Of course, I can't let a discussion like that of my last post go by without talking about the sense of humor of my favorite philosopher and theologian.
In conversation I mentioned to a friend about Quodlibetal Question 12.20 of St. Thomas Aquinas, lamenting that I couldn't find it on the internet anymore since the one link I knew of was down. But today I found a site with the text (thank you to the writer of The Virtual Stoa), saving me the trouble of having to go to the university library, check out the book, translate from Latin, and type it in (which, for my readers, I would have considered doing). He may feel obligated to qualify the phrase "Thomist humor" with "[sic]," but those words aren't a contradiction in terms, I promise - you just have to know how to recognize and appreciate it.
This article is my favorite example of his sense of humor making it into his work. The way it came about is this: St. Thomas made it a point never to tell anyone that they asked a dumb question, even if they had, but rather to give it a thoughtful and respectful answer. So what about at a Q&A session where people can ask whatever questions they want ("quodlibet" means "whatever," or "what pleases you") where some wag asks him a smart-alecky question (a question with a bit of notoriety in Christian intellectual history). Does he say, "Come on, what kind of question is that?" Or "Next!" Or...does he do something a little more sporting? Now, it's pretty subtle, not guffaw-inducing funny. But we're talking theology disputations here, not stand-up comedy.
In the extended post, St. Thomas Aquinas' answer, in disputation form, to the question "Whether truth is stronger than either wine, the king or woman?"
Questions on Whatever (Quaestiones Quodlibitales), Question 12, Article 20.
Whether truth is stronger than either wine, the king or woman.
Objections:
1. It seems that wine (is stronger than the others) because it affects man the most.
2. Again, (it seems) that the king (is stronger than the others) because he sends man to what is most difficult, namely, to that which exposed himself to mortal danger.
3. Again, (it seems) that woman (is stronger), because she commands even kings.
On the other hand is the fact Eszra IV, 35 says that truth is stronger.
I respond that it should be said that this is the question proposed to youths (who were going to be destroyed) in Eszra. One should realize, therefore, that if we consider these four, namely wine, the king, woman and truth, in themselves they are not comparable because they do not belong to the same genus. Nevertheless, if they are considered in relation to some effect, they coinside in one aspect, and so can be compared with each other. Now, this effect in which they come together and can be compared is the affect they have on the human heart. One ought to see, therefore, which among these most affect the heart of man.
One should know, therefore, that man has a certain ability to be affected corporally and another in his animal (nature). This latter is of two kinds, according to the sense faculties and according to the intelligible faculties. The intelligible, indeed, is of two kinds, the practical and the speculative.
Among those things, however, which pertain to affecting according to the disposition of the body, wine has the excellence which makes (someone) speak through drunkenness. Among those things which pertain to the affecting of the sensitive appetite, pleasure is the more excellent and principally sexual (pleasure), and so woman is stronger. Again in practical things, i.e. in human things, which we are able to do, the king has the greatest ability. In speculative things, the highest and most powerful is truth.
Now, however, bodily powers are subjected to animal powers, animal powers to intellectual (ones), and practical intellectual powers to speculative (ones). And so simpliciter truth is greater in dignity, and more excellent and stronger.
I quoted this passage in the introduction of my PhD thesis. :D
http://www.isi.edu/~chiang/papers/thesis.pdf
page 1, also 3
Posted by: Aurelius | June 27, 2007 at 12:37 AM
Aurelius, you never cease to amaze me :-)
Posted by: Thomas | June 30, 2007 at 01:51 PM