|
Objection 1: It would seem that there is a natural fear. For
Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iii, 23) that "there is a
natural fear, through the soul refusing to be severed from the body."
Objection 2: Further, fear arises from love, as stated above
(Article 2, ad 1). But there is a natural love, as Dionysius
says (Div. Nom. iv). Therefore there is also a natural fear.
Objection 3: Further, fear is opposed to hope, as stated above
(Question 40, Article 4, ad 1). But there is a hope of
nature, as is evident from Rm. 4:18, where it is said of
Abraham that "against hope" of nature, "he believed in hope" of
grace. Therefore there is also a fear of nature.
On the contrary, That which is natural is common to things animate
and inanimate. But fear is not in things inanimate. Therefore there
is no natural fear.
I answer that, A movement is said to be natural, because nature
inclines thereto. Now this happens in two ways. First, so that it
is entirely accomplished by nature, without any operation of the
apprehensive faculty: thus to have an upward movement is natural to
fire, and to grow is the natural movement of animals and plants.
Secondly, a movement is said to be natural, if nature inclines
thereto, though it be accomplished by the apprehensive faculty alone:
since, as stated above (Question 10, Article 1), the movements
of the cognitive and appetitive faculties are reducible to nature as to
their first principle. In this way, even the acts of the apprehensive
power, such as understanding, feeling, and remembering, as well as
the movements of the animal appetite, are sometimes said to be
natural.
And in this sense we may say that there is a natural fear; and it is
distinguished from non-natural fear, by reason of the diversity of its
object. For, as the Philosopher says (Rhet. ii, 5), there is
a fear of "corruptive evil," which nature shrinks from on account of
its natural desire to exist; and such fear is said to be natural.
Again, there is a fear of "painful evil," which is repugnant not to
nature, but to the desire of the appetite; and such fear is not
natural. In this sense we have stated above (Question 26,
Article 1; Question 30, Article 3; Question 31, Article
7) that love, desire, and pleasure are divisible into natural and
non-natural.
But in the first sense of the word "natural," we must observe that
certain passions of the soul are sometimes said to be natural, as
love, desire, and hope; whereas the others cannot be called natural.
The reason of this is because love and hatred, desire and avoidance,
imply a certain inclination to pursue what is good or to avoid what is
evil; which inclination is to be found in the natural appetite also.
Consequently there is a natural love; while we may also speak of
desire and hope as being even in natural things devoid of knowledge.
On the other hand the other passions of the soul denote certain
movements, whereto the natural inclination is nowise sufficient. This
is due either to the fact that perception or knowledge is essential to
these passions (thus we have said, Question 31, Articles 1,3;
Question 35, Article 1, that apprehension is a necessary
condition of pleasure and sorrow), wherefore things devoid of
knowledge cannot be said to take pleasure or to be sorrowful: or else
it is because such like movements are contrary to the very nature of
natural inclination: for instance, despair flies from good on account
of some difficulty; and fear shrinks from repelling a contrary evil;
both of which are contrary to the inclination of nature. Wherefore
such like passions are in no way ascribed to inanimate beings.
Thus the Replies to the Objections are evident.
|
|