In Thomas Aquinas Summa Theologica, he talks about happiness...?

Question

I'm actually reading A Summary of Philosophy which takes parts of the Summa Theologica...

Aquinas talks about happiness and how someone can achieve imperfect happiness in this life and in our afterlife can we only achieve perfect happiness...

For anyone that has read this I would like to know...

is there any way you think that Aquinas may have missed his mark on happiness (left out anything or didn't address it )???

and

what do you think is the most difficult part of understanding what Aquinas wrote about happiness?

Answer 1

No, I don't think Aquinas missed the mark at all.

Remember, he was a Catholic monk, living in the medieval period. His religious convictions would naturally color his view of the world.

I agree with him, although I wouldn't go so far as to label the happiness we feel in this life to be 'imperfect.' I view it as more a state of 'temporal' happiness, which will be replaced by a state of eternal happiness when we are in Heaven.

I think an individual whose whole being is wrapped up in the here and now would find this idea difficult to grasp, but for those who view life as transient it comes a lot more easily.

Answer 2

A byproduct, happiness is. I have never read his words, yet the word happiness, and the acquisition of understanding the simple and complex are a most difficult concept to grasp, because it is fleeting ,until the collection of the particles are complete. As a first person touching upon happiness to be embraced by it's contents would be heaven on earth to me. Thank you in advance, should you decide to consider this view of one who has not before read another view.such as ,"Thomas Aquinas Sum-ma Theological".

Answer 3

Well it makes sense. Perfect happiness would only be in Heaven. That's our reward for a good life. If we could find perfect happiness here, then what do we have to look forward to in an afterlife? If God is the ultimate source of goodness then it stands to reason that the closer we get to Him, the more intensely happy we will be. The times in my life when I've been happiest are the times I felt closest to God (at one with Nature, in awe of the world's beauty, intensely in love with someone).

Imperfect happiness isn't so bad. He's not saying we can't be happy in this life, only that we can look forward to even more in paradise.

Enjoy life. Make the most of it.

Answer 4

a million: Boils each and each of how right down to "each and each factor desires a reason." if so, what further approximately God? If he argues that no longer something further approximately God, then he defeats his own premise that each and each factor would desire to be further approximately. #2: a distinctive take care of #a million, and rendered completely pointless by the best line, wherein he says "in spite of that first factor grew to grow to be, enable's in basic terms call it God." #3: Quantum physics is already breaking floor interior the part of "something coming from no longer something." Aquinas, for obvious motives, grew to grow to be no longer conscious of this. #4: incorrect on the 2d step. #5: incorrect on the 0.33 step. undemanding! EDIT: "there's no longer any further a flaw interior the argument of causality. each and each factor if further approximately by a causer even in spite of the undeniable fact that and infinite regress in causation is impossible, for this reason there ought to prefer to be a causer who's uncaused. Nowhere does it say that the causer ought to prefer to be further approximately on account that the might as rapidly as returned be an infinite regress in causation." of direction each and each factor isn't further approximately by a causer, if there's a favourite reason. And if Aquinas is arguing that there ought to prefer to exist a favourite reason, then the onus is on him as an occasion that this favourite reason is God, and not the rest. If God does no longer want a reason, then why does the universe? perchance the universe is its own first reason. perchance the huge Bang grew to grow to be the 1st reason. perchance Larry the hollow Unicorn grew to grow to be the 1st reason. in spite of if I furnish you that there ought to prefer to be a favourite reason (and that's a defective assumption, as infinite regress is optimal somewhat available), there's no longer any training that the 1st reason is a God of any form.