Authors/Thomas Aquinas/Summa Theologiae/Part IIa/Q35

From The Logic Museum

Jump to: navigation, search
Q34 Q36



Latin English
Iª-IIae q. 35 pr. Deinde considerandum est de dolore et tristitia. Et circa hoc, primo considerandum est de tristitia, seu dolore, secundum se; secundo, de causis eius; tertio, de effectibus ipsius; quarto, de remediis eius; quinto, de bonitate vel malitia eius. Circa primum quaeruntur octo. Primo, utrum dolor sit passio animae. Secundo, utrum tristitia sit idem quod dolor. Tertio, utrum tristitia, seu dolor, sit contraria delectationi. Quarto, utrum omnis tristitia omni delectationi contrarietur. Quinto, utrum delectationi contemplationis sit aliqua tristitia contraria. Sexto, utrum magis fugienda sit tristitia, quam delectatio appetenda. Septimo, utrum dolor exterior sit maior quam dolor interior. Octavo, de speciebus tristitiae. Question 35. Pain or sorrow, in itself Is pain a passion of the soul? Is sorrow the same as pain? Is sorrow or pain contrary in pleasure? Is all sorrow contrary to all pleasure? Is there a sorrow contrary to the pleasure of contemplation? Is sorrow to be shunned more than pleasure is to be sought? Is exterior pain greater than interior? The species of sorrow
Iª-IIae q. 35 a. 1 arg. 1 Ad primum sic proceditur. Videtur quod dolor non sit passio animae. Nulla enim passio animae est in corpore. Sed dolor potest esse in corpore, dicit enim Augustinus, in libro de vera Relig., quod dolor qui dicitur corporis, est corruptio repentina salutis eius rei, quam, male utendo, anima corruptioni obnoxiavit. Ergo dolor non est passio animae. Objection 1. It would seem that pain is not a passion of the soul. Because no passion of the soul is in the body. But pain can be in the body, since Augustine says (De Vera Relig. xii), that "bodily pain is a sudden corruption of the well-being of that thing which the soul, by making evil use of it, made subject to corruption." Therefore pain is not a passion of the soul.
Iª-IIae q. 35 a. 1 arg. 2 Praeterea, omnis passio animae pertinet ad vim appetitivam. Sed dolor non pertinet ad vim appetitivam, sed magis ad apprehensivam, dicit enim Augustinus, in libro de natura boni, quod dolorem in corpore facit sensus resistens corpori potentiori. Ergo dolor non est passio animae. Objection 2. Further, every passion of the soul belongs to the appetitive faculty. But pain does not belong to the appetitive, but rather to the apprehensive part: for Augustine says (De Nat. Boni xx) that "bodily pain is caused by the sense resisting a more powerful body." Therefore pain is not a passion of the soul.
Iª-IIae q. 35 a. 1 arg. 3 Praeterea, omnis passio animae pertinet ad appetitum animalem. Sed dolor non pertinet ad appetitum animalem, sed magis ad appetitum naturalem, dicit enim Augustinus, VIII super Gen. ad Litt., nisi aliquod bonum remansisset in natura, nullius boni amissi esset dolor in poena. Ergo dolor non est passio animae. Objection 3. Further, every passion of the soul belongs to the animal appetite. But pain does not belong to the animal appetite, but rather to the natural appetite; for Augustine says (Gen. ad lit. viii, 14): "Had not some good remained in nature, we should feel no pain in being punished by the loss of good." Therefore pain is not a passion of the soul.
Iª-IIae q. 35 a. 1 s. c. Sed contra est quod Augustinus, XIV de Civ. Dei, ponit dolorem inter passiones animae, inducens illud Virgilii, hinc metuunt, cupiunt, gaudentque dolentque. On the contrary, Augustine (De Civ. Dei xiv, 8) reckons pain among the passions of the soul; quoting Virgil (Aeneid, vi, 733): "hence wild desires and grovelling fears/And human laughter, human tears." [Translation: Conington.]
Iª-IIae q. 35 a. 1 co. Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut ad delectationem duo requiruntur, scilicet coniunctio boni, et perceptio huiusmodi coniunctionis; ita etiam ad dolorem duo requiruntur, scilicet coniunctio alicuius mali (quod ea ratione est malum, quia privat aliquod bonum); et perceptio huiusmodi coniunctionis. Quidquid autem coniungitur, si non habeat, respectu eius cui coniungitur, rationem boni vel mali, non potest causare delectationem vel dolorem. Ex quo patet quod aliquid sub ratione boni vel mali, est obiectum delectationis et doloris. Bonum autem et malum, inquantum huiusmodi, sunt obiecta appetitus. Unde patet quod delectatio et dolor ad appetitum pertinent. Omnis autem motus appetitivus, seu inclinatio consequens apprehensionem, pertinet ad appetitum intellectivum vel sensitivum, nam inclinatio appetitus naturalis non consequitur apprehensionem ipsius appetentis, sed alterius, ut in primo dictum est. Cum igitur delectatio et dolor praesupponant in eodem subiecto sensum vel apprehensionem aliquam, manifestum est quod dolor, sicut et delectatio, est in appetitu intellectivo vel sensitivo. Omnis autem motus appetitus sensitivi dicitur passio, ut supra dictum est. Et praecipue illi qui in defectum sonant. Unde dolor, secundum quod est in appetitu sensitivo, propriissime dicitur passio animae, sicut molestiae corporales proprie passiones corporis dicuntur. Unde et Augustinus, XIV de Civ. Dei, dolorem specialiter aegritudinem nominat. I answer that, Just as two things are requisite for pleasure; namely, conjunction with good and perception of this conjunction; so also two things are requisite for pain: namely, conjunction with some evil (which is in so far evil as it deprives one of some good), and perception of this conjunction. Now whatever is conjoined, if it have not the aspect of good or evil in regard to the being to which it is conjoined, cannot cause pleasure or pain. Whence it is evident that something under the aspect of good or evil is the object of the pleasure or pain. But good and evil, as such, are objects of the appetite. Consequently it is clear that pleasure and pain belong to the appetite. Now every appetitive movement or inclination consequent to apprehension, belongs to the intellective or sensitive appetite: since the inclination of the natural appetite is not consequent to an apprehension of the subject of that appetite, but to the apprehension of another, as stated in the I, 13, 1,3. Since then pleasure and pain presuppose some sense or apprehension in the same subject, it is evident that pain, like pleasure, is in the intellective or sensitive appetite. Again every movement of the sensitive appetite is called a passion, as stated above (22, 1,3): and especially those which tend to some defect. Consequently pain, according as it is in the sensitive appetite, is most properly called a passion of the soul: just as bodily ailments are properly called passions of the body. Hence Augustine (De Civ. Dei xiv, 7,[8 [Quoting Cicero]) reckons pain especially as being a kind of ailment.
Iª-IIae q. 35 a. 1 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod dolor dicitur esse corporis, quia causa doloris est in corpore, puta cum patimur aliquod nocivum corpori. Sed motus doloris semper est in anima, nam corpus non potest dolere nisi dolente anima, ut Augustinus dicit. Reply to Objection 1. We speak of the body, because the cause of pain is in the body: as when we suffer something hurtful to the body. But the movement of pain is always in the soul; since "the body cannot feel pain unless the soul feel it," as Augustine says (Super Psalm 87:4).
Iª-IIae q. 35 a. 1 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod dolor dicitur esse sensus, non quia sit actus sensitivae virtutis, sed quia requiritur ad dolorem corporalem, sicut ad delectationem. Reply to Objection 2. We speak of pain of the senses, not as though it were an act of the sensitive power; but because the senses are required for bodily pain, in the same way as for bodily pleasure.
Iª-IIae q. 35 a. 1 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod dolor de amissione boni demonstrat bonitatem naturae, non quia dolor sit actus naturalis appetitus, sed quia natura aliquid appetit ut bonum, quod cum removeri sentitur, sequitur doloris passio in appetitu sensitivo. Reply to Objection 3. Pain at the loss of good proves the goodness of the nature, not because pain is an act of the natural appetite, but because nature desires something as good, the removal of which being perceived, there results the passion of pain in the sensitive appetite.
Iª-IIae q. 35 a. 2 arg. 1 Ad secundum sic proceditur. Videtur quod tristitia non sit dolor. Dicit enim Augustinus, XIV de Civ. Dei, quod dolor in corporibus dicitur. Tristitia autem dicitur magis in anima. Ergo tristitia non est dolor. Objection 1. It would seem that sorrow is not pain. For Augustine says (De Civ. Dei xiv, 7) that "pain is used to express bodily suffering." But sorrow is used more in reference to the soul. Therefore sorrow is not pain.
Iª-IIae q. 35 a. 2 arg. 2 Praeterea, dolor non est nisi de praesenti malo. Sed tristitia potest esse de praeterito et de futuro, sicut poenitentia est tristitia de praeterito, et anxietas de futuro. Ergo tristitia omnino a dolore differt. Objection 2. Further, pain is only in respect of present evil. But sorrow can refer to both past and future evil: thus repentance is sorrow for the past, and anxiety for the future. Therefore sorrow is quite different from pain.
Iª-IIae q. 35 a. 2 arg. 3 Praeterea, dolor non videtur consequi nisi sensum tactus. Sed tristitia potest consequi ex omnibus sensibus. Ergo tristitia non est dolor, sed se habet in pluribus. Objection 3. Further, pain seems not to follow save from the sense of touch. But sorrow can arise from all the senses. Therefore sorrow is not pain, and extends to more objects.
Iª-IIae q. 35 a. 2 s. c. Sed contra est quod apostolus dicit, ad Rom. IX, tristitia est mihi magna, et continuus dolor cordi meo, pro eodem utens tristitia et dolore. On the contrary, The Apostle says (Romans 9:2): "I have great sorrow [Douay: 'sadness'] and continual pain [Douay: 'sorrow'] in my heart," thus denoting the same thing by sorrow and pain.
Iª-IIae q. 35 a. 2 co. Respondeo dicendum quod delectatio et dolor ex duplici apprehensione causari possunt, scilicet ex apprehensione exterioris sensus, et ex apprehensione interiori sive intellectus sive imaginationis. Interior autem apprehensio ad plura se extendit quam exterior, eo quod quaecumque cadunt sub exteriori apprehensione, cadunt sub interiori, sed non e converso. Sola igitur illa delectatio quae ex interiori apprehensione causatur, gaudium nominatur, ut supra dictum est. Et similiter ille solus dolor qui ex apprehensione interiori causatur, nominatur tristitia. Et sicut illa delectatio quae ex exteriori apprehensione causatur, delectatio quidem nominatur, non autem gaudium; ita ille dolor qui ex exteriori apprehensione causatur, nominatur quidem dolor, non autem tristitia. Sic igitur tristitia est quaedam species doloris, sicut gaudium delectationis. I answer that, Pleasure and pain can arise from a twofold apprehension, namely, from the apprehension of an exterior sense; and from the interior apprehension of the intellect or of the imagination. Now the interior apprehension extends to more objects than the exterior apprehension: because whatever things come under the exterior apprehension, come under the interior, but not conversely. Consequently that pleasure alone which is caused by an interior apprehension is called joy, as stated above (Question 31, Article 3): and in like manner that pain alone which is caused by an interior apprehension, is called sorrow. And just as that pleasure which is caused by an exterior apprehension, is called pleasure but not joy; so too that pain which is caused by an exterior apprehension, is called pain indeed but not sorrow. Accordingly sorrow is a species of pain, as joy is a species of pleasure.
Iª-IIae q. 35 a. 2 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod Augustinus loquitur ibi quantum ad usum vocabuli, quia dolor magis usitatur in corporalibus doloribus, qui sunt magis noti, quam in doloribus spiritualibus. Reply to Objection 1. Augustine is speaking there of the use of the word: because "pain" is more generally used in reference to bodily pains, which are better known, than in reference to spiritual pains.
Iª-IIae q. 35 a. 2 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod sensus exterior non percipit nisi praesens, vis autem cognitiva interior potest percipere praesens, praeteritum et futurum. Et ideo tristitia potest esse de praesenti, praeterito et futuro, dolor autem corporalis, qui sequitur apprehensionem sensus exterioris, non potest esse nisi de praesenti. Reply to Objection 2. External sense perceives only what is present; but the interior cognitive power can perceive the present, past and future. Consequently sorrow can regard present, past and future: whereas bodily pain, which follows apprehension of the external sense, can only regard something present.
Iª-IIae q. 35 a. 2 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod sensibilia tactus sunt dolorosa, non solum inquantum sunt improportionata virtuti apprehensivae, sed etiam inquantum contrariantur naturae. Aliorum vero sensuum sensibilia possunt quidem esse improportionata virtuti apprehensivae, non tamen contrariantur naturae, nisi in ordine ad sensibilia tactus. Unde solus homo, qui est animal perfectum in cognitione, delectatur in sensibilibus aliorum sensuum secundum se ipsa, alia vero animalia non delectantur in eis nisi secundum quod referuntur ad sensibilia tactus, ut dicitur in III Ethic. Et ideo de sensibilibus aliorum sensuum non dicitur esse dolor, secundum quod contrariatur delectationi naturali, sed magis tristitia, quae contrariatur gaudio animali. Sic igitur si dolor accipiatur pro corporali dolore, quod usitatius est, dolor ex opposito dividitur contra tristitiam, secundum distinctionem apprehensionis interioris et exterioris; licet, quantum ad obiecta, delectatio ad plura se extendat quam dolor corporalis. Si vero dolor accipiatur communiter, sic dolor est genus tristitiae, ut dictum est. Reply to Objection 3. The sensibles of touch are painful, not only in so far as they are disproportionate to the apprehensive power, but also in so far as they are contrary to nature: whereas the objects of the other senses can indeed be disproportionate to the apprehensive power, but they are not contrary to nature, save as they are subordinate to the sensibles of touch. Consequently man alone, who is a perfectly cognizant animal, takes pleasure in the objects of the other senses for their own sake; whereas other animals take no pleasure in them save as referable to the sensibles of touch, as stated in Ethic. iii, 10. Accordingly, in referring to the objects of the other senses, we do not speak of pain in so far as it is contrary to natural pleasure: but rather of sorrow, which is contrary to joy. So then if pain be taken as denoting bodily pain, which is its more usual meaning, then it is contrasted with sorrow, according to the distinction of interior and exterior apprehension; although, on the part of the objects, pleasure extends further than does bodily pain. But if pain be taken in a wide sense, then it is the genus of sorrow, as stated above.
Iª-IIae q. 35 a. 3 arg. 1 Ad tertium sic proceditur. Videtur quod dolor delectationi non contrarietur. Unum enim contrariorum non est causa alterius. Sed tristitia potest esse causa delectationis, dicitur enim Matth. V, beati qui lugent, quoniam ipsi consolabuntur. Ergo non sunt contraria. Objection 1. It would seem that sorrow is not contrary to pleasure. For one of two contraries is not the cause of the other. But sorrow can be the cause of pleasure; for it is written (Matthew 5:5): "Blessed are they that mourn, for they shall be comforted." Therefore they are not contrary to one another.
Iª-IIae q. 35 a. 3 arg. 2 Praeterea, unum contrariorum non denominat aliud. Sed in quibusdam ipse dolor vel tristitia est delectabilis, sicut Augustinus dicit, in III Confess., quod dolor in spectaculis delectat. Et IV Confess., dicit quod fletus amara res est, et tamen quandoque delectat. Ergo dolor non contrariatur delectationi. Objection 2. Further, one contrary does not denominate the other. But to some, pain or sorrow gives pleasure: thus Augustine says (Confess. iii, 2) that in stage-plays sorrow itself gives pleasure: and (Confess. iv, 5) that "weeping is a bitter thing, and yet it sometimes pleases us." Therefore pain is not contrary to pleasure.
Iª-IIae q. 35 a. 3 arg. 3 Praeterea, unum contrariorum non est materia alterius, quia contraria simul esse non possunt. Sed dolor potest esse materia delectationis, dicit enim Augustinus, in libro de poenitentia, semper poenitens doleat, et de dolore gaudeat. Et philosophus dicit, in IX Ethic., quod e converso malus dolet de eo quod delectatus est. Ergo delectatio et dolor non sunt contraria. Objection 3. Further, one contrary is not the matter of the other; because contraries cannot co-exist together. But sorrow can be the matter of pleasure; for Augustine says (De Poenit. xiii): "The penitent should ever sorrow, and rejoice in his sorrow." The Philosopher too says (Ethic. ix, 4) that, on the other hand, "the evil man feels pain at having been pleased." Therefore pleasure and pain are not contrary to one another.
Iª-IIae q. 35 a. 3 s. c. Sed contra est quod Augustinus dicit, XIV de Civ. Dei, quod laetitia est voluntas in eorum consensione quae volumus, tristitia autem est voluntas in dissensione ab his quae nolumus. Sed consentire et dissentire sunt contraria. Ergo laetitia et tristitia sunt contraria. On the contrary, Augustine says (De Civ. Dei xiv, 6) that "joy is the volition of consent to the things we wish: and that sorrow is the volition of dissent from the things we do not wish." But consent and dissent are contraries. Therefore pleasure and sorrow are contrary to one another.
Iª-IIae q. 35 a. 3 co. Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut philosophus dicit X Metaphys., contrarietas est differentia secundum formam. Forma autem, seu species, passionis et motus sumitur ex obiecto vel termino. Unde, cum obiecta delectationis et tristitiae, seu doloris, sint contraria, scilicet bonum praesens et malum praesens, sequitur quod dolor et delectatio sint contraria. I answer that, As the Philosopher says (Metaph. x, 4), contrariety is a difference in respect of a form. Now the form or species of a passion or movement is taken from the object or term. Consequently, since the objects of pleasure and sorrow or pain, viz. present good and present evil, are contrary to one another, it follows that pain and pleasure are contrary to one another.
Iª-IIae q. 35 a. 3 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod nihil prohibet unum contrariorum esse causam alterius per accidens. Sic autem tristitia potest esse causa delectationis. Uno quidem modo, inquantum tristitia de absentia alicuius rei, vel de praesentia contrarii, vehementius quaerit id in quo delectetur, sicut sitiens vehementius quaerit delectationem potus, ut remedium contra tristitiam quam patitur. Alio modo, inquantum ex magno desiderio delectationis alicuius, non recusat aliquis tristitias perferre, ut ad illam delectationem perveniat. Et utroque modo luctus praesens ad consolationem futurae vitae perducit. Quia ex hoc ipso quod homo luget pro peccatis, vel pro dilatione gloriae, meretur consolationem aeternam. Similiter etiam meretur eam aliquis ex hoc quod, ad ipsam consequendam, non refugit labores et angustias propter ipsam sustinere. Reply to Objection 1. Nothing hinders one contrary causing the other accidentally: and thus sorrow can be the cause of pleasure. In one way, in so far as from sorrow at the absence of something, or at the presence of its contrary, one seeks the more eagerly for something pleasant: thus a thirsty man seeks more eagerly the pleasure of a drink, as a remedy for the pain he suffers. In another way, in so far as, from a strong desire for a certain pleasure, one does not shrink from undergoing pain, so as to obtain that pleasure. In each of these ways, the sorrows of the present life lead us to the comfort of the future life. Because by the mere fact that man mourns for his sins, or for the delay of glory, he merits the consolation of eternity. In like manner a man merits it when he shrinks not from hardships and straits in order to obtain it.
Iª-IIae q. 35 a. 3 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod dolor ipse potest esse delectabilis per accidens, inquantum scilicet habet adiunctam admirationem, ut in spectaculis; vel inquantum facit recordationem rei amatae, et facit percipere amorem eius, de cuius absentia doletur. Unde, cum amor sit delectabilis, et dolor et omnia quae ex amore consequuntur, inquantum in eis sentitur amor, sunt delectabilia. Et propter hoc etiam dolores in spectaculis possunt esse delectabiles, inquantum in eis sentitur aliquis amor conceptus ad illos qui in spectaculis commemorantur. Reply to Objection 2. Pain itself can be pleasurable accidentally in so far as it is accompanied by wonder, as in stage-plays; or in so far as it recalls a beloved object to one's memory, and makes one feel one's love for the thing, whose absence gives us pain. Consequently, since love is pleasant, both pain and whatever else results from love, forasmuch as they remind us of our love, are pleasant. And, for this reason, we derive pleasure even from pains depicted on the stage: in so far as, in witnessing them, we perceive ourselves to conceive a certain love for those who are there represented.
Iª-IIae q. 35 a. 3 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod voluntas et ratio supra suos actus reflectuntur, inquantum ipsi actus voluntatis et rationis accipiuntur sub ratione boni vel mali. Et hoc modo tristitia potest esse materia delectationis, vel e converso, non per se, sed per accidens, inquantum scilicet utrumque accipitur in ratione boni vel mali. Reply to Objection 3. The will and the reason reflect on their own acts, inasmuch as the acts themselves of the will and reason are considered under the aspect of good or evil. In this way sorrow can be the matter of pleasure, or vice versa, not essentially but accidentally: that is, in so far as either of them is considered under the aspect of good or evil.
Iª-IIae q. 35 a. 4 arg. 1 Ad quartum sic proceditur. Videtur quod omnis tristitia omni delectationi contrarietur. Sicut enim albedo et nigredo sunt contrariae species coloris, ita delectatio et tristitia sunt contrariae species animae passionum. Sed albedo et nigredo universaliter sibi opponuntur. Ergo etiam delectatio et tristitia. Objection 1. It would seem that all sorrow is contrary to all pleasure. Because, just as whiteness and blackness are contrary species of color, so pleasure and sorrow are contrary species of the soul's passions. But whiteness and blackness are universally contrary to one another. Therefore pleasure and sorrow are so too.
Iª-IIae q. 35 a. 4 arg. 2 Praeterea, medicinae per contraria fiunt. Sed quaelibet delectatio est medicina contra quamlibet tristitiam, ut patet per philosophum, in VII Ethic. Ergo quaelibet delectatio cuilibet tristitiae contrariatur. Objection 2. Further, remedies are made of things contrary (to the evil). But every pleasure is a remedy for all manner of sorrow, as the Philosopher declares (Ethic. vii, 14). Therefore every pleasure is contrary to every sorrow.
Iª-IIae q. 35 a. 4 arg. 3 Praeterea, contraria sunt quae se invicem impediunt. Sed quaelibet tristitia impedit quamlibet delectationem, ut patet per illud quod dicitur X Ethic. Ergo quaelibet tristitia cuilibet delectationi contrariatur. Objection 3. Further, contraries are hindrances to one another. But every sorrow hinders any kind of pleasure: as is evident from Ethic. x, 5. Therefore every sorrow is contrary to every pleasure.
Iª-IIae q. 35 a. 4 s. c. Sed contra, contrariorum non est eadem causa. Sed ab eodem habitu procedit quod aliquis gaudeat de uno, et tristetur de opposito, ex caritate enim contingit gaudere cum gaudentibus, et flere cum flentibus, ut dicitur Rom. XII. Ergo non omnis tristitia omni delectationi contrariatur. On the contrary, The same thing is not the cause of contraries. But joy for one thing, and sorrow for the opposite thing, proceed from the same habit: thus from charity it happens that we "rejoice with them that rejoice," and "weep with them that weep" (Romans 12:15). Therefore not every sorrow is contrary to every pleasure.
Iª-IIae q. 35 a. 4 co. Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut dicitur in X Metaphys., contrarietas est differentia secundum formam. Forma autem est et generalis, et specialis. Unde contingit esse aliqua contraria secundum formam generis, sicut virtus et vitium; et secundum formam speciei, sicut iustitia et iniustitia. Est autem considerandum quod quaedam specificantur secundum formas absolutas, sicut substantiae et qualitates, quaedam vero specificantur per comparationem ad aliquid extra, sicut passiones et motus recipiunt speciem ex terminis sive ex obiectis. In his ergo quorum species considerantur secundum formas absolutas, contingit quidem species quae continentur sub contrariis generibus, non esse contrarias secundum rationem speciei, non tamen contingit quod habeant aliquam affinitatem vel convenientiam ad invicem. Intemperantia enim et iustitia, quae sunt in contrariis generibus, virtute scilicet et vitio, non contrariantur ad invicem secundum rationem propriae speciei, nec tamen habent aliquam affinitatem vel convenientiam ad invicem. Sed in illis quorum species sumuntur secundum habitudinem ad aliquid extrinsecum, contingit quod species contrariorum generum non solum non sunt contrariae ad invicem, sed etiam habent quandam convenientiam et affinitatem ad invicem, eo quod eodem modo se habere ad contraria, contrarietatem inducit, sicut accedere ad album et accedere ad nigrum habent rationem contrarietatis; sed contrario modo se habere ad contraria, habet rationem similitudinis, sicut recedere ab albo et accedere ad nigrum. Et hoc maxime apparet in contradictione, quae est principium oppositionis, nam in affirmatione et negatione eiusdem consistit oppositio, sicut album et non album; in affirmatione autem unius oppositorum et negatione alterius, attenditur convenientia et similitudo, ut si dicam nigrum et non album. Tristitia autem et delectatio, cum sint passiones, specificantur ex obiectis. Et quidem secundum genus suum, contrarietatem habent, nam unum pertinet ad prosecutionem, aliud vero ad fugam, quae se habent in appetitu sicut affirmatio et negatio in ratione, ut dicitur in VI Ethic. Et ideo tristia et delectatio quae sunt de eodem, habent oppositionem ad invicem secundum speciem. Tristitia vero et delectatio de diversis, si quidem illa diversa non sint opposita, sed disparata, non habent oppositionem ad invicem secundum rationem speciei, sed sunt etiam disparatae, sicut tristari de morte amici, et delectari in contemplatione. Si vero illa diversa sint contraria, tunc delectatio et tristitia non solum non habent contrarietatem secundum rationem speciei, sed etiam habent convenientiam et affinitatem, sicut gaudere de bono, et tristari de malo. I answer that, As stated in Metaph. x, 4 contrariety is a difference in respect of a form. Now a form may be generic or specific. Consequently things may be contraries in respect of a generic form, as virtue and vice; or in respect of a specific form, as justice and injustice. Now we must observe that some things are specified by absolute forms, e.g. substances and qualities; whereas other things are specified in relation to something extrinsic, e.g. passions and movements, which derive their species from their terms or objects. Accordingly in those things that are specified by absolute forms, it happens that species contained under contrary genera are not contrary as to their specific nature: but it does not happen for them to have any affinity or fittingness to one another. For intemperance and justice, which are in the contrary genera of virtue and vice, are not contrary to one another in respect of their specific nature; and yet they have no affinity or fittingness to one another. On the other hand, in those things that are specified in relation to something extrinsic, it happens that species belonging to contrary genera, are not only not contrary to one another, but also that they have a certain mutual affinity or fittingness. The reason of this is that where there is one same relation to two contraries, there is contrariety; e.g. to approach to a white thing, and to approach to a black thing, are contraries; whereas contrary relations to contrary things, implies a certain likeness, e.g. to recede from something white, and to approach to something black. This is most evident in the case of contradiction, which is the principle of opposition: because opposition consists in affirming and denying the same thing, e.g. "white" and "non-white"; while there is fittingness and likeness in the affirmation of one contrary and the denial of the other, as, if I were to say "black" and "not white." Now sorrow and pleasure, being passions, are specified by their objects. According to their respective genera, they are contrary to one another: since one is a kind of "pursuit," the other a kind of "avoidance," which "are to the appetite, what affirmation and denial are to the intellect" (Ethic. vi, 2). Consequently sorrow and pleasure in respect of the same object, are specifically contrary to one another: whereas sorrow and pleasure in respect of objects that are not contrary but disparate, are not specifically contrary to one another, but are also disparate; for instance, sorrow at the death of a friend, and pleasure in contemplation. If, however, those diverse objects be contrary to one another, then pleasure and sorrow are not only specifically contrary, but they also have a certain mutual fittingness and affinity: for instance to rejoice in good and to sorrow for evil.
Iª-IIae q. 35 a. 4 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod albedo et nigredo non habent speciem ex habitudine ad aliquid exterius, sicut delectatio et tristitia. Unde non est eadem ratio. Reply to Objection 1. Whiteness and blackness do not take their species from their relationship to something extrinsic, as pleasure and sorrow do: wherefore the comparison does not hold.
Iª-IIae q. 35 a. 4 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod genus sumitur ex materia, ut patet in VIII Metaphys. In accidentibus autem loco materiae est subiectum. Dictum est autem quod delectatio et tristitia contrariantur secundum genus. Et ideo in qualibet tristitia est contraria dispositio subiecti dispositioni quae est in qualibet delectatione, nam in qualibet delectatione appetitus se habet ut acceptans id quod habet; in qualibet autem tristitia se habet ut fugiens. Et ideo ex parte subiecti quaelibet delectatio est medicina contra quamlibet tristitiam, et quaelibet tristitia est impeditiva cuiuslibet delectationis, praecipue tamen quando delectatio tristitiae contrariatur etiam secundum speciem. Reply to Objection 2. Genus is taken from matter, as is stated in Metaph. viii, 2; and in accidents the subject takes the place of matter. Now it has been said above that pleasure and sorrow are generically contrary to one another. Consequently in every sorrow the subject has a disposition contrary to the disposition of the subject of pleasure: because in every pleasure the appetite is viewed as accepting what it possesses, and in every sorrow, as avoiding it. And therefore on the part of the subject every pleasure is a remedy for any kind of sorrow, and every sorrow is a hindrance of all manner of pleasure: but chiefly when pleasure is opposed to sorrow specifically.
Iª-IIae q. 35 a. 4 ad 3 Unde patet solutio ad tertium. Vel aliter dicendum quod, etsi non omnis tristitia contrarietur omni delectationi secundum speciem, tamen quantum ad effectum contrariantur, nam ex uno confortatur natura animalis, ex alio vero quodammodo molestatur. Wherefore the Reply to the Third Objection is evident. Or we may say that, although not every sorrow is specifically contrary to every pleasure, yet they are contrary to one another in regard to their effects: since one has the effect of strengthening the animal nature, while the other results in a kind of discomfort.
Iª-IIae q. 35 a. 5 arg. 1 Ad quintum sic proceditur. Videtur quod delectationi contemplationis sit aliqua tristitia contraria. Dicit enim apostolus, II ad Cor. VII, quae secundum Deum est tristitia, poenitentiam in salutem stabilem operatur. Sed respicere ad Deum pertinet ad superiorem rationem, cuius est contemplationi vacare, secundum Augustinum, in XII de Trin. Ergo delectationi contemplationis opponitur tristitia. Objection 1. It would seem that there is a sorrow that is contrary to the pleasure of contemplation. For the Apostle says (2 Corinthians 7:10): "The sorrow that is according to God, worketh penance steadfast unto salvation." Now to look at God belongs to the higher reason, whose act is to give itself to contemplation, according to Augustine (De Trin. xii, 3,4). Therefore there is a sorrow contrary to the pleasure of contemplation.
Iª-IIae q. 35 a. 5 arg. 2 Praeterea, contrariorum contrarii sunt effectus. Si ergo unum contrariorum contemplatum est causa delectationis, aliud erit causa tristitiae. Et sic delectationi contemplationis erit tristitia contraria. Objection 2. Further, contrary things have contrary effects. If therefore the contemplation of one contrary gives pleasure, the other contrary will give sorrow: and so there will be a sorrow contrary to the pleasure of contemplation.
Iª-IIae q. 35 a. 5 arg. 3 Praeterea, sicut obiectum delectationis est bonum, ita obiectum tristitiae est malum. Sed contemplatio potest habere mali rationem, dicit enim philosophus, in XII Metaphys., quod quaedam inconveniens est meditari. Ergo contemplationis delectationi potest esse contraria tristitia. Objection 3. Further, as the object of pleasure is good, so the object of sorrow is evil. But contemplation can be an evil: since the Philosopher says (Metaph. xii, 9) that "it is unfitting to think of certain things." Therefore sorrow can be contrary to the pleasure of contemplation.
Iª-IIae q. 35 a. 5 arg. 4 Praeterea, operatio quaelibet, secundum quod non est impedita, est causa delectationis, ut dicitur in VII et X Ethic. Sed operatio contemplationis potest multipliciter impediri, vel ut totaliter non sit, vel ut cum difficultate sit. Ergo in contemplatione potest esse tristitia delectationi contraria. Objection 4. Further, any work, so far as it is unhindered, can be a cause of pleasure, as stated in Ethic. vii, 12,13; x, 4. But the work of contemplation can be hindered in many ways, either so as to destroy it altogether, or as to make it difficult. Therefore in contemplation there can be a sorrow contrary to the pleasure.
Iª-IIae q. 35 a. 5 arg. 5 Praeterea, carnis afflictio est causa tristitiae. Sed sicut dicitur Eccle. ult., frequens meditatio carnis est afflictio. Ergo contemplatio habet tristitiam delectationi contrariam. Objection 5. Further, affliction of the flesh is a cause of sorrow. But, as it is written (Ecclesiastes 12:12) "much study is an affliction of the flesh." Therefore contemplation admits of sorrow contrary to its pleasure.
Iª-IIae q. 35 a. 5 s. c. Sed contra est quod dicitur Sap. VIII, non habet amaritudinem conversatio illius scilicet sapientiae, nec taedium convictus eius; sed laetitiam et gaudium. Conversatio autem et convictus sapientiae est per contemplationem. Ergo nulla tristitia est quae sit contraria delectationi contemplationis. On the contrary, It is written (Wisdom 8:16): "Her," i.e. wisdom's, "conversation hath no bitterness nor her company any tediousness; but joy and gladness." Now the conversation and company of wisdom are found in contemplation. Therefore there is no sorrow contrary to the pleasure of contemplation.
Iª-IIae q. 35 a. 5 co. Respondeo dicendum quod delectatio contemplationis potest intelligi dupliciter. Uno modo, ita quod contemplatio sit delectationis causa, et non obiectum. Et tunc delectatio non est de ipsa contemplatione, sed de re contemplata. Contingit autem contemplari aliquid nocivum et contristans, sicut et aliquid conveniens et delectans. Unde si sic delectatio contemplationis accipiatur, nihil prohibet delectationi contemplationis esse tristitiam contrariam. Alio modo potest dici delectatio contemplationis, quia contemplatio est eius obiectum et causa, puta cum aliquis delectatur de hoc ipso quod contemplatur. Et sic, ut dicit Gregorius Nyssenus, ei delectationi quae est secundum contemplationem, non opponitur aliqua tristitia. Et hoc idem philosophus dicit, in I Topic. et in X Ethic. Sed hoc est intelligendum, per se loquendo. Cuius ratio est, quia tristitia per se contrariatur delectationi quae est de contrario obiecto, sicut delectationi quae est de calore, contrariatur tristitia quae est de frigore. Obiecto autem contemplationis nihil est contrarium, contrariorum enim rationes, secundum quod sunt apprehensae, non sunt contrariae, sed unum contrarium est ratio cognoscendi aliud. Unde delectationi quae est in contemplando, non potest, per se loquendo, esse aliqua tristitia contraria. Sed nec etiam habet tristitiam annexam, sicut corporales delectationes, quae sunt ut medicinae quaedam contra aliquas molestias, sicut aliquis delectatur in potu ex hoc quod anxiatur siti, quando autem iam tota sitis est repulsa, etiam cessat delectatio potus. Delectatio enim contemplationis non causatur ex hoc quod excluditur aliqua molestia, sed ex hoc quod est secundum seipsam delectabilis, non est enim generatio, sed operatio quaedam perfecta, ut dictum est. Per accidens autem admiscetur tristitia delectationi apprehensionis. Et hoc dupliciter, uno modo, ex parte organi; alio modo, ex impedimento apprehensionis. Ex parte quidem organi, admiscetur tristitia vel dolor apprehensioni, directe quidem in viribus apprehensivis sensitivae partis, quae habent organum corporale, vel ex sensibili, quod est contrarium debitae complexioni organi, sicut gustus rei amarae et olfactus rei foetidae; vel ex continuitate sensibilis convenientis, quod per assiduitatem facit superexcrescentiam naturalis habitus, ut supra dictum est, et sic redditur apprehensio sensibilis quae prius erat delectabilis, taediosa. Sed haec duo directe in contemplatione mentis locum non habent, quia mens non habet organum corporale. Unde dictum est in auctoritate inducta, quod non habet contemplatio mentis nec amaritudinem nec taedium. Sed quia mens humana utitur in contemplando viribus apprehensivis sensitivis, in quarum actibus accidit lassitudo; ideo indirecte admiscetur aliqua afflictio vel dolor contemplationi. Sed neutro modo tristitia contemplationi per accidens adiuncta, contrariatur delectationi eius. Nam tristitia quae est de impedimento contemplationis, non contrariatur delectationi contemplationis, sed magis habet affinitatem et convenientiam cum ipsa, ut ex supradictis patet. Tristitia vero vel afflictio quae est de lassitudine corporali, non ad idem genus refertur, unde est penitus disparata. Et sic manifestum est quod delectationi quae est de ipsa contemplatione, nulla tristitia contrariatur; nec adiungitur ei aliqua tristitia nisi per accidens. I answer that, The pleasure of contemplation can be understood in two ways. In one way, so that contemplation is the cause, but not the object of pleasure: and then pleasure is taken not in contemplating but in the thing contemplated. Now it is possible to contemplate something harmful and sorrowful, just as to contemplate something suitable and pleasant. Consequently if the pleasure of contemplation be taken in this way, nothing hinders some sorrow being contrary to the pleasure of contemplation. In another way, the pleasure of contemplation is understood, so that contemplation is its object and cause; as when one takes pleasure in the very act of contemplating. And thus, according to Gregory of Nyssa [Nemesius, De Nat. Hom. xviii.], "no sorrow is contrary to that pleasure which is about contemplation": and the Philosopher says the same (Topic. i, 13; Ethic. x, 3). This, however, is to be understood as being the case properly speaking. The reason is because sorrow is of itself contrary to pleasure in a contrary object: thus pleasure in heat is contrary to sorrow caused by cold. But there is no contrary to the object of contemplation: because contraries, as apprehended by the mind, are not contrary, but one is the means of knowing the other. Wherefore, properly speaking, there cannot be a sorrow contrary to the pleasure of contemplation. Nor has it any sorrow annexed to it, as bodily pleasures have, which are like remedies against certain annoyances; thus a man takes pleasure in drinking through being troubled with thirst, but when the thirst is quite driven out, the pleasure of drinking ceases also. Because the pleasure of contemplation is not caused by one's being quit of an annoyance, but by the fact that contemplation is pleasant in itself: for pleasure is not a "becoming" but a perfect operation, as stated above (Question 31, Article 1). Accidentally, however, sorrow is mingled with the pleasure of contemplation; and this in two ways: first, on the part of an organ, secondly, through some impediment in the apprehension. On the part of an organ, sorrow or pain is mingled with apprehension, directly, as regards the apprehensive powers of the sensitive part, which have a bodily organ; either from the sensible object disagreeing with the normal condition of the organ, as the taste of something bitter, and the smell of something foul; or from the sensible object, though agreeable, being so continuous in its action on the sense, that it exceeds the normal condition of the organ, as stated above (Question 33, Article 2), the result being that an apprehension which at first was pleasant becomes tedious. But these two things cannot occur directly in the contemplation of the mind; because the mind has no corporeal organ: wherefore it was said in the authority quoted above that intellectual contemplation has neither "bitterness," nor "tediousness." Since, however, the human mind, in contemplation, makes use of the sensitive powers of apprehension, to whose acts weariness is incidental; therefore some affliction or pain is indirectly mingled with contemplation. Nevertheless, in neither of these ways, is the pain thus accidentally mingled with contemplation, contrary to the pleasure thereof. Because pain caused by a hindrance to contemplation, is not contrary to the pleasure of contemplation, but rather is in affinity and in harmony with it, as is evident from what has been said above (Article 4): while pain or sorrow caused by bodily weariness, does not belong to the same genus, wherefore it is altogether disparate. Accordingly it is evident that no sorrow is contrary to pleasure taken in the very act of contemplation; nor is any sorrow connected with it save accidentally.
Iª-IIae q. 35 a. 5 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod illa tristitia quae est secundum Deum, non est de ipsa contemplatione mentis, sed est de aliquo quod mens contemplatur, scilicet de peccato, quod mens considerat ut contrarium dilectioni divinae. Reply to Objection 1. The "sorrow which is according to God," is not caused by the very act of intellectual contemplation, but by something which the mind contemplates: viz. by sin, which the mind considers as contrary to the love of God.
Iª-IIae q. 35 a. 5 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod ea quae sunt contraria in rerum natura, secundum quod sunt in mente, non habent contrarietatem. Non enim rationes contrariorum sunt contrariae, sed magis unum contrarium est ratio cognoscendi aliud. Propter quod est una scientia contrariorum. Reply to Objection 2. Things which are contrary according to nature are not contrary according as they exist in the mind: for things that are contrary in reality are not contrary in the order of thought; indeed rather is one contrary the reason for knowing the other. Hence one and the same science considers contraries.
Iª-IIae q. 35 a. 5 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod contemplatio, secundum se, nunquam habet rationem mali, cum contemplatio nihil aliud sit quam consideratio veri, quod est bonum intellectus, sed per accidens tantum, inquantum scilicet contemplatio vilioris impedit contemplationem melioris; vel ex parte rei contemplatae, ad quam inordinatae appetitus afficitur. Reply to Objection 3. Contemplation, in itself, is never evil, since it is nothing else than the consideration of truth, which is the good of the intellect: it can, however, be evil accidentally, i.e. in so far as the contemplation of a less noble object hinders the contemplation of a more noble object; or on the part of the object contemplated, to which the appetite is inordinately attached.
Iª-IIae q. 35 a. 5 ad 4 Ad quartum dicendum quod tristitia quae est de impedimento contemplationis, non contrariatur delectationi contemplationis, sed est ei affinis, ut dictum est. Reply to Objection 4. Sorrow caused by a hindrance to contemplation, is not contrary to the pleasure of contemplation, but is in harmony with it, as stated above.
Iª-IIae q. 35 a. 5 ad 5 Ad quintum dicendum quod afflictio carnis per accidens et indirecte se habet ad contemplationem mentis, ut dictum est. Reply to Objection 5. Affliction of the flesh affects contemplation accidentally and indirectly, as stated above.
Iª-IIae q. 35 a. 6 arg. 1 Ad sextum sic proceditur. Videtur quod magis sit fugienda tristitia, quam delectatio appetenda. Dicit enim Augustinus, in libro octoginta trium quaest., nemo est qui non magis dolorem fugiat, quam appetat voluptatem. Illud autem in quo communiter omnia consentiunt, videtur esse naturale. Ergo naturale est et conveniens quod plus tristitia fugiatur, quam delectatio appetatur. Objection 1. It would seem that sorrow is to be shunned more than pleasure is to be sought. For Augustine says (QQ. 83, qu. 63): "There is nobody that does not shun sorrow more than he seeks pleasure." Now that which all agree in doing, seems to be natural. Therefore it is natural and right for sorrow to be shunned more than pleasure is sought.
Iª-IIae q. 35 a. 6 arg. 2 Praeterea, actio contrarii facit ad velocitatem et intensionem motus, aqua enim calida citius et fortius congelatur, ut dicit philosophus, in libro Meteor. Sed fuga tristitiae est ex contrarietate contristantis, appetitus autem delectationis non est ex aliqua contrarietate, sed magis procedit ex convenientia delectantis. Ergo maior est fuga tristitiae quam appetitus delectationis. Objection 2. Further, the action of a contrary conduces to rapidity and intensity of movement: for "hot water freezes quicker and harder," as the Philosopher says (Meteor. i, 12). But the shunning of sorrow is due to the contrariety of the cause of sorrow; whereas the desire for pleasure does not arise from any contrariety, but rather from the suitableness of the pleasant object. Therefore sorrow is shunned more eagerly than pleasure is sought.
Iª-IIae q. 35 a. 6 arg. 3 Praeterea, quanto aliquis secundum rationem fortiori passioni repugnat, tanto laudabilior est et virtuosior, quia virtus est circa difficile et bonum, ut dicitur in II Ethic. Sed fortis, qui resistit motui quo fugitur dolor, est virtuosior quam temperatus, qui resistit motui quo appetitur delectatio, dicit enim philosophus, in II Rhetoric., quod fortes et iusti maxime honorantur. Ergo vehementior est motus quo fugitur tristitia, quam motus quo appetitur delectatio. Objection 3. Further, the stronger the passion which a man resists according to reason, the more worthy is he of praise, and the more virtuous: since "virtue is concerned with the difficult and the good" (Ethic. ii, 3). But the brave man who resists the movement of shunning sorrow, is more virtuous than the temperate man, who resists the movement of desire for pleasure: since the Philosopher says (Rhet. ii, 4) that "the brave and the just are chiefly praised." Therefore the movement of shunning sorrow is more eager than the movement of seeking pleasure.
Iª-IIae q. 35 a. 6 s. c. Sed contra, bonum est fortius quam malum, ut patet per Dionysium, IV cap. de Div. Nom. Sed delectatio est appetibilis propter bonum, quod est eius obiectum, fuga autem tristitiae est propter malum. Ergo fortior est appetitus delectationis quam fuga tristitiae. On the contrary, Good is stronger than evil, as Dionysius declares (Div. Nom. iv). But pleasure is desirable for the sake of the good which is its object; whereas the shunning of sorrow is on account of evil. Therefore the desire for pleasure is more eager than the shunning of sorrow.
Iª-IIae q. 35 a. 6 co. Respondeo dicendum quod, per se loquendo, appetitus delectationis est fortior quam fuga tristitiae. Cuius ratio est, quia causa delectationis est bonum conveniens, causa autem doloris sive tristitiae est aliquod malum repugnans. Contingit autem aliquod bonum esse conveniens absque omni dissonantia, non autem potest esse aliquod malum totaliter, absque omni convenientia, repugnans. Unde delectatio potest esse integra et perfecta, tristitia autem est semper secundum partem. Unde naturaliter maior est appetitus delectationis quam fuga tristitiae. Alia vero ratio est, quia bonum, quod est obiectum delectationis, propter seipsum appetitur, malum autem, quod est obiectum tristitiae, est fugiendum inquantum est privatio boni. Quod autem est per se, potius est illo quod est per aliud. Cuius etiam signum apparet in motibus naturalibus. Nam omnis motus naturalis intensior est in fine, cum appropinquat ad terminum suae naturae convenientem, quam in principio, cum recedit a termino suae naturae non convenienti, quasi natura magis tendat in id quod est sibi conveniens, quam fugiat id quod est sibi repugnans. Unde et inclinatio appetitivae virtutis, per se loquendo, vehementius tendit in delectationem quam fugiat tristitiam. Sed per accidens contingit quod tristitiam aliquis magis fugit, quam delectationem appetat. Et hoc tripliciter. Primo quidem, ex parte apprehensionis. Quia, ut Augustinus dicit, X de Trin., amor magis sentitur, cum eum prodit indigentia. Ex indigentia autem amati procedit tristitia, quae est ex amissione alicuius boni amati, vel ex incursu alicuius mali contrarii. Delectatio autem non habet indigentiam boni amati, sed quiescit in eo iam adepto. Cum igitur amor sit causa delectationis et tristitiae, tanto magis fugitur tristitia, quanto magis sentitur amor ex eo quod contrariatur amori. Secundo, ex parte causae contristantis, vel dolorem inferentis, quae repugnat bono magis amato quam sit bonum illud in quo delectamur. Magis enim amamus consistentiam corporis naturalem, quam delectationem cibi. Et ideo timore doloris qui provenit ex flagellis vel aliis huiusmodi, quae contrariantur bonae consistentiae corporis, dimittimus delectationem ciborum vel aliorum huiusmodi. Tertio, ex parte effectus, inquantum scilicet tristitia impedit non unam tantum delectationem, sed omnes. I answer that, The desire for pleasure is of itself more eager than the shunning of sorrow. The reason of this is that the cause of pleasure is a suitable good; while the cause of pain or sorrow is an unsuitable evil. Now it happens that a certain good is suitable without any repugnance at all: but it is not possible for any evil to be so unsuitable as not to be suitable in some way. Wherefore pleasure can be entire and perfect: whereas sorrow is always partial. Therefore desire for pleasure is naturally greater than the shunning of sorrow. Another reason is because the good, which is the object of pleasure, is sought for its own sake: whereas the evil, which is the object of sorrow, is to be shunned as being a privation of good: and that which is by reason of itself is stronger than that which is by reason of something else. Moreover we find a confirmation of this in natural movements. For every natural movement is more intense in the end, when a thing approaches the term that is suitable to its nature, than at the beginning, when it leaves the term that is unsuitable to its nature: as though nature were more eager in tending to what is suitable to it, than in shunning what is unsuitable. Therefore the inclination of the appetitive power is, of itself, more eager in tending to pleasure than in shunning sorrow. But it happens accidentally that a man shuns sorrow more eagerly than he seeks pleasure: and this for three reasons. First, on the part of the apprehension. Because, as Augustine says (De Trin. x, 12), "love is felt more keenly, when we lack that which we love." Now from the lack of what we love, sorrow results, which is caused either by the loss of some loved good, or by the presence of some contrary evil. But pleasure suffers no lack of the good loved, for it rests in possession of it. Since then love is the cause of pleasure and sorrow, the latter is more the shunned, according as love is the more keenly felt on account of that which is contrary to it. Secondly, on the part of the cause of sorrow or pain, which cause is repugnant to a good that is more loved than the good in which we take pleasure. For we love the natural well-being of the body more than the pleasure of eating: and consequently we would leave the pleasure of eating and the like, from fear of the pain occasioned by blows or other such causes, which are contrary to the well-being of the body. Thirdly, on the part of the effect: namely, in so far as sorrow hinders not only one pleasure, but all.
Iª-IIae q. 35 a. 6 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod illud quod Augustinus dicit, quod dolor magis fugitur quam voluptas appetatur, est verum per accidens, et non per se. Et hoc patet ex eo quod subdit, quandoquidem videmus etiam immanissimas bestias a maximis voluptatibus absterreri dolorum metu, qui contrariatur vitae, quae maxime amatur. Reply to Objection 1. The saying of Augustine that "sorrow is shunned more than pleasure is sought" is true accidentally but not simply. And this is clear from what he says after: "Since we see that the most savage animals are deterred from the greatest pleasures by fear of pain," which pain is contrary to life which is loved above all.
Iª-IIae q. 35 a. 6 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod aliter est in motu qui est ab interiori, et aliter in motu qui est ab exteriori. Motus enim qui est ab interiori, magis tendit in id quod est conveniens, quam recedat a contrario, sicut supra dictum est de motu naturali. Sed motus qui est ab extrinseco, intenditur ex ipsa contrarietate, quia unumquodque suo modo nititur ad resistendum contrario, sicut ad conservationem sui ipsius. Unde motus violentus intenditur in principio, et remittitur in fine. Motus autem appetitivae partis est ab intrinseco, cum sit ab anima ad res. Et ideo, per se loquendo, magis appetitur delectatio quam fugiatur tristitia. Sed motus sensitivae partis est ab exteriori, quasi a rebus ad animam. Unde magis sentitur quod est magis contrarium. Et sic etiam per accidens, inquantum sensus requiritur ad delectationem et tristitiam, magis fugitur tristitia quam delectatio appetatur. Reply to Objection 2. It is not the same with movement from within and movement from without. For movement from within tends to what is suitable more than it recedes from that which is unsuitable; as we remarked above in regard to natural movement. But movement from without is intensified by the very opposition: because each thing strives in its own way to resist anything contrary to it, as aiming at its own preservation. Hence violent movement is intense at first, and slackens towards the end. Now the movement of the appetitive faculty is from within: since it tends from the soul to the object. Consequently pleasure is, of itself, more to be sought than sorrow is to be shunned. But the movement of the sensitive faculty is from without, as it were from the object of the soul. Consequently the more contrary a thing is the more it is felt. And then too, accidentally, in so far as the senses are requisite for pleasure and pain, pain is shunned more than pleasure is sought.
Iª-IIae q. 35 a. 6 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod fortis non laudatur ex eo quod secundum rationem non vincitur a dolore vel tristitia quacumque, sed ea quae consistit in periculis mortis. Quae quidem tristitia magis fugitur quam appetatur delectatio ciborum vel venereorum, circa quam est temperantia, sicut vita magis amatur quam cibus vel coitus. Sed temperatus magis laudatur ex hoc quod non prosequitur delectationes tactus, quam ex hoc quod non fugit tristitias contrarias, ut patet in III Ethic. Reply to Objection 3. A brave man is not praised because, in accordance with reason, he is not overcome by any kind of sorrow or pain whatever, but because he is not overcome by that which is concerned with the dangers of death. And this kind of sorrow is more shunned, than pleasures of the table or of sexual intercourse are sought, which latter pleasures are the object of temperance: thus life is loved more than food and sexual pleasure. But the temperate man is praised for refraining from pleasures of touch, more than for not shunning the pains which are contrary to them, as is stated in Ethic. iii, 11.
Iª-IIae q. 35 a. 7 arg. 1 Ad septimum sic proceditur. Videtur quod dolor exterior sit maior quam dolor cordis interior. Dolor enim exterior causatur ex causa repugnante bonae consistentiae corporis, in quo est vita, dolor autem interior causatur ex aliqua imaginatione mali. Cum ergo vita magis ametur quam imaginatum bonum, videtur, secundum praedicta, quod dolor exterior sit maior quam dolor interior. Objection 1. It would seem that outward pain is greater than interior sorrow of the heart. Because outward pain arises from a cause repugnant to the well-being of the body in which is life: whereas interior sorrow is caused by some evil in the imagination. Since, therefore, life is loved more than an imagined good, it seems that, according to what has been said above (Article 6), outward pain is greater than interior sorrow.
Iª-IIae q. 35 a. 7 arg. 2 Praeterea, res magis movet quam rei similitudo. Sed dolor exterior provenit ex reali coniunctione alicuius contrarii, dolor autem interior ex similitudine contrarii apprehensa. Ergo maior est dolor exterior quam dolor interior. Objection 2. Further, the reality moves more than its likeness does. But outward pain arises from the real conjunction of some contrary; whereas inward sorrow arises from the apprehended likeness of a contrary. Therefore outward pain is greater than inward sorrow.
Iª-IIae q. 35 a. 7 arg. 3 Praeterea, causa ex effectu cognoscitur. Sed dolor exterior habet fortiores effectus, facilius enim homo moritur propter dolores exteriores quam propter dolorem interiorem. Ergo exterior dolor est maior, et magis fugitur, quam dolor interior. Objection 3. Further, a cause is known by its effect. But outward pain has more striking effects: since man dies sooner of outward pain than of interior sorrow. Therefore outward pain is greater and is shunned more than interior sorrow.
Iª-IIae q. 35 a. 7 s. c. Sed contra est quod dicitur Eccli. XXV, omnis plaga tristitia cordis est, et omnis malitia nequitia mulieris. Ergo, sicut nequitia mulieris alias nequitias superat, ut ibi intenditur; ita tristitia cordis omnem plagam exteriorem excedit. On the contrary, it is written (Sirach 25:17): "The sadness of the heart is every wound [Douay: 'plague'], and the wickedness of a woman is all evil." Therefore, just as the wickedness of a woman surpasses all other wickedness, as the text implies; so sadness of the heart surpasses every outward wound.
Iª-IIae q. 35 a. 7 co. Respondeo dicendum quod dolor interior et exterior in uno conveniunt, et in duobus differunt. Conveniunt quidem in hoc, quod uterque est motus appetitivae virtutis, ut supra dictum est. Differunt autem secundum illa duo quae ad tristitiam et delectationem requiruntur, scilicet secundum causam, quae est bonum vel malum coniunctum; et secundum apprehensionem. Causa enim doloris exterioris est malum coniunctum quod repugnat corpori, causa autem interioris doloris est malum coniunctum quod repugnat appetitui. Dolor etiam exterior sequitur apprehensionem sensus, et specialiter tactus, dolor autem interior sequitur apprehensionem interiorem, imaginationis scilicet vel etiam rationis. Si ergo comparatur causa interioris doloris ad causam exterioris, una per se pertinet ad appetitum, cuius est uterque dolor, alia vero per aliud. Nam dolor interior est ex hoc quod aliquid repugnat ipsi appetitui, exterior autem dolor, ex hoc quod repugnat appetitui quia repugnat corpori. Semper autem quod est per se, prius est eo quod est per aliud. Unde ex parte ista, dolor interior praeeminet dolori exteriori. Similiter etiam ex parte apprehensionis. Nam apprehensio rationis et imaginationis altior est quam apprehensio sensu tactus. Unde simpliciter et per se loquendo, dolor interior potior est quam dolor exterior. Cuius signum est, quod etiam dolores exteriores aliquis voluntarie suscipit, ut evitet interiorem dolorem. Et inquantum non repugnat dolor exterior interiori appetitui, fit quodammodo delectabilis et iucundus interiori gaudio. Quandoque tamen dolor exterior est cum interiori dolore, et tunc dolor augetur. Non solum enim interior dolor est maior quam exterior, sed etiam universalior. Quidquid enim est repugnans corpori, potest esse repugnans interiori appetitui; et quidquid apprehenditur sensu, potest apprehendi imaginatione et ratione; sed non convertitur. Et ideo signanter in auctoritate adducta dicitur, omnis plaga tristitia cordis est, quia etiam dolores exteriorum plagarum sub interiori cordis tristitia comprehenduntur. I answer that, Interior and exterior pain agree in one point and differ in two. They agree in this, that each is a movement of the appetitive power, as stated above (Article 1). But they differ in respect of those two things which are requisite for pain and pleasure; namely, in respect of the cause, which is a conjoined good or evil; and in respect of the apprehension. For the cause of outward pain is a conjoined evil repugnant to the body; while the cause of inward pain is a conjoined evil repugnant to the appetite. Again, outward pain arises from an apprehension of sense, chiefly of touch; while inward pain arises from an interior apprehension, of the imagination or of the reason. If then we compare the cause of inward pain to the cause of outward pain, the former belongs, of itself, to the appetite to which both these pains belong: while the latter belongs to the appetite directly. Because inward pain arises from something being repugnant to the appetite itself, while outward pain arises from something being repugnant to the appetite, through being repugnant to the body. Now, that which is of itself is always prior to that which is by reason of another. Wherefore, from this point of view, inward pain surpasses outward pain. In like manner also on the part of apprehension: because the apprehension of reason and imagination is of a higher order than the apprehension of the sense of touch. Consequently inward pain is, simply and of itself, more keen than outward pain: a sign whereof is that one willingly undergoes outward pain in order to avoid inward pain: and in so far as outward pain is not repugnant to the interior appetite, it becomes in a manner pleasant and agreeable by way of inward joy. Sometimes, however, outward pain is accompanied by inward pain, and then the pain is increased. Because inward pain is not only greater than outward pain, it is also more universal: since whatever is repugnant to the body, can be repugnant to the interior appetite; and whatever is apprehended by sense may be apprehended by imagination and reason, but not conversely. Hence in the passage quoted above it is said expressively: "Sadness of the heart is every wound," because even the pains of outward wounds are comprised in the interior sorrows of the heart.
Iª-IIae q. 35 a. 7 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod dolor interior potest etiam esse de his quae contrariantur vitae. Et sic comparatio doloris interioris ad exteriorem non est accipienda secundum diversa mala quae sunt causa doloris, sed secundum diversam comparationem huius causae doloris ad appetitum. Reply to Objection 1. Inward pain can also arise from things that are destructive of life. And then the comparison of inward to outward pain must not be taken in reference to the various evils that cause pain; but in regard to the various ways in which this cause of pain is compared to the appetite.
Iª-IIae q. 35 a. 7 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod tristitia interior non procedit ex similitudine rei apprehensa, sicut ex causa, non enim homo tristatur interius de ipsa similitudine apprehensa, sed de re cuius est similitudo. Quae quidem res tanto perfectius apprehenditur per aliquam similitudinem, quanto similitudo est magis immaterialis et abstracta. Et ideo dolor interior, per se loquendo, est maior, tanquam de maiori malo existens; propter hoc quod interiori apprehensione magis cognoscitur malum. Reply to Objection 2. Inward pain is not caused by the apprehended likeness of a thing: for a man is not inwardly pained by the apprehended likeness itself, but by the thing which the likeness represents. And this thing is all the more perfectly apprehended by means of its likeness, as this likeness is more immaterial and abstract. Consequently inward pain is, of itself, greater, as being caused by a greater evil, forasmuch as evil is better known by an inward apprehension.
Iª-IIae q. 35 a. 7 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod immutationes corporales magis causantur ex dolore exteriori, tum quia causa doloris exterioris est corrumpens coniunctum corporaliter, quod exigit apprehensio tactus. Tum etiam quia sensus exterior est magis corporalis quam sensus interior, sicut et appetitus sensitivus quam intellectivus. Et propter hoc, ut supra dictum est, ex motu appetitus sensitivi magis corpus immutatur. Et similiter ex dolore exteriori, magis quam ex dolore interiori. Reply to Objection 3. Bodily changes are more liable to be caused by outward pain, both from the fact that outward pain is caused by a corruptive conjoined corporally, which is a necessary condition of the sense of touch; and from the fact that the outward sense is more material than the inward sense, just as the sensitive appetite is more material than the intellective. For this reason, as stated above (22, 3; 31, 5), the body undergoes a greater change from the movement of the sensitive appetite: and, in like manner, from outward than from inward pain.
Iª-IIae q. 35 a. 8 arg. 1 Ad octavum sic proceditur. Videtur quod Damascenus inconvenienter quatuor tristitiae species assignet, quae sunt acedia, achthos (vel anxietas secundum Gregorium Nyssenum), misericordia et invidia. Tristitia enim delectationi opponitur. Sed delectationis non assignantur aliquae species. Ergo nec tristitiae species debent assignari. Objection 1. It would seem that Damascene's (De Fide Orth. ii, 14) division of sorrow into four species is incorrect; viz. into "torpor, distress," which Gregory of Nyssa [Nemesius, De Nat. Hom. xix.] calls "anxiety,"--"pity," and "envy." For sorrow is contrary to pleasure. But there are not several species of pleasure. Therefore it is incorrect to assign different species of sorrow.
Iª-IIae q. 35 a. 8 arg. 2 Praeterea, poenitentia est quaedam species tristitiae. Similiter etiam Nemesis et zelus, ut dicit philosophus, II Rhetoric. Quae quidem sub his speciebus non comprehenduntur. Ergo insufficiens est eius praedicta divisio. Objection 2. Further, "Repentance" is a species of sorrow; and so are "indignation" and "jealousy," as the Philosopher states (Rhet. ii, 9,11). But these are not included in the above species. Therefore this division is insufficient.
Iª-IIae q. 35 a. 8 arg. 3 Praeterea, omnis divisio debet esse per opposita. Sed praedicta non habent oppositionem ad invicem. Nam secundum Gregorium acedia est tristitia vocem amputans; anxietas vero est tristitia aggravans; invidia vero est tristitia in alienis bonis; misericordia autem est tristitia in alienis malis. Contingit autem aliquem tristari et de alienis malis, et de alienis bonis et simul cum hoc interius aggravari, et exterius vocem amittere. Ergo praedicta divisio non est conveniens. Objection 3. Further, the members of a division should be things that are opposed to one another. But these species are not opposed to one another. For according to Gregory [Nemesius, De Nat. Hom. xix.] "torpor is sorrow depriving of speech; anxiety is the sorrow that weighs down; envy is sorrow for another's good; pity is sorrow for another's wrongs." But it is possible for one to sorrow for another's wrongs, and for another's good, and at the same time to be weighed down inwardly, and outwardly to be speechless. Therefore this division is correct.
Iª-IIae q. 35 a. 8 s. c. Sed contra est auctoritas utriusque, scilicet Gregorii Nysseni et Damasceni. On the contrary, stands the twofold authority of Gregory of Nyssa [Nemesius] and of Damascene.
Iª-IIae q. 35 a. 8 co. Respondeo dicendum quod ad rationem speciei pertinet quod se habeat ex additione ad genus. Sed generi potest aliquid addi dupliciter. Uno modo, quod per se ad ipsum pertinet, et virtute continetur in ipso, sicut rationale additur animali. Et talis additio facit veras species alicuius generis, ut per philosophum patet, in VII et VIII Metaphys. Aliquid vero additur generi quasi aliquid extraneum a ratione ipsius, sicut si album animali addatur, vel aliquid huiusmodi. Et talis additio non facit veras species generis, secundum quod communiter loquimur de genere et speciebus. Interdum tamen dicitur aliquid esse species alicuius generis propter hoc quod habet aliquid extraneum ad quod applicatur generis ratio, sicut carbo et flamma dicuntur esse species ignis, propter applicationem naturae ignis ad materiam alienam. Et simili modo loquendi dicuntur astrologia et perspectiva species mathematicae, inquantum principia mathematica applicantur ad materiam naturalem. Et hoc modo loquendi assignantur hic species tristitiae, per applicationem rationis tristitiae ad aliquid extraneum. Quod quidem extraneum accipi potest vel ex parte causae, obiecti; vel ex parte effectus. Proprium enim obiectum tristitiae est proprium malum. Unde extraneum obiectum tristitiae accipi potest vel secundum alterum tantum, quia scilicet est malum, sed non proprium, et sic est misericordia, quae est tristitia de alieno malo, inquantum tamen aestimatur ut proprium. Vel quantum ad utrumque, quia neque est de proprio, neque de malo, sed de bono alieno, inquantum tamen bonum alienum aestimatur ut proprium malum, et sic est invidia. Proprius autem effectus tristitiae consistit in quadam fuga appetitus. Unde extraneum circa effectum tristitiae, potest accipi quantum ad alterum tantum, quia scilicet tollitur fuga, et sic est anxietas quae sic aggravat animum, ut non appareat aliquod refugium, unde alio nomine dicitur angustia. Si vero intantum procedat talis aggravatio, ut etiam exteriora membra immobilitet ab opere, quod pertinet ad acediam; sic erit extraneum quantum ad utrumque, quia nec est fuga, nec est in appetitu. Ideo autem specialiter acedia dicitur vocem amputare, quia vox inter omnes exteriores motus magis exprimit interiorem conceptum et affectum, non solum in hominibus, sed etiam in aliis animalibus, ut dicitur in I Polit. I answer that, It belongs to the notion of a species that it is something added to the genus. But a thing can be added to a genus in two ways. First, as something belonging of itself to the genus, and virtually contained therein: thus "rational" is added to "animal." Such an addition makes true species of a genus: as the Philosopher says (Metaph. vii, 12; viii, 2,3). But, secondly, a thing may be added to a genus, that is, as it were, foreign to the notion conveyed by that genus: thus "white" or something of the kind may be added to "animal." Such an addition does not make true species of the genus, according to the usual sense in which we speak of genera and species. But sometimes a thing is said to be a species of a certain genus, through having something foreign to that genus indeed, but to which the notion of that genus is applicable: thus a live coal or a flame is said to be a species of fire, because in each of them the nature of fire is applied to a foreign matter. In like manner we speak of astronomy and perspective as being species of mathematics, inasmuch as the principles of mathematics are applied to natural matter. In accordance with this manner of speaking, the species of sorrow are reckoned by an application of the notion of sorrow to something foreign to it. This foreign matter may be taken on the part of the cause or the object, or of the effect. For the proper object of sorrow is "one's own evil." Hence sorrow may be concerned for an object foreign to it either through one's being sorry for an evil that is not one's own; and thus we have "pity" which is sorrow for another's evil, considered, however, as one's own: or through one's being sorry for something that is neither evil nor one's own, but another's good, considered, however, as one's own evil: and thus we have "envy." The proper effect of sorrow consists in a certain "flight of the appetite." Wherefore the foreign element in the effect of sorrow, may be taken so as to affect the first part only, by excluding flight: and thus we have "anxiety" which weighs on the mind, so as to make escape seem impossible: hence it is also called "perplexity." If, however, the mind be weighed down so much, that even the limbs become motionless, which belongs to "torpor," then we have the foreign element affecting both, since there is neither flight, nor is the effect in the appetite. And the reason why torpor especially is said to deprive one of speech is because of all the external movements the voice is the best expression of the inward thought and desire, not only in men, but also in other animals, as is stated in Polit. i, 1.
Iª-IIae q. 35 a. 8 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod delectatio causatur ex bono, quod uno modo dicitur. Et ideo delectationis non assignantur tot species sicut tristitiae, quae causatur ex malo, quod multifariam contingit, ut dicit Dionysius, IV cap. de Div. Nom. Reply to Objection 1. Pleasure is caused by good, which has only one meaning: and so pleasure is not divided into several species as sorrow is; for the latter is caused by evil, which "happens in many ways," as Dionysius says (Div. Nom. iv).
Iª-IIae q. 35 a. 8 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod poenitentia est de malo proprio, quod per se est obiectum tristitiae. Unde non pertinet ad has species. Zelus vero et Nemesis sub invidia continentur, ut infra patebit. Reply to Objection 2. Repentance is for one's own evil, which is the proper object of sorrow: wherefore it does not belong to these species. Jealousy and indignation are included in envy, as we shall explain later (II-II, 36, 2).
Iª-IIae q. 35 a. 8 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod divisio ista non sumitur secundum oppositiones specierum, sed secundum diversitatem extraneorum ad quae trahitur ratio tristitiae, ut dictum est. Reply to Objection 3. This division is not according to opposite species; but according to the diversity of foreign matter to which the notion of sorrow is applied, as stated above.

Notes


  • [[]]
Personal tools