Index [<<� | >>]
First Part of the Second Part [ << | >> ]
Question: 3 [ << | >> ]
Deinde considerandum est
|
We have now to consider
|
| Circa primum quaeruntur octo. | Concerning the first there are eight points of inquiry: |
| Primo, utrum beatitudo sit aliquid increatum. | (1) Whether happiness is something uncreated? |
| Secundo, si est aliquid creatum, utrum sit operatio. | (2) If it be something created, whether it is an operation? |
| Tertio, utrum sit operatio sensitivae partis, an intellectivae tantum. |
(3) Whether it is an operation of the sensitive, or only of the intellectual part? |
| Quarto, si est operatio intellectivae partis, utrum sit operatio intellectus, an voluntatis. |
(4) If it be an operation of the intellectual part, whether it is an operation of the intellect, or of the will? |
| Quinto, si est operatio intellectus, utrum sit operatio intellectus speculativi, aut practici. |
(5) If it be an operation of the intellect, whether it is an operation of the speculative or of the practical intellect? |
| Sexto, si est operatio intellectus speculativi, utrum consistat in speculatione scientiarum speculativarum. |
(6) If it be an operation of the speculative intellect, whether it consists in the consideration of speculative sciences? |
| Septimo, utrum consistat in speculatione substantiarum separatarum, scilicet Angelorum. |
(7) Whether it consists in the consideration of separate substances viz. angels? |
| Octavo, utrum in sola speculatione Dei qua per essentiam videtur. |
(8) Whether it consists in the sole contemplation of God seen in His Essence? |
Index [<<� | >>]
First Part of the Second Part [ << | >> ]
Question: 3 [ << | >> ]
Article: 1 [ << | >> ]
| Ad primum sic proceditur. Videtur quod beatitudo sit aliquid increatum. Dicit enim Boetius, in III de Consol., Deum esse ipsam beatitudinem necesse est confiteri. | Objection 1: It would seem that happiness is something uncreated. For Boethius says (De Consol. iii): "We must needs confess that God is happiness itself." |
| Praeterea, beatitudo est summum bonum. Sed esse summum bonum convenit Deo. Cum ergo non sint plura summa bona, videtur quod beatitudo sit idem quod Deus. | Objection 2: Further, happiness is the supreme good. But it belongs to God to be the supreme good. Since, then, there are not several supreme goods, it seems that happiness is the same as God. |
| Praeterea, beatitudo est ultimus finis, in quem naturaliter humana voluntas tendit. Sed in nullum aliud voluntas tanquam in finem tendere debet nisi in Deum; quo solo fruendum est, ut Augustinus dicit. Ergo beatitudo est idem quod Deus. | Objection 3: Further, happiness is the last end, to which man's will tends naturally. But man's will should tend to nothing else as an end, but to God, Who alone is to be enjoyed, as Augustine says (De Doctr. Christ. i, 5,22). Therefore happiness is the same as God. |
| Sed contra, nullum factum est increatum. Sed beatitudo hominis est aliquid factum, quia secundum Augustinum, I de Doctr. Christ., illis rebus fruendum est, quae nos beatos faciunt. Ergo beatitudo non est aliquid increatum. | On the contrary, Nothing made is uncreated. But man's happiness is something made; because according to Augustine (De Doctr. Christ. i, 3): "Those things are to be enjoyed which make us happy." Therefore happiness is not something uncreated. |
| Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut supra dictum est, finis dicitur dupliciter. Uno modo, ipsa res quam cupimus adipisci, sicut avaro est finis pecunia. Alio modo, ipsa adeptio vel possessio, seu usus aut fruitio eius rei quae desideratur, sicut si dicatur quod possessio pecuniae est finis avari, et frui re voluptuosa est finis intemperati. Primo ergo modo, ultimus hominis finis est bonum increatum, scilicet Deus, qui solus sua infinita bonitate potest voluntatem hominis perfecte implere. Secundo autem modo, ultimus finis hominis est aliquid creatum in ipso existens, quod nihil est aliud quam adeptio vel fruitio finis ultimi. Ultimus autem finis vocatur beatitudo. Si ergo beatitudo hominis consideretur quantum ad causam vel obiectum, sic est aliquid increatum, si autem consideretur quantum ad ipsam essentiam beatitudinis, sic est aliquid creatum. |
I answer that, As stated above (Question [1], Article [8]; Question [2], Article [7]), our end is twofold. First, there is the thing itself which we desire to attain: thus for the miser, the end is money. Secondly there is the attainment or possession, the use or enjoyment of the thing desired; thus we may say that the end of the miser is the possession of money; and the end of the intemperate man is to enjoy something pleasurable. In the first sense, then, man's last end is the uncreated good, namely, God, Who alone by His infinite goodness can perfectly satisfy man's will. But in the second way, man's last end is something created, existing in him, and this is nothing else than the attainment or enjoyment of the last end. Now the last end is called happiness. If, therefore, we consider man's happiness in its cause or object, then it is something uncreated; but if we consider it as to the very essence of happiness, then it is something created. |
| Ad primum ergo dicendum quod Deus est beatitudo per essentiam suam, non enim per adeptionem aut participationem alicuius alterius beatus est, sed per essentiam suam. Homines autem sunt beati, sicut ibidem dicit Boetius, per participationem; sicut et dii per participationem dicuntur. Ipsa autem participatio beatitudinis secundum quam homo dicitur beatus, aliquid creatum est. | Reply to Objection 1: God is happiness by His Essence: for He is happy not by acquisition or participation of something else, but by His Essence. On the other hand, men are happy, as Boethius says (De Consol. iii), by participation; just as they are called "gods," by participation. And this participation of happiness, in respect of which man is said to be happy, is something created. |
| Ad secundum dicendum quod beatitudo dicitur esse summum hominis bonum, quia est adeptio vel fruitio summi boni. | Reply to Objection 2: Happiness is called man's supreme good, because it is the attainment or enjoyment of the supreme good. |
| Ad tertium dicendum quod beatitudo dicitur ultimus finis, per modum quo adeptio finis dicitur finis. | Reply to Objection 3: Happiness is said to be the last end, in the same way as the attainment of the end is called the end. |
Index [<<� | >>]
First Part of the Second Part [ << | >> ]
Question: 3 [ << | >> ]
Article: 2 [ << | >> ]
| Ad secundum sic proceditur. Videtur quod beatitudo non sit operatio. Dicit enim apostolus, Rom. VI, habetis fructum vestrum in sanctificationem, finem vero vitam aeternam. Sed vita non est operatio, sed ipsum esse viventium. Ergo ultimus finis, qui est beatitudo, non est operatio. |
Objection 1: It would seem that happiness is not an operation. For the Apostle says (Rm. 6:22): "You have your fruit unto sanctification, and the end, life everlasting." But life is not an operation, but the very being of living things. Therefore the last end, which is happiness, is not an operation. |
| Praeterea, Boetius dicit, in III de Consol., quod beatitudo est status omnium bonorum aggregatione perfectus. Sed status non nominat operationem. Ergo beatitudo non est operatio. | Objection 2: Further, Boethius says (De Consol. iii) that happiness is "a state made perfect by the aggregate of all good things." But state does not indicate operation. Therefore happiness is not an operation. |
| Praeterea, beatitudo significat aliquid in beato existens, cum sit ultima perfectio hominis. Sed operatio non significat ut aliquid existens in operante, sed magis ut ab ipso procedens. Ergo beatitudo non est operatio. | Objection 3: Further, happiness signifies something existing in the happy one: since it is man's final perfection. But the meaning of operation does not imply anything existing in the operator, but rather something proceeding therefrom. Therefore happiness is not an operation. |
| Praeterea, beatitudo permanet in beato. Operatio autem non permanet, sed transit. Ergo beatitudo non est operatio. | Objection 4: Further, happiness remains in the happy one. Now operation does not remain, but passes. Therefore happiness is not an operation. |
| Praeterea, unius hominis est una beatitudo. Operationes autem sunt multae. Ergo beatitudo non est operatio. | Objection 5: Further, to one man there is one happiness. But operations are many. Therefore happiness is not an operation. |
| Praeterea, beatitudo inest beato absque interruptione. Sed operatio humana frequenter interrumpitur puta somno, vel aliqua alia occupatione, vel quiete. Ergo beatitudo non est operatio. | Objection 6: Further, happiness is in the happy one uninterruptedly. But human operation is often interrupted; for instance, by sleep, or some other occupation, or by cessation. Therefore happiness is not an operation. |
| Sed contra est quod philosophus dicit, in I Ethic., quod felicitas est operatio secundum virtutem perfectam. | On the contrary, The Philosopher says (Ethic. i, 13) that "happiness is an operation according to perfect virtue." |
| Respondeo dicendum quod, secundum quod beatitudo hominis est aliquid creatum in ipso existens necesse est dicere quod beatitudo hominis sit operatio. Est enim beatitudo ultima hominis perfectio. Unumquodque autem intantum perfectum est, inquantum est actu, nam potentia sine actu imperfecta est. Oportet ergo beatitudinem in ultimo actu hominis consistere. Manifestum est autem quod operatio est ultimus actus operantis; unde et actus secundus a philosopho nominatur, in II de anima, nam habens formam potest esse in potentia operans, sicut sciens est in potentia considerans. Et inde est quod in aliis quoque rebus res unaquaeque dicitur esse propter suam operationem, ut dicitur in II de caelo. Necesse est ergo beatitudinem hominis operationem esse. | I answer that, In so far as man's happiness is something created, existing in him, we must needs say that it is an operation. For happiness is man's supreme perfection. Now each thing is perfect in so far as it is actual; since potentiality without act is imperfect. Consequently happiness must consist in man's last act. But it is evident that operation is the last act of the operator, wherefore the Philosopher calls it "second act" (De Anima ii, 1): because that which has a form can be potentially operating, just as he who knows is potentially considering. And hence it is that in other things, too, each one is said to be "for its operation" (De Coel ii, 3). Therefore man's happiness must of necessity consist in an operation. |
| Ad primum ergo dicendum quod vita dicitur dupliciter. Uno modo, ipsum esse viventis. Et sic beatitudo non est vita, ostensum est enim quod esse unius hominis, qualecumque sit, non est hominis beatitudo; solius enim Dei beatitudo est suum esse. Alio modo dicitur vita ipsa operatio viventis, secundum quam principium vitae in actum reducitur, et sic nominamus vitam activam, vel contemplativam, vel voluptuosam. Et hoc modo vita aeterna dicitur ultimus finis. Quod patet per hoc quod dicitur Ioan. XVII, haec est vita aeterna, ut cognoscant te, Deum verum unum. |
Reply to Objection 1: Life is taken in two senses. First for the very being of the living. And thus happiness is not life: since it has been shown (Question [2], Article [5]) that the being of a man, no matter in what it may consist, is not that man's happiness; for of God alone is it true that His Being is His Happiness. Secondly, life means the operation of the living, by which operation the principle of life is made actual: thus we speak of active and contemplative life, or of a life of pleasure. And in this sense eternal life is said to be the last end, as is clear from Jn. 17:3: "This is eternal life, that they may know Thee, the only true God." |
| Ad secundum dicendum quod Boetius, definiendo beatitudinem, consideravit ipsam communem beatitudinis rationem. Est enim communis ratio beatitudinis quod sit bonum commune perfectum; et hoc significavit cum dixit quod est status omnium bonorum aggregatione perfectus, per quod nihil aliud significatur nisi quod beatus est in statu boni perfecti. Sed Aristoteles expressit ipsam essentiam beatitudinis, ostendens per quid homo sit in huiusmodi statu, quia per operationem quandam. Et ideo in I Ethic. ipse etiam ostendit quod beatitudo est bonum perfectum. | Reply to Objection 2: Boethius, in defining happiness, considered happiness in general: for considered thus it is the perfect common good; and he signified this by saying that happiness is "a state made perfect by the aggregate of all good things," thus implying that the state of a happy man consists in possessing the perfect good. But Aristotle expressed the very essence of happiness, showing by what man is established in this state, and that it is by some kind of operation. And so it is that he proves happiness to be "the perfect good" (Ethic. i, 7). |
| Ad tertium dicendum quod, sicut dicitur in IX Metaphys., duplex est actio. Una quae procedit ab operante in exteriorem materiam, sicut urere et secare. Et talis operatio non potest esse beatitudo, nam talis operatio non est actio et perfectio agentis, sed magis patientis, ut ibidem dicitur. Alia est actio manens in ipso agente, ut sentire, intelligere et velle, et huiusmodi actio est perfectio et actus agentis. Et talis operatio potest esse beatitudo. | Reply to Objection 3: As stated in Metaph. ix, 7 action is twofold. One proceeds from the agent into outward matter, such as "to burn" and "to cut." And such an operation cannot be happiness: for such an operation is an action and a perfection, not of the agent, but rather of the patient, as is stated in the same passage. The other is an action that remains in the agent, such as to feel, to understand, and to will: and such an action is a perfection and an act of the agent. And such an operation can be happiness. |
| Ad quartum dicendum quod, cum beatitudo dicat quandam ultimam perfectionem, secundum quod diversae res beatitudinis capaces ad diversos gradus perfectionis pertingere possunt, secundum hoc necesse est quod diversimode beatitudo dicatur. Nam in Deo est beatitudo per essentiam, quia ipsum esse eius est operatio eius, qua non fruitur alio, sed seipso. In Angelis autem beatis est ultima perfectio secundum aliquam operationem, qua coniunguntur bono increato, et haec operatio in eis est unica et sempiterna. In hominibus autem, secundum statum praesentis vitae, est ultima perfectio secundum operationem qua homo coniungitur Deo, sed haec operatio nec continua potest esse, et per consequens nec unica est, quia operatio intercisione multiplicatur. Et propter hoc in statu praesentis vitae, perfecta beatitudo ab homine haberi non potest. Unde philosophus, in I Ethic., ponens beatitudinem hominis in hac vita, dicit eam imperfectam, post multa concludens, beatos autem dicimus ut homines. Sed promittitur nobis a Deo beatitudo perfecta, quando erimus sicut Angeli in caelo, sicut dicitur Matth. XXII. |
Reply to Objection 4: Since happiness signifies some final perfection; according as various things capable of happiness can attain to various degrees of perfection, so must there be various meanings applied to happiness. For in God there is happiness essentially; since His very Being is His operation, whereby He enjoys no other than Himself. In the happy angels, the final perfection is in respect of some operation, by which they are united to the Uncreated Good: and this operation of theirs is one only and everlasting. But in men, according to their present state of life, the final perfection is in respect of an operation whereby man is united to God: but this operation neither can be continual, nor, consequently, is it one only, because operation is multiplied by being discontinued. And for this reason in the present state of life, perfect happiness cannot be attained by man. Wherefore the Philosopher, in placing man's happiness in this life (Ethic. i, 10), says that it is imperfect, and after a long discussion, concludes: "We call men happy, but only as men." But God has promised us perfect happiness, when we shall be "as the angels... in heaven" (Mt. 22:30). |
| Quantum ergo ad illam beatitudinem perfectam, cessat obiectio, quia una et continua et sempiterna operatione in illo beatitudinis statu mens hominis Deo coniungetur. Sed in praesenti vita, quantum deficimus ab unitate et continuitate talis operationis, tantum deficimus a beatitudinis perfectione. Est tamen aliqua participatio beatitudinis, et tanto maior, quanto operatio potest esse magis continua et una. Et ideo in activa vita, quae circa multa occupatur, est minus de ratione beatitudinis quam in vita contemplativa, quae versatur circa unum, idest circa veritatis contemplationem. Et si aliquando homo actu non operetur huiusmodi operationem, tamen quia in promptu habet eam semper operari; et quia etiam ipsam cessationem, puta somni vel occupationis alicuius naturalis, ad operationem praedictam ordinat; quasi videtur operatio continua esse. | Consequently in regard to this perfect happiness, the objection fails: because in that state of happiness, man's mind will be united to God by one, continual, everlasting operation. But in the present life, in as far as we fall short of the unity and continuity of that operation so do we fall short of perfect happiness. Nevertheless it is a participation of happiness: and so much the greater, as the operation can be more continuous and more one. Consequently the active life, which is busy with many things, has less of happiness than the contemplative life, which is busied with one thing, i.e. the contemplation of truth. And if at any time man is not actually engaged in this operation, yet since he can always easily turn to it, and since he ordains the very cessation, by sleeping or occupying himself otherwise, to the aforesaid occupation, the latter seems, as it were, continuous. From these remarks the replies to Objections 5 and 6 are evident. |
Index [<<� | >>]
First Part of the Second Part [ << | >> ]
Question: 3 [ << | >> ]
Article: 3 [ << | >> ]
| Ad tertium sic proceditur. Videtur quod beatitudo consistat etiam in operatione sensus. Nulla enim operatio invenitur in homine nobilior operatione sensitiva, nisi intellectiva. Sed operatio intellectiva dependet in nobis ab operatione sensitiva, quia non possumus intelligere sine phantasmate, ut dicitur in III de anima. Ergo beatitudo consistit etiam in operatione sensitiva. | Objection 1: It would seem that happiness consists in an operation of the senses also. For there is no more excellent operation in man than that of the senses, except the intellective operation. But in us the intellective operation depends on the sensitive: since "we cannot understand without a phantasm" (De Anima iii, 7). Therefore happiness consists in an operation of the senses also. |
| Praeterea, Boetius dicit, in III de Consol., quod beatitudo est status omnium bonorum aggregatione perfectus. Sed quaedam bona sunt sensibilia, quae attingimus per sensus operationem. Ergo videtur quod operatio sensus requiratur ad beatitudinem. | Objection 2: Further, Boethius says (De Consol. iii) that happiness is "a state made perfect by the aggregate of all good things." But some goods are sensible, which we attain by the operation of the senses. Therefore it seems that the operation of the senses is needed for happiness. |
| Praeterea, beatitudo est bonum perfectum, ut probatur in I Ethic., quod non esset, nisi homo perficeretur per ipsam secundum omnes partes suas. Sed per operationes sensitivas quaedam partes animae perficiuntur. Ergo operatio sensitiva requiritur ad beatitudinem. | Objection 3: Further, happiness is the perfect good, as we find proved in Ethic. i, 7: which would not be true, were not man perfected thereby in all his parts. But some parts of the soul are perfected by sensitive operations. Therefore sensitive operation is required for happiness. |
| Sed contra, in operatione sensitiva communicant nobiscum bruta animalia. Non autem in beatitudine. Ergo beatitudo non consistit in operatione sensitiva. | On the contrary, Irrational animals have the sensitive operation in common with us: but they have not happiness in common with us. Therefore happiness does not consist in a sensitive operation. |
| Respondeo dicendum quod ad beatitudinem potest aliquid pertinere tripliciter, uno modo, essentialiter; alio modo, antecedenter; tertio modo, consequenter. Essentialiter quidem non potest pertinere operatio sensus ad beatitudinem. Nam beatitudo hominis consistit essentialiter in coniunctione ipsius ad bonum increatum, quod est ultimus finis, ut supra ostensum est, cui homo coniungi non potest per sensus operationem. Similiter etiam quia, sicut ostensum est, in corporalibus bonis beatitudo hominis non consistit, quae tamen sola per operationem sensus attingimus. |
I answer that, A thing may belong to happiness in three ways: (1) essentially, (2) antecedently, (3) consequently. Now the operation of sense cannot belong to happiness essentially. For man's happiness consists essentially in his being united to the Uncreated Good, Which is his last end, as shown above (Article [1]): to Which man cannot be united by an operation of his senses. Again, in like manner, because, as shown above (Question [2], Article [5]), man's happiness does not consist in goods of the body, which goods alone, however, we attain through the operation of the senses. |
| Possunt autem operationes sensus pertinere ad beatitudinem antecedenter et consequenter. Antecedenter quidem, secundum beatitudinem imperfectam, qualis in praesenti vita haberi potest, nam operatio intellectus praeexigit operationem sensus. Consequenter autem, in illa perfecta beatitudine quae expectatur in caelo, quia post resurrectionem, ex ipsa beatitudine animae, ut Augustinus dicit in epistola ad Dioscorum, fiet quaedam refluentia in corpus et in sensus corporeos, ut in suis operationibus perficiantur; ut infra magis patebit, cum de resurrectione agetur. Non autem tunc operatio qua mens humana Deo coniungetur, a sensu dependebit. |
Nevertheless the operations of the senses can belong to happiness, both antecedently and consequently: antecedently, in respect of imperfect happiness, such as can be had in this life, since the operation of the intellect demands a previous operation of the sense; consequently, in that perfect happiness which we await in heaven; because at the resurrection, "from the very happiness of the soul," as Augustine says (Ep. ad Dioscor.) "the body and the bodily senses will receive a certain overflow, so as to be perfected in their operations"; a point which will be explained further on when we treat of the resurrection (SS, Questions [82] -85). But then the operation whereby man's mind is united to God will not depend on the senses. |
| Ad primum ergo dicendum quod obiectio illa probat quod operatio sensus requiritur antecedenter ad beatitudinem imperfectam, qualis in hac vita haberi potest. | Reply to Objection 1: This objection proves that the operation of the senses is required antecedently for imperfect happiness, such as can be had in this life. |
| Ad secundum dicendum quod beatitudo perfecta, qualem Angeli habent, habet congregationem omnium bonorum per coniunctionem ad universalem fontem totius boni; non quod indigeat singulis particularibus bonis. Sed in hac beatitudine imperfecta, requiritur congregatio bonorum sufficientium ad perfectissimam operationem huius vitae. | Reply to Objection 2: Perfect happiness, such as the angels have, includes the aggregate of all good things, by being united to the universal source of all good; not that it requires each individual good. But in this imperfect happiness, we need the aggregate of those goods that suffice for the most perfect operation of this life. |
| Ad tertium dicendum quod in perfecta beatitudine perficitur totus homo, sed in inferiori parte per redundantiam a superiori. In beatitudine autem imperfecta praesentis vitae, e converso a perfectione inferioris partis proceditur ad perfectionem superioris. | Reply to Objection 3: In perfect happiness the entire man is perfected, in the lower part of his nature, by an overflow from the higher. But in the imperfect happiness of this life, it is otherwise; we advance from the perfection of the lower part to the perfection of the higher part. |
Index [<<� | >>]
First Part of the Second Part [ << | >> ]
Question: 3 [ << | >> ]
Article: 4 [ << | >> ]
| Ad quartum sic proceditur. Videtur quod beatitudo consistat in actu voluntatis. Dicit enim Augustinus, XIX de Civ. Dei, quod beatitudo hominis in pace consistit, unde in Psalmo CXLVII, qui posuit fines tuos pacem. Sed pax ad voluntatem pertinet. Ergo beatitudo hominis in voluntate consistit. |
Objection 1: It would seem that happiness consists in an act of the will. For Augustine says (De Civ. Dei xix, 10,11), that man's happiness consists in peace; wherefore it is written (Ps. 147:3): "Who hath placed peace in thy end [Douay: 'borders']". But peace pertains to the will. Therefore man's happiness is in the will. |
| Praeterea, beatitudo est summum bonum. Sed bonum est obiectum voluntatis. Ergo beatitudo in operatione voluntatis consistit. | Objection 2: Further, happiness is the supreme good. But good is the object of the will. Therefore happiness consists in an operation of the will. |
| Praeterea, primo moventi respondet ultimus finis, sicut ultimus finis totius exercitus est victoria, quae est finis ducis, qui omnes movet. Sed primum movens ad operandum est voluntas, quia movet alias vires, ut infra dicetur. Ergo beatitudo ad voluntatem pertinet. |
Objection 3: Further, the last end corresponds to the first mover: thus the last end of the whole army is victory, which is the end of the general, who moves all the men. But the first mover in regard to operations is the will: because it moves the other powers, as we shall state further on (Question [9], Articles [1],3). Therefore happiness regards the will. |
| Praeterea, si beatitudo est aliqua operatio, oportet quod sit nobilissima operatio hominis. Sed nobilior operatio est dilectio Dei, quae est actus voluntatis, quam cognitio, quae est operatio intellectus, ut patet per apostolum, I ad Cor. XIII. Ergo videtur quod beatitudo consistat in actu voluntatis. |
Objection 4: Further, if happiness be an operation, it must needs be man's most excellent operation. But the love of God, which is an act of the will, is a more excellent operation than knowledge, which is an operation of the intellect, as the Apostle declares (1 Cor. 13). Therefore it seems that happiness consists in an act of the will. |
| Praeterea, Augustinus dicit, in XIII de Trin., quod beatus est qui habet omnia quae vult, et nihil vult male. Et post pauca subdit, propinquat beato qui bene vult quodcumque vult, bona enim beatum faciunt, quorum bonorum iam habet aliquid, ipsam scilicet bonam voluntatem. Ergo beatitudo in actu voluntatis consistit. | Objection 5: Further, Augustine says (De Trin. xiii, 5) that "happy is he who has whatever he desires, and desires nothing amiss." And a little further on (6) he adds: "He is most happy who desires well, whatever he desires: for good things make a man happy, and such a man already possesses some good—i.e. a good will." Therefore happiness consists in an act of the will. |
| Sed contra est quod dominus dicit, Ioan. XVII, haec est vita aeterna, ut cognoscant te, Deum verum unum. Vita autem aeterna est ultimus finis, ut dictum est. Ergo beatitudo hominis in cognitione Dei consistit, quae est actus intellectus. |
On the contrary, Our Lord said (Jn. 17:3): "This is eternal life: that they may know Thee, the only true God." Now eternal life is the last end, as stated above (Article [2], ad 1). Therefore man's happiness consists in the knowledge of God, which is an act of the intellect. |
| Respondeo dicendum quod ad beatitudinem, sicut supra dictum est, duo requiruntur, unum quod est essentia beatitudinis; aliud quod est quasi per se accidens eius, scilicet delectatio ei adiuncta. Dico ergo quod, quantum ad id quod est essentialiter ipsa beatitudo, impossibile est quod consistat in actu voluntatis. Manifestum est enim ex praemissis quod beatitudo est consecutio finis ultimi. Consecutio autem finis non consistit in ipso actu voluntatis. Voluntas enim fertur in finem et absentem, cum ipsum desiderat; et praesentem, cum in ipso requiescens delectatur. Manifestum est autem quod ipsum desiderium finis non est consecutio finis, sed est motus ad finem. Delectatio autem advenit voluntati ex hoc quod finis est praesens, non autem e converso ex hoc aliquid fit praesens, quia voluntas delectatur in ipso. Oportet igitur aliquid aliud esse quam actum voluntatis, per quod fit ipse finis praesens volenti. |
I answer that, As stated above (Question [2], Article [6]) two things are needed for happiness: one, which is the essence of happiness: the other, that is, as it were, its proper accident, i.e. the delight connected with it. I say, then, that as to the very essence of happiness, it is impossible for it to consist in an act of the will. For it is evident from what has been said (Articles [1],2; Question [2], Article [7]) that happiness is the attainment of the last end. But the attainment of the end does not consist in the very act of the will. For the will is directed to the end, both absent, when it desires it; and present, when it is delighted by resting therein. Now it is evident that the desire itself of the end is not the attainment of the end, but is a movement towards the end: while delight comes to the will from the end being present; and not conversely, is a thing made present, by the fact that the will delights in it. Therefore, that the end be present to him who desires it, must be due to something else than an act of the will. |
| Et hoc manifeste apparet circa fines sensibiles. Si enim consequi pecuniam esset per actum voluntatis, statim a principio cupidus consecutus esset pecuniam, quando vult eam habere. Sed a principio quidem est absens ei; consequitur autem ipsam per hoc quod manu ipsam apprehendit, vel aliquo huiusmodi; et tunc iam delectatur in pecunia habita. Sic igitur et circa intelligibilem finem contingit. Nam a principio volumus consequi finem intelligibilem; consequimur autem ipsum per hoc quod fit praesens nobis per actum intellectus; et tunc voluntas delectata conquiescit in fine iam adepto. | This is evidently the case in regard to sensible ends. For if the acquisition of money were through an act of the will, the covetous man would have it from the very moment that he wished for it. But at the moment it is far from him; and he attains it, by grasping it in his hand, or in some like manner; and then he delights in the money got. And so it is with an intelligible end. For at first we desire to attain an intelligible end; we attain it, through its being made present to us by an act of the intellect; and then the delighted will rests in the end when attained. |
| Sic igitur essentia beatitudinis in actu intellectus consistit, sed ad voluntatem pertinet delectatio beatitudinem consequens; secundum quod Augustinus dicit, X Confess., quod beatitudo est gaudium de veritate; quia scilicet ipsum gaudium est consummatio beatitudinis. | So, therefore, the essence of happiness consists in an act of the intellect: but the delight that results from happiness pertains to the will. In this sense Augustine says (Confess. x, 23) that happiness is "joy in truth," because, to wit, joy itself is the consummation of happiness. |
| Ad primum ergo dicendum quod pax pertinet ad ultimum hominis finem, non quasi essentialiter sit ipsa beatitudo; sed quia antecedenter et consequenter se habet ad ipsam. Antecedenter quidem, inquantum iam sunt remota omnia perturbantia, et impedientia ab ultimo fine. Consequenter vero, inquantum iam homo, adepto ultimo fine, remanet pacatus, suo desiderio quietato. | Reply to Objection 1: Peace pertains to man's last end, not as though it were the very essence of happiness; but because it is antecedent and consequent thereto: antecedent, in so far as all those things are removed which disturb and hinder man in attaining the last end: consequent inasmuch as when man has attained his last end, he remains at peace, his desire being at rest. |
| Ad secundum dicendum quod primum obiectum voluntatis non est actus eius sicut nec primum obiectum visus est visio, sed visibile. Unde ex hoc ipso quod beatitudo pertinet ad voluntatem tanquam primum obiectum eius, sequitur quod non pertineat ad ipsam tanquam actus ipsius. | Reply to Objection 2: The will's first object is not its act: just as neither is the first object of the sight, vision, but a visible thing. Wherefore, from the very fact that happiness belongs to the will, as the will's first object, it follows that it does not belong to it as its act. |
| Ad tertium dicendum quod finem primo apprehendit intellectus quam voluntas, tamen motus ad finem incipit in voluntate. Et ideo voluntati debetur id quod ultimo consequitur consecutionem finis, scilicet delectatio vel fruitio. | Reply to Objection 3: The intellect apprehends the end before the will does: yet motion towards the end begins in the will. And therefore to the will belongs that which last of all follows the attainment of the end, viz. delight or enjoyment. |
| Ad quartum dicendum quod dilectio praeeminet cognitioni in movendo, sed cognitio praevia est dilectioni in attingendo, non enim diligitur nisi cognitum, ut dicit Augustinus in X de Trin. Et ideo intelligibilem finem primo attingimus per actionem intellectus; sicut et finem sensibilem primo attingimus per actionem sensus. | Reply to Objection 4: Love ranks above knowledge in moving, but knowledge precedes love in attaining: for "naught is loved save what is known," as Augustine says (De Trin. x, 1). Consequently we first attain an intelligible end by an act of the intellect; just as we first attain a sensible end by an act of sense. |
| Ad quintum dicendum quod ille qui habet omnia quae vult, ex hoc est beatus, quod habet ea quae vult, quod quidem est per aliud quam per actum voluntatis. Sed nihil male velle requiritur ad beatitudinem sicut quaedam debita dispositio ad ipsam. Voluntas autem bona ponitur in numero bonorum quae beatum faciunt, prout est inclinatio quaedam in ipsa, sicut motus reducitur ad genus sui termini, ut alteratio ad qualitatem. | Reply to Objection 5: He who has whatever he desires, is happy, because he has what he desires: and this indeed is by something other than the act of his will. But to desire nothing amiss is needed for happiness, as a necessary disposition thereto. And a good will is reckoned among the good things which make a man happy, forasmuch as it is an inclination of the will: just as a movement is reduced to the genus of its terminus, for instance, "alteration" to the genus "quality." |
Index [<<� | >>]
First Part of the Second Part [ << | >> ]
Question: 3 [ << | >> ]
Article: 5 [ << | >> ]
| Ad quintum sic proceditur. Videtur quod beatitudo consistat in operatione intellectus practici. Finis enim ultimus cuiuslibet creaturae consistit in assimilatione ad Deum. Sed homo magis assimilatur Deo per intellectum practicum, qui est causa rerum intellectarum, quam per intellectum speculativum, cuius scientia accipitur a rebus. Ergo beatitudo hominis magis consistit in operatione intellectus practici quam speculativi. | Objection 1: It would seem that happiness is an operation of the practical intellect. For the end of every creature consists in becoming like God. But man is like God, by his practical intellect, which is the cause of things understood, rather than by his speculative intellect, which derives its knowledge from things. Therefore man's happiness consists in an operation of the practical intellect rather than of the speculative. |
| Praeterea, beatitudo est perfectum hominis bonum. Sed intellectus practicus magis ordinatur ad bonum quam speculativus, qui ordinatur ad verum. Unde et secundum perfectionem practici intellectus, dicimur boni, non autem secundum perfectionem speculativi intellectus, sed secundum eam dicimur scientes vel intelligentes. Ergo beatitudo hominis magis consistit in actu intellectus practici quam speculativi. | Objection 2: Further, happiness is man's perfect good. But the practical intellect is ordained to the good rather than the speculative intellect, which is ordained to the true. Hence we are said to be good, in reference to the perfection of the practical intellect, but not in reference to the perfection of the speculative intellect, according to which we are said to be knowing or understanding. Therefore man's happiness consists in an act of the practical intellect rather than of the speculative. |
| Praeterea, beatitudo est quoddam bonum ipsius hominis. Sed speculativus intellectus occupatur magis circa ea quae sunt extra hominem, practicus autem intellectus occupatur circa ea quae sunt ipsius hominis, scilicet circa operationes et passiones eius. Ergo beatitudo hominis magis consistit in operatione intellectus practici quam intellectus speculativi. | Objection 3: Further, happiness is a good of man himself. But the speculative intellect is more concerned with things outside man; whereas the practical intellect is concerned with things belonging to man himself, viz. his operations and passions. Therefore man's happiness consists in an operation of the practical intellect rather than of the speculative. |
| Sed contra est quod Augustinus dicit, in I de Trin., quod contemplatio promittitur nobis, actionum omnium finis, atque aeterna perfectio gaudiorum. | On the contrary, Augustine says (De Trin. i, 8) that "contemplation is promised us, as being the goal of all our actions, and the everlasting perfection of our joys." |
| Respondeo dicendum quod beatitudo magis consistit in operatione speculativi intellectus quam practici. Quod patet ex tribus. Primo quidem, ex hoc quod, si beatitudo hominis est operatio, oportet quod sit optima operatio hominis. Optima autem operatio hominis est quae est optimae potentiae respectu optimi obiecti. Optima autem potentia est intellectus, cuius optimum obiectum est bonum divinum, quod quidem non est obiectum practici intellectus, sed speculativi. Unde in tali operatione, scilicet in contemplatione divinorum, maxime consistit beatitudo. Et quia unusquisque videtur esse id quod est optimum in eo, ut dicitur in IX et X Ethic., ideo talis operatio est maxime propria homini, et maxime delectabilis. | I answer that, Happiness consists in an operation of the speculative rather than of the practical intellect. This is evident for three reasons. First because if man's happiness is an operation, it must needs be man's highest operation. Now man's highest operation is that of his highest power in respect of its highest object: and his highest power is the intellect, whose highest object is the Divine Good, which is the object, not of the practical but of the speculative intellect. Consequently happiness consists principally in such an operation, viz. in the contemplation of Divine things. And since that "seems to be each man's self, which is best in him," according to Ethic. ix, 8, and x, 7, therefore such an operation is most proper to man and most delightful to him. |
| Secundo apparet idem ex hoc quod contemplatio maxime quaeritur propter seipsam. Actus autem intellectus practici non quaeritur propter seipsum, sed propter actionem. Ipsae etiam actiones ordinantur ad aliquem finem. Unde manifestum est quod ultimus finis non potest consistere in vita activa, quae pertinet ad intellectum practicum. | Secondly, it is evident from the fact that contemplation is sought principally for its own sake. But the act of the practical intellect is not sought for its own sake but for the sake of action: and these very actions are ordained to some end. Consequently it is evident that the last end cannot consist in the active life, which pertains to the practical intellect. |
| Tertio idem apparet ex hoc quod in vita contemplativa homo communicat cum superioribus, scilicet cum Deo et Angelis, quibus per beatitudinem assimilatur. Sed in his quae pertinent ad vitam activam, etiam alia animalia cum homine aliqualiter communicant, licet imperfectae. | Thirdly, it is again evident, from the fact that in the contemplative life man has something in common with things above him, viz. with God and the angels, to whom he is made like by happiness. But in things pertaining to the active life, other animals also have something in common with man, although imperfectly. |
| Et ideo ultima et perfecta beatitudo, quae expectatur in futura vita, tota consistit in contemplatione. Beatitudo autem imperfecta, qualis hic haberi potest, primo quidem et principaliter consistit in contemplatione, secundario vero in operatione practici intellectus ordinantis actiones et passiones humanas, ut dicitur in X Ethic. | Therefore the last and perfect happiness, which we await in the life to come, consists entirely in contemplation. But imperfect happiness, such as can be had here, consists first and principally in contemplation, and secondarily in an operation of the practical intellect directing human actions and passions, as stated in Ethic. x, 7,8. |
| Ad primum ergo dicendum quod similitudo praedicta intellectus practici ad Deum, est secundum proportionalitatem; quia scilicet se habet ad suum cognitum, sicut Deus ad suum. Sed assimilatio intellectus speculativi ad Deum, est secundum unionem vel informationem; quae est multo maior assimilatio. Et tamen dici potest quod, respectu principalis cogniti, quod est sua essentia, non habet Deus practicam cognitionem, sed speculativam tantum. | Reply to Objection 1: The asserted likeness of the practical intellect to God is one of proportion; that is to say, by reason of its standing in relation to what it knows, as God does to what He knows. But the likeness of the speculative intellect to God is one of union and "information"; which is a much greater likeness. And yet it may be answered that, in regard to the principal thing known, which is His Essence, God has not practical but merely speculative knowledge. |
| Ad secundum dicendum quod intellectus practicus ordinatur ad bonum quod est extra ipsum, sed intellectus speculativus habet bonum in seipso, scilicet contemplationem veritatis. Et si illud bonum sit perfectum, ex eo totus homo perficitur et fit bonus, quod quidem intellectus practicus non habet sed ad illud ordinat. | Reply to Objection 2: The practical intellect is ordained to good which is outside of it: but the speculative intellect has good within it, viz. the contemplation of truth. And if this good be perfect, the whole man is perfected and made good thereby: such a good the practical intellect has not; but it directs man thereto. |
| Ad tertium dicendum quod ratio illa procederet, si ipsemet homo esset ultimus finis suus, tunc enim consideratio et ordinatio actuum et passionum eius esset eius beatitudo. Sed quia ultimus hominis finis est aliquod bonum extrinsecum, scilicet Deus, ad quem per operationem intellectus speculativi attingimus; ideo magis beatitudo hominis in operatione intellectus speculativi consistit, quam in operatione intellectus practici. | Reply to Objection 3: This argument would hold, if man himself were his own last end; for then the consideration and direction of his actions and passions would be his happiness. But since man's last end is something outside of him, to wit, God, to Whom we reach out by an operation of the speculative intellect; therefore, man's happiness consists in an operation of the speculative intellect rather than of the practical intellect. |
Index [<<� | >>]
First Part of the Second Part [ << | >> ]
Question: 3 [ << | >> ]
Article: 6 [ << | >> ]
| Ad sextum sic proceditur. Videtur quod beatitudo hominis consistat in consideratione speculativarum scientiarum. Philosophus enim dicit, in libro Ethic., quod felicitas est operatio secundum perfectam virtutem. Et distinguens virtutes, non ponit speculativas nisi tres, scientiam, sapientiam et intellectum; quae omnes pertinent ad considerationem scientiarum speculativarum. Ergo ultima hominis beatitudo in consideratione scientiarum speculativarum consistit. | Objection 1: It would seem that man's happiness consists in the consideration of speculative sciences. For the Philosopher says (Ethic. i, 13) that "happiness is an operation according to perfect virtue." And in distinguishing the virtues, he gives no more than three speculative virtues—"knowledge," "wisdom" and "understanding," which all belong to the consideration of speculative sciences. Therefore man's final happiness consists in the consideration of speculative sciences. |
| Praeterea, illud videtur esse ultima hominis beatitudo, quod naturaliter desideratur ab omnibus propter seipsum. Sed huiusmodi est consideratio speculativarum scientiarum, quia, ut dicitur in I Metaphys., omnes homines natura scire desiderant; et post pauca subditur quod speculativae scientiae propter seipsas quaeruntur. Ergo in consideratione scientiarum speculativarum consistit beatitudo. | Objection 2: Further, that which all desire for its own sake, seems to be man's final happiness. Now such is the consideration of speculative sciences; because, as stated in Metaph. i, 1, "all men naturally desire to know"; and, a little farther on (2), it is stated that speculative sciences are sought for their own sakes. Therefore happiness consists in the consideration of speculative sciences. |
| Praeterea, beatitudo est ultima hominis perfectio. Unumquodque autem perficitur secundum quod reducitur de potentia in actum. Intellectus autem humanus reducitur in actum per considerationem scientiarum speculativarum. Ergo videtur quod in huiusmodi consideratione ultima hominis beatitudo consistat. | Objection 3: Further, happiness is man's final perfection. Now everything is perfected, according as it is reduced from potentiality to act. But the human intellect is reduced to act by the consideration of speculative sciences. Therefore it seems that in the consideration of these sciences, man's final happiness consists. |
| Sed contra est quod dicitur Ierem. IX, non glorietur sapiens in sapientia sua; et loquitur de sapientia speculativarum scientiarum. Non ergo consistit in harum consideratione ultima hominis beatitudo. |
On the contrary, It is written (Jer. 9:23): "Let not the wise man glory in his wisdom": and this is said in reference to speculative sciences. Therefore man's final happiness does not consist in the consideration of these. |
| Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut supra dictum est, duplex est hominis beatitudo, una perfecta, et alia imperfecta. Oportet autem intelligere perfectam beatitudinem, quae attingit ad veram beatitudinis rationem, beatitudinem autem imperfectam, quae non attingit, sed participat quandam particularem beatitudinis similitudinem. Sicut perfecta prudentia invenitur in homine, apud quem est ratio rerum agibilium, imperfecta autem prudentia est in quibusdam animalibus brutis, in quibus sunt quidam particulares instinctus ad quaedam opera similia operibus prudentiae. |
I answer that, As stated above (Article [2], ad 4), man's happiness is twofold, one perfect, the other imperfect. And by perfect happiness we are to understand that which attains to the true notion of happiness; and by imperfect happiness that which does not attain thereto, but partakes of some particular likeness of happiness. Thus perfect prudence is in man, with whom is the idea of things to be done; while imperfect prudence is in certain irrational animals, who are possessed of certain particular instincts in respect of works similar to works of prudence. |
| Perfecta igitur beatitudo in consideratione scientiarum speculativarum essentialiter consistere non potest. Ad cuius evidentiam, considerandum est quod consideratio speculativae scientiae non se extendit ultra virtutem principiorum illius scientiae, quia in principiis scientiae virtualiter tota scientia continetur. Prima autem principia scientiarum speculativarum sunt per sensum accepta; ut patet per philosophum in principio Metaphys., et in fine Poster. Unde tota consideratio scientiarum speculativarum non potest ultra extendi quam sensibilium cognitio ducere potest. In cognitione autem sensibilium non potest consistere ultima hominis beatitudo, quae est ultima eius perfectio. Non enim aliquid perficitur ab aliquo inferiori, nisi secundum quod in inferiori est aliqua participatio superioris. Manifestum est autem quod forma lapidis, vel cuiuslibet rei sensibilis, est inferior homine. Unde per formam lapidis non perficitur intellectus inquantum est talis forma, sed inquantum in ea participatur aliqua similitudo alicuius quod est supra intellectum humanum, scilicet lumen intelligibile, vel aliquid huiusmodi. Omne autem quod est per aliud, reducitur ad id quod est per se. Unde oportet quod ultima perfectio hominis sit per cognitionem alicuius rei quae sit supra intellectum humanum. Ostensum est autem quod per sensibilia non potest deveniri in cognitionem substantiarum separatarum, quae sunt supra intellectum humanum. Unde relinquitur quod ultima hominis beatitudo non possit esse in consideratione speculativarum scientiarum. Sed sicut in formis sensibilibus participatur aliqua similitudo superiorum substantiarum, ita consideratio scientiarum speculativarum est quaedam participatio verae et perfectae beatitudinis. |
Accordingly perfect happiness cannot consist essentially in the consideration of speculative sciences. To prove this, we must observe that the consideration of a speculative science does not extend beyond the scope of the principles of that science: since the entire science is virtually contained in its principles. Now the first principles of speculative sciences are received through the senses, as the Philosopher clearly states at the beginning of the Metaphysics (i, 1), and at the end of the Posterior Analytics (ii, 15). Wherefore the entire consideration of speculative sciences cannot extend farther than knowledge of sensibles can lead. Now man's final happiness, which is his final perfection cannot consist in the knowledge of sensibles. For a thing is not perfected by something lower, except in so far as the lower partakes of something higher. Now it is evident that the form of a stone or of any sensible, is lower than man. Consequently the intellect is not perfected by the form of a stone, as such, but inasmuch as it partakes of a certain likeness to that which is above the human intellect, viz. the intelligible light, or something of the kind. Now whatever is by something else is reduced to that which is of itself. Therefore man's final perfection must needs be through knowledge of something above the human intellect. But it has been shown (FP, Question [88], Article [2]), that man cannot acquire through sensibles, the knowledge of separate substances, which are above the human intellect. Consequently it follows that man's happiness cannot consist in the consideration of speculative sciences. However, just as in sensible forms there is a participation of the higher substances, so the consideration of speculative sciences is a certain participation of true and perfect happiness. |
| Ad primum ergo dicendum quod philosophus loquitur in libro Ethicorum de felicitate imperfecta, qualiter in hac vita haberi potest, ut supra dictum est. |
Reply to Objection 1: In his book on Ethics the Philosopher treats of imperfect happiness, such as can be had in this life, as stated above (Article [2], ad 4). |
| Ad secundum dicendum quod naturaliter desideratur non solum perfecta beatitudo, sed etiam qualiscumque similitudo vel participatio ipsius. | Reply to Objection 2: Not only is perfect happiness naturally desired, but also any likeness or participation thereof. |
| Ad tertium dicendum quod per considerationem scientiarum speculativarum reducitur intellectus noster aliquo modo in actum, non autem in ultimum et completum. | Reply to Objection 3: Our intellect is reduced to act, in a fashion, by the consideration of speculative sciences, but not to its final and perfect act. |
Index [<<� | >>]
First Part of the Second Part [ << | >> ]
Question: 3 [ << | >> ]
Article: 7 [ << | >> ]
| Ad septimum sic proceditur. Videtur quod beatitudo hominis consistat in cognitione substantiarum separatarum, idest Angelorum. Dicit enim Gregorius, in quadam homilia, nihil prodest interesse festis hominum, si non contingat interesse festis Angelorum; per quod finalem beatitudinem designat. Sed festis Angelorum interesse possumus per eorum contemplationem. Ergo videtur quod in contemplatione Angelorum ultima hominis beatitudo consistat. | Objection 1: It would seem that man's happiness consists in the knowledge of separate substances, namely, angels. For Gregory says in a homily (xxvi in Evang.): "It avails nothing to take part in the feasts of men, if we fail to take part in the feasts of angels"; by which he means final happiness. But we can take part in the feasts of the angels by contemplating them. Therefore it seems that man's final happiness consists in contemplating the angels. |
| Praeterea, ultima perfectio uniuscuiusque rei est ut coniungatur suo principio, unde et circulus dicitur esse figura perfecta, quia habet idem principium et finem. Sed principium cognitionis humanae est ab ipsis Angelis, per quos homines illuminantur, ut dicit Dionysius, IV cap. Cael. Hier. Ergo perfectio humani intellectus est in contemplatione Angelorum. | Objection 2: Further, the final perfection of each thing is for it to be united to its principle: wherefore a circle is said to be a perfect figure, because its beginning and end coincide. But the beginning of human knowledge is from the angels, by whom men are enlightened, as Dionysius says (Coel. Hier. iv). Therefore the perfection of the human intellect consists in contemplating the angels. |
| Praeterea, unaquaeque natura perfecta est, quando coniungitur superiori naturae, sicut ultima perfectio corporis est ut coniungatur naturae spirituali. Sed supra intellectum humanum, ordine naturae, sunt Angeli. Ergo ultima perfectio intellectus humani est ut coniungatur per contemplationem ipsis Angelis. | Objection 3: Further, each nature is perfect, when united to a higher nature; just as the final perfection of a body is to be united to the spiritual nature. But above the human intellect, in the natural order, are the angels. Therefore the final perfection of the human intellect is to be united to the angels by contemplation. |
| Sed contra est quod dicitur Ierem. IX, in hoc glorietur qui gloriatur, scire et nosse me. Ergo ultima hominis gloria, vel beatitudo, non consistit nisi in cognitione Dei. |
On the contrary, It is written (Jer. 9:24): "Let him that glorieth, glory in this, that he understandeth and knoweth Me." Therefore man's final glory or happiness consists only in the knowledge of God. |
| Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut dictum est, perfecta hominis beatitudo non consistit in eo quod est perfectio intellectus secundum alicuius participationem, sed in eo quod est per essentiam tale. Manifestum est autem quod unumquodque intantum est perfectio alicuius potentiae, inquantum ad ipsum pertinet ratio proprii obiecti illius potentiae. Proprium autem obiectum intellectus est verum. Quidquid ergo habet veritatem participatam, contemplatum non facit intellectum perfectum ultima perfectione. Cum autem eadem sit dispositio rerum in esse sicut in veritate, ut dicitur in II Metaphys.; quaecumque sunt entia per participationem, sunt vera per participationem. Angeli autem habent esse participatum, quia solius Dei suum esse est sua essentia, ut in primo ostensum est. Unde relinquitur quod solus Deus sit veritas per essentiam, et quod eius contemplatio faciat perfecte beatum. Aliqualem autem beatitudinem imperfectam nihil prohibet attendi in contemplatione Angelorum; et etiam altiorem quam in consideratione scientiarum speculativarum. | I answer that, As stated above (Article [6]), man's perfect happiness consists not in that which perfects the intellect by some participation, but in that which is so by its essence. Now it is evident that whatever is the perfection of a power is so in so far as the proper formal object of that power belongs to it. Now the proper object of the intellect is the true. Therefore the contemplation of whatever has participated truth, does not perfect the intellect with its final perfection. Since, therefore, the order of things is the same in being and in truth (Metaph ii, 1); whatever are beings by participation, are true by participation. Now angels have being by participation: because in God alone is His Being His Essence, as shown in the FP, Question [44], Article [1]. It follows that contemplation of Him makes man perfectly happy. However, there is no reason why we should not admit a certain imperfect happiness in the contemplation of the angels; and higher indeed than in the consideration of speculative science. |
| Ad primum ergo dicendum quod festis Angelorum intererimus non solum contemplantes Angelos, sed simul cum ipsis, Deum. | Reply to Objection 1: We shall take part in the feasts of the angels, by contemplating not only the angels, but, together with them, also God Himself. |
| Ad secundum dicendum quod, secundum illos qui ponunt animas humanas esse ab Angelis creatas, satis conveniens videtur quod beatitudo hominis sit in contemplatione Angelorum, quasi in coniunctione ad suum principium. Sed hoc est erroneum, ut in primo dictum est. Unde ultima perfectio intellectus humani est per coniunctionem ad Deum, qui est primum principium et creationis animae et illuminationis eius. Angelus autem illuminat tanquam minister, ut in primo habitum est. Unde suo ministerio adiuvat hominem ut ad beatitudinem perveniat, non autem est humanae beatitudinis obiectum. | Reply to Objection 2: According to those that hold human souls to be created by the angels, it seems fitting enough, that man's happiness should consist in the contemplation of the angels, in the union, as it were, of man with his beginning. But this is erroneous, as stated in FP, Question [90], Article [3]. Wherefore the final perfection of the human intellect is by union with God, Who is the first principle both of the creation of the soul and of its enlightenment. Whereas the angel enlightens as a minister, as stated in the FP, Question [111], Article [2], ad 2. Consequently, by his ministration he helps man to attain to happiness; but he is not the object of man's happiness. |
| Ad tertium dicendum quod attingi superiorem naturam ab inferiori contingit dupliciter. Uno modo, secundum gradum potentiae participantis, et sic ultima perfectio hominis erit in hoc quod homo attinget ad contemplandum sicut Angeli contemplantur. Alio modo, sicut obiectum attingitur a potentia, et hoc modo ultima perfectio cuiuslibet potentiae est ut attingat ad id in quo plene invenitur ratio sui obiecti. | Reply to Objection 3: The lower nature may reach the higher in two ways. First, according to a degree of the participating power: and thus man's final perfection will consist in his attaining to a contemplation such as that of the angels. Secondly, as the object is attained by the power: and thus the final perfection of each power is to attain that in which is found the fulness of its formal object. |
Index [<<� | >>]
First Part of the Second Part [ << | >> ]
Question: 3 [ << | >> ]
Article: 8 [ << | >> ]
| Ad octavum sic proceditur. Videtur quod beatitudo hominis non sit in visione ipsius divinae essentiae. Dicit enim Dionysius, in I cap. Myst. Theol., quod per id quod est supremum intellectus, homo Deo coniungitur sicut omnino ignoto. Sed id quod videtur per essentiam, non est omnino ignotum. Ergo ultima intellectus perfectio, seu beatitudo, non consistit in hoc quod Deus per essentiam videtur. | Objection 1: It would seem that man's happiness does not consist in the vision of the Divine Essence. For Dionysius says (Myst. Theol. i) that by that which is highest in his intellect, man is united to God as to something altogether unknown. But that which is seen in its essence is not altogether unknown. Therefore the final perfection of the intellect, namely, happiness, does not consist in God being seen in His Essence. |
| Praeterea, altioris naturae altior est perfectio. Sed haec est perfectio divini intellectus propria, ut suam essentiam videat. Ergo ultima perfectio intellectus humani ad hoc non pertingit, sed infra subsistit. | Objection 2: Further, the higher the perfection belongs to the higher nature. But to see His own Essence is the perfection proper to the Divine intellect. Therefore the final perfection of the human intellect does not reach to this, but consists in something less. |
| Sed contra est quod dicitur I Ioan. III, cum apparuerit, similes ei erimus, et videbimus eum sicuti ipse est. |
On the contrary, It is written (1 Jn. 3:2): "When He shall appear, we shall be like to Him; and [Vulg.: 'because'] we shall see Him as He is." |
| Respondeo dicendum quod ultima et perfecta beatitudo non potest esse nisi in visione divinae essentiae. Ad cuius evidentiam, duo consideranda sunt. Primo quidem, quod homo non est perfecte beatus, quandiu restat sibi aliquid desiderandum et quaerendum. Secundum est, quod uniuscuiusque potentiae perfectio attenditur secundum rationem sui obiecti. Obiectum autem intellectus est quod quid est, idest essentia rei, ut dicitur in III de anima. Unde intantum procedit perfectio intellectus, inquantum cognoscit essentiam alicuius rei. Si ergo intellectus aliquis cognoscat essentiam alicuius effectus, per quam non possit cognosci essentia causae, ut scilicet sciatur de causa quid est; non dicitur intellectus attingere ad causam simpliciter, quamvis per effectum cognoscere possit de causa an sit. Et ideo remanet naturaliter homini desiderium, cum cognoscit effectum, et scit eum habere causam, ut etiam sciat de causa quid est. Et illud desiderium est admirationis, et causat inquisitionem, ut dicitur in principio Metaphys. Puta si aliquis cognoscens eclipsim solis, considerat quod ex aliqua causa procedit, de qua, quia nescit quid sit, admiratur, et admirando inquirit. Nec ista inquisitio quiescit quousque perveniat ad cognoscendum essentiam causae. | I answer that, Final and perfect happiness can consist in nothing else than the vision of the Divine Essence. To make this clear, two points must be observed. First, that man is not perfectly happy, so long as something remains for him to desire and seek: secondly, that the perfection of any power is determined by the nature of its object. Now the object of the intellect is "what a thing is," i.e. the essence of a thing, according to De Anima iii, 6. Wherefore the intellect attains perfection, in so far as it knows the essence of a thing. If therefore an intellect knows the essence of some effect, whereby it is not possible to know the essence of the cause, i.e. to know of the cause "what it is"; that intellect cannot be said to reach that cause simply, although it may be able to gather from the effect the knowledge of that the cause is. Consequently, when man knows an effect, and knows that it has a cause, there naturally remains in the man the desire to know about the cause, "what it is." And this desire is one of wonder, and causes inquiry, as is stated in the beginning of the Metaphysics (i, 2). For instance, if a man, knowing the eclipse of the sun, consider that it must be due to some cause, and know not what that cause is, he wonders about it, and from wondering proceeds to inquire. Nor does this inquiry cease until he arrive at a knowledge of the essence of the cause. |
| Si igitur intellectus humanus, cognoscens essentiam alicuius effectus creati, non cognoscat de Deo nisi an est; nondum perfectio eius attingit simpliciter ad causam primam, sed remanet ei adhuc naturale desiderium inquirendi causam. Unde nondum est perfecte beatus. Ad perfectam igitur beatitudinem requiritur quod intellectus pertingat ad ipsam essentiam primae causae. Et sic perfectionem suam habebit per unionem ad Deum sicut ad obiectum, in quo solo beatitudo hominis consistit, ut supra dictum est. |
If therefore the human intellect, knowing the essence of some created effect, knows no more of God than "that He is"; the perfection of that intellect does not yet reach simply the First Cause, but there remains in it the natural desire to seek the cause. Wherefore it is not yet perfectly happy. Consequently, for perfect happiness the intellect needs to reach the very Essence of the First Cause. And thus it will have its perfection through union with God as with that object, in which alone man's happiness consists, as stated above (Articles [1],7; Question [2], Article [8]). |
| Ad primum ergo dicendum quod Dionysius loquitur de cognitione eorum qui sunt in via, tendentes ad beatitudinem. | Reply to Objection 1: Dionysius speaks of the knowledge of wayfarers journeying towards happiness. |
| Ad secundum dicendum quod, sicut supra dictum est, finis potest accipi dupliciter. Uno modo, quantum ad rem ipsam quae desideratur, et hoc modo idem est finis superioris et inferioris naturae, immo omnium rerum, ut supra dictum est. Alio modo, quantum ad consecutionem huius rei, et sic diversus est finis superioris et inferioris naturae, secundum diversam habitudinem ad rem talem. Sic igitur altior est beatitudo Dei suam essentiam intellectu comprehendentis, quam hominis vel Angeli videntis, et non comprehendentis. |
Reply to Objection 2: As stated above (Question [1], Article [8]), the end has a twofold acceptation. First, as to the thing itself which is desired: and in this way, the same thing is the end of the higher and of the lower nature, and indeed of all things, as stated above (Question [1], Article [8]). Secondly, as to the attainment of this thing; and thus the end of the higher nature is different from that of the lower, according to their respective habitudes to that thing. So then in the happiness of God, Who, in understanding his Essence, comprehends It, is higher than that of a man or angel who sees It indeed, but comprehends It not. |