Practical syllogisms and incontinence in Thomas Aquinas De malo 3.9, ad 7 Theoretical syllogism All mammals are animals All horses are mammals _________________________ All horses are animals Theoretical syllogism All brownies are delicious This is a brownie ______________________ This brownie is delicious Practical syllogism All brownies are delicious This is a brownie ______________________ I eat this brownie In practical syllogisms, what is understood but not spelled out is that whatever is delicious is desirable, and I pursue whatever is desirable (when it is in my reach). A. (example of Aquinas) No fornication is to be committed Everything pleasurable is to be enjoyed Thomas Aquinas, De malo (On Evil), 3.9, ad 7 (see next page). B. (cf. example of Aristotle) Sweet things are harmful Sweet things are pleasant Cf. Aristotle, NE 7.3.1147a23–b5 Temperate person “considers” / engages in Reason controls sense desire ⇒ reason determines the action Continent person Incontinent person Intemperate person “considers” / engages in “considers” / engages in & Reason brings to the awareness Sense desire brings to the awareness Sense desire controls reason ⇒ sense desire determines the action A. A. No fornication is to be committed This act is fornication ________________________________ This act is not to be done Everything pleasurable is to be enjoyed This act is pleasurable ____________________________________ This act is to be done B. Sweet things are harmful This is sweet ____________________ I don’t eat it B. Sweet things are pleasant This is sweet ___________________ I eat it Thomas Aquinas, De malo (On Evil), question 3, article 9, reply to objection 7 (trans.: J. Oesterle, Notre Dame 1993): “Since an act of sin and of virtue is done by choice, and choice is the desire of what has been decided on by previous deliberation, and deliberation is a kind of inquiry, it follows that in every act of virtue or of sin there must be a quasi-syllogistic deduction. But nevertheless the temperate man syllogizes in one way, the intemperate man in another, the continent man in one way, the incontinent man in another. For the temperate man is moved only according to the judgment of reason; hence he uses a syllogism containing three propositions, making a deduction such as this: No fornication is to be committed, this act is fornication, therefore, this act is not to be done. But the intemperate man yields entirely to the movement of concupiscence, and so he too uses a syllogism containing three propositions, making a deduction such as this: everything pleasurable is to be enjoyed, this act is pleasurable, therefore this act is to be done. However both the continent and the incontinent man are moved in two directions: according to reason to avoid sin, and according to concupiscence to commit sin; but in the continent man the judgment of reason prevails, in the incontinent man the movement of concupiscence prevails. Consequently each uses a syllogism having four propositions, but for contrary conclusions. For the continent man syllogizes in this manner: No sin is to be committed. And this he proposes in accordance with the judgment of reason, yet according to the movement of concupiscence he turns over and over in his mind that everything pleasurable is to be pursued; but because in him the judgment of reason prevails he adopts the first proposition and concludes under it: this act is a sin, therefore, it is not to be done. However the incontinent man, in whom the movement of concupiscence prevails, adopts the second proposition and concludes under it: this is pleasurable, therefore it is to be pursued. And such is properly the man who sins from weakness. And therefore it is evident that although he may know universally, nevertheless he does not know in particular, because he does not adopt the premise in keeping with reason but in keeping with concupiscence.” Ad septimum dicendum, quod cum actus peccati et virtutis sit secundum electionem, electio autem est appetitus praeconsiliati, consilium vero est quaedam inquisitio; necesse est quod in quolibet actu virtutis vel peccati sit quaedam deductio quasi syllogistica; sed tamen aliter syllogizat temperatus, aliter intemperatus; aliter continens, aliter incontinens. Temperatus enim movetur tantum secundum iudicium rationis; unde utitur syllogismo trium propositionum; quasi sic deducens: nulla fornicatio est committenda, hic actus est fornicatio, ergo non est faciendus. Intemperatus vero totaliter sequitur concupiscentiam; et ideo etiam ipse utitur syllogismo trium propositionum, quasi sic deducens: omni delectabili est fruendum, hic actus est delectabilis, ergo hoc est fruendum. Sed tam continens quam incontinens dupliciter movetur; secundum rationem quidem ad vitandum peccatum, secundum concupiscentiam vero ad committendum: sed in continente vincit iudicium rationis, in incontinente vero motus concupiscentiae. Unde uterque utitur syllogismo quatuor propositionum, sed ad contrarias conclusiones. Continens enim sic syllogizat: nullum peccatum est faciendum; et hoc proponit secundum iudicium rationis; secundum vero motum concupiscentiae versatur in corde eius quod omne delectabile est prosequendum; sed quia iudicium rationis in eo vincit, assumit et concludit sub primo: hoc est peccatum; ergo non est faciendum. Incontinens vero, in quo vincit motus concupiscentiae, assumit et concludit sub secundo: hoc est delectabile; ergo est prosequendum; et talis proprie est qui peccat ex infirmitate. Et ideo patet quod licet sciat in universali, non tamen scit in particulari; quia non assumit secundum rationem, sed secundum concupiscentiam.