Correcting errors

I had some problems which I am only beginning to realize were errors - i.e. I thought and recently began to articulate passions as disposative in nature, this is from a confusion which I derived from my own readings of Aquinas with respect to the per accidens of sorrow.

Passions properly are kind of empty. What is so confusing about passions is that they are manners of speaking, metaphors, almost. And so is the will and every other word we have - sure we have different operations and accordingly we "distinguish" differnet powers, but.. it gets confusing because we are one, and I had much more trouble dissociating passion from will and even maybe sometimes from perception, and also had trouble distinguishing "passion" from "habit" - in the habitual sense I am drawn towards this or that, and thus it seems to be "passionate" but it is already a trained passion, which, in that case... wouldn't be the same as a passion, because while it has an external "object" - the motivating principles of my relations to the object in question are already highly infused and directed to much extent by understandings, willings, and repeated practices/trainings.

But what is also confusing is htat Aquinas talks about the imperfect voluntariety of children and of animals. And somewhere he says probably echoing Aristotle (or he could echo or anticipate most philosophers in this sense) that "the majority of men live by their passions". Keeping this in mind, it is hard for me not to assign a kind of greater power to the passions than is warranted in view of Aquinas' real prsentation of them as pertaining to defect - as constituted with a bodily movement - as per se identified by a bodily change - heartbeat, those things, etc. And furthermore, I have to distinguish this as anticipating or even in the absence of willing which is very difficult for me, because even where I am wrong passionately, it is usually because I am wrong intellectually. I think a lot. And I always thought a lot. So it is hard for me to conceive acting continually on pure "reaction". Passions aren't pure reaction for Aquinas - what I should say is purely being swayed. I have been swayed but through the perception of my intellect - through me really either being in error or wanting to experiment in new ways of thinking, letting go so that I may really possess the truth - wanting to let go of whatever in me could hinder this, and because I could not distinguish well between what was error and what was truth, I had to trust and put everything in suspension - except that in terms of practice I didn't let go of too much - we are creatures of habit and smoething must hold us together somehow. And I didn't want to stray far really.

And it is still hard for me to conceive of children being only "imperfectly voluntary" according to this definition:
I answer that, As stated above (Article 1), it is essential to the voluntary act that its principle be within the agent, together with some knowledge of the end. Now knowledge of the end is twofold; perfect and imperfect. Perfect knowledge of the end consists in not only apprehending the thing which is the end, but also in knowing it under the aspect of end, and the relationship of the means to that end. And such knowledge belongs to none but the rational nature. But imperfect knowledge of the end consists in mere apprehension of the end, without knowing it under the aspect of end, or the relationship of an act to the end. Such knowledge of the end is exercised by irrational animals, through their senses and their natural estimative power.
Consequently perfect knowledge of the end leads to the perfect voluntary; inasmuch as, having apprehended the end, a man can, from deliberating about the end and the means thereto, be moved, or not, to gain that end. But imperfect knowledge of the end leads to the imperfect voluntary; inasmuch as the agent apprehends the end, but does not deliberate, and is moved to the end at once. Wherefore the voluntary in its perfection belongs to none but the rational nature: whereas the imperfect voluntary is within the competency of even irrational animals.

Actually, I DO understand. The reason I say I DON'T understand is that I remember very voluntary moments when I was young - deliberations, in what I thought, in what I wrote, in how I determined my life (ask my mother - I was a very independent child). I remember sorting out in my head that if God is where we were headed, then everything must kind of fit around that as a way to get there, and I remember even playing with where things "went". I was probably six or seven - I know because I remember the place where I thought these things.

But having a general knowledge of "ends and means" is NOT equivalent to being free and deliberate. Even now I am not as free and deliberate as I could be. I don't feel that I am, because I am still "learning." I don't feel as though I have "put my money where my mouth is". I don't feel, in a word, that I am a meritorious actor - that I am doing things - I am anxious to get into the position of doing things and sad when my laziness stunts and halts my growth.

But yes, having a general knowledge of means and ends, and momentary insights or thoughts about these does not constitute a fully free person, because of the lack of knowledge, experience, judgment - one judges according to one's lights, but a child doesn't have enough "lights" to be really free althouhg a child can be laudable, a child cannot really be held responsible. Voluntariety is a question of degree, information, habit, practices.

Anyway, please do not trust what I say. I am trying to learn this and I might be saying or inventing things stupidly or as half-truths as I was before. I am rather too prone to to make very creative interpretations. On with the learning!

Wait I forgot to correct "passion".

I looked up "dispositive" in the Thomistic index online (which I found rather late in my career - that could have saved me three or four hours of work in the past) and I noticed it wasn't in any discussion of passio. I was trying to make passions disposative as well as participatory and recipient in the will's redundancy - but understood antecedently - it is hard. As the passions can dispose one kindly - i.e. to be more merciful - one can have a natural disposition which makes it easier to "love" people but this does not mean it need get any better - the virtuous does come from the will. But imperfect voluntariety - or what about velleity - have to look that up more.... where was it mentioned? this would make a kind of imperfect moral agent? Someone who for some reason or other can't activate their voluntariety but what they would do if they were voluntary - and the passions being an indication of this....
Again, I am loading "passion". Passions can be mixed with willing - albeit imperfect willing - if someone has knowledge of the end - as charity - as loving, but is unable to figure out ends and means very well or see their relation - but act as their passions direct them in these situations but even with the messes that they get into, always keep their readiness or docility to the message of charity, they must be considered to be "good" people - candidates or participants of salvation. imperfect as participatory?
See this is what I don't get. I really don't - how many people are not virtuous, then? If we can't be virtuous passionately... how many people can be virtuous? I guess I never really believed Aristotelian dictums about virtue being rare, difficult, all that sort of thing - I am a democratic Christian - for me, the whole "charity" thing levellled it out for everyone. We all share a redeemer, we all make mistakes but come out of them in repentance and a desire to reimmerse ourselves in charity. But maybe all this on the part of the individual is still dispositive - is still only partial. And understanding this does not necessarily mean that I need esteem people less, or desire strongly for them that they be different than they are. Because there seems to be something problematic with wanting everyone to be like one wants to be, partly because one already is like everyone, and partly because it seems that it might be imposing something that one cannot impose but only hope that people may realize themselves. And so one must continually be gentle and merciful with others and oneself - because I am still imperfectly voluntary. I am not virtuous. I have perhaps a greater appreciation for glimpses of virtuous persons than people who are less trained to notice these differences. But I am still not virtuous. I am twenty two. (well twenty three in a couple of months). I don't even have the experience to be virtuous. I am still naive, still taken by surprise, still afraid and nervous, still not developed the study habits that i want, because still unpacking histories and depressions - the therapy is getting better every year - I notice. But to be as actual as I want... no there is much that lies between still.
So we are all together, or at least I am altogether with everybody. And we all of us will always be human and thus exist within certain limits.
And passion is one of those limits that doesn't go away - defect. No matter how old or how experienced or how virtuous or holy I may become, no matter how my passions have become habituated to address themselves to these parameters rather than to these other parameters, there will always be surprises. I'll always have PMS (until I have menopause). (If talking about PMS or menopause bothers you, watch out, there's going to be more. If you're a guy, men have their own ups and downs throughout the month - I promise you, I read it in a book! So there!) There will always be someone who comes and addresses me in a way that entirely throws me off guard. And people have a way of doing that to me. I seem to be one of those people with a face that says, "I don't know you, but I need your advice for my life." Other people don't get strnagers coming up to them and telling them what to do, or friends advising them with their lives without even putting one's life on the table. Just today at Mass, for example, the man behind me at church told me before Communion, "don't be afriad of anything, God loves you." "Thank you," I said, and I was grateful, because it was apropos. After Mass, he wanted to talk to me, and told me I'm a very nice young lady and he wanted to warn me so that I wouldn't be disillusioned with life, and particularly with men, not to afraid, but to be careful. And then I began to wonder if he had all his cards in his deck, but I gave him the benefit of the doubt and looked serious and was appreciative of his good intentions and what he was trying to say. And then he said all consolation comes from the Holy Spirit which I really liked and took home with me. And that was it. And I received it well, but I don't always receive these things well. But everybody has an opinion about my life, even if we do not know each other, and I do not always take it so kindly although I try to be polite. Because I am getting used to it, it is getting better, i think. But people still throw you off.
Anyway. passions. I should know passions, dammit, just think PMS. But I have ways of assigning causes to my PMS - you feel bad and off but you think it's because of something with your head. BUt this is a much more mediated way of being passionate - certainly it comes from bodily changes, but it is a very mediated way - it colors your perception, to be sure, although there are certainly degrees of this, it can happen more subtly and less subtly - and sometimes it brings sensitivities and pulls out fine points that you might not have noticed before becuase of this alteration. And I don't despair like a teenager, it just "colors" things. And even when it "colors" things I notice a difference from year to year - last year I knew the change in time because it would always be the day that I cried for absolutely no reason - now I can't because I don't cry in harmony with the season anymore. But would this be passion? It is bodily, but it is passion. Passion has to do with an "irresistible power" - it has an object - a perception of presence. I remember being hypoglycemic (it was more when I was a teenager - I am careful so that I very rarely have episodes - I took the test and I had a really weird kind - my glycemic index stayed "stable" for a very long period but then would drop drastically - five points in fact - in about fifteen minutes' time). But this also brings "crying for no reason" - I know the difference, you are compelled to cry but you can identify no cause at all to make you sad and it's the weirdest thing in the world - kind of like raining without clouds.

So dammit it's not all about the bodily dimension. It is the soul per accidens. But not only in respect of the body - it is already complex - there is knowledge there.
What does it mean to act wholly passionately? Maybe such episodes are really rare for us and so it is difficult to define them - but the definition would not be a wholly conceptual one - I remember being "reduced" to passion not so long ago. I can actually identify the experience but it is hard to label what it is - becuase as I live, passion is already following rather than preceding - this is why so many people have trouble distinguishing it from being cogntivie itself. But Aquinas is unique - insisting that it is not cognitive but follows cognitive or is in the absence of cognitive altogether - I was trying to make him let it precede cognitive (it does precede actions ) in a positive way - and maybe it can - maybe it only diminishes good acts but maybe it makes it possible for those good acts to happen in the first place - although it would be better to be intelligent from the start - none of us are intelligent wholly from the start - and even in a pedagogical sense passion must kind of precede - or at least be heavily mixed with from the start. How else do you explain teenagers going into philosophy at eighteen and nineteen years old? What brought them into it in the first place? Ok, some kind of willing or knowledge, but also a passion - in the lack of knowledge.
I'm confusing things again. I'm going back to figuring these things out.