|
Objection 1: It would seem that insensibility is not a vice. For
those are called insensible who are deficient with regard to pleasures
of touch. Now seemingly it is praiseworthy and virtuous to be
altogether deficient in such matters: for it is written (Dan.
10:2,3): "In those days Daniel mourned the days of three
weeks, I ate no desirable bread, and neither flesh nor wine entered
my mouth, neither was I anointed with ointment." Therefore
insensibility is not a sin.
Objection 2: Further, "man's good is to be in accord with
reason," according to Dionysius (Div. Nom. iv). Now
abstinence from all pleasures of touch is most conducive to man's
progress in the good of reason: for it is written (Dan. 1:17)
that "to the children" who took pulse for their food (Dan.
1:12), "God gave knowledge, and understanding in every book and
wisdom." Therefore insensibility, which rejects these pleasures
altogether, is not sinful.
Objection 3: Further, that which is a very effective means of
avoiding sin would seem not to be sinful. Now the most effective
remedy in avoiding sin is to shun pleasures, and this pertains to
insensibility. For the Philosopher says (Ethic. ii, 9) that
"if we deny ourselves pleasures we are less liable to sin."
Therefore there is nothing vicious in insensibility.
On the contrary, Nothing save vice is opposed to virtue. Now
insensibility is opposed to the virtue of temperance according to the
Philosopher (Ethic. ii, 7; iii, 11). Therefore
insensibility is a vice.
I answer that, Whatever is contrary to the natural order is vicious.
Now nature has introduced pleasure into the operations that are
necessary for man's life. Wherefore the natural order requires that
man should make use of these pleasures, in so far as they are necessary
for man's well-being, as regards the preservation either of the
individual or of the species. Accordingly, if anyone were to reject
pleasure to the extent of omitting things that are necessary for
nature's preservation, he would sin, as acting counter to the order
of nature. And this pertains to the vice of insensibility.
It must, however, be observed that it is sometimes praiseworthy, and
even necessary for the sake of an end, to abstain from such pleasures
as result from these operations. Thus, for the sake of the body's
health, certain persons refrain from pleasures of meat, drink, and
sex; as also for the fulfilment of certain engagements: thus athletes
and soldiers have to deny themselves many pleasures, in order to fulfil
their respective duties. In like manner penitents, in order to
recover health of soul, have recourse to abstinence from pleasures, as
a kind of diet, and those who are desirous of giving themselves up to
contemplation and Divine things need much to refrain from carnal
things. Nor do any of these things pertain to the vice of
insensibility, because they are in accord with right reason.
Reply to Objection 1: Daniel abstained thus from pleasures, not
through any horror of pleasure as though it were evil in itself, but
for some praiseworthy end, in order, namely, to adapt himself to the
heights of contemplation by abstaining from pleasures of the body.
Hence the text goes on to tell of the revelation that he received
immediately afterwards.
Reply to Objection 2: Since man cannot use his reason without his
sensitive powers. which need a bodily organ. as stated in the FP,
Question 84, Articles 7,8, man needs to sustain his body in
order that he may use his reason. Now the body is sustained by means
of operations that afford pleasure: wherefore the good of reason cannot
be in a man if he abstain from all pleasures. Yet this need for using
pleasures of the body will be greater or less, according as man needs
more or less the powers of his body in accomplishing the act of reason.
Wherefore it is commendable for those who undertake the duty of giving
themselves to contemplation, and of imparting to others a spiritual
good, by a kind of spiritual procreation, as it were, to abstain from
many pleasures, but not for those who are in duty bound to bodily
occupations and carnal procreation.
Reply to Objection 3: In order to avoid sin, pleasure must be
shunned, not altogether, but so that it is not sought more than
necessity requires.
|
|