Part II (Pars Prima Secundae) Part 16 (2/2)
________________________
SECOND ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 9, Art. 2]
Whether the Will Is Moved by the Sensitive Appet.i.te?
Objection 1: It would seem that the will cannot be moved by the sensitive appet.i.te. For ”to move and to act is more excellent than to be pa.s.sive,” as Augustine says (Gen. ad lit. xii, 16). But the sensitive appet.i.te is less excellent than the will which is the intellectual appet.i.te; just as sense is less excellent than intellect.
Therefore the sensitive appet.i.te does not move the will.
Obj. 2: Further, no particular power can produce a universal effect.
But the sensitive appet.i.te is a particular power, because it follows the particular apprehension of sense. Therefore it cannot cause the movement of the will, which movement is universal, as following the universal apprehension of the intellect.
Obj. 3: Further, as is proved in _Phys._ viii, 5, the mover is not moved by that which it moves, in such a way that there be reciprocal motion. But the will moves the sensitive appet.i.te, inasmuch as the sensitive appet.i.te obeys the reason. Therefore the sensitive appet.i.te does not move the will.
_On the contrary,_ It is written (James 1:14): ”Every man is tempted by his own concupiscence, being drawn away and allured.” But man would not be drawn away by his concupiscence, unless his will were moved by the sensitive appet.i.te, wherein concupiscence resides.
Therefore the sensitive appet.i.te moves the will.
_I answer that,_ As stated above (A. 1), that which is apprehended as good and fitting, moves the will by way of object. Now, that a thing appear to be good and fitting, happens from two causes: namely, from the condition, either of the thing proposed, or of the one to whom it is proposed. For fitness is spoken of by way of relation; hence it depends on both extremes. And hence it is that taste, according as it is variously disposed, takes to a thing in various ways, as being fitting or unfitting. Wherefore as the Philosopher says (Ethic. iii, 5): ”According as a man is, such does the end seem to him.”
Now it is evident that according to a pa.s.sion of the sensitive appet.i.te man is changed to a certain disposition. Wherefore according as man is affected by a pa.s.sion, something seems to him fitting, which does not seem so when he is not so affected: thus that seems good to a man when angered, which does not seem good when he is calm.
And in this way, the sensitive appet.i.te moves the will, on the part of the object.
Reply Obj. 1: Nothing hinders that which is better simply and in itself, from being less excellent in a certain respect. Accordingly the will is simply more excellent than the sensitive appet.i.te: but in respect of the man in whom a pa.s.sion is predominant, in so far as he is subject to that pa.s.sion, the sensitive appet.i.te is more excellent.
Reply Obj. 2: Men's acts and choices are in reference to singulars.
Wherefore from the very fact that the sensitive appet.i.te is a particular power, it has great influence in disposing man so that something seems to him such or otherwise, in particular cases.
Reply Obj. 3: As the Philosopher says (Polit. i, 2), the reason, in which resides the will, moves, by its command, the irascible and concupiscible powers, not, indeed, ”by a despotic sovereignty,” as a slave is moved by his master, but by a ”royal and politic sovereignty,” as free men are ruled by their governor, and can nevertheless act counter to his commands. Hence both irascible and concupiscible can move counter to the will: and accordingly nothing hinders the will from being moved by them at times.
________________________
THIRD ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 9, Art. 3]
Whether the Will Moves Itself?
Objection 1: It would seem that the will does not move itself. For every mover, as such, is in act: whereas what is moved, is in potentiality; since ”movement is the act of that which is in potentiality, as such” [*Aristotle, _Phys._ iii, 1]. Now the same is not in potentiality and in act, in respect of the same. Therefore nothing moves itself. Neither, therefore, can the will move itself.
Obj. 2: Further, the movable is moved on the mover being present. But the will is always present to itself. If, therefore, it moved itself, it would always be moving itself, which is clearly false.
Obj. 3: Further, the will is moved by the intellect, as stated above (A. 1). If, therefore, the will move itself, it would follow that the same thing is at once moved immediately by two movers; which seems unreasonable. Therefore the will does not move itself.
_On the contrary,_ The will is mistress of its own act, and to it belongs to will and not to will. But this would not be so, had it not the power to move itself to will. Therefore it moves itself.
_I answer that,_ As stated above (A. 1), it belongs to the will to move the other powers, by reason of the end which is the will's object. Now, as stated above (Q. 8, A. 2), the end is in things appetible, what the principle is in things intelligible. But it is evident that the intellect, through its knowledge of the principle, reduces itself from potentiality to act, as to its knowledge of the conclusions; and thus it moves itself. And, in like manner, the will, through its volition of the end, moves itself to will the means.
Reply Obj. 1: It is not in respect of the same that the will moves itself and is moved: wherefore neither is it in act and in potentiality in respect of the same. But forasmuch as it actually wills the end, it reduces itself from potentiality to act, in respect of the means, so as, in a word, to will them actually.
Reply Obj. 2: The power of the will is always actually present to itself; but the act of the will, whereby it wills an end, is not always in the will. But it is by this act that it moves itself.
Accordingly it does not follow that it is always moving itself.
<script>