Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae

Objection 1: It would seem that there is a sorrow that is contrary to the pleasure of contemplation. For the Apostle says (2 Cor. 7:10): "The sorrow that is according to God, worketh penance steadfast unto salvation." Now to look at God belongs to the higher reason, whose act is to give itself to contemplation, according to Augustine (De Trin. xii, 3,4). Therefore there is a sorrow contrary to the pleasure of contemplation.

Objection 2: Further, contrary things have contrary effects. If therefore the contemplation of one contrary gives pleasure, the other contrary will give sorrow: and so there will be a sorrow contrary to the pleasure of contemplation.

Objection 3: Further, as the object of pleasure is good, so the object of sorrow is evil. But contemplation can be an evil: since the Philosopher says (Metaph. xii, 9) that "it is unfitting to think of certain things." Therefore sorrow can be contrary to the pleasure of contemplation.

Objection 4: Further, any work, so far as it is unhindered, can be a cause of pleasure, as stated in Ethic. vii, 12,13; x, 4. But the work of contemplation can be hindered in many ways, either so as to destroy it altogether, or as to make it difficult. Therefore in contemplation there can be a sorrow contrary to the pleasure.

Objection 5: Further, affliction of the flesh is a cause of sorrow. But, as it is written (Eccles. 12:12) "much study is an affliction of the flesh." Therefore contemplation admits of sorrow contrary to its pleasure.

On the contrary, It is written (Wis. 8:16): "Her," i.e. wisdom's, "conversation hath no bitterness nor her company any tediousness; but joy and gladness." Now the conversation and company of wisdom are found in contemplation. Therefore there is no sorrow contrary to the pleasure of contemplation.

I answer that, The pleasure of contemplation can be understood in two ways. In one way, so that contemplation is the cause, but not the object of pleasure: and then pleasure is taken not in contemplating but in the thing contemplated. Now it is possible to contemplate something harmful and sorrowful, just as to contemplate something suitable and pleasant. Consequently if the pleasure of contemplation be taken in this way, nothing hinders some sorrow being contrary to the pleasure of contemplation.

In another way, the pleasure of contemplation is understood, so that contemplation is its object and cause; as when one takes pleasure in the very act of contemplating. And thus, according to Gregory of Nyssa , "no sorrow is contrary to that pleasure which is about contemplation": and the Philosopher says the same (Topic. i, 13; Ethic. x, 3). This, however, is to be understood as being the case properly speaking. The reason is because sorrow is of itself contrary to pleasure in a contrary object: thus pleasure in heat is contrary to sorrow caused by cold. But there is no contrary to the object of contemplation: because contraries, as apprehended by the mind, are not contrary, but one is the means of knowing the other. Wherefore, properly speaking, there cannot be a sorrow contrary to the pleasure of contemplation. Nor has it any sorrow annexed to it, as bodily pleasures have, which are like remedies against certain annoyances; thus a man takes pleasure in drinking through being troubled with thirst, but when the thirst is quite driven out, the pleasure of drinking ceases also. Because the pleasure of contemplation is not caused by one's being quit of an annoyance, but by the fact that contemplation is pleasant in itself: for pleasure is not a "becoming" but a perfect operation, as stated above (Question 31, Article 1).

Accidentally, however, sorrow is mingled with the pleasure of contemplation; and this in two ways: first, on the part of an organ, secondly, through some impediment in the apprehension. On the part of an organ, sorrow or pain is mingled with apprehension, directly, as regards the apprehensive powers of the sensitive part, which have a bodily organ; either from the sensible object disagreeing with the normal condition of the organ, as the taste of something bitter, and the smell of something foul; or from the sensible object, though agreeable, being so continuous in its action on the sense, that it exceeds the normal condition of the organ, as stated above (Question 33, Article 2), the result being that an apprehension which at first was pleasant becomes tedious. But these two things cannot occur directly in the contemplation of the mind; because the mind has no corporeal organ: wherefore it was said in the authority quoted above that intellectual contemplation has neither "bitterness," nor "tediousness." Since, however, the human mind, in contemplation, makes use of the sensitive powers of apprehension, to whose acts weariness is incidental; therefore some affliction or pain is indirectly mingled with contemplation.

Nevertheless, in neither of these ways, is the pain thus accidentally mingled with contemplation, contrary to the pleasure thereof. Because pain caused by a hindrance to contemplation, is not contrary to the pleasure of contemplation, but rather is in affinity and in harmony with it, as is evident from what has been said above (Article 4): while pain or sorrow caused by bodily weariness, does not belong to the same genus, wherefore it is altogether disparate. Accordingly it is evident that no sorrow is contrary to pleasure taken in the very act of contemplation; nor is any sorrow connected with it save accidentally.

Reply to Objection 1: The "sorrow which is according to God," is not caused by the very act of intellectual contemplation, but by something which the mind contemplates: viz. by sin, which the mind considers as contrary to the love of God.

Reply to Objection 2: Things which are contrary according to nature are not contrary according as they exist in the mind: for things that are contrary in reality are not contrary in the order of thought; indeed rather is one contrary the reason for knowing the other. Hence one and the same science considers contraries.

Reply to Objection 3: Contemplation, in itself, is never evil, since it is nothing else than the consideration of truth, which is the good of the intellect: it can, however, be evil accidentally, i.e. in so far as the contemplation of a less noble object hinders the contemplation of a more noble object; or on the part of the object contemplated, to which the appetite is inordinately attached.

Reply to Objection 4: Sorrow caused by a hindrance to contemplation, is not contrary to the pleasure of contemplation, but is in harmony with it, as stated above.

Reply to Objection 5: Affliction of the flesh affects contemplation accidentally and indirectly, as stated above.

Articulus 5

Argumentum 1

Ad quintum sic proceditur. Videtur quod delectationi contemplationis sit aliqua tristitia contraria.

Dicit enim apostolus, II ad Cor. VII, quae secundum deum est tristitia, poenitentiam in salutem stabilem operatur.

Sed respicere ad deum pertinet ad superiorem rationem, cuius est contemplationi vacare, secundum Augustinum, in XII de Trin..

Ergo delectationi contemplationis opponitur tristitia.

Argumentum 2

Praeterea, contrariorum contrarii sunt effectus. Si ergo unum contrariorum contemplatum est causa delectationis, aliud erit causa tristitiae. Et sic delectationi contemplationis erit tristitia contraria.

Argumentum 3

Praeterea, sicut obiectum delectationis est bonum, ita obiectum tristitiae est malum. Sed contemplatio potest habere mali rationem, dicit enim philosophus, in XII metaphys., quod quaedam inconveniens est meditari. Ergo contemplationis delectationi potest esse contraria tristitia.

Argumentum 4

Praeterea, operatio quaelibet, secundum quod non est impedita, est causa delectationis, ut dicitur in VII et X ethic..

Sed operatio contemplationis potest multipliciter impediri, vel ut totaliter non sit, vel ut cum difficultate sit. Ergo in contemplatione potest esse tristitia delectationi contraria.

Argumentum 5

Praeterea, carnis afflictio est causa tristitiae.

Sed sicut dicitur Eccle. Ult., frequens meditatio carnis est afflictio.

Ergo contemplatio habet tristitiam delectationi contrariam.

Sed Contra

Sed contra est quod dicitur Sap. VIII, non habet amaritudinem conversatio illius scilicet sapientiae, nec taedium convictus eius; sed laetitiam et gaudium.

Conversatio autem et convictus sapientiae est per contemplationem.

Ergo nulla tristitia est quae sit contraria delectationi contemplationis.

Corpus

Respondeo dicendum quod delectatio contemplationis potest intelligi dupliciter. Uno modo, ita quod contemplatio sit delectationis causa, et non obiectum. Et tunc delectatio non est de ipsa contemplatione, sed de re contemplata. Contingit autem contemplari aliquid nocivum et contristans, sicut et aliquid conveniens et delectans. Unde si sic delectatio contemplationis accipiatur, nihil prohibet delectationi contemplationis esse tristitiam contrariam. Alio modo potest dici delectatio contemplationis, quia contemplatio est eius obiectum et causa, puta cum aliquis delectatur de hoc ipso quod contemplatur.

Et sic, ut dicit Gregorius Nyssenus, ei delectationi quae est secundum contemplationem, non opponitur aliqua tristitia.

Et hoc idem philosophus dicit, in I topic. Et in X ethic..

Sed hoc est intelligendum, per se loquendo. Cuius ratio est, quia tristitia per se contrariatur delectationi quae est de contrario obiecto, sicut delectationi quae est de calore, contrariatur tristitia quae est de frigore. Obiecto autem contemplationis nihil est contrarium, contrariorum enim rationes, secundum quod sunt apprehensae, non sunt contrariae, sed unum contrarium est ratio cognoscendi aliud. Unde delectationi quae est in contemplando, non potest, per se loquendo, esse aliqua tristitia contraria. Sed nec etiam habet tristitiam annexam, sicut corporales delectationes, quae sunt ut medicinae quaedam contra aliquas molestias, sicut aliquis delectatur in potu ex hoc quod anxiatur siti, quando autem iam tota sitis est repulsa, etiam cessat delectatio potus. Delectatio enim contemplationis non causatur ex hoc quod excluditur aliqua molestia, sed ex hoc quod est secundum seipsam delectabilis, non est enim generatio, sed operatio quaedam perfecta, ut dictum est.

Per accidens autem admiscetur tristitia delectationi apprehensionis. Et hoc dupliciter, uno modo, ex parte organi; alio modo, ex impedimento apprehensionis. Ex parte quidem organi, admiscetur tristitia vel dolor apprehensioni, directe quidem in viribus apprehensivis sensitivae partis, quae habent organum corporale, vel ex sensibili, quod est contrarium debitae complexioni organi, sicut gustus rei amarae et olfactus rei foetidae; vel ex continuitate sensibilis convenientis, quod per assiduitatem facit superexcrescentiam naturalis habitus, ut supra dictum est, et sic redditur apprehensio sensibilis quae prius erat delectabilis, taediosa. Sed haec duo directe in contemplatione mentis locum non habent, quia mens non habet organum corporale. Unde dictum est in auctoritate inducta, quod non habet contemplatio mentis nec amaritudinem nec taedium.

Sed quia mens humana utitur in contemplando viribus apprehensivis sensitivis, in quarum actibus accidit lassitudo; ideo indirecte admiscetur aliqua afflictio vel dolor contemplationi. Sed neutro modo tristitia contemplationi per accidens adiuncta, contrariatur delectationi eius. Nam tristitia quae est de impedimento contemplationis, non contrariatur delectationi contemplationis, sed magis habet affinitatem et convenientiam cum ipsa, ut ex supradictis patet.

Tristitia vero vel afflictio quae est de lassitudine corporali, non ad idem genus refertur, unde est penitus disparata. Et sic manifestum est quod delectationi quae est de ipsa contemplatione, nulla tristitia contrariatur; nec adiungitur ei aliqua tristitia nisi per accidens.

Ad 1

Ad primum ergo dicendum quod illa tristitia quae est secundum deum, non est de ipsa contemplatione mentis, sed est de aliquo quod mens contemplatur, scilicet de peccato, quod mens considerat ut contrarium dilectioni divinae.

Ad 2

Ad secundum dicendum quod ea quae sunt contraria in rerum natura, secundum quod sunt in mente, non habent contrarietatem. Non enim rationes contrariorum sunt contrariae, sed magis unum contrarium est ratio cognoscendi aliud.

Propter quod est una scientia contrariorum.

Ad 3

Ad tertium dicendum quod contemplatio, secundum se, nunquam habet rationem mali, cum contemplatio nihil aliud sit quam consideratio veri, quod est bonum intellectus, sed per accidens tantum, inquantum scilicet contemplatio vilioris impedit contemplationem melioris; vel ex parte rei contemplatae, ad quam inordinatae appetitus afficitur.

Ad 4

Ad quartum dicendum quod tristitia quae est de impedimento contemplationis, non contrariatur delectationi contemplationis, sed est ei affinis, ut dictum est.

Ad 5

Ad quintum dicendum quod afflictio carnis per accidens et indirecte se habet ad contemplationem mentis, ut dictum est.