Authors/Thomas Aquinas/Summa Theologiae/Part IIa/Q53

From The Logic Museum

Jump to: navigation, search
Q52 Q54



Latin English
Iª-IIae q. 53 pr. Deinde considerandum est de corruptione et diminutione habituum. Et circa hoc quaeruntur tria. Primo, utrum habitus corrumpi possit. Secundo, utrum possit diminui. Tertio, de modo corruptionis et diminutionis. Question 53. How habits are corrupted or diminished Can a habit be corrupted? Can it be diminished? How are habits corrupted or diminished?
Iª-IIae q. 53 a. 1 arg. 1 Ad primum sic proceditur. Videtur quod habitus corrumpi non possit. Habitus enim inest sicut natura quaedam, unde operationes secundum habitum sunt delectabiles. Sed natura non corrumpitur, manente eo cuius est natura. Ergo neque habitus corrumpi potest, manente subiecto. Objection 1. It would seem that a habit cannot be corrupted. For habit is within its subject like a second nature; wherefore it is pleasant to act from habit. Now so long as a thing is, its nature is not corrupted. Therefore neither can a habit be corrupted so long as its subject remains.
Iª-IIae q. 53 a. 1 arg. 2 Praeterea, omnis corruptio formae vel est per corruptionem subiecti, vel est a contrario, sicut aegritudo corrumpitur corrupto animali, vel etiam superveniente sanitate. Sed scientia, quae est quidam habitus, non potest corrumpi per corruptionem subiecti, quia intellectus, qui est subiectum eius, est substantia quaedam, et non corrumpitur, ut dicitur in I de anima. Similiter etiam non potest corrumpi a contrario, nam species intelligibiles non sunt ad invicem contrariae, ut dicitur in VII Metaphys. Ergo habitus scientiae nullo modo corrumpi potest. Objection 2. Further, whenever a form is corrupted, this is due either to corruption of its subject, or to its contrary: thus sickness ceases through corruption of the animal, or through the advent of health. Now science, which is a habit, cannot be lost through corruption of its subject: since "the intellect," which is its subject, "is a substance that is incorruptible" (De Anima i, text. 65). In like manner, neither can it be lost through the action of its contrary: since intelligible species are not contrary to one another (Metaph. vii, text. 52). Therefore the habit of science can nowise be lost.
Iª-IIae q. 53 a. 1 arg. 3 Praeterea, omnis corruptio est per aliquem motum. Sed habitus scientiae, qui est in anima, non potest corrumpi per motum per se ipsius animae, quia anima per se non movetur. Movetur autem per accidens per motum corporis. Nulla autem transmutatio corporalis videtur posse corrumpere species intelligibiles existentes in intellectu, cum intellectus sit per se locus specierum, sine corpore, unde ponitur quod nec per senium nec per mortem corrumpuntur habitus. Ergo scientia corrumpi non potest. Et per consequens, nec habitus virtutis, qui etiam est in anima rationali, et, sicut philosophus dicit in I Ethic., virtutes sunt permanentiores disciplinis. Objection 3. Further, all corruption results from some movement. But the habit of science, which is in the soul, cannot be corrupted by a direct movement of the soul itself, since the soul is not moved directly. It is, however, moved indirectly through the movement of the body: and yet no bodily change seems capable of corrupting the intelligible species residing in the intellect: since the intellect independently of the body is the proper abode of the species; for which reason it is held that habits are not lost either through old age or through death. Therefore science cannot be corrupted. For the same reason neither can habits of virtue be corrupted, since they also are in the rational soul, and, as the Philosopher declares (Ethic. i, 10), "virtue is more lasting than learning."
Iª-IIae q. 53 a. 1 s. c. Sed contra est quod philosophus dicit, in libro de longitudine et brevitate vitae, quod scientiae corruptio est oblivio et deceptio. Peccando etiam aliquis habitum virtutis amittit. Et ex contrariis actibus virtutes generantur et corrumpuntur, ut dicitur II Ethic. On the contrary, The Philosopher says (De Long. et Brev. Vitae ii) that "forgetfulness and deception are the corruption of science." Moreover, by sinning a man loses a habit of virtue: and again, virtues are engendered and corrupted by contrary acts (Ethic. ii, 2).
Iª-IIae q. 53 a. 1 co. Respondeo dicendum quod secundum se dicitur aliqua forma corrumpi per contrarium suum, per accidens autem, per corruptionem sui subiecti. Si igitur fuerit aliquis habitus cuius subiectum est corruptibile, et cuius causa habet contrarium, utroque modo corrumpi poterit, sicut patet de habitibus corporalibus, scilicet sanitate et aegritudine. Illi vero habitus quorum subiectum est incorruptibile, non possunt corrumpi per accidens. Sunt tamen habitus quidam qui, etsi principaliter sint in subiecto incorruptibili, secundario tamen sunt in subiecto corruptibili, sicut habitus scientiae, qui principaliter est quidem in intellectu possibili, secundario autem in viribus apprehensivis sensitivis, ut supra dictum est. Et ideo ex parte intellectus possibilis, habitus scientiae non potest corrumpi per accidens; sed solum ex parte inferiorum virium sensitivarum. Est igitur considerandum si possunt huiusmodi habitus per se corrumpi. Si igitur fuerit aliquis habitus qui habeat aliquod contrarium, vel ex parte sua vel ex parte suae causae, poterit per se corrumpi, si vero non habet contrarium, non poterit per se corrumpi. Manifestum est autem quod species intelligibilis in intellectu possibili existens, non habet aliquid contrarium. Neque iterum intellectui agenti, qui est causa eius, potest aliquid esse contrarium. Unde si aliquis habitus sit in intellectu possibili immediate ab intellectu agente causatus, talis habitus est incorruptibilis et per se et per accidens. Huiusmodi autem sunt habitus primorum principiorum, tam speculabilium quam practicorum, qui nulla oblivione vel deceptione corrumpi possunt, sicut philosophus dicit, in VI Ethic., de prudentia, quod non perditur per oblivionem. Aliquis vero habitus est in intellectu possibili ex ratione causatus, scilicet habitus conclusionum, qui dicitur scientia, cuius causae dupliciter potest aliquid contrarium esse. Uno modo, ex parte ipsarum propositionum ex quibus ratio procedit, etenim enuntiationi quae est, bonum est bonum, contraria est ea quae est, bonum non est bonum, secundum philosophum, in II Periherm. Alio modo, quantum ad ipsum processum rationis; prout syllogismus sophisticus opponitur syllogismo dialectico vel demonstrativo. Sic igitur patet quod per falsam rationem potest corrumpi habitus verae opinionis, aut etiam scientiae. Unde philosophus dicit quod deceptio est corruptio scientiae, sicut supra dictum est. Virtutum vero quaedam sunt intellectuales, quae sunt in ipsa ratione, ut dicitur in VI Ethic., de quibus est eadem ratio quae est de scientia vel opinione. Quaedam vero sunt in parte animae appetitiva, quae sunt virtutes morales, et eadem ratio est de vitiis oppositis. Habitus autem appetitivae partis causantur per hoc quod ratio nata est appetitivam partem movere. Unde per iudicium rationis in contrarium moventis quocumque modo, scilicet sive ex ignorantia, sive ex passione, vel etiam ex electione, corrumpitur habitus virtutis vel vitii. I answer that, A form is said to be corrupted directly by its contrary; indirectly, through its subject being corrupted. When therefore a habit has a corruptible subject, and a cause that has a contrary, it can be corrupted both ways. This is clearly the case with bodily habits--for instance, health and sickness. But those habits that have an incorruptible subject, cannot be corrupted indirectly. There are, however, some habits which, while residing chiefly in an incorruptible subject, reside nevertheless secondarily in a corruptible subject; such is the habit of science which is chiefly indeed in the "possible" intellect, but secondarily in the sensitive powers of apprehension, as stated above (50, 3, ad 3). Consequently the habit of science cannot be corrupted indirectly, on the part of the "possible" intellect, but only on the part of the lower sensitive powers. We must therefore inquire whether habits of this kind can be corrupted directly. If then there be a habit having a contrary, either on the part of itself or on the part of its cause, it can be corrupted directly: but if it has no contrary, it cannot be corrupted directly. Now it is evident that an intelligible species residing in the "possible" intellect, has no contrary; nor can the active intellect, which is the cause of that species, have a contrary. Wherefore if in the "possible" intellect there be a habit caused immediately by the active intellect, such a habit is incorruptible both directly and indirectly. Such are the habits of the first principles, both speculative and practical, which cannot be corrupted by any forgetfulness or deception whatever: even as the Philosopher says about prudence (Ethic. vi, 5) that "it cannot be lost by being forgotten." There is, however, in the "possible" intellect a habit caused by the reason, to wit, the habit of conclusions, which is called science, to the cause of which something may be contrary in two ways. First, on the part of those very propositions which are the starting point of the reason: for the assertion "Good is not good" is contrary to the assertion "Good is good" (Peri Herm. ii). Secondly, on the part of the process of reasoning; forasmuch as a sophistical syllogism is contrary to a dialectic or demonstrative syllogism. Wherefore it is clear that a false reason can corrupt the habit of a true opinion or even of science. Hence the Philosopher, as stated above, says that "deception is the corruption of science." As to virtues, some of them are intellectual, residing in reason itself, as stated in Ethic. vi, 1: and to these applies what we have said of science and opinion. Some, however, viz. the moral virtues, are in the appetitive part of the soul; and the same may be said of the contrary vices. Now the habits of the appetitive part are caused therein because it is natural to it to be moved by the reason. Therefore a habit either of virtue or of vice, may be corrupted by a judgment of reason, whenever its motion is contrary to such vice or virtue, whether through ignorance, passion or deliberate choice.
Iª-IIae q. 53 a. 1 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod, sicut dicitur in VII Ethic., habitus similitudinem habet naturae, deficit tamen ab ipsa. Et ideo, cum natura rei nullo modo removeatur ab ipsa, habitus difficile removetur. Reply to Objection 1. As stated in Ethic. vii, 10, a habit is like a second nature, and yet it falls short of it. And so it is that while the nature of a thing cannot in any way be taken away from a thing, a habit is removed, though with difficulty.
Iª-IIae q. 53 a. 1 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod, etsi speciebus intelligibilibus non sit aliquid contrarium, enuntiationibus tamen et processui rationis potest aliquid esse contrarium, ut dictum est. Reply to Objection 2. Although there is no contrary to intelligible species, yet there can be a contrary to assertions and to the process of reason, as stated above.
Iª-IIae q. 53 a. 1 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod scientia non removetur per motum corporalem quantum ad ipsam radicem habitus, sed solum quantum ad impedimentum actus; inquantum intellectus indiget in suo actu viribus sensitivis, quibus impedimentum affertur per corporalem transmutationem. Sed per intelligibilem motum rationis potest corrumpi habitus scientiae, etiam quantum ad ipsam radicem habitus. Et similiter etiam potest corrumpi habitus virtutis. Tamen quod dicitur, virtutes esse permanentiores disciplinis, intelligendum est non ex parte subiecti vel causae, sed ex parte actus, nam virtutum usus est continuus per totam vitam, non autem usus disciplinarum. Reply to Objection 3. Science is not taken away by movement of the body, if we consider the root itself of the habit, but only as it may prove an obstacle to the act of science; in so far as the intellect, in its act, has need of the sensitive powers, which are impeded by corporal transmutation. But the intellectual movement of the reason can corrupt the habit of science, even as regards the very root of the habit. In like manner a habit of virtue can be corrupted. Nevertheless when it is said that "virtue is more lasting than learning," this must be understood in respect, not of the subject or cause, but of the act: because the use of virtue continues through the whole of life, whereas the use of learning does not.
Iª-IIae q. 53 a. 2 arg. 1 Ad secundum sic proceditur. Videtur quod habitus diminui non possit. Habitus enim est quaedam qualitas et forma simplex. Simplex autem aut totum habetur, aut totum amittitur. Ergo habitus, etsi corrumpi possit, diminui non potest. Objection 1. It would seem that a habit cannot diminish. Because a habit is a simple quality and form. Now a simple thing is possessed either wholly or not at all. Therefore although a habit can be lost it cannot diminish.
Iª-IIae q. 53 a. 2 arg. 2 Praeterea, omne quod convenit accidenti, convenit eidem secundum se, vel ratione sui subiecti. Habitus autem secundum seipsum non intenditur et remittitur, alioquin sequeretur quod aliqua species de suis individuis praedicaretur secundum magis et minus. Si igitur secundum participationem subiecti diminui possit, sequeretur quod aliquid accidat habitui proprium, quod non sit commune ei et subiecto. Cuicumque autem formae convenit aliquid proprium praeter suum subiectum, illa forma est separabilis, ut dicitur in I de anima. Sequitur ergo quod habitus sit forma separabilis, quod est impossibile. Objection 2. Further, if a thing is befitting an accident, this is by reason either of the accident or of its subject. Now a habit does not become more or less intense by reason of itself; else it would follow that a species might be predicated of its individuals more or less. And if it can become less intense as to its participation by its subject, it would follow that something is accidental to a habit, proper thereto and not common to the habit and its subject. Now whenever a form has something proper to it besides its subject, that form can be separate, as stated in De Anima i, text. 13. Hence it follows that a habit is a separable form; which is impossible.
Iª-IIae q. 53 a. 2 arg. 3 Praeterea, ratio et natura habitus, sicut et cuiuslibet accidentis, consistit in concretione ad subiectum, unde et quodlibet accidens definitur per suum subiectum. Si igitur habitus secundum seipsum non intenditur neque remittitur, neque etiam secundum concretionem sui ad subiectum diminui poterit. Et ita nullo modo diminuetur. Objection 3. Further, the very notion and nature of a habit as of any accident, is inherence in a subject: wherefore any accident is defined with reference to its subject. Therefore if a habit does not become more or less intense in itself, neither can it in its inherence in its subject: and consequently it will be nowise less intense.
Iª-IIae q. 53 a. 2 s. c. Sed contra est quod contraria nata sunt fieri circa idem. Augmentum autem et diminutio sunt contraria. Cum igitur habitus possit augeri, videtur quod etiam possit diminui. On the contrary, It is natural for contraries to be applicable to the same thing. Now increase and decrease are contraries. Since therefore a habit can increase, it seems that it can also diminish.
Iª-IIae q. 53 a. 2 co. Respondeo dicendum quod habitus dupliciter diminuuntur, sicut et augentur, ut ex supradictis patet. Et sicut ex eadem causa augentur ex qua generantur, ita ex eadem causa diminuuntur ex qua corrumpuntur, nam diminutio habitus est quaedam via ad corruptionem, sicut e converso generatio habitus est quoddam fundamentum augmenti ipsius. I answer that, Habits diminish, just as they increase, in two ways, as we have already explained (52, 1). And since they increase through the same cause as that which engenders them, so too they diminish by the same cause as that which corrupts them: since the diminishing of a habit is the road which leads to its corruption, even as, on the other hand, the engendering of a habit is a foundation of its increase.
Iª-IIae q. 53 a. 2 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod habitus secundum se consideratus, est forma simplex, et secundum hoc non accidit ei diminutio, sed secundum diversum modum participandi, qui provenit ex indeterminatione potentiae ipsius participantis, quae scilicet diversimode potest unam formam participare, vel quae potest ad plura vel ad pauciora extendi. Reply to Objection 1. A habit, considered in itself, is a simple form. It is not thus that it is subject to decrease; but according to the different ways in which its subject participates in it. This is due to the fact that the subject's potentiality is indeterminate, through its being able to participate a form in various ways, or to extend to a greater or a smaller number of things.
Iª-IIae q. 53 a. 2 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod ratio illa procederet, si ipsa essentia habitus nullo modo diminueretur. Hoc autem non ponimus, sed quod quaedam diminutio essentiae habitus non habet principium ab habitu, sed a participante. Reply to Objection 2. This argument would hold, if the essence itself of a habit were nowise subject to decrease. This we do not say; but that a certain decrease in the essence of a habit has its origin, not in the habit, but in its subject.
Iª-IIae q. 53 a. 2 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod, quocumque modo significetur accidens, habet dependentiam ad subiectum secundum suam rationem, aliter tamen et aliter. Nam accidens significatum in abstracto, importat habitudinem ad subiectum quae incipit ab accidente, et terminatur ad subiectum, nam albedo dicitur qua aliquid est album. Et ideo in definitione accidentis abstracti non ponitur subiectum quasi prima pars definitionis, quae est genus; sed quasi secunda, quae est differentia; dicimus enim quod simitas est curvitas nasi. Sed in concretis incipit habitudo a subiecto, et terminatur ad accidens, dicitur enim album quod habet albedinem. Propter quod in definitione huiusmodi accidentis ponitur subiectum tanquam genus, quod est prima pars definitionis, dicimus enim quod simum est nasus curvus. Sic igitur id quod convenit accidentibus ex parte subiecti, non autem ex ipsa ratione accidentis, non attribuitur accidenti in abstracto, sed in concreto. Et huiusmodi est intensio et remissio in quibusdam accidentibus, unde albedo non dicitur magis et minus, sed album. Et eadem ratio est in habitibus et aliis qualitatibus, nisi quod quidam habitus augentur vel diminuuntur per quandam additionem, ut ex supradictis patet. Reply to Objection 3. No matter how we take an accident, its very notion implies dependence on a subject, but in different ways. For if we take an accident in the abstract, it implies relation to a subject, which relation begins in the accident and terminates in the subject: for "whiteness is that whereby a thing is white." Accordingly in defining an accident in the abstract, we do not put the subject as though it were the first part of the definition, viz. the genus; but we give it the second place, which is that of the difference; thus we say that "simitas" is "a curvature of the nose." But if we take accidents in the concrete, the relation begins in the subject and terminates in the concrete, the relation begins in the subject and terminates at the accident: for "a white thing" is "something that has whiteness." Accordingly in defining this kind of accident, we place the subject as the genus, which is the first part of a definition; for we say that a "simum" is a "snub-nose." Accordingly whatever is befitting an accident on the part of the subject, but is not of the very essence of the accident, is ascribed to that accident, not in the abstract, but in the concrete. Such are increase and decrease in certain accidents: wherefore to be more or less white is not ascribed to whiteness but to a white thing. The same applies to habits and other qualities; save that certain habits and other qualities; save that certain habits increase or diminish by a kind of addition, as we have already clearly explained (52, 2).
Iª-IIae q. 53 a. 3 arg. 1 Ad tertium sic proceditur. Videtur quod habitus non corrumpatur aut diminuatur per solam cessationem ab opere. Habitus enim permanentiores sunt quam passibiles qualitates, ut ex supradictis apparet. Sed passibiles qualitates non corrumpuntur neque diminuuntur per cessationem ab actu, non enim albedo diminuitur si visum non immutet, neque calor si non calefaciat. Ergo neque habitus diminuuntur vel corrumpuntur per cessationem ab actu. Objection 1. It would seem that a habit is not corrupted or diminished through mere cessation from act. For habits are more lasting than passion-like qualities, as we have explained above (49, 2, ad 3; 50, 1). But passion-like qualities are neither corrupted nor diminished by cessation from act: for whiteness is not lessened through not affecting the sight, nor heat through ceasing to make something hot. Therefore neither are habits diminished or corrupted through cessation from act.
Iª-IIae q. 53 a. 3 arg. 2 Praeterea, corruptio et diminutio sunt quaedam mutationes. Sed nihil mutatur absque aliqua causa movente. Cum igitur cessatio ab actu non importet aliquam causam moventem, non videtur quod per cessationem ab actu possit esse diminutio vel corruptio habitus. Objection 2. Further, corruption and diminution are changes. Now nothing is changed without a moving cause. Since therefore cessation from act does not imply a moving cause, it does not appear how a habit can be diminished or corrupted through cessation from act.
Iª-IIae q. 53 a. 3 arg. 3 Praeterea, habitus scientiae et virtutis sunt in anima intellectiva, quae est supra tempus. Ea vero quae sunt supra tempus, non corrumpuntur neque diminuuntur per temporis diuturnitatem. Ergo neque huiusmodi habitus corrumpuntur vel diminuuntur per temporis diuturnitatem, si diu aliquis absque exercitio permaneat. Objection 3. Further, the habits of science and virtue are in the intellectual soul which is above time. Now those things that are above time are neither destroyed nor diminished by length of time. Neither, therefore, are such habits destroyed or diminished through length of time, if one fails for long to exercise them.
Iª-IIae q. 53 a. 3 s. c. Sed contra est quod philosophus, in libro de Longit. et Brevit. vitae, dicit quod corruptio scientiae non solum est deceptio, sed etiam oblivio. Et in VIII Ethic. dicitur quod multas amicitias inappellatio dissolvit. Et eadem ratione, alii habitus virtutum per cessationem ab actu diminuuntur vel tolluntur. On the contrary, The Philosopher says (De Long. et Brev. Vitae ii) that not only "deception," but also "forgetfulness, is the corruption of science." Moreover he says (Ethic. viii, 5) that "want of intercourse has dissolved many a friendship." In like manner other habits of virtue are diminished or destroyed through cessation from act.
Iª-IIae q. 53 a. 3 co. Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut dicitur in VIII Physic., aliquid potest esse movens dupliciter, uno modo, per se, quod scilicet movet secundum rationem propriae formae, sicut ignis calefacit; alio modo, per accidens, sicut id quod removet prohibens. Et hoc modo cessatio ab actu causat corruptionem vel diminutionem habituum, inquantum scilicet removetur actus qui prohibebat causas corrumpentes vel diminuentes habitum. Dictum est enim quod habitus per se corrumpuntur vel diminuuntur ex contrario agente. Unde quorumcumque habituum contraria subcrescunt per temporis tractum, quae oportet subtrahi per actum ab habitu procedentem; huiusmodi habitus diminuuntur, vel etiam tolluntur totaliter, per diuturnam cessationem ab actu; ut patet et in scientia et in virtute. Manifestum est enim quod habitus virtutis moralis facit hominem promptum ad eligendum medium in operationibus et passionibus. Cum autem aliquis non utitur habitu virtutis ad moderandas passiones vel operationes proprias, necesse est quod proveniant multae passiones et operationes praeter modum virtutis, ex inclinatione appetitus sensitivi, et aliorum quae exterius movent. Unde corrumpitur virtus, vel diminuitur, per cessationem ab actu. Similiter etiam est ex parte habituum intellectualium, secundum quos est homo promptus ad recte iudicandum de imaginatis. Cum igitur homo cessat ab usu intellectualis habitus, insurgunt imaginationes extraneae, et quandoque ad contrarium ducentes; ita quod, nisi per frequentem usum intellectualis habitus, quodammodo succidantur vel comprimantur, redditur homo minus aptus ad recte iudicandum, et quandoque totaliter disponitur ad contrarium. Et sic per cessationem ab actu diminuitur, vel etiam corrumpitur intellectualis habitus. I answer that, As stated in Phys. vii, text. 27, a thing is a cause of movement in two ways. First, directly; and such a thing causes movement by reason of its proper form; thus fire causes heat. Secondly, indirectly; for instance, that which removes an obstacle. It is in this latter way that the destruction or diminution of a habit results through cessation from act, in so far, to wit, as we cease from exercising an act which overcame the causes that destroyed or weakened that habit. For it has been stated (1) that habits are destroyed or diminished directly through some contrary agency. Consequently all habits that are gradually undermined by contrary agencies which need to be counteracted by acts proceeding from those habits, are diminished or even destroyed altogether by long cessation from act, as is clearly seen in the case both of science and of virtue. For it is evident that a habit of moral virtue makes a man ready to choose the mean in deeds and passions. And when a man fails to make use of his virtuous habit in order to moderate his own passions or deeds, the necessary result is that many passions and deeds fail to observe the mode of virtue, by reason of the inclination of the sensitive appetite and of other external agencies. Wherefore virtue is destroyed or lessened through cessation from act. The same applies to the intellectual habits, which render man ready to judge aright of those things that are pictured by his imagination. Hence when man ceases to make use of his intellectual habits, strange fancies, sometimes in opposition to them, arise in his imagination; so that unless those fancies be, as it were, cut off or kept back by frequent use of his intellectual habits, man becomes less fit to judge aright, and sometimes is even wholly disposed to the contrary, and thus the intellectual habit is diminished or even wholly destroyed by cessation from act.
Iª-IIae q. 53 a. 3 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod ita etiam calor per cessationem a calefaciendo corrumperetur, si per hoc incresceret frigidum, quod est calidi corruptivum. Reply to Objection 1. Even heat would be destroyed through ceasing to give heat, if, for this same reason, cold which is destructive of heat were to increase.
Iª-IIae q. 53 a. 3 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod cessatio ab actu est movens ad corruptionem vel diminutionem, sicut removens prohibens, ut dictum est. Reply to Objection 2. Cessation from act is a moving cause, conducive of corruption or diminution, by removing the obstacles, thereto, as explained above.
Iª-IIae q. 53 a. 3 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod pars intellectiva animae secundum se est supra tempus, sed pars sensitiva subiacet tempori. Et ideo per temporis cursum, transmutatur quantum ad passiones appetitivae partis et etiam quantum ad vires apprehensivas. Unde philosophus dicit, in IV Physic., quod tempus est causa oblivionis. Reply to Objection 3. The intellectual part of the soul, considered in itself, is above time, but the sensitive part is subject to time, and therefore in course of time it undergoes change as to the passions of the sensitive part, and also as to the powers of apprehension. Hence the Philosopher says (Phys. iv. text. 117) that time makes us forget.

Notes


  • [[]]
Personal tools