Critique of Aquinas' "Treatise on Happiness"

Within nature, and indeed science, there is theory which holds that for every action, there is an opposite and definite reaction. Taking this a step further, one finds the writings of Thomas Aquinas, the ancient philosopher who held that in order to do anything at all, an agent- be it human or beast- must have a particular intent (Oesterle). Aquinas' assertions bring into consideration such ultimate outcomes as happiness and the like, and whether Aquinas is correct in his assertions, which is to say that happiness, according to Aquinas, is something which must be arrived at through action, and not by mere happenstance.

Ultimately, the purpose of this research is to explain and evaluate both Aquinas' claim that the first of all causes is the final cause and his argument for that claim, followed by a personal reaction to Aquinas and his claims and arguments. Upon conclusion of the research, the facts of Aquinas' writings and the reactions that they elicit will have been presented and understood.

An Explanation of Aquinas' Argument

Before being able to either agree with or challenge Aquinas necessarily requires that his philosophies be explained and fully understood. At the heart of Aquinas' philosophy, indeed the starting point for all of his points, is the proposition that there can be no movement from one place to another without a final cause- essentially, that nothing that exists can go through change without some catalyst causing that change, and that nothing can change just by a matter of existing, and that reaction must come from some other action. Conversely, it has been argued by critics of Aquinas that there is such a thing as inert motion, which can bring about change through no particular action, but that it would, and indeed very well could occur in the absence of definitive action on the part of any force or being. Essentially, what this counter argument to Aquinas did in the large scope of philosophy was to dislodge Aquinas from the metaphorical top of the philosophical food chain in favor of other schools of thought, since the point was made that there were possibly other ways to philosophically theorize beyond what Aquinas ultimately had to offer (Oesterle).

Aquinas takes his assertions on the nature of acting for a particular end and associates them with reason in that according to Aquinas, acting for a particular end necessitates the possession of reason (Oesterle). This would put forth the argument that only the human creature is able to act to a particular end due to the possession of the ability to reason, to differentiate between various alternatives, pursue the alternative that one would determine to be best for them, and to comprehend and evaluate the eventual outcome of the choices that are made. Thus, without the ability to reason, Aquinas holds that the pursuit of an end in the absence of reason can be nothing more than a coincidental occurrence or something that merely happened without the intention of the being that is experiencing the given outcome.

The end result is of particular interest for Aquinas in his philosophy, which is to say that he fervently believed that when intelligent beings begin anything, it is with the end in mind that they do this, and that without an end in mind, nothing is in fact begun since creatures that cannot recognize the end cannot pursue an end, whatever occurs in the life of that being is more of something that just seems to happen, rather than something which is planned as the result of the ability to reason, differentiate, choose and plan.

Both Aquinas' assertions that nothing can occur without some force to make it happen, and that particular ends can only be achieved on the part of beings which possess reason, validating the supremacy of the human being, opens up yet another area of consideration in relation to Aquinas' philosophy- the attainment of a state of mind or level of consciousness such as happiness. If we take Aquinas at face value and apply his philosophies to happiness, it would seem that only higher forms of life could be happy and that the happiness in question is only in place because a conscious decision to pursue happiness took place, actions were taken to gain that happiness, and somewhere along the way, all of the factors lined up properly so that happiness could be reached, or at least whatever one's idea of happiness might be.

It would seem that, at least for Aquinas, happiness or any other "destination" so to speak is in fact the by-product of conscious effort-leaving nothing to chance, no effort wasted, and every action being used to maximum economy on the part of thinking beings which have planned out what they are seeking to do and dedicating all resources toward it. As such, Aquinas would lead the student to believe that happiness, since it is only possible as the result of planned effort and can in fact be gained like a gift in a box, can be reached by any being that has the intelligence to realize that they in fact want happiness, can gain happiness and will do whatever it takes to reach it. Further, it would seem that happiness could be mixed much like a tasty recipe and if that recipe is followed, it can in fact be reproduced again and again. Thus, happiness becomes commoditized, mass produced and widely available.

Now that the time of Aquinas' dominance over the philosophical community and the schools of higher learning have past in favor of different and even opposing theories, it is possible to now objectively put forth reactions to Aquinas with a certain level of fairness, now that contrasting viewpoints are now available to evaluate and measure against those of Aquinas.

Reaction to Aquinas

After a review and discussion of Aquinas' teachings, the researcher has come to the conclusion that, just as others have done, it is possible to challenge Aquinas from his own mindset- the very grounds that as reasoning beings, we can examine and process information as a means of reaching our own end, which in this case is to raise legitimate arguments against what Aquinas professes.

First, there is the consideration of Aquinas' belief that nothing occurs in nature without the intention on the part of some force to make something happen and that there is in fact a given end based on actions that are planned and executed. However, this consideration completely discards the existence of chance happenings, coincidence and the unexpected. For example, if nothing happened without it being planned and intended, if someone was able to only have occurrences which they intended and could control, there would be no tragedy in the world, no accidents and no impulsive action which often leads to undesirable outcomes. Or, if the same applied, it is fair to conversely argue that those in the world who fight crime, disease, poverty and the like would be able to simply eradicate it if they intended to do so and took action with the same outcome in mind.

Likewise, coincidence would not occur naturally if everything were able to be planned and controlled as Aquinas asserts. For yet another example, the classic scenario of being in the wrong place at the wrong time would simply never happen since every being is where they are because of a plan to be there and having ultimate control to stay out of situations and places that were out of their realm of control. Nothing would happen out of the ordinary and everything would be orderly, directed, and frankly, quite boring.

The aspect of unintended outcome is also proof against Aquinas' assertions. This is proven by the many discoveries in nature and inventions/technological advances which have occurred quite accidentally or at the very least as a consequence that they did not plan. In other words, in a controlled situation like that which Aquinas' contends, if a scientist or inventor intended to create reaction or commodity "X", and that did not happen, the end would have been reached and nothing else would have occurred. The consequence of something like this is quite obvious- society and humanity would not be at the level that it is today if the only things that existed were those that were presupposed, mapped out and reached much like someone would reach a destination on a road map. The proverbial short cut would be impossible and the cookie-cutter world would be the one in which we live, and the human experience would certainly be much worse off for it.

Lastly, Aquinas' ideas in regard to reason are worthy of challenge- most specifically, the assertion that happiness, for example, can only be enjoyed by creatures with the mental ability to reason that they want to be happy, what they need to be happy, and the ability to ultimately reach that happiness. However, this can be argued against with the simple example of a wild animal, such as a bird or rabbit. If that animal gains what it needs in the most basic context- food, shelter, safety- is it not fair to make the argument that the animal is happy, albeit in its own way to feel happy? Of course, if that level of happiness was not met by the animal in this case, the animal would not even survive as its basic needs are no0t being fulfilled and the ingredients to be able to sustain itself would be absent. Additionally, even though animals do possess a lower intellect than humans for example, they certainly pursue given ends with a goal in mind- even if the goal is a primitive as shelter from the cold or a source of food.

Conclusion

In conclusion, what is seen is essentially what others who have used to disagree with Aquinas for centuries- intellect and reason are not exclusive only to humans, emotions cannot be created every time by following a given formula, and at the risk of sounding smug, things do not always happen for a reason. Indeed, there is a level of unknown within the universe that humans, regardless of intelligence, may never be able to understand, and it is that unknown that keeps philosophy and other areas of intelligent analysis evolving and moving forward.

Works Cited

Oesterle, JA (Trans-2001). "Treatise on Happiness" by Saint Thomas Aquinas. University of Notre Dame Press.