"...Quick! Bring the finest robe in the house and put it on him. Get a ring for his finger and sandals for his feet. And kill the calf we have been fattening. We must celebrate with a feast..." (Luke 15:22-23)
A man has two sons; one older, and one younger. The younger son decides to take all of his inheritance right away. His father gives him his money so he leaves home, and spends it all on lavish living. As soon as the money runs out, a famine strikes the land and the son is left starving. After working as a farm hand and being so hungry that even the pigs' food looks appetizing, the son decides to return home and beg for a place as a servant in his father's house. Instead of scorning him for wasting his money so foolishly, the father welcomes him home and showers him with rich gifts.
This is the story of the prodigal son. As I read what Aristotle had to say about prodigality, I couldn't help but think of this story in the Bible. I must confess, I didn't understand the meaning of the word "prodigal" until Aristotle brought it to my attention. I have always thought "prodigal" had a positive meaning akin to: one who returns home. Instead, the word has a negative connotation. The prodigal man is the one who spends what he has foolishly and flippantly.
Aristotle discusses the mean of virtues. Prodigality is on the excessive side of the spectrum in relation to wealth, with liberality as the mean. This idea can be seen in the characters of Luke 15.
Looking at this story from Aristotle's point of view, I immediately see the son as having the excessive quality of prodigality. He has squandered his fortune on temporary pleasures. The son fulfills quite well the definition of "prodigal."
The father, however, is harder to place. He seems, at first, to display not a virtue, but a vice. Of liberality Aristotle says, on page 32, "Therefore the liberal man, like other virtuous men, will give for the sake of the noble, and rightly; for he will give to the right people, the right amounts, and at the right time..." The father invests his money (his son's inheritance) in his youngest son before the appointed time. He allows his son to go off and live how he wants. This seems to display prodigality rather than liberality. In the end, when the son returns home, the father lavishes riches on his son. Again, an example of a bad investment?
If we were to look through the father's eyes for a moment, we would see only a loved child; not a bad investment, but a great one. We would see a son who recognized the error of his ways and turned from it. In this light, the father represents not only liberality, but even magnificence, as Aristotle would call it. This is in the sense that the father gave freely, without calculation. He also gave greatly, bestowing expensive gifts on his returned son. Here, the giving far outweighed the gain, or maybe, to the father, it didn't. According to Aristotle, magnificence is a step beyond liberality in that a magnificent man will go the extra mile by giving with grand ceremony. The father throws a party for his son's return, and he gives rich gifts with an air of grandeur. Here we see the quality of magnificence displayed.
...Commented on Rachael's and Braylan's posts.
Comments
Post a Comment