All else in nature is there for the
sake of humans. Humans are there for the sake of themselves. We cannot find a
reason for human beings to exist for
anything else; we have no natural predators, and we do not seem facilitate any
important natural processes. In all other things or organisms on earth we can
find some purpose or creature that they serve outside of themselves. However,
humans do not seem to live for or serve any other earthly creature. Are human
beings then according to Aquinas, the final cause of nature, as Aristotle would
describe them?
We know human beings are there for
the sake of themselves and not for the sake of others partially because they
have “dominion” over themselves. They are not like the animals that act in a
set manner according to a specific stimulus. Humans do not act by instinct;
they can control how and why and when they act. Are human beings really so far
removed from the supposed machine-like manner by which animals operate? Or are
we actually acting according to a set group of rules or laws or instincts, that
are simply appear complicated by our own diverse experiences?
This dominion humans have over
themselves is important because it means we are intellectual creatures, which
makes us like God. God is truly the ultimate, perfect intellect. Human beings
are the earthly beings most like the divine in that they have that intellect.
God’s intellect is the ultimate end, but human beings, in being formed in God’s
image, have a part of this divine intellect. Because God is divine intellect,
then by providing for humans, who have that intellect imperfectly, He is providing
for the ultimate end: divine intellect. If God’s divine intellect really is the
ultimate end, then why are humans necessary or useful at all? How does the
providing for and preserving of intellectual earthly creatures contribute to
the divine end? Does God need anything or anyone to validate His own existence?
How does the intellect use nature
other than as resource preserve itself in humans? The intellect demonstrates
its power when it is being used, when the mind is thinking, contemplating,
discovering. God has no need to do these activities, for not only does he have
reason and intellect but he also has complete knowledge of the world and its
processes (which he created). Perhaps this is why God needs, or at least likes
to have, humans. Humans can really use the intellect to learn and discover. I’m
not thinking that Aquinas was suggesting this thought, but do humans actually
have the ability to do something God cannot do? To learn and discover?
At the end of this passage, Aquinas
discusses our duties to animals. In the end, it seems that we really have no
duties towards animals except as those duties ultimately affect us. How do his views differ from those of Kant?
Hey Maggie- in attempt to begin to answer your last question:
ReplyDeleteSo while it seems like Aquinas and Kant mostly agree, I think the distinction may be held in what Kant writes that what we do to animals, has an indirect duty on humankind.It is not that we only care when it has to do with us because it always comes back to human duties.
It seems like if God is immaterial( Kant's arguing for the spirits), and if, as Aquinas supposes, humans can be god like or use some immaterial force, Kant believes the duties on humankind for believing that way are negative and should totally be avoided.
You make some very intriguing points. I think that Aquinas' take on the dominion of life and nature as belonging to humans, is a bit too simple. To reason that by divine providence things belong to man and that this is the natural order, seems vague and lacks what I consider a logical augment. The implication that all things that lack "intellect" are slaves to humans the possessors of intellectual understanding is limiting. This type of understanding reinforces the idea that the world is nothing but a resource to be used and enslaved. Although Aquinas sates that we should control nature in a way that is not cruel, he still asserts the notion that we may do so as we please with all of nature.
ReplyDeleteYou make some very intriguing points. I think that Aquinas' take on the dominion of life and nature as belonging to humans, is a bit too simple. To reason that by divine providence things belong to man and that this is the natural order, seems vague and lacks what I consider a logical augment. The implication that all things that lack "intellect" are slaves to humans the possessors of intellectual understanding is limiting. This type of understanding reinforces the idea that the world is nothing but a resource to be used and enslaved. Although Aquinas sates that we should control nature in a way that is not cruel, he still asserts the notion that we may do so as we please with all of nature.
ReplyDelete