One thing that the discussion of incontinence (which I will heretofore refer to as weakness of the will, or simply WOW) is to emphasize once again the important role of reason in medieval Christian thought as opposed to early Christian thought.
Recall that all cases of weakness of will (WOW) are alike in that our reasoning is overcome by passion. What was perhaps not stressed enough by me in class was the degree to which when we talk about incontinent acts today, we generally do not describe them as involving the loss of reason. The person who eats the chocolate cake she knows she should not eat would probably not describe herself as rationally deficient but as having no will power. But it is clear Aquinas agrees with Aristotle as seeing the problem as a defect of reason: the rational element (consisting of a universal premise "Fattening foods should not be eaten") is unable to be put into effect because it is overwhelmed by pleasure. All of those in levels 2-5 of the Inferno--lust, gluttony, greed, and anger--share the trait of knowing that what they are doing is wrong but of having this knowledge overcome by passion. Again, this is what defines weakness of will.
One of the more interesting examples of weakness of will put forth by someone in class involved the claim about someone who knew he shouldn't break into a house but did so anyway. Now this is certainly not a classic case of WOW. These usually involve the appetites of food, drink and sex. But if someone engaged in theft but thought it was wrong, they would still be considered an incontinent person, and distinguished from the person who engaged in theft without any sense that it was wrong. Interestingly, this example parallels a famous incident of Augustine in the Confessions, the story where he talked about a theft of some pears. He says he did not want to steal the pears, had no desire for the pears, did not even like pears, indeed, he and his friends threw the pears away. He questions himself why, if he believed all of these things, he stole the pears anyway.
Augustine's answer involves at least the fact that he was overcome by a desire for a lesser good, in this case, the desire to be one of the guys (friendship), and that his love of his friends over rode his love of God. The idea goes back to Socrates in that we are always aiming at some good; no one does anything thinking it is bad. The difference is that the incontinent person realizes that he/she is choosing the lesser good over the greater good while the evil person simply does not perceive the lesser good as lesser but believes it is the greater. So the same act can qualify as incontinence or vice depending upon the motivation of the agent.
Recall that all cases of weakness of will (WOW) are alike in that our reasoning is overcome by passion. What was perhaps not stressed enough by me in class was the degree to which when we talk about incontinent acts today, we generally do not describe them as involving the loss of reason. The person who eats the chocolate cake she knows she should not eat would probably not describe herself as rationally deficient but as having no will power. But it is clear Aquinas agrees with Aristotle as seeing the problem as a defect of reason: the rational element (consisting of a universal premise "Fattening foods should not be eaten") is unable to be put into effect because it is overwhelmed by pleasure. All of those in levels 2-5 of the Inferno--lust, gluttony, greed, and anger--share the trait of knowing that what they are doing is wrong but of having this knowledge overcome by passion. Again, this is what defines weakness of will.
One of the more interesting examples of weakness of will put forth by someone in class involved the claim about someone who knew he shouldn't break into a house but did so anyway. Now this is certainly not a classic case of WOW. These usually involve the appetites of food, drink and sex. But if someone engaged in theft but thought it was wrong, they would still be considered an incontinent person, and distinguished from the person who engaged in theft without any sense that it was wrong. Interestingly, this example parallels a famous incident of Augustine in the Confessions, the story where he talked about a theft of some pears. He says he did not want to steal the pears, had no desire for the pears, did not even like pears, indeed, he and his friends threw the pears away. He questions himself why, if he believed all of these things, he stole the pears anyway.
Augustine's answer involves at least the fact that he was overcome by a desire for a lesser good, in this case, the desire to be one of the guys (friendship), and that his love of his friends over rode his love of God. The idea goes back to Socrates in that we are always aiming at some good; no one does anything thinking it is bad. The difference is that the incontinent person realizes that he/she is choosing the lesser good over the greater good while the evil person simply does not perceive the lesser good as lesser but believes it is the greater. So the same act can qualify as incontinence or vice depending upon the motivation of the agent.
No comments:
Post a Comment