Effata B- X. Bonum est Potentius Malo
Signoriello´s Lexicon Peripateticum Explained
bonum est potenius malo. idest, maior bono vis inest, ut illud appetamus, quam malo, ut illud aversemur. Ratio est, tum quia bono nihil mali admisceri potest, cum e contrario in malo aliquid boni inveniatur, tum quia malum non agit nisi in virtute boni. Hinc magis appetitur delectatio, quam tristitia fugiatur. In lib. III Sent. Dist. XXVII, q. I, a. 3. ad. 3.
Translation, “good is stronger than evil. That is, there is a greater force in good, that we desire it, than in evil, that we avert it. The reason is, both because no evil can be mixed with good, while, on the contrary, some good is found in evil, and also because evil does not act except in virtue of good. Hence pleasure is more desired than sadness is shunned.”
With this saying, I arrive at an impasse. I meet my first real test. I usually take the entries here as if they were given to me on stone tablets from on high, i.e. the distinctions and sayings are things to conform my mind to, they are not there to be questioned or opposed. I submit my intellect to the formulations and citations of Mr. Signoriello as I do the dogmatic definitions of the Roman Catholic Church. In both cases, at first glance, I often don´t understand or agree, and thus far, its payed off mightily to just assume the book is right and try to figure out why, or why I cannot comprehend how what is written is correct. I´ve learned a lot this way, its like having a cheat sheet. But, this last sentence here, that pleasure is more desired than sadness shunned, is clearly false in the sense that humans gather more motivation or desire to avoid evil outcomes rather than pursue good ones. Here are a few of the salient studies proving this (there are many more):
Baumeister, Bratslavsky, Finkenauer, & Vohs (2001) - In this study, they found that individuals are more likely to engage in self-regulation efforts to avoid negative outcomes (e.g., shame, embarrassment) than to pursue positive outcomes (e.g., pride, happiness).
Cacioppo, Gardner, & Berntson (1997) - Their research suggested that negative stimuli elicit stronger and faster emotional responses than positive stimuli, indicating a heightened sensitivity to negative information.
Taylor, Pham, Rivkin, & Armor (1998) - This study found that negative emotions such as fear and anger can lead to more significant behavioral changes and goal pursuit than positive emotions.
Baumeister, Vohs, DeWall, & Zhang (2007) - Their research showed that individuals are more motivated to avoid negative social outcomes (e.g., rejection, criticism) than to pursue positive social outcomes (e.g., acceptance, praise).
Well, that is pretty overwhelming, isn´t it? So is evil stronger than good? Is this not proof evil is stronger? Can I let the wisdom of the ancients and Doctors of the Church be trampled underfoot by sociological and psychological studies? Not so fast. Now my mind sets to work looking for some way to vindicate the philosophie der Vorzeit!
Perhaps there are others, but I see one obvious possibility for a rebuttal. Bad sample! All of these studies take place in a sensate, rather than ideational society. And individuals shaped by a sensate society are wired differently, emotionally, psychologically, spiritually and they are weaker. They are wired to react to sense, not intellect. And therefore react more to avoid sensible pain than pursue sensible pleasure, rather than desiring the intellectual or ideational good less than the ideational evil. There can be a sort of sensible social enjoyment (e.g. reaction to applause in this lecture hall) and intellectual social enjoyment (e.g. meditating on the applause in the halls of eternity in reward for good action).
To explain this further, we have to turn to the work of the sociologist Pitrim Sorokin and his important and helpful distinction between sensate and ideational cultures. He outlined these in his multi-volume (1937-41), seminal work Social and Cultural Dynamics, these types of culture were treated in Volume III. Fluctuations of Sociocultural Systems.
Sensate Cultures emphasize:
Materialism and Sensory Gratification: People prioritize tangible, immediate gratification over abstract or spiritual concerns. Material wealth, consumerism, and sensual pleasures are highly valued.
Rationalism and Empiricism: Scientific advancement holds significant sway in decision-making processes and worldview. Sensate societies tend to prioritize logical reasoning and evidence-based approaches to understanding the world.
Here and Now: Individuals seek to maximize personal comfort, pleasure, and worldly achievements without much concern for transcendent or metaphysical dimensions of existence.
Individualism and Personal Freedom: Individual autonomy and personal freedom are cherished ideals. People are encouraged to pursue their own desires and aspirations, even if they conflict with traditional moral or spiritual values.
Ideational Cultures in contrast emphasize:
Spiritual and Metaphysical Concerns: In contrast to sensate cultures, ideational societies prioritize spiritual and metaphysical dimensions of existence. Religious or philosophical principles, moral values, and transcendent beliefs play a central role in shaping individual and collective behavior.
Transcendence and Holism: People seek to transcend the material world and seek to find themselves within the the cosmos considered as an ordered whole. Individuals strive for spiritual enlightenment, moral purity, and inner harmony.
Sacrifice and Selflessness: Altruism, self-sacrifice, and service to others are esteemed virtues. People may willingly forgo personal pleasures or worldly ambitions in pursuit of higher moral or spiritual goals.
Traditionalism and Authority: Traditional religious authorities wield significant influence in ideational societies. Sacred texts, rituals, and teachings provide guidance for moral conduct and social order.
Our current culture is an obvious example of a sensate one, also late and decadent ancient Greek and ancient Roman culture went through sensate phases. In contrast, Ancient Egypian or Mesopotamian cultures like Ancient Israel were Ideational.
Basically Sorokin says that people in sensate cultures struggle to be happy. In such cultures, individuals may find themselves caught in a cycle of pursuing material possessions or transient pleasures without experiencing lasting fulfillment or inner peace. There is no idea of the good life to be pursued, thus it cannot be enjoyed. Art and culture are also less beautiful in a sensate culture.
But, as I said, one way to make sense of these countervieling studies is that they are all taking place within a sensate culture. There was no medieval (ideational) sample group, no renniasance control group (the rennaisance was a mix of the two, what Sorokin called Idealistic). Thus perhaps it is simply true that people more driven by sensible wants are also more driven by avoiding evil. And these studies wrongly generalize to the entire human condition from their study in a specific sensate culture. Conversely, one way of saving this philosophical saying would be to claim that people more driven by rational or intellectual desire are more moved by their desire for the good, rather than their desire to avoid evil. My future contribution to the field of sociology will be to point out that a sensate society is by definition a privational society, one predominantly focused on avoiding evil.
It´s just a hypothesis but it could be that the strongest people in absolute terms, so, Saints, Gandhi, Teddy Roosevelt, Simone Weil, David Goggins, and Setsuko Hara (hey, its my list!) these are also the people more motivated by their desire for the intellectual good. And they are obviously way stronger than the masses of sensate dweebs. We aren´t talking about powerlifing here, but spiritual strength and power. So all in all, my beloved Index Peripateticum is, at least possibly, vindicated. Good is stronger than evil, even if for 95% of people living today react more strongly in relation to avoiding evil (affirms my thesis about privationism btw!). These 95% are weak. And your average Joe from ancient Egypt was way stronger, likely physically, but moreso mentally, spiritually, also happier than this crowd. And he is stronger thanks to his ideational culture: this Joe from ancient Egypt worshipped the Sun, something one and good1, so he´s getting warm, so to speak, even if the sun isn´t an appropriate object of worship. But one takeaway for the denizens of our current culture, I put myself first and foremost here, for people trying to escape or transcend decadent sensate culture. It´s going to involve conversion. Conversion from fearing or avoiding sensible pain or discomfort, to loving and desiring ideational good and virtue! Penitentiam Agite!
Psalm 19:5 “He hath set his tabernacle in the sun”
Augustine suggests in Free Choice of the Will that pursuing good and avoiding evil are the same. As I recall, his example is a slave who kills his master to avoid being beaten. He isn’t avoiding pain so much as pursuing a good of living without the fear of abuse. That would suggest further another flaw in the study. Namely that its design merely captures two kinds of goods, and cannot carefully distinguish between them.
A servant with this cause, makes drudgery divine. Who sweeps a room as for thy laws, makes that and the action fine. The Elixir - The Philosophers stone.