Quietism
I recently read a quote by Seneca, stating:
I have had a tendency towards treating the big questions in life with some kind of Quietism towards their source of asking these questions. Yet, recently, I have been contemplating issues such as the sui generis of life itself in the universe, as the fact that (at least) non-anthropomorphically the logicality of causes and effects seems to endow us with a divine reason to investigate their origin or source. Yet, all of this is trifle in regards to when do we renegade Quietism and begin speaking about our observations (assuming you too are a Quietist)?
Seneca:It is not possible for us to know each other except as we manifest ourselves in distorted shadows to the eyes of others. We do not even know ourselves; therefore, how can we judge a neighbor? Who knows what pain is behind virtue and what fear behind vice? No one, in short, knows what makes a man, and only God knows his thoughts, his joys, his bitternesses, his agony; the injustices committed against him and the injustices he commits.... God is too inscrutable for our little understanding. After sad meditation it comes to me that all our life, whether good or ill, mournful or joyous, obscure or illustrious, painful or happy, is only a prologue to love beyond the grave, where all is understood and all forgiven.
—A Prologue to Love.
I have had a tendency towards treating the big questions in life with some kind of Quietism towards their source of asking these questions. Yet, recently, I have been contemplating issues such as the sui generis of life itself in the universe, as the fact that (at least) non-anthropomorphically the logicality of causes and effects seems to endow us with a divine reason to investigate their origin or source. Yet, all of this is trifle in regards to when do we renegade Quietism and begin speaking about our observations (assuming you too are a Quietist)?
Comments (6)
A Prologue to Love is a book by Taylor Caldwell. Seneca is quoted in the book. I'm not sure of the source of the quote by Seneca.
I'm not sure what you mean by "Quietism." I know it as the view that philosophy is therapeutic or remedial, and has nothing substantive or positive to contribute. I tend to think of modern philosophy in that way. I think some ancient philosophy was positive in the sense that it provided good practical wisdom regarding how to live, and even spiritual guidance, though.
AT the very least, it seems to me to be a stance or position to assume towards certain questions in life. Such as questions about God or existential concerns.
I would assume you are well acquainted with why these questions bother some, whilst Quietism would seem to profess an attitude of (indifference?) if non-care towards them; but, not based on emotive reasonings; however based on rational grounds.
The quote from (allegedly) Seneca was for some reason written by my father on the preface before he gave me his own Bible to read or rather disregard as I came to feel that profound quote towards my-self.
God is too inscrutable to understand or even reason with.
However, I do not seek divine revelation; but, rather choose to believe in what I have come to understand myself. Just as a passing note, what happened to Job was too gratuitous to understand.
Because "beyond the grave" all is forgotten.
I'm aware they bother some, and have an opinion why they do. Quietism, I think, simply recognizes that philosophers haven't and likely will never provide an answer to those questions, if they properly can be called "questions." That doesn't necessarily mean Quietists are indifferent to them, but they understand, e.g., that language has limitations, and some things must be shown as Wittgenstein said.
https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12608c.htm
Also, search Garrigou-Lagrange's Three ages of the interior life for "quietism" and "acedia". He classifies quietism as spiritual sloth, most dangerous to a person's spiritual progress.
Quietism sounds like the Christian/Catholic response to meditation. Only the latter is generally not explicitly about God, the meditator "yields" the ego's desires to something greater, all the same. God, after all, is a terrible nuisance in metaphysics, and it closes doors, often, because the body of religion around it is dogmatic. I'll take the holiness and put aside the metaphysics. This at least purifies the concept to something immanent and unquestioned, but of course, the term 'holy' is left self sustaining.