Jump to content
An Old School Catholic Message Board

Getting Joy Out Of Doing The Right Thing...


Thy Geekdom Come

Recommended Posts

I have experienced them. Very extreme ones right before I started by conversion process when protestantism almost drove me to a weird form of agnostic similar to what Anomaly is in now. As the conversion process got closer I experienced them more until i made the decision to convert.

My logic in it was that the less I could feel God the more I was drawn to him. Those nights with my lifehouse cd and some weird theological writing (am I the only one to get pissed and cry while reading the CCC?) were very, very dark and depressing. But by not being able to eat I was all the more hungry. By lacking that Joy I was driven to move in uncomfortable ways (you try converting when you are the top theology student at a bible college and being personally mentored by their best theology prof)

I dont know if I would have converted if it wasnt for those dark nights. I will never know.

that was a lil more personal than I wanted it to me. Nothin but love Micah

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Theologian in Training

[quote name='Raphael' post='1385503' date='Sep 14 2007, 03:41 PM']I guess this whole question arose for me when I wondered about the Dark Night. They say it is a time when God removes joy and such in order to make you love Him more, instead of His consolations. When I heard that, I wished to love Him that way already, but I also realized that we are supposed to seek His joy. Perhaps the Dark Night is not so much about God taking away joy as it is God taking away the emotion of joy and challenging on to love Him and rejoice in Him anyway...which would still mean they had joy, they just didn't "feel" it so much as live it.

I don't know. Perhaps someone with a better understanding of the Dark Night can help me understand.[/quote]

I don't want this to sound arrogant, but read my post about Mother Teresa, the one I printed in the bulletin last weekend, I explain the Dark Night in great detail...I will see if I can find it...

Found it [url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?s=&showtopic=67273&view=findpost&p=1377697"]http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?s...t&p=1377697[/url]

Edited by Theologian in Training
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thy Geekdom Come

[quote name='Theologian in Training' post='1385722' date='Sep 14 2007, 11:10 PM']I don't want this to sound arrogant, but read my post about Mother Teresa, the one I printed in the bulletin last weekend, I explain the Dark Night in great detail...I will see if I can find it...

Found it [url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?s=&showtopic=67273&view=findpost&p=1377697"]http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?s...t&p=1377697[/url][/quote]
Father, I don't take anything you say as arrogant. You always come across as genuinely concerned.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thy Geekdom Come

I posed this topic to my friend, Mark Spencer, who is a philosophy genius (seriously...keep an eye out for him...he's been asked to present a paper at a convention for doctors and professors of philosophy and he only just got his bachelor's...which is just plain cool). Anyway, he responded with this:

"Dear Micah,

I hope that the following helps.

What I think you are probably referring to is the distinction Aristotle makes between perfect fulfillment/happiness (they're the same thing for Aristotle) which comes in the total perfection of the person including our ability for contemplation of God, and the lesser 'earthly' happiness which consists in having all the virtues except the ability for contemplation. You see, for Aristotle (and for most of the ancients and medievals) happiness/flourishing/eudaimonia consists in the perfection of the various parts of the person, that is the various passions and parts of the intellect. Complete and total happiness, for Aristotle, involves putting all of the appetites in order, as well as ordering the intellect towards having both practical knowledge of what a person ought to do in particular situations, and having a relationship with the divine. Thus, "feelings" are very important here--one does not act rightly so as to "get" certain feelings of pleasure; however, one is not truly virtuous, and thus not truly happy until he feels what he ought to feel when he ought to feel it. For Aristotle, the proper end of man is the perfection and right ordering of every aspect of the person: appetites, intellection, relationships. However, some people are not suited for the contemplative life. They can and ought to strive to perfect every other aspect of their person, though; thus they can achieve all the moral virtues (the right ordering of the appetites) and many of the intellectual virtues (such as a sort of "practical wisdom.") Christianity retains this divide between those called to the contemplative life and those who are not. However, for Aristotle the archetypal contemplative is the philosopher; for the Christian, it is the religious mystic.

Thomas takes up this vision of the person, but he says that with the coming of the new order of grace, man now also has a supernatural end which builds on the natural end of eudaimonia outlined by Aristotle. This supernatural end is beatitudo, ultimately given to us not in this life, but in the beatific vision. Our natural end of perfection in moral virtue and, possibly, in natural contemplation points to the supernatural end which can only be fulfilled in the life of grace in Christ (although there is some debate among Thomists on this point.) Thus, the actions of the Christian are aimed at both the natural end of fulfillment, but also, building on this, at the supernatural end of holiness and beatitude. Still, for Thomas, everything natural is taken up in this new life of grace. Even feelings, though still not the goal, are absolutely essential: the theological virtue of charity, essential to achieving the goal of the beatific vision, is itself a formation of both the will and the passion of love. Thus there is, for both Aristotle and Thomas, no divide in the person: the whole thing is taken up in the quest for happiness. Nor is this a selfish happiness: one cannot be fulfilled in this way at the expense of others, for friendship, citizenship in the polis, family life, a relationship with God (and for Thomas, the supernatural perfection in grace of each of these) are essential for personal fulfillment.

For these thinkers, doing good is not a thing that is separated out according to parts. It is not selfish to seek one's own happiness; rather, all of our acts aim at our happiness whether we like it or not, though we can have a pretty skewed vision of what our happiness is supposed to be like. But the virtuous man does not seek to do things just to get pleasure; however, if he does not feel pleasure after doing the right thing, he is not yet fully virtuous, therefore he is not yet fully perfected and happy. Pleasure and joy and peace and the rest must supervene on virtuous actions if they are truly virtuous, for the truly virtuous person feels what he ought when he ought. When one seeks to do something good for another, it is right and proper to realize that this also is something good for me: as JP2 pointed out when he was still Karol Wojtyla, every virtuous act I do makes me a virtuous person--and I ought to be aware of this and will my own fulfillment and happiness, but still realize that these are to be accomplished not in focussing only on myself but on self in communion with others and on others in communion with the self. The whole thing is "of a piece."

For Aristotle, the standard of action is to try to do what is "beautiful" so as to make oneself "beautiful." (I wrote my senior thesis on what this means.) Basically, this beauty is not something that can be defined in so many words, but it is something that we intuit or feel in noble, virtuous action. Aristotle says that we are to act in a particular situation "as the man of wisdom would act." We are to look to concrete role models and emulate them; there is no cut and dried formula for how to act in any given situation, though there is the wisdom passed down to us from previous virtuous happy people. As far as love goes, the same applies. One cannot give oneself until one has oneself. Thus it is right to love both oneself and the other, and the two together. The problem here and in relation to God with seeking feelings or consolations is the same as with all virtue: the feeling cannot be the goal, rather it must flow from the virtuous action. This is because the true deep feelings typical of total perfection cannot be sought for themselves but are gifts that accompany a beautiful action or state of character.

I think the important thing is that we not divide up self from other. A love relationship is not about one over and against the other, but about the two. Focus on the self only becomes wrong when it is at the expense of the other. It is right to desire joy, but it is wrong to try and concoct that joy wholecloth; one must do the acts of love, the joy will naturally follow; likewise with God. But in all these love relationships it is necessary to seek both one's own good and the good of the other. To attend to the other at the expense of the self is just as much a violation of personhood as the opposite. The important insight from Aristotle (and others) is to seek to realize beauty wherever you can: both in the self AND in the other. One does not exclude the other; in fact, genuine seeking of the one leads naturally to the other.

That was a bit rambling, but I hope it helped. I'd love to talk about these issues more. I hope that things are going well; I am praying for you. God bless,

Mark"

After a little more discussion, he said:

"I think that to divide the fulfillment of one's desires/feelings from fulfillment of oneself is a false dichotomy. The feeling of fulflillment is part of true fulfillment; that feeling is not one of the lower passions, but, as some philosophers like Scheler and Von Hildebrand would say, a "spiritual feeling," one of the higher feelings that supervenes on experiences of great value. Of course, the lower feelings come along with that, and ought to. A problem arises, I think, when one does certain actions just to look justified in the eyes of others or to feel superior about oneself or to "get a buzz." But there is a legitimate and necessary feeling of satisfaction and fulfillment and joy when one has satisfied one's deep spiritual longings. I think that to fail to appreciate this truth about oneself is to fail to acknowledge one's own value and the grace in one's life. To live as anything less that one what is, whether out of scupulosity or out of a false sense of humility, is to fail to glorify God with one's whole being. All that we are is a gift, including the true longings that lie deep within us, and the fulfillment of these desires is especially a gift, and thus ought to be received joyfully and with deep feeling.

Anyways, that's what I think about the "dichotomy." I appreciate this conversation: this is something that I have struggle with a lot, and I know many others have too. These philosophers have helped a lot. And if you want to post these things on your forum, by all means do so. I hope that you are doing well. Pray for me. God bless,

Mark"

God bless,

Micah

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...