Autor: Lonergan, Bernard J.F.

Buch: Collection: Papers bei B. Lonergan

Titel: Collection: Papers bei B. Lonergan

Stichwort: Vertikale Finalität; Unterschied zw. den Finalitäten; Definition - finis operis: hoc ad quod opus ordinatum est ab agente

Kurzinhalt: The difference of vertical from absolute and from horizontal finality is quite clear

Textausschnitt: 21a If the existence of such vertical finality has always been recognized its ground and nature have hardly been studied. Partly this neglect may be explained by an unduly apologetic conception of finis operis; for if one defines finis operis as resulting from the abstract nature of the thing, then necessarily one restricts finality to horizontal finality, absolute finality becomes a difficulty, and vertical finality subjectively inconceivable. But not only is such a restriction arbitrary; it cannot claim even the sanction of tradition, which defines finis operis not in terms of abstract nature but as hoc ad quod opus ordinatum est ab agente. However, a perhaps stronger reason for the neglect of vertical finality lies in the fact that modern science throws a great deal of light on its nature. Straightforward metaphysics suffices for a knowledge of absolute and of horizontal finality: the former results from the idea of an absolute good; the latter results from the theorem of essence as principle of limitation. But vertical finality seems to operate through the fertility of concrete plurality. Just as the real object tends to God as real motive and real term, just as the essence of the real object limits the mode of appetition and of process, so a concrete plurality of essences has an upthrust from lower to higher levels. But just as this fact is shrouded in the mists of Aristotelian science
- and here we generalize Dr Doms' complaint against Aristotelian biology
- so it is most conspicuous to one who looks at the universe with the eyes of modern science, who sees subatoms uniting into atoms, atoms into compounds, compounds into organisms, who finds the pattern of genes in reproductive cells shifting, ut in minori parte to give organic evolution within limited ranges f who attributes the rise of cultures and civilizations to the interplay of human plurality, who observes that only when and where the higher rational culture emerged did God acknowledge the fulness of time permitting the Word to become flesh and the mystical body to begin its intussusception of human personalities and its leavening of human history. (Fs)

22a The difference of vertical from absolute and from horizontal finality is quite clear. Absolute finality is to God in his intrinsic goodness: it is universal; it is unique; it is hypothetically necessary, for if there is anything to respond to motive or to proceed to term, then its response or tendency can be accounted for ultimately only by the one self-sufficient good. Horizontal finality results from abstract essence; it holds even when the object is in isolation; it is to a motive or term that is proportionate to essence. But vertical finality is in the concrete; in point of fact it is not from the isolated instance but from the conjoined plurality; and it is in the field not of natural but of statistical law, not of the abstract per se but of the concrete per accidens. Still, though accidental to the isolated object or the abstract essence, vertical finality is of the very idea of our hierarchic universe, of the ordination of things devised and exploited by the divine Artisan. For the cosmos is not an aggregate of isolated objects hierarchically arranged on isolated levels, but a dynamic whole in which instrumentally, dispositively, materially, obedientially,g one level of being or activity subserves another. The interconnections are endless and manifest. Vertical finality would seem beyond dispute. (Fs)

22b But if one acknowledges that the same thing, besides its absolute reference to God, may have one finality horizontally and another vertically, there arises the question of systematic comparison between the latter two types of end. First, then, a horizontal end is more essential than a vertical end: for the horizontal end is the end determined by the essence of the thing, while the vertical end is had only by escaping the limitation of isolated essence through the fertility of concrete plurality. On the other hand, a vertical end is more excellent than a horizontal end: for the horizontal end is on the lower level of being but the vertical on some higher level; and from the very concept of hierarchy the higher is the more excellent. Inversely, one cannot say that the vertical end is non-essential or that the horizontal end is not excellent. For the vertical end, though it escapes the limitation of isolated essence and its abstract per se, nonetheless results from the same essence when in concrete combination with other essence. Again, though the vertical end is more excellent, still it is so only relatively; all finality is ultimately to the absolute good, and all is limited in mode of appetition or of process, so that the difference in excellence between higher and lower is never more than a difference in mode with respect to the absolute good. (Fs)

23a With perfect generality this establishes hierarchic criteria of more essential and more excellent ends. Universally, the horizontal end is more essential, the vertical end is more excellent. Thus the essential end of oxygen is to perform the offices of oxygen as oxygen; but its more excellent end is its contribution to the maintenance of human life, and this end oxygen attains not in isolation nor per se but in combination with other elements and within the human biological process. Similarly, we have to establish the contention of Aquinas that the most essential good of marriage is the child but its most excellent end lies on the supernatural level. (Fs)