甘子勤. / Thesis submitted in: November 2009. / Thesis (M.Phil.)--Chinese University of Hong Kong, 2010. / Includes bibliographical references (leaves 122-123). / Abstract in Chinese and English. / Gan Ziqin. / 引言 --- p.6 / Chapter 第一章 --- 樂的基本義理-孔孟對樂的規定 --- p.10 / Chapter 第一節 --- 音樂和樂的異同 --- p.10 / Chapter I. --- 樂的出處 --- p.10 / Chapter II. --- 禮別異、樂和同 --- p.11 / Chapter III. --- 音樂與樂的關聯 --- p.16 / Chapter 第二節 --- 孔子論仁與樂 --- p.17 / Chapter I. --- 禮樂與仁 --- p.17 / Chapter II. --- 仁與樂 --- p.25 / Chapter 第三節 --- 論孟子思想中的樂與命 --- p.32 / Chapter I. --- 君子之所欲、所樂與所性 --- p.33 / Chapter II. --- 君子有三樂 --- p.36 / Chapter III. --- 反身而誠，樂莫大焉 --- p.40 / Chapter 第二章 --- 論王陽明思想中本體層的樂 --- p.42 / Chapter 第一節 --- 陽明思想的中心-致良知 --- p.42 / Chapter I. --- 良知與致良知 --- p.45 / Chapter A. --- 心即理 --- p.46 / Chapter B. --- 良知 --- p.50 / Chapter C. --- 致良知 --- p.55 / Chapter 第二節 --- 本體層的樂-樂是心之本體 --- p.60 / Chapter I. --- 心之本體 --- p.60 / Chapter II. --- 樂與心之本體的關聯 --- p.62 / Chapter A. --- 心悦理義 --- p.65 / Chapter B. --- 樂與天地萬物一體 --- p.69 / Chapter C. --- 樂與良知之生生不息 --- p.77 / Chapter 第三章 --- 論王陽明思想中作用層的樂 --- p.82 / Chapter 第一節 --- 作用層上的樂 --- p.82 / Chapter I. --- 真樂 --- p.82 / Chapter II. --- 情的轉化 --- p.91 / Chapter 第二節 --- 真樂工夫 --- p.101 / Chapter I. --- 常快活 --- p.101 / Chapter II. --- 自快吾心與自慊 --- p.102 / Chapter III. --- 謹獨與瀟落 --- p.104 / 結論 --- p.106 / 參考書目 --- p.112

My dissertation gives the first analysis of misery in the thought of Aquinas and Teresa of Ávila, providing new insight into their ideas of happiness through means of contrast. I use the terms “misery” and “happiness” in a traditional sense to indicate life lived poorly or well, respectively, and I investigate these notions in Aquinas’ and Teresa’s principal texts, especially the Summa Theologiae and The Interior Castle. Both thinkers identify misery as a privation of God: a lack of the share in God’s goodness that one ought to have. Both see the escape from misery as a process of perfecting the soul’s faculties of intellect and will to unite one to God. For Aquinas, happiness is essentially an intellectual perfection: knowledge of God. Conversely, misery is an intellectual defect: lack of the knowledge of God that one ought to have. Moreover, Aquinas so analyzes “ought” that misery is a lack of what is naturally desired. Perfect happiness comes with the full understanding of God that one can only attain in heaven, but a middle ground exists between perfect happiness and misery. Even in this life, one can attain “imperfect happiness,” and the analysis of misery helps to clarify this obscure notion. The imperfectly happy have not acquired their consummate perfection, but understand as much about God as nature presently compels them to desire to know. A right will is both necessary and sufficient for escaping misery and obtaining happiness. The will depends on the intellect in such a way that it cannot desire correctly unless the intellect understands correctly. Moreover, sin colors one’s perception of reality, so that evil desire in the will causes error and ignorance in the intellect. Thus, one escapes misery if and only if one chooses to love God as one’s ultimate end. For Teresa, happiness is the union with God through knowledge and love for which the soul was made, and misery is the lack of this union. The soul escapes misery by developing a relationship with God in contemplative prayer, and Teresa illustrates happiness and misery through the titular metaphor of The Interior Castle. Notably, happiness requires that one’s union with God become perfectly secure, and I identify an intellectualist strain in Teresa that implies that the will cannot become perfectly committed to God unless the intellect can become perfectly firm in its certainty that God is the sole good. The quest for certainty is difficult, since like Descartes who will follow her, Teresa posits the existence of a deceiving demon with considerable influence over all the soul’s powers. Against that threat, Teresa claims to find certainty through mystical experience. God is Truth, containing and grounding all other truths. In the “spiritual marriage,” the soul sees God’s Triune nature as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, really three distinct persons yet one substance. The directness of this vision provides a certainty which no deception can overcome.