What is the core of Jesus' teaching? Compare & Contrast
“Have you never read what David did, when he was in need and was hungry, he and those who were with him?
He entered the house of God and ate the bread of the Presence, which it is not lawful for any but the priests to eat, and also gave it to those who were with him”
Jesus said to them, The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath
— Mark 2:23-27
Say something about Jesus and somebody will disagree--maybe for good reasons, maybe not.
What do you take to be the core of Jesus' teachings? Please site a verse or two to support your view.
He entered the house of God and ate the bread of the Presence, which it is not lawful for any but the priests to eat, and also gave it to those who were with him”
Jesus said to them, The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath
— Mark 2:23-27
Bitter Crank:Jesus didn't preach asceticism and indifference
Thorongil :This could not be more false. Any passing glance at his sayings in the NT or the consensus of scholars who associate him with Jewish ascetic movements is enough to rubbish such a suggestion.
Say something about Jesus and somebody will disagree--maybe for good reasons, maybe not.
What do you take to be the core of Jesus' teachings? Please site a verse or two to support your view.
Comments (248)
Yeshua ben Yosef vMiri? He was probably an itinerant Jewish craftsman who worked in the nearest urban center of Sephoris in the Northern Judean district of Galilee. There were many sects of Judaism at the time. Their core doctrine was the Torah- the Teachings of Moses. Though they were attributed directly to Moses, the Sinai revelation, and the Passover story in 1200 BCE, the teachings were probably compiled from several oral (and some written) traditions around the time of the Babylonian Captivity and subsequent Persian return to Judea in the 400s BCE. And though the Torah was the founding written document, there were many interpretations in regards to how the Laws of Moses were to be practiced. What does it mean not to do work on the Sabbath? If one is in mortal danger, can one break a law on the Sabbath? What does it mean to be Kosher? These are the kind of interpretations of the Law that were being asked, and they were often answered in very different ways. Saducees were the group mainly represented by the High Priestly class established in Jerusalem. Depending on your reading, they either had a more "personalized" "do it your self" version of the law, or a more "literal" version of the law, with no oral arguments from a long line of rabbis of how to interpret it. If you were a Pharisee, you claimed that there was a long line of rabbis that taught an oral tradition as to how to follow it. If you were an Essene from the Dead Sea Scroll sect, you thought both the Pharasidic and the Sadducee interpretation of the Law was too soft, not to mention their acceptance of foreign rule in YHWH's Holy Land. They thought that Ezekiel, Zachariah and the rest were correct- the End of Days will be near when God's rule will reign supreme, the Jews will rule their ancestral lands, and foreigners will be driven out of the region with the help of a messianic figure.
Similar to the Essenes (or perhaps a low level version of the same core take on the Law), were the zealots. These were people from various backgrounds who often wanted to purify the current system with its corrupt priests, and Temple institution. They wanted to bring back a purity to the law that was being corrupted by foreign influence of both Herodian rule in the Galilee and the direct Roman- Temple Priest Establishment in the Jerusalem. This is where John the Baptist would come in. He was probably a break-off Essene, a head of his sect of Judaism which wanted to purify the laws and the leadership and envisioned the End of Times and the Kingdom of God with its messianic rule was near. A messiah in this case being the original Hebrew meaning of "Anointed One", in other words a king who will reestablish the dynasty of David (the rightful lineage for all Jewish kings), clean the established rule with a purified version of the Law, and bring about The Kingdom of God and the End of Times.. One of John's disciples from the same Galilean region was Yeshua ben Yosef who embraced much of John's message of trying to live righteously by abiding to the intended meaning of the Laws of Moses. He was also known as a local healer of sorts- one of many Jewish miracle-workers of the time.. Usually miracle-workers were paid, but he did it for free which made him in high demand in places with populations of psychological and physical maladies. His interpretation of the Torah plus his miracle-working made him a mild B star celebrity.. Then, he made a fatal error in deciding to go to Jerusalem to rail against the corruption of the Priests and how they were not following the Laws of Moses in the right interpretation.. Some Pharisees thought this guy wasn't bad, an Am Ha-aretz (person from the land), who had some zeal for the Laws of Moses (like many attempted Jewish Messianic figures were doing at the time against Rome and the Establishment).. He did it predictably on Passover, the most politically charged holiday as it commemorates freedom from foreign rule and bondage- something Rome and the prefect Pontius Pilate knew quite well. Pilate was known for his cruelty in rule, but if you read Josephus, his cruelty was the only reason why there were no major rebellions during his long reign.. He crucified thousands of rebellions and would-be messianic claimants trying to reestablish David's kingdom. Jesus met the same fate as many of his countryman during this time.. It was not a good idea to symbolically try to overthrow the Temple establishment (that was closely overseen by the Roman governors) during the most politically tumultuous holiday of Passover, a recipe for being crucified.
So after Jesus' death, his brother James took over leadership of this sect of Jews, and taught people that this guy was so good he can't be dead.. They did not see him as a "Son of God", unless in the general sense that it was a messianic (political kingly) title or just a really righteous guy. Anyways, even if he wasn't dead or he was the first to ressurect (which was and is a part of mainstream Jewish belief.. that the dead will rise at the end of times), he was not seen as part of God himself, that came later with Paul.. Paul from Tarsus, got involved with this group, changed the message a bit to mean that Jesus was a real Son of God, whose death and resurrection meant that the Laws of Moses no longer applied. He was having a hard time finding many Jewish adherents to this new interpertation of the Jesus sect.. but he found plenty in the Gentile communiites.. James, being the brother of Jesus and knowing him a bit more closely than Paul, rightly was pissed and basically tried to stop Paul's teachings.. This Pauline version became "Christianity" with mystery cult rites of eating flesh/blood (shades of Mithra cult), and a god who was higher than the Law (shades of Gnosticism where God of light above the Demiurge)..
Anywho, the original Jewish Jesus sect headed by a succession of Jesus' brothers and family died off. They were a bit too far out there for regular synogauge attendance (a Messiah that was dead many years past cannot be the messiah anymore especially if Rome has destroyed the Temple now and Jews are scattered).. But they certainly weren't into the whole paganistic idea of a godman that dies for your sins (Pauline Gentile Christianity).. So they were in a limbo and essentially assimilated in one of the two groups and probably went underground for the first 300 years of Pauline Christianity's reign.
Anyways, long story short, Jesus' message was follow the Torah by keeping close to its intended meaning as the prophets taught. The End.
Can I do this without citing anything? Its “turn your other cheek”: a very worrier-for-peace mentality that was likely sometimes played out in blood by his associates … whose meaning has been badly mauled by the powers that be of history. See, you had a guy that was deemed an impudent infidel about to be slapped as an inferior by some Roman soldier. But being a Gnostic in Jesus’s camp (no Christian existed back in Jesus’s time; these came about much later after the trinity was invented), the Gnostic indicated to the tough Roman soldier “brother, hit me if you deem it just, but slap me with the other side of your hand like you would slap a fellow that's equal in worth to yourself”, this by turning his/her other cheek after having been slapped like a subhuman/slave/inferior. Which, given the way policing often works, likely got at least some of these Gnostics into a lot of trouble. And yes, I have no doubt that sometimes—as was the case with Gandhi’s crowd—it became deadly for the Gnostic who so stood up to the Roman soldier.
So, basically, “turn your other cheek” epitomizes his stance on humanitarian values, like the equality of intrinsic worth between people, etc. Well, as long as it’s interpreted the only way it could have been interpreted back in Roman times by anyone Roman.
OK: all this imo. and I acknowledge differences with scholars on this
---
found the citation:
Jesus said let it go. It's not doing any good. It's just twisting your soul.
For me the core of Jesus' teachings will always be that suffering, pain, and damnation await those who do not kowtow to God.
God created Jesus (himself) and then forsook (betrayed IMO) Jesus when he had him crucified in order to make the world right again. (I like to joke that God uses blood magic to do his mysterious works and so dispenses with human life whenever). God is Gargamel and we're the smurfs.
Well now Jesus is paying it forward, and threatens to judge and torture us in a similar manner so that forgiveness can happen (revenge). If Jesus is our heavenly father and God is our heavenly grandfather, Christians are afflicted by inter-generational domestic abuse.
Thanks for that.
In order to understand Christianity, it is necessary to "mind the gap" between the time of somebody identified as Jesus (Joshua) and the emergence of the religion "Christianity" some centuries later. Jesus/Joshua was a Jew, not a Christian, and his self-understanding and how he was understood by others was always in the context of variegated Judaism.
Which is not to say there was not a trail of continuity between Jesus and the organized church. There was some sort of continuity; there had to have been, but the trail has been lost in times and places.
The early church compiled, edited, and published the New Testament, without first, second or maybe even third-hand knowledge of the historical, religious, and physical reality of Judah and Israel. What they had was current practice, a pile of mismatched writings, and their own theological needs--the last of which was sometimes read back into the Gospels.
Whether Jesus actually “took bread, blessed and broke it, and gave it to the disciples and said, ‘Take, eat; this is my body.’ And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, saying, ‘Drink of it, all of you; for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins" or not is unknown. The sayings could have grown out of the communal meal the early Christians ate (it was a real meal, not just a liturgy) and it could have been can actual quote. We just don't, won't, and can't know for sure. Compare the liturgy to Exodus 24:8 "Moses then took the blood, sprinkled it on the people and said, "This is the blood of the covenant that the LORD has made with you in accordance with all these words."
Rather than respond directly to that, I think it might be helpful to consider what kind of human being He was. Of course the dogma was thrashed out over centuries in answer this question, and in fact considerable blood was shed in arriving at the final formulation (see The Jesus Wars). But from the viewpoint of philosophical anthropology and comparative religion, where does Jesus fit? What kind of man was he?
I think the answer is that he was the God-realised being. That expression itself is much more characteristic of the neo-Vedanta associated with the likes of Paramahansa Yogananda, who formed the Self-Realisation Fellowship in Los Angeles in the 1920's (which is still in existence). But according to the Hindu view of life, the divine manifests in human form as an avatar (a term which has now entered pop culture), of which Jesus Christ was an example. As evidence for that, they point to the 'three wise men from the East' who appeared at the scene of Christ's birth (those crafty orientals know a thing or two).
I noticed, when I became familiar with the writings of and about the still highly-regarded Hindu sage, Sri Ramana Maharishi, that he frequently referred to Biblical texts and teachings, and to the person of Jesus Christ as the exemplar of the realised being. However he would never agree with the idea of salvation by 'vicarious atonement'. More it was a matter of realising the same state that Jesus spoke of, which the Vedantins identify with mok?a, liberation or enlightenment. Read that way, all of Jesus' teachings are references to that state of being; 'I and the Father are One' is a re-statement of the non-dual (advaita) nature of such a realisation, where all sense of separate selfhood is lost. In that interpretation, the crucifiction is the death of the ego, and the resurrection being reborn into real life.
I suppose from an orthodox Christian view, such a view is deeply offensive, as Christians are inordinately attached to the idea that Jesus Christ is the only instance of such a being in the whole history of the planet. I think the Hindu response to that would be that this amounts to a misunderstanding of the sense of 'only' - Christ is truth as distinct from falsehood, not Christian as distinct from some other religion. Religions are after all just the 'footprints of the ox', to allude to another Eastern metaphor. So in this view, Jesus was a peripatetic sage (as is well-known, there is a large period of his life which is unaccounted for in the Bible, heaven knows where he was then), who realised the state of supreme enlightenment, which he teaches to others, and which is so utterly subversive of the religious orders of his day, that he is put to death for his efforts, but then is resurrected, due to the power of his realisation, thereby forming the basis for the Christian faith.
You've subtly shifted your claim here. You originally said that Jesus didn't preach asceticism. Now you're saying that he didn't require people to be ascetics. I think the first claim is still false. He did preach asceticism, and he even practiced asceticism. Did he require his followers to do so? His answer seems to be, yes, but only if one is able (Matthew 19:12).
I wasn't trying to weasel out of an earlier statement. I still think that Jesus didn't preach asceticism and indifference, and that he didn't require good people to be ascetics. However, I'll grant you, what Jesus said and did can be used for and against a claim about Jesus and asceticism.
For instance, in TSOTM, Jesus says, "Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon the earth, where moth and rust consume, and where thieves break through and steal: but lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven... for where your treasure is, there will your heart be also." These are strong words in favor of asceticism.
Still in TSOTM, Jesus says, "Be not therefore anxious, saying, What shall we eat? or, What shall we drink? or, Wherewithal shall we be clothed? For after all these things do the Gentiles seek; for your heavenly Father knoweth that ye have need of all these things." These words do not direct people to do without, but rather, to trust that God will provide what is needed.
What Jesus did definitely preach is the coming Kingdom of God. Our ordinary lives are just not going to lead to the Kingdom. Neither prosperity and consumption nor poverty and self-denial will get one into the kingdom; asceticism is beside the point. So is doing a good business.
The final judgement on our lives isn't based on our substantial or negligible net worth. It's "for I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, I was naked and you gave me clothing, I was sick and you took care of me, I was in prison and you visited me.’ (Matthew 25:31–36" Again, asceticism is beside the point -- as are a good many other concerns.
I find in the final judgement passage a very concise statement of Jesus' core teachings.
How do you interpret that? As a political revolution and an overthrowing of the establishment? As an 'end of the world' cataclysm?
My interpretation is more-or-less this, though it is kind of shabby in explanation by itself.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingship_of_God_(Judaism)
If Jesus was a student under John the Immerser's (the "Baptist's) interpreation of the Laws of Moses, and John was a subsect/break-off or even full practitioner of a type of Essenic interpretation, then it would be reasonable that views as espoused in the Dead Sea Scroll sect were probably similar to what John/Jesus were talking about with terms like "Kingdom of God". Here is a text that may even be misconstrued as "Early Christian".. that is to say the very earliest Jesus Movement before Pauline Christianity..
[quote=Fragment 1 in Dead Sea Scrolls translation by Robert Eisenman]
Column 2 (1)[... The Hea]vens and the earth will obey His Messiah, (2) [... and all th]at is in them. He will not turn aside from the Commandments of the Holy Ones. (3) Take strength in His service, (you) who seek the Lord. (4) Shall you not find the Lord in this, all you who wait patiently in your hearts? (5) For the Lord will visit the Pious Ones (Hassidim) and the Righteous (Zaddikim) will He call by name. (6) Over the Meek will His Spirit hover, and the Faithful will He restore by His power. (7) He shall glorify the Pious Ones (Hassidim) on the Throne of the Eternal Kingdom. (8) He shall release the captives, make the blind see, raise up the do[wntrodden.] (9) For[ev]er will I cling [to Him ...], and [I will trust] in His Piety (Hesed, also ‘Grace’), (10) and [His] Goo[dness...] of Holiness will not delay ...(11) And as for the wonders that are not the work of the Lord, when He ... (12) then He will heal the sick, resurrect the dead, and to the Meek announce glad tidings. (13)... He will lead the [Holly Ones; He will shepherd [th]em; He will do (14)...and all of it... Fragment l Column 3 (1) and the Law will be pursued. I will free them ... (2) Among men the fathers are honored above the sons ...(3)I will sing (?)the blessing of the Lord with his favor...(4) The 1[an]d went into exile (possibly, ‘rejoiced) every-wh[ere...] (5) And all Israel in exil[e (possibly ‘rejoicing’) ...] (6) ... (7) ...
Fragment 2
(1) ... their inheritan[ce...] (2) from him ...
Fragment 3 Column 1 (4) ... he will not serve these people (5) ... strength () ... they will be great Fragment 3 Column 2 (1) And... (3) And ... (5) And ... (6) And which ... (7) They gathered the noble[s...] (8) And the eastern parts of the heavens ... (9) [And] to all yo[ur] fathers ... Fragment 4 (5) ... they will shine (6)... a man (7) ... Jacob (8)... and all of His Holy implements (9)... and all her anointed ones (10)... the Lord will speak... (11) the Lord in [his] might (12)... the eyes of Fragment 5 (1)... they [will] see all... (2) and everything in it... (3) and all the fountains of water, and the canals... (4) and those who make... for the sons of Ad[am...] (5) among these curs[ed ones.] And what ...(6) the soothsayers of my people ... (7) for you ... the Lord ... (8) and He opened...v
It's definitely "end of the world", but I wouldn't call it cataclysm. It's for the good.
Column 1
(1) [Now, hear me, all my sons, and I will speak] about that Wisdom which God gave me... (2) [For 13e gave me the Knowledge of Wisdom and instruc[tion] to teach [all the sons of Truth]...
Column 2
(1) [Blessed is he who walks] with a pure heart and who doesn’t slander with his Tongue. Blessed are they who hold fast to her Laws and do not hold (2) to the ways of Evil. Bless[ed] are they who rejoice in her and do not overflow with the ways of folly. Blessed are they who ask for her (3) with clean hands and do not seek her with a deceitful [heart]. Blessed is the man who grasps hold of Wisdom and walks (4) in the Torah of the Most High and directs his heart to her Ways and restrains himself with her disciplines and always accepts her chastisements. (5) and doesn’t cast her off in the misery of [his] afflictions nor forsake her in a time of trouble, nor forget her in [days of terror, (6) and in the Meekness of his soul, doesn’t despis[e her], but rather always meditates on her, and when in affliction, occupies himself [with God’s Torah; who al]1 (7) his life [meditates] on her [and places her continually] before his eyes so he will not walk in the ways of [Evil]... (8) in unity and his heart is Perfect. God... (9) and W[isdom will lift up] his h[ead] and sea[t him] among kings... . (10) They [shall look upon... brothers will be fr[uitful]... (12) Now, my sons, War my voice and do] not turn aside [from the words of my mouth ....
Column 2 (Fragment 4)
(1)... to possess her with his heart... (2) with a deceitful heart. And in W[isdom]... (3) [You shall not] abandon [your inheritances to a foreign wife or your hereditary portions to foreigners, because those with Wi[sdom]... (4) They shall consider . ..(the Torah) of God, protect her paths and walk in [all her Ways.] (5)... her statutes, and not reject her admonishments. Those with Understanding will bring forth [words of insight... (6) (and) walk in p[eace]. The Perfect will thrust aside Evil. They will not reject her chastisements... . [Those with Wisdom] (7) will be supported [by the strength of Wisdom]. The intelligent will recognize her Ways [and plumb] her depths... (8) The Lovers of God will look upon her, walking carefully within her bounds.
Column 3
(1) [No]... is like her... (2) She will not be bought with gold or [silver]... (3) nor any precious gem... (4) they resemble one another in the be[au]ty of their faces... (5) and purple flowers with... (6) crimson with every [delightful] garment... (7) and with gold and rubies...
Column 4
(2) for the atonement of sin and for weeping... (3) they shall lift up your head... (4) Perfection because of your word and Perfection... (5) for splendor and lovely in... (6) was revealed in your Ways. You shall not waiver... (7) You will be upheld at the time you falter, and you will find [Grace...] (8) The reproach of those who hate [you] shall not draw near you... (9) together, and those who hate you will be destroyed... [Shall rejoice] (10) your heart and you shall delight in [God]... (11) God [your] father has taught, and on the [backs] of your [enemies] will you tread. And... (12) Your soul shall deliver you from all Evil, and the dread of [your enemies] shall not come near you. (13) He will cause you to inherit, and fill your days with Goodness, and in abundance of peace you shall de[light]... (14) You shall inherit Glory. Even though you pass away to (your) eternal abode, [all your loved ones] shall inherit... (15) All those who know you shall walk in harmony with your teaching [and] he[ar your words]... (16) Together will they mourn and in your ways remember you, for you were... (18) And now, understand, hear me, and set your heart to [do]... (19) Bring forth the Knowledge of your inner self and in... meditate... (20) In the Meekness of Righteousness bring forth [your] words in order to give them... [Don’t] (21) respond to the words of your neighbor lest he give you... (22) As you hear, answer accordingly... [Do not] (23) pour out complaints before listening to their words. And... [Do not respond] vehemently (24) before hearing their words. Afterwards respond [in the Perfection of your heart.] (25) And with patience utter (your words) and answer truthfully before officers (even ‘rulers’) with a To[ngue of... (26) with your lips, and guard against the stumbling block of the Tongue... (27) lest you be convicted by your lips and ensnared together with a Tong[ue of... (28) impropriety... from it and they will be perverse...[/s]
Such verses can be interpreted 'esoterically', i.e. the 'captives' are captives 'to the flesh'. and are therefore 'blind', i.e. not seeing 'the Kingdom', and are downtrodden on that account. 'She' who will not be bought with gold or silver is Sophia, wisdom, subject of the gnostic gospel, Pistis Sophia.
But if you read it as a political manifesto it has a very different meaning - it is interpreted to mean something like a revolution or uprising of 'the oppressed'.
Quoting Wayfarer
More a revolution and an overthrowing of the establishment than a cataclysmic end of the world: "For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places (Ephesians 6:12). More the messianic banquet: "Isaiah 25:6 The LORD of hosts will prepare a lavish banquet for all peoples on this mountain; A banquet of aged wine, choice pieces with marrow..."
Whether the Kingdom of God would literally be here in this world, (high CO2 levels, plastic in the oceans, glowing nuclear piles, garbage heaps and all) I don't know.
Reminiscent of Isaiah 61, The Spirit of the Sovereign LORD is on me, because the LORD has anointed me to proclaim good news to the poor. He has sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim freedom for the captives and release from darkness for the prisoners.
But how would "principalities, powers, rules of the darkness of this world and spiritual wickedness" signify the establishment? Right at the beginning there it says "not against flesh and blood".
No doubt there was a lot of escoteric traits to this, but in the tradition of Ezekiel's vision of the Chariot, and other Jewish escoteric literature at the time. It fits the context of Second Temple Period Judaism, especially spanning from the Persian/Greek/Roman rule in the region (400 BCE- 70 BCE). However, it should not be confused with a complete break from political considerations. This group most likely wanted to establish a purified Judaism under a leader- either the classic Messianic type, a dual Kingly and Priestly type or through a Teacher of Righteousness or some combination thereof.
More Dead Sea Scrolls:
Whoever approaches the Courrcil of the Community shall enter the
Covenant of God in the presence of all who have freely pledged
themselves. He shall undertake by a binding oath to retum with all his
heart and soul to every commandment of the Law of Moses in
accordance with all that has been revealed of it to the sons of Zadok,
the Priests, Keepers of the Covenant and Seekers of His will, and to
the multitude of the men of their Covenant who together have freely
pledged themselves to His truth and to walking in the way of His
delight. And he shall undertake by the Covenant to separate from all
the men of injustice who walk in the way of wickedness.
But still, there is an establishment on this world (all the worldly power centers) that would have to go before the Kingdom of Heaven or Kingdom of God could be realized.
What do you think?
I would say in general its references to the meek and poor being lifted up. There is evidence that the early Jesus Movement (not Pauline version yet) were known as the Ebionim (the poor ones). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ebionites
It almost seems like you place all of your eggs in the basket of texts dealing with the Judaic people and religion, using it to refute the version of Jesus the early church portrayed, and yet the early Church itself is equally documented by historical texts. And the fact that the early Church didn't start solidifying it's views until a few hundred years after Jesus seems just about parallel to how the earliest texts in the OT (Genesis, Job etc) are symbolical myth, and not direct historical accounts. So in other words, both religions, Judaism and Christianity, are not generated historistically (yay I made a word).
To me the fact that it begins with "not against flesh and blood" just signifies that it's not a physical struggle, and so then whatever comes next (principalities, etc.), must be metaphorical to refer to something spiritual. On that note, I've always interpreted the Kingdom of God as teleological. But that doesn't exclude the possibility of it existing physically. Another interesting perspective is Tolstoy's "the kingdom of God is within you", which I think is from the Gospel of Thomas or something.
I agree, I said in my very first post on here that the Hebrew bible, and particularly the Laws of Moses were probably not even compiled until the 400s BCE, long after the events depicted. The religion was probably henotheistic according to archeological evidence- there was one god El/Yaweh who was the most important tribal god and over time was championed by certain "Prophets" devoted to the sole observance of the god. In time, it became a jealous god and indeed became the only one. The tribal deity became the sole deity. The domestic gods of the hearth and field, the traditional Canaanite pantheon of Baal, Ashtarte, El, and others replaced by only El to become possibly Elohim (god but curiously plural)- all the gods into one universally relevant one. Yahweh became intertwined with Elohim, possibly combining southern and northern Judean traditions.
Fascinating.
Quoting Noble Dust
No, and look it from one angle and it looks purely spiritual; look at from another angle and it seems like a revolution brewing. It can be either -- the Kingdom of God is within you, or the Kingdom of God is breaking into this world. All sorts of ambiguity and possible interpretation. Which, of course, is one of the things that keeps it going. Had Jesus (or anybody else) laid out a 2,000 year timeline, a plan, objectives, strategies, milestones, etc. we'd have forgotten about it long ago. We humans, even divine ones, don't seem to have the capacity to think in detail for the long run ahead. Therefore, myth, mysticism and prophecy work better. Later generations can pick up the skein and keep on weaving.
Or both! breaking into the world through the inner life of the creative spirit within you. This is actually closest to my current interpretation. So it would involve the physical world in this case, but in order for the Kingdom to also be salvific, it can't be purely social, and it can't stay within the bounds of physical reality. The Kingdom does have to transcend the physical, I think. How, exactly, I'm not sure...all just conjecture here.
Yes it is! A nationalistic god absorbed lesser ones, and were probably championed by those who were keepers of the ancient laws- The Prophets, and the scribes. Anyways.. that is way too detailed.. The point though is that, even if the Judaism of the Second Temple Period was essentially the result of historical contingencies, the actual beliefs, customs, and historical understanding of the Torah as "true" and a unified tribal history with one god and his people was already solidly in place at the time of Jesus, making it very much a reality of his time and culture. Thus not considering this aspect would be ripping Jesus from his context, time, and place. You can just put anything there that you like rather than reconstructing the most likely historical circumstances based on place, culture, etc. If you want to make him some sort of Stoic or Cynic, then you will. If you want to make him as a Gandhi, then you will. He just becomes anything you want and divorced from any reality. As @Bitter Crankld "mind the gap" of his time and place.. and that means grappling with the Judaism of his time, and how he fit into it, not how later interpreters wanted you to see him.. Remember, all the Gospels were written AFTER Paul's writings..and thus reinterpretation.
Yeah, "God of the high place".. probably as in "God of that hill over yonder". Actually that is El Elyon.. isn't El Shaddai more like God Almighty?
The only thing I don't understand in what you've said here is how you come to the conclusion that Jesus was basically teaching to just follow the Torah better. Does that come from historical documents, is it an interpretation, or what?
Even though I know that many people see 'the Kingdom of God' as reference to establishing a political order. I had always thought that it was reference to a different or transformed way of being - that Jesus is teaching 'those with ears to hear' about a way of being which is radically transformed or different to how we normally understand or experience the world. I think that would have political implications, but I don't understand in primarily in political terms.
Here 'evil' is the erroneous clinging or attachment to 'the world', i.e. personal relationships, possessions, homes and children - same as any renunciate philosophy in the ancient world. 'Evil' is said to 'rule' the world precisely because 'the world' is pre-occupied with power, pleasure, possessions, and everything associated with it. Note the parallels with early Buddhism where likewise, religious virtue is associated with 'going forth' into homelessness and the abandonment of possessions and social status.
I think it is just the best interpretation if we are not ripping him from his historical context. There is no silver bullet in ancient history- especially this part. But, let's look at primary sources like Josephus (without the obvious Christian redaction passage), Dead Sea Scroll sect (Essenic) literature, evidence of various parts of the synoptic gospels (even just the progression of how the gospels looked from Mark to John), the evidence from Acts and Paul's letters, Talmudic passages about this time period, the political turmoil of this time- the Zealots, the Roman appointed Priests, the 20 or so mentioned (meaning 100s or so not mentioned) wandering Messianic claimants from the Roman period, the later reports of Ebionites, the enormous secondary literature that at least embraces most of this view.. from PBS specials "From Jesus to Christ" to mildly academic enterprises (Bart Ehrman, Hyam Maccoby, Reza Aslan, James Tabor, Dominic Crossan, etc.) There is very much a consensus that he must be seen in the light of his place and time, and not the "Just so" overlays to create the Christology that one wants to produce to get Paul's vision (Christ Lord risen to forgive your sins if you believe).
I didn't even mention later writings and non-canonical gospels..
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clementine_literature
I'm not nearly the scholar you are on those various sources, and I'm interested in learning more, but at the same time, how should religious experience be factored into interpretations of historical religious texts? After all, it must be factored in, because we're dealing with religion. So Paul, for instance, claims to have had a miraculous encounter with Jesus that turned all of Paul's allegiances on it's head. If there's truth to his experience, then a radical reinterpretation of Christ is plausible.
Isn't that historicism, or historical reductionism?
Unless we think Jesus had a trans-historical mind, transcended time and place--I don't see how it could be otherwise. Historical reductionism?
If we see God working in history, through actual people, places, events... then don't we have to make an attempt at a historical understanding of what God is about?
If we see God working through Martin Luther King, or Che Guevara, or Mao Zedong, or God help us all--Donald Trump, don't we have to understand God IN history, and not ABOVE or OUTSIDE history?
Jesus lived in a particular time and place, was as exposed to the streams of faith, resentments, hopes, fears, irritations, etc. that everybody else was exposed to. He wasn't in a bubble.
(That's one view. There are others.)
The same thing applies to any of the figures in the Bible that we know something about from their writings (like the prophets, for instance). They lived in specific times and had specific issues that concerned them. They weren't speaking a-historically, or trans-historically.
I think the formal theological understandiing is 'transcendent yet immanent' - appearing in the world yet not of the world (John17:16). If Jesus means anything, it is precisely because he is eternal, not of the world and not of the order of time (Mt 24:35).
Credible? Y/N?
Turns water to wine, but can't make well water cleaner >:O O:)
"He doesn't speak like the scribes – he speaks with authority!"
If we wanted to single out the most important aspect of his teaching, it was probably the announcement of the Kingdom of God -- a continuation of John the Baptist's message asking for repentence and conversion. However, although this may be the core of Jesus' teaching, it is not the core of the Jesus event as conveyed by those who were most impacted by it.
That's an interesting observation. I wonder if that could be the genesis of the evangelical emphasis (fixation) on a "personal relationship with God". Almost a cult of personality in regards to Jesus.
That's plausible, but I don't think the idea of personal relationship really took hold until the 20th century. Which kind of debunks my previous thought as well. Or, maybe both things and other factors influenced the change.
I mean, you can't say all here; like I said, it's a pretty modern concept to have a "personal relationship" with God. That was not a concept from Jesus time, through the middle ages, the great schism, the reformation. It's not a big element in Eastern Orthodoxy, for instance. It does exist in the Pentecostal church, yes, which is a very modern denomination. I'm not too familiar with Catholicism, so I'm not sure, but again, it certainly can't be historically an aspect of Catholicism. Maybe they've adopted it now; I wouldn't know. So no, all Christians have not historically had that view, but nowadays, I would venture to say all evangelical Christians do (it's the basis of evangelism afterall). It's emphasis in other protestant denominations varies. And again, most of those denominations are pretty modern.
So historically, it's emphasis grew out of revivalism in the US in the 19th century. The Evangelical denomination is descended from revivalism.
Generally though Catholicism has the most rigid internal hierarchy where studying scripture still is somewhat in the hands of the clergy. You confess your sins to a priest and the priest forgives you; he's an intermediary. The priest blesses the blood and the body, and interprets it's meaning for you.
I'm not too familiar with Pentecostal trends, but non-denominational born-again Christians basically incorporate this idea into all of their religious practices. For them God is a relationship, not a religion. They "speak in tongues" and believe that they're communicating directly with god.
The chasm between a Catholic notion of "relationship with god" and the non-denominational notion is massive.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
Fair enough. I agree with the last bit :)
Quoting VagabondSpectre
The priest doesn't interpret anything during the Eucharist. Everyone ought to understand what is going on.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
True. I only compared the two forms of Christianity in order to contrast the ways in which a relationship is understood to be had with God in each.
Well, in a Protestant, evangelical understanding, having a relationship with God means communicating to him through prayer, and listening for his communication through reading Scripture. So it's more literal in that sense.
How in the world would we know what sort of working God is doing, though? Just because people put to writing claims about God doing this or inspiring that doesn't mean that's what God is actually doing any such thing.
What standard do we use to judge God's dealings in history? How do we know what God is about, anyway? Do we just use whatever we value most in this particular time? God is love is very appealing, but a Roman or Spartan God might be brave and unflinching instead, and so on. And clearly, people's views on God's nature have changed quite a bit over time.
Love exists between humans because social bonding is important to the survival of social animals. But God is not a social animal. God's not biological at all, if there is such a being.
Maybe God is Brahman is just wants us to get over the illusion of being separate beings, or whatever.
Quoting Marchesk
Indeed, how would we. This is "God talk"--not 'God talking' but people talking who believe in God, or who may believe in God, people who would like to believe in God, or people who in times past believed in God and haven't forgotten the argot.
God talk people "discern" what God is doing; they pray [God answers their prayers[; they read the Bible and then the New York Times, and decide what God must be doing, and so on.
If you don't believe in God, then God talk isn't very convincing.
I rather doubt that Rev. Martin Luther King (or Rev. Martin Luther, for that matter) had any doubts about God working in history. Perhaps The Philosophy Forum is part of God's grand design. But then again, perhaps not.
Right, particularly because the God talk very much depends on who is doing the discerning.
Talk about injecting your own beliefs and completely bastardizing the point he was trying to make and if you are angry with a religious organisation (clearly by you saying "God created Jesus (himself)" which proves some connection since there are many that consider Jesus as just a man) then focus on that rather than betraying the wisdom that the scriptures alone and separately can exemplify.
When you tell a child holding a knife to be careful otherwise they might cut themselves and the consequences could be blood and pain and anguish, the warning does not imply that the suffering is somehow desired in part of the friend. If the friend didn't care, they would look on and not say a word. So words like "suffer" is the unhappiness of being in a "hell" - a life lacking in moral consciousness - where the misery therewith is the "damnation" of never truly understanding the pleasures of the authenticity and autonomy of love. The violence against someone innocent like Jesus moves our conscience, what instigates an awareness of our own humanity, of being able to objectively and consciously care for things outside of ourselves and to genuinely feel. It is love and there is nothing greater than the feeling of loving someone enough to not want them to feel pain or hurt in anyway, hence our conscience being the very impetus to our humanity. Hence:
"Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends."
Friendship is the beginning of love because we care for someone other than ourselves, we bond without preferential treatment and we want them to be happy. You can't hate Jesus, he is a really nice guy, so we care for him and feel sorry that he died in such a horrible way. The statement implies that he died for us as a friend, that is, the idea that by doing so it will awaken our conscience and enable us to feel love since in doing so will ultimately provide us with the greatest pleasure and happiness. See through it, don't take on the words literally.
Setting aside all religions and just reading the scriptures as it is unadulterated by codified institutional processes and cultural influences and thinking of these descriptions as parables, it is quite simply an attempt to awaken your conscience through love. It is the very Kantian point vis-a-vis the problem of evil and it needs to be sincere, hence the autonomy and why 'morality inevitably leads to religion' that only becomes corrupted by people over time.
God is the ultimate, the omnipresent, what we should aspire to by having faith in ourselves - that is, by not conforming or following by finding the will to autonomy and thinking for yourself - because that is the only way you will ever authentically reach moral consciousness. We, as humans, have the tendency to follow an "image" (hence idols) or someone rather than learn to look within since who we are is just as difficult to grasp as the omnipresent and if:
"Beloved, let us love one another, because love comes from God. Everyone who loves has been born of God and knows God. Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love."
Love - our conscience - is the core of who we are so if we seek love - God - we will find ourselves by becoming morally conscious.
So should Jesus' sayings have no historical analysis whatsoever? The sayings cannot be compared to other sayings, influences, and otherwise use of parallel writings?
Some things historians of religion might ask:
What is most authentic to time/place? What are interpolations from later dates? This is NOT always cut and dry. What may be written earlier may not necessarily be as accurate as what is written later but from a more accurate primary source with an unknown origin.
How are the writings similar to or different from what others have written during this time period? Why might they be similar? Why might they be different?
What does the archaeology of this place reveal?
How does what is written fit into the context of what was taking place?
What contradicts other sources?
Christianity had several major changes and schisms early on. How did the schisms influence the view of Jesus and his teachings? In other words, how does it influence what is said, what is not said, and how it should be interpreted?
Trust in the LORD with all your heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding...
I don't bastardize scripture, I interpret it quite fairly. And these aren't my beliefs I'm injecting, they're Christian beliefs:
In the old testament forgiveness was purchased through the blood of sacrificial animals. In the new testament forgiveness was purchased through the blood of Jesus. God explicitly requires blood (death/suffering) in order to forgive....
The ritualized nature of this in Christianity resembles pagan blood magic. Modern Christians scoff at haitian hoodoo priests cutting off the heads of chickens as if they're practicing black magic, but what exactly would you call sacrificing a goat (or human/son of god) on an altar or symbolically consuming the flesh and blood of Christ every month as if it somehow bestows boons?. The tale of the binding of Isaac disgusts me: "God says to sacrifice my son... GREAT IDEA GOD! And oh! God gave me a lamb at the last possible second to sacrifice instead! WHAT INFINITE WISDOM!!!".
So tell me exactly how it is that morality leads to religion?
I've read the bible cover to cover and it didn't awaken my conscience through love. It awakened a sense of thankfulness for not being governed by people who are willing to carry out abhorrent, wasteful, and violent actions (as depicted in the bible) in the name of god-love.
I refuse to submit to religiously inspired love because if I do that then I'm at the mercy of all the ridiculous baggage that tends to come included in any actual religion. I love myself and my family well enough without religion, and I somewhat have love for humanity, and that's enough. I don't need what religion offers, so why should I bother?
Jesus is your pal until judgment day. Sure he offers you eternal after-life in paradise, but in the other hand he has a 1-way ticket to damnation. Unless we scramble to live according to Christian laws, according to Jesus we'll be sent straight to hell. This isn't me injecting belief, I'm just relaying what most Christians believe.
sword." Matthew 10:34
Shakespeare wrote that the Devil can cite Scripture for his own purpose, and so have we. It makes a person (me, at least) wonder just how sacred Scripture can be, in that case. As for the core of his teaching? Well, we cite for our own purpose, I suspect. Which do we prefer, the Jesus who is said to have said "Love one another" or is said to have said "hate, leave those you love and follow me"? We chose one or the other and seek to explain why the one is the case and the other is not.
Well, sure, from the perspective of history and comparative religion (which I majored in, by the way). But the point I was making with the 'water' analogy is this: what is Jesus referring to when he says 'drinking the water'? I think it's plainly symbolic, not a literal reference to 'water'. In the same sense, I don't think 'the Kingdom' is a reference to a political state at all. But very many people do think that.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
Before:
Quoting VagabondSpectre
Geez, that's fair. :-|
Quoting VagabondSpectre
So Christians believe in the smurfs? It was you who said... God is Gargamel and we're the surfs, right? You must be proud of your countries' education system.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
No, people want to see blood, not God. It seems that reconciliation with their conscience is only satisfied when they see death or violence of an innocent person since the injustice is shocking enough to make one conscious of the love for someone they have outside of themselves. Humans are not only innately evil but profoundly moronic and those pagan rituals they did were never warranted or requested, they were just transferred, a way of saying 'don't do such rituals to false idols but if you are stupid enough to do it, at least do it to the one true God'. You seem to be having trouble reading between the lines, probably because you have little historical knowledge; many Catholic traditions are extensions of Roman paganism, for instance.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
Christianity? Do you realise how many different religions fall under this umbrella? I mean, hasty generalisations are one thing, but to do it with such confidence is downright spooky.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
Calm down. *sigh, clearly things need to be spoon-fed to you. It is a story that has a point, the point being faith. Isaac wasn't actually murdered and he became a 'great people' as Abraham became the father of the monotheistic religions; individuals often represent broader subjects, a person represents a city or a country but clearly since you lack the wisdom, having this conversation with you is fast becoming tedious.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
If the story of Isaac escaped you, I highly doubt you actually read it 'cover to cover' but to be fair, you probably did read the cover, as in, just the one word before screaming off naked into the wilderness saying 'this is wrong!'
Quoting VagabondSpectre
Go read Kant and then we'll talk.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
Since when is reading the scriptures following a religion? No one is asking you to follow a religion. I read the Qur'an, but I'm not a muslim. Morality comes first, but you will never reach moral consciousness without rational autonomy and the elimination of anything prejudicial including the cultural or social influences that render your interpretations flawed. You need to see the wisdom as a way of accessing and improving your moral consciousness by making it your active duty to improve yourself and not as a duty to gain the approval of people or leaders. If you actually care about your moral well-being, you would see the wisdom behind the language and the parables. Religion is corrupt and it controls and demands with codified processes that is an inescapable problem for autonomy, but it doesn't suddenly mean that what it may have originally espoused and the reasoning behind it's existence as also completely wrong. There is no need to burn the Bible.
Some laws contained in the old testament are unequivocally barbaric. Do you disagree?
Quoting TimeLine
This was just a humorous analogy and not a statement of actual Christian belief. Did your education system not teach you about humor?
Quoting TimeLine
Timeline, my whole point is that people, such as yourself, will happily sit around telling people what god wants and doesn't want. In this case the bible tells me that god needs blood to forgive, and you tell me that he doesn't, and that the bible is actually filled with arbitrary pagan rituals held-over from earlier times.
I might have trouble reading between the lines of the bible, but you have trouble reading the lines themselves: "In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, in accordance with the riches of God's grace" Ephesians 7... "This is my blood of the[a] covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins" Matthew 26:28"
Quoting TimeLine
So a hasty generalization is a generalization that you make on the basis of too small a sample size. Since you seem to agree that Christianity resembles paganism, you've already agreed with my fair generalization. Misunderstanding fallacies is also spooky.
Quoting TimeLine
So then the story isn't about how we should be willing to faithfully obey god even if he commands you to murder your own child? It's really about becoming the father of religion and a great people? Oh. Makes complete unabridged sense.
You think defending religion from ridicule is tedious? Try composing effective ridicule for each of the hundreds of different religious approaches and interpretations that people haphazardly erect and ritualistically dance around.
Quoting TimeLine
So the story of Isaac unambiguously depicts Abraham being willing to kill his son to prove his devotion to god. Your bit about "father of religion" or "great people" is your own happy abstraction from the actual scripture. Now I'm convinced you've never actually read the bible.
Quoting TimeLine
How about you show you understand what you're talking about and show that it makes sense by submitting the argument I've requested you to submit. That's "talking". If you have no argument for your statement, then I'll casually brush it aside for the unsubstantiated postulate that it is.
Quoting TimeLine
I refuse to submit to religiously inspired emotion; I've already told you I've read the entire bible. It's not "reading scripture" that I'm refusing to do, it's "submitting to religiously inspired emotion".
You might think it's wise to emotionally submit to the wisdom of the parables, just like how Abraham emotionally submitted to the will of god and was prepared to murder his own son, but that's not moral well-being. That's closer to Stockholm syndrome than it is moral enlightenment.
"Don't murder", "Don't steal", "Don't lie", these are absolute basic moral positions which we don't need scripture to figure out or have confidence in. If that's the moral boon of religion, we could instead just be taught this by a cartoon designed for toddlers. I've never advocated for the burning of any books, but I can see how my pointing out the stupidity and immorality contained in the bible might make you see it that way.
Pentecostalism is a fairly modern religious trend; it was always possible for someone to speak in tongues (like they did on the first Pentecost) but people hadn't been doing it a lot. Now, if you're at a pentecostal service, you can expect several people to speak in tongues and several others to interpret what they said.
Fundamentalism is a modern reactionary movement in response to modernity and the "new criticism" of the Bible, where scholars started finding various narrative strands in books like Genesis. The scholars came up with new, complicated dating systems which suggested that the Bible had a fairly complicated history. They reacted to Darwin's theories for the same reason -- Darwin's evolutionary theories pushed the time line back far, far beyond the 5,000 year old date for earth. Modernity in the 19th century, especially after the American Civil War, dramatically changed life has it had been known. Cars, electricity, radio, airplanes, telephones--all 19th century or early 20th century.
Evangelicalism has older roots, going back to Luther. But closer to our time, it was the Second Great Awakening in the late 1700s, early 1800s, where evangelicalism as a specialty emerged. Methodists are one of the largest heirs of the evangelical movement. It isn't so much about theology as it is style. "Revivals" were definitely a tool during the Second Great Awakening, and on into the early 20th century. Revivals were both religious and social events that people enjoyed attending.
Southern Baptists and allied groups are most focussed on getting people to "accept Jesus as their personal savior". Among Mainline protestants and Catholics (in as much as I understand all these groups) the act of baptism -- infant or adult -- is the event that binds one to Jesus. Yes, one should confess one's sins, one should strive to do better, but "accepting Jesus as your personal savior" isn't a formula so much as a general understanding.
This is how I understand the history of 3 modern religious movements, not a personal testimony.
Yes, but it is up to you to figure out the analogy behind it, how it corresponds both historically and culturally, its parabolic symbolism to broader concepts and that can only be done when you don't follow by refraining from conforming to anything material including other people and cultures; when you just read for the sake of learning. That is the point of reason and how to transcend to a rational, autonomous being, which is only possible without such attachments and yet, conscious of the fact that we need to attach ourselves to something in order to stimulate our capacity to progress epistemically, the point of wisdom is to attach yourself to God - the omnipresent, the greatest good, hence your conscience and why the Bible says God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth - and your attempt to reach him so to speak is your will to consistently progress towards reaching a better understanding of yourself. You can't do that if you follow people and that includes religion, which is what happens after morality before becoming corrupted.
Moral consciousness, your conscience, love, is what leads to authentic happiness and peace forever, 'eternally' rather than being temporarily yet consistently stimulated by base pleasures. When you see your own mistakes and seek to improve yourself - hence being honest - there is no greater happiness. But righteousness is not all fluffy bunny feet stuff, it isn't walking around talking and pretending your are a nice person when you produce and do absolutely nothing, or as Solomon says for the lips of an adulterous woman drop (as) an honeycomb, and her mouth [is] smoother than oil as liars sweet-talk their way by deceiving you into thinking they are good people via tact, but it is fighting injustice, stopping the pain and anguish that others experience as much as it is taking care of yourself and enjoying the feelings that autonomy produces.
That is the point, we are selective with what we choose to believe. Heidegger is a douche. Does it mean that everything that he writes is unworthy of study? If you choose to hate the bible because you have some vendetta against religion, no matter how much one can exemplify the benefits of the wisdom - that is, the stories used through parables to help you appreciate your own moral fibre - you will refuse to acknowledge it. If you are going to be selectively stubborn, fine, but the reality is that you are not interpreting the scriptures, you are only hating the interpretations made by others.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
I am. You not only prove that you know nothing about Kant but that you are also painfully trying to mimic my methods of expressing the disillusionment to your so-called argument. Now run along and get your own personality.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
Moron.
So what's the parable behind the binding of Issac? Oh yea that's right, total submission to god's will. Great moral fiber that.
P.S You're making claims like "you must be unattached to people and culture to be rational", and "god is a spirit of greatest good", but you have not in any way substantiated those claims with evidence or argument. What parabolic symbolism does the Issac story have.
Quoting TimeLine
I don't understand how you start with asceticism and then explain that by preserving the base pleasures of others you will in fact discover more lasting pleasure. If it makes you happy to attempt altruism in this way, that's fine, but I'm thoroughly unconvinced; if base pleasures didn't exist or were not important, neither would be pain, anguish, or injustice for altruists to combat or take solace from doing so.
Quoting TimeLine
Well I'm still waiting for you to explain the moral wisdom behind the binding of Issac. And I'm not exactly filled with hate so much as I am filled with ridicule. I don't hate religion or the bible, I hate certain ideas (I detest them as harmful or irrational or both); ideas which I ridicule. Ideas like : your refusal to strain meaning from these ancient and largely barbarous fairy tales is why you will never be rational, moral, or happy. When I was a child I might have responded to such a veiled threat by acquiescing to your world view, but now that I've actually experienced life I know it's only an inexperienced mind that could possibly assent to it, or else an unrobust one seeking emotional refuge.
Quoting TimeLine
So you think that I'm trying to mimic your missing argument (which you're now telling me is that i have no argument) by asking you to submit your missing argument? What ironically foul school-yard circularity is this? Priceless:
You made a statement, "morality leads to religion". I said "why?". You said "go read Kant". and I said "how about you posit your own argument". I don't want, and refuse in principle, to waste any time trotting out and swatting down Kant so you can feel like you've contributed something to a debate. Kant isn't the one trying to tell me religious wisdom is the height of morality and reason, you are. So make with the reasoning already and spare the pleasant candor.
Quoting TimeLine
Here's a paraphrasing of the series of vague statements you made which I reckon is your argument:
Religious wisdom allows you to transcend into a rational autonomous being by shedding material attachments in favor of attachment to god (omnipresent and greatest good), which crates moral conscience in worship of the spirit of god, which allows you to progress toward a better understanding of yourself, which is what leads to authentic eternal happiness and peace forever.
Ah yes, smell that opium: Eternal happiness through religious wisdom.
I take it you agree though. Being willing to kill your own son for love of god is in reality more akin to Stockholm syndrome than moral-well being. It's a typical cult trait to demand that every adherent value their commitment to the cause above and beyond their love for their own family. The bible contains verses which are no exception. Deal with it.
I never said that. Hence the point of why it is impossible talking to you, just as much as it is impossible having a philosophical conversation with a drunkard. I said it is morality that leads to religion before it becomes corrupted by people, by codified rules and other institutional processes, infiltrated by the transferral of pagan rituals. But that has nothing to do with the bible. The statement that morality inevitably leads to religion is Kantian, hence the 'you know nothing about Kant' point.
Let me pace it down slower for you because clearly you are way too slow on the uptake. I agree that one should not follow a religion, but I don't agree that has anything to do with our ability to interpret the scriptures independent of religious influence. Jesus was a good guy. You are a moron.
You choose to read what you want, not what is actually being said and the language, tone, and attitude is so profoundly tiresome that I am almost confident that I could have a greater intellectual conversation with a bottle of tomato sauce.
You say:
Quoting VagabondSpectre
Before saying:
Quoting VagabondSpectre
That's just awkward. :-}
Quoting VagabondSpectre
Nope. Yet again, you fail to distinguish the difference between a hole in the ground and your nose.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
That explains a lot about why you are so angry. And one who has actually experienced life wouldn't chuck a childish fit and intentionally misinterpret what I say to suit his own ridiculous agenda.
It's impossible to talk to me because I committed a typographical error which you were able to notice?
Are you here to defend Kant or the "parabolic wisdom" in the scriptures? I'm still waiting for you to explain how my interpretation of the binding of Issac erred. Whether I know everything or nothing about Kant isn't what's being discussed and I refuse to chase your untamed geese. Explain to me what the moral wisdom in the Issac story is or at least trot out your own views.
Quoting TimeLine
If Jesus was such a good guy why does he intend to bring a sword to the world instead of peace? Why did he say the old testament law should still be followed? Why does he threaten non-believers or sinners (take your pick) with eternal damnation?
Please don't whip out some parabolic interpretation of hell to convince me that it's a helpful metaphor for self-disappointment or unhappiness or something equally silly. The religious ideas I address aren't the "hell is a metaphor" variety. If you want to feel like I'm attacking your personal Ideas, that's fine, but I'm attacking specific and mainstream interpretations of the Christian scripture.
If you don't want to follow a religion, why are you so prepared to fall on your quill in defense of "interpreting scripture independent of religious influence" in a positive way? Jesus was a good guy?
Is that your non-religious interpretation of Christianity? Is that your whole basis for objecting to my framing of old religious stories as substantively immoral?
Quoting TimeLine
I read what's there, but you set your own standards: "God is the ultimate, the omnipresent, what we should aspire to by having faith in ourselves - that is, by not conforming or following by finding the will to autonomy and thinking for yourself"... So words like "suffer" is the unhappiness of being in a "hell" - a life lacking in moral consciousness - where the misery therewith is the "damnation" of never truly understanding the pleasures of the authenticity and autonomy of love.
I could probably (with some effort) try to navigate what you actually mean when you say things like "understanding the pleasures of the authenticity and autonomy of love" or God is aspired to through self-faith and not following or conforming, but why? If any of this has something to do with relevant interpretations of religious parables, do let me know. Your own personal Kantian Jesus is great - totally abstract love and a rejection of following and conforming to any morality but one's own rationally formed morality - but it's vastly removed from mainstream religion and the original point I happen to be ridiculing. Do you want me to go out of my way to start dissembling your (metaphysical?) belief systems and be your surrogate skeptic? Do you have any preference in humor? How dark do you like your satire?
If you're interested I have no qualms. Let's start with why you invoke god and religion in the first place: what benefit does that serve? If you want autonomy, then reason can give it to you in the same way it gives a good chess player autonomy in a chess game. If you want to promote love or a given moral value then just appeal to people's human emotions and explain to them how your moral positions (such as unconditional love for the other?) rationally promotes those values. Where and why does god need to come into the picture?
If you're not interested in making this a discussion about your personal moral or spiritual beliefs, then simply explain to me what the meaning of the binding of Issac parable is about...
Quoting TimeLine
Just because I refer to something as a barbarous fairy tale doesn't mean I hate it. Hate is an emotional reaction, I'm making critical observations of scriptures and many of their mainstream interpretations.
Quoting TimeLine
I know you are but what am I? Teehee!
Quoting TimeLine
My ridiculous agenda is to level criticism against a contemporary body of thought as it pertains to an ancient one. It's a very easy moral criticism to make in pointing out things like two she-bears mauling forty children to death because they ridiculed a bald man is a barbaric fairy-tale or that flooding the earth and drowning all humans because of sin is not only beyond fairy tale (yet people actually believe it) but is also morally repulsive in suggesting that death is what sinners deserve.
Listen, I know you don't like my irreverence, not too many people do, but I have the same right to it that you do to your reverence. What you call bastardization of Jesus' intentions I call what I was taught growing up. Like it or not pastors and preachers out there interpreting scripture at large do often make the interpretations which I'm specifically attacking. Hell as an existent place, Jesus as threatening to send you there, god as the one you should love above your own family, sinners who deserve to die: these are some of the actual ideas which I've attacked in this thread. Which of these do you think I've unfairly attacked?
Quoting VagabondSpectre
When people yell or raise their voice, they are either trying to beat the other person by being louder or they are subjectively fighting something unknown at conscious level. Calm down and be specific rather than make assumptions or generalisations. Say, the "Lutherans interpret such and such in this way" and others can easily respond to that.
When you eliminate the emotions, your disdain due to these former connections is gone and you can just read for the pure sake of reading, where you learn to make your own interpretations, rather than getting all pissed at what other people think. To do that requires one to become a rational, autonomous being. To be rational is someone with standards, the categorical imperative, the way in which you observe your own motivations and intentions and ensure objective clarity - autonomous - despite your feelings and emotions and the connections you have in both your past and present as you separate yourself and become the author of your own being or someone morally conscious where your sole motivation is to continuously will to improve yourself.
You are quite simply fighting because you haven't cut your umbilical cord.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
:’( Boys everywhere. I want a King Solomon. And no, I don't mean the actual King Solomon considering you seem to take everything literally, but a man who has wisdom.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
I know. That is the point, it is my interpretation because I am completely removed from mainstream religion, I am completely removed from mainstream anything and in my own autonomy choose nothing but God and no, not a man on a cloud, not Jesus or the trinity, not whatever the heck people think, but reaching epistemically toward what is perfect. Through authenticity - that is, being downright honest to myself and eliminating all the illusions - my goals are ideals like virtue, righteousness, honesty, charity that I practice in real life in order to perfect. So, in Aristotelian terms I have transcended from the need for philia to the need for philesis by having a strong, emotional attachment not to people or institutions or communities, but solely towards the perfection of philia itself; thus my will or prohairesis is to only perfect love through my love of God which is, well everything and nothing.
So if you want me to discuss the story of Isaac from whatever Christian perspective, clearly by you saying:
Quoting VagabondSpectre
Sorry buddy, but I am afraid I will disappoint because my interpretation is to view these stories as symbolic and not literal. I couldn't give a toss about how other religions interpret biblical referents. But if you want to discuss biblical hermeneutics independent of religion, than I am all for it. So geographical locations are often symbolically expressed through individual representations.
The suggestion that Abraham is the father of the monotheistic religions implies that the lines of his progeny - Ishmael being a referent to Arabs or the Ishamaelites as their prophet Muhammad is a descendant of Ishmael and thus Ishmael represents Islam. Isaac being a referent to Israelites as they are decendents of Jacob, changing to Israel and thus the Israelites are references to Judaism. Isaac, being birthed really late by promise to Sara who represents the mother of good in comparison to the troublesome Hagar (troublesome Muslims?) and the "mother" represents a community of people, the fruits of ones labour, and as such the community is the promised land suggested to the Israelites who will live on through faith in God. The binding is a process historically used when slaughtering a lamb and a lamb represents innocence.
When Jesus said "Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword," he is not talking about him bringing violence but that if you follow his preaching about finding your conscience and being loving, you will be outcast, ostracised and despised by the 'herd' or by conformists of any kind. You will run the risk of being persecuted and indeed the first several hundred years after Jesus' death there were many that turned to this preaching that were killed and persecuted.
Quoting TimeLine
Quoting TimeLine
Quoting TimeLine
Quoting TimeLine
Quoting TimeLine
Quoting TimeLine
Quoting TimeLine
Quoting TimeLine
Quoting TimeLine
Quoting TimeLine
Quoting TimeLine
Quoting TimeLine
Quoting TimeLine
Quoting TimeLine
Quoting TimeLine
Quoting TimeLine
Quoting TimeLine
Quoting TimeLine
Quoting TimeLine
>:O >:O >:O
Reloaded.
Jesus like Jesus, but I wanna know when Volume 2 of The Virtue of Selfishness is coming out. Definitely gonna get that :P
I couldn't give a toss
— TimeLine
I have transcended
— TimeLine
>:O
TimeLine hath reached the summit of Aussie assholery.
Haha, it was half expected that the other side of the extreme would prop up sometime. It is, nevertheless, rather unkind of you considering I am making it clear that it is about 'my' interpretation and though I understand that you prefer to be mindless enough to follow because it takes the responsibility away from you, your levels of maturity are exemplified here.
I almost prefer Vagabond, since it shows why he hates the religious so much as you lead by example.
So...me, Agu, and you? >:O
Quoting TimeLine
Oh...
Faust makes sense all of a sudden.
"Methinks, a Million Fools in Choir are Raving and Will Never Tire."
?
Quoting TimeLine
But do they sing as sweetly as you?
What do arguments matter when you treat people the same with or without them?
Quoting TimeLine
No, not quite. I'm not trolling until I post a star trek image, which subconsciously stirs Baden from his primordial sleep so that he can then delete it immediately >:O
So, you are doing this intentionally. You are bitter about a post being deleted by Baden and now you are taking it out on me. Get your thumb out of your mouth.
Only if you get the 2x4 out your ass.
Clearly, this is pointless.
O:) (Y)
Quoting TimeLine
Quoting TimeLine
Quoting TimeLine
Quoting TimeLine
Quoting TimeLine
Some people tell you exactly how you should think of them! >:O
Quoting TimeLine
Yes, I recognise my inferiority and therefore hand the burden of responsibility over to you. It is after all those who are superior who should carry a greater burden than those who are inferior and mindless.
And now, I need to pay to Caesar what belongs to Caesar otherwise the Gestapo will act on their veiled threat. Filling in the right paperwork is often sufficient to escape their wrath (though not without causing annoyance). A pity that the legalists have always dealt with the letter of the law, but not also with its spirit.
Quoting Bitter Crank
The absolute core is Love.
"Asceticism" (if by this one means restraining greed, lust, selfishness and the like) is part of Love. Morality and virtue are also parts of Love. And yes, Jesus also didn't preach legalism - that's what the Sabbath being made for man means.
Are you ok? Are you still angry at the fact that I pointed out your abusive remarks towards women that you claimed to have almond brains, clearly exposed by your Ayn Rand reference that exemplifies you to be nothing but a very angry person?
You should have just remained quite, your first ad hominem post towards me may have actually worked, but now you just look insane. :-|
Was that when you asked me if I'm still beating my wife? :D >:O (if so, it seems that your habit of asking that kind of questions hasn't changed)
Also, you should try to quote the bit that was actually addressed to you, not the bit that has nothing to do with you whatsoever. It seems you see "me me me" in everything.
I never said that. I wasn't even aware you were married, I thought you were a teenager.
I also fail to understand why you say I think only about 'me me me' when I am the one being quoted? If the purpose of my post is about autonomy in interpreting the scriptures, being independent and an individual is the point, so it is unfair that you imply objectivism and Ayn Rand, which is merely ad hom attacking me.
I guess it is a good thing that you have kept me up all night, considering now I can avoid all of this Sunday by sleeping... :-d
Peace out.
Quoting TimeLine
Since I'm making a point about general Christian belief I have no option but to generalize to do so. You keep telling me to calm down and suggest I have been raising my voice, but why?
Do you feel as if I've been yelling?
Quoting TimeLine
I feel like all I tried to do was make some jokes about god and the smurfs, and you've somehow been triggered into defense mode. You seem pretty sure that I'm filled with hate towards religion, but perhaps you're overly defensive because of your emotional love for Christianity?
Quoting TimeLine
I think if we're honest, Timeline, as soon as the scissors came out of my bag you've been whaling at me in fear of having your own umbilical be cut.
Quoting TimeLine
It seems to me that 'boys' typically use ad hominem attacks to reinforce their non-existent arguments. You and I would never resort to such intellectual drudgery though, right?
Quoting TimeLine
So, you're defending biblical parables because you follow nothing but god (which is a placeholder term for "reaching epistemically toward what is perfect"?). How do you know epistemic perfection exists and that this is what you're reaching for? Why call it god?
Why do you feel the need to defend biblical parables and their mainstream interpretations if you're removed from mainstream religion?
Quoting TimeLine
"Biblical hermenutics independent of religion"... Oh my... How does that work? Do we forget about everything religious and then abstractly interpret the texts however we want?
Sadly, the intent of the authors weren't independent of religion. You're treating it like poetry in whom you've found delightful subjective meaning... Good for you?
Geographical locations (I'm guessing you mean specific places in the holy land) are represented by people? Negative, the bible often talks about specific locations and even explains what they're called and why. If people are places, are places people?
Quoting TimeLine
Holy fuck... :D
So the slaughtered lamb represents the death of the innocence of the Israelites? (or did they gain innocence that way)? Either way it doesn't make much sense because the Israelites didn't exist yet. What's more likely is that the lamb was intended as sacrifice which pleases god, much like how Abel pleased god by sacrificing livestock.
In the old testament those who please god earn god's love and blessings, and we please (and displease) god through sacrifice and submission (and no sacrifice and no submission).
Hagar definitely does not represent "troublesome Muslims" because they wouldn't exist for a thousand or more so years. Whoever wrote about Hagar certainly didn't know that one day Islam would form and then millennia later someone would find them troublesome.
But that said, God promised Abraham directly that his descendants would become as numerous as the stars and inherit the promised land. He didn't need to go through some weird "be willing to kill your own son" metaphor to elucidate on that promise.
So what I'm arguing here is that the original (and of course, mainstream) meaning of the text is vastly removed from your own interpretation. Whoever wrote it wasn't trying to say what you choose to take out of it. You're free to take whatever you want from it, and I won't condemn it unless I find it morally repugnant somehow (like the mainstream meaning of the Issac parable).
In the case of the Issac parable, the 'geographical interpretation' is pretty much nonsensical and everyone knows it's a story which demonstrates how Abraham was willing to put his own son to death because that's how much faith in god he had. It's a story about the moral supremacy of faith in god and that's the interpretation my original criticism applies to.
Quoting TimeLine
You think having unconditional love for other people gets you persecuted or outcast from society? I don't. It makes people want to reciprocate; that's the golden rule.
But all you're really saying here is that by conforming to Jesus' teachings other conformists will persecute you. At the time that was certainly true, but it's not as if that means anything at all in today's world.
Foucault suggests that to bridge the gap of understanding between the reader and the author, you need to move closer to the language and intentions of the author rather rather than to force the text to conform to your own. You're creating your own meaning entirely. that's fine and all, but I don't know what's useful about the binding of Issac as a tale of innocence and geography.
Alternately we purr and sputter, sputter and purr, like an unpredictable engine; some pistons like to escape from their chambers to clash with one another.
What does Love mean to you?
Quoting Agustino
I understand asceticism as a philosophy of abstaining from pleasure. But I understand love as being very closely related to pleasure. How do you reconcile these two? How do you abstain from pleasure and also love?
Quoting Agustino
I really don't know how you formulate your categories, but wouldn't it be more appropriate to say that love is a virtue, rather than to say that virtue is a part of love?
You missed me? :D
Quoting Bitter Crank
Actually I was protesting against the Three Stooges who have "liquidated" one of my friends. If you make a little bit of a search through some of my last comments, you'll see what I'm talking about.
Quoting Bitter Crank
Not yet, but I might land there given my financial illiteracy, and reliance on incapable accountants - I've had to change 4 so-far. For example, one conversation:
Me: "So I will soon need you to do some of my bookings. When can I come by to discuss?"
Her: "Umm I'm very busy at the moment, so I don't know right now. Is it possible to call you by tomorrow when I reach my office?"
Me: "Okay, no problem, I'll wait for your call"
{2 days pass - No call}
I call again.
Me: "Hi, this is XXX. We spoke on Monday and you told me you'd call me once you reach your office to plan for a meeting. So have you had the time to check your schedule and see when we can do it?"
Her: "Oh I'm not in the office right now. Is it possible to call you back later this afternoon?"
Me: "Okay, no problem"
{4 days pass - No call}
I call again.
Me: "Hi this is XXX. We spoke last week Thursday, and you told me you'd call when you manage to check your schedule. So did you manage to check?"
Her: "No, I have been unfortunately very busy, my sincere apologies. Is it possible to call you back in 2-3 hours?"
Me: "Okay, that's fine, but please don't forget. Thanks!"
{5 hours pass, no call - I decide to ditch her and find another accountant}
>:O >:O >:O >:O In fact to this day, I still don't have an answer from that woman. And other accountants don't seem to be much better - either don't know what to do, take too long, are rude, etc. Too many incapable people who don't put heart in what they do. Many leeches around, who like to suck money without doing a proper job. Or who only care to work properly if a big corporation is on the other side. And then people wonder why economies aren't working well.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
To care deeply about others / someone and find existence meaningful. An openness of the soul towards others.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
I think this is wrong. Love is totally unrelated to pleasure, in fact, love often motivates one to willingly undertake enormous suffering. Love is more related to meaning than pleasure. Love is closely related to joy, but not to pleasure. Pleasure cannot co-exist with pain, but joy (and love) can co-exist with suffering.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
Yes and no. Love is rather that which makes virtue possible in the first place. And just like the eye which makes seeing possible isn't itself an object in the field of vision, so too love isn't exactly a virtue like any other kind of virtue. Rather all the other virtues depend on it - it plays the role that Agathon played for Plato's Forms.
What I am trying to say is that it is best to avoid that otherwise you look just as bad as the religious morons screaming insults before spouting the philosophy of love and virtue. You should see the PM's that I got :-# It is up to us to stand above the screamers who are really only defending their religious beliefs tooth and nail.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
I probably shouldn't have laughed.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
Comparatively, and upon reflection, you were angry and you missed my points on numerous occasions where suggestions that I never made were said to have been made, but you were never really angry at me, so I will have to agree here and apologise in a thankful way for your continuation of the conversation. But again, for instance the following:
Quoting VagabondSpectre
I do not want to say this again. I am not religious. I have no affiliation to Christianity and have never been to a church service. I appreciate the testimony of Jesus, but I see him as a man, a person who made sense to me and someone I respect for being capable enough to move my conscience. I have a high respect for some of the other prophets and saints in the bible too as their stories are beautiful, Jonah for instance, Joseph and the story between Solomon and Sheba. I read it historically but also analyse what the moral of the story is too and that is what I take from it.
Every person has the capacity to be genuinely moral people but history and religion has turned normal, moral nuances into mystical mysteries in order to solidify the highly imaginative illusions that the masses seems to rely on, but these are myths that take no literal place with me. People are not 'special' because they are trying to be good, in fact, religion intentionally creates moral hierarchies; being a virgin does not make you a saint just as much as meditating for a thousand days won't enable enlightenment, and these types of coded rules turn ordinary people away from believing they are capable of being moral because the suggestion is impossible to reach. That's bullshit.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
Erich Fromm speaks of love perfectly whereby to love is an activity that requires study and practice, it is not simply a given that you feel. This pursuit can take place in various ways such as familial love, erotic love, brotherly love and the love of God and each of these activities involves this practice. So, religions offer the assistance in the practice of the love of God, but the troubling aspect to this is that love as a subjective experience is an autonomous experience to the individual and humans have reason, consciousness and an awareness of ourselves and others. Thus, there is this displacement of our autonomous position that causes angst, an anxiety of the reality that we are separate from others and alone. This compels us to conform, to prevent ourselves from taking the responsibility for our own existence and as such our practice of love is not authentic but rather it becomes seeking and working very hard to attain the love of other people whether it is church leaders or our friends or family, but never really learning to give love as mature, independent adults that no longer seek it from others.
So, if we eliminate the religious influence and the specificity it offers the individual who has conformed so as to avoid the angst, it enables us to take a broader approach. So, it no longer becomes an attempt to seek the approval from other people, but it becomes concepts like righteousness, virtue, honesty etc despite people, culture, norms. God without religion is both specific and non-specific, and thus when you have the faith without imagining the illusions that religions offer about God, it is to love all things that epistemically enables us to seek moral consciousness in that very broader concept. There is no possibility of proving the existence or the non-existence of God, but nevertheless the idea is that since God is perfect good, our attempt to draw ourselves closer to God is our attempt to draw ourselves closer to perfect good and thus serves epistemically as a necessity to improve our moral well-being.
Reaching epistemic perfection is impossible because that would be like saying reaching God. It is the process towards reaching this that is possible and remains infinite because we are all both good and evil as that is the natural product of consciousness and the finitude of our existence. The constant attempt to perfect our moral side, our good side is the very practice of love. Biblical parables offer the opportunity for a person to think about moral concepts independently, but if one loves their religious institution or some other object or thing, they have conformed to agree to the interpretations made on their behalf and never learn to think and practice love autonomously.
So I stand that mainstream religion only enables conformity and I do not stand for mainstream interpretations of biblical parables, that conformity makes it impossible for one to practice autonomously. My point is that you need to make it yourself as they have a utility in your moral development if analysed independently.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
That is a good point historically but Arabs were, so perhaps I will concede to the latter and the relationship between these "brothers" (Abraham is the father of monotheism) of different "mothers" (laboured a community) has always been rocky and distant.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
(Y)
But, you can't call it the "Isaac parable" if you are interpreting it literally. Otherwise, it is no longer a parable.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
It depends on where you are from; if I were a Yezidi girl, I would have been stoned to death by now. Giving unconditional love within within the restraints of social customs is the only way it is approved, but stand outside of that and you will be outcast and despised. It is easy to put on a 'show' of kindness, saying the right words, selecting the right approach by adhering to the right things that you know other people would appreciate, generally just putting on a false facade of goodness when the endeavour is solely to receive the love from others and not actually giving love, in the end there is never any actual reciprocation and thus they never actually produce anything.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
It is exactly right but I personally have no use for the story apart from something like having faith in the promise. But with regards to geography and people, this is a historical approach of the time; when you read ancient texts, you cannot compare it with today but you need to understand how they viewed the world back then in order to facilitate a more accurate interpretation.
(Hey, it's Sunday, after all. ;-) )
As Wayfarer pointed out, there are several kinds of 'love'. Clearly here we are talking about agáp?. Eros, philia, and storge might motivate one to suffer, but perhaps not enormous suffering--which is not to denigrate those kinds of love. Pleasure is clearly and obviously associated with eros. However, I believe that pleasure in a special sense should be associated with agáp?. Just because eros is so concerned with erotic pleasure doesn't mean that "pleasure" means the same thing when applied to agáp?. The pleasure of unconditional love is not physically felt, it's a pleasure of the spirit--the only way I can put it.
It's the same kind of pleasure--pleasure of the spirit--that people experience when they do good things. It's a quiet, inward pleasure. It doesn't calculate, it self-reflective. There's no "what a good boy am I" to it. The widow that gave her last penny likely experienced the pleasure of agáp?. The good Samaritan who cared for the injured man left by the road likely experienced the inward pleasure of agáp?. There aren't a lot of words to detail this feeling... tender, gentle, willing good for the other... The love of God, for that matter, agáp?, should be that kind of pleasure.
I don't understand this. You are separating joy from pleasure. But isn't joy a form of pleasure? How can joy be separated from pleasure if joy is a form of pleasure? So if love is related to joy, and joy is a form of pleasure, how do you separate love from pleasure? Your claim that pleasures and pains cannot co-existence is meaningless, because we can experience pleasure in one respect while simultaneously experiencing pain in another respect.
Quoting Agustino
This doesn't make sense either. You are saying that love is like an organ of the body which makes virtue possible. But we now that virtue is dependent on the intellect, it requires clear reasoning, and rational decisions. Virtue does not require love, love requires virtue, which requires intellect. Intellect brings about rational decisions, which brings about virtue, and virtue brings into existence love. So it may be the case that love is the desired end, but love is not what makes virtue possible, you have this inverted. It is the desire for love, which indicates a wanting, or privation of love, which might bring about virtue, not love itself. And as the desired end, why would you not call love a form of pleasure?
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
I largely agree with this up to the last statement that "virtue brings into existence love" because "love" seems to be a primary phenomena, not coming from something else. Also, how would virtue bring love into existence?
We're trying to do different things then I think: you aim to rise above the zealous and derive superior (rational in this case) moral value from scriptures, and I aim to descend into the intellectual realm of the harmfully zealous to confront them on their own terms; I aim to persuade them. I paint severe pictures because the intended audience is in a place where reason alone can be utterly unpersuasive. When I satirize and ridicule specific religious stories, traditions, and beliefs, I'm attempting to force people to think about content using discomfort as a driving force. It's about forcing people to answer questions they otherwise don't ask on their own because of the nature of their belief system (i.e, they marginalize and discard doubt).
It's not those invoking love and virtue that I address though (not unless they're looking to have their ideas tested), it's those who try to invoke (shitty (religious)) moral standards and wield them as if they're anything but plastic and abominable.
Quoting TimeLine
Quoting TimeLine
Religion can also unintentionally imbue shitty moral standards into their mysticism which then poses a challenge to rational moral agents who would have people learn to wipe. Whether you are or aren't Christian (I'm well aware you're not religious) isn't really relevant though to what I've contributed to this thread, which is that there's a dark side to Christian love (yes I'm generalizing, but I'm doing so well within reasonable bounds).
My main concern in our discussion is to defend my moral critique of the damnation aspect in Christianity, so as you find me resisting your own interpretations of biblical scripture, keep in mind it's because I'm criticizing an interpretation that you evidently don't wield. And as I continue to accuse you of harboring love for Christianity, keep in mind it is in response to your continuous accusation that I'm harboring emotional hatred for it. I find many Christian tenets to be morally repulsive, disgusting, and even worthy of hate, but I've already become somewhat dispassionate in regards to how I feel about it.
Quoting TimeLine
You're trying to strain historicity from this, but why? Why not consult historical research? That said, historical/theistic genealogy isn't the take-away which concerns me, which should be clear at this point.
Quoting TimeLine
Morally, metaphorically, literally, abstractly, historically, not at all: all are options for interpretation. My main target is the mainstream moral one, but if I can tag the other bases while I'm at it (even if only to reinforce my moral criticism), I'll do it.
Quoting TimeLine
I totally disagree. The more reliably you treat people as they want to be treated the more reliably they reciprocate. Such reliability is actually one of the virtues which causes us to place intrinsic value in the lives of those who display it. Surrounding one's self with reliable and moral people is both greedy and rational. There is indeed reciprocation. Yes some places have immoral customs, but reciprocation exists even in such places within whatever arbitrary bounds their customs mandate (usually customs which are religiously inspired and perpetuated I might note...).
Quoting TimeLine
If we do go back to the origins of the story, we find a world in which human sacrifice was a known practice. Sacrificing things (offering them) to the gods for blessings is this ancient superstition that has existed for as long as humans have been stupid. That's the real meat behind the entire idea of sacrifice; that's why they do it. In the bible this idea is mainstay: first with livestock, then with Issac (but not in the end, as you say) and finally with Jesus himself. When I read the bible (around age 15) I couldn't understand why god wasn't pleased by Cain's sacrifice of fruits and vegetables but was very pleased with Abel's offering of dead animals; did Cain not work equally hard for his bounty? The answer can only be that to sacrifice a living thing is inherently a greater sacrifice (therefore worthy of more appreciation). Human sacrifice is therefore a greater sacrifice if we value human life more than animal life. The life of Jesus himself then becomes the greatest sacrifice of all. Christians spend a lot of time reflecting on the sacrifice that Jesus made so that we could be forgiven and it causes us to feel thankful to him for doing so, but they spend very little time asking themselves why they need god to forgive them in the first place, or why god needs a sacrifice in order to do actual forgiving.
Ancient belief systems are loaded to the brim with this kind of arbitrary superstitious baggage, and while they do manage to gather some useful moral positions, they also collect a whole lot of hooey. If you're looking to use reason to improve your morals, I recommend primarily using the non-fictional world because old world scripture only has so much to offer.
I disagree on this. I think quite the contrary, for most people it is eros and storge that motivate intense suffering. How many are willing to die for their children? Quite many. How many are willing to die for the man/woman they love? Quite many. And note, that eros is not only sexual. It's a much deeper and stronger desire for that particular person (which does include sexuality). Do not confuse eros with its corrupted form (lust).
Also our society has a tendency to squish eros whenever it finds it - "ah just another bitch, you'll find another one!"
The point I want to emphasise is that despite different manifestations, Love is one. Agape is the source, eros, philia, storge are multiple streams.
Quoting Bitter Crank
Well, okay, but that's not pleasure as generally understood. That's why I made a distinction between joy/pleasure.
Quoting TimeLine
I have actually said nothing about religion until now, so I have no idea what you're on about.
But apparently you see nothing wrong about parroting what a virtuous woman you are, and how the rest of us are all mindless losers (as if we actually gave a damn about it :P ). And this isn't the first thread where you've done that, I've been following discussions over here and have stumbled on it countless times. And there's many other members who have picked up on it too, Heister, John, etc. but apparently you go on living in your own world. Wake up - it's not all about you. A little bit less arrogance would take you a long way. And whether you believe it or not, I'm saying this as honest and friendly advice. This is not a virtue competition, it's a philosophy forum.
Quoting TimeLine
Quoting TimeLine
Yeah clearly! Your understanding, as illustrated by this and many other instances in this thread is clearly superior to us mere mortals :P
Is this the testimony you just said you respect?
I think the issue here is how we define "love". It is a broad term, and we could be referring to a thing called "love", or we could be referring to the activity of loving. Most often we use the term broadly and ambiguously, perhaps equivocatively. When I say "virtue brings into existence love", I mean love as a thing, and we class this thing as a virtue. We can look at the existence of virtuous acts and conclude, there is love there. But if we say that a loving attitude is required for virtuous acts, and we call this loving attitude "love", then we have Agustine's perspective in which love precedes virtue.
I am not so quick to call this attitude, which is required for virtue, "love". You ask, "how would virtue bring love into existence?", and I think it is only by apprehending good, or virtue, that we are moved to love. If we place love as prior to apprehending good, as Agustino does, that apprehending good follows from loving acts, then we allow that love may move us toward either good or bad. If we observe human acts, as loving acts, with no prior apprehension of good, we have no means to distinguish true love from other forms of love which are not so true. But if we say love can only move us toward the good, and only true love is real love, and therefore good pure and simple, then it is necessary that we apprehend good prior to loving, in order that our loving actions be only good, and not a mixture of good and bad.
So I believe that the attitude which is required for virtue is an apprehension of the good, not "love", which is one (a very important one) of the virtues. And "love" itself, if it is to be understood as necessarily good, must follow from an apprehension of good. To put this in perspective of Jesus' message, I would say that true love can only follow from, after, apprehending God, as the apprehension of good. It is not through loving that we apprehend God, but through our apprehension of God that we behave lovingly.
I haven't affirmed that joy is a form of pleasure. Pleasure could lead to joy, but they are definitely not the same. Suffering for that matter can also lead to joy. Does it follow from there that joy is a form of suffering?
Another reason for the separation of pleasure from love is that love is an out-going movement, breaking through the prison of the self. Pleasure on the other hand is self-centered.
Apprehension of the good is not possible in the absence of love - at least not according to Jesus. That's why there exists an unforgivable sin - blasphemy against the Holy Ghost, which effectively translates into a hardening of the heart, and a complete elimination of love. People who have reached that point are beyond redemption because they can no longer apprehend the good.
What you are talking about in your last post with the apprehension of the Good is Platonic/Neo-platonic but definitely not Christian.
Also don't forget that God must take the first step in order for salvation to be possible. So without God's love, no apprehension of the good can occur.
Also, Love doesn't remove choice, so of course the theoretical possibility for sin still exists.
Yes. Good point.
Quoting Agustino
Storge isn't thought about, talked, written about enough. And Eros is over-emphasized. For eros, i'd say it's the cause of a lot of suffering, and storge the motivator of sacrificial suffering (when needed).
Jesus was capable enough (just enough?) to move your conscience. That's rich. How about God. Is God capable enough?
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
will require some reflection. In what order should these be?
---->apprehension of God ---->virtue ---->apprehension of the good ---->love
or
---->virtue ---->apprehension of the good ---->apprehension of God ---->love
or something else?
The Greatest Commandment(s) in Christianity. Matthew 22:35-40:
Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’[as @Wosret pointed out earlier]. All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”
I agree, it can also lead to a lot of suffering. Society is generally responsible for a large part of that suffering though. "Well-meaning" friends, family, etc.
Why is that rich? What else is supposed to happen that is 'expected' of me? And it depends on what you interpret as God. My choices are.
Actually, you are attempting to do nothing but beat me because you are a sexist and judging from your sociopathic PMs that imply a need for me to do what you tell me in order for me to 'have a chance' at becoming virtuous alongside your comments elsewhere that women who are submissive and passive are beautiful, the ONLY thing you have been doing is exemplifying this.
You can play this game with everyone else. This is the final time I am going to ask you to do this, stop harrassing me.
" Love is nothing else but pleasure accompanied by the idea of an external cause." Spinoza.
I think that needs a bit of context or elucidation because prima facie it doesn't make a lot of sense.
Perhaps these associated excerpts form Part 3 of the Ethics, On the Origin and Nature of the Emotions, will help clarify the context for you:
[i]"Thus we see, the mind can undergo many changes, and can pass sometimes to a state of greater perfection, sometimes to a state of lesser perfection. These passive states of transition explain to us the emotions of pleasure and pain. By pleasure therefore in the following propositions I shall signify a passive state wherein the mind passes to greater perfection. By pain I shall signify a passive state whereby the mind passes to a lesser perfection. Further, the emotion of pleasure in reference to the body and mind together I shall call stimulation (titillatio) or merriment (hilaritus), the emotion of pain in the same relation I shall call suffering or melancholy. But we must bear in mind, that stimulation and suffering are attributed to man, when one part of his nature is more affected than the rest, merriment and melancholy, when all parts are alike affected. What I mean by desire I have explained in Proposition 9 of this part; beyond these three I recognize no other primary emotion; I will show as I proceed, that all other emotions arise from these three.
Prop. 11: Note
The mind, as far as it can, endeavors to conceive those things, which increase or help the power of activity in the body.
Prop. 12
When the mind conceives things which diminish or hinder the body's power of activity, it endeavors, as far as possible, to remember things which exclude the existence of the first-named things [that are diminishing the power of activity].
Prop. 13
Hence it follows, that the mind shrinks from conceiving those things, which diminish or constrain the power of itself or of the body.
Prop. 13: Corollary
From what has been said we can clearly understand the nature of Love and Hate. Love is nothing else but pleasure accompanied by the idea of an external cause: Hate is nothing else but pain accompanied by the idea of an external cause. We further see, that he who loves necessarily endeavors to have, and to keep present to him, the object of his love; while he who hates endeavors to remove and destroy the object of his hatred.
Prop. 13: Note
If the mind has once been affected by two emotions at the same time, it will, whenever it is afterwords affected by one of the two, be also affected by the other.
Prop. 14
Anything can, accidentally, be the cause of pleasure, pain, or desire.
Prop. 15
Simply from the fact that we have regarded a thing with the emotion of pleasure or pain, though that thing be not the efficient cause of the emotion, we can either love or hate it.
Prop. 15: Corollary
Hence we understand how it may happen, that we love or hate a thing without any cause for our emotion being known to us; merely, as the phrase is, from sympathy or antipathy. We should refer to the same category those objects, which affect us pleasurably or painfully, simply because they resemble other things which affect us in the same way.
Prop. 15: Note
Simply from the fact that we conceive, that an object has some point of resemblance to another object which is wont to affect the mind pleasurably or painfully, although the point of resemblance is not the efficient cause of the said emotions, we shall still regard the first-named object with love or hate.
Prop. 16
If we conceive that a thing, which is wont to affect us painfully, has any point of resemblance to another thing which is wont to affect us with an equally strong emotion of pleasure, we shall hate the first-named thing, and at the same time we shall love it."[/i]
For example, you might love meditation because it increases your body/mind's capacity for pleasurable feelings of harmony, relaxation, quietude and illumination. You might hate distractions, self-indulgent tendencies and laziness (if you give in to them) because they give rise to displeasure in the form of annoyance, self-disgust and self-castigation, and chaotic feelings that your life is going nowhere, etc.
Spinoza talking about how love is our understanding (idea) of an external cause (e.g. family) which brings us pleasure. This is a descriptive account of love. He isn't talking about the motivation or reason to act, just talking about the states involved in love. In the following sentence (which John has posted), he talks about what people do when they are in love (keep what they love present).
He's describing love and locating it's metaphysical significance-- to love is to understand an external cause which brings us pleasure (e.g. family, friends, discussing philosophy, etc.). The lover seeks to protect and keep this cause present in the world.
This is a lot more tricky as people can quite easily be deceptive; the same tactics you may see with religious people can comparably be viewed with far-right ideologists, who are indirectly and inadvertently saying fairly nasty things with a smile on their face. I am glad you have pointed out that I value rational/reason as 'superior' (and not me) but so are you, only you seem to find the energy and the time to try and reason with the unreasonable by communicating in the same zealous manner in order to talk in their language. I tried such tactics previously, whether it is for the religiously zealous to someone with sharply contrasting beliefs to my own, trying to indirectly convey my point to them in a way that they may understand, but I have since come to view it to be pointless. A screamer is a screamer. A person who wants to deceive themselves and others will; look at holocaust deniers. There is no point to it, basically, and if you choose the intellectual realm, set aside the emotions and communicate with those that will actually hear you.
No matter what you say, if people refuse to listen or read what you are actually writing or saying because of their personal views and vendettas, they will not hear or see a word that you write.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
Absolutely, but it doesn't lie merely in the realm of monotheistic religions, new ageism is as much a stain to rational, moral standards as anything else. Upon reflection, the reality of the issues is the authenticity, which reflects back to my comments about the necessity for autonomy in our appreciation of moral standards.
"Love" itself is the expression of our conscience, or what I refer to as moral consciousness. These expressions can come out in numerous ways, whether it is erotic, familial etc. Moral consciousness requires work and is initiated by the prompting of the conscience and empathy, the feeling of wanting to give or care for others and the pain you feel when you see injustice or unhappiness, and the primary source of its capacity to function adequately is reason, but knowledge without autonomy and authenticity is superficial at best. As love also involves our emotions or feelings, without an adequate understanding of ourselves, which rational thought enables, our understanding of love itself could quite easily be skewed and we will begin to do or behave incorrectly.
So yes, I do agree that there is a dark side to Christian love, but this is no different to the "wolf hiding in sheep's clothing". Religion doesn't pose a challenge to rational moral agents because they would not adhere to it; it only poses a challenge since we as humans epistemically have the need to follow and conform but attach ourselves to the wrong things.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
I find some to be morally repugnant; I went to the Vatican several years ago and thought that I was in hell. And of course, there are many bad people who hide themselves behind the opportunity that institutions provide, confessing their sins or putting on this moral show before going off and abusing or hurting people because they are repugnant enough to believe that if someone or a person can be fooled by them than so can God (hence the authenticity), but my understanding of the scriptures is the reverse. If you think of Jesus speaking to the Christian community today, what he says will probably make sense to you.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
I published about the origins of the syncretistic religions of the near east and it is necessary to consult both historical research but also compare and contrast anthropological observations, but whatever the case is, there will always be a gap or a hole in our understanding that will ultimately rely on possibilities.
Aside from the fact that history is a turn-on for me in many ways ( >:) ) you need to appreciate the subtle differences between contemporary and ancient attitudes, practices, symbols in order to make better sense of the text without falling into the trap of being lured into the mystical.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
Ok. For me, the utility of this is pointless, you are better off using your time elsewhere. But hey, each to themselves.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
I totally agree, but it depends. If you treat a Christian who values those morals that you find repugnant reliably but inform them of your views, how would this reciprocation work? Assisting the disadvantaged, supporting people who need your help and rely on you requires an objective distance; what you think and feel is irrelevant and even unwarranted except for who you bring home with you.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
That is not the way that I see it; I feel the story ameliorates the importance of the subjectivity of the individual, that the intentions within matter more than the practice of offerings or giving. "For you are so careful to clean the outside of the cup and the dish, but inside you are filthy - full of greed and self-indulgence!" Very similar to the Ring of Gyges parable. The result between the brothers proves this.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
(Y)
I think I understand, but I would be mindful of the use of 'love' in such a context. I wonder what the original was? I think his original works were Latin, right? So, I wonder if the word was 'amor'? In any case, it is a discussion of pleasurable and unpleasurable feelings or emotions in their connection or relationship with 'objects of sense'. And I don't know if that really corresponds with the idea of agáp? as being a kind of unconditional love. It is more like what philosophers would call 'the passions'. Whereas the overall aim of Spinoza's philosophy was
Although, that said, I would be wary of interpreting 'nature' in a modern way, I think for Spinoza, it is more like 'the totality':
http://www.friesian.com/spinoza.htm
He's actually pretty close to the modern way of interpreting nature.
God is totality, the infinite, expressed in the workings of the world. Spinoza is, metaphysically, a materialist: things are given of themselves (with the expression of totality--i.e. are of God). In this, there is no room for mysticism. Everything is accounted for. The world does (whatever that might be) and it is of God.
In recognising the infinite for what it (not reducible or captured by anything else), Spinoza sometimes sounds like a bit mystic, referring to God which cannot be reduced, categorised or explained by other terms, but he's really the antithesis of a mystic.
Spinoza's God cannot do anything in the traditional sense. God is totality, not some specific actor within the world, who causes one state rather than another. Indeed, the totality of God is what renders God incapable of being a causal mode or explanation. Spinoza understands the "mystery" of totality or infinite isn't a failure to grasp how or why the world works the way it does. Rather, it is the truth there is no outside explanation for the world-- it can only be responsible for itself.
He also has a pretty good grasp of agape. Later on in Part III of Ethics:
Prop. 39: Note
He who conceives himself to be hated by another, and believes that he has given no cause for the hatred. will hate the other in return.
Prop. 40
He who conceives, that one whom he loves hates him, will be a prey to conflicting hatred and love.
Prop. 40: Corollary 1
If a man conceives that one, whom he has hitherto regarded without emotion, has done him any injury from motives of hatred, he will forthwith seek to repay the injury in kind.
Prop. 40: Corollary 2
The endeavor to injure one whom we hate is called Anger; the endeavor to repay in kind injury done to ourselves is called Revenge.
Prop. 40: Note
If anyone conceives that he is loved by another, and believes that he has given no cause for such love, he will love that other in return.
That can't be right. If he was a materialist, all he would be doing is saying 'the cosmos is God'. Carl Sagan might believe that, but I don't think Spinoza believed it. Besides, that would be attributing to matter, the status of a real substance, where in reality, material objects are only modes or aspects of the infinite being of God.
Quoting TheWillowOfDarkness
Ditto. According to Kelly Ross, Spinoza is rather like Islamic or Hindu mysticism, in that individual selves are illusory.
I believe the Latin word used by Spinoza in the Ethics, that has been translated as 'love' is 'amor'. As I see it Spinoza is intending to deal with love in its most general sense. So his discussion is not, by any means, confined to "pleasurable and unpleasurable feelings or emotions in their connection or relationship with 'objects of sense'". I believe Spinoza sees no inherent difference between the 'lower' forms of love, motivated by sensory experiences, and the 'higher' forms of love motivated by intellectual contemplation. Of course love will be more or less active or passive depending on the degree of consciousness that is present of its causes, whether the causes be sensory or intellectual.
Spinoza, I believe, would not countenance the notion of "unconditional love" at all. I think the very idea is a chimera; all love has its conditions; which we may think of as either "higher" or "lower", if that is our tendency.
I think the interpretation of Spinoza expressed in the quoted passages from the 'Friesian' site is somewhat eccentric. If you want to understand Spinoza, you have to read Spinoza, and try to do so without refracting him through the lens of other philosophers; whether it be Kant, Fries, Schopenhauer, Hegel or anyone else.
What you're not getting is that Spinoza understood thought (mind) and extension (matter) to be just two of an infinite suite of attributes of God or Nature. These attributes of the one substance are expressed as modes which are seen either as extension or as thought, depending on perspective. So thought and extension (mind and matter) cannot be, for Spinoza, substances at all. When Spinoza identifies God with nature, he is not speaking of nature as "nothing more than bare material actuality" as you seem to be interpreting it in your comment above.
That passage might be OK, as long as you don't fall into imagining that Spinoza thinks we can have a personal relationship with God, meaning that God is capable of loving us in return; Spinoza specifically denies this.
Right. Which rules out him being materialist. I don't think that Spinoza understands 'nature' in the way that 'modern naturalism' understands 'nature', because, as Kelly Ross says, he was not a modern thinker.
I did study Spinoza as an undergraduate.
Quoting John
But his philosophy is, like all philosophy, a corrective. It is a cure for the condition of ignorance that the unwise have as a consequence of them not understanding the nature of reality. How could it not be?
It's more than that. We are only illusionary finite beings. Even when we see sub specie aeternitatis.
We aren't a part of God at all and never will be. The best we can do is, sometimes, understand or experience the infinite. We cannot absolve the self to become a part of God, no matter what we do. In terms of sub specie aeternitatis, we are nothing. We are apart form God and always will be.
Yet, that is how our meaning is defined. Since we are illusionary finite forms apart form God (meaning, infinite), God is not dependent on any form for us to be. Be I rich or poor, sick or healthy, moral or immoral, the infinite is true. God is total. Meaning is expressed. I don't need to live forever or get what I want to be meaningful. Even if my life is nothing but suffering, I am still meaningful. My distance from infinite perfection not only means I can never become it, but it needs nothing from me to be.
Spinoza goes much further than even Ross describes. God is not as close as the jugular vein. In fact, God is not here at all, not in my existence nor anything close to me. God is always apart from me, an infinite I can never become. But this also means God is also always with anyone and everyone, for God is so no matter what finite illusions occur or happen to be doing to each other.
It's why Spinoza is materialist: God has nothing to do with defining the functions of causality. God can't enter our finite world to set or alter what happens to us. As for Sagan, the interplay of finite illusions can only be responsible for themselves. In terms of what happens to anyone in the world, the states of the Cosmos of "God," the beings of power which make one event happen rather than another. It's just these states of existence aren't God.
God can be said to "create" or "cause" (as Spinoza speaks of), but only in the sense that specific finite illusions express totality. If I say "God causes," I am not talking about how the world of causal actors works, how one event happens rather than another. Rather, I'm referring to how certain finite states are self-defined rather than others, a way of talking about how God (totality) is expressed by some actual states (those that exist) but not other ones (those which do not exist).
I would equate apprehension of God with apprehension of the good because I do not think that one can apprehend God without apprehending good, and I think that any supposed apprehension of the good cannot be the true good if it doesn't involve apprehension of God. Virtue follows from this because virtuous acts are good acts, and require apprehension of good, they are not good by chance. Love follows from virtue because we are not inclined to love the vicious, and as the saying goes, "love grows".
This is reflected in our daily lives. We will not act virtuously unless we apprehend good. If the good apprehended is a true good, this will guarantee a virtuous act. A true good is one which may be judged as consistent with God. Love is what we give to others, and despite the fact that we are encouraged to forgive, and love our enemies, I do not think it is possible to love a person who displays no apprehension of good, unless it is perceived that this is good.
Agustino seems to argue that love is some sort of primary instinct, such that we are naturally inclined to love, then good and virtue follows from this love. So for instance, a mother would love her baby despite the fact that the baby displays no virtue, or apprehension of good, and therefore does not demonstrate that it "deserves" love. The baby grows, it apprehends good, and becomes virtuous, so this goodness and virtue follows from the mother's love. My argument is that the mother's love of her baby follows from an apprehension of good.
The irony is that Spinoza is the archetypal modern thinker; his greatest concern is to release our thinking from the oppressions and superstitions of traditional theology.
He is materialist and naturalist in precisely the sense that the best modern materialism and naturalism is: in that it rules out the notion of any separate "supernatural" realm. He wants to say that mind and matter are the same phenomena, just seen from different perspectives.
Yes, he wants to show that our ignorance, which is the source of our illusory belief that we are in fact radically free, consists precisely in ignorance of the conditions that determine what we are, what we think and what we do. He wants to show that genuine freedom, insofar as it is possible at all, consists only in coming to understand the conditions that determine us.
Now, I'm not saying I entirely agree with Spinoza; I'm just trying to make clear what I think he actually is claiming; and what he really is predominately concerned with. I have come to think that the, what appear to be on the surface at least, irreconcilable philosophies of Spinoza and Kant encompass the twin axes of modernism and its predominant concerns. It seems to me now that it is really an extraordinarily complex suite of issues; that I am only beginning to grasp the significance of.
I think 'siezed upon by modernity' is closer to the mark. As the Kelly Ross article says, I think that he's much nearer to medieval Jewish and Islamic mysticism, than to modern naturalism. It's just very convenient to be able to say that when Spinoza uses the name 'God', what he really means is simply 'nature', as science understands it. But it's not that, because he is concerned with some kind of radical problem with our own thinking, which I'm sure revolves around our misconception of ourselves as being separate agents apart from nature. But I think his 'intellectual love of God' is much nearer to mysticism than to science.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
I'm inclined to agree with Agostino on that point. Love in the sense of a general compassion (rather than the cosy domesticated variety) is, if you like, an attribute of the ground of being, therefore not derived, not contingent on something else.
A mother's love for her baby follows from an apprehension of her baby. The order with which philosophers think virtue and everything else proceeds is an issue of concern to few others. It is not the case that most others are stupid dolts and philosophers are splendid wisemen.
It isn't a waste of time to think about theory, such as ---->apprehension of God ---->virtue ---->apprehension of the good ---->love, but real life doesn't consult theory first.
If you look up 'natura naturans' and 'natura naturata' you might begin to get an inkling of Spinoza's conception of nature as both Substance (God) and modes (of God).
Einstein said he believed in "Spinoza's God" : “I believe in Spinoza's God, who reveals Himself in the lawful harmony of the world, not in a God who concerns Himself with the fate and the doings of mankind... ". He conceived of God in this sense as being something along the lines of the eternal and necessary Laws of Nature, (substance) which manifests as the natural world (modes). He would have no truck with anything "spooky" or supernatural. "God does not play dice ".
Spinoza's intellectual love of God is conceived as the highest intuitive faculty of the intellect, and is entirely in accordance with logic, or reason, as he conceives it. What we understand as being true by virtue of pure logic just is what is intuitively obvious to us. We can rely only on this if we want to speculate about the eternal, the infinite, substance, God, the ultimate nature of nature, and so on, for the obvious reason that none of this falls under the purview of empirical inquiry.
To be honest, I don't even know what your view is; for example, do you believe in a personal God, or not? If not, and you don't believe there is any infinite intentional agent, then what do you believe there could be which is separate from nature considered exhaustively as both the manifest physical world, including all the experiences and thoughts of percipient beings, and the laws that govern them both?
So, you think the ground of being is personal? I ask that because only persons can love, as it is usually conceived.
Tendentious, maybe, but that's ad hominem (again).
Quoting John
Unfortunately for Einstein, he was proved decisively wrong in this matter, as 'god' does indeed 'play dice', and 'spooky action at a distance' has also been shown to be the case, mainly as a result of John Bell's experiments inspired by the EPR paradox, by which Einstein had set out to disprove the possibility of 'spooky action' and which ended up by proving the exact opposite. Both of these findings, incidentally, also undermine determinism.
I think Einstein referred to 'Spinoza's God' precisely because it is a model of the kind of 'God' that scientifically-respectable people can accept. As is well-known, he was dismissive of mainstream religion, but receptive to a kind of mysticism, which he identified with Spinoza. (But Einstein was certainly not atheist, as is made clear in Chapter 17 of Walter Isaacson's 2008 biography.)
As far as Spinoza and naturalism is concerned - naturalism must rely on a naturalistic ethics - of course, there being nothing beyond nature. So I can't see how that can ever be anything other than a form of utilitarian ethics, the 'greatest good for the greatest number' or human flourishing. Humans, being a natural creature like any other creature, can only seek a natural end - there is no highest good, the knowledge of which is inherently salvific. Whereas, Spinoza's vision of 'the intellectual love of God' is very much closer to a kind 'spiritual union', overcoming the 'illusion of separateness' - which is why it is nearer to mysticism than to science. Otherwise, why not simply dispose of Spinoza's 'God or nature' and simply call it 'Nature'? Why then would Spinoza's philosophy not simply be identical with science, in which case it could be done away with altogether and we could just stick to science.
In any case, we don't know enough about nature to know what is 'super' to it. A lot of what we now think is 'natural' would once have been described as 'supernatural'. The concept and boundaries of 'nature' are constantly shifting and changing.
Quoting John
I think there's a difference between 'personal' and 'a person'. The word 'person' is after all derived from 'persona' meaning mask, and is roughly equivalent to ego' or 'self'. I think the ground of being is not a person or a self in that sense, but is also not an insentient thing or mere physical energy. I think, whatever it is, it has been perceived as a living mind or spirit in countless different cultural milieux, and I don't think they're all mistaken in that regard.
So - yes.
Not really, we all have to struggle to see past our preconceptions and preoccupations. Particular preconceptions and preoccupations will have different effects and degrees of effect when it comes to different issues.
Quoting Wayfarer
It's funny that you seem to think science gives us information relevant to our understanding of reality or metaphysics when you believe it supports your world view, but not when you don't believe it does. In any case, if you are referring to what might be thought to be random uncaused events like decays of subatomic particles; are you suggesting they are really willed by God? If you are suggesting that then they would not be indeterministic at all, and if you are not suggesting that then it is hard to see what relevance God could have in this context, unless you are suggesting that He throws the dice just for the fun of seeing where they might 'land'.
Quoting Wayfarer
I think this is quite untrue. Why can there not be a coherent and consistent naturalistic virtue ethics, or even a naturalistic deontological ethics based purely on rational consistency, such as Rawl's?
Quoting Wayfarer
I am not sure the notion of a God that is not personal really counts as a coherent notion of God at all. So, I am certainly not entirely on board with Spinoza's notion of an impersonal deity. So, yes, I would say his notion of God really does just boil down to something like 'the whole of what is', or in other words, nature. But that, by no means, entails that we must just "stick to science". What about the arts and the humanities and, indeed, philosophy? The God of the philosophers has always been the impersonal deity God, a personal God is the God of faith, not the God of reason. Faith is the business of religion and mysticism, not of philosophy. "That whereof we cannot speak, we must remain silent..."
Quoting Wayfarer
I think the very idea that anything could be 'super" to nature is incoherent, because nature is defined as "the whole of what is", whatever that whole might turn out to be or to include.
Quoting Wayfarer
I can't see what difference you are driving at. Persons are personal. And I certainly don't think the essence of a person consists in a mask. For me the essence of a person, and the essence of the personal, is the capacity to care, to love. I don't know what it could mean to say that the ground of being cares about us. Perhaps it could be thought as a "living mind" whose thoughts are all entities and their relations; that is pretty much Spinoza's God. But Spinoza doesn't admit that God has any thoughts or volitions beyond the actual entities and attributes of nature. Spinoza's God is not aware or caring of us over and above our awareness of and care of ourselves. Spinoza's God has no agenda.
Not at all true. I am a scientific realist but a transcendental idealist. I have huge respect for science, progress, and democratic and liberal values - except for the sense in which they have become cut off from their (transcendent) source, where nature is thought to be self-grounded and self-explanatory, as if it contains its own origin or ground. As we have discussed many times, I don't believe science has gotten anywhere near to that point, and the larger the discoveries, the larger the questions become.
As regards to ethics, I do believe you can have a rational and consistent ethics, but, by definition, if it's purely naturalistic, then it doesn't allow for some ultimate, absolute or unconditioned good. All goods must be civic, social, physical, or what have you.
Quoting John
If people really observed that, this forum would have practically no content.
Quoting John
Whatever your belief in God is, it has to guide your actions, such that you relate to 'the whole of reality' and not some corner of it. That is the meaning of 'spiritual liberation', and I think quite possibly what Spinoza means by his 'intellectual love of God'.
And indeed it is similar to this sentiment also expressed by Einstein where he says:
Quoting John
X-)
For me that is a contradictory, and hence incoherent, position. Science either informs us about reality or it doesn't. If it informs us about reality then what it informs us about must be real independently of our experience of, or judgements about it.
Quoting Wayfarer
It seems contradictory to say that there could be an "ultimate, absolute or unconditioned good" which means a good independent of human judgement, and yet to claim that there can be no reality independent of human judgement (i.e. a transcendental reality).
Quoting Wayfarer
Not at all; the fact that there are things which cannot be spoken of does not entail that there are not plenty of other things than can be spoken of. Whether or not any particular thing can be spoken of is itself something that must be spoken of in order to decide.
Quoting Wayfarer
Yes, but I can't see how an impersonal notion of God can serve as a guide to action any more than the notion of nature could.
Science informs us about aspects or parts of reality - and is an indispensable method for doing so. But the modern scientific method deliberately excludes certain factors from its reckonings, and then what has been excluded has been forgotten. Of course that is easy to say but it's a very deep issue which has taken centuries to unfold.
But some scientists do openly acknowledge this reality, for example, in Werner Heisenberg's well-known saying, 'What we observe is not nature itself, but nature exposed to our method of questioning'. (This is very characteristic of what became known as the 'copenhagen interpretation' of modern physics.)That attitude allows for the noumenal-phenomenal, or reality and appearance, distinction. So one can be an empirical realist about scientific phenomena, without saying that these reveal any absolute truth - so knowledge, as in scientia, is in some fundamental way limited, even if it's incredibly powerful, which it obviously is.
Quoting John
My view is that the 'objects of analysis' arise dependently with the perception of them. You can't ultimately distinguish seer and seen, as what we see is intrinsically dependent on our cognitive abilities (per Kant). So in that sense, the objects of perception are not truly observer-independent, in the way that scientific realism wants them to be. Scientific realism, as methodology, is one thing - but when it becomes instead a philosophy, it errs, because it forgets that 'the observer' is still part of the picture in the last analysis. Nothing is really 'mind-independent' in the sense of existing apart from perception, but that doesn't mean 'your perception' or 'my perception', but the whole human frame of reference.
In any case, as regards the unconditioned, that idea is represented in various schools of philosophy and traditions, for example, in Buddhism, where the Buddha says 'there is an unborn, unmade, uncreated, were there no unborn, there would be no escape from the born, the made, the created'. But that is obviously a rather more abstract or perhaps mystical notion than that of the 'heavenly father'.
Quoting John
It's not so much 'impersonal', as 'not a person'. You might say, the 'absolute' can manifest as a person, but it's not itself a person. That's why I objected to the passage that Arkady quoted from (who was it) Plantinga, saying the 'God is a person who feels and wants things'. I do think those kinds of ideas are anthropomorphic - but then, different people have to relate to these ideas on different levels. Not everyone is able to, or wants to, approach it through philosophical analysis.
What translation are you using? Edwin Curley's reads joy. Which is exactly why I avoided the word pleasure and used joy instead. While I don't know the Latin used, I highly suspect that "pleasure" is the most accurate translation there. Here's why:
If you haven't already, you can read the beginning of an early work of Spinoza (the Treatise on the Emendation of the Intellect) here. It's a (younger) Spinoza detailing out his attempts at philosophy, as well as his personal motivations for engaging in it. Slightly more personal, at least in the beginning than The Ethics.
"For as far as sensual pleasure is concerned, the mind is so caught up in it, as if at peace in a [true] good, that it is quite prevented from thinking of anything else. But after the enjoyment of sensual pleasure is past, the greatest sadness follows. If this does not completely engross, still it thoroughly confuses and dulls the mind"
Spinoza (much like the Stoics) didn't have a great idea of comfort, pleasure, and the like - at least not as most people understand them.
And I've avoided Spinoza's definition because of the attachment to an external cause required by it - defining it that way does not fit in with the Christian picture where God = Love. Love in this way cannot have an external cause, because there is nothing external to love to begin with. So defining Love with respect to something external is a grave mistake according to the Christian - much like something external cannot be used to define Substance. Note that there is no question of God being personal yet - the statement isn't, like in Islam, that God is loving. Rather God is Love. (also think about comparing Christian love with Spinoza's conatus).
This appears to have reduced it to nothing more than a mere metaphysical relation, since even if it is expressed by those that do not exist, there must even in non-existence be assigned a cause. And why rather than others? I am unsure if you have confused prop. 3, but exactly how have you isolated totality (substance) from whatever is must be in a substance and the cause of all that exists? Even 'ideas' are in this same order.
I'm interested to hear what those factors are.
Quoting Wayfarer
OK, but this does not mean that the absolute is personal. I mean, whatever it is, it can obviously manifest as persons; it manifests as human persons, at the very least
Quoting Wayfarer
If the empirical is real, (which means independent of human opinion) then how is that not absolute? For example, it is taken as an empirical truth that galaxies and solar systems formed long before humans even existed. Now obviously the knowing of that truth is not possible without humans, but the knowing of the truth is not the truth itself; the truth itself is the actuality; the galaxies either formed in the way we think or they did not.
Quoting Wayfarer
I think it is very obvious that the way things are seen by humans is dependent on the 'mechanics' of human visual perception. So, in that sense alone ti could be right to say that what is seen is ( partially) dependent on our cognitive abilities. However, the specific content of what is seen is obviously also determined by what is there (whatever that might be, or be determined by, in some imagined "ultimate sense") and not wholly by our cognitive abilities. It often seems to me that you turn a willful "blind eye" to this distinction, probably because you think that to admit it would be inimical to any spiritual understanding of life. I, on the other hand, don't think it is necessarily inimical to a spiritual understanding at all.
Quoting Wayfarer
Science takes it for granted that what is revealed by the senses is the real. What else could it be? What other real could there be? Without rational beings there would be no idea of the real. But the real would still be revealed to animal perception. Without any percipient at all, the real could not be revealed at all. And yet it is easy enough to imagine a whole world of plant life that contains no animal or human life. All those processes of nutrition, photosynthesis and cellular growth going on, and yet utterly blindly. Are you claiming that such a thing could not exist?
Science does not pretend to answer the question as to what is the "ultimate nature" of the real that is revealed to us. If there is no infinite intelligence, no God, then there is no one to know the answer to that "ultimate question". But then, perhaps the question itself is a kind of incoherent chimera that occurs only to the human mind.
.
I agree there is a common distinction between joy and pleasure; but I think really they are essentially the same. It is just that joy is commonly understood to be a "higher" kind of pleasure; possibly an ethical or intellectual pleasure, as opposed to the lower sensual pleasures.
If 'joy' is substituted for 'pleasure' in Spinoza's formulation we get "Love is joy associated with the idea of an external cause", which is essentially not that different.
In any case it seems as though you are rejecting Spinoza's definition of love, which is fine; I would probably tend to agree about that as well. I only cited it because the exchange between you and MU reminded me of it and its pertinence.
Just what an Ayer or Carnap would say, I think our conversations have run their course.
Fairy Nuff...
Quoting TimeLine
It's certainly more tedious to intellectually engage with the emotional, but it's definitely possible; I've done it many times (sure, it's not always worthwhile or successful). The answer to persuading a screamer is either to undermine their emotion or wield a more persuasive argument.
Quoting TimeLine
So the ring of invisibility the insignificance that Cain felt when god favored only Abel? That's what caused him to feel jealousy. The moral of the story is that jealousy corrupts, but within the story we also have god arbitrarily valuing the taking of animal life as an offering over the harvesting of produce as an offering. What's wrong with fruits and vegetables? By god's logic Cain could have killed Abel as an offering to god, and he might have been very pleased indeed. His real mistake was not telling god he did it all for Him.
When it comes to Cain and Abel, I'm O.K with the mainstream moral lesson (about jealousy) but in the interest of criticizing the divinity of the entire document, it's important for me to point out and ask "Hey, what's this bit about god preferring the taking of life as an offering over perfectly good fruits and vegetables?". This is quite related to my point about the Issac tale, the sacrifice of Jesus, and my point about old testament sacrifice in general. Blood is the currency of forgiveness. Which brings me back to my original point: why does god need blood to forgive in the first place? Is it some source of power? Magic? Is god Gargamel?
I agree with you but it depends on your own disposition and will as a person, as well as the utility or intention of the outcome. For instance (and I am using a personal example only to elicit the point I am attempting to convey), I once cared for someone who was rather vicious but I understood why and I knew how to help him because I had been there myself, but such was his profoundly immature ego that my ability to penetrate and enable his conscience almost cost me more than just my time. He made me so sad. When you love a friend as much as I did him, tedious is hardly the word to describe what one can end up feeling when engaging with the emotionally decrepit.
You may undermine the emotion of a religious zealot, for instance, but what about undermining the emotion of a religious zealot who is sociopathic, vengeful, cruel? Is it worth the possible outcome if they decide to unleash this cruelty directly to you? When you expose the flaws in someone - particularly religious - who subjectively consider themselves morally superior, you become an enemy to them, a threat because the foundation of their identity is shaken. The anxiety this causes makes them work very hard to undermine you back, by whatever means necessary, since if they are able to beat you then it proves to them that you must be wrong and therefore so must your judgements of them.
You are right, undermine the emotion and wield a persuasive argument, but only when you are capable of emotionally investing in it yourself. As injustice can stir a raging fire within me, I would much rather dedicate my time theoretically to broader at -macro rather than -micro.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
I am not sure what you mean, are you doubting the semblance with the Ring of Gyges? Is the problem of Able what caused Cain to feel jealousy, or was the pre-existing character of Cain merely exposed by the jealousy? Temptation can expose the true character of a person despite the appearances of virtue. It is to expose the schism within humanity vis-a-vis our immoral nature, not the actual offering itself. There is a plethora of these types of parables applicable throughout many areas of thought be it philosophical or theological; to remain in line with the OP, discussions of the purpose and motive behind actions in parables like the poor widow's offering, or the rich fool.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
This is just insipid at best. I guess I understand what you imply when your criticism is directed to the views made by the so-called mainstream religious that I am not and will remain unacquainted with, but you are confusing God with people, that it is people that need blood for redemption, the source of the power being the effect it has on ones conscience. The forgiveness follows the redemption, since when one enables their conscience to express love correctly and become morally conscious, they become what God wants them to be and thus they are forgiven. People, though, are the ones that need the blood, which should make you ponder what the heck is wrong with people.
I can't agree with this. In the "Christian picture" love cannot equal God, because love is something that we as human beings can possess, or do. And although loving might brings us closer to God it cannot make us God.
Quoting Agustino
And this statement is very confusing as well. If you are using "love" in the normal way, as something which human beings possess, or do, then love is internal to us. But you say this right after you equate love with God, therefore you put God within human beings. But we cannot have God being solely within human beings, or else God would just be a fiction made up by the human mind. Therefore God must be something more than just Love.
'He that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is love.' John 4:8
Quoting Wayfarer
This.
There is often a tendency amongst philosophers to confuse the Christian God of Abraham with the Neoplatonist God of the Philosophers.
Well okay, but I think joy is different than the feeling you have from - say - helping an old lady cross the street. That is pleasure (whether "higher" or "lower"), but what I mean by joy is different than that. Joy is experiencing your life as inherently meaningful - worthwhile. Joy is unconcerned with pain or pleasure - it's something that has to do with a deeper attitude of gratitude, and, as Spinoza would say, perceiving yourself however dimly sub specie aeternitatis. Feeling "at home" in the world, instead of "alien". Not sure exactly how best to describe what I'm trying to convey by it. But as an experience, it's different from pleasure and pain.
Quoting John
Ah yes, of course! It's strange but when I first wrote the answer to MU, the first thing that crossed my mind was Spinoza's definition of love too. I developed the distinction I tried to make between pleasure/joy out of that.
But you are right - from the Christian point of view, one would have to reject Spinoza's definition.
Perhaps pleasure and pain are somatic intensities and joy is the cognitive assignment of these feelings under the united concept of joy.
I suppose that for me, I gauge whether or not I'm living a joyous life when I lay in bed at night, wherein that moment it's just me and the dark (and my snoring dog.) At present, I'm usually very conflicted, frustrated, and often times emotionally twinged. Were I to be joyous, I think I'd be able to have a calmed mind, to be able to embrace a kind of silence and stillness that, perhaps as the Christian mystics would say, is me moving more toward God. So, pleasure has nothing to do with joy.
I can agree with that I think :P
Quoting Heister Eggcart
Yes, agreed :D Peace and serenity - a certain confidence in life - silence and stillness of the mind - are parts of joy for certain.
Well, since he was executed at the ''ripe old age'' of 33 I don't think he got to the point where he could impart his core teachings.
That said I think the fourth word from the cross (''eloi, eloi lama sabachthani'') says it all. At the bitter end he was ALONE - God didn't save him from his enemies. I find it ironic and sad that Jesus died alone, abandoned by God who he loved and believed in while so many after him died in relative peace by believing in him.
However, a lot of Platonism was absorbed into Christian theology, through many of the Greek-speaking Church Fathers, not least Origen and Clement and even Augustine. That's not to say that there aren't great differences between the various ancient schools, but I think there's a lot of neoplatonism in mainstream Christian theology to this day.
Quoting TheMadFool
In that case, you're entirely missing the point. The 'abandonment' turned out to be temporary, as he was resurrected. The point was that at that moment Jesus absolutely didn't know his fate and felt totally abandoned, so was in the situation of all humanity who feels exiled from God.
I think it pays to remember that 'emotion' words are polysemous and cover ranges of emotional phenomena. So, I can certainly understand the kind of more restricted meaning you want to apply to 'joy'. In your usage, joy seems to be more akin to peace or love in the Christian sense, already referred to, of "God is Love". I get what you are driving at when you say that pain is irrelevant to joy, but consider this question; does it seem right to think that Christ experienced joy on the cross?
For myself, I would say that possibly the greatest joys I have experienced were when making love. That kind of joy seems to be a mixture of the greatest sensual pleasure with a profound love. Perhaps love is the greatest purely emotional and intellectual pleasure, and I don't think it would seem wrong to say that Christ might have experienced that when He was crucified. In any case I think all these 'emotion' words are nuanced in complex ways. It seems to me that only one-sidedness or confusion will result if we fall into hypostatizing words as kinds of absolute essences.
I think the idea that God is Love is also an interesting one to consider. Does it mean that God experiences love, or that God emanates or bestows love? If God loves, then He is not Spinoza's God, but a Person, since it seems to be universally accepted in all common usages that only persons (in the broadest sense where the higher animals are also thought as being in some senses persons) can love.
For me, it is certainly true that only when we love do we feel "at home" in the world; we go out of ourselves, released from narrow self-concern, and then we can truly be in the world. I also think it is true that there is no self-pain in love, although we may certainly feel the pain of others; which is a very different thing; this is where love becomes compassion.
I believe that you can quote scriptures to support just about anything. But we can know quite clearly, that according to Christian doctrine, God cannot be equated with love. God is known as a Trinity, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. We can say God is Father, God is Son, and God is Holy Spirit, but unless you can demonstrate that one of these, such as Holy Spirit, is equivalent to Love, we cannot say God is Love.
Quoting Agustino
Contrary to this, I believe it is a mistake to remove the relationship of an external object from "love". To do this, as you proclaim, will necessarily remove the thing being loved, leaving only the possibility of self-love. Love always has related external objects, other beings. There must be something loved, or you have a meaningless "love". You might call the being which is being loved, a subject, but nevertheless that subject is external, so your categorization of such emotions, with respect to external and internal, is misguided. You cannot remove emotions from their relations with the external without producing fictitious representations of those emotions.
Instead, I suggest that we can categorize these emotions according to their temporal relation to the external. Emotions such as desire and love precede human acts, the human actions themselves being the expression of good in the external world. Emotions such as pleasure and joy follow the good act. So it is more appropriate to class love with desire, as an emotion which causes good in the external world, and to class joy with pleasure, as emotions which are caused by good in the external world. There is no point in trying to describe certain emotions as isolated from the external world.
In relation to God, the good act is the creation of the external world. The reason why God created is Love. The act of creation was carried out for no purpose other than that God apprehended it as good. So it is an act of pure love, because it was carried out for no reason, or purpose, except that it was good. Human beings may act in a very similar way. They can carry out actions for no purpose other than that the acts are apprehended as good, and these are acts of love. Carrying out such actions produce pleasure and joy within the human being.
Quoting Agustino
There is but one God. And I'm sure you recognize that the only truly Neo-Platonist conception of God is the one put forth by the Christian St. Augustine. So this claimed distinction between a Christian God and a Neo-Platonist God is completely unjustified.
Quoting TheMadFool
If I remember the storyline correctly, Jesus only exclaimed "Why hast Thou forsaken me?" when he was given water to drink instead of the prescribed vinegar.
Come off it, MU. That 'God is love' is a central plank of Christianity. If you're going to argue about that, there's no point in discussing it, because you're talking about something else altogether. Unless you want to petition the various denominations to re-write the Bible.
I've read a large stack of Christian theology, and I've only come across God is a Trinity. The three members of the Trinity are interpreted in numerous different ways, but I haven't yet come across an interpretation which claims Love as one of the members of the Trinity. Therefore I have to disagree with your claim. I think your mistaken
'He that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is love.' John 4:8
So, if you've read 'a large stack of Christian theology' without getting that, you'd better keep reading :-)
Perhaps you mean "God Loves us"? But this is very distinct from "God is Love". The former places God as external to us, and the latter places God as internal to the person who has love.
The Trinity isn't found in the Gospels. Yes, it may say "Baptize in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit" which is likely a back-reading of current liturgical practice. At any rate, the doctrine of the Trinity was formulated 2 or 3 generations after the Resurrection. Right?
"Love" isn't the personification of any one person in the Trinity. Neither is Wisdom. Neither is Mercy. Right?
Love is manifested by God. God loved the world so much, He sacrificed his Son for the salvation of the world. Love is the reason for keeping God's commandments. John 14:15 -- If ye love me, keep my commandments.And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever. Love is the beginning and end of the story. Right?
A large stack of theology is a good thing, but it isn't scripture.
Here's Cantus, a hometown choir, singing Thomas Tallis's wonderful 16th century setting of the the verse. It's only 2 minutes long.
That's because I think you're considering love from the human point of view. But from God's perspective, God loved before there was any external world to love.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
Of course, but remember the commandment to "love your neighbour as yourself"? That presupposes that you first love yourself. So I don't think love necessarily entails an external, especially from the divine point of view. The essence of the Triune God of Christianity is Love, and was so even before there was any external creation.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
Okay, so how do we go about apprehending what is and what isn't good then? If you don't have a loving heart, you may apprehend domination over your fellow men as a good. Does that mean that it's loving to dominate your fellow men because it is apprehended as good? Clearly apprehension of good and evil isn't a straightforward matter.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
So I'm not so sure that the Neo-Platonic God set up by St. Augustine is the most faithful representation of God as found in the Scriptures.
The equivalence between Love and God is essential to Christianity. It's almost the very heart of Christian revelation. Kierkegaard for example discusses this at length in Works of Love.
But regardless, I suggest you look at what Christianity teaches - NOT the philosophers.
Yes but is this a good thing?
I think it does. I don't know about you for example, but I've had moments when I gladly did something painful, and undertook suffering, knowing that it was the right thing to do. So beyond the pain and suffering, there was a sense of joy at what I'm doing. Obviously all this pales in comparison to the suffering that Jesus had to take on, but I think the principle still holds.
The same can be said of Socrates. Can we say Socrates would have been more joyous had he chosen to escape than if he chose to stay and be forced to drink the hemlock? I think he took some joy out of doing the right thing, a joy that would have been replaced by despair had he chosen the opposite.
Quoting John
I find it hard to say what my greatest joys were. Two come to mind. Achieving something that others thought was impossible and seeing other people inspired by it. And a time when I was 16-17 watching my girlfriend playing in the dust while I sat on a bench next to her. Very close to those two came listening to a great classical music concert, praying, attending a service on Mt. Athos, working in the field building houses for handicapped people (I used to dig ditches), other moments with my girlfriend and some similar experiences. Making love itself would rank after all these for me. It's intense (perhaps more intense than the other experiences), but, for me at least, followed by sadness, exactly as described by Spinoza. This is interesting. It feels similar to getting something you don't deserve, and then losing it.
Quoting John
I agree.
Quoting John
It could be that way, and it definitely is that way in Christianity, however, just from the fact that God is Love it doesn't follow that God is a person in the same way you and me are persons, or that God experiences love.
Quoting John
Yes I agree.
Essay question! 'Comment on the attraction of Plotinus to the early Greek-speaking theologians, and the ways that they agreed with, and differentiated, themselves from him, in the formation of orthodox theology in the early period of the Church'.
You have 10,000 words. Get cracking! (Only kidding.)
Do you know about the writings of 'pseudo-Dionysius', and how important they were in the formation of Christian theology in the early to medieval period?
I think we have mentioned that book, The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church, by Lossky, previously. I haven't read it although have read passages from it, and am familiar with the general drift. But, as you have affinities with Orthodoxy, I'm sure you would find some discussion in there of the part played by various Platonist and neo-Platonist ideas in the work of the Church Fathers, especially of course the Greek-speaking fathers.
I think one of the cardinal differences between Orthodox and Catholic theology, is that the former is more Platonist, the latter more Aristotelean. Actually I did run this past an Orthodox Father one day, and he emphatically agreed.
I think the 'nominalists', contrarily, are far less compatible with Platonist thinking, and, therefore, much more inclined towards fundamentalism. That is why, I think, we have this strongly dichotomising tendency between 'religion and science', 'mind and matter', and all the other debilitating dualities of current Western thinking. If Platonism had retained greater influence, it might have all worked out radically differently to that. But all of this is highly speculative, of course.
A note from Eckhardt.
There is sometimes a big difference between what is taught by the Church, and what is found in the Gospels. The Gospels need to be interpreted. For instance, you will not find within the Gospels, Jesus claiming to be Son of God, he claims to be Son of Man. yet in many Churches it is taught that he is Son of God.
Quoting Bitter Crank
I agree about the importance of love, I just do not agree with equating love with God, for the reason stated. It puts God internal to the human beings who have love. That Love is not equated with any person of the Trinity is evidence that God is not equated with Love.
Quoting Agustino
You and wayfarer seem to believe this, but I haven't seen any support for this other than an out of context quote from wayfarer. I strongly believe that love is extremely important to Christianity, and that it is central to the teachings of Jesus. But I do not believe that the equivalence of God and Love is essential to Christianity. You are denying that I can call myself Christian, because I think that God is the Trinity rather than God is Love, and that's completely ridiculous.
Quoting Agustino
I don't see how you can make such a distinction. The teachings of Christianity are derived from philosophy. Even if Christians draw their teachings directly from the Gospels, the passages need to be interpreted, and they are interpreted by means of philosophy. So in the case of religion, you cannot distinguish between what Christianity teaches, and what the philosophers teach, because it is all the teachings of philosophers. It is however the case, that some philosophers teach a different thing than others.
The problem is that the core of religious experiences may have changed over time to suit the needs of people and communities. Where peacefulness in community and "unity" with natural settings might have been obtained through the tribal experience, with religion being either a) another source of the unity feeling, or b) a way to calm survival anxieties about birth, death, and sustaining (through various spirits and rituals), it became elevated to survival of crops, tribes, and city-states in post-agricultural societies... Then around what used to be called the "Axial Age" of about 600BCE, religion became a much more personal thing, whereby one can try to achieve calm with oneself and one's society either through a strict set of social rules, a strict set of self-disciplined ascetic practices, or both..
So to summarize- what was communal anxiety over survival becomes calm tranquility with oneself and one's community. Whether this be mediated through a godhead or through more impersonal means, this is the root of religion since the 600's BCE. Perhaps the calmness with self and society is a roundabout way of going back to the original understanding of peacefulness and unity with community and natural settings that was the original role of religious experience..
Mind you, this is all speculative but it's not a bad theory, right? Oh, and please don't just quote this last part..
I don't understand this claim. William of Ockham and others like him were not fundamentalists. In fact, William anticipated many features of liberalism.
Quoting schopenhauer1
What you say actually sounds similar to Durkheim's concept of collective effervescence, which is interesting as far as it goes.
Love is usually equated with the interaction between the members of the Trinity, rather than to the individual persons, so I think you're correct.
Maybe. This book apparently shows that many Orthodox theologians had a great appreciation for Thomas.
Consider also that the Platonist Augustine is referenced in the recent Catechism of the Catholic Church far more than Aquinas. And recall that the relatively recent, as far as Church history goes, dogma of the Immaculate Conception was promulgated against the wishes of the Dominicans, who knew that Aquinas opposed the doctrine. The Franciscans, who tend to be more Platonistic, won.
Fundamentalism in the sense that it was accompanied by the dissolution of the understanding of the 'great chain of being' and the 'intelligible nature' of the Cosmos which was found in earlier theological philosophies, to be replaced by a God who was essentially unknowable and sovereign even over reason. It's a deep and complicated argument however.
Have a look at What's Wrong with Ockham. A similar argument is elaborated in more detail in The Theological Origins of Modernity by Michael Gillespie. Also another book mentioned in the first article, Ideas have Consequences (apparently very popular amongst US conservatives.)
Yes I've read quite a bit on it as well, but I'm primarily interested in what you personally think here.
I'm well aware that Greek Orthodoxy is heavily Platonist, but I don't necessarily view that as a good thing, and neither does a priest I've spoken to about it. In certain regards it moves far far away from the simplicity of the Gospels.
So I'll ask again. What's your personal opinion, is it a good thing or a bad thing and why do you think so? What does Platonism add to the Gospels if anything?
So the Scriptures state unequivocally that God is Love and you do not believe it? What kind of other evidence would you want that Christianity holds that God is Love?
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
Okay but the passages certainly don't require references to Platonic Forms and the like to be explained, right? The Bible can be taken and understood on its own terms.
I don't get what's particularly "fundamentalist" about this, though. Christian fundamentalism didn't exist until the 19th century and within Protestant circles.
Quoting Wayfarer
I'm always weary of these just-so stories that try to link things as disparate as, for example, 20th century American consumerism, to virtually unheard of debates among philosophers in the Middle Ages. It really strains credibility. Ideas do indeed have consequences, but to insinuate that all of modernity's woes are due to nominalism of all things is absurd.
Those are some nice examples, and I have had experiences similar; but they all seem to qualify as feelings of joy accompanied by the idea of an external cause or at least occasioned by an external cause. I think the salient point is that the idea of an external cause is the idea of something outside oneself; it can be interpreted as getting outside of oneself, the idea of a connection or relationship with something greater, with the world, with life, with the lover, with God. On the mundane level it can be mere sensual enjoyment of say, food, or being in nature, swimming, hiking, and so on, and at a more extraordinary level it could be an experience of mystical union with God.
Quoting Agustino
I have experienced those kinds of feelings of emptiness after sex but never when I have felt love for and communion with my lover. At those times I have felt a profound sense of peace and completion after lovemaking.
The Weaver book - I have read a synopsis of it. There's a PDF summary of it out there which conveys the general drift. I like what he has to say on the loss of metaphysics in medieval culture, but he's a a bit reactionary in other parts of the book (like, hates jazz!)
The WIlliam of Ockham article is an essay rather than a book, but that is one of its strengths. It opens with a reference to the Weaver book, but I think it draws out the metaphysical implications of nominalism very well. It concludes:
That is why I mean that nominalism gives rise to fundamentalism, or perhaps, 'fideism' - the idea that any kind of religious insight can only be a matter of belief, of 'faith in the word', which is radically other to the order of nature herself. Can't you see how deeply this is embedded in the modern weltanschuung? The whole idea of the Cosmos as being an essentially undirected confluence of events, which is the backdrop of the neo-darwinian worldview, is rooted in these developments.
One of the consequences is the deep conviction that the word 'existence' is univocal, that it has one meaning - something either exists, or it doesn't. The implicit rider to this is that whatever does exist, must be in principle discoverable by scientific method - otherwise, it doesn't exist.
Now my response to that is always: what about number? Does number exist? But the point of that question is not to elicit a yes or no answer - it is to illustrate the fact that 'the nature of number' is itself a metaphysical, not a scientific, question. And yet, modern scientific method would not even exist were it not for the rational ability to grasp numbers (which is the point of many arcane modern arguments about the 'indispensability of maths').
Now a Platonistic view is that numbers are real, but that they're not real in the same way as chairs and tables and the objects of cognition. But you will always find that this idea of something being real 'in a different way' is highly controversial and generally rejected as nonsense - something, it will be said, is either real, or it's not, it either exists, or it doesn't. (Here is where all the speculations about the 'ghostly realm of Platonic objects' begins. And that is because we have been so conditioned by naturalism to beleive that 'what is real' must be 'out there somewhere'. So if the domain of number is real, where is it? If it's not located in space and time, then it can't be real. This is a hint of what the word 'transcendental' actually means.)
I have found that much earlier philosophy understood that there were different modes, domains, and levels of being. That is illustrated by the amazing work of Eirugena, who lived and taught in what are now called 'the dark ages'. The modes of being and non-being is essential to this.
That is the basis of the kind of apophatic understanding that Paul Tillich later developed.
But that hierarchical, and dialectical, understanding is what became lost in the realism vs nominalism debates. We - our intellectual culture and milieu - are very much a consequence of that.
So why I say this leads to fundamentalism, which, as you say, got started in the the early 20th century US, is because the depth provided by Platonic realism had been completely lost and forgotten. So the only way you could believe in the Bible, was literalistically - it was an actual story, real history, not symbolic. You know that both Augustine and Origen ridiculed literalism and 'creationism' at the very beginning of the Christian era, right? That's because they still retained that Platonist depth which gave them the ability to interpret scripture in more than one way. But that all became lost; now the only choice was to either believe it, or reject it, to live in an Adam and Eve fairytale world (saddles on dinosaurs!) or Jean Paul Sartre's meaningless universe. (Forgive rhetorical excess, I'm supposed to be working.)
//ps// there's a PDF summary of Weaver here, the Introduction summarises the basic drift of his ideas - which is that, once the idea of ' a real transcendent' is lost, then everything starts to collapse from the centre.
Fry observes that Christianity's founding documents, the New Testament, was written and/or edited by itself. From the beginning, "The Church" had a stake in how Jesus was presented, and which of his sayings and doings would be immortalized.
When Jesus says, "Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit," in Matthew, words are possibly being put into his mouth from a century into the future. Similarly, take this bread, drink this cup, etc. may have been said by Jesus, or it may have evolved as part of a liturgy of agape meals held in house churches. In time, the liturgy became so central, it needed to be put in Jesus' mouth.
We know the four Gospels and Paul's letters are not the only accounts of Jesus and the early church in existence. We know other accounts were suppressed. The suppression isn't the point: The point is that there was an editor who decided what should be left out, and what should be included. Nothing against editing here, just that there was one. (My guess is that the editing was probably done by a committee with an executive editor.)
The church ended up in the saddle of the Roman Empire, an event that profoundly influenced how the church, churchmen, and so forth have behaved from Constantine on up to Donald Trump's prayer breakfasts. A Divine Gesture on behalf of human Kind initially involved a "diverse" group of people. It didn't take very long before poor people and women were being shoved into the figurative church basement.
It's true that there are other ways to interpret the idea that God is Love than to take it to mean that God experiences love, that is that God cares about human doings or judges them or experiences anything at all for that matter. Love can be understood most simply as the creative and binding force of nature; and then you would have Spinoza's God, which is blind nature that experiences nothing other than what is experienced through its creatures. Thus even Spinoza's God may be love, but It cannot love us. (Re God-as-It, it is intriguing (for me at least) and I realized just recently that there is, in English at least, no non-gendered personal pronoun).
On the other hand, to say that God is a Person is not necessarily to say that God is a person such as we are; that would be ridiculous, anyway, because we are embodied, sensual creatures, and it wouldn't seem to make any sense at all to say that God is an embodied sensual creature. I don't think we have any exhaustive or even clear notion of what personhood consists in (can we even conceive of a truly ungendered personhood, for example?), in any case; personhood would not seem to consist merely, or even necessarily, in being an embodied, sensual creature.
This was pretty much my earlier point in the thread. I provided a possible scenario as well of pre-Pauline Jesus Movement vs. post-Pauline Christianity. I am sure there were other key players- especially those who edited the four canonical Gospels, and the people who changed even these canonical gospels, and then the people who decided that those particular four would be included and others would not. By the time the Gospels were written, the original Jesus Movement was out of the original players' hands, and was being run by a community with a certain slant influenced by certain people that most likely were not part of the original movement. Most likely Paul was the dividing point, and there were post-Pauline influenced churches run out of people's houses and communities that spread and eventually formed a hierarchy.
No problem.. I just wanted to draw the parallels as we were hitting similar points. The main point is that the historical context matters and that interpolation from a later point was probably rewritten into the story, thus changing the original one.
My earlier point was that it is best to reconstruct the original person of Jesus (Joshua), his very early followers, etc. by using a variety of historical and archaeological sources that provide a most likely scenario. It seems that John the Baptist started/continued some sort of Essenic interpretation of Torah law- with much emphasis against the political structure (anti-Herodian for John/ anti-Temple Establishment for Jesus). Jesus was known as some sort of miracle-worker (not uncommon at the time except the idea that his services were free and made him possibly more well known.. see Honi the Circle Drawer, Hanina Ben Dosa, and other of this time).. He goes to Jerusalem in an anti-Temple Establishment tirade at the center of the Establishment. This pissed off the authorities and had him crucified for trying to foment dissent and probably claiming kingship (Messiah title).
His immediate followers were led by his family, specifically his brother James (Jacob). This group thought Jesus was not actually dead because he was too righteous. Paul becomes an interloper who reinterprets the group and their not-quite-dead messiah. He introduces ideas of mystery cults- the idea of a god that dies for sins. He also elevates Jesus to more than a righteous guy (who was believed not-quite-dead by his followers), into a literal Son of God. He introduces shades of Gnosticism and views Jesus' life and death as a complete replacement of the Torah itself. This is Gnostic in the idea that the Torah represents the old (the "physical", the "demiurge", the lesser) and the new way is the "real" path ("the spiritual", Jesus' death and resurrection is greater vehicle). These irreconcilable and monumental changes in theology brought him in conflict with the original John-Jesus-James Movement. Paul, along with his followers, go and form their own communities, either under James' nose (without his knowledge) or simply without even having his consent. His ideas mostly resonated within the Gentile communities throughout the Greco-Roman world. These Pauline communities are what will eventually become "Christianity". This Pauline Christianity will eventually create many of its own schisms, that will eventually coalesce to become dominated by Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodox.
The John-Jesus-James Movement, some possible subsect of Essenic Judaism (with anti-Establishment, Messianic message), becomes more obscure in the Jewish community as the Temple is destroyed by 70 CE. With the Bar Kochba Rebellion in 132-136 CE, this group becomes even more of an outcast in synogogues in the Levant as their dead messiah seems less efficacious than Bar Kochba, a general and messianic claimant who was actually beating the Romans.. The group probably lived on in the fringes of Jewish society, known as the "Ebionim" or "Ebionites" much later (meaning the "poor ones", possibly a name the original Jesus Movement called themselves).
From whatever I've read in Christian theology, God is known to be a Trinity. You can find the Trinity well described by St. Augustine, St. Thomas, and others. Augustine explains the Trinity by reference to the three parts of the intellect, Aquinas explains it as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit being the relationship between Father and Son.
That wayfarer can produce an out of context quote from one of Jesus' disciples saying "God is Love", really does nothing for me. Nor does your repeated insistence that God is Love help to sway me. What I need as "evidence", is for you to establish logical consistency between "God is a Trinity" and "God is Love". For instance, you might argue that "Holy Spirit" when described as the relationship between Father and Son, is equivalent to "Love". However, I would reply that there is a physical aspect of this relationship, a temporal continuity of existence, which makes it more than just a relationship of love.
The context is The Bible, if that helps. It is basic to all schools of Christianity. Really as this is a philosophy forum, it is hardly the place to have such arguments.
Yes! That's what I was thinking as well.
Quoting Agustino
Spinoza's definition seems accurate from the point of view of a creature. But since God must be the source of Love, and in the beginning there was only God, then it seems to follow that from the divine point of view, Love does not require an external (although even God's Love was directed outwards towards the creation that was to come).
Quoting John
Yes, I fully agree. Breaking out of the prison of the self is what love enables us human beings to do.
Quoting John
Well personally I've only ever had sex with someone I was in love with. However sex - at least per Christianity - is an activity which belongs to the fallen flesh, which saps energy, and diminishes vitality. Jesus for example made it clear that in Heaven they "neither marry nor are given in marriage" - indeed marriage doesn't exist in the kingdom of God (and neither does sex for that matter). In Eastern Orthodox Christianity, lay believers are expected to abstain from sexual intercourse (not that most do, unfortunately) in periods of fasting and celebration. And it's not just Christianity, but all religious practices have for the most part seen sex negatively, for precisely this reason.
So I obviously can't speak about how you've felt things, but for me, I'm not referring to feeling an emptiness. No I too felt a fulfilment, but it was a weak fulfilment - it's like being at peace in weakness (because you fought too hard on the field of battle and are too tired [an analogy to a soldier]), instead of being at peace because of strength. By analogy, it's like a comparison between being at peace with whatever the result of an activity will be because (1) you have tried so hard, or (2) you know how things will go. (1) is a peace that emerges out of weakness - you did your best, you couldn't do more, so you just let go. (2) is a peace that emerges out of your own inner strength, your knowledge - there's no letting go there.
I don't consider sexual intercourse (even with a beloved) to be the highest joy because to a large extent it's still grasping after something that is external to you - it's still looking outside for satisfaction, hence why there is always some pain left behind. Whereas my belief is that all satisfaction is found inside, and can only ever radiate outwards. Therefore, so long as we are embodied beings, sexual intercourse with a beloved will be a good thing - but only if, paradoxically, we feel no need for it.
Quoting John
Yes, I agree on this.
Quoting John
Hmm. I'm not sure. Christianity isn't clear in this regard because the second person of the Trinity - Jesus Christ - is embodied. In addition, Christianity claims that there is a bodily resurrection after death. Sure, it won't be the same kind of body as this earthly one, but it will be a body nonetheless.
Quoting John
Well I think the "ungendered" or better "androgynous" person, as referenced in the works of, for example, Berdyaev refers to someone who is complete in and of themselves - someone who doesn't need something or someone external to complete them. Men are incomplete because they need women and vice versa. If they didn't need them, they would be complete. Of course, it doesn't follow from not needing them that they wouldn't want to be together, etc.
Quoting John
Would you agree that intellect and will are both absolutely essential for personhood, whether we're talking about embodied or disembodied persons?
For me, it's not like that. In the times when I have experienced it. it has been what I can only call an ecstatically creative spiritual union; and there has been sensual pleasure too, of course, but it has seemed transfigured, as though there is no ultimate distinction between the sensual, the emotional and the spiritual. So the feeling afterwards has been the abatement of the intensity of the sensual pleasure only and the abiding of the feelings of spiritual love. So, although the intensity of physical feeling is abated, there is no diminishment of the sense of physicality. There is no distinction between the physical and the spiritual, and it seems as though the joyous, peaceful physical and spiritual feelings fill the whole world. I hope it doesn't sound corny, but I've done my best to describe it. Those moments are unforgettable for me.
Quoting Agustino
That's true Christ is God. So, since the Father and the Holy Spirit are not embodied, God must be thought to be both embodied and disembodied. This is in keeping with the idea of the greatness of God; a God who is both enbodied and disembodied, both personal and impersonal, is greater than a God who is only one or the other. I see this as expressed also in the idea, contra Spinoza, that God is both transcendent and immanent. (Although that is only from our human point of view, from God's 'perspective' nothing is transcendent). Another thought that occurs to me is that Spinoza says that extension is an attribute of God, but it is infinite extension; whereas the idea of 'body' necessarily involves the idea of 'boundary' or finitude.
Quoting Agustino
Yes, I think I had come across this in Berdyaev, but had forgotten about it. It also reminds me of Plato's idea of sexuality.
Quoting Agustino
Yes, I would certainly agree with that. Therein lies the difference between Spinoza's conception of God and the Christian conception. If I remember rightly, Spinoza denies both intellect and will (which he claims would ultimately be the same in an infinite context) to God. I think it is in virtue of the idea of God in the Christian conception that God possess both intellect and will, and to an infinite degree, that He is thought of as a person.
Love III, George Herbert, 1593 - 1633
Love bade me welcome. Yet my soul drew back
Guilty of dust and sin.
But quick-eyed Love, observing me grow slack
From my first entrance in,
Drew nearer to me, sweetly questioning,
If I lacked any thing.
A guest, I answered, worthy to be here:
Love said, You shall be he.
I the unkind, ungrateful? Ah my dear,
I cannot look on thee.
Love took my hand, and smiling did reply,
Who made the eyes but I?
Truth Lord, but I have marred them: let my shame
Go where it doth deserve.
And know you not, says Love, who bore the blame?
My dear, then I will serve.
You must sit down, says Love, and taste my meat:
So I did sit and eat.
https://www.poetryfoundation.org/resources/learning/core-poems/detail/44367 for annotations (and a reading - which I wouldn't call definitive).
Incidentally, on a similar theme - 'God is your being, but you are not his' ~ Eckhardt.
The context is John 4:8, and it is promptly contradicted at John 4:9.
In many places John says "God loved the world", then he says "God is love". Here he says "God showed his love". So as I explained earlier, there is a big difference between the act of loving, as in "God loved the world", and love itself, as a thing, as in "God is Love".
So which is it, that you believe, does God love us, or is God love itself? One describes God as an active loving being, the other describes God as a passive thing, "Love".
Quoting Agustino
Here, you talk about "God's Love", and that God is "the source of Love", yet earlier you claimed "God is Love". Can we settle on some form of consistency here? Is God a loving being, such that we can talk about "God's Love", or is it as you claimed earlier, that God is Love? There is nothing worse for the theological project than inconsistent principles.
That is not a contradiction.
In the one case it is implied that "God" is equivalent to "Love", to say "God", is to say "Love", they are synonymous, "God is Love". In the other case it is implied that God is a being with the attribute of love. God showed his love". If one of these two is true, it excludes the possibility of the other (i.e., if God is Love it is impossible that God is a loving being, because "love" according to the other is an attribute, not a being). Therefore it is contradiction to say both, like saying the subject is equivalent to the predicate. It requires equivocation with the term "is".
I suggest to you, that when John says "God is Love", this is spoken metaphorically. As evidence that this is metaphor, look at how may times John uses "love" as an attribute of God in comparison to how many times John says God is Love. We should conclude that what John meant, is what he said numerous times, that God loved, God showed his love, and when he mistakenly spoke the contradiction, "God is Love", this was meant metaphorically. This is consistent with what I said earlier, which is also argued by St. Augustine, that the act of creation is the most loving act. This act causes existence for no other reason or purpose, except that it is good. It is an act which is the epitome of love. But it is a fallacy to conclude that the thing which carries out this act, "God", is Love itself.
The truth of a paradox begins where reason ends.
Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”
I believe the teachings of Jesus to be a fulfillment of the Jewish law, which can be summed up as above.
You seem to be assuming that the apostle John thought in a manner that philosophers are sometimes thought to think, rather than thinking like a poet. You seem to believe that, if he had noticed it, he would have realized that he misspoke when he declared that God is Love. Ironically it is what you say that seems contradictory, because you acknowledge that in saying this he spoke metaphorically, and yet you claim that he "mistakenly spoke a contradiction". If his declaration is taken as a metaphor, there is no contradiction.
If God holds the world in being as an act of love, if He feels infinite love for every being, if He is the source of all love, if Love is our highest Good, our highest aspiration, our very God, and if God is the ultimate object of all human love, what better way could this be poetically expressed than to say "God is Love"?
They could both be true, but this would require that "love" is defined differently for each. "God is Love", and "God is loving" can only be both true through equivocation, and equivocation is a fallacy, so they cannot both be true. One describes God as love, the other describes the activities of God as loving. Either "Love" describes the activities of God or "Love" describes God Himself, one or the other.
Since the being itself is distinct from the activities of that being, then the use of "love" to describe the being is distinct from the use of "love" to describe the activity of the being. So if "God is loving", and "God is Love" are both to be true, then this requires two distinct meanings of "love", one referring to the being, the other referring to the activities of that being.. But two distinct meanings of "love" does not allow for reconciliation between "God is Love" and "God is loving" because "love" refers to something different in each of these cases. So these two must remain contradictory.
Quoting John
I agree that if you allow that what John said, with "God is Love", is metaphoric, then there is no contradiction. By saying that it is metaphoric we allow that "love" has a meaning different from when he used "love" the other times. So he speaks in metaphor, and "God is Love" does not really mean what we might think it means. There is no contradiction as long as we recognize that this is metaphor, and not really meant to mean God is love.
Quoting John
But God isn't all there is to Love, as human beings love as well. So to express :"love" as equivalent God is inadequate, because human beings love as well, and human beings are not God.
Suppose that human beings think, just like God loves. So we say human existence "is" thinking. Well what about all those animals which think, but are not human? Now what about all those human beings who are loving yet are not God? How do we deal with that if "love" is equated with "God"/
It's a nuanced question with many possible interpretations and answers. It is said in Christian teaching that humans are made in the image of God. Spinoza says all phenomena are modes of the one substance, God. If God is love then we, just like He, do not merely love, but are modes of love, even if we do not recognize it.
It is true we are not God, but that does not mean that God is not us, or that we are anything but God. You are not your body, perhaps, but from that it does not follow that you body is not you. You have a body, and your body is (at least) a part of you, and as such is you (even if not the whole of you). It's really all down to language and the senses of the words we use.
Or again, if we accept that we are not God, but think we live and breathe and have our being in God, then if God is Love we live and breathe and have our being in love (although of course it is always possible that we do not recognize that).
They're already isolated in Spinoza's distinction between Substance and modes. For modes to literally be in Substance, it would mean Substance was a mere collection of finite states, which morphed into a distinct form ever time a state of the world was destroyed and emerged.
If Spinoza was being literal in saying "in God," he would be reducing Substance to nothing more than a finite collection of states which existed: a violation of the infinite and unchanging nature of Substance.
For non-existence (e.g. logic, possible worlds) to be included within Substance, it cannot be dependent on existing states. All that has not been caused (i.e does not exist) must be of Substance too. Substance can only be a metaphysical relation if it is to include everything-- if it were defined by existence, all non-existent things would be excluded from it.
Spinoza's expression of "modes in God" isn't precise. Speaking in literal terms, it would be described by something more along the lines of: "God (as far as a relationship to modes) is in modes."
Substance is the metaphysical reaction of totality expressed by all (existent and non-existent), which is the same no matter what exists. With respect to being in world, we might say modes speak Substance. God is not the authority which determines one state to happen rather than another, but the significance of totality which an existing state cannot be given without.
Clearly, we cannot say that a human being is love. We do have love, but we have other emotions as well, and some of these contradict "love", so we cannot, under all conditions, have love. Therefore we cannot say that a human being is love. We can attribute to the human being the property of love, but we cannot say that the human being is equivalent to love.
An image images the thing in particular ways, not in every way. If it imaged the thing in every way, it would be the same as the thing, and not an image. If God is Love, then human beings do not image God in this way, because a human being is not love.
Quoting John
There are two principal ways that "Is" is used, One signifies predication, the other signifies equivalence. In the case of predication, one might say, "God is us", meaning that we are the property of God, but we are not God. But predication is not what we are discussing here. Aqustino explicitly claimed that "God is Love" means that God is equivalent to Love. That is the interpretation we are dealing with. However, if we interpret the "is" as predicating "love" to "God", then love is a property of God, not equivalent to God, we say "God is Loving", and the problem disappears. That is my recommendation, to interpret "God is Love" as predication rather than equivalence.
My argument is that in the Gospel of John, it is stated many times that God loved, or God loves, so this is how we should interpret "God is Love", as predication, not as a statement of equivalence.
Quoting John
The point though, is that our "being" is more than just love. If our being was just love, then there would be no hatred in the world. But there are such things, things which contradict "love" within our being, and we cannot deny this. To deny this, and claim "our being is love", is to produce some useless fantasy which does not represent reality at all. If human beings are the image of God, then God may have these other properties as well, so we cannot say God is equivalent to Love if human beings are an image of God. In philosophizing we must respect reality, or there is no point to the philosophy, it's just imaginary fantasy. So what's the point in saying "our being is love" when it's clearly not true? Love is one part of our being.
How does that correlate with your statement that God (totality) is expressed by some actual states (those that exist) but not other ones (those which do not exist); notwithstanding the irregularities in the interpretation of his work, it is very clear that he stated God is not contingent but that all things are determined by the necessity of God’ existence, the cause of divine Nature effects all other things. There are an infinite number of finite modes and it appears counterintuitive to purport modes as separate to Substance as it resists this external causation and violates this relation. In fact, it makes no sense for you to say: "If Spinoza was being literal in saying "in God," he would be reducing Substance to nothing more than a finite collection of states which existed: a violation of the infinite and unchanging nature of Substance.”
It is an infinite collection of states - inherence or conceived in another - vis-a-vis Substance or in God (that conceived through itself), thus a fundamental unity that ties this theory together. It is unfair to claim Spinoza was or was not being literal in his attempt to explain this causal order and though we cannot conceive of Nature, it does not suddenly imply that we are not a part of it. Substance is not dependent on either existing or non-existing states, but the quality of modes to “literally be in Substance” that is, to be predicated of it implies that God is the cause of all modes.
I can appreciate the controversy of the subject of immanent causation in Spinoza’ modal theory, but to say he did not “literally” mean such and such is just bad manners.
“God is the immanent, not the transitive, cause of all things. Everything that is, is in God, and must be conceived through God, and so God is the cause of all things, which are in him.”
Can’t get any clearer than that buddy.
Immanence is the reason his "in God" is not literal. A causal state of the world is defined by seperation from everything else. The electron in my phone is different to the screen it belongs, which is different to my eye which light hits, which is different to my brain that reacts and then to my experience which is generated.
The spirit of immanence cannot be closed off and cut in this manner. We cannot say: "Immanence begins and ends in this moment. It is X state of the world which causes this other distinct state Y."
Spinoza outright says he's not being literal in the passage you quoted. God is an not transitive, not some state of the world which begins and ends in sequence. God is the cause of ALL, rather than merely a state which causes another following state.
I think it's fair to say that hatred and even indifference are modes of love, or care. We hate or are indifferent to some thing(s) only on account of our love for some other thing(s). With such negative emotions, our love is merely misplaced: we just care about the wrong things due to narrow understandings.
Unlike how we value only what we find meaningful, the lack of any ontological value in the transcendental does not suddenly nullify immanence. Being enabled with a determined movement of conatus as an intuitive essence integral to human nature is not a finite status neither is it proof of the divisibility of God. God is the cause of ALL, including a state which causes another following state, a unified naturalism despite the dissonance, that is, our assumptive finiteness when modes of thought and extension are actually one and the same. There is no closing or cutting.
Quoting TheWillowOfDarkness
Where?
The entrenched condition that emotions are an independent mental experience that we are subject to fails to appreciate the quality of reason. There is no real direct relationship between emotions and love but rather our emotions themselves play a determinative role that compels feelings that express our inability and ability to act, a passive language so to speak. So, for instance, when we become aware of why we feel angry, the anger itself dissipates because reason is superior to emotions. When we passively experience emotions, our body, our instinctual drives, our irrational pathology becomes consumed by the power of this activity that will and reason lay dormant.
Love itself is moral consciousness, the latter of which is an autonomous and authentic condition of reason that willingly gives love or goodness to all things (love of God) without bias to particular objects or people, a capacity basically and consciousness is an awareness. Love itself cannot be displaced. If there are emotions like anger or hate or even indifference, it is not love (moral consciousness) but merely the emotional condition I referred to earlier. It is not to say that emotions themselves are irrelevant, but love produces feelings of happiness and sadness (lack thereof) when constrained within reason.
The ideal of erotic love, for instance, between two people involves both sexual and economic unity in an external world, but they must subjectively admire what they seek to mirror. Since love of God, that is, the love of all things or moral consciousness is what we attempt to reach, they would admire one another for their capacity or desire to moral consciousness, for who they are as they are independently or autonomously. The emotions of hatred or indifference to a partner are caused by a lack of admiration and the passive language of emotions are merely expressing the inability to act, so you become subject to irrational behaviour.
Even if we assume that all emotions are modes of love, it doesn't follow that we have our being in love. Our being consists of activities in the physical world, activities which are willed. And will is distinct from emotion because it is by means of will that we control our emotions. I think that if we wanted to say that we have our being in love, we must associate love with will. But love is associated with emotions, and good is associated with will. That is why theologians generally associate being, or existence, with good.
The point I argued earlier though, is that generally we associate good with will. Actions which we apprehend as good are what is willed, and those we apprehend as bad we avoid with will power. Love, we associate with emotions, and we recognize it as a good emotion. It may be allied with will, because of its nature as good, assisting us in avoiding bad emotions, but love is still not itself the good which is willed. Emotions must remain passive in relation to will, in order that they do not cause actions, allowing that we may choose the good. No emotion, not even love, ought to be the cause of an act, because only reason distinguishes bad from good. If an emotion such as love, were to cause an act, without the interference of reason and will power, there is a higher probability that the act could be bad. Your claim that "hatred and even indifference are modes of love", casts light on this situation.
I agree with this; I think love in its positive form is associated with will in its positive form; so, love is good will.
Timeline, it seems as though you want to disagree with the idea(s) in the passage you quoted, but your point of disagreement is not clear to me as yet.
Sorry John, my conflict was with your association of emotions to the concept of love, the latter of which I was attempting to elucidate as being moral consciousness stemming from an autonomous agent of reason and thus can only be reasonable and good. We tend to assume that we are subject to emotions that play a determinative role in our behaviour and decisions and indeed this is true for those lacking reason, which is why when we become conscious of why we experience an emotion, it no longer has the same power over us. Hatred and indifference are irrational expressions and therefore must be something other than love, even if it is towards someone you supposedly care about, as it lacks the very reason that exemplifies moral consciousness.
This then typifies towards the rational decisions we make in our expressions of love, such as erotic love where our choices prove reason and consciousness. If you feel hatred or indifference to someone you care about, such as a partner, you quite simply don't love them.
I don't see how you can separate love from emotion. Love is an emotion. If you impose such a separation, what you refer to with "love" is not love at all, because love as we experience it, and what we always refer to with the word "love", is an emotion.
Quoting TimeLine
Love is not moral consciousness. You even say, "the latter", referring to moral consciousness, "gives love", indicating that love is something other than moral consciousness, it is what is given by moral consciousness.
It is very easy to demonstrate that love is separate from moral consciousness. A person can love another person, and commit immoral acts, for the sake of the beloved, so clearly love is other than moral consciousness. An individual can love everyone in one's own community or state, and commit immoral acts against members of another community for the sake of those loved.
Quoting TimeLine
Love, when guided by reason will be good, but this does not exclude the possibility of misguided love. Therefore we cannot say that love can only be reasonable and good. This claim produces an unreasonable definition of "love", saying, "love can only be good". We still have to deal with the misguided love, as in my examples above, one who commits an immoral act out of love. Under your definition of love, we would have to say that this is not really love. But clearly it is love, because if we deny all these instances when one might commit an immoral act for the sake of the beloved, we would have nothing left as love. That's why we must allow that love is an emotion and it is not necessarily reasonable. It does not stem from reason, but it may be guided by reason.
I'm not quite sure about that, it would depend on what love is. But it is clear that in order to love, you have to be a person, and in possession of both intellect (choosing the means) and will (desire).
Quoting TimeLine
I don't think that's true... I mean have you never felt hatred for someone you love? There are moments when such feelings appear - anger, hatred, etc. - but they are not lasting, love overcomes them. That's what is meant in the Bible by "Love never fails".
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
I don't follow this.
No, an emotion is a response to an action or inaction and love is an action. We incorrectly assume love itself as an emotion subject to determinative behavioural and physiological responses, but these responses are separate, a passive language. So, for instance, the components that initiate an experience of intense anxiety often derive from a combination of factors unknown to the person - as though the body is physically trying to tell you that something is wrong but you just don't know what - and thus unconscious manifestations that we physically experience. When we raise the reasons for why we feel such anxiety and thus through reason become conscious of the components that initiated the response, we no longer experience anxiety, and the latter exists as a negative, physiological warning to a particular action or inaction. Love, as an action, produces feelings of euphoria and happiness.
It is not to undermine emotions neither is it to enfeeble the concept of love, but to separate the two and therefore to see love as a decision that we need to make - consciously and with reason - rather than being subject to some determinative factor that lacks reason and choice entirely. People who are subject to this determinative approach are emotionally unable to love correctly, which leads to the point of moral consciousness. Since love is an action that requires reason, consciousness is an authenticity of the reasoning behind the decision to act; our conscience - morality - is the will behind our understanding of what is right and good. In order to be authentic - that is to not be self-deceptive - one needs to understand the motives behind their decisions, to be aware or conscious of the conduct in which they apply themselves. So it is only when we are morally conscious do we become capable of the action of loving correctly.
I think erotic love best exemplifies the mistake we make when it comes to the idea that love has a determinative and highly emotional power over our reasoning. We can get swept off our feet by being self-deceptive enough to believe in the poetry of another's affections, but the self-deception itself could quite simply be loneliness and the feelings of passion formed by desperation. We label it "love" but it is not love and thus your so-called demonstration of "A person can love another person, and commit immoral acts, for the sake of the beloved" is no demonstration at all. It is immature and unreasonable action. A rapist that helps put the clothes back on a woman afterwards is not expressing kindness.
A mature love, one contained within reason and approached consciously, is to admire your partner for the person that they are as an independent individual, what you would appreciate to mirror in character and intelligence. This type of love being authentic produces genuine happiness rather than false passions. Without moral consciousness, we will not be able to approach love - in all its forms - correctly.
No, I have never felt hatred, but certainly anger and indeed sadness but these emotions are derived from actions or inactions; my inaction due to my inability to directly communicate to him and the action of his behaviour towards me led to my feeling frustrated and sad. Love - as moral consciousness - is to know how to give love and though we often express this directly to one person or persons, morality as being the form of good in the platonic sense is really exemplified in our love of God, that is, to love all things. No one reasonable would invite a sociopath over for dinner, it will inevitably produce negative emotions and it is unreasonable to experience these emotions because they are negative. We want happiness.
Thus who we love must be someone we admire - within reason - a person that presents themselves independently and consciously as someone that you would desire to mirror, someone who seeks the same platonic good hence Solomon' "A virtuous woman is a crown to her husband: but she that maketh ashamed is as rottenness in his bones." I have never felt hatred at all because I always believe that all people are capable of becoming self-aware and I would celebrate that even if they were my worst enemies. There is this hope in the suggestions that love never fails both for others and within ourselves, being conscious of the fact that we are all flawed.
If you define "love" in one way, then define "love" in another way, then the two definitions contradict each other.
Quoting TimeLine
Love is not an action. If it were, you could produce a description of that action which you call love, the thing acting, and the exact motions which the thing was carrying out. But there is no particular action called love, so it is impossible to describe that act. Love is a feeling, an emotion which inspires one to act. It is not an action itself, and that is why many different actions can be described as loving acts.
There is no action called "love", because love is what we attribute to the action, as a property of the person acting. The various different actions which are described as loving actions have their own descriptions, they are not love itself.
Hmmm, okay, I have felt all three.
Quoting TimeLine
I disagree. I don't necessarily want my wife to be someone I admire. I'm looking for a few key character traits (religiosity, loyalty, compassion/kindness, humility, family-oriented), but those alone aren't sufficient to entail admiration. I generally admire people whose achievements put me in a state of awe - people like Aristotle, King Solomon, Alexander the Great, and so forth.
Whereas in my wife, I don't want someone whom I admire, but someone who complements me (and with whom I can build a strong and lasting family - someone who is not a leech or a traitor). That means she has some values that I have - religiosity, loyalty, family-oriented - and also some values where I'm not a shining star, but which are nevertheless needed to build a family - kindness, and humility. I wouldn't care very much if she's very timid, anxious, physically weak, not the prettiest around etc. I don't admire those characteristics, but neither will I hold it against her - that's simply not part of the essentials that I'm looking for.
For ex. I may admire Mother Theresa, but that doesn't mean I'd marry her.
Quoting TimeLine
No, I wouldn't desire to mirror my wife. Marrying someone like you is often a disaster. I'm too ambitious for example (in terms of everything I do pretty much) - if I married a woman who was equally ambitious, it would end in disaster. What did Alexander say - "there can only be one sun in the sky, and one Alexander on Earth".
The people whom I want to mirror will be some of my very good friends, whose aptitudes, knowledge or abilities I look up to (or alternatively historical figures). Admiration entails this sense of being in awe at someone or something. It's like jealousy in many regards, except that in this case it is the positive version of jealousy - it pushes you to try to become like those people. The "competition" between you makes both of you better.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
Okay - obvious. So what? I don't really get your point. It seems to me to be some abstruse theoretical reasoning that doesn't do much to help us gain any insights into the subject matter...
I was pointing out the contradiction between your claim "God is Love", and "God is loving". I'm still trying to get you to realize that "God is equivalent to Love" is a mistaken interpretation.
I suppose I could grant this, but what I don't agree with is that the line from nominalism to fundamentalism is a straight one or that there are no other explanations for the latter that are better and more proximate to its development than the latter.
Thanks for the links.
And obviously failing. Love isn't restricted to only one definition that will cover all its aspects. It seems to me that you are stuck with a theoretic rationalism which cannot see beyond itself.
Secondly dogmas about religion are only like guidelines or markers. The point of any spiritual teaching is practical. 'Theoria', in traditional philosophy, was contemplation of the ideas, it wasn't simply discursive argument or exercises in verbal logic but actually getting them into your soul. (It's counterpart was 'praxis' which is where the rubber meets the road.) The point about spiritual contemplation is to explore the depths of the mind which can only take place in silence. Nothing happens during this time, from the point of view of the ego it is utterly boring and completely pointless. That is 'the desert' that the church fathers talk about. That's what makes it difficult - it is the complete absence of the permanent stimulation that us 21st c denizens have come to expect. Nevertheless if one persists with it, signs and guidance comes. That is what Christians call the 'consolations of the spirit'.
There are many different traditions that understand this, in their own unique way. That doesn't make them 'all the same' or interchangeable. Ultimately you have to pick one, or, more likely, one picks you.
On that note, I'm taking a bit of a spell from posting here for a while, there have been a few discussions that took a turn I didn't like much, and besides, I talk too much. Time to practice what I'm preaching for a while.
Thanks for your explanation, Timeline. I think there is a bit of a misunderstanding at work here, because I haven't been treating love as one emotion among others, but rather as the disposition of care, concern or interest which I think is really the human form of life.
Love can be thought of as one emotion among others, certainly, and when you say Quoting TimeLine it seems obvious that you are thinking of it this way
Even in this connection, though I would say it is commonplace for people to feel conflicting emotions about others, So, to say that, if one has any feelings of hatred or even indifference towards a loved one, then one doesn't really love them, could only be right if you were defining love as an absolutely pure emotion, an 'all or nothing' affair; but human love is never that I would say.
I find it impossible to think that if I love someone or something, that to the extent and at the times that I do love him, her or it, I do not, to the same extent, and at the same time, bear good will towards him, her or it. I certainly agree with you about the necessity of intellect and will for the capacity to love, so long as you allow that some of the higher animals must possess such an intellect and will, at least to some degree.
This activity is described through actions like brotherly love, erotic love, familial love, love of a child, unconditional love etc &c. This action is a decisive judgement and our will to act on this must stem from reason, autonomy and a strong sense of moral duty or moral consciousness, otherwise there would be no basis for this action to be authentic. Emotions are our responses to actions and inactions and a natural, instinctual part of our physiological make-up existing in a schism of positive and negative feelings. Our cognitive make-up contains both conscious, subconscious (experiences that are not articulated linguistically) and unconscious (instinctual/passions) with the latter two acting as a misguided will that diminishes our cognitive reasoning power. It is why people can delude themselves or believe their own lies. When we love, we produce positive feelings of happiness but it is through reason that one enables it to manifest in all areas of life, maintain a longevity of this happiness by decisively choosing and acting on these decisions with reason.
Misery, hatred, anger (certainly with our actions, but sometimes also when we are passive in the experience) are all manifestations of our ignorance, of being unreasonable and no amount of conforming, deluding, deceiving will change that. The intellectual love of God is the highest of these activities because God encompasses all things and it is, quite simply, to become one with the activity itself; the pursuit of God is the pursuit of Good and an immature or selfish love can present itself in people that may love one person or thing but not another. We pursue joy and pleasure - since the pursuit of happiness is in our nature - by better understanding both ourselves (through autonomy we become empowered and this brings us joy) and the external world (though ethics as other' happiness becomes instrumental to our own) that together moral consciousness is what enables us to act on love correctly. When we become empowered within, the authenticity behind the experience of happiness is enhanced by being honest to ourselves.
I agree, as l stated earlier that love is moral consciousness and certainly a disposition, this disposition being a rational, autonomous agent. The emotive experiences of moral consciousness such as care, concern, compassion are natural to our physiology and the authenticity of these experiences are derived by self-empowerment, the latter established when we cease to be controlled and subject to an instinctual and unreasonable will and transcend to a state of autonomy.
Quoting John
It would be false to assume perfection; the intellectual love of God will never be to know God neither is the description of a rational, autonomous agent imply an attainment of this "perfect", on the contrary it is seeking a perfection that we will never attain. But, it is the seeking itself that becomes the very product of our happiness. We have both positive and negative emotions and any negative emotions stem from negative actions or inactions. Love is not negative such as hatred or indifference so it cannot produce such negative emotions, but if it does then it is either a product of something unreasonable or irrational (hatred is always irrational), or it is a product of a passive experience out of your control (when a loved one suddenly dies) in which case one would eventually rationalise and accept.
I think the confusion lies in the semantics, the ambiguity of the word 'admire' because it is certainly not a state of awe but rather a motivation that facilitates our desire to improve ourselves. Thus, when I say who we love must be someone we admire - within reason - a person that presents themselves independently and consciously it is to admire their very independence, who they are as they are and not what they present themselves as being neither the utility they may qualify, but the authenticity of their character, their genuine moral worthiness. It is not competition but rather a state of positive growth when two loving people mature together and the improvement is to improve our minds, reason and our morality.
Quoting Agustino
Again, the word 'mirror' is confused; as I said earlier, your partner should be one who is independent and morally conscious and the mirror itself is you as one who is also independent and morally conscious where together - in your own independence - you share your life and continuously improve. It would be impossible to do this with a conformist, or someone mindless who completely relies on you and does what you tell him/her, or someone who is evil or deceptive.
To mirror is to imply that our happiness becomes mutually dependent on both our desire to see our partner happy as much as our desire to continuously improve ourselves. You will find those in relationships that lack this admiration often never improve, years and years pass and nothing really changes for the better. I can form a relationship with anyone and try to make it work, but I would be delaying the inevitable and it would be self-deceptive if I did not admire them. Your lover is your best friend, the one that appreciates you for who you are not what they want you to be and vice versa.
Yes maybe for two lovers, but building a family takes more than just love. It takes discipline and commitment as well, combined with singularity of purpose. Hence the two people who form a family cannot be two "independent" people. No they must be dependent - and whatever forms that dependency is valuable, whether it is love, need, religion, purpose. Having a leader amongst the two, and a follower, also helps. One flesh cannot have two heads.
Quoting TimeLine
Not necessarily. It may be possible, but it depends on the circumstances and the people what's right.
Quoting TimeLine
Okay, agreed.
Quoting TimeLine
Yes, but having a family is much more than sharing your life and continuously improving - that's sufficient for lovers, not for husband and wife.
Quoting TimeLine
Agreed, deception is a no-no.
Quoting TimeLine
With a social conformist you are right. But with "someone mindless who completely relies on you and does what you tell him/her" you are dead wrong. Unity of purpose is extremely important to success. That "mindless" person has saving virtues - humility and devotion - and is to be preferred over the independent mindful person who always wants to go their own way.
That may be so, but I'm not sure it follows that "love is good will". Sure, without good will, love may be impossible, but does that mean that love is good will and nothing more?
I don't see how any one of these is an activity. We can look at actions, and infer that there is brotherly love there, or whatever kind of love is there, but the inference is of something different than the action. We describe specific actions, but the described actions are not the same as the inferred love. We can only infer love with another premise, that such and such actions are indicators of love. But still the actions are not the love itself.
Quoting TimeLine
Are you saying that this claimed activity, which you call "love", is a type of pursuit? Are all activities of pursuit activities of love then? How is this any different from desire?
It's an interesting question, and I don't have a ready answer to it. To reverse the question; what more could love be than good will? Desire, perhaps? If I desire something, do I necessarily have good will towards it?
Do you mean the seeking is the product of the happiness or the happiness is the product of the seeking?
I agree we do have both positive and negative emotions; that does seem obvious; but my contention has been that we have negative emotion towards something only insofar as we have positive emotion towards something else. And I don't think the reverse necessarily holds; that's why I think it is more correct to say that hatred is a mode of love, than it would be to say that love is a mode of hatred. A similar idea seems to hold with good and bad: the bad can be seen as a privation of the good; but the good doesn't seem to be (merely) a privation of the bad.
I agree, but why would anyone want to build a family with someone they do not love, even if this person embodies the character traits that they want? There will be an emptiness in this purpose and love itself personifies the joy and the peace needed for this, which returns back to my reference to reason and autonomy in the consciousness of this decision. For the longevity of happiness, love and respect for your partner takes away the effort discipline requires, as together in unity two people improve and develop one another through one another (hence the admiration) that therefore would mean the admiration will never cease and only strengthen since both continuously improve, hence the longevity. So, when you say but having a family is much more than sharing your life and continuously improving it is also inclusive of those in marriage and a very part of this discipline that two people share in unison.
Quoting Agustino
One can portray humility and devotion without being mindless so I think that it may just be semantics considering you accept conformism as a flaw. It is the reason why autonomy is fixed to moral consciousness, which naturally enables the agent to adhere with humility and devotion to the principles of virtue. A person who is a raging independent does not necessarily mean they are autonomous neither morally conscious; in the US, there is a culture of 'individualism' when many blindly move in masses. Hence, the authenticity behind the commitment to virtue.
I think that perhaps you are speaking of the equilibrium between feminine and masculine attributes and indeed I would have to agree. This 'Yin and Yang' between male and female becomes a beautiful combination that should be respected but to attain this 'natural state' is to really find who you are as you are. The idea of being in a relationship with a man who conforms to his social environment and though an adult continues to do what his mother tells him implies a lack of 'masculinity' that would make it impossible to form a relationship with, particularly since he lacks consciousness and the autonomy needed to form a true bond with someone and to take control of his life.
However, to have a man tell me to stay silent and do what he wants lacks the respect and admiration for me as an individual and that too is a problem, hence humility and devotion from a man to a woman and vice versa. When I began to sense my own autonomy and began to develop moral consciousness - not to long ago actually and I am still learning - I genuinely started to appreciate my femininity and have since been developing my adherence to my natural, humble state. Such humility is impossible if the person has not yet achieved this moral consciousness and autonomy as their minds remain too chaotic.
When I say mindless, someone who has no critical thinking skills, who is not willing to try and talk about subjects other than something bullshit like what such and such did on instagram, who has no appreciation for learning new things. Again, if they are morally conscious and autonomous, they can and should respond but within the context of this uniformity, this loyalty that what he wants is just as much as what she wants but within reason where sacrifices must sometimes be made. Communication is essential for a thriving relationship, the lack thereof is just soul suicide.
I'm really busy at work at the moment (on my lunch break) and your posts require more attention, so I will get back to you tomorrow.
I think the various forms of love have different compositions, but if we're speaking of charity/compassion then I'd say the fundamental characteristics are (1) a feeling of deep connection with others, (2) empathy, (3) good will, (4) openness. Obviously Eros or Love of God would also include desire, etc.
They're not mutually exclusive. It is in our nature to desire happiness; by seeking to improve through self-awareness one experiences happiness (since reason enables authenticity of experience) and through this happiness one continues to seek improvement (by becoming conscious of our flaws). It is returning to our natural unity following the corruption by our subjective limitations and our relationship to an external world that we have yet to understand.
Quoting John
I think our confusion lies between the positive and negative responses to action or inaction, that when we passively experience evil external to ourselves we form negative emotions. What I am trying to say is that when we actively experience hate, subjectively and as a response through our ego or ignorance, that does not and cannot come from love or moral consciousness but rather the Kantian 'radical evil'. If you look at the story of the satan, for instance, the devil or evil was and remains subservient to God or Good and his attributes like ego and jealously that compelled him to try and prove errors in perfection ameliorates that not only is Good always superior and through Adam and Eve (humanity) before the fall our natural state, but that evil influences humanity that we soon experience the unnatural, evil and ultimately misery.
If, for instance, we attempt to pursue the intellectual love of God, which is to thus attempt to attain the virtues as forms that exemplifies the most accurate in reality - justice, charity, patience or what is Good - that in the pursuit of these virtues one becomes conscious of the vile and inaccurate that stains this reality - injustice, violence or what is evil - it does not substantiate evil emotions, such as hate. Sadness, yes, as that is a passive experience to this evil that renders a disillusionment but greater than that is a hope and a desire to make an effort to change evil for the better and return back to our natural inclinations of Good. To hate is to become the very thing that opposes Good, however it can also be used as a signal that proves this subjective stain in our own disposition.
I understand your concessions, but I think there may be a confusion between "love" and will or the motivation within, that when you say one can produce a description of that action which you call love, the thing acting, and the exact motions which the thing was carrying out that these motions itself are the subjective inclinations that compel us to act. The activity itself is love, but the determining factor is one compelled by a "good will" - good and love work in unison to moral considerations stemming from reason and guide our subjective actions within the external world. Hence, love is moral consciousness since one cannot act lovingly neither authentically or accurately without the possession of this motivation. Without action, the subjective experience is merely a good will or morality itself and as love - like good - promotes feelings of happiness and euphoria, and as the action itself stems from this very part of ourselves, we confuse that love as an action is actually moral consciousness applied.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
Yes, but not all activities are of love without first being compelled by a "good will" and the latter must motivate naturally in and of itself rather than solely by duty that lacks the consciousness of the reasoning behind moral demands. We act by being compelled through constraints such as external codes of conduct or regulations rather than an inherent and independent motivation. I think that when you say desire you may have meant 'passions' - desire is a motivation, but as one can be motivated by a desire to apply good will through acts of love (positive), one can also be motivated by a desire to apply irrational passions (ego, instinctual drives) that lacks the same consciousness and reasoning as does acting because that is what other people are doing or telling you to do.
You still don't seem to be understanding what I'm saying. Each particular activity has a description proper to itself. For instance, I gave my friend my car keys so he could borrow my car. That is an activity. We might conclude deductively that it is a loving activity, with the premise that this type of activity displays love. But there is absolutely no way that the activity itself "is" love, because the activity is identified by the description and is what it is according to the description. To conclude that it is a loving activity requires a further premise.. How do you justify such a claim that the activity itself is love?
It needs to be justified because you keep reasserting it, and building your argument on that unjustified claim.
Quoting TimeLine
Now you are saying that activities are "of love". This is inconsistent with "the activity itself is love", and demonstrates that you probably do not really believe in "the activity itself is love".
Your unrelated propositions make little sense with whatever your objective is; 'of' is to possess love or a description of this trait, while 'is' is the activity itself in the singular. What is your point?
You assert that the activity is itself love, but then you speak of activities as possessing love. Do you not see the difference? Your claim is that love is the activity itself, then you speak of love as a property of the activity. Which do you believe is the truth? Is love the activity itself or is love a property of the activity?
I'd say it's a noun, but it's listed in my dictionary as both, and if I say "I love you" it's clearly being used as a verb. However, doesn't "I love you" mean that I have love for you, so the meaning of the verb is resolved by referring to the thing, "love", the noun? So I'd say it's more fundamentally a noun.
If there was an action being referred to when I say "I love you", we could describe the particulars of that action. We cannot though, because there are very many, very different, activities involved with love. Instead, we use "love" as a generality which refers to many different actions. So there are many particular activities which demonstrate the generality, "love". Since it's a generality it's existence as a thing, a noun, is as a concept. It is what we attribute to actions in predication, the action itself being the subject, and love being the predicate, the property, X act is an act of love.
Therefore, "I love you" doesn't really mean that I am engaged in the act of love, because there is no such particular act, which could be identified as the act of love, so this would be utterly meaningless. It means that I am engaged in many different acts, all of which are manifestations of the love which I have for you. Or in the terms of platonic participation, each act, participates in the Love which I have for you, giving that act its meaning, as an act of love. Plato's "The Symposium" provides a very good discussion of "what is love", and the fundamentals for the very important distinction between the passive and active elements of reality. I believe that if we lose track of this distinction, we lose our bearing on reality. We must apprehend the act as coming from the thing. In this case, the thing is the concept of love.
We love by acting in a family, with erotic objects, or among community.
But whether noun or verb... I don't care.
The effect of love is the action. But the cause, love, is something different from the action. We know that love is distinct from the action which it causes, because each action has a beginning and an ending while love persists, prior to, and after, the effects (the particular actions) which it causes.
Quoting Bitter Crank
I agree, we love by acting, but this is to use "love" as a verb. And this fosters the utterly meaningless "I love you" which I referred to. Unless we qualify the act which we are calling "love", any act could be love. You've given numerous examples, but the possibilities are infinite unless we restrict what it means to love. When we enact this restriction, then only particular types of actions can be said to be acts of love. Now "love" does not refer to the act itself, it refers to a category, or class of actions. "Love" is now a noun, referring to a thing, a concept.
We could leave "love" as a verb, referring only to the act of loving. But this leaves "love" completely meaningless because absolutely any act could be said to be an act of loving. So in reality, we use "love" to classify a particular type of act, and this makes love something other than the act itself. Therefore it is more appropriate to say that "we express our love by acting", rather than to say "we love by acting". The latter being redundant, meaning "we act by acting" without the qualifying noun, the concept of what it means to love.