Nevertheless even if there be habits in such powers, they cannot be virtues. For virtue is a perfect habit, by which it never happens that anything but good is done: and so virtue must needs be in that power which consummates the good act. But the knowledge of truth is not consummated in the sensitive powers of apprehension: for such powers prepare the way to the intellective knowledge. And therefore in these powers there are none of the virtues, by which we know truth: these are rather in the intellect or reason.
Reply Obj. 1: The sensitive appet.i.te is related to the will, which is the rational appet.i.te, through being moved by it. And therefore the act of the appet.i.tive power is consummated in the sensitive appet.i.te: and for this reason the sensitive appet.i.te is the subject of virtue.
Whereas the sensitive powers of apprehension are related to the intellect rather through moving it; for the reason that the phantasms are related to the intellective soul, as colors to sight (De Anima iii, text. 18). And therefore the act of knowledge is terminated in the intellect; and for this reason the cognoscitive virtues are in the intellect itself, or the reason.
And thus is made clear the Reply to the Second Objection.
Reply Obj. 3: Memory is not a part of prudence, as species is of a genus, as though memory were a virtue properly so called: but one of the conditions required for prudence is a good memory; so that, in a fashion, it is after the manner of an integral part.
________________________
SIXTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 56, Art. 6]
Whether the Will Can Be the Subject of Virtue?
Objection 1: It would seem that the will is not the subject of virtue. Because no habit is required for that which belongs to a power by reason of its very nature. But since the will is in the reason, it is of the very essence of the will, according to the Philosopher (De Anima iii, text. 42), to tend to that which is good, according to reason. And to this good every virtue is ordered, since everything naturally desires its own proper good; for virtue, as Tully says in his Rhetoric, is a "habit like a second nature in accord with reason." Therefore the will is not the subject of virtue.
Obj. 2: Further, every virtue is either intellectual or moral (Ethic.
i, 13; ii, 1). But intellectual virtue is subjected in the intellect and reason, and not in the will: while moral virtue is subjected in the irascible and concupiscible powers which are rational by partic.i.p.ation. Therefore no virtue is subjected in the will.
Obj. 3: Further, all human acts, to which virtues are ordained, are voluntary. If therefore there be a virtue in the will in respect of some human acts, in like manner there will be a virtue in the will in respect of all human acts. Either, therefore, there will be no virtue in any other power, or there will be two virtues ordained to the same act, which seems unreasonable. Therefore the will cannot be the subject of virtue.
_On the contrary,_ Greater perfection is required in the mover than in the moved. But the will moves the irascible and concupiscible powers. Much more therefore should there be virtue in the will than in the irascible and concupiscible powers.
_I answer that,_ Since the habit perfects the power in reference to act, then does the power need a habit perfecting it unto doing well, which habit is a virtue, when the power"s own proper nature does not suffice for the purpose.
Now the proper nature of a power is seen in its relation to its object. Since, therefore, as we have said above (Q. 19, A. 3), the object of the will is the good of reason proportionate to the will, in respect of this the will does not need a virtue perfecting it. But if man"s will is confronted with a good that exceeds its capacity, whether as regards the whole human species, such as Divine good, which transcends the limits of human nature, or as regards the individual, such as the good of one"s neighbor, then does the will need virtue. And therefore such virtues as those which direct man"s affections to G.o.d or to his neighbor are subjected in the will, as charity, justice, and such like.
Reply Obj. 1: This objection is true of those virtues which are ordained to the willer"s own good; such as temperance and fort.i.tude, which are concerned with the human pa.s.sions, and the like, as is clear from what we have said (Q. 35, A. 6).
Reply Obj. 2: Not only the irascible and concupiscible powers are rational by partic.i.p.ation but "the appet.i.tive power altogether," i.e.
in its entirety (Ethic. i, 13). Now the will is included in the appet.i.tive power. And therefore whatever virtue is in the will must be a moral virtue, unless it be theological, as we shall see later on (Q. 62, A. 3).
Reply Obj. 3: Some virtues are directed to the good of moderated pa.s.sion, which is the proper good of this or that man: and in these cases there is no need for virtue in the will, for the nature of the power suffices for the purpose, as we have said. This need exists only in the case of virtues which are directed to some extrinsic good.
________________________
QUESTION 57
OF THE INTELLECTUAL VIRTUES (In Six Articles)
We now have to consider the various kinds of virtue: and (1) the intellectual virtues; (2) the moral virtues; (3) the theological virtues. Concerning the first there are six points of inquiry:
(1) Whether habits of the speculative intellect are virtues?
(2) Whether they are three, namely, wisdom, science and understanding?
(3) Whether the intellectual habit, which is art, is a virtue?
(4) Whether prudence is a virtue distinct from art?
(5) Whether prudence is a virtue necessary to man?
(6) Whether "eubulia," "synesis" and "gnome" are virtues annexed to prudence?
________________________
FIRST ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 57, Art. 1]
Whether the Habits of the Speculative Intellect Are Virtues?
Objection 1: It would seem that the habits of the speculative intellect are not virtues. For virtue is an operative habit, as we have said above (Q. 55, A. 2). But speculative habits are not operative: for speculative matter is distinct from practical, i.e.
operative matter. Therefore the habits of the speculative intellect are not virtues.
Obj. 2: Further, virtue is about those things by which man is made happy or blessed: for "happiness is the reward of virtue" (Ethic. i, 9). Now intellectual habits do not consider human acts or other human goods, by which man acquires happiness, but rather things pertaining to nature or to G.o.d. Therefore such like habits cannot be called virtues.
Obj. 3: Further, science is a speculative habit. But science and virtue are distinct from one another as genera which are not subalternate, as the Philosopher proves in _Topic._ iv. Therefore speculative habits are not virtues.
_On the contrary,_ The speculative habits alone consider necessary things which cannot be otherwise than they are. Now the Philosopher (Ethic. vi, 1) places certain intellectual virtues in that part of the soul which considers necessary things that cannot be otherwise than they are. Therefore the habits of the speculative intellect are virtues.
_I answer that,_ Since every virtue is ordained to some good, as stated above (Q. 55, A. 3), a habit, as we have already observed (Q.
56, A. 3), may be called a virtue for two reasons: first, because it confers aptness in doing good; secondly, because besides aptness, it confers the right use of it. The latter condition, as above stated (Q. 55, A. 3), belongs to those habits alone which affect the appet.i.tive part of the soul: since it is the soul"s appet.i.tive power that puts all the powers and habits to their respective uses.
Since, then, the habits of the speculative intellect do not perfect the appet.i.tive part, nor affect it in any way, but only the intellective part; they may indeed be called virtues in so far as they confer aptness for a good work, viz. the consideration of truth (since this is the good work of the intellect): yet they are not called virtues in the second way, as though they conferred the right use of a power or habit. For if a man possess a habit of speculative science, it does not follow that he is inclined to make use of it, but he is made able to consider the truth in those matters of which he has scientific knowledge: that he make use of the knowledge which he has, is due to the motion of his will. Consequently a virtue which perfects the will, as charity or justice, confers the right use of these speculative habits. And in this way too there can be merit in the acts of these habits, if they be done out of charity: thus Gregory says (Moral. vi) that the "contemplative life has greater merit than the active life."
Reply Obj. 1: Work is of two kinds, exterior and interior.
Accordingly the practical or active faculty which is contrasted with the speculative faculty, is concerned with exterior work, to which the speculative habit is not ordained. Yet it is ordained to the interior act of the intellect which is to consider the truth. And in this way it is an operative habit.
Reply Obj. 2: Virtue is about certain things in two ways. In the first place a virtue is about its object. And thus these speculative virtues are not about those things whereby man is made happy; except perhaps, in so far as the word "whereby" indicates the efficient cause or object of complete happiness, i.e. G.o.d, Who is the supreme object of contemplation. Secondly, a virtue is said to be about its acts: and in this sense the intellectual virtues are about those things whereby a man is made happy; both because the acts of these virtues can be meritorious, as stated above, and because they are a kind of beginning of perfect bliss, which consists in the contemplation of truth, as we have already stated (Q. 3, A. 7).
Reply Obj. 3: Science is contrasted with virtue taken in the second sense, wherein it belongs to the appet.i.tive faculty.
________________________
SECOND ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 57, Art. 2]
Whether There Are Only Three Habits of the Speculative Intellect, Viz.
Wisdom, Science and Understanding?
Objection 1: It would seem unfitting to distinguish three virtues of the speculative intellect, viz. wisdom, science and understanding.
Because a species is a kind of science, as stated in _Ethic._ vi, 7.
Therefore wisdom should not be condivided with science among the intellectual virtues.
Obj. 2: Further, in differentiating powers, habits and acts in respect of their objects, we consider chiefly the formal aspect of these objects, as we have already explained (I, Q. 77, A. 3).
Therefore diversity of habits is taken, not from their material objects, but from the formal aspect of those objects. Now the principle of a demonstration is the formal aspect under which the conclusion is known. Therefore the understanding of principles should not be set down as a habit or virtue distinct from the knowledge of conclusions.
Obj. 3: Further, an intellectual virtue is one which resides in the essentially rational faculty. Now even the speculative reason employs the dialectic syllogism for the sake of argument, just as it employs the demonstrative syllogism. Therefore as science, which is the result of a demonstrative syllogism, is set down as an intellectual virtue, so also should opinion be.
_On the contrary,_ The Philosopher (Ethic. vi, 1) reckons these three alone as being intellectual virtues, viz. wisdom, science and understanding.
_I answer that,_ As already stated (A. 1), the virtues of the speculative intellect are those which perfect the speculative intellect for the consideration of truth: for this is its good work.
Now a truth is subject to a twofold consideration--as known in itself, and as known through another. What is known in itself, is as a _principle,_ and is at once understood by the intellect: wherefore the habit that perfects the intellect for the consideration of such truth is called _understanding,_ which is the habit of principles.
On the other hand, a truth which is known through another, is understood by the intellect, not at once, but by means of the reason"s inquiry, and is as a _term._ This may happen in two ways: first, so that it is the last in some particular genus; secondly, so that it is the ultimate term of all human knowledge. And, since "things that are knowable last from our standpoint, are knowable first and chiefly in their nature" (Phys. i, text. 2, 3); hence that which is last with respect to all human knowledge, is that which is knowable first and chiefly in its nature. And about these is _wisdom,_ which considers the highest causes, as stated in _Metaph._ i, 1, 2. Wherefore it rightly judges all things and sets them in order, because there can be no perfect and universal judgment that is not based on the first causes. But in regard to that which is last in this or that genus of knowable matter, it is _science_ which perfects the intellect. Wherefore according to the different kinds of knowable matter, there are different habits of scientific knowledge; whereas there is but one wisdom.