Obj. 4: Further, Isidore says (Etym. x, under the letter S) that "a fool is one whom shame does not incite to sorrow, and who is unconcerned when he is injured." But this pertains to spiritual wisdom, according to Gregory (Moral. x, 49). Therefore folly is not opposed to wisdom.
_On the contrary,_ Gregory says (Moral. ii, 26) that "the gift of wisdom is given as a remedy against folly."
_I answer that,_ _Stult.i.tia (Folly)_ seems to take its name from _stupor;_ wherefore Isidore says (loc. cit.): "A fool is one who through dullness (_stuporem_) remains unmoved." And folly differs from fatuity, according to the same authority (Etym. x), in that folly implies apathy in the heart and dullness in the senses, while fatuity denotes entire privation of the spiritual sense. Therefore folly is fittingly opposed to wisdom.
For "sapiens" (_wise_) as Isidore says (Etym. x) "is so named from _sapor_ (savor), because just as the taste is quick to distinguish between savors of meats, so is a wise man in discerning things and causes." Wherefore it is manifest that _folly_ is opposed to _wisdom_ as its contrary, while _fatuity_ is opposed to it as a pure negation: since the fatuous man lacks the sense of judgment, while the fool has the sense, though dulled, whereas the wise man has the sense acute and penetrating.
Reply Obj. 1: According to Isidore (Etym. x), "unwisdom is contrary to wisdom because it lacks the savor of discretion and sense"; so that unwisdom is seemingly the same as folly. Yet a man would appear to be a fool chiefly through some deficiency in the verdict of that judgment, which is according to the highest cause, for if a man fails in judgment about some trivial matter, he is not for that reason called a fool.
Reply Obj. 2: Just as there is an evil wisdom, as stated above (Q.
45, A. 1, ad 1), called "worldly wisdom," because it takes for the highest cause and last end some worldly good, so too there is a good folly opposed to this evil wisdom, whereby man despises worldly things: and it is of this folly that the Apostle speaks.
Reply Obj. 3: It is the wisdom of the world that deceives and makes us foolish in G.o.d"s sight, as is evident from the Apostle"s words (1 Cor. 3:19).
Reply Obj. 4: To be unconcerned when one is injured is sometimes due to the fact that one has no taste for worldly things, but only for heavenly things. Hence this belongs not to worldly but to Divine wisdom, as Gregory declares (Moral. x, 49). Sometimes however it is the result of a man"s being simply stupid about everything, as may be seen in idiots, who do not discern what is injurious to them, and this belongs to folly simply.
_______________________
SECOND ARTICLE [II-II, Q. 45, Art. 2]
Whether Folly Is a Sin?
Objection 1: It would seem that folly is not a sin. For no sin arises in us from nature. But some are fools naturally. Therefore folly is not a sin.
Obj. 2: Further, "Every sin is voluntary," according to Augustine (De Vera Relig. xiv). But folly is not voluntary. Therefore it is not a sin.
Obj. 3: Further, every sin is contrary to a Divine precept. But folly is not contrary to any precept. Therefore folly is not a sin.
_On the contrary,_ It is written (Prov. 1:32): "The prosperity of fools shall destroy them." But no man is destroyed save for sin.
Therefore folly is a sin.
_I answer that,_ Folly, as stated above (A. 1), denotes dullness of sense in judging, and chiefly as regards the highest cause, which is the last end and the sovereign good. Now a man may in this respect contract dullness in judgment in two ways. First, from a natural indisposition, as in the case of idiots, and such like folly is no sin. Secondly, by plunging his sense into earthly things, whereby his sense is rendered incapable of perceiving Divine things, according to 1 Cor. 2:14, "The sensual man perceiveth not these things that are of the Spirit of G.o.d," even as sweet things have no savor for a man whose taste is infected with an evil humor: and such like folly is a sin.
This suffices for the Reply to the First Objection.
Reply Obj. 2: Though no man wishes to be a fool, yet he wishes those things of which folly is a consequence, viz. to withdraw his sense from spiritual things and to plunge it into earthly things. The same thing happens in regard to other sins; for the l.u.s.tful man desires pleasure, without which there is no sin, although he does not desire sin simply, for he would wish to enjoy the pleasure without sin.
Reply Obj. 3: Folly is opposed to the precepts about the contemplation of truth, of which we have spoken above (Q. 16) when we were treating of knowledge and understanding.
_______________________
THIRD ARTICLE [II-II, Q. 46, Art. 3]
Whether Folly Is a Daughter of l.u.s.t?
Objection 1: It would seem that folly is not a daughter of l.u.s.t. For Gregory (Moral. x.x.xi, 45) enumerates the daughters of l.u.s.t, among which however he makes no mention of folly. Therefore folly does not proceed from l.u.s.t.
Obj. 2: Further, the Apostle says (1 Cor. 3:19): "The wisdom of this world is foolishness with G.o.d." Now, according to Gregory (Moral. x, 29) "the wisdom of this world consists in covering the heart with crafty devices;" and this savors of duplicity. Therefore folly is a daughter of duplicity rather than of l.u.s.t.
Obj. 3: Further, anger especially is the cause of fury and madness in some persons; and this pertains to folly. Therefore folly arises from anger rather than from l.u.s.t.
_On the contrary,_ It is written (Prov. 7:22): "Immediately he followeth her," i.e. the harlot ... "not knowing that he is drawn like a fool to bonds."
_I answer that,_ As already stated (A. 2), folly, in so far as it is a sin, is caused by the spiritual sense being dulled, so as to be incapable of judging spiritual things. Now man"s sense is plunged into earthly things chiefly by l.u.s.t, which is about the greatest of pleasures; and these absorb the mind more than any others. Therefore the folly which is a sin, arises chiefly from l.u.s.t.
Reply Obj. 1: It is part of folly that a man should have a distaste for G.o.d and His gifts. Hence Gregory mentions two daughters of l.u.s.t, pertaining to folly, namely, "hatred of G.o.d" and "despair of the life to come"; thus he divides folly into two parts as it were.
Reply Obj. 2: These words of the Apostle are to be understood, not causally but essentially, because, to wit, worldly wisdom itself is folly with G.o.d. Hence it does not follow that whatever belongs to worldly wisdom, is a cause of this folly.
Reply Obj. 3: Anger by reason of its keenness, as stated above (I-II, Q. 48, AA. 2, 3, 4), produces a great change in the nature of the body, wherefore it conduces very much to the folly which results from a bodily impediment. On the other hand the folly which is caused by a spiritual impediment, viz. by the mind being plunged into earthly things, arises chiefly from l.u.s.t, as stated above.
_______________________
TREATISE ON THE CARDINAL VIRTUES (QQ. 47-170) _______________________
QUESTION 47
OF PRUDENCE, CONSIDERED IN ITSELF (In Sixteen Articles)
After treating of the theological virtues, we must in due sequence consider the cardinal virtues. In the first place we shall consider prudence in itself; secondly, its parts; thirdly, the corresponding gift; fourthly, the contrary vices; fifthly, the precepts concerning prudence.
Under the first head there are sixteen points of inquiry:
(1) Whether prudence is in the will or in the reason?
(2) If in the reason, whether it is only in the practical, or also in the speculative reason?
(3) Whether it takes cognizance of singulars?
(4) Whether it is virtue?
(5) Whether it is a special virtue?
(6) Whether it appoints the end to the moral virtues?
(7) Whether it fixes the mean in the moral virtues?
(8) Whether its proper act is command?
(9) Whether solicitude or watchfulness belongs to prudence?
(10) Whether prudence extends to the governing of many?
(11) Whether the prudence which regards private good is the same in species as that which regards the common good?
(12) Whether prudence is in subjects, or only in their rulers?
(13) Whether prudence is in the wicked?
(14) Whether prudence is in all good men?