16. Beatitude Cannot Consist in Created Goods

Subscribe in Podcast App | Download Transcript

Lecture Notes

Main Topics #

Article 8: Whether Beatitude Consists in Some Created Good #

The Objections:

• Dionysius’s principle: The highest thing of the lowest nature attains the lowest of the superior nature—so man should attain to the lowest angelic nature
• The whole is better than the part; the universe (the “greater world”) compared to man (the “microcosm”) should constitute man’s beatitude
• Man’s natural desire extends only to goods within the limits of creatures, so some created good should satisfy it

Thomas’s Central Claim: It is impossible for beatitude to consist in any created good.

The Resolution: God as the Only Beatitude #

The Foundation: What Beatitude Must Be

• Beatitude is a perfect good that wholly brings rest to desire
• If anything remains to be desired, it is not the last end
• The will’s object is universal good—not particular limited goods
• Only what can satisfy the universal appetite can be beatitude

Why Creatures Cannot Satisfy the Will:

• Every creature possesses only participated good (bonum participatum)—good in a partial, limited way
• A creature’s goodness is always contingent and finite
• Only God is goodness itself (bonitas ipsa), not merely having goodness but being goodness
• Therefore, only God can “fill” or “fulfill” (impleri) the will of man

The Concept of Universal Good #

The Will and Its Object:

• Just as the understanding’s object is universal truth, the will’s object is universal good
• Because reason knows truth universally, the will is open to the whole of good
• No particular created good—no matter how great—is commensurate with the universal appetite of the will

What Makes God the Universal Good:

• God is not merely good in one respect and deficient in another
• God is Being itself (ipsum esse), and nothing is perfect except through being something (per aliquid esse)
• God’s being is not limited to this way or that way of being
• Therefore, God contains in an eminent way all perfections that creatures have in a partial way

Key Arguments #

Against Created Goods as Beatitude #

1. The Perfection Argument

• Beatitude must be a perfect good
• All created goods are imperfect/partial
• Therefore, no created good can be beatitude

2. The Universality Argument

• The will desires universal good
• Creatures offer only particular goods
• Only universal good can satisfy universal desire
• Only God is universal good

3. The Whole-and-Part Argument (Response to Second Objection)

• When a whole is itself ordered to a further end, the last end of the part is not the whole but that further end
• The universe of creatures is ordered to God as its last end
• The good of the universe (its internal order) is not the last end of man
• Therefore, God himself is the last end, not the universe

4. The Natural Desire Argument (Response to Third Objection)

• Man is capable of knowing a good as an object (obiectum), not merely as an intrinsic inherent thing
• This objective capacity is ordered to something infinite (bonum infinitum)
• No finite, contracted created good can satisfy an appetite ordered to the infinite
• The mind’s ordering to the infinite is evident in mathematics: numbers go on forever

Important Definitions #

Beatitudo (Beatitude)

• A perfect good that wholly brings rest to desire
• The last end of human appetite
• Consists not in possession of a created good but in the operation of the will resting in God

Bonum Universale (Universal Good)

• The proper object of the will
• Not limited to any particular good
• God alone possesses this universally; creatures possess only participated good

Bonum Participatum (Participated Good)

• Good that a creature has by sharing in God’s goodness
• Always limited, finite, particular
• Ordered to universal good as source and end

Impossibile

• In the strict sense: that which in no way can be (impossibile simpliciter)
• Also: that which is difficult to realize
• Thomas uses “impossible” in the strict sense here

Examples & Illustrations #

The Whole and Parts: Multiple Levels #

The Chair

• Order within the chair: parts relate to each other at certain angles
• The whole chair ordered to sitting
• Sitting is better than the whole chair—the whole is for the sake of sitting

The Army

• Order within the army: soldiers relate to one another
• The whole army ordered to victory
• Victory is the end, not the internal order
• “In war there’s no substitute for victory” (MacArthur)

The Universe

• Order within creatures: parts to each other
• The whole universe ordered to God
• God is the end, not the universe’s internal order
• The Our Father reflects this: “Hallowed be thy name” (glorifying God) comes before “Thy kingdom come” (the ordered society)

The Church

• Order within: the assembled people
• The church ordered to Christ and God
• “Why is the church a greater good than any one of us? So in some sense, I should love the church more than myself. But the whole church is ordered to Christ.”

The Scientist’s Error #

• Great scientists (Einstein, Niels Bohr) pursuing atheism
• Warren Murray’s insight: “Why are they atheist scientists?” (not “Why are these scientists atheists?”)
• They denied God, so they seek substitutes for God
• Einstein gave his life to cosmology—studying the universe as a whole
• The mistake: thinking the whole (universe) is better than its end (God)
• The truth: “The universe is for the sake of man, not man for the sake of the earth”

Numbers and Infinity #

• The fact that numbers go on forever shows the mind is ordered to something infinite
• Our mind does not close at any number; it always can think of a higher number
• This demonstrates the will is naturally ordered to universal, infinite good
• If the universe were infinite, this would not matter; but if it is finite, the infinite must be found elsewhere—in God

Beauty and Rest #

• A busy bishop lost his ability to sleep
• Solution: listening to classical music before bed
• Beautiful things bring rest to the heart
• If God is beauty itself (not just beautiful in one respect), then God alone can bring complete rest

Notable Quotes #

“It is impossible for the beatitude of man to consist in some created good. For beatitude is a perfect good which wholly brings to rest the appetite. Otherwise it would not be the last end if there still remains something to be desired.” — Thomas Aquinas

“The object of the will, which is the human faculty of desire, is the universal good. Just as the object of the understanding is the universal truth.” — Thomas Aquinas

“Because it is clear that nothing is able to bring to rest the will of man except a universal good. Which is not found in anything created, but only in God.” — Thomas Aquinas

“God alone is able to fill the will of man, according as is said in Psalm 102: ‘Who fulfills in good things your desire.’” — Thomas Aquinas

“You see, in some sense you know everything, right? Because everything is something and you know the difference between something and nothing.” — Berquist (on the mind’s grasp of universal truth)

“Too late have I come to know thee, thou ancient beauty.” — Augustine, Confessions (cited by Berquist)

“Well, maybe it’s the reverse. Why are they atheist scientists? In other words, that they’ve, for some reason or other, denied God, right? Then they have to find substitutes for God.” — Warren Murray (cited by Berquist)

Questions Addressed #

Can the universe constitute human beatitude?

• Objection: The universe is greater than man; Aristotle calls man the “microcosm”
• Response: The universe itself is ordered to God; therefore God, not the universe, is the ultimate end
• The universe includes man, and man is an elevated part, but the whole universe is ordered beyond itself

Can created goods satisfy the natural desire of man?

• Objection: Man’s natural desire extends only to goods within the limits of creatures
• Response: Man is capable of good as an object—ordered to something infinite. No finite created good satisfies an appetite ordered to the infinite

Why is a finite and contracted good insufficient?

• God made the universe finite and contracted by his choice
• A finite universe cannot be the end for a being whose will is ordered to universal, infinite good
• This shows a radical gap between the creature’s appetite and what any creature can offer

How does the principle “the end is better than the means” apply?

• This is perhaps more basic than “the whole is better than the part”
• Because the whole can be understood as the end of the part
• Therefore, if the universe is ordered to God, God (the end) is better than the universe (means)

Philosophical Principles Highlighted #

The Two Most Basic Statements About the Better:

1. The end is better than what is for the sake of the end
2. The whole is better than the part

• Of these, the end is perhaps more basic (the whole can be the end of the part)

Dionysius’s Principle:

• The highest thing of the lowest nature attains the lowest of the superior nature
• Man’s highest attainment is to some degree to share in angelic nature
• But this does not rest there as a final end; it proceeds to “the universal fountain of the good” (universal source of beatitude)

The Distinction Between Orders: Following Aristotle’s Metaphysics, Book XII:

• Order of parts to each other within a whole
• Order of the whole to an end outside itself
• The second order is more fundamental and constitutes the true end

Historical and Intellectual Context #

On the History of Thought about Infinity:

• Weitzäcker’s observation: Renaissance moved from Aristotle’s finite universe to infinite universe
• This change coincided with decline in theology
• Modern physics (Einstein’s relativity) discovered limits to what was thought infinite
• The mind’s need for infinity must be satisfied somewhere—in God, if not in the universe

On the Pre-Socratics:

• Even materialist philosophers sought a simple first principle (water, earth, air)
• But they failed to recognize this first principle as the most perfect
• Aristotle criticized this in the final books of the Metaphysics
• They confused what is first in order (simple) with what should be first in perfection

On the Meno Problem:

• Meno’s paradox: “How can you seek what you don’t know?”
• Socrates resolves by distinguishing: simply not knowing vs. knowing partially what you seek
• Similarly, researchers seeking (e.g., cause of cancer) know what they’re looking for in some way, even if not completely
• The mind always already has some grasp of what it seeks