Index [<<� | >>]
First Part of the Second Part [ << | >> ]
Question: 49 [ << | >> ]
Post actus et passiones, considerandum est de principiis humanorum actuum. Et primo, de principiis intrinsecis; secundo, de principiis extrinsecis. Principium autem intrinsecum est potentia et habitus; sed quia de potentiis in prima parte dictum est, nunc restat de habitibus considerandum.
|
After treating of human acts and passions, we now pass on to the consideration of the principles of human acts, and firstly of intrinsic principles, secondly of extrinsic principles. The intrinsic principle is power and habit; but as we have treated of powers in the FP, Question [77], seqq.,
|
Circa ipsos autem habitus in generali, quatuor consideranda sunt,
|
Concerning habits in general there are four points to consider:
|
| Circa primum quaeruntur quatuor. | Under the first head, there are four points of inquiry: |
| Primo, utrum habitus sit qualitas. | (1) Whether habit is a quality? |
| Secundo, utrum sit determinata species qualitatis. | (2) Whether it is a distinct species of quality? |
| Tertio, utrum habitus importet ordinem ad actum. | (3) Whether habit implies an order to an act? |
| Quarto, de necessitate habitus. | (4) Of the necessity of habit. |
Index [<<� | >>]
First Part of the Second Part [ << | >> ]
Question: 49 [ << | >> ]
Article: 1 [ << | >> ]
| Ad primum sic proceditur. Videtur quod habitus non sit qualitas. Dicit enim Augustinus, in libro octoginta trium quaest., quod hoc nomen habitus dictum est ab hoc verbo quod est habere. Sed habere non solum pertinet ad qualitatem, sed ad alia genera, dicimur enim habere etiam quantitatem, et pecuniam, et alia huiusmodi. Ergo habitus non est qualitas. | Objection 1: It would seem that habit is not a quality. For Augustine says (Questions. lxxxiii, qu. 73): "this word 'habit' is derived from the verb 'to have.'" But "to have" belongs not only to quality, but also to the other categories: for we speak of ourselves as "having" quantity and money and other like things. Therefore habit is not a quality. |
| Praeterea, habitus ponitur unum praedicamentum; ut patet in libro praedicamentorum. Sed unum praedicamentum non continetur sub alio. Ergo habitus non est qualitas. | Objection 2: Further, habit is reckoned as one of the predicaments; as may be clearly seen in the Book of the Predicaments (Categor. vi). But one predicament is not contained under another. Therefore habit is not a quality. |
| Praeterea, omnis habitus est dispositio, ut dicitur in praedicamentis. Sed dispositio est ordo habentis partes, ut dicitur in V Metaphys. Hoc autem pertinet ad praedicamentum situs. Ergo habitus non est qualitas. | Objection 3: Further, "every habit is a disposition," as is stated in the Book of the Predicaments (Categor. vi). Now disposition is "the order of that which has parts," as stated in Metaph. v, text. 24. But this belongs to the predicament Position. Therefore habit is not a quality. |
| Sed contra est quod philosophus dicit, in praedicamentis, quod habitus est qualitas de difficili mobilis. | On the contrary, The Philosopher says in the Book of Predicaments (Categor. vi) that "habit is a quality which is difficult to change." |
| Respondeo dicendum quod hoc nomen habitus ab habendo est sumptum. A quo quidem nomen habitus dupliciter derivatur, uno quidem modo, secundum quod homo, vel quaecumque alia res, dicitur aliquid habere; alio modo, secundum quod aliqua res aliquo modo se habet in seipsa vel ad aliquid aliud. | I answer that, This word "habitus" [habit] is derived from "habere" [to have]. Now habit is taken from this word in two ways; in one way, inasmuch as man, or any other thing, is said to "have" something; in another way, inasmuch as a particular thing has a relation [se habet] either in regard to itself, or in regard to something else. |
| Circa primum autem, considerandum est quod habere, secundum quod dicitur respectu cuiuscumque quod habetur, commune est ad diversa genera. Unde philosophus inter post praedicamenta habere ponit, quae scilicet diversa rerum genera consequuntur; sicut sunt opposita, et prius et posterius, et alia huiusmodi. Sed inter ea quae habentur, talis videtur esse distinctio, quod quaedam sunt in quibus nihil est medium inter habens et id quod habetur, sicut inter subiectum et qualitatem vel quantitatem nihil est medium. Quaedam vero sunt in quibus est aliquid medium inter utrumque, sed sola relatio, sicut dicitur aliquis habere socium vel amicum. Quaedam vero sunt inter quae est aliquid medium, non quidem actio vel passio, sed aliquid per modum actionis vel passionis, prout scilicet unum est ornans vel tegens, et aliud ornatum aut tectum, unde philosophus dicit, in V Metaphys., quod habitus dicitur tanquam actio quaedam habentis et habiti, sicut est in illis quae circa nos habemus. Et ideo in his constituitur unum speciale genus rerum, quod dicitur praedicamentum habitus, de quo dicit philosophus, in V Metaphys., quod inter habentem indumentum, et indumentum quod habetur, est habitus medius. | Concerning the first, we must observe that "to have," as said in regard to anything that is "had," is common to the various predicaments. And so the Philosopher puts "to have" among the "post-predicaments," so called because they result from the various predicaments; as, for instance, opposition, priority, posterity, and such like. Now among things which are had, there seems to be this distinction, that there are some in which there is no medium between the "haver" and that which is had: as, for instance, there is no medium between the subject and quality or quantity. Then there are some in which there is a medium, but only a relation: as, for instance, a man is said to have a companion or a friend. And, further, there are some in which there is a medium, not indeed an action or passion, but something after the manner of action or passion: thus, for instance, something adorns or covers, and something else is adorned or covered: wherefore the Philosopher says (Metaph. v, text. 25) that "a habit is said to be, as it were, an action or a passion of the haver and that which is had"; as is the case in those things which we have about ourselves. And therefore these constitute a special genus of things, which are comprised under the predicament of "habit": of which the Philosopher says (Metaph. v, text. 25) that "there is a habit between clothing and the man who is clothed." |
| Si autem sumatur habere prout res aliqua dicitur quodam modo se habere in seipsa vel ad aliud; cum iste modus se habendi sit secundum aliquam qualitatem, hoc modo habitus quaedam qualitas est, de quo philosophus, in V Metaphys., dicit quod habitus dicitur dispositio secundum quam bene vel male disponitur dispositum, et aut secundum se aut ad aliud, ut sanitas habitus quidam est. Et sic loquimur nunc de habitu. Unde dicendum est quod habitus est qualitas. | But if "to have" be taken according as a thing has a relation in regard to itself or to something else; in that case habit is a quality; since this mode of having is in respect of some quality: and of this the Philosopher says (Metaph. v, text. 25) that "habit is a disposition whereby that which is disposed is disposed well or ill, and this, either in regard to itself or in regard to another: thus health is a habit." And in this sense we speak of habit now. Wherefore we must say that habit is a quality. |
| Ad primum ergo dicendum quod obiectio illa procedit de habere communiter sumpto, sic enim est commune ad multa genera, ut dictum est. | Reply to Objection 1: This argument takes "to have" in the general sense: for thus it is common to many predicaments, as we have said. |
| Ad secundum dicendum quod ratio illa procedit de habitu secundum quod intelligitur aliquid medium inter habens et id quod habetur, sic enim est quoddam praedicamentum, ut dictum est. | Reply to Objection 2: This argument takes habit in the sense in which we understand it to be a medium between the haver, and that which is had: and in this sense it is a predicament, as we have said. |
| Ad tertium dicendum quod dispositio quidem semper importat ordinem alicuius habentis partes, sed hoc contingit tripliciter, ut statim ibidem philosophus subdit, scilicet aut secundum locum, aut secundum potentiam, aut secundum speciem. In quo, ut Simplicius dicit in commento praedicamentorum, comprehendit omnes dispositiones. Corporales quidem, in eo quod dicit secundum locum, et hoc pertinet ad praedicamentum situs, qui est ordo partium in loco. Quod autem dicit secundum potentiam, includit illas dispositiones quae sunt in praeparatione et idoneitate nondum perfecte, sicut scientia et virtus inchoata. Quod autem dicit secundum speciem, includit perfectas dispositiones, quae dicuntur habitus, sicut scientia et virtus complete. | Reply to Objection 3: Disposition does always, indeed, imply an order of that which has parts: but this happens in three ways, as the Philosopher goes on at once to says (Metaph. v, text. 25): namely, "either as to place, or as to power, or as to species." "In saying this," as Simplicius observes in his Commentary on the Predicaments, "he includes all dispositions: bodily dispositions, when he says 'as to place,'" and this belongs to the predicament "Position," which is the order of parts in a place: "when he says 'as to power,' he includes all those dispositions which are in course of formation and not yet arrived at perfect usefulness," such as inchoate science and virtue: "and when he says, 'as to species,' he includes perfect dispositions, which are called habits," such as perfected science and virtue. |
Index [<<� | >>]
First Part of the Second Part [ << | >> ]
Question: 49 [ << | >> ]
Article: 2 [ << | >> ]
| Ad secundum sic proceditur. Videtur quod habitus non sit determinata species qualitatis. Quia, ut dictum est, habitus, secundum quod est qualitas, dicitur dispositio secundum quam bene aut male disponitur dispositum. Sed hoc contingit secundum quamlibet qualitatem, nam et secundum figuram contingit aliquid bene vel male esse dispositum, et similiter secundum calorem et frigus, et secundum omnia huiusmodi. Ergo habitus non est determinata species qualitatis. |
Objection 1: It would seem that habit is not a distinct species of quality. Because, as we have said (Article [1]), habit, in so far as it is a quality, is "a disposition whereby that which is disposed is disposed well or ill." But this happens in regard to any quality: for a thing happens to be well or ill disposed in regard also to shape, and in like manner, in regard to heat and cold, and in regard to all such things. Therefore habit is not a distinct species of quality. |
| Praeterea, philosophus, in praedicamentis, caliditatem et frigiditatem dicit esse dispositiones vel habitus, sicut aegritudinem et sanitatem. Sed calor et frigus sunt in tertia specie qualitatis. Ergo habitus vel dispositio non distinguuntur ab aliis speciebus qualitatis. | Objection 2: Further, the Philosopher says in the Book of the Predicaments (Categor. vi), that heat and cold are dispositions or habits, just as sickness and health. Therefore habit or disposition is not distinct from the other species of quality. |
| Praeterea, difficile mobile non est differentia pertinens ad genus qualitatis, sed magis pertinet ad motum vel passionem. Nullum autem genus determinatur ad speciem per differentiam alterius generis; sed oportet differentias per se advenire generi, ut philosophus dicit, in VII Metaphys. Ergo, cum habitus dicatur esse qualitas difficile mobilis, videtur quod non sit determinata species qualitatis. | Objection 3: Further, "difficult to change" is not a difference belonging to the predicament of quality, but rather to movement or passion. Now, no genus should be contracted to a species by a difference of another genus; but "differences should be proper to a genus," as the Philosopher says in Metaph. vii, text. 42. Therefore, since habit is "a quality difficult to change," it seems not to be a distinct species of quality. |
| Sed contra est quod philosophus dicit, in praedicamentis, quod una species qualitatis est habitus et dispositio. | On the contrary, The Philosopher says in the Book of the Predicaments (Categor. vi) that "one species of quality is habit and disposition." |
| Respondeo dicendum quod philosophus, in praedicamentis, ponit inter quatuor species qualitatis primam, dispositionem et habitum. Quarum quidem specierum differentias sic assignat Simplicius, in commento praedicamentorum, dicens quod qualitatum quaedam sunt naturales, quae secundum naturam insunt, et semper, quaedam autem sunt adventitiae, quae ab extrinseco efficiuntur, et possunt amitti. Et haec quidem, quae sunt adventitiae, sunt habitus et dispositiones, secundum facile et difficile amissibile differentes. Naturalium autem qualitatum quaedam sunt secundum id quod aliquid est in potentia, et sic est secunda species qualitatis. Quaedam vero secundum quod aliquid est in actu, et hoc vel in profundum, vel secundum superficiem. Si in profundum quidem, sic est tertia species qualitatis, secundum vero superficiem, est quarta species qualitatis, sicut figura et forma, quae est figura animati. Sed ista distinctio specierum qualitatis inconveniens videtur. Sunt enim multae figurae et qualitates passibiles non naturales, sed adventitiae, et multae dispositiones non adventitiae, sed naturales, sicut sanitas et pulchritudo et huiusmodi. Et praeterea hoc non convenit ordini specierum, semper enim quod naturalius est, prius est. | I answer that, The Philosopher in the Book of Predicaments (Categor. vi) reckons disposition and habit as the first species of quality. Now Simplicius, in his Commentary on the Predicaments, explains the difference of these species as follows. He says "that some qualities are natural, and are in their subject in virtue of its nature, and are always there: but some are adventitious, being caused from without, and these can be lost. Now the latter," i.e. those which are adventitious, "are habits and dispositions, differing in the point of being easily or difficultly lost. As to natural qualities, some regard a thing in the point of its being in a state of potentiality; and thus we have the second species of quality: while others regard a thing which is in act; and this either deeply rooted therein or only on its surface. If deeply rooted, we have the third species of quality: if on the surface, we have the fourth species of quality, as shape, and form which is the shape of an animated being." But this distinction of the species of quality seems unsuitable. For there are many shapes, and passion-like qualities, which are not natural but adventitious: and there are also many dispositions which are not adventitious but natural, as health, beauty, and the like. Moreover, it does not suit the order of the species, since that which is the more natural is always first. |
| Et ideo aliter accipienda est distinctio dispositionum et habituum ab aliis qualitatibus. Proprie enim qualitas importat quendam modum substantiae. Modus autem est, ut dicit Augustinus, super Gen. ad litteram, quem mensura praefigit, unde importat quandam determinationem secundum aliquam mensuram. Et ideo sicut id secundum quod determinatur potentia materiae secundum esse substantiale dicitur qualitas quae est differentia substantiae; ita id secundum quod determinatur potentia subiecti secundum esse accidentale, dicitur qualitas accidentalis, quae est etiam quaedam differentia, ut patet per philosophum in V Metaphys. | Therefore we must explain otherwise the distinction of dispositions and habits from other qualities. For quality, properly speaking, implies a certain mode of substance. Now mode, as Augustine says (Gen. ad lit. iv, 3), "is that which a measure determines": wherefore it implies a certain determination according to a certain measure. Therefore, just as that in accordance with which the material potentiality [potentia materiae] is determined to its substantial being, is called quality, which is a difference affecting the substance, so that, in accordance with the potentiality of the subject is determined to its accidental being, is called an accidental quality, which is also a kind of difference, as is clear from the Philosopher (Metaph. v, text. 19). |
| Modus autem sive determinatio subiecti secundum esse accidentale, potest accipi vel in ordine ad ipsam naturam subiecti; vel secundum actionem et passionem quae consequuntur principia naturae, quae sunt materia et forma; vel secundum quantitatem. Si autem accipiatur modus vel determinatio subiecti secundum quantitatem, sic est quarta species qualitatis. Et quia quantitas, secundum sui rationem, est sine motu, et sine ratione boni et mali; ideo ad quartam speciem qualitatis non pertinet quod aliquid sit bene vel male, cito vel tarde transiens. | Now the mode of determination of the subject to accidental being may be taken in regard to the very nature of the subject, or in regard to action, and passion resulting from its natural principles, which are matter and form; or again in regard to quantity. If we take the mode or determination of the subject in regard to quantity, we shall then have the fourth species of quality. And because quantity, considered in itself, is devoid of movement, and does not imply the notion of good or evil, so it does not concern the fourth species of quality whether a thing be well or ill disposed, nor quickly or slowly transitory. |
| Modus autem sive determinatio subiecti secundum actionem et passionem, attenditur in secunda et tertia specie qualitatis. Et ideo in utraque consideratur quod aliquid facile vel difficile fiat, vel quod sit cito transiens aut diuturnum. Non autem consideratur in his aliquid pertinens ad rationem boni vel mali, quia motus et passiones non habent rationem finis, bonum autem et malum dicitur per respectum ad finem. | But the mode of determination of the subject, in regard to action or passion, is considered in the second and third species of quality. And therefore in both, we take into account whether a thing be done with ease or difficulty; whether it be transitory or lasting. But in them, we do not consider anything pertaining to the notion of good or evil: because movements and passions have not the aspect of an end, whereas good and evil are said in respect of an end. |
| Sed modus et determinatio subiecti in ordine ad naturam rei, pertinet ad primam speciem qualitatis, quae est habitus et dispositio, dicit enim philosophus, in VII Physic., loquens de habitibus animae et corporis, quod sunt dispositiones quaedam perfecti ad optimum; dico autem perfecti, quod est dispositum secundum naturam. Et quia ipsa forma et natura rei est finis et cuius causa fit aliquid, ut dicitur in II Physic. ideo in prima specie consideratur et bonum et malum; et etiam facile et difficile mobile, secundum quod aliqua natura est finis generationis et motus. Unde in V Metaphys. philosophus definit habitum, quod est dispositio secundum quam aliquis disponitur bene vel male. Et in II Ethic. dicit quod habitus sunt secundum quos ad passiones nos habemus bene vel male. Quando enim est modus conveniens naturae rei, tunc habet rationem boni, quando autem non convenit, tunc habet rationem mali. Et quia natura est id quod primum consideratur in re, ideo habitus ponitur prima species qualitatis. | On the other hand, the mode or determination of the subject, in regard to the nature of the thing, belongs to the first species of quality, which is habit and disposition: for the Philosopher says (Phys. vii, text. 17), when speaking of habits of the soul and of the body, that they are "dispositions of the perfect to the best; and by perfect I mean that which is disposed in accordance with its nature." And since the form itself and the nature of a thing is the end and the cause why a thing is made (Phys. ii, text. 25), therefore in the first species we consider both evil and good, and also changeableness, whether easy or difficult; inasmuch as a certain nature is the end of generation and movement. And so the Philosopher (Metaph. v, text. 25) defines habit, a "disposition whereby someone is disposed, well or ill"; and in Ethic. ii, 4, he says that by "habits we are directed well or ill in reference to the passions." For when the mode is suitable to the thing's nature, it has the aspect of good: and when it is unsuitable, it has the aspect of evil. And since nature is the first object of consideration in anything, for this reason habit is reckoned as the first species of quality. |
| Ad primum ergo dicendum quod dispositio ordinem quendam importat, ut dictum est. Unde non dicitur aliquis disponi per qualitatem, nisi in ordine ad aliquid. Et si addatur bene vel male, quod pertinet ad rationem habitus, oportet quod attendatur ordo ad naturam, quae est finis. Unde secundum figuram, vel secundum calorem vel frigus, non dicitur aliquis disponi bene vel male, nisi secundum ordinem ad naturam rei, secundum quod est conveniens vel non conveniens. Unde et ipsae figurae et passibiles qualitates, secundum quod considerantur ut convenientes vel non convenientes naturae rei, pertinent ad habitus vel dispositiones, nam figura, prout convenit naturae rei, et color, pertinent ad pulchritudinem; calor autem et frigus, secundum quod conveniunt naturae rei, pertinent ad sanitatem. Et hoc modo caliditas et frigiditas ponuntur a philosopho in prima specie qualitatis. |
Reply to Objection 1: Disposition implies a certain order, as stated above (Article [1], ad 3). Wherefore a man is not said to be disposed by some quality except in relation to something else. And if we add "well or ill," which belongs to the essential notion of habit, we must consider the quality's relation to the nature, which is the end. So in regard to shape, or heat, or cold, a man is not said to be well or ill disposed, except by reason of a relation to the nature of a thing, with regard to its suitability or unsuitability. Consequently even shapes and passion-like qualities, in so far as they are considered to be suitable or unsuitable to the nature of a thing, belong to habits or dispositions: for shape and color, according to their suitability to the nature of thing, concern beauty; while heat and cold, according to their suitability to the nature of a thing, concern health. And in this way heat and cold are put, by the Philosopher, in the first species of quality. |
| Unde patet solutio ad secundum. Licet a quibusdam aliter solvatur, ut Simplicius dicit, in commento praedicamentorum. | Wherefore it is clear how to answer the second objection: though some give another solution, as Simplicius says in his Commentary on the Predicaments. |
| Ad tertium dicendum quod ista differentia, difficile mobile, non diversificat habitum ab aliis speciebus qualitatis, sed a dispositione. Dispositio autem dupliciter accipitur, uno modo, secundum quod est genus habitus, nam in V Metaphys. dispositio ponitur in definitione habitus; alio modo, secundum quod est aliquid contra habitum divisum. Et potest intelligi dispositio proprie dicta condividi contra habitum, dupliciter. Uno modo, sicut perfectum et imperfectum in eadem specie, ut scilicet dispositio dicatur, retinens nomen commune, quando imperfecte inest, ita quod de facile amittitur; habitus autem, quando perfecte inest, ut non de facili amittatur. Et sic dispositio fit habitus, sicut puer fit vir. Alio modo possunt distingui sicut diversae species unius generis subalterni, ut dicantur dispositiones illae qualitates primae speciei, quibus convenit secundum propriam rationem ut de facili amittantur, quia habent causas transmutabiles, ut aegritudo et sanitas; habitus vero dicuntur illae qualitates quae secundum suam rationem habent quod non de facili transmutentur, quia habent causas immobiles, sicut scientiae et virtutes. Et secundum hoc dispositio non fit habitus. Et hoc videtur magis consonum intentioni Aristotelis. Unde ad huius distinctionis probationem inducit communem loquendi consuetudinem, secundum quam qualitates quae secundum rationem suam sunt facile mobiles, si ex aliquo accidenti difficile mobiles reddantur, habitus dicuntur, et e converso est de qualitatibus quae secundum suam rationem sunt difficile mobiles; nam si aliquis imperfecte habeat scientiam, ut de facili possit ipsam amittere, magis dicitur disponi ad scientiam quam scientiam habere. Ex quo patet quod nomen habitus diuturnitatem quandam importat; non autem nomen dispositionis. | Reply to Objection 3: This difference, "difficult to change," does not distinguish habit from the other species of quality, but from disposition. Now disposition may be taken in two ways; in one way, as the genus of habit, for disposition is included in the definition of habit (Metaph. v, text. 25): in another way, according as it is divided against habit. Again, disposition, properly so called, can be divided against habit in two ways: first, as perfect and imperfect within the same species; and thus we call it a disposition, retaining the name of the genus, when it is had imperfectly, so as to be easily lost: whereas we call it a habit, when it is had perfectly, so as not to be lost easily. And thus a disposition becomes a habit, just as a boy becomes a man. Secondly, they may be distinguished as diverse species of the one subaltern genus: so that we call dispositions, those qualities of the first species, which by reason of their very nature are easily lost, because they have changeable causes; e.g. sickness and health: whereas we call habits those qualities which, by reason of their very nature, are not easily changed, in that they have unchangeable causes, e.g. sciences and virtues. And in this sense, disposition does not become habit. The latter explanation seems more in keeping with the intention of Aristotle: for in order to confirm this distinction he adduces the common mode of speaking, according to which, when a quality is, by reason of its nature, easily changeable, and, through some accident, becomes difficultly changeable, then it is called a habit: while the contrary happens in regard to qualities, by reason of their nature, difficultly changeable: for supposing a man to have a science imperfectly, so as to be liable to lose it easily, we say that he is disposed to that science, rather than that he has the science. From this it is clear that the word "habit" implies a certain lastingness: while the word "disposition" does not. |
| Nec impeditur quin secundum hoc facile et difficile mobile sint specificae differentiae, propter hoc quod ista pertinent ad passionem et motum, et non ad genus qualitatis. Nam istae differentiae, quamvis per accidens videantur se habere ad qualitatem, designant tamen proprias et per se differentias qualitatum. Sicut etiam in genere substantiae frequenter accipiuntur differentiae accidentales loco substantialium, inquantum per eas designantur principia essentialia. | Nor does it matter that thus to be easy and difficult to change are specific differences (of a quality), although they belong to passion and movement, and not the genus of quality. For these differences, though apparently accidental to quality, nevertheless designate differences which are proper and essential to quality. In the same way, in the genus of substance we often take accidental instead of substantial differences, in so far as by the former, essential principles are designated. |
Index [<<� | >>]
First Part of the Second Part [ << | >> ]
Question: 49 [ << | >> ]
Article: 3 [ << | >> ]
| Ad tertium sic proceditur. Videtur quod habitus non importet ordinem ad actum. Unumquodque enim agit secundum quod est actu. Sed philosophus dicit, in III de anima, quod cum aliquis fit sciens secundum habitum, est etiam tunc in potentia, aliter tamen quam ante addiscere. Ergo habitus non importat habitudinem principii ad actum. | Objection 1: It would seem that habit does not imply order to an act. For everything acts according as it is in act. But the Philosopher says (De Anima iii, text 8), that "when one is become knowing by habit, one is still in a state of potentiality, but otherwise than before learning." Therefore habit does not imply the relation of a principle to an act. |
| Praeterea, illud quod ponitur in definitione alicuius, per se convenit illi. Sed esse principium actionis ponitur in definitione potentiae; ut patet in V Metaphys. Ergo esse principium actus per se convenit potentiae. Quod autem est per se, est primum in unoquoque genere. Si ergo etiam habitus sit principium actus, sequitur quod sit posterior quam potentia. Et sic non erit prima species qualitatis habitus vel dispositio. | Objection 2: Further, that which is put in the definition of a thing, belongs to it essentially. But to be a principle of action, is put in the definition of power, as we read in Metaph. v, text. 17. Therefore to be the principle of an act belongs to power essentially. Now that which is essential is first in every genus. If therefore, habit also is a principle of act, it follows that it is posterior to power. And so habit and disposition will not be the first species of quality. |
| Praeterea, sanitas quandoque est habitus, et similiter macies et pulchritudo. Sed ista non dicuntur per ordinem ad actum. Non ergo est de ratione habitus quod sit principium actus. | Objection 3: Further, health is sometimes a habit, and so are leanness and beauty. But these do not indicate relation to an act. Therefore it is not essential to habit to be a principle of act. |
| Sed contra est quod Augustinus dicit, in libro de bono coniugali, quod habitus est quo aliquid agitur cum opus est. Et Commentator dicit, in III de anima, quod habitus est quo quis agit cum voluerit. | On the contrary, Augustine says (De Bono Conjug. xxi) that "habit is that whereby something is done when necessary." And the Commentator says (De Anima iii) that "habit is that whereby we act when we will." |
| Respondeo dicendum quod habere ordinem ad actum potest competere habitui et secundum rationem habitus; et secundum rationem subiecti in quo est habitus. Secundum quidem rationem habitus, convenit omni habitui aliquo modo habere ordinem ad actum. Est enim de ratione habitus ut importet habitudinem quandam in ordine ad naturam rei, secundum quod convenit vel non convenit. Sed natura rei, quae est finis generationis, ulterius etiam ordinatur ad alium finem, qui vel est operatio, vel aliquod operatum, ad quod quis pervenit per operationem. Unde habitus non solum importat ordinem ad ipsam naturam rei, sed etiam consequenter ad operationem, inquantum est finis naturae, vel perducens ad finem. Unde et in V Metaphys. dicitur in definitione habitus, quod est dispositio secundum quam bene vel male disponitur dispositum aut secundum se, idest secundum suam naturam, aut ad aliud, idest in ordine ad finem. | I answer that, To have relation to an act may belong to habit, both in regard to the nature of habit, and in regard to the subject in which the habit is. In regard to the nature of habit, it belongs to every habit to have relation to an act. For it is essential to habit to imply some relation to a thing's nature, in so far as it is suitable or unsuitable thereto. But a thing's nature, which is the end of generation, is further ordained to another end, which is either an operation, or the product of an operation, to which one attains by means of operation. Wherefore habit implies relation not only to the very nature of a thing, but also, consequently, to operation, inasmuch as this is the end of nature, or conducive to the end. Whence also it is stated (Metaph. v, text. 25) in the definition of habit, that it is a disposition whereby that which is disposed, is well or ill disposed either in regard to itself, that is to its nature, or in regard to something else, that is to the end. |
| Sed sunt quidam habitus qui etiam ex parte subiecti in quo sunt, primo et principaliter important ordinem ad actum. Quia ut dictum est, habitus primo et per se importat habitudinem ad naturam rei. Si igitur natura rei in qua est habitus, consistat in ipso ordine ad actum, sequitur quod habitus principaliter importet ordinem ad actum. Manifestum est autem quod natura et ratio potentiae est ut sit principium actus. Unde omnis habitus qui est alicuius potentiae ut subiecti, principaliter importat ordinem ad actum. | But there are some habits, which even on the part of the subject in which they are, imply primarily and principally relation to an act. For, as we have said, habit primarily and of itself implies a relation to the thing's nature. If therefore the nature of a thing, in which the habit is, consists in this very relation to an act, it follows that the habit principally implies relation to an act. Now it is clear that the nature and the notion of power is that it should be a principle of act. Wherefore every habit is subjected in a power, implies principally relation to an act. |
| Ad primum ergo dicendum quod habitus est actus quidam, inquantum est qualitas, et secundum hoc potest esse principium operationis. Sed est in potentia per respectum ad operationem. Unde habitus dicitur actus primus, et operatio actus secundus; ut patet in II de anima. | Reply to Objection 1: Habit is an act, in so far as it is a quality: and in this respect it can be a principle of operation. It is, however, in a state of potentiality in respect to operation. Wherefore habit is called first act, and operation, second act; as it is explained in De Anima ii, text. 5. |
| Ad secundum dicendum quod non est de ratione habitus quod respiciat potentiam, sed quod respiciat naturam. Et quia natura praecedit actionem, quam respicit potentia; ideo prior species qualitatis ponitur habitus quam potentia. | Reply to Objection 2: It is not the essence of habit to be related to power, but to be related to nature. And as nature precedes action, to which power is related, therefore habit is put before power as a species of quality. |
| Ad tertium dicendum quod sanitas dicitur habitus, vel habitualis dispositio, in ordine ad naturam, sicut dictum est. Inquantum tamen natura est principium actus, ex consequenti importat ordinem ad actum. Unde philosophus dicit, in X de historia Animal., quod homo dicitur sanus, vel membrum aliquod, quando potest facere operationem sani. Et est simile in aliis. | Reply to Objection 3: Health is said to be a habit, or a habitual disposition, in relation to nature, as stated above. But in so far as nature is a principle of act, it consequently implies a relation to act. Wherefore the Philosopher says (De Hist. Animal. x, 1), that man, or one of his members, is called healthy, "when he can perform the operation of a healthy man." And the same applies to other habits. |
Index [<<� | >>]
First Part of the Second Part [ << | >> ]
Question: 49 [ << | >> ]
Article: 4 [ << | >> ]
| Ad quartum sic proceditur. Videtur quod non sit necessarium esse habitus. Habitus enim sunt quibus aliquid disponitur bene vel male ad aliquid, sicut dictum est. Sed per suam formam aliquid bene vel male disponitur, nam secundum formam aliquid est bonum, sicut et ens. Ergo nulla necessitas est habituum. | Objection 1: It would seem that habits are not necessary. For by habits we are well or ill disposed in respect of something, as stated above. But a thing is well or ill disposed by its form: for in respect of its form a thing is good, even as it is a being. Therefore there is no necessity for habits. |
| Praeterea, habitus importat ordinem ad actum. Sed potentia importat principium actus sufficienter, nam et potentiae naturales absque habitibus sunt principia actuum. Ergo non fuit necessarium habitus esse. | Objection 2: Further, habit implies relation to an act. But power implies sufficiently a principle of act: for even the natural powers, without any habits, are principles of acts. Therefore there was no necessity for habits. |
| Praeterea, sicut potentia se habet ad bonum et malum, ita et habitus, et sicut potentia non semper agit, ita nec habitus. Existentibus igitur potentiis, superfluum fuit habitum esse. | Objection 3: Further, as power is related to good and evil, so also is habit: and as power does not always act, so neither does habit. Given, therefore, the powers, habits become superfluous. |
| Sed contra est quod habitus sunt perfectiones quaedam, ut dicitur in VII Physic. Sed perfectio est maxime necessaria rei, cum habeat rationem finis. Ergo necessarium fuit habitus esse. | On the contrary, Habits are perfections (Phys. vii, text. 17). But perfection is of the greatest necessity to a thing: since it is in the nature of an end. Therefore it is necessary that there should be habits. |
| Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut supra dictum est, habitus importat dispositionem quandam in ordine ad naturam rei, et ad operationem vel finem eius, secundum quam bene vel male aliquid ad hoc disponitur. Ad hoc autem quod aliquid indigeat disponi ad alterum, tria requiruntur. Primo quidem, ut id quod disponitur, sit alterum ab eo ad quod disponitur; et sic se habeat ad ipsum ut potentia ad actum. Unde si aliquid sit cuius natura non sit composita ex potentia et actu, et cuius substantia sit sua operatio, et ipsum sit propter seipsum; ibi habitus vel dispositio locum non habet, sicut patet in Deo. |
I answer that, As we have said above (Articles [2],3), habit implies a disposition in relation to a thing's nature, and to its operation or end, by reason of which disposition a thing is well or ill disposed thereto. Now for a thing to need to be disposed to something else, three conditions are necessary. The first condition is that which is disposed should be distinct from that to which it is disposed; and so, that it should be related to it as potentiality is to act. Whence, if there is a being whose nature is not composed of potentiality and act, and whose substance is its own operation, which itself is for itself, there we can find no room for habit and disposition, as is clearly the case in God. |
| Secundo requiritur quod id quod est in potentia ad alterum, possit pluribus modis determinari, et ad diversa. Unde si aliquid sit in potentia ad alterum, ita tamen quod non sit in potentia nisi ad ipsum, ibi dispositio et habitus locum non habet, quia tale subiectum ex sua natura habet debitam habitudinem ad talem actum. Unde si corpus caeleste sit compositum ex materia et forma, cum illa materia non sit in potentia ad aliam formam, ut in primo dictum est, non habet ibi locum dispositio vel habitus ad formam; aut etiam ad operationem, quia natura caelestis corporis non est in potentia nisi ad unum motum determinatum. | The second condition is, that that which is in a state of potentiality in regard to something else, be capable of determination in several ways and to various things. Whence if something be in a state of potentiality in regard to something else, but in regard to that only, there we find no room for disposition and habit: for such a subject from its own nature has the due relation to such an act. Wherefore if a heavenly body be composed of matter and form, since that matter is not in a state of potentiality to another form, as we said in the FP, Question [56], Article [2], there is no need for disposition or habit in respect of the form, or even in respect of operation, since the nature of the heavenly body is not in a state of potentiality to more than one fixed movement. |
| Tertio requiritur quod plura concurrant ad disponendum subiectum ad unum eorum ad quae est in potentia, quae diversis modis commensurari possunt, ut sic disponatur bene vel male ad formam vel ad operationem. Unde qualitates simplices elementorum, quae secundum unum modum determinatum naturis elementorum conveniunt, non dicimus dispositiones vel habitus, sed simplices qualitates, dicimus autem dispositiones vel habitus sanitatem, pulchritudinem et alia huiusmodi, quae important quandam commensurationem plurium quae diversis modis commensurari possunt. Propter quod philosophus dicit, in V Metaphys., quod habitus est dispositio, et dispositio est ordo habentis partes vel secundum locum, vel secundum potentiam, vel secundum speciem; ut supra dictum est. Quia igitur multa sunt entium ad quorum naturas et operationes necesse est plura concurrere quae diversis modis commensurari possunt, ideo necesse est habitus esse. |
The third condition is that in disposing the subject to one of those things to which it is in potentiality, several things should occur, capable of being adjusted in various ways: so as to dispose the subject well or ill to its form or to its operation. Wherefore the simple qualities of the elements which suit the natures of the elements in one single fixed way, are not called dispositions or habits, but "simple qualities": but we call dispositions or habits, such things as health, beauty, and so forth, which imply the adjustment of several things which may vary in their relative adjustability. For this reason the Philosopher says (Metaph. v, text. 24,25) that "habit is a disposition": and disposition is "the order of that which has parts either as to place, or as to potentiality, or as to species," as we have said above (Article [1], ad 3). Wherefore, since there are many things for whose natures and operations several things must concur which may vary in their relative adjustability, it follows that habit is necessary. |
| Ad primum ergo dicendum quod per formam perficitur natura rei, sed oportet quod in ordine ad ipsam formam disponatur subiectum aliqua dispositione. Ipsa tamen forma ordinatur ulterius ad operationem, quae vel est finis, vel via in finem. Et si quidem habeat forma determinate unam tantum operationem determinatam, nulla alia dispositio requiritur ad operationem praeter ipsam formam. Si autem sit talis forma quae possit diversimode operari, sicut est anima; oportet quod disponatur ad suas operationes per aliquos habitus. | Reply to Objection 1: By the form the nature of a thing is perfected: yet the subject needs to be disposed in regard to the form by some disposition. But the form itself is further ordained to operation, which is either the end, or the means to the end. And if the form is limited to one fixed operation, no further disposition, besides the form itself, is needed for the operation. But if the form be such that it can operate in diverse ways, as the soul; it needs to be disposed to its operations by means of habits. |
| Ad secundum dicendum quod potentia quandoque se habet ad multa, et ideo oportet quod aliquo alio determinetur. Si vero sit aliqua potentia quae non se habeat ad multa, non indiget habitu determinante, ut dictum est. Et propter hoc vires naturales non agunt operationes suas mediantibus aliquibus habitibus, quia secundum seipsas sunt determinatae ad unum. | Reply to Objection 2: Power sometimes has a relation to many things: and then it needs to be determined by something else. But if a power has not a relation to many things, it does not need a habit to determine it, as we have said. For this reason the natural forces do not perform their operations by means of habits: because they are of themselves determined to one mode of operation. |
| Ad tertium dicendum quod non idem habitus se habet ad bonum et malum, sicut infra patebit. Eadem autem potentia se habet ad bonum et malum. Et ideo necessarii sunt habitus ut potentiae determinentur ad bonum. |
Reply to Objection 3: The same habit has not a relation to good and evil, as will be made clear further on (Question [54], Article [3]): whereas the same power has a relation to good and evil. And, therefore, habits are necessary that the powers be determined to good. |