Happiness As Defined By Boethius And Thomas Aquinas
Happiness As Defined By Boethius And Thomas AquinasThe concept of happiness has concerned the mind of man since ancient times. Evidence of this can be found in the numerous volumes written on the subject of true happiness and how such a state of mind can be obtained. Two such works, Boethius’ The Consolation of Philosophy and St. Thomas Aquinas’ Summa Theologica, although written over seven hundred years apart, posit the Christian notion of God as an integral part of human happiness. Differences between the two philosophies come to light when one compares the Platonic ideals of Boethius to the Aristotelian basis of Aquinas’ thoughts. However, although both works are excellent examples of theological and teleological thought, neither definitively and undoubtedly proves a link between the Christian God and human happiness.
In order to understand the shortcomings of Boethius’ and Aquinas’ philosophies, one must first understand the basic tenets of life each proposes. The Consolation of Philosophy is a dialogue between the avatar of logic, Philosophy, and Boethius, who, after amassing huge quantities of wealth and power, is suddenly thrust into the depths of grief by the loss of all he has gained. While bemoaning his fall from grace, he is approached by the figure of Philosophy, and it is here that Boethius first displays his belief in God when he states “God the Creator watches over His creation. The day will never come that sees me abandon the truth of this belief” (Boethius 50). This belief in God is central to Boethius’ soon to be conceived understanding of happiness. Soon after this idea is affirmed, Boethius reveals his Platonist attitude when Philosophy comments that Boethius’ “[defenses] have been breached and your mind has been infiltrated by the fever of emotional distraction” (Boethius 51). To this Boethius replies, “my memory has been blunted by grief” (Boethius 51). This concept of forgetting what one once knew to be the truth is a central tenet of the Platonist system of life. Indeed, Philosophy later elucidates this idea further by diagnosing that Boethius has “forgotten [his] true nature” (Boethius 51), but promises that Boethius will soon “be able to see the resplendent light of truth” (Boethius 52).
At this point Philosophy sets out to prove that Fortune cannot bring happiness to man. By showing that the nature of Fortune is to change (be it from bad to good or good to bad), Philosophy also shows that Boethius’ fortune “was exactly the same when she was flattering you and luring you on with enticements of a false kind of happiness” (Boethius 55). Through this Philosophy shows that one cannot “really hold dear that kind of happiness which is destined to pass away” (Boethius 55). Since it is the nature of Fortune to move from good to bad, and vice versa, Boethius shows that good fortune is in essence indistinguishable from bad fortune. Therefore, it is pointless for the unhappy man to lie about and curse his fortune, for Fortune has not changed towards him.
Philosophy goes on to point out the a priori “desire for true good [that] is planted by nature in the minds of men” (Boethius 79). This desire for “true good” is the reason that
“mortal men travel by different paths, though all are striving to reach one and the same goal, namely, happiness, which…is the perfection of all good things and contains in itself all that is good” (Boethius 79).
Philosophy then demonstrates that humans focus upon the gathering of five things in their search for happiness. These are “wealth, positions, power, fame, [and] pleasure” (Boethius 80). Subsequently, Philosophy illustrates that these five things are actually inseparable aspects of the one truth, which, in keeping with Plato, all men have forgotten. Perfect happiness, then, “is that which makes a man self-sufficient, strong, worthy of respect, glorious and joyful” (Boethius 96).
Since “there is a certain imperfect happiness in perishable good” (Boethius 99), both Boethius and Philosophy surmise that perfect happiness is to be found in nonperishable good. Philosophy states that God’s “goodness is perfect” (Boethius 99). Thus, the two agree, “perfect good is perfect happiness; so it follows that true happiness is to be found in the supreme God” (Boethius 100). The last important point to make is that Boethius believes “each happy individual is divine…while only God is so by nature, as many as you like may become so by participation” (Boethius 102).
Now that Boethius’ realization of God as happiness has been explained, it is important to understand Aquinas’ ideas about the nature of happiness. Aquinas agrees with Boethius that true happiness is found in God; “final perfect happiness (beatitudo) can only come form the vision of the divine essence” (Aquinas 42). Aquinas proves this point in a manner similar to that of Boethius. First, Aquinas says, “man is not perfectly happy as long as something more remains to be desired or sought” (Aquinas 42). Since God is the highest power, substance, existence, et cetera, he is the highest thing it is possible to desire of seek. Therefore, man will be perfectly happy when his intellect has “reached to the very essence of the First Cause” (Aquinas 42).
However, Aquinas and Boethius differ greatly upon the question of whether anyone can or cannot be happy in this life. While Aquinas grants that while “some partial happiness can be achieved in this life…true perfect happiness cannot” (Aquinas 42). Aquinas declares that “partial happiness” can be gained through the theological virtues of faith, hope, and charity; “the supernatural virtues lead to supernatural happiness” (Aquinas 43).
It has been clearly shown that both Boethius and Aquinas feel that God is the one and only way to achieve true and everlasting happiness. However, while their logic is impeccable, one must accept the notion of God in order to follow their ideas. Both Aquinas and Boethius start out with the assumption that God does indeed exist, and all their arguments are based upon such. However, the proof God’s existence provided by each is questionable at best. Boethius offers no other argument other than that he cannot believe the ‘order’ of the universe could not come out of an unorganized chaos, which he assumes would exist if not for the intervention of God. Aquinas provides the reader with his ‘Five Proofs for the Existence of God,’ which are outlined earlier in the Summa Theologica. The prime argument presented here is the ‘teleological’ argument, which states, essentially, that since everything man can observe is transitory, the universe as a whole must be transitory as well. All transitory substances come into existence because of the motion of another substance. If God did not exist, then the chain of causality would continue infinitely back into time. Aquinas claims that this idea is ridiculous.
However this argument is suspect for two main reasons. The first is that the argument suffers from the Fallacy of Composition, that is, the part of the argument that states that the universe must be transitory because everything in it is transitory is wrong. By this logic, if every individual part of a car weighed less that one hundred pounds, the entire car would way less than one hundred pounds, which, through observation, is a ludicrous concept. Secondly, the argument, even after accepting the assumptions, merely forces you to make a decision between two options; it does not lead to one outcome exclusively. The reader is left to choose between the idea of infinite causality, or a necessary, non-transitory God.
Boethius and Aquinas both offer complete explanations of the nature of human happiness. Both share many key ideas, although they do differ greatly on others. God is essential to happiness in both philosophies, but is not essential unless one accepts their assumptions.