Eudaimonia / Beatitude

[Innocent]

Hi.

[url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=79107"]As I said before[/url], I've been reading bits of Aristotle (and smaller bits of Seneca and Epictetus, too) in my free time.
At the same time, I'm also reading the Bible and the CCC, with a view to read them cover-to-cover within a month.

From Aristotle and the Stocis I get the idea that the final cause of human existence is Eudaimonia. (Am I wrong here? That's the way it seems to me.)

I hope I'm also right in my understanding that Eudaimonia means perfecting oneself in virtue (at least the four cardinal virtues) and doing our duties in our state of life to the highest level of perfection possible?

[And that's what I have, until now, thought that the meaning of life was. The result of such a view in my life has been nothing but frustration with my imperfection and despair that I'll never be able to be perfect.]

But recently, I read [url="http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/p3s1c1a2.htm"]this section[/url] of the Catechism that states that Man's Vocation is Beatitude.

Christ asked us to deny ourselves and take up our cross. During his time on earth, Christ was more concerned with doing the will of the Father than in simply being the perfect man. (Of course, in doing the will of the Father, He did show Himself as the perfect Man, but his explicit concern was about doing the Father's will, not in being a Perfect Man, wasn't it? (again, I hope I've got things right?) )

Thus I have a question. Does this mean that to live a Christian life, one must give up desiring Eudaimonia, and only wish to please God ? (i.e., one must desire Beatitude and give up wanting to experience Eudaimonia)

If one does that and co-operates with God's grace, one will in the end, by the grace of God, through Beatitude, get the satisfaction he originally thought he would find in Eudaimonia. Is this possibly one interpretation of what Christ meant in Matt 6: 33 when he said "But seek ye first the kingdom of God,and His righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you." ? Was he saying, along with other things, "If you seek Beatitude, you will also get Eudaimonia?"

I'd be glad if some of the philosophers here could help me out with this. It's not just a theoretical speculation for me, it would really help me in my practical spiritual life if I could understand this.

Thanks.

love and prayers,
Innocent

[qfnol31]

I'm going to bed or I'd give this a much longer answer, but the true Catholic response lies especially in St. Augustine or (moreso) in St. Thomas Aquinas.

Beatitude really is eudaimonia, though understood in a little different sense. In the end of the Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle says that man cannot achieve eudaimonia (unchanging contentment, often translated as happiness) because at some point he must die. Maybe he doesn't say that, but I think so.

Anyways, Augustine responds with "Our hearts are restless, O Lord, until they find rest in Thee." We are never truly happy until we know and love God.

St. Thomas likewise answers this (and gives a much fuller, and in my opinion a better answer) in his [i]Summa Theologiae[/i], in the [i]prima secundae[/i], questions 1-5.

Here is a poor translation of these works: [url="http://www.newadvent.org/summa/2.htm"]http://www.newadvent.org/summa/2.htm[/url]

[Innocent]

Thanks for the response.

It would be great if you could expand on how Beatitude is Eudaimonia understood differently. From what I understand, Eudaimonia, since it is the satisfaction we experience when we are developed in virtue, in the end never transcends the self, whereas Beatitude does that by placing God in a position of importance rather than the self in whom virtue must be developed.

Am I wrong here?

[qfnol31]

Aristotle said that eudaimonia only comes when the highest virtue is present in man. This highest virtue is when we contemplate our First Cause...i.e. the First Mover. (This is because we are rational animals and the rational part is the highest part of man).

The same is what St. Thomas says: beatitude is contemplating God for eternity.

I'm sorry these are short responses, I have lots of St. Thomas to read right now. I'll try to make longer responses this weekend if I can.

Edited August 27, 2008 by qfnol31

[Apotheoun]

"The glory of God is a living man; and the life of man consists in beholding God." - St. Irenaeus

Edited August 27, 2008 by Apotheoun

[Innocent]

I'm very sure I read that quote somewhere recently. (Only in the version I read, it said, "The glory of God is a man fully alive, and the life of man is to behold God." ) Did Pope Benedict mention it in one of his encyclicals?

[Thy Geekdom Come]

Qfnol31 definitely knows what he's talking about. I'm not an expert on eudaimonia and beatitude, but my specialty in theology is the topic of justification and this ties into it quite a bit. Our ultimate good is to behold God (the beatific vision), a sight which will bring us to complete and total contentment (beatitude). Beatitude means blessing, and it is a basic principle of theology that in order to receive the blessings of God, one must be open to it. That's where your idea of seeking to be the perfect man comes in. St. John relates seeing God to being like God (1 John 3:2). As we come to know Him, we can choose to love Him, which is ultimately played out through a life of virtue, because if we love Him, we will keep His commandments. In fact, if we love Him, we will do His will (which is why the CCC relates the Our Father to faith, hope, and love, because we have faith in the holiness of His Name ["hallowed by Thy Name"], hope in His Kingdom ["Thy Kingdom come"], and love of Him means that we want what pleases Him ["Thy Will be done"]). These, of course, are the three theological virtues, "and the greatest of these is love" (1 Cor 13:13).

This is just a guess, but I would say that one possible distinction between eudaimonia and beatitude is that beatitude specifically refers to the aspect of God's blessing us with His presence, love, etc., while eudaimonia seems to focus on the aspect of man's response to God and cooperation with beatitude. They are two sides of the same coin. In fact, this is a pretty common scenario in theology when there appear to be two different, closely related things...often one aspect is God's side of it and the other is our response.

[qfnol31]

Tonight I ran across this in IIIa. q.2 a.11:
Neither could the needs of any other man whatsoever have merited this union condignly: first, [b]because the meritorious works of man are properly ordained to beatitude, which is the reward of virtue[/b], and consists in the full enjoyment of God. Whereas the union of the Incarnation, inasmuch as it is in the personal being, transcends the union of the beatified mind with God, which is by the act of the soul in fruition; and therefore it cannot fall under merit. Secondly, because grace cannot fall under merit, for the principle of merit does not fall under merit; and therefore neither does grace, for it is the principle of merit. Hence, still less does Incarnation fall under merit, since it is the principle of grace, according to John 1:17: "Grace and truth came by Jesus Christ." Thirdly, because Incarnation is for the reformation of the entire human nature, and therefore it does not fall under the merit of any individual man, since the goodness of a mere man cannot be the cause of the good of the entire nature. Yet the holy Fathers merited Incarnation congruously by desiring and beseeching; for it was becoming that God should harken to those who obeyed Him.

[Innocent]

Thanks.

Does that mean that the desire for Eudaimonia is to be subordinated to the desire for Beatitude? Would the ideal case be that in which a person is completely focused on Beatitude to the extent that he is not consciously concerned with Eudaimonia?

[qfnol31]

I don't think there is such a distinction between the two. Eudaimonia speaks to man's natural desire for happiness (which is his proper end). Beatitude is this natural end plus an excess of grace causing man to be happier than eudaimonia.

If you read through the writings of St. Thomas, you will see that his views on friendship are quite profound...I'l love to go into this, but once again I am up quite later than I have wanted to be....perhaps on Monday I'll have more time to explain this.

[atheling]

Wow, what a magnificent thread.

Would eudaimonia be achieved after Purgatory? Nothing sinful can enter the presence of God, therefore, we must be pure before we have the Beatific Vision.

Is this correct reasoning?

[qfnol31]

It can...and if you read people like Fr. Faber or St. Catherine of Genoa they talk about our need to purify ourselves in response to our sins.

[qfnol31]

Also, for further reading, go through prima secundae, questions 1-5. For example, question 3, article 8 asks if happiness is contemplating God:

[url="http://www.newadvent.org/summa/2003.htm#article8"]http://www.newadvent.org/summa/2003.htm#article8[/url]


The reason I brought up friendship, which seems completely off-topic, is because friendship ultimately plays a part in our desire for beatitude.


As an afterthought: A distinction that we could possible draw between eudaimonia and beatitude is how we achieve each...although, this distinction disappears once we see that eudaimonia isn't actually attainable by ourselves, even if we do seek it.

[qfnol31]

I must add that St. Thomas actually has another treatise on happiness that is not in the Summa. If you are up to a philosophical challenge, it might be worth reading. It's a lot more comprehensive than the Summa.

[Innocent]

Thanks for taking time to reply to my doubts. I don't have any formal training in Philosophy, but I'm eager to read that treatise you mentioned. Is it online?