Quaestio 35 Question 35 De dolore et tristitia secundum se Of Pain or Sorrow, in Itself Deinde considerandum est de dolore et tristitia. Et circa hoc, primo considerandum est de tristitia, seu dolore, secundum se; secundo, de causis eius; tertio, de effectibus ipsius; quarto, de remediis eius; quinto, de bonitate vel malitia eius. We have now to consider pain and sorrow: concerning which we must consider: (1) Sorrow or pain in itself; (2) Its cause; (3) Its effects; (4) Its remedies; (5) Its goodness or malice. Circa primum quaeruntur octo. Under the first head there are eight points of inquiry: Primo, utrum dolor sit passio animae. (1) Whether pain is a passion of the soul? Secundo, utrum tristitia sit idem quod dolor. (2) Whether sorrow is the same as pain? Tertio, utrum tristitia, seu dolor, sit contraria delectationi. (3) Whether sorrow or pain is contrary in pleasure? Quarto, utrum omnis tristitia omni delectationi contrarietur. (4) Whether all sorrow is contrary to all pleasure? Quinto, utrum delectationi contemplationis sit aliqua tristitia contraria. (5) Whether there is a sorrow contrary to the pleasure of contemplation? Sexto, utrum magis fugienda sit tristitia, quam delectatio appetenda. (6) Whether sorrow is to be shunned more than pleasure is to be sought? Septimo, utrum dolor exterior sit maior quam dolor interior. (7) Whether exterior pain is greater than interior? Octavo, de speciebus tristitiae. (8) Of the species of sorrow. Articulus 1 Article 1 Utrum dolor sit passio animae Whether pain is a passion of the soul? Ad primum sic proceditur. Videtur quod dolor non sit passio animae. Nulla enim passio animae est in corpore. Sed dolor potest esse in corpore, dicit enim Augustinus, in libro de vera Relig., quod dolor qui dicitur corporis, est corruptio repentina salutis eius rei, quam, male utendo, anima corruptioni obnoxiavit. Ergo dolor non est passio animae. Objection 1: It would seem that pain is not a passion of the soul. Because no passion of the soul is in the body. But pain can be in the body, since Augustine says (De Vera Relig. xii), that bodily pain is a sudden corruption of the well-being of that thing which the soul, by making evil use of it, made subject to corruption. Therefore pain is not a passion of the soul. Praeterea, omnis passio animae pertinet ad vim appetitivam. Sed dolor non pertinet ad vim appetitivam, sed magis ad apprehensivam, dicit enim Augustinus, in libro de natura boni, quod dolorem in corpore facit sensus resistens corpori potentiori. Ergo dolor non est passio animae. Obj. 2: Further, every passion of the soul belongs to the appetitive faculty. But pain does not belong to the appetitive, but rather to the apprehensive part: for Augustine says (De Nat. Boni xx) that bodily pain is caused by the sense resisting a more powerful body. Therefore pain is not a passion of the soul. Praeterea, omnis passio animae pertinet ad appetitum animalem. Sed dolor non pertinet ad appetitum animalem, sed magis ad appetitum naturalem, dicit enim Augustinus, VIII super Gen. ad Litt., nisi aliquod bonum remansisset in natura, nullius boni amissi esset dolor in poena. Ergo dolor non est passio animae. Obj. 3: Further, every passion of the soul belongs to the animal appetite. But pain does not belong to the animal appetite, but rather to the natural appetite; for Augustine says (Gen ad lit. viii, 14): Had not some good remained in nature, we should feel no pain in being punished by the loss of good. Therefore pain is not a passion of the soul. Sed contra est quod Augustinus, XIV de Civ. Dei, ponit dolorem inter passiones animae, inducens illud Virgilii, hinc metuunt, cupiunt, gaudentque dolentque. On the contrary, Augustine (De Civ. Dei xiv, 8) reckons pain among the passions of the soul; quoting Virgil (Aeneid, vi, 733): hence wild desires and grovelling fears/And human laughter, human tears. Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut ad delectationem duo requiruntur, scilicet coniunctio boni, et perceptio huiusmodi coniunctionis; ita etiam ad dolorem duo requiruntur, scilicet coniunctio alicuius mali (quod ea ratione est malum, quia privat aliquod bonum); et perceptio huiusmodi coniunctionis. Quidquid autem coniungitur, si non habeat, respectu eius cui coniungitur, rationem boni vel mali, non potest causare delectationem vel dolorem. Ex quo patet quod aliquid sub ratione boni vel mali, est obiectum delectationis et doloris. Bonum autem et malum, inquantum huiusmodi, sunt obiecta appetitus. Unde patet quod delectatio et dolor ad appetitum pertinent. I answer that, Just as two things are requisite for pleasure; namely, conjunction with good and perception of this conjunction; so also two things are requisite for pain: namely, conjunction with some evil (which is in so far evil as it deprives one of some good), and perception of this conjunction. Now whatever is conjoined, if it have not the aspect of good or evil in regard to the being to which it is conjoined, cannot cause pleasure or pain. Whence it is evident that something under the aspect of good or evil is the object of the pleasure or pain. But good and evil, as such, are objects of the appetite. Consequently it is clear that pleasure and pain belong to the appetite. Omnis autem motus appetitivus, seu inclinatio consequens apprehensionem, pertinet ad appetitum intellectivum vel sensitivum, nam inclinatio appetitus naturalis non consequitur apprehensionem ipsius appetentis, sed alterius, ut in primo dictum est. Cum igitur delectatio et dolor praesupponant in eodem subiecto sensum vel apprehensionem aliquam, manifestum est quod dolor, sicut et delectatio, est in appetitu intellectivo vel sensitivo. Now every appetitive movement or inclination consequent to apprehension, belongs to the intellective or sensitive appetite: since the inclination of the natural appetite is not consequent to an apprehension of the subject of that appetite, but to the apprehension of another, as stated in the FP, Q103, AA1,3. Since then pleasure and pain presuppose some sense or apprehension in the same subject, it is evident that pain, like pleasure, is in the intellective or sensitive appetite. Omnis autem motus appetitus sensitivi dicitur passio, ut supra dictum est. Et praecipue illi qui in defectum sonant. Unde dolor, secundum quod est in appetitu sensitivo, propriissime dicitur passio animae, sicut molestiae corporales proprie passiones corporis dicuntur. Unde et Augustinus, XIV de Civ. Dei, dolorem specialiter aegritudinem nominat. Again every movement of the sensitive appetite is called a passion, as stated above (Q22, AA1,3): and especially those which tend to some defect. Consequently pain, according as it is in the sensitive appetite, is most properly called a passion of the soul: just as bodily ailments are properly called passions of the body. Hence Augustine (De Civ. Dei xiv, 7,8) reckons pain especially as being a kind of ailment. Ad primum ergo dicendum quod dolor dicitur esse corporis, quia causa doloris est in corpore, puta cum patimur aliquod nocivum corpori. Sed motus doloris semper est in anima, nam corpus non potest dolere nisi dolente anima, ut Augustinus dicit. Reply Obj. 1: We speak of the body, because the cause of pain is in the body: as when we suffer something hurtful to the body. But the movement of pain is always in the soul; since the body cannot feel pain unless the soul feel it, as Augustine says (Super Psalm. 87:4). Ad secundum dicendum quod dolor dicitur esse sensus, non quia sit actus sensitivae virtutis, sed quia requiritur ad dolorem corporalem, sicut ad delectationem. Reply Obj. 2: We speak of pain of the senses, not as though it were an act of the sensitive power; but because the senses are required for bodily pain, in the same way as for bodily pleasure. Ad tertium dicendum quod dolor de amissione boni demonstrat bonitatem naturae, non quia dolor sit actus naturalis appetitus, sed quia natura aliquid appetit ut bonum, quod cum removeri sentitur, sequitur doloris passio in appetitu sensitivo. Reply Obj. 3: Pain at the loss of good proves the goodness of the nature, not because pain is an act of the natural appetite, but because nature desires something as good, the removal of which being perceived, there results the passion of pain in the sensitive appetite. Articulus 2 Article 2 Utrum tristitia sit dolor Whether sorrow is the same as pain? Ad secundum sic proceditur. Videtur quod tristitia non sit dolor. Dicit enim Augustinus, XIV de Civ. Dei, quod dolor in corporibus dicitur. Tristitia autem dicitur magis in anima. Ergo tristitia non est dolor. Objection 1: It would seem that sorrow is not pain. For Augustine says (De Civ. Dei xiv, 7) that pain is used to express bodily suffering. But sorrow is used more in reference to the soul. Therefore sorrow is not pain. Praeterea, dolor non est nisi de praesenti malo. Sed tristitia potest esse de praeterito et de futuro, sicut poenitentia est tristitia de praeterito, et anxietas de futuro. Ergo tristitia omnino a dolore differt. Obj. 2: Further, pain is only in respect of present evil. But sorrow can refer to both past and future evil: thus repentance is sorrow for the past, and anxiety for the future. Therefore sorrow is quite different from pain. Praeterea, dolor non videtur consequi nisi sensum tactus. Sed tristitia potest consequi ex omnibus sensibus. Ergo tristitia non est dolor, sed se habet in pluribus. Obj. 3: Further, pain seems not to follow save from the sense of touch. But sorrow can arise from all the senses. Therefore sorrow is not pain, and extends to more objects. Sed contra est quod apostolus dicit, ad Rom. IX, tristitia est mihi magna, et continuus dolor cordi meo, pro eodem utens tristitia et dolore. On the contrary, The Apostle says (Rom 9:2): I have great sorrow and continual pain in my heart, thus denoting the same thing by sorrow and pain. Respondeo dicendum quod delectatio et dolor ex duplici apprehensione causari possunt, scilicet ex apprehensione exterioris sensus, et ex apprehensione interiori sive intellectus sive imaginationis. Interior autem apprehensio ad plura se extendit quam exterior, eo quod quaecumque cadunt sub exteriori apprehensione, cadunt sub interiori, sed non e converso. Sola igitur illa delectatio quae ex interiori apprehensione causatur, gaudium nominatur, ut supra dictum est. Et similiter ille solus dolor qui ex apprehensione interiori causatur, nominatur tristitia. Et sicut illa delectatio quae ex exteriori apprehensione causatur, delectatio quidem nominatur, non autem gaudium; ita ille dolor qui ex exteriori apprehensione causatur, nominatur quidem dolor, non autem tristitia. Sic igitur tristitia est quaedam species doloris, sicut gaudium delectationis. I answer that, Pleasure and pain can arise from a twofold apprehension, namely, from the apprehension of an exterior sense; and from the interior apprehension of the intellect or of the imagination. Now the interior apprehension extends to more objects than the exterior apprehension: because whatever things come under the exterior apprehension, come under the interior, but not conversely. Consequently that pleasure alone which is caused by an interior apprehension is called joy, as stated above (Q31, A3): and in like manner that pain alone which is caused by an interior apprehension, is called sorrow. And just as that pleasure which is caused by an exterior apprehension, is called pleasure but not joy; so too that pain which is caused by an exterior apprehension, is called pain indeed but not sorrow. Accordingly sorrow is a species of pain, as joy is a species of pleasure. Ad primum ergo dicendum quod Augustinus loquitur ibi quantum ad usum vocabuli, quia dolor magis usitatur in corporalibus doloribus, qui sunt magis noti, quam in doloribus spiritualibus. Reply Obj. 1: Augustine is speaking there of the use of the word: because pain is more generally used in reference to bodily pains, which are better known, than in reference to spiritual pains. Ad secundum dicendum quod sensus exterior non percipit nisi praesens, vis autem cognitiva interior potest percipere praesens, praeteritum et futurum. Et ideo tristitia potest esse de praesenti, praeterito et futuro, dolor autem corporalis, qui sequitur apprehensionem sensus exterioris, non potest esse nisi de praesenti. Reply Obj. 2: External sense perceives only what is present; but the interior cognitive power can perceive the present, past and future. Consequently sorrow can regard present, past and future: whereas bodily pain, which follows apprehension of the external sense, can only regard something present. Ad tertium dicendum quod sensibilia tactus sunt dolorosa, non solum inquantum sunt improportionata virtuti apprehensivae, sed etiam inquantum contrariantur naturae. Aliorum vero sensuum sensibilia possunt quidem esse improportionata virtuti apprehensivae, non tamen contrariantur naturae, nisi in ordine ad sensibilia tactus. Unde solus homo, qui est animal perfectum in cognitione, delectatur in sensibilibus aliorum sensuum secundum se ipsa, alia vero animalia non delectantur in eis nisi secundum quod referuntur ad sensibilia tactus, ut dicitur in III Ethic. Et ideo de sensibilibus aliorum sensuum non dicitur esse dolor, secundum quod contrariatur delectationi naturali, sed magis tristitia, quae contrariatur gaudio animali. Sic igitur si dolor accipiatur pro corporali dolore, quod usitatius est, dolor ex opposito dividitur contra tristitiam, secundum distinctionem apprehensionis interioris et exterioris; licet, quantum ad obiecta, delectatio ad plura se extendat quam dolor corporalis. Si vero dolor accipiatur communiter, sic dolor est genus tristitiae, ut dictum est. Reply Obj. 3: The sensibles of touch are painful, not only insofar as they are disproportionate to the apprehensive power, but also insofar as they are contrary to nature: whereas the objects of the other senses can indeed be disproportionate to the apprehensive power, but they are not contrary to nature, save as they are subordinate to the sensibles of touch. Consequently man alone, who is a perfectly cognizant animal, takes pleasure in the objects of the other senses for their own sake; whereas other animals take no pleasure in them save as referable to the sensibles of touch, as stated in Ethic. iii, 10. Accordingly, in referring to the objects of the other senses, we do not speak of pain insofar as it is contrary to natural pleasure: but rather of sorrow, which is contrary to joy. So then if pain be taken as denoting bodily pain, which is its more usual meaning, then it is contrasted with sorrow, according to the distinction of interior and exterior apprehension; although, on the part of the objects, pleasure extends further than does bodily pain. But if pain be taken in a wide sense, then it is the genus of sorrow, as stated above. Articulus 3 Article 3 Utrum dolor delectationi contrarietur Whether sorrow or pain is contrary to pleasure?