St. Augustine's roadblocks in his Confessions

[Magnanimity]

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?

That’s close enough! Well done, let’s roll with it.

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

To speak of essences/natures (ie, what it means to be a human) would be the formal cause. Think of material cause in the normal way we today think of matter—what’s the “stuff” the thing is made up of? We don’t have to get too sciencey here and talk about quarks and atoms. You can keep it “macro” and talk about humans being self-moving creatures, with a variety of organs that form a wholistic neural and musculoskeletal system. Something like that…

Pleasure, of course, is a physiological phenomenon, part of the mechanism driving human behavior.

I think we’d have to say that pleasure is partly also on the soulful level. That is, one cannot merely speak of the physical phenomena that accompany pleasure (say, the firing of various things in the brain, serotonin, etc). Because all would probably agree that part of the act of feeling/receiving pleasure is an internal sense of satisfaction. Like feeling satisfied at having put together a complicated child’s swing set would be pleasurable. Not bc there’s all sorts of brain chemicals firing off but bc of the internal sense of accomplishment and satisfaction.

Reasoning is a manifestation of intelligence, and intelligence…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.

You ain’t lyin! You certainly know some of my buttons on these issues! Reasoning goes so very, very far for humans. Let’s just say for the sake of simplicity that reasoning is the ability to think conceptually. As in, you leave behind the mere perceptual world and move into the realm of Universals. In this conceptual realm, you begin to consider the nature of things like the one and the many, same vs other, relationality, good vs evil, life, love, honor, prudence, truth, beauty, quantity, quality, and on and on the very long list goes (of all the universals that we ponder).
We’d have to throw in logic too—sometimes by “by reasonable” folks mean “think logically.”

Except that pleasure itself is material, and serves a (slightly) deeper purpose, right?

Yeah, I’d probably follow Aristotle and Aquinas here and subsume “experiencing pleasure” within the category of happiness, which would be the final end of man.

 

[OneSheep]

Think of material cause in the normal way we today think of matter—what’s the “stuff” the thing is made up of?

It might be time to get a little “sciencey”, if you don’t mind.
Is a robot vacuum cleaner’s programming not part of its material existence?

Not bc there’s all sorts of brain chemicals firing off but bc of the internal sense of accomplishment and satisfaction.

You are looking at such satisfaction as coming from the soul.

As in, you leave behind the mere perceptual world and move into the realm of Universals.

Yes. Like I said, it gives us capacity to be in deeper, aware relationship. I think we are on the same page on this.

Yeah, I’d probably follow Aristotle and Aquinas here and subsume “experiencing pleasure” within the category of happiness, which would be the final end of man.

I think Paul and Cassian were thinking more along the lines that the “end” “target” “objective” is salvation, to be joined with God forever. “Happiness” would be more of a side-effect, right?

 

[OneSheep]

Think of material cause in the normal way we today think of matter—what’s the “stuff” the thing is made up of?

Been doing some more reading. On this matter (npi), Augustine put a huge emphasis on everything having been created by God, and seeing God’s beauty in all things. This was against the Manicheans, of course. That said, Augustine had to battle the charge that “the leopard does not change its spots”, that he was still presenting a lot of Manichean beliefs!

There are at least a couple dozen modern scholars who show the Manichean influence on his theology, but I have yet to find one that picks up on what we are discussing here, the internal incongruities of his presentation. I must emphasize, though, that the direction of his awareness, coming to see the “goodness” in all things, remains consistent with the Gospel and is unquestionably inspirational. In fact, in some respects we are using a process that he himself, to some degree, promotes by his own investigations.

Reply what you want to here, but hopefully we can work on the “material cause” question en route to coming to some integration of desire for status.

And for any other readers, Confessions can be accessed online here:

https://www.gutenberg.org/files/3296/3296-h/3296-h.htm

IMNSHO (“not so” is the NS part) the translation is a bit weak at times, but it’ll do. We’re still discussing Book 1, chapter 10

 

[OneSheep]

Here’s a better translation (I think):

https://www.ling.upenn.edu/courses/hum100/augustinconf.pdf

It was already posted by @Vico. We are working on the possible roadblock in Book 1, Ch 10. “Proud victories”.

 

[Magnanimity]

It might be time to get a little “sciencey”, if you don’t mind.
Is a robot vacuum cleaner’s programming not part of its material existence?

You know, that’s a good question. I’m tempted to subsume it under the “formal cause.” But, a program running in the background is in some sense material. 1’s and 0’s do still “take up space,” as all of us with hardrives that have gotten overfull are well aware.

What it is to be a robot vacuum cleaner is to explore the formal cause. And I think this is what you’re after with St Augustine, though maybe I’m wrong. What it is to be a human, many aspects of our psychology, etc, seems to be what is driving your interests here.

You are looking at such satisfaction as coming from the soul.

I guess so, but I wouldn’t want to get too mysterious about it, I suppose. I follow Aristotle in his tendency to want to really unify the interior and exterior selves into one whole human (hylomorphism). But, I’m also sympathetic to Plato who clearly elevates the interior self (we would call it consciousness). When Yoda says “luminous beings are we, not this crude matter,” I think most of us feel that he (like Plato) was on to something. And yet, the only way we get outside of our own minds/selves is via the material. So…

I think Paul and Cassian were thinking more along the lines that the “end” “target” “objective” is salvation, to be joined with God forever. “Happiness” would be more of a side-effect, right?

St Augustine opens the Confessions with his now famous (and deeply true) line, “Lord, you have made us for yourself, and our hearts are restless until they find their rest in you.” From what I understand of Aquinas, I completely agree with him (and Augustine) in these respects–the final end of humanity is God, the beatific vision. But, this is the deepest happiness/fulfillment/joy one could experience. So, happiness still remains the goal of humanity. It’s just that in this life all the things that bring us temporary happy states are like sacraments of the Real. They help us to identify what we want and what we’re made for. From there, it’s a separate matter though whether we will devote our lives to finding this path to an ultimate happiness. Is that how you see it too?

 

[OneSheep]

You know, that’s a good question. I’m tempted to subsume it under the “formal cause.” But, a program running in the background is in some sense material. 1’s and 0’s do still “take up space,” as all of us with hardrives that have gotten overfull are well aware.

Yes, and in terms of genetic material, it is both the amount and the way that base pairs are ordered that code for our behavioral capacities. Look at it this way: some people are born without the ability to feel pain; there was an anomaly in the material code.

What it is to be a robot vacuum cleaner is to explore the formal cause. And I think this is what you’re after with St Augustine, though maybe I’m wrong. What it is to be a human , many aspects of our psychology, etc, seems to be what is driving your interests here.

While Augustine was exploring his own motives, ultimately finding good in Catiline’s person, he was identifying and taking ownership of his own nature. Augustine was reconciling with the parts of himself that he had shunned; he was identifying and integrating.

Philosophically? According to this, the human himself (complete with all characteristics) would be the formal cause, so the genetic code would still be material, but to me it is neither the philosophical or biological framing is super important. What is important, as I see it, is “through the Spirit, we come to see that all that exists in any way is good”. It is as Ignatius said, “Seeing God in all things”.

I follow Aristotle in his tendency to want to really unify the interior and exterior selves into one whole human (hylomorphism). But, I’m also sympathetic to Plato who clearly elevates the interior self…

I think Aristotle is closer to a process of “oneing” as Rohr and others call it. Sure, we can elevate the “true self”, but both the inner and the outer are beautiful and can be in harmony. It is the harmony that we are aiming for here. Augustine had roadblocks to his own harmony, and we are trying to find them and see how he could have incorporated them with today’s awareness of what it means to be human. Augustine’s roadblocks were probably not so much inner v. outer, but more mid-level. The conscience is a mid-level phenomenon, and shadow work is a mid-level process, I think.

 

[OneSheep]

So, happiness still remains the goal of humanity. It’s just that in this life all the things that bring us temporary happy states are like sacraments of the Real. They help us to identify what we want and what we’re made for. From there, it’s a separate matter though whether we will devote our lives to finding this path to an ultimate happiness. Is that how you see it too?

Last Friday I was in a small neighboring town, and all of a sudden a school bus drove by, followed by a parade of decorated, honking cars. Many of the cars had banners on the side saying “We miss you!”. People were waving from the cars at the children who came out (forewarned about the parade). They drove every street of the tiny town and then went out into the countryside and drove past all those homes too.

It was the teachers and staff of the local school.

I get teary just writing about it. It was a unifying moment, making a more physical connection at these times of “shelter-in-place”/quarantine. Did they do it for happiness? Did they do it for connection? Well, they did it for love of the children. Maybe its beyond words.

So, what do you think? Can we identify the desire for status/glory as something innate? Something that is there, part of the programming, and part of being human? Do you see how terribly humbling it is to admit such a thing? I am no different, as a person, than the most “prideful” individual I can point at.

 

[Magnanimity]

Philosophically? According to this, the human himself (complete with all characteristics) would be the formal cause, so the genetic code would still be material, but to me it is neither the philosophical or biological framing is super important. What is important, as I see it, is “through the Spirit, we come to see that all that exists in any way is good”. It is as Ignatius said, “Seeing God in all things”.

I don’t think I’ve ever seen that website. Not sure I love the explanation of formal cause that the author gives–“The formal cause is what makes a thing one thing rather than many things” & “A human body is the formal cause” are not wonderfully helpful ways of talking about formal causes. U. of Chicago professor Martha Nussbaum probably has my favorite explanation:

in the case of living things, it is very clear that to explain behavior we must refer not to surface configuration, but to the functional organization that the individuals share with other members of their species. This is the form; this, and not the shape remains the same as long as the creature is the same creature. The lion may change its shape, get thin or fat, without ceasing to be the same lion; its form is not its shape, but its soul, the set of vital capacities, the functional organization, in virtue of which it lives and acts… A corpse has the same shape as a living man; but it is not a man, since it cannot perform the activities appropriate to a man. When I ask for the formal account of lion behavior, I am not, then, asking just for a reference to tawny color or great weight. I am asking for an account of what it is to be a lion: how lions are organized to function, what vital capacities they have, and how they interact. And it is this, again, rather than an enumeration of its material constituents, that will provide the most simple, general, and relevant account for the scientist interested in explaining and predicting lion behavior." (Nussbaum, Martha Aristotle’s De Motu Animalium 1978, p. 71)

I think Nussbaum’s explanation is more in keeping with what you say when you write,

What is important, as I see it, is “through the Spirit, we come to see that all that exists in any way is good”. It is as Ignatius said, “Seeing God in all things”

 

[Magnanimity]

I think Aristotle is closer to a process of “oneing” as Rohr and others call it. Sure, we can elevate the “true self”, but both the inner and the outer are beautiful and can be in harmony. It is the harmony that we are aiming for here.

Yeah, from my reading of some of the great thinkers of history, what bothers most of them is the incongruity between the body and the soul/mind. With the passage of time, our interior selves can greatly increase in maturation in overall wisdom. But, beginning around age 30, our bodies begin the slow decline toward eventual all-out decay. So, the interior and exterior selves seem to diverge at some mid-point in our lives. Perhaps this is what causes many to “elevate” the interior (and easily believe in an after-life–the soul’s enduring).

Can we identify the desire for status/glory as something innate?

Glory, yes. But this would get us to the final cause of humanity too–that for which we were made. We were made for glory. In the beginning, we were in a perfect garden. And then, Heaven is said to be a “beatific vision” - a luminous seeing of, and unity with, Goodness himself. I suppose we could say that desire for “status” is more of a low-level attempt at the ordered desire for glory. That’s how I would see it.

I am no different, as a person, than the most “prideful” individual I can point at.

One of my favorite lines from a film is when Colonel Brandon is speaking to Elinor Dashwood regarding their mutual friend, Edward Ferrars in Sense and Sensibility. (I’m a huuuuge Jane Austen fan.) Colonel Brandon says of Mr. Ferrars, “His behaviour has proved him proud–in the best sense.” Pride itself and desire for glory have certainly gotten a bad wrap throughout the centuries. But yes, we do well to remember that they point back to our amazing primal origins (image and likeness of God) and forward to our ultimate destiny.

 

[OneSheep]

“The formal cause is what makes a thing one thing rather than many things” & “A human body is the formal cause” are not wonderfully helpful ways of talking about formal causes. U. of Chicago professor Martha Nussbaum probably has my favorite explanation:

I think, especially for our purposes on this thread, that Nussbaum’s definition is a better guide. Thanks!

With the passage of time, our interior selves can greatly increase in maturation in overall wisdom. But, beginning around age 30, our bodies begin the slow decline toward eventual all-out decay. So, the interior and exterior selves seem to diverge at some mid-point in our lives.

I understand this view of divergence, but I don’t see it as necessarily so. All of creation is in a motion of tearing down and rebuilding as an overall growth is taking place. At a cellular level, cells die and new ones created; this motion of demolition and rebuilding has both a micro and macro scale. Inside, there is also a “dying” that takes place in order for growth to occur. But these are more of a harmony of process.

When it comes to Augustine’s roadblocks, what he was experiencing, at least possibly, was a disharmony of affect concerning different aspects of himself. When he says something like “justice is what I desire” in context he feels a positive affect, a righteousness, and when he says “I stank in your eyes” he is likely feeling something negative about himself. I harmony of affect would involve integrating what is within and without toward which we feel some negative emotion.

 

[OneSheep]

His behaviour has proved him proud–in the best sense.

Yes, pride is a multi-faceted word. When I was referring to “pointing” at the other, I was talking about the “worst sense” not the best, of course.

I suppose we could say that desire for “status” is more of a low-level attempt at the ordered desire for glory. That’s how I would see it.

And that statement is in keeping with Augustine’s way of integrating other base motives as we first discussed in Book 2, Chapter 5 (I think) where he talked about “lower goods”. Yes, definitely, when we see it as a good, when we can integrate it as part of who we are, we see desire for status is a lower good. Now, please skip the next paragraph, it may cause some revulsion.

For those who think more in terms of biology and natural science, (materialism) desire for status in primates is a trait that leads to motivation to dominate, to be popular, etc., and that will lead to more ability to sire offspring. This is manifested in some unpredictable ways. Baboons, which have a matriarchal society, males become popular by grooming females, and become especially popular by befriending babies (after befriending the mother). Males aggressive to all other males or any female are shunned; they end up having to leave and try making a new start with a different troop. We humans can learn from this, but it is best just to observe our own desire for status, accept it, but be free from it by going deeper. We don’t have to beat it out of ourselves, like the ascetics, IMO. Desire for status is there, it’s good, but it’s quite superficial. We can observe it in ourselves and smile about it.

I was speaking to a scholar who spent a lot of time on Augustine, and he described Augustine as an “opportunist”. Unlike Aquinas, Augustine was not so concerned about contradicting himself from one occasion to the next; he was basically speaking to different groups and modified what he was saying in order to argue for or against. Apparently he later tried to make it all work together, complete with revision of some of his earlier positions, but he never completed the project. What I am saying here is that Augustine definitely makes a commitment to showing that all that exists is good, but his affective reactions get in the way, like they do for all of us.

Shall we move onto a different roadblock?

 

[Magnanimity]

But these are more of a harmony of process.

One day, I hope to share your optimistic view regarding a harmony of the soul/mind and body. Perhaps I just haven’t done enough reading and pondering on it.

And that statement is in keeping with Augustine’s way of integrating other base motives as we first discussed in Book 2, Chapter 5 (I think) where he talked about “lower goods”. Yes, definitely, when we see it as a good, when we can integrate it as part of who we are, we see desire for status is a lower good.

OK, so what you’re getting at with integration is that one can still hold to “lower goods” and “higher goods,” in the process, a type of hierarchy then? I’m all in favor of hierarchies! So far, so good. When you say,

We don’t have to beat it out of ourselves, like the ascetics, IMO. Desire for status is there, it’s good, but it’s quite superficial. We can observe it in ourselves and smile about it.

I guess I still want to see desire-for-status as a lower-order attempt at something, which is both an intrinsic good and part of the formal aspect/cause of humanity–desire for glory. The desire for riches, fame, many friends, a gorgeous wife, a prestigious job–all of this is subsumed (for me) within the general good for desire for glory. As in, desire to manifest the glorious stature that is proper to a being made in the image and likeness of God.

Unlike Aquinas, Augustine was not so concerned about contradicting himself from one occasion to the next; he was basically speaking to different groups and modified what he was saying in order to argue for or against.

Reminds me of St Paul’s “becoming all things to all men.” At least, that’s a charitable way of seeing St. Augustine. And I owe him a lot of charity because I emphatically disagree with not a few of his fundamental teachings on human nature and the final end of man. Or, maybe I just disagree with some of his opportunistic writings.

Shall we move onto a different roadblock?

Yes, let’s do.

 

[OneSheep]

When you say,

I guess I still want to see desire-for-status as a lower-order attempt at something, which is both an intrinsic good and part of the formal aspect/cause of humanity–desire for glory. The desire for riches, fame, many friends, a gorgeous wife, a prestigious job–all of this is subsumed (for me) within the general good for desire for glory. As in, desire to manifest the glorious stature that is proper to a being made in the image and likeness of God.

Well, to me that is a bit of a stretch. Let me offer something I gleaned from Marie-Dominique Chenu (have you heard of him?), who quoted William of Saint-Thierry:

With bitter irony William of Saint-Theirry protested against those who condemned the search for causes. These men were bent upon a search for the cause of things… and activity proper to science, and one which clashed violently with religious consciousness, which when it was yet inexperienced and immature, was willing to engage in its characteristic activity of looking immediately to the Supreme Cause, at the expense of disregarding secondary causes. St. Thomas would react firmly against this dissociation of religion from natural science: “To slight the perfection of created things is to slight the perfection of divine power.” This is literally what William of Conches had said, and the shock it produced among men of the twelfth century was no less great. With bitter irony William of Saint-Theirry protested against those who condemned the search for causes:

“Ignorant themselves of the forces of nature and wanting to have company in their ignorance, they don’t want people to look into anything; they want us to believe like peasants and not to ask the reason behind things… But we say that the reason behind everything should be sought out… If they learn that anyone is so inquiring, they shout out that he is a heretic, placing more reliance on their monkish garb than on their wisdom.”

When I’m looking at desire for status, I am not going so deep as to equate it with the desire for “glorious stature” which would definitely, in my mind, have more to do with the “true self”, a deeper part of who we are. For example, the “true self” is first of all a place of aware humility, nothing that elevates the person above others or gives one a feeling of power.

The desires we have discussed so far, like desire for dominance, desire for control, desire for status, are what I am seeing as secondary causes. They are very superficial, “lower goods”.

St Augustine certainly had no negative feelings about a person’s “glorious stature” in terms of the humble place we have in relationship to the Father. His roadblocks involved the secondary stuff.

 

[OneSheep]

Reminds me of St Paul’s “becoming all things to all men.” At least, that’s a charitable way of seeing St. Augustine. And I owe him a lot of charity because I emphatically disagree with not a few of his fundamental teachings on human nature and the final end of man. Or, maybe I just disagree with some of his opportunistic writings.

Well, I think it’s pretty clear that HE disagreed with some of his OWN opportunistic writings, at least if taken out of the context of the argument he was making.

Yes, let’s do.

I’m a little busy to get at that today, but I will try this weekend. ln the mean time, I am wondering what you think about what I said about “secondary causes”.

 

[Magnanimity]

Let me offer something I gleaned from Marie-Dominique Chenu (have you heard of him?), who quoted William of Saint-Thierry:

That was a really good quote. Thanks for sharing. I was recently reading about W. Norris Clarke (whose works I am likely to pour myself into during 2020), and the author stated that,

“Father Clarke had an enthusiasm for the exploration of reality that was infectious. He was a man who looked at the world with the wonder of a child and always wanted to know more about it, convinced that this desire was not a vain one.
In The One and the Many, he noted that a good metaphysician needed both a diving suit and a set of wings—the diving suit to explore the particulars of reality with as much detail and depth as needed and the wings to soar as high as needed to be able to see how everything adds up.“

Your Chenu quote made me think especially of the metaphors in that second paragraph. A diving suit and a set of wings, I think that’s what you’re trying to do in this thread.

The desires we have discussed so far, like desire for dominance, desire for control, desire for status, are what I am seeing as secondary causes. They are very superficial, “lower goods”.

I’m ok with these concepts, seeing them as secondary causes. I think I also called them earlier “lower goods.” I would only want the constant caveat that, try as we might (and even when we’re not particularly trying) we don’t ever outrun the “true self.” We cannot escape it. Aristotle’s insight in his opening lines of the NE are so true they’re almost haunting (like St Augustine’s opening lines to the Confessions).

Every art and every inquiry, and similarly every action and pursuit, is thought to aim at some good; and for this reason the good has rightly been declared to be that at which all things aim.

So even when humans lack fullness in their acts or pursuits, nevertheless the orientation toward the good is ever-present. Since I believe this firmly, I’m always looking for the good kernel in any “secondary cause.” As in, what is the reason why he wants status?

 

[OneSheep]

A diving suit and a set of wings, I think that’s what you’re trying to do in this thread.

Yes, it is a scientific process, much as Augustine himself was engaged in the same.

I would only want the constant caveat that, try as we might (and even when we’re not particularly trying) we don’t ever outrun the “true self.” We cannot escape it.

Yes, genetic coding for desire power, status, wealth (territory), etc., which aids in survival (secondary cause?) is not to be equated with the true self, which we have access to through prayer that transcends the appetite. When one keeps asking questions, we cannot escape the true self.

Every art and every inquiry, and similarly every action and pursuit, is thought to aim at some good; and for this reason the good has rightly been declared to be that at which all things aim.

Nice quote!

Since I believe this firmly, I’m always looking for the good kernel in any “secondary cause.” As in, what is the reason why he wants status?

And if you were to simply ask him, what could he say? “Everyone wants that”, “It’s human” or for a teen maybe “to be more attractive to the ladies” or “So people will listen to me, respect me” (the last one is saying "I want status so I can have status). Maybe its “I want power”, and in a sense when this is pursued it could go to “I don’t want to suffer at the hands of others, I want to be in control, I want things to go my way”. All these things are tied together and contribute to the individual’s survival and ability to reproduce (“secondary cause”, if I’m using the vocabulary correctly). We are hard-wired for it.

And then, yes, “what is the reason why we have this survival secondary cause?” and for that answer, those of faith go to the mystery of relationship with God, the deeper happiness, something better explained by the Eucharist than by words.

 

[OneSheep]

Yes, let’s do.

Okay, I’ve got my book, let’s go!

My own book has a translation that to me has more of a rhetorical style. I have found two other translations online, and these are quite a bit different in tone than my own, by John K. Ryan. Ryan’s translation is much more rhetorical and moving in style, which is more likely in keeping with the draw of Augustine’s ministry. So here is Ryan’s translation:

“For in your eyes what was then more vile than I? By my deeds I even displeased such men, by countless lies deceiving tutor and masters and parents out of love for play, desire to see frivolous shows, and restless hope of imitating the stage.”

Confessions Book 1 Chapter 19

Or in this translation it is in Book 1 chapter 18:

https://www.ling.upenn.edu/courses/hum100/augustinconf.pdf

I think we have sort of already addressed his desire for play and fun, which he also appears to have found abominable or waste (but for most people not unconscionable, especially for children), so what I would like to focus on here is the capacity for deceiving others, (lying) which is a practically universal part of people’s conscience to some degree. Indeed, even capuchin monkeys punish, when caught, one in their troop that falsely signals a predator threat.

Augustine identifies his lying, he confesses it, but he does not appear to see his capacity to lie as part of the “good” of creation.

What do we know today that would help the great Saint integrate his capacity to lie? What would help us, in this case discover “Through the Spirit, we see that whatsoever exists in any way is good”?

 

[Magnanimity]

And then, yes, “what is the reason why we have this survival secondary cause?” and for that answer, those of faith go to the mystery of relationship with God, the deeper happiness,

For my reading of St Augustine’s Confessions, I’ll be using the translation contained in the original set of the Great Books of the Western World. I’ve had this set for about 20 years. The “syntopicon” is one of the coolest pieces of research-product I’ve ever seen. About a year ago, when I read the article in the syntopicon on “wisdom,” I was struck by a line there. The author(s) of the entry on wisdom said that “the human race does not seem to grow in wisdom,” just individual people grow in wisdom. The human race obviously grows in knowledge in a great many areas–math, the sciences, theology…but not in wisdom. I don’t know if that’s right (perhaps it is) but it’s rather a haunting thought, to me.

I’ve come to believe that spiritual people are a type of people, like mathematical people are a type of people (and athletes are a type of people). We won’t all excel at math. We can’t all be professional athletes. And, in the same vein, it’s not clear to me that we can all be equally spiritual. I think, perhaps, it takes a particular psychological temperament to even be disposed to seeking spiritual truths and paths. Now, I agree with many (e.g., Elizabeth Anscombe) who assert that all humans have a transcendental tug toward the Infinite. I assume this “tug” results from God constantly reaching out to us in the depths of our core-being, like JH Newman argued. But not all of us are similary disposed to engage with God in our consciences. We can’t shut Him out altogether, I suppose. But, some completely detach and go and listen to God in the desert while others feel no real need to alter their lives much at all (and so never become particularly “religious”), and then there’s everything in between. Trying to account for the vast disparity within humanity of the extent to which we are or are not spiritual/religious is somewhat mysterious. And perhaps I’ve got it wrong here. But, something must account for it in a world where, as Aquinas says, nothing is ungoverned by God. It is all within His providence.

And if you were to simply ask him, what could he say?

So, given what I’ve written above, there’s really no telling how Jo or Jane Doe would respond to the question of “why do you think it is that you seek status?” His or her answer will greatly depend on what type of path they’re walking and how far along they are on it.

 

[Magnanimity]

But, what I find most interesting is that I can identify something good/positive in each of the replies that you gave.

“Everyone wants that” “It’s human”

could translate to, “there is nothing unusual about my desire. My behavior is in harmony with my fellow man. And it’s good to be in solidarity with our neighbors.”

for a teen maybe “to be more attractive to the ladies”

After all, everyone wants to be found desirable, right?

“So people will listen to me, respect me”

Everyone deserves a “voice,” no exceptions. And civility requires that when others are voicing themselves, we allow them to continue doing so.

“I don’t want to suffer at the hands of others"

Nor does anyone. Perhaps most of us accept a certain level of suffering caused by “natural evil,” but suffering imposed by “the other” is something we often reject.

so what I would like to focus on here is the capacity for deceiving others, (lying) which is a practically universal part of people’s conscience to some degree. Indeed, even capuchin monkeys punish, when caught, one in their troop that falsely signals a predator threat.

In this case from nature, one capuchin monkey has attempted to lead the entire tribe astray and in so doing, he has elevated himself above the group. And this is a fundamental violation of wisdom itself. As Spock said, “the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.”

On the ancient Greek insight that “the good is that at which all [human] things aim,” then we would need to wonder what good a person is after when she lies.

 

[Magnanimity]

My daughter told a lie to me the other day that I felt was strange. As in, I didn’t see the need for the lie. It took me a moment to identify what good she was aiming at, in the act of lying. And I eventually keyed-in on a few goods she might have been after.

I had set her up on my work laptop, so she could use the embedded camera on it for a Zoom-like meeting with her teacher and fellow classmates. However, what I didn’t know until she admitted the lie (falsehood, more accurately) was that she had thought she had a meeting that day, but it was actually scheduled for the next day. She even “acted” a part, pretending to interact with the teacher and other students for a little while, even though she was watching an older (not live) video of her class in a meeting with the teacher. About 20 minutes into this, she slowly took off her headphones and looked at me and said, “actually, I don’t have a class meeting for today…I’m sorry I lied.” But, the “lie” in this case was the false pretending for the sake of making me think she was indeed participating in a live classroom meeting.

So, what would have possessed her to do this? Isn’t it a simpler thing to just admit “oh wait, I must have the days mixed up. No meeting today, dad” ? What could account for her “acting a part?” Perhaps she had begun watching an old video, thinking it was live, giving her own live responses to questions, only to realize, several minutes in, that the video was an older recording. Admitting at that time that she had gotten it wrong would be embarrassing. And no one wants to feel embarrassed. Perhaps she even anticipated that I or her siblings would make fun of her for getting it so wrong. She actually has an “acting bug” right now, wants to try out for middle school plays next year. So, perhaps once she realized her error, she decided to act a part for me, to see how believable she could be. (She was very believable. I was sitting near her at the dining table, and I never suspected anything!)

Immanuel Kant would have us believe that the most reasonable moral position on lying is that there is an absolute prohibition against it, ever, under any circumstances. Although Kant got a lot right (I completely accept as true his categorical imperative) he very much missed the boat on this one. Whenever anyone lies, the question to be sought after is, “what good was the person trying to achieve in the lie.” To my thinking, there will always be an identifiable good in any act of lying. What do you think?