This file is copyright of Jens Schriver (c) It originates from the Evil House of Cheat More essays can always be found at: --- http://www.CheatHouse.com --- ... and contact can always be made to: Webmaster@cheathouse.com -------------------------------------------------------------- Essay Name : 903.txt Uploader : Joseph W. Javorsky Email Address : whiterobe@juno.com Language : English Subject : Philosophy Title : Christocentric Panthiesm? Grade : B + School System : University Country : United States Author Comments : Intro to Ethics Teacher Comments : Good paper Date : 12/13/95 Site found at : friends -------------------------------------------------------------- Christocentric Panthiesm? Aquinas and Epictetus: Discussions on the Nature of God By Joseph Javorsky December 13, 1995 A true interpretation of ethics and morality can only be obtained through the understanding of God and divine providence. Without a correct view of God's nature, man would be helpless to understand his role and position in the order of creation. This theory would presuppose the existence of a supreme being or higher authority. This acceptance of a higher authority then mandates the establishment of moral standards. These standards are the basis for all ethical theory, which is a universal standard, effective for all people, excluding none. Once these standards have been given, it is now left under the individual responsibility of the will to define those laws. There are two primary schools of thought capable of defining moral standards in the context of divine authority. The first is a pantheistic view of ethics espoused by Epictetus, a stoic of the first century. To Epictetus, God was a rational principle immanent in the universe functioning as a vital force that creates and governs all things in the universe.*(44) But the stoic continues his explanation of God describing him as a cosmic intelligence which interacts with the universe from within this reality. Humanity, in this rationale, is considered to be part of that cosmic intelligence drawling moral insights from the combined rational of every sentient being. This ability to tap into the universal consciousness allows man to deduce a standard of morality that supports the basis for further exploration of the human experience, of which are three defining questions: 1. What is the nature of man? 2. How does one decide right and wrong? 3. What is the chief good? However, the solution to these questions can only be entertained in the light of universal understanding, and in so doing they develop distinct truisms that pre-define how they may be answered. In the context of the first question, Epictetus asserts that man is in essence a small part of God and the universe. By developing their reason, they become linked with the greater mind, becoming celestial citizens, causing man to recognize his duty to other individuals.* (41) Although, the ultimate conclusion to this belief conforms to the tenant that all nature has an equal portion of God within them, it places man as equals to moss. The only distinguishing characteristic that separates men from moss is the ability for man to use reason in discerning what is right from wrong. The ability to distinguish right from wrong is ascertained from man's use of reason to interpret the moral standard which governs the cosmos. To correctly act on these obligations, man must think of himself as a spectator and interpreter of the divine will.* (18) This understanding creates an atmosphere were divine providence is the chief mover, where personal decisions are acted upon as to achieve a greater harmony with nature. As Epictetus reflects is his Discourses: "I must die - if instantly, I will die instantly; if in a short time I will dine first, and when the hour comes, then will I die. How? As a man giving back what is not his own." In the previous passage Epictetus illustrates that whether to live or die, it is all the same, there is no significant reason for man to exist beyond the whim of divine providence. This passive acceptance of man's fleeting existence directly affects his understanding of life's chief good. For the stoics, the chief good of man was reason. This would be quantified as developing ones own intellect to the highest ability so that he can directly touch the universal consciousness. In the attempt to reach this goal, Epictetus, stressed self-discipline and pursuit of happiness. To him, one must conform himself to discipline to effectively reach outside of himself and touch God. As for the pursuit of happiness, Epictetus, equates that with the avoidance of frustration and disappointment of living apart from the divine harmony. When asked, "How should we decide to do what is good and makes us happy?". Epictetus replied, "Make the best of what is in our power, and take the rest as it occurs."* (5) Underscoring the need for avoidance of unpleasantries and the acceptance of providence. The second school of thought is diametrically opposed to the theories espoused by Epictetus and the stoics. The spokesman of this tradition, Thomas Aquinas, was a Domincan monk dedicated to the unification of Greek ethics and a Christocentric would view. To Aquinas, God was triune being, apart from his creation in both nature and substance. He is the pre-existent creator, unchangeable and infinite is knowledge and wisdom. One who built the foundation of the world with a word and rules it with his divine will. Opposite of stoic pantheism, nature is separate from God and man does not share divine essence, but divine image. In accordance with that image, man is capable of comprehending and obeying the universal standard. In this respect, the nature of man is that he has been created to serve God, ruling over creation and obeying natural law. The natural law in essence is being obligated to God's creation. Man was created with the various inclinations for survival, gathering in an ordered societ, searching for truth. Doing good work and promoting that goal is the main precept of the natural law. This law is the outworking of God's image in the human conndition. It is also through the natural law that man is able to discern right from wrong, but man must first develop the seven virtues that help guide reason to proper decisions. Aquinas describes the virtues in two catagories; those that man can achieve alone and those that can only be obtained through God's grace. The seven virutes is as follows: "Man can acheive without God the four virtues: wisdom, temperance, courage, and justice. But God is necessary to obtain the three theological virtues of faith, hope, and love." These are the primary tools used in discerment of right and wrong. The virtues are used by God to both convict man of his shortcommings and direct him in the proper direction. Beyond the virtues, man is intitled to his own free will that alows him to make the moral choices of right and wrong under his own violition. He is not subject to the universal consciousness as the stoics believed. The concept of free will is incompatable with the deterministic view of panthiestic providence. To Aquinas, is our right to chose the action that we feel is the best option availible within the confines of the moral standard. This free will can only be removed from men through ignorance, which is not allowing reason to interpret the will of God in that situation. But the use of free will also leads to the chief end of man, which is to willingly contemplate God. Aquinas acknowledged the beatific vision as the highest good, which is the full understanding of the revelation of Jesus Christ. To place man's chief good within the realm of the finite was to limit the authority and relavance of God in creation. Since man was made to glorify God, man must find his purest expression in contemplation of that God. Aquinas also espoused that man will never have that supernatural happiness in this life. He felt that only until entrance into heaven following death would man be able to fully realize his desire to embrace God in worship and there he would find true happiness. While on this earth, happiness is only a foreshadowing of the true glory that is associated with the Lord. Though both of these philosophies are teleological, meaning that they espouse an existance that has meaning and purpose, the stooics fall short in their understanding of the true role of man and his nature. Without the understanding of God as an independant creator and sovereign agent over creation, man will continue to limit thier nature to following the status quo. In the panthiestic system, man is locked into a fatalistic view of reality and the nearly non existant understanding of an afterlife. While the christocentric view shows man to be made in the image of the creator and though free to follow an independant path in the world, is eventually only able to find true happiness in God. In the end, without a correct view of God, the human experience is limited to his own understanding and limited achievements, but with God, man can rise above his nature and embrace the divine achieving true peace and happiness. Biblography Baumgarth, William P. Saint Thomas Aquinas: On Law, Morality, and Politics. Hackett Publishing Company: Cambridge, 1988. Peterfreund, Sheldon P. Great Traditions In Ethics. ed. 7. Wadsworth Publishing Company: Belmont, California, 1992. Higginson, Thomas. Epictetus: Discourse and Eruchiridion. Walter Black, Inc.: Roslyn, N.Y., 1944. --------------------------------------------------------------