FREE BOOKS

Author's List




PREV.   NEXT  
|<   648   649   650   651   652   653   654   655   656   657   658   659   660   661   662   663   664   665   666   667   668   669   670   671   672  
673   674   675   676   677   678   679   680   681   682   683   684   685   686   687   688   689   690   691   692   693   694   695   696   697   >>   >|  
cies of sins. For excess and deficiency differ in respect of more and less. Now "more" and "less" do not diversify a species. Therefore excess and deficiency do not diversify the species of sins. Obj. 2: Further, just as sin, in matters of action, is due to straying from the rectitude of reason, so falsehood, in speculative matters, is due to straying from the truth of the reality. Now the species of falsehood is not diversified by saying more or less than the reality. Therefore neither is the species of sin diversified by straying more or less from the rectitude of reason. Obj. 3: Further, "one species cannot be made out of two," as Porphyry declares [*Isagog.; cf. Arist. _Metaph._ i]. Now excess and deficiency are united in one sin; for some are at once illiberal and wasteful--illiberality being a sin of deficiency, and prodigality, by excess. Therefore excess and deficiency do not diversify the species of sins. _On the contrary,_ Contraries differ specifically, for "contrariety is a difference of form," as stated in _Metaph._ x, text. 13, 14. Now vices that differ according to excess and deficiency are contrary to one another, as illiberality to wastefulness. Therefore they differ specifically. _I answer that,_ While there are two things in sin, viz. the act itself and its inordinateness, in so far as sin is a departure from the order of reason and the Divine law, the species of sin is gathered, not from its inordinateness, which is outside the sinner's intention, as stated above (A. 1), but one the contrary, from the act itself as terminating in the object to which the sinner's intention is directed. Consequently wherever we find a different motive inclining the intention to sin, there will be a different species of sin. Now it is evident that the motive for sinning, in sins by excess, is not the same as the motive for sinning, in sins of deficiency; in fact, they are contrary to one another, just as the motive in the sin of intemperance is love for bodily pleasures, while the motive in the sin of insensibility is hatred of the same. Therefore these sins not only differ specifically, but are contrary to one another. Reply Obj. 1: Although _more_ and _less_ do not cause diversity of species, yet they are sometimes consequent to specific difference, in so far as they are the result of diversity of form; thus we may say that fire is lighter than air. Hence the Philosopher says (Ethic. viii, 1) that "those
PREV.   NEXT  
|<   648   649   650   651   652   653   654   655   656   657   658   659   660   661   662   663   664   665   666   667   668   669   670   671   672  
673   674   675   676   677   678   679   680   681   682   683   684   685   686   687   688   689   690   691   692   693   694   695   696   697   >>   >|  



Top keywords:
species
 

deficiency

 

excess

 

contrary

 

motive

 

differ

 
Therefore
 

reason

 

straying

 

specifically


diversify
 

intention

 

illiberality

 
difference
 
sinning
 
diversity
 

Metaph

 
inordinateness
 

sinner

 

stated


diversified

 

reality

 

falsehood

 

Further

 

matters

 
rectitude
 

intemperance

 
respect
 

bodily

 

hatred


insensibility

 

pleasures

 

evident

 

Consequently

 
directed
 

inclining

 
lighter
 

Philosopher

 

Although

 

result


specific

 

consequent

 

object

 
terminating
 

answer

 
wastefulness
 
Contraries
 

Porphyry

 
prodigality
 
contrariety