Authors/Thomas Aquinas/Summa Theologiae/Part IIa/Q32

From The Logic Museum
Jump to navigationJump to search
←Q31 Q33→



Latin English
Iª-IIae q. 32 pr. Deinde considerandum est de causis delectationis. Et circa hoc quaeruntur octo. Primo, utrum operatio sit causa propria delectationis. Secundo, utrum motus sit causa delectationis. Tertio, utrum spes et memoria. Quarto, utrum tristitia. Quinto, utrum actiones aliorum sint nobis delectationis causa. Sexto, utrum benefacere alteri sit causa delectationis. Septimo, utrum similitudo sit causa delectationis. Octavo, utrum admiratio sit causa delectationis. Question 32. The cause of pleasure Is operation the proper cause of pleasure? Is movement a cause of pleasure? Do hope and memory cause pleasure? Does sadness cause pleasure? Are the actions of others a cause of pleasure to us? Is doing good to another a cause of pleasure? Is likeness a cause of pleasure? Is wonder a cause of pleasure?
Iª-IIae q. 32 a. 1 arg. 1 Ad primum sic proceditur. Videtur quod operatio non sit propria et prima causa delectationis. Ut enim philosophus dicit, in I Rhetoric., delectari consistit in hoc quod sensus aliquid patiatur, requiritur enim ad delectationem cognitio, sicut dictum est. Sed per prius sunt cognoscibilia obiecta operationum quam ipsae operationes. Ergo operatio non est propria causa delectationis. Objection 1. It would seem that operation is not the proper and first cause of pleasure. For, as the Philosopher says (Rhet. i, 11), "pleasure consists in a perception of the senses," since knowledge is requisite for pleasure, as stated above (Question 31, Article 1). But the objects of operations are knowable before the operations themselves. Therefore operation is not the proper cause of pleasure.
Iª-IIae q. 32 a. 1 arg. 2 Praeterea, delectatio potissime consistit in fine adepto, hoc enim est quod praecipue concupiscitur. Sed non semper operatio est finis, sed quandoque ipsum operatum. Non ergo operatio est propria et per se causa delectationis. Objection 2. Further, pleasure consists especially in an end gained: since it is this that is chiefly desired. But the end is not always an operation, but is sometimes the effect of the operation. Therefore operation is not the proper and direct cause of pleasure.
Iª-IIae q. 32 a. 1 arg. 3 Praeterea, otium et requies dicuntur per cessationem operationis. Haec autem sunt delectabilia, ut dicitur in I Rhetoric. Non ergo operatio est propria causa delectationis. Objection 3. Further, leisure and rest consist in cessation from work: and they are objects of pleasure (Rhet. i, 11). Therefore operation is not the proper cause of pleasure.
Iª-IIae q. 32 a. 1 s. c. Sed contra est quod philosophus dicit, VII et X Ethic., quod delectatio est operatio connaturalis non impedita. On the contrary, The Philosopher says (Ethic. vii, 12,13; x, 4) that "pleasure is a connatural and uninterrupted operation."
Iª-IIae q. 32 a. 1 co. Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut supra dictum est, ad delectationem duo requiruntur, scilicet consecutio boni convenientis, et cognitio huiusmodi adeptionis. Utrumque autem horum in quadam operatione consistit, nam actualis cognitio operatio quaedam est; similiter bonum conveniens adipiscimur aliqua operatione. Ipsa etiam operatio propria est quoddam bonum conveniens. Unde oportet quod omnis delectatio aliquam operationem consequatur. I answer that, As stated above (Question 31, Article 1), two things are requisite for pleasure: namely, the attainment of the suitable good, and knowledge of this attainment. Now each of these consists in a kind of operation: because actual knowledge is an operation; and the attainment of the suitable good is by means of an operation. Moreover, the proper operation itself is a suitable good. Wherefore every pleasure must needs be the result of some operation.
Iª-IIae q. 32 a. 1 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod ipsa obiecta operationum non sunt delectabilia, nisi inquantum coniunguntur nobis, vel per cognitionem solam, sicut cum delectamur in consideratione vel inspectione aliquorum; vel quocumque alio modo simul cum cognitione, sicut cum aliquis delectatur in hoc quod cognoscit se habere quodcumque bonum, puta divitias vel honorem vel aliquid huiusmodi; quae quidem non essent delectabilia, nisi inquantum apprehenduntur ut habita. Ut enim philosophus dicit, in II Polit., magnam delectationem habet putare aliquid sibi proprium; quae procedit ex naturali amore alicuius ad seipsum. Habere autem huiusmodi nihil est aliud quam uti eis, vel posse uti. Et hoc est per aliquam operationem. Unde manifestum est quod omnis delectatio in operationem reducitur sicut in causam. Reply to Objection 1. The objects of operations are not pleasurable save inasmuch as they are united to us; either by knowledge alone, as when we take pleasure in thinking of or looking at certain things; or in some other way in addition to knowledge; as when a man takes pleasure in knowing that he has something good--riches, honor, or the like; which would not be pleasurable unless they were apprehended as possessed. For as the Philosopher observes (Polit. ii, 2) "we take great pleasure in looking upon a thing as our own, by reason of the natural love we have for ourselves." Now to have such like things is nothing else but to use them or to be able to use them: and this is through some operation. Wherefore it is evident that every pleasure is traced to some operation as its cause.
Iª-IIae q. 32 a. 1 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod etiam in illis in quibus operationes non sunt fines, sed operata, ipsa operata sunt delectabilia inquantum sunt habita vel facta. Quod refertur ad aliquem usum vel operationem. Reply to Objection 2. Even when it is not an operation, but the effect of an operation, that is the end, this effect is pleasant in so far as possessed or effected: and this implies use or operation.
Iª-IIae q. 32 a. 1 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod operationes sunt delectabiles, inquantum sunt proportionatae et connaturales operanti. Cum autem virtus humana sit finita, secundum aliquam mensuram operatio est sibi proportionata. Unde si excedat illam mensuram, iam non erit sibi proportionata, nec delectabilis, sed magis laboriosa et attaedians. Et secundum hoc, otium et ludus et alia quae ad requiem pertinent, delectabilia sunt, inquantum auferunt tristitiam quae est ex labore. Reply to Objection 3. Operations are pleasant, in so far as they are proportionate and connatural to the agent. Now, since human power is finite, operation is proportionate thereto according to a certain measure. Wherefore if it exceed that measure, it will be no longer proportionate or pleasant, but, on the contrary, painful and irksome. And in this sense, leisure and play and other things pertaining to repose, are pleasant, inasmuch as they banish sadness which results from labor.
Iª-IIae q. 32 a. 2 arg. 1 Ad secundum sic proceditur. Videtur quod motus non sit causa delectationis. Quia, sicut supra dictum est, bonum praesentialiter adeptum est causa delectationis, unde philosophus, in VII Ethic., dicit quod delectatio non comparatur generationi, sed operationi rei iam existentis. Id autem quod movetur ad aliquid, nondum habet illud; sed quodammodo est in via generationis respectu illius, secundum quod omni motui adiungitur generatio et corruptio, ut dicitur in VIII Physic. Ergo motus non est causa delectationis. Objection 1. It would seem that movement is not a cause of pleasure. Because, as stated above (Question 31, Article 1), the good which is obtained and is actually possessed, is the cause of pleasure: wherefore the Philosopher says (Ethic. vii, 12) that pleasure is not compared with generation, but with the operation of a thing already in existence. Now that which is being moved towards something has it not as yet; but, so to speak, is being generated in its regard, forasmuch as generation or corruption are united to every movement, as stated in Phys. viii, 3. Therefore movement is not a cause of pleasure.
Iª-IIae q. 32 a. 2 arg. 2 Praeterea, motus praecipue laborem et lassitudinem inducit in operibus. Sed operationes, ex hoc quod sunt laboriosae et lassantes, non sunt delectabiles, sed magis afflictivae. Ergo motus non est causa delectationis. Objection 2. Further, movement is the chief cause of toil and fatigue in our works. But operations through being toilsome and fatiguing are not pleasant but disagreeable. Therefore movement is not a cause of pleasure.
Iª-IIae q. 32 a. 2 arg. 3 Praeterea, motus importat innovationem quandam, quae opponitur consuetudini. Sed ea quae sunt consueta, sunt nobis delectabilia, ut philosophus dicit, in I Rhetoric. Ergo motus non est causa delectationis. Objection 3. Further, movement implies a certain innovation, which is the opposite of custom. But things "which we are accustomed to, are pleasant," as the Philosopher says (Rhet. i, 11). Therefore movement is not a cause of pleasure.
Iª-IIae q. 32 a. 2 s. c. Sed contra est quod Augustinus dicit, in VIII Confess., quid est hoc, domine Deus meus, cum tu aeternum tibi tu ipse sis gaudium; et quaedam de te circa te semper gaudeant; quod haec rerum pars alterno defectu et profectu, offensionibus et conciliationibus gaudet? Ex quo accipitur quod homines gaudent et delectantur in quibusdam alternationibus. Et sic motus videtur esse causa delectationis. On the contrary, Augustine says (Confess. viii, 3): "What means this, O Lord my God, whereas Thou art everlasting joy to Thyself, and some things around Thee evermore rejoice in Thee? What means this, that this portion of things ebbs and flows alternately displeased and reconciled?" From these words we gather that man rejoices and takes pleasure in some kind of alterations: and therefore movement seems to cause pleasure.
Iª-IIae q. 32 a. 2 co. Respondeo dicendum quod ad delectationem tria requiruntur, scilicet duo quorum est coniunctio delectabilis; et tertium, quod est cognitio huius coniunctionis. Et secundum haec tria motus efficitur delectabilis, ut philosophus dicit, in VII Ethic. et in I Rhetoric. Nam ex parte nostra qui delectamur, transmutatio efficitur nobis delectabilis propter hoc, quod natura nostra transmutabilis est; et propter hoc, quod est nobis conveniens nunc, non erit nobis conveniens postea; sicut calefieri ad ignem est conveniens homini in hieme, non autem in aestate. Ex parte vero boni delectantis quod nobis coniungitur, fit etiam transmutatio delectabilis. Quia actio continuata alicuius agentis auget effectum, sicut quanto aliquis diutius appropinquat igni, magis calefit et desiccatur. Naturalis autem habitudo in quadam mensura consistit. Et ideo quando continuata praesentia delectabilis superexcedit mensuram naturalis habitudinis, efficitur remotio eius delectabilis. Ex parte vero ipsius cognitionis, quia homo desiderat cognoscere aliquod totum et perfectum. Cum ergo aliqua non poterunt apprehendi tota simul, delectat in his transmutatio, ut unum transeat et alterum succedat, et sic totum sentiatur. Unde Augustinus dicit, in IV Confess., non vis utique stare syllabam, sed transvolare, ut aliae veniant, et totum audias. Ita semper omnia ex quibus unum aliquid constat, et non sunt omnia simul, plus delectant omnia quam singula, si possint sentiri omnia. Si ergo sit aliqua res cuius natura sit intransmutabilis; et non possit in ea fieri excessus naturalis habitudinis per continuationem delectabilis; et quae possit totum suum delectabile simul intueri, non erit ei transmutatio delectabilis. Et quanto aliquae delectationes plus ad hoc accedunt, tanto plus continuari possunt. I answer that, Three things are requisite for pleasure; two, i.e. the one that is pleased and the pleasurable object conjoined to him; and a third, which is knowledge of this conjunction: and in respect of these three, movement is pleasant, as the Philosopher says (Ethic. vii, 14 and Rhetor. i, 11). For as far as we who feel pleasure are concerned, change is pleasant to us because our nature is changeable: for which reason that which is suitable to us at one time is not suitable at another; thus to warm himself at a fire is suitable to man in winter but not in summer. Again, on the part of the pleasing good which is united to us, change is pleasant. Because the continued action of an agent increases its effect: thus the longer a person remains near the fire, the more he is warmed and dried. Now the natural mode of being consists in a certain measure; and therefore when the continued presence of a pleasant object exceeds the measure of one's natural mode of being, the removal of that object becomes pleasant. On the part of the knowledge itself (change becomes pleasant), because man desires to know something whole and perfect: when therefore a thing cannot be apprehended all at once as a whole, change in such a thing is pleasant, so that one part may pass and another succeed, and thus the whole be perceived. Hence Augustine says (Confess. iv, 11): "Thou wouldst not have the syllables stay, but fly away, that others may come, and thou hear the whole. And so whenever any one thing is made up of many, all of which do not exist together, all would please collectively more than they do severally, if all could be perceived collectively." If therefore there be any thing, whose nature is unchangeable; the natural mode of whose being cannot be exceeded by the continuation of any pleasing object; and which can behold the whole object of its delight at once--to such a one change will afford no delight. And the more any pleasures approach to this, the more are they capable of being continual.
Iª-IIae q. 32 a. 2 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod id quod movetur, etsi nondum habeat perfecte id ad quod movetur, incipit tamen iam aliquid habere eius ad quod movetur, et secundum hoc, ipse motus habet aliquid delectationis. Deficit tamen a delectationis perfectione, nam perfectiores delectationes sunt in rebus immobilibus. Motus etiam efficitur delectabilis, inquantum per ipsum fit aliquid conveniens quod prius conveniens non erat, vel desinit esse, ut supra dictum est. Reply to Objection 1. Although the subject of movement has not yet perfectly that to which it is moved, nevertheless it is beginning to have something thereof: and in this respect movement itself has something of pleasure. But it falls short of the perfection of pleasure; because the more perfect pleasures regard things that are unchangeable. Moreover movement becomes the cause of pleasure, in so far as thereby something which previously was unsuitable, becomes suitable or ceases to be, as stated above.
Iª-IIae q. 32 a. 2 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod motus laborem et lassitudinem inducit, secundum quod transcendit habitudinem naturalem. Sic autem motus non est delectabilis, sed secundum quod removentur contraria habitudinis naturalis. Reply to Objection 2. Movement causes toil and fatigue, when it exceeds our natural aptitude. It is not thus that it causes pleasure, but by removing the obstacles to our natural aptitude.
Iª-IIae q. 32 a. 2 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod id quod est consuetum, efficitur delectabile, inquantum efficitur naturale, nam consuetudo est quasi altera natura. Motus autem est delectabilis, non quidem quo receditur a consuetudine, sed magis secundum quod per ipsum impeditur corruptio naturalis habitudinis, quae posset provenire ex assiduitate alicuius operationis. Et sic ex eadem causa connaturalitatis efficitur consuetudo delectabilis, et motus. Reply to Objection 3. What is customary becomes pleasant, in so far as it becomes natural: because custom is like a second nature. But the movement which gives pleasure is not that which departs from custom, but rather that which prevents the corruption of the natural mode of being, that might result from continued operation. And thus from the same cause of connaturalness, both custom and movement become pleasant.
Iª-IIae q. 32 a. 3 arg. 1 Ad tertium sic proceditur. Videtur quod memoria et spes non sint causae delectationis. Delectatio enim est de bono praesenti, ut Damascenus dicit. Sed memoria et spes sunt de absenti, est enim memoria praeteritorum, spes vero futurorum. Ergo memoria et spes non sunt causa delectationis. Objection 1. It would seem that memory and hope do not cause pleasure. Because pleasure is caused by present good, as Damascene says (De Fide Orth. ii, 12). But hope and memory regard what is absent: since memory is of the past, and hope of the future. Therefore memory and hope do not cause pleasure.
Iª-IIae q. 32 a. 3 arg. 2 Praeterea, idem non est causa contrariorum. Sed spes est causa afflictionis, dicitur enim Prov. XIII, spes quae differtur, affligit animam. Ergo spes non est causa delectationis. Objection 2. Further, the same thing is not the cause of contraries. But hope causes affliction, according to Proverbs 13:12: "Hope that is deferred afflicteth the soul." Therefore hope does not cause pleasure.
Iª-IIae q. 32 a. 3 arg. 3 Praeterea, sicut spes convenit cum delectatione in eo quod est de bono, ita etiam concupiscentia et amor. Non ergo magis debet assignari spes causa delectationis, quam concupiscentia vel amor. Objection 3. Further, just as hope agrees with pleasure in regarding good, so also do desire and love. Therefore hope should not be assigned as a cause of pleasure, any more than desire or love.
Iª-IIae q. 32 a. 3 s. c. Sed contra est quod dicitur Rom. XII, spe gaudentes; et in Psalmo LXXVI, memor fui Dei, et delectatus sum. On the contrary, It is written (Romans 12:12): "Rejoicing in hope"; and (Psalm 76:4): "I remembered God, and was delighted."
Iª-IIae q. 32 a. 3 co. Respondeo dicendum quod delectatio causatur ex praesentia boni convenientis, secundum quod sentitur, vel qualitercumque percipitur. Est autem aliquid praesens nobis dupliciter, uno modo, secundum cognitionem, prout scilicet cognitum est in cognoscente secundum suam similitudinem; alio modo, secundum rem, prout scilicet unum alteri realiter coniungitur, vel actu vel potentia, secundum quemcumque coniunctionis modum. Et quia maior est coniunctio secundum rem quam secundum similitudinem, quae est coniunctio cognitionis; itemque maior est coniunctio rei in actu quam in potentia, ideo maxima est delectatio quae fit per sensum, qui requirit praesentiam rei sensibilis. Secundum autem gradum tenet delectatio spei, in qua non solum est delectabilis coniunctio secundum apprehensionem, sed etiam secundum facultatem vel potestatem adipiscendi bonum quod delectat. Tertium autem gradum tenet delectatio memoriae, quae habet solam coniunctionem apprehensionis. I answer that, Pleasure is caused by the presence of suitable good, in so far as it is felt, or perceived in any way. Now a thing is present to us in two ways. First, in knowledge--i.e. according as the thing known is in the knower by its likeness; secondly, in reality--i.e. according as one thing is in real conjunction of any kind with another, either actually or potentially. And since real conjunction is greater than conjunction by likeness, which is the conjunction of knowledge; and again, since actual is greater than potential conjunction: therefore the greatest pleasure is that which arises from sensation which requires the presence of the sensible object. The second place belongs to the pleasure of hope, wherein there is pleasurable conjunction, not only in respect of apprehension, but also in respect of the faculty or power of obtaining the pleasurable object. The third place belongs to the pleasure of memory, which has only the conjunction of apprehension.
Iª-IIae q. 32 a. 3 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod spes et memoria sunt quidem eorum quae sunt simpliciter absentia, quae tamen secundum quid sunt praesentia, scilicet vel secundum apprehensionem solam; vel secundum apprehensionem et facultatem, ad minus aestimatam. Reply to Objection 1. Hope and memory are indeed of things which, absolutely speaking, are absent: and yet those are, after a fashion, present, i.e. either according to apprehension only; or according to apprehension and possibility, at least supposed, of attainment.
Iª-IIae q. 32 a. 3 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod nihil prohibet idem, secundum diversa, esse causam contrariorum. Sic igitur spes, inquantum habet praesentem aestimationem boni futuri, delectationem causat, inquantum autem caret praesentia eius, causat afflictionem. Reply to Objection 2. Nothing prevents the same thing, in different ways, being the cause of contraries. And so hope, inasmuch as it implies a present appraising of a future good, causes pleasure; whereas, inasmuch as it implies absence of that good, it causes affliction.
Iª-IIae q. 32 a. 3 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod etiam amor et concupiscentia delectationem causant. Omne enim amatum fit delectabile amanti, eo quod amor est quaedam unio vel connaturalitas amantis ad amatum. Similiter etiam omne concupitum est delectabile concupiscenti, cum concupiscentia sit praecipue appetitus delectationis. Sed tamen spes, inquantum importat quandam certitudinem realis praesentiae boni delectantis, quam non importat nec amor nec concupiscentia, magis ponitur causa delectationis quam illa. Et similiter magis quam memoria, quae est de eo quod iam transiit. Reply to Objection 3. Love and concupiscence also cause pleasure. For everything that is loved becomes pleasing to the lover, since love is a kind of union or connaturalness of lover and beloved. In like manner every object of desire is pleasing to the one that desires, since desire is chiefly a craving for pleasure. However hope, as implying a certainty of the real presence of the pleasing good, that is not implied either by love or by concupiscence, is reckoned in preference to them as causing pleasure; and also in preference to memory, which is of that which has already passed away.
Iª-IIae q. 32 a. 4 arg. 1 Ad quartum sic proceditur. Videtur quod tristitia non sit causa delectationis. Contrarium enim non est causa contrarii. Sed tristitia contrariatur delectationi. Ergo non est causa delectationis. Objection 1. It would seem that sadness does not cause pleasure. For nothing causes its own contrary. But sadness is contrary to pleasure. Therefore it does not cause it.
Iª-IIae q. 32 a. 4 arg. 2 Praeterea, contrariorum contrarii sunt effectus. Sed delectabilia memorata sunt causa delectationis. Ergo tristia memorata sunt causa doloris, et non delectationis. Objection 2. Further, contraries have contrary effects. But pleasures, when called to mind, cause pleasure. Therefore sad things, when remembered, cause sorrow and not pleasure.
Iª-IIae q. 32 a. 4 arg. 3 Praeterea, sicut se habet tristitia ad delectationem, ita odium ad amorem. Sed odium non est causa amoris, sed magis e converso, ut supra dictum est. Ergo tristitia non est causa delectationis. Objection 3. Further, as sadness is to pleasure, so is hatred to love. But hatred does not cause love, but rather the other way about, as stated above (Question 29, Article 2). Therefore sadness does not cause pleasure.
Iª-IIae q. 32 a. 4 s. c. Sed contra est quod in Psalmo XLI, dicitur, fuerunt mihi lacrimae meae panes die ac nocte. Per panem autem refectio delectationis intelligitur. Ergo lacrimae, quae ex tristitia oriuntur, possunt esse delectabiles. On the contrary, It is written (Psalm 41:4): "My tears have been my bread day and night": where bread denotes the refreshment of pleasure. Therefore tears, which arise from sadness, can give pleasure.
Iª-IIae q. 32 a. 4 co. Respondeo dicendum quod tristitia potest dupliciter considerari, uno modo, secundum quod est in actu; alio modo, secundum quod est in memoria. Et utroque modo tristitia potest esse delectationis causa. Tristitia siquidem in actu existens est causa delectationis, inquantum facit memoriam rei dilectae, de cuius absentia aliquis tristatur, et tamen de sola eius apprehensione delectatur. Memoria autem tristitiae fit causa delectationis, propter subsequentem evasionem. Nam carere malo accipitur in ratione boni, unde secundum quod homo apprehendit se evasisse ab aliquibus tristibus et dolorosis, accrescit ei gaudii materia; secundum quod Augustinus dicit, XXII de Civ. Dei, quod saepe laeti tristium meminimus, et sani dolorum sine dolore, et inde amplius laeti et grati sumus. Et in VIII Confess. dicit quod quanto maius fuit periculum in proelio, tanto maius erit gaudium in triumpho. I answer that, Sadness may be considered in two ways: as existing actually, and as existing in the memory: and in both ways sadness can cause pleasure. Because sadness, as actually existing, causes pleasure, inasmuch as it brings to mind that which is loved, the absence of which causes sadness; and yet the mere thought of it gives pleasure. The recollection of sadness becomes a cause of pleasure, on account of the deliverance which ensued: because absence of evil is looked upon as something good; wherefore so far as a man thinks that he has been delivered from that which caused him sorrow and pain, so much reason has he to rejoice. Hence Augustine says in De Civ. Dei xxii, 31 [Gregory, Moral. iv.] that "oftentimes in joy we call to mind sad things . . . and in the season of health we recall past pains without feeling pain . . . and in proportion are the more filled with joy and gladness": and again (Confess. viii, 3) he says that "the more peril there was in the battle, so much the more joy will there be in the triumph."
Iª-IIae q. 32 a. 4 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod contrarium quandoque per accidens est causa contrarii, sicut frigidum quandoque calefacit, ut dicitur in VIII Physic. Et similiter tristitia per accidens est delectationis causa, inquantum fit per eam apprehensio alicuius delectabilis. Reply to Objection 1. Sometimes accidentally a thing is the cause of its contrary: thus "that which is cold sometimes causes heat," as stated in Phys. viii, 1. In like manner sadness is the accidental cause of pleasure, in so far as it gives rise to the apprehension of something pleasant.
Iª-IIae q. 32 a. 4 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod tristia memorata, inquantum sunt tristia et delectabilibus contraria, non causant delectationem, sed inquantum ab eis homo liberatur. Et similiter memoria delectabilium, ex eo quod sunt amissa, potest causare tristitiam. Reply to Objection 2. Sad things, called to mind, cause pleasure, not in so far as they are sad and contrary to pleasant things; but in so far as man is delivered from them. In like manner the recollection of pleasant things, by reason of these being lost, may cause sadness.
Iª-IIae q. 32 a. 4 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod odium etiam per accidens potest esse causa amoris, prout scilicet aliqui diligunt se, inquantum conveniunt in odio unius et eiusdem. Reply to Objection 3. Hatred also can be the accidental cause of love: i.e. so far as some love one another, inasmuch as they agree in hating one and the same thing.
Iª-IIae q. 32 a. 5 arg. 1 Ad quintum sic proceditur. Videtur quod actiones aliorum non sint nobis delectationis causa. Causa enim delectationis est proprium bonum coniunctum. Sed aliorum operationes non sunt nobis coniunctae. Ergo non sunt nobis causa delectationis. Objection 1. It would seem that the actions of others are not a cause of pleasure to us. Because the cause of pleasure is our own good when conjoined to us. But the actions of others are not conjoined to us. Therefore they are not a cause of pleasure to us.
Iª-IIae q. 32 a. 5 arg. 2 Praeterea, operatio est proprium bonum operantis. Si igitur operationes aliorum sint nobis causa delectationis, pari ratione omnia alia bona aliorum erunt nobis delectationis causa. Quod patet esse falsum. Objection 2. Further, the action is the agent's own good. If, therefore, the actions of others are a cause of pleasure to us, for the same reason all goods belonging to others will be pleasing to us: which is evidently untrue.
Iª-IIae q. 32 a. 5 arg. 3 Praeterea, operatio est delectabilis, inquantum procedit ex habitu nobis innato, unde dicitur in II Ethic., quod signum generati habitus oportet accipere fientem in opere delectationem. Sed operationes aliorum non procedunt ex habitibus qui in nobis sunt, sed interdum ex habitibus qui sunt in operantibus. Non ergo operationes aliorum sunt nobis delectabiles, sed ipsis operantibus. Objection 3. Further, action is pleasant through proceeding from an innate habit; hence it is stated in Ethic. ii, 3 that "we must reckon the pleasure which follows after action, as being the sign of a habit existing in us." But the actions of others do not proceed from habits existing in us, but, sometimes, from habits existing in the agents. Therefore the actions of others are not pleasing to us, but to the agents themselves.
Iª-IIae q. 32 a. 5 s. c. Sed contra est quod dicitur in secunda canonica Ioannis, gavisus sum valde, quoniam inveni de filiis tuis ambulantes in veritate. On the contrary, It is written in the second canonical epistle of John (verse 4): "I was exceeding glad that I found thy children walking in truth."
Iª-IIae q. 32 a. 5 co. Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut iam dictum est, ad delectationem duo requiruntur, scilicet consecutio proprii boni, et cognitio proprii boni consecuti. Tripliciter ergo operatio alterius potest esse delectationis causa. Uno modo, inquantum per operationem alicuius consequimur aliquod bonum. Et secundum hoc, operationes illorum qui nobis aliquod bonum faciunt, sunt nobis delectabiles, quia bene pati ab alio est delectabile. Alio modo, secundum quod per operationes aliorum efficitur nobis aliqua cognitio vel aestimatio proprii boni. Et propter hoc homines delectantur in hoc quod laudantur vel honorantur ab aliis, quia scilicet per hoc accipiunt aestimationem in seipsis aliquod bonum esse. Et quia ista aestimatio fortius generatur ex testimonio bonorum et sapientum, ideo in horum laudibus et honoribus homines magis delectantur. Et quia adulator est apparens laudator, propter hoc etiam adulationes quibusdam sunt delectabiles. Et quia amor est alicuius boni, et admiratio est alicuius magni, idcirco amari ab aliis, et in admiratione haberi, est delectabile; inquantum per hoc fit homini aestimatio propriae bonitatis vel magnitudinis, in quibus aliquis delectatur. Tertio modo, inquantum ipsae operationes aliorum, si sint bonae, aestimantur ut bonum proprium, propter vim amoris, qui facit aestimare amicum quasi eundem sibi. Et propter odium, quod facit aestimare bonum alterius esse sibi contrarium, efficitur mala operatio inimici delectabilis. Unde dicitur I ad Cor. XIII, quod caritas non gaudet super iniquitate, congaudet autem veritati. I answer that, As stated above (01; 31, 1), two things are requisite for pleasure, namely, the attainment of one's proper good, and the knowledge of having obtained it. Wherefore the action of another may cause pleasure to us in three ways. First, from the fact that we obtain some good through the action of another. And in this way, the actions of those who do some good to us, are pleasing to us: since it is pleasant to be benefited by another. Secondly, from the fact that another's action makes us to know or appreciate our own good: and for this reason men take pleasure in being praised or honored by others, because, to wit, they thus become aware of some good existing in themselves. And since this appreciation receives greater weight from the testimony of good and wise men, hence men take greater pleasure in being praised and honored by them. And because a flatterer appears to praise, therefore flattery is pleasing to some. And as love is for something good, while admiration is for something great, so it is pleasant to be loved and admired by others, inasmuch as a man thus becomes aware of his own goodness or greatness, through their giving pleasure to others. Thirdly, from the fact that another's actions, if they be good, are reckoned as one's own good, by reason of the power of love, which makes a man to regard his friend as one with himself. And on account of hatred, which makes one to reckon another's good as being in opposition to oneself, the evil action of an enemy becomes an object of pleasure: whence it is written (1 Corinthians 13:6) that charity "rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth with the truth."
Iª-IIae q. 32 a. 5 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod operatio alterius potest esse mihi coniuncta vel per effectum, sicut in primo modo; vel per apprehensionem, sicut in secundo modo; vel per affectionem, sicut in tertio modo. Reply to Objection 1. Another's action may be conjoined to me, either by its effect, as in the first way, or by knowledge, as in the second way; or by affection, as in the third way.
Iª-IIae q. 32 a. 5 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod ratio illa procedit quantum ad tertium modum, non autem quantum ad duos primos. Reply to Objection 2. This argument avails for the third mode, but not for the first two.
Iª-IIae q. 32 a. 5 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod operationes aliorum etsi non procedant ex habitibus qui in me sunt, causant tamen in me aliquid delectabile; vel faciunt mihi aestimationem sive apprehensionem proprii habitus; vel procedunt ex habitu illius qui est unum mecum per amorem. Reply to Objection 3. Although the actions of another do not proceed from habits that are in me, yet they either produce in me something that gives pleasure; or they make me appreciate or know a habit of mind; or they proceed from the habit of one who is united to me by love.
Iª-IIae q. 32 a. 6 arg. 1 Ad sextum sic proceditur. Videtur quod benefacere alteri non sit delectationis causa. Delectatio enim causatur ex consecutione proprii boni, sicut supra dictum est. Sed benefacere non pertinet ad consecutionem proprii boni, sed magis ad emissionem. Ergo magis videtur esse causa tristitiae quam delectationis. Objection 1. It would seem that doing good to another is not a cause of pleasure. Because pleasure is caused by one's obtaining one's proper good, as stated above (1,5; 31, 1). But doing good pertains not to the obtaining but to the spending of one's proper good. Therefore it seems to be the cause of sadness rather than of pleasure.
Iª-IIae q. 32 a. 6 arg. 2 Praeterea, philosophus dicit, in IV Ethic., quod illiberalitas connaturalior est hominibus quam prodigalitas. Sed ad prodigalitatem pertinet benefacere aliis, ad illiberalitatem autem pertinet desistere a benefaciendo. Cum ergo operatio connaturalis sit delectabilis unicuique, ut dicitur in VII et X Ethic., videtur quod benefacere aliis non sit causa delectationis. Objection 2. Further, the Philosopher says (Ethic. iv, 1) that "illiberality is more connatural to man than prodigality." Now it is a mark of prodigality to do good to others; while it is a mark of illiberality to desist from doing good. Since therefore everyone takes pleasure in a connatural operation, as stated in Ethic. vii, 14 and x, 4, it seems that doing good to others is not a cause of pleasure.
Iª-IIae q. 32 a. 6 arg. 3 Praeterea, contrarii effectus ex contrariis causis procedunt. Sed quaedam quae pertinent ad malefacere, sunt naturaliter homini delectabilia, sicut vincere, redarguere vel increpare alios, et etiam punire, quantum ad iratos, ut dicit philosophus in I Rhetoric. Ergo benefacere magis est causa tristitiae quam delectationis. Objection 3. Further, contrary effects proceed from contrary causes. But man takes a natural pleasure in certain kinds of ill-doing, such as overcoming, contradicting or scolding others, or, if he be angry, in punishing them, as the Philosopher says (Rhet. i, 11). Therefore doing good to others is a cause of sadness rather than pleasure.
Iª-IIae q. 32 a. 6 s. c. Sed contra est quod philosophus dicit, in II Polit., quod largiri et auxiliari amicis aut extraneis, est delectabilissimum. On the contrary, The Philosopher says (Polit. ii, 2) that "it is most pleasant to give presents or assistance to friends and strangers."
Iª-IIae q. 32 a. 6 co. Respondeo dicendum quod hoc ipsum quod est benefacere alteri, potest tripliciter esse delectationis causa. Uno modo, per comparationem ad effectum, quod est bonum in altero constitutum. Et secundum hoc, inquantum bonum alterius reputamus quasi nostrum bonum, propter unionem amoris, delectamur in bono quod per nos fit aliis, praecipue amicis, sicut in bono proprio. Alio modo, per comparationem ad finem, sicut cum aliquis, per hoc quod alteri benefacit, sperat consequi aliquod bonum sibi ipsi, vel a Deo vel ab homine. Spes autem delectationis est causa. Tertio modo, per comparationem ad principium. Et sic hoc quod est benefacere alteri, potest esse delectabile per comparationem ad triplex principium. Quorum unum est facultas benefaciendi, et secundum hoc, benefacere alteri fit delectabile, inquantum per hoc fit homini quaedam imaginatio abundantis boni in seipso existentis, ex quo possit aliis communicare. Et ideo homines delectantur in filiis et in propriis operibus, sicut quibus communicant proprium bonum. Aliud principium est habitus inclinans, secundum quem benefacere fit alicui connaturale. Unde liberales delectabiliter dant aliis. Tertium principium est motivum, puta cum aliquis movetur ab aliquo quem diligit, ad benefaciendum alicui, omnia enim quae facimus vel patimur propter amicum, delectabilia sunt, quia amor praecipua causa delectationis est. I answer that, Doing good to another may give pleasure in three ways. First, in consideration of the effect, which is the good conferred on another. In this respect, inasmuch as through being united to others by love, we look upon their good as being our own, we take pleasure in the good we do to others, especially to our friends, as in our own good. Secondly, in consideration of the end; as when a man, from doing good to another, hopes to get some good for himself, either from God or from man: for hope is a cause of pleasure. Thirdly, in consideration of the principle: and thus, doing good to another, can give pleasure in respect of a threefold principle. One is the faculty of doing good: and in this regard, doing good to another becomes pleasant, in so far as it arouses in man an imagination of abundant good existing in him, whereof he is able to give others a share. Wherefore men take pleasure in their children, and in their own works, as being things on which they bestow a share of their own good. Another principle is man's habitual inclination to do good, by reason of which doing good becomes connatural to him: for which reason the liberal man takes pleasure in giving to others. The third principle is the motive: for instance when a man is moved by one whom he loves, to do good to someone: for whatever we do or suffer for a friend is pleasant, because love is the principal cause of pleasure.
Iª-IIae q. 32 a. 6 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod emissio, inquantum est indicativa proprii boni, est delectabilis. Sed inquantum evacuat proprium bonum potest esse contristans; sicut quando est immoderata. Reply to Objection 1. Spending gives pleasure as showing forth one's good. But in so far as it empties us of our own good it may be a cause of sadness; for instance when it is excessive.
Iª-IIae q. 32 a. 6 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod prodigalitas habet immoderatam emissionem, quae repugnat naturae. Et ideo prodigalitas dicitur esse contra naturam. Reply to Objection 2. Prodigality is an excessive spending, which is unnatural: wherefore prodigality is said to be contrary to nature.
Iª-IIae q. 32 a. 6 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod vincere, redarguere et punire, non est delectabile inquantum est in malum alterius, sed inquantum pertinet ad proprium bonum, quod plus homo amat quam odiat malum alterius. Vincere enim est delectabile naturaliter, inquantum per hoc homini fit aestimatio propriae excellentiae. Et propter hoc, omnes ludi in quibus est concertatio, et in quibus potest esse victoria, sunt maxime delectabiles, et universaliter omnes concertationes, secundum quod habent spem victoriae. Redarguere autem et increpare potest esse dupliciter delectationis causa. Uno modo, inquantum facit homini imaginationem propriae sapientiae et excellentiae, increpare enim et corripere est sapientum et maiorum alio modo, secundum quod aliquis, increpando et reprehendendo, alteri benefacit, quod est delectabile, ut dictum est. Irato autem est delectabile punire, inquantum videtur removere apparentem minorationem, quae videtur esse ex praecedenti laesione. Cum enim aliquis est ab aliquo laesus, videtur per hoc ab illo minoratus esse, et ideo appetit ab hac minoratione liberari per retributionem laesionis. Et sic patet quod benefacere alteri per se potest esse delectabile, sed malefacere alteri non est delectabile, nisi inquantum videtur pertinere ad proprium bonum. Reply to Objection 3. To overcome, to contradict, and to punish, give pleasure, not as tending to another's ill, but as pertaining to one's own good, which man loves more than he hates another's ill. For it is naturally pleasant to overcome, inasmuch as it makes a man to appreciate his own superiority. Wherefore all those games in which there is a striving for the mastery, and a possibility of winning it, afford the greatest pleasure: and speaking generally all contests, in so far as they admit hope of victory. To contradict and to scold can give pleasure in two ways. First, as making man imagine himself to be wise and excellent; since it belongs to wise men and elders to reprove and to scold. Secondly, in so far as by scolding and reproving, one does good to another: for this gives one pleasure, as stated above. It is pleasant to an angry man to punish, in so far as he thinks himself to be removing an apparent slight, which seems to be due to a previous hurt: for when a man is hurt by another, he seems to be slighted thereby; and therefore he wishes to be quit of this slight by paying back the hurt. And thus it is clear that doing good to another may be of itself pleasant: whereas doing evil to another is not pleasant, except in so far as it seems to affect one's own good.
Iª-IIae q. 32 a. 7 arg. 1 Ad septimum sic proceditur. Videtur quod similitudo non sit causa delectationis. Principari enim et praeesse quandam dissimilitudinem importat. Sed principari et praeesse naturaliter est delectabile, ut dicitur in I Rhetoric. Ergo dissimilitudo magis est causa delectationis quam similitudo. Objection 1. It would seem that likeness is not a cause of pleasure. Because ruling and presiding seem to imply a certain unlikeness. But "it is natural to take pleasure in ruling and presiding," as stated in Rhetor. i, 11. Therefore unlikeness, rather than likeness, is a cause of pleasure.
Iª-IIae q. 32 a. 7 arg. 2 Praeterea, nihil magis est dissimile delectationi quam tristitia. Sed illi qui patiuntur tristitias, maxime sequuntur delectationes, ut dicitur in VII Ethic. Ergo dissimilitudo est magis causa delectationis quam similitudo. Objection 2. Further, nothing is more unlike pleasure than sorrow. But those who are burdened by sorrow are most inclined to seek pleasures, as the Philosopher says (Ethic. vii, 14). Therefore unlikeness, rather than likeness, is a cause of pleasure.
Iª-IIae q. 32 a. 7 arg. 3 Praeterea, illi qui sunt repleti aliquibus delectabilibus, non delectantur in eis, sed magis fastidiunt ea, sicut patet in repletione ciborum. Non ergo similitudo est delectationis causa. Objection 3. Further, those who are satiated with certain delights, derive not pleasure but disgust from them; as when one is satiated with food. Therefore likeness is not a cause of pleasure.
Iª-IIae q. 32 a. 7 s. c. Sed contra est quod similitudo est causa amoris, ut dictum est supra. Amor autem est causa delectationis. Ergo similitudo est causa delectationis. On the contrary, Likeness is a cause of love, as above stated (27, 3): and love is the cause of pleasure. Therefore likeness is a cause of pleasure.
Iª-IIae q. 32 a. 7 co. Respondeo dicendum quod similitudo est quaedam unitas, unde id quod est simile, inquantum est unum, est delectabile, sicut et amabile, ut supra dictum est. Et si quidem id quod est simile, proprium bonum non corrumpat, sed augeat, est simpliciter delectabile, puta homo homini, et iuvenis iuveni. Si vero sit corruptivum proprii boni, sic per accidens efficitur fastidiosum vel contristans; non quidem inquantum est simile et unum, sed inquantum corrumpit id quod est magis unum. Quod autem aliquid simile corrumpat proprium bonum, contingit dupliciter. Uno modo, quia corrumpit mensuram proprii boni per quendam excessum, bonum enim, praecipue corporale, ut sanitas, in quadam commensuratione consistit. Et propter hoc, superabundantes cibi, vel quaelibet delectationes corporales, fastidiuntur. Alio modo, per directam contrarietatem ad proprium bonum, sicut figuli abominantur alios figulos, non inquantum sunt figuli, sed inquantum per eos amittunt excellentiam propriam, sive proprium lucrum, quae appetunt sicut proprium bonum. I answer that, Likeness is a kind of unity; hence that which is like us, as being one with us, causes pleasure; just at it causes love, as stated above (Question 27, Article 3). And if that which is like us does not hurt our own good, but increase it, it is pleasurable simply; for instance one man in respect of another, one youth in relation to another. But if it be hurtful to our own good, thus accidentally it causes disgust or sadness, not as being like and one with us, but as hurtful to that which is yet more one with us. Now it happens in two ways that something like is hurtful to our own good. First, by destroying the measure of our own good, by a kind of excess; because good, especially bodily good, as health, is conditioned by a certain measure: wherefore superfluous good or any bodily pleasure, causes disgust. Secondly, by being directly contrary to one's own good: thus a potter dislikes other potters, not because they are potters, but because they deprive him of his own excellence or profits, which he seeks as his own good.
Iª-IIae q. 32 a. 7 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod, cum sit quaedam communicatio principantis ad subiectum, est ibi quaedam similitudo. Tamen secundum quandam excellentiam, eo quod principari et praeesse pertinent ad excellentiam proprii boni, sapientum enim et meliorum est principari et praeesse. Unde per hoc fit homini propriae bonitatis imaginatio. Vel quia per hoc quod homo principatur et praeest, aliis benefacit, quod est delectabile. Reply to Objection 1. Since ruler and subject are in communion with one another, there is a certain likeness between them: but this likeness is conditioned by a certain superiority, since ruling and presiding pertain to the excellence of a man's own good: because they belong to men who are wise and better than others; the result being that they give man an idea of his own excellence. Another reason is that by ruling and presiding, a man does good to others, which is pleasant.
Iª-IIae q. 32 a. 7 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod id in quo delectatur tristatus, etsi non sit simile tristitiae, est tamen simile homini contristato. Quia tristitiae contrariantur proprio bono eius qui tristatur. Et ideo appetitur delectatio ab his qui in tristitia sunt, ut conferens ad proprium bonum, inquantum est medicativa contrarii. Et ista est causa quare delectationes corporales, quibus sunt contrariae quaedam tristitiae, magis appetuntur, quam delectationes intellectuales, quae non habent contrarietatem tristitiae, ut infra dicetur. Exinde etiam est quod omnia animalia naturaliter appetunt delectationem, quia semper animal laborat per sensum et motum. Et propter hoc etiam iuvenes maxime delectationes appetunt; propter multas transmutationes in eis existentes, dum sunt in statu augmenti. Et etiam melancholici vehementer appetunt delectationes, ad expellendum tristitiam, quia corpus eorum quasi pravo humore corroditur, ut dicitur in VII Ethic. Reply to Objection 2. That which gives pleasure to the sorrowful man, though it be unlike sorrow, bears some likeness to the man that is sorrowful: because sorrows are contrary to his own good. Wherefore the sorrowful man seeks pleasure as making for his own good, in so far as it is a remedy for its contrary. And this is why bodily pleasures, which are contrary to certain sorrows, are more sought than intellectual pleasures, which have no contrary sorrow, as we shall state later on (35, 5). And this explains why all animals naturally desire pleasure: because animals ever work through sense and movement. For this reason also young people are most inclined to seek pleasures; on account of the many changes to which they are subject, while yet growing. Moreover this is why the melancholic has a strong desire for pleasures, in order to drive away sorrow: because his "body is corroded by a base humor," as stated in Ethic. vii, 14.
Iª-IIae q. 32 a. 7 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod bona corporalia in quadam mensura consistunt, et ideo superexcessus similium corrumpit proprium bonum. Et propter hoc efficitur fastidiosum et contristans, inquantum contrariatur bono proprio hominis. Reply to Objection 3. Bodily goods are conditioned by a certain fixed measure: wherefore surfeit of such things destroys the proper good, and consequently gives rise to disgust and sorrow, through being contrary to the proper good of man.
Iª-IIae q. 32 a. 8 arg. 1 Ad octavum sic proceditur. Videtur quod admiratio non sit causa delectationis. Admirari enim est ignorantis naturae, ut Damascenus dicit. Sed ignorantia non est delectabilis, sed magis scientia. Ergo admiratio non est causa delectationis. Objection 1. It would seem that wonder is not a cause of pleasure. Because wonder is the act of one who is ignorant of the nature of something, as Damascene says. But knowledge, rather than ignorance, is a cause of pleasure. Therefore wonder is not a cause of pleasure.
Iª-IIae q. 32 a. 8 arg. 2 Praeterea, admiratio est principium sapientiae, quasi via ad inquirendum veritatem, ut dicitur in principio Metaphys. Sed delectabilius est contemplari iam cognita, quam inquirere ignota, ut philosophus dicit in X Ethic., cum hoc habeat difficultatem et impedimentum, illud autem non habeat; delectatio autem causatur ex operatione non impedita, ut dicitur in VII Ethic. Ergo admiratio non est causa delectationis, sed magis delectationem impedit. Objection 2. Further, wonder is the beginning of wisdom, being as it were, the road to the search of truth, as stated in the beginning of Metaph. i, 2. But "it is more pleasant to think of what we know, than to seek what we know not," as the Philosopher says (Ethic. x, 7): since in the latter case we encounter difficulties and hindrances, in the former not; while pleasure arises from an operation which is unhindered, as stated in Ethic. vii, 12,13. Therefore wonder hinders rather than causes pleasure.
Iª-IIae q. 32 a. 8 arg. 3 Praeterea, unusquisque in consuetis delectatur, unde operationes habituum per consuetudinem acquisitorum, sunt delectabiles. Sed consueta non sunt admirabilia, ut dicit Augustinus, super Ioan. Ergo admiratio contrariatur causae delectationis. Objection 3. Further, everyone takes pleasure in what he is accustomed to: wherefore the actions of habits acquired by custom, are pleasant. But "we wonder at what is unwonted," as Augustine says (Tract. xxiv in Joan.). Therefore wonder is contrary to the cause of pleasure.
Iª-IIae q. 32 a. 8 s. c. Sed contra est quod philosophus dicit, in I Rhetoric., quod admiratio est delectationis causa. On the contrary, The Philosopher says (Rhet. i, 11) that wonder is the cause of pleasure.
Iª-IIae q. 32 a. 8 co. Respondeo dicendum quod adipisci desiderata est delectabile, ut supra dictum est. Et ideo quanto alicuius rei amatae magis crescit desiderium, tanto magis per adeptionem crescit delectatio. Et etiam in ipso augmento desiderii fit augmentum delectationis, secundum quod fit etiam spes rei amatae; sicut supra dictum est quod ipsum desiderium ex spe est delectabile. Est autem admiratio desiderium quoddam sciendi, quod in homine contingit ex hoc quod videt effectum et ignorat causam, vel ex hoc quod causa talis effectus excedit cognitionem aut facultatem ipsius. Et ideo admiratio est causa delectationis inquantum habet adiunctam spem consequendi cognitionem eius quod scire desiderat. Et propter hoc omnia mirabilia sunt delectabilia, sicut quae sunt rara, et omnes repraesentationes rerum, etiam quae in se non sunt delectabiles; gaudet enim anima in collatione unius ad alterum, quia conferre unum alteri est proprius et connaturalis actus rationis, ut philosophus dicit in sua poetica. Et propter hoc etiam liberari a magnis periculis magis est delectabile, quia est admirabile, ut dicitur in I Rhetoric. I answer that, It is pleasant to get what one desires, as stated above (Question 23, Article 4): and therefore the greater the desire for the thing loved, the greater the pleasure when it is attained: indeed the very increase of desire brings with it an increase of pleasure, according as it gives rise to the hope of obtaining that which is loved, since it was stated above (3, ad 3) that desire resulting from hope is a cause of pleasure. Now wonder is a kind of desire for knowledge; a desire which comes to man when he sees an effect of which the cause either is unknown to him, or surpasses his knowledge or faculty of understanding. Consequently wonder is a cause of pleasure, in so far as it includes a hope of getting the knowledge which one desires to have. For this reason whatever is wonderful is pleasing, for instance things that are scarce. Also, representations of things, even of those which are not pleasant in themselves, give rise to pleasure; for the soul rejoices in comparing one thing with another, because comparison of one thing with another is the proper and connatural act of the reason, as the Philosopher says (Poet. iv). This again is why "it is more delightful to be delivered from great danger, because it is something wonderful," as stated in Rhetor. i, 11.
Iª-IIae q. 32 a. 8 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod admiratio non est delectabilis inquantum habet ignorantiam, sed inquantum habet desiderium addiscendi causam; et inquantum admirans aliquid novum addiscit, scilicet talem esse quem non aestimabat. Reply to Objection 1. Wonder gives pleasure, not because it implies ignorance, but in so far as it includes the desire of learning the cause, and in so far as the wonderer learns something new, i.e. that the cause is other than he had thought it to be. [According to another reading:--that he is other than he thought himself to be.]
Iª-IIae q. 32 a. 8 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod delectatio duo habet, scilicet quietem in bono, et huiusmodi quietis perceptionem. Quantum igitur ad primum, cum sit perfectius contemplari veritatem cognitam quam inquirere ignotam, contemplationes rerum scitarum, per se loquendo, sunt magis delectabiles quam inquisitiones rerum ignotarum. Tamen per accidens, quantum ad secundum, contingit quod inquisitiones sunt quandoque delectabiliores, secundum quod ex maiori desiderio procedunt, desiderium autem maius excitatur ex perceptione ignorantiae. Unde maxime homo delectatur in his quae de novo invenit aut addiscit. Reply to Objection 2. Pleasure includes two things; rest in the good, and perception of this rest. As to the former therefore, since it is more perfect to contemplate the known truth, than to seek for the unknown, the contemplation of what we know, is in itself more pleasing than the research of what we do not know. Nevertheless, as to the second, it happens that research is sometimes more pleasing accidentally, in so far as it proceeds from a greater desire: for greater desire is awakened when we are conscious of our ignorance. This is why man takes the greatest pleasure in finding or learning things for the first time.
Iª-IIae q. 32 a. 8 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod ea quae sunt consueta, sunt delectabilia ad operandum, inquantum sunt quasi connaturalia. Sed tamen ea quae sunt rara, possunt esse delectabilia, vel ratione cognitionis, quia desideratur eorum scientia, inquantum sunt mira; vel ratione operationis, quia ex desiderio magis inclinatur mens ad hoc quod intense in novitate operetur, ut dicitur in X Ethic.; perfectior enim operatio causat perfectiorem delectationem. Reply to Objection 3. It is pleasant to do what we are wont to do, inasmuch as this is connatural to us, as it were. And yet things that are of rare occurrence can be pleasant, either as regards knowledge, from the fact that we desire to know something about them, in so far as they are wonderful; or as regards action, from the fact that "the mind is more inclined by desire to act intensely in things that are new," as stated in Ethic. x, 4, since more perfect operation causes more perfect pleasure.

Notes

Retrieved from ‘http://www.logicmuseum.com/w/index.php?title=Authors/Thomas_Aquinas/Summa_Theologiae/Part_IIa/Q32&oldid=11015’