Year: 2018
Type: dissertation
Abstract: This thesis considers John Calvin’s thinking on the subjects of happiness and human flourishing. In it, I specifically consider Calvin’s relationship to eudaimonism and I argue that Calvin should be considered a eudaimonist. I make this argument in stages. I begin by considering Calvin’s thinking on the subjects of pietas, happiness, and the highest good. In so doing, I note how this constellation of interrelated topics points to Calvin’s eudaimonism. In particular, I note the acquisitive dimensions of Calvin’s thought, in which humans are to seek happiness in God, the highest good. After considering these themes, I consider Calvin’s anthropology. I note how Calvin thinks of humans along the lines of eudaimonism’s threefold anthropological scheme, which conceives of humanity as having a distinct telos. Having observed this aspect of Calvin’s thought, I turn to consider Calvin’s thinking on obligation to God and law. Here, it is argued that Calvin understands God to have structured the world in such a way that obedience to God brings about human flourishing. I subsequently consider Calvin’s thinking on humanity’s desire for happiness and well-being. I argue that Calvin thinks that all humans are engaged in seeking after their own well-being, which, in turn, is another aspect of his thought which is in complete alignment with eudaimonistic thought more generally. I then consider challenges to my thesis, specifically focusing on the three subjects of self-denial, God’s glory, and self-love. While each of these themes might be seen to overwhelm the eudaimonistic elements of Calvin’s thought, in this chapter I make the case that none of these elements decisively overturns my argument. As early as chapter one of this thesis, it was seen that Calvin considers union with God to be the highest good. In the final chapter of the work, I consider the relationship between union with God and union with Christ—an extremely important aspect of Calvin’s theology. I ultimately argue that these two concepts should be understood as different ways of referring to the highest good.
Source: TSpace (University of Toronto)
Author: Ryan Maynor Reed
Language: English
Subfield: History
Field: Arts and Humanities
Domain: Social Sciences
Open Access status: green
OpenAlex ID: W3090394688