|
Objection 1: It would seem that hope is the same as desire or
cupidity. Because hope is reckoned as one of the four principal
passions. But Augustine in setting down the four principal passions
puts cupidity in the place of hope (De Civ. Dei xiv, 3,7).
Therefore hope is the same as cupidity or desire.
Objection 2: Further, passions differ according to their objects.
But the object of hope is the same as the object of cupidity or
desire, viz. the future good. Therefore hope is the same as cupidity
or desire.
Objection 3: If it be said that hope, in addition to desire,
denotes the possibility of obtaining the future good; on the contrary,
whatever is accidental to the object does not make a different species
of passion. But possibility of acquisition is accidental to a future
good, which is the object of cupidity or desire, and of hope.
Therefore hope does not differ specifically from desire or cupidity.
On the contrary, To different powers belong different species of
passions. But hope is in the irascible power; whereas desire or
cupidity is in the concupiscible. Therefore hope differs specifically
from desire or cupidity.
I answer that, The species of a passion is taken from the object.
Now, in the object of hope, we may note four conditions. First,
that it is something good; since, properly speaking, hope regards
only the good; in this respect, hope differs from fear, which regards
evil. Secondly, that it is future; for hope does not regard that
which is present and already possessed: in this respect, hope differs
from joy which regards a present good. Thirdly, that it must be
something arduous and difficult to obtain, for we do not speak of any
one hoping for trifles, which are in one's power to have at any time:
in this respect, hope differs from desire or cupidity, which regards
the future good absolutely: wherefore it belongs to the concupiscible,
while hope belongs to the irascible faculty. Fourthly, that this
difficult thing is something possible to obtain: for one does not hope
for that which one cannot get at all: and, in this respect, hope
differs from despair. It is therefore evident that hope differs from
desire, as the irascible passions differ from the concupiscible. For
this reason, moreover, hope presupposes desire: just as all irascible
passions presuppose the passions of the concupiscible faculty, as
stated above (Question 25, Article 1).
Reply to Objection 1: Augustine mentions desire instead of hope,
because each regards future good; and because the good which is not
arduous is reckoned as nothing: thus implying that desire seems to tend
chiefly to the arduous good, to which hope tends likewise.
Reply to Objection 1: The object of hope is the future good
considered, not absolutely, but as arduous and difficult of
attainment, as stated above.
Reply to Objection 3: The object of hope adds not only possibility
to the object of desire, but also difficulty: and this makes hope
belong to another power, viz. the irascible, which regards something
difficult, as stated in the FP, Question 81, Article 2.
Moreover, possibility and impossibility are not altogether accidental
to the object of the appetitive power: because the appetite is a
principle of movement; and nothing is moved to anything except under
the aspect of being possible; for no one is moved to that which he
reckons impossible to get. Consequently hope differs from despair
according to the difference of possible and impossible.
|
|