Is there any sense, then, in which we can speak of the sentient (cognitive and appetitive) and executive powers of man as the seat of habits? The activities of those faculties are under the control of intellect and will; the acts _elicited_ by the former are _commanded_ by the latter; they are acts that issue primarily from the latter faculties; and hence the dispositions that result from repetition of these acts and give a facility for further repetition of them—acts of talking, walking, singing, playing musical instruments, exercising any handicraft—are partly, though only secondarily, _dispositions_ formed in these sentient faculties (the “trained” eye, the “trained” ear, the “discriminating” sense of taste, the “alert” sense of touch in the deaf, dumb, or blind), or in these executive powers, whereby the latter more promptly and easily obey the “command” of the higher faculties; but they are primarily and principally _habits_ of these higher faculties themselves rendering the latter permanently “apt” to “command” and utilize the subordinate powers in the repetition of such acts.(335) Unquestionably the bodily organs acquire by exercise a definite “set” which facilitates their further exercise. But this “set” is not something that they can use themselves; nor is it something that removes or lessens a natural indeterminateness or indifference of these powers; for they are not indifferent: they _must_ act, at any instant, in the _one_ way which their concrete nature in all its surroundings actually demands. They themselves are only instruments of the higher faculties; these alone have freedom of choice between lines of action; it is only the stable modifications which these acquire, which they themselves can use, and which _dispose_ them by lessening their indeterminateness, that are properly called habits. There are, therefore, in the organic faculties of man _dispositions_ which give facility of action. There are, moreover, organic dispositions which dispose the organism not for _action_ but for its union with the _formative principle_ or soul: _habituales dispositiones materiae ad formam_.(336) Aristotle gives as instances bodily health or beauty.(337) But these _dispositiones materiales ad formam_ he does not call _habits_, any more than the organic _dispositiones ad operationem_ just referred to: and for this reason, that although all these dispositions have a certain degree of stability in the organism—a stability which they derive, moreover, from the soul which is the formative principle that secures the continuity and individual identity of the organism,—yet they are not of themselves, of their own nature, stable; whereas the acquired dispositions of the spiritual faculties, intellect and will, rooted as they are in a subject that is spiritual and substantially immutable, are of their own nature stable and permanent. Nor are all dispositions of these latter faculties to be deemed