Tag: Philosophy

Reality and Ideas – adequatio rei et intellectus

Stephen L.Leave a comment

Epistemology is the science and study of how we know, and is incredibly important to form the correct foundations for the remainder of philosophy and more importantly, theology. How we think influences how we act and, how we come to a knowledge of God. It is important to understand where knowledge comes from and how it is truly pursued thus William Wallace writes in The Elements of Philosophy “man does not first know knowledge, he first knows things. It is only in one’s reflective awareness of the knowing process that he can know what it is to know”1

In order to more clearly see the importance of there being objectivity in thought we must look at the different schools pertaining to the development of this science and their views of how we know. The first school of thought are the materialists; this school reflects those who think that all of reality is merely material and can be explained through sense knowledge alone. In other words how these “philosophers” think we come to knowledge exists entirely in the material world.

At the opposite side of the schools lay the spiritualists; these philosophers, Plato being prominent among them, understand there to be non-material existence and reality but they deny the importance of the material realm for coming to knowledge. Plato believed in the existence of the soul, but rejected the importance of the body. Expounding further on his understanding he as well believed knowledge to already exist within the soul, but when trapped inside the body needed to remember what it already knew. Thus, in the view of the spiritualists, all knowledge already exists within a soul but needs to be drawn out of it.

The final, third school of thought is known as Aristotelianism; which believes knowledge to be both spiritual and material. This school sees the mind as a blank slate, ideas enter the mind primarily through our senses as they experience the objective world around us, finally culminating into further actions of the mind. For Aristotle, knowledge begins in the senses but ends in the mind; thus, having both a material and spiritual characteristic.

In order to follow the perennial philosophy of the ages Pope Leo XIII exhorts in his encyclical Aeterni Patris

“While, therefore, We hold that every word of wisdom, every useful thing by whomsoever discovered or planned, ought to be received with a willing and grateful mind, We exhort you, venerable brethren, in all earnestness to restore the golden wisdom of St. Thomas, and to spread it far and wide for the defense and beauty of the Catholic faith, for the good of society, and for the advantage of all the sciences.”2

As St. Thomas took from the patrimony of Aristotle we too see through it that because knowledge begins in our senses but ends perfected in the mind, truth itself can be described as the adequation of the mind to a thing. Because that which is experienced by our senses can lead to truth, when our senses experience something there must be a reality presenting itself to us. But truth in this sense is still imperfect and fallible. Truth is fully and substantially found only in the second act of the mind, the judgement. In order to know a thing completely you must be able to establish a relationship between the thing and that which it is not. These relationships made in judgement bring about a unity of knowledge and when it is in conformity with the actual unity of the object the mind attains truth. 

Our minds are made to know truth and this is recognized by our ability to form universal ideas, beginning through our sense experience, and ending in our mind. Because knowledge and truth are the conformity of our intellect to the object perceived, if our senses are not hindered in some way, truth is an objective, attainable reality. Since there are objective ideas in reality, there must also be objective ideas about God, which are primarily found in the theology of the Catholic Church. A theology which “signifies the noblest part and the true summit of philosophical discourse… which now is the reflection undertaken by the believer in order to express the true doctrine about God.”3 With a proper understanding, following perennial teaching, of the science of epistemology we can know the presence of objective ideas and thus come to a deeper understanding of the reality outside of the mere material; which can primarily be found within the theology of the Catholic Church.

1William Wallace OP, The Elements of Philosophy, Ltd ed. (Oregon: Wipf and Stock, 2011), 110
2Pope Leo XIII, Encyclical On The Restoration of Christian Philosophy Aeterni Patris (04 Aug 1879), §31
3 Pope John Paull II, Encyclical Letter on the Relationship Between Faith and Reason Fides et Ratio (14 September 1998), §39

More than the Moral Minimum – Foundations in Ethical Action

Stephen L.Leave a comment

As we’ve stated previously, the fundamental principle in Ethics is as follows: “good is to be done and evil is to be avoided.” Thus our first instinct when met with a difficult choice should be to follow this foundational principle. But how can we assure an act is good, and aren’t there times we can cooperate with an evil?

True Knowledge of a Good Act

There are three key aspects that go into ensuring an act is morally good or evil –
1) The object of the act
2) the intention of the moral agent
3) the circumstances associated with the situation

These three rules help to guide us; if any one of these rules is evil (wrong) then we cannot pursue the act (at least in its current form). Only when the object of the act is good, the intention is aimed appropriately, and the circumstances allow it can an act be deemed a “morally good act” (though the circumstances only modify the moral quality of it). For example, if one is to give money to the poor. The object of the act (giving money to those in need) is an objectively good thing, but say you were intending to do it to feel good about yourself or to gloat to your friends. Well, while the object of the act is good, your intention (the end, or reason for which you act) is wrong and therefore while it might have been a good thing to give the poor money, your act was morally corrupt, as you were doing it for an evil reason. 

As I mentioned, circumstances qualify an action; they adjust the moral character or affect the subjective guilt. While circumstances only qualify an action, we must always remember that a good action, with good intentions, still depends on the circumstances to truly be good. Using the same example as above; if you gave money to a poor man with the good intention of helping him for the sake of charity, but the money you used, you stole. The object and intention are noble (and wouldn’t be wrong in themselves) but the circumstance of stolen money still makes it a morally bad act. 

Why discuss whether an act is good or bad to begin with? In order to fully grasp the first principle in Ethics we must as well understand what it means to act in moral goodness and to avoid evil. Every action we make as rational beings is a moral action precisely because of our rational nature. We are able to freely choose good, to decipher the qualities surrounding an act and will the proper end. 

Cooperating with Evil?

Now that we’ve refreshed our memory on the fundamental principle in Ethics and have discussed acting as moral agents, what’s with this talk about cooperating with evil, especially following our discussion about whether we can perform an act or not based on its moral character?

-In order to examine this idea properly we must also understand another ethical principle, namely Double Effect. This principle states (put simply) that you can still perform an action that is associated with an evil effect of some kind as long as the evil itself is not the object of the act or the intention but is involved in the circumstances. As well there must be sufficiently/proportionately grave reason for permitting the evil.-

Now that we have obtained a glimpse at double effect we can understand that while there are times we can cooperate with evil, the evil must never be a part of the object or intention of the act and can only come from it (or in other words the good cannot come from the evil, but the good must happen and at the same time or immediately following the evil then happens) 

The verdict?

While we have seen that we can cooperate with evil (in very qualified circumstances) do we have to? The simple answer is, no. We never have to cooperate with evil, especially following the first principle in Ethics. Every action we make should be guided first and foremost to do good and avoid evil. Even the principle of double effect is led by this foundation. Anything associated with evil we should desire wholly to turn away from and remember to always turn to the source of infinite Goodness, God.

In very recent times it seems we’ve forgotten that in the face of great evil, or even one that is allowed on the basis of double effect, we don’t have to cooperate with it — 

Take the higher moral road, where radical saintly virtue is found

We shouldn’t be content with only doing the moral minimum, God is always calling us to live a life in Him, the fullness of Truth. The life of a saint is filled with much trial and tribulation, but it is only to further perfect us in virtue to make us more like Christ who suffered for our sake just the same. Follow Christ, choose your hill, carry your cross to the top, and die on it next to Him for His sake.