It may even be held that [the intellect] is the true self of each, inasmuch as it is the dominant and better part; and therefore it would be a strange thing if a man should choose to live not his own life but the life of some other than himself. Moreover . . . that which is best and most pleasant for each creature is that which is proper to the nature of each; accordingly the life of the intellect is the best and the pleasantest life for man, inasmuch as the intellect more than anything else is man.
Aristotle Nicomachean Ethics 1178a2-7, trans. H. Rackham.
A World without a Why
It is, perhaps, a truism to state that in twentieth century philosophy it is by no means certain that there is any discernible purpose to human life. From Nietzsche’s mere “will to power”1 which find purpose in conquest, to Lyotard’s “incredulity toward metanarratives,”2 which drops all ultimate to particulars and strips reality to a bare canvas, and with many points in between there has been a reluctance to find over arching meaning.3 Western culture supported by philosophical positivism, a technological society and the dogmatic adherence to a scientific body of knowledge, has provided humanity with ample answers to the “how” with little guidance for the “who,” the “what,” or the “why.” We have massive amount of a “reductionistic” information yet knowing “how” a natural process works gives little if any, light to the questions of “what” or “why” the natural process is rather than is not. Modern philosophy and science avoided the questions of being in of a meaningful universe and cleaning their hands of metaphysical issues by reducing them to personal preference, presuppositions and improvable beliefs.
Being “Fit” and the "why" in the world
The philosopher Alasdair Macintyre has made it fashionable for some to utilize again the age-old Aristotelian perspective about human life as having a telos, a purpose.4 If we agree, as Aristotle taught, that life is lived toward a telos - that human life is at its best in the light of that telos - then we might suggest, again with Aristotle, that the aim of human life is eudaimonia; a word that means “well-being, wholeness, blessedness, happiness.” The word is rich, yet problematic. Before diving to deeply into it a few clarifying points must be made. The necessity of a world of order and syncopation is implied when you talk of eudemonia as a concept. Eudaimonia is a concept that focuses on the moral agent or in Hieddgier terms a being-in-the-world. Eudemonia is “fittedness” in the cosmos. Thus, human telos implies an objective world in the necessity of a fit-able place for man in the world of moment and often-unintelligible order. Man does not create meaning but finds a certain “fit” in the world. So Eudemonia is a subjective understanding of the content of a moral self in an objective world of order and choices.
Eudaimonia as aim for personal growth
The cultural use of happiness as personal satisfaction and fulfillment may pervert our understanding of eudaimonia. Though often translated “happiness,” the word is far more full than mere “feelings of being happy”. Eudaimonia is comparable to the Hebrew idea of shalom, or perhaps the English word “flourishing.”5 The modern misunderstanding of eudaimonia is the result of a sallow hedonism that is common to western culture. There are, of course, philosophically sophisticated versions of hedonism which cannot be dismissed lightly and do have great insights into the nature of humanity as a wanting creature. Yet If we steer eudaimonia away from the shallow hedonism prevalent today and toward the richer meaning, then it is arguable that the idea of a human telos, would be a helpful for both psychologists, pastoral theologians and ethicist interested in regaining a intellectual world endued with significance, human life grained more than just functional worth and personal action guided by a value directed purpose.
Human telos is understood along a paradigm: the temporal and eternal. The first is understood as the value paradigm where man’s action is judged in light of its proximity to the eternal. Thus it can be said that in light of a human telos - human action gains meaning and ethical value-direction.
When, pastors, or psychologist advise other they should have eudaimonia is view. Working to move people toward this state of eudaimonia. In this way, Eudaimonia is a worldview that is formed thought guided character development. I have termed Eudaimonia as a “mental well-being” more for alliterative purposes than because of a focus only on the mind. Aristotle’s eudaimonia is well-being in the most rounded sense: body and soul; feeling, thinking, sensing; the entirety of human personality, in whatever way we might perceive its complexity.
Harmony, Syncopation and the Glory of God
This is not a new idea but proposed in the Christian tradition as a life lived for the glory of God, an idea set out by the apostle Paul, explicated by st. Augustine and systematically described by St. Aquinas. For the Christian, eudemonia is found in God as the ultimate good. This faith tradition holds that eudemonia, as an end in itself is at best Moral selfishness, and at worst shallow hedonism. God is for the Christian, the foundation of all flourishing, the source of life and shalom. Further, God is the realization of human bliss, fundamental source of human enjoyment and the end to which all things where created. With this in mind, MacIntyre, defines eudaimonia as “the state of being well and doing well in being well, of a man’s [sic] being well favored himself and in relation to the divine.”6 Thus for the Christian eudemonia is the character traits and essential nature of a mature Christian that lives in harmony with and movement towards the telos of all creation, the glory of God. For those in the Christian tradition it allows eudaimonia to be understood as a holistic worldview that is rooted in the character of the individual. An individual enters and engages in a world that finds its temporal and eternal movements towards the glory of God. Thus in seeking God in all of life we seek a harmony of “fittedness” with the movement of the natural law and syncopation of our hearts with the glory of God.
Footnotes
1 Friedrich Nietzsche, The Will to Power (Vintage, 1968).
2 The Postmodern Condition: A Report on Knowledge, translated by Geoff Bennington and Brian
Massumi, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota press, 1979, 1984, p xxiv. See also his Postmodern Fables, translated by George Van Den Abbeele, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota press, 1993, 1997.
3 This was classically stated by Paul Tillich in The Courage To Be ((New Haven: Yale University
Press, 1952), 35, 41, 47, 57, 61-63, terming the twentieth century as “the age of anxiety.”
4 See for example, Nancey Murphy, Brad J. Kallenburg, and Mark Thiessen Nation (eds.) Virtues and Practices in the Christian Tradition: Christian Ethics After MacIntyre (Harrisburg: Trinity Press International, 1997).
5 There is a good introductory discussion both eudaimonia and telos in Christian philosophy in Stanley Grenz The Moral Quest: Foundations of Christian Ethics, (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1997)70- 72,75-76, 172-173.
6 Alasdair MacIntyre, After Virtue: A Study in Moral Theory (London: Duckworth, 1981, 1985), 148.
No comments:
Post a Comment