Part, Question

 1   2, 57|        eubulia," "synesis" and "gnome" are virtues annexed to ~
 2   2, 57|  Whether "eubulia, synesis, and gnome" are virtues annexed to
 3   2, 57|              euboulia, synesis, gnome}]~Aquin.: SMT FS Q[57] A[
 4   2, 57|        euboulia, synesis}, and {gnome}" are ~unfittingly assigned
 5   2, 57|   synesis}" ~of the virtue of "{gnome}."~Aquin.: SMT FS Q[57]
 6   2, 57|  counsel; and "{synesis}" and "{gnome}," which are parts of prudence
 7   2, 57|      objects. "{Synesis}" and "{gnome}" differ in respect of the
 8   2, 57|         the common law; while "{gnome}" bases its judgment on
 9   2, 45|     natural," namely ~"synesis, gnome" [*{synesis} and {gnome},
10   2, 45|         gnome" [*{synesis} and {gnome}, Cf. FS, Q[57], A[6]] and
11   2, 46|        counsel," "synesis" and "gnome" belong to prudence. ~Again
12   2, 46|    prudence, and "synesis" and "gnome" which refer to judgment,
13   2, 46|       ordinary occurrence, and "gnome," which ~concerns judgment
14   2, 49|    special virtue?~(4) Whether {gnome} is a special virtue?~[*
15   2, 49|       according to general law {gnome}, ~respectively.]~Aquin.:
16   2, 49|        Thes. Para. 1/1~Whether {gnome} (judging well according
17   2, 49|      OBJ 1: It would seem that {gnome} (judging well according
18   2, 49|       of good ~judgment called {gnome} (judging well according
19   2, 49| concludes (Ethic. vi, 11) that {gnome} ~(judging well according
20   2, 49|      judgment, which is called {gnome} (judging according to ~
21   2, 49|        reason: this belongs to {gnome} (judging well according
22   2, 51|  according to common law) and ~{gnome} (judging well according
23   2, 78|      eugnomosyne} ~quasi 'bona {gnome}.'] These two are ascribed
24   3, 18|       Fide Orth. iii, 14) that {gnome}, i.e. opinion, ~thinking