The saints and aristotle's ethics

[fakename]

I’ve been thinking about this a lot.

Here’s my question: Given that a lot of Catholic ethics is rooted in Aristotle how can we call the saints happy in the way Aristotle described happiness?

After all, Aristotle’s description of happiness, generally puts wealth and health within that category and even connects certain virtues with them. Yet, we find that too many saints had neither wealth nor health and so this must be a problem.

Perhaps we can say that the saints preferred contemplation to any of these things however, I don’t think that every saint was indeed contemplative, but many lead rather active lives.

Perhaps the saints were unhappy, in that the saints imitated Jesus and yet Jesus was probably unhappy.

Any answers?

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Here’s my question: Given that a lot of Catholic ethics is rooted in Aristotle how can we call the saints happy in the way Aristotle described happiness?

Where did you get this notion. Catholic ethics is entirely rooted in Jesus, Moses, and St. Paul, none of who was influenced by Aristotle.

Aristotle enters the picture later only because it was discovered that some of his thought on ethics was consistent with Christian teaching. Aquinas especially observed this.

The saints are not happy in the way that Aristotle describes happiness. You will not find many of them that ever read, or even heard of, Aristotle.

What is the golden mean between wisdom and stupidity? Whatever it is, we should not be seeking it as an avenue to happiness. Wisdom to the nth degree is what brings happiness, not some modicum of the halfway point between wisdom and stupidity.

 

[Lancer]

The Christian philosopher, however,** may not ignore supernatural revelation, but must at least recognise it as a negative norm,** inasmuch as he is not to advance any assertion in evident contradiction to the revealed truth of Christianity. God is the fountain-head of all truth — whether natural as made known by Creation, or supernatural as revealed through Christ and the Prophets.

** Aristotle** chose rathe to take the facts of experience as his starting-point; these he analysed accurately, and sought to trace to their highest and ultimate causes. He set out from the point that all men tend to happiness as the ultimate object of all their endeavours, as the highest good, which is sought for its own sake, and to which all other goods merely serve as means. This happiness cannot consist in external goods, but only in the activity proper to human nature - not indeed in such a lower activity of the vegetative and sensitive life as man possesses in common with plants and brutes, but in the highest and most perfect activity of his reason, which springs in turn from virtue. This activity, however, has to be exercised in a perfect and enduring life. The highest pleasure is naturally bound up with this activity, yet, to constitute perfect happiness, external goods must also supply their share. True happiness, though prepared for him by the gods as the object and reward of virtue, can be attained only through a man’s own individual exertion. With keen penetration Aristotle thereupon proceeds to investigate in turn each of the intellectual and moral virtues, and his treatment of them must, even at the present time, be regarded as in great part correct. The nature of the State and of the family were, in the main, rightly explained by him. The only pity is that his vision did not penetrate beyond this earthly life, and that he never saw clearly the relations of man to God.

newadvent.org/cathen/05556a.htm

So your premise is somewhat skewed…or in complete… Christ = Truth…Truth is not something…it is a person…Our Lord Jesus Christ.

John 14:6
New International Version 1984 (NIV1984)
6 Jesus answered, “I am the way and** the truth** and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.

John 16:13
New International Version 1984 (NIV1984)
13 But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes,** he will guide you into all truth**. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come.

Catholic Ethics is based on Christ…natural law…is good because it comes from God…but it is not his full Revelation of himself…who he is and what he wants from his creatures…only his Son, Jesus Christ possesses the full revelation of God.

Pax Christi

 

[MidnightSun12]

Here’s my question: Given that a lot of Catholic ethics is rooted in Aristotle how can we call the saints happy in the way Aristotle described happiness?

Where did you get this notion. Catholic ethics is entirely rooted in Jesus, Moses, and St. Paul, none of who was influenced by Aristotle.

Agreed, I think a better way of putting it is that Aristotle’s ethics are somewhat rooted in Catholicism since he was able to grasp bits and pieces of the divinely established Truth within his writings.

I think Aristotle’s concept of happiness is quite deficient. He claims that the way to obtain ultimate happiness is to become excellent rational thinkers. While reason is one aspect of understanding and loving God, he completely misses the boat when it comes to faith. To claim that we can understand God in purely rational terms is to deny the fact that we also must supplement this reason with faith. Reason without faith is useless since we will only be able to scratch against the boundary of the divine mystery based on our own rational understanding of the universe:

"For those with faith, no evidence is necessary; for those without it, no evidence will suffice."

• St. Thomas Aquinas

 

[fakename]

So your premise is somewhat skewed…or in complete… Christ = Truth…Truth is not something…it is a person…Our Lord Jesus Christ.

Catholic Ethics is based on Christ…natural law…is good because it comes from God…but it is not his full Revelation of himself…who he is and what he wants from his creatures…only his Son, Jesus Christ possesses the full revelation of God.

Pax Christi

This is somewhat like saying that the supernatural is not rooted in the natural. Clearly the supernatural supposes the natural just as the perfect supposes something perfectible and the grace supposes something to save.

Clearly then, supernatural ethics must cohere with natural ethics, just as a miracle does not deny the laws of nature but rather acts besides such laws.

 

[fakename]

Agreed, I think a better way of putting it is that Aristotle’s ethics are somewhat rooted in Catholicism since he was able to grasp bits and pieces of the divinely established Truth within his writings.

I think Aristotle’s concept of happiness is quite deficient. He claims that the way to obtain ultimate happiness is to become excellent rational thinkers. While reason is one aspect of understanding and loving God, he completely misses the boat when it comes to faith. To claim that we can understand God in purely rational terms is to deny the fact that we also must supplement this reason with faith. Reason without faith is useless since we will only be able to scratch against the boundary of the divine mystery based on our own rational understanding of the universe:

"For those with faith, no evidence is necessary; for those without it, no evidence will suffice."

• St. Thomas Aquinas

Where did Aristotle say that?

And also,I think its a common mistake to say that Aristotle was against faith; he simply says that faith is not something that one aspires to, but is more of a crutch on the way to knowledge.

But yes, he does put contemplation of the highest truths at the center of his ethics.

 

[MidnightSun12]

Where did Aristotle say that?

And also,I think its a common mistake to say that Aristotle was against faith; he simply says that faith is not something that one aspires to, but is more of a crutch on the way to knowledge.

But yes, he does put contemplation of the highest truths at the center of his ethics.

I think Aristotle believes that the “purpose” of a human is to be excellent “reasoners”, since he defines reason as being the one function that is unique to human beings:

**“the proper * function of a human, then, consists in an activity of the soul in conformity with a rational principle * or, at least, not without it” **
(1098a)

"If we take the proper function of a human to be a certain kind of life, and if this kind of life is an activity of soul and consists in actions performed in conjunction with the rational element,…, and if a function is well performed when it is performed in accordance with the excellence appropriate to it; we reach the conclusion that the good of a human is an activity of soul in conformity with excellence or virtue [of the rational element and of our ability to act on our decisions]"
(1098a).

source - classweb.gmu.edu/rcherubi/ancient/ne411.htm

Aristotle also mentions this:

"For this reason also a boy is not happy; for he is not yet capable of such acts, owing to his age; and boys who are called happy are being congratulated by reason of the hopes we have for them."

source - classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/nicomachaen.1.i.html

Now, from my understanding, these quotes appear to somewhat contradict the following scripture passage:

"And he said: ‘I tell you the truth, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.’"
Matthew 18:3

Would you not agree that Aristotle, at the very least, appears to be over-emphasizing the necessity of reason in our nature?**

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Midnight

I think Aristotle believes that the “purpose” of a human is to be excellent “reasoners”, since he defines reason as being the one function that is unique to human beings:

You’d have to search the scriptures to find “reason” as the centerpiece of our purpose on earth.

Rather, love is at the center of Jesus’ teachings … love and all the virtues that spring from love, including wisdom. Whereas reason is only a tool, wisdom is a virtue. There’s a big difference.

 

[fakename]

I think Aristotle believes that the “purpose” of a human is to be excellent “reasoners”, since he defines reason as being the one function that is unique to human beings:

**“the proper * function of a human, then, consists in an activity of the soul in conformity with a rational principle * or, at least, not without it” ****
(1098a)

"If we take the proper function of a human to be a certain kind of life, and if this kind of life is an activity of soul and consists in actions performed in conjunction with the rational element,…, and if a function is well performed when it is performed in accordance with the excellence appropriate to it; we reach the conclusion that the good of a human is an activity of soul in conformity with excellence or virtue [of the rational element and of our ability to act on our decisions]"
(1098a).

source - classweb.gmu.edu/rcherubi/ancient/ne411.htm

Aristotle also mentions this:

"For this reason also a boy is not happy; for he is not yet capable of such acts, owing to his age; and boys who are called happy are being congratulated by reason of the hopes we have for them."

source - classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/nicomachaen.1.i.html

Now, from my understanding, these quotes appear to somewhat contradict the following scripture passage:

"And he said: ‘I tell you the truth, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.’"
Matthew 18:3

Would you not agree that Aristotle, at the very least, appears to be over-emphasizing the necessity of reason in our nature?

Yes I agree that Aristotle defines reason/contemplation as the highest aim of man but only insofar as contemplation gets us to the true highest aim which is “happiness” or “blessed life”. If contemplation did not constitute happiness, then Aristotle would not suggest it as the chief goal. As such, Aristotle establishes numerous preconditions for happiness/contemplation like good health, good fortune, etc. so that one’s contemplation is not interrupted.

But this does not have anything to do with faith which Aristotle, IMO, necessarily defends in all of his admonitions scattered throughout his treatises on believing in what “the majority thinks”, or in what “happens most of the time”, or in what “an expert says”. His whole book “Rhetoric” I think is a long defense of the use and attainment of faith and probabilities, for faith is just a certainty that is backed by uncertain evidence.

This ties into, rather than contradicts that biblical passage. For by childlike faith, we choose to submit to certain reasons and teachers, trusting them without full evidence to shepherd us to truth and real certainty.

Considering Aristotle’s definition of happiness in this life, I do not think that he overemphasizes reason. If you want such overemphasis then seek the stoics or the platonists but Aristotle is almost downright cynical in compared with them, praising pleasure repeatedly throughout the “Nicomachean Ethics” and making bodily pleasures and health a necessary part of happiness.

One cannot deny that contemplation is the act of human happiness, for in the future world, our happiness will be the contemplation of God as will our love be the analysis of God, for to know him is to love him (The Summa Pt. 1 of Part 2).

 

[Qoeleth]

Here’s my question: Given that a lot of Catholic ethics is rooted in Aristotle how can we call the saints happy in the way Aristotle described happiness?

Where did you get this notion. Catholic ethics is entirely rooted in Jesus, Moses, and St. Paul, none of who was influenced by Aristotle.

Aristotle enters the picture later only because it was discovered that some of his thought on ethics was consistent with Christian teaching. Aquinas especially observed this.

The saints are not happy in the way that Aristotle describes happiness. You will not find many of them that ever read, or even heard of, Aristotle.

What is the golden mean between wisdom and stupidity? Whatever it is, we should not be seeking it as an avenue to happiness. Wisdom to the nth degree is what brings happiness, not some modicum of the halfway point between wisdom and stupidity.

I agree entirely. Aristotle’s ethics are totally different to Catholic ideals. Jesus teaches heroic virtue- not some ‘golden mean’. Christ makes no promise of wordly ‘happiness’, which Aristotle’s ethics aims at.

 

[fakename]

I agree entirely. Aristotle’s ethics are totally different to Catholic ideals. Jesus teaches heroic virtue- not some ‘golden mean’. Christ makes no promise of wordly ‘happiness’, which Aristotle’s ethics aims at.

Aristotle and Jesus coexist and feed off of each other to a great degree.

For instance, in the Summa, Thomas Aquinas wrote: “Hence it is that, according to the definitions of Aristotle… the voluntary is defined not only as having “a principle within” the agent, but also as implying “knowledge.” Therefore, since man especially knows the end of his work, and moves himself, in his acts especially is the voluntary to be found.” So even something so basic to the Catholic worldview like what the word “voluntary” means is taken from Aristotle.

Also for instance, Aristotle divides the souls powers into appetitive and cognative and the exact same division is found in the Summa in its treatment of the soul.

Finally then, we should ask, “does this statement in anyway apply to our understanding of the saints?”, for we see Aquinas wrote (in his commentary on ethics) :
“…that happiness seems to be a most perfect good. But virtue is not of such a nature, for sometimes it is found without the perfection of activity, as we see in those who are asleep and yet have the habit of virtue. It is possible, too, that a man may have the habit of virtue, but for lack of opportunity not perform a single act of a particular virtue during his whole life. This is particularly evident regarding magnanimity and magnificence, virtues perhaps possessed by a poverty-stricken person who is never able to perform great deeds. Therefore virtue is not the same as happiness.”
“He gives the second reason at “Moreover he may be” [2, b, iii]. It is this. It happens that one who has the habit of virtue may be ill-favored by fortune. Who will call such a man happy except someone obstinately defending a thesis against the plain truth? Therefore happiness is not the same as virtue. This, he says, is sufficient for his purpose. Enough has been said on the subject in his Encyclis, that is, in certain learned verses that Aristotle composed on happiness.”

Nowhere have I seen Aquinas contradict Aristotle on this, so is there a contradiction? If not, then how do we shoe-horn this concept in with saintly suffering?

 

[Linusthe2nd]

.

Three sources will help you understand the Catholic idea of Ethics.

1. " Right and Reason " by Austin Fagothey. In its 9th edition, but I would prefer you use one that came out soon after Vatican 2.
2. The Catechism of the Catholic Church
3. Summa Theologiae, esp Part 2, Ques 18-21

• Catholic Ethics does not depend on Aristotle, he was unknown to the West until the 13th century. A lot of Saints before and after never heard of him. However, St. Thomas used Aristotle as a guide in much of his treatment of the subject but he " sanitized " it to accord with Catholic thought.