Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae

Objection 1: It would seem that curiosity cannot be about intellective knowledge. Because, according to the Philosopher (Ethic. ii, 6), there can be no mean and extremes in things which are essentially good. Now intellective knowledge is essentially good: because man's perfection would seem to consist in his intellect being reduced from potentiality to act, and this is done by the knowledge of truth. For Dionysius says (Div. Nom. iv) that "the good of the human soul is to be in accordance with reason," whose perfection consists in knowing the truth. Therefore the vice of curiosity cannot be about intellective knowledge.

Objection 2: Further, that which makes man like to God, and which he receives from God, cannot be an evil. Now all abundance of knowledge is from God, according to Ecclus. 1:1, "All wisdom is from the Lord God," and Wis. 7:17, "He hath given me the true knowledge of things that are, to know the disposition of the whole world, and the virtues of the elements," etc. Again, by knowing the truth man is likened to God, since "all things are naked and open to His eyes" (Heb. 4:13), and "the Lord is a God of all knowledge" (1 Kgs. 2:3). Therefore however abundant knowledge of truth may be, it is not evil but good. Now the desire of good is not sinful. Therefore the vice of curiosity cannot be about the intellective knowledge of truth.

Objection 3: Further, if the vice of curiosity can be about any kind of intellective knowledge, it would be chiefly about the philosophical sciences. But, seemingly, there is no sin in being intent on them: for Jerome says (Super Daniel 1:8): "Those who refused to partake of the king's meat and wine, lest they should be defiled, if they had considered the wisdom and teaching of the Babylonians to be sinful, would never have consented to learn that which was unlawful": and Augustine says (De Doctr. Christ. ii, 40) that "if the philosophers made any true statements, we must claim them for our own use, as from unjust possessors." Therefore curiosity about intellective knowledge cannot be sinful.

On the contrary, Jerome says: "Is it not evident that a man who day and night wrestles with the dialectic art, the student of natural science whose gaze pierces the heavens, walks in vanity of understanding and darkness of mind?" Now vanity of understanding and darkness of mind are sinful. Therefore curiosity about intellective sciences may be sinful.

I answer that, As stated above (Question 166, Article 2, ad 2) studiousness is directly, not about knowledge itself, but about the desire and study in the pursuit of knowledge. Now we must judge differently of the knowledge itself of truth, and of the desire and study in the pursuit of the knowledge of truth. For the knowledge of truth, strictly speaking, is good, but it may be evil accidentally, by reason of some result, either because one takes pride in knowing the truth, according to 1 Cor. 8:1, "Knowledge puffeth up," or because one uses the knowledge of truth in order to sin.

On the other hand, the desire or study in pursuing the knowledge of truth may be right or wrong. First, when one tends by his study to the knowledge of truth as having evil accidentally annexed to it, for instance those who study to know the truth that they may take pride in their knowledge. Hence Augustine says (De Morib. Eccl. 21): "Some there are who forsaking virtue, and ignorant of what God is, and of the majesty of that nature which ever remains the same, imagine they are doing something great, if with surpassing curiosity and keenness they explore the whole mass of this body which we call the world. So great a pride is thus begotten, that one would think they dwelt in the very heavens about which they argue." In like manner, those who study to learn something in order to sin are engaged in a sinful study, according to the saying of Jer. 9:5, "They have taught their tongue to speak lies, they have labored to commit iniquity."

Secondly, there may be sin by reason of the appetite or study directed to the learning of truth being itself inordinate; and this in four ways. First, when a man is withdrawn by a less profitable study from a study that is an obligation incumbent on him; hence Jerome says : "We see priests forsaking the gospels and the prophets, reading stage-plays, and singing the love songs of pastoral idylls." Secondly, when a man studies to learn of one, by whom it is unlawful to be taught, as in the case of those who seek to know the future through the demons. This is superstitious curiosity, of which Augustine says (De Vera Relig. 4): "Maybe, the philosophers were debarred from the faith by their sinful curiosity in seeking knowledge from the demons."

Thirdly, when a man desires to know the truth about creatures, without referring his knowledge to its due end, namely, the knowledge of God. Hence Augustine says (De Vera Relig. 29) that "in studying creatures, we must not be moved by empty and perishable curiosity; but we should ever mount towards immortal and abiding things."

Fourthly, when a man studies to know the truth above the capacity of his own intelligence, since by so doing men easily fall into error: wherefore it is written (Ecclus. 3:22): "Seek not the things that are too high for thee, and search not into things above thy ability . . . and in many of His works be not curious," and further on (Ecclus. 3:26), "For . . . the suspicion of them hath deceived many, and hath detained their minds in vanity."

Reply to Objection 1: Man's good consists in the knowledge of truth; yet man's sovereign good consists, not in the knowledge of any truth, but in the perfect knowledge of the sovereign truth, as the Philosopher states (Ethic. x, 7,8). Hence there may be sin in the knowledge of certain truths, in so far as the desire of such knowledge is not directed in due manner to the knowledge of the sovereign truth, wherein supreme happiness consists.

Reply to Objection 2: Although this argument shows that the knowledge of truth is good in itself, this does not prevent a man from misusing the knowledge of truth for an evil purpose, or from desiring the knowledge of truth inordinately, since even the desire for good should be regulated in due manner.

Reply to Objection 3: The study of philosophy is in itself lawful and commendable, on account of the truth which the philosophers acquired through God revealing it to them, as stated in Rm. 1:19. Since, however, certain philosophers misuse the truth in order to assail the faith, the Apostle says (Col. 2:8): "Beware lest any man cheat you by philosophy and vain deceit, according to the tradition of men . . . and not according to Christ": and Dionysius says (Ep. vii ad Polycarp.) of certain philosophers that "they make an unholy use of divine things against that which is divine, and by divine wisdom strive to destroy the worship of God."

Articulus 1

Argumentum 1

Ad primum sic proceditur. Videtur quod circa cognitionem intellectivam non possit esse curiositas. Quia secundum philosophum, in II ethic., in his quae secundum se sunt bona vel mala, non possunt accipi medium et extrema. Sed cognitio intellectiva secundum se est bona, in hoc enim perfectio hominis videtur consistere, ut intellectus eius de potentia reducatur in actum, quod fit per cognitionem veritatis.

Dionysius etiam dicit, IV cap. De div. Nom., quod bonum animae humanae est secundum rationem esse, cuius perfectio in cognitione veritatis consistit. Ergo circa cognitionem intellectivam non potest esse vitium curiositatis.

Argumentum 2

Praeterea, illud per quod homo similatur deo, et quod a deo consequitur, non potest esse malum.

Sed quaecumque abundantia cognitionis a deo est, secundum illud Eccli. I, omnis sapientia a domino deo est.

Et Sap. VII dicitur, ipse dedit mihi horum quae sunt scientiam veram, ut sciam dispositionem orbis terrarum et virtutes elementorum, etc.. Per hoc etiam homo deo assimilatur, quod veritatem cognoscit, quia omnia nuda et aperta sunt oculis eius, ut habetur ad Heb. IV.

Unde et I Reg. II dicitur quod deus scientiarum dominus est, ergo, quantumcumque abundet cognitio veritatis, non est mala, sed bona. Appetitus autem boni non est vitiosus. Ergo circa intellectivam cognitionem veritatis non potest esse vitium curiositatis.

Argumentum 3

Praeterea, si circa aliquam intellectivam cognitionem posset esse curiositatis vitium, praecipue esset circa philosophicas scientias. Sed eis intendere non videtur esse vitiosum, dicit enim Hieronymus, super Danielem, qui de mensa et vino regis noluerunt comedere ne polluantur, si sapientiam atque doctrinam Babyloniorum scirent esse peccatum, nunquam acquiescerent discere quod non licebat.

Et Augustinus dicit, in II de doctr. Christ., quod, si qua vera philosophi dixerunt, ab eis sunt, tanquam ab iniustis possessoribus, in usum nostrum vindicanda.

Non ergo circa cognitionem intellectivam potest esse curiositas vitiosa.

Sed Contra

Sed contra est quod Hieronymus dicit, nonne vobis videtur in vanitate sensus et obscuritate mentis ingredi qui diebus ac noctibus in dialectica arte torquetur, qui physicus perscrutator oculos trans caelum levat? sed vanitas sensus et obscuritas mentis est vitiosa. Ergo circa intellectivas scientias potest esse curiositas vitiosa.

Corpus

Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut dictum est, studiositas non est directe circa ipsam cognitionem, sed circa appetitum et studium cognitionis acquirendae. Aliter autem est iudicandum de ipsa cognitione veritatis, et aliter de appetitu et studio veritatis cognoscendae. Ipsa enim veritatis cognitio, per se loquendo, bona est. Potest autem per accidens esse mala, ratione scilicet alicuius consequentis, vel inquantum scilicet aliquis de cognitione veritatis superbit, secundum illud I ad Cor. VIII, scientia inflat; vel inquantum homo utitur cognitione veritatis ad peccandum. Sed ipse appetitus vel studium cognoscendae veritatis potest habere rectitudinem vel perversitatem. Uno quidem modo, prout aliquis tendit suo studio in cognitionem veritatis prout per accidens coniungitur ei malum, sicut illi qui student ad scientiam veritatis ut exinde superbiant.

Unde Augustinus dicit, in libro de moribus Eccle., sunt qui, desertis virtutibus, et nescientes quid sit deus et quanta sit maiestas semper eodem modo manentis naturae, magnum aliquid se agere putant si universam istam corporis molem quam mundum nuncupamus, curiosissime intentissimeque perquirant. Unde etiam tanta superbia gignitur ut in ipso caelo, de quo saepe disputant, sibimet habitare videantur.

Similiter etiam illi qui student addiscere aliquid ad peccandum, vitiosum studium habent, secundum illud Ierem. IX, docuerunt linguam suam loqui mendacium, ut inique agerent, laboraverunt.

Alio autem modo potest esse vitium ex ipsa inordinatione appetitus et studii addiscendi veritatem. Et hoc quadrupliciter.

Uno modo, inquantum per studium minus utile retrahuntur a studio quod eis ex necessitate incumbit.

Unde Hieronymus dicit, sacerdotes, dimissis evangeliis et prophetiis, videmus comoedias legere, et amatoria bucolicorum versuum verba cantare.

Alio modo, inquantum studet aliquis addiscere ab eo a quo non licet, sicut patet de his qui aliqua futura a Daemonibus perquirunt, quae est superstitiosa curiositas.

De quo Augustinus dicit, in libro de vera relig., nescio an philosophi impedirentur a fide vitio curiositatis in percunctandis Daemonibus.

Tertio, quando homo appetit cognoscere veritatem circa creaturas non referendo ad debitum finem, scilicet ad cognitionem dei.

Unde Augustinus dicit, in libro de vera relig., quod in consideratione creaturarum non est vana et peritura curiositas exercenda, sed gradus ad immortalia et semper manentia faciendus.

Quarto modo, inquantum aliquis studet ad cognoscendam veritatem supra proprii ingenii facultatem, quia per hoc homines de facili in errores labuntur.

Unde dicitur Eccli. III, altiora te ne quaesieris, et fortiora ne scrutatus fueris, et in pluribus operibus eius ne fueris curiosus; et postea sequitur, multos enim supplantavit suspicio eorum, et in vanitate detinuit sensus eorum.

Ad 1

Ad primum ergo dicendum quod bonum hominis consistit in cognitione veri, non tamen summum hominis bonum consistit in cognitione cuiuslibet veri, sed in perfecta cognitione summae veritatis, ut patet per philosophum, in X ethic..

Et ideo potest esse vitium in cognitione aliquorum verorum, secundum quod talis appetitus non debito modo ordinatur ad cognitionem summae veritatis, in qua consistit summa felicitas.

Ad 2

Ad secundum dicendum quod ratio illa ostendit quod cognitio veritatis secundum se sit bona, non tamen per hoc excluditur quin possit aliquis cognitione veritatis abuti ad malum, vel etiam inordinate cognitionem veritatis appetere; quia etiam oportet appetitum boni debito modo regulatum esse.

Ad 3

Ad tertium dicendum quod studium philosophiae secundum se est licitum et laudabile, propter veritatem quam philosophi perceperunt, deo illis revelante, ut dicitur Rom. I.

Sed quia quidam philosophi abutuntur ad fidei impugnationem, ideo apostolus dicit, ad Coloss. II, videte ne quis vos decipiat per philosophiam et inanem scientiam, secundum traditionem hominum, et non secundum christum.

Et dionysius dicit, in epistola ad polycarpum, de quibusdam philosophis, quod divinis non sancte contra divina utuntur, per sapientiam dei tentantes expellere divinam venerationem.