Reply Obj. 1: Wisdom is a kind of science, in so far as it has that which is common to all the sciences; viz. to demonstrate conclusions from principles. But since it has something proper to itself above the other sciences, inasmuch as it judges of them all, not only as to their conclusions, but also as to their first principles, therefore it is a more perfect virtue than science.
Reply Obj. 2: When the formal aspect of the object is referred to a power or habit by one same act, there is no distinction of habit or power in respect of the formal aspect and of the material object: thus it belongs to the same power of sight to see both color, and light, which is the formal aspect under which color is seen, and is seen at the same time as the color. On the other hand, the principles of a demonstration can be considered apart, without the conclusion being considered at all. Again they can be considered together with the conclusions, since the conclusions can be deduced from them.
Accordingly, to consider the principles in this second way, belongs to science, which considers the conclusions also: while to consider the principles in themselves belongs to understanding.
Consequently, if we consider the point aright, these three virtues are distinct, not as being on a par with one another, but in a certain order. The same is to be observed in potential wholes, wherein one part is more perfect than another; for instance, the rational soul is more perfect than the sensitive soul; and the sensitive, than the vegetal. For it is thus that science depends on understanding as on a virtue of higher degree: and both of these depend on wisdom, as obtaining the highest place, and containing beneath itself both understanding and science, by judging both of the conclusions of science, and of the principles on which they are based.
Reply Obj. 3: As stated above (Q. 55, AA. 3, 4), a virtuous habit has a fixed relation to good, and is nowise referable to evil. Now the good of the intellect is truth, and falsehood is its evil. Wherefore those habits alone are called intellectual virtues, whereby we tell the truth and never tell a falsehood. But opinion and suspicion can be about both truth and falsehood: and so, as stated in _Ethic._ vi, 3, they are not intellectual virtues.
________________________
THIRD ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 57, Art. 3]
Whether the Intellectual Habit, Art, Is a Virtue?
Objection 1: It would seem that art is not an intellectual virtue.
For Augustine says (De Lib. Arb. ii, 18, 19) that "no one makes bad use of virtue." But one may make bad use of art: for a craftsman can work badly according to the knowledge of his art. Therefore art is not a virtue.
Obj. 2: Further, there is no virtue of a virtue. But "there is a virtue of art," according to the Philosopher (Ethic. vi, 5).
Therefore art is not a virtue.
Obj. 3: Further, the liberal arts excel the mechanical arts. But just as the mechanical arts are practical, so the liberal arts are speculative. Therefore, if art were an intellectual virtue, it would have to be reckoned among the speculative virtues.
_On the contrary,_ The Philosopher (Ethic. vi, 3, 4) says that art is a virtue; and yet he does not reckon it among the speculative virtues, which, according to him, reside in the scientific part of the soul.
_I answer that,_ Art is nothing else but "the right reason about certain works to be made." And yet the good of these things depends, not on man"s appet.i.tive faculty being affected in this or that way, but on the goodness of the work done. For a craftsman, as such, is commendable, not for the will with which he does a work, but for the quality of the work. Art, therefore, properly speaking, is an operative habit. And yet it has something in common with the speculative habits: since the quality of the object considered by the latter is a matter of concern to them also, but not how the human appet.i.te may be affected towards that object. For as long as the geometrician demonstrates the truth, it matters not how his appet.i.tive faculty may be affected, whether he be joyful or angry: even as neither does this matter in a craftsman, as we have observed.
And so art has the nature of a virtue in the same way as the speculative habits, in so far, to wit, as neither art nor speculative habit makes a good work as regards the use of the habit, which is the property of a virtue that perfects the appet.i.te, but only as regards the aptness to work well.
Reply Obj. 1: When anyone endowed with an art produces bad workmanship, this is not the work of that art, in fact it is contrary to the art: even as when a man lies, while knowing the truth, his words are not in accord with his knowledge, but contrary thereto.
Wherefore, just as science has always a relation to good, as stated above (A. 2, ad 3), so it is with art: and it is for this reason that it is called a virtue. And yet it falls short of being a perfect virtue, because it does not make its possessor to use it well; for which purpose something further is requisite: although there cannot be a good use without the art.
Reply Obj. 2: In order that man may make good use of the art he has, he needs a good will, which is perfected by moral virtue; and for this reason the Philosopher says that there is a virtue of art; namely, a moral virtue, in so far as the good use of art requires a moral virtue. For it is evident that a craftsman is inclined by justice, which rectifies his will, to do his work faithfully.
Reply Obj. 3: Even in speculative matters there is something by way of work: e.g. the making of a syllogism or of a fitting speech, or the work of counting or measuring. Hence whatever habits are ordained to such like works of the speculative reason, are, by a kind of comparison, called arts indeed, but "liberal" arts, in order to distinguish them from those arts that are ordained to works done by the body, which arts are, in a fashion, servile, inasmuch as the body is in servile subjection to the soul, and man, as regards his soul, is free (_liber_). On the other hand, those sciences which are not ordained to any such like work, are called sciences simply, and not arts. Nor, if the liberal arts be more excellent, does it follow that the notion of art is more applicable to them.
________________________
FOURTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 57, Art. 4]
Whether Prudence Is a Distinct Virtue from Art?
Objection 1: It would seem that prudence is not a distinct virtue from art. For art is the right reason about certain works. But diversity of works does not make a habit cease to be an art; since there are various arts about works widely different. Since therefore prudence is also right reason about works, it seems that it too should be reckoned a virtue.
Obj. 2: Further, prudence has more in common with art than the speculative habits have; for they are both "about contingent matters that may be otherwise than they are" (Ethic. vi, 4, 5). Now some speculative habits are called arts. Much more, therefore, should prudence be called an art.
Obj. 3: Further, it belongs to prudence, "to be of good counsel"
(Ethic. vi, 5). But counselling takes place in certain arts also, as stated in _Ethic._ iii, 3, e.g. in the arts of warfare, of seamanship, and of medicine. Therefore prudence is not distinct from art.
_On the contrary,_ The Philosopher distinguishes prudence from art (Ethic. vi, 5).
_I answer that,_ Where the nature of virtue differs, there is a different kind of virtue. Now it has been stated above (A. 1; Q. 56, A. 3) that some habits have the nature of virtue, through merely conferring aptness for a good work: while some habits are virtues, not only through conferring aptness for a good work, but also through conferring the use. But art confers the mere aptness for good work; since it does not regard the appet.i.te; whereas prudence confers not only aptness for a good work, but also the use: for it regards the appet.i.te, since it presupposes the rect.i.tude thereof.
The reason for this difference is that art is the "right reason of things to be made"; whereas prudence is the "right reason of things to be done." Now "making" and "doing" differ, as stated in _Metaph._ ix, text. 16, in that "making" is an action pa.s.sing into outward matter, e.g. "to build," "to saw," and so forth; whereas "doing" is an action abiding in the agent, e.g. "to see," "to will," and the like. Accordingly prudence stands in the same relation to such like human actions, consisting in the use of powers and habits, as art does to outward making: since each is the perfect reason about the things with which it is concerned. But perfection and rect.i.tude of reason in speculative matters, depend on the principles from which reason argues; just as we have said above (A. 2, ad 2) that science depends on and presupposes understanding, which is the habit of principles. Now in human acts the end is what the principles are in speculative matters, as stated in _Ethic._ vii, 8. Consequently, it is requisite for prudence, which is right reason about things to be done, that man be well disposed with regard to the ends: and this depends on the rect.i.tude of his appet.i.te. Wherefore, for prudence there is need of a moral virtue, which rectifies the appet.i.te. On the other hand the good of things made by art is not the good of man"s appet.i.te, but the good of those things themselves: wherefore art does not presuppose rect.i.tude of the appet.i.te. The consequence is that more praise is given to a craftsman who is at fault willingly, than to one who is unwillingly; whereas it is more contrary to prudence to sin willingly than unwillingly, since rect.i.tude of the will is essential to prudence, but not to art. Accordingly it is evident that prudence is a virtue distinct from art.
Reply Obj. 1: The various kinds of things made by art are all external to man: hence they do not cause a different kind of virtue.
But prudence is right reason about human acts themselves: hence it is a distinct kind of virtue, as stated above.
Reply Obj. 2: Prudence has more in common with art than a speculative habit has, if we consider their subject and matter: for they are both in the thinking part of the soul, and about things that may be otherwise than they are. But if we consider them as virtues, then art has more in common with the speculative habits, as is clear from what has been said.
Reply Obj. 3: Prudence is of good counsel about matters regarding man"s entire life, and the end of human life. But in some arts there is counsel about matters concerning the ends proper to those arts.
Hence some men, in so far as they are good counselors in matters of warfare, or seamanship, are said to be prudent officers or pilots, but not simply prudent: only those are simply prudent who give good counsel about all the concerns of life.
________________________
FIFTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 57, Art. 5]
Whether Prudence Is a Virtue Necessary to Man?
Objection 1: It would seem that prudence is not a virtue necessary to lead a good life. For as art is to things that are made, of which it is the right reason, so is prudence to things that are done, in respect of which we judge of a man"s life: for prudence is the right reason about these things, as stated in _Ethic._ vi, 5. Now art is not necessary in things that are made, save in order that they be made, but not after they have been made. Neither, therefore is prudence necessary to man in order to lead a good life, after he has become virtuous; but perhaps only in order that he may become virtuous.
Obj. 2: Further, "It is by prudence that we are of good counsel," as stated in _Ethic._ vi, 5. But man can act not only from his own, but also from another"s good counsel. Therefore man does not need prudence in order to lead a good life, but it is enough that he follow the counsels of prudent men.
Obj. 3: Further, an intellectual virtue is one by which one always tells the truth, and never a falsehood. But this does not seem to be the case with prudence: for it is not human never to err in taking counsel about what is to be done; since human actions are about things that may be otherwise than they are. Hence it is written (Wis.
9:14): "The thoughts of mortal men are fearful, and our counsels uncertain." Therefore it seems that prudence should not be reckoned an intellectual virtue.
_On the contrary,_ It is reckoned with other virtues necessary for human life, when it is written (Wis. 8:7) of Divine Wisdom: "She teacheth temperance and prudence and justice and fort.i.tude, which are such things as men can have nothing more profitable in life."
_I answer that,_ Prudence is a virtue most necessary for human life.
For a good life consists in good deeds. Now in order to do good deeds, it matters not only what a man does, but also how he does it; to wit, that he do it from right choice and not merely from impulse or pa.s.sion. And, since choice is about things in reference to the end, rect.i.tude of choice requires two things: namely, the due end, and something suitably ordained to that due end. Now man is suitably directed to his due end by a virtue which perfects the soul in the appet.i.tive part, the object of which is the good and the end. And to that which is suitably ordained to the due end man needs to be rightly disposed by a habit in his reason, because counsel and choice, which are about things ordained to the end, are acts of the reason. Consequently an intellectual virtue is needed in the reason, to perfect the reason, and make it suitably affected towards things ordained to the end; and this virtue is prudence. Consequently prudence is a virtue necessary to lead a good life.
Reply Obj. 1: The good of an art is to be found, not in the craftsman, but in the product of the art, since art is right reason about things to be made: for since the making of a thing pa.s.ses into external matter, it is a perfection not of the maker, but of the thing made, even as movement is the act of the thing moved: and art is concerned with the making of things. On the other hand, the good of prudence is in the active principle, whose activity is its perfection: for prudence is right reason about things to be done, as stated above (A. 4). Consequently art does not require of the craftsman that his act be a good act, but that his work be good.
Rather would it be necessary for the thing made to act well (e.g.
that a knife should carve well, or that a saw should cut well), if it were proper to such things to act, rather than to be acted on, because they have not dominion over their actions. Wherefore the craftsman needs art, not that he may live well, but that he may produce a good work of art, and have it in good keeping: whereas prudence is necessary to man, that he may lead a good life, and not merely that he may be a good man.
Reply Obj. 2: When a man does a good deed, not of his own counsel, but moved by that of another, his deed is not yet quite perfect, as regards his reason in directing him and his appet.i.te in moving him.
Wherefore, if he do a good deed, he does not do well simply; and yet this is required in order that he may lead a good life.
Reply Obj. 3: As stated in _Ethic._ vi, 2, truth is not the same for the practical as for the speculative intellect. Because the truth of the speculative intellect depends on conformity between the intellect and the thing. And since the intellect cannot be infallibly in conformity with things in contingent matters, but only in necessary matters, therefore no speculative habit about contingent things is an intellectual virtue, but only such as is about necessary things. On the other hand, the truth of the practical intellect depends on conformity with right appet.i.te. This conformity has no place in necessary matters, which are not affected by the human will; but only in contingent matters which can be effected by us, whether they be matters of interior action, or the products of external work. Hence it is only about contingent matters that an intellectual virtue is a.s.signed to the practical intellect, viz. art, as regards things to be made, and prudence, as regards things to be done.
________________________
SIXTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 57, Art. 6]
Whether "Eubulia," "Synesis," and "Gnome" Are Virtues Annexed to Prudence?
Objection 1: It would seem that "_eubulia, synesis_, and _gnome_" are unfittingly a.s.signed as virtues annexed to prudence. For _eubulia_ is "a habit whereby we take good counsel" (Ethic. vi, 9). Now it "belongs to prudence to take good counsel," as stated (Ethic. vi, 9).
Therefore _eubulia_ is not a virtue annexed to prudence, but rather is prudence itself.
Obj. 2: Further, it belongs to the higher to judge the lower. The highest virtue would therefore seem to be the one whose act is judgment. Now _synesis_ enables us to judge well. Therefore _synesis_ is not a virtue annexed to prudence, but rather is a princ.i.p.al virtue.
Obj. 3: Further, just as there are various matters to pa.s.s judgment on, so are there different points on which one has to take counsel.
But there is one virtue referring to all matters of counsel.
Therefore, in order to judge well of what has to be done, there is no need, besides _synesis,_ of the virtue of _gnome_.