On Desire

 

shutterstock_298189988Let’s talk for a moment about life, the universe and everything. I don’t know any question about life, the universe, and everything to which the answer is definitely Forty-Two (see Douglas Adams), but I can tell you what some of the best questions are: Why aren’t we as happy as we want to be? How can we become happy?

So what about the answers? Well, these questions motivated millenia of philosophy, and a good bit of religion, too. A lot of interesting answers have been given, at least as far back as Buddha and as recently as C. S. Lewis. A lot of the big philosophers (Buddhists, Stoics, Epicureans, Platonists, Christians medievals, Descartes, Bacon, Lewis) have agreed on the problem: Our desires don’t fit the world. We desire more than this world has to offer. We desire what we can’t have — or what we can have but can’t keep — and we end up losing what we love, or fearing its loss.

There are two general strategies available to fix that problem: 1) We change what we want, so that we want what we can have; or 2) We change the world, so that we can have what we want.

It’s pretty obvious that both approaches are correct in their own spheres. (And there may be a third option to accompany the first two. See this comment and this comment, below.) The first strategy has been used successfully by everyone who has stopped being a baby who wants his food, wants it NOW, and is miserable because he doesn’t get exactly what he wants.

Medical science is a useful component of the second strategy, and I thank both God and Descartes (who advocated medical science as a component of the second strategy) that we now have the ability to prevent polio.

But what are the proper spheres of these two strategies? Which should be more emphasized? How should we modify the world or modify our desires properly? These are all issues that make big differences between all these thinkers and traditions. Give a thorough answer to all this, and you have a nice little philosophy of desire, or theology of desire, going.

Boethius

Philosophy tells Boethius how to be happy.

Generalizing somewhat, the earlier philosophers take the first (i.e., change our desires to better match the world), and the early modern Western philosophers take the second approach (i.e., change the world to better match our desires).

There are actually two ways of carrying out the first strategy: either we can cut desire down to the size of whatever is attainable in this world, or we can redirect our desires to something beyond this world. Ancient Buddhists, Stoics, and Epicureans have employed the former of these. The latter is the approach of Sufi mystics, the Bhagavad Gita, the Platonists, the Christian medievals, and C. S. Lewis.

Now it’s time to recommend some books! On the subject of the Platonist, Stoic, and Epicurean philosophers of desire I recommend Martha Nussbaum’s The Therapy of Desire and Pierre Hadot’s What Is Ancient Philosophy?

And on St. Augustine’s philosophy/theology of desire compared and contrasted with Platonism, I recommend — if I may — my own book on Augustine’s Cassiciacum Dialogues. In it, I explain how Augustine mingles the Platonist with the Christian approaches. In one sentence: I explain how Augustine’s theology of desire is a Christian one which takes some insights from the Platonic philosophers. (A bit more detail on where this thesis fits in the context of Augustine scholarship will come up in the next post, and a post after that will summarize the major points of the Cassiciacum dialogues.)

And on the consequences of the modern scientific approach (if you let the worst kind of modern philosophers tell you how to think about right and wrong), I recommend The Abolition of Man by C. S. Lewis.

And to learn how science fiction film illustrates Lewis, I recommend the upcoming Science Fiction and the Abolition of Man: Finding C. S. Lewis in Sci-Fi Film and Television. The book was my idea, and I’m editing it. More on that another time.

Published in General
Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 134 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Midget Faded Rattlesnake Member
    Midget Faded Rattlesnake
    @Midge

    Augustine:So you’d agree–or almost agree–with J Climacus that “it is far more important for him to live according to truth, justice, and the will of God, whatever he is doing, than attempt to discover some particular path . . . .”

    In particular, J Climacus said “… than attempt to discover some particular path… that he was allegedly destined for.”

    Which is also, I believe, a misconstrual of what I said, for I said nothing about destiny. In fact, I don’t believe in destiny.

    I believe in vocation, but vocation isn’t predestined. Instead, it is a non-predestined series of choices you must make the most of, and not being predestined, there is great potential to fail – and fail hard. After which, your duty is to somehow pick yourself up, put the pieces together and still pursue a vocation no matter how far you’ve fallen.

    God doesn’t “destine” you for a vocational path. You choose it. Choose wisely, or prepare for a lot of rebuilding.

    But you say that virtue and all those things he talked about include a path of service which is a particular path.

    Yes.

    Now we may have some (minor) disagreement here… “basic virtues applicable to every man” are at least as morally demanding as creating things of value and finding a good niche of service.

    But what I said is practice basic virtue AND create something valuable. The both together are more demanding than basic virtue alone. It’s AND not OR.

    • #31
  2. EThompson Member
    EThompson
    @

    Midget Faded Rattlesnake:

    No, what I’m saying is that leading a good life goes far beyond mastery of the basic virtues applicable to every man. It is also about creating things of value, too, which means it is even more morally demanding.

    Perhaps without meaning to (?), you have clearly and concisely defined the value of the work ethic and the righteousness of capitalism.

    • #32
  3. Midget Faded Rattlesnake Member
    Midget Faded Rattlesnake
    @Midge

    EThompson:

    Midget Faded Rattlesnake:

    No, what I’m saying is that leading a good life goes far beyond mastery of the basic virtues applicable to every man. It is also about creating things of value, too, which means it is even more morally demanding.

    Perhaps without meaning to (?), you have clearly and concisely defined the value of the work ethic and the righteousness of capitalism.

    It wasn’t entirely without meaning to ;-)

    In religious-ese, this is “vocation”, or the parable of the talents, or being made in the image of God, who is Creator, so we are little creators, too. Without vocation, we lead lives adrift, even if we manage to be good otherwise. And when an expected vocation fails, rebuilding another vocation from the wreckage can easily become the hardest part about being good.

    • #33
  4. Augustine Member
    Augustine
    @SaintAugustine

    Midget Faded Rattlesnake:But what I said is practice basic virtue AND create something valuable. The both together are more demanding than basic virtue alone. It’s AND not OR.

    Excellent.

    • #34
  5. Augustine Member
    Augustine
    @SaintAugustine

    Midget Faded Rattlesnake:

    EThompson:

    Midget Faded Rattlesnake:

    No, what I’m saying is that leading a good life goes far beyond mastery of the basic virtues applicable to every man. It is also about creating things of value, too, which means it is even more morally demanding.

    Perhaps without meaning to (?), you have clearly and concisely defined the value of the work ethic and the righteousness of capitalism.

    It wasn’t entirely without meaning to ;-)

    In religious-ese, this is “vocation”, or the parable of the talents, or being made in the image of God, who is Creator, so we are little creators, too. Without vocation, we lead lives adrift, even if we manage to be good otherwise.

    Excellent.

    And when an expected vocation fails, rebuilding another vocation from the wreckage can easily become the hardest part about being good.

    Quibble: This is an OR, not an AND–since you’re focusing on parts.  I myself concur with the ancient-medieval tradition (Plato, Aristotle, Augustine, Boethius, Aquinas, Lewis), which will generally say that the hardest part of being being good is those virtues required for all, not one person’s occasional need to rebuild a vocation from the wreckage of another.

    • #35
  6. Augustine Member
    Augustine
    @SaintAugustine

    Midget Faded Rattlesnake:

    EThompson:

    Midget Faded Rattlesnake:

    No, what I’m saying is that leading a good life goes far beyond mastery of the basic virtues applicable to every man. It is also about creating things of value, too, which means it is even more morally demanding.

    Perhaps without meaning to (?), you have clearly and concisely defined the value of the work ethic and the righteousness of capitalism.

    It wasn’t entirely without meaning to ;-)

    In religious-ese, this is “vocation”, or the parable of the talents, or being made in the image of God, who is Creator, so we are little creators, too.

    Theological justifications for economic productivity.  That’s important information, the kind of information many Bothans would be willing to die to bring us.

    Option 1 and Option 2 are not really meant to be conflict.  Lewis closes Mere Christianity by observing that those who take Option 1 (particularly Option 1B, as defined in comment # 7), do the best job satisfying the demands of Option 2.  Seek earth for its own sake, and you lose both it and heaven.  Seek heaven, and you get heaven with earth thrown in.

    • #36
  7. Midget Faded Rattlesnake Member
    Midget Faded Rattlesnake
    @Midge

    Augustine:

    Midget Faded Rattlesnake:

    And when an expected vocation fails, rebuilding another vocation from the wreckage can easily become the hardest part about being good.

    Quibble: This is an OR, not an AND–since you’re focusing on parts. I myself concur with the ancient-medieval tradition (Plato, Aristotle, Augustine, Boethius, Aquinas, Lewis), which will generally say that the hardest part of being being good is those virtues required for all, not one person’s occasional need to rebuild a vocation from the wreckage of another.

    Well, what it is is a conditional statement:

    When vocation fails, building another one can be the hardest part about being good. That says nothing about what’s hardest about being good when vocation isn’t failing.

    Indeed, many people hum along the worldly dimension of their vocations just fine, without ever even having to question them, and for those people, I would expect general virtue to be the harder part.

    • #37
  8. Augustine Member
    Augustine
    @SaintAugustine

    Midget Faded Rattlesnake:

    Augustine:

    Midget Faded Rattlesnake:

    And when an expected vocation fails, rebuilding another vocation from the wreckage can easily become the hardest part about being good.

    Quibble: This is an OR, not an AND–since you’re focusing on parts. I myself concur with the ancient-medieval tradition (Plato, Aristotle, Augustine, Boethius, Aquinas, Lewis), which will generally say that the hardest part of being being good is those virtues required for all, not one person’s occasional need to rebuild a vocation from the wreckage of another.

    Well, what it is is a conditional statement:

    When vocation fails, building another one can be the hardest part about being good.

    You’re still against the tradition on this point.

    • #38
  9. Midget Faded Rattlesnake Member
    Midget Faded Rattlesnake
    @Midge

    Augustine:

    Midget Faded Rattlesnake:

    When vocation fails, building another one can be the hardest part about being good.

    You’re still against the tradition on this point.

    Perhaps, but real-world experience (personal and otherwise) has a say in this, too. I chose the word “can” for a reason: while not everyone’s greatest moral struggle upon shattering of a vocation will be rebuilding another vocation, for some people, it is their greatest moral struggle – and, if they fail in that struggle, arguably their greatest moral failing.

    We are not interchangeable ciphers. We are created with differing personalities and differing talents. Why, if the virtue we are called to is uniform? Why do we talk about “squandered talent” so judgmentally if it’s not also a moral judgment? But no, we are beings with individual personalities worshiping a personal God. It is almost as if what we do with these idiosyncratic personalities of ours is supposed to matter.

    • #39
  10. Augustine Member
    Augustine
    @SaintAugustine

    Midget Faded Rattlesnake:

    Augustine:

    You’re still against the tradition on this point.

    Perhaps, but real-world experience (personal and otherwise) has a say in this, too. I chose the word “can” for a reason: while not everyone’s greatest moral struggle upon shattering of a vocation will be rebuilding another vocation, for some people, it is their greatest moral struggle . . . .

    I won’t object to the claim that rebuilding a(nother) vocation is the hardest moral struggle for some.

    And if to that conclusion is added the premise that rebuilding a(nother) vocation is something separate from the tradition’s understanding of virtue, then the tradition is wrong on this point.  I could live with the tradition being wrong.

    But I don’t think we need to add that additional premise.  We can stick with the BOTH-AND.  There are plenty of uniformities to the traditional account, but not everything is uniform:

    We are not interchangeable ciphers. We are created with differing personalities and differing talents. . . . we are beings with individual personalities . . . . what we do with these idiosyncratic personalities of ours is supposed to matter.

    Not everyone fights the same battles; the courage of which the tradition speaks is applied in unique circumstances for everyone.  In Lewis’ Great Divorce, the same moral conflict of SELF vs. LOVE OF GOD is fought over different territory for each individual.  In Boethius’ Consolation of Philosophy, God orchestrates unique circumstances for everyone for the healing of their souls.

    • #40
  11. J Climacus Member
    J Climacus
    @JClimacus

    Midget Faded Rattlesnake:God doesn’t “destine” you for a vocational path. You choose it. Choose wisely, or prepare for a lot of rebuilding.

    You mean like being a fashion designer? It is hard for me to imagine this occupation rising to the point of moral seriousness that it deserves the term “vocation.” This is true for most occupations.

    I do not think vocations are so much chosen as they choose you. You fall in love with a woman. You haven’t “chosen the vocation” of husband and father, instead you just want to be with her. You marry her, nature takes its course, and now you have children. Your vocation is now to be the best husband and father you can be. It doesn’t matter how good you are at it, or how productive, or whether you think your talents are being squandered. Use what talents you have to be the best husband and father you can be. Are you a fashion designer? Great. Are you a good one? Even better. But it’s just a job to make money to support your true vocation. Anything else is rationalization.

    Rattlesnake: And when an expected vocation fails, rebuilding another vocation from the wreckage can easily become the hardest part about being good.

    I do not think vocations ever change just because you think you have failed at it. In fact, the only way I think you can fail at a vocation, like being a father, is to abandon it.

    • #41
  12. J Climacus Member
    J Climacus
    @JClimacus

    Midget Faded Rattlesnake:We are not interchangeable ciphers. We are created with differing personalities and differing talents. Why, if the virtue we are called to is uniform? Why do we talk about “squandered talent” so judgmentally if it’s not also a moral judgment? But no, we are beings with individual personalities worshiping a personal God. It is almost as if what we do with these idiosyncratic personalities of ours is supposed to matter.

    We indeed are not interchangeable ciphers. The four cardinal virtues – courage, justice, temperance and wisdom – are uniform in nature but particular to each individual. Without them whatever particular talent you have will not work to the good.

    I am not nearly as concerned about squandering talent as you are. A talented actress abandons her career to raise her children? Good for her for not worrying about squandered talent. An NFL player – among the most talented athletes in the country – gives up his career to serve his country in the Middle East and is killed? Squandered talent? Maybe, but his life was far more morally serious than otherwise. We learn from the greatest of the cardinal virtues – wisdom – that at the heart of the morally serious life is self-sacrifice; including, possibly, the sacrifice of my talents and whatever “production” I might have gotten from them.

    • #42
  13. Larry3435 Inactive
    Larry3435
    @Larry3435

    “There are two general strategies available to fix that problem: We can change what we want so that we want what we can have, or we can change the world so that we can have what we want.”

    Both of these strategies are all about eliminating unfulfilled desires.  I would suggest that there is a place for strategy number 3, which is to acknowledge that unfulfilled desires are an important part of life, and should be embraced rather than eliminated.  Life is not about having everything we want – whether that be accomplished by getting what we want, or by training ourselves to stop wanting it.  A life where we had everything we wanted would be boring.  A life that includes (as yet) unfulfilled desires means a life with goals, dreams, hopes, and even fantasies.  I’ll take that.

    Frank Herbert invented the word “spannungsbogen” to refer to the self-imposed delay between forming a desire, and seeking to fulfill that desire.  I deem that state of mind to be a positive thing, because it embraces the value of living with unfulfilled desires.  Herbert agreed.

    • #43
  14. Augustine Member
    Augustine
    @SaintAugustine

    Larry3435:Both of these strategies are all about eliminating unfulfilled desires. I would suggest that there is a place for strategy number 3, which is to acknowledge that unfulfilled desires are an important part of life, and should be embraced rather than eliminated. Life is not about having everything we want – whether that be accomplished by getting what we want, or by training ourselves to stop wanting it. A life where we had everything we wanted would be boring. A life that includes (as yet) unfulfilled desires means a life with goals, dreams, hopes, and even fantasies. I’ll take that.

    I’m pretty sure Captain Kirk also endorses this Option 3!

    The ancient-medieval tradition would say that any unsatisfied desire is inconsistent with happiness.  Unsatisfied desire = disappointment. Disappointment necessarily subtracts from happiness.

    To this Kirk might reply that unsatisfied desire is a powerful motivator to greater accomplishment down the road–and greater happiness.  I’m not sure the tradition has any objections to this–or I.  The tradition’s rejoinder is only that unsatisfied desire is not consistent with perfect or complete happiness, which is what we really want–at least eventually.

    The tradition might also suggest that some unsatisfied desire (that which is held with anticipation of satisfaction) is not disappointment, and is itself a form of happiness–just not the greatest possible happiness.  And a hefty dose of such desires can be a very good thing–and thus an Option 3 is good.

    • #44
  15. Midget Faded Rattlesnake Member
    Midget Faded Rattlesnake
    @Midge

    J Climacus:

    Midget Faded Rattlesnake:God doesn’t “destine” you for a vocational path. You choose it…

    You mean like being a fashion designer? It is hard for me to imagine this occupation rising to the point of moral seriousness that it deserves the term “vocation.”

    Yeah, I deliberately chose a “shallow” occupation to illustrate that our vocations can include any non-evil job. Vocation has more than one meaning, one of which is total calling. But it also means an occupation (like a job) for which one is particularly well-suited. I don’t know why you are so keen to dismiss our occupations (secular vocations) from our total vocation!

    I do not think vocations are so much chosen as they choose you. You fall in love with a woman. You haven’t “chosen the vocation” of husband and father, instead you just want to be with her. You marry her, nature takes its course, and now you have children.

    You marry her, procreate with her, you are choosing the vocation of husband and father.

    Sure, you’re also in love, but love is not a passive thing. It is also chosen – have you never had to choose not to fall in love with someone who was bad for you, no matter how hard it was to resist? Or perhaps even harder, have you and someone you loved chosen not to marry because, despite real love, the marriage was likely to be a bad idea? Lucky you, then!

    • #45
  16. Larry3435 Inactive
    Larry3435
    @Larry3435

    Well, Auggie, a rare point of agreement between us.  Perhaps I should simply smile and let it be at that, but I am going to venture two more observations.

    First, even desires which have no chance of fulfillment can bring us pleasure.  Isn’t the core attraction of fiction (perhaps, especially, science fiction) that it allows us to fantasize about desires which have no chance of actual fulfillment?  Would we be better off if we could rid our minds of the secret desire to be the captain of a Federation Starship?  Or a Jedi?  Or an ordinary kid thrown into a relationship with Megan Fox amidst a war of transformers?  I, for one, have no objection to these hidden desires resting in my unconscious – available to be called up for my entertainment in fictional worlds.

    Second, it is always important to remember that unhappiness brings its own form of gratification.  For example, although I certainly don’t recommend it as a life strategy, we all know people who insist on wallowing in self-pity and victimhood.  I’m sure you have noticed that it is incredibly hard to turn these people onto the path of happiness, because they enjoy their self-pity.  It has a “pay off” for them.  It relieves them of responsibility.  It projects a demand that other people cater to their needs.  It is a combination of the deadly (but alluring) sins of sloth and envy.

    • #46
  17. Midget Faded Rattlesnake Member
    Midget Faded Rattlesnake
    @Midge

    J Climacus:

    Rattlesnake: And when an expected vocation fails, rebuilding another vocation from the wreckage can easily become the hardest part about being good.

    I do not think vocations ever change just because you think you have failed at it. In fact, the only way I think you can fail at a vocation, like being a father, is to abandon it.

    We can play verbal games with this, obviously. But when it had seemed like God was truly calling you to one life, and that life falls through, it sure seems like a failed vocation. We can fatuously assert that, if it failed, it couldn’t have been a “real vocation” to begin with, but that misses the point: all your prior knowledge pointed to it being a real vocation, and now it’s gone.

    Time to rebuild.

    Since you make so little of the secular portion of vocation, consider these scenarios: A man leaves the monastic life to marry. A man’s wife abandons him through divorce. Wow, it sure seems like the vocation of monkhood in the first instance, and husbandhood in the second instance, have simply failed!

    • #47
  18. Midget Faded Rattlesnake Member
    Midget Faded Rattlesnake
    @Midge

    J Climacus:

    Midget Faded Rattlesnake: Why do we talk about “squandered talent” so judgmentally if it’s not also a moral judgment?

    I am not nearly as concerned about squandering talent as you are. A talented actress abandons her career to raise her children? Good for her for not worrying about squandered talent. An NFL player – among the most talented athletes in the country – gives up his career to serve his country in the Middle East and is killed? Squandered talent? Maybe, but his life was far more morally serious than otherwise.

    I notice you used the word “maybe”. Perhaps that is because, if one talent is sacrificed in pursuit of a greater end, it is not squandered. That’s what I would say: to choose the better path is not squandering, but a trade-off well-made.

    We learn from the greatest of the cardinal virtues – wisdom – that at the heart of the morally serious life is self-sacrifice; including, possibly, the sacrifice of my talents and whatever “production” I might have gotten from them.

    That said, most of us know people who struggle to avoid genuinely squandering their talents – as far as we can tell, their talent is not “sacrificed” to serve any better end, but lies rusting because of sloth, or fear, or despair, or simply because they have misjudged what’s possible for them. Where is the virtue in that?

    • #48
  19. Larry3435 Inactive
    Larry3435
    @Larry3435

    Since I find myself pontificating against the proposition that happiness consists solely of eliminating unfulfilled desires, let me add another reason in support of my position.  We often face a conflict between the desire for immediate gratification and what we know will result in long term greater happiness.  Order that desert, or keep our figure and our health?  Give in to lust, or remain faithful to spouse?  Every day we are forced to choose between conflicting desires for either immediate gratification or long term happiness.

    Above I mentioned two of the seven deadly sins.  I would go further and say that all of the seven deadly sins represent giving into the desire for immediate gratification (what Freud called the id) at the expense of what reason tells us will make us happiest in the end (what Freud called the ego).

    The seven deadly sins are usually listed as pride, greed, lust, envy, gluttony, wrath and sloth.  Every one of these tempts us in the short term, at the expense of long term happiness.  The belief that happiness consists of satisfying every desire can devolve quickly into libertinism.  The irony is that libertinism is, perhaps, the worst possible road to happiness.

    • #49
  20. Augustine Member
    Augustine
    @SaintAugustine

    Midget Faded Rattlesnake: . . . our vocations can include any non-evil job.

    I agree on this! (I think I was with J Climacus on all [or nearly all] else.)

    • #50
  21. Augustine Member
    Augustine
    @SaintAugustine

    Larry3435:First, even desires which have no chance of fulfillment can bring us pleasure. . . .

    Second, it is always important to remember that unhappiness brings its own form of gratification. For example, . . . .

    I imagine a good thinker representing the ancient-medieval tradition would find a reply to these suspicions.  The reply would no doubt involve a bit of psychologizing and making of distinctions.

    Augustine, for example, in one of his early writings argues that one who commits suicide does so out of a desire for peace, and craves the peace he thinks non-existence offers, not the actual non-existence.

    Similarly, on the second challenge, I suspect the right answer would be that we humans have a strange (and perverse) way of taking pleasure in pain.  We seek the pleasure, not the pain itself.

    On the first challenge, a distinction would have to be made between (a) the desire to merely fantasize life on the Enterprise and (b) the desire to actually be on it.  A distinction would also have to be made between (c) the pleasure from imagining satisfaction of a particular desire and (d) the disappointment associated with its dissatisfaction.

    The challenge could only succeed if pleasure c from imagining the satisfaction of b were to exceed the disappointment d with respect to b.  Could this be the case?  I suppose; but I’m not optimistic; I’m sure my desires would never take that shape.

    • #51
  22. Augustine Member
    Augustine
    @SaintAugustine

    Larry3435:Since I find myself pontificating against the proposition that happiness consists solely of eliminating unfulfilled desires, . . . .

    In all of the above I’ve been dealing with the proposition that elimination of dissatisfaction is a necessary condition for happiness. I have not been ealing with the proposition to which you refer–that it is also a sufficient condition.

    But some (maybe all) of them certainly do hold to that proposition.  So, moving on, . . .

    . . . we are forced to choose between conflicting desires for either immediate gratification or long term happiness.

    Above I mentioned two of the seven deadly sins. I would go further and say that all of the seven deadly sins represent giving into the desire for immediate gratification . . . .

    The belief that happiness consists of satisfying every desire can devolve quickly into libertinism. The irony is that libertinism is, perhaps, the worst possible road to happiness.

    This is why even the most radical proponents of Option 2 (e.g., Descartes and Bacon) will promote Option 1 regarding all the desires which the libertine follows.

    It’s not about satisfying every desire.  That cannot be done, for our desires are disordered, sinful, and conflicting.  It’s about eliminating unsatisfied desires.

    • #52
  23. St. Salieri Member
    St. Salieri
    @

    One thought, for what it’s worth…vocation as a locus of happiness, really does not depend upon the career, it depends not on fulfilling some “calling”, it depends on the what you are laboring for in an ultimate sense – after all isn’t that both the point that Epictetus and St. Paul make – slave labor may be immoral, but as a virtuous slave, one does not labor for the task or the master, but for God.  Hence self-liberation from that slavery isn’t consistent with virtue, because even if it is unjust, it is theft and demeans the ultimate vocation by the act of rebellion.

    I’m not sure how or if this applies, or if I’m even right, but I kept thinking about this while reading the above comments.

    It seems to me that when we become focused on vocation as located in the act of doing it will ultimately fail, if it doesn’t have an outside place of being.  It seems that the result of breaking that connection turns vocation into an idol.  I think that EThompson often turns the virtues of labor and material success into an idol detached from the Presbyterian truths that made it a component of a worldview firmly in camp 1.

    I’m sorry I lack the clarity of thinking and training to put my thoughts into better order and words.

    Please help clear up my muddled thinking.

    • #53
  24. Augustine Member
    Augustine
    @SaintAugustine

    St. Salieri:One thought, for what it’s worth…

    . . .

    Please help clear up my muddled thinking.

    I don’t think you need help.  (Alternatively, maybe we both need help.)

    Seemed not muddled to me.  I think you’re saying that modifying our desires to have ordo amoris, rightly ordered loves, is a prerequisite for properly modifying the world to get what we want.

    • #54
  25. St. Salieri Member
    St. Salieri
    @

    Augustine:

    St. Salieri:One thought, for what it’s worth…

    . . .

    Please help clear up my muddled thinking.

    I don’t think you need help. (Alternatively, maybe we both need help.)

    Seemed not muddled to me. I think you’re saying that modifying our desires to have ordo amoris, rightly ordered loves, is a prerequisite for properly modifying the world to get what we want.

    Exactly.

    • #55
  26. Midget Faded Rattlesnake Member
    Midget Faded Rattlesnake
    @Midge

    Augustine:

    Larry3435: …I find myself pontificating against the proposition that happiness consists solely of eliminating unfulfilled desires, . . . .

    In all of the above I’ve been dealing with the proposition that elimination of dissatisfaction is a necessary condition for happiness.

    Elimination of dissatisfaction, but is it not possible to learn to be satisfied with incompletely fulfilled desires?

    Dissatisfaction is funny. A very depressed person, for example, might experience a steep decline in all his desires, both good and bad, and yet experience great dissatisfaction – one is tempted to suggest because of his loss of desire. Anhedonia sounds much more virtuous than it is.

    No longer receiving – thus no longer anticipating – that little psychic reward most people get from doing what they believe is right does not make doing right absolutely impossible, but let’s not kid ourselves: that psychic reward is what most moral people rely on to stay moral, so when it wanes…

    By contrast, a person teeming with zest for life may be perfectly content with the fact that he has many more desires than he can ever fulfill. He may see no need to eliminate his desire to, say, visit the penguin colonies in Antarctica, despite the fact that he’s living a life that almost certainly won’t give him the opportunity to visit them. Already being happy with the life he has, his other unfulfilled desires weigh on him less, and maybe even add spice to his life, a happy sense of adventure, wider scope, wonder.

    • #56
  27. J Climacus Member
    J Climacus
    @JClimacus

    Midget Faded Rattlesnake:That said, most of us know people who struggle to avoid genuinely squandering their talents – as far as we can tell, their talent is not “sacrificed” to serve any better end, but lies rusting because of sloth, or fear, or despair, or simply because they have misjudged what’s possible for them. Where is the virtue in that?

    There isn’t much virtue because you’ve described someone sunk in the most serious sins. You’ve neatly described the priority of virtue over talent. The cure for someone in such a condition is not for him to start searching for talents within himself to develop, but to redirect his being in the direction of the good, the true, and God.

    My dispute with you is not about the usefulness of talent or the value of secular vocations. My dispute is one of priority: First seek the good and God, and you will find a use for whatever talents you have without looking, or find that they don’t really matter. Focus instead primarily inside yourself and what is there, and what to do with it, and you will find that your life is empty even if you are “successful” in worldly terms.

    • #57
  28. J Climacus Member
    J Climacus
    @JClimacus

    Midget Faded Rattlesnake:Since you make so little of the secular portion of vocation, consider these scenarios: A man leaves the monastic life to marry. A man’s wife abandons him through divorce. Wow, it sure seems like the vocation of monkhood in the first instance, and husbandhood in the second instance, have simply failed!

    You’ve used the passive voice here. “Monkhood” failed or “husbandhood” failed. That’s contemporary language used to avoid responsibility. A monk is a man who has taken a vow to God; one who abandons that life for marriage has simply betrayed his vow. “Monkhood” hasn’t failed. He has failed. Would that the woman he supposes to marry wonder: Since he abandoned one vow, why should I suppose he won’t abandon another?

    A man has not failed in his vocation if his wife leaves him, assuming that he didn’t drive her to it as a way to place the blame on her (I’ve seen this happen). “Husbandhood” hasn’t failed. Abstractions don’t succeed or fail. People do.

    • #58
  29. Midget Faded Rattlesnake Member
    Midget Faded Rattlesnake
    @Midge

    So, J Climacus, you think having “simply… misjudged what’s possible” for yourself is one of the most serious sins?

    Yes, some reasons I gave for letting talent rust are obviously sinful. Some aren’t.

    And since when have I ever said that seeking the good of God isn’t the first priority? It is, but fulfilling that good requires us to not bury our talents in the ground like the fearful servant, but to honor the image of the God we’re made in, who is a Creator, and Who for some reason sees fit to give us idiosyncratic gifts.

    • #59
  30. J Climacus Member
    J Climacus
    @JClimacus

    Midget Faded Rattlesnake:So, J Climacus, you think having “simply… misjudged what’s possible” for yourself is one of the most serious sins?

    Yes, some reasons I gave for letting talent rust are obviously sinful. Some aren’t.

    And since when have I ever said that seeking the good of God isn’t the first priority? It is, but fulfilling that good requires us to not bury our talents in the ground like the fearful servant, but to honor the image of the God we’re made in, who is a Creator, and Who for some reason sees fit to give us idiosyncratic gifts.

    And when have I said we should bury our talents like a fearful servant? We are talking past each other.

    • #60
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.