Index [<<� | >>]
First Part of the Second Part [ << | >> ]
Question: 40 [ << | >> ]
Consequenter considerandum est de passionibus irascibilis,
|
We must now consider the irascible passions:
|
| Circa primum quaeruntur octo. | Under first head there are eight points of inquiry: |
| Primo, utrum spes sit idem quod desiderium vel cupiditas. | (1) Whether hope is the same as desire or cupidity? |
| Secundo, utrum spes sit in vi apprehensiva, vel in vi appetitiva. | (2) Whether hope is in the apprehensive, or in the appetitive faculty? |
| Tertio, utrum spes sit in brutis animalibus. | (3) Whether hope is in dumb animals? |
| Quarto, utrum spei contrarietur desperatio. | (4) Whether despair is contrary to hope? |
| Quinto, utrum causa spei sit experientia. | (5) Whether experience is a cause of hope? |
| Sexto, utrum in iuvenibus et ebriosis spes abundet. | (6) Whether hope abounds in young men and drunkards? |
| Septimo, de ordine spei ad amorem. | (7) Concerning the order of hope to love; |
| Octavo, utrum spes conferat ad operationem. | (8) Whether love conduces to action? |
Index [<<� | >>]
First Part of the Second Part [ << | >> ]
Question: 40 [ << | >> ]
Article: 1 [ << | >> ]
| Ad primum sic proceditur. Videtur quod spes sit idem quod desiderium sive cupiditas. Spes enim ponitur una quatuor principalium passionum. Sed Augustinus, enumerans quatuor principales passiones, ponit cupiditatem loco spei, ut patet in XIV de Civ. Dei. Ergo spes est idem quod cupiditas sive desiderium. | Objection 1: It would seem that hope is the same as desire or cupidity. Because hope is reckoned as one of the four principal passions. But Augustine in setting down the four principal passions puts cupidity in the place of hope (De Civ. Dei xiv, 3,7). Therefore hope is the same as cupidity or desire. |
| Praeterea, passiones differunt secundum obiecta. Sed idem est obiectum spei, et cupiditatis sive desiderii, scilicet bonum futurum. Ergo spes est idem quod cupiditas sive desiderium. | Objection 2: Further, passions differ according to their objects. But the object of hope is the same as the object of cupidity or desire, viz. the future good. Therefore hope is the same as cupidity or desire. |
| Si dicatur quod spes addit supra desiderium possibilitatem adipiscendi bonum futurum, contra, id quod per accidens se habet ad obiectum, non variat speciem passionis. Sed possibile se habet per accidens ad bonum futurum, quod est obiectum cupiditatis vel desiderii, et spei. Ergo spes non est passio specie differens a desiderio vel cupiditate. | Objection 3: If it be said that hope, in addition to desire, denotes the possibility of obtaining the future good; on the contrary, whatever is accidental to the object does not make a different species of passion. But possibility of acquisition is accidental to a future good, which is the object of cupidity or desire, and of hope. Therefore hope does not differ specifically from desire or cupidity. |
| Sed contra, diversarum potentiarum sunt diversae passiones specie differentes. Sed spes est in irascibili; desiderium autem et cupiditas in concupiscibili. Ergo spes differt specie a desiderio seu cupiditate. | On the contrary, To different powers belong different species of passions. But hope is in the irascible power; whereas desire or cupidity is in the concupiscible. Therefore hope differs specifically from desire or cupidity. |
| Respondeo dicendum quod species passionis ex obiecto consideratur circa obiectum autem spei quatuor conditiones attenduntur. Primo quidem, quod sit bonum, non enim, proprie loquendo, est spes nisi de bono. Et per hoc differt spes a timore, qui est de malo. Secundo, ut sit futurum, non enim spes est de praesenti iam habito. Et per hoc differt spes a gaudio, quod est de bono praesenti. Tertio, requiritur quod sit aliquid arduum cum difficultate adipiscibile, non enim aliquis dicitur aliquid sperare minimum, quod statim est in sua potestate ut habeat. Et per hoc differt spes a desiderio vel cupiditate, quae est de bono futuro absolute, unde pertinet ad concupiscibilem, spes autem ad irascibilem. Quarto, quod illud arduum sit possibile adipisci, non enim aliquis sperat id quod omnino adipisci non potest. Et secundum hoc differt spes a desperatione. Sic ergo patet quod spes differt a desiderio, sicut differunt passiones irascibilis a passionibus concupiscibilis. Et propter hoc, spes praesupponit desiderium, sicut et omnes passiones irascibilis praesupponunt passiones concupiscibilis, ut supra dictum est. |
I answer that, The species of a passion is taken from the object. Now, in the object of hope, we may note four conditions. First, that it is something good; since, properly speaking, hope regards only the good; in this respect, hope differs from fear, which regards evil. Secondly, that it is future; for hope does not regard that which is present and already possessed: in this respect, hope differs from joy which regards a present good. Thirdly, that it must be something arduous and difficult to obtain, for we do not speak of any one hoping for trifles, which are in one's power to have at any time: in this respect, hope differs from desire or cupidity, which regards the future good absolutely: wherefore it belongs to the concupiscible, while hope belongs to the irascible faculty. Fourthly, that this difficult thing is something possible to obtain: for one does not hope for that which one cannot get at all: and, in this respect, hope differs from despair. It is therefore evident that hope differs from desire, as the irascible passions differ from the concupiscible. For this reason, moreover, hope presupposes desire: just as all irascible passions presuppose the passions of the concupiscible faculty, as stated above (Question [25], Article [1]). |
| Ad primum ergo dicendum quod Augustinus ponit cupiditatem loco spei, propter hoc quod utrumque respicit bonum futurum, et quia bonum quod non est arduum, quasi nihil reputatur; ut sic cupiditas maxime videatur tendere in bonum arduum, in quod etiam tendit spes. | Reply to Objection 1: Augustine mentions desire instead of hope, because each regards future good; and because the good which is not arduous is reckoned as nothing: thus implying that desire seems to tend chiefly to the arduous good, to which hope tends likewise. |
| Ad secundum dicendum quod obiectum spei non est bonum futurum absolute, sed cum arduitate et difficultate adipiscendi, ut dictum est. | Reply to Objection 2: The object of hope is the future good considered, not absolutely, but as arduous and difficult of attainment, as stated above. |
| Ad tertium dicendum quod obiectum spei non tantum addit possibilitatem super obiectum desiderii, sed etiam arduitatem, quae ad aliam potentiam facit spem pertinere, scilicet ad irascibilem, quae respicit arduum, ut in primo dictum est. Possibile autem et impossibile non omnino per accidens se habent ad obiectum appetitivae virtutis. Nam appetitus est principium motionis, nihil autem movetur ad aliquid nisi sub ratione possibilis; nullus enim movetur ad id quod existimat impossibile adipisci. Et propter hoc, spes differt a desperatione secundum differentiam possibilis et impossibilis. | Reply to Objection 3: The object of hope adds not only possibility to the object of desire, but also difficulty: and this makes hope belong to another power, viz. the irascible, which regards something difficult, as stated in the FP, Question [81], Article [2]. Moreover, possibility and impossibility are not altogether accidental to the object of the appetitive power: because the appetite is a principle of movement; and nothing is moved to anything except under the aspect of being possible; for no one is moved to that which he reckons impossible to get. Consequently hope differs from despair according to the difference of possible and impossible. |
Index [<<� | >>]
First Part of the Second Part [ << | >> ]
Question: 40 [ << | >> ]
Article: 2 [ << | >> ]
| Ad secundum sic proceditur. Videtur quod spes pertineat ad vim cognitivam. Spes enim videtur esse expectatio quaedam, dicit enim apostolus, Rom. VIII, si autem quod non videmus speramus, per patientiam expectamus. Sed expectatio videtur ad vim cognitivam pertinere, cuius est exspectare. Ergo spes ad cognitivam pertinet. |
Objection 1: It would seem that hope belongs to the cognitive power. Because hope, seemingly, is a kind of awaiting; for the Apostle says (Rm. 8:25): "If we hope for that which we see not; we wait for it with patience." But awaiting seems to belong to the cognitive power, which we exercise by "looking out." Therefore hope belongs to the cognitive power. |
| Praeterea, idem est, ut videtur, spes quod fiducia, unde et sperantes confidentes vocamus, quasi pro eodem utentes eo quod est confidere et sperare. Sed fiducia, sicut et fides, videtur ad vim cognitivam pertinere. Ergo et spes. | Objection 2: Further, apparently hope is the same as confidence; hence when a man hopes he is said to be confident, as though to hope and to be confident were the same thing. But confidence, like faith, seems to belong to the cognitive power. Therefore hope does too. |
| Praeterea, certitudo est proprietas cognitivae virtutis. Sed certitudo attribuitur spei. Ergo spes ad vim cognitivam pertinet. | Objection 3: Further, certainty is a property of the cognitive power. But certainty is ascribed to hope. Therefore hope belongs to the cognitive power. |
| Sed contra, spes est de bono, sicut dictum est. Bonum autem, inquantum huiusmodi, non est obiectum cognitivae, sed appetitivae virtutis. Ergo spes non pertinet ad cognitivam, sed ad appetitivam virtutem. |
On the contrary, Hope regards good, as stated above (Article [1]). Now good, as such, is not the object of the cognitive, but of the appetitive power. Therefore hope belongs, not to the cognitive, but to the appetitive power. |
| Respondeo dicendum quod, cum spes importet extensionem quandam appetitus in bonum, manifeste pertinet ad appetitivam virtutem, motus enim ad res pertinet proprie ad appetitum. Actio vero virtutis cognitivae perficitur non secundum motum cognoscentis ad res, sed potius secundum quod res cognitae sunt in cognoscente. Sed quia vis cognitiva movet appetitivam, repraesentando ei suum obiectum; secundum diversas rationes obiecti apprehensi, subsequuntur diversi motus in vi appetitiva. Alius enim motus sequitur in appetitu ex apprehensione boni, et alius ex apprehensione mali, et similiter alius motus ex apprehensione praesentis et futuri, absoluti et ardui, possibilis et impossibilis. Et secundum hoc, spes est motus appetitivae virtutis consequens apprehensionem boni futuri ardui possibilis adipisci, scilicet extensio appetitus in huiusmodi obiectum. | I answer that, Since hope denotes a certain stretching out of the appetite towards good, it evidently belongs to the appetitive power; since movement towards things belongs properly to the appetite: whereas the action of the cognitive power is accomplished not by the movement of the knower towards things, but rather according as the things known are in the knower. But since the cognitive power moves the appetite, by presenting its object to it; there arise in the appetite various movements according to various aspects of the apprehended object. For the apprehension of good gives rise to one kind of movement in the appetite, while the apprehension of evil gives rise to another: in like manner various movements arise from the apprehension of something present and of something future; of something considered absolutely, and of something considered as arduous; of something possible, and of something impossible. And accordingly hope is a movement of the appetitive power ensuing from the apprehension of a future good, difficult but possible to obtain; namely, a stretching forth of the appetite to such a good. |
| Ad primum ergo dicendum quod, quia spes respicit ad bonum possibile, insurgit dupliciter homini motus spei, sicut dupliciter est ei aliquid possibile, scilicet secundum propriam virtutem, et secundum virtutem alterius. Quod ergo aliquis sperat per propriam virtutem adipisci, non dicitur expectare, sed sperare tantum. Sed proprie dicitur expectare quod sperat ex auxilio virtutis alienae, ut dicatur exspectare quasi ex alio spectare, inquantum scilicet vis apprehensiva praecedens non solum respicit ad bonum quod intendit adipisci, sed etiam ad illud cuius virtute adipisci sperat; secundum illud Eccli. li, respiciens eram ad adiutorium hominum. Motus ergo spei quandoque dicitur expectatio, propter inspectionem virtutis cognitivae praecedentem. | Reply to Objection 1: Since hope regards a possible good, there arises in man a twofold movement of hope; for a thing may be possible to him in two ways, viz. by his own power, or by another's. Accordingly when a man hopes to obtain something by his own power, he is not said to wait for it, but simply to hope for it. But, properly speaking, he is said to await that which he hopes to get by another's help as though to await [exspectare] implied keeping one's eyes on another [ex alio spectare], in so far as the apprehensive power, by going ahead, not only keeps its eye on the good which man intends to get, but also on the thing by whose power he hopes to get it; according to Ecclus. 51:10, "I looked for the succor of men." Wherefore the movement of hope is sometimes called expectation, on account of the preceding inspection of the cognitive power. |
| Ad secundum dicendum quod illud quod homo desiderat, et aestimat se posse adipisci, credit se adepturum, et ex tali fide in cognitiva praecedente, motus sequens in appetitu fiducia nominatur. Denominatur enim motus appetitivus a cognitione praecedente, sicut effectus ex causa magis nota, magis enim cognoscit vis apprehensiva suum actum quam actum appetitivae. | Reply to Objection 2: When a man desires a thing and reckons that he can get it, he believes that he can get it, he believes that he will get it; and from this belief which precedes in the cognitive power, the ensuing movement in the appetite is called confidence. Because the movement of the appetite takes its name from the knowledge that precedes it, as an effect from a cause which is better known; for the apprehensive power knows its own act better than that of the appetite. |
| Ad tertium dicendum quod certitudo attribuitur motui non solum appetitus sensitivi, sed etiam appetitus naturalis, sicut dicitur quod lapis certitudinaliter tendit deorsum. Et hoc propter infallibilitatem quam habet ex certitudine cognitionis quae praecedit motum appetitus sensitivi, vel etiam naturalis. | Reply to Objection 3: Certainty is ascribed to the movement, not only of the sensitive, but also of the natural appetite; thus we say that a stone is certain to tend downwards. This is owing to the inerrancy which the movement of the sensitive or even natural appetite derives from the certainty of the knowledge that precedes it. |
Index [<<� | >>]
First Part of the Second Part [ << | >> ]
Question: 40 [ << | >> ]
Article: 3 [ << | >> ]
| Ad tertium sic proceditur. Videtur quod in brutis animalibus non sit spes. Spes enim est de futuro bono, ut Damascenus dicit. Sed cognoscere futurum non pertinet ad animalia bruta, quae habent solum cognitionem sensitivam, quae non est futurorum. Ergo spes non est in brutis animalibus. | Objection 1: It would seem that there is no hope in dumb animals. Because hope is for some future good, as Damascene says (De Fide Orth. ii, 12). But knowledge of the future is not in the competency of dumb animals, whose knowledge is confined to the senses and does not extend to the future. Therefore there is no hope in dumb animals. |
| Praeterea, obiectum spei est bonum possibile adipisci. Sed possibile et impossibile sunt quaedam differentiae veri et falsi, quae solum sunt in mente, ut philosophus dicit in VI Metaphys. Ergo spes non est in brutis animalibus, in quibus non est mens. | Objection 2: Further, the object of hope is a future good, possible of attainment. But possible and impossible are differences of the true and the false, which are only in the mind, as the Philosopher states (Metaph. vi, 4). Therefore there is no hope in dumb animals, since they have no mind. |
| Praeterea, Augustinus dicit, super Gen. ad Litt., quod animalia moventur visis. Sed spes non est de eo quod videtur, nam quod videt quis, quid sperat? Ut dicitur Rom. VIII. Ergo spes non est in brutis animalibus. |
Objection 3: Further, Augustine says (Gen. ad lit. ix, 14) that "animals are moved by the things that they see." But hope is of things unseen: "for what a man seeth, why doth he hope for?" (Rm. 8:24). Therefore there is no hope in dumb animals. |
| Sed contra, spes est passio irascibilis. Sed in brutis animalibus est irascibilis. Ergo et spes. | On the contrary, Hope is an irascible passion. But the irascible faculty is in dumb animals. Therefore hope is also. |
| Respondeo dicendum quod interiores passiones animalium ex exterioribus motibus deprehendi possunt. Ex quibus apparet quod in animalibus brutis est spes. Si enim canis videat leporem, aut accipiter avem, nimis distantem, non movetur ad ipsam, quasi non sperans se eam posse adipisci, si autem sit in propinquo, movetur, quasi sub spe adipiscendi. Ut enim supra dictum est, appetitus sensitivus brutorum animalium, et etiam appetitus naturalis rerum insensibilium, sequuntur apprehensionem alicuius intellectus, sicut et appetitus naturae intellectivae, qui dicitur voluntas. Sed in hoc est differentia, quod voluntas movetur ex apprehensione intellectus coniuncti, sed motus appetitus naturalis sequitur apprehensionem intellectus separati, qui naturam instituit; et similiter appetitus sensitivus brutorum animalium, quae etiam quodam instinctu naturali agunt. Unde in operibus brutorum animalium, et aliarum rerum naturalium, apparet similis processus sicut et in operibus artis. Et per hunc modum in animalibus brutis est spes et desperatio. |
I answer that, The internal passions of animals can be gathered from their outward movements: from which it is clear that hope is in dumb animals. For if a dog see a hare, or a hawk see a bird, too far off, it makes no movement towards it, as having no hope to catch it: whereas, if it be near, it makes a movement towards it, as being in hopes of catching it. Because as stated above (Question [1], Article [2]; Question [26], Article [1]; Question [35], Article [1]), the sensitive appetite of dumb animals, and likewise the natural appetite of insensible things, result from the apprehension of an intellect, just as the appetite of the intellectual nature, which is called the will. But there is a difference, in that the will is moved by an apprehension of the intellect in the same subject; whereas the movement of the natural appetite results from the apprehension of the separate Intellect, Who is the Author of nature; as does also the sensitive appetite of dumb animals, who act from a certain natural instinct. Consequently, in the actions of irrational animals and of other natural things, we observe a procedure which is similar to that which we observe in the actions of art: and in this way hope and despair are in dumb animals. |
| Ad primum ergo dicendum quod, quamvis bruta animalia non cognoscant futurum, tamen ex instinctu naturali movetur animal ad aliquid in futurum, ac si futurum praevideret. Huiusmodi enim instinctus est eis inditus ab intellectu divino praevidente futura. | Reply to Objection 1: Although dumb animals do not know the future, yet an animal is moved by its natural instinct to something future, as though it foresaw the future. Because this instinct is planted in them by the Divine Intellect that foresees the future. |
| Ad secundum dicendum quod obiectum spei non est possibile, prout est quaedam differentia veri, sic enim consequitur habitudinem praedicati ad subiectum. Sed obiectum spei est possibile quod dicitur secundum aliquam potentiam. Sic enim distinguitur possibile in V Metaphys., scilicet in duo possibilia praedicta. | Reply to Objection 2: The object of hope is not the possible as differentiating the true, for thus the possible ensues from the relation of a predicate to a subject. The object of hope is the possible as compared to a power. For such is the division of the possible given in Metaph. v, 12, i.e. into the two kinds we have just mentioned. |
| Ad tertium dicendum quod, licet id quod est futurum, non cadat sub visu; tamen ex his quae videt animal in praesenti, movetur eius appetitus in aliquod futurum vel prosequendum vel vitandum. | Reply to Objection 3: Although the thing which is future does not come under the object of sight; nevertheless through seeing something present, an animal's appetite is moved to seek or avoid something future. |
Index [<<� | >>]
First Part of the Second Part [ << | >> ]
Question: 40 [ << | >> ]
Article: 4 [ << | >> ]
| Ad quartum sic proceditur. Videtur quod desperatio non sit contraria spei. Uni enim unum est contrarium, ut dicitur in X Metaphys. Sed spei contrariatur timor. Non ergo contrariatur ei desperatio. | Objection 1: It would seem that despair is not contrary to hope. Because "to one thing there is one contrary" (Metaph. x, 5). But fear is contrary to hope. Therefore despair is not contrary to hope. |
| Praeterea, contraria videntur esse circa idem. Sed spes et desperatio non sunt circa idem, nam spes respicit bonum, desperatio autem est propter aliquod malum impeditivum adeptionis boni. Ergo spes non contrariatur desperationi. | Objection 2: Further, contraries seem to bear on the same thing. But hope and despair do not bear on the same thing: since hope regards the good, whereas despair arises from some evil that is in the way of obtaining good. Therefore hope is not contrary to despair. |
| Praeterea, motui contrariatur motus, quies vero opponitur motui ut privatio. Sed desperatio magis videtur importare immobilitatem quam motum. Ergo non contrariatur spei, quae importat motum extensionis in bonum speratum. | Objection 3: Further, movement is contrary to movement: while repose is in opposition to movement as a privation thereof. But despair seems to imply immobility rather than movement. Therefore it is not contrary to hope, which implies movement of stretching out towards the hoped-for good. |
| Sed contra est quod desperatio nominatur per contrarium spei. | On the contrary, The very name of despair [desperatio] implies that it is contrary to hope [spes]. |
| Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut supra dictum est, in mutationibus invenitur duplex contrarietas. Una secundum accessum ad contrarios terminos, et talis contrarietas sola invenitur in passionibus concupiscibilis, sicut amor et odium contrariantur. Alio modo, per accessum et per recessum respectu eiusdem termini, et talis contrarietas invenitur in passionibus irascibilis, sicut supra dictum est. Obiectum autem spei, quod est bonum arduum, habet quidem rationem attractivi, prout consideratur cum possibilitate adipiscendi, et sic tendit in ipsum spes, quae importat quendam accessum. Sed secundum quod consideratur cum impossibilitate obtinendi, habet rationem repulsivi, quia, ut dicitur in III Ethic., cum ventum fuerit ad aliquid impossibile, tunc homines discedunt. Et sic respicit hoc obiectum desperatio. Unde importat motum cuiusdam recessus. Et propter hoc, contrariatur spei sicut recessus accessui. |
I answer that, As stated above (Question [23], Article [2]), there is a twofold contrariety of movements. One is in respect of approach to contrary terms: and this contrariety alone is to be found in the concupiscible passions, for instance between love and hatred. The other is according to approach and withdrawal with regard to the same term; and is to be found in the irascible passions, as stated above (Question [23], Article [2]). Now the object of hope, which is the arduous good, has the character of a principle of attraction, if it be considered in the light of something attainable; and thus hope tends thereto, for it denotes a kind of approach. But in so far as it is considered as unobtainable, it has the character of a principle of repulsion, because, as stated in Ethic. iii, 3, "when men come to an impossibility they disperse." And this is how despair stands in regard to this object, wherefore it implies a movement of withdrawal: and consequently it is contrary to hope, as withdrawal is to approach. |
| Ad primum ergo dicendum quod timor contrariatur spei secundum contrarietatem obiectorum, scilicet boni et mali, haec enim contrarietas invenitur in passionibus irascibilis, secundum quod derivantur a passionibus concupiscibilis. Sed desperatio contrariatur ei solum secundum contrarietatem accessus et recessus. | Reply to Objection 1: Fear is contrary to hope, because their objects, i.e. good and evil, are contrary: for this contrariety is found in the irascible passions, according as they ensue from the passions of the concupiscible. But despair is contrary to hope, only by contrariety of approach and withdrawal. |
| Ad secundum dicendum quod desperatio non respicit malum sub ratione mali, sed per accidens quandoque respicit malum, inquantum facit impossibilitatem adipiscendi. Potest autem esse desperatio ex solo superexcessu boni. | Reply to Objection 2: Despair does not regard evil as such; sometimes however it regards evil accidentally, as making the difficult good impossible to obtain. But it can arise from the mere excess of good. |
| Ad tertium dicendum quod desperatio non importat solam privationem spei; sed importat quendam recessum a re desiderata, propter aestimatam impossibilitatem adipiscendi. Unde desperatio praesupponit desiderium, sicut et spes, de eo enim quod sub desiderio nostro non cadit, neque spem neque desperationem habemus. Et propter hoc etiam, utrumque eorum est de bono, quod sub desiderio cadit. | Reply to Objection 3: Despair implies not only privation of hope, but also a recoil from the thing desired, by reason of its being esteemed impossible to get. Hence despair, like hope, presupposes desire; because we neither hope for nor despair of that which we do not desire to have. For this reason, too, each of them regards the good, which is the object of desire. |
Index [<<� | >>]
First Part of the Second Part [ << | >> ]
Question: 40 [ << | >> ]
Article: 5 [ << | >> ]
| Ad quintum sic proceditur. Videtur quod experientia non sit causa spei. Experientia enim ad vim cognitivam pertinet, unde philosophus dicit, in II Ethic., quod virtus intellectualis indiget experimento et tempore. Spes autem non est in vi cognitiva, sed in appetitiva, ut dictum est. Ergo experientia non est causa spei. |
Objection 1: It would seem that experience is not a cause of hope. Because experience belongs to the cognitive power; wherefore the Philosopher says (Ethic. ii, 1) that "intellectual virtue needs experience and time." But hope is not in the cognitive power, but in the appetite, as stated above (Article [2]). Therefore experience is not a cause of hope. |
| Praeterea, philosophus dicit, in II Rhetoric., quod senes sunt difficilis spei, propter experientiam, ex quo videtur quod experientia sit causa defectus spei. Sed non est idem causa oppositorum. Ergo experientia non est causa spei. | Objection 2: Further, the Philosopher says (Rhet. ii, 13) that "the old are slow to hope, on account of their experience"; whence it seems to follow that experience causes want of hope. But the same cause is not productive of opposites. Therefore experience is not a cause of hope. |
| Praeterea, philosophus dicit, in II de caelo, quod de omnibus enuntiare aliquid, et nihil praetermittere, quandoque est signum stultitiae. Sed quod homo tentet omnia, ad magnitudinem spei pertinere videtur, stultitia autem provenit ex inexperientia. Ergo inexperientia videtur esse magis causa spei quam experientia. | Objection 3: Further, the Philosopher says (De Coel. ii, 5) that "to have something to say about everything, without leaving anything out, is sometimes a proof of folly." But to attempt everything seems to point to great hopes; while folly arises from inexperience. Therefore inexperience, rather than experience, seems to be a cause of hope. |
| Sed contra est quod philosophus dicit, in III Ethic., quod aliqui sunt bonae spei, propter multoties et multos vicisse, quod ad experientiam pertinet. Ergo experientia est causa spei. | On the contrary, The Philosopher says (Ethic. iii, 8) "some are hopeful, through having been victorious often and over many opponents": which seems to pertain to experience. Therefore experience is a cause of hope. |
| Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut supra dictum est, spei obiectum est bonum futurum arduum possibile adipisci. Potest ergo aliquid esse causa spei, vel quia facit homini aliquid esse possibile, vel quia facit eum existimare aliquid esse possibile. Primo modo est causa spei omne illud quod auget potestatem hominis, sicut divitiae, fortitudo, et, inter cetera, etiam experientia, nam per experientiam homo acquirit facultatem aliquid de facili faciendi, et ex hoc sequitur spes. Unde Vegetius dicit, in libro de re militari, nemo facere metuit quod se bene didicisse confidit. |
I answer that, As stated above (Article [1]), the object of hope is a future good, difficult but possible to obtain. Consequently a thing may be a cause of hope, either because it makes something possible to a man: or because it makes him think something possible. In the first way hope is caused by everything that increases a man's power; e.g. riches, strength, and, among others, experience: since by experience man acquires the faculty of doing something easily, and the result of this is hope. Wherefore Vegetius says (De Re Milit. i): "No one fears to do that which he is sure of having learned well." |
| Alio modo est causa spei omne illud quod facit alicui existimationem quod aliquid sit sibi possibile. Et hoc modo et doctrina, et persuasio quaelibet potest esse causa spei. Et sic etiam experientia est causa spei, inquantum scilicet per experientiam fit homini existimatio quod aliquid sit sibi possibile, quod impossibile ante experientiam reputabat. Sed per hunc modum experientia potest etiam esse causa defectus spei. Quia sicut per experientiam fit homini existimatio quod aliquid sibi sit possibile, quod reputabat impossibile; ita e converso per experientiam fit homini existimatio quod aliquid non sit sibi possibile, quod possibile existimabat. Sic ergo experientia est causa spei duobus modis, causa autem defectus spei, uno modo. Et propter hoc, magis dicere possumus eam esse causam spei. | In the second way, hope is caused by everything that makes man think that he can obtain something: and thus both teaching and persuasion may be a cause of hope. And then again experience is a cause of hope, in so far as it makes him reckon something possible, which before his experience he looked upon as impossible. However, in this way, experience can cause a lack of hope: because just as it makes a man think possible what he had previously thought impossible; so, conversely, experience makes a man consider as impossible that which hitherto he had thought possible. Accordingly experience causes hope in two ways, despair in one way: and for this reason we may say rather that it causes hope. |
| Ad primum ergo dicendum quod experientia in operabilibus non solum causat scientiam; sed etiam causat quendam habitum, propter consuetudinem, qui facit operationem faciliorem. Sed et ipsa virtus intellectualis facit ad potestatem facile operandi, demonstrat enim aliquid esse possibile. Et sic causat spem. | Reply to Objection 1: Experience in matters pertaining to action not only produces knowledge; it also causes a certain habit, by reason of custom, which renders the action easier. Moreover, the intellectual virtue itself adds to the power of acting with ease: because it shows something to be possible; and thus is a cause of hope. |
| Ad secundum dicendum quod in senibus est defectus spei propter experientiam, inquantum experientia facit existimationem impossibilis. Unde ibidem subditur quod eis multa evenerunt in deterius. | Reply to Objection 2: The old are wanting in hope because of their experience, in so far as experience makes them think something impossible. Hence he adds (Rhet. ii, 13) that "many evils have befallen them." |
| Ad tertium dicendum quod stultitia et inexperientia possunt esse causa spei quasi per accidens, removendo scilicet scientiam per quam vere existimatur aliquid esse non possibile. Unde ea ratione inexperientia est causa spei, qua experientia est causa defectus spei. | Reply to Objection 3: Folly and inexperience can be a cause of hope accidentally as it were, by removing the knowledge which would help one to judge truly a thing to be impossible. Wherefore inexperience is a cause of hope, for the same reason as experience causes lack of hope. |
Index [<<� | >>]
First Part of the Second Part [ << | >> ]
Question: 40 [ << | >> ]
Article: 6 [ << | >> ]
| Ad sextum sic proceditur. Videtur quod iuventus et ebrietas non sint causa spei. Spes enim importat quandam certitudinem et firmitatem, unde ad Heb. VI, spes comparatur ancorae. Sed iuvenes et ebrii deficiunt a firmitate, habent enim animum de facili mutabilem. Ergo iuventus et ebrietas non est causa spei. |
Objection 1: It would seem that youth and drunkenness are not causes of hope. Because hope implies certainty and steadiness; so much so that it is compared to an anchor (Heb. 6:19). But young men and drunkards are wanting in steadiness; since their minds are easily changed. Therefore youth and drunkenness are not causes of hope. |
| Praeterea, ea quae augent potestatem, maxime sunt causa spei, ut supra dictum est. Sed iuventus et ebrietas quandam infirmitatem habent adiunctam. Ergo non sunt causa spei. |
Objection 2: Further, as stated above (Article [5]), the cause of hope is chiefly whatever increases one's power. But youth and drunkenness are united to weakness. Therefore they are not causes of hope. |
| Praeterea, experientia est causa spei, ut dictum est. Sed iuvenibus experientia deficit. Ergo iuventus non est causa spei. |
Objection 3: Further, experience is a cause of hope, as stated above (Article [5]). But youth lacks experience. Therefore it is not a cause of hope. |
| Sed contra est quod philosophus dicit, in III Ethic., quod inebriati sunt bene sperantes. Et in II Rhetoric. dicitur quod iuvenes sunt bonae spei. | On the contrary, The Philosopher says (Ethic. iii, 8) that "drunken men are hopeful": and (Rhet. ii, 12) that "the young are full of hope." |
| Respondeo dicendum quod iuventus est causa spei propter tria, ut philosophus dicit in II Rhetoric. Et haec tria possunt accipi secundum tres conditiones boni quod est obiectum spei, quod est futurum, et arduum, et possibile, ut dictum est. Iuvenes enim multum habent de futuro, et parum de praeterito. Et ideo, quia memoria est praeteriti, spes autem futuri; parum habent de memoria, sed multum vivunt in spe. Iuvenes etiam, propter caliditatem naturae, habent multos spiritus, et ita in eis cor ampliatur. Ex amplitudine autem cordis est quod aliquis ad ardua tendat. Et ideo iuvenes sunt animosi et bonae spei. Similiter etiam illi qui non sunt passi repulsam, nec experti impedimenta in suis conatibus, de facili reputant aliquid sibi possibile. Unde et iuvenes, propter inexperientiam impedimentorum et defectuum, de facili reputant aliquid sibi possibile. Et ideo sunt bonae spei. Duo etiam istorum sunt in ebriis, scilicet caliditas et multiplicatio spirituum, propter vinum; et iterum inconsideratio periculorum vel defectuum. Et propter eandem rationem etiam omnes stulti, et deliberatione non utentes, omnia tentant, et sunt bonae spei. |
I answer that, Youth is a cause of hope for three reasons, as the Philosopher states in Rhet. ii, 12: and these three reasons may be gathered from the three conditions of the good which is the object of hope—namely, that it is future, arduous and possible, as stated above (Article [1]). For youth has much of the future before it, and little of the past: and therefore since memory is of the past, and hope of the future, it has little to remember and lives very much in hope. Again, youths, on account of the heat of their nature, are full of spirit; so that their heart expands: and it is owing to the heart being expanded that one tends to that which is arduous; wherefore youths are spirited and hopeful. Likewise they who have not suffered defeat, nor had experience of obstacles to their efforts, are prone to count a thing possible to them. Wherefore youths, through inexperience of obstacles and of their own shortcomings, easily count a thing possible; and consequently are of good hope. Two of these causes are also in those who are in drink—viz. heat and high spirits, on account of wine, and heedlessness of dangers and shortcomings. For the same reason all foolish and thoughtless persons attempt everything and are full of hope. |
| Ad primum ergo dicendum quod in iuvenibus et in ebriis licet non sit firmitas secundum rei veritatem, est tamen in eis secundum eorum aestimationem, reputant enim se firmiter assecuturos illud quod sperant. | Reply to Objection 1: Although youths and men in drink lack steadiness in reality, yet they are steady in their own estimation, for they think that they will steadily obtain that which they hope for. |
| Et similiter dicendum ad secundum, quod iuvenes et ebrii habent quidem infirmitatem secundum rei veritatem, sed secundum eorum existimationem, habent potestatem; quia suos defectus non cognoscunt. | In like manner, in reply to the Second Objection, we must observe that young people and men in drink are indeed unsteady in reality: but, in their own estimation, they are capable, for they know not their shortcomings. |
| Ad tertium dicendum quod non solum experientia, sed etiam inexperientia est quodammodo causa spei, ut dictum est. |
Reply to Objection 3: Not only experience, but also lack of experience, is, in some way, a cause of hope, as explained above (Article [5], ad 3). |
Index [<<� | >>]
First Part of the Second Part [ << | >> ]
Question: 40 [ << | >> ]
Article: 7 [ << | >> ]
| Ad septimum sic proceditur. Videtur quod spes non sit causa amoris. Quia secundum Augustinum, XIV de Civ. Dei, prima affectionum animae est amor. Sed spes est quaedam affectio animae. Amor ergo praecedit spem. Non ergo spes causat amorem. | Objection 1: It would seem that hope is not a cause of love. Because, according to Augustine (De Civ. Dei xiv, 7,9), love is the first of the soul's emotions. But hope is an emotion of the soul. Therefore love precedes hope, and consequently hope does not cause love. |
| Praeterea, desiderium praecedit spem. Sed desiderium causatur ex amore, ut dictum est. Ergo etiam spes sequitur amorem. Non ergo causat ipsum. |
Objection 2: Further, desire precedes hope. But desire is caused by love, as stated above (Question [25], Article [2]). Therefore hope, too, follows love, and consequently is not its cause. |
| Praeterea, spes causat delectationem, ut supra dictum est. Sed delectatio non est nisi de bono amato. Ergo amor praecedit spem. |
Objection 3: Further, hope causes pleasure, as stated above (Question [32], Article [3]). But pleasure is only of the good that is loved. Therefore love precedes hope. |
| Sed contra est quod Matth. I, super illud, Abraham genuit Isaac, Isaac autem genuit Iacob, dicit Glossa, idest, fides spem, spes caritatem. Caritas autem est amor. Ergo amor causatur a spe. | On the contrary, The gloss commenting on Mt. 1:2, "Abraham begot Isaac, and Isaac begot Jacob," says, i.e. "faith begets hope, and hope begets charity." But charity is love. Therefore love is caused by hope. |
| Respondeo dicendum quod spes duo respicere potest. Respicit enim sicut obiectum, bonum speratum. Sed quia bonum speratum est arduum possibile; aliquando autem fit aliquod arduum possibile nobis, non per nos, sed per alios; ideo spes etiam respicit illud per quod fit nobis aliquid possibile. | I answer that, Hope can regard two things. For it regards as its object, the good which one hopes for. But since the good we hope for is something difficult but possible to obtain; and since it happens sometimes that what is difficult becomes possible to us, not through ourselves but through others; hence it is that hope regards also that by which something becomes possible to us. |
| Inquantum igitur spes respicit bonum speratum, spes ex amore causatur, non enim est spes nisi de bono desiderato et amato. Inquantum vero spes respicit illum per quem fit aliquid nobis possibile, sic amor causatur ex spe, et non e converso. Ex hoc enim quod per aliquem speramus nobis posse provenire bona, movemur in ipsum sicut in bonum nostrum, et sic incipimus ipsum amare. Ex hoc autem quod amamus aliquem, non speramus de eo, nisi per accidens, inquantum scilicet credimus nos redamari ab ipso. Unde amari ab aliquo facit nos sperare de eo, sed amor eius causatur ex spe quam de eo habemus. | In so far, then, as hope regards the good we hope to get, it is caused by love: since we do not hope save for that which we desire and love. But in so far as hope regards one through whom something becomes possible to us, love is caused by hope, and not vice versa. Because by the very fact that we hope that good will accrue to us through someone, we are moved towards him as to our own good; and thus we begin to love him. Whereas from the fact that we love someone we do not hope in him, except accidentally, that is, in so far as we think that he returns our love. Wherefore the fact of being loved by another makes us hope in him; but our love for him is caused by the hope we have in him. |
| Et per haec patet responsio ad obiecta. | Wherefore the Replies to the Objections are evident. |
Index [<<� | >>]
First Part of the Second Part [ << | >> ]
Question: 40 [ << | >> ]
Article: 8 [ << | >> ]
| Ad octavum sic proceditur. Videtur quod spes non adiuvet operationem, sed magis impediat. Ad spem enim securitas pertinet. Sed securitas parit negligentiam, quae impedit operationem. Ergo spes impedit operationem. | Objection 1: It would seem that hope is not a help but a hindrance to action. Because hope implies security. But security begets negligence which hinders action. Therefore hope is a hindrance to action. |
| Praeterea, tristitia impedit operationem, ut supra dictum est. Sed spes quandoque causat tristitiam, dicitur enim Prov. XIII, spes quae differtur, affligit animam. Ergo spes impedit operationem. |
Objection 2: Further, sorrow hinders action, as stated above (Question [37], Article [3]). But hope sometimes causes sorrow: for it is written (Prov. 13:12): "Hope that is deferred afflicteth the soul." Therefore hope hinders action. |
| Praeterea, desperatio contrariatur spei, ut dictum est. Sed desperatio, maxime in rebus bellicis, adiuvat operationem, dicitur enim II Reg. II, quod periculosa res est desperatio. Ergo spes facit contrarium effectum, impediendo scilicet operationem. |
Objection 3: Further, despair is contrary to hope, as stated above (Article [4]). But despair, especially in matters of war, conduces to action; for it is written (2 Kgs. 2:26), that "it is dangerous to drive people to despair." Therefore hope has a contrary effect, namely, by hindering action. |
| Sed contra est quod dicitur I ad Cor. IX, quod qui arat, debet arare in spe fructus percipiendi. Et eadem ratio est in omnibus aliis. |
On the contrary, It is written (1 Cor. 9:10) that "he that plougheth should plough in hope... to receive fruit": and the same applies to all other actions. |
| Respondeo dicendum quod spes per se habet quod adiuvet operationem, intendendo ipsam. Et hoc ex duobus. Primo quidem, ex ratione sui obiecti, quod est bonum arduum possibile. Existimatio enim ardui excitat attentionem, existimatio vero possibilis non retardat conatum. Unde sequitur quod homo intente operetur propter spem. Secundo vero, ex ratione sui effectus. Spes enim, ut supra dictum est, causat delectationem, quae adiuvat operationem, ut supra dictum est. Unde spes operationem adiuvat. |
I answer that, Hope of its very nature is a help to action by making it more intense: and this for two reasons. First, by reason of its object, which is a good, difficult but possible. For the thought of its being difficult arouses our attention; while the thought that it is possible is no drag on our effort. Hence it follows that by reason of hope man is intent on his action. Secondly, on account of its effect. Because hope, as stated above (Question [32], Article [3]), causes pleasure; which is a help to action, as stated above (Question [33], Article [4]). Therefore hope is conducive to action. |
| Ad primum ergo dicendum quod spes respicit bonum consequendum, securitas autem respicit malum vitandum. Unde securitas magis videtur opponi timori, quam ad spem pertinere. Et tamen securitas non causat negligentiam, nisi inquantum diminuit existimationem ardui, in quo etiam diminuitur ratio spei. Illa enim in quibus homo nullum impedimentum timet, quasi iam non reputantur ardua. | Reply to Objection 1: Hope regards a good to be obtained; security regards an evil to be avoided. Wherefore security seems to be contrary to fear rather than to belong to hope. Yet security does not beget negligence, save in so far as it lessens the idea of difficulty: whereby it also lessens the character of hope: for the things in which a man fears no hindrance, are no longer looked upon as difficult. |
| Ad secundum dicendum quod spes per se causat delectationem, sed per accidens est ut causet tristitiam, ut supra dictum est. |
Reply to Objection 2: Hope of itself causes pleasure; it is by accident that it causes sorrow, as stated above (Question [32], Article [3], ad 2). |
| Ad tertium dicendum quod desperatio in bello fit periculosa, propter aliquam spem adiunctam. Illi enim qui desperant de fuga, debilitantur in fugiendo, sed sperant mortem suam vindicare. Et ideo ex hac spe acrius pugnant, unde periculosi hostibus fiunt. | Reply to Objection 3: Despair threatens danger in war, on account of a certain hope that attaches to it. For they who despair of flight, strive less to fly, but hope to avenge their death: and therefore in this hope they fight the more bravely, and consequently prove dangerous to the foe. |