Prima Secundae · Habits

Of the Distinction of Habits

I-II, q. 54 · Four articles

Prooemium · Thomas's plan for this question

Deinde considerandum est de distinctione habituum. Et circa hoc quaeruntur quatuor. Primo, utrum multi habitus possint esse in una potentia. Secundo, utrum habitus distinguantur secundum obiecta. Tertio, utrum habitus distinguantur secundum bonum et malum. Quarto, utrum unus habitus ex multis habitibus constituatur.

We have now to consider the distinction of habits; and under this head there are four points of inquiry:

(1) Whether many habits can be in one power?

(2) Whether habits are distinguished by their objects?

(3) Whether habits are divided into good and bad?

(4) Whether one habit may be made up of many habits?

1 Whether Many Habits Can Be in One Power?
2 Whether Habits Are Distinguished by Their Objects?
3 Whether Habits Are Divided into Good and Bad?
4 Whether One Habit Is Made Up of Many Habits?

Articulus I

Whether Many Habits Can Be in One Power?

Arg. 1 Objection 1

Ad primum sic proceditur. Videtur quod non possint esse multi habitus in una potentia. Eorum enim quae secundum idem distinguuntur multiplicato uno, multiplicatur et aliud. Sed secundum idem potentiae et habitus distinguuntur, scilicet secundum actus et obiecta. Similiter ergo multiplicantur. Non ergo possunt esse multi habitus in una potentia.

It would seem that there cannot be many habits in one power. For when several things are distinguished in respect of the same thing, if one of them be multiplied, the others are too. Now habits and powers are distinguished in respect of the same thing, viz. their acts and objects. Therefore they are multiplied in like manner. Therefore there cannot be many habits in one power.

Arg. 2 Objection 2

Praeterea, potentia est virtus quaedam simplex. Sed in uno subiecto simplici non potest esse diversitas accidentium, quia subiectum est causa accidentis; ab uno autem simplici non videtur procedere nisi unum. Ergo in una potentia non possunt esse multi habitus.

Further, a power is a simple force. Now in one simple subject there cannot be diversity of accidents; for the subject is the cause of its accidents; and it does not appear how diverse effects can proceed from one simple cause. Therefore there cannot be many habits in one power.

Arg. 3 Objection 3

Praeterea, sicut corpus formatur per figuram, ita potentia formatur per habitum. Sed unum corpus non potest simul formari diversis figuris. Ergo neque una potentia potest simul formari diversis habitibus. Non ergo plures habitus possunt simul esse in una potentia.

Further, just as the body is informed by its shape, so is a power informed by a habit. But one body cannot be informed at the same time by various shapes. Therefore neither can a power be informed at the same time by many habits. Therefore several habits cannot be at the same time in one power.

Sed contra On the contrary

Sed contra est quod intellectus est una potentia, in qua tamen sunt diversarum scientiarum habitus.

On the contrary, The intellect is one power; wherein, nevertheless, are the habits of various sciences.

Respondeo I answer that

Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut supra dictum est, habitus sunt dispositiones quaedam alicuius in potentia existentis ad aliquid, sive ad naturam, sive ad operationem vel finem naturae. Et de illis quidem habitibus qui sunt dispositiones ad naturam, manifestum est quod possunt plures esse in uno subiecto, eo quod unius subiecti possunt diversimode partes accipi, secundum quarum dispositionem habitus dicuntur. Sicut, si accipiantur humani corporis partes humores, prout disponuntur secundum naturam humanam, est habitus vel dispositio sanitatis, si vero accipiantur partes similes ut nervi et ossa et carnes, earum dispositio in ordine ad naturam, est fortitudo aut macies, si vero accipiantur membra, ut manus et pes et huiusmodi, earum dispositio naturae conveniens, est pulchritudo. Et sic sunt plures habitus vel dispositiones in eodem. Si vero loquamur de habitibus qui sunt dispositiones ad opera, qui proprie pertinent ad potentias; sic etiam contingit unius potentiae esse habitus plures. Cuius ratio est, quia subiectum habitus est potentia passiva, ut supra dictum est, potentia enim activa tantum non est alicuius habitus subiectum, ut ex supradictis patet. Potentia autem passiva comparatur ad actum determinatum unius speciei, sicut materia ad formam, eo quod, sicut materia determinatur ad unam formam per unum agens, ita etiam potentia passiva a ratione unius obiecti activi determinatur ad unum actum secundum speciem. Unde sicut plura obiecta possunt movere unam potentiam passivam, ita una potentia passiva potest esse subiectum diversorum actuum vel perfectionum secundum speciem. Habitus autem sunt quaedam qualitates aut formae inhaerentes potentiae, quibus inclinatur potentia ad determinatos actus secundum speciem. Unde ad unam potentiam possunt plures habitus pertinere, sicut et plures actus specie differentes.

I answer that, As stated above (Q. 49, A. 4), habits are dispositions of a thing that is in potentiality to something, either to nature, or to operation, which is the end of nature. As to those habits which are dispositions to nature, it is clear that several can be in one same subject: since in one subject we may take parts in various ways, according to the various dispositions of which parts there are various habits. Thus, if we take the humors as being parts of the human body, according to their disposition in respect of human nature, we have the habit or disposition of health: while, if we take like parts, such as nerves, bones, and flesh, the disposition of these in respect of nature is strength or weakness; whereas, if we take the limbs, i.e. the hands, feet, and so on, the disposition of these in proportion to nature, is beauty: and thus there are several habits or dispositions in the same subject.

If, however, we speak of those habits that are dispositions to operation, and belong properly to the powers; thus, again, there may be several habits in one power. The reason for this is that the subject of a habit is a passive power, as stated above (Q. 51, A. 2): for it is only an active power that cannot be the subject of a habit, as was clearly shown above (Q. 51, A. 2). Now a passive power is compared to the determinate act of any species, as matter to form: because, just as matter is determinate to one form by one agent, so, too, is a passive power determined by the nature of one active object to an act specifically one. Wherefore, just as several objects can move one passive power, so can one passive power be the subject of several acts or perfections specifically diverse. Now habits are qualities or forms adhering to a power, and inclining that power to acts of a determinate species. Consequently several habits, even as several specifically different acts, can belong to one power.

Ad 1 Reply to Objection 1

Ad primum ergo dicendum quod, sicut in rebus naturalibus diversitas specierum est secundum formam, diversitas autem generum est secundum materiam, ut dicitur in V Metaphys. (ea enim sunt diversa genere, quorum est materia diversa), ita etiam diversitas obiectorum secundum genus, facit distinctionem potentiarum (unde philosophus dicit, in VI Ethic., quod ad ea quae sunt genere altera, sunt etiam animae particulae aliae); diversitas vero obiectorum secundum speciem, facit diversitatem actuum secundum speciem, et per consequens habituum. Quaecumque autem sunt diversa genere, sunt etiam specie diversa, sed non convertitur. Et ideo diversarum potentiarum sunt diversi actus specie, et diversi habitus, non autem oportet quod diversi habitus sint diversarum potentiarum, sed possunt esse plures unius. Et sicut sunt genera generum, et species specierum; ita etiam contingit esse diversas species habituum et potentiarum.

Even as in natural things, diversity of species is according to the form, and diversity of genus, according to matter, as stated in Metaph. v, text. 33 (since things that differ in matter belong to different genera): so, too, generic diversity of objects entails a difference of powers (wherefore the Philosopher says in Ethic. vi, 1, that "those objects that differ generically belong to different departments of the soul"); while specific difference of objects entails a specific difference of acts, and consequently of habits also. Now things that differ in genus differ in species, but not vice versa. Wherefore the acts and habits of different powers differ in species: but it does not follow that different habits are in different powers, for several can be in one power. And even as several genera may be included in one genus, and several species be contained in one species; so does it happen that there are several species of habits and powers.

Ad 2 Reply to Objection 2

Ad secundum dicendum quod potentia, etsi sit quidem simplex secundum essentiam, est tamen multiplex virtute, secundum quod ad multos actus specie differentes se extendit. Et ideo nihil prohibet in una potentia esse multos habitus specie differentes.

Although a power is simple as to its essence, it is multiple virtually, inasmuch as it extends to many specifically different acts. Consequently there is nothing to prevent many superficially different habits from being in one power.

Ad 3 Reply to Objection 3

Ad tertium dicendum quod corpus formatur per figuram sicut per propriam terminationem, habitus autem non est terminatio potentiae, sed est dispositio ad actum sicut ad ultimum terminum. Et ideo non possunt esse unius potentiae simul plures actus, nisi forte secundum quod unus comprehenditur sub alio, sicut nec unius corporis plures figurae, nisi secundum quod una est in alia, sicut trigonum in tetragono. Non enim potest intellectus simul multa actu intelligere. Potest tamen simul habitu multa scire.

A body is informed by its shape as by its own terminal boundaries: whereas a habit is not the terminal boundary of a power, but the disposition of a power to an act as to its ultimate term. Consequently one same power cannot have several acts at the same time, except in so far as perchance one act is comprised in another; just as neither can a body have several shapes, save in so far as one shape enters into another, as a three-sided in a four-sided figure. For the intellect cannot understand several things at the same time actually; and yet it can know several things at the same time habitually.

Articulus II

Whether Habits Are Distinguished by Their Objects?

Arg. 1 Objection 1

Ad secundum sic proceditur. Videtur quod habitus non distinguantur secundum obiecta. Contraria enim sunt specie differentia. Sed idem habitus scientiae est contrariorum, sicut medicina sani et aegri. Non ergo secundum obiecta specie differentia, habitus distinguuntur.

It would seem that habits are not distinguished by their objects. For contraries differ in species. Now the same habit of science regards contraries: thus medicine regards the healthy and the unhealthy. Therefore habits are not distinguished by objects specifically distinct.

Arg. 2 Objection 2

Praeterea, diversae scientiae sunt diversi habitus. Sed idem scibile pertinet ad diversas scientias, sicut terram esse rotundam demonstrat et naturalis et astrologus, ut dicitur in II Physic. Ergo habitus non distinguuntur secundum obiecta.

Further, different sciences are different habits. But the same scientific truth belongs to different sciences: thus both the physicist and the astronomer prove the earth to be round, as stated in Phys. ii, text. 17. Therefore habits are not distinguished by their objects.

Arg. 3 Objection 3

Praeterea, eiusdem actus est idem obiectum. Sed idem actus potest pertinere ad diversos habitus virtutum, si ad diversos fines referatur, sicut dare pecuniam alicui, si sit propter Deum, pertinet ad caritatem; si vero sit propter debitum solvendum, pertinet ad iustitiam. Ergo etiam idem obiectum potest ad diversos habitus pertinere. Non ergo est diversitas habituum secundum diversitatem obiectorum.

Further, wherever the act is the same, the object is the same. But the same act can belong to different habits of virtue, if it be directed to different ends; thus to give money to anyone, if it be done for God's sake, is an act of charity; while, if it be done in order to pay a debt, it is an act of justice. Therefore the same object can also belong to different habits. Therefore diversity of habits does not follow diversity of objects.

Sed contra On the contrary

Sed contra, actus differunt specie secundum diversitatem obiectorum, ut supra dictum est. Sed habitus sunt dispositiones quaedam ad actus. Ergo etiam habitus distinguuntur secundum diversa obiecta.

On the contrary, Acts differ in species according to the diversity of their objects, as stated above (Q. 18, A. 5). But habits are dispositions to acts. Therefore habits also are distinguished according to the diversity of objects.

Respondeo I answer that

Respondeo dicendum quod habitus et est forma quaedam, et est habitus. Potest ergo distinctio habituum secundum speciem attendi aut secundum communem modum quo formae specie distinguuntur; aut secundum proprium modum distinctionis habituum. Distinguuntur siquidem formae ad invicem secundum diversa principia activa, eo quod omne agens facit simile secundum speciem. Habitus autem importat ordinem ad aliquid. Omnia autem quae dicuntur secundum ordinem ad aliquid, distinguuntur secundum distinctionem eorum ad quae dicuntur. Est autem habitus dispositio quaedam ad duo ordinata, scilicet ad naturam, et ad operationem consequentem naturam. Sic igitur secundum tria, habitus specie distinguuntur. Uno quidem modo, secundum principia activa talium dispositionum; alio vero modo, secundum naturam; tertio vero modo, secundum obiecta specie differentia; ut per sequentia explicabitur.

I answer that, A habit is both a form and a habit. Hence the specific distinction of habits may be taken in the ordinary way in which forms differ specifically; or according to that mode of distinction which is proper to habits. Accordingly forms are distinguished from one another in reference to the diversity of their active principles, since every agent produces its like in species. Habits, however, imply order to something: and all things that imply order to something, are distinguished according to the distinction of the things to which they are ordained. Now a habit is a disposition implying a twofold order: viz. to nature and to an operation consequent to nature.

Accordingly habits are specifically distinct in respect of three things. First, in respect of the active principles of such dispositions; secondly, in respect of nature; thirdly, in respect of specifically different objects, as will appear from what follows.

Ad 1 Reply to Objection 1

Ad primum ergo dicendum quod in distinctione potentiarum, vel etiam habituum, non est considerandum ipsum obiectum materialiter; sed ratio obiecti differens specie, vel etiam genere. Quamvis autem contraria specie differant diversitate rerum, tamen eadem ratio est cognoscendi utrumque, quia unum per aliud cognoscitur. Et ideo inquantum conveniunt in una ratione cognoscibilis, pertinent ad unum habitum cognoscitivum.

In distinguishing powers, or also habits, we must consider the object not in its material but in its formal aspect, which may differ in species or even in genus. And though the distinction between specific contraries is a real distinction yet they are both known under one aspect, since one is known through the other. And consequently in so far as they concur in the one aspect of cognoscibility, they belong to one cognitive habit.

Ad 2 Reply to Objection 2

Ad secundum dicendum quod terram esse rotundam per aliud medium demonstrat naturalis, et per aliud astrologus, astrologus enim hoc demonstrat per media mathematica, sicut per figuras eclipsium, vel per aliud huiusmodi; naturalis vero hoc demonstrat per medium naturale, sicut per motum gravium ad medium, vel per aliud huiusmodi. Tota autem virtus demonstrationis, quae est syllogismus faciens scire, ut dicitur in I Poster., dependet ex medio. Et ideo diversa media sunt sicut diversa principia activa, secundum quae habitus scientiarum diversificantur.

The physicist proves the earth to be round by one means, the astronomer by another: for the latter proves this by means of mathematics, e.g. by the shapes of eclipses, or something of the sort; while the former proves it by means of physics, e.g. by the movement of heavy bodies towards the center, and so forth. Now the whole force of a demonstration, which is "a syllogism producing science," as stated in Poster. i, text. 5, depends on the mean. And consequently various means are as so many active principles, in respect of which the habits of science are distinguished.

Ad 3 Reply to Objection 3

Ad tertium dicendum quod, sicut philosophus dicit, in II Physic. et in VII Ethic., ita se habet finis in operabilibus, sicut principium in demonstrativis. Et ideo diversitas finium diversificat virtutes sicut et diversitas activorum principiorum. Sunt etiam ipsi fines obiecta actuum interiorum, qui maxime pertinent ad virtutes, ut ex supradictis patet.

As the Philosopher says (Phys. ii, text. 89; Ethic. vii, 8), the end is, in practical matters, what the principle is in speculative matters. Consequently diversity of ends demands a diversity of virtues, even as diversity of active principles does. Moreover the ends are objects of the internal acts, with which, above all, the virtues are concerned, as is evident from what has been said (Q. 18, A. 6; Q. 19, A. 2, ad 1; Q. 34, A. 4).

Articulus III

Whether Habits Are Divided into Good and Bad?

Arg. 1 Objection 1

Ad tertium sic proceditur. Videtur quod habitus non distinguantur secundum bonum et malum. Bonum enim et malum sunt contraria. Sed idem habitus est contrariorum, ut supra habitum est. Ergo habitus non distinguuntur secundum bonum et malum.

It would seem that habits are not divided into good and bad. For good and bad are contraries. Now the same habit regards contraries, as was stated above (A. 2, Obj. 1). Therefore habits are not divided into good and bad.

Arg. 2 Objection 2

Praeterea, bonum convertitur cum ente, et sic, cum sit commune omnibus, non potest sumi ut differentia alicuius speciei; ut patet per philosophum in IV Topic. Similiter etiam malum, cum sit privatio et non ens, non potest esse alicuius entis differentia. Non ergo secundum bonum et malum possunt habitus specie distingui.

Further, good is convertible with being; so that, since it is common to all, it cannot be accounted a specific difference, as the Philosopher declares (Topic. iv). Again, evil, since it is a privation and a non-being, cannot differentiate any being. Therefore habits cannot be specifically divided into good and evil.

Arg. 3 Objection 3

Praeterea, circa idem obiectum contingit esse diversos habitus malos, sicut circa concupiscentias intemperantiam et insensibilitatem, et similiter etiam plures habitus bonos, scilicet virtutem humanam et virtutem heroicam sive divinam, ut patet per philosophum in VII Ethic. Non ergo distinguuntur habitus secundum bonum et malum.

Further, there can be different evil habits about one same object; for instance, intemperance and insensibility about matters of concupiscence: and in like manner there can be several good habits; for instance, human virtue and heroic or godlike virtue, as the Philosopher clearly states (Ethic. vii, 1). Therefore, habits are not divided into good and bad.

Sed contra On the contrary

Sed contra est quod habitus bonus contrariatur habitui malo, sicut virtus vitio. Sed contraria sunt diversa secundum speciem. Ergo habitus differunt specie secundum differentiam boni et mali.

On the contrary, A good habit is contrary to a bad habit, as virtue to vice. Now contraries are divided specifically into good and bad habits.

Respondeo I answer that

Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut dictum est, habitus specie distinguuntur non solum secundum obiecta et principia activa, sed etiam in ordine ad naturam. Quod quidem contingit dupliciter. Uno modo, secundum convenientiam ad naturam, vel etiam secundum disconvenientiam ab ipsa. Et hoc modo distinguuntur specie habitus bonus et malus, nam habitus bonus dicitur qui disponit ad actum convenientem naturae agentis; habitus autem malus dicitur qui disponit ad actum non convenientem naturae. Sicut actus virtutum naturae humanae conveniunt, eo quod sunt secundum rationem, actus vero vitiorum, cum sint contra rationem, a natura humana discordant. Et sic manifestum est quod secundum differentiam boni et mali, habitus specie distinguuntur. Alio modo secundum naturam habitus distinguuntur, ex eo quod habitus unus disponit ad actum convenientem naturae inferiori; alius autem habitus disponit ad actum convenientem naturae superiori. Et sic virtus humana, quae disponit ad actum convenientem naturae humanae, distinguitur a divina virtute vel heroica, quae disponit ad actum convenientem cuidam superiori naturae.

I answer that, As stated above (A. 2), habits are specifically distinct not only in respect of their objects and active principles, but also in their relation to nature. Now, this happens in two ways. First, by reason of their suitableness or unsuitableness to nature. In this way a good habit is specifically distinct from a bad habit: since a good habit is one which disposes to an act suitable to the agent's nature, while an evil habit is one which disposes to an act unsuitable to nature. Thus, acts of virtue are suitable to human nature, since they are according to reason, whereas acts of vice are discordant from human nature, since they are against reason. Hence it is clear that habits are distinguished specifically by the difference of good and bad.

Secondly, habits are distinguished in relation to nature, from the fact that one habit disposes to an act that is suitable to a lower nature, while another habit disposes to an act befitting a higher nature. And thus human virtue, which disposes to an act befitting human nature, is distinct from godlike or heroic virtue, which disposes to an act befitting some higher nature.

Ad 1 Reply to Objection 1

Ad primum ergo dicendum quod contrariorum potest esse unus habitus, secundum quod contraria conveniunt in una ratione. Nunquam tamen contingit quod habitus contrarii sint unius speciei, contrarietas enim habituum est secundum contrarias rationes. Et ita secundum bonum et malum habitus distinguuntur, scilicet inquantum unus habitus est bonus et alius malus, non autem ex hoc quod unus est boni et alius mali.

The same habit may be about contraries in so far as contraries agree in one common aspect. Never, however, does it happen that contrary habits are in one species: since contrariety of habits follows contrariety of aspect. Accordingly habits are divided into good and bad, namely, inasmuch as one habit is good, and another bad; but not by reason of one habit being [about] something good, and another about something bad.

Ad 2 Reply to Objection 2

Ad secundum dicendum quod bonum commune omni enti non est differentia constituens speciem alicuius habitus, sed quoddam bonum determinatum, quod est secundum convenientiam ad determinatam naturam, scilicet humanam. Similiter etiam malum quod est differentia constitutiva habitus, non est privatio pura, sed est aliquid determinatum repugnans determinatae naturae.

It is not the good which is common to every being, that is a difference constituting the species of a habit; but some determinate good by reason of suitability to some determinate, viz. the human, nature. In like manner the evil that constitutes a difference of habits is not a pure privation, but something determinate repugnant to a determinate nature.

Ad 3 Reply to Objection 3

Ad tertium dicendum quod plures habitus boni circa idem specie, distinguuntur secundum convenientiam ad diversas naturas, ut dictum est. Plures vero habitus mali distinguuntur circa idem agendum secundum diversas repugnantias ad id quod est secundum naturam, sicut uni virtuti contrariantur diversa vitia circa eandem materiam.

Several good habits about one same specific thing are distinct in reference to their suitability to various natures, as stated above. But several bad habits in respect of one action are distinct in reference to their diverse repugnance to that which is in keeping with nature: thus, various vices about one same matter are contrary to one virtue.

Articulus IV

Whether One Habit Is Made Up of Many Habits?

Arg. 1 Objection 1

Ad quartum sic proceditur. Videtur quod unus habitus ex pluribus habitibus constituatur. Illud enim cuius generatio non simul perficitur, sed successive, videtur constitui ex pluribus partibus. Sed generatio habitus non est simul, sed successive ex pluribus actibus, ut supra habitum est. Ergo unus habitus constituitur ex pluribus habitibus.

It would seem that one habit is made up of many habits. For whatever is engendered, not at once, but little by little, seems to be made up of several parts. But a habit is engendered, not at once, but little by little out of several acts, as stated above (Q. 51, A. 3). Therefore one habit is made up of several.

Arg. 2 Objection 2

Praeterea, ex partibus constituitur totum. Sed uni habitui assignantur multae partes, sicut Tullius ponit multas partes fortitudinis, temperantiae et aliarum virtutum. Ergo unus habitus constituitur ex pluribus.

Further, a whole is made up of its parts. Now many parts are assigned to one habit: thus Tully assigns many parts of fortitude, temperance, and other virtues. Therefore one habit is made up of many.

Arg. 3 Objection 3

Praeterea, de una sola conclusione potest scientia haberi et actu et habitu. Sed multae conclusiones pertinent ad unam scientiam totam, sicut ad geometriam vel arithmeticam. Ergo unus habitus constituitur ex multis.

Further, one conclusion suffices both for an act and for a habit of scientific knowledge. But many conclusions belong to but one science, to geometry, for instance, or to arithmetic. Therefore one habit is made up of many.

Sed contra On the contrary

Sed contra, habitus, cum sit qualitas quaedam, est forma simplex. Sed nullum simplex constituitur ex pluribus. Ergo unus habitus non constituitur ex pluribus habitibus.

On the contrary, A habit, since it is a quality, is a simple form. But nothing simple is made up of many. Therefore one habit is not made up of many.

Respondeo I answer that

Respondeo dicendum quod habitus ad operationem ordinatus, de quo nunc principaliter intendimus, est perfectio quaedam potentiae. Omnis autem perfectio proportionatur suo perfectibili. Unde sicut potentia, cum sit una, ad multa se extendit secundum quod conveniunt in aliquo uno, idest in generali quadam ratione obiecti; ita etiam habitus ad multa se extendit secundum quod habent ordinem ad aliquod unum, puta ad unam specialem rationem obiecti, vel unam naturam, vel unum principium, ut ex supradictis patet. Si igitur consideremus habitum secundum ea ad quae se extendit, sic inveniemus in eo quandam multiplicitatem. Sed quia illa multiplicitas est ordinata ad aliquid unum, ad quod principaliter respicit habitus, inde est quod habitus est qualitas simplex, non constituta ex pluribus habitibus, etiam si ad multa se extendat. Non enim unus habitus se extendit ad multa, nisi in ordine ad unum, ex quo habet unitatem.

I answer that, A habit directed to operation, such as we are chiefly concerned with at present, is a perfection of a power. Now every perfection should be in proportion with that which it perfects. Hence, just as a power, while it is one, extends to many things, in so far as they have something in common, i.e. some general objective aspect, so also a habit extends to many things, in so far as they are related to one, for instance, to some specific objective aspect, or to one nature, or to one principle, as was clearly stated above (AA. 2, 3).

If then we consider a habit as to the extent of its object, we shall find a certain multiplicity therein. But since this multiplicity is directed to one thing, on which the habit is chiefly intent, hence it is that a habit is a simple quality, not composed to several habits, even though it extend to many things. For a habit does not extend to many things save in relation to one, whence it derives its unity.

Ad 1 Reply to Objection 1

Ad primum ergo dicendum quod successio in generatione habitus non contingit ex hoc quod pars eius generetur post partem, sed ex eo quod subiectum non statim consequitur dispositionem firmam et difficile mobilem; et ex eo quod primo imperfecte incipit esse in subiecto, et paulatim perficitur. Sicut etiam est de aliis qualitatibus.

That a habit is engendered little by little, is due, not to one part being engendered after another, but to the fact that the subject does not acquire all at once a firm and difficultly changeable disposition; and also to the fact that it begins by being imperfectly in the subject, and is gradually perfected. The same applies to other qualities.

Ad 2 Reply to Objection 2

Ad secundum dicendum quod partes quae singulis virtutibus cardinalibus assignantur, non sunt partes integrales, ex quibus constituatur totum sed partes subiectivae sive potentiales, ut infra patebit.

The parts which are assigned to each cardinal virtue, are not integral parts that combine to form a whole; but subjective or potential parts, as we shall explain further on (Q. 57, A. 6, ad 4; II-II, Q. 48).

Ad 3 Reply to Objection 3

Ad tertium dicendum quod ille qui in aliqua scientia acquirit per demonstrationem scientiam conclusionis unius, habet quidem habitum, sed imperfecte. Cum vero acquirit per aliquam demonstrationem scientiam conclusionis alterius, non aggeneratur in eo alius habitus; sed habitus qui prius inerat fit perfectior, utpote ad plura se extendens; eo quod conclusiones et demonstrationes unius scientiae ordinatae sunt, et una derivatur ex alia.

In any science, he who acquires, by demonstration, scientific knowledge of one conclusion, has the habit indeed, yet imperfectly. And when he obtains, by demonstration, the scientific knowledge of another conclusion, no additional habit is engendered in him: but the habit which was in him previously is perfected, forasmuch as it has increased in extent; because the conclusions and demonstrations of one science are coordinate, and one flows from another.

Showing Thomas's answers only.