St. Augustine's roadblocks in his Confessions

[Magnanimity]

If I witness a person “refusing to admit” or exhibiting “willful blindness”, does that ever strike a negative affect within?

Good question, and I suppose the answer is “sometimes.” It depends on the context. The more I know about a person, the more readily I might be able to accept a willful blindness. As one grows older (and tries to grow wiser!) the more one realizes the vast influences on human lives that come in from all directions. A reaction I might have is, “why is this person behaving this way?” But, I usually believe that if I had enough background about this person’s life, I could understand their behavior and not judge them.

If I see and feel negatively toward a person who “refuses to admit” and I simply address the negativity with “I shouldn’t feel negatively” then I have bypassed the opportunity for deeper awareness.

By which you mean, I have suppressed my reaction and thereby bypassed the opportunity? I totally agree that suppression is not the answer, and for those of us engaged in daily spiritual-work, suppression seems always to be a risk. Something like a “welcoming practice” of the Trappist tradition would be needed, if coupled with further attempts at awareness.

 

[OneSheep]

Good question, and I suppose the answer is “sometimes.” It depends on the context. The more I know about a person, the more readily I might be able to accept a willful blindness

Exactly. One interesting-even-fun exercise is to try to discern in what cases one judges (condemns) and in what cases not, playing the what-if game. This can help narrow down the content of the shadow.

At a recent retreat, a friend and I got into a discussion about “willful blindness”. I told him that it was my observation that when a person willfully chooses blindness, he is already blind in some manner. He disagreed, and the next day he came with a book called “Willful Blindness”

The point is, do we condemn certain people’s choices, or do we understand them? If I’m condemning, I’m not understanding. If I’m condoning, I may not be understanding either.
To clarify: the choice itself may be a bad choice, but there can be found an underlying innocence, an unchosen blindness underlying a chosen blindness.

A reaction I might have is, “why is this person behaving this way?”

Exactly, with a non-accusatory tone. All of us are familiar with “Why did he do that?!” with accusation.

For the above, the question would be, “Why did he choose to be blind?”. If the answer is “because he is prideful/jealous/greedy etc.”, anything that points to another negative, then it is time to keep looking.

Did I tell you what got the ball rolling for me? It was a priest who told me “It is not to condemn or condone, but understand.”

But, I usually believe that if I had enough background about this person’s life, I could understand their behavior and not judge them.

In my experience, more often than not I cannot know enough about a person’s life to come to complete understanding in their context. And actually, it doesn’t even matter! What does matter is to work through what I am projecting on the other. So if I ask someone, “what was going through his mind when he made that bad choice?” and the person answers “I don’t know, and it is impossible for me to know”, my response is “Well, take a guess at it.”. The guessing goes to the heart of what is being projected, and may in itself reveal the content of the shadow.

 

[Magnanimity]

One of the major themes of his Confessions is his condemnation of many aspects of his childhood. He painfully confesses (names) his sins and his motives, and he claims them (identification), which is great, but does not take the next step, using the gift of understanding (through the Spirit) to see that even with those motives we are still “good”.

It is a matter of looking at the motives with an eye of Understanding rather than condemnation.

Agreed. Perhaps, if the great Saint had lived in the 20th century, he could have availed himself of the insights provided by the social sciences.

Why do we have an innate capacity for jealousy ?

Oh my, well in the context of his example, we have such a young child that he is not even yet speaking. So, we are imagining a young toddler, around the age of 1 or 2. (My children were speaking in sentences and were weaned before turning 3, so we have quite the youngster here in his example.) A child at this age is utterly reliant on “the mother” for everything. The child’s identity is entirely wrapped up with her’s, but he is beginning to explore the world a little on his own. He has experienced frustration on many levels by this point. Toys do not always behave as we expect they might, other children around you perhaps take the toys from you when you’re playing with them, etc. So, negative emotional reactions have begun for the toddler. And this is just a particular type of negative emotional reaction, presumably little different from the other toddler playing with a toy that he likes.

A Psychology Today article has this to say about the nature of jealousy, “Jealousy is distinguished from envy in that jealousy always involves a third party seen as a rival for affection or attention. Envy occurs between only two people and is best summed up as, ‘I want what you have.’” So, what is “the good” that can be identified in the child at this point? As in, what is the good that underlies jealousy? At a very basic level, it seems that it must be at least this–I should have good things. I deserve good things. In the case of the toddler, he has yet to learn that he cannot fill everyone moment of his day with these good things, so he thinks, “I should have these good things now!” Nevertheless, the discovery that one should have good things is a spiritual insight. It fits nicely within the Genesis framework that humans are made in the image and likeness of God, which means, at the very least, that we have intrinsic dignity/value/worth/sanctity/sacredness. A creature of this stature would reasonably expect good things during its existence, like being nurtured by the mother during a feeding. So, the painful process that we all must go through is that this expectation/hope for good things is sometimes deferred due to our own limitations of space and time. So sometimes the goods we know we deserve must be put off until later.

 

[OneSheep]

So, what is “the good” that can be identified in the child at this point? As in, what is the good that underlies jealousy? At a very basic level, it seems that it must be at least this–I should have good things. I deserve good things

Yes, I agree. Condemnation of jealousy is condemnation of an instinct. Jung said that much of the content of the shadow is basically condemnation of aspects of instinct.

What I like to do is find other examples in nature where, i.e., jealousy can be observed. Did you know that baby birds watch one another when the mother comes with food? It has been found that they not only watch each other, but they will stretch higher when they see a nest mate higher than their own position. Also, there is competition for parent attention and food found in many other species.

Siblings do this because parents are overwhelmed and can actually feed the biggest (or the cutest, or the most aggressive) one first because it is easier. It can be observed that innate jealousy is an effect of sibling rivalry in species.

Can you see that jealousy contributes to the ability to survive and thrive? That the emotion drives the individual to get enough? This is especially important when there is a lack of food.

If so, can you see that there is a functional beauty in the emotion of/capacity for/ jealousy, can you look at something that we are trained to despise, and instead see something good? I’m not looking for a “right answer”, because there can be a lot more involved when we look at “jealousy” (and note that I am not addressing being enslaved by jealousy, or being blinded by jealousy which are separate issues).

so he thinks, “I should have these good things now!”

Do you see a functional beauty?

So, the painful process that we all must go through is that this expectation/hope for good things is sometimes deferred due to our own limitations of space and time. So sometimes the goods we know we deserve must be put off until later.

Yes, this is a discipline and awareness that involves transcending the innate emotion/drive. Jesus calls us to transcend our natural instincts.

 

[Vico]

… It might be interesting to begin a discussion about his possible roadblocks/contradictions by addressing his chapter that deals directly with the shadow, Book 2, Ch5, Why Men Sin, in which he shows some amazingly insightful shadow integration.
…

Augustine was Born A.D. 354 and baptized by Ambrose at Milan during Eastertide, A.D. 387. His age then was about 32 or 33. He writes in Book 2, Ch5 about age 16 before his baptism.
He states in that chapter “So it seems that even Catiline [a savage and brutal man] himself loved not his own villainies, but something else, and it was this that gave him the motive for his crimes.” He then gives later in the next chapter the insight that the malice (deliberate choice of evil) through pride is the origin:

For thus we see pride wearing the mask of high-spiritedness, although only thou, O God, art high above all. Ambition seeks honor and glory, whereas only thou shouldst be honored above all, and glorified forever. The powerful man seeks to be feared, because of his cruelty; but who ought really to be feared but God only?
And in Confessions, Book VIII, Chapter VII, 17. Speaking of his youth (to 31 years, about A.D. 385, prior to his baptism) he identifies his malice:
“For many of my years–perhaps twelve–had passed away since my nineteenth, when, upon the reading of Cicero’s Hortensius, I was roused to a desire for wisdom. And here I was, still postponing the abandonment of this world’s happiness to devote myself to the search.” … “And I had wandered through perverse ways of godless superstition–not really sure of it, either, but preferring it to the other, which I did not seek in piety, but opposed in malice.”

 

[OneSheep]

He states in that chapter “So it seems that even Catiline [a savage and brutal man] himself loved not his own villainies, but something else, and it was this that gave him the motive for his crimes.” He then gives later in the next chapter the insight that the malice (deliberate choice of evil) through pride is the origin

We have no reason to believe that the “something else” is different than the rest of the examples in the same paragraph, Vico. If we don’t see that he is using Cataline as an example of someone obtaining “these goods” (see the first sentence of the paragraph) then we have missed the point.

People do not love their own “villanies”, but the goods obtained by such action.

And in Confessions, Book VIII, Chapter VII, 17. Speaking of his youth (to 31 years, about A.D. 385, prior to his baptism) he identifies his malice

He also says in the that: “I, a most wretched youth, wretched from the very start of my youth…”

What do you see as the underlying emotion that Augustine feels in the above line? How does he feel about himself as a youth?

 

[Vico]

…

Q. We have no reason to believe that the “something else” is different than the rest of the examples in the same paragraph, Vico. If we don’t see that he is using Cataline as an example of someone obtaining “these goods” (see the first sentence of the paragraph) then we have missed the point.
A. The quote was that he did not love his villainies, but something else. So he indicates the something else, and just a few sentences later identified pride motive with: "For so doth pride imitate exaltedness; whereas Thou alone art God exaltedover all. "

Q. What do you see as the underlying emotion that Augustine feels in the above line? How does he feel about himself as a youth?
A. Remorse. Book Two, Chapter X “I fell away from thee, O my God, and in my youth I wandered too far from thee, my true support. And I became to myself a wasteland.”

 

[OneSheep]

The quote was that he did not love his villainies, but something else. So he indicates the something else, and just a few sentences later identified pride motive with: "For so doth pride imitate exaltedness; whereas Thou alone art God exaltedover all. "

That would be not in keeping with the theme of the paragraph it contained, in which he gives several examples of people’s love of “something else” rather than the crimes. The “something else’s” were listed as the neighbor’s wife and property, as well as honor, power, wealth, and freedom from fears.

If you are saying that these are not the “something else’s” he is referring to, then that would mean you have some special access to Augustine’s thoughts on the matter. As the writing stands, the words concerning Cataline, in context, were that Cataline himself wanted something “beautiful and fitting”, though they are clearly “lower goods”.

The lines you are referring to are not in the same chapter, let alone the same paragraph. Surely, he indicates pride as an error, but it is a different chapter, and does not refer to the words about Cataline.

Q. What do you see as the underlying emotion that Augustine feels in the above line? How does he feel about himself as a youth?
A. Remorse. Book Two, Chapter X “I fell away from thee, O my God, and in my youth I wandered too far from thee, my true support. And I became to myself a wasteland.”

Yes, I do believe that he had some remorse. Let’s go a little further.

If someone says “I am wretched”, is he seeing the goodness in himself? Is he taking joy in his existence? Is he, through the Spirit, seeing that his existence (at the time of his childhood) was good?

When a person refers to someone as “wretched”, do you sense any self-judgment or self-condemnation?

 

[Vico]

…

Q. That would be not in keeping with the theme of the paragraph it contained, in which he gives several examples of people’s love of “something else” rather than the crimes. The “something else’s” were listed as the neighbor’s wife and property, as well as honor, power, wealth, and freedom from fears.
A. I think you are not reading what I posted. I posted, in agreement, that it was something else. What but pride is: “honors, empire, and wealth, and thus be exempt from the fear of the laws”.

Q. When a person refers to someone as “wretched”, do you sense any self-judgment or self-condemnation?
If someone says “I am wretched”, is he seeing the goodness in himself?
Is he taking joy in his existence?
Is he, through the Spirit, seeing that his existence (at the time of his childhood) was good?
A. Wretched means “in a very unhappy or unfortunate state”, so not necessarily, the context and other remarks must be considered. For his youth he makes many remarks, for example in Chapter I he states: “I was still pleasing to my own eyes”, in Chapter II he said he experienced “proud dejection and restless lassitude”. In Chapter IV he states: “I loved my own undoing. I loved my error–not that for which I erred but the error itself” In Chapter VI he says: “I stole those [pears] simply that I might steal, for, having stolen them, I threw them away. My sole gratification in them was my own sin, which I was pleased to enjoy;”.

 

[OneSheep]

Q. What but pride is: [want of] “honor, [power], and wealth, and be [free] from fear” of loss of these.

A: Appetites that seek a “good” that is “fitting” and/or “beautiful”, according to St. Augustine in Book 2, Chapter 5, of Confessions.

Note: bracketed corrections are closer to the text I quoted. I was not addressing the text you quoted.

Wretched means “in a very unhappy or unfortunate state”, so not necessarily

I’m not sure what you mean by “not necessarily”, even with your following explanation. My apologies.

Do you sense that Augustine was at times self-condemning in the book, that he saw himself as bad in some way?

 

[Vico]

…

Q. A: Appetites that seek a “good” that is “fitting” and/or “beautiful”, according to St. Augustine in Book 2, Chapter 5, of Confessions. Note: bracketed corrections are closer to the text I quoted. I was not addressing the text you quoted.
A. I think you are using a different translation for what I have is in Book Two, Chapter V has this with regard to his example of Catiline:

And to what purpose? Why, even this: that, having once got possession of the city through his
practice of his wicked ways, he might gain honors, empire, and wealth …

And I remark that this is pride.

You asked, along with other questions: do you sense any self-judgment or self-condemnation?
So the answer is not necessarily.

 

[OneSheep]

And to what purpose? Why, even this: that, having once got possession of the city through his
practice of his wicked ways, he might gain honors, empire, and wealth …

And I remark that this is pride.

Okay, it is your remark, and it makes sense, except some clarification is needed, in the context of the topic of this thread. You may be expressing a judgment, for example, but not necessarily so.

Q: When you used the word “pride” above, are you expressing a judgment (negative affect) of an aspect of human nature? If you are, it would be the more common human experience.

You asked, along with other questions: do you sense any self-judgment or self-condemnation?
So the answer is not necessarily.

I agree. However, given much of the ways he expresses himself, I believe it is accurate to say that St. Augustine was judging aspects of himself and humanity. For example, he gives an example of a child being jealous as evidence of

“sin within him (man) you (God) have not made” Book 1, Ch 7.

Q: Are you sensing that Augustine had some negative feelings about human capacity for jealousy?

 

[Vico]

…

Q: When you used the word “pride” above, are you expressing a judgment (negative affect) of an aspect of human nature? If you are, it would be the more common human experience.
A. No. St. Augustine used the word wicked in his example of Catiline’s willful actions of his topic to “inquire why a crime was committed” in Book Two, Chapter V, 11. He writes:

And to what purpose? Why, even this: that, having once got possession of the city through his practice of his wicked ways, he might gain honors, empire, and wealth, and thus be exempt from the fear of the laws and from financial difficulties in supplying the needs of his family–and from the consciousness of his own wickedness.

It is pride as St. Augustine describes later in Book Three, Chapter VIII, 16.

Q: Are you sensing that Augustine had some negative feelings about human capacity for jealousy?
A. About capacity, no, he hates the actual acts. In Book 5, Chapter XII, 22 he states:

Now I hate such crooked and perverse men although I love them if they will be corrected and come to prefer the learning they obtain to money and, above all, to prefer thee to such learning, O God, the truth and fullness of our positive good, and our most pure peace.

 

[OneSheep]

Q: When you used the word “pride” above, are you expressing a judgment (negative affect) of an aspect of human nature? If you are, it would be the more common human experience.
A. No.

Q: For further clarification, then, would you put “pride” among the positive aspects of human nature? If not, please explain.

Q: Are you sensing that Augustine had some negative feelings about human capacity for jealousy?
A. About capacity, no, he hates the actual acts. In Book 5, Chapter XII, 22 he states:

Now I hate such crooked and perverse men although I love them if they will be corrected and come to prefer the learning they obtain to money and, above all, to prefer thee to such learning, O God, the truth and fullness of our positive good, and our most pure peace.

Q: Notice that Augustine uses the words “crooked and perverse” as a characterization of the men themselves. Are you suggesting that he has no judgmental feelings toward those people? If I were to say that “Joe” was “crooked and perverse”, what would I be communicating about his character and value as a person? If certain people valued my opinion, how would those people be inclined to feel about Joe himself after hearing my words?

Q: Are you sensing that Augustine had some negative feelings about human capacity for jealousy?
A. About capacity, no, he hates the actual acts

Thank you Vico, but it looks like some more clarification is needed. Augustine wrote in Book 1, Ch 7: “for you have made him, but the sin within him (man) you (God) have not made”

Q: Are you saying that Augustine says “actual acts” are “within” man? What is an act within a person? Does Augustine use the word “made” differently in that same sentence? God “making” man is an event creating a physical being, not merely an action. Please explain what Augustine is referring to as far as what is the sin “made” within man.

What I am seeing Augustine writing here is an expression of a very normal conscience. When we see a person do evil, we immediately feel negatively toward the person, even though we may consciously or subconsciously resist the negative feeling.

 

[Vico]

…

Q: For further clarification, then, would you put “pride” among the positive aspects of human nature? If not, please explain.

Q: Are you sensing that Augustine had some negative feelings about human capacity for jealousy?

Q: Notice that Augustine uses the words “crooked and perverse” as a characterization of the men themselves. Are you suggesting that he has no judgmental feelings toward those people? If I were to say that “Joe” was “crooked and perverse”, what would I be communicating about his character and value as a person? If certain people valued my opinion, how would those people be inclined to feel about Joe himself after hearing my words?
A. Their actions were morally wrong and that is objective fact. Culpability (which requires making a condemnation) is another matter entirely. It is not excessively critical to note wickedness. The wicked may pridefully hate seeing it stated. As St. Augustine said of Cataline “of whom it was said that he was gratuitously wicked and cruel” and that a motive of his actions could be “and from the consciousness of his own wickedness.”

Q: Are you saying that Augustine says “actual acts” are “within” man? What is an act within a person? Does Augustine use the word “made” differently in that same sentence? God “making” man is an event creating a physical being, not merely an action. Please explain what Augustine is referring to as far as what is the sin “made” within man.
A. The will is within the man and God did not make the choices for an angel or human, it is freewill.

 

[Magnanimity]

Siblings do this because parents are overwhelmed and can actually feed the biggest (or the cutest, or the most aggressive) one first because it is easier.

Did I ever tell you that I’m a father of 5?! Believe me, I know firsthand what you’re describing here. And it’s very true—the human equivalent of the pecking order comes out in them. And the thing is, as their parent and not wanting them to believe that the strongest or the cutest always wins, I’ll arbitrarily give food to whomever I wish at the time (and I’ll change it up). Or, I’ll have the strongest put his plate down and help me serve the others. What do you think of my behavior here? Should I just let nature take its course and let the strongest or cutest get served first?

Can you see that jealousy contributes to the ability to survive and thrive?

Survive? Absolutely. Thrive? I suppose it depends what you mean by that. I don’t believe that a human male operating under the assumption that his strength will normally win the day leads to a thriving human life, as that’s not actually true in civil societies (unless in rare cases where strength is directly relevant). So, ’might makes right’ is a no-go for human thriving, as far as I can tell. Surviving? Yes. Thriving, I don’t see it, unless you’re meaning something else with that term.
The same goes for cuteness (beauty). If I allow my daughter to win me over with her adorable smile and voice every time I’m serving up food, I’m likewise sending the wrong message—just always be the cutest female in the room and you’ll win the day. I don’t see how humans thrive with such behavior. I see no room for compassion in such a world where strength and beauty are thrown around by those who possess the highest dosages of them.

can you see that there is a functional beauty in…jealousy, can you look at something and…see something good?

I think so. But here, I am influenced by both St Thomas Aquinas (who believes that being is convertible with goodness) and St Ignatius (whose spirituality always has the practitioner ask, “where is God in this?”) But maybe even more basically, it’s just a wise path to always look for what is good in the activity/behavior you’re observing, long before you go about criticizing that behavior. Does that seem right?

Do you see a functional beauty?

I think what I was trying to express there was that I see a primordial understanding of one’s own imago dei You should have good things because, well, you’re worth it. I think that even at so early an age as that of a toddler, there is within the mind/heart of that toddler a primal instinct that she has intrinsic value/worth/dignity/sanctity. The toddler cannot articulate any of this, of course, but there is something like a primordial awareness of this fact about oneself that underlies the jealousy. It’s possible too that a primordial sense of justice is also present in the mind/heart of the toddler that affects the jealous response. What do you think?

 

[OneSheep]

Q: For further clarification, then, would you put “pride” among the positive aspects of human nature? If not, please explain.

I think you missed this one, Vico. It is relevant to this thread.

It is not excessively critical to note wickedness. The wicked may pridefully hate seeing it stated.

Wicked is defined as “one who does evil”, correct? In that sense, we are all wicked, we are all sinners. Is this the definition you are using, or when you say “the wicked”, are you characterizing individuals, making a statement of comparative value? (i.e. Wicked person=Bad person, someone to be labeled with condemnation?)

As St. Augustine said of Cataline “of whom it was said that he was gratuitously wicked and cruel” and that a motive of his actions could be “and from the consciousness of his own wickedness.”

Very interesting. You definitely have a different translation. My copy does not say “from the consciousness of his own wickedness”, mine says “from a guilty conscience” which makes much more sense in context.

Vico, the point Augustine was making was that people do evil in order to get something good. Look at what he says about murder:

“Would anyone commit murder without reason, and delight of murder itself? Who can believe such a thing?”
-Book 2, Chapter 5

What Augustine did not know is that some people actually take delight in murder, because the act itself gives them a sense of power, but even my statement in this sentence conforms to Augustine’s premise, that evil is done to obtain some (perceived) good, in this case a feeling of power.

Q: Are you saying that Augustine says “actual acts” are “within” man? What is an act within a person? Does Augustine use the word “made” differently in that same sentence? God “making” man is an event creating a physical being, not merely an action. Please explain what Augustine is referring to as far as what is the sin “made” within man.
A. The will is within the man and God did not make the choices for an angel or human, it is freewill.

The will is very heavily influenced by triggered emotions such as fear and loathing, which are not ordinarily “chosen”. The will is also heavily influenced by innate appetites. Jealousy, an emotional capacity, is not a “will”, but Augustine is using it as evidence of something “made” “within man” that is “what you (God) have not made”.

Since it is quite clear that jealousy is not an act, but a capacity, how do you support your statement that Augustine does not have negative feelings about the capacity?

Vico, if you cannot/will not recognize that Augustine truly has some negative feelings about the capacity for jealousy “within man”, I don’t see how you will be able to address the topic of this thread.

If you want to make the assertion that Augustine saw nothing but goodness in man, that he had no negative feelings about man’s nature, then you have a pretty steep hill to climb!

 

[Vico]

…

Confessions of St. Augustine translation I am using: https://www.ling.upenn.edu/courses/hum100/augustinconf.pdf

Q: For further clarification, then, would you put “pride” among the positive aspects of human nature? If not, please explain.
A. Pride is positive but can be negative when inordinate. Note from S.T. II, II, Question 162. Pride, A1 – St. Thomas Aquinas

“Pride [superbia] may be understood in two ways. First, as overpassing [supergreditur] the rule of reason, and in this sense we say that it is a sin. Secondly, it may simply denominate “super-abundance”; in which sense any super-abundant thing may be called pride: and it is thus that God promises pride as significant of super-abundant good”.
http://www.newadvent.org/summa/3162.htm

Q. Wicked is defined as “one who does evil”, correct?
A. Wicked adjective means “evil or morally wrong”. It does not mean there is culpability.

Q. Since it is quite clear that jealousy is not an act, but a capacity, how do you support your statement that Augustine does not have negative feelings about the capacity?
A. Jealousy is envy, to envy is covetousness which is a sinful act when willed.

Q. If you want to make the assertion that Augustine saw nothing but goodness in man, that he had no negative feelings about man’s nature, then you have a pretty steep hill to climb!
A. St. Augustine wrote in CONCERNING FAITH, HOPE, AND CHARITY of the good nature of man and relationship to good and evil done:

15. But when we say that evils arise out of goods, let not this be thought to oppose the utterance of the Lord, wherein He said, A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruits. For, as the Truth said, grapes cannot be gathered from thorns, because a grape cannot spring from thorns, but we see both grapes and thorns able to spring from good ground. And in the same way, as it were, an evil tree cannot bring forth good fruits, that is an evil will cannot produce good works, but from the good nature of man both good and evil will can arise; nor was there at all whence originally evil will should arise, except from the good nature of angel and man. Which the Lord Himself, in the same place, where He was speaking of the tree and its fruits, most clearly shews, for He says, Either make the tree good and its fruit good) or make the tree evil and its fruit evil 9 : sufficiently warning us, that from a good tree indeed evil fruits cannot spring, nor from an evil tree good fruits ; yet that each tree may spring from the same earth to which He was speaking.
Full text of "Saint Augustine, On instructing the unlearned ; Concerning faith of things not seen ; On the advantage of believing ; The Enchiridion to Laurentius, or, Concerning faith, hope, and charity"

Q. What Augustine did not know is that some people actually take delight in murder …
A. I think that is an incorrect assertion. See The restless heart of St. Augustine: Question 26 of 83 of St. Augustine's 83 Diverse Questions; Penance

St. Thomas Aquinas notes in S.T. that:
“… when a sin is committed through malice, the movement of sin belongs more to the will, which is then moved to evil of its own accord, than when a sin is committed through passion, when the will is impelled to sin by something extrinsic” …

 

[OneSheep]

Did I ever tell you that I’m a father of 5?! Believe me, I know firsthand what you’re describing here. And it’s very true—the human equivalent of the pecking order comes out in them.

And the thing is, as their parent and not wanting them to believe that the strongest or the cutest always wins, I’ll arbitrarily give food to whomever I wish at the time (and I’ll change it up). Or, I’ll have the strongest put his plate down and help me serve the others. What do you think of my behavior here? Should I just let nature take its course and let the strongest or cutest get served first?

Love the question. Evolutionary psychologists have done many studies concerning the benefits of anger, as well as what goes on with “cute” people. It has been found that good-looking people are much more likely to resort to anger to get their way, due to cause-and-effect training. As children, they, like all children, got angry when they didn’t get their way. Well, we parents naturally want to ingratiate the cute ones (oh, we hate to see them cry!). The not-so-cute are not so ingratiated, so they learn that anger doesn’t work, in fact, it may get them reprimanded. Subconsciously, the cute child learns that anger works, and the not-so learn that it gets them in trouble. “Cute” people also have a greater sense of entitlement, for the same reasons, having to do with parenting. None of it is deliberate, we are doing what seems quite natural without even thinking about it.

What you are doing, by treating the children equally despite who is the most aggressive or “cute”, is transcending your human nature. Congratulations!

 

[OneSheep]

Thrive? I suppose it depends what you mean by that. I don’t believe that a human male operating under the assumption that his strength will normally win the day leads to a thriving human life, as that’s not actually true in civil societies… So, ’might makes right’ is a no-go for human thriving.

Yes, the stand alone capacities would not lead to a thriving. For example, male aggression generally leads to dominance, but in matriarchal baboon society, aggressive males are shunned. The only way they win over females is to befriend them and befriend other males. The aggressiveness is important to some degree, but by itself does not lead to a “thriving”.

Jealousy motivates individuals to basically stand up for themselves, pushing us to work to influence our environment to our individual benefit. In a civil society, one must transcend jealousy to get along better.

I am looking at a global sense of the word “thrive”, that it is part of a repertoire of drives and emotions that benefit the species. When there is a lack of resources, all of our drives and emotions contribute to motivate us to do something more to survive. The baby bird that experiences no jealousy is simply less likely to survive - and subsequently thrive.

Does that help clarify? Survive- and then thrive.

St Ignatius (whose spirituality always has the practitioner ask, “where is God in this?”

Yes! Seek, and we shall find. St. Ignatius talked about seeing God in all things as an objective, if I remember right.

But maybe even more basically, it’s just a wise path to always look for what is good in the activity/behavior you’re observing, long before you go about criticizing that behavior. Does that seem right?

Sometimes the only good that can be found is in what is intended, if I may refer back to Book 2, chapter 5. But then, even what is intended has to be scrutinized and evaluated in light of the person’s perceptions. “He meant well, given his own perception of what was going on, and what he wanted”.

I think what I was trying to express there was that I see a primordial understanding of one’s own imago dei … I think that even at so early an age as that of a toddler, there is within the mind/heart of that toddler a primal instinct that she has intrinsic value/worth/dignity/sanctity.

Perhaps. Would you go even further, and say that we are inclined to see that everything has an intrinsic value unless it gets in our way or triggers a negative emotion? Is it not easy to see beauty in even the most humble of stones, unless it is the one upon which I just stubbed my toe?

It all appears so beautiful- except when there are negative emotions and roadblocks involved. It is then that we have trouble seeing “through the Spirit”.

Have we thoroughly discussed the roadblock of Augustine concerning jealousy i.e., are we both seeing that the capacity for jealousy is indeed made by God, or do are some aspects of jealousy yet to be addressed?