|
Objection 1: It would seem that incontinence pertains not to the
soul but to the body. For sexual diversity comes not from the soul but
from the body. Now sexual diversity causes diversity of incontinence:
for the Philosopher says (Ethic. vii, 5) that women are not
described either as continent or as incontinent. Therefore
incontinence pertains not to the soul but to the body.
Objection 2: Further, that which pertains to the soul does not
result from the temperament of the body. But incontinence results from
the bodily temperament: for the Philosopher says (Ethic. vii, 7)
that "it is especially people of a quick or choleric and atrabilious
temper whose incontinence is one of unbridled desire." Therefore
incontinence regards the body.
Objection 3: Further, victory concerns the victor rather than the
vanquished. Now a man is said to be incontinent, because "the flesh
lusteth against the spirit," and overcomes it. Therefore
incontinence pertains to the flesh rather than to the soul.
On the contrary, Man differs from beast chiefly as regards the soul.
Now they differ in respect of continence and incontinence, for we
ascribe neither continence nor incontinence to the beasts, as the
Philosopher states (Ethic. vii, 3). Therefore incontinence is
chiefly on the part of the soul.
I answer that, Things are ascribed to their direct causes rather than
to those which merely occasion them. Now that which is on the part of
the body is merely an occasional cause of incontinence; since it is
owing to a bodily disposition that vehement passions can arise in the
sensitive appetite which is a power of the organic body. Yet these
passions, however vehement they be, are not the sufficient cause of
incontinence, but are merely the occasion thereof, since, so long as
the use of reason remains, man is always able to resist his passions.
If, however, the passions gain such strength as to take away the use
of reason altogether---as in the case of those who become insane
through the vehemence of their passions---the essential conditions of
continence or incontinence cease, because such people do not retain the
judgment of reason, which the continent man follows and the incontinent
forsakes. From this it follows that the direct cause of incontinence
is on the part of the soul, which fails to resist a passion by the
reason. This happens in two ways, according to the Philosopher
(Ethic. vii, 7): first, when the soul yields to the passions,
before the reason has given its counsel; and this is called "unbridled
incontinence" or "impetuosity": secondly, when a man does not stand
to what has been counselled, through holding weakly to reason's
judgment; wherefore this kind of incontinence is called "weakness."
Hence it is manifest that incontinence pertains chiefly to the soul.
Reply to Objection 1: The human soul is the form of the body, and
has certain powers which make use of bodily organs. The operations of
these organs conduce somewhat to those operations of the soul which are
accomplished without bodily instruments, namely to the acts of the
intellect and of the will, in so far as the intellect receives from the
senses, and the will is urged by passions of the sensitive appetite.
Accordingly, since woman, as regards the body, has a weak
temperament, the result is that for the most part, whatever she holds
to, she holds to it weakly; although in /rare cases the opposite
occurs, according to Prov. 31:10, "Who shall find a valiant
woman?" And since small and weak things "are accounted as though
they were not" [Aristotle, Phys. ii, 5] the Philosopher speaks
of women as though they had not the firm judgment of reason, although
the contrary happens in some women. Hence he states that "we do not
describe women as being continent, because they are vacillating"
through being unstable of reason, and "are easily led" so that they
follow their passions readily.
Reply to Objection 2: It is owing to the impulse of passion that a
man at once follows his passion before his reason counsels him. Now
the impulse of passion may arise either from its quickness, as in
bilious persons [FS, Question 46, Article 5], or from its
vehemence, as in the melancholic, who on account of their earthy
temperament are most vehemently aroused. Even so, on the other hand,
a man fails to stand to that which is counselled, because he holds to
it in weakly fashion by reason of the softness of his temperament, as
we have stated with regard to woman (ad 1). This is also the case
with phlegmatic temperaments, for the same reason as in women. And
these results are due to the fact that the bodily temperament is an
occasional but not a sufficient cause of incontinence, as stated
above.
Reply to Objection 3: In the incontinent man concupiscence of the
flesh overcomes the spirit, not necessarily, but through a certain
negligence of the spirit in not resisting strongly.
|
|