|
Objection 1: It would seem that the subject of continence is the
concupiscible power. For the subject of a virtue should be
proportionate to the virtue's matter. Now the matter of continence,
as stated (Article 2), is desires for the pleasures of touch,
which pertain to the concupiscible power. Therefore continence is in
the concupiscible power.
Objection 2: Further, "Opposites are referred to one same thing"
[Categ. viii]. But incontinence is in the concupiscible, whose
passions overcome reason, for Andronicus says [De Affectibus] that
"incontinence is the evil inclination of the concupiscible, by
following which it chooses wicked pleasures in disobedience to
reason." Therefore continence is likewise in the concupiscible.
Objection 3: Further, the subject of a human virtue is either the
reason, or the appetitive power, which is divided into the will, the
concupiscible and the irascible. Now continence is not in the reason,
for then it would be an intellectual virtue; nor is it in the will,
since continence is about the passions which are not in the will; nor
again is it in the irascible, because it is not properly about the
passions of the irascible, as stated above (Article 2, ad 2).
Therefore it follows that it is in the concupiscible.
On the contrary, Every virtue residing in a certain power removes the
evil act of that power. But continence does not remove the evil act of
the concupiscible: since "the continent man has evil desires,"
according to the Philosopher (Ethic. vii, 9). Therefore
continence is not in the concupiscible power.
I answer that, Every virtue while residing in a subject, makes that
subject have a different disposition from that which it has while
subjected to the opposite vice. Now the concupiscible has the same
disposition in one who is continent and in one who is incontinent,
since in both of them it breaks out into vehement evil desires.
Wherefore it is manifest that continence is not in the concupiscible as
its subject. Again the reason has the same disposition in both, since
both the continent and the incontinent have right reason, and each of
them, while undisturbed by passion, purposes not to follow his
unlawful desires. Now the primary difference between them is to be
found in their choice: since the continent man, though subject to
vehement desires, chooses not to follow them, because of his reason;
whereas the incontinent man chooses to follow them, although his reason
forbids. Hence continence must needs reside in that power of the
soul, whose act it is to choose; and that is the will, as stated
above (FS, Question 13, Article 1).
Reply to Objection 1: Continence has for its matter the desires for
pleasures of touch, not as moderating them (this belongs to temperance
which is in the concupiscible), but its business with them is to
resist them. For this reason it must be in another power, since
resistance is of one thing against another.
Reply to Objection 2: The will stands between reason and the
concupiscible, and may be moved by either. In the continent man it is
moved by the reason, in the incontinent man it is moved by the
concupiscible. Hence continence may be ascribed to the reason as to
its first mover, and incontinence to the concupiscible power: though
both belong immediately to the will as their proper subject.
Reply to Objection 3: Although the passions are not in the will as
their subject, yet it is in the power of the will to resist them: thus
it is that the will of the continent man resists desires.
|
|