St. Augustine's roadblocks in his Confessions

[OneSheep]

The very act of doing this–reconciling, freeing, coming to accept–is all within the realm of the conscience, no?

This is an extremely pertinent question, and I am glad you brought it up! I think the answer is yes, and no. Maybe we can carry this aspect along as we go onto the next step with Augustine. I think that there is a place for teasing out “this is of the conscience, and this is not”. For example, I think it is pretty obvious that we humans desire freedom, autonomy, freedom from enslavement. A person acting to pursue freedom out of pure desire for such does not involve the conscience.

The way I see it, the key to identifying conscience involvement is that there is an ideal (a righteousness), there is something condemned, and some kind of rule that distinguishes the two. If I behave according to the ideal, I feel self-accepting, if I do or participate in what I condemn (break the rule) then I self-condemn, I feel guilt. So, for freedom to be part of the rulebook, I would have some kind of rule that says "I should be free. If that is in the rulebook, when I am free, I feel good (righteous), and if I am enslaved I self-condemn (feel guilty).

I am interested if you share the perspective. It would be good to examine (npi) our definitions of conscience so we can understand each other’s vocabulary.

We may be able to transcend a desire to condemn others (judge not lest ye be judged) but I don’t know how one might ever go “beyond” the conscience, right?

We are certainly not after throwing out the rulebook, if that is the question. Indeed, I don’t think it can be thrown out, as gut-reactions, in my experience, never go away. Transcending, I think, has more to do with looking at the conscience, looking at how it praises and condemns us, and looking at the unconditional love beneath it all. Transcending also involves integration, making whole what is divided. (Remember: the division is an important part of conscience formation.)

This brings us back to Aristotle–you are what you repeatedly do.

It sounds like Aristotle, like the rest of us, had trouble separating the value/essence of the person from wisdom of their choices.

I suppose the aspect that allows us to keep from condemning the person is the fact of change.

Well, that might help, but here is where I look at Luke 23:34. I don’t think Jesus was looking at potential to change, He was looking at who they were and what they were choosing at the moment. While condemnation is triggered (gut level), a forgiveness deeper than a discipline “not to hate” or “hoping for change” (not that they are helpful!) involves cognitive empathy. Jesus saw, Jesus stood among (understood), Jesus forgave. He saw that they did not know what they were doing. Can you imagine that? He saw the blindness and lack of awareness in every single member of the crowd, the whole bunch.

 

[OneSheep]

She can sober up, she can stop yelling at her child all the time

So if my condemnation is triggered (which it is), step 1 is painfully admitting that I am just as capable of being an alcoholic and yelling at my kid, most certainly if I had lived her life, had the same wounds, had the same gaps in awareness (cognitive and emotional empathy). She has all the same drives and emotions as I do. Some of those drives and emotions I condemn; those are the ones that are part of my shadow, they are the roadblocks to seeing God in the person. Step 2 is forgiveness, seeing God in her, seeing her innocence. I am wanting to elaborate now, but if that sounds odd, just ask questions.

I like where you’re headed with disobedience here…

Yes, I like your analysis. Of course, a reader might think “Hey wait a minute, guys, disobedience gets us in a lot of trouble!”. My answer to that is, “It sure does, but when it does, it is because we are unaware/blind in some way, we don’t know what we are doing.”

Bring it on!

Okay, here is the line again:

“I sinned…I was disobedient, not out of a desire for better things, but out of love for play. I loved to win proud victories…”

-Book 1, Chapter 10

The word “proud” is very complex, involving several different desires, but given the word “victories” we can focus on one: desire to dominate. Since Augustine did not specifically address desire to dominate as something that exists, and as therefore good (by his criteria), we can sort of assume that his own desire to dominate was one of the roadblocks. If the assumption is wrong, it is still a desire worth addressing here because in my observations of myself and others the normal conscience will subconsciously make the desire part of the shadow, an aspect of the “bad part” of ourselves. After all, desire to dominate gets us into plenty of trouble, right?

 

[OneSheep]

Bring it on!

Okay, let me try this in a more orderly fashion:

Material cause: Desire to dominate (win) supported by accompanying neurotransmitters

Formal Cause: A free person, in control of resources he needs, optimizing his ability (and desire) to survive and thrive.

Efficient Cause: Our creator, by means of evolution (or other means)

Final Cause: A creature (species) capable of conscious, loving relationship with God

 

[Magnanimity]

I mostly equate “concupiscence” with “(innate) appetites that our conscience comes to detest”.

Hello again! Long hiatus, I know. Work-related, couldn’t be helped. By concupiscence, I’m trying to put my finger on something more theological. Something must account for the universal and daily Romans 7 struggle that we all live with–doing those things we know we ought not to do, and not doing the things we know we ought to do. Aristotle referred to our “weakness of will,” but that seems inadequate and probably too optimistic to account for what’s really going on with us in these moments.

I’ll try to post more later. Time is not on my side these days.

 

[Magnanimity]

Yes, it appears that there is some pretty negative stuff that takes place in order to create us. I know, it doesn’t fit the means/ends moral code, but maybe God didn’t read that code. What I am saying is that there is good intent underneath it all, at least that is what I am seeing through my relationship.

I appreciate your patience with me! I don’t know how much Kant you have read, but in his famous work on ethics (Grounding of the Metaphysics of Morals) he gives several formulations of what he calls a “categorical imperative.” Leaving aside for the moment Kant’s obsession with reason as that which always saves the day, I still think his CI is pertinent to your thoughts here. One way he states the CI goes like this, “you must always treat others as ends in themselves, and never as a means only.” I accept this formulation of the CI as entirely correct and as a moral “law” that should govern human behavior. If we acknowledge that every other human person is an “end in herself,” just as I am an end in myself, and if we further accept that we cannot ever treat others as means only, then I think the CI is compatible with your overarching worldview here.

What I mean is that it has always struck me as interesting that Kant felt it necessary to add the qualifier “only.” Never as a “means only…” So, presumably, there are circumstances where persons can, morally and legitimately, be treated as a means to a further end. It’s just that one cannot disregard the inherent dignity of the person in the process of using them as some means to some further end. And if this is right behavior of humans vis-a-vis other humans, it would presumably be true of God vis-a-vis other humans as well. Not to make him an agent on our level, but it’s just to acknowledge that His morality doesn’t transcend our own sense of morality. As in, He doesn’t get to treat humans as a “means only,” anymore than we do. All moral norms would emanate from Him, whether it’s a CI or a Golden Rule.

But I would press this point further in the direction of the East (eg, St Gregory of Nyssa). Everything I’ve said immediately above fits better within a picture of humanity as (in some sense) an indivisible totality. If Christ came to save the entire human race (and not just this or that particular human) then the using of another as a means will always be in service of the whole race.

The one weakness that I can see of this worldview I’m advocating might be the phenomenological aspect of our reactions to our suffering (or the suffering of ones we love). We have a hard time getting beyond the reaction of “Why me?” Or, “why is my child suffering like this?” I think there is no law-like statement that can be provided to the sufferer to answer the “why me” question.

What do you think?

 

[OneSheep]

If Christ came to save the entire human race (and not just this or that particular human) then the using of another as a means will always be in service of the whole race.

Well, it does appear to “pass the test” in terms of Kant’s formula.

The one weakness that I can see of this worldview I’m advocating might be the phenomenological aspect of our reactions to our suffering (or the suffering of ones we love). We have a hard time getting beyond the reaction of “Why me?” Or, “why is my child suffering like this?” I think there is no law-like statement that can be provided to the sufferer to answer the “why me” question.

On a very personal level, I recently went to a retreat, dealing with that very question in my own life.

A voice inside said, “I’m sorry”.

And somehow, upon hearing that divine apology, I had the sudden sense of knowing that He suffers with us, very close to us, right alongside us. I can’t understand this personal experience of suffering, but it is in the trend of knowing that there is a good intent underneath it all.

So, how does the “cause” line-up look for desire for domination (winning)?

 

[Magnanimity]

I am interested if you share the perspective. It would be good to examine (npi) our definitions of conscience so we can understand each other’s vocabulary.

Hello again, my friend. Fortunately, I have caught some much-needed free time to participate with you here. I haven’t been this busy in my personal and work life, since…I can’t even remember when! Anyway, onto the discussion. A few weeks ago, right before I got swamped with life and work, I created a thread on the primacy of conscience. You can read a lot of my basic thoughts on the matter there. Here is a snippet of Catholic quotes that I was exploring:

“His conscience is man’s most secret core and his sanctuary. There he is alone with God whose voice echoes in his depths.” -GS 16; CCC 1776

It bears witness to the authority of truth in reference to the supreme Good to which the human person is drawn CCC 1777

“ Conscience is the aboriginal Vicar of Christ , a prophet in its informations, a monarch in its peremptoriness, a priest in its blessings and anathemas, and, even though the eternal priesthood throughout the Church could cease to be, in it the sacerdotal principle would remain and would have a sway.” -Newman, Letter to the Duke of Norfolk (italicized portion quoted in CCC 1778)

To my mind, there is nothing more basic within the overall realm of knowing and doing the good, than the conscience. I wouldn’t hold that the conscience is reducible down to all of one’s consciousness - that would seem overly reductive because the consciousness is not only concerned with goodness. Consciousness is drawn here, there and everywhere. Take the Newman quote above as being the encapsulation of my opinion on what the conscience is, what it is involved in, and even the limits of its primacy. And, we can go from there. If you disagree with anything that Newman or the CCC affirms on the conscience, that can be a starting point.

For example, I think it is pretty obvious that we humans desire freedom, autonomy, freedom from enslavement. A person acting to pursue freedom out of pure desire for such does not involve the conscience.

I think we’re going to have to get into defining “freedom” too. I’m not sure if you’re suggesting that pursing freedom for freedom’s sake is possible, as your last line above suggests. Contemporary ideas of freedom are rather out of step with ancient and medieval conceptions of freedom. For example, the Sartrian idea of “absolute freedom” gives the impression that freedom is the ability to do and believe whatever it is that one wants to do and believe in a given moment (within the realm of what is possible for humans). A more classical formulation of freedom would presuppose a “nature/essence” to the creature in question. And freedom would be defined as acting in accord with one’s own nature/essence. And on this classical understanding, to act out of step with one’s essence would be ipso facto to act in a self-enslaving way.

 

[Magnanimity]

It sounds like Aristotle, like the rest of us, had trouble separating the value/essence of the person from wisdom of their choices.

Hmm, not sure what you’re getting at with that response. I should say that the “you are what you repeatedly do” encapsulation is an attempt to get to the basics of what Aristotle was after concerning human virtue in his Nicomachean Ethics. I don’t believe he actually writes this line in the NE. Rather, he means that we call a person courageous (as in, we say that courage is part of a person’s character) when we repeatedly observe him behaving in a courageous way. And, for the corresponding vice, we call a man cowardly when we repeatedly observe his cowardice. One instance of observation is not enough data to form a proper judgment of another person’s character, iow.

So, when it comes to human behavior and character, action (i.e., doing things) is primary. Do you agree? I doubt whether we could say that thought is more primary and basic than action in these regards, since thought seems to be derivative of action.

Well, that might help, but here is where I look at Luke 23:34. I don’t think Jesus was looking at potential to change, He was looking at who they were and what they were choosing at the moment… He saw that they did not know what they were doing. Can you imagine that? He saw the blindness and lack of awareness in every single member of the crowd, the whole bunch.

Why should the Father forgive them? Because they don’t know what they are doing. Something similar is often at work when we react to our children. We say, “Chloe just doesn’t know any better.” And what we mean is, “she doesn’t know what she’s doing,” which keys ignorance. What is implied is that if the person knew enough, she would do the good. This is basically Plato’s ideal, as well–to know the good, is to do the good. On this perspective, ethics is tied up with knowing things as they really are in themselves. There is probably a lot of truth to that perspective.

And yet, we continuously live with the reality that St Paul spells out in Romans 7–with alarming regularity, we do the things we do not want to do. And we do not do the things that we wish to do. In these moments, would we fault ourselves for a lack of knowledge? That seems unlikely. Also, to reiterate my prior point that you were responding to, the fact that a person can change their behavior is bound up within hope. I don’t merely not condemn a person because of their ignorance, though that could some times be part of it. Because we’d have to account for those moments when we don’t condemn the person when we know they are not acting in ignorance. On some level, I don’t condemn the person because I’m always hoping for their final good, even if I’m aware that the person knows better than to behave as they are behaving.

 

[Magnanimity]

Okay, here is the line again:

“I sinned…I was disobedient, not out of a desire for better things, but out of love for play. I loved to win proud victories…”

-Book 1, Chapter 10

I’ve thought a lot about the nature of sports, which is intrinsically competitive/domineering with winners and losers at the end of games/tournaments. (I have a teen son who has been playing soccer for quite a few years.) I believe that we have actually covered chapter 10 above, from what I recall. In the overall context of the chapter, it seems that what is bothering him is the desire for glory/honor in the eyes of the spectators. That, and the fact that he didn’t prize learning as highly as he might have, according to the wishes of his parents. That is, when one compares learning/knowledge with sport, St Augustine judges that it should be obvious to a spiritual person that learning is the higher aspiration. Is that how you’re reading chapter 10?

Final Cause: A creature (species) capable of conscious, loving relationship with God

Work and aspiration are inherent in sport. So, in these respects, they help us to hone and craft those qualities that assist us in reaching our final end of beatitude in God. That is to say, one needs to aspire to such a final end, and all good ends (playing piano, growing wise, beatific vision…) require substantial work along the way.

And somehow, upon hearing that divine apology, I had the sudden sense of knowing that He suffers with us, very close to us, right alongside us. I can’t understand this personal experience of suffering, but it is in the trend of knowing that there is a good intent underneath it all.

And, intrinsic to work itself is a little bit of suffering, right? As in, instead of seeking ease, we accept we have to work to learn to play the piano, to get good at a center midfield position, to become knowledgeable/wise… To achieve these greater goods, we willingly endure some level of suffering. Though, this type of suffering for which we can see the end is qualitatively different from the suffering for which we see no (good) end.

 

[OneSheep]

Good Morning,

I have also had a lot of time freed up, though I am just beginning an online course at Fordham, so I also have some new tasks. The class is challenging and a bit tedious. This is a nice diversion.

“His conscience is man’s most secret core and his sanctuary. There he is alone with God whose voice echoes in his depths.” -GS 16; CCC 1776

I hope you can see that this does not actually define the conscience. There is an underlying question, “What is the conscience?”. I would agree that the conscience is an important level of human functioning. Is it “secret”? Yes, it is revealed over time, but until a person experiences hurt in a certain aspect of it, that aspect remains hidden. Conscience development, in what I observe, involves hurt and empathy. If a person has an empathy disability, like a sociopath, then they have compromised access.

If we go to St. Paul’s words about law, and then apply these to the concept of “false self” and “true self”, we can find that love is a much deeper “core” to what it means to be human.

“ Conscience is the aboriginal Vicar of Christ , a prophet in its informations, a monarch in its peremptoriness, a priest in its blessings and anathemas, and, even though the eternal priesthood throughout the Church could cease to be, in it the sacerdotal principle would remain and would have a sway.” -Newman, Letter to the Duke of Norfolk (italicized portion quoted in CCC 1778)

I have great regard for Cardinal Newman. Yes, I agree with his comments concerning its remaining a principle or guide regardless of an external priesthood. As far as it being a “monarch” though, the “monarch” is automatically ignored (not deliberately) when there comes a time of anger, resentment, or pressing appetite. Anger/resentment blinds us, and so does the appetite, and when it is the appetite blinding us to the conscience we call it “concupiscence” (note: if these sound like making excuses, that is our conscience saying “finding reason for our failings is against the rules!”). As an example, there are plenty of times (me included) where people have done unconscionable things as punishment of someone who has done something unconscionable. This is when anger is triggered, an anger that reflects the “anathema” referred to above, but the anger itself becomes a blinder to the conscience’s guide to forgive before considering a punishment (If this “forgive first” rule has become part of the person’s owned conscience). We call this “revenge”, but all of what we call “revenge”, especially the desire for it, is very difficult to separate from the ordinary conscience compelling us to punish wrongdoing.

 

[OneSheep]

I wouldn’t hold that the conscience is reducible down to all of one’s consciousness - that would seem overly reductive because the consciousness is not only concerned with goodness.

I agree. If conscience is defined, in part, as our internal rulebook (moral guide) then one only has to ask “what is the purpose of the conscience?” to go deeper than the conscience itself. The conscience is the basis for our gut reactions, and guides us as to how to love one another, to guide us in our mercy. In my observation, Love is the foundation and purpose of conscience.

So while Paul and the Gospel do not ask us to throw out the rulebook, they invite us to embrace love, mercy itself, as the ultimate guide. Indeed, it would be somewhat stifling for the conscience to demand of us “always be kind”, but it is freeing to be invited to such behavior, as driven by desire to sow mercy, in a way that does not have the obligatory blessing/anathema (righteousness/condemnation).

Fr Rohr was once asked, “how do you know when the ‘false self’ is what is active at any moment?”. He answered, “when we are judging, that is a pretty good indication that our false self is forefront.”. (note: these are not exact quotes).

And where is centered our own judging of ourselves and others? The conscience. So while I disagree with the term “false self” applied to the conscience, the judging aspect of the conscience is certainly not the depth of the “true self”. I am imagining a model of the true self underlying the conscience, that love underlies and remains the underlying purpose for the conscience, even though gut reactions, formed by the conscience itself, can drive us to do something unmerciful.

If you disagree with anything that Newman or the CCC affirms on the conscience, that can be a starting point.

I think “most secret core” might be an overstatement, but otherwise I agree with it all. The conscience is super-important, natural, creates our gut reactions, and is a moral guide. I see it as the content of our internal rulebook, the drive to enforce the rulebook (desire to punish wrongdoing and reward good behavior), and the home of both our shadow self and idealized self. It is our “core” guide before we are more engaged with our true self, and is “secret” until we bring it to light.

A more classical formulation of freedom would presuppose a “nature/essence” to the creature in question. And freedom would be defined as acting in accord with one’s own nature/essence. And on this classical understanding, to act out of step with one’s essence would be ipso facto to act in a self-enslaving way.

Does the classical formulation say that the appetites are not part of our nature/essence?

 

[OneSheep]

Rather, he means that we call a person courageous (as in, we say that courage is part of a person’s character) when we repeatedly observe him behaving in a courageous way.

… So, when it comes to human behavior and character, action (i.e., doing things) is primary. Do you agree? I doubt whether we could say that thought is more primary and basic than action in these regards, since thought seems to be derivative of action.

I think that what I’m driving at is that we are first, in terms of behavior and character, formed in His image, every one of us.

Our first reaction to people’s behavior, scientifically studied, is our gut reaction, which is primary. We see the sliver in the other’s eye. This happens before our “thinking” part of the brain even has a chance to address the reaction. Upon reflection, we can come to see the “other” with the lens of understanding and forgiveness, and remove the post “We are all capable of courage, we are all capable of cowardice”. So while I agree that some people are more prone to fear than others, these behavioral characterizations are essentially meaningless in comparison to the fact that we are all deeply loved children of the One whom we are created in His image. That said, we do compare ourselves to others and develop superficial characterizations; it can be a harmless assessment of who we can trust.

If the character judgment is a negative, a condemnation, then we are back to addressing roadblocks. (Not that roadblocks don’t also serve a purpose)

This is basically Plato’s ideal, as well–to know the good, is to do the good.

Yes, but “the good” is often a great dealing of weighing between the better and the best, and there are many factors involved. I like “People do what they think is best” (in the moment).

And yet, we continuously live with the reality that St Paul spells out in Romans 7–with alarming regularity, we do the things we do not want to do. And we do not do the things that we wish to do.

That is retrospect, not in the moment. In the moment, I am choosing the behavior I think is best, even if I have some misgivings about it. Most likely some blindness is involved in the choice, a blindness that disappears once the appetite is satiated, the anger goes away, etc. When I am saying, “This little donut is not going to make a difference”, I am already blind.

“I sinned…I was disobedient, not out of a desire for better things, but out of love for play. I loved to win proud victories…”

-Book 1, Chapter 10

In the overall context of the chapter, it seems that what is bothering him is the desire for glory/honor in the eyes of the spectators.

Okay, so it is not desire to dominate (win) that is a roadblock, but desire for status? Shall we focus on that aspect of the word “proud”?

Shall I venture a new set of causes?

 

[Magnanimity]

though I am just beginning an online course at Fordham, so I also have some new tasks.

That’s sounds intriguing. Is this part of an online program? Good for you. I’m a bit envious. Although I wrote my last graduate research paper in 2003, I can honestly say I never lost the enjoyment of it.

Conscience development , in what I observe, involves hurt and empathy.

Yes, I like this. It would seem that hurt (of self or others) and empathy are both what engage/activate the conscience. It is that aspect of the soul/mind that judges human behavior as good or bad. But, there is something mysterious about the conscience (just as, I would argue, there is with consciousness itself). Contingent being has many aspects which strike a person as fairly radical. One of these aspects is that I do not ever have to exist. My non-existence is ever a possibility. Since I continue to exist, this being of mine is caused by one whose non-existence is not possible (Necessary Being). So, God is ever with all contingent being, to include ourselves. I imagine that that’s what the CCC quote was after with its language of “secret core,” “sanctuary” and voice echoing “in his depths.” God is ever with us, of necessity, owing to our very contingency of being. And the particular manner of “being with us” within the realm of the ought–that is the conscience.

As far as it being a “monarch” though, the “monarch” is automatically ignored (not deliberately)

I might diverge from you here, if I’m understanding you correctly. The language I would use is “suppress” or even “disobey.” I don’t think there is any getting around or away from the conscience, any more than one get get around or away from rationality. They are both aspects of the soul/mind that are utterly basic to its essence. You give examples of various emotional reactions and the appetites. But, as I see it, there are no emotional reactions or appetites that can turn off, as it were, the conscience. There is, fundamentally, nothing that can cause us to really disengage from it. Anger, resentment, revenge, strong appetites–all of these things can act as “blinders,” as you say. But on some level, an awareness of the conflict between your behavior and the sense of ought is never erased, right? The conscience can be strongly suppressed. But that wouldn’t be the same as automatic, non deliberate, ignoring, would it? Even a basic awareness of a conflict between my behavior and my conscience would be within the realm of deliberation. Once the conflict is recognized, the choice must still be made.

“revenge”, especially the desire for it, is very difficult to separate from the ordinary conscience compelling us to punish wrongdoing.

I would agree, but I think that is because the principle of justice itself rests within the conscience. So, we see a desire to punish wrongdoing as an instance of obedience to justice itself - “rendering to each person what is due to him.”

 

[OneSheep]

So, God is ever with all contingent being, to include ourselves. I imagine that that’s what the CCC quote was after with its language of “secret core,” “sanctuary” and voice echoing “in his depths.” God is ever with us, of necessity, owing to our very contingency of being. And the particular manner of “being with us” within the realm of the ought–that is the conscience.

Yes, this interpretation is congruent and reflects the presence of God within. Our whole being does have an underlying mystery to it, so in that sense the conscience is part of the mystery.

I might diverge from you here, if I’m understanding you correctly. The language I would use is “suppress” or even “disobey.” I don’t think there is any getting around or away from the conscience, any more than one get get around or away from rationality.

I started to respond to this here, but decided to message you instead. It can be a rather lengthy conversation.

OneSheep:

“revenge”, especially the desire for it, is very difficult to separate from the ordinary conscience compelling us to punish wrongdoing.

I would agree, but I think that is because the principle of justice itself rests within the conscience. So, we see a desire to punish wrongdoing as an instance of obedience to justice itself - “rendering to each person what is due to him.”

Ultimately it is only mercy is what is due the other, but this desire to render what is “due” usually does not demonstrate this mercy. My angry reaction to injustice serves to motivate the other to refrain from doing it, especially in a tribal hunter/gatherer situation where banishment is a death sentence.

This is one of the many aspects of our nature that Jesus inspires us, invites us, to transcend. We are to forgive those who trespass against us, especially before “rendering what is due”, so that it is mercy that guides correction. My angry emotion is addressed first, I understand and forgive, and then I am able to correct the other with a kind heart, one that communicates care instead of rejection. Is this your position also?

Yes, I am taking the Fordham class online.

Are you ready to tackle questions at the end of my last post?

 

[OneSheep]

I invite readers to pick up their own copies of Confessions and consider this possible “roadblock”:

“I sinned…I was disobedient, not out of a desire for better things, but out of love for play. I loved to win proud victories…”

-Book 1, Chapter 10

Note that I used the word “possible” because the only evidence that this may be a roadblock is in the context of the chapter, in which Augustine is a bit self-condemning. Given that to the degree that we are condemning ourselves (or aspects of ourselves) is contrary to seeing the good in ourselves (which we see “through the Spirit”), then there may be something about either dominating (winning) or perhaps, as @Magnanimity suggests, the desire for honor/glory is what St. Augustine condemned.

Either way, I invite readers to feel free to jump in! Was it desire to dominate? Was it desire for honor (status)?

 

[Magnanimity]

I think that what I’m driving at is that we are first, in terms of behavior and character, formed in His image, every one of us.

OK, I think I was (accidentally) talking past you in this particular instance. You are making points that I wouldn’t contest, so I may have just been misunderstanding your reaction to Aristotle’s discussion of human character.

I like “People do what they think is best” (in the moment).

I do too. It gets away from blaming others. The older I get and the more I contemplate human freedom, the more convinced I am that we are all of us much less free than we would like to think. And that’s ok with me.

That is retrospect, not in the moment. In the moment, I am choosing the behavior I think is best, even if I have some misgivings about it.

There are many human moral and social activities that are spread out over time–not confined to just a momentary decision/reaction. Consider, for instance, conjugal love. This is an activity spread over time. And we can feel the tinge of conscience throughout the activity. We can ‘war with ourselves’ in these moments, questioning and second-guessing our decisions even as they are being lived out in real time. Say, in the instance of dating, we routinely ask ourselves questions like, “Is this too far?” “Is it too early to make a move to kiss?” “If the kissing leads to other stuff, how far can we go?” “What if it seems like she’s giving mixed signals?” “How is this moment aligning with what our Lord would want for me?” “Is sex outside of marriage really that bad?” And on and on our minds/hearts ramble… And this example of real-time moral deliberations aren’t confined to sex. The same would be true for a number of the “deadly sins” (gluttony, sloth). The passage of time is actually required to determine whether one was even being gluttonous or slothful. And the point I was making with the Romans 7 reference is that moral deliberations occur within us during activities, often enough.

Okay, so it is not desire to dominate (win) that is a roadblock, but desire for status? Shall we focus on that aspect of the word “proud”?

Shall I venture a new set of causes?

Sure! Let’s take a lion as an example, if you might think it’s helpful.

Efficient cause of the lion - how the lion came to be here (conceived by two adult lions)

Material cause of the lion - what matter makes up the lion (organic matter–comprising tissues and organs)

Formal cause of the lion - what it is/means to be a lion (carnivore, fast, strong, solitary hunter…)

Final cause of the lion - that for the purpose of which the lion exists (and there could be several–to keep balance in an ecosystem through predation, a type of population control)

 

[Magnanimity]

The conscience is the basis for our gut reactions, and guides us as to how to love one another, to guide us in our mercy. In my observation, Love is the foundation and purpose of conscience.

Fr Rohr was once asked, “how do you know when the ‘false self’ is what is active at any moment?”. He answered, “when we are judging, that is a pretty good indication that our false self is forefront.”. (note: these are not exact quotes).

That’s pretty good. I like where folks like Fr Rohr, Fr Keating, and Rev Bourgeault go with this. They are all, in unique ways, trying to get us to be ever-oriented toward knowing and participating in Being/Goodness (God). And part of that process is recognizing the image and likeness of God in every “neighbor.” To value the other, as myself.

I recently had the pleasure of listening to a fascinating podcast that I recommend to you. It was a discussion on the topic of love, both sacred and secular senses of love. The podcast is called “Sacred and Profane Love,” and it was episode 9. Professor Jennifer Frey was interviewing Fr Michael Sherwin, O.P. At one point in the discussion, they bring up “acts of service” toward strangers, and they actually speak critically of it. Because in the vision of, say, donating money to a charity, however good of an act that might be, in that action, we separate/divorce knowing-the-other from the activity itself. And in so doing, we separate the “personhood” from the recipient of our charity. The noble deed is in some sense focused back on ourselves as noble actors.

And then they address the flip-side of the question. Fr. Sherwin asks, “Do you want to be loved, apart from any of your characteristics?” They both affirm that no, we do not want that. We want to be loved for ourselves, as ourselves–known and valued for who we are. Not loved by a stranger who doesn’t genuinely know/care anything about us. What’s interesting is that the long Christian tradition has had many advocates of love as “disinterested/dispassionate service.”

Does the classical formulation say that the appetites are not part of our nature/essence?

Space is always made for the appetites. For Aristotle/Aquinas, the appetites must be made ordinate by being regulated. It is possible to be inordinate in the indulgence of any appetite, even appetites that most would consider goods–like sex with a married lover (i.e., one can be inordinately sexual even in an otherwise good/healthy relationship).

 

[OneSheep]

And then they address the flip-side of the question. Fr. Sherwin asks, “Do you want to be loved, apart from any of your characteristics?” They both affirm that no, we do not want that.

This is quite fascinating, actually. My “characteristics” are quite superficial in comparison to my inner being. I want people to love me for simply being human, which is how I love the member of Daesh, one who is scheming to kill the outgroup. I wish the member of Daesh would love me the same way, to love me without knowing anything at all about me.

What’s interesting is that the long Christian tradition has had many advocates of love as “disinterested/dispassionate service.”

This is going to depend on the person’s phenomenology.

For Aristotle/Aquinas, the appetites must be made ordinate by being regulated.

Yes, that is the means of ordering the appetites. The question is, though, are the appetites part of our nature/essence which was created by God (along with the desire to control our appetites, when experiences guide us this way).

Sure! Let’s take a lion as an example, if you might think it’s helpful.

Efficient cause of the lion - how the lion came to be here (conceived by two adult lions)

Material cause of the lion - what matter makes up the lion (organic matter–comprising tissues and organs)

Formal cause of the lion - what it is/means to be a lion (carnivore, fast, strong, solitary hunter…)

Final cause of the lion - that for the purpose of which the lion exists (and there could be several–to keep balance in an ecosystem through predation, a type of population control)

I’m looking at “desire for glory/status” being a “material cause”. Would you like me to give it a shot? I might be a little confused about the “efficient cause” part though. I’d be totally open to suggestions for change, but we’d probably have to define some terms.

 

[Magnanimity]

My “characteristics” are quite superficial in comparison to my inner being. I want people to love me for simply being human

I think what they were driving at is that, at least in friendship and marriage, a choice is made that didn’t have to be made. For example, if your wife loves you, she chose you at some point, probably over other male options. Same with friendships. And none of us wants to be generically chosen because of our humanity. We want to be valued as a unique instantiation of humanity.

The question is, though, are the appetites part of our nature/essence which was created by God

I think they have to be considered so, yes. I don’t see how we could argue that appetites for food, drink and sex (as examples) could be seen as anything otherwise.

I’m looking at “desire for glory/status” being a “material cause”.

As Aristotle notes, not all human activities have ends beyond themselves. Not every activity is a practical one, having a purpose beyond itself. Some activities are ends in themselves. One could ask me, “why do you read Aristotle on ethics?” I would answer, “because I want to know what one of the wisest and most knowledgeable of all humans had to say on the matter.” And if I were further pressed, “why do you want to know this?” I could answer, “because I want to live a good life.” The questions could continue, “why do you want to live a good life?” Here, I would have no further answer. There is no end beyond the living of a good human life. So too, Aristotle says, “honor, pleasure and reason” are chosen for their own sakes (NE, book 1, chap 7). But, “as there are many actions, arts, and sciences, their ends also are many; the end of the medical art is health, that of shipbuilding a vessel, that of strategy victory, that of economics wealth.”

What strikes me as curious about St Augustine is that he feels the need to criticize his desire for sport. The playing of sports seems to be one of those terminal activities. It has ancillary effects (e.g., it can increase overall fitness, you can get wealthy from it), but are those effects the reason for playing sport? I saw an interview with Lionel Messi whom many believe to be the greatest soccer striker of the 21st century. The interviewer asked him why he plays. He basically said that he loves the playing of the game, and if/when he ever reaches a point where he no longer loves playing soccer, he will quit. We could probably say that, for Messi, playing soccer makes him happy (or produces pleasure). And that’s it. There is nothing beyond the playing of the sport.

Augustine intermingled the desire for the crowds to love and admire him with the activity itself, and this somehow tainted the activity. But perhaps Augustine is correct here and more thorough in his approach. He understands that desire to be honored for the glory of your great play on the field is always a part of the athlete’s mindset. So, if the possibility of fame, honor and wealth were not also present in sport, would the athlete pursue it so hard?

 

[OneSheep]

The questions could continue, “why do you want to live a good life?”

A want to live a good life, to be happy, is a material cause, is it not? It is part of our nature.

So too, Aristotle says, “honor, pleasure and reason” are chosen for their own sakes (NE, book 1, chap 7).

Well, honor is along the lines of desire for status, which is what I am attempting to investigate here, but chosen honorable acts are probably also a matter of conscience. Pleasure, of course, is a physiological phenomenon, part of the mechanism driving human behavior. Reasoning is a manifestation of intelligence, and intelligence, in a very material sense, is an advantage toward survival. In a more spiritual sense, intelligence gives us capacity to be in deeper, aware relationship. Feel free to argue all these points. I’m sure I’ve hit a few “materialist” triggers.

But, “as there are many actions, arts, and sciences, their ends also are many; the end of the medical art is health, that of shipbuilding a vessel, that of strategy victory, that of economics wealth.”

So, what I’m hoping to investigate are the “ends” of desire for status/glory.

We could probably say that, for Messi, playing soccer makes him happy (or produces pleasure). And that’s it. There is nothing beyond the playing of the sport.

Except that pleasure itself is material, and serves a (slightly) deeper purpose, right? The seeking of pleasure for what appears to produce nothing but pleasure itself is a “side effect” of a material cause that serves a deeper cause.

He understands that desire to be honored for the glory of your great play on the field is always a part of the athlete’s mindset. So, if the possibility of fame, honor and wealth were not also present in sport, would the athlete pursue it so hard?

WAIT! I HAVE IT!

Material Cause: Desire for status/glory

Formal cause: People who love to play football

Efficient cause: Our creator, by means of evolution (or other means)

Final Cause: The NFL

How’midoin’ how’midoin’. Am I getting the hang of it?