Index [<< | >>]
Second Part of the Second Part [<< | >>]
Question: 46 [<< | >>]
| Deinde considerandum est de stultitia, quae opponitur sapientiae. Et circa hoc quaeruntur tria. | We must now consider folly which is opposed to wisdom; and under this head there are three points of inquiry: |
| Primo, utrum stultitia opponatur sapientiae. | (1) Whether folly is contrary to wisdom? |
| Secundo, utrum stultitia sit peccatum. | (2) Whether folly is a sin? |
| Tertio, ad quod vitium capitale reducatur. | (3) To which capital sin is it reducible? |
Index [<< | >>]
Second Part of the Second Part [<< | >>]
Question: 46 [<< | >>]
Article: 1 [<< | >>]
| Ad primum sic proceditur. Videtur quod stultitia non opponatur sapientiae. Sapientiae enim directe videtur opponi insipientia. Sed stultitia non videtur esse idem quod insipientia, quia insipientia videtur esse solum circa divina, sicut et sapientia; stultitia autem se habet et circa divina et circa humana. Ergo sapientiae non opponitur stultitia. | Objection 1: It would seem that folly is not contrary to wisdom. For seemingly unwisdom is directly opposed to wisdom. But folly does not seem to be the same as unwisdom, for the latter is apparently about Divine things alone, whereas folly is about both Divine and human things. Therefore folly is not contrary to wisdom. |
| Praeterea, unum oppositorum non est via perveniendi ad aliud. Sed stultitia est via perveniendi ad sapientiam, dicitur enim I ad Cor. III, si quis videtur inter vos sapiens esse in hoc saeculo, stultus fiat, ut sit sapiens. Ergo sapientiae non opponitur stultitia. | Objection 2: Further, one contrary is not the way to arrive at the other. But folly is the way to arrive at wisdom, for it is written (1 Cor. 3:18): "If any man among you seem to be wise in this world, let him become a fool, that he may be wise." Therefore folly is not opposed to wisdom. |
| Praeterea, unum oppositorum non est causa alterius. Sapientia autem est causa stultitiae, dicitur enim Ierem. X, stultus factus est omnis homo a scientia sua; sapientia autem quaedam scientia est. Et Isaiae XLVII dicitur, sapientia tua et scientia tua, haec decepit te, decipi autem ad stultitiam pertinet. Ergo sapientiae non opponitur stultitia. | Objection 3: Further, one contrary is not the cause of the other. But wisdom is the cause of folly; for it is written (Jer. 10:14): "Every man is become a fool for knowledge," and wisdom is a kind of knowledge. Moreover, it is written (Is. 47:10): "Thy wisdom and thy knowledge, this hath deceived thee." Now it belongs to folly to be deceived. Therefore folly is not contrary to wisdom. |
| Praeterea, Isidorus dicit, in libro Etymol., quod stultus est qui per ignominiam non commovetur ad dolorem, et qui non movetur iniuria. Sed hoc pertinet ad sapientiam spiritualem; ut Gregorius dicit, in X Moral. Ergo sapientiae non opponitur stultitia. | Objection 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. |
| Sed contra est quod Gregorius dicit, in II Moral., quod donum sapientiae datur contra stultitiam. | On the contrary, Gregory says (Moral. ii, 26) that "the gift of wisdom is given as a remedy against folly." |
| Respondeo dicendum quod nomen stultitiae a stupore videtur esse sumptum, unde Isidorus dicit, in libro Etymol., stultus est qui propter stuporem non movetur. Et differt stultitia a fatuitate, sicut ibidem dicitur, quia stultitia importat hebetudinem cordis et obtusionem sensuum; fatuitas autem importat totaliter spiritualis sensus privationem. Et ideo convenienter stultitia sapientiae opponitur. | I answer that, Stultitia [Folly] seems to take its name from "stupor"; wherefore Isidore says (Etym. x, under the letter of S): "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. |
| Sapiens enim, ut ibidem Isidorus dicit, dictus est a sapore, quia sicut gustus est aptus ad discretionem saporis ciborum, sic sapiens ad dignoscentiam rerum atque causarum. Unde patet quod stultitia opponitur sapientiae sicut contrarium; fatuitas autem sicut pura negatio. Nam fatuus caret sensu iudicandi; stultus autem habet, sed hebetatum; sapiens autem subtilem ac perspicacem. | 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. |
| Ad primum ergo dicendum quod, sicut Isidorus ibidem dicit, insipiens contrarius est sapienti, eo quod est sine sapore discretionis et sensus. Unde idem videtur esse insipientia cum stultitia. Praecipue autem videtur aliquis esse stultus quando patitur defectum in sententia iudicii quae attenditur secundum causam altissimam, nam si deficiat in iudicio circa aliquid modicum, non ex hoc vocatur aliquis stultus. | Reply to Objection 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. |
| Ad secundum dicendum quod sicut est quaedam sapientia mala, ut supra dictum est, quae dicitur sapientia saeculi, quia accipit pro causa altissima et fine ultimo aliquod terrenum bonum; ita etiam est aliqua stultitia bona, huic sapientiae malae opposita, per quam aliquis terrena contemnit. Et de hac stultitia loquitur apostolus. | Reply to Objection 2: Just as there is an evil wisdom, as stated above (Question [45], Article [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. |
| Ad tertium dicendum quod sapientia saeculi est quae decipit et facit esse stultum apud Deum, ut patet per apostolum, I ad Cor. III. | Reply to Objection 3: It is the wisdom of the world that deceives and makes us foolish in God's sight, as is evident from the Apostle's words (1 Cor. 3:19). |
| Ad quartum dicendum quod non moveri iniuriis quandoque quidem contingit ex hoc quod homini non sapiunt terrena, sed sola caelestia. Unde hoc pertinet ad stultitiam mundi, sed ad sapientiam Dei, ut Gregorius ibidem dicit. Quandoque autem contingit ex hoc quod homo est simpliciter circa omnia stupidus, ut patet in amentibus, qui non discernunt quid sit iniuria. Et hoc pertinet ad stultitiam simpliciter. | Reply to Objection 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. |
Index [<< | >>]
Second Part of the Second Part [<< | >>]
Question: 46 [<< | >>]
Article: 2 [<< | >>]
| Ad secundum sic proceditur. Videtur quod stultitia non sit peccatum. Nullum enim peccatum provenit in nobis a natura. Sed quidam sunt stulti naturaliter. Ergo stultitia non est peccatum. | 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. |
| Praeterea, omne peccatum est voluntarium, ut Augustinus dicit. Sed stultitia non est voluntaria. Ergo non est peccatum. | Objection 2: Further, "Every sin is voluntary," according to Augustine (De Vera Relig. xiv). But folly is not voluntary. Therefore it is not a sin. |
| Praeterea, omne peccatum opponitur alicui praecepto divino. Sed stultitia nulli praecepto opponitur. Ergo stultitia non est peccatum. | Objection 3: Further, every sin is contrary to a Divine precept. But folly is not contrary to any precept. Therefore folly is not a sin. |
| Sed contra est quod dicitur Prov. I, prosperitas stultorum perdet eos. Sed nullus perditur nisi pro peccato. Ergo stultitia est peccatum. | 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. |
| Respondeo dicendum quod stultitia, sicut dictum est, importat quendam stuporem sensus in iudicando, et praecipue circa altissimam causam, quae est finis ultimus et summum bonum. Circa quod aliquis potest pati stuporem in iudicando dupliciter. Uno modo, ex indispositione naturali, sicut patet in amentibus. Et talis stultitia non est peccatum. Alio modo, inquantum immergit homo sensum suum rebus terrenis, ex quo redditur eius sensus ineptus ad percipiendum divina, secundum illud I ad Cor. II, animalis homo non percipit ea quae sunt spiritus Dei, sicut etiam homini habenti gustum infectum malo humore non sapiunt dulcia. Et talis stultitia est peccatum. | I answer that, Folly, as stated above (Article [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 God," 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. |
| Et per hoc patet responsio ad pr | This suffices for the Reply to the First Objection. |
| Ad secundum dicendum quod quamvis stultitiam nullus velit, vult tamen ea ad quae consequitur esse stultum, scilicet abstrahere sensum suum a spiritualibus et immergere terrenis. Et idem etiam contingit in aliis peccatis. Nam luxuriosus vult delectationem sine qua non est peccatum, quamvis non simpliciter velit peccatum, vellet enim frui delectatione sine peccato. | Reply to Objection 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 lustful 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. |
| Ad tertium dicendum quod stultitia opponitur praeceptis quae dantur de contemplatione veritatis; de quibus supra habitum est cum de scientia et intellectu ageretur. | Reply to Objection 3: Folly is opposed to the precepts about the contemplation of truth, of which we have spoken above (Question [16]) when we were treating of knowledge and understanding. |
Index [<< | >>]
Second Part of the Second Part [<< | >>]
Question: 46 [<< | >>]
Article: 3 [<< | >>]
| Ad tertium sic proceditur. Videtur quod stultitia non sit filia luxuriae. Gregorius enim, XXXI Moral., enumerat luxuriae filias; inter quas tamen non continetur stultitia. Ergo stultitia non procedit ex luxuria. | Objection 1: It would seem that folly is not a daughter of lust. For Gregory (Moral. xxxi, 45) enumerates the daughters of lust, among which however he makes no mention of folly. Therefore folly does not proceed from lust. |
| Praeterea, apostolus dicit, I ad Cor. III, sapientia huius mundi stultitia est apud Deum. Sed sicut Gregorius dicit, X Moral., sapientia mundi est cor machinationibus tegere, quod pertinet ad duplicitatem. Ergo stultitia est magis filia duplicitatis quam luxuriae. | Objection 2: Further, the Apostle says (1 Cor. 3:19): "The wisdom of this world is foolishness with God." 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 lust. |
| Praeterea, ex ira aliqui praecipue vertuntur in furorem et insaniam, quae pertinent ad stultitiam. Ergo stultitia magis oritur ex ira quam ex luxuria. | Objection 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 lust. |
| Sed contra est quod dicitur Prov. VII, statim eam sequitur, scilicet meretricem, ignorans quod ad vincula stultus trahatur. | 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." |
| Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut iam dictum est, stultitia, secundum quod est peccatum, provenit ex hoc quod sensus spiritualis hebetatus est, ut non sit aptus ad spiritualia diiudicanda. Maxime autem sensus hominis immergitur ad terrena per luxuriam, quae est circa maximas delectationes, quibus anima maxime absorbetur. Et ideo stultitia quae est peccatum maxime nascitur ex luxuria. | I answer that, As already stated (Article [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 lust, 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 lust. |
| Ad primum ergo dicendum quod ad stultitiam pertinet quod homo habeat fastidium de Deo et de donis ipsius. Unde Gregorius duo numerat inter filias luxuriae quae pertinent ad stultitiam, scilicet odium Dei et desperationem futuri saeculi, quasi dividens stultitiam in duas partes. | Reply to Objection 1: It is part of folly that a man should have a distaste for God and His gifts. Hence Gregory mentions two daughters of lust, pertaining to folly, namely, "hatred of God" and "despair of the life to come"; thus he divides folly into two parts as it were. |
| Ad secundum dicendum quod verbum illud apostoli non est intelligendum causaliter, sed essentialiter, quia scilicet ipsa sapientia mundi est stultitia apud Deum. Unde non oportet quod quaecumque pertinent ad sapientiam mundi sint causa huius stultitiae. | Reply to Objection 2: These words of the Apostle are to be understood, not causally but essentially, because, to wit, worldly wisdom itself is folly with God. Hence it does not follow that whatever belongs to worldly wisdom, is a cause of this folly. |
| Ad tertium dicendum quod ira, ut supra dictum est, sua acuitate maxime immutat corporis naturam. Unde maxime causat stultitiam quae provenit ex impedimento corporali. Sed stultitia quae provenit ex impedimento spirituali, scilicet ex immersione mentis ad terrena, maxime provenit ex luxuria, ut dictum est. | Reply to Objection 3: Anger by reason of its keenness, as stated above (FS, Question [48], Articles [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 lust, as stated above. |