Augustine’s Critique of Philosophy in The City of God – Discourses on Minerva
The first half of Augustine’s City of God is a work of cultural and intellectual critique. Famously, Augustine critiques the ideology and mythology of the Roman Empire, pointing out its many flaws, lies, and deceptions. However, he does the same for philosophy too. As such Augustine not only deals with cultural criticism in examining the history of Rome and Roman culture, he also engages in intellectual criticism as well—taking up a critique of Roman religion and Hellenic philosophy (namely Platonism and Stoicism, the two great intellectual influences over him). Augustine is well known for having been influenced by Platonism (specifically Neoplatonism) and Stoicism (through Cicero). While having, in a sense, synthesized Platonism, Aristotelianism (through Neoplatonism), and Stoicism into Christianity—or showing where these Hellenic schools of thought were compatible with Christianity—Augustine did not give a free pass to Hellenic philosophy despite his debt to it.
Augustine’s criticism of Hellenic philosophy centers on the prideful nature of philosophy in general, the dim view of the passions (or desire) represented by the Stoics, and a confrontation with one of Christianity’s most notable ancient critics: Porphyry (a student of Plotinus and the man responsible for publishing Plotinus’ Enneads which Augustine read). At the same time his appraisal of Hellenic philosophy includes a generally very positive view of Platonism, especially anything relating to Plato and Plotinus—for, in Augustine’s mind, the spirit of Platonism was to find the truth.
Augustine’s Praise for Platonism
In critiquing Christianity’s pagan critics, especially Roman religion, Augustine already began to praise Plato by remarking if the Romans were interested in Truth and virtue, they should have built a temple to Plato instead of the lying, jealous, and immoral gods who were worshipped in the Roman pantheon. Augustine praises Plato and Plotinus for several reasons. First was their commitment to the idea of absolute truth over and against epistemological relativism and nihilism. Second was the spiritual or transcendental character of their philosophies which leant itself nicely to the service of Christianity. Third was the Neoplatonic doctrine of emanation and theology which recognized, as Augustine highlighted in his criticism of Porphyry, a primitive understanding of the Christian Trinity. Incomplete and not fully Christian, to be sure, but Plotinus’ theological emanation of the One, Dyad, and Nous, was read to be a primitive (pagan rationalist) glimpse of the Trinity. As such, it also showed the limits of reason rather than the expansivity of reason. (Reason can only get you so far.)
Augustine, like many of the non-sophist philosophers of antiquity, maintained that the telos (natural end) of humans was happiness. “That all men desire happiness is a truism for all who are in any degree able to use their reason.” There are several important features of Augustine’s anthropology to note in order to understand his general praise of Platonism, and to a lesser extent Aristotelianism and Stoicism—though he is not without his moments of considerable criticism of all three of these ancient philosophical schools. Augustine’s anthropology argued that the human being was both a rational and desiring animal; man is endowed with a rational soul (logos; the intellect) but also tremendous phenomenological desire (eros or love). The unity of logos and eros in the human is what made man like God (since God, conceived of in Christianity is Logos and Eros; Reason and Love; Truth and Desire). Furthermore, Augustine believed that man was made in love for love, in wisdom for wisdom, and with sufficient rationality to know his nature which would lead to his felicity (happiness) when living in accordance with his nature. Insofar that Platonism maintained, in a basic sense, all these anthropological characteristics Augustine saw Platonism as a dim or primitive form of Christianity. As Augustine said in De Doctrina Christiana, “Truth wherever it is found belongs to [God]” (because God is Truth and the source of Truth so, syllogistically speaking, this means truth has to belong to God). Platonists also maintained that the Supreme God was the Logos; Stoics and Aristotelians also maintained similar doctrines in their philosophies of God but made the mistake of being materialist whereas Platonism was immaterialist.
Because the Platonists believed man’s natural end was happiness, that he had an immortal rational soul capable of knowing the good, true, and beautiful, and because the Platonists—moreover than the Aristotelians or Stoics—held the erotic in a positive purview, Augustine saw Platonist philosophy and anthropology (if we can call the limited reflections on man from the Platonists anthropology—which is properly the gift of Christianity to philosophy) as near to Christianity. After all, it was Augustine’s Platonism that moved him to Christianity.
The Platonist commitment to truth and virtue were the primary reasons for Augustine’s praise of Platonism. But it was also the Platonist doctrine of emanation, especially as it related to Platonist mystical theology (or cosmology) that Augustine also strongly praised as being an accurate description of the Trinity as far as weak-minded rationalism (given the reality of the Fall for Augustine which we will explore later in this article) was concerned. Lastly, Augustine saw Christianity and Platonism in agreement in their respective cosmologies insofar that the Cosmos was intelligible and embedded with intelligibility. (The intelligibility of creation was an essential aspect to Plotinus and is found in the Genesis account where God gives a commandment, or law, to creation to “bring forth life after its own kind”; the difference between Christian cosmology and Platonist cosmology was the role of love in creation.)
Nevertheless, Platonism can only go so far. For Augustine, the truths of Platonism point to Christ and Christianity. For even the Platonists are filled with certain errors like seeing the body, or flesh, as the seat of evil rather than corrupt intellect. Basically, the virtues of Platonism and the hope of Platonism points to, and is fulfilled by, Christ. Yet, of all the philosophies, Platonism was nearest to Christianity.
Augustine’s Critique of Hellenic Philosophy
In Book IX (Books IX and X contain Augustine’s examination of Hellenic philosophy, as well as parts of Book XIV) Augustine begins his criticism of Stoicism and Aristotelianism (Peripatetic philosophy), with some scattered critiques of Epicureanism and Cynicism too. Although it is, again, widely known that Augustine was influenced by Stoicism (namely Cicero and Epictetus) and Aristotelianism (through Neoplatonism), this doesn’t stop Augustine from offering criticism of the parts of these philosophies he finds deficient—especially as relating to the human person. The Platonists and Aristotelians he notes, subject the passions to domination (subjugation) to rationality. This is not altogether bad, but it is deficient because Augustine’s Christian anthropology does not have mind over matter or reason over passion, but mind equal to matter and reason equal to passion. (The harmony of logos and eros; “spirit and flesh.”) But Augustine’s main critique of Stoics deals with their philosophy of the erotic and implicit solitary character (slipping into the sin of pride).
For Augustine, the Stoics—despite their worthiness in other realms—are deeply wrong about the passions. This is part of the broader voluntarist-intellectualist debate that would reemerge in the Medieval world between the followers of Augustine and the followers of “Thomism” and Scholasticism. While the Platonists and Aristotelians leave room for the passions (though subjugated to reason), the Stoics hold the most damning view of the passions altogether. The Stoics view the passions as evil; for it is the passionate man who is the irrational and unwise man. The task of Stoic virtue was not merely the mastery of the passions (as in Platonism or Aristotelianism) but the elimination of the passions altogether. As Augustine says, “Others, the Stoics among them, refuse to admit that passions of this kind can conceivably befall a wise man.” That is, the wise man and virtuous man (which Stoicism aims to create in man) is the man who never has the passions hold sway over him because he has completely eliminated passion from his body. The good only exists within the soul (rational intellect) in Stoic thought.
The negative view of the body (and erotic) implied in Stoic anthropology is something Augustine cannot accept given his Christianity which holds the body in high regard. In fact, the body is so sacred and the erotic so sacred in Christianity that this is the real reason for “restrictions” on the body in Christian ethics. It is not restriction because the body is bad, but boundaries placed on the body for its dignity and sacrality because the body is dignified and sacred; to demean and cheaply abuse and discard the body through libertinism would be reflective of an anthropology that sees the body as little more than an instrument of use. To have boundaries placed on the body is because the body is sacred and dignified and humans should not cheaply augment, abuse, or “use” their bodies at whim. (This is the most sophomoric error in understanding Christian anthropology; that Christianity views the body as bad—that was “Christian Manicheanism” and “Christian Gnosticism” but not Catholic Christianity or Orthodox Christianity which actually has the most affirming corporeal anthropology not only in the ancient world but still the most positive corporeal anthropology in the modern world.)
At face value Stoicism and Christianity would seem compatible. Christianity understands, as Stoicism understands, that the passions can lead to the human doing things (with their body) which is unbefitting of human dignity and virtue. Stoicism, as Augustine remarks, is the philosophy of spirit (not passion) instead of flesh. (Do take note that in Christian and ancient philosophy, the spiritual was associated with the rational and the fleshly or carnal with the bodily; where Augustine appraises Stoicism as being spiritual he is referring to soulful or rational and not about the passions or erotic which is located in the carnal or fleshly aspect of man.) But this is where the similarities end and the differences become more manifest.
The lack of dignity and virtue, for Stoicism, is precisely because humans are hamstrung by the passions or erotic in of itself. The lack of dignity and virtue, for Christianity, is because body and soul are not unified in harmony. It is not the fault of the passions (or the flesh) for the denigration of the body and virtue in Christian anthropology. It is the fault of reason for not knowing the reality of the sacredness of the body and passions (and it is here that the Stoics err and even the Platonists and Aristotelians also err; though the Platonist and Aristotelian error is more tolerable than the Stoic error concerning this issue of human anthropology). The Stoics are guilty, from Augustine’s point of view, of taking the fallen state of man as normative and seeing sin as identical with the passions and so the answer to man’s woe is not God but the elimination of the passions altogether. It is a form of works righteousness, a self-righteousness, a self-congratulatory pride in their own power to overcome sin without Divine assistance. The Stoics wish to live, then, according to the flesh, but see themselves superior to the hoi polloi who indulge in their self-gratifying and fleeting passions.
Furthermore, Augustine critiques the Stoic criticism of compassion as a form of weakness (because compassion is sentimentality ergo the passion ruling over the mind). Augustine is not critiquing the Stoic philosophy of sacrifice and acceptance of suffering (something he, and other Christian church fathers, found to be very compatible with Christianity). However, Augustine charges the Stoics as essentially lacking charity and love with their hyper rationalism. Man is not purely intellect (as the Stoic philosophy logically implies) but is intellect and passion (as the Platonists and Aristotelians understand despite their privileging of intellect over passion. Sentimentality is not weakness but man’s great strength; the passions are our humanness in other words. For Augustine, the role of the passions offer Christians a training in virtue; to directly orient their sentimental passions to the highest good in life (Truth, mercy, and virtue) which the passions aim for but need orienting with from reason. The anti-passionate and anti-sentimental views offered in Stoicism do not offer, in fitting Augustinian irony, a training in virtue and dignity as the Stoics think but a training in self-righteousness and faux dignity (or incomplete dignity).
Augustine also criticizes Epicureanism (the ancient philosophical school that denied the immortality of the soul, the primacy of reason in the human, and advocated for sensual hedonism or physical pleasure as the Highest Good in life). Like with Stoicism’s hyper rationalism, Augustine is repulsed by Epicureanism’s hyper carnality. Where the Stoics erred in seeing man as primarily spiritual (mind or soul), the Epicureans erred in seeing man as solely fleshly or carnal. Augustine’s anthropological criticism is premised on account of his pluralistic account of man stemming from biblical anthropology: Man is a combination of flesh (body) and spirit (mind), and man’s virtue and dignity comes not in the coerced mastery of the mind over matter but the harmony and unity of flesh and spirit. Stoic man is deficient because he eliminates his passion; Epicurean man is deficient because he denigrates his body in sensual pursuits; Christian man—the total man (homo totus) for Augustine—orders his passions through his soul and directs it to the Highest Good (God; namely, Truth and Love) and lives in accord with his true nature (flesh and spirit) where body and soul are united as one. Insofar that Hellenic philosophy failed to understand this, Hellenic philosophy can only show man the truth of Christianity but is not, in of itself, the truth.
Augustine’s foremost interlocutor in the final books of Part I of City of God is the Neoplatonist (and in Augustine’s mind, neo-sophist) Porphyry. Porphyry was already dead by the time Augustine wrote City of God, but Porphyry was one of the last intellectual critics of Christianity in the world of Late Antiquity. Christian tradition held that Porphyry was a Christian turned blasphemer, but there is no evidence of Porphyry ever being a Christian. That said, Porphyry does demonstrate a strong familiarity with Christian (and Jewish) Scripture and ideas in his critique of Christianity (Adversus Christianos).
Porphyry and the Limits of Philosophy
The critique of Porphyry, which is the culmination of the culture critique in the first ten books of City of God, is aimed at Porphyry’s neo-Sophism. The sophists, in Augustine’s criticism, were philosophers who placed themselves at the center of the world (cf. Protagoras) and, in doing so, lived by the “way of man” instead of the “way of God” and therefore were incapable of coming to know truth because of their pride. Augustine’s criticism of Porphyry is only understandable from this perspective. That is, Augustine sees Porphyry as the ultimate hypocrite. Porphyry claims to be a philosopher, which means he is claiming to be interested in truth and the fundamental nature of reality. Yet, Porphyry contradicts himself on multiple accounts. He praises theurgy, then denies it. In the presence of the mob he speaks to their flattery; in the presence of more learned men he abandons theurgic mysticism.
Porphyry’s story is really one of tragedy from the purview of Augustine’s irony. As Augustine states, “Porphyry was in subjection to those envious powers, and was at the same time ashamed of his subjection and yet afraid to contradict them openly, he refused to recognize that the Lord Christ is the ‘principle,’ and that by his incarnation we are purified.” As already mentioned in detailing Augustine’s praise of Platonism, Platonist metaphysics affirmed the reality of Christian metaphysics—this is why many prominent early church fathers were Neoplatonists. Some went as far as suggesting, like St. Justin Martyr, that the advent of Platonist philosophy in Greece was God’s way of preparing the Greeks for the reception of Christianity. But rather than follow Platonist philosophy to its fruition—acceptance of Christianity—Porphyry rejects Christianity because of his tragic pride.
At one level Porphyry is a slave to other philosophical and theurgic powers. At another level Porphyry personally benefits by being part of these subjected powers, “You have made yourself the preacher and the angel of those unclean spirits who pretend to be gods of the ether; and they have promised you that those who have been purified in their ‘spiritual’ soul, by theurgic art, although they cannot, indeed, return to the Father, will have their dwelling among the gods of the ether, above the levels of air,” Augustine says to Porphyry.
By being the slave of theurgic mystics and demons, Porphyry is unfree which leads to his contradictory statements. Among the more learned who reject theurgy he agrees with them. Among those who believe in theurgic mysticism he is “their preacher.” Porphyry wants to be the measure of all things like Protagoras, but he is really a subjected little man serving false forces or ignorance (demons). He is prideful because he is important when he preaches false theurgic teaching. He is broken in his letters to more esteemed writers and philosophers because he does realize the errors of his ways and wants to seek a more truthful way of living. However, he is unable to break free of his condition and remains enslaved to those subjected theurgic forces because he serves himself and power rather than others and truth (as he portends himself as doing).
Porphyry is a noble soul in error insofar that he does seek wisdom but fails to recognize the incarnation of Wisdom (who is Christ). Porphyry instinctively knows, from his teacher Plotinus, that the purification and salvation of man must be universal—that is, available to all—but asserts no philosophy has ever successfully produced such a system. Augustine argues that Porphyry deliberately keeps himself blind to the fact that the system he is looking for is Christianity, “Now Porphyry says – towards the end of his first book On the Return of the Soul – that no doctrine has yet been established to form the teaching of a philosophical sect, which offers a universal way for the liberation of the soul; no such way has been produced by any philosophy (in the truest sense of the word), or by the moral teaching and disciplines of the Indians, or the magical spells of the Chaldeans, or in any other way, and that this universal way had never been brought to his knowledge in his study of history. He admits without any doubt that such a way exists, but confesses that it had never come to his notice.” But, as Augustine goes on to state, Porphyry was alive when that universal way for the liberation of man’s soul and salvation came into the world, “for the liberation of the soul, which is simply the Christian religion,” was revealed in Porphyry’s lifetime.
What can we make of Augustine’s criticism of Porphyry? At one level Augustine considers the case of Porphyry to be a tragedy. Here is a philosopher, a learned man, a Platonist, a student of Plotinus, who claims to be seeking wisdom and knowledge, and with that virtue and truth. Here is a philosopher who is seeking liberation from bondage, the freedom offered by the truth (“the truth shall set you free,” cf. John 8:32). Here is a philosopher who knows God is necessary for Truth since God is Truth. Here is a philosopher who, in accepting the Platonist doctrine of principles and emanations, already has a primitive understanding of how the doctrine of the Trinity works in Christianity. Yet, despite all of this, Porphyry refuses to accept the inevitable and exhaustive logic of his own schooling and searching: Christianity. Instead of embracing what he seeks he turns away from it. As such, he becomes a sophist rather than a learned and wise man. He subjects himself to slavery rather than freedom. He refuses to accept the incarnate God and embraces the demons as his god.
What prevents Porphyry from accepting the obvious? Pride. Porphyry loves himself too much and is also too internally conflicted (to admit the errors of his ways, unlike Augustine who rejected the errors of his youth) to accept the reality that he is not center of the universe. For if Porphyry accepts Christianity that means he would have to leave behind his life’s work attacking Christianity and admit he was wrong—something he cannot do. By accepting Christianity, which places Christ—Universal Wisdom and Wisdom incarnate—at the center of the Cosmos, Porphyry would be dethroned from his lofty position as enslaved preacher of theurgic powers. This is something Porphyry cannot do.
Augustine’s criticism of Porphyry is suddenly a tale we are all familiar with. The man who considers himself “God’s gift” or the most important person in the world is the man who is truly blind. Porphyry’s self-centeredness prevents him from seeing the truth that he does, earnestly, seek. It is rather a sad story when you consider it from Augustine’s point of view; and as we conclude Augustine’s critique of Porphyry (and with it, Hellenic philosophy) we see “Augustinian irony” coming into full bloom.
Augustinian Irony
Like Plato, Augustine’s writings are filled with irony. I have already touched on Augustine’s irony in the above sections. Here I would briefly like to summarize Augustinian irony from within his cultural criticism.
Concerning the irony of the Romans, Augustine sees the Romans in noble error. But this is made even more tragic all things considered. The Romans want happiness, peace, and virtue, but they glorify a city and empire of poverty, war, and immorality. The Roman critics of Christianity claim that a return to the old gods will bring back the happy, peaceful, and virtuous times of Rome; Augustine goes to great lengths (by citing predominately pagan Roman authors) that this mythic glory age of Rome never existed under the old gods. Instead, the Romans are so blind to the reality that Christianity is the religion that offers them happiness, peace, and virtue, and that Christianity is the ultimate religion of the Roman heart. For it is Christianity’s anthropology which allows for happiness, and it is Christianity’s doctrines and compassion which will lead to peace and virtue. Furthermore, Christianity’s promotion of patriotism: duty to family, community, and nation, is the fullest embodiment of the patriotism which the Romans claim to praise. (One of Augustine’s disciples, Orosius, expounded on these themes in his own History Against the Pagans.)
As it relates to the Roman critics of Christianity, Augustine shows how these critics are ignorant of their own history. The ignorant are often the greatest critics of Christianity.
Concerning the irony of the philosophers, Augustine goes to great lengths to show how the philosophers—noble as their endeavors are—often ends in failure because of incompleteness. Christianity stands to offer the complete picture, but few want the complete picture (like Porphyry). This is ironic because the philosophers claim to want to know the whole truth but when encountering the whole truth (offered in Christianity) they balk at it and return to their sophistry because the philosophers don’t want to cease being the centers of the universe. That is, the philosopher qua philosopher is a philosopher in the pursuit of wisdom. The philosopher ceases being a philosopher when he has achieved wisdom. Rather than embrace the contented, happy, and wise life at the end of the tunnel the philosopher retreats into the dark tunnel to continue walking aimlessly because he would rather do that than enjoy the bliss and virtue he claims to want because there is more thrill “in the journey” than at the end of the journey. The end of philosophy is complete wisdom and virtue; but according to Augustine the philosophers aren’t interested in what they claim to be seeking but are only interested in their inflated egos and the praise given to them “for their discoveries.”
What is Augustinian irony? Where Platonic irony is tied to Plato’s satire, Augustinian irony is tied to Augustine’s tragedy. Where Plato saw the sophists as despicable humans deserving to be lampooned, Augustine sees humans as fallen creatures desperately wanting truth and virtue but consistently falling short of their longings. Augustine’s irony is tragic because he sees the deep yearning in the hearts of the Romans and the Greek philosophers (and even in Porphyry) but how these Romans and philosophers can’t accept the yearning of their heart (in accepting Christianity) and would rather continue their downward descent toward hell. Augustine’s irony is an irony of tragedy—and this is where his irony differs strongly from Plato’s whose irony was an irony of satire. Augustine’s critique of philosophy is tragic in nature, he sees the hope of philosophy being fulfilled in the wisdom and love of Jesus Christ, the Source of Wisdom and Truth that the philosophers were seeking, but were too proud to acknowledge and see which therefore blinded them (like Porphyry) and destroyed the originally noble pursuit of philosophy. The inability, out of pride, to acknowledge the Truth and Love the philosophers sought made the philosophers tragic figures in Augustine’s eyes.
________________________________________________________________
Paul Krause is the editor-in-chief of VoegelinView. He is writer, classicist, and historian. He has written on the arts, culture, classics, literature, philosophy, religion, and history for numerous journals, magazines, and newspapers. He is the author of Finding Arcadia, The Odyssey of Love and the Politics of Plato, and a contributor to the College Lecture Today and Making Sense of Diseases and Disasters. He holds master’s degrees in philosophy and religious studies (biblical studies & theology) from the University of Buckingham and Yale, and a bachelor’s degree in economics, history, and philosophy from Baldwin Wallace University.
________________________________________________________________
Support Wisdom: https://paypal.me/PJKrause?locale.x=en_US
Venmo Support: https://www.venmo.com/u/Paul-Krause-48
My Book on Literature: https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1725297396
My Book on Plato: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B08BQLMVH2
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/paul_jkrause/ (@paul_jkrause)
Twitter: https://twitter.com/paul_jkrause (@paul_jkrause)
TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@paul.j.krause