Happiness can only be achieved by looking inward & learning to enjoy whatever life has and this requires transforming greed into gratitude." — st. john chrysostom
i am moved on this feastday of
st john chrysostom to reflect to the entire blogworld
my thoughts concerning a "talk" i heard live last week
in the stephen b humphrey auditorium
a noted and admired scripture scholar
one luke timothy johnson
set out to place for us the
BEATITUDES (of the gospel of st matthew)
in the context of
greek philosophical thinking
thus
he utilized the words of aristotle
of epicurus and of epictetus
macarioi
is the greek word for happy
and is translated beatus in latin
briefly then
let me simply recount what i remember
from what i heard
aristotle places the possibility of happiness
firmly in the practice of virtue
to deny or to defy virtue is to bank on
unhappiness
for the soul of man is brought
to selfawareness not in random activity but in
the intentional activity of wanting to do good
to be just to be truthful to be prudent
epicurus
from whom we get the term epicurean
believed that happiness was linked to the
experience of pleasure
he was not a hedonist
he understood the tempering quality of
moderation
but he advocated for each day to be filled with
good food good wine good conversation good friends
good entertainment
he was the original master of
joie d'vivre
and the french took this very seriously
i would suspect
as did the italians
epictetus took a different approach
he tended to understand happiness in terms
of avoiding the troubles and the pain of the world
by retreating to a sanctuary - one's home - or
one's study - some place where the messiness of life
would not impinge upon the desire for solitude
thinking in a quiet reflective way was the ultimate happiness
for epictetus ( who by the way lived about the same time as
the evangelists and paul)
epictetus was a stoic gnostic hermit of sorts
so what about happiness
how are we to be happy
and what about these BEATITUDES
Jesus is employing what
luke timothy johnson refers to as
"character ethics"
he is articulating concepts which are designed
to take to task the presuppositions we all have
about our place and activities in the world
Jesus would be in favor of virtue and the
practice of virtue as the "medium" for
good living
most of the standard virtues
upheld by aristotle
would not be discounted in any new or old
testament writings
any of the wisdom books any of the proverbs
lend themselves to this awareness of
what might challenge a reader or hearer to a
more "virtuous" life by appealing to common sense or
even perhaps revealing a logical way of thinking that
is unknown but ripe with possibility for
clearer understanding of what it means to be human
and not only human but a good human
how then might recognizing being
"poor in spirit" lend itself to happiness?
if i have to acknowledge how paltry is my soul
how wretched my life how dark my soul
how clouded my mind how despicable my actions
how pray tell can this lend itself to my happiness ?
if i acknowledge the poverty of my life
all the teaching in the world on virtue may not
provide a meaningful antidote
i may seek out pleasure as a way of ignoring
and pushing away the grinding feeling of
spiritual impoverishment
and the impetus to be alone and away from the
despicableness of others may only exacerbate my
sense of personal poverty
yet Jesus says
(albeit in the words written by someone else)
and i paraphrase for my own clarification and yours
happy are you when you are aware of your poverty
the classic response here the theological clincher as it were
is that
yes
for it is in this context that we know our need for god's mercy
and his care for us
if we are lucky god will provide us with other people in our lives
to help us in our poverty
but there is no gaurantee of this
happy are you when tears are streaming down your face
and your whole being is convulsed with sadness
what?????????
is this some sort of sacred joke
you are to be happy when you have nothing
and are trying to hold to what little comfort you may have in the flimsy
ramshakle shack of your pitiful life
hang in there
the whole world is to be yours
so happy are you when you crave more than anything else
the righteousness of life justified
i'm thinking of bobby sands the irish hunger striker
who died for his righteous belief
his last days were hardly happy
at least as far as we know
but maybe in the depths of his heart
he was delighted that he succeded
in horrifying people
happiness and mercifulness
are a little easier to reconcile
i've actually known (and remember) the feeling of
forgiving someone and the
sensation that this indeed has a
freeing affect
and while it may not result in mercy returned
in any immediate sense
there is this sense that mercy is possible
and that is a good thing
to have a pure heart
well life is perplexing
who has a pure heart?
this may be the beatitude that
lends itself most closely to
aristotles' emphasis on virtue
we all know what it feels like
to be conflicted in our hearts
at times when we seek out
something desireable only to find
it wasn't that great
and think
perhaps if i had thought about this
had i sought this out not for my own benefit
but for the purpose of experiencing the truth
of something whether it benefits me or not
then my heart could be pure
but this is a struggle
yet i tend to agree with jesus on this one
if a person is able to see the importance of
seeking in this life with a sense of dignity
a sense of a non-egodriven intentionality
then without a doubt some happiness will accrue
the question
is it worth a try?
should i try to be of a pure heart
make peace
this will bring happiness
is this gauranteed?
well it's better than war and fighting
although warriors attest to being
happiest in the clash and mayhem of battle
8 and 9
are perhaps the most perplexing
first he says
you will be happy if you hunger and thirst for righteousness
then he says
if it should so happen that you are imprisoned and whipped
and tortured well that is well and good
a justification to be sure
something to be happy about
and the last one especially
it only works for very foolish people
you'd have to have a really pure heart
to get any sort of glee out of this
in the midst of utter degradation
yes
you will be happy
i guess jesus is saying in a way
this is not about you
but you are involved
and your involvment must be one of
continuing self-assessment
to the point of forgetting yourself altogether
and giving yourself over to the
dispensation of the day
luke timothy johnson equated happiness in his life
with contentment
he used his father in law as an example
an italian who lived simply and
would eat only one plate of food at mealtime
and upon finishing would always push the plate away
and say
thank god and then commence to sit quietly
in a state of contented digestion
is it possible to find contentment
when you're having a really bad day?
does this take practice
can we be grateful for illness
or in the midst of illness
or when the world around us seems nothing
if not inimical?
stephen hawking
in the few times that i've witnessed his life
on television and a few articles
seems to have a contentedness that
comes with profound acceptance of
physical deterioration
evidently he's contented to see his body simply become
some random energy flitting about in a random universe
his books relegated to some odd late 20th century
theorizing about the nature of things nobody ever sees
happy are you when you can at least think about things
happy are you when you can urinate without assistance
happy are you when you can lie down and take a nap
happy are you when you do things you enjoy doing
( what if you couldn't do those things - would happiness still be possible)
i direct your attention to st john chrysostom
christians are motivated or at least they should be
by the prevalence of hope in our belief
that our hearts strive to attain a happiness
that can't be fully gotten in this life
but perhaps it's as near as realizing
how perfectly pathetic we are
and then betray a willingness to chuckle at that
what i know is
i don't know
don't worry
be happy
there are degrees of happiness
thomas aquinas was insistent that
human beings are motivated by the desire
to be happy - it is what we naturally seek
what i do know is:
it is closer to an art
than a science
when i can accept myself at least
make the effort to accept myself
in the way that i am taught
that god accepts me
then i think (no...i know) there is a sensation of
happiness associated with this
am i wrong? delusional?
hypocritical? foolish?
le jongleur du christ
le joie de vivre
happy are you when someone hugs you and kisses you
and looks into your eyes and claims friendship with you
you will be happy if you are close to people who love you
and are happy
but
if you ignore the beatitudes
all the people in the world might not be able to
bring you to happiness
unless of course they all try to enter your house at
the same time in an effort to make you laugh
i don't know that i've explained anything here
i don't know that this has given me any happiness
i don't even know if i understand happiness better
i do know however that happiness is possible
and perhaps the only way to appreciate it in a
genuine way is to know just how goddamned
unhappy one has been
the joy we know in this world is linked
ineluctably to our experience of genuine sadness
getting the eyes of faith to focus on
the grace that is in everything
even the bad stuff
that is the key
at least the way i see it now
and maybe that's all i really know
and maybe that's why i play the blues
amen
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
epictetus took a different approach
he tended to understand happiness in terms
of avoiding the troubles and the pain of the world
by retreating to a sanctuary -
Lovely, at least until the goths, or norsemen, mujahideen, or khans, Henry VIIIs, or maoists, or mormonics arrive. Sanctuary and dare we say monasticism depends on a certain social order, really--and the catholic church itself doesn't just allow anyone to be Epictetus's, or Aquinas's. Typically monks/apprentice priests were the 2nd or 3rd sons of wealthy lords or estate holders.
Have you ever perused the Annals of the Four Masters, or other irish history, jh? AOTFM Has some interesting accounts of the early irish monasteries, and battles against pagans--imagine Norseman sailing up the River Shannon and setting up shop in that lovely old church (from probably 4th-5th century AD).
some monks were
reformed criminals
monasteries were penitentiaries
some were orphans who grew up there
some were nobles' sons
some were converts from the military some were farmers sons
many or all of these types
became well-read experts in
various fields
and yes anyone who showed promise in reading
no matter what his families' status
was capable of becoming a philosopher a priest a teacher et al
every sort of man has marched the lengthy cloister
every temperament
every disposition
every predilection
it would be interesting to know
how much stoic philosophy formed the group consciousness of the religious communities
i've read some ancient irish ballads
the sweeney cycle
and i've plowed through early irish
monastic history
the story is that lutefisk was the food the irish prepared for the conquering vikings in order to kill them off but it turned out the norskis loved the stuff couldn't get enough of it and that's what started the whole irish thing of being their own worst enemies
they turned to making good whiskey as a social antidote
just to cope with the grim future awaiting them
someone has said recently they're starting to come to terms with the excessive alcoholic nature of their politics
i've read yeats' account of ancient ireland
and some john synge
and i am a fan of
seamus heany
and john mcgahern
and joyce
of coyce
to doyce
i suppose that's another
aspect of happiness now isn't it
the drunken sort of happiness
when the drink wears off it's a little ugly but the time being drunk is deliriously joyous
even to the point of unconsciousness
stupid illusive selfimposed poisonous happiness
but happiness nonetheless
typically monks came from every walk of life
from every corner of the earth
from every circumstance imagineable
wretched lot that they are
jh
Joyce offers an interesting tho ambigious account of Irish history and catholicism. Ulysses is pretty thick going but ...one gets the sense villains of the book are something like the norsemen, or descendants thereof (including WASPs...Cromwell also referenced a few times, as tyrant)...and that would be Bloom hisself (if not his odd consort Molly). Which is to say the slightly...infernal aspects of Ulysses (and all of JJ's scrawlings) cannota be denied, as Miss Cleo might've put it. And lest we forget , Ulysses himself (as in the homeric figure) resides in a none too copacetic location in ...Dante's inferno, with those guilty of fraud and misrepresentation, ah believe (another source the usual hackademics overlook, but Joyce was keenly aware of). Ulysses-Bloom nearly something like....a legendary trickster type--PT Barnum or Rush Limbaugh in that class as well.
Reading Ulysses one also gets the sense that Joyce the word-wizard doesn't approve of the anglo-saxon tongue itself: it's endless parody of English prose , with mucho allusions to latin (and Latin scribes), and other romance tongues, a bit of gaelic . Or as per Caliban--"you taught me language, and my profit on it is I know how to curse ..." For Joyce while the catholics had shortcomings (and he does not always present priests in the most flattering light) the non-catholics are...calibans, more or less.
joyce in his exile was quuintessentially irish and quintessentially catholic
although he followed his father's move toward an active mistrust of things related to church politics
he found his final solace in calvinist zurich for god's sake
joyce's father turned against the church over the mishandelling of the parnell affair...and while joyce got his education from catholic schools he too shrugged it all as he stepped out into the world...daedalus dreams
the irish have always betrayed a sort of interesing love hate relationship with rome
sweeney astray
the cycle reworked by seamus heaney
evokes this
happiness in ireland
is a strange matter indeed
jh
Yes, Joyce was in Zurich at his death, but had been in Paris for nearly 20 years before that (along with his occasional crony Pound...tho' I think they drifted slightly apart when Pound started hanging with Il Duce Musso), and left because of those darn nazis. And he lived in Trieste for some time, teaching languages at the Berlitz school or something. So most of his exile was spent in Italy or France, with a bit in swiss-land--.
You are correct re Parnell. You probably recall that long section in Portrait where the irishmen (including Daedalus's papa) bemoan the church's treatment of Parnell, but the catholic lady says he deserved it more or less, and calls 'em demons.
The recent priestly scandals in Ireland are fairly sickening, nearly like something out of Joyce--...read between the lines of Portrait and Ulysses (tho' a bit more...diffuse), and you get a sense Joyce may be suggesting something sexual about priests (one character calls them rats). Even Dante reserved a special place in the Malebolge for the corrupt or depraved clergy did he not.
Personally I will not take mass at the church where Ahhhnold the Girly man Schwarzenegger and his faux Irish bride, or LaSorda, or many other wiseguys sit in the front pews (they go to the big new Iglesia downtown, but the same principle) . Cardinal Mahony ...pardoned a few boxcars worth of perps (and his replacement one of the Opus Dei macho types).
grazi for comments, and scuzi my rants. I appreciate your commentary on things Irish and historical
J.
i think the chrysostom quote
is a great one
i've already stolen it
i'm happy
sure
go ahead
take anything
i'm an open book here
an open repository of free wisdom
and
i'm quite sure
"golden mouth"
would smile at your
blessed deviousness
%>]
new one
jh
%>]
sort of cubist
senor picasso
&^}
s-}>
s man with a vandyke
Post a Comment