FREE BOOKS

Author's List




PREV.   NEXT  
|<   1185   1186   1187   1188   1189   1190   1191   1192   1193   1194   1195   1196   1197   1198   1199   1200   1201   1202   1203   1204   1205   1206   1207   1208   1209  
1210   1211   1212   1213   1214   1215   1216   1217   1218   1219   1220   1221   1222   1223   1224   1225   1226   1227   1228   1229   1230   1231   1232   1233   1234   >>   >|  
sensible objects of these senses conduce to the pleasurable use of the necessary things that have relation to the touch. But since the taste is more akin to the touch than the other senses are, it follows that temperance is more about the taste than about the other senses. Reply Obj. 1: The use of food and the pleasure that essentially results therefrom pertain to the touch. Hence the Philosopher says (De Anima ii, 3) that "touch is the sense of food, for food is hot or cold, wet or dry." To the taste belongs the discernment of savors, which make the food pleasant to eat, in so far as they are signs of its being suitable for nourishment. Reply Obj. 2: The pleasure resulting from savor is additional, so to speak, whereas the pleasure of touch results essentially from the use of food and drink. Reply Obj. 3: Delicacy regards principally the substance of the food, but secondarily it regards its delicious savor and the way in which it is served. _______________________ SIXTH ARTICLE [II-II, Q. 141, Art. 6] Whether the Rule of Temperance Depends on the Need of the Present Life? Objection 1: It would seem that the rule of temperance does not depend on the needs of the present life. For higher things are not regulated according to lower. Now, as temperance is a virtue of the soul, it is above the needs of the body. Therefore the rule of temperance does not depend on the needs of the body. Obj. 2: Further, whoever exceeds a rule sins. Therefore if the needs of the body were the rule of temperance, it would be a sin against temperance to indulge in any other pleasure than those required by nature, which is content with very little. But this would seem unreasonable. Obj. 3: Further, no one sins in observing a rule. Therefore if the need of the body were the rule of temperance, there would be no sin in using any pleasure for the needs of the body, for instance, for the sake of health. But this is apparently false. Therefore the need of the body is not the rule of temperance. _On the contrary,_ Augustine says (De Morib. Eccl. xxi): "In both Testaments the temperate man finds confirmation of the rule forbidding him to love the things of this life, or to deem any of them desirable for its own sake, and commanding him to avail himself of those things with the moderation of a user not the attachment of a lover, in so far as they are requisite for the needs of this life and of his station." _I answer that,_ As
PREV.   NEXT  
|<   1185   1186   1187   1188   1189   1190   1191   1192   1193   1194   1195   1196   1197   1198   1199   1200   1201   1202   1203   1204   1205   1206   1207   1208   1209  
1210   1211   1212   1213   1214   1215   1216   1217   1218   1219   1220   1221   1222   1223   1224   1225   1226   1227   1228   1229   1230   1231   1232   1233   1234   >>   >|  



Top keywords:

temperance

 

pleasure

 
things
 

Therefore

 

senses

 

essentially

 

results

 
depend
 

Further

 

observing


exceeds

 

unreasonable

 

content

 

indulge

 

required

 
nature
 

commanding

 
desirable
 

moderation

 

answer


station

 

attachment

 

requisite

 
forbidding
 

confirmation

 

contrary

 
Augustine
 

apparently

 
instance
 

health


temperate
 
Testaments
 
belongs
 
discernment
 

savors

 

suitable

 

nourishment

 

pleasant

 

pleasurable

 

conduce


objects

 
relation
 

Philosopher

 

pertain

 

therefrom

 

resulting

 

additional

 
Present
 
Depends
 

Temperance