Goodness, Will, and Divine
Free-will and goodness are two topics which transcend temporal existences. This is because people tend to, at least at one point, find difficulties distinguishing whether or not we have free-will, and if our actions (free or not) are good. Every generation of humans have struggled with this concept, debating between what is good, what is bad, what causes good, what causes bad, and whether or not the two exist at all. In regards to medieval philosophy, the two primary groups who debate back and forth between goodness and free-will are the intellectualists and the voluntarists, at least at their core. Both seek to figure out what and where goodness stems from, as well as where and how our goodness might be measured. Further, the two touch heavily on issues of will, which ties both into religious belief as well as an absurd logical debate. At the heart of their argument, voluntarists stand for the position that their minds, reason, and logic are volunteered to a God figure- that they receive two decisions, one from an omniscient creator, and a second from reason. Further, they believe that every decision is a choice between God’s desire and another, thus the Will becomes their primary factor for deciding whether or not an action, thought, or decision is good. Another stance promoted is from intellectualists, who think our goodness and badness is something to be reasoned through with rational thought and logic, regardless of its origins. There are specific philosophers who merely touch the outskirts of one side or the other, such as Alfarabi. However, his stance differs considerably in the respect that he claims people must strive to find God, and after they receive God, one receives Divine perfection. Before this, an individual, according to his view, must follow dogma or societal norms to behave well, utilizing their will to distinguish between these. His position does not, like most voluntarists, believe God's will is something innate nor something instilled from birth, nor does he support a two decision structure, nor does he support the idea that our goodness comes from will/reason alone. He instead believes any action which gets an individual closer to Divine perfection is virtuous, noble, and good. We will briefly touch on three philosophers to exemplify these stances: Thomas Aquinas, Bonnie Kent, and Alfarabi.
Thomas Aquinas, typically linked to intellectualists, follows the belief that good and bad actions are calculated through a series of logical and rational stages- that humans must think to behave good. Thomas seeks to answer two main things. First, where might an individual initially perceive goodness. Then second, where the source of this goodness stems from. He concludes “good and bad are found first in the outward act rather than in the act of the will.” (Aquinas Pg. 517). Thus, Thomas claims goodness or badness is not determined by our will, but instead how the act affects the outside world. And further, we might perceive goodness and badness in a variety of places (including the will, reason, logic, action, and thought), but initially goodness is found through an outward act. Thomas seems to be stating our reason and intellect determines which actions might evoke good reactions. Rather than utilizing our will, Aquinas and the intellectualists seem to claim we rely on our intellect and reason. Thus, we make decisions based upon our intellect and reason which are utilized to find and apprehend the good. Furthermore, it is not necessarily the decision which is good or bad, but what the resultant action affects, which our intellect and reason logically devise, then find through reason. And finally, Thomas states because an “act of will relates as a form to the outward act… [the] formal comes later, for form comes to matter” (Aquinas Pg. 517). Thus, an act creates a reaction, a reaction creates form (for "form comes later"), and form becomes matter, or actual substance. So, we reason (to sort through possibilities and apprehend the good), we act (which creates a reaction), the universe reacts (which creates form), and the form becomes the substance of reality.
Form here diverges from Plato’s ideal, for form is the natural laws and logical reactions of a unified body, whereas Plato’s ideal is a surrounding essence of ideas created by a God then transmitted to humans. Plato’s ideal requires a type of God figure, for an idea could not float in the ideal, the surrounding essence, without something, presumably a God, to first create it. Form does not necessarily require a God, for it is merely natural and scientific reactions. Therefore, according to the intellectualist position, goodness stems first from an action, then links to the reaction which is distinguished by form. So, all goodness comes as a result of this form, and is depicted first from the act.
Voluntarists, like Kent, find humans must believe to achieve good. There is merely a good act and a bad act, then we use our will to choose. If you don't follow the good act, you're bad. Yet, what is good? Whatever God wills. First, a voluntarist position requires belief. Second, it requires that humans are capable of making a type of decision, choosing to either follow the will of God, or to diverge from God’s path. Thus, whether or not a decision, action, or choice is good relies invariably on will. And if everything is good, and everything is from God, and God is all-knowing and all-powerful, everything must therefore be perfect, so long as one goes along with God's Divine will. Once you reach this Divine understanding, one realizes the Divine perfection- this is one transition between voluntarists, and someone who adopts several principles to both voluntarist and intellectualist philosophies, Alfarabi.
Alfarabi finds humans must spend their lives seeking this Divine perfection. In this respect, Alfarabi claims that individuals are to be types of "discoverers" (Alfarabi 64) on their journey to reach Divine perfection by means of a systematic approach through "deliberative faculty" (Alfarabi 64). Thus, an individual is to deliberate (presumably with their will) through a series of actions with the hopes of discovering the Divine. This differs from what voluntarists believe because the voluntarist position relies entirely on the premise good comes from the will. Alfarabi, however, seems to state that we are not born with Divine will, he states we must strive to find it- and after one reaches Divine perfection, they will be only good because they shall only be able to perform the perfection of the Divine. He claims our will and actions are good so far as in pursuit of "virtuous and noble things." (Alfarabi 61). Furthermore, good becomes established as either "generally accepted opinion [or] most noble to a particular religion" (Alfarabi 67). Thus, a good action comes as a result of our will performing a virtuous action either in regards to an individual dogma or generally accepted opinion, at least until the point of Divine perfection.
Therefore, intellectualists believe goodness is shown first through an outward act, and is established due to reactions which create form, but not necessarily from the will. Voluntarists believe goodness comes from the will, presumably God’s will. Alfarabi claims goodness is discovering the Divine through acts of the will which are good because they are virtuous in relation to an individual's religion.
My own belief is any act is good unless it negatively impacts another, and if so, there's a type of appropriation of goodness. With regards to our free-will, free-will only exists as illusion. This is because every decision we make is a resultant of our mind (IE what we think), which comes from what our brain is programmed to do. If one was put into the same situation and had their mind erased 100 times, the situation would be identical, for a different reaction would require a different brain. A decision is only a decision by illusion- our mind's way of convincing itself that we have the ability to make decisions. Everything is just our mind's programming responding, a mind which was crafted from our parents' minds responding, and their parents' minds responding to their parents. It's an endless cycle of neurological reactions reacting to and creating the reactions of the outside universe. Further, with regards to religion, I believe any religious argument regarding God and goodness is absurd. For God is allegedly all-knowing and all-powerful, and if God is all-knowing and all-powerful, every action and will must have been known and created from this God figure (otherwise, God would not be all-knowing nor all-powerful). This means every action, will, and thought is from God. And furthermore, if God is all good, so is everything which comes from God. Otherwise, God would lack omniscience, omnipotence, and goodness. Therefore, the moment God is included in a conversation regarding goodness, all actions, thoughts, and decisions must be good, otherwise God would not be omniscient, omnipotent, nor all good. So, without God, goodness becomes subjective. Thus, action is to be innately worked through based upon an individual's relative moral code (which results from their history which composes their religious views). Furthermore, every argument regarding good is of equal truth, for each belief in the religious sense becomes reality to a believer.
My advice regarding good and morality- learn happiness.
A good technique is to ask yourself (before performing an action),
"Will it make me happy now?"
"Will it make me happy tomorrow?"
Will it make me happy a year from now?"
Will it make me happy fifty years from now?"
The more you answer yes to, and the stronger each yes is, the better the decision.
No comments:
Post a Comment