sake of something else is because it is repose in the end. Now the end may be either good or evil; although nothing can be an end except in so far as it is good in respect of such and such a man: and so too with regard to pleasure.
q. 34 a. 2 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod hoc modo omnia appetunt delectationem, sicut et bonum, cum delectatio sit quies appetitus in bono. Sed sicut contingit non omne bonum quod appetitur, esse per se et vere bonum; ita non omnis delectatio est per se et vere bona. Reply to Objection 3. All things seek pleasure in the same way as they seek good: since pleasure is the repose of the appetite in good. But, just as it happens that not every good which is desired, is of itself and verily good; so not every pleasure is of itself and verily good.
q. 34 a. 3 arg. 1 Ad tertium sic proceditur. Videtur quod nulla delectatio sit optimum. Nulla enim generatio est optimum, nam generatio non potest esse ultimus finis. Sed delectatio consequitur generationem, nam ex eo quod aliquid constituitur in suam naturam, delectatur, ut supra dictum est. Ergo nulla delectatio potest esse optimum. Objection 1. It would seem that no pleasure is the greatest good. Because nothing generated is the greatest good: since generation cannot be the last end. But pleasure is a consequence of generation: for the fact that a thing takes pleasure is due to its being established in its own nature, as stated above (Question 31, Article 1). Therefore no pleasure is the greatest good.
q. 34 a. 3 arg. 2 Praeterea, illud quod est optimum, nullo addito potest fieri melius. Sed delectatio aliquo addito fit melior, est enim melior delectatio cum virtute quam sine virtute. Ergo delectatio non est optimum. Objection 2. Further, that which is the greatest good cannot be made better by addition. But pleasure is made better by addition; since pleasure together with virtue is better than pleasure without virtue. Therefore pleasure is not the greatest good.
q. 34 a. 3 arg. 3 Praeterea, id quod est optimum, est universaliter bonum, sicut per se bonum existens, nam quod est per se, est prius et potius eo quod est per accidens. Sed delectatio non est universaliter bonum, ut dictum est. Ergo delectatio non est optimum. Objection 3. Further, that which is the greatest good is universally good, as being good of itself: since that which is such of itself is prior to and greater than that which is such accidentally. But pleasure is not universally good, as stated above (Article 2). Therefore pleasure is not the greatest good.
q. 34 a. 3 s. c. Sed contra beatitudo est optimum, cum sit finis humanae vitae. Sed beatitudo non est sine delectatione, dicitur enim in Psalmo XV, adimplebis me laetitia cum vultu tuo; delectationes in dextera tua usque in finem. On the contrary, Happiness is the greatest good: since it is the end of man's life. But Happiness is not without pleasure: for it is written (Psalm 15:11): "Thou shalt fill me with joy with Thy countenance; at Thy right hand are delights even to the end."
q. 34 a. 3 co. Respondeo dicendum quod Plato non posuit omnes delectationes esse malas, sicut Stoici; neque omnes esse bonas, sicut Epicurei; sed quasdam esse bonas, et quasdam esse malas; ita tamen quod nulla sit summum bonum, vel optimum. Sed quantum ex eius rationibus datur intelligi, in duobus deficit. In uno quidem quia, cum videret delectationes sensibiles et corporales in quodam motu et generatione consistere, sicut patet in repletione ciborum et huiusmodi; aestimavit omnes delectationes consequi generationem et motum. Unde, cum generatio et motus sint actus imperfecti, sequeretur quod delectatio non haberet rationem ultimae perfectionis. Sed hoc manifeste apparet falsum in delectationibus intellectualibus. Aliquis enim non solum delectatur in generatione scientiae, puta cum addiscit aut miratur, sicut supra dictum est; sed etiam in contemplando secundum scientiam iam acquisitam. Alio vero modo, quia dicebat optimum illud quod est simpliciter summum bonum, quod scilicet est ipsum bonum quasi abstractum et non participatum, sicut ipse Deus est summum bonum. Nos autem loquimur de optimo in rebus humanis. Optimum autem in unaquaque re est ultimus finis. Finis autem, ut supra dictum est, dupliciter dicitur, scilicet ipsa res, et usus rei; sicut finis avari est vel pecunia, vel possessio pecuniae. Et secundum hoc, ultimus finis hominis dici potest vel ipse Deus, qui est summum bonum simpliciter; vel fruitio ipsius, quae importat delectationem quandam in ultimo fine. Et per hunc modum aliqua delectatio hominis potest dici optimum inter bona humana. I answer that, Plato held neither with the Stoics, who asserted that all pleasures are evil, nor with the Epicureans, who maintained that all pleasures are good; but he said that some are good, and some evil; yet, so that no pleasure be the sovereign or greatest good. But, judging from his arguments, he fails in two points. First, because, from observing that sensible and bodily pleasure consists in a certain movement and "becoming," as is evident in satiety from eating and the like; he concluded that all pleasure arises from some "becoming" and movement: and from this, since "becoming" and movement are the acts of something imperfect, it would follow that pleasure is not of the nature of ultimate perfection. But this is seen to be evidently false as regards intellectual pleasures: because one takes pleasure, not only in the "becoming" of knowledge, for instance, when one learns or wonders, as stated above (32, 8, ad 2); but also in the act of contemplation, by making use of knowledge already acquired. Secondly, because by greatest good he understood that which is the supreme good simply, i.e. the good as existing apart from, and unparticipated by, all else, in which sense God is the Supreme Good; whereas we are speaking of the greatest good in human things. Now the greatest good of everything is its last end. And the end, as stated above (1, 8; 2, 7) is twofold; namely, the thing itself, and the use of that thing; thus the miser's end is either money or the possession of money. Accordingly, man's last end may be said to be either God Who is the Supreme Good simply; or the enjoyment of God, which implies a certain pleasure in the last end. And in this sense a certain pleasure of man may be said to be the greatest among human goods.
q. 34 a. 3 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod non omnis delectatio consequitur generationem; sed aliquae delectationes consequuntur operationes perfectas, ut dictum est. Et ideo nihil prohibet aliquam delectationem esse optimum, etsi non omnis sit talis. Reply to Objection 1. Not every pleasure arises from a "becoming"; for some pleasures result from perfect operations, as stated above. Accordingly nothing prevents some pleasure being the greatest good, although every pleasure is not such.
q. 34 a. 3 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod ratio illa procedit de optimo simpliciter, per cuius participationem omnia sunt bona, unde ex nullius additione fit melius. Sed in aliis bonis universaliter verum est quod quodlibet bonum ex additione alterius fit melius. Quamvis posset dici quod delectatio non est aliquid extraneum ab operatione virtutis, sed concomitans ipsam, ut in I Ethic. dicitur. Reply to Objection 2. This argument is true of the greatest good simply, by participation of which all things are good; wherefore no addition can make it better: whereas in regard to other goods, it is universally true that any good becomes better by the addition of another good. Moreover it might be said that pleasure is not something extraneous to the operation of virtue, but that it accompanies it, as stated in Ethic. i, 8.
q. 34 a. 3 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod delectatio non habet quod sit optimum ex hoc quod est delectatio, sed ex hoc quod est perfecta quies in optimo. Unde non oportet quod omnis delectatio sit optima, aut etiam bona. Sicut aliqua scientia est optima, non tamen omnis. Reply to Objection 3. That pleasure is the greatest good is due not to the mere fact that it is pleasure, but to the fact that it is perfect repose in the perfect good. Hence it does not follow that every pleasure is supremely good, or even good at all. Thus a certain science is supremely good, but not every science is.
q. 34 a. 4 arg. 1 Ad quartum sic proceditur. Videtur quod delectatio non sit mensura vel regula boni et mali moralis. Omnia enim mensurantur primo sui generis, ut dicitur in X Metaphys. Sed delectatio non est primum in genere moralium, sed praecedunt ipsam amor et desiderium. Non ergo est regula bonitatis et malitiae in moralibus. Objection 1. It would seem that pleasure is not the measure or rule of moral good and evil. Because "that which is first in a genus is the measure of all the rest" (Metaph. x, 1). But pleasure is not the first thing in the moral genus, for it is preceded by love and desire. Therefore it is not the rule of goodness and malice in moral matters.
q. 34 a. 4 arg. 2 Praeterea, mensuram et regulam oportet esse uniformem, et ideo motus qui est maxime uniformis, est mensura et regula omnium motuum, ut dicitur in X Metaphys. Sed delectatio est varia et multiformis, cum quaedam earum sint bonae, et quaedam malae. Ergo delectatio non est mensura et regula moralium. Objection 2. Further, a measure or rule should be uniform; hence that movement which is the most uniform, is the measure and rule of all movements (Metaph. x, 1). But pleasures are various and multiform: since some of them are good, and some evil. Therefore pleasure is not the measure and rule of morals.
q. 34 a. 4 arg. 3 Praeterea, certius iudicium sumitur de effectu per causam, quam e converso. Sed bonitas vel malitia operationis est causa bonitatis vel malitiae delectationis, quia bonae delectationes sunt quae consequuntur bonas operationes, malae autem quae malas, ut dicitur in X Ethic. Ergo delectationes non sunt regula et mensura bonitatis et malitiae in moralibus. Objection 3. Further, judgment of the effect from its cause is more certain than judgment of cause from effect. Now goodness or malice of operation is the cause of goodness or malice of pleasure: because "those pleasures are good which result from good operations, and those are evil which arise from evil operations," as stated in Ethic. x, 5. Therefore pleasures are not the rule and measure of moral goodness and malice.
q. 34 a. 4 s. c. Sed contra est quod Augustinus dicit, super illud Psalmi VII, scrutans corda et renes Deus, finis curae et cogitationis est delectatio ad quam quis nititur pervenire. Et philosophus dicit, in VII Ethic., quod delectatio est finis architecton, idest principalis, ad quem respicientes, unumquodque hoc quidem malum, hoc autem bonum simpliciter dicimus. On the contrary, Augustine, commenting on Psalm 7:10 "The searcher of hearts and reins is God," says: "The end of care and thought is the pleasure which each one aims at achieving." And the Philosopher says (Ethic. vii, 11) that "pleasure is the architect," i.e. the principal, "end [St. Thomas took "finis" as being the nominative, whereas it is the genitive--tou telous; and the Greek reads "He" (i.e. the political philosopher), "is the architect of the end."], in regard to which, we say absolutely that this is evil, and that, good."
q. 34 a. 4 co. Respondeo dicendum quod bonitas vel malitia moralis principaliter in voluntate consistit, ut supra dictum est. Utrum autem voluntas sit bona vel mala, praecipue ex fine cognoscitur. Id autem habetur pro fine, in quo voluntas quiescit. Quies autem voluntatis, et cuiuslibet appetitus, in bono, est delectatio. Et ideo secundum delectationem voluntatis humanae, praecipue iudicatur homo bonus vel malus; est enim bonus et virtuosus qui gaudet in operibus virtutum; malus autem qui in operibus malis. Delectationes autem appetitus sensitivi non sunt regula bonitatis vel malitiae moralis, nam cibus communiter delectabilis est secundum appetitum sensitivum, bonis et malis. Sed voluntas bonorum delectatur in eis secundum convenientiam rationis, quam non curat voluntas malorum. I answer that, Moral goodness or malice depends chiefly on the will, as stated above (Question 20, Article 1); and it is chiefly from the end that we discern whether the will is good or evil. Now the end is taken to be that in which the will reposes: and the repose of the will and of every appetite in the good is pleasure. And therefore man is reckoned to be good or bad chiefly according to the pleasure of the human will; since that man is good and virtuous, who takes pleasure in the works of virtue; and that man evil, who takes pleasure in evil works. On the other hand, pleasures of the sensitive appetite are not the rule of moral goodness and malice; since food is universally pleasurable to the sensitive appetite both of good and of evil men. But the will of the good man takes pleasure in them in accordance with reason, to which the will of the evil man gives no heed.
q. 34 a. 4 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod amor et desiderium sunt priora delectatione in via generationis. Sed delectatio est prior secundum rationem finis, qui in operabilibus habet rationem principii, a quo maxime sumitur iudicium, sicut a regula vel mensura. Reply to Objection 1. Love and desire precede pleasure in the order of generation. But pleasure precedes them in the order of the end, which serves a principle in actions; and it is by the principle, which is the rule and measure of such matters, that we form our judgment.
q. 34 a. 4 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod omnis delectatio in hoc est uniformis, quod est quies in aliquo bono, et secundum hoc potest esse regula vel mensura. Nam ille bonus est cuius voluntas quiescit in vero bono; malus autem, cuius voluntas quiescit in malo. Reply to Objection 2. All pleasures are uniform in the point of their being the repose of the appetite in something good: and in this respect pleasure can be a rule or measure. Because that man is good, whose will rests in the true good: and that man evil, whose will rests in evil.
q. 34 a. 4 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod, cum delectatio perficiat operationem per modum finis, ut supra dictum est; non potest esse operatio perfecte bona, nisi etiam adsit delectatio in bono, nam bonitas rei dependet ex fine. Et sic quodammodo bonitas delectationis est causa bonitas in operatione. Reply to Objection 3. Since pleasure perfects operation as its end, as stated above (Question 33, Article 4); an operation cannot be perfectly good, unless there be also pleasure in good: because the goodness of a thing depends on its end. And thus, in a way, the goodness of the pleasure is the cause of goodness in the operation.




THE LOGIC MUSEUM II