PHILOSOPHY The lesson of Thomas d'Aquino
Philosophical '900 investigated different kinds of gifts and gift pseudo, which differ in relation to the purpose of the donor subject. The purpose may be, for example, obtain a return, make a return, damage to the receiver (see, eg., The Trojan horse), making him feel in debt, strengthen or establish or maintain an interpersonal relationship, express their affection, the other benefit, and so on.
For reasons of space, we focus on that form of gift that represents the paradigmatic, that is the free gift. In the words of Thomas Aquinas, in this form, the gift is a giving without benefit (datio irredibilis), without a will counterpart, and its root is the love we give someone something for free because we love you. In fact, when we give something, even before it has come to the gift-receiver, we have already won the love with which we love, that love is the original gift from which emanate all the other gifts. And the more love is intense, especially those who love wants to give himself, wants to overcome the gap between what is given and the giver wants to be himself and not just the gift giver: "I would be what I do not who gives it to you "(it's a verse from the poet Pedro Salinas).
Now, the unselfish gift, in a sense, is also interested. In fact, love is primarily an act of will, not emotion, to say "I love you 'means saying' I want and wish for your good, prodigal me to realize (and mature love is what he wants too moral good of the other), so a gift that springs from true love is selflessly concerned another's good. Of course, as the philosopher Melendo Granados, 'I love you, hoping you matches, but do not love you because of your possible match - for what that may mean for me, for my health or my happiness - let alone to condition to be paid. " And I hope you match (also) because I would like your moral good and moral good is also achieved human reciprocity in relation to the giver, not always in the same form (if not, is absurd, would never be allowed to reject a suitor) not necessarily the same thing (Aristotle writes that it is impossible to repay the gods and parents who have given existence), but in the form of oral expression of gratitude and a willingness to reciprocate, even physically, if possible. So, as Thomas says again, a poor, not holding of the donations because his financial circumstances did not allow him (if indeed it would be prodigal elargisse sums of money because that would ruin it), but can be defined as liberal as if it has a generosity of mind to donate if his condition so permits.
Now, who really made a free gift was not obliged to do, so when the recipient tries to return with the same free, you can create a virtuous circle of the gift: for (as says the ' Aquinas), in their mutual "you can not say that one gives something for free if it does not surpass the size of the benefit received by [the donor]. As long as the response is less than or equal to, one does not give anything for free, but it just makes what he received. Consequently, the reciprocity of gratitude tents, where possible, to give something more. "
And who really gives a view of the good of others with this (you can not prove it here) can reach the contentment and (sometimes) happy. Thus there is the paradox of the gift, because it experiences a gain without looking for profit.
last remark. How Nedoncelle says, while Nietzsche argues that the virtue of others to enrich (Schenke Tugend) issues only by certain personalities, but it's true that "this radiation [Although more intense in big personality] is not characteristic of Socrates or St. Francis of Assisi, [but] is inseparable from any personal existence. Being in the world means to be a minimum bid of kindness in public. " The existence of every human being is a gift of that donor who gives his son at Christmas and being with each entity, and the ability to donate any thing: "Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of light "(James, 1, 17).
Source: PiuVoce.Net
0 comments:
Post a Comment