Perhaps nothing generates more surprise than Thomas’s acceptance of Aristotle’s account of the purpose of human life, the end for the sake of which everything we do is done. The surprise stems from the fact that for Aristotle the human good, happiness, is something achievable in this world by our own efforts. The acquisition of virtues ensures that singular acts will be easily and pleasantly directed to the true ultimate end of human life. A noble ideal and a remarkable achievement for a pagan philosopher. But Thomas Aquinas, as a Christian, held that humans are called to a higher, supernatural end, one to be enjoyed after this life and on the basis of virtues which are infused rather than acquired.
Obviously, of two rival concepts of the ultimate end of human life, one must be wrong. The ultimate end is taken to mean an absolutely sufficient good. If Aristotle taught that the happiness he analysed is man’s sufficient good, obviously this would rule out anything like the Christian supernatural end.
Thomas, in the passage below, distinguishes between the notion of the ultimate end and that which is taken to realize the notion. He and Aristotle work with the same notion of ultimate end; their difference lies in what they think realizes it. But there is more. Thomas notes an Aristotelian demur about what is taken to be the realization of the notion of ultimate. The Philosopher seems to be saying that there is a gap between the ideal of happiness and what human beings actually can achieve in this life. It is this demur that enables Thomas to reconcile the philosophical and Christian understanding of human happiness. If Thomas is right, Aristotle is not maintaining that the happiness we can realize satisfies the criteria of ultimate end; rather he maintains that what he describes is the best we can do.
This enables Thomas to say that Aristotle has described an imperfect happiness, a realization of the ultimate end that is admittedly incomplete. Complementing this, Thomas argues, is the perfect realization of the ultimate end that is promised the believer in the next world.
Far from being an incoherent waffling between competing perfect realizations of the ultimate end, Thomas puts before us two complementary analyses. Since the supernatural presupposes the natural and does not destroy it, he sees this as a philosophical basis for the theological analysis of man’s true and supernatural happiness. Just what one would expect.
Summa theologiae, First Part of the Second Part,
Questions 1–5
PROLOGUE
Since man is made to the image of God, insofar as by image is meant having intellect and free will as well as being in possession of oneself, as Damascene explains, after we have spoken of the exemplar, namely God, and of what proceeds from the divine power according to his will, there remains for us to consider his image, that is, man, insofar as he is the principle of his own acts, as having free will and power over his acts.
The first thing to consider is the ultimate end of human life and then how it is that a man can arrive at this end, or deviate from it, for the reason of things which are for the sake of the end is drawn from the end. Because the ultimate end of human life is said to be happiness, we must first speak of the ultimate end in general, and then of happiness. There are eight things to be asked about the first: (1) whether man acts for the sake of an end; (2) whether this is proper to a rational nature; (3) whether a man’s acts are specified by the end; (4) whether there is an ultimate end of human life; (5) whether one man can have several ultimate ends; (6) whether a man orders everything to the ultimate end; (7) whether there is the same ultimate end of all men; (8) whether all other creatures have that same ultimate end.
QUESTION I
ON MAN’S ULTIMATE END
Article 1: Does man act for the sake of an end?
It seems that he does not.
1. The cause is naturally prior, but the end has the note of the ultimate, as its very name suggests. Therefore, the end does not have the note of cause. But that for the sake of which a man acts is the cause of his action, since the prepositional phrase ‘that for the sake of which’, designates the relation of cause. Therefore, man does not act for the sake of an end.
2. Moreover, that which is the ultimate end is not for the sake of the end. But some actions are the ultimate end, as is clear from the Philosopher in Ethics 1.1. Therefore, not everything a man does is for the sake of an end.
3. Moreover, a man seems to act for an end when he deliberates, but a man does many things without deliberation, sometimes without any thought at all, as when he moves a hand or foot while intent on other things, or scratches his beard. Therefore, a man does not do everything for the sake of an end.
ON THE CONTRARY:
All the things in a genus depend on the principle of that genus. But the end is the principle in things done by man, as is clear from the Philosopher in Physics 2.9. Therefore, it belongs to a man to do everything for the sake of the end.
RESPONSE:
It should be said that of the actions that are done by a man, those alone are properly human which are proper to man insofar as he is a man. A man differs from irrational creatures in this, that he is the master of his acts. Hence only those actions are properly called human of which a man is master. But a man is master of his acts because of reason and will, hence free will is said to be a capacity of will and reason. Those acts are properly called human which proceed from deliberate will. If there are other acts which belong to a man, they can be called actions of a man, but not properly human, since they are not of man insofar as he is man. But it is manifest that all actions which proceed from a power are caused by it under the formality of its object. But the object of will is the end and good. Hence, all human actions must be for the sake of the end.
Ad 1. It should be said that the end, although it is last in execution, is first in the agent’s intention, and in this way it has the note of cause.
Ad 2. It should be said that if any human action is the ultimate end it has to be voluntary, otherwise it would not be human, as has been said. But an action can be called voluntary in two ways. In one way, because it is commanded by the will, like walking and talking; in another way, because it is elicited from the will, such as willing. But it is impossible that the elicited act of the will be the ultimate end, for the object of the will is the end, as colour is the object of sight. Hence just as it is impossible that the first thing seen should be seeing itself, because seeing is always of some visible object, so it is impossible that the first desirable, which is the end, should be willing itself. So if any human action is the ultimate end, it must be one commanded by the will. Thus some human action, at least willing itself, is for the sake of the end. Therefore, whatever a man does, it may truly be said that he acts for the sake of the end, even when performing the act which is the ultimate end.
Ad 3. It should be said that such actions are not properly human, because they do not proceed from the deliberation of reason, which is the proper principle of human acts. Therefore, they have some imagined end, but not one set out by reason.
Article 2: Is acting for an end peculiar to rational nature?
It seems that it is.
1. Man, whose nature it is to act for an end, never acts for the sake of an unknown end. But there are many things which do not know the end, or which lack knowledge entirely, such as creatures without senses, or which do not grasp the formality of the end, such as brute animals. Therefore, it seems proper to the rational creature to act for the sake of an end.
2. Moreover, to act for the sake of an end is to order one’s action to the end. But this is the work of reason. Therefore, it does belong to those things that lack reason.
3. Moreover, the good and end are the object of will. But the will is in reason, as is said in On the Soul 3.9. Therefore, to act for the sake of an end is proper to rational nature.
ON THE CONTRARY:
The Philosopher proves in Physics 2.5 that not only intellect but nature as well act for the sake of an end.
RESPONSE:
It should be said that it is necessary that all agents act for the sake of an end. In causes ordered among themselves, if the first is taken away, it is necessary that the others be taken away. But the first of all causes is the final cause. The reason for this is that matter does not attain form except as moved by an agent, for nothing reduces itself from potency to act. But the agent only moves by intending an end. For if the agent is not determined to some effect, it would not do this rather than that; in order for it to produce a definite effect, it must be determined to something certain, which has the note of end. This determination, which comes about in the rational agent through rational appetite, which is called the will, comes about in other things by natural inclination, which is called the natural appetite. However, it should be noted that a thing tends to the end by its own action or motion in two ways. In one way, as moving itself to the end, as man does; in another way, as moved to the end by another, as the arrow tends to a definite end because it is moved by the archer, who directs its action to the end.
Therefore, things that have reason move themselves to the end because they have dominion over their acts thanks to free will, which is a capacity of will and reason. Things that lack reason, tend to the end by natural inclination, as if moved by another, not themselves, since they do not grasp the notion of end and therefore can order nothing to an end, but are only ordered to an end by another. For the totality of irrational nature relates to God as an instrument relates to an agent principle, as was shown above.1Therefore, it is peculiar to rational nature to tend to the end as causing and moving itself to the end, whereas irrational nature tends to the end as caused or led by another, whether to a known end as with brute animals, or an end not known by them in the case of those which lack knowledge entirely.
Ad 1. It should be said that when a man acts by himself for the sake of an end he knows the end, but when he is caused or led by another, as when he acts on another’s command or when he is moved forcibly by another, he need not know the end. And that is the way it is with irrational creatures.
Ad 2. It should be said that only the one who himself acts for an end can order to the end, whereas that which is moved to the end by another, is ordered to the end. The irrational creature can do the latter, but only as moved by someone having reason.
Ad 3. It should be said that the object of will is the end and good generally, so will cannot be found in things which lack reason and intellect, since they cannot grasp the universal, but have a natural or sensitive appetite determined to some particular good. But clearly particular causes are moved by a universal cause, much as the ruler of the city, who intends the common good, by his command guides all the particular functions of the city. Therefore, things that lack reason must be moved to their particular ends by some rational will, which extends itself to the universal good, that is, by the divine will.
Article 3: Are human acts specified by the end?
It seems that they are not.
1. The end is an extrinsic cause, but a thing is specified by some intrinsic principle. Therefore, human acts are not specified by the end.
2. Moreover, that which specifies should be prior, but the end is the last to be. Therefore, the human act is not specified by the end.
3. A thing can only be of one species. But numerically the same act can be ordered to different ends. Therefore, the end cannot specify human acts.
ON THE CONTRARY:
Augustine says in On the Customs of the Church and in Against the Manicheans that our deeds are worthy of praise or blame insofar as their ends are worthy of praise or blame.
RESPONSE:
It should be said that a thing is specified as actual not as potential, hence those things composed of matter and form are placed in their species because of their proper forms. The same thing can be seen in their proper motions. For motion can be distinguished into actions and passions, and both of these are specified by act, the action by the act which is the principle of acting, the passion by the act which is the term of the motion. Hence, heating is a motion arising from heat and being heated is a movement towards heat. The definition makes clear the motion of the species.
In both ways, whether they be considered in the manner of action or of passion, human acts are specified by the end. Human acts can be considered in both ways because a man moves himself and is moved by himself. It was said above that acts are called human insofar as they proceed from deliberate will, but the object of will is the good and end. It is accordingly clear that the principle of human acts as human is the end. So too it is their term, for that in which the human act terminates is what the will intended as an end, much as in natural agents the form of the thing generated is like the form of the one generating. Ambrose says, in commenting on Luke, morals are properly said to be human. This is because moral acts are properly specified by their ends, for moral acts and human acts are the same.
Ad 1. It should be said that the end is not wholly extrinsic to the act, since it is related to the act as principle or term, and this is of the nature of the act, namely that it should be from something, as action, and to something, as passion.
Ad 2. It should be said that insofar as the end is first in intention, it pertains to the will, and in this way it specifies the human or moral act.
Ad 3. It should be said that numerically one action, once it emerges from the agent, is ordered to only one proximate end which specifies it, but it can be ordered to many remote ends, one of which is the end of the other. It is possible for specifically the same act to be ordered to different ends of the will, as to kill a man, which is of one natural species, can be ordered to the end of the preservation of justice or to the satisfying of anger. Consequently these will be different acts according to their moral species, since one is an act of virtue and the other of vice. A motion is not specified by an incidental term but only by the intended term. Moral ends are incidental to the natural thing; conversely, the natural end is incidental to the moral. Therefore, there is nothing to prevent those acts of the same natural species being in different moral species, and vice versa.
Article 4: Is there an ultimate end of human life?
It seems that there is an infinite regress of ends.
1. The good by reason of its nature is diffusive of itself, as is clear from Dionysius in On the Divine Names 4. Thus if that which comes from the good is good, that good must send forth another good, and thus there will be an infinite process of goods. But the good has the note of end. Therefore, there is not an infinite process of goods.
2. Moreover, things that are of reason can be infinitely multiplied, which is why mathematical quantities can be increased to infinity; the species of numbers are infinite too, because, given any number, one can always think of a greater. But the desire for the end follows on the grasp of reason. Therefore it seems that there can be an infinite process in ends as well.
3. Moreover, the good and end are the object of will, but the will can reflect infinitely on itself, for I can will something and will myself to will it and so on infinitely. Therefore, in the ends of the human will there can be a process to infinity, and there is no ultimate end of the human will.
ON THE CONTRARY:
The Philosopher says in Metaphysics 2.2 that an infinite process takes away the nature of the good. But the good has the note of end. Therefore, it is contrary to the notion of end that there should be an infinite process, so there must be an ultimate end.
RESPONSE:
It should be said that, speaking per se, it is impossible for there to be an infinity of ends on either side. For things which have an essential order to one another are such that take away the first, those ordered to the first must be taken away. In Physics 8.5 the Philosopher proves that there cannot be an infinite regress in moving causes since then there would not be a first mover, and take that away, the others cannot move since they only move insofar as they are moved by the prime mover. There is a twofold order in ends, namely the order of intention and the order of execution, and in each there must be a first. That which is first in the order of intention is a principle that moves because desired; hence, take it away and appetite is moved by nothing. That which is a principle in execution is that whence the activity begins; so take it away and nothing would begin to act.
The principle in intention is the ultimate end, the principle of execution is the first of the things which are for the sake of the end. Thus it is impossible on either side to proceed to infinity, because if there were no ultimate end, nothing would be desired, nor would any action terminate, nor would the intention of the agent come to rest; if there is not something first among the things which are for the sake of the end, no one would begin to do anything, nor would deliberation come to an end, but it would go on endlessly.
Nothing prevents things that do not have an essential order but are conjoined only incidentally from proceeding to infinity, for incidental causes are indeterminate. In this way there can be an incidental infinity of ends and of things which are for the sake of the end.
Ad 1. It should be said that it is of the nature of the good that something flow from it but not that it proceed from another. Therefore, since good has the note of end, and the first good is the ultimate end, this argument does not prove that there is no ultimate end but that, supposing a first end, there can be an infinite process downward in things for the sake of the end. And this would work if we took into account only the power of the first good, which is infinite. But because the diffusion of the first good is according to intellect, the mark of which is that it is according to a certain form that the good flows into the caused, a certain mode is attached to the flow of goods from the first good, by which all other goods participate in the diffusive power. Therefore, the diffusion of goods does not proceed to infinity, but as is said in Wisdom 11.21: ‘Thou hast ordered all things in measure, and number, and weight.’
Ad 2. It should be said that in things that are per se, reason begins from principles naturally known by us and progresses to some term. Hence the Philosopher proves in Posterior Analytics 1.3 that there is no infinite regress in demonstrations because demonstrations involve things connected among themselves essentially and not incidentally. In things incidentally connected nothing stops reason from proceeding to infinity. It is incidental to any given number as such that one be added to it, which is why in such matters there is nothing to prevent reason from proceeding to infinity.
Ad 3. It should be said that that multiplying of acts of the will reflecting on itself is incidentally related to the order of ends, which is clear from this that it is one and the same end that is taken once or many times as will reflects on itself.
Article 5: Can a man have several ultimate ends?
It seems that he can.
1. Augustine says in the City of God 19. I that some posited the ultimate end of man in four things: namely in pleasure, in rest, in the first things of nature, and in virtue. These are clearly plural. Therefore, a man can fix the ultimate end of his will in many things.
2. Moreover, things that are not opposed to one another do not exclude one another. But there are many things that are not opposed to one another. Therefore, if one is taken as the ultimate end of the will, other things are not excluded by that fact.
3. Moreover, the will does not set aside its free power by the fact that it takes something for its ultimate end. But before it placed its ultimate end in that, for example in pleasure, it was able to take something else for its ultimate end, for example riches. So too later, when it takes pleasure for its ultimate end, it can at the same time take riches for its ultimate end. Therefore, it is possible for the will of the same man to bear on different ultimate ends at the same time.
ON THE CONTRARY:
That in which one rests as in the ultimate end dominates a man’s affections, since the whole rule of his life is taken from it. Hence it is said of gluttons in Philippians 3.19, ‘whose god is their belly’, because they take the delights of the stomach as their ultimate end. But it is said in Matthew 6.24, ‘No one can serve two masters’, that is, not ordered to one another. Therefore, it is impossible for there to be many ultimate ends of the same man unless they are ordered to one another.
RESPONSE:
It should be said that it is impossible for the will of one man to relate to different things as to ultimate ends. Three reasons can be given for this. First, since every thing desires its own perfection, it desires as its ultimate end that which it desires as its perfect good, of itself fulfilling. Hence Augustine says in the City of God 19.1 we now call the end or good not what is consumed and is no more but that which perfects so that it might be full. Therefore, the ultimate end must so fulfil the whole of man’s desire that there is nothing further left to desire outside it. This would be impossible if something extraneous to it were needed for its perfection. Hence there cannot be two things towards which appetite would tend as if both were the good perfective of it.
The second argument is this. In the process of reason the principle is that which is naturally known, and so too in the process of rational appetite or will there must be a principle that is naturally desired. But this must be one, because nature only tends to one. But the principle in the process of rational appetite is the ultimate end. So that towards which will tends under the formality of ultimate end must be one.
The third argument is this. Since voluntary actions are specified by the end, as has been shown, the ultimate end, which is common, must have the note of a genus, as natural things are placed in a genus according to their common formal notion. Therefore, since all things desirable by will, as such, are of one genus, the ultimate end must be one. Especially because in any genus there is a first principle, and the ultimate end has the note of first principle, as has been said. As the ultimate end of man simply relates to the whole human race, so does the ultimate end of this man relate to him. Hence, just as there must naturally be one ultimate end of all men, so the will of this man must be placed in one ultimate end.
Ad 1. It should be said that all those many things are included in the notion of one perfect good constituted of them, by those who put the ultimate end in these.
Ad 2. It should be said that although many things can be taken which are not opposed to one another, that there be something of perfection outside it is opposed to the perfect good.
Ad 3. It should be said that the power of the will is not such that it might make opposites to be at the same time, which could happen if it tended towards many disparate things as ultimate ends, as is clear from what has been said.
Article 6: Does a man will everything for the sake of the ultimate end?
It seems that he does not.
1. Those things which are ordered to the ultimate end are called serious, because useful. But the frivolous is distinguished from the serious. Therefore, the things that a man frivolously does are not ordered to the ultimate end.
2. Moreover, the Philosopher says at the beginning of the Metaphysics 1.2 that speculative sciences are sought for their own sake. But it cannot be said that each of them is the ultimate end. Therefore not everything that a man desires does he desire for the sake of the ultimate end.
3. Moreover, whoever orders something to an end, thinks about that end. But a man does not always think of the ultimate end in every thing he desires or does. Therefore, a man does not desire or do everything for the sake of the ultimate end.
ON THE CONTRARY:
Augustine says in the City of God 19.1 that that for the sake of which other things are loved but is itself loved for its own sake is the end of our good.
RESPONSE:
It ought to be said that it is necessary that whatever a man seeks, he seek for the sake of the ultimate end. Two arguments make this clear. First, because whatever a man desires, he desires under the formality of the good, and if it is not desired as the perfect good, which is the ultimate end, it must be desired as tending to the perfect good, because the beginning of something is always ordered to its fulfilment, which is through the ultimate end. Second, because the ultimate end is to moving the appetite as the first mover is to other motions. It is manifest that secondary moving causes move only insofar as they are moved by the first mover. Hence the secondary desirables do not move appetite except as ordered to the first desirable, which is the ultimate end.
Ad 1. It should be said that playful actions are not ordered to any extrinsic end, but are ordered to the good of the player himself insofar as they delight or afford rest. But the fulfilled good of man is his ultimate end.
Ad 2. It should be said, concerning speculative science which is sought as the good of the knower, that it is comprehended in the complete and perfect good, which is the ultimate end.
Ad 3. It should be said that one need not always think of the ultimate end whenever he desires or does something, but the force of the first intention, which looks to the ultimate end, remains in the desire of anything whatsoever, even if the ultimate end is not actually thought of. No more does one who is on a journey have to think at every step of his destination.
Article 7: Is there the same ultimate end for all men?
It seems that there is not.
1. Man’s ultimate end seems to be above all an unchanging good. But some turn away from the unchanging good by sinning. Therefore, there is not the same ultimate end for all men.
2. Moreover, a man’s life is regulated with respect to the ultimate end. Therefore, if there were the same ultimate end of all men, it would follow that there would not be different manners of living among men, which is evidently false.
3. Moreover, the end is the term of action, and actions are of singulars. But men, although they share the nature of a species, differ with respect to what pertains to individuals. Therefore, there is not the same ultimate end for all men.
ON THE CONTRARY:
Augustine says in On the Trinity 13.3 that all men are alike in seeking the ultimate end, which is happiness.
RESPONSE:
It should be said that we can speak of the ultimate end in two ways. In one way, according to the notion of ultimate end, in another way, according to that in which the notion of ultimate end is realized. With respect to the notion of ultimate end, all agree in the desire of the ultimate end, because every one seeks to fulfil his own perfection, which is the notion of the ultimate end, as has been said. But with respect to that in which this notion is realized, all men do not agree on the ultimate end, for some seek riches as the complete end, others pleasure, and others something else, just as the sweet is delightful to taste, yet for some it is the sweetness of wine that is most delightful, while for others it is the sweetness of honey, or of something else. But that sweet must be simply more delightful in which those of good taste take most delight. Similarly, that good is most complete which those having a well disposed appetite seek as the ultimate end.
Ad 1. It should be said that those who sin turn away from that in which the notion of ultimate end is truly found, but not from the intention of the ultimate end, which they falsely seek in other things.
Ad 2. It should be said that different ways of living come about among men because of the different things in which the notion of ultimate end is sought.
Ad 3. It should be said that, although actions are of singulars, still the first principle of acting in them is nature, which tends to one, as has been said.
Article 8: Do all other things share this same ultimate end?
It seems that they do.
1. The end answers to the beginning. But he who is the principle of men, namely, God, is also the principle of everything else. Therefore, all other things share in man’s ultimate end.
2. Moreover, Dionysius says in On the Divine Names 4 that God converts all things to himself as to the ultimate end. But he is also the ultimate end of man, because he alone is to be enjoyed, as Augustine says. Therefore, other things share man’s ultimate end.
3. Moreover, the ultimate end of man is the object of will, but the object of will is the universal good, which is the end of all. Therefore, it is necessary that all things share in man’s ultimate end.
ON THE CONTRARY:
Man’s ultimate end is happiness, which we all desire, as Augustine says. But animals devoid of reason cannot be happy, as Augustine says in the Eighty-three Questions 5. Therefore, other things do not share in man’s ultimate end.
RESPONSE:
It should be said that, as the Philosopher says in Physics 2.2 and in On the Soul 2.4, the end is understood in two ways, namely of which [cuius] and for what [quo], that is, the thing in which the formality of good is found, and the use or attainment of that thing. For just as we say that the end of the motion of the heavy body is either the lower place as the thing, or to be in the lower place, as use, so we say that the end of the miser is either money as the thing or possession of the money as use.
Therefore, if we speak of the ultimate end of man with respect to the thing which is the end, then all other things share in the ultimate end of man, because God is the ultimate end of man and of all other things. But if we speak of the ultimate end of man with respect to the attainment of the end, then irrational creatures do not share that end. For man and other rational creatures pursue the ultimate end by knowing and loving God, and other creatures cannot do this, but they attain the ultimate end insofar as they participate in some similitude of God, insofar as they exist, live or even know.
The responses to the objections are evident from this.
QUESTION 2
Next we must consider happiness, for happiness means the attainment of the ultimate end. First, what it consists of; second, what it is; third, how we can attain it. Eight things are asked about the first: (1) whether happiness consists of riches; (2) whether of honours; (3) whether of fame or glory; (4) whether of power; (5) whether in any good of the body; (6) whether of lust; (7) whether of any good of the soul; (8) whether of any created good.
Article 1: Does man’s happiness consist of riches?
It seems that it does.
1. Since happiness is man’s ultimate end, it will especially consist of that which dominates man’s desire. But such are riches, for it is said in Ecclesiastes 10.19, ‘For all things obey money.’ Therefore man’s happiness consists of riches.
2. Moreover, according to Boethius in the Consolation of Philosophy 3.2, happiness is the state perfected by the aggregation of all goods. But it seems that all things can be had for money, because, as the Philosopher says in Ethics 10, money was invented so that it might be taken in trust for whatever a man wishes to have. Therefore happiness consists of riches.
3. Moreover, the desire for the highest good, since it never fails, seems to be infinite. But this is found especially in riches, because, as is said in Ecclesiastes 5.9, ‘A covetous man shall not be satisfied with money.’ Therefore happiness consists of riches.
ON THE CONTRARY:
The good of man consists in retaining happiness rather than in losing it. But, as Boethius says in the Consolation of Philosophy 2.5, ‘They seek to spend rather than amass money, because avarice always makes men odious while liberality makes them renowned.’ Therefore happiness does not consist of riches.
RESPONSE:
It should be said that it is impossible that man’s happiness should consist of riches. For there are two kinds of riches, as the Philosopher says in Politics 1.3, namely natural and artificial. Natural riches are those that enable a man to bear his natural defects, such as food, drink, clothing, a mount, a house and the like. But artificial riches are those whereby nature is not helped, such as money, but human art fashions them for the facility of exchange, that it might be the measure of things to be sold.
But it is manifest that human happiness does not consist of natural riches, for these are sought for something else, namely to sustain the life of man and so they cannot be the ultimate end of man but are rather ordered to man as their end. Hence in the order of nature all such things are below man and made for man according to Psalm 8.7: ‘Thou hast put all things under his feet.’
Artificial riches are sought only for the sake of natural riches, for they are only sought in order that with them things necessary for life can be bought. Hence much less do they have the note of ultimate end and it is impossible that happiness, which is man’s ultimate end, should consist of riches.
Ad 1. It should be said, therefore, that all bodily things obey money in the view of the mob of stupid men who recognize only bodily goods that can be got with money. But the judgement of human goods ought not to be taken from the stupid, but from the wise, just as judgement about taste is taken from those whose tongue is well disposed.
Ad 2. It should be said that all buyable things can be had with money, but not spiritual things which are not for sale. Hence it is said in Proverbs 17.16, ‘What does it avail a fool to have riches, seeing he cannot buy wisdom?’
Ad 3. It should be said that the appetite for natural riches is not infinite, because they suffice according to a certain measure of nature. But the appetite for artificial riches is infinite, because it serves inordinate concupiscence which is not modified, as is evident from the Philosopher in Politics 1.3. The desire for riches is infinite in a different way than the desire for the highest good, for the more perfectly the highest good is possessed the more it is loved and other things contemned because the more it is had, the more it is known. Therefore it is said in Ecclesiasticus 24.29, ‘They that eat me shall yet hunger.’ But in the appetite for riches and any other temporal goods it is the reverse, for once they are had, they are contemned and other things desired, in keeping with what is said in John 4.13: ‘Everyone who drinks of this water [which signifies temporal things] will thirst again.’ This is so because their insufficiency is known better when they are had. But this reveals their imperfection and that the highest good does not consist of them.
Article 2: Does man’s happiness consist of honours?
It seems that it does.
1. For happiness or felicity is the reward of virtue, as the Philosopher says in Ethics 1.9. But honour seems especially to be the reward for virtue, as the Philosopher says in Ethics 4.3. Therefore, happiness consists especially of honour.
2. Moreover, that which belongs most excellently to God, would seem especially to be happiness, which is the perfect good. But such is honour, as the Philosopher says in Ethics 4.3, and the Apostle too in 1 Timothy 1.17: ‘To God alone be honour and glory.’ Therefore happiness consists of honour.
3. Moreover, that which is most desired by men is happiness, but nothing seems more desirable to men than honour, because men suffer loss of all other things lest there be some detriment to their honour. Therefore happiness consists of honour.
ON THE CONTRARY:
Happiness is in the happy person. But honour is not in the one who is honoured, but rather in the bestower of it, who shows reverence to the honoured, as the Philosopher says in Ethics 1.5. Therefore, happiness does not consist of honour.
RESPONSE:
It should be said that it is impossible for happiness to consist of honour, for honour is shown to someone because of some excellence of his, and thus is a sign and testimony of the excellence that is in the one honoured. But man’s excellence is especially looked for in happiness, which is his perfect good, and according to its parts, that is, according to the goods which participate in something of happiness. Therefore, honour can indeed follow on happiness, but it cannot consist of it principally.
Ad 1. It should be said that the Philosopher says the same, for honour is not the reward of virtue for the sake of which the virtuous act; rather they accept honour from men in place of a reward, as from those having nothing better to offer. But happiness itself is the true reward of virtue, for the sake of which the virtuous act. But if they acted for the sake of honour, this would not be virtue but rather ambition.
Ad 2. It should be said that honour is owed to God and to the most excellent as a sign or testimony of a pre-existent excellence, not as if honour made them excellent.
Ad 3. It should be said that out of a natural desire for happiness, on which honour follows, as has been said, it happens that men especially desire honour. Hence men seek to be honoured especially by the wise, by whose judgement they think themselves to be excellent or happy.
Article 3: Does man’s happiness consist of fame or glory?
It seems that it does.
1. For happiness seems to consist in what is given the saints because of the tribulations they suffer in this life. But this is glory, for the Apostle says in Romans 8.18, ‘For I reckon that the sufferings of the present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory to come that will be revealed in us.’ Therefore, happiness consists of glory.
2. Moreover, the good is diffusive of itself, as is clear from Dionysius in On the Divine Names 4. But by glory the good of man is especially made known to others, because glory, as Ambrose says, is nothing other than full knowledge with praise. Therefore man’s happiness consists of glory.
3. Moreover, happiness is the most stable of goods. But fame and glory seem to be such, because through them men share in eternity in a way. Hence Boethius says in the Consolation of Philosophy 2.7, ‘But you imagine that you make yourselves immortal when you cast your eyes upon future fame.’ Therefore man’s happiness consists in fame or glory.
ON THE CONTRARY:
Happiness is man’s true good, but fame or glory can be false, as Boethius also says in the Consolation of Philosophy 3.6: ‘For many have often been much spoken of through the false opinions of the common people. Than which what can be imagined more vile? For those who are falsely commended must needs blush at their own praises.’ Therefore man’s happiness does not consist of fame or glory.
RESPONSE:
It should be said that it is impossible for man’s happiness to consist of fame or glory, for glory is nothing other than full knowledge with praise, as Ambrose says. But the thing known compares in one way to human knowledge and in another to divine, for human knowledge is caused by things, but divine knowledge is the cause of the things known. Hence the perfection of the human good, which is called happiness, cannot be caused by human knowledge, but rather human knowledge proceeds from someone’s happiness and is in a way caused by human happiness itself, whether inchoate or perfect. Therefore human happiness cannot consist of fame or glory. But the good of man depends on God’s knowledge as on its cause. Therefore man’s happiness depends, as on its cause, on the glory that is with God, according to Psalm 90.15 – 16: ‘I will rescue him and honour him. I will fill him with length of days and I will show him my salvation.’ Another thing too should be considered, namely that human knowledge is often deceived, especially in singular contingents such as human acts. Therefore, human glory is often deceptive. But because God cannot be deceived, his glory is always true, and for this reason it is said in 2 Corinthians 10.18, ‘For he is not approved who commends himself, but he whom the Lord commends.’
Ad 1. It should be said that the Apostle does not speak there of the glory which is from men, but of the glory which is from God before his angels. Hence it is said in Mark 8.38, ‘Of him the Son of Man will also be ashamed when he comes with the holy angels in the glory of his Father.’
Ad 2. It should be said that the good of a man which comes from fame or glory is in the knowledge of many. If indeed the knowledge is true, it must derive from the good existing in that man, and thus it presupposes perfect or inchoate happiness; but if it is false it is not in accord with reality and thus good is not found in the one whose fame is celebrated. Hence it is clear that fame in no way can make a man happy.
Ad 3. It should be said that fame has no stability; indeed, by false rumour it is easily lost. And if for a time it remains stable, this is incidental. But happiness has stability of itself and always.
Article 4: Does man’s happiness consist of power?
It seems that it does.
1. All things seek to be assimilated to God as to their ultimate end and first principle. But men in positions of power, because power is a similitude, seem most conformed to God. Hence in Scripture they are called gods, as is evident in Exodus 22.28: ‘Thou shalt not speak ill of the gods, and the prince of thy people thou shalt not curse.’ Therefore, happiness consists in power.
2. Moreover, happiness is the perfect good. But the most perfect man is one who can also govern others, which belongs to those constituted in power. Therefore, happiness consists in power.
3. Moreover, happiness, since it is most desirable, is opposed to that which is most to be fled. But men especially flee servitude, to which power is contraposed. Therefore happiness consists in power.
ON THE CONTRARY:
Happiness is the perfect good. But power is most imperfect. For, as Boethius says in the Consolation of Philosophy 3.5, ‘What power is this, then, which cannot expel nor avoid biting cares and pricking fears?’ And later: ‘Thinketh thou him mighty who dareth not go without his guard, who feareth others more than they fear him?’
RESPONSE:
It should be said that it is impossible for happiness to consist of power, for two reasons. First, because power has the note of a beginning, as is evident in Metaphysics 5.12. But happiness has the note of the ultimate end. Second, because power is related to good and evil, but happiness is man’s perfect and proper good. Hence some happiness might consist of the good use of power, which is through virtue, not in power itself.
Four general reasons can be brought forward to show that human happiness cannot consist in any of the foregoing external goods. Of which the first is that since happiness is man’s highest good, no evil is compatible with it. But all the foregoing can be found in goods and evils. The second reason is that since it is of the definition of happiness that it be sufficient unto itself, as is evident in Ethics 1.7, it is necessary that, happiness being attained, no good necessary for man is absent from it. But those who achieve any of the foregoing can still lack many goods necessary for man, for example wisdom, health of body, and the like. Third, because since happiness is a perfect good, through it no evil can come to anyone, and that is not true of the foregoing, for it is said in Ecclesiastes 5.12, ‘Riches kept to the hurt of their owner.’ And the same is so with the other three. The fourth reason is that man is ordered to happiness by internal principles and for the most part by fortune, hence they are called the goods of fortune. Hence it is evident that happiness can in no way consist in the foregoing.
Ad 1. It should be said that the divine power is his goodness, hence he can only use his power well. But this is not so with men. Hence it does not suffice for man’s happiness that he be assimilated to God with respect to power, unless he is also assimilated to him with respect to goodness.
Ad 2. It should be said that, as it is best that one use power well in the governance of others, so it is worst if he uses it badly. And thus power is related to both good and evil.
Ad 3. It should be said that servitude is an impediment to the good use of power, and therefore men naturally flee it, and not as if the highest good is in the power of man.
Article 5: Does man’s happiness consist of some bodily good?
It seems that it does.
1. It seems that man’s happiness consists of goods of the body. For it is said in Ecclesiasticus 30.16, ‘There are no riches above the riches of the health of the body.’ But happiness consists in that which is best. Therefore it consists of the health of the body.
2. Moreover, Dionysius says in On the Divine Names 5 that to exist is better than to live and to live better than the other things which follow on it. But health of body is required for man’s existence and life. Therefore since happiness is man’s highest good, it seems that health of body especially pertains to happiness.
3. Moreover, the more common a thing is the more it depends on a higher principle, because the higher a cause the more widely its power extends. But just as the causality of the efficient cause is considered according to its influence, so the causality of the end is gauged according to appetite. Therefore just as the first efficient cause is that which acts on all things, so the ultimate end is that which is desired by all. But existence itself is the chief thing desired by all. Therefore man’s happiness is especially to consist in the things that pertain to his existence, such as health of body.
ON THE CONTRARY:
Man excels all other animals in happiness. But many animals excel him in goods of the body, as the elephant in length of life and the lion in bravery and the stag in running. Therefore man’s happiness does not consist of goods of the body.
RESPONSE:
It should be said that it is impossible that man’s happiness should consist of goods of the body, for two reasons. First, because it is impossible that the ultimate end be the conservation in existence of something that is ordered to it. Hence the captain does not intend, as his ultimate end, the preservation of the ship assigned to him because the ship is ordered to something else as to its end, namely to navigation. Just as the ship is committed to the captain that navigates it, so man is committed to his will and reason, according to Ecclesiasticus 15.14: ‘God made man from the beginning and left him in the hand of his own counsel.’ But it is manifest that man is ordered to something as to an end, for man is not the highest good. Hence it is impossible that the ultimate end of human reason and will should be the preservation of human existence. Second, because, even given that the end of human reason and will were the preservation of human existence, the end of man could not be said to be a good of body. For human existence consists of body and soul, and although the existence of body depends on soul, the existence of the human soul does not depend on body, as has been shown above; the body itself is for the sake of soul, as matter is for the sake of form, and the instrument for the sake of the mover, in order that through it it might exercise its actions. Hence all the goods of the body are ordered to the goods of the soul as to their end. Hence it is impossible that happiness, which is the ultimate end, should be found in the goods of the body.
Ad 1. It should be said that, just as body is ordered to soul as to its end, so the external goods are ordered to body. Therefore the good of the body is reasonably preferred to the external goods, which are signified by ‘riches’, just as the goods of soul are preferred to all the goods of body.
Ad 2. It should be said that existence taken simply insofar as it includes in itself every perfection of existing, is more eminent than life and all subsequent things, for thus existence itself has in it all the subsequent [perfections] and this is how Dionysius speaks. But if existence be considered insofar as it is participated in by this thing or that, which does not receive the full perfection of existing but has imperfect existence – something true of the existence of any creature – then it is manifest that existence with a superadded perfection is more eminent. Hence Dionysius says that the living are better than the existing, and the understanding than the living.
Ad 3. It should be said that because the end answers to the beginning, that argument proves that the ultimate end is the first principle of existing, in which there is every perfection of existing, whose similitude men seek according to their proportion, some according to existence alone, others according to living existence, yet others according to living and understanding and happy existence. And this is of the few.
Article 6: Does man’s happiness consist of pleasure?
It seems that it does.
1. Happiness, since it is the ultimate end, is not sought for the sake of something else, but other things are sought for its sake. But this is especially the case with pleasure, for it is ridiculous to ask someone why he wants to feel pleasure, as is said in Ethics 10.2. Therefore, happiness consists in delight and pleasure.
2. Moreover, the first cause impresses itself more vehemently than the second, as is said in the Book of Causes 1. But the influence of the end is seen in the appetite for it. Therefore that which most moves appetite seems to have the note of ultimate end. And this is pleasure, a sign of which is that pleasure can so absorb a man’s reason and will that it causes him to disdain other goods. Therefore it seems that man’s ultimate end, which is happiness, consists especially of pleasure.
3. Moreover, since appetite is for the good, that which all things desire seems to be best. But all desire pleasure, both the wise and the foolish, and even things lacking reason. Therefore pleasure is best and happiness which is the highest good consists of pleasure.
ON THE CONTRARY:
Boethius says in the Consolation of Philosophy 3.7, ‘I know not what sweetness their beginnings have, but whosoever will remember his lusts shall understand that the end of pleasure is sadness. Which if it be able to cause happiness, there is no reason why beasts should not be thought blessed.’
RESPONSE:
It should be said that because bodily pleasures are known by many, the term ‘pleasure’ is appropriated to them, as is said in Ethics 7.13. But there are other stronger pleasures in which happiness does not consist. In each thing what pertains to its essence is other than what belongs to it incidentally, as in man to be a rational mortal animal is one thing, and to be risible another. Therefore it must be recognized that every pleasure is some proper accident that follows on happiness, or on some part of happiness, because one delights in having a good that befits him, whether present, hoped for or remembered. The fitting good, if it is perfect, is the very happiness of man, but if it is imperfect it is a participation in happiness, whether proximate or remote or at least apparent. Hence it is manifest that not even the pleasure that follows on perfect happiness is the very essence of happiness, but is rather a per se accident following on it. Bodily pleasure cannot even in that way follow on the perfect good. For it follows on the good grasped by sense, which is a power of soul using the body. But the good that pertains to body, which is grasped by sense, cannot be the perfect good of man. For since the rational soul exceeds the proportion of bodily matter, the part of the soul which is free from any bodily organ has a kind of infinity with respect to body and the parts of soul concretized in body, just as immaterial things are in a certain way infinite with respect to the material because form is, as it were, contracted and limited by matter. Therefore sense, which is a bodily power, knows the singular which is determinate because of matter, whereas intellect, which is a power free of matter, knows the universal which is abstracted from matter and contains under itself an infinity of singulars. Hence it is evident that the good befitting body which, when grasped by sense, causes bodily pleasure, is not the perfect good of man, but is least in comparison to the good of soul. Hence Wisdom 7·9 says that ‘all gold in comparison of her is as a little sand’. So bodily pleasure is neither happiness itself nor a property of it.
Ad 1. It should be said that the reason for pursuing the good and for pursuing pleasure is the same, which is nothing other than that the appetite might come to rest in the good. So too it is by the same natural power that the heavy is borne downward and rests there when it arrives. Hence just as the good is sought for its own sake, so too pleasure is not sought for the sake of something else, if ‘for the sake of’ means final cause. If it means formal cause, or rather efficient, then pleasure is desirable for something else, that is, for the good which is the object of pleasure, and consequently the principle that gives it form. Pleasure is desirable because it is repose in the good desired.
Ad 2. It should be said that the vehement desire for sensible pleasure happens because the operations of the senses, which are principles of our knowledge, are more perceptible. And that is why most people desire sense pleasure.
Ad 3. It should be said that things desire pleasure in the same way they desire the good, but they desire pleasure because of the good and not vice versa, as has been said. Hence it does not follow that pleasure is the greatest good as such, but that every pleasure follows on some good, and that some pleasure follows on that which is the greatest good and good of itself.
Article 7: Does man’s happiness consist in some good of the soul?
It seems that it does.
1. Happiness is a good of man, but of this there are three kinds: external goods, goods of the body and goods of the soul. But happiness does not consist of external goods, nor in goods of the body, as has been shown above; therefore, it consists of goods of the soul.
2. Moreover, we love the one for the sake of whom we desire some good more than we love that good, just as we love the friend for whom we seek money more than the money. But everyone loves the good for himself. Therefore he loves himself more than all other goods. But happiness is especially loved, which is evident from this that all other things are loved and desired for its sake. Therefore happiness consists of some good of man himself, but not in goods of the body; therefore, in goods of the soul.
3. Moreover, perfection is something of the thing perfected. But happiness is a perfection of man, therefore happiness is something of man. But it is not something of body, as has been shown. Therefore happiness is something of soul and thus consists of goods of the soul.
ON THE CONTRARY:
As Augustine says in On Christian Doctrine, that in which the happy life consists ought to be loved for its own sake. But man is not loved for himself, since whatever is in man should be loved for the sake of God. Therefore, happiness does not consist in a good of the soul.
RESPONSE:
It should be replied that, as was said above, by end can be meant two things: either the thing itself that we desire to have, or the use and possession of the thing. Therefore if we speak of the ultimate end of man with respect to the thing itself that we love as the ultimate end, it is impossible that the ultimate end be the soul itself or anything of it. For the soul considered in itself is, as it were, existing in potentiality, for it comes to be actually knowing from potentially knowing, and from being potentially virtuous comes to be actually virtuous. But since potency is for the sake of act as its completion, it is impossible that that which is in itself existing in potency, should have the note of ultimate end. Hence it is impossible that the soul be the ultimate end of itself. Similarly too, nothing of it, whether it be a power or habit or act. For the good that is the ultimate end is the perfect good completing the appetite. The human appetite, which is will, is of the universal good. But any good inhering in the soul is a participated good and consequently particular. Hence it is impossible that one of these should be the ultimate end of man. But if we speak of the ultimate end of man with respect to pursuit or possession, or to any use of the thing that is desired as end, then something of man from the side of soul belongs to ultimate end, because man achieves happiness through his soul. Therefore, what is itself desired as end is that in which happiness consists and that makes one happy, but it is the having of the thing that is called happiness. Hence it should be said that happiness is something of soul although that in which happiness consists is something outside the soul.
Ad 1. It should be said that insofar as all the goods desirable by man are comprehended under this division, the good of the soul is not only called power or habit or act, but also object, which is extrinsic. And in this way, nothing prevents our saying that that of which happiness consists is some good of the soul.
Ad 2. It should be said that so far as the proposition goes, happiness is most loved as the good that is desired, but a friend is loved as the one for whom the good is desired, and thus a man also loves himself. Hence there is not the same reason for love in the two cases. However, whether a man loves something above himself by love of friendship will be considered when we get to charity.
Ad 3. It should be said that happiness itself, since it is a perfection of soul, is some good inhering in the soul, but that in which happiness consists, which makes one happy, is something outside the soul, as has been said.
Article 8: Does man’s happiness consist of any created good?
It seems that it does.
1. Dionysius says in On the Divine Names 7 that divine wisdom conjoins the end of the first with the beginning of the second, from which we gather that the highest of the lower nature touches the lowest of the higher nature. But happiness is man’s highest good. Therefore since in the natural order the angel is above man, as was shown in Part 1, it seems that man’s happiness consists in this that he in some way attains the angelic.
2. Moreover, the ultimate end of anything lies in its perfected state, hence the part is for the sake of the whole as for its end. But the whole created universe, which is called the greater world, is compared to man, who in Physics 7.2 is called the lesser world, as the perfect to the imperfect. Therefore man’s happiness consists in the whole created universe.
3. Moreover, a man is made happy when his natural desire comes to rest. But man’s natural desire does not extend to a good greater than he can grasp. Therefore, since man is not capable of a good which exceeds the limits of the whole of creation, it seems that man can be made happy by some created good. So man’s happiness consists in some created good.
ON THE CONTRARY:
Augustine says in the City of God 19.26 that as soul is the life of the flesh, so God is man’s blessed life, of whom in Psalm 143.15 it is said, ‘Blessed the people whose Lord is its God.’
RESPONSE:
It should be said that it is impossible that man’s happiness should lie in any created good. For happiness is the perfect good which totally assuages the appetite since if there were anything remaining to be desired it would not be the ultimate end. But the object of will, which is the human appetite, is the universal good, as the object of intellect is the universal true. From which it is clear that nothing can quiet the appetite of man except the universal good. This is not found in any created thing but only in God because every creature has a participated goodness. Hence God alone can fulfil the will of man. As is said in Psalm 102.5, ‘Who fills thy life with good things: thy youth is renewed like the eagle’s.’
Ad 1. It should be said that the highest in man indeed attains what is least in angelic nature by a kind of similitude, but it does not rest there as in its ultimate end, but proceeds beyond to the universal fount of the good, which is the universal object of the happiness of all the blessed, existing as infinite and perfect good.
Ad 2. It should be said that if some whole is not the ultimate end, but is ordered to a further end, the ultimate end of the part is not the whole itself, but something else. The universe of creatures, to which man is compared as part to whole, is not the ultimate end, but is ordered to God as to its ultimate end. Hence the good of the universe is not man’s ultimate end, but God himself.
Ad 3. It should be said that created good is not less than the good of which man is capable as of the intrinsic and inherent, but it is less than the good of which he is capable as object, which is infinite. But the good as participated in by the angel, and by the whole universe, is a finite and restricted good.
QUESTION 3
WHAT IS HAPPINESS?
Next we must consider what happiness is and what things are required for it. Eight questions are raised with respect to the first consideration: (1) whether happiness is something uncreated; (2) if created, is it an activity? (3) whether it is an activity of the sensitive part or of the intellectual part alone; (4) if it is an activity of the intellectual part, whether it is an activity of intellect or of will; (5) if it is an activity of intellect, whether it is an activity of speculative or of practical intellect; (6) if it is an activity of speculative intellect, whether it consists of the speculation of the theoretical sciences; (7) whether it consists in speculative knowledge of separate substances, that is, angels; (8) whether it lies only in speculative knowledge of God whereby he is seen in his essence.
Article 1: Is happiness something uncreated?
It seems that it is.
1. Boethius writes in the Consolation of Philosophy 3.10 that, ‘It must be confessed that God is happiness itself.’
2. Moreover, happiness is the highest good. But to be the highest good is proper to God. Since then there are not several highest goods, it seems that happiness is God himself.
3. Moreover, happiness is the ultimate end towards which the human will naturally tends. But the will ought not to tend towards anything other than God as ultimate end, who alone is to be enjoyed, as Augustine says. Therefore, happiness is the same as God.
ON THE CONTRARY:
Nothing made is uncreated, but human happiness is something made, because according to Augustine in On Christian Doctrine 1.3 those things are to be enjoyed that make us happy. Therefore, happiness is not something uncreated.
RESPONSE:
It should be said that, as was pointed out earlier, the end is taken in two ways. In one way, as the thing itself that we wish to attain, as money is the end of the miser. In another way, as the attainment or possession, whether use or enjoyment, of the thing desired; for example, possession of money is said to be the miser’s end, and the enjoyment of the coveted one the end of the intemperate. Therefore, in the first sense, the ultimate end of man is an uncreated good, namely God, who alone in his infinite goodness can perfectly fulfil the will of man. But in the second sense, the ultimate end of man is something created and existing in himself, which is nothing other than the attainment or enjoyment of the ultimate end. The ultimate end is called happiness. Therefore, if man’s happiness is considered with respect to its cause or object, then it is something uncreated; but if it is considered with respect to the essence of happiness, then it is something created.
Ad 1. It should be said that God is happiness in his essence, for he is not happy by attainment or participation in something else, but by his own essence. But men are happy, as Boethius says in the same place, by participation, just as they are called gods by participation. The participation itself of happiness, thanks to which man is called happy, is something created.
Ad 2. It should be said that happiness is said to be the highest good of man because it is the attainment and enjoyment of the highest good.
Ad 3. It should be said that happiness is called the ultimate end in the sense that the attainment of the end is called the end.
Article 2: Is happiness an activity?
It seems that it is not.
1. The Apostle says in Romans 6.22, ‘You have your fruit unto sanctification, and as your end, life everlasting.’ But life is not an activity so much as the very existence of living things. Therefore the ultimate end, which is happiness, is not an activity.
2. Moreover, Boethius says in the Consolation of Philosophy 3.2 ‘Happiness is the state perfected by the aggregation of all goods.’ Therefore, happiness is not an activity.
3. Moreover, happiness signifies something existing in the happy person, since it is the ultimate perfection of man. But activity does not signify as something existing in the agent, but rather as proceeding from him. Therefore, happiness is not an activity.
4. Moreover, happiness remains in the happy person. But activity does not endure but passes. Therefore, happiness is not an activity.
5. Moreover, there is the same happiness for each man. But activities are many. Therefore, happiness is not an activity.
6. Moreover, happiness is in the happy person without interruption. But human activity is frequently interrupted, as in sleep, or by some other occupation, or by rest. Therefore, happiness is not an activity.
ON THE CONTRARY:
The Philosopher says in Ethics 1.13 that happiness is an activity according to perfect virtue.
RESPONSE:
It should be said that insofar as man’s happiness is something existing in him as created, it must be called an activity. For happiness is the ultimate perfection of man. Each thing is perfect insofar as it is actual, for potency without act is imperfect. Therefore happiness must consist in man’s ultimate act. But it is manifest that activity is the ultimate act of the agent, hence it is called second act by the Philosopher in On the Soul 2.1, for a thing having a form can be an agent in potency, as one with knowledge who is only potentially considering it. So it is that in other things as well each is said to be for the sake of its activity, as we read in On the Heavens 2.3. Therefore, man’s happiness must be an activity.
Ad 1. It should be said that life is taken in two senses. In one, as the very existence of the living thing, and thus happiness is not life, for it was shown that the existence of a man, of whatever sort it is, is not man’s happiness. In God alone is happiness identified with existence. In another sense the activity of the living thing is called life, insofar as the principle of life is rendered actual, and in this sense we speak of the active life or the contemplative life or the life lived for pleasure. It is in this sense eternal life is said to be the ultimate end. This is clear from what is said in John 17.3: ‘Now this is everlasting life, that they may know thee, the only true God.’
Ad 2. It should be said that Boethius, in defining happiness, considered the common definition of it, for it is the common notion of happiness that it is a perfect common good. This is what he meant when he said that it is the state perfected by the aggregation of all goods, which comes down to saying that the happy man is in the state of perfect good. But Aristotle expresses the very essence of happiness, showing how a man achieves this state, namely, through some activity. Therefore in Ethics 1.7 he also shows that happiness is the perfect good.
Ad 3. It should be said that, as is remarked in Metaphysics 8.9, action is of two kinds. One kind passes from the agent into external matter, such as sawing and burning, and happiness cannot be an activity like that because such activity is not the perfection of the agent, but rather of the thing acted on, as is said in the same place. The other kind of action remains in the agent himself, like sensing, understanding and willing: such action is the perfection and act of the agent. Happiness can be called an activity of this kind.
Ad 4. It should be said that since happiness means some ultimate perfection, insofar as different things capable of happiness can attain to different levels of perfection, happiness must mean different things. For happiness is in God through his essence, because his existence is his activity, by which he does not enjoy another but himself. In the blessed angels there is ultimate perfection according to an activity by which they are joined with an uncreated good, and this activity is one and sempiternal in them. But in men, according to the present state of life, it is ultimate perfection according to an activity whereby man is joined with God, and this activity cannot be continuous nor one because an activity is multiplied by interruptions.
And because of this, perfect happiness cannot be had by man in the present state of life. Hence in Ethics1.10, speaking of happiness in this life, the Philosopher calls it imperfect, after which he concludes that we call men happy as men. But perfect happiness is promised us by God, when we will be like the angels in heaven, as is said in Matthew 22.30. With respect to that perfect happiness, the object ceases, because by one and continuous and sempiternal activity in that state of happiness man is joined to God. But in the present life, to the degree that we fall short of the unity and continuity of such an activity, to that degree we fall short of happiness. But there is some participation of happiness, and so much the greater, insofar as the activity can be more continuous and one. Therefore, in the active life which is concerned with many things, there is less of the notion of happiness than in the contemplative life, which turns on one thing, that is, the contemplation of truth. And if at times man does not actually engage in this activity, he is always ready to do so, and because even taking time out for sleep or some natural activity is ordered to it, it seems to be a continuous activity.
And the answers to the fifth and sixth are evident from this.
Article 3: Is happiness an activity of the sensitive part or only of the intellectual part?
Happiness seems to consist in the activity of sense as well.
1. For in man only intellectual activity is more noble than the activity of sense. But intellectual activity in us depends on sense activity, because we cannot understand without phantasms, as is said in On the Soul 3.7. Therefore happiness consists in sensitive activity as well.
2. Moreover, Boethius says in the Consolation of Philosophy 3.2 that happiness is the state perfected by the aggregation of all goods. But some goods are sensible, and are attained by the activities of sense. Therefore, it seems that the activity of sense is required for happiness.
3. Moreover, happiness is perfect good, as is proved in Ethics 1.7, which it would not be unless man were perfected in all his parts. But some parts of the soul are perfected by sense activities. Therefore sense activity is required for happiness.
ON THE CONTRARY:
Brute animals share sense activity, but not happiness, with us. Therefore happiness does not consist in sensitive activity.
RESPONSE:
It should be said that something can pertain to happiness in three ways. In one way, essentially; in another, antecedently, in a third, consequently. Essentially, the activity of sense cannot pertain to happiness, for man’s happiness consists essentially in his conjunction with an uncreated good, which is the ultimate end, as was shown above. But a man cannot be joined with it by the activity of sense. Also, because, as was shown earlier, man’s happiness does not lie in bodily goods, which are all that the activity of sense can attain.
The activities of sense can pertain to happiness antecedently and consequently, however. Antecedently, with respect to the imperfect happiness that can be had in the present life, since intellectual activity presupposes the activity of sense. Consequently, in the perfect happiness that is expected in heaven, because after the resurrection, as Augustine says in the Letter to Dioscorus, happiness flows from the soul itself back into the body and bodily senses, as they are perfected in their activities. This will be clearer below, when the resurrection is discussed. But the activity whereby the human mind then is conjoined to God will not depend on sense.
Ad 1. It should be said that this objection proves that the activity of sense is required antecedently for the imperfect happiness had in this life.
Ad 2. It should be said that perfect happiness, such as the angels have, is the coming together of all goods by being joined to the universal fount of all good; not that it needs each singular good. But in this imperfect happiness there is required the coming together of goods sufficient to the most perfect activity of this life.
Ad 3. It should be said that in perfect happiness the whole man is perfected, but in the lower part by redundancy from the higher. But in the imperfect happiness of the present life, the reverse is true: from the perfection of the lower part we proceed to the perfection of the higher.
Article 4: Is happiness an activity of intellect or will?
It seems to consist of an act of will.
1. For Augustine says in the City of God 19.10 that human happiness consists of peace. Hence we read in Psalm 147.3, ‘He has made peace in thy borders.’ But peace pertains to will. Therefore man’s happiness consists in will.
2. Moreover, happiness is the highest good, but good is the object of the will. Therefore, happiness consists in the activity of will.
3. Moreover, the ultimate end responds to the first mover, as the ultimate end of the whole army is victory, which is the end of the leader, who moves all. But will first moves to acting, because it moves the other powers, as will be said below. Therefore, happiness pertains to will.
4. Moreover, if happiness consists in some activity, it must be the most noble activity of man. But love of God which is an act of will is a more noble activity than knowledge, which is the activity of intellect, as is clear from the Apostle in 1 Corinthians 13. Therefore it seems that happiness consists of an act of will.
5. Moreover, Augustine says in On the Trinity 13.5 that man is happy who has all he wants, and wants nothing bad. And he adds after a bit that he who wills well whatever he wills approximates the happy man, for goods make him happy and some goods he already has, namely good will itself. Therefore, happiness consists in an act of will.
ON THE CONTRARY:
The Lord says in John 17.3, ‘Now this is everlasting life, that they may know thee, the only true God.’ But eternal life is the ultimate end. Therefore, man’s happiness consists in knowledge of God, which is an act of intellect.
RESPONSE:
It should be said that, as has been established, two things are required for happiness, one that is the essence of happiness, another that is as an accident of it, namely the pleasure joined to it. Therefore, I say that, with respect to what happiness essentially is, it is impossible that it consist in an act of will. For it is manifest from the foregoing that happiness is the achievement of the ultimate end. The attainment of the end does not consist in the act of will itself. For the will is borne towards the end, which is absent when it desires it, present when it rests in and takes pleasure in it. But it is obvious that the desire for the end is not the achievement of the end but a movement towards the end. But pleasure comes to the will because the end is present, but not conversely: a thing is not made present because the will delights in it.
Therefore it is necessary that there be something other than the act of will by which the end comes to be present to the one willing. And this appears clearly in sensible ends. For if one got money by an act of will, straight off the desirer would get money by willing to have it. But at the beginning it is absent, and he gets it when he grasps it with his hand or some such thing, and then he delights in the money had. So too it happens with the intelligible good, for from the beginning we will to attain the intelligible end and we achieve it by making it present to us by an act of intellect, and then the delighted will rests in the end attained. Therefore the essence of happiness consists in act of intellect, but the pleasure following on happiness pertains to will, as Augustine says in Confessions 10.23 that happiness is joy in the truth, because that joy is the consummation of happiness.
Ad 1. It should be said that peace pertains to man’s ultimate end, not as if it were happiness essentially, but because it relates to it antecedently and consequently. Antecedently, insofar as all distractions and impediments are removed from the ultimate end. Consequently, insofar as man, the ultimate end being achieved, remains at peace, his is desire at rest.
Ad 2. It should be said that the first object of will is not its own act any more than the first object of sight is vision rather than the visible. Hence from the fact that happiness pertains to will as its first object, it follows that it does not pertain to it as its act.
Ad 3. It should be said that the intellect apprehends the end before the will, but the movement towards the end begins in the will. Therefore what ultimately follows on the achievement of the end, namely pleasure and enjoyment, are due to will.
Ad 4. It should be said that love takes precedence over knowledge in moving, but knowledge comes before love in attaining, nor is a thing loved save as known, as Augustine says in On the Trinity 10.1. Therefore, we first attain the intelligible end by an activity of intellect, as we first attain the sensible end by an action of sense.
Ad 5. It should be said that he who has all that he wills is happy because he has what he wants but by an act other than that of the will. But to will nothing badly is required for happiness as a certain fitting disposition for it. But a good will is numbered among the goods which make one happy, insofar as it is a certain inclination towards it, much as motion is categorized by its term, as alteration by quality.
Article 5: Is happiness an activity of speculative or practical intellect?
It seems to lie in the activity of practical intellect.
1. Any creature’s ultimate end lies in assimilation to God. But man is assimilated to God more by practical intellect, which is the cause of the things understood, than by speculative intellect, whose knowledge is drawn from things. Therefore man’s happiness lies in the activity of practical intellect rather than in that of speculative intellect.
2. Moreover, happiness is the perfect good of man. But practical intellect is ordered to the good more than speculative intellect, which is ordered to the true. Hence we are called good thanks to the perfection of practical intellect, not that of speculative intellect, thanks to which we are called knowing or understanding. Therefore man’s happiness lies rather in the act of practical than of speculative intellect.
3. Moreover, happiness is a good of man himself. But speculative intellect is occupied rather with things beyond man, whereas practical intellect is occupied with what pertains to man himself, such as his activities and passions. Therefore man’s happiness lies rather in the activity of practical than of speculative intellect.
ON THE CONTRARY:
Augustine says in On the Trinity 1.8 that contemplation, which is the end of all activities and the eternal perfection of joys, is promised us.
RESPONSE:
It should be said that happiness lies in the activity of speculative intellect rather than practical intellect. This is clear from three things. First, because if man’s happiness is an activity, it should be his best activity, but man’s best activity is that of the best power with respect to the best object. But intellect is the best power and its best object is the divine good, which is not indeed an object of practical, but of speculative, intellect. Happiness especially lies, therefore, in such activity, namely in contemplation of the divine. And because each thing seems to be that which is best in it, as is said in Ethics 9.8 and 10.7, such an activity is most proper to man and especially delightful.
Second, the same appears from this that contemplation especially is sought for its own sake. But the activity of practical intellect is sought for the sake of action, not for its own sake, and those actions are ordered to an end. Hence it is manifest that the ultimate end cannot lie in the active life, which pertains to practical intellect.
Third, the same appears from this that man shares the contemplative life with higher things, namely with God and the angels, to whom he is assimilated by happiness. But even other animals share with man in those things which pertain to the active life, though imperfectly. Therefore ultimate and perfect happiness, which is expected in the future life, consists wholly of contemplation. But imperfect happiness, of the kind that can be had here, consists first and principally in contemplation, but secondarily in the activity of practical intellect ordering human actions and passions, as is said in Ethics 10.7.
Ad 1. It should be said that the aforementioned similarity of practical intellect to God is according to proportionality, because it is to its knowledge as God is to his. But the assimilation of speculative intellect to God is according to union and informing, which is a much greater assimilation. It can also be said with respect to the principal thing known, which is his essence, that God does not have practical knowledge, but speculative only.
Ad 2. It should be said that practical intellect is ordered to a good which is outside itself, but speculative intellect has its good within itself, namely contemplation of truth. And if that good, by which the whole man is perfected and becomes good is perfect good, then indeed practical intellect is ordered to it but does not have it.
Ad 3. It should be said that the argument would work if man himself were his own ultimate end, for then the consideration and ordering of his acts and passions would be his happiness. But because the ultimate end of man is an extrinsic good, namely God, to whom we attain by the activity of the speculative intellect rather than by the activity of practical intellect, happiness consists in the activity of speculative intellect rather than in that of practical intellect.
Article 6: Does happiness lie in the speculative knowledge of the theoretical sciences?
It seems that it does.
1. The Philosopher says in the Ethics 1.13 that happiness is an activity in accord with perfect virtue. And in distinguishing the virtues he mentions three speculative ones – knowledge, wisdom and understanding – all of which pertain to considerations of the speculative sciences. Therefore man’s ultimate happiness lies in the consideration of the speculative sciences.
2. Moreover, that would seem to be man’s ultimate happiness that is naturally desired by all for its own sake. But that is true of the consideration of the speculative sciences because, as is said in Metaphysics 1.1, ‘All men by nature desire to know,’ and he adds a little later that the speculative sciences are sought for their own sake. Therefore, happiness lies in the consideration of the speculative sciences.
3. Moreover, happiness is man’s ultimate perfection. But a thing is perfected insofar as it is reduced from potentiality to act. The human intellect is made actual by the consideration of the speculative sciences. Therefore, it seems that man’s happiness lies in this kind of consideration.
ON THE CONTRARY:
It is said in Jeremiah 9.23, ‘Let not the wise man glory in his wisdom.’ And he is speaking of the wisdom of the speculative sciences. Therefore man’s ultimate happiness does not lie in the consideration of these.
RESPONSE:
It should be said that, as was shown above, man’s happiness is of two kinds, one perfect, the other imperfect. By perfect happiness is understood that which attains to the true definition of happiness, and by imperfect happiness that which does not but has some particular likeness to happiness by way of participation. For just as perfect prudence is found in a man who reasons rightly about things to be done, so there is imperfect prudence in some brute animals who have particular instincts to some acts similar to those of prudence. Therefore perfect happiness cannot lie essentially in the consideration of the speculative sciences.
In evidence of which, notice that the consideration of speculative science does not extend beyond the power of the principles of such science, because the whole science is virtually contained in its principles. But the first principles of the speculative sciences are taken from the senses, as is evident from the Philosopher at the beginning of the Metaphysics and the end of the Posterior Analytics. Hence the whole consideration of the speculative sciences cannot go beyond what knowledge of sensible things can lead to. But the ultimate happiness of man, which is his ultimate perfection, cannot lie in knowledge of sensible things. For a thing is not perfected by what is below it, save insofar as the lower is some participation of the higher. But it is obvious that the form of a stone or any other sensible thing is inferior to man. Hence the human intellect cannot be perfected by the form of the stone insofar as it is such a form but only insofar as it participates in some likeness of that which is above the human intellect, namely the intelligible light, or something of the like. But whatever is through something else is reduced to that which is of itself. Hence man’s ultimate perfection must lie in knowledge of something which is above the human intellect.
But it has been shown that we cannot come to knowledge of separate substances through sensible things, since they are above the human intellect. We are left with this, then, that man’s ultimate happiness cannot lie in the consideration of the speculative sciences. But just as sensible forms participate in some likeness of higher substances, so the consideration of the speculative sciences is a participation in true and perfect happiness.
Ad 1. It should be said that the Philosopher is speaking in the Ethics of imperfect happiness, such as can be had in this life, as has been pointed out above.
Ad 2. It should be said that not only perfect happiness is naturally desired but also any likeness or participation of it whatsoever.
Ad 3. It should be said that our intellect is reduced somewhat to act by the consideration of the speculative sciences, but not to ultimate and complete actuality.
Article 7: Does happiness consist in knowing the angels?
It seems that it does.
1. Man’s happiness seems to lie in knowledge of separate substances, that is, angels, for Gregory says in some homily that nothing contributes to the enjoyments of men that does not partake of the joys of the angels, by which he designates final happiness. But we can take part in the joys of the angels by contemplation of them. Therefore it seems that man’s ultimate happiness lies in contemplation.
2. Moreover, a thing’s ultimate perfection consists of its union with its principle, which is why the circle is called the perfect figure since its beginning and end are the same. But the principle of human knowledge is from the angels by whom men are illumined, as Dionysius says in the Celestial Hierarchy 4. Therefore, the perfection of the human intellect lies in the contemplation of angels.
3. Moreover, a nature is perfected when it is joined with a higher nature, as the ultimate perfection of body is to be conjoined with a spiritual nature. But in the order of nature, the angels are above the human intellect. Therefore, the ultimate perfection of the human intellect lies in its being conjoined with the angels in contemplation.
ON THE CONTRARY:
It is said in Jeremiah 9.24, ‘But let him that glorieth glory in this, that he understandeth and knoweth me.’ Therefore the ultimate human glory or happiness lies in nothing else than in knowledge of God.
RESPONSE:
It should be said that, as has been established, man’s perfect happiness does not lie in a perfection by way of participation, but in that which is essentially perfection. But it is manifest that a thing is the perfection of a power to the degree that the notion of that power’s proper object pertains to it. But the true is the proper object of intellect; therefore the contemplation of that which has participated in truth does not confer its ultimate perfection on intellect. Since the disposition of a thing in being and in truth is one and the same, as is said in Metaphysics 2.1, things which are being by participation are true by participation. But angels have participated being, because only in God is existence his essence, as was shown in Part 1. It follows that God alone is truth by his essence, and that contemplation of him makes one perfectly happy. But nothing prevents a kind of imperfect happiness from accompanying contemplation of the angels, which is higher and less imperfect than that had in the consideration of the speculative sciences.
Ad 1. It should be said that we enter into the joys of the angels not only by contemplating them but, along with them, contemplating God.
Ad 2. It should be said that to those who hold that human souls are created by angels it seems fitting enough that man’s happiness should lie in contemplation of the angels, as if in union with their principle. But this is erroneous, as was said in Part 1. Hence the ultimate perfection of the human intellect lies in union with God, who is the principle both of the soul’s creation and its illumination. But the angel illumines as a minister, as was shown in Part 1, and by his ministry helps man to arrive at happiness, not as the object of human happiness.
Ad 3. It should be said that the lower nature can attain the higher nature in two ways. In one way according to the level of the participating power, and thus the ultimate perfection of man will lie in this that he comes to contemplate as the angels do. In another way as an object is attained by a power, and in this way the ultimate perfection of any power lies in attaining that in which the notion of its object is fully realized.
Article 8: Can human happiness lie in the vision of the divine essence?
It seems that it cannot.
1. Dionysius says in On Mystical Theology I that it is through that which is highest in intellect that man is joined to God as to the wholly unknown. But that which is seen in its essence is not wholly unknown. Therefore, the ultimate perfection of intellect, happiness, does not lie in seeing God in his essence.
2. Moreover, the higher nature has a higher perfection. But it is the proper perfection of the divine intellect that he see his own essence. Therefore the ultimate perfection of the human intellect cannot lie in this but in something below it.
ON THE CONTRARY:
In 1 John 3.2 we read, ‘When he appears, we shall be like to him, for we shall see him just as he is.’
RESPONSE:
It should be said that ultimate and perfect happiness can lie only in the vision of the divine essence. Two things can be adduced in evidence of this. First, that man is not perfectly happy so long as there remains anything to be desired and sought. Second, the perfection of any power is in terms of its object. But the object of intellect is the quiddity, that is, the essence of the thing, as is said in On the Soul 3.6. Hence intellect is more perfect to the degree that it knows the essence of the thing. Therefore, if an intellect knows the essence of some effect by which the essence of the cause cannot be known, so that it knows what the cause is, the intellect is not said to attain the cause simply speaking, although from its effect it can know that the cause exists. Therefore, when a man knows the effect and knows that it has a cause, he naturally has a desire to know of the cause what it is. And that desire is of wonder, and causes inquiry, as is said at the outset of the Metaphysics.
For example, if someone, knowing the eclipse of the sun, considers that it is produced by a cause, he wonders about it because he does not know what it is, and wondering inquires. Nor does this inquiry rest until it comes to knowledge of the essence of the cause. Therefore, if the human intellect, knowing the essence of some created effect, knows of God only that he exists, it does not yet perfectly attain the first cause simply speaking, but there remains in it a natural desire to inquire into the cause. Hence he is not yet perfectly happy. For perfect happiness the intellect must attain to the very essence of the first cause and then it will have its perfection by union with God as its object, in whom alone man’s happiness lies, as has been said above.
Ad 1. It should be said that Dionysius is speaking of the knowledge of those in this life, who are tending towards happiness.
Ad 2. It should be said that, as was pointed out above, end can be taken in two ways. In one way, as the very thing that is desired, and in this way the end of the higher and lower nature, indeed of all things, is the same, as has been argued. In another way, with respect to the attainment of that thing, and then the end of the lower nature differs from that of the higher because they relate to that thing differently. Therefore the happiness of God contemplating his own essence is higher than that of man or angel who see it but do not comprehend it.
QUESTION 4
WHAT IS NEEDED FOR HAPPINESS?
We must now ask what is needed for happiness, and eight questions arise: (1) whether pleasure is required for happiness; (2) which is first in happiness, pleasure or vision? (3) whether comprehension is required; (4) whether rectitude of will is required; (5) whether the body is required for man’s happiness; (6) whether perfection of body is required; (7) whether any external goods are required; (8) whether the society of friends is required for happiness.
Article 1: Is pleasure required for happiness?
It seems that it is not.
1. Augustine says in On the Trinity 1.8 that vision is the complete reward of faith. But happiness is the reward or prize of virtue, as is clear from the Philosopher in Ethics 1.9. Therefore nothing else is needed for happiness beside vision.
2. Moreover, happiness is of itself the most sufficient good, as the Philosopher says in Ethics 1.7. But that which has need of something else is not sufficient unto itself. Therefore since the essence of happiness lies in the vision of God, as has been shown, it seems that pleasure is not required for happiness.
3. Moreover, the activity of happiness or beatitude ought not be impeded, as is said in Ethics 7.13. But pleasure impedes the action of intellect, for it corrupts the estimate of prudence, as is said in Ethics 6.5. Therefore, pleasure is not required for happiness.
ON THE CONTRARY:
Augustine says in the Confessions 10.23 that happiness is rejoicing in the truth.
RESPONSE:
It should be said that something is required for another in four ways. In one way, as a preamble or preparation for it, as learning is required for knowledge. In another way, as perfecting it, as the soul is required for the life of the body. In a third way, as an external aid, as friends are needed in order to do a thing. In a fourth way, as something concomitant, as if we should say that heat is required for fire. And in this way pleasure is required for happiness, for pleasure is caused by appetite’s coming to rest in the good attained. Hence, since happiness is nothing other than the attainment of the highest good, there cannot be happiness without concomitant pleasure.
Ad 1. It should be said that the will of one who merits a reward comes to rest when it is given, which is to be delighted. Hence pleasure is included in the very notion of the granted reward.
Ad 2. It should be said that pleasure is caused by the very vision of God. Hence he who sees God is not lacking in pleasure.
Ad 3. It should be said that the pleasure concomitant to the activity of intellect does not impede but rather strengthens it, as is said in Ethics 10.4, for we do more attentively and persistently the things we do with pleasure. But extrinsic pleasure impedes an operation, sometimes by distracting attention, since, as has been said, we attend more to the things in which we take pleasure, and when we vehemently attend to one thing attention is necessarily distracted from another. But sometimes out of contrariety, as the pleasure of sense that is contrary to reason impedes the estimate of prudence rather than of speculative intellect.
Article 2: Is vision or pleasure prior in happiness?
It seems that pleasure is.
1. For pleasure, as is said in Ethics 10.4, is the perfection of activity; but perfection is more powerful than what is perfectible. Therefore pleasure is more powerful than the activity of intellect, which is vision.
2. Moreover, that for the sake of which something is desirable, is more powerful. But activities are desired for the sake of their pleasures, hence nature added pleasure to the activities necessary for the preservation of the individual and species, lest animals neglect these activities. Therefore pleasure is more powerful in happiness than the activity of intellect, which is vision.
3. Moreover, vision responds to faith, as enjoyment does to charity. But charity is greater than faith, as the Apostle says in 1 Corinthians 13.13. Therefore pleasure, which is enjoyment, is more powerful than vision.
ON THE CONTRARY:
The cause is more powerful than the effect. But vision is the cause of pleasure. Therefore vision is more powerful than pleasure.
RESPONSE:
It should be said that the Philosopher raises this question in Ethics 10.4 and leaves it unanswered, but if one thinks about it, the activity of intellect, which is vision, must be more powerful than pleasure, for pleasure consists in the repose of will. But will rests in something because of the goodness of the thing in which it rests. Therefore if the will rests in some activity, the repose of the will would follow from the goodness of that activity. The will does not seek a good for the sake of rest, for then the act of will itself would be the end, which is contrary to what has been established. But it seeks to rest in the activity because the activity is its good. Hence it is manifest that the good that is the activity itself, in which the will rests, takes precedence over the will’s resting in it.
Ad 1. It should be replied that, as the Philosopher says in the same place, pleasure perfects activity as beauty, which is consequent on youth, perfects youth. Hence pleasure is a perfection concomitant with vision, not a perfection causing vision to be perfect in its kind.
Ad 2. It should be said that the universal character of goodness is not grasped by the senses, but some particular good which is pleasurable. Therefore, in sense appetite, which is found in animals, activities are sought for pleasure. But the intellect grasps the universal note of the good, which when had gives pleasure. Hence it intends good more than pleasure. So it is that the divine intellect, which is the institutor of nature, adds pleasures for the sake of the activities. But a thing should not be appraised on the basis of sense appetite, but rather on the basis of its relation to intellectual appetite.
Ad 3. It should be said that charity seeks a good desired for the sake of pleasure, but as consequent to it, such that it takes pleasure in the loved good attained. Thus pleasure does not answer to it as its end, but rather vision, by which the end first becomes present to it.
Article 3: Is comprehension required for happiness?
It seems that it is not.
1. Augustine says in To Paulinus on Seeing God that to attain God with the mind is a great happiness, but to comprehend him is impossible. Therefore there is happiness without comprehension.
2. Moreover, happiness is man’s perfection with respect to the intellective part, in which the only powers are intellect and will, as was said in Part 1. But intellect is sufficiently perfected by the vision of God, but will by delight in him. Therefore comprehension as some third thing is not required.
3. Moreover, happiness consists in activity. But activities are specified by objects and there are two general objects, the true and the good: the true corresponds to vision and good corresponds to pleasure. Therefore comprehension is not required as some third thing.
ON THE CONTRARY:
The Apostle says in 1 Corinthians 9.2,4, ‘So run as to obtain it.’ But the spiritual race has happiness as its goal. Hence he says in 2. Timothy 4.7, ‘I have finished the course, I have kept the faith. For there is laid up for me a crown of justice.’ Therefore comprehension is required for happiness.
RESPONSE:
It should be said that since happiness lies in the attainment of the ultimate end, the things required for happiness should be considered with reference to man’s order to the end. Man is ordered to the intelligible end partly indeed by intellect but partly by will. By intellect, insofar as some imperfect knowledge of the end pre-exists in intellect; by will, through love first of all, which is the will’s first movement towards anything, but second by the real relation of lover to beloved, which can be of three kinds: sometimes the beloved is present to the lover, and then is no longer pursued; sometimes it is not present but it is impossible to achieve so it is not sought. Sometimes, however, it is possible to achieve it, but it is elevated above the faculty of the achiever, such that it cannot be had at once, and this is the relation of one hoping to the thing hoped for, a condition which causes pursuit of the end. To each of these three something in happiness corresponds, for perfect knowledge of the end corresponds to the imperfect, the presence of the end corresponds to the relationship of hope, but delight in the end now present follows on love, as has been said above. Therefore these three must come together in happiness, vision, which is perfect knowledge of the intelligible end, comprehension, which implies the presence of the end, and pleasure or enjoyment which implies the repose of the one loving in the thing loved.
Ad 1. It should be said that comprehension has two meanings. One, the inclusion of the comprehended in the comprehender, and thus whatever is comprehended by the finite is finite. God cannot be comprehended in this sense by any created intellect. Two, comprehension names the grasping of some thing now present, as one following another is said to comprehend him when he grasps him. It is in this sense that comprehension is required for happiness.
Ad 2. It should be said that just as hope and love pertain to will, because to love something and to tend towards it when not had are the same, so too comprehension and delight pertain to will, because it belongs to the same thing to have something and to rest in it.
Ad 3. It should be said that comprehension is not some activity outside vision, but is a relation to the end once had. Hence vision itself, or the thing seen insofar as it is present, is the also object of comprehension.
Article 4: Is rectitude of will required for happiness?
It seems that it is not.
1. Happiness consists essentially in the activity of intellect, as has been said, but rectitude of will by which men are called clean is not required for the perfect activity of the intellect, for as Augustine says in the Retractions, ‘I do not approve what I said in prayer, that God willed that only the clean should know. For it can be objected that many even among the unclean know many truths.’ Therefore, rectitude of will is not required for happiness.
2. Moreover, the prior does not depend on the posterior; but the activity of intellect is prior to the act of will. Therefore happiness, which is the perfect activity of intellect, does not depend on rectitude of will.
3. Moreover, what is ordered to another as to an end, is not necessary once the end has been achieved, like the ship once it reaches port. But rectitude of will, the effect of virtue, is ordered to happiness as an end. Therefore, once happiness is achieved, rectitude of will is unnecessary.
ON THE CONTRARY:
It is said in Matthew 5.8, ‘Blessed are the pure in heart for they shall see God,’ and in Hebrews 12.14, ‘Strive for peace with all men, and for that holiness without which no man will see God.’
RESPONSE:
It should be said that rectitude of will is required for happiness both antecedently and concomitantly. Antecedently, because rectitude of will involves the due order to the ultimate end, but the end is compared to that which is ordered to it as form to matter. Hence just as matter can only attain form insofar as it is disposed to it in an appropriate manner, so nothing attains the end without an appropriate order to it. Therefore no one can achieve happiness unless he has rectitude of will. Concomitantly, because, as has been said, ultimate happiness lies in the vision of the divine essence, which is the very essence of goodness. Thus the will of one seeing the essence of God necessarily loves whatever he loves under the common notion of the good which he knows. And this is also what makes the will correct. Hence it is manifest that happiness cannot be had without right will.
*
Ad 1. It should be said that Augustine is speaking of knowledge of the true, which is not of the very essence of happiness.
Ad 2. It should be said that every act of will is preceded by some act of intellect, but a given act of will can be prior to a given act of intellect. For the will tends to the final act of intellect, which is happiness. Therefore, the right inclination of will is presupposed to happiness, as the right movement of the arrow to hitting the target.
Ad 3. It should be said that not everything that is ordered to the end ceases once the end is attained, but only that which has in itself the note of imperfection, like motion. Hence the instruments of motion are not necessary one it has achieved its end, but the right order to the end is necessary.
Article 5: Is the body required for man’s happiness?
It seems that it is.
1. The perfections of virtue and grace presuppose the perfection of nature. But happiness is the perfection of virtue and grace. Soul without body does not have the perfection of nature, since it is naturally a part of human nature and every part separated from its soul is imperfect. Therefore soul cannot be happy without the body.
2. Moreover, happiness is a perfect activity, as has been said above, but perfect activity follows on perfect being, because a thing acts only insofar as it is in act. Therefore, since soul does not have perfect existence when it is separated from body, any more than any other part separated from its whole, it seems that soul without body cannot be happy.
3. Moreover, happiness is man’s perfection, But soul without body is not man. Therefore happiness cannot be in soul without body.
4. Moreover, according to the Philosopher in Ethics 7.13, the activity of happiness, in which blessedness consists, is not impeded. But the activity of the separated soul is impeded because, as Augustine says in the Literal Commentary on Genesis 12.35, there is in it a natural desire to govern the body, which distracts it from directing its whole attention on the highest heaven, that is, to the vision of the divine essence. Therefore soul without body cannot be happy.
5. Moreover, happiness is a sufficient good and quiets desire. But this is not the case with the separated soul, which still desires union with body, as Augustine says. Therefore the soul separated from body is not happy.
6. Moreover, man is equal in happiness to the angels. But the soul without body is not equal to the angels, as Augustine says. Therefore it is not happy.
ON THE CONTRARY:
Apocalypse 14.13 says, ‘Blessed are the dead who die in the Lord.’
RESPONSE:
It should be said that there are two kinds of happiness, one imperfect, which is had in this life, and the other perfect, which consists in the vision of God. But it is manifest that the body is required for happiness in this life, for the happiness of this life is activity of intellect, speculative or practical. But the activity of intellect in this life cannot take place without the phantasm, which exists only in the bodily organ, as was shown in Part 1. Thus the happiness which can be had in this life depends in a certain way on body.
But with respect to perfect happiness, which lies in vision, some held that it cannot come to the soul existing apart from body, saying that the souls of the saints separated from bodies do not attain to that happiness until the day of judgement, when they will take up their bodies again. But this seems false on the basis of both authority and reason. By authority, because the Apostle says in 2 Corinthians 5.6, ‘While we are in the body, we are exiled from the Lord,’ and he shows what exile means by adding, ‘For we walk by faith and not by sight.’ From which it is clear that as long as one walks in faith and not in vision, lacking the vision of the divine essence, he is not yet present to God. But the souls of the saints separated from their bodies are present to God, hence he adds, ‘We even have the courage to prefer to be exiled from the body and to be at home with the Lord.’ Hence it is manifest that the souls of the saints separated from bodies walk by sight, seeing the essence of God, in which lies true happiness.
This is apparent on the basis of reason as well, for intellect does not need body for its activity except for the sake of phantasms in which it sees intelligible truth, as was said in Part 1. Hence, since man’s perfect happiness lies in the vision of the divine essence, the perfect happiness of man does not depend on body. Hence the soul can be happy without the body.
But we should note that something pertains to another’s perfection in two ways. In one way, as constituting the essence of the thing, as soul is required for the perfection of man. In another way, what pertains to its well-being pertains to the perfection of a thing, such as bodily beauty and quick wit pertain to man’s perfection. Therefore although body does not pertain to the perfection of human happiness in the first way, it does in the second. For since activity depends on the nature of the thing, when soul is more perfect in its nature it is more perfectly capable of its proper activity in which happiness consists. Hence Augustine in the Literal Commentary on Genesis 12.35, asking whether that highest happiness can be granted to the spirits of the dead without their bodies, replies that they cannot then see the unchanging substance as the holy angels see it, whether for some more hidden reason or because there is in them a natural desire to govern body.
Ad 1. It should be said that happiness is the soul’s perfection of soul on the part of intellect thanks to which soul transcends bodily organs, not insofar as it is the form of a natural body. Therefore, the perfection of its nature remains insofar as happiness is due it, although not insofar as it is the form of body.
Ad 2. It should be said that soul relates to existence differently than the other parts do, for the existence of the soul does not belong to any of its parts; hence when the whole is destroyed the part either wholly ceases to be, like the parts of a destroyed animal, or if they remain they have another actual existence, as the part of the line has an existence other than that of the whole line. But the existence of the composite remains in the human soul after the destruction of the body, and this because the existence of form and matter is the same, namely the existence of the composite. But the soul subsists in its own existence, as was shown in Part 1. Hence after its separation from body it has perfect existence, and thus it can have a perfect activity, although it does not have the perfect nature of its species.
Ad 3. It should be said that man’s happiness is due to intellect. Therefore while intellect remains there can be happiness in him, much as the teeth of an Ethiopian, which are a basis for calling him white, remain white even after extraction.
Ad 4. It should be said that a thing can be impeded by another in two ways. First, in the mode of contrariety, as cold impedes warm, and such an impediment is repugnant to the notion of happiness. Second, in the mode of some defect, when the impeded thing does not have something that is required for its full perfection, and such an impediment is not repugnant to the activity of happiness, but to its complete perfection. Thus separation from body is said to retard the soul such that it does not with complete attention tend towards the vision of the divine essence. For the soul seeks so to enjoy God that that enjoyment redounds to the body to the degree this is possible. Therefore as long as it enjoys God without its body, its desire is quieted by what it has, which, however, it still wants its body to have by participation in it.
Ad 5. It should be said that the desire of the separated soul is totally at rest with respect to the desirable, because it has what suffices for its desire. But it is not wholly at rest with respect to the one desiring, who does not possess the good in every way that he wishes to possess it. Therefore, when the body is regained, happiness increases extensively but not intensively.
Ad 6. It should be said that what is found in the same place, namely, that the spirits of the dead do not see God as the angels do, is not to be understood according to quantitative inequality, because even now some blessed souls are taken up to the higher orders of the angels, seeing God more clearly than the lower angels. But it should be understood according to proportional inequality, because angels, even the lowest, have every perfection of happiness they will have, which is not so of the separated souls of the saints.
Article 6: Is perfection of body required for happiness?
It seems that it is not.
1. The perfection of body is a bodily good. But it was shown above that happiness does not consist of bodily goods. Therefore, a perfect disposition of body is not required for man’s happiness.
2. Moreover, man’s happiness lies in the vision of the divine essence, as has been shown. But body contributes nothing to this activity, as has been said. Therefore, no disposition of body is required for happiness.
3. Moreover, the more abstracted from body intellect is, the more perfectly it understands. But happiness lies in the most perfect activity of intellect. Therefore it is necessary that soul be abstracted in every way from body and there is no way in which a disposition of body is required for happiness.
ON THE CONTRARY:
Happiness is the reward of virtue, hence it is said in John 13.17, ‘Blessed shall you be if you do them.’ But the reward promised the saints is not only the vision of God and delight, but also a good disposition of body, for it is said in Isaiah 66.14, ‘You shall see and your heart shall rejoice, and your bones shall flourish like an herb.’ Therefore a good disposition of body is required for happiness.
RESPONSE:
It should be said that if we are speaking of man’s happiness in the way it can be had in this life, it is obvious that a good disposition of body is necessarily required for it. For this happiness, as the Philosopher says, lies in the activity of perfect virtue and clearly feebleness of body can impede a man in the exercise of any virtue.
But, speaking of perfect happiness, some held that no disposition of body is needed for it, but rather that the soul be wholly separated from body. Hence Augustine in the City of God 22.26 cites Porphyry as saying that the soul in order to be happy must flee from every body. But this is absurd. Since it is natural for soul to be united to body, it cannot be that the soul’s perfection excludes its natural perfection.
Therefore, it must be said that a perfect disposition of body is required, both antecedently and consequently for a happiness perfect in every way. Antecedently because, as Augustine says in the Literal Commentary on Genesis 12.35, if it be such a body that its governance is difficult and heavy, as the flesh which corrupts and weighs down the soul, the mind is turned from that vision of the highest heaven. Hence he concludes that since the body will no longer be animal but spiritual, it will be equal to the angels, and what was a burden will contribute to its glory. Consequently, because the glory of the soul will redound to the body in order that it might share its perfection. Hence Augustine says, in the Letter to Dioscorus, God made our soul strong so that from the fullness of its happiness it might lend to the lower nature the strength of incorruption.
Ad 1. It should be said that happiness does not lies in a bodily good as in its object, but the bodily good can bring about the adornment and perfection of happiness.
Ad 2. It should be said that although body contributes nothing to the activity of intellect by which the essence of God is seen, still it can impede it. Therefore, the perfection of body is required in order that it not impede the lifting up of mind.
Ad 3. It should be said that abstraction from this corruptible body which weighs down the soul is required for the perfect activity of intellect, but not from spiritual body which will be entirely subject to spirit, of which we will speak in the third part of this work.1
Article 7: Are some external goods required for happiness?
It seems that they are.
1. What is promised to the saints as reward pertains to happiness. But external goods are promised to the saints, for example food and drink, wealth and the kingdom, for it is said in Luke 22.30, ‘That you may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom’; and in Matthew 6.20, ‘Lay up for yourselves treasure in heaven,’ and 25.34, ‘Come, blessed of my Father, take possession of the kingdom.’ Therefore, external goods are required for happiness.
2. Moreover, according to Boethius in the Consolation of Philosophy 3.2, happiness is the state perfected by the aggregation of all goods. But some of man’s goods are external, though they be the least, as Augustine says.2 Therefore they are required for happiness.
3. Moreover, in Matthew 5.12, the Lord says, ‘Your reward is great in heaven.’ But to be in heaven means to be in some place. Therefore, at least external place is required for happiness.
ON THE CONTRARY:
We read in Psalm 72.25, ‘Whom have I in heaven but thee? And earth does not delight me if I am with thee.’ As if he said that he wished nothing except what follows (verse 28): ‘But it is good for me to be near God.’ Therefore, nothing else that is external is needed for happiness.
RESPONSE:
It should be said that external goods are required for the imperfect happiness that can be had in this life, not as being of its essence, but as instrumentally serving happiness which consists of the virtuous activity, as is said in Ethics 1.13. For in this life man needs the necessities of body for the exercise of both contemplative and active virtue, for which many other things are also required. But for perfect happiness, which consists of vision, such goods are in no way required. The reason for this is that all such external goods are needed either to sustain the animal body or for those activities that we exercise through the animal body and which are proper to human life. But the perfect happiness, which consists of vision, is either of soul without body or of soul united to a body no longer animal but spiritual. Therefore, such external goods, since they are ordered to animal life, are in no way needed for this happiness. Because in this life contemplative rather than active happiness bears a greater likeness to perfect happiness, and is more like God as well, as is clear from what has been said, it has less need of such goods of the body, as is said in Ethics 10.8.
Ad 1. It should be said that all these bodily promises that are found in Sacred Scripture are to be understood metaphorically, insofar as in Scripture spiritual things are usually designated by the bodily, in order that from things that we know we might rise to desire the unknown, as Gregory says in some homily. For just as by food and drink the delight of happiness is understood, by riches is meant that God is sufficient to man and by the kingdom man’s being raised up even to union with God.
Ad 2. It should be said that the goods serving animal life do not belong to the spiritual life in which perfect happiness lies. However, there will be in that happiness the coming together of all goods because whatever of good is to be found in these will be had wholly in the highest source of goods.
Ad 3. It should be said that, according to Augustine in The Lord’s Sermon on the Mount 1.5, the reward of the saints is not said to be in the corporeal heavens, but by heaven is understood the height of spiritual goods. None the less, bodily place, namely the celestial empyrean, will be present to the blessed, not out of any necessity for happiness, but because of a certain congruence and beauty.
Article 8: Is the society of friends required for happiness?
It seems that it is.
1. In Scripture happiness is frequently designated by the word glory. But glory consists of this that man’s goodness is brought to the notice of many. Therefore, the society of friends is required for happiness.
2. Moreover, Boethius says that the possession of a good is not enjoyed without companionship. But enjoyment is required for happiness. Therefore the society of friends is also required.
3. Moreover, charity is perfected in happiness. But charity includes the love of both God and neighbour. It seems, therefore, that the society of friends is required for happiness.
ON THE CONTRARY:
It is said in Wisdom 7.11, ‘Now all good things come to me together with her,’ namely, divine wisdom, which consists of contemplation of God. Thus for happiness nothing else is needed.
RESPONSE:
It should be said that if we are speaking of the happiness of the present life, as the Philosopher does in Ethics 9.9, the happy man has need of friends, not indeed for their usefulness, since he is sufficient unto himself, nor for pleasure, because he has in himself perfect pleasure in the exercise of virtue, but for the sake of good activity, namely that he might benefit them and take pleasure in doing so and also be helped by them in benevolence. A man needs the help of friends in order to act well, the deeds of the active life as well as those of the contemplative.
But if we are speaking of the perfect happiness that will be had in heaven, the society of friends is not needed for the necessity of happiness, because a man has the fullness of his perfection in God. But the society of friends makes for the well-being of happiness. Hence Augustine says in the Literal Commentary on Genesis 8.25 that the spiritual creature, in order to be happy, is helped intrinsically by the eternity, truth and charity of the creator. But extrinsically, if it can be called being helped, perhaps they are helped by this alone, that they see one another and rejoice in their community with God.
Ad 1. It should be said that the glory that is essential to happiness is not that which a man has from man, but from God.
Ad 2. It should be said that this remark is to be understood when the full sufficiency in the good that is had is absent, which cannot be said in the case in point, since every man has a sufficiency of good in God.
Ad 3. It should be said that the perfection of charity is essential to happiness with respect to the love of God but not with respect to the love of neighbour. Hence if there were only one soul enjoying God he would be happy even without a neighbour whom he could love. But supposing a neighbour, love of him follows from the perfect love of God. Hence friendship is, as it were, concomitant to perfect happiness.
QUESTION 5
ON THE ATTAINMENT OF HAPPINESS
We must now consider the acquisition of happiness, and eight questions arise: (1) whether man can attain happiness; (2) whether one man can be happier than another; (3) whether anyone can be happy in this life; (4) whether happiness once had can be lost; (5) whether man can acquire happiness by his natural powers; (6) whether man attains happiness by the action of some higher creature; (7) whether some acts are needed for a man to achieve happiness from God; (8) whether every man seeks happiness.
Article 1: Can man attain happiness?
It appears that he cannot.
1. Just as rational nature is above the sensible, so the intellectual nature is above the rational, as is evident from Dionysius in On the Divine Names, in many places. But brute animals, which have sensible nature alone, cannot achieve the end of rational nature. Therefore neither can man, who is of a rational nature, achieve the end of the intellectual nature, which is happiness.
2. Moreover, true happiness lies in the vision of God, who is pure truth. But it is connatural to man to intuit the truth of material things, hence he understands intelligible species in images, as is said in On the Soul 3.7. Therefore, he cannot attain to happiness.
3. Moreover, happiness lies in the attainment of the highest good. But one can only arrive at the highest by way of the intermediates. Therefore, since the angelic nature is midway between God and human nature and man cannot go beyond it, it seems that he cannot arrive at happiness.
ON THE CONTRARY:
Psalm 93.12 says, ‘Blessed the man whom thou teachest, O Lord.’
RESPONSE:
It should be said that happiness means the attainment of the perfect good. Therefore anyone capable of attaining the perfect good can achieve happiness. That man is capable of the perfect good is clear from the fact his intellect can grasp the universal and perfect good and his will can desire it. Therefore man can attain happiness. The same thing is clear from the fact that man is capable of the vision of the divine essence, as was shown in Part 1, in which vision we said that man’s perfect happiness lies.
Ad 1. It should be said that rational nature exceeds sensitive nature differently than the intellectual exceeds the rational. For rational nature exceeds the sensitive with respect to the object of knowledge, because sense can in no wise know the universal, which reason does know. But intellectual nature exceeds the rational with respect to the way of knowing the same intelligible truth, for intellectual nature straightaway grasps the truth to which rational nature comes by the inquiry of reason, as is evident from things said in Part 1. Therefore, what intellect grasps, reason comes to by a kind of motion. Hence rational nature can achieve happiness, which is the perfection of intellectual nature, but in a way different from the angels. For the angels attain it immediately from the beginning of their creation, but men come to it after a time. But sensitive nature can in no way attain this end.
Ad 2. It should be said that the mode of knowing intelligible truths through images is connatural to man in the present life, but after the condition of this life, he will have another connatural mode, as was said in Part 1.
Ad 3. It should be said that man cannot transcend the angels in the grade of nature, such that he might be superior to them in nature. But he can transcend them by the activity of intellect, since he understands something to be higher than the angels which will make him happy and he will be perfectly happy when he perfectly attains it.
Article 2: Can one man be happier than another?
It seems that he cannot.
1. Happiness is the reward of virtue, as the Philosopher says in Ethics 1.7, but all are given an equal reward for the works of virtue, for it is said in Matthew 20.10 that all who worked in the vineyard received a single denarius, that is, as Gregory notes, they received the equal reward of eternal life. Therefore, no one will be happier than another.
2. Moreover, happiness is the greatest good. But nothing can be greater than the greatest. Therefore one man’s happiness cannot be greater than another’s.
3. Moreover, since happiness is a perfect and sufficient good it gives rest to man’s desire. But desire is not at rest if some good that could be added is lacking. But if nothing that could be added is lacking there can be no greater good. Therefore either a man is not happy or if he is happy there cannot be another and greater happiness.
ON THE CONTRARY:
We read in John 14.2, ‘In my Father’s house there are many mansions,’ by which, as Augustine says, the different dignities of merit in eternal life are to be understood. But the dignity of eternal life, which is given for merit, is happiness itself. There are then different levels of happiness and not equal happiness for all.
RESPONSE:
It should be said that, as was argued earlier, two things are included in the definition of happiness: the ultimate end itself, which is the greatest good, and the attainment or enjoyment of that good. With respect to the good itself, which is the object and cause of happiness, one happiness cannot be higher than another because there is only one highest good, namely God, enjoyment of whom makes men happy. But with respect to the attainment or enjoyment of such a good, one can be happier than another since a man is happy to the degree that he enjoys the good. But it happens that one person more perfectly enjoys God than another because he is better disposed or ordered to enjoyment of him. And for this reason one person can be happier than another.
Ad 1. It should be said that one denarius signifies the unity of happiness on the side of the object. But the different mansions signify the diversity of happiness according to different levels of enjoyment.
Ad 2. It should be said that happiness is called the greatest good insofar as it is the perfect possession or enjoyment of the greatest good.
Ad 3. It should be said that there is no good left to be desired by any happy person since he has the infinite good which is the good of all goods, as Augustine says. But one is said to be happier than another because of a different participation in this good. The addition of other goods does not increase happiness and that is why Augustine says in the Confessions 8.4, ‘He who knows thee and other things, is not happier because of them, but is happy because of thee alone.’
Article 3: Can anyone be happy in this life?
It seems that he can.
1. It is said in Psalm 118.1, ‘Blessed are they whose way is undefiled, who walk in the law of the Lord.’ But this occurs in this life. Therefore, someone can be happy in this life.
2. Imperfect participation in the highest good does not detract from the notion of happiness, otherwise one would not be happier than another. But in this life men can participate in the greatest good by knowing and loving God, although imperfectly. Therefore a man can be happy in this life.
3. Moreover, what is said by many cannot be wholly false, for what is for the most part seems natural and nature does not wholly fail. But many posit happiness in this life, as is evident from Psalm 143.15: ‘Blessed the people that have such things; blessed the people whose God is the Lord.’
ON THE CONTRARY:
It is said in Job 14.1, ‘Man, born of a woman, living for a short time, is filled with many miseries.’ Therefore, a man cannot be happy in this life.
RESPONSE:
It should be said that some participation in happiness can be had in this life, but perfect and true happiness cannot. And this can be considered in two ways: first, in terms of the common notion of happiness. For happiness, being a perfect and sufficient good, excludes all evil and fulfils every desire. But in this life evil cannot be eliminated, for the present life is subject to many ills that cannot be avoided, for example, ignorance on the part of intellect and inordinate affection on the part of will and many punishments on the part of the body, such as Augustine thoroughly examines in the City of God 19.4. So too the desire for the good cannot be satisfied in this life, for man naturally desires the permanence of the good he has, but the goods of the present life are transitory and the life itself, which we naturally desire, passes away, yet we naturally desire it to be perpetual since we naturally shun death. Hence it is impossible that true happiness be had in this life.
Second, if we consider that in which happiness especially consists, namely the vision of the divine essence, which cannot be had by man in this life, as was shown in Part 1, then it is apparent that one cannot attain true and perfect happiness in this life.
*
Ad 1. It should be said that some are called happy in this life, either because of the hope of attaining happiness in the future life, according to Romans 8.24, ‘For in hope were we saved,’ or because of a participation in happiness, according to some enjoyment of the highest good.
Ad 2. It should be said that participation in happiness can be imperfect in two ways. In one way on the side of the object of happiness itself which is not seen in its own essence. And this imperfection is incompatible with the notion of true happiness. In another way it can be imperfect on the side of the one participating who, though he attains to the object of happiness as such, namely God, does so imperfectly by comparison with the way in which God enjoys himself. This imperfection is not incompatible with the true notion of happiness because, since happiness is a kind of activity, as has been said above, the true notion of happiness is considered from the side of the object that specifies the act, and not from the side of the subject.
Ad 3. It should be said that men are thought to have some happiness in this life because of a similarity to true happiness, and thus in their estimation they do not wholly fall short.
Article 4: Can happiness once had be lost?
It seems that it can.
1. Happiness is a perfection, but every perfection is in the perfectible according to its mode. Therefore, since man is mutable in his nature, it seems that happiness is participated by him in a mutable manner. And thus it seems that man can lose happiness.
2. Happiness lies in an activity of intellect which is subject to will. But the will is related to opposites. Therefore, it seems that it can desist from the activity whereby man is made happy and the man cease to be happy.
3. Moreover, an end corresponds to a beginning. But man’s happiness has a beginning, because man was not always happy. Therefore, it seems that it should have an end.
ON THE CONTRARY:
It is said in Matthew 25.46 that they will go into everlasting life which, as has been said, is the blessedness of the saints. But what is eternal does not give out. Therefore, happiness cannot be lost.
RESPONSE:
It should be said that if we are speaking of the imperfect happiness that can be had in this life, then it can be lost. And this is clear in contemplative happiness, which is lost either through forgetfulness, as when knowledge is lost because of illness, or even by other occupations that wholly distract one from contemplation. And the same is clear in active happiness, for a man’s will can be changed and degenerate from virtue, in whose act happiness principally consists, into vice. If virtue remains, however, external changes can disturb such happiness by impeding many acts of virtue, although it cannot be wholly taken away since the acts of virtue still remain if a man nobly bears adversities. Because the happiness of this life can be lost, which seems counter to the notion of happiness, the Philosopher says in Ethics 1.10 that some are happy in this life, not simply but in the way men can be whose nature is subject to change.
But if we are speaking of the perfect happiness that is expected after this life, it should be noted that Origen held, following the error of some Platonists, that after attaining ultimate happiness a man can become miserable. But this appears manifestly false for two reasons. First, from the common notion of happiness, for since happiness itself is a perfect and sufficient good, it must give rest to man’s desire and exclude all evil. But a man naturally desires to retain the good he has and seeks security in the having of it, otherwise the fear of loss or sadness from the certainty of loss would afflict him. Therefore true happiness requires that a man have certain knowledge that he will have it and never lose it. If this opinion is true, the result is that he will never lose happiness, but if it is false, having a false opinion is itself a kind of evil, for falsehood is the evil of intellect, as true is its good, as is said in Ethics 6.2. Therefore, he will not be happy now if there is some evil in him.
Second, the same thing is clear when the special notion of happiness is considered. It was shown above that perfect happiness lies in the vision of the divine essence. But it is impossible that anyone seeing the divine essence should wish not to see it, because any good that one wishes to lose is either insufficient and something more sufficient is sought in its place, or it has something inappropriate connected with it which brings on loathing. But the vision of the divine essence fills the soul with all goods since it is then united with the source of all goodness. Hence it is said in Psalm 16.15, ‘I shall be satisfied with the sight of thy face,’ and in Wisdom 7.11, ‘Now all good things come to me together with her,’ namely with the contemplation of wisdom. So too the soul does not have anything inappropriate because of the contemplation of wisdom it is said in Wisdom 8.16, ‘For her conversation hath no bitterness, nor her company any tediousness.’ Thus it is clear that the happy person would not willingly put happiness away. So too he cannot lose it because, since the losing of happiness is a kind of punishment, this could only be justly done by God for some fault into which one seeing the essence of God could not fall, since rectitude of will follows necessarily on this vision, as was shown above.
Nor could any other agent take it away. The mind joined with God is raised up above all other things and no other agent can deprive him of this union. Hence it seems unfitting that a man should pass from happiness to misery by any alterations of time, except in things subject to time and motion.
Ad 1. It should be said that happiness is consummate perfection which excludes any defect in the blessed. Therefore it comes to the one having it without mutability, acting by the divine power, which elevates man to participation in an eternity transcending all change.
Ad 2. It should be said that will is related to opposites with respect to what is ordered to the end, but it is ordered to the ultimate end by natural necessity. This is evident from the fact that he cannot will not to be happy.
Ad 3. It should be said that happiness has a beginning because of the condition of the participant, but it lacks an end because of the condition of the good, participation in which makes one happy. Hence there is a beginning of happiness due to one cause, but it has no end due to another.
Article 5: Can man by his natural powers attain happiness?
It seems that he can.
1. For nature does not fail in what is necessary. But nothing is so necessary for man than that he attain his ultimate end. Therefore this cannot be lacking to human nature and a man can attain happiness by his natural capacities.
2. Moreover, since man is more noble than irrational creatures, he seems to be more sufficient. But irrational creatures can by their natural capacities achieve their ends. Therefore, so much more man can achieve happiness by his natural capacities.
3. Moreover, happiness is perfect activity, according to the Philosopher. But it falls to the same to begin something and to perfect it. Therefore since imperfect happiness, which is, as it were, the beginning in human activities, is subject to the natural power of man by which he is master of his acts, it seems that by his natural power he can attain to perfect activity, which is happiness.
ON THE CONTRARY:
Man is naturally the principle of his acts by means of intellect and will. But the ultimate happiness prepared for the saints exceeds man’s intellect and will, for the Apostle says in 1 Corinthians 2.9, ‘Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither hath it entered into the heart of man, what things God hath prepared for them that love him.’ Therefore, man cannot achieve happiness by his natural powers.
RESPONSE:
It should be said that the imperfect happiness that can be had in this life is acquired by man with his natural powers as can be the virtue in which this activity consists, of which we will speak below. But man’s perfect happiness, as we have noted, lies in the vision of the divine essence and to see God in his essence is not only above man’s nature but that of any creature, as was shown in Part 1. For a creature’s natural knowledge is in line with its substance; for example, of intelligence it is said in the Book of Causes 8, that it knows things above itself and below itself in the mode of its own substance. But all knowledge that is according to the mode of created substance falls short of the vision of divine essence, which infinitely exceeds every created substance. Hence neither man nor any other creature can achieve ultimate happiness by its natural powers.
Ad 1. It should be said that nature does not fail a man in necessary things, although it does not provide him with armour or clothing as it does other animals but gives him reason and a hand, by which he can provide for himself. Thus it does not fail man in what is necessary even thought it did not give him a principle whereby he can achieve happiness, for this was impossible. But it gave him free will whereby he can turn to God who will make him happy. And what we can do through friends, we are in a sense capable of, as is said in Ethics 3.3.
Ad 2. It should be said that the nature that can attain the perfect good is of a nobler condition, even though it needs an external help to achieve it, as the Philosopher says in On the Heavens 2.12. One who can achieve perfect health, though he needs the help of medicine for this, is better disposed than one who can achieve imperfect health without the aid of medicine. Therefore the rational creature that can achieve the perfect good of happiness but needs divine help in this is more perfect than the irrational creature which is incapable of such a good but attains some imperfect good in virtue of its nature.
Ad 3. It should be said that when the imperfect and perfect are of the same species, they can be caused by the same power; however, this is not necessary if they are of different species, for whatever can cause the disposition of matter can confer the ultimate perfection. But imperfect activity which is subject to man’s natural power, is not of the same species as that perfect activity which is man’s happiness, since the species of the activity depends on the object. Hence the argument does not work.
Article 6: Does man attain happiness by the action of some higher creature?
It seems that he does.
1. It seems that a man can become happy through the action of some higher creature, namely, an angel. There is a twofold order found in things: one of the parts of the universe to one another, the other of the whole universe to the good which is outside the universe. The first is ordered to the second as to its end, as is said in Metaphysics 11.10, in the way that the order of the parts of the army to one another is for the sake of the order of the whole army to the leader. The order of the parts of the universe to one another results from the action of higher creatures on lower, as was said in Part 1. But happiness lies in the order of man to a good that is outside the universe, that is, God. Therefore a man is made happy by the action of a higher creature, namely, an angel.
2. Moreover, that which is potentially such-and-such can be brought to actuality by that which is actually such-and-such, as water that is potentially hot becomes actually hot by that which is actually hot. Therefore man who is potentially happy will become actually happy through the angel who is actually happy.
3. Moreover happiness lies in the activity of intellect, as has been said, but the angel can illumine the intellect of man. Therefore the angel can make man happy.
ON THE CONTRARY:
There is what is said in Psalm 83.12: ‘For God loveth mercy and truth.’
RESPONSE:
It should be said that every creature is subject to the laws of nature, as having limited power and action; but that which exceeds created nature cannot come to be by the power of any creature. Therefore if something must come about that is beyond nature it comes immediately from God, such as the raising of the dead, restoring sight to the blind and the like. But it has been shown that happiness is a good exceeding created nature. Hence it is impossible that it come about by the action of any creature, but a man becomes happy solely through the agency of God, if we are talking of perfect happiness. But if we are speaking of imperfect happiness, the same is true of it as of any virtue in whose activity it consists.
Ad 1. It should be said that where active powers are ordered it often happens that achieving the ultimate end pertains to the highest power while the lower powers aid in the attainment of the ultimate end by disposing, as the art of navigation had by the shipbuilder pertains to the use of the ship for the sake of which it is built. So in the order of the universe, man is aided by the angels in the attainment of the ultimate end, with respect to some things that precede and dispose him to achieve it. But he achieves the ultimate end thanks to the first cause, God.
Ad 2. It should be said that when a form actually exists in something according to perfect and natural existence, it can be the principle of an action towards another, as the warm by its heat makes another warm. But if the form exists in a thing imperfectly and not according to natural existence, it cannot be the principle of the thing’s communication with another, as the intention of colour which is in the pupil cannot cause a white thing, nor can all illumined and heated things illumine or heat for then illumination and heating would extend to infinity. But the light of glory by which God is seen is in God perfectly according to natural existence and in the creature imperfectly according to a similar or participated existence. Hence no happy creature can communicate his happiness to another.
Ad 3. It should be said that the blessed angel illumines man’s intellect, and that of a lower angel, with respect to some reasons of the divine works but not with respect to the vision of the divine essence, as was said in Part 1. For in seeing it, all are immediately illumined by God.
Article 7: Are some good works needed if man is to receive happiness from God?
It seems not.
1. God, since he is an agent of infinite power, does not presuppose any matter when he acts, or disposition of matter, but can immediately produce the whole. But since man’s works are not required for his happiness as efficient cause, as has been said, they can only be required for it as dispositions. Therefore, God, who does not presuppose dispositions when he acts, confers happiness without any preceding works.
2. Moreover, God is the immediate author of happiness, so too he institutes nature immediately. But in the first institution of nature he produced creatures without any prior disposition or action of a creature, but immediately made what he made perfect in its species. Therefore it seems that he confers happiness on man without any preceding operations.
3. Moreover, the Apostle says in Romans 4.6, ‘Thus David declares the blessedness of the man to whom God credits justice without works: “Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven…” ’ Therefore no works of man are required for achieving happiness.
ON THE CONTRARY:
It is said in John 13.17, ‘If you know these things, blessed will you be if you do them.’ Therefore, happiness is attained through action.
RESPONSE:
Rectitude of will, as was said above, which is nothing other than the fitting order of will to the ultimate end, is required for happiness in the same way that the disposition of matter is needed for the reception of form. But from this it does not follow that some activity of man ought to precede his happiness, for God could at the same time make the will to tend to the end rightly and to attain it, as sometimes at the same time he disposes matter and introduces the form. But the order of divine wisdom requires that this not happen, for as is said in On the Heavens 2.12, of things whose nature it is to have a perfect good, one has something of it without motion, another with one motion, and yet another with many motions. But to have perfect good without motion belongs to that which naturally has it, and only God naturally has happiness. Hence it is proper to God alone that he does not come to happiness without a preceding movement. When happiness exceeds the whole of created nature, no pure creature can fittingly attain happiness without an activity by which it tends to it.
But the angel, who is higher than man in the order of nature, by the order of divine wisdom, attains happiness by one motion of meritorious activity, as was explained in Part 1. But men attain it by many activities which are called merits. Hence too, according to the Philosopher, happiness is the reward for virtuous activities.
Ad 1. It should be said that man’s activity is not required as a condition for attaining happiness because of any insufficiency of the divine beatifying power, but in order that the order of things might be saved.
Ad 2. It should be said that God made the first creatures perfect, right off, without any preceding disposition or created activity. In this way he established the first members of species, so that by them a nature might be propagated to posterity. Similarly, because from Christ who is God and man happiness was to derive to others, as the Apostle says in Hebrews 2. 10, ‘Who had brought many sons in to glory,’ immediately from the beginning of his conception without any preceding meritorious activity his soul was happy. But this is singular to him, for the merit of Christ helps baptized children to attain happiness, although they lack any merit of their own, because through baptism they are made members of Christ.
Ad 3. It should be said that the Apostle is speaking of the happiness of hope which is had by justifying grace that is not given for preceding deeds. For it does not have the note of the term of motion, like happiness, but instead is the beginning of a motion whereby one tends towards happiness.
Article 8: Does every man seek happiness?
It seems not.
1. No one can want what he does not know since the apprehended good is the object of appetite, as is said in On the Soul 3.10. But many do not know what happiness is, something clear, as Augustine says in On the Trinity 13.4, from the fact that some held happiness to lie in the delights of the body, others in the virtue of the soul, others in other things. Therefore, all do not seek happiness.
2. Moreover, the essence of happiness is the vision of the divine essence, as has been said. But some think it to be impossible that God should be seen in his essence by man, hence they do not seek this. Therefore, not all men seek happiness.
3. Moreover, in On the Trinity 13.5 Augustine says that a happy man is one who has everything he wants and wants nothing badly. But not all will this, for some seek some things badly and yet will themselves to will them. Therefore, not all seek happiness.
ON THE CONTRARY:
Augustine says in On the Trinity 13.3 that if he should say less, namely that you all wish to be happy and do not want to be miserable, he would have said something that no one could fail to know in his own will. Therefore, each person wants to be happy.
RESPONSE:
It should be said that happiness can be considered in two ways. In one way, according to the common notion of happiness, and thus it is necessary that every man wants happiness. But the common notion of happiness is of a perfect good, as has been said. But since good is the object of will, the perfect good of anyone completely satisfies his will. Hence to seek happiness is nothing other than to seek that the will be satisfied. Which everyone wills. In another way we can speak of happiness according to a special notion, with respect to that in which happiness lies, and then not all men know happiness, because they do not know the thing that fulfils the common notion of happiness. Consequently, so considered, not all will it.
Ad 1. The answer is obvious from what has just been said.
Ad 2. It should be said that since will follows the grasp of intellect or reason, just as it can happen that something is the same in reality but diverse according to the consideration of reason, so it happens that something is one in reality and yet is desired in one way and not in another. Happiness can be considered under the notion of final and perfect good, which is the common note of happiness, and then naturally and of necessity the will tends towards it, as has been said. It can also be considered according to other special considerations, either on the part of the activity or on the part of the operative power or on the part of the object, and thus the will does not tend to it of necessity.
Ad 3. It should be said that the definition of happiness that some maintained – the happy man is the one who has all he desires, or the one to whom all that he wanted comes – understood in one way is good and sufficient, but in another way is imperfect. For if it is understood simply of everything that man wills by natural appetite, then it is true that he who has all that he wills is happy, for nothing satisfies man’s natural appetite except the perfect good which is happiness. But if it is understood of the things that a man wants following the grasp of reason, then to have everything one wants does not pertain to happiness, but rather to misery, insofar as when such things are had they impede a man from having whatever he naturally desires, just as reason sometimes takes as true what obstructs knowledge of the truth. Considering this, Augustine added that for the perfection of happiness one willed nothing badly. Although the first, namely that the happy man is he who has all he wills, could suffice if it is rightly understood.