Beatific Enjoyment in Scholastic Philosophy and Theology: 1240-1335

This dissertation examines the concept of beatific enjoyment (fruitio beatifica) in scholastic theology and philosophy in the thirteenth and early fourteenth century. The aim of the study is to explain what is enjoyment and to show why scholastic thinkers were interested in discussing it. The dissertation consists of five chapters. The first chapter deals with Aurelius Augustine's distinction between enjoyment and use and the place of enjoyment in the framework of Augustine's view of the passions and the human will. The first chapter also focuses upon the importance of Peter Lombard's Sentences for the transmission of Augustine's treatment of enjoyment in scholastic thought as well as upon Lombard's understanding of enjoyment. The second chapter treats thirteenth-century conceptions of the object and psychology of enjoyment. Material for this chapter is provided by the writings - mostly Sentences commentaries - of Alexander of Hales, Albert the Great, Bonaventure, Thomas Aquinas, Peter of Tarentaise, Robert Kilwardby, William de la Mare, Giles of Rome, and Richard of Middleton. The third chapter inspects early fourteenth-century views of the object and psychology of enjoyment. The fourth chapter focuses upon discussions of the enjoyment of the Holy Trinity. The fifth chapter discusses the contingency of beatific enjoyment. The main writers studied in the third, fourth and fifth chapters are John Duns Scotus, Peter Aureoli, Durandus of Saint Pourçain, William of Ockham, Walter Chatton, Robert Holcot, and Adam Wodeham. Historians of medieval intellectual history have emphasized the significance of the concept of beatific enjoyment for understanding the character and aims of scholastic theology and philosophy. The concept of beatific enjoyment was developed by Augustine on the basis of the insight that only God can satisfy our heart's desire. The possibility of satisfying this desire requires a right ordering of the human mind and a detachment of the will from the relative goals of earthly existence. Augustine placed this insight at the very foundation of the notion of Christian learning and education in his treatise On Christian Doctrine. Following Augustine, the twelfth-century scholastic theologian Peter Lombard made the concept of enjoyment the first topic in his plan of systematic theology. The official inclusion of Lombard's Sentences in the curriculum of theological studies in the early universities stimulated vigorous discussions of enjoyment. Enjoyment was understood as a volition and was analyzed in relation to cognition and other psychic features such as rest and pleasure. This study shows that early fourteenth-century authors deepened the analysis of enjoyment by concentrating upon the relationship between enjoyment and mental pleasure, the relationship between cognition and volition, and the relationship between the will and the beatific object (i.e., the Holy Trinity). The study also demonstrates the way in which the idea of enjoyment was affected by changes in the method of theological analysis - the application of Aristotelian logic in a Trinitarian context and the shift from virtue ethics to normative ethics.

Conrad Summenhart's theory of individual rights and its medieval background

This study focuses on the theory of individual rights that the German theologian Conrad Summenhart (1455-1502) explicated in his massive work Opus septipartitum de contractibus pro foro conscientiae et theologico. The central question to be studied is: How does Summenhart understand the concept of an individual right and its immediate implications? The basic premiss of this study is that in Opus septipartitum Summenhart composed a comprehensive theory of individual rights as a contribution to the on-going medieval discourse on rights. With this rationale, the first part of the study concentrates on earlier discussions on rights as the background for Summenhart s theory. Special attention is paid to language in which right was defined in terms of power . In the fourteenth century writers like Hervaeus Natalis and William Ockham maintained that right signifies power by which the right-holder can to use material things licitly. It will also be shown how the attempts to describe what is meant by the term right became more specified and cultivated. Gerson followed the implications that the term power had in natural philosophy and attributed rights to animals and other creatures. To secure right as a normative concept, Gerson utilized the ancient ius suum cuique-principle of justice and introduced a definition in which right was seen as derived from justice. The latter part of this study makes effort to reconstructing Summenhart s theory of individual rights in three sections. The first section clarifies Summenhart s discussion of the right of the individual or the concept of an individual right. Summenhart specified Gerson s description of right as power, taking further use of the language of natural philosophy. In this respect, Summenhart s theory managed to bring an end to a particular continuity of thought that was centered upon a view in which right was understood to signify power to licit action. Perhaps the most significant feature of Summenhart s discussion was the way he explicated the implication of liberty that was present in Gerson s language of rights. Summenhart assimilated libertas with the self-mastery or dominion that in the economic context of discussion took the form of (a moderate) self-ownership. Summenhart discussion also introduced two apparent extensions to Gerson s terminology. First, Summenhart classified right as relation, and second, he equated right with dominion. It is distinctive of Summenhart s view that he took action as the primary determinant of right: Everyone has as much rights or dominion in regard to a thing, as much actions it is licit for him to exercise in regard to the thing. The second section elaborates Summenhart s discussion of the species dominion, which delivered an answer to the question of what kind of rights exist, and clarified thereby the implications of the concept of an individual right. The central feature in Summenhart s discussion was his conscious effort to systematize Gerson s language by combining classifications of dominion into a coherent whole. In this respect, his treatement of the natural dominion is emblematic. Summenhart constructed the concept of natural dominion by making use of the concepts of foundation (founded on a natural gift) and law (according to the natural law). In defining natural dominion as dominion founded on a natural gift, Summenhart attributed natural dominion to animals and even to heavenly bodies. In discussing man s natural dominion, Summenhart pointed out that the natural dominion is not sufficiently identified by its foundation, but requires further specification, which Summenhart finds in the idea that natural dominion is appropriate to the subject according to the natural law. This characterization lead him to treat God s dominion as natural dominion. Partly, this was due to Summenhart s specific understanding of the natural law, which made reasonableness as the primary criterion for the natural dominion at the expense of any metaphysical considerations. The third section clarifies Summenhart s discussion of the property rights defined by the positive human law. By delivering an account on juridical property rights Summenhart connected his philosophical and theological theory on rights to the juridical language of his times, and demonstrated that his own language of rights was compatible with current juridical terminology. Summenhart prepared his discussion of property rights with an account of the justification for private property, which gave private property a direct and strong natural law-based justification. Summenhart s discussion of the four property rights usus, usufructus, proprietas, and possession aimed at delivering a detailed report of the usage of these concepts in juridical discourse. His discussion was characterized by extensive use of the juridical source texts, which was more direct and verbal the more his discussion became entangled with the details of juridical doctrine. At the same time he promoted his own language on rights, especially by applying the idea of right as relation. He also showed recognizable effort towards systematizing juridical language related to property rights.

Paradox between democracy and security- case study on Pakistan

Pro gradu-tutkielma tutkii demokratian ja turvallisuuden paradoksia Pakistanissa esitellen kuusi tekijää, jotka vaikuttavat kyseiseen paradoksiin. Näitä tekijöitä ovat historiallinen kehitys; eliittihallinto; taloudellinen kehitys; Pakistanin poliittisten tekijöiden demokratian eri määritelmät; opetuksen puuttuminen; ja valtataistelu hallituksen, armeijan, tiedustelupalvelun, oikeusjärjestelmän, poliittisten puolueiden sekä eri heimojen, uskonnollisten ja etnisten ryhmien välillä. Tutkimus tarkastelee myös sitä miten nämä tekijät vaikuttavat demokratian kehitykseen Pakistanissa. Keskeinen argumentti on, että länsimainen demokratia ei esiinny eikä toimi Pakistanissa vallitsevissa oloissa, etenkin historiallisen kehityksen ja ulkoisen turvallisuuden takia. Pro gradu-tutkielma käyttää sekundäärisiä lähteitä, kuten kirjoja, artikkeleita, maaraportteja, kommentaareja sekä omiin kokemuksiin perustuvia havaintoja Pakistanin matkalta 2010-2011. Keskeiset teoriat gradussa ovat Guillermo O’ Donnelin delegaattidemokratia sekä Duncan McCargon eliittihallintoteoria, jotka yhdessä selittävät historiallista kehitystä ja eliittihallinnon dynamiikkaa, mitkä johtavat paradoksiin. Kautta historian armeija on hallinnut Pakistania, ja siviilihallinto on ainoastaan neljä kertaa onnistunut olemaan vallassa, mutta silloinkin siviilihallinto päättyi korruptioväitteisiin tai armeijan vallankaappaukseen. Armeijahallinnoille on luonteenomaista hyvät suhteet USA:n, positiivinen taloudellinen kehitys ja vakaus, kun taas siviilihallinnot ovat epävakaita ja korruptoituneita. Tämä kehitys on paradoksin tausta, joka rakentuu turvallisuuspoliittisen tilanteen pohjalle eli hallitusten ja muiden tekijöiden yritykseen löytää vastapaino Intian uhalle. Tämä on ollut keskeinen huoli kelle tahansa poliittiselle päättäjälle itsenäisyydestä lähtien. Loputon valtataistelu eri poliittisten tekijöiden kesken sekä eliittihallinto pitävät yllä paradoksia, koska eliitit ovat kiinnostuneempia oman valtansa säilyttämisestä kuin kansan tahdon huomioonottamisesta. Koska valtaosa ihmisistä ei ole koulutettuja, he ovat paljolti kiinnostuneita omasta selviytymisestään, ja tämän takia sekä kansa että eliitit suosivat armeijahallintoa, koska se tuo vakautta ja taloudellista kehitystä. Sen vuoksi vallitsevissa oloissa demokratian tulevaisuus Pakistanissa näyttää huonolta, koska liberaalidemokratian vaatimukset eivät täyty puoliksi vapaan oikeussysteemin, puoliksi vapaan lehdistön, valtavan korruption ja monien ihmisoikeusloukkauksien takia unohtamatta armeijan ja tiedustelupalvelun sekaantumista siviilihallintoon.