"some partial happiness can be achieved in this life"(DM 130)
"Human nature is not so completely corrupted by sin as to be totally lacking in natural goodness"(DM 131)
Is Aquinas countering the idea brought up in class that humans can not be happy because we are disconnected from God?
I feel that he is saying that because we are not corrupted, we are still able to have a relationship with God. Our life is a "healing proccess" that builds us closer to God and happiness.
"Man's ultimate happiness consists in the contemplation of truth, for this operation is specific to man and is shared with no other animals." DM 129
ReplyDeleteCan men truly be happy contemplating life instead of living it? Is this truly what separates us from our mammal brethren?
This line reminds me of the philosophers in the ivory tower image. No one can be happy contemplating happiness. Happiness is something to search and find through life and living. Happiness cannot come from staying in your ivory tower and watching the world around you.
It is our ability to perceive right and wrong, and make conscious decisions based on that knowledge that separates us from animals.
Deanna - is this your own ivory tower musing or did you come to that conclusion by living life? I am not trying to be argumentative here, but consider your methodology and evidence.
DeleteIs not our perception of morality and reason fine tuned and honed through contemplation?
Deanna, I originally agreed with you that happiness would be impossible to find through pure contemplation. It only seems logical that we could only find happiness through living out our lives instead of just thinking about the world around us. However, Coach Heintz brings up a good point. Wouldn't both of our observations just be our own 'ivory tower musings'? Personally I can not think of a personal experience to back up my first sentence. I think it is impossible for us (or at least for me) to say that contemplation will never lead to happiness, because I have not devoted my life to it. I can speculate all I want, but I have not been in the position that would allow me to make a reasonable judgement on this issue.
DeleteWith that being said, I think happiness would most likely best come from a mixture of the two positions. Actively living your life in the world (opposed to contemplating life) is important because it would give you experiences to base your moral beliefs on, when you are in fact contemplating your life. Contemplation is important because, as Coach Henitz said, our reason and morality are more fine tuned through contemplation.
Responding to your second question, I have to agree with you that the true difference between man and animal is our concepts of right and wrong, and our ability to consciously act on these judgements more than it is our ability to contemplate truth.
I agree completely with Joey. I think that happiness must come from some sort of combination of living and contemplating. Similar to a science experiment, you must both use thought and practice. I dont think you can completely and indefinitely remove yourself from society to create happiness. Maybe if you first contemplate and observe, then you can come to better understand what creates your own personal happiness.
DeleteTo the other question, our intellect and ability to discern and reason seems to differentiate ourselves from animals. This seems the reason that most philosophers say that we must use our intellect to achieve happiness. It is what makes us unique.
My post is a bit of a combination...
ReplyDelete"The Stoics had suggested that the happy man could be happy even on the rack, happy in spite of suffering. Christianity took this a step further, proposing that happiness was not just impervious to pain, but its direct outcome and consequence." (DM 95)
"If complete happiness came only in death, might there not still be a perfection of the journey, a blessedness of the route?" (DM 128)
-How can you, in a sense, combine Augustine's and Aquinas' ideas for happiness? Can you reconcile them?
I am a strong believer that if you are a true Christian (in my case, Catholic), you will suffer. No, you won't be martyred for your faith, but the fact that you truly carry out the mission that Jesus Christ has laid out for us will result in your suffering. You might be ostracized, you might have to make decisions that you might not really want to make. You will have to sacrifice; there is a cost to discipleship. If you are to live a moral Christian life, life will not be easy. However, if you do live a moral life, you are 'perfecting the journey' as Aquinas would say. Sure, you can look forward to the perfect happiness in heaven, but at least for now, you can gain happiness from knowing that you are following God's word and that he loves you. You gain happiness from the hope that you are living the faith correctly and that you will gain entrance to heaven.
I think this is also what Augustine was saying-- that happiness is the outcome of this struggle, this journey of living a moral life, that will eventually bear fruits both in this life and the next. Through our suffering in life, as long as we live the moral life that God wishes us to live, we will be happy-- regardless of if we can see that or not.
I thought Augustine said that happiness was not achievable until after life was over. Only when we were reunited with God could we be happy. This is why I disagree with him and agree with Aquinas. Aquinas was more positive in nature and said that some sort of happiness does exist on earth. In that respect I do not think the two can be reconciled.
Delete"Aquino had cleared a new path-a middle way-between heaven and earth, bidding us to linger a little longer and savor the journey"
ReplyDeleteIs this middle path the path we are following today?
In class we discussed that by being a good christian and living the virtuous life that we are in a sense waiting for happiness in heaven where as some believe "Happiness is made by man alone". I find this very confusing because as much as I believe that happiness is something we have some control over, or at least on our outlook on what happens to us, I also believe you should a be a virtous person, I am not sure if it is because I am expecting happiness in heaven but more because I think that good things happens to good people. So I'm not sure if I believe we are all in the middle path, but I think that if we follow catholic teaching they suggest we follow the middle path, by trying to understand our current sufferings and that the higher we climb the ladder the happier we will be in heavan.
I agree. It's a little confusing to me, too. I believe we have a lot of control over our happiness today though because it's just being able to do what you love. This of course is my version of happiness but none the less in my opinion we have a lot of control. For the happiness in heaven, I think it's a little hard to figure out because I think people who aren't following catholic teaching can still achieve happiness and be good enough people to get into heaven.
Delete"In heaven, Aquinas affirms, the saints shall be inebriated by the plenty of thy house, and thou wilt make them drink of the torrent of thy pleasure". (DM 128)
ReplyDeleteAquinas says that those who are saved will enjoy a perfect happiness. Is there, then, any hope for happiness for those who believe they could not possibly be chosen by God to go to Heaven?
If St. Thomas Aquinas is simply addressing devout followers of Christianity, which I believe to be the case, most of these people will believe that they will go to Heaven. In the minds of these people, there is the hope of attaining this perfect happiness with God. However, if Aquinas is addressing a much wider audience, I believe his message is not as effective. Those who weren't Christian are very unlikely to buy into this idea during this time.
There is no hope for non-Christians in his world *I* think. However, his world is filled with only Christians so I am not sure we was even thinking about this.
Delete"We not only can be happy in a sense in this life, but can be happy again in the next. It must be emphasized that these two forms of happiness stand in a clear relationship of hierarchy - as the imperfect to the perfect" (DM 130).
ReplyDeleteWhat exactly is the difference between these two different "forms" of happiness?
I think the perfect form of happiness (when we are with God in the next life) clearly refers to knowing God "as he is". However, the imperfect form of happiness is a lot less cut and dry. He (Aquinas) does not really specify what this will mean for us. It could mean the 'hope' that Augustine was talking about, where we are not truly happy but at least have something to look forward to in the next life. This imperfect happiness could also refer to the closest we could ever get to God in this life. I think the reason Aquinas added this part about "imperfect happiness" was so that Christianity was appealing to more people. More people would get involved with the church if they thought it could help them get to some kind of happiness in this life.
Living virtously and contemplating God will bring you "felicitas" - the imperfect happiness - according to Aquinas.
DeleteI disagree about your assessment of imperfect happiness. Mr. Heintz addresses it above, and he points out that one must live virtuously to gain this imperfect happiness. In other words, one must live a "good" life. Being virtuous includes many things, but I believe most of us can agree that it means living similarly to how Christianity dictates how we should live. I don't think that Aquinas simply threw in imperfect happiness just to appeal to a wider range of people. In my opinion, this imperfect happiness that Aquinas says we must live virtuously to obtain includes almost anything short of perfect happiness with God. It may include seemingly trivial things such as feeling loved by others or the joy of seeing someone you haven't seen in a long time. These are no doubt the perfect happiness Aquinas refers to, but are these things not happiness at all?
DeleteI think that the imperfect happiness is almost used as a reminder. We might find what we think is perfect happiness in our lives through one thing or another, but I think Aquinas is saying that that kind of happiness is great and all, but what's coming in the next life is going to be even better.
DeleteI think that imperfect happiness is the idea of momentary happiness. I could be wrong, but I think of happiness on this life as moments of happiness, and the perfect happiness achieved out of this world is the constant and lasting happiness.
DeleteIn synthesis Mr. Donahue talked about how we aren't fully human but rather becoming human. We realize our humanity by self giving. This seems completely unrelated but i think it is close to what Aquinas is saying. God is perfection and all of our lives we are striving to be closer to God. This means that as our lives progress and we live well we are happy but it is a secondary happiness. True happiness is found when we reach perfection, when we die, when we are fully reunited with God. This means that we can find happiness in life. It's just not a perfect long-lasting happiness.
ReplyDeleteIf we still haven't achieved union with God how are we happier? Is not union something that you either are or aren't (like being pregnant)? Why does movement toward happiness make one happy?
DeleteJensen, I like this way of looking at Aquina's secondary happiness. As we become closer and closer to God, we gradually get happier until we eventually die. Then, we can reach perfect happiness when we are face to face with God. Would you say that there is a proportional relationship between one's personal relationship with God and one's own happiness?
DeleteCoach Heintz, I would respond to your questions but honestly I'm not quite sure what your asking.
Coach Heintz, I feel like if one follows Christian Beliefs, then we could say, there is a void within us all, and we need something to fill it. For temporary happiness, it can be booze, sex, drugs, fast cars, food, etc, but it doesn't last. Why does movement towards happiness (a union with God)? Well if it is indeed a temporary happiness, then I would say it is just another way of filling that ever-present void.
DeleteJoey,
DeleteI struggle with the idea of becoming happier as you move closer toward union with God. If it was just defined as "closer to God" I understand it, but "closer to union with God" implies partial union -- an illogical idea. You cannot be together in part. Sorry...too philosophical.
"Man's ultimate happiness consists in the contemplations of truth" (DM 129)
ReplyDelete"Thus Aristotle identified our ultimate joy with his highest contemplative activity, that is to say with such knowledge as is possible to the human mind in this life..." (DM 130)
A major question I have had throughout this search for happiness is how closely deep thought and contemplation is connected with achieving happiness.
Through discussion with Jensen and Mr. Heinz, I have found it ironic that every philosophy on happiness deals with a higher form of intellect or thought. However, people have identified time and time again that nature is perfect, and without humans, the world would continue on and likely exist in a better state. With this in mind, does intellect really grow to the greater good and perfection of happiness when the perfection of nature is achieved without human activity?
I can honestly not answer this question as I am grappling with the idea on my own, but as of now, it seems that maybe too much thought may lead to destruction rather than perfection.
Aside from all we have read, I still believe that happiness can be achieved without contemplation. For most of class I have continued to say that too much contemplation can cause you to lead astray from what you were looking for. (You look so long, you forget what your looking for) I believe that when you forget what you're looking for, that is when you find it. Thus, when you're not contemplating happiness, it will come easily because you aren't expecting it.
DeleteToday I find many people whom are depressed are constantly looking for happiness, and those whom seem to be happy aren't looking for it at all, in fact probably haven't thought about it.
This may have gotten off subject, but I really feel that happiness comes without contemplation and that contemplation actually could complicated things even worse.
I agree with Maddie. Augustine spent most of his life trying to find happiness, and he becomes distraught at the sight of the beggar who seems to be happy because of some food and drink. He searches so hard for happiness that he can never really experience what happiness is. This reminds me on a quote from Mr. Bueller, "Life moves pretty fast. If you dont stop and look around once in a while, you could miss it"
DeleteI agree with Maddie and Kent. Contemplation can really lead you away from the path of happiness. I believe if someone is simply trying to live a good life that happiness will come to them in some shape or form. Trying to figure out the key to happiness yourself can only lead to a lifelong search. I think people like Augustine ran into this problem of starting off with the one question of happiness but on their search for the answer all they found was more questions and that leads to only more confusion and searching.
DeleteFrassrand -- is it human action that is well-thought, caring, compassionate and "good" that disrupts the world or human action without care or reflection, selfish action that causes problems. One could argue that those with right mind and right action do not do anything but compliment nature while others destroy it. Just wait for Buddhism!
ReplyDeleteI was getting ready to argue against this, when I realized I couldn't really find examples of "well-thought, caring, compassionate and "good" people who screwed up the world...People who thought they were doing the right thing? Sure...it's the compassionate and caring part that hangs me up...I will still say though, with (if we take those two out of the equation) that "right mind" could be relative...(I know you hate that), but let's look at the conflict in the middle east: on one side are the guys who are convinced they are doing the "right" thing by fighting for their country...and actually...you could say the same about the other side (fighting against the guys who invaded their home and shot their friends)...so I guess what I'm getting at is, both sides believe they are acting through "right mindedness..." as in what is truly, the RIGHT thing to do...yet they are both doing nothing but causing destruction to the world
DeleteOops, I typed Frassrand but meant Brown.
ReplyDelete