The following is an essay that I wrote for my 4000 level Topics in
Philosophy class: "Happiness and Suffering." I have split it up into
several pieces and will be publishing it here on Cranial Collision over
the next week or two.
Click here to read part 1.
Aquinas goes on to set up a distinction between “imperfect happiness” and “perfect happiness.” He says that imperfect happiness is the kind achievable in this world, and that perfect happiness is the kind that is only achievable by being with God and knowing him in the afterlife (81). “Aquinas argues” that “perfect happiness, or ultimate felicity, cannot consist in moral actions,” because “actions cannot be properly attributed to God, whereas happiness can,” among other reasons (80-81). Only “knowledge of that which is above the human intellect can perfect it directly, not through participation in something higher, and here then must lie man’s ultimate felicity” (81).
He points out that Aristotle does not deal with this sort of perfect happiness at all, and that he is completely concerned with imperfect happiness in his Nicomachean Ethics (81). In a way, it would make sense for Aristotle to only be concerned with this sort of happiness, because this is the only sort of happiness that man has the possibility to influence positively or negatively in this life. The same could be said of Haybron: one could say that he is only concerned with this sort of imperfect happiness because it is the only happiness worth worrying about.
Or is it? Bringing the importance of perfect happiness in the afterlife to the forefront of people’s minds could radically impact the way they go about their daily lives and view their current “imperfect” happiness. Achieving imperfect happiness might not be nearly as important. Making sure that their levels of attunement, engagement, and endorsement are appropriate would not be nearly as important as making sure that their spiritual lives were on track, although perhaps their spiritual lives would indeed factor in to psychic affirmation in some way. They may also be much more willing to accept suffering if it was a means to the end of achieving perfect happiness. While this is undoubtedly not what Nietzsche had in mind with his revaluation of suffering, because in this instance it would not be an affirmation of suffering on the basis of its own inherent goodness, it does drastically eliminate many of the issues associated with the abhorrence of difficulty and resistance.
Indeed, I think this view with perfect happiness as the ultimate and imperfect happiness as a mere shadow and largely unimportant is well-supported Biblically. The Bible affirms suffering repeatedly, although only as a means to an end, as I discussed above. In James 1:2-4, we read, “. . .when troubles come your way, consider it an opportunity for great joy. For you know that when your faith is tested, your endurance has a chance to grow. So let it grow, for when your endurance is fully developed, you will be perfect and complete, needing nothing” (Holy Bible: New Living Translation). And in 1 Peter 2:21 we read, “For God called you to do good, even if it means suffering, just as Christ suffered for you. He is your example, and you must follow in his steps” (Holy Bible: New Living Translation). Again, it is readily apparent that Christianity affirms suffering, although almost always a means to an end. Nietzsche’s characterization of Christianity as a whole-sale condemnation of suffering is unwarranted, although developing that topic would require another paper entirely. As a result, I will lay it to rest for the time being.
While Aquinas posits that imperfect happiness is the only sort of happiness available to us in this life, he thereby affirms that some sort of happiness is, in fact, immediately attainable. So despite the fact that perfect happiness is not attainable at the moment, and because of it, I will turn my focus to the best way to attain the most of this “imperfect happiness.” Further, it is apparent from the above arguments that imperfect happiness, as defined by Aquinas, is the only type of happiness that Haybron is concerned with. I will therefore take the assault on his concept of self-fulfillment to his own turf and deal primarily with imperfect happiness for the remainder of this paper.
Click here to read part 3.
Works Cited
Grudem, Wayne. Systematic Theology. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1994. Print.
Haybron, Daniel M. The Pursuit of Unhappiness: The Elusive Psychology of Well-Being. New York: Oxford University Press, 2008. Print.
Holy Bible: New Living Translation. 2nd ed. Carol Stream: Tyndale House Publishers, Inc., 2009. Print.
McGill, V.J. The Idea of Happiness. Ed. Mortimer J. Adler. New York: Frederick A. Praeger, Publishers, 1967. Print.
Reginster, Bernard. The Affirmation of Life: Nietzsche on Overcoming Nihilism. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2006. Print.
Click here to read part 1.
Aquinas goes on to set up a distinction between “imperfect happiness” and “perfect happiness.” He says that imperfect happiness is the kind achievable in this world, and that perfect happiness is the kind that is only achievable by being with God and knowing him in the afterlife (81). “Aquinas argues” that “perfect happiness, or ultimate felicity, cannot consist in moral actions,” because “actions cannot be properly attributed to God, whereas happiness can,” among other reasons (80-81). Only “knowledge of that which is above the human intellect can perfect it directly, not through participation in something higher, and here then must lie man’s ultimate felicity” (81).
He points out that Aristotle does not deal with this sort of perfect happiness at all, and that he is completely concerned with imperfect happiness in his Nicomachean Ethics (81). In a way, it would make sense for Aristotle to only be concerned with this sort of happiness, because this is the only sort of happiness that man has the possibility to influence positively or negatively in this life. The same could be said of Haybron: one could say that he is only concerned with this sort of imperfect happiness because it is the only happiness worth worrying about.
Or is it? Bringing the importance of perfect happiness in the afterlife to the forefront of people’s minds could radically impact the way they go about their daily lives and view their current “imperfect” happiness. Achieving imperfect happiness might not be nearly as important. Making sure that their levels of attunement, engagement, and endorsement are appropriate would not be nearly as important as making sure that their spiritual lives were on track, although perhaps their spiritual lives would indeed factor in to psychic affirmation in some way. They may also be much more willing to accept suffering if it was a means to the end of achieving perfect happiness. While this is undoubtedly not what Nietzsche had in mind with his revaluation of suffering, because in this instance it would not be an affirmation of suffering on the basis of its own inherent goodness, it does drastically eliminate many of the issues associated with the abhorrence of difficulty and resistance.
Indeed, I think this view with perfect happiness as the ultimate and imperfect happiness as a mere shadow and largely unimportant is well-supported Biblically. The Bible affirms suffering repeatedly, although only as a means to an end, as I discussed above. In James 1:2-4, we read, “. . .when troubles come your way, consider it an opportunity for great joy. For you know that when your faith is tested, your endurance has a chance to grow. So let it grow, for when your endurance is fully developed, you will be perfect and complete, needing nothing” (Holy Bible: New Living Translation). And in 1 Peter 2:21 we read, “For God called you to do good, even if it means suffering, just as Christ suffered for you. He is your example, and you must follow in his steps” (Holy Bible: New Living Translation). Again, it is readily apparent that Christianity affirms suffering, although almost always a means to an end. Nietzsche’s characterization of Christianity as a whole-sale condemnation of suffering is unwarranted, although developing that topic would require another paper entirely. As a result, I will lay it to rest for the time being.
While Aquinas posits that imperfect happiness is the only sort of happiness available to us in this life, he thereby affirms that some sort of happiness is, in fact, immediately attainable. So despite the fact that perfect happiness is not attainable at the moment, and because of it, I will turn my focus to the best way to attain the most of this “imperfect happiness.” Further, it is apparent from the above arguments that imperfect happiness, as defined by Aquinas, is the only type of happiness that Haybron is concerned with. I will therefore take the assault on his concept of self-fulfillment to his own turf and deal primarily with imperfect happiness for the remainder of this paper.
Click here to read part 3.
Works Cited
Grudem, Wayne. Systematic Theology. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1994. Print.
Haybron, Daniel M. The Pursuit of Unhappiness: The Elusive Psychology of Well-Being. New York: Oxford University Press, 2008. Print.
Holy Bible: New Living Translation. 2nd ed. Carol Stream: Tyndale House Publishers, Inc., 2009. Print.
McGill, V.J. The Idea of Happiness. Ed. Mortimer J. Adler. New York: Frederick A. Praeger, Publishers, 1967. Print.
Reginster, Bernard. The Affirmation of Life: Nietzsche on Overcoming Nihilism. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2006. Print.
Post a Comment