in potentiality, so has it goodness in potentiality.
Therefore, the subject of evil is good.
Reply Obj. 1: Dionysius means that evil is not in existing things as
a part, or as a natural property of any existing thing.
Reply Obj. 2: "Not-being," understood negatively, does not require a
subject; but privation is negation in a subject, as the Philosopher
says (Metaph. iv, text 4), and such "not-being" is an evil.
Reply Obj. 3: Evil is not in the good opposed to it as in its
subject, but in some other good, for the subject of blindness is not
"sight," but "animal." Yet, it appears, as Augustine says
(Enchiridion 13), that the rule of dialectics here fails, where it is
laid down that contraries cannot exist together. But this is to be
taken as referring to good and evil in general, but not in reference
to any particular good and evil. For white and black, sweet and
bitter, and the like contraries, are only considered as contraries in
a special sense, because they exist in some determinate genus;
whereas good enters into every genus. Hence one good can coexist with
the privation of another good.
Reply Obj. 4: The prophet invokes woe to those who say that good as
such is evil. But this does not follow from what is said above, as is
clear from the explanation given.
_______________________
FOURTH ARTICLE [I, Q. 48, Art. 4]
Whether Evil Corrupts the Whole Good?
Objection 1: It would seem that evil corrupts the whole good. For
one contrary is wholly corrupted by another. But good and evil are
contraries. Therefore evil corrupts the whole good.
Obj. 2: Further, Augustine says (Enchiridion 12) that "evil hurts
inasmuch as it takes away good." But good is all of a piece and
uniform. Therefore it is wholly taken away by evil.
Obj. 3: Further, evil, as long as it lasts, hurts, and takes away
good. But that from which something is always being removed, is at
some time consumed, unless it is infinite, which cannot be said of
any created good. Therefore evil wholly consumes good.
_On the contrary,_ Augustine says (Enchiridion 12) that "evil cannot
wholly consume good."
_I answer that,_ Evil cannot wholly consume good. To prove this we must
consider that good is threefold. One kind of good is wholly destroyed
by evil, and this is the good opposed to evil, as light is wholly
destroyed by darkness, and sight by blindness. Another kind of good is
neither wholly destroyed nor diminished by evil, and that is the good
|