Daniel, this is a very good overview of other major philosophies outside of the west, but:
“Oriental” philosophy? We seem to be continuing the great fallacy of western philosophers in clumping together all thought from the east as oriental. Ironically, Hebraism gets to join the west, most probably because of Paul, yet Orthodox Christianity has that “exotic” flavor. I can understand an empirical-rationalist putting Islam, Hinduism and Buddhism in one basket – they are predominately meta-physical; and Shintoism is just your basic Druidic shamanism with the Emperor, as high priest, offering sacrifice to the earth goddess Ameterasu (though they do have some really cool shrines - it is a blood sacrifice cult none-the-less).
Chinese philosophy, I think, warrants a whole paper on its own. Not least because it is the philosophy of a people poised to dominate the world over the next century and we need to better understand it; but also because our understanding of it is based largely on some serious miss-understandings in our divergent concepts of the “I am.”
Western philosophy is “me” centered. What is my place in the universe, ergo how can I find joy and fulfillment in my life – of course this leads to the current American instant gratification culture of “I want it now” and “my way.” I, I, me, me. I can be saved by taking the easiest road possible and to hell with everyone else. People plugged into IPods as they walk, drive, study, tuning out.
Confucius and his fellow philosophers expound a fundamentally “we” philosophy. You talk about the “herd.” But this herd is OUR family, OUR community, OUR nation. I am willing to sacrifice “me” to “our” and take the longer view which leads to the fulfillment of the goal of our family, community, and nation. This is a very powerful philosophy and you can see it played out on a small scale in the world today as Chinese rally ‘round the Olympic torch. It does NOT matter their personal views of the government or the fact that their family has been citizens of America, etc for a hundred years.
We also have a problem in interpretation. Confucius is an “Aristotelian” philosopher. On some level perhaps, but they come from whole different thought processes and to translate Chinese philosophical terms into western ideas to better grasp them, the western philosophical student is likely to miss differences in fundamental concepts.
I would like to suggest to the serious philosophy student who wants to major in the discipline and make a contribution to the world of tomorrow, take a philosophy course in Chinese philosophy with a Chinese instructor, learn the Chinese forms and their original meanings – not what you think they mean in western thought, in English or French or even Greek. That is My thought.
Me
Wednesday, April 30, 2008
Tuesday, April 29, 2008
What Makes Us Human?
Is there an evolutionary difference between divine beings and human beings?
Are all humans human? What makes us human? Is it just an outside shell or are there internal characteristics that are necessary. We believe in evolution and natural selection. Are some humans more evolved than others? Did humans evolve differently on different continents after the original diaspora after mitochondrial Eve? What is the “ideal” human? Is it possible to achieve this ideal or only a dream?
- characteristic of humanity; "human nature"
- homo: any living or extinct member of the family Hominidae characterized by superior intelligence, articulate speech, and erect carriage
- having human form or attributes as opposed to those of animals or divine beings; "human beings"; "the human body"; "human kindness"; "human frailty" (http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=human)
- WHAT is human? Does consciousness make us human? If so, what type of consciousness? Does it differ from that of primates or even non-primates? If so, how? Do cultures and communities make us human?
- WHEN is human? Is there pre-human; is there "post-human"
- What is INhuman? What ethical qualities are associated with being human? Why do we qualify as "inhuman" acts performed by humans? Is it relavent to being human?(http://www.humanities.wisc.edu/What-Is-Human/Home.html)
Saturday, April 26, 2008
All Is Joy Eternal
The overman lives in the city on the hill in perfect relationship with his fellows, in perfect understanding of the truth so as to have no need to expound on it further as it would just serve to confuse the masses who, missing the concept of self-perfection, create an opiate and call it religion. Thus the budding overman must struggle by his own will, in the darkness of his “cave” perfecting himself and ... finding all joy in deep eternity, climb to the city submitting to the authority of its ideal. (Nietzsche, Socrates, Augustine, Aquinas-after his revelation, Kierkegaard, and Daniel a budding overman)
I want a Divorce!
Daniel, everyone, J C makes an interesting point and challenge. Can western secular philosophy divorce itself completely from the supernatural? Can nearly 4,000 years of philosophical terms and definitions be rewritten to erase concepts of the metaphysical embedded in its core? Things unbelievable and non-existent irritating Empirical-rational thought? Why is it necessary in western philosophy to even entertain the concept of God?
I personally have a feeling that rationalism and metaphysics in western thought are like an estranged couple living together. They are comfortable enough with each other to not want a divorce. They enjoy their squabbles over who’s wrong and who’s right. In fact, they so often identify themselves by what they aren’t and what they don’t believe that without the other their whole existence would lose its frame of identity. A dialectical reasoning. The thesis needs its antithesis, without which it can’t answer the question “who am I?” Is it possible to completely erase god from the discussion? Maybe we don’t really want to. Anyone?
I personally have a feeling that rationalism and metaphysics in western thought are like an estranged couple living together. They are comfortable enough with each other to not want a divorce. They enjoy their squabbles over who’s wrong and who’s right. In fact, they so often identify themselves by what they aren’t and what they don’t believe that without the other their whole existence would lose its frame of identity. A dialectical reasoning. The thesis needs its antithesis, without which it can’t answer the question “who am I?” Is it possible to completely erase god from the discussion? Maybe we don’t really want to. Anyone?
Is it ESP or Instinct?
Daniel, Thank you for your comment. I think it is "ESP." Now I know what you are going to say, but think about it. Why are we are so comfortable with some things and some people and yet not with others. “I have a bad feeling about …” "People have a feeling," and get off a boat or plane that will be destroyed. A tribe in Southeast Asia doesn't have tools for cutting down trees. What do they do? They walk around the tree cursing it. It dies, they cart it away. A mother "knows" her child is in trouble or has died.
I think that we have a natural communication device within ourselves that warns us of danger or assures us of safety and it is that sub-conscious communication that assists the smooth flow in a society - like Japan. It is my supposition, obviously yet to be proven, that as we grow in the womb our brain "mind" becomes inherently conditioned to the level of conscious and sub-conscious "vibes" of the surrounding society through “psychic” osmosis much the same way we absorb nutrients physically. This is, in a sense, a combination of absorbing the specie instinct as David Hume might suggest along with the “current status” as might be loosely described by Jung as a psychic unconscious. Even, if I dare say it, Socrates "universal I" a connection to each other that make my care of you more than just good for me or you but necessary for all our internal "psychic" communal well being. The general happiness and contentment that then produces new babies who are healthier and more self-assured.
We become in tune with our environment much like we prepare a computer by downloading programs from another computer. Knowledge (the actual files) is not passed but the innate comfort to accept what we learn after being born. The image is within us but the form must be acquired anew with each birth. Maybe that is why people believe in re-incarnation, babies sometimes born with a better tuned capacity to “gel” with a like personality through a psychic connection. Not an old “soul” being reborn.
Me
I think that we have a natural communication device within ourselves that warns us of danger or assures us of safety and it is that sub-conscious communication that assists the smooth flow in a society - like Japan. It is my supposition, obviously yet to be proven, that as we grow in the womb our brain "mind" becomes inherently conditioned to the level of conscious and sub-conscious "vibes" of the surrounding society through “psychic” osmosis much the same way we absorb nutrients physically. This is, in a sense, a combination of absorbing the specie instinct as David Hume might suggest along with the “current status” as might be loosely described by Jung as a psychic unconscious. Even, if I dare say it, Socrates "universal I" a connection to each other that make my care of you more than just good for me or you but necessary for all our internal "psychic" communal well being. The general happiness and contentment that then produces new babies who are healthier and more self-assured.
We become in tune with our environment much like we prepare a computer by downloading programs from another computer. Knowledge (the actual files) is not passed but the innate comfort to accept what we learn after being born. The image is within us but the form must be acquired anew with each birth. Maybe that is why people believe in re-incarnation, babies sometimes born with a better tuned capacity to “gel” with a like personality through a psychic connection. Not an old “soul” being reborn.
Me
"Empirical Realism"
This blog is really a compilation of my responses and comments in a continuing discourse being held at Daniel Rea’s blog which can be found at "Empirical Realism" - if you are serious about philosophy and its current affect on you and society at large, check it out.
What is My Philosophy?
My left half is empirical-rationalist with a Nietzsche-esk flavor.
My right half is theistic with a spiritualist – non dogmatic, yet Judeo-Christian worldview (I do feel the reality of ESP, ghosts and, dare I say it, witchcraft).
Can I balance them and feel comfortable in myself? Read what I write.
That’s me
My right half is theistic with a spiritualist – non dogmatic, yet Judeo-Christian worldview (I do feel the reality of ESP, ghosts and, dare I say it, witchcraft).
Can I balance them and feel comfortable in myself? Read what I write.
That’s me
Is Belief in God Required for Ethics and Virtue?
I am not suggesting that without God there would be no ethics or no order. There is order and ethics in the school yard. It is the survival of the fittest and goal to get the best girl and largest clic, as in nature. What I am saying is that our present system of ethics and an orderly society are very much based on our view of God – whether or not there is one. The orderly society in Japan and Saudi Arabia are quite different from America. Why? We are all human are we not?
My question: if we were not “brainwashed” by a system of beliefs but moved into the natural empirical-rational society sans this “opiate”, would we have the same order, the same respect or deference for the weak (our hospitals and homeless shelters are full at great cost - as Scrooge would say); the same “fair play” as we have in today’s western Judeo Christian society? Are virtue, the volunteer spirit (hardly apparent in Japan) and other “esoteric” qualities prized today necessary or are they vestiges of a society merrily going along the wrong road-chosen by our collective free will, but errant none-the-less?
Or is there, just maybe, a divine nature evolving within the human spicie that compels us to greater accomplishments and a higher order of relationships not required by the natural order of human nature?
My question: if we were not “brainwashed” by a system of beliefs but moved into the natural empirical-rational society sans this “opiate”, would we have the same order, the same respect or deference for the weak (our hospitals and homeless shelters are full at great cost - as Scrooge would say); the same “fair play” as we have in today’s western Judeo Christian society? Are virtue, the volunteer spirit (hardly apparent in Japan) and other “esoteric” qualities prized today necessary or are they vestiges of a society merrily going along the wrong road-chosen by our collective free will, but errant none-the-less?
Or is there, just maybe, a divine nature evolving within the human spicie that compels us to greater accomplishments and a higher order of relationships not required by the natural order of human nature?
Friday, April 25, 2008
Free Will or Self-Determination?
The baby chick ventures from the nest for the first time and say’s, “look ma I can fly,” and the chicken hawk say’s, “lunch!”
The baby seal practicing its swimming say’s, “I can swim,” and the orca say’s, “I can eat.”
The young uni student say’s to his professor, “look doc I can think,” and the professor responds, “think again.”
Are these examples of free will or self-determination in nature- including human nature? Is there a difference?
Is there a difference between free will and self-determination? Or is it a case of a rose by any other name?
I find nowhere in self-determination where it is stated or implied that my self-determination ends at the point of your nose. (This is the Judeo-Christian concept of fair play that is entering the argument. Marcus of Queensbury rules, and all that.) More often than not, it ends when your nose submits to my fist or the star footballer gets crushed when the ref isn’t looking. This is the nature of the alpha, survival and mating process in nature played out in school yards everywhere. Is it possible to naturally evolve to the point where we are living in “self-determination” where we can ascribe to “free will” something more – like altruism and virtue. Or are these qualities that can only be ascribed to a spiritual dimension?
The baby seal practicing its swimming say’s, “I can swim,” and the orca say’s, “I can eat.”
The young uni student say’s to his professor, “look doc I can think,” and the professor responds, “think again.”
Are these examples of free will or self-determination in nature- including human nature? Is there a difference?
Is there a difference between free will and self-determination? Or is it a case of a rose by any other name?
I find nowhere in self-determination where it is stated or implied that my self-determination ends at the point of your nose. (This is the Judeo-Christian concept of fair play that is entering the argument. Marcus of Queensbury rules, and all that.) More often than not, it ends when your nose submits to my fist or the star footballer gets crushed when the ref isn’t looking. This is the nature of the alpha, survival and mating process in nature played out in school yards everywhere. Is it possible to naturally evolve to the point where we are living in “self-determination” where we can ascribe to “free will” something more – like altruism and virtue. Or are these qualities that can only be ascribed to a spiritual dimension?
Religion as a Byproduct of Evolution
“Skeptics realize that religion is a byproduct of evolution. It began as a mental process to give supernatural explanation to natural phenomenon…” Daniel Rea
Semantics: religion is a combination of self awareness (I am) and my place in the scheme of things (philosophy) and environmental awareness (It is) aka science.
“On the contrary we base our arguments upon reason and logic. Giving a clear, rational, and logically acceptable account.” Daniel Rea
Logic is often culturally based not to mention observer influenced. An American’s logic and Japanese logic seem often to be from different planets. Scientists in the performance of an experiment too often view the result from their culturally and philosophically colored glasses, imagining they see something, discovered something or disproved something but are instead deceived by their own imaginings. Thusly the earth was flat, the sun revolved around the earth and there were only 5 then 6 then 7 then .... planets. We are bound by our own intellectual limitations which may not recognize what is staring us in the face. Thus, yes it may be logical, but the logic of a child. So, to say God does not exist because we have done some experiments and come to some logical conclusions is on its own a bit of a fallacy. But I fully agree with your premise Daniel – but then I’m American.
Thus they always begin with, "God is...", and this is where their fallacy begins. Daniel Rea
I begin to have a problem … God is, science is, philosophy is. You can define each ie: God is that which is outside of nature – supernatural. That which cannot be contained in or defined by natural law. You may not like the definition, but it doesn’t invalidate it.
Theists recourse to the supernatural, and it is precisely there Dawkins, Dennett, Hitchens, and skeptics halt them and ask, "How can you begin supernatural speculation, where is your material evidence?" Daniel Rea
To me this is the apples (natural) and oranges (supernatural) argument. They are separate and mutually exclusive. One cannot define the other. Whether or not we have evidence of an existence inside or outside our natural universe does not negate the possibility. We are discovering more everyday and I have no doubt that we will make discoveries that will change our formulations of natural law as radically as Einstein did Newton. The mistake theists make is in trying to define the supernatural using natural definitions. It’s a trap, step in and you are hopelessly out gunned by your own brain.
Skeptics are upset that theists are trying to turn our secular nations into theocracies, listen to Pat Robertson, "If you think when we take this country the Christians are going to let atheists off easy, oh no, you will be the first in jails." Daniel Rea
Ok THIS is THE real issue isn't it and has been, it seems, forever. Going back to the first shaman, if you weren’t part of the bear clan you were history, or invited, none too subtly to drink hemlock. It’s one thing to accept the possibility that there are existence(s) outside our understanding, but quite another to create a fairy tale about it, insist that your particular fairy tale is the absolute truth, then kill anyone who disagrees with you. But this is a problem becoming apparent in science as well. Do you "believe" in global warming? It has almost become a religion with Al Gore as the chief priest.
Semantics: religion is a combination of self awareness (I am) and my place in the scheme of things (philosophy) and environmental awareness (It is) aka science.
“On the contrary we base our arguments upon reason and logic. Giving a clear, rational, and logically acceptable account.” Daniel Rea
Logic is often culturally based not to mention observer influenced. An American’s logic and Japanese logic seem often to be from different planets. Scientists in the performance of an experiment too often view the result from their culturally and philosophically colored glasses, imagining they see something, discovered something or disproved something but are instead deceived by their own imaginings. Thusly the earth was flat, the sun revolved around the earth and there were only 5 then 6 then 7 then .... planets. We are bound by our own intellectual limitations which may not recognize what is staring us in the face. Thus, yes it may be logical, but the logic of a child. So, to say God does not exist because we have done some experiments and come to some logical conclusions is on its own a bit of a fallacy. But I fully agree with your premise Daniel – but then I’m American.
Thus they always begin with, "God is...", and this is where their fallacy begins. Daniel Rea
I begin to have a problem … God is, science is, philosophy is. You can define each ie: God is that which is outside of nature – supernatural. That which cannot be contained in or defined by natural law. You may not like the definition, but it doesn’t invalidate it.
Theists recourse to the supernatural, and it is precisely there Dawkins, Dennett, Hitchens, and skeptics halt them and ask, "How can you begin supernatural speculation, where is your material evidence?" Daniel Rea
To me this is the apples (natural) and oranges (supernatural) argument. They are separate and mutually exclusive. One cannot define the other. Whether or not we have evidence of an existence inside or outside our natural universe does not negate the possibility. We are discovering more everyday and I have no doubt that we will make discoveries that will change our formulations of natural law as radically as Einstein did Newton. The mistake theists make is in trying to define the supernatural using natural definitions. It’s a trap, step in and you are hopelessly out gunned by your own brain.
Skeptics are upset that theists are trying to turn our secular nations into theocracies, listen to Pat Robertson, "If you think when we take this country the Christians are going to let atheists off easy, oh no, you will be the first in jails." Daniel Rea
Ok THIS is THE real issue isn't it and has been, it seems, forever. Going back to the first shaman, if you weren’t part of the bear clan you were history, or invited, none too subtly to drink hemlock. It’s one thing to accept the possibility that there are existence(s) outside our understanding, but quite another to create a fairy tale about it, insist that your particular fairy tale is the absolute truth, then kill anyone who disagrees with you. But this is a problem becoming apparent in science as well. Do you "believe" in global warming? It has almost become a religion with Al Gore as the chief priest.
Altruism or Selfishness
What is the “balance” between altruism and selfishness
“… If everyone is looking out for number 1 (a common misconception of interpreting both Darwin and Nietzsche) then there is nothing left to go around ... Daniel Rea
… Aristotle:
If, we state the function of man to be a certain kind of life, and this to be an activity or actions of the soul implying a rational principle, and the function of a good man to be the good and noble performance of these, and if any action is well performed when it is performed in accordance with the appropriate excellence ... human good turns out to be activity of the soul in accordance with virtue, and if there are more than one virtue, in accordance with the best and most complete. (Nicomachean Ethics, I 1098a, 13)
The beginnings of western ethical thought: Even when we change the soul to mind did they attach the supernatural, religious altruistic concepts of “care for thy neighbor” to the budding ideals of ethics or is that a modern Judeo-Christian conception. (Sparta defended Athens from the Persians.) Why? They certainly had no love for Athens. For altruism or because they were the next obvious target - pure selfishness; looking out first and foremost for number one. Why did the Athenians force Socrates to take hemlock? Self preservation of their natural order. Why am I good or ethical? Because I feel good. Why do I altruistically give money to a cause? Because I feel good doing it. Maybe you feel good receiving it, but that is secondary to my feel good. Certainly if we are going to do it we best do it right, in the best most excellent way, lest we waste time and effort and the goal elusive - but why do I do it is the issue. Why did Socrates take the hemlock? He didn’t have to.
Preparing our ethical system for the future: If we put two people, equally matched in a room, one American with western ethical values and one Han Chinese with Sun Tzu and Confucian values and told them to choose a leader between them, who would it be (the art of negotiation and altruistic balance). This is very much apropos to our current and near future world society: Which system of ethics will come out ahead? Should I learn Chinese?
“… If everyone is looking out for number 1 (a common misconception of interpreting both Darwin and Nietzsche) then there is nothing left to go around ... Daniel Rea
… Aristotle:
If, we state the function of man to be a certain kind of life, and this to be an activity or actions of the soul implying a rational principle, and the function of a good man to be the good and noble performance of these, and if any action is well performed when it is performed in accordance with the appropriate excellence ... human good turns out to be activity of the soul in accordance with virtue, and if there are more than one virtue, in accordance with the best and most complete. (Nicomachean Ethics, I 1098a, 13)
The beginnings of western ethical thought: Even when we change the soul to mind did they attach the supernatural, religious altruistic concepts of “care for thy neighbor” to the budding ideals of ethics or is that a modern Judeo-Christian conception. (Sparta defended Athens from the Persians.) Why? They certainly had no love for Athens. For altruism or because they were the next obvious target - pure selfishness; looking out first and foremost for number one. Why did the Athenians force Socrates to take hemlock? Self preservation of their natural order. Why am I good or ethical? Because I feel good. Why do I altruistically give money to a cause? Because I feel good doing it. Maybe you feel good receiving it, but that is secondary to my feel good. Certainly if we are going to do it we best do it right, in the best most excellent way, lest we waste time and effort and the goal elusive - but why do I do it is the issue. Why did Socrates take the hemlock? He didn’t have to.
Preparing our ethical system for the future: If we put two people, equally matched in a room, one American with western ethical values and one Han Chinese with Sun Tzu and Confucian values and told them to choose a leader between them, who would it be (the art of negotiation and altruistic balance). This is very much apropos to our current and near future world society: Which system of ethics will come out ahead? Should I learn Chinese?
Ignorance is Bliss
"If there were no God, it would be necessary to invent him" - Voltaire.
We need God as a dog needs its master, just a higher order of submission to a ruling power: the absolute monarchy, the state, the boss. Just look at the democrats crying (praying) for Howard Dean to save them and force the issue before the convention (death). We need a leader for our survival and sanity. “God” gives us an absolute, pure, good, perfect, in the sky (not in your face messing with everyday life), all powerful being who will save us from ourselves. What more could you ask for? Of course I need this God!
We have a god who will save me from my pain and suffering; give me riches and success – and only for the price of a petition of prayer. He won’t strike me when I screw up or throw me in jail – he is all forgiving and wants to save me. He gives a reason for the rich like Rockefeller, Carnegie and Gates to support the less fortunate rather than euthanize them. He gives us angels to inspire us to greatness of music and the arts and consider the plight of others and not just run them over on the road of life. He gives us a goal to live for, to be perfect and love my neighbor as myself.
Do you really want to give this opiate up for the reality of natural selection?
"I am who I am, and I'm me."
We need God as a dog needs its master, just a higher order of submission to a ruling power: the absolute monarchy, the state, the boss. Just look at the democrats crying (praying) for Howard Dean to save them and force the issue before the convention (death). We need a leader for our survival and sanity. “God” gives us an absolute, pure, good, perfect, in the sky (not in your face messing with everyday life), all powerful being who will save us from ourselves. What more could you ask for? Of course I need this God!
We have a god who will save me from my pain and suffering; give me riches and success – and only for the price of a petition of prayer. He won’t strike me when I screw up or throw me in jail – he is all forgiving and wants to save me. He gives a reason for the rich like Rockefeller, Carnegie and Gates to support the less fortunate rather than euthanize them. He gives us angels to inspire us to greatness of music and the arts and consider the plight of others and not just run them over on the road of life. He gives us a goal to live for, to be perfect and love my neighbor as myself.
Do you really want to give this opiate up for the reality of natural selection?
"I am who I am, and I'm me."
Lucifer as the Archetype for the Perfect Man
Lucifer was the ultimate I am that I am man. He WAS extra-ordinarily intelligent. He knew it all, including God’s intent: “Did God say … in the day you eat of it, you would surely die. ...”
He was powerful, incredibly knowledgeable and knew God’s truth, directly assisting God in the creation; the epitome of what the rational-empiricist aspires to be. He had no need of God, in fact, he purposed to usurp His position and take His place. Sounds remarkably like the rational-empiricist using reason as the word of truth. Perhaps this scenario is where we get the concept of “half truths” and self-deception.
Of course we now refer to him as a snake. “A real snake in the grass,” is a deceiver. Is that the future rational-empirical perfect man, full of his own glory, power and pride needing nothing but his own intellect and rational truth to guide his way?
What was Lucifer’s fault? Was he not what he thought of himself? Perhaps he was, and perhaps that was only half the story. God created him after all, so why shouldn’t he be proud of himself? He was great, he was powerful, he was intelligent. We might imagine him saying, “I am my own man, I made myself what I am today, what need I of God?” We have heard these words before – and it usually did not go well for the speaker.
God does not seem apparent in the universe, perhaps by design, because He hopes we will see beyond the trap that ensnared Lucifer: that we know we are great and powerful and intelligent, knowing what God knows, but at the same time come to understand, through our inherent wisdom, and humbly acknowledge our limitations; then seek our creator as both an honorable and most valuable creation, “god-like” in our stature and yet humble in deference to our ultimate “father,” the creator-king of the universe who we can only know in our hearts.
Perhaps then I will understand Aquinas’ revelation and Augustine’s vision. Otherwise, a re-reading of Dante's Inferno may be a wise idea.
"I am who I am, and I'm me."
(from Peter Pan)
Consider:
"Allegories"
He was powerful, incredibly knowledgeable and knew God’s truth, directly assisting God in the creation; the epitome of what the rational-empiricist aspires to be. He had no need of God, in fact, he purposed to usurp His position and take His place. Sounds remarkably like the rational-empiricist using reason as the word of truth. Perhaps this scenario is where we get the concept of “half truths” and self-deception.
Of course we now refer to him as a snake. “A real snake in the grass,” is a deceiver. Is that the future rational-empirical perfect man, full of his own glory, power and pride needing nothing but his own intellect and rational truth to guide his way?
What was Lucifer’s fault? Was he not what he thought of himself? Perhaps he was, and perhaps that was only half the story. God created him after all, so why shouldn’t he be proud of himself? He was great, he was powerful, he was intelligent. We might imagine him saying, “I am my own man, I made myself what I am today, what need I of God?” We have heard these words before – and it usually did not go well for the speaker.
God does not seem apparent in the universe, perhaps by design, because He hopes we will see beyond the trap that ensnared Lucifer: that we know we are great and powerful and intelligent, knowing what God knows, but at the same time come to understand, through our inherent wisdom, and humbly acknowledge our limitations; then seek our creator as both an honorable and most valuable creation, “god-like” in our stature and yet humble in deference to our ultimate “father,” the creator-king of the universe who we can only know in our hearts.
Perhaps then I will understand Aquinas’ revelation and Augustine’s vision. Otherwise, a re-reading of Dante's Inferno may be a wise idea.
"I am who I am, and I'm me."
(from Peter Pan)
Consider:
"Allegories"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)