Michael Lamb on to clarify what use and enjoyment entail:"To en- (1996.9-44.106).Moreover,Arendt argues that Augus- joy something is to hold fast to it in love for its own tine's injunction to"use"other human beings to enjoy sake.To use something is to apply whatever it may be God instrumentalizes our neighbors,making them into to the purpose of obtaining what you love-if indeed it mere"means and tools"rather than ends in themselves is something that ought to be loved.(The improper use (1996.37-44).As a result.we no longer love our neigh- of something should be termed abuse.)"(1997a,1.4.4). bor qua neighbor or individual qua individual;rather, With this account in view,Augustine emphasizes we love what is "eternal"in her(1996,96).Loving our that the“supreme'”object to be“enjoyed”is God neighbor simply becomes an "occasion to love God" the "supremely excellent and immortal being":"it is (1996,96-7). only the eternal and unchangeable things which I men- Nussbaum presses similar charges.While she praises tioned that are to be enjoyed;other things are to be Augustine's efforts to restore "compassion,along with used so that we may attain the full enjoyment of those other emotions,to a place of centrality in the earthly things"(1997a,1.5.5-1.6.6,1.22.20).On this account,hu- life,"Nussbaum complains that Augustine's vision of man beings should love only God for God's own sake; Christian love remains too otherworldly and transcen- all other objects must be "used"to"enjoy"God (1997a, dent (2001,551,528-9,552-5).*Targeting his contrast 1.3.3-1.4.4,1.22.20-21). between“human or earthly love”and“Christian love, As Augustine recognizes and critics hasten to point whose core is the love of God,"Nussbaum argues that out,the priority of God in the order of love raises an Augustine"repudiates the one and urges us,disdaining "important question"(magna quaestio):"whether hu- it,to cultivate the other"(2001.528-9).Citing Arendt. mans should enjoy one another or use one another:" she suggests that Augustine's "otherworldly"account of love denies the value of this-worldly striving and We have been commanded to love one another [John 13: eclipses human individuality(2001,549-56).If Augus- 34;15:12,17],but the question is whether one person tine requires human beings to order all loves to God should be loved by another on his own account or for some "it is a little unclear what role is left...for loving real- 4号 other reason.If on his own account,we enjoy him;if for life individual people.For what one loves above all in some other reason,we use him.In my opinion,he should be loved for another reason.For if something is to be loved them is the presence of God and the hope of salvation" on its own account,it is made to constitute the happy life, (2001,549-50).Ultimately,Augustine's attempt to"di- & even if it is not as yet the reality but the hope of it which rect longing away from this-worldly virtue"encourages consoles us at this time (1997a.1.22.20). insensitivity to human suffering and earthly injustice (2001,552-4).Rather than "taking action as best we Thus,Augustine concludes,"a person who loves his can,"Nussbaum concludes,Augustine admonishes us neighbor properly should,in concert with him,aim to to "cover ourselves,mourn,and wait"(2001,556). love God with all his heart.all his soul.and all his Critics are not alone in raising suspicions about Au- mind.In this way,loving him as he would himself,he gustine's order of love.Even an Augustinian as influen- 是 relates his love of himself and his neighbor entirely to tial as Niebuhr shares these concerns.While Niebuhr the love of God.which allows not the slightest trickle praises Augustine as"the first great'realist'in Western to flow away from it and thereby diminish it"(1997a, history,"he identifies "several grave errors in Augus- 1.22.21).For Augustine,the love of neighbor and other tine's account of love"(1986,124,130).In particular, temporal goods must always be"related"or"referred" Niebuhr argues that Augustine's account of love instru- to God(1997a,1.23.22:1998b,4.12.18).Or,as he says mentalizes the neighbor:"The love of the neighbor is in later formulations,human beings must love their for him not part of a double love commandment,but neighbor and the world "in God"(1998b,4.12.18;see merely the instrument of a single love commandment Gregory 2008,42). which bids us flee all mortality,including the neighbor, in favor of the immutable good"(1986,136).Niebuhr blames this Augustinian flight on a lingering Neopla- Political Critics of an Otherworldly tonic focus on the nature of love's objects:"the empha- Augustine sis lies always upon the worthiness or unworthiness of To contemporary readers,especially those with Kan- the object of our love:the insistence is that only God tian sensibilities,Augustine's discussion of"use"and and not some mutable 'good'or person is worthy of "enjoyment"can seem like a blatant violation of the our love"(1986,137).While Niebuhr concedes that this categorical imperative,encouraging citizens to exploit formula is"a safeguard against all forms of idolatry," the world and treat their fellow human beings as mere he nevertheless suggests that"using"the neighbor and means to their ends.Arendt,for example,argues that earthly goods to enjoy God denies human individual- Augustine tends "to strip the world and all tempo- ity and trivializes the value of temporal goods (1986, ral things of their value and to make them relative' (1996,14).3 As a result,Augustine's account of love drains this-worldly life of significance,requiring that According to Nussbaum,the Augustinian "ascent of love and desire L we "stand against the world,not simply without it" from the earthly to the heavenly...strips away and leaves behind the merely human in love"(2001,529). 5 Nussbaum adds a qualifying footnote:"Not all Christian love is love of God:there may be human loves that are distinctively Chris- 3 For an insightful discussion of Arendt's interpretation of Augus- tian.But these other loves are suffused by the love of God,and,as tine,see Gregory (2008,197-240). we shall see,their real object always is,in a way,God"(2001,528n1). 1038Michael Lamb on to clarify what use and enjoyment entail: “To en￾joy something is to hold fast to it in love for its own sake. To use something is to apply whatever it may be to the purpose of obtaining what you love—if indeed it is something that ought to be loved. (The improper use of something should be termed abuse.)” (1997a, 1.4.4). With this account in view, Augustine emphasizes that the “supreme” object to be “enjoyed” is God, the “supremely excellent and immortal being”: “it is only the eternal and unchangeable things which I men￾tioned that are to be enjoyed; other things are to be used so that we may attain the full enjoyment of those things” (1997a, 1.5.5–1.6.6, 1.22.20).On this account, hu￾man beings should love only God for God’s own sake; all other objects must be “used” to “enjoy”God (1997a, 1.3.3–1.4.4, 1.22.20–21). As Augustine recognizes and critics hasten to point out, the priority of God in the order of love raises an “important question” (magna quaestio): “whether hu￾mans should enjoy one another or use one another:” We have been commanded to love one another [John 13: 34; 15: 12, 17], but the question is whether one person should be loved by another on his own account or for some other reason. If on his own account, we enjoy him; if for some other reason, we use him. In my opinion, he should be loved for another reason. For if something is to be loved on its own account, it is made to constitute the happy life, even if it is not as yet the reality but the hope of it which consoles us at this time (1997a, 1.22.20). Thus, Augustine concludes, “a person who loves his neighbor properly should, in concert with him, aim to love God with all his heart, all his soul, and all his mind. In this way, loving him as he would himself, he relates his love of himself and his neighbor entirely to the love of God, which allows not the slightest trickle to flow away from it and thereby diminish it” (1997a, 1.22.21). For Augustine, the love of neighbor and other temporal goods must always be “related” or “referred” to God (1997a, 1.23.22; 1998b, 4.12.18). Or, as he says in later formulations, human beings must love their neighbor and the world “in God” (1998b, 4.12.18; see Gregory 2008, 42). Political Critics of an Otherworldly Augustine To contemporary readers, especially those with Kan￾tian sensibilities, Augustine’s discussion of “use” and “enjoyment” can seem like a blatant violation of the categorical imperative, encouraging citizens to exploit the world and treat their fellow human beings as mere means to their ends. Arendt, for example, argues that Augustine tends “to strip the world and all tempo￾ral things of their value and to make them relative” (1996, 14).3 As a result, Augustine’s account of love drains this-worldly life of significance, requiring that we “stand against the world, not simply without it” 3 For an insightful discussion of Arendt’s interpretation of Augus￾tine, see Gregory (2008, 197–240). (1996, 9–44, 106).Moreover,Arendt argues that Augus￾tine’s injunction to “use” other human beings to enjoy God instrumentalizes our neighbors, making them into mere “means and tools” rather than ends in themselves (1996, 37–44). As a result, we no longer love our neigh￾bor qua neighbor or individual qua individual; rather, we love what is “eternal” in her (1996, 96). Loving our neighbor simply becomes an “occasion to love God” (1996, 96–7). Nussbaum presses similar charges. While she praises Augustine’s efforts to restore “compassion, along with other emotions, to a place of centrality in the earthly life,” Nussbaum complains that Augustine’s vision of Christian love remains too otherworldly and transcen￾dent (2001, 551, 528–9, 552–5).4 Targeting his contrast between “human or earthly love” and “Christian love, whose core is the love of God,” Nussbaum argues that Augustine “repudiates the one and urges us, disdaining it, to cultivate the other” (2001, 528–9).5 Citing Arendt, she suggests that Augustine’s “otherworldly” account of love denies the value of this-worldly striving and eclipses human individuality (2001, 549–56). If Augus￾tine requires human beings to order all loves to God, “it is a little unclear what role is left … for loving real￾life individual people. For what one loves above all in them is the presence of God and the hope of salvation” (2001, 549–50). Ultimately, Augustine’s attempt to “di￾rect longing away from this-worldly virtue” encourages insensitivity to human suffering and earthly injustice (2001, 552–4). Rather than “taking action as best we can,” Nussbaum concludes, Augustine admonishes us to “cover ourselves, mourn, and wait” (2001, 556). Critics are not alone in raising suspicions about Au￾gustine’s order of love. Even an Augustinian as influen￾tial as Niebuhr shares these concerns. While Niebuhr praises Augustine as “the first great ‘realist’ in Western history,” he identifies “several grave errors in Augus￾tine’s account of love” (1986, 124, 130). In particular, Niebuhr argues that Augustine’s account of love instru￾mentalizes the neighbor: “The love of the neighbor is for him not part of a double love commandment, but merely the instrument of a single love commandment which bids us flee all mortality, including the neighbor, in favor of the immutable good” (1986, 136). Niebuhr blames this Augustinian flight on a lingering Neopla￾tonic focus on the nature of love’s objects: “the empha￾sis lies always upon the worthiness or unworthiness of the object of our love; the insistence is that only God and not some mutable ‘good’ or person is worthy of our love” (1986, 137).While Niebuhr concedes that this formula is “a safeguard against all forms of idolatry,” he nevertheless suggests that “using” the neighbor and earthly goods to enjoy God denies human individual￾ity and trivializes the value of temporal goods (1986, 4 According to Nussbaum, the Augustinian “ascent of love and desire from the earthly to the heavenly . . . strips away and leaves behind the merely human in love” (2001, 529). 5 Nussbaum adds a qualifying footnote: “Not all Christian love is love of God: there may be human loves that are distinctively Chris￾tian. But these other loves are suffused by the love of God, and, as we shall see, their real object always is, in a way, God” (2001, 528n1). 1038 Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Shanghai JiaoTong University, on 26 Oct 2018 at 03:53:05, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055418000345