all right so for this lesson we're going to go back to meritan and uh of course I must confess I'm more always more partial to maritan myself having uh focused on him for my dissertation um I've been a fan of maritan since my undergrad days um I love the way that he writes and I've always found uh just great inspiration and benefit from his works and and I hope that uh for those of you especially that are more inclined toward let's say like a traditional tomis that reading these helps to let's say clear up some
things on that end as far as sistic personalism goes to show you maybe a little bit more of that side that uh VOA may be lacking a little bit at times not through fault of his own but through his emphasis on the phenomenology side of things but of course that's not going to happen with with maritan now for this reading we're going to focus of course on uh the end of the person in the common good by maritan but before we do that I wanted to give a little bit of an introduction just to help
us out to uh begin with with uh this brief article by Joseph Evans who's a good commentator on maritan and uh in this short article he explains uh just some of the basics and summary of what we're going to see in person in the common good um which I think will help to keep some of these things straight so I have a couple of passages here that I want to share with you that I think will be good to Mark and to keep in mind as just basic notes let's start on uh page uh 166
this is in the Evans article jock maritan personalism uh I'm in the middle of the page here second full paragraph a maritan social and political philosophy opy the Primacy of essay in being is supplanted by or even translated into the Primacy in the ultimate analysis of the human person meritan has a profound grasp of what it means to be a person he knows what it means to be endowed with intellect and will to be capable of understanding and loving to be capable of knowing and deliberating about ends and he has gradually come to see that
his knowing the true import of the person has far-reaching implications in the field of social and political philosophy this parallels very nicely I think with what we just spoke about in the last lesson with uh the lead from a t a ttic personalist understanding of Ethics uh which stems from an understanding of self then that allows us to understand the other and then from that there will be uh implications into political philosophy so we'll see of course that same Dynamic play out with maritan all right now let's move on to page page 168 this is
toward the bottom man is both an individual and a person he is first of all an individual just as any other reality outside the mind is an individual for maritan individuality is that concrete state of unity an IND division required by existence in virtue of which every actually or possibly existing nature can posit itself in in existence as distinct from other beings material things things are individual angels too are individual the Divine Essence itself is supremely individual in the case of pure spirits or uh of forms unalloyed with any matter the principle of individuation is
the very form itself but in the case of material things the principle of individuation is in matter matter is the principle of division it seeks to occupy a certain position to have quantity to be determined and as as a material individual man has only a precarious Unity for a matter of itself tends to disintegration the precariousness of this Unity is somewhat compensated for by the multiplicity in the species but then the individual is only a part of the species and the species in turn is only a part of a larger whole if man were only
a material individual he would be nothing but a part of the whole all right so uh that principle of indiv uation of course is very important and that distinction with man uh as a material or incarnate Spirit uh in our case we are not distinct from one another in terms of our form as angels are we talk about angels kind of like in the pseudo Collective because of course the angel is not the same as the human uh it's not like you have a multiplicity of angels under the same species or form uh rather each
Angel so to speak is essentially a form unto themselves and so they are actually substantially different from one another which is not the case uh between one human being and another since we share in our Humanity as far as that form is concerned but uh where we differ is in our matter which is our our principle of individuation and of course there's uh let's say um substance in this other sense um so there's that form not in terms of our Humanity which we all share but let's say this particular form or this substance in a
kind of secondary sense which we might have which we which we have as individuals uh as far as this person and that person but nevertheless we all share the same form of of humanity we're all humans in the same way and to the same extent uh let's keep going from there but man while admittedly a material individual is different from other material individuals man is also a person he is an individual endowed with intellect and will capable of knowing and loving others he can therefore transcend matter unlike anything else in the world he is responsible
for his activities he is a small world unto himself he is indeed a physical being but he is still more a spiritual being man holds this unique position in the universe because he is animated by a very particular form or life principle the life principle in man is a subsisting spiritual Soul a soul capable of super existence and knowledge and love of choosing its intermediate ends and means appropriate to those ends of being master of itself or Kaa sui now this takes us back to the previous lesson where VOA talks about the structures of self-determination
and uh self-governance self-possession uh but of course we're uh framing this in uh a more let's say explicit to mytic language um but the the idea of course is the same this is speaking especially of the uniqueness of human beings within creation as the only material being that occupies this kind of middle spot that we may be the the lowest of the intelligences because of our Reliance on matter but we're the highest of the material world um we're the only material creatures that are persons uh going on from there man is more independent than surv
more a whole than a part and all of this derives from his being a person the person has a certain inwardness a certain subjectivity a certain reflective awareness of self that set him apart as the noblest being in the whole of nature this interiority and subjectivity of the person however is a far cry from the interiority and isolated Unity of the litan monad closed upon itself and inscribed with a radical aversion for others on the contrary the person as every being demands to communicate himself according to his proper nature as as Thomas aquinus would say
being is super abundant active Dynamic therefore the person a personal being overflows in those Communications proper to his being the person is an open hole he is not shut up in himself now this is uh this is very important isn't it because this is again uh direct parallel with what we read uh with the phenomenologist but uh again through boa's lens about how the the nature of the person itself is directed toward the other even in the understanding of self and um we can't understand the person in isolation from this uh this is part of
the nature of the self and um the other aspect of this is that you can't conceive of a pure subject as an individual or in this kind of bracketing away that doesn't speak to that uh directedness toward the other so just to finish that part up uh he demands to communicate with others in knowledge and love to share with and to receive from others the fruit of personal life so again this is something that is reflected in the very structure of One's Own personhood that you already have this directedness toward reality this directedness toward the
other as well in community uh on that note at the bottom of 170 as a person man has also a radical need to live in society the person must commun commune with others the person gives freely and wholeheartedly the person overflows in knowing and in loving other persons the person shares with other persons the same object of knowledge and love and tells to other persons the secrets of personal life now this is a this is a nice parallel again with what we've read so far with voy and theistic personalist this self-giving this man is a
gift of self and that desire to self- give and to be known by others uh reciprocally so um it's interesting because of course when we think about this in Aristotelian terms our our first inclination of course is to think about our material self and for those reasons which are true uh you know to note our lack of self-sufficiency just on a material standpoint that in our nature already reveals this kind of political nature of man but uh maritan of course is going to go a step further as does vwa in talking about how the very
structures of personhood itself even transcending matter also speak to this kind of structure and desire of self-giving and communication and again this this kind of outward directedness all right so the problem of course that comes up is uh we're we're back to the the modern problem uh especially with politics where um this is misunderstood or not adequately dealt with so um this actually goes into the problems of participation and alienation and really the problem of alienation and so what maritan is going to do for his part is he's going to deal with that same reality
that uh VOA started us off with and thinking about participation and alienation um but he's going to he's going to talk about it slightly differently of course but I think you'll find that um it's even if some of the terms might differ the ideas overlap very nicely so uh let's look in the middle of 171 and see how maritan applies this to more particular problems confronted with these two conflicting positions maritan discerns an element of Truth in each of them uh this is in reference to the kind of two extremes that you have of individualism
on the one hand and collectivism on the other hand in one sense the body politic does exist for man that is so far as man is a person in another sense man does exist for the body politic that is so far as man uh is an individual for maritan the true solution to this problem of the status of man in society lies in the application of this distinction between the individual and the person if the individual as such is only a part then man as an individual is a part of society exists for society and
is subordinated to society man as an individual is only a part part and as such he Bears the same relation to society as the part Bears to the whole his private good as an individual is in everything inferior to the common good of the whole so that an individual may even be required to risk his life for the good of the community now this distinction is important uh this is something that I think because of our our nature as incarnate Spirits you'll have this tension between man as an individual within the species and as a
person um and this is of course something that is brought up a lot with donic between donic and maritan so uh dionic will emphasize more the individual aspect uh and he accuses maritan of emphasizing too greatly the the personal aspect at the expense of uh the individual and the and uh the common good I think that for Tonic maritan he doesn't think that maritan is is a liberal in the classical sense that we'll talk about but that he nevertheless will open himself up needlessly to this by overemphasizing um the Primacy of the person but uh
I don't think that um I think we I I may have brought this up before but I don't think that um I don't think that they're really saying anything radically different from one another I think that the discussion between Don conic and maritan seems to be more of a semantic one uh in terms of How It's expressed I don't think that Don conic seems to think that maritan himself is guilty of these errors but only in that in so far as he uh describes man as a whole um he thinks that the the way in
which he's writing about it is is unclear and that will then lead into error um whereas maritan of course is is going to defend himself against this and and um try to to be clear in this sense but um but this is something that uh you'll still find articles about to this day trying to kind of reconcile these views and explain um what the problem is maybe taking one side or the other um it's a problem I I think that's been done a lot so uh I don't think that we need more treatments of it
necessarily I think that the on a close reading I think that the resolution is there but nevertheless I think that as a student especially as a graduate student starting out um this is a discussion in kind of modern scholarship that you should be aware of and that is at least a good exercise to see the the two sides and to see the see if if you can uh reconcile this okay so uh let's go on through there I'm still on 171 this this is the the last paragraph so uh Evans uh writes here but man
is also a person and as a person he is a whole and if the person of himself requires to be part of society or to be a member of society this is not at all mean that he must be in society in the way in which a part is in a whole nor does it mean that he must be treated in society as a part in a whole on the contrary the person as person requires to be treated as a whole in society there is no contradiction here man as an individual requires and deserves to
be treated as a part but man is at no time a mere individual now that's I think the key point and this is why this is a difficult problem because for in the case of man it's it certainly seems contradictory but there's a balance that is given in prudence uh as far as how this is to play out that um maritan will talk about uh that I think is quite important um and I think that he's right that this is uh a central problem in uh political philosophy and certainly in our political reality today uh
so let's let's keep going from there this is um now in 172 at the top as a person man lives in society as a whole within a whole society being a whole of persons is a whole of holes furthermore the whole that the person is surpasses the whole that Society because the person by reason of the subsistence of of his spiritual soul is destined for Eternal Union with the Transcendent whole whereas the particular society in which the person lives by reason of its not having a spiritual soul is not destined for Union with the Transcendent
whole but will rather die in time consequently the person as person because he is ordered to the Transcendent whole does not exist for society and is not subordinated to society as a person man transcends society he possesses Eternal values he is ordered to the absolute and only in the absolute can he find his true fulfillment man then is both above and below Society by virtue of of certain uh of his own conditions by virtue of some aspects of his nature man is below and subordinate to society and therefore exists for the good of the social
whole by virtue of certain things which are in him by reason of his wants and deficiencies as an individual man is in his entirety a part of and engaged in the political Community but he is not a part of political Society by reason of his entire self and all that is in him so in some aspect that is as you as an individual of course you can be be a part of society and in some respects will be subordinate to it but uh there has to be a careful balance here because you will never be
a means to an end you can never be simply a pure instrument to the societal good and I think that's really the tension that uh maritan tries to draw out that uh we have to figure out how to how to maneuver in between which is very difficult um and I think you can appreciate why on its face it's also difficult to communicate I think you can see why there would be uh a kind of scholarly discussion trying to understand that um of course it's a lot easier to say that uh that let's say I don't
know that maritan uh was not sufficiently clear but um it does make sense to me uh I do concede of course that it's it's difficult on its face but I think on a close closer reading um I think we can appreciate what he's going for and I think that that uh he's right to bring out this tension now here's an interesting dichotomy that comes up and uh this gets us to more um practical details today but uh maritan in thinking about this also criticizes uh the problems of liberalism on the one hand and totalitarianism on
the other and so the way that Evans summarizes this is through the philosophies of Freedom this is on 175 maritan discerns two major erroneously conceived philosophies of Freedom one maintains that freedom of choice is an end in itself and that Society is ordered essentially only to the preservation of freedom of choice in every individual man the exercise of that individual's freedom of choice is to be limited only in the sense that it must not prevent another indiv idual from exercising his freedom apart from this one restriction every individual is to be free to do to
say or to think whatever he chooses without any regard for society a common good objective standards or authority this concept of Freedom commonly termed liberalism or individualism has its roots in the premise of rouso and Kant that man is free only if he obeys himself all right now that that I think is certainly clear uh especially in our own time with Western democracies that's essentially the ruling assumption and philosophy that we Face uh so what's what's the problem now if we go on 176 we'll see here very quick summary of uh what Marian's critique will
be here the philosophy that is obsess with freedom of choice as an end in itself airs by considering man mainly in the abstract and and by failing to take into consideration those undeniably real circumstances which uh render absolutely impossible of attainment such an ideal of Freedom when man has to live with others in the concrete order of existence the ideal of freedom of choice as an end in itself is jic fiction so uh of course this is freedom he's talking about freedom for Freedom's sake and we've seen this already also with VOA right that our
freedom is uh let's say in our self-determination and self-governance implies a certain normativity already that there's a good use of freedom and that there's a freedom for something and that this is what we're directed to so there's responsibility is the the flip side of Liberty and uh this is also the distinction of course the classical distinction between Liberty and license so license is simply the ability to do whatever you want but Liberty is uh freely choosing the good and to be free is to choose the good so uh these are things that harmonize with each
other and this is precisely what liberalism is is lacking uh since it celebrates license over Liberty now looking at the problem on the other end uh what's the issue then with collectivism and totalitarianism so uh this is going now to The Other Extreme so continuing from where we were reading on 176 another philosophy of Freedom recognizes rightly that freedom of choice cannot be an end in itself it even recognizes that there is a terminal Freedom or freedom of autonomy and that Society must strive to attain this freedom for its members but this philosophy airs in
its conception of the nature of freedom of autonomy making it consist only in a high degree of transitive action and highly productive and dominating activity in material accomplishments and in the realization of power this conception of Freedom which may be termed imperialist or dictatorial prevails in communist and fascist ideology in reality the human person with his aspirations for rounded and whole existence finds himself completely subjugated to the economic or political Leviathan so in this scheme the individual is is gone right the individual is purely for the sake of the common good of society uh which
doesn't really bounce back to the individual as individual but uh let's say along the fascist or communist way of thinking uh they would justify this by saying that yes the individual enjoys in the good but only as he is swallowed up then into the whole that the individual good is made identical to the uh supposed common good so this is now going to the Other Extreme and uh so let's see uh Marian's response to this as as Evan summarizes for maritan society is not ordered to the conquest of freedom in the sense of freedom of
choice nor is it ordered to the conquest of freedom of autonomy in the sense of a freedom of an imperialist or dictatorial type rather Society is ordered to a common good and since Society is made up of persons this common good must not have must have not only material but also intellectual ual and moral values so uh let's just see how this uh ends up then because essentially and this is what we'll get to in maran's Reading uh we we'll flesh this out in Greater detail but um effectively what you have is uh two Extremes
in our contemporary political situation either one that emphasizes only the individual at the expense of the common good or the other way around and funny enough from the liberal perspective any mention of the common good is assumed to be in The Other Extreme that that you're speaking let's say of the common good as a communist or a fascist uh and then on the flip side from the dictatorial perspective any uh talk of individual liberty and the rights of the person get interpreted into the Other Extreme of individualism but what maritan is going to do instead
is to have this third way that uh doesn't fall into either of these extremes and in a sense uh it it does kind of go in the middle of these but it's it's not simply the the in between of these two things rather uh because he goes for something Fuller and different it ends up being a complete Third Way uh which is what we also saw come up um in voa's philosophy as he was setting this up in the previous lesson so uh having said all that for the remaining videos will now shift our attention
onto uh Marian's work itself
