Corporeality, the hindrance to Last Ends?

[TS Aquinas]

We are beings naturally united to form and matter that constitutes a complete substance that has the capability to use active intellect and know God (at least to a finite degree). Our last ends, or happiness, is as The Philosopher stated (Ethic. i, 7) "that ultimate happiness consisting in the knowledge of the highest things intelligible is attained through the virtue of wisdom." This being God, where our active intellect may forever contemplate in and fulfill our lasting desires.

As St. Aquinas observed though (ST, I, Q89, a1) "...the union of soul and body would not be for the soul's good, for evidently it would understand worse in the body than out of it; but for the good of the body, which would be unreasonable, since matter exists on account of the form, and not the form for the sake of matter. But if we admit that the nature of the soul requires it to understand by turning to the phantasms, it will seem, since death does not change its nature, that it can then naturally understand nothing; as the phantasms are wanting to which it may turn." By resolving this difficulty he answered immediately, and rightly so, by resorting to "mode of existence."

The road towards last ends seem to be focused on abandoning corporeality completely by detaching the self from the material world, detaching from the material self and ultimately to detach self from self. This being paralleled with moving from numerous thoughts concerning useless questions of material existence, abstracts and even angelic substance to divine simplicity in residing in an aeviternal thought, God. Perhaps this is one of those questions that can never be answered until assumed into Heaven, but why were we placed in a corporeal existence, or this "mode of existence", in the first place if all it does is hinder us from knowing the highest good, needing to abandon it by detachment and transcend it after death? For all intents and purposes, this reality sucks and gets in the way more than assist us to our end.

[Qoeleth]

Originally Posted by TS Aquinas

We are beings naturally united to form and matter that constitutes a complete substance that has the capability to use active intellect and know God (at least to a finite degree). Our last ends, or happiness, is as The Philosopher stated (Ethic. i, 7) "that ultimate happiness consisting in the knowledge of the highest things intelligible is attained through the virtue of wisdom." This being God, where our active intellect may forever contemplate in and fulfill our lasting desires.

As St. Aquinas observed though (ST, I, Q89, a1) "...the union of soul and body would not be for the soul's good, for evidently it would understand worse in the body than out of it; but for the good of the body, which would be unreasonable, since matter exists on account of the form, and not the form for the sake of matter. But if we admit that the nature of the soul requires it to understand by turning to the phantasms, it will seem, since death does not change its nature, that it can then naturally understand nothing; as the phantasms are wanting to which it may turn." By resolving this difficulty he answered immediately, and rightly so, by resorting to "mode of existence."

The road towards last ends seem to be focused on abandoning corporeality completely by detaching the self from the material world, detaching from the material self and ultimately to detach self from self. This being paralleled with moving from numerous thoughts concerning useless questions of material existence, abstracts and even angelic substance to divine simplicity in residing in an aeviternal thought, God. Perhaps this is one of those questions that can never be answered until assumed into Heaven, but why were we placed in a corporeal existence, or "mode of existence", in the first place if all it does is hinder us from knowing the highest good, needing to abandon it by detachment and transcend it after death? For all intents and purposes, this reality sucks and gets in the way more than assisting our end.

I am surprised to hear such wisdom from a disciple of Thomas. Yes, corporeality hinders the final ends of the soul. As Scripture says, "The corruptible body burdens the soul,
and the earthly tent weighs down the mind." John of the Cross said the soul is cast into the dungeon of corporeality as a punishment for Original Sin. I believe Origen said that some souls in Heaven came to look down at earthly things with desire, and were cast into the body as a punishment or consequence. St Francis also perceived the corporeality as a punishment, praying to be delivered from "the miserable prison of the flesh."

I think there is truth in this idea. Original Sin is what causes the soul to adhere to the base and false world of matter. The lesson of life is that "It is the Spirit which gives life, the flesh has nothing to offer." And so, eventually, when our soul no longer adheres to the world of matter, like a bird it flees away from its prison.

[GEddie]

This is the problem when people get too enamored of philosophy.

It should be obvious that we need our bodies for knowing, as we need them for seeing, smelling, or moving. The head, like eyes, nose, or limbs, is part of the human BODY!

And while we will indeed be "divested of our bodies", that is a PUNISHMENT and NOT something we are designed for!!

The human body does NOT "hinder our finality.". After all, when you and I have been "finalized", we will be in our Resurrectional BODIES!

ICXC NIKA!

[Trishie]

Jesus, God Incarnate, has the last word on the question of our physical in relation to the last ends, or the judgement of souls, of whom He is Judge.
His clear message is that our choices acting within our corporal humanity determines our eternal salvation, our Last Ends
He makes this abundantly clear in Matthew 24 verses 31-46

[JDaniel]

Originally Posted by TS Aquinas

We are beings naturally united to form and matter that constitutes a complete substance that has the capability to use active intellect and know God (at least to a finite degree). Our last ends, or happiness, is as The Philosopher stated (Ethic. i, 7) "that ultimate happiness consisting in the knowledge of the highest things intelligible is attained through the virtue of wisdom." This being God, where our active intellect may forever contemplate in and fulfill our lasting desires.

As St. Aquinas observed though (ST, I, Q89, a1) "...the union of soul and body would not be for the soul's good, for evidently it would understand worse in the body than out of it; but for the good of the body, which would be unreasonable, since matter exists on account of the form, and not the form for the sake of matter. But if we admit that the nature of the soul requires it to understand by turning to the phantasms, it will seem, since death does not change its nature, that it can then naturally understand nothing; as the phantasms are wanting to which it may turn." By resolving this difficulty he answered immediately, and rightly so, by resorting to "mode of existence."

TS:

Tough question. But, remember, to begin with, it is only through the matter-form composite that we at first are able to abstract (speciate) by the direct help of our senses. Upon shedding the body, the soul, it would seem, then has to resort to the phantasms, which are acknowledged not the better way of knowing. Further on in Q89, a 1, Aquinas says, "Since a thing is always ordered to what is best, and since it is better to understand by turning to absolutely intelligible things than by turning to phantasms, God should have made the soul's nature so that the nobler way of understanding would have been natural to it, and would not have needed the body for that purpose."

However, he continues, that the soul, like any intellectual thing, receives its capability to make things intelligible by the influx of the Divine light. Yet, it is better to get knowledge of physical things directly from those lower (physical) things, otherwise the soul's knowledge would be scattered and confused knowledge. You see, the farther off an intellectual creature is from the object of its knowledge the more scattered and confused becomes its knowledge of said things. Therefore, its knowledge of such things would be imperfect.

Aquinas ends his reply by the following words, "It is clear then that it was for the soul's good that it was united to the body, and that it understands by turning to phantasms. Nevertheless it is possible for it to exist apart from the body, and also to understand in another way." Thus, it turns out not to be the problem expected.

The road towards last ends seem to be focused on abandoning corporeality completely by detaching the self from the material world, detaching from the material self and ultimately to detach self from self. This being paralleled with moving from numerous thoughts concerning useless questions of material existence, abstracts and even angelic substance to divine simplicity in residing in an aeviternal thought, God. Perhaps this is one of those questions that can never be answered until assumed into Heaven, but why were we placed in a corporeal existence, or this "mode of existence", in the first place if all it does is hinder us from knowing the highest good, needing to abandon it by detachment and transcend it after death? For all intents and purposes, this reality sucks and gets in the way more than assist us to our end.

I think that, in fact, the opposite is true. Our nomos (souls) have been placed temporarily into the explicate realm, from out of the implicate realm. We will never have His capability of rendering all things completely intelligible. But, by the soul's composition with matter, we will have a better ability to know all that we can know about even more. Take a look at the rest of a1 and see if you agree.

God bless,
jd

[JDaniel]

Originally Posted by GEddie

This is the problem when people get too enamored of philosophy.

It should be obvious that we need our bodies for knowing, as we need them for seeing, smelling, or moving. The head, like eyes, nose, or limbs, is part of the human BODY!

And while we will indeed be "divested of our bodies", that is a PUNISHMENT and NOT something we are designed for!!

The human body does NOT "hinder our finality.". After all, when you and I have been "finalized", we will be in our Resurrectional BODIES!

ICXC NIKA!

GE:

I agree with almost all that you say, except your first sentence. Just read on in Q 89, a 1, and St. Thomas gives almost the same answer that you did!

So, "philosophy" is not the problem.

God bless,
jd

[Qoeleth]

Originally Posted by GEddie

This is the problem when people get too enamored of philosophy.

It should be obvious that we need our bodies for knowing, as we need them for seeing, smelling, or moving. The head, like eyes, nose, or limbs, is part of the human BODY!

And while we will indeed be "divested of our bodies", that is a PUNISHMENT and NOT something we are designed for!!

The human body does NOT "hinder our finality.". After all, when you and I have been "finalized", we will be in our Resurrectional BODIES!

ICXC NIKA!

Let's give the last word to Jesus:
"The Spirit gives life, the flesh offer nothing."

[GEddie]

Originally Posted by Qoeleth

Let's give the last word to Jesus:
"The Spirit gives life, the flesh offer nothing."

He also raised Himself from human death. He did not reduce Himself to a spirit.

That was never supposed to be in the human playbook.

ICXC NIKA

[TS Aquinas]

Originally Posted by JDaniel

TS:

Tough question. But, remember, to begin with, it is only through the matter-form composite that we at first are able to abstract (speciate) by the direct help of our senses. Upon shedding the body, the soul, it would seem, then has to resort to the phantasms, which are acknowledged not the better way of knowing. Further on in Q89, a 1, Aquinas says, "Since a thing is always ordered to what is best, and since it is better to understand by turning to absolutely intelligible things than by turning to phantasms, God should have made the soul's nature so that the nobler way of understanding would have been natural to it, and would not have needed the body for that purpose."

However, he continues, that the soul, like any intellectual thing, receives its capability to make things intelligible by the influx of the Divine light. Yet, it is better to get knowledge of physical things directly from those lower (physical) things, otherwise the soul's knowledge would be scattered and confused knowledge. You see, the farther off an intellectual creature is from the object of its knowledge the more scattered and confused becomes its knowledge of said things. Therefore, its knowledge of such things would be imperfect.

Aquinas ends his reply by the following words, "It is clear then that it was for the soul's good that it was united to the body, and that it understands by turning to phantasms. Nevertheless it is possible for it to exist apart from the body, and also to understand in another way." Thus, it turns out not to be the problem expected.



I think that, in fact, the opposite is true. Our nomos (souls) have been placed temporarily into the explicate realm, from out of the implicate realm. We will never have His capability of rendering all things completely intelligible. But, by the soul's composition with matter, we will have a better ability to know all that we can know about even more. Take a look at the rest of a1 and see if you agree.

God bless,
jd

I do not dispute the Angelic Doctor concerning intelligible things; he makes it very clear and coherent, as usual. My dispute is, I do not care about intelligible things at all, I only desire to know God, the "Divine Light" or as Plato stated "the Form of Good" (which he stated is the master form). "And this is eternal life: that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent." John 17:3. The crux of the argument is that we are tied to this reality which only serves itself and not our last end, which is existing in the Godhead through Christ as one. Do you not agree that time and space serves no function to what we are trying know, which exists outside of time and space? Let me quote Eckhart on this,

'The nearest of the Kingdom' Sermon

Nothing hinders the soul so much in attaining to the knowledge of God as time and place. Therefore, if the soul is to know God, it must know Him outside time and place, since God is neither in this or that, but One and above them. If the soul is to see God, it must look at nothing in time; for while the soul is occupied with time or place or any image of the kind, it cannot recognize God.

[TS Aquinas]

Originally Posted by GEddie

This is the problem when people get too enamored of philosophy.

It should be obvious that we need our bodies for knowing, as we need them for seeing, smelling, or moving. The head, like eyes, nose, or limbs, is part of the human BODY!

I am a direct realist and fully agree that knowledge is contingent on the senses that give way to the idea, but knowledge of God transcends the senses. I do not care for the senses, only contemplating and serving God. I do not need my body for that and in the end, the body hinders me.

And while we will indeed be "divested of our bodies", that is a PUNISHMENT and NOT something we are designed for!!

We were designed by God for God, who calls us to exist in Him by denying ourselves and living the life of Christ, which comes to the finality of death and resurrection in Him, living as one in Heaven (which is void of our mode of existence.)

[GEddie]

Originally Posted by TS Aquinas

I am a direct realist and fully agree that knowledge is contingent on the senses that give way to the idea, but knowledge of God transcends the senses. I do not care for the senses, only contemplating and serving God. I do not need my body for that and in the end, the body hinders me.



We were designed by God for God, who calls us to exist in Him by denying ourselves and living the life of Christ, which comes to the finality of death and resurrection in Him, living as one in Heaven (which is void of our mode of existence.)

Fine with me. I am not a Thomist (or a philosopher), and so I see by your SN that we will just have to agree to disagree.

I will have to lose this body and I HATE the prospect. I much prefer sight, smell, movement etc. to "contemplation". My hope is for the physical resurrection that will restore my bodily being within His embrace

Don't be too disappointed when you find out that the interior experience you apppreciate requires your head, just as smelling requires your nose.

God Bless and ICXC NIKA

[Verbum Caro]

Originally Posted by TS Aquinas

I do not need my body for that and in the end, the body hinders me.

See ST II-I, q. 4, a. 5

Reply to Objection 4. One thing is hindered by another in two ways. First, by way of opposition; thus cold hinders the action of heat: and such a hindrance to operation is repugnant to Happiness. Secondly, by way of some kind of defect, because, to wit, that which is hindered has not all that is necessary to make it perfect in every way: and such a hindrance to operation is not incompatible with Happiness, but prevents it from being perfect in every way. And thus it is that separation from the body is said to hold the soul back from tending with all its might to the vision of the Divine Essence. For the soul desires to enjoy God in such a way that the enjoyment also may overflow into the body, as far as possible. And therefore, as long as it enjoys God, without the fellowship of the body, its appetite is at rest in that which it has, in such a way, that it would still wish the body to attain to its share.

Reply to Objection 5. The desire of the separated soul is entirely at rest, as regards the thing desired; since, to wit, it has that which suffices its appetite. But it is not wholly at rest, as regards the desirer, since it does not possess that good in every way that it would wish to possess it. Consequently, after the body has been resumed, Happiness increases not in intensity, but in extent.

And continue to article 6:

But speaking of perfect Happiness, some have maintained that no disposition of body is necessary for Happiness; indeed, that it is necessary for the soul to be entirely separated from the body. Hence Augustine (De Civ. Dei xxii, 26) quotes the words of Porphyry who said that "for the soul to be happy, it must be severed from everything corporeal." But this is unreasonable. For since it is natural to the soul to be united to the body; it is not possible for the perfection of the soul to exclude its natural perfection.

Consequently, we must say that perfect disposition of the body is necessary, both antecedently and consequently, for that Happiness which is in all ways perfect.

Originally Posted by TS Aquinas

The crux of the argument is that we are tied to this reality which only serves itself and not our last end

That does seem to be the crux, but I think you assume in error that corporeality only serves itself and not our last end.

VC

[TS Aquinas]

Originally Posted by Verbum Caro

See ST II-I, q. 4, a. 5

Reply to Objection 4. One thing is hindered by another in two ways. First, by way of opposition; thus cold hinders the action of heat: and such a hindrance to operation is repugnant to Happiness. Secondly, by way of some kind of defect, because, to wit, that which is hindered has not all that is necessary to make it perfect in every way: and such a hindrance to operation is not incompatible with Happiness, but prevents it from being perfect in every way. And thus it is that separation from the body is said to hold the soul back from tending with all its might to the vision of the Divine Essence. For the soul desires to enjoy God in such a way that the enjoyment also may overflow into the body, as far as possible. And therefore, as long as it enjoys God, without the fellowship of the body, its appetite is at rest in that which it has, in such a way, that it would still wish the body to attain to its share.

Reply to Objection 5. The desire of the separated soul is entirely at rest, as regards the thing desired; since, to wit, it has that which suffices its appetite. But it is not wholly at rest, as regards the desirer, since it does not possess that good in every way that it would wish to possess it. Consequently, after the body has been resumed, Happiness increases not in intensity, but in extent.

Concerning happiness, extent and complete might of the nature is reducible to form without matter. When intensity is not increased, whatever is extended must be equal in power. But matter exists for form and form subsists (regarding humans) without matter, ergo matter is a lesser extent of happiness and less suitable for expression and experience of something that is without matter and form.

And continue to article 6:

But speaking of perfect Happiness, some have maintained that no disposition of body is necessary for Happiness; indeed, that it is necessary for the soul to be entirely separated from the body. Hence Augustine (De Civ. Dei xxii, 26) quotes the words of Porphyry who said that "for the soul to be happy, it must be severed from everything corporeal." But this is unreasonable. For since it is natural to the soul to be united to the body; it is not possible for the perfection of the soul to exclude its natural perfection.

Consequently, we must say that perfect disposition of the body is necessary, both antecedently and consequently, for that Happiness which is in all ways perfect.

Speaking of bodily perfection, something the intellect could care less for.

Both doctors have a good point, but the reason why Aquinas differs from Augustine in opinion is because he was an Aristotelian and Augustine was a Platonist, especially regarding souls. The hylemorphic dualism of Aristotelian - Thomistic philosophy regards soul as the form of the body, but more importantly a subsisting form (something that ultimately works against the notion the soul requires the body for full happiness). What is a mystery is the knowingness of intelligible things, or what a Platonist would call the 'third realm'. Aquinas explains this by way of 'divine light', or God reveals to the agent because the agent cannot know naturally in the corporeal realm. But the fact the soul does know intelligible things, uses active intellect, knows God, subsists without the body, (moving into revealed theology now) made in the image of God, called to abandon the world and be no part of it, be reborn of and in the Spirit and ultimately be united as one being in the Son by the operation of the Spirit that will glorify the Father as one forever. It's blatantly obvious; corporeality is useless to the soul concerning last ends. The question still stands, why were we placed in this mode of existence? I haven't even introduced angels into the argument, who exist like how the intellect wishes to exist (which should be obvious, they exist in a better mode of existence).

[Verbum Caro]

Originally Posted by TS Aquinas

the reason why Aquinas differs from Augustine in opinion is because

How so? Perhaps I misread it?

Aquinas quotes Augustine who quotes Porphyry as an example of an erroneous proposition. I.e. Augustine is saying that Porphyry is in error to claim that "for the soul to be happy, it must be severed from everything corporeal". Aquinas and Augustine agree that this is error, do they not?

See Augustine in the City of God:

It is not, then, necessary to the blessedness of the soul that it be detached from a body of any kind whatever, but that it receive an incorruptible body. And in what incorruptible body will they more suitably rejoice than in that in which they groaned when it was corruptible? For thus they shall not feel that dire craving which Virgil, in imitation of Plato, has ascribed to them when he says that they wish to return again to their bodies. They shall not, I say, feel this desire to return to their bodies, since they shall have those bodies to which a return was desired, and shall, indeed, be in such thorough possession of them, that they shall never lose them even for the briefest moment, nor ever lay them down in death.

VC

[TS Aquinas]

Originally Posted by Verbum Caro

How so? Perhaps I misread it?

Aquinas quotes Augustine who quotes Porphyry as an example of an erroneous proposition. I.e. Augustine is saying that Porphyry is in error to claim that "for the soul to be happy, it must be severed from everything corporeal". Aquinas and Augustine agree that this is error, do they not?

See Augustine in the City of God:


VC

My mistake, the article made it look like Augustine was agreeing with Porphyry, just read that chapter. Upon reading it there seems to be a difference in opinion still, regarding the renewed body as Augustine states "...God who made them promised them immortality—that is to say, an eternal tenure of these same bodies, such as was not provided for them naturally, but only by the further intervention of His will, that thus they might be assured of felicity... The body, therefore, shall be raised incorruptible, immortal, spiritual, by Him who, according to Plato, has promised to do that which is impossible." Suggesting the resurrected body will not be according to this nature of existence but a higher mode of existence that transcends the senses.