Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae

Objection 1: It would seem that sorrow is not contrary to pleasure. For one of two contraries is not the cause of the other. But sorrow can be the cause of pleasure; for it is written (Mt. 5:5): "Blessed are they that mourn, for they shall be comforted." Therefore they are not contrary to one another.

Objection 2: Further, one contrary does not denominate the other. But to some, pain or sorrow gives pleasure: thus Augustine says (Confess. iii, 2) that in stage-plays sorrow itself gives pleasure: and (Confess. iv, 5) that "weeping is a bitter thing, and yet it sometimes pleases us." Therefore pain is not contrary to pleasure.

Objection 3: Further, one contrary is not the matter of the other; because contraries cannot co-exist together. But sorrow can be the matter of pleasure; for Augustine says (De Poenit. xiii): "The penitent should ever sorrow, and rejoice in his sorrow." The Philosopher too says (Ethic. ix, 4) that, on the other hand, "the evil man feels pain at having been pleased." Therefore pleasure and pain are not contrary to one another.

On the contrary, Augustine says (De Civ. Dei xiv, 6) that "joy is the volition of consent to the things we wish: and that sorrow is the volition of dissent from the things we do not wish." But consent and dissent are contraries. Therefore pleasure and sorrow are contrary to one another.

I answer that, As the Philosopher says (Metaph. x, 4), contrariety is a difference in respect of a form. Now the form or species of a passion or movement is taken from the object or term. Consequently, since the objects of pleasure and sorrow or pain, viz. present good and present evil, are contrary to one another, it follows that pain and pleasure are contrary to one another.

Reply to Objection 1: Nothing hinders one contrary causing the other accidentally: and thus sorrow can be the cause of pleasure. In one way, in so far as from sorrow at the absence of something, or at the presence of its contrary, one seeks the more eagerly for something pleasant: thus a thirsty man seeks more eagerly the pleasure of a drink, as a remedy for the pain he suffers. In another way, in so far as, from a strong desire for a certain pleasure, one does not shrink from undergoing pain, so as to obtain that pleasure. In each of these ways, the sorrows of the present life lead us to the comfort of the future life. Because by the mere fact that man mourns for his sins, or for the delay of glory, he merits the consolation of eternity. In like manner a man merits it when he shrinks not from hardships and straits in order to obtain it.

Reply to Objection 2: Pain itself can be pleasurable accidentally in so far as it is accompanied by wonder, as in stage-plays; or in so far as it recalls a beloved object to one's memory, and makes one feel one's love for the thing, whose absence gives us pain. Consequently, since love is pleasant, both pain and whatever else results from love, forasmuch as they remind us of our love, are pleasant. And, for this reason, we derive pleasure even from pains depicted on the stage: in so far as, in witnessing them, we perceive ourselves to conceive a certain love for those who are there represented.

Reply to Objection 3: The will and the reason reflect on their own acts, inasmuch as the acts themselves of the will and reason are considered under the aspect of good or evil. In this way sorrow can be the matter of pleasure, or vice versa, not essentially but accidentally: that is, in so far as either of them is considered under the aspect of good or evil.

Articulus 3

Argumentum 1

Ad tertium sic proceditur. Videtur quod dolor delectationi non contrarietur. Unum enim contrariorum non est causa alterius.

Sed tristitia potest esse causa delectationis, dicitur enim Matth. V, beati qui lugent, quoniam ipsi consolabuntur.

Ergo non sunt contraria.

Argumentum 2

Praeterea, unum contrariorum non denominat aliud. Sed in quibusdam ipse dolor vel tristitia est delectabilis, sicut Augustinus dicit, in III confess., quod dolor in spectaculis delectat.

Et IV confess., dicit quod fletus amara res est, et tamen quandoque delectat.

Ergo dolor non contrariatur delectationi.

Argumentum 3

Praeterea, unum contrariorum non est materia alterius, quia contraria simul esse non possunt. Sed dolor potest esse materia delectationis, dicit enim Augustinus, in libro de poenitentia, semper poenitens doleat, et de dolore gaudeat.

Et philosophus dicit, in IX ethic., quod e converso malus dolet de eo quod delectatus est.

Ergo delectatio et dolor non sunt contraria.

Sed Contra

Sed contra est quod Augustinus dicit, XIV de CIV. Dei, quod laetitia est voluntas in eorum consensione quae volumus, tristitia autem est voluntas in dissensione ab his quae nolumus.

Sed consentire et dissentire sunt contraria.

Ergo laetitia et tristitia sunt contraria.

Corpus

Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut philosophus dicit X metaphys., contrarietas est differentia secundum formam.

Forma autem, seu species, passionis et motus sumitur ex obiecto vel termino. Unde, cum obiecta delectationis et tristitiae, seu doloris, sint contraria, scilicet bonum praesens et malum praesens, sequitur quod dolor et delectatio sint contraria.

Ad 1

Ad primum ergo dicendum quod nihil prohibet unum contrariorum esse causam alterius per accidens. Sic autem tristitia potest esse causa delectationis. Uno quidem modo, inquantum tristitia de absentia alicuius rei, vel de praesentia contrarii, vehementius quaerit id in quo delectetur, sicut sitiens vehementius quaerit delectationem potus, ut remedium contra tristitiam quam patitur.

Alio modo, inquantum ex magno desiderio delectationis alicuius, non recusat aliquis tristitias perferre, ut ad illam delectationem perveniat. Et utroque modo luctus praesens ad consolationem futurae vitae perducit. Quia ex hoc ipso quod homo luget pro peccatis, vel pro dilatione gloriae, meretur consolationem aeternam. Similiter etiam meretur eam aliquis ex hoc quod, ad ipsam consequendam, non refugit labores et angustias propter ipsam sustinere.

Ad 2

Ad secundum dicendum quod dolor ipse potest esse delectabilis per accidens, inquantum scilicet habet adiunctam admirationem, ut in spectaculis; vel inquantum facit recordationem rei amatae, et facit percipere amorem eius, de cuius absentia doletur.

Unde, cum amor sit delectabilis, et dolor et omnia quae ex amore consequuntur, inquantum in eis sentitur amor, sunt delectabilia.

Et propter hoc etiam dolores in spectaculis possunt esse delectabiles, inquantum in eis sentitur aliquis amor conceptus ad illos qui in spectaculis commemorantur.

Ad 3

Ad tertium dicendum quod voluntas et ratio supra suos actus reflectuntur, inquantum ipsi actus voluntatis et rationis accipiuntur sub ratione boni vel mali. Et hoc modo tristitia potest esse materia delectationis, vel e converso, non per se, sed per accidens, inquantum scilicet utrumque accipitur in ratione boni vel mali.