The Divine Lamp

Jul 24 2007

Are You A Happy Thomist?

8 responses so far

8 Responses to “Are You A Happy Thomist?”

1. # Robon 24 Jul 2007 at 8:57 pm

   LOL!

   The answer is ‘no’.

   If Aquinas were that concise in all his answers, he would be an easier read!

   Seriously, thanks for the quiz. :)
2. # thedivinelampon 24 Jul 2007 at 9:12 pm

   objection 1. If Aquinas were that concise in all his answers, he would be an easier read, for, according to the authority of Rob the blogger: “If Aquinas were that concise in all his answers, he would be an easier read!”

   On the contrary (sorry, couldn’t resist), you are wrong! Shut your pie-hole. For it is obvious that the word concise can have two senses

   I answer that, St Thomas is concise because he is wise and, as the philosopher says, “it belongs to the office of the wise man to rule all things rightly and govern them well” (metaphysics I, 2).   Now a teacher rules over his profession and those he teaches when he teaches them concisely, with as few words as possible yet enough to convey the truth. This is a sign of his simplicity (i.e. perfection) as a teacher.

   Yet there is another sense in which one can be concise, as when a man, having learned little, thereby has little to say or teach and yet still attempts to instruct others. Such a one is not properly termed simple, but, rather, a simpleton.

   Still, I insist that telling someone to shut their pie-hole is much quicker in dealing with errors and a heck of a lot more enjoyable.  One will have to wait for my next article for proof that this too can lead to happiness.
3. # Robon 25 Jul 2007 at 2:04 pm

   -Can all the actions a man performs rightly be called human actions?-

   Sorry, but I read this, thought ‘no’, and then laughed because I knew his answer wouldn’t be that quick. Then I clicked on the answer and I see-

   The answer is no.

   And I thought, oh, my dreams have come true! LOL!

   Of course, who would read a book full of weighty questions like that, followed by ‘yes’ and ‘no’? Wouldn’t be a satisfying experience, I guess.
4. # thedivinelampon 25 Jul 2007 at 2:36 pm

   Umm, You didn’t tell St Dim the simpleton what you thought of his reasoning.
5. # Robon 25 Jul 2007 at 9:23 pm

   Perhaps you should publish your Summa Contra Idiota:)
6. # thedivinelampon 25 Jul 2007 at 10:09 pm

   Summa Contra Intelligentsia.
7. # Puff the Magic Dragonon 26 Jul 2007 at 2:46 pm

   Question 1. Can all the actions a man performs rightly be called human actions?

   Answer 1. No. Some of man’s actions are instinctual and no more than basic. The act of breathing , the act of reacting to pain, et cetera are no different than what animals do. And since they are basic and undifferentiated from the animals, they are not necessarily “human,” So even though a human may share an action with an animal, does not raise that action to be “human” Ergo NO

   Question 2. If cause precedes effect, can it rightly be said that a man’s actions are motivated (i.e. caused) by an end?

   Answer 2. In as when man does something it is to cause an effect – yes. Though it must be stressed that even though at times the desired effect does not occur or an unexpected effect occurs, does not change the fact that human beings do things in order to affect something.

   Question 3. Does man’s happiness consist in retaining happiness or in spreading it?
   Answer 3. If I am happy then in order to stay happy I must keep the happiness. How I go about keeping happy may not be the same for me as for you. For some keeping happy may mean spreading the happiness, but still this would be a means of keeping happy.

   Question 4. Man’s happiness consists in glory, for happiness seems to consist in that which is payed to the saints for the trials they have undergone in this world, and this is glory, for the Apostle says: “The sufferings of this time are not worthy to be compared to the glory to come, that shall be revealed in us.” Therefore, happiness consists in glory. Is this true or false?
   Answer 4. Though it cannot be denied that the saints are indeed happy. Happiness is not dependant on glory. I can be happy that Italy wins the World Cup in Soccer and yet there is no glory for me in that. So the answer is NO

   Question 5. Is happiness an action of the intellect or of the will?
   Answer 5. I can never will myself happy. It is not possible to say I will be happy and so it is. But is possible to see a situation and reason oneself happy because of it. In short there is a reason why one is happy, one is not happy for no reason, but because one just wants to be happy, or in other words. If one wants to be happy one must find a reason to be happy. And reasoning is an act of intellect not of the will.

   Question 6. Happiness is the perfection of man. Now, the soul without the body is not man. Therefore Happiness cannot be in the soul separated from the body, for as Augustine said: “(the soul) has a natural desire to rule the body, the result of which is that it (the soul) is held back, so to speak, from tending with all its might to the heavenward journey (i.e. the happiness of the beatific vision). Therefore, the soul cannot be happy without the body. Is this true or false?
   Answer 6. This is false. The saints who enjoy heaven are happy, even though they shall not be reunited with their bodies until the Last Day, the day of Resurrection. I would argue rather it is the body which can not be truly happy if the soul is not.

   How’d I do?
8. # thedivinelampon 26 Jul 2007 at 3:54 pm

   I’ll let you know.

Leave a Reply

Name (required)

Mail (hidden) (required)

Website