Please comment on each section of the essay with your feedback. What is good about it, needs work, could be improved and how, how does it meet the requirements of the mark scheme and your general thoughts?
‘Augustine’s view of human nature is deeply pessimistic’ Discuss
St Augustine of Hippo based his pessimistic theology around the creation story of Genesis 1-3, focusing specifically on the state of human nature before and after the Fall. His literalist interpretation of original sin led him to conclude that the human will became damaged and divided, and he is pessimistic in suggesting that human nature, as a result, is dominated by concupiscence. This essay will therefore be arguing that Augustine’s view of human nature is deeply pessimistic, perhaps straying from the true doctrines of Christianity.
Augustine’s view of human nature is deeply pessimistic as he outlines how, after the Fall, human nature is corrupt as we became driven by bodily desires (libido). He argued that we have no control over our divided will (akrasia) as human nature becomes dominated by appetitive aspects. His pessimism surrounding the appetitive part of our nature can be strengthened by Plato’s charioteer analogy, as he argued that the appetitive part to the soul is like a dark, unruly horse, seeking to corrupt the body, and this exemplifies how Augustine isn’t entirely wrong to put forward such a pessimistic idea of human nature. However, Plato can also be used to weaken Augustine’s pessimistic views, as he illustrated how reason is able to rule over the appetitive parts, and this could be where Augustine would disagree. His pessimistic view of human nature seems to suggest that reason cannot rule over appetitive desires, and Plato’s philosophy can therefore not be used to strengthen Augustine’s pessimistic view of human nature.
To further exemplify how Augustine’s pessimism is illogical and incompatible with Christianity, Aquinas would agree with Plato’s emphasis on the importance of reason (recta ratio), and this suggests that Augustine is wrong to assert that human nature and reason is damaged beyond repair. In concluding that all of humanity is driven by cupiditas (greedy love), perhaps he fails to account for the obvious signs of caritas (generous love) in society. For example, the generosity of charity work supports Jesus’ teachings in the New Testament to ‘love thy neighbour’ (Matthew). In focusing primarily on the damaged will, perhaps Augustine overlooks the positive aspects of human nature which people like Joseph Fletcher centre their normative theories around. Thus, Augustine’s dismissal of evident ‘caritas’ undermines the teachings of Jesus and this suggests that his view of human nature is deeply pessimistic and illogical when compared to most scripture.
Augustine’s view of human nature is deeply pessimistic as he argues that we are all tainted with original sin, as we were all ‘seminally present’ in Adam. His pessimistic argument is that sin is now an ontological state (part of our human nature), prompting one to ask- if we are so damaged, what is the point in doing good and acting according to Jesus’ maxims? It could thus be argued that Augustine’s pessimistic view of human nature undermines the teachings of Jesus as his theology suggests that it is pointless to follow Jesus’ holy example: ‘a new command I give you: love one another’ (John). This biblical verse has often been interpreted to denote the concept of ‘agape’ which is a generous, unconditional love, but Augustine severely undermines this idea by suggesting that humanity is incapable of this. One could therefore argue that Augustine’s pessimistic argument is also unconvincing as it leads Christians to conclude that it is pointless to follow the Decalogue and Jesus’ teachings because Augustine’s theology implies that we cannot be rescued from our damaged nature.
Furthermore, in arguing that it is human nature to be sinful, Augustine alludes to a predetermined future which has often be criticised for undermining God’s gift of free will, and this makes his deeply pessimistic argument incompatible with Christian theology. In assigning natural evil as a fitting punishment, God’s justice is called into question, because David Hume argued that a God of classical Theism should not allow infinite punishment for the finite sin of our ancestors, Adam and Eve. This is a very clever point, as the perpetuation of human suffering seems to contradict God’s omnibenevolence. It could therefore be suggested that Augustine’s view of human nature is deeply pessimistic as the allowance of infinite suffering suggests that humanity can never be healed of their damaged will. Augustine’s pessimistic ideas that we are beyond rescue and are always inclined to do wrong can, however, be found in Romans 7:15-24, as St. Paul writes ‘For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out’ and this enhances the credibility to Augustine’s argument. However, it is nevertheless deeply pessimistic to argue this, and Aquinas’s Natural Law theory can be used as an example of an alternative interpretation of scripture. Aquinas’ synderesis rule to ‘do good and avoid evil’ affirms the idea that we are naturally inclined towards goodness, as Aristotle would agree, because this is our telos. Aquinas argued that we are made with the inbuilt sense of recta ratio, and this seems more compatible with central doctrines of Christianity, including that we are all made in God’s perfect image (imago dei). Thus, Aristotle and Aquinas would argue that Augustine’s view of human nature is deeply pessimistic as it neglects the important role of goodness in human nature.
Despite Augustine’s pessimistic view of human nature, it could be argued that he does offer a small sense of optimism for humanity. He argues that God’s grace is generous and undeserved, and this is shown through the sacrifice of Jesus: ‘For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only son’ (John) and this suggests that humans can, in fact, overcome their damaged nature through Jesus. This suggestion of hope adds more optimism to Augustine’s view of human nature, as it is asserted that God remains merciful and can rescue us from our damaged will. However, Augustine himself seems to undermine this optimism, as he was a believer of limited election, and this means that God predetermines who will be saved. Thus, his views on election can conclude his deeply pessimistic argument, as it is inferred that even if we try to overcome our damaged nature, we still may not be saved. It can therefore be argued that Augustine’s pessimistic view of human nature contradicts scripture as it is affirmed that ‘God so loved the world’ and sacrificed Jesus so that the whole ‘world’ could be saved, not just a few Christians. Thus, Augustine’s view on human nature is deeply pessimistic as his ideas that human cannot break free from the damaged will do not seem compatible with a God of love.
In conclusion, Augustine’s view on human nature has been shown as deeply pessimistic. In arguing that human nature is corrupt from birth, he diminishes any sense of hope by suggesting that most humans will receive eternal damnation, despite their attempts to act in accordance with scripture. Augustine describes the broken will as driven by lust, but even Plato acknowledges that virtues, such as courage, play a positive role in human nature. Thus, by dismissing any positivity in relation to human nature, and condemning God’s creation to Hell, Augustine’s view of human nature is illogical and deeply pessimistic.