What is natural and is the perfect the enemy of the good?

[fakename]

Regarding the natural law and virtue, obviously one should act in accord with one’s nature.

But for a human that means freely choosing to follow God by keeping their spirituality and animality in balance -rational/animal harmony.

But then, wouldn’t things like martyrdom or thankfulness for suffering be considered vices since they seem to prejudice the animal parts of man in favor of the spiritual parts?

So how do these fit in with human nature, and another question regarding the spirit vs the body: if a person has to choose b/t helping his family or praying, then (even though I know its wrong) it seems that the best arguments are on the side of prayer. Because, helping his family is only good on account of its spiritual value, yet prayer is even more spiritual. So clearly prayer is always better -no matter what -than helping others & we see that the perfect is the enemy of the good. Yet this is wrong, why?

 

[Bartolome_Casas]

I think the philosophical system known as “Natural Law” (a misleading and confusing name, in my view) sometimes acts as a weak substitute for a living relationship with God the Person. Some proponents of Natural Law that I have encountered seem to think the mission of Christians is to turn everyone into a Natural Law-atarian. They seem to think that is the way to save America from Liberals, secularists, and atheism. But when you read the Gospels, you do not see Jesus acting and teaching like a Natural Law philosophy teacher. I think that should show us something. Natural Law is like a medieval cathedral. It is a beautiful structure. It comforts the brain. But it does not convert the heart. It provides a kind of certainty to the mind, but does not flood the heart with love of God or love of neighbor. In my humble opinion, much of the religious violence in the history of the West is due to the influence of Natural Law philosophers. The Dominicans were for years, in many places, the most enthusiastic and active proponents of the Inquisition and the burning of heretics and witches. Today many on the Right burn with fevor to destroy Liberals, secularists and atheists. On the opposite side, think of St.Francis of Assisi, definitely NOT a Dominican, NOT a Natural Law philosopher. Something to think about, anyway.

Consider the relevance of this line from Pope Benedict XVI’ first encyclical: “We have come to believe in God’s love: in these words the Christian can express the fundamental decision of his life.** Being Christian is not the result of an ethical choice or a lofty idea**, but the encounter with an event, a person.…”

vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/encyclicals/documents/hf_ben-xvi_enc_20051225_deus-caritas-est_en.html

Near the end of his life, while in prayer, St. Thomas Aquinas had a direct experience of relationship with God. After that he, he utterly abandoned his philosophy, and never finished his major work, the Summa. He told a brother: “The end of my labors has come. All that I have written appears to be as so much straw after the things that have been revealed to me.” Straw! That’s what he called his philosophy. Straw is what animals slept on, and defecated on, and trampled underfoot. Not gold. Not a pearl of great price. Not a treasure. Straw.

 

[fakename]

It’s not like St. Thomas rejected his work as wrong, but simply as almost futile.

Anyways, does anyone think that the perfect is or is not the enemy of the good?

And if not, then why?

 

[Buck_Crosswhite]

Regarding the natural law and virtue, obviously one should act in accord with one’s nature.

But for a human that means freely choosing to follow God by keeping their spirituality and animality in balance -rational/animal harmony.

But then, wouldn’t things like martyrdom or thankfulness for suffering be considered vices since they seem to prejudice the animal parts of man in favor of the spiritual parts?

So how do these fit in with human nature, and another question regarding the spirit vs the body: if a person has to choose b/t helping his family or praying, then (even though I know its wrong) it seems that the best arguments are on the side of prayer. Because, helping his family is only good on account of its spiritual value, yet prayer is even more spiritual. So clearly prayer is always better -no matter what -than helping others & we see that the perfect is the enemy of the good. Yet this is wrong, why?

Define perfect.

If you see a hungry man and you say, “I’ll pray for you.” What good did you do?
If you give him something to eat then you’ve actually done some good.

 

[fakename]

user "Buck Crosswhite":

Define perfect.

that action is perfect which is most in keeping with the nature of things.

And one determines “most” by means of “a fortirirori” statements, that is, “if this is good then super-this is better” statements. So take anything like eating, sex, praying, etc. If a small amount is good, then logically a huge amount is better. So in any choice it is always the best to choose the bigger amount, so the perfect is the enemy of the good. My problem with this is that , taken consistently, it leads to gluttony, lust, and fanaticism. But the reason for the conclusions still stands so I’m wondering what is so wrong with the reason.