Little question about Augustine

Philosophy Forums Philosophy
1

He says that people are morally responsible for their actions, and that life is predestined.

I am not sure as to how to interpret this. Does it mean that whatever people do, it wasn’t their choice - but it’s still their fault?

Sorry for such a silly question.

2

It’s not a silly question :stuck_out_tongue:

Well… basicly those 2 don’t go well together; you can’t have both.
Therefore christian theologians said man has the “power of free choise”; It’s best that you read Rene Descartes on this issue.

Can man both have a destiny and be free ? No… And there is where christian philosophers and theologians meet their dead end.

On this matter its best that you read Jean Paul Sartre;
Sartre should be taken as the leading authority in this matter because his arguments make the most sense and do not conflict with one another. + they’re easy to understand and quite appealing.

Should i present Sartre’s arguments ? or will this post do ?

3

I would not recommend reading Satre if you are trying to get to grips with Augustine.

Augustine, similarly to Aquinas, was very interested in reflecting on whether or not God was responsible for evil. This notion of “responsibility” was key to much of his work and this is why some of the misunderstanding, when we read him today, arises. Theological determinism does not, as you spotted, fit well with the idea of moral responsibility.

Augustine read Aristotle and liked to talk about ‘moral agents’. If an agent were to deserve being praised for something then he would subsequently have to wield a control of some sort over whatever it was he was or was not doing. This is of course not compatible with the idea of things being causally or otherwise determined. It’s a common theme and it even has a name - “incompatibalism”. Augustime, Epicurus and Reid are part of this “school” of moral thought.

So, they fit together and they do not fit together.

4

Well i’m not trying to get to grips with Augustine maybe 2of8 is.
Sartre in my opinion produced a complete and rational philosophical argument which should be regarded as one of the biggest break-throughs in philosophy.

5

I think it depends upon the lens through which you view reality.

The way I always understood that quandry was the broken condom. Sure, it isn’t my fault that the freakin’ condom broke, but the child is my responsibility. This applies itself to any number of things in life which, though we may have limited (or no) control over, we are still responsible for.

A Muslim friend of mine takes it from a different angle, which I also think is interesting and possibly valid:
A wealthy man entrusted an associate of his with protecting his saddle while he is away. So, the associate decides that the saddle is worth a very large sum of money and decides to sell it. Unbeknownst to him, the wealthy man was planning on paying him the same amount of money for guarding the saddle (which had sentimental value). Either way, the associate makes the same amount of money (i.e. predestined) yet one action would have brought him closer to God’s glory and the other pushes him further away.

But my knowledge in this area is somewhat limited, so always remember that it’s a fool telling you this.

And, for the record, Aquinas kicks Satre’s ass. Augustine, ehhhh, if I had to pick between him and Satre, I’ll go with Augustine.

And this is coming from a non-Christian scientist. There are certain philosophers who, like a good drink, even if you don’t particularly care for their genre are still undeniably amazingly intelligent and far closer to the truth than many lesser men you may agree with more.

6

You then probably appreciate Augustine’s conception of time; Where as i am reffering to Sartre’s “freedom” arguements…
Are we talking about 2 different things ?

7

“I dreamed I saw St. Augustine, alive as you or me, trampling through these very quarters in the utmost misery…”

8

Sarte takes the individual as the atomic unit of humanity, which I think is downright silly.

Because of that his arguments about freedom are flawed. It creates the whole other infringing on one’s freedom while reaffirming it. Contradictions like that do not a strong philosophical argument make. Instead of steamlining one’s thoughts, it clouds them in the worst possible way by creating strong disctinctions that need not exist.

I also think that his disctinction between freedom and faculty is non-sensical. Reality/physicality dichotomies rarely sit well with me.

9

Maybe we should create a thread on Sartre then.

10

Should we hijiack this one, or would you rather start one?

Gimme a specific issue and I’ll rip you to fucking shreds, boy.

11

I have to say, I would probably not be able to resist joining in… Satre really is awful.

12

Shitballs

Does this mean I’m on the Christian side of this debate?

Because, as I understand ILP and contemporary culture, that means I also have to believe in creationism and an Earth that is only 4,000 years old.

Fuck man.

That’s not fair.

Now I’ve been awkwardly cornered.

13

You’re Christian? :astonished:

14

LOL

-Imp

15

2 of 8,

Screw Sartre. At least for now.

The stuff with Augustine and will goes something like this. The bishop of Hippo concluded, from personal experience, that all loves - other than the love for God - will make us miserable. Ergo, the crucial turning point in one’slife is when he turns his soul and will from the temporal beauties to God’s beauty. Of course, the will has to fight an inner conflict with the lingering, lushous pleasure provided by indulgence.

Augustine, and I’ve just started reading De Libero Arbitrio, believes that one cannot succeed entirely in turning his will to God, and that’s when Grace comes in. Grace is God’s inward gift that makes the human will find pleasure and delight in loving and obeying God (love is fundamental for Platonic spirituality).

Grace and free will are compatible in that the gift of God augments one’s personal struggles. Grace is like an awakening, directing human will onto what it really desires. He means that free will is not sufficient by itself.

In his later works, Augustine tends to believe that Grace is present even before one starts to believe - for Grace is needed even for the honest act of praying, thus leading the way for Predestination.

16

Hi mucius scevola. You said, ”The bishop of Hippo concluded, from personal experience, that all loves - other than the love for God - will make us miserable.”

Yes, this is what Augustine suggested. Kierkegaard also came to the same or similar conclusion in his “Stages of Life" with the “third stage” focused entirely on this. However, I believe it is more accurate to say that it is God’s love for the world rather than man’s love for God that is the crucial dynamic inherent in Grace (Rom. 5:8, Rom. 8:39, John. 3:16). With true Grace, God does all the work and mankind does nothing.

You said, ” Ergo, the crucial turning point in one’slife is when he turns his soul and will from the temporal beauties to God’s beauty.”

An individual is unable to turn himself (his soul, his heart, his mind) without the interceding action of God to do it for him (Rom. 9:15, John 11: 43-44, Matt. 4:19, Matt. 8:7). Man of himself is corrupted entirely (Rom. 3:10-11). Therefore, his works are also tainted by his corruption. Augustine recognized these differences amongst those individuals who are among what he referred to as “the City of God” (the predestined) and those individuals who are not who he said were within the “City of Man” (where there is unhappiness and depravity).

Augustine devised a somewhat confusing concept of attaching predestination (which he ardently held to be true) and “free will” (which he seemed to feel was necessary in order to attach “guilt” to the individual by virtue of his behavior). I suggest that Augustine erred in this. Although I highly admire Augustine of Hippo, I respectfully believe that predestination is incompatible with so-called “free will” and that Augustine’s conception in this regard is flawed at the Biblical hermenutics level as well as the philosophical level.

You said, ” Grace is God’s inward gift that makes the human will find pleasure and delight in loving and obeying God (love is fundamental for Platonic spirituality).”

Yes, but unfortunately mankind – even the best among mankind – does not, cannot, and will not obey God fully - nor does he delight in or love God in the unfettered manner that is required (Matt. 22:37). Thankfully, because of God’s Grace rather than mankind’s corrupted free will, Grace alone is sufficient (Mark 9: 23-24, Eph. 2:4-9, 2 Tim. 1:9). In other words, all human behavior and human action is tainted and flawed and cannot measure up to the perfect standard set by God. This is precisely why God’s Grace rather than human “free will” (so-called) is so essential in the whole process of the individual’s salvation.

You said, ”…Grace is like an awakening, directing human will onto what it really desires…”

Not entirely. In the first place, human will does not desire to do God’s will. That is why humans, even the best and most decent among us, continually violate God’s will (Rom. 3:10-11, etc). Human beings are depraved and Augustine certainly agreed with that proposition. You are correct to say that Grace is an awakening. However, human will and any human action cannot result in the individual’s salvation (Eph. 2:4-9, 2 Tim. 1:9, etc). Rather, it is God’s Grace alone; an action performed exclusively and entirely by God himself that results in the individual’s salvation. This is the very essence of Grace and predestination. Human effort is (at best) an evidence that Grace has already occurred.

You said, ” In his later works, Augustine tends to believe that Grace is present even before one starts to believe - for Grace is needed even for the honest act of praying, thus leading the way for Predestination.”

Yes, in this sense: God’s elect (the predestined) were selected (predestined) before the Universe was created (Eph. 1:4, Heb. 4:3, 1 Pet. 1:20). In that sense, Augustine is correct to suggest that Grace was present even before the time a person believes because that individual’s salvation by Grace was already predestined before the person was born and even before the Universe itself was created! Thank you for your thoughts mucius scevola. :slight_smile: Passion.

17

Passion,

Your intervention was equally interesting and stimulating, but I have some difficulties as to where you stand vis-à -vis Augustinian theology – and especially the matter of Grace.

A exegetical quick round-up of Augustine will reveal that his view of human merits becomes increasingly embittered with age. In De Libero Arbitrio he states that the human will is obstructed by the impassable barrier of its own corruption. With De Civitate Dei, the whole of the world is comprised of a massa damnata, except for a handful of elects. Unfortunately, I haven’t read Augustine’s later works yet, but luckily I found a rich source in the Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy. Just a small quote: “While there is some controversy over whether this grace is sufficient for redemption and whether it can be resisted , Augustine makes clear that it is as much a necessary condition as it is unmerited and inscrutable. The ignorance and difficulty that afflict our condition in De Libero Arbitrio III have become more than obstacles to be overcome by means of our will [De Libero Arbitrio III.22]; they are now impassible barriers we have inherited from Adam, and without unmerited grace we are utterly incapable of initiating even the smallest movement away from sin and towards God.” I also understand that against his combatant Pelagius, Augustine presents a rather disquieting conclusion – namely, that every step we make in the direction of our own redemption, including the first one and the urge to make it, are possible only with the merit of Grace. And Grace is predestined.

This is Augustine, as we peruse through his works. Now, you said most of this yourself, so I guess that by now you’re probably thinking this was a waste of time.
Let me just remind you:

However, you disagree with Augustine on the matter of free will. According to my humble knowledge, the Bishop of Hippo held tightly to the concept of will in order to not discharge the individual of his moral responsibility for the acts committed. To attach “guilt”, as you say. Considering that you declare this is incompatible with predestination and that through the discussion you argued in favour of predestination, I’m starting to feel depressed.

Suddenly, the dichotomy between the handful of elect and the “sloven grist” of unworthy opens like a precipice put athwart the vigorous effusions of mankind. I prefer the augmenting role of grace to the totalitarian reign of it, because – like any respectable Western figure bred in the illusion of democracy – I hold pride in the decisional power of my will. I understand the concept of an outstretching corruption of the will as a direct result of the Adamic originary sin, but as Adam chose willingly to infrige God’s will, so can his descendants retain the right to choose freely the path to redemption. In Epheseans chap 2, v. 8, the word faith appears alongside grace. Does that tell us something ? Is not Christianity the edifice of faith ? Why strangle it with the hopple of divine predestination ? Why acknowledge it ?

I am almost certain that, as I am depressed know by God’s exclusivist Christian country Club, so was Augustine whilst writing it down.

18

A respectable post, M.S.