Part II (Pars Prima Secundae) Part 27 (2/2)
Objection 1: It would seem that command belongs to irrational animals. Because, according to Avicenna, ”the power that commands movement is the appet.i.te; and the power that executes movement is in the muscles and nerves.” But both powers are in irrational animals.
Therefore command is to be found in irrational animals.
Obj. 2: Further, the condition of a slave is that of one who receives commands. But the body is compared to the soul as a slave to his master, as the Philosopher says (Polit. i, 2). Therefore the body is commanded by the soul, even in irrational animals, since they are composed of soul and body.
Obj. 3: Further, by commanding, man has an impulse towards an action.
But impulse to action is to be found in irrational animals, as Damascene says (De Fide Orth. ii, 22). Therefore command is to be found in irrational animals.
_On the contrary,_ Command is an act of reason, as stated above (A.
1). But in irrational animals there is no reason. Neither, therefore, is there command.
_I answer that,_ To command is nothing else than to direct someone to do something, by a certain motion of intimation. Now to direct is the proper act of reason. Wherefore it is impossible that irrational animals should command in any way, since they are devoid of reason.
Reply Obj. 1: The appet.i.tive power is said to command movement, in so far as it moves the commanding reason. But this is only in man. In irrational animals the appet.i.tive power is not, properly speaking, a commanding faculty, unless command be taken loosely for motion.
Reply Obj. 2: The body of the irrational animal is competent to obey; but its soul is not competent to command, because it is not competent to direct. Consequently there is no ratio there of commander and commanded; but only of mover and moved.
Reply Obj. 3: Impulse to action is in irrational animals otherwise than in man. For the impulse of man to action arises from the directing reason; wherefore his impulse is one of command. On the other hand, the impulse of the irrational animal arises from natural instinct; because as soon as they apprehend the fitting or the unfitting, their appet.i.te is moved naturally to pursue or to avoid.
Wherefore they are directed by another to act; and they themselves do not direct themselves to act. Consequently in them is impulse but not command.
________________________
THIRD ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 17, Art. 3]
Whether Use Precedes Command?
Objection 1: It would seem that use precedes command. For command is an act of the reason presupposing an act of the will, as stated above (A. 1). But, as we have already shown (Q. 16, A. 1), use is an act of the will. Therefore use precedes command.
Obj. 2: Further, command is one of those things that are ordained to the end. But use is of those things that are ordained to the end.
Therefore it seems that use precedes command.
Obj. 3: Further, every act of a power moved by the will is called use; because the will uses the other powers, as stated above (Q. 16, A. 1). But command is an act of the reason as moved by the will, as stated above (A. 1). Therefore command is a kind of use. Now the common precedes the proper. Therefore use precedes command.
_On the contrary,_ Damascene says (De Fide Orth. ii, 22) that impulse to action precedes use. But impulse to operation is given by command.
Therefore command precedes use.
_I answer that,_ use of that which is directed to the end, in so far as it is in the reason referring this to the end, precedes choice, as stated above (Q. 16, A. 4). Wherefore still more does it precede command. On the other hand, use of that which is directed to the end, in so far as it is subject to the executive power, follows command; because use in the user is united to the act of the thing used; for one does not use a stick before doing something with the stick. But command is not simultaneous with the act of the thing to which the command is given: for it naturally precedes its fulfilment, sometimes, indeed, by priority of time. Consequently it is evident that command precedes use.
Reply Obj. 1: Not every act of the will precedes this act of the reason which is command; but an act of the will precedes, viz.
choice; and an act of the will follows, viz. use. Because after counsel's decision, which is reason's judgment, the will chooses; and after choice, the reason commands that power which has to do what was chosen; and then, last of all, someone's will begins to use, by executing the command of reason; sometimes it is another's will, when one commands another; sometimes the will of the one that commands, when he commands himself to do something.
Reply Obj. 2: Just as act ranks before power, so does the object rank before the act. Now the object of use is that which is directed to the end. Consequently, from the fact that command [itself is directed to the end, it may be concluded that command] precedes, rather than that it follows use.
Reply Obj. 3: Just as the act of the will in using the reason for the purpose of command, precedes the command; so also we may say that this act whereby the will uses the reason, is preceded by a command of reason; since the acts of these powers react on one another.
________________________
FOURTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 17, Art. 4]
<script>