Luther and Aristotle

In his Disputation Against Scholastic Theology, Martin Luther did not refrain from bashing Aristotle, proposing such theses as “the whole Aristotle is to theology as darkness is to light” and “no one can become a theologian unless he becomes one without Aristotle” (Luther, Theses 50 & 44). Luther’s outright rejection of (and desire to ban) the works of Aristotle stem from the incompatibility of their arguments, namely Luther’s argument for predestination and Aristotle’s conclusion of Eudaimonia (happiness). In order to both show how the arguments are incompatible and to offer justification/reasons for Luther’s frustration with Aristotle I will, in the following, provide critical analyses of both arguments. Aristotle concluded that Eudaimonia is the expression of one’s virtues through actions in a complete life, a conclusion that Aristotle himself granted impossible for anyone to fulfill entirely. This is because the last requirement, “in a complete life,” demands that we, humans, must at all times be acting out the function of a human. But though no one will at all times be acting out their function, it does not follow that one shouldn’t act out their function as much as possible; and it is this honest attempt that Aristotle presses and Luther dismisses.

If according to Aristotle we are to act out the function related to humans, what then is the function of a human? As the eye’s function is to sight and the axe’s function is to chop (wood), the human’s function is to express one’s virtues through action. One obtains their virtues if and only if they obtain intelligence, ie., one can be virtuous only through intelligence and intelligent only through their virtues. Intelligence, in the Aristotelian sense, is the ability to discern one’s mean between the vices of excess and deficiency (eg. I neither digest 0 calories nor 5,000 calories a day, but rather roughly 2,500 calories. Notice further how one’s mean is relative to the individual as calorie intake will drastically differ between that of an Olympic athlete and a small child).

It appears paradoxical that one must be virtuous to obtain intelligence and intelligent to obtain virtues, for how could one have either without the other? Here we reject the black and white fallacy to make way for a step by step approach, ie., the paradox is false and one rather builds his virtues and intelligence gradually through practice and mentorship until, eventually, each obtain simultaneously. It is by going out into the world practicing one’s virtues through action that one ultimately becomes virtuous. It is correct to summarize Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics by stating “you are what you do.”

In opposition to Aristotle’s Eudaimonia, Martin Luther argued for predestination. Luther’s thesis “it is false to state that the will can by nature conform to any correct precept” is correct with the dismissal of free will and, therefore, is made true by the fact that there is no moral principle intended to regulate thought or behavior (Luther, Thesis 6). We can buttress this claim with textual evidence that Luther did dismiss free will which appeared in his stating “it is false to state that man’s inclination is free to choose between either of two opposites… the inclination is not free, but captive” (Luther, Thesis 5). Luther’s rejection of free will is derived from his desire to preserve God’s omnipotence and omniscience. For as our fates do not rest upon our choices God retains his ability of being all powerful and all knowing as he alone decides. In this manner, it is by the Grace of God alone that one enters salvation.

Hope is neither a virtue nor acquired through righteous doings as “hope is not contrary to charity, which seeks and desires only that which is of God,” and “hope does not grow out of merits, but out of suffering which destroys merits” (Luther, Theses 24 & 25). Therefore, in accordance with Luther, one should not hope to change or save the world, but antecedently hope to be saved and then help the world because they’re “blessed” or “touched”. As Luther put it, “We do not become righteous by doing righteous deeds but, having been made righteous, we do righteous deeds” (Luther, Thesis 40). Corollary, Luther states “we are never lords of our actions, but servants” (Luther, Thesis 39). The collision of the arguments is now apparent. For Aristotle we are made righteous by our actions whereas for Luther we are made righteous and then act righteously. As a learned man with faith, Luther understood that “in vain does one fashion a logic of faith” (Luther, Thesis 46). For “no syllogistic form is valid when applied to divine terms” (Luther, Thesis 47). From the collision of their arguments generates Luther’s frustration with Aristotle and his production of the theses “virtually the entire Ethics of Aristotle is the worst enemy of grace” and “it is an error to maintain that Aristotle’s statement concerning happiness [Eudaimonia] does not contradict Catholic doctrine (Luther, Theses 41 & 42). Although his frustration is justified by his argument, it is a wonder if Luther could justify his argument as it rests most ultimately on preserving God’s omniscience and omnipotence- divine characteristics that Luther will not be able to back with logic.