and beasts were created with desire but without intellect, while human beings were created with both intellect and desire. Whoever’s intellect prevails over his desire is better than the angels, but whoever’s desire prevails over his intellect is worse than the beasts.”

Next comes the faculty of anger, which wards off harm, followed by the faculty of desire, which secures benefit.

Some natural philosophers say: “The faculty of anger is the animal faculty, because animals possess it whereas plants do not. The faculty of desire is the vegetative faculty, because animals and plants share it, and plants possess it whereas inanimate things do not.”

But the following objection may be raised: if he means that desire itself is shared by plants and animals, that is not so. Plants have neither longing nor voluntary movement, neither desire nor anger. If, however, he means growth and nourishment themselves, these are attendant upon desire and are its effects. There is a parallel to this in anger: the effect of anger, and what follows from it, is repulsion and resistance. This property exists in all solid, strong bodies. Thus, desire and anger themselves are confined to living creatures. Their effects, however—encroachment and repulsion—are shared with strong plants. The capacity to repel and resist exists in hard, strong plants, but not in soft, tender ones. Hence, among plants, the capacity to repel is confined to certain kinds; yet it exists in all solid bodies. Thus, desire and anger stand in a relation of generality and specificity.