~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Hope Keeps Me Waiting
1. “Abandon all hope, ye who enter here” (Inferno, III, 9). At the gates of Hell, the last godly gift locked in Pandora’s box, hope itself, must be tossed away. Can there be a greater loss for humanity? Does hopefulness--or hopelessness—incisively describe one or more of the characters we’ve encountered? Who is our most hopeful personality? Our least?
Although Pandora was the one to leave hope in the box while she left, the Greeks have a special name for the goddess (of course a female) that embodies hope itself - Elpis. Elpis was the daughter of Nyx, the goddess of night and shadow. (In Greek, the word "elpis" literally means hope, or expectation of either evil/fear or good, especially in the Christian sense of the word, hope of eternal salvation). Elpis went on to be the mother of Pheme, the goddess of fame, renown, and rumor - another not entirely good emotion. Elpis is usaully depicted as a young woman, which subtly emphasizes the fact that optimmism and hope tend to be more naiive outlooks on life. The fact that Elpis is the daughter of night and shadow is telling of the Greek attitude towards hope. Although hope is usually viewed as a pleasant, good thing, the Greeks focused on hope's role in prolonging suffering and pain.
There is also an obscure Christian myth/folktale about the daughters of the widow Sophia, who became Saints Pistis, Elpis, and Agape - Saints Faith, Hope, and Love. According to the story, the mother and her daughters were brought before a pagan emperor, who took each daughter individually and demanded they worship his pagan idols. When they each refused, he had them tortured and put to death. Saint Elpis was thrown into a fiery furnace and then run through with a sword.
The Latin word for hope is spero, literally meaning something closer to "expect" or "expectation," or "to look for, trust, expect, ot to promise oneself." The Spanish verb esperar (“'to hope'”) derives from Latin, and is also related to the Latin verb spire, to breathe. Esperar and spire are both reminiscent of the English words "expire" "aspire," and related to "desire" "expect" and "want" and "anticipation". The string leading off the word hope is a long one, and tied to many such words that are very telling of the word's influence.
The English word, "hope" gets its origins from the German word, which is obscure in origin, but thought to have derived from the word "hop," implying that one would leap or jump to safety. This origin is interesting, because it implies that the safety one wants to reach is a good thing, but that the leap taken has a desperate feeling. However, the English word, despair, is obviously derived from the Latin, despero, or "to not hope". Spire, to breathe, led to the English, "spirit," while the other Latin word, anima, literally meaning "breath" has come to mean "soul". Breath, soul, and hope are all interwoven. The English "inspiration" or "inspire" also seem to have originated from the Latin word meaning "to breathe" - so one could be inspired as in animated and given life/breath, or inspired emotionally or mentally, perhaps with something like hope.
There is a famous Latin proverb, Dum spiro, spero; which means, While I breathe, I hope. This phrase implies that all that is needed for one to be able to hope is breath, or life itself - the two go hand in hand. Some grant this phrase to Cicero, but origins of the phrase are more concretely credited to Saint Andrew of the Kingdom of Fife, Scotland, namesake of St. Andrew's University (where I happen to be studying abroad next spring!). This relates directly to the origins of the word hope, as the Latin is already very closely related to breathe, and the two verbs are obviously connected. This phrase also implies that one cannot escape hope, that it is a natural human tendency, and that even as we take one breath after another we are hoping - even if that hope is merely for life to continue into the next moment. In this sense, hope is a positive thing. If we didn't have hope, what would be the motivation for living? Hope can give a positive aspect to life, and lead to a lot of happiness. But it is a double edged sword, because it can also blind you to the reality of a situation. Hope can lead to just as much suffering as any "bad" thing in the world can, which explains why the Greeks placed it in Pandora's box along with all the other "daimons" of the world. Unrequited love burns on the flames of hope, the sufferer allowing the fire to continue to be kindled with hope that their beloved will one day return thier affections. Grief can be prolonged and the scars of it deepened when hope doesn't allow you to heal soon enough. Hope can cause you to take chances that shouldn't be taken, and the risks that hope makes you think are worth it may actaully just be foolish. However, as much as a recognition of hope's bittersweetness is good, that doesn't change the fact that we do, nevertheless, continue to hope. And, perosnally, I think it's worth it. Maybe I'm just being optimistic.
Wikipedia relates the entry Hope with the entries, Chance, Optimism, Risk, Unrequited Love, and Statue of Hope (the famous female figure representing the Christian virtue of Hope, specifically found in the town of Friendship, Indiana). Kierkegaard's definition of faith is dependant on hope: "the inner certainty that anticipates infinity." Hope is something that focuses on the future, not on the present. With this in mind it makes sense that the Greeks were not as fond of hope as our Judeo Christian culture is. The ancient Greek way of life was much more focused on the present and living from moment to moment. Their gods were not meant to "save" them from anything, or promise erternal happiness or anything of the like. On the other hand, the Christian virtue of hope tells one to "set your eyes on things above" (Col. 3:2-3) and to have faith in things unseen (Augustine). Hebrews 6:19 (inspiring Rhode Island's state motto) says, "Which hope we have as an anchor of the soul, both sure and stedfast, and which entereth into that within the veil."
Hope is the most bittersweet of human emotions. It is the one thing that is let down the most often, but also the one thing that keeps us going. And when it is rewarded, the reward is that much sweeter. If you "Abandon all hope" as the Inferno commands, you must accept reality as it is and never hope or strive for anything better. In a strange way, this seems to mean that those going into Paradise would inherently abandon hope as well - once they are in Heaven, there can't be anything better. Even though Dante's Paradiso has different levels, one cannot hope to move from one level to another. Once you reach your final destination, hope is no longer applicable to any situation.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I'm tempted to say that Penelope was the most hopeful character in our readings from the semester, but I think there's an important distinciton to be made between "hope" and "faith." Penelope did not just "hope" for Odysseus to come home, she had faith in him. She trusted and knew that he would, and never wavered in her belief. If she thought he wasn't coming home, she still would have remained faithful to him and would have refused to marry another. The only reason she was skeptical that it was Odysseus when he came home was because many people had tricked her before, pretending to be Odysseus - not because she was surprised he had made it home to her.
I think our least hopeful character from our semester of studies is Judas, as portrayed by Dante. He gave us hope in his God, in himself, and in life. After betraying his Messiah, he realized the error of his ways and regretted his sin, and then chose to commit suicide. Suicide is the ultimate act of hopelessness - at least in Judas' case (for some suicides it may be more of a hopelessness in this life with a hope for the afterlife to be better or different somehow). Judas did not hope to be forgiven for his crime, but he would rather have ended his torment on earth sooner than later, and begin his eternal torment in Hell right away. Dante places Judas in the deepest circle of Hell, with his face being eaten off by Lucifer's gaping mouth. Judas and Lucifer side by side - two figures of hopelessness. Lucifer's hopelessness is only slightly less than Judas' because he is not human, and I think hope is a very human emotion.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The Life of Antony
I find the story of Antony and Cleopatra fascinating. They are both such flawed figures, yet at the same time their story is so tragic. Despite the fact that neither of them are incredibly "good" people, we as a reader and an audience find something about their devotion to each other, their love and their heartache, that we admire and even long to have for ourselves.
The story of Antony and Cleopatra reminds me a lot of "Wuthering Heights" (although technically I guess it should be the other way around because Antony & Cleo were way before Catherine and Heathcliff). Catherine and Cleopatra are both incredibly volatile, flawed, and to a point despicable characters, which makes them more interesting, especially because they are women. They are both violent and prone to mood swings, and enjoy playing with peoples hearts. They use others to serve their own ends, as if anyone aside from themselves and their soulmate (and at times even their soulmate) are merely pawns in the game of their life.
Some people look at the obsessive nature of Cleopatra and Antony, or Catherine and Heathcliff's, relationship as destructive and unhealthy - they see it as a negative thing, something to be avoided. But I think that the reason these stories are so potent is because we still, either secretly or blatantly, want to have the courage to make that sacrifice if it is presented to us. Even though we know it will not end well, we want to find that, whatever it is that Catherine and Heathcliff or Antony and Cleopatra have, and know it and take it for our own, even though at the same time we are deathly afraid of it. I think it is similar to the way people think of death - we are afraid of it because we don't know for sure what it is and what it will bring; we know that it is an end to something and that it changes things in a way that we cannot undo, but also that with it comes possibilities that we will never know or have without experiencing it. Love and death, passion and tragedy, are inextricably connected.
There is something tragic about their kind of devotion precisely BECAUSE it demands their whole being, their very SOULS are being sacrificed for the sake of their soulmate. As observers, we are saddened by the tragic outcome of their stories because we realize that with this kind of love there comes a sacrifice no one wants to make. We want it but at the same time are afraid of it because of the suffering that is inherent in it and bound to ensue once this passion is found. We think "ignorance is bliss" but at the same time feel we are missing something if we don't find our soulmate. We can't imagine finding that person and not giving everything up for them just because we are afraid of the doomed nature of the relationship. Sure, people have done it, but haven't their lives been just as tragic? Think of the movie "Becoming Jane." The movie imagines Jane Austin's life and the story of her finding the love of her life only to have to abandon the relationship for the sake of her family and society. With soulmates, just the fact that they exist and that you have found them implies a level of tragedy that one cannot avoid.
(more on) A&C
After watching the play, my understanding of the character of Antony has changed quite a bit. Cleopatra's character was so strong and passionate and volatile that it almost made Antony seem mild in comparison. The only scenes where he seemed to have conviction were always in regard to Cleopatra, especially his suicide scene. But even then, he can't bring himself to commit the suicide himself, he asks one of his soldiers to do it. And when his soldier won't do it Antony tries and fails to do it himself and then lays on the bed wailing "Not dead! Not dead!" He seemed rather pathetic to me. Cleopatra's character is simply herself. She is madly in love with Antony, but still manages to remain herself in this love - or obsession or whatever you want to call it. Antony, on the other hand, seems to be a completely different man apart from her, and without her he is weak. With her he is weak as well, in a certain way. His love for her makes him less of a man - he must sacrifice himself for her sake, but she doesn't have to sacrifice for him. The sacrifice she makes in killing herself is not a sacrifice of weakness, it is completely her own choice, whereas Antony seemed to be led to his end by a force outside his own control. There is something to be said about letting go of yourself for a "force" that is more powerful than yourself - the power of love is an intimidating thing. But there's a difference between abandoning yourself to the power of love and allowing yourself to shrink into an insignificant, pathetic man.
You can abandon yourself to the power of love, there's a lot to be said for that, but that doesn't mean you lose your integrity or your worth as a person. I think what bothered me so much about Antony was not that he abandoned himself for Cleopatra, but that he allowed her to use him. It was not a balanced relationship. If we look at Catherine and Heathcliff again, they didn't really have a balanced relationship either - she mistreated him appallingly - but Heathcliff was still strong and passionate and violent and he demanded as much of Catherine as she did him, basically giving her an ultimatum. With Antony, he lost himself to Cleopatra and she was smitten with him but never had to truly sacrifice herself. Cleo was allowed to remain herself while Antony had to fully abandon his former life.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dante's Inferno - The Divine Comedy
I find it incredibly interesting how Dante, like Milton, combined traditional Greek (among other) mythological traditions with his own Christian beliefs, using the Greek idea of the shades and the underworld to paint an image of the Christian "hell". Where Dante chose to place different characters within the Inferno tells the reader about Dante's own theological struggles as a writer. All the famous pagan poets/thinkers are placed in the first circle of hell, in Limbo, because of their inability to recognize the true God - but they are not actively punished for their sin, only kept from ever seeing or knowing God for all eternity (Canto IV). These great people are given this special place in hell because of their greatness, which seems to redeem them in some way. Although they did not seek the true God that Dante believes in, they are still honored for their incredible intellectual accomplishments.
Judas - I was intrigued by Judas' place in the Inferno, as one of the three worst souls in hell, having his face chewed on by Satan himself. I am not…surprised by this placement of Judas, but I think it could be contested. Yes, Judas was Christ's betrayer. This is a rather hefty crime. But in the Bible I have always seen Judas' death as a kind of sign of repentance for his sin. He was so in despair of his crime against God, against Christ the Savior and perfect man, that he committed suicide. He took his own life as a punishment to himself for his betrayal. Perhaps Judas IS rightly placed in the deepest part of hell, only followed by Lucifer the fallen angel, the prince of the darkness. I find it significant that Judas, only a mere, mortal man, is seen as almost an equal to Satan. I also find it interesting that Judas was placed deeper in than Cain, and that Adam and Eve are not mentioned. As the first people to "sin" it would seem that Adam and Eve, and Cain (the first true sin after the fall) got off so easy in Dante's poem. Perhaps it was more important to Dante, within the Christian tradition, to focus on the betrayal of the Savior, the foundation of Christianity, than to bring attention to the original sin.
One last thought - Odysseus is in HELL?! WOAH! In Greek tradition I feel like this would be a travesty! I think this shows an important difference between the Western Christian worldview and the classical Greek view. the Greeks were not as concerned with the afterlife, but more concerned with life in the present. Right and wrong were more subjective to them because it had to be based on circumstances and the environment in which an action/decision takes place. Odysseus is punished for being the trickster and a con-man. He made his way home in his life on earth (at the cost of all his loyal men's lives) and I think his "trick" on Troy is seen as a courageous and ingenious solution to a war that needed to end. Odysseus was selfish, yes, but to condemn him to hell for ending a war with a trick? That seems harsh to me. At the very least, Odysseus can say that in life he got back home and lived as an honorable and great man. For the Greeks that's what mattered.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
REVELATION REVEALED?!
Revelation is one of the most controversial books in the New Testament among Christians. There are many who believe that it should not be considered a part of the canon! I don't know how I didn't know this before; it really surprises me. Outlined by Dennis Bratcher's article "INterpreting the Book of Revelation" are the main ways in which the book of Revelation can be/is interpreted:
1. Futurist - see Revelation as a book that predicts events of the end times in the present and future times, combining references from different parts of the Bible with Revelation's own predictions; more literal.
2. Historicist (/Church HIstorical) - Revelation as symbolic of events in human history, either present or future, identifying the "beast" with various historical figures; or only seeing the book as symbolic of events that happened/will happen in the history of the church.
3. Preterist - symbolic account of the First Church's struggles and tribulations under Roman rule; this interpretation was used to encourage early Christians.
4. Idealist - interpreting Revelation as having a bigger message than one only for the early church; contains symbols for a larger reality rather than specific historical figures.
4.a. Theological - combines Historicist and Idealist; contains larger principles but is also a symbol of the struggles of the early church and imparts knowledge of how God helps his people to deal with suffering in general; message of hope for God's people as well as an indication of the doomed future of anything/one that tries to take God's place.
In a lot of the writing I found on Revelation, the writers pointed out that most people have heard of Revelation but not many people have read it. I find this to be very true, especially in my own experience. Revelation seems to be one of those books of the Bible, the New Testament, specifically, that is stereotyped and taken at face value rather than studied in depth. Opinions of the average Christian on the book of Revelation are based on what they THINK it says. That's definitely true for me. I think one of the big reasons this strange avoidance and skirting around the book of Revelation happens in the church (not that it is completely ignored, I'm not saying that, but direct knowledge of this book in Christians is very uncommon) is because the book itself is rather intimidating. The content, as well as the cryptic way it is written, make it very hard to understand.
I even referred to Revelation in my short story for this class, "In Mirrors," without realizing it! I knew I was making a Biblical reference, but assumed that it was from either one of the Gospels or another New Testament text. It even would have made sense for me if it had been somewhere in the Old Testament, perhaps a prophet speaking to the people. But no, it's right there in Revelation, a giant concept of Christianity in one small verse in a book of the Bible that some consider completely irrelevant and without authority:
REVELATION 3:15-16 "I know your works: you are neither cold nor hot. Would that you were either cold or hot! So, because you are lukewarm, and neither hot nor cold, I will spit you out of my mouth."
No where else in the Bible is the term "lukewarm" mentioned specifically! There are verses that allude to this concept, but none that outline it so specifically. The closest I have found are Mark 13:35-36, Matthew 5:13, 2 Corinthians 6:14, and James 3:10-12, all of which use similar imagery but still do not outline the concept of lukewarmness as clearly as Revelation. That is not to say that the verse from Revelation is contradictory to other writings in the Bible, just that it is surprising to me that it is not mentioned specifically elsewhere as the idea has become a main tenant of Christianity - to not be lukewarm and rather be "on fire" for God.
One of the aspects of Revelation that I find the most intriguing is the idea of the Apocalypse - the cataclysmic end of the world! The idea of impending doom, as well as the numerous symbols Revelation gives us, have inspired a great number of creative works. For example, the mark of the beast. The mark of the beast seems to be similar to the mark of Cain, but different in that Cain received his mark from God, and the mark of the beast would be bestowed on people by the beast, the enemy of God, as a way to identify them as on the side of the antichrist. Books and movies have this idea of the "mark" of the end times all over the place. For example, in 1984 Big Brother can watch you wherever you go. The idea that the mark is a way to keep track of people and know what they're doing/who they are/where they are at all times is a common theme in dystopian literature.
The figure of the anti-christ has been assigned to many different people/figures throughout the ages. I think that Revelation's ambiguity as to the when and the specifics who's/what's/where's and how's (as well as the lack of general understanding about the book) make it very appealing to people as they anticipate the end of the world. Everyone is allowed to be a prophet, a soothsayer, an elite interpreter of God's word (if that is indeed what it is). The book of Revelation gives us some kind of answer to our questions about the end of the world, without the terror of actually knowing how and when. Because it can be interpreted in so many ways, we can choose to believe whichever end we want, or choose to not believe any of the options.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The POINT of the Resurrection
In class last Wednesday, Natty asked - What's the point of the resurrection?
I was kind of shocked by this question, seeing how, in Christianity, the resurrection is one of the most important events in the Bible - I would say equally important to the crucifixion. Christ's "conquering" of the grave, of death, and of evil, is shown to us through the resurrection, through Jesus coming back to life even after the soldier pierced his side and proved him dead. It is a display of his power and a symbol of hope to his people. Natty might be on the right track in saying that Jesus' resurrection and return doesn't really matter because even if he hadn't physically returned to Earth after death, the point was for Jesus to pay the price for our sins by dying - but in the Christian tradition, Jesus death and taking on of our sins is only half of it. What good would Christ's sacrifice be if he, as man and equally God (another sticky issue) was not powerful enough to defeat death? Jesus supposedly took on the world's sin and died and descended into Hell - and then came back out! How can this be seen as irrelevant?
Pulling from my background in a Baptist church, I found the lyrics to some of my favorite Easter hymns that have to do with the resurrection, along with some verses and other songs that I think emphasize the importance in the Christian tradition of not only Jesus as our Savior/Messiah, but as a living God, a God we can still follow today and look to for guidance and hope.
Job 19:25-27
25For I know that my redeemer liveth, and that he shall stand at the latter day upon the earth:
26And though after my skin worms destroy this body, yet in my flesh shall I see God:
27Whom I shall see for myself, and mine eyes shall behold, and not another; though my reins be consumed within me.
"Up From the Grave He Arose"
Low in the grave He lay Jesus my Savior! Waiting the coming day- Jesus my Lord!
Up from the grave He arose, With a mighty triumph o'er His foes; He arose a Victor from the dark domain, And He lives forever with His saints to reign. He arose! He arose! Hallelujah! Christ arose!
Vainly they watch His bed- Jesus my Savior! Vainly they seal the dead- Jesus my Lord!
Up from the grave He arose, With a mighty triumph o'er His foes; He arose a Victor from the dark domain, And He lives forever with His saints to reign. He arose! He arose! Hallelujah! Christ arose!
Death cannot keep his prey- Jesus my Savior! He tore the bars away- Jesus my Lord!
Up from the grave He arose, With a mighty triumph o'er His foes; He arose a Victor from the dark domain, And He lives forever with His saints to reign. He arose! He arose! Hallelujah! Christ arose!
"Jesus Christ is Risen Today, Alleluia!"
Jesus Christ Is risen today,
Alleluia!
Our triumphant holy day,
Alleluia!
Who did once upon the cross
Alleluia!
Suffer to redeem our loss.
Alleluia!
Hymns of praise, then, let us sing
Alleluia!
Unto Christ, our heavenly King,
Alleluia!
Who endured the cross and grave
Alleluia!
Sinners to redeem and save.
Alleluia!
But the pains which He endured
Alleluia!
Our salvation have procured.
Alleluia!
Now above the sky He's King,
Alleluia!
Where the angels ever sing.
Alleluia!
Sing we to our God above,
Alleluia!
Praise eternal as His love:
Alleluia!
Praise Him, all ye heavenly host,
Alleluia!
Father, Son and Holy Ghost.
Alleluia!
"My Redeemer Lives" Nicole C. Mullins
Who taught the sun where to stand in the morning?
And who told the ocean you can only come this far?
And who showed the moon where to hide till evening?
Whose words alone can catch a falling star?
Chorus:
Well I know my Redeemer lives
I know my Redeemer lives
All of creation testifies
This life within me cries
I know my Redeemer lives
The very same God
That spins things in orbit
Runs to the weary, the worn and the weak
And the same gentle hands that hold me when I'm broken
They conquered death to bring me victory
Now I know, my Redeemer lives
I know my Redeemer lives
Let all creation testify
Let this life within me cry
I know
My Redeemer
He lives
To take away my shame
And He lives
Forever I'll proclaim
That the payment for my sins
Was the precious life He gave
And now He's alive and
There's an empty
Grave!
And I know My Redeemer lives
He lives
I know My Redeemer lives
Let all creation testify
Let this life within me cry
I know my Redeemer
I know My Redeemer lives
*I know my Redeemer lives*
*I know, That I know, that I know, that I know, that I know
He lives
*my redeemer lives*
*Because He lives I can face tomorrow
He lives
*I know, I know*
He lives
*I spoke with Him this morning!*
He lives
*The tomb is empty*
He lives
*He Lives! I'm going to tell everybody!!*
He Lives
I serve a risen Saviour; He's in the world today.
I know that He is living, whatever men may say.
I see His hand of mercy, I hear His voice of cheer,
And just the time I need Him He's always near.
Chorus:
He lives! He lives! Christ Jesus lives today!
He walks with me and talks with me along life's narrow way.
He lives! He lives! Salvation to impart!
You ask me how I know He lives? He lives within my heart.
In all the world around me I see His loving care,
And though my heart grows weary I never will despair.
I know that He is leading, thro' all the stormy blast;
The day of His appearing will come at last.
Rejoice, rejoice, O Christian! Lift up your voice and sing
Eternal hallelujahs to Jesus Christ, the King!
The Hope of all who seek Him, the Help of all who find,
None other is so loving, so good and kind.
"Because He Lives"
God sent His Son - they called Him Jesus,
He came to love, heal and forgive;
He lived and died to buy my pardon,
An empty grave is there to prove my Savior lives.
Because He lives I can face tomorrow,
Because He lives all fear is gone;
Because I know He holds the future
And life is worth the living just because He lives.
And then one day I'll cross the river,
I'll fight life's final war with pain;
And then, as death gives way to victory,
I'll see the lights of glory - and I'll know He lives.
Because He lives I can face tomorrow,
Because He lives all fear is gone;
Because I know He holds the future
And life is worth the living just because He lives.
And life is worth the living
Just because He lives.
"And Can It Be That I Should Gain?"
And can it be that I should gain An interest in the Savior’s blood? Died He for me, who caused His pain— For me, who Him to death pursued? Amazing love! How can it be, That Thou, my God, shouldst die for me? Amazing love! How can it be, That Thou, my God, shouldst die for me?
’Tis mystery all: th’Immortal dies: Who can explore His strange design? In vain the firstborn seraph tries To sound the depths of love divine. ’Tis mercy all! Let earth adore, Let angel minds inquire no more. ’Tis mercy all! Let earth adore; Let angel minds inquire no more.
He left His Father’s throne above So free, so infinite His grace— Emptied Himself of all but love, And bled for Adam’s helpless race: ’Tis mercy all, immense and free, For O my God, it found out me! ’Tis mercy all, immense and free, For O my God, it found out me!
Long my imprisoned spirit lay, Fast bound in sin and nature’s night; Thine eye diffused a quickening ray— I woke, the dungeon flamed with light; My chains fell off, my heart was free, I rose, went forth, and followed Thee. My chains fell off, my heart was free, I rose, went forth, and followed Thee.
Still the small inward voice I hear, That whispers all my sins forgiven; Still the atoning blood is near, That quenched the wrath of hostile Heaven. I feel the life His wounds impart; I feel the Savior in my heart. I feel the life His wounds impart; I feel the Savior in my heart.
No condemnation now I dread; Jesus, and all in Him, is mine; Alive in Him, my living Head, And clothed in righteousness divine, Bold I approach th’eternal throne, And claim the crown, through Christ my own. Bold I approach th’eternal throne, And claim the crown, through Christ my own.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The Western Jesus
The story of Jesus Christ is one of the most powerful and well known stories in Western Culture, regardless of personal religious practices or beliefs. The story has, in many forms (both reverent and mocking), been incorporated into the Western Tradition and in the process has become something entirely different as a cultural phenomenon than I think it is actually understood as a religious and spiritual cornerstone of belief and faith. However, I also think it can't be denied that the gospel stories have been revered in Western culture as well as much as they have been used to other ends; the art alone that has been inspired by the Gospels is astounding. The basis for literary critique and the practice of interpreting literature stems from BIble interpretation - early theologians and Christian writers, especially the writings of Paul the apostle.
There have always been critics of Christianity, but I don't think this cynical, satirical, academically inferior view of the story of Jesus became popular or widespread until after the dawn of "modernity" - the industrial revolution, the separation of church and state, etc. Those views were always there, of course, but the stories of Jesus were not always seen by society as completely illegitimate. I'm sure my take on society's view of Jesus and Christianity is skewed, but from what I've seen on TV, and heard from my peers, and read in magazines, and heard in popular music, this view is much more widespread and readily accepted.
Seeing as it is Easter Sunday this weekend, I think it is fitting to talk about Jesus's status in Western Culture today. I think that the person or character of Jesus has been twisted and manipulated by popular culture in such a way that makes him almost inaccessible and also less legitimate to anyone looking at Christianity from the outside. I mentioned before the power of comedy in shaping beliefs and opinions on big issues -- Jesus, and Christianity as a whole, is one of those issues. The way people look at the story of Jesus and the way Jesus' name is thrown about in popular culture along with swear words and comedic satire undermine the power of the original story, and jump to the conclusion that the entire thing is ridiculous without giving the story credit first. In good philosophy the way you are supposed to approach a claim or argument, whether you disagree with it or not, is to give it as much credit as possible, and then in presenting argue against
Franz Clemens Brentano, one of Freud's teachers of philosophy, said (of arguments for and against the existence of God), "I hope that in the end you will all be more persuaded that a casual study of philosophy leads us away from God, but to delve more deeply into it is to be led back to Him again."
One of my favorite authors and someone I consider a kindred spirit in the Christian faith is C.S. Lewis. He went from being a "devout" atheist to being an apologetic Christian. He resisted his conversion to the faith as much as he could, but eventually gave up resisting what he found he already knew in himself to be true. He was greatly influenced by by G.K. Chesterton, who said,
“Divinity is great enough to be divine; it is great enough to call itself divine. But as humanity grows greater, it grows less and less likely to do so. God is God, as the Moslems say; but a great man knows he is not God, and the greater he is the better he knows it. That is the paradox; everything that is merely approaching to that point is merely receding from it. Socrates, the wisest man, knows that he knows nothing. A lunatic may think he is omniscient, and a fool may talk as if he were omniscient. But Christ is in another sense omniscient if he not only knows, but knows that he knows.”
I know a lot of people who would vehemently argue with Chesterton that "a great man knows he is not God." They would say that they can be their own god, and that in their search for knowledge and truth and in themselves they are sufficient to rule their own life and take on their own definition of the divine. However, in my own life, and in my own search for truth, I have found the Christian faith and the Christian God to be the true one. It's hard to explain how I know, but the psychologist Winifred Gallagher put it well: I experience it through a glass darkly, I experience it in little bursts. I think my understanding of it is that it's, it's always true, and sometimes I can see it and sometimes I can't. Or sometimes I remember that it's true, and then everything is in Technicolor. And then most of the time it's not, and I have to go on faith until the next time I can perhaps see it again. I think of a divine reality, an ultimate reality (...) would be my definition of God.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The Gospel According to….?
One of the most interesting things about the gospels is the fact that there are so many of them. The four that were chosen to be included in the official canon of scripture are only four of many others that were not included in the canon.
One thing that stands out in Mark in comparison to the other gospels is that it does not start with the nativity, like Matthew and Luke. Even John has some kind of introduction of Jesus’ origins before telling the story of John the Baptist. Instead Mark references a prophecy made in Isaiah, making the connection between the old Law and the new. After quoting Isaiah, John the Baptist then makes a prophecy of his own, saying that “one more powerful than [him]” was to come who would “baptize you with the Holy Spirit.” This prophecy is recorded just before the telling of the baptism of Jesus, making is clear that to the reader that Jesus was the man to whom John was referring. It is interesting the amount of detail that Mark chooses to leave out of certain stories, perhaps because his gospel was written after other gospels and he didn’t feel the need to fill in the gaps? I think this is part of the reason that the four gospels were chosen, because of the way they work together with the other gospels. Each gospel-author chose their details for specific reasons and a reader of all four will come away from each with both similar and different
Most Christians don’t consider it a problem that the gospels have pieces that contradict each other. I don’t want to have that argument again, and I’m sure a fellow student will be glad to bring it up. It will be a very similar argument to the one about Genesis and a literal reading of the Bible.
Instead, I want to talk about something in Mark that I find important to me, personally. Maybe this isn’t very “academic” but today that is not important to me. Yesterday was Palm Sunday, and this Friday is Good Friday. In less than a week it will be Easter! This is one of the most important weeks in the Christian faith – scratch that, THE most important week. The Jesus’ death and resurrection are the basis of the entire religion. Yes, Christmas is important, too, but the more important thing is the sacrifice and the resurrection.
The story of Palm Sunday can be found in Mark 11:1-11, when Jesus asks two of his disciples to get a donkey and he rides it through the town and the people celebrate Jesus as the Messiah, one of the first open celebrations of Jesus as the prophesied Messiah, the Christ. Before this Jesus had been performing miracles but he was more secretive about his identity. Part of the reason for this was that the Jews were expecting the Messiah to overthrow the empire and violently overtake the Romans by restoring the kingdom of God on earth. Jesus knew that if he told people he was the Messiah they would expect that from him, even though his actual purpose was to metaphorically bring the kingdom of God back to power. There is a section in John's gospel (6:14-15 - 14Then those men, when they had seen the miracle that Jesus did, said, This is of a truth that prophet that should come into the world. 15When Jesus therefore perceived that they would come and take him by force, to make him a king, he departed again into a mountain himself alone.) where Jesus has to flee from the crowd of people because they are going to force him to be their king!
Something that is surprising to me in the gospels, considering the Catholic church’s emphasis on tradition and rules, and the increasing trouble people have with the “religion” of Christianity and the church as an institution, is the emphasis of the gospels and of Jesus on the insufficiency and often the misguidedness of the “church” and of the keeping of religious laws. It was not the religious laws themselves that were necessarily wrong, but the way in which the Pharisees/Sadducees/Priests enforced them and emphasized strict adherence to the laws over actions rooted in God’s love. Jesus was not saying that actions are unimportant; quite the opposite. He was saying that in following him (and thus following God), your actions should reflect God’s will. Not that that is an easy thing to do, but Jesus’ point was that actions for good should not be seen as evil or wrong simply because they do not adhere to the “laws.”
My favorite verses in Mark are 13:31-37 (KJV):
31Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away.
32But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father.
33Take ye heed, watch and pray: for ye know not when the time is.
34For the Son of Man is as a man taking a far journey, who left his house, and gave authority to his servants, and to every man his work, and commanded the porter to watch.
35Watch ye therefore: for ye know not when the master of the house cometh, at even, or at midnight, or at the cockcrowing, or in the morning:
36Lest coming suddenly he find you sleeping.
37And what I say unto you I say unto all, Watch.
These verses emphasize what I was saying before about actions. Under Christian theology, our actions should be rooted in a love of God and a desire to act according to that love. There is an emphasis on "being ready" for Christ's return and the ephemeral nature of this world, which encourages you to make the most of your time. It reminds me of a quote from Washington Irving: "Great minds have purposes, others have wishes." I love the analogy Jesus uses, "Lest coming suddenly he finds you sleeping." The point is to be ready and be living even though Christ has promised that he will return.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
My response to a lecture by philosopher Peter van Inwagen:
Philosophy & FAITH
Peter van Inwagen's main argument was that science cannot disprove God, and that any scientific argument must ultimately be backed up by a philosophical argument if it is going to have any credibility as an argument against the existence of God. Van Inwagen is not saying that science cannot provide evidence for the nonexistence of God, just that on its own science is not enough. Van Inwagen says that any argument for the existence or nonexistence of something must ultimately be a philosophical argument because even atheism is a metaphysical/philosophical position despite an atheist using science to back up their viewpoint. Even if the atheist can come up
However, van Inwagen also claims that the fact that any argument for or against the existence of God will ultimately not be "compelling," and that no philosophical argument for or against the existence of something can ever be "compelling" no matter how good it is because almost all philosophical arguments can be well-argued from different viewpoints. In almost any legitimate philosophical argument you will be able to find very qualified philosophers with strong opinions and convinced of their viewpoint in opposition to another equally qualified philosopher… but they can't all be right. Van Inwagen takes this to mean that no answer to the questions will ever be proven by philosophy, even if good, rational arguments are made for a position. He also admits that most philosophers take themselves to be right, and aren't bothered by the fact that not everyone is convinced by their argument. Even philosophers have to admit that philosophy alone cannot be the reason for belief.
The overall theme that I got from van Inwagen's talk is that, when it comes down to it, someone believes what they're going to believe because they believe it, not based on philosophical argument. I tend to agree with this. I do not believe in God because of a proof that I read or because someone explained to me logically why I should, and the same goes in the opposite direction - I have not abandoned my faith because I have encountered philosophical arguments that contradict my beliefs. However, I have been led to doubt my beliefs and question them in ways that I never would have if I had not explored different philosophical viewpoints.
Someone asked van Inwagen to clarify his point on beliefs by asking him if philosophy was then pointless because all the questions that are addressed are never really answered and you won't be able to convince someone of your viewpoint based on philosophical argument. It's easy to think that way, and that might seem like the logical conclusion, but I think that is simplifying the issue too much. I think that in exploring philosophy you end up asking the most important questions. The fact that you are asking the questions is the important thing.
Van Inwagen tried to say that even though a philosophical viewpoint cannot ultimately be proven, that you can still have rational belief in something. However, I would argue that my belief in God and my faith are ultimately IRRATIONAL things, and that's okay. I think that human beings, despite their attempts at rationality, are at the heart irrational beings. I don't need a rational explanation for my belief. Van Inwagen would probably get upset at me for saying that, but I think that he would then be ignoring the definition of faith. Isn't the point of faith that it isn't and doesn't have to be rational? The times when I have abandoned my faith or stepped back and questioned my commitment have not been because a philosophical argument convinced me fully that I was wrong, but because I found myself doubting that I could continue to believe what i did without a rational basis. However, this temporary abandonment of faith was met with an inner struggle that made me realize the depth of my belief outside of the philosophical context, and I realized that even without complete and full rational or logical evidence/argument for my beliefs, and without all the answers to the questions my beliefs raise, I still have these beliefs. This is my faith, and my faith comes before any logical basis for belief that I might find. My faith can be strengthened through philosophy, but it is not grounded in it.
If you come at philosophy looking for and expecting to find answers you will be disappointed. In my mind that is not philosophy's goal (though, of course, that point can be argued). What's important in philosophy is the way it makes you think and the questions it leads you to ask. Going looking for answers is different than expecting answers. I think it's important to ask the questions and explore the possible answers in finding what you believe; the quest for "truths" in your world can be guided by philosophy, but that is not what the truths are based in.
I am not saying that a person can't have a rational reason for their belief or that there can't be rational arguments for theism. What I am saying is that no matter how many arguments are made, belief is not actually based on the "compelling nature" of those arguments. What is at the base of belief is not philosophy; it is not something rational. It is something bigger and broader than anything "logic" can give us.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
THE ALLEGORY OF THE CAVE
I love Plato's allegory, portraying the journey to knowledge and truth as an adjustment from darkness to light, and the ultimate light being the ultimate good. Something that I disagree with, though, is that Socrates is saying that the "real world" can only be perceived intellectually, not through the senses. His analogy praises the knowledge gained through thought and exploration into the light of the mind, but he doesn't trust any knowledge gained through our senses. I think this is a bit snobbish, and that adhering to this view of "truth" and knowledge would be to Socrates disadvantage. Though we may not be able to trust our senses completely, and we may not be able to prove that the sensory input we are getting is trustworthy, I still think there is a lot to be gained from observation of the "real world" in the context that we have no choice but to interact with. I also think that these kind of experiences with the tangible world can lead a person into the light without that person necessarily making the conscious choice to be led out of the cave. They may be aware of the fact that they are out of the cave at all, but may see their change in perspective as a gradual and natural change in their environment - as if the cave were slowly being filled up with light and they never had to venture out at all. Within Plato's analogy, though, I suppose one would then still have to make the conscious choice whether or not to stay in the cave or to remove their chains, but this choice is only presented with the knowledge that you were ever chained in the first place, or that you could have stayed in the dark. I think that a person could be "enlightened" and living in the light, in a sense, without having to make such a stark distinction between the light and the dark, and without snubbing the tangible world as Socrates does. Knowledge gained through experience in the tangible world can be just as edifying as an explorations within one's mind; in fact, I think a combination of these modes of learning would be even more helpful in leading one to the light than a strict adherence to one or the other. It would be almost impossible (and I would argue, immoral) to completely avoid learning and making discoveries and forming opinions based on the tangible world. Just the fact that Socrates uses this analogy to a cave, to light, to the physical manifestations in the world in order to explain an intangible experience, shows the importance of these kinds of knowledge working together to find truth.
After anyone reads Plato's "Allegory of the Cave," of course they want to count themselves as one of those who has ventured out into the light. Would you really want to associate yourself with the cave-dwellers? I wouldn't. But then how many of us actually are? How many of us have even made an effort to get out of the cave? I would feel dishonest if I were to say I was fully a light-dweller, and accustomed to the brightness. I would hope that I can truthfully say that I have removed my chains and at least made the effort to go into the light, to leave the cave and develop that new mode of sight - but I don't think I could say I have succeeded. I think more often than not I get a glimpse of the light, and then am forced to squint and close my eyes and don't make the effort to open them again and grow used to the light, but rather take shelter in the shadows of the cave before venturing out again. Maybe I don't give myself enough credit -- but how are we really to know if we are out of the cave? Who are we to decide we've grown accustomed? How do we know when we've reached the furthest and brightest distance from the cave? In death? It is interesting that Socrates in his allegory points out that once you have gone into the light you cannot simultaneously dwell with those that have not been in the light. You must go back into the dark and grow used to the dark again and then tell others of the light you have seen and help lead them to it. I mostly agree with this, but it also seems to me that you could be fully aware of the light and dark at the same time. I don't think you have to grow accustomed to the dark again in order to remember what the dark was like and hold on to the light, leading others to the place you have found.
I really liked what Socrates said about education: "But then, if I am right, certain professors of education must be wrong when they say that they can put a knowledge into the soul which was not there before, like sight into blind eyes. (…) so too the instrument of knowledge can only by the movement of the whole soul being turned from the world of becoming into that of being, and learn by degrees to endure the sight of being, and of the brightest and best of being, in other words, of the good."
One of my favorite high school teachers used to tell us that they thought of their job as a drawing out of us, helping us realize things we already had the capability of doing and coaching us on our way to ourselves and the finding of knowledge. They did not think of themselves as instilling knowledge in us; they thought of education as a way of helping us find knowledge in ourselves. This reminds me of Eleonor Stump's theory of knowledge IN as apposed to knowledge ABOUT or THAT. Knowledge IN can be informed by knowledge THAT, but knowledge THAT isn't necessary to understand something. You can experience a painting and have an understanding of it without knowing anything about painting itself or the artist or the historical context.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
About a week ago I went to two lectures by the renowned philosopher Eleonore Stump, and this is my attempt at conveying what I learned...
Eleonore Stump - MODES OF KNOWING
Stump presents two modes of knowing: knowing THAT, as opposed to second person knowledge, which is at once immediate, direct, and perceptive. Knowledge THAT is knowledge about a thing or person. For example, an autistic child can know THAT a person is sad, but not know that person's sadness. You can know THAT something is without having a second person knowledge of the same thing. Stump proposes that autistic children are missing something that helps them access this kind of understanding. She explains second-person knowledge as coming from a sort of mind-reading skill that we all inherently have, but that autistic children do not choose to access (this happens early in life and if diagnosed soon autism can be fixed by helping the child access this skill). An autistic child can make the inference that a person is sad or happy based on observed facial expressions etc., but a person with the mind-reading skill can just see that a person is sad and understand the sadness without having to use the extra step of seeing the tears, downcast eyes, slumped body language and then consciously reminding themselves that these things are a manifestation of that person's sadness. The mind-reading is a result of a shared knowledge of "sadness" that the first and third person have.
Stump talked about mirror neurons, a phenomenon in the brain that is being researched by neuroscientists and philosophers alike to study second person knowledge in relation to autism. Mirror neurons pick up on body language and facial expression and then mirror what you see within your psyche, giving you a second-person knowledge of that observed experience. Body language is very important to the concept of mirror neurons and understanding of emotions because mirror neurons somehow allow the mind-reading capability to happen.
You can have a second person experience of someone iff 1) you are aware of them as a person, 2) you have direct and immediate contact with them, and 3) that person is conscious (but may not be conscious of your knowledge of them). Second-person experience is different than first-person or third-person; it is the link between these two experiences. Stump also distinguishes between second-person knowledge and empathy. Empathy is understanding and relating to another's experience or emotion in relation to your own experience/emotion, and thus feeling that emotion of the other person as your own. Stump's definition of second-person knowledge or experience is different in that you do not need to have personally experienced that person's emotion or situation in order to come to a second-person knowledge of it.
Second-person knowledge cannot necessarily be expressed verbally or in any specific mode of communication. Stump talked about how you can know that someone is angry and also know their anger, but you can't really say why or how you know their anger. Second-person knowledge, in its very nature, cannot really be explained or described, but that doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. I think that this is important to acknowledge, especially in an academic setting, because someone could have a knowledge of something without being able to express that knowledge in terms of knowledge THAT, or according to specific formulaic responses expected of the perfect student. I think that in school systems today kids should be given a chance to express their understanding through artistic means, or alternative modes of knowing. There should be more than one way to learn something that doesn't only present knowledge THAT. You can also gain knowledge THAT through second-person experience. There are things that you can learn in art or creative means that you cannot gain by learning facts or studying natural sciences. Stump claims that although second-person experience cannot be expressed or explained in terms of knowledge THAT, story and narrative (in any form, including art) can convey some understanding of that person's second-person experience. (This brings her to her second lecture on Job, where she says that the reader can come to a second-person understanding of God through Job's second-person experience.) In relation to art or creative works of some kind, you can have a knowledge about something, but you don't need to have knowledge about it in order to have a knowledge in it. I think this knowledge in, or second-person knowledge, is very important to acting (as acting is a form of story-telling). I am very involved in theater on campus, and coming to a second-person knowledge of other people in the real world is essential to being able to interpret these feelings and understandings in the context of a play or understanding a specific character. When you act, you try to understand the character in relation to events in your own life, but you also try to come to an understanding of the character themselves and somehow express this character through your acting as an expression of that understanding.
I loved the example Stump gave of a mathematician who asked the question, "Why am I so much smarter than everyone else?" He found the answer to his question in second-person knowledge. He had a knowledge OF numbers, whereas others have a knowledge ABOUT numbers. Though an extensive knowledge ABOUT numbers could be used to achieve great mathematical feats, knowing numbers can allow you to do things with numbers that a knowledge ABOUT numbers wouldn't allow. That second-person understanding gave him a freedom to use the numbers in ways that no one else could think of.
Does Stump think that blind people cannot experience second-person knowledge of another person because they cannot observe body language or make eye contact? I think Stump would respond by saying that second person knowledge can still be gained through other senses. A blind person can still observe a person's sadness through the tone of their voice, through touch, etc. A deaf person can see the person's sadness and understand it even though they cannot hear the inflections in the person's voice. Although, according to Stump's definition, it would seem that a person with this kind of disability would lose something in their second-person knowledge by not having a direct experience with all the senses. This also seems to be true in her example of two people who might fall in love through writing each other letters. These people may think that they have a second-person knowledge of each other, but because that knowledge is being mediated by the letter writing (and in theory could be fictional on the part of either participant) the second-person knowledge is not the same as the kind that is gained through direct contact. Even if the letters are completely sincere, there is something about being with a person, having them physically present, that changes the knowledge and understanding you have of them.
ELEONORE STUMP - PROBLEM OF EVIL AND JOB
I really like the concept of second-person knowledge in the context of art and literature. Stump focused on this knowledge-in as an essential aspect of narrative. You cannot just read the summary of a book on the internet and then claim to have the same understanding of the book that you would have gained through actually reading the story. You gain some dot of second person
In the context of the story of Job, Stump says that the story has been misinterpreted because readers think that Job does not get an answer to his question, "Why is this happening to me?" But actually, Job's answer comes through his second-person experience and understanding of God which he could not have gained except through his suffering. This "next level" of his knowledge of God would not have been available to him without the suffering that he endured. God talks to Job while he is suffering and tells Job stories about the creation of the world. Through God's narrative, Job -- and the reader -- gain a deeper second-person understanding of God and God's nature, as well as God's relationship with Job. From this the reader as well as Job can find an answer of sorts. The answer is not in the form of a specific explanation, laid out in words and simple "Why?" -- "Because (fill in the blank)" form. Job gains an understanding of God that is sufficient to accept his suffering, despite the apparent lack of a direct answer from God to his questions. From this it can be suggested that a theodicy can arrive from narrative that cannot be shown through merely philosophical writing.
Although Eleonore Stump did not promise to pose a theodicy based on narrative and the second person knowledge gained from story-telling, her presentation of the book of Job in the context of the second-person experience almost spoke for itself. She suggested in her essay on the problem of evil that within the context of Christian theology, God is like a parent in that he allows suffering for the primary benefit of the sufferer for some good that could only be achieved through this suffering. In the case of Job, although Job was already a righteous man with what we can assume was a pretty advanced second-person knowledge of God, this testing of Job through suffering led him to a new level of understanding that came only through the suffering itself and the interaction between Job and God that came of it. The episode also led Job's friends to a better understanding of God in being rebuked by God for their misunderstanding. Although Job did get angry about his suffering and questioned God, he never abandoned God or cursed God "to His face" as Satan predicted. Through his anger, confusion, and indignation, Job holds on to his relationship with God. Unlike his friends, Job refuses to accept anything God does "just because He's God." (Fallacy of Authority!) Instead Job holds on to his knowledge of God's goodness in favor of God's office and position of power. (Power without authority would be satanic!)
Job's story is supposed to be seen as part of a larger saga, just as each of God's creations is a small part of the incomprehensibly larger whole. Even so, each story, and each creation, is still made to be the primary beneficiary in God's eye. Job's second-person relation with God is of miniscule importance in relation to God's relation to the whole world - but not to God! God makes each relation equally most important; this seems paradoxical, but I think that is because we are not God we do not have the capability of making something equal as well as most important. I view this idea of God in a similar way to the idea of an actual infinite. Despite Craig's argument, and my inability to come up with a legitimate objection, for some reason I still believe an actual infinite to exist. In the same way I believe God can make every one of his creations at the same time individually the primary beneficiary and also creation as a whole.
....
Stump's distinction between knowledge THAT and knowledge IN can be applied to the Garden of Eden. Chloe and I asked Stump what she would say about the fact that it appears that Adam and Eve did not have free will before the fall because they did not know what evil was and so could not have chosen it. But Stump responded to that by saying that nowhere is it specified that Adam and Eve did not know that it was wrong to eat the fruit, or that they did not have an understanding of going against God's command as wrong. This would mean that they still had morally significant free will. I responded by pointing out that the Tree is supposed to be the "Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil" so how could Adam and Eve have any knowledge of good and evil before partaking of the fruit. Stump deftly squashed this objection by suggesting that the Tree gave Adam and Eve a knowledge THAT about good and evil, but that it is entirely possible that Adam and Eve had an intrinsic understanding of good and evil before gaining a knowledge THAT. They could understand that it was wrong to partake of the fruit without knowing why it was wrong or knowing what "wrong" was.
I think that Stump's example makes a lot of sense, but at the same time I would object by saying that someone may not necessarily have an intrinsic understanding of morality. Stump used the example of someone knowing that it is wrong to kill a child whether or not they have been told by society. But I think that this brings into question the nature vs. nurture issue. How much of our ideas about morality are imposed on us by society? Can Stump really say that a person would know intrinsically that something is wrong? Aren't there societies that function according to completely different moral codes, moral codes that would seem repulsive to those of us that grew up in a Western society? This makes me think of the play, "Death and the King's Horsemen," by Wole Soyinka, which tells the story of a Nigerian tribe and British colonists in the 1940's, and the tragic result of the British trying to impose their own code of morality on the Nigerian tribe. Morality may be subjective, in which case Adam and Eve may not have had any intrinsic understanding of evil.
Eleonore Stump - MODES OF KNOWING
Stump presents two modes of knowing: knowing THAT, as opposed to second person knowledge, which is at once immediate, direct, and perceptive. Knowledge THAT is knowledge about a thing or person. For example, an autistic child can know THAT a person is sad, but not know that person's sadness. You can know THAT something is without having a second person knowledge of the same thing. Stump proposes that autistic children are missing something that helps them access this kind of understanding. She explains second-person knowledge as coming from a sort of mind-reading skill that we all inherently have, but that autistic children do not choose to access (this happens early in life and if diagnosed soon autism can be fixed by helping the child access this skill). An autistic child can make the inference that a person is sad or happy based on observed facial expressions etc., but a person with the mind-reading skill can just see that a person is sad and understand the sadness without having to use the extra step of seeing the tears, downcast eyes, slumped body language and then consciously reminding themselves that these things are a manifestation of that person's sadness. The mind-reading is a result of a shared knowledge of "sadness" that the first and third person have.
Stump talked about mirror neurons, a phenomenon in the brain that is being researched by neuroscientists and philosophers alike to study second person knowledge in relation to autism. Mirror neurons pick up on body language and facial expression and then mirror what you see within your psyche, giving you a second-person knowledge of that observed experience. Body language is very important to the concept of mirror neurons and understanding of emotions because mirror neurons somehow allow the mind-reading capability to happen.
You can have a second person experience of someone iff 1) you are aware of them as a person, 2) you have direct and immediate contact with them, and 3) that person is conscious (but may not be conscious of your knowledge of them). Second-person experience is different than first-person or third-person; it is the link between these two experiences. Stump also distinguishes between second-person knowledge and empathy. Empathy is understanding and relating to another's experience or emotion in relation to your own experience/emotion, and thus feeling that emotion of the other person as your own. Stump's definition of second-person knowledge or experience is different in that you do not need to have personally experienced that person's emotion or situation in order to come to a second-person knowledge of it.
Second-person knowledge cannot necessarily be expressed verbally or in any specific mode of communication. Stump talked about how you can know that someone is angry and also know their anger, but you can't really say why or how you know their anger. Second-person knowledge, in its very nature, cannot really be explained or described, but that doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. I think that this is important to acknowledge, especially in an academic setting, because someone could have a knowledge of something without being able to express that knowledge in terms of knowledge THAT, or according to specific formulaic responses expected of the perfect student. I think that in school systems today kids should be given a chance to express their understanding through artistic means, or alternative modes of knowing. There should be more than one way to learn something that doesn't only present knowledge THAT. You can also gain knowledge THAT through second-person experience. There are things that you can learn in art or creative means that you cannot gain by learning facts or studying natural sciences. Stump claims that although second-person experience cannot be expressed or explained in terms of knowledge THAT, story and narrative (in any form, including art) can convey some understanding of that person's second-person experience. (This brings her to her second lecture on Job, where she says that the reader can come to a second-person understanding of God through Job's second-person experience.) In relation to art or creative works of some kind, you can have a knowledge about something, but you don't need to have knowledge about it in order to have a knowledge in it. I think this knowledge in, or second-person knowledge, is very important to acting (as acting is a form of story-telling). I am very involved in theater on campus, and coming to a second-person knowledge of other people in the real world is essential to being able to interpret these feelings and understandings in the context of a play or understanding a specific character. When you act, you try to understand the character in relation to events in your own life, but you also try to come to an understanding of the character themselves and somehow express this character through your acting as an expression of that understanding.
I loved the example Stump gave of a mathematician who asked the question, "Why am I so much smarter than everyone else?" He found the answer to his question in second-person knowledge. He had a knowledge OF numbers, whereas others have a knowledge ABOUT numbers. Though an extensive knowledge ABOUT numbers could be used to achieve great mathematical feats, knowing numbers can allow you to do things with numbers that a knowledge ABOUT numbers wouldn't allow. That second-person understanding gave him a freedom to use the numbers in ways that no one else could think of.
Does Stump think that blind people cannot experience second-person knowledge of another person because they cannot observe body language or make eye contact? I think Stump would respond by saying that second person knowledge can still be gained through other senses. A blind person can still observe a person's sadness through the tone of their voice, through touch, etc. A deaf person can see the person's sadness and understand it even though they cannot hear the inflections in the person's voice. Although, according to Stump's definition, it would seem that a person with this kind of disability would lose something in their second-person knowledge by not having a direct experience with all the senses. This also seems to be true in her example of two people who might fall in love through writing each other letters. These people may think that they have a second-person knowledge of each other, but because that knowledge is being mediated by the letter writing (and in theory could be fictional on the part of either participant) the second-person knowledge is not the same as the kind that is gained through direct contact. Even if the letters are completely sincere, there is something about being with a person, having them physically present, that changes the knowledge and understanding you have of them.
ELEONORE STUMP - PROBLEM OF EVIL AND JOB
I really like the concept of second-person knowledge in the context of art and literature. Stump focused on this knowledge-in as an essential aspect of narrative. You cannot just read the summary of a book on the internet and then claim to have the same understanding of the book that you would have gained through actually reading the story. You gain some dot of second person
In the context of the story of Job, Stump says that the story has been misinterpreted because readers think that Job does not get an answer to his question, "Why is this happening to me?" But actually, Job's answer comes through his second-person experience and understanding of God which he could not have gained except through his suffering. This "next level" of his knowledge of God would not have been available to him without the suffering that he endured. God talks to Job while he is suffering and tells Job stories about the creation of the world. Through God's narrative, Job -- and the reader -- gain a deeper second-person understanding of God and God's nature, as well as God's relationship with Job. From this the reader as well as Job can find an answer of sorts. The answer is not in the form of a specific explanation, laid out in words and simple "Why?" -- "Because (fill in the blank)" form. Job gains an understanding of God that is sufficient to accept his suffering, despite the apparent lack of a direct answer from God to his questions. From this it can be suggested that a theodicy can arrive from narrative that cannot be shown through merely philosophical writing.
Although Eleonore Stump did not promise to pose a theodicy based on narrative and the second person knowledge gained from story-telling, her presentation of the book of Job in the context of the second-person experience almost spoke for itself. She suggested in her essay on the problem of evil that within the context of Christian theology, God is like a parent in that he allows suffering for the primary benefit of the sufferer for some good that could only be achieved through this suffering. In the case of Job, although Job was already a righteous man with what we can assume was a pretty advanced second-person knowledge of God, this testing of Job through suffering led him to a new level of understanding that came only through the suffering itself and the interaction between Job and God that came of it. The episode also led Job's friends to a better understanding of God in being rebuked by God for their misunderstanding. Although Job did get angry about his suffering and questioned God, he never abandoned God or cursed God "to His face" as Satan predicted. Through his anger, confusion, and indignation, Job holds on to his relationship with God. Unlike his friends, Job refuses to accept anything God does "just because He's God." (Fallacy of Authority!) Instead Job holds on to his knowledge of God's goodness in favor of God's office and position of power. (Power without authority would be satanic!)
Job's story is supposed to be seen as part of a larger saga, just as each of God's creations is a small part of the incomprehensibly larger whole. Even so, each story, and each creation, is still made to be the primary beneficiary in God's eye. Job's second-person relation with God is of miniscule importance in relation to God's relation to the whole world - but not to God! God makes each relation equally most important; this seems paradoxical, but I think that is because we are not God we do not have the capability of making something equal as well as most important. I view this idea of God in a similar way to the idea of an actual infinite. Despite Craig's argument, and my inability to come up with a legitimate objection, for some reason I still believe an actual infinite to exist. In the same way I believe God can make every one of his creations at the same time individually the primary beneficiary and also creation as a whole.
....
Stump's distinction between knowledge THAT and knowledge IN can be applied to the Garden of Eden. Chloe and I asked Stump what she would say about the fact that it appears that Adam and Eve did not have free will before the fall because they did not know what evil was and so could not have chosen it. But Stump responded to that by saying that nowhere is it specified that Adam and Eve did not know that it was wrong to eat the fruit, or that they did not have an understanding of going against God's command as wrong. This would mean that they still had morally significant free will. I responded by pointing out that the Tree is supposed to be the "Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil" so how could Adam and Eve have any knowledge of good and evil before partaking of the fruit. Stump deftly squashed this objection by suggesting that the Tree gave Adam and Eve a knowledge THAT about good and evil, but that it is entirely possible that Adam and Eve had an intrinsic understanding of good and evil before gaining a knowledge THAT. They could understand that it was wrong to partake of the fruit without knowing why it was wrong or knowing what "wrong" was.
I think that Stump's example makes a lot of sense, but at the same time I would object by saying that someone may not necessarily have an intrinsic understanding of morality. Stump used the example of someone knowing that it is wrong to kill a child whether or not they have been told by society. But I think that this brings into question the nature vs. nurture issue. How much of our ideas about morality are imposed on us by society? Can Stump really say that a person would know intrinsically that something is wrong? Aren't there societies that function according to completely different moral codes, moral codes that would seem repulsive to those of us that grew up in a Western society? This makes me think of the play, "Death and the King's Horsemen," by Wole Soyinka, which tells the story of a Nigerian tribe and British colonists in the 1940's, and the tragic result of the British trying to impose their own code of morality on the Nigerian tribe. Morality may be subjective, in which case Adam and Eve may not have had any intrinsic understanding of evil.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Aristophanes - CLOUDS
In my Bible class today we were talking about how the different versions of the gospels represent Jesus in slightly (and some no so slightly) different ways, and whether or not this is problematic in learning about the person of Jesus and his teachings. I feel like the gospels are written in a similar way to Plato's recordings of Socrates - disciple/follower recording the teachings and life of the mentor. Although Aristophanes does not "record" Socrates teachings, his representation of Socrates is just as influential as more "historical" writings of Plato. I would even say that Aristophanes' play could be argued to be just as historical as Plato's dialogues - who can really know who Socrates was? We shouldn't throw out Aristophanes' depiction of Socrates simply because it is given in the form of comedy. In fact, I don't think the people of Greece did.
"Clouds" is surprisingly contemporary reading it in the context of modern theater. I find this to be true about almost every piece of Greek theater I come across. It makes me wonder how much we've changed since the time of Aristophanes. In general, people would rather watch or read a comedy than take the time to sift through something serious. 1) because it's scary! and 2) because it's harder to access that kind of thinking. Comedic slapstick is something everyone can understand, together. I think that is one of the dangers and also one of the most powerful potentials of comedy is the way it can shape opinions. People underestimate the power of comedy in how it can change and also control the general and individual understanding of political, moral, and really any issue it touches. Imagine how different our opinions about people like George Bush would be if comedy hadn't latched onto his character! It's not that comedy or satire are wrong in doing what they do; the information we get on the news or from Plato's dialogues can be just as biased as Aristophanes' impression of Socrates or American Dad's take on Jesus!
While Aristophanes is blatantly ridiculing Socrates and his "Thinkery," I don't think he is actually attacking Platonic thinking or the true person of Socrates (if there is a "true person of Socrates"). He is attacking those people who claim to have found all the answers, but actually just know how to say the right thing in the right way to make it sound like they're right. He's calling people out on their bullshit by using Strepsiades' actual shit to make the audience laugh.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Aristophanes - CLOUDS
In my Bible class today we were talking about how the different versions of the gospels represent Jesus in slightly (and some no so slightly) different ways, and whether or not this is problematic in learning about the person of Jesus and his teachings. I feel like the gospels are written in a similar way to Plato's recordings of Socrates - disciple/follower recording the teachings and life of the mentor. Although Aristophanes does not "record" Socrates teachings, his representation of Socrates is just as influential as more "historical" writings of Plato. I would even say that Aristophanes' play could be argued to be just as historical as Plato's dialogues - who can really know who Socrates was? We shouldn't throw out Aristophanes' depiction of Socrates simply because it is given in the form of comedy. In fact, I don't think the people of Greece did.
"Clouds" is surprisingly contemporary reading it in the context of modern theater. I find this to be true about almost every piece of Greek theater I come across. It makes me wonder how much we've changed since the time of Aristophanes. In general, people would rather watch or read a comedy than take the time to sift through something serious. 1) because it's scary! and 2) because it's harder to access that kind of thinking. Comedic slapstick is something everyone can understand, together. I think that is one of the dangers and also one of the most powerful potentials of comedy is the way it can shape opinions. People underestimate the power of comedy in how it can change and also control the general and individual understanding of political, moral, and really any issue it touches. Imagine how different our opinions about people like George Bush would be if comedy hadn't latched onto his character! It's not that comedy or satire are wrong in doing what they do; the information we get on the news or from Plato's dialogues can be just as biased as Aristophanes' impression of Socrates or American Dad's take on Jesus!
While Aristophanes is blatantly ridiculing Socrates and his "Thinkery," I don't think he is actually attacking Platonic thinking or the true person of Socrates (if there is a "true person of Socrates"). He is attacking those people who claim to have found all the answers, but actually just know how to say the right thing in the right way to make it sound like they're right. He's calling people out on their bullshit by using Strepsiades' actual shit to make the audience laugh.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
HERACLITIS - Fragments
3 - [Concerning the size of the sun: it is] the width of a human foot.
- This fragment makes me picture someone laying on the grass on a sunny day, squinting and holding their foot up to the sun to shield their eyes from its blinding brightness. The way we perceive and understand everything is based on perspective. And what I think is even more astounding is how easy it can be to change our perspective. Something as big as the sun, something so huge we can't even fathom its immensity, can be reduced to a ball of light no bigger than my foot and nothing to fear. If I look at the sun from the perspective of a puny human being in an infinitely large, ever-expanding universe - the sun seems pretty huge. But if I my world in one moment exists only in the grass I am lying on and the blue sky above my head, I can make the sun smaller. Just by thinking it is. I believe that there are some things we can make true just by thinking it. Don't misunderstand me, though. I mean true in a very loose sense - mainly within our own minds. But this kind of truth is just a different kind of truth, one that may or may not exist in actual reality, but even so exists in our own reality and affects the way we interact with actual reality. We shape our own realities with the truths we find (or create) in our minds. We find, choose, and create truths based on perspective - and just as perspective can change, so too can those truths. But doesn't this contradict the definition of a "truth"? you might ask. In the traditional sense, yes - but if truth is subjective, then no. Truth can be inherent, but it can also be transitory; its solidity can change form based on perspective or revelation. The sun can be the size of my foot one day and fit 1,300,000 Earths inside it the next. You can also simultaneously sustain/harbor seemingly opposite truths based on different perspectives. For example, although I know the Sun to be a giant star in actual reality, the center of our solar system, at the same time I can lay on the grass and hide the sun behind my foot. In that moment, the Sun is both 864,938 miles in diameter and 8 inches in diameter - both of these things are true, but they exist in different perspectives.
20 - When they are born, they wish to live and to meet with their dooms -- or rather to rest -- and they leave children behind them to meet with their dooms in turn.
- This fragment makes me think that Shakespeare read Heraclitis - "To die, to sleep - to sleep -- perchance to dream To die, to sleep-- To sleep--perchance to dream: ay, there's the rub, For in that sleep of death what dreams may come When we have shuffled off this mortal coil…" As soon as we are born we start dying - life and death go hand in hand. As we move forward we are also moving backward in a way, being pulled towards our end. This might seem kind of depressing, but I look at it in a more optimistic light, focusing on the life that coincides with the death we are all being led to. It is a living death, not a dead living. And coming from the Christian tradition, I also don't think of death as a final end, but rather another beginning. I know that's a bit cliche, but this cliche works.
85 - It is hard to fight with one's heart's desire. Whatever it wishes to get, it purchases at the cost of soul.
- This fragment starts off seeming cliché, like something we’ve heard before – but the second phrase is what makes it interesting. Heraclitis separates the heart from the soul, referring to the soul as that entity which is affected and shaped by the heart’s choices; he also implies that the soul has no power in shaping itself and is victim to the heart.
111 - It is sickness that makes health pleasant and good; hunger, plenty; weariness, rest.
- This could be the first theodicy!...
125 - The most beautiful universe is (a) pouring out (of) sweepings at random.
- This almost seems like poetry… the wording is unexpected and the imagery created from it is just as intriguing. Is he saying that a universe which happens randomly and is not predestined, given to chaos and disorder, is more beautiful than a universe without chance or an ordered universe? And what are these “sweepings” that he is talking about?
Other fragments I found interesting:
1 - …But other men know not what they are doing when awake, even as they forget what they do in sleep.
11 - Every beast is driven to pasture with a blow.
14 - The mysteries practiced among men are unholy mysteries
16 - How can one hide from that which never sets?
24 - Gods and men honor those who are slain by Ares.
26 - Man kindles a light for himself in the night-time, when he has died but is alive. The sleeper, whose vision has been put out, lights up from the dead; he that is awake lights up from the sleeping.
29 - For even the best of them choose one thing above all others, immortal glory among mortals, while most of them are glutted like beasts.
36 - For it is death to souls to become water, and death to water to become earth. But water comes from earth; and from water, soul.
46 - Heraclitus said that thinking is a sacred disease and that sight is deceptive.
52 - Time is a child at play, moving pieces in a board game; the kingly power is a child's.
59 - The path of writing is crooked and straight.
89 - The waking have one common world, but the sleeping turn aside each into a world of his own.
117 - A man, when he gets drunk, is led by a beardless lad, tripping, knowing not where he steps, having his soul moist.
Reflection on Oedipus Rex
- what is fate? can fate be blamed? why do we look for blame? is it easier or harder to have a god/gods to worry about? should we worry about fate at all, if everything is bound to happen no matter what? does fate fit our personalities (i.e. did oedipus deserve his fate in some way? was he bound to suffer because of who he was as a person in some way?)? do you think life is predestined? do we have free will? do our efforts in life make a difference to the outcome/our experience? is ignorance bliss?
The story of Oedipus is one of the most ironic, frustrating, infuriating, and tragic stories of all time. It seems to me that Oedipus's fear of the gods is the very thing that led him to ruin. If he had not sought their advice he never would have heard the prophecy and then never would have tried to avoid it. The same goes for Jocasta. But if he had never heard the prophecy, would his fate still have been realized somehow? Is there something about Oedipus that makes it so that he would have ended up filling the same role in society no matter what? We are bound to make a choice one way or another; every given day we are presented with choices and in the end - for anything to happen at all in the world - we each make choice. We choose one over another. Making choices scares me, as I'm sure it scares others. Maybe blaming fate is a way to relieve ourselves of the consequences of our choices. If you say you were "bound" to do something, then it isn't your fault. I don't really live my life that way, though. I believe I have free will, and that, even though I will have to make a choice, that there will be an end "product" for lack of a better word, that I still have the option to create that product through the choices I make. There are many possible outcomes, but in the end there is only one real, one actual outcome. In Oedipus's world, it seems like either fate makes your choices for you (so you have no say in shaping the life you live, but you also don't have anyone to blame as fate is not a being); or that the gods lead you and twist you into taking certain actions; or that there are in fact many possible outcomes but that Oedipus, in trying to take matters into his own hands, ended up choosing the worst possible. If the last is the case, then it seems like ignorance is bliss. Is it worth it to even worry about gods or God, to try to understand the workings of things more likely than not beyond our understanding? In my opinion, yes, it is, but at the same time I envy those who don't feel that need to open themselves to the questions. However, I don't think that once you ask yourself those questions that you can just ignore them. If you are aware, you have to address the issue. Maybe that's another part of Oedipus's tragedy, which is also our own tragedy - that in trying to understand the gods, in looking for answers and solutions we often suffer and find ourselves caught up in circumstances we have no control over. Or our very questioning leads us into situations we never would have gotten ourselves into if we had never looked for answers...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"I am Nobody" "I AM that I AM"
Book 9 of the Odyssey ties in very well to Exodus. Both books of classical texts explore the idea of self in relation to others and attempt to define "self". Odysseus tells Polyphemous that his name is "Nobody" so that the cyclops will not be able to identify him and therefore not be able to place blame on anyone for whatever harm comes to him. Odysseus, in his clever way, uses his name as a disguise and a protection, and also gives us some comic relief in the process. Of course, the more righteous Odysseus feels and the angrier he gets, the more he loses his usual sense of tact and caution. He practically screams at Polyphemous, "I am Odysseus, hear me roar! I am Odysseus who has done this to you, and don't you forget it!!! I dare you to come over here and fight me! I am ODYSSEUS and I have achieved great things all on my own!" Odysseus can't bear to keep silent and not receive recognition for his deeds (though why he would want recognition for gouging out the Cyclops eye I have no idea, especially considering Poseidon's anger).
The God of the Hebrews seems to have a similar problem of needing to prove himself to his people and the world. He tells Moses "I am that I am", a very cryptic "name" - really more of a definition or description of the nature of God - and then sends Moses to rescue His people. But God feels the need to demonstrate his power, his "am"-ness, through the plagues and the hardening of Pharaoh's heart. He couldn't let Moses and Aaron get all the credit. Odysseus can be compared to both God and God's people in that he is "godlike" and demands recognition of his deeds, and at the same time he is mortal and susceptible to the gods' whims, leading him to struggle and suffer for his hybris and refusal to show the gods respect over himself.
The book of Exodus tells how the Hebrews come to define themselves in relation to God and each other as they escape slavery and then receive the books of the law. Prior to the Exodus story, God's "people" had been less of a collective group and more of an individual experience and following of one lineage. The experience of the Exodus and the receiving of the law are what solidify these individuals into a group of chosen people, the holy people of God. To be holy is to be separate and set apart. In a similar way to the Jews, Odysseus is "chosen" and special, set apart from other men. Athena loves him, the gods fight over him, and he goes through a long journey of suffering before he can reach his "promised land".
How do we today define ourselves? Can we relate more to Odysseus' cry for recognition or to his cryptic avoidance of the question? Do we avoid defining ourselves by instead saying what we're not? Does our definition change based on our circumstance? Is our definition imposed on ourselves or is it found within? Are we "that we are" or do we also feel the need to prove ourselves? How does our definition of ourselves as individuals compare to any sense of group identity we have? Do we actually understand our definition of ourselves, or do we strive to become what we say we are in striving to understand the definition?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Odysseus' Scar
Odysseus' scar is a part of his identity. The event that got him this scar is one of the few in which Odysseus is seen to be made vulnerable. He is hunting down a boar and the boar hides in the bushes and then attacks Odysseus, catching him off guard. In a way the boar represents Odysseus - clever, cunning, viscous. The boar is what Odysseus aims to be and so what he becomes. It is important to note that Odysseus, after getting attacked by the boar, still succeeds in killing the boar and brings it home as his prize. However, I feel like Odysseus has a heightened sense of respect, perhaps love, for the boar that he doesn't have for his other enemies for the very reason that it succeeded in catching him off guard. Odysseus and the boar think in similar ways, they were a good match. Odysseus employs the boar's trick on the island of the Phaeacians by hiding himself under leaves and spying on the women before presenting himself to them, almost like the way the boar hid in the bushes and hunted Odysseus.
Odysseus' scar stays with him even when Athena turns him into a beggar. It is what gives Odysseus' identity away to the old slave woman. This shows how Odysseus' scar is his identity. The boar, the scar, are not only a part of Odysseus - they are inseparable from Odysseus. For the same reason that the boar was a good match for Odysseus, Penelope is the perfect match for him as well. Odysseus and Penelope think in the same way, they are kindred spirits. Penelope is the only person we see that can really upset Odysseus and cause him to lose control of his emotions and his collected demeanor. She tests him by asking the maid to fetch their bed - the symbol of their love and unbreakable connection - and Odysseus practically breaks down and cries he is so hurt at the thought that Penelope would move their marital bed which he constructed from the base of a tree. Odysseus' love for Penelope is as much a part of him as his scar, and cannot be separated from his identity. This is Odysseus' tragic sense of self. His scar, and his wife, are so much a part of him that he has to come home. It is impossible for him to be whole without them.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
THE PHILOSOPHY OF THE SPHERES - PYTHAGORAS
It is very interesting that most things we attribute to Pythagoras most likely are not actually his own work, at least not to the extent that we think. i.e. the Pythagorean theorem, music of the spheres, etc. No one really knows what he did or thought, yet he has become this huge figure, a cornerstone of western thought. Most people at least recognize the name Pythagoras, even if they can't say what they recognize it for. My first and really only knowledge of Pythagoras was from 9th grade geometry when we learned about the Pythagorean theorem: a2 + b2 = c2. All this mystery about Pythagoras makes me wonder, has there been a thinker since who has remained so anonymous and shrouded in mystery, yet at the same time so influential and grounding to our ideas of science and mathematics?
Pythagoras lived and thought in the time when religion and science went hand in hand, days which we have progressed pretty far from, in both good and bad ways. I think the fact that religion was interwoven with science led him to think more creatively and conceive of such concepts as the music of the spheres, or the fate of the soul and its different incarnations - ideas that may not be "scientific" in the sense that they can be proven or that they are "right", but are still incredibly important to the development of human thought and our understanding of ourselves. Pythagoras did not limit his thought to the logical or scientific (though he was supposedly the first "pure" mathematician), but instead included mysticism as a part of reality. I think this is very important to our sense of self. (Makes me think of E.M. Forster's plea in Howards End: "Only connect!")
Pythagoras is credited for coming up with the idea that the mathematical ratios of the movements of cestial bodies (stars, planets, moons, etc.) can be understood as an inaudible form of music. (There have actually been projects done to reduce the ratios of the orbits of these celestial bodies in order to express them as actual musical tones -http://homepages.tesco.net/
Most evidence points to Pythagoras being famous for his expertise on the fate of the soul (what happens to the soul after death), one of the most pertinent questions of philosophy. My question is, what separates philosophy from science? Isn't philosophy supposed to be the purest form of science, exploring the world through thought without depending on the other senses? That is not to say that thought as a source of knowledge is completely reliable. It obviously isn't - no source of knowledge is. But would it be fair to say that philosophy is close to mathematics as a science in trying to uncover truth through rational thought? As I understand it, science tries to uncover the workings of the world through repeated experiments and observation of natural phenomena, and tries to discover truth in a supposedly unbiased way. "Science" looks for evidence and proof in the real world for theories that explain what we experience. Sometimes answers are found but there are always more questions than answers. Isn't this similar to philosophy?
A side note about numbers (from our discussion after class):
Numbers are more real than anything else because they exist in the realm of the infinite, which we cannot grasp but surely exists, as demonstrated by the universe itself. the universe is a potential infinite, which starts at one point and continues without end, just as pi represents an endless string of numbers according to a ratio. Irrational numbers are only "irrational" because we cannot completely grasp the concept of them inside the finite realm, but the universe itself - reality - is not confined to the finite.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
THE LIFE OF ADAM AND EVE
I am currently taking a Bible and/as literature class and we’ve been discussing Genesis. There is so much you can say about the story of creation, but I’ll try to focus on just a couple things.
First, there is the question of the two accounts. Why does Genesis 2 seem to start over, retell the story with different details. In Genesis 1, God creates human, male and female, seemingly equal counterparts. The name “Adam” actually comes from the Hebrew word ‘adam, meaning human/mankind. God never officially names Adam. Eve is the first to have a naming ceremony recorded, in verse form, a name given by “Adam”.
There are some people who interpret the two accounts in Genesis as not different tellings of the same story, but two separate stories, bringing us the story of Lilith. Lilith was supposedly the first woman, created with Adam when “God created human in his image, in the image of God He created him, male and female He created them.” (Alter, Five Books of Moses) This translation reveals the ambiguity of the text. Lilith is said to have refused to “lie under” Adam in the garden after he makes an attempt at such a thing, so she leaves the garden and wreaks havoc on mankind. God realizes that his first attempt at creation of mankind failed, so creates Eve as Adam’s second wife, and the story continues from there.
Having grown up in the church, it is amazing to me how much the Christian tradition takes for granted the fact that personal interpretation has skewed the translation and transmission of the Bible. Modern translations and Sunday School lessons don’t allow questions to be asked about these stories. For example, it has always been assumed that the serpent in the garden is Satan. But no where in the Biblical text is this ever said. That is not to say that it can’t be interpreted that way. But it is one thing to interpret and make educated guesses and quite another to simply create an entire narrative to base the foundations of the church doctrine upon. If the serpent isn’t Satan, who is he? Did all animals talk in the garden? Was the serpent actually Satan or did Satan simply recruit the serpent to do his dirty work? Or, as the text seems to imply, given no context or external motivation, was the serpent merely curious and wanted to play “devil’s advocate” (you may choose for yourself to read that pun as intended or not)?
All these questions lead me to ask, who is Satan? Where in the Biblical texts, the Hebrew Bible or the Old Testament, are we told who Satan is and where he comes from? Is his identity assumed? But for the Biblical texts to later talk about Satan and seem to refer to a specific character, there must be a story or some knowledge of his origins. Why is there no Biblical account of this? The most information we have about Satan/Lucifer is from Milton’s “Paradise Lost,” written in the 1800’s. There is some account of Satan’s story in “The Life of Adam and Eve,” a Jewish pseudepigraphical text (meaning the authorship is unknown or the claim of authorship was unfounded). This text is not a part of the accepted Biblical canon, Jewish or Christian, yet somehow imbued all theological teaching with its story of Satan and the fall of man. All tellings of the creation story and Genesis seem to stem from this reading of the text. The Life of Adam and Eve is not considered scripture, yet its teachings have apparently been accepted as such for centuries, even millennia!
!~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Adam and Eve
One of the biggest questions about the story of Adam and Eve, the fall of man, is why Eve, in repeating God’s commandment to the serpent, adds the phrase, “and neither shall you touch it.” In Gen. 2 God tells Adam that he may not eat of the tree of life, but doesn’t say anything about touch. It is also important to note that Eve was not there when this command was originally given. Did God speak to Eve on a separate occasion? Did He give her the same command He gave Adam or did he modify it for Eve? Did Eve simply remember God’s words incorrectly? What would it imply if God had given Eve this modified command? Does Eve – woman – require more discipline? Is Eve more given to fall into temptation, and so God prevents her from even touching the tree, let alone eat of it? Did Eve get the command from Adam, reiterating God’s words so this new creature, woman, may know the rules of the garden they now inhabit together? What does it imply if Adam added this command, “neither shall you touch it”? Does he not trust his female counterpart? Or is he simply trying to protect her, his helpmate, by removing her further from temptation? Does Adam think it is his place to put words in God’s mouth? Or is Adam being cautious because his first wife, Lilith, refused to submit to him, and he must therefore assert his domination over Eve by giving her this extra command?
Personally, I think that Eve simply recalled God’s words incorrectly. Memory works this way. When we repeat events or stories, we often tell them in the way we understand them rather than as a word-for-word reiteration of the events and dialogue. In fact, it is often impossible for us to tell every specific detail of an event perfectly because of our own personal bias and involvement. Whether or not Adam or God was the one to tell Eve of the command, the way she understood the command was that the Tree in the midst of the garden was not to be trifled with. She could eat from any other tree of the garden, but not of the Tree of Life. In her own mind she may have understood this to mean “Stay away from the Tree! Bad things will happen to you if you involve yourself with it!” In this case Eve may have remembered the commandment incorrectly based on her understanding of it, and then given the serpent the commandment in her own words but remembering them as God’s or Adam’s. Or she may have simply understood the command as it was and further prompted herself not to even touch it in case she be led to ruin or touch be considered equal to eating, in which case she may have repeated to the serpent her own command to herself, an interpretation of God’s words.
Whatever the case, I think that this question shows how important the interpretation and retelling of scriptural text is. The insertion or changing of a simple, one line, one sentence, can completely change doctrine and cause a plethora of doubts to be raised. Just the six words, ‘neither shall you touch it,’ and the reason for their inclusion, have prompted scores of criticism and analysis.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
FINDING THE ARK
When it comes to a story like Noah and the Ark, discussion can tend to get heated. There are those that insist that the story is historical fact, and that the ark exists in the physical world in a specific spot, waiting to be found and prove to the world that the Bible is true. …and there are those that disagree.
My question is, why does the historical truth and proof of the truth of a literal interpretation have to exist in order for a belief in God or the Bible to be acceptable? Why does the Bible’s historical accuracy lead it to be either radically accepted as truth of actual events and people, or merely a fictional myth, a work of storytelling? I don’t believe that God can be proven, or that he needs our help in proving the importance of this – His – text to anyone. Yes, the Bible was written by many different authors and has inconsistencies and facts that don’t make sense, etc. But I don’t think recognition of these flaws and possible different interpretations has to be linchpin for the validity of an entire religion (two religions, in fact, Judaism and Christianity alike). In Christian doctrine, especially, it is common to look at Biblical text through only a scientific or historical lens, and I finding some of the writings incompatible, discard the entirety of the Bible. “God lied!” people say, “If that isn’t true, then the whole thing is garbage! How could I accept this religion, this book, this God, if that doesn’t make any sense? This whole religion is crazy!” Well yes, maybe it is crazy, but who are you to judge what the specific intent of each account in the Bible was, or how it is to be interpreted? It is just as crazy to reject the truth of Biblical teaching simply because you can’t find the ark Noah floated in or because science tells us we evolved over thousands of years. There are those within the Christian doctrine who share similar close-mindedness and narrow viewpoints but find themselves in the opposite camp.
A lot of the old farts at my church back home would be shocked and aghast if I were to suggest that Genesis may not be a literal account of the creation, but rather allegorical; or perhaps it is merely our best understanding of what did happen, as creation most likely is an event that only God can understand. Many fundamentalist Christians would think of this claim as blasphemy! How dare you call yourself a true Christian when you don’t believe the Bible is true! How can you say this is allegorical, this Word is God-breathed! God wouldn’t lie to us! – There’s that word again, “lie.” Why does God’s honesty have to be questioned just because one views His words as metaphorical rather than literal? Doesn’t it make more sense to think that God would want us to interpret this text in many different ways to learn more about him? If the Bible is God-breathed, does that mean that the “breath of God” was interpreted and translated by the many different authors in exactly the same way in each book of the Bible? Why should we pigeonhole the Bible into one category?
I was surprised to find that this open-minded interpretation of Biblical text is not actually a new one. Early Christian writers and scholars like Gregory of Nyssa, Origen, Philo, Basil, Gregory Nazianzen; they were already discussing the creation story and the possibility that the character of Adam was representative of some other, unknown creation story. Adam as us, the figure representing our beginning, not a specific historical figure who physically inhabited the earth and the garden. These men and scholars did not see this view, or these questions, as a hindrance to their Christian faith, but rather a part of it. They didn’t have to know all the answers. They had faith, and this faith was open to different interpretations of God’s word. This faith accepted the fact that we don’t know all the answers, and that the Bible cannot be simplified or read through one lens only. The Bible is both historical and allegorical, literal and mythical. That doesn’t mean the Bible isn’t true, or that God “lied”. God told us his truth in many different ways, and expects us to accept this truth in whatever way we understand it, by spending time with him and building a relationship with him using the Bible as a guide. That is not to say that
Why, today, do we think we have to know all the answers? Why does a lack of answers imply a weakness in the Bible or in God? My answer is that it doesn’t. A lack of answers only emphasizes more the importance of the Bible and its role as God’s word to us.
I guess I strayed pretty far from Noah, but to bring us back to the flood, it seems like those people who think we need to find the ark and prove the truth of this story to the world are people with a different kind of faith. It seems to me that they have faith based in a belief that evidence does exist somewhere in tangible form. Their faith is faith in the sense that it hasn’t yet been proven, but it is also flawed in that a lack of physical evidence, or evidence in the physical world that their beliefs are untrue, risks the possibility of them abandoning their faith. Instead of building their beliefs on the character of God and having a relationship with Him (or it, don’t want to be sexist), they cling to the truth of the literal interpretation of God’s word as a bridge to God himself. I’m not saying that interpreting the Bible literally means you are not a Christian, but that denying another person recognition as a fellow Christian simply because they do not interpret Biblical texts the same way as you is arrogant and ignorant.
That being said, there are many issues within the Bible looking at specific texts and stories that, whether you view them literally or figuratively, still bring up hard questions about the nature of God and the ability to believe in a God that would (fill in the blank). That is an entirely different, but related, issue to tackle. Those kind of issues are more of the questions that should be asked when it comes to the Bible, instead of grappling over scientific validity and explaining away incompatibilities between reality and the world of the Bible.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Joseph, King of DREAMS
"Then Joseph told his brothers. 'Listen,' he said, 'I had another dream, and this time the sun and moon and eleven stars were bowing down to me.' When he told his father as well as his brothers, his father rebuked him and said, 'What is this dream you had? Will your mother and I and your brothers actually come and bow down to the ground before you?" Genesis 37:9-11
One thing that really stands out to me in the story of Joseph is the importance of dreams. As a young boy Joseph dreams that his brothers bow down to him in a field of wheat, and the stars and planets bow down to him; he interprets the baker’s and the cup bearer’s dreams. He interprets Pharaoh’s dream of seven cows and the seven ears of wheat.
Dreams are Joseph’s connection to God, in a much stronger way it seems than, say, Mary’s vision of an angel telling her of God’s plan. Joseph is not visited by angels, but God imparts messages to Joseph directly through metaphoric dreams. Interpretation of dreams is also a talent that God gave to Joseph, not just as a connection to God but also as a way to set himself apart and make himself revered even among the Egyptians. After Joseph interprets Pharaoh’s dream he is given a place of power and Pharaoh tells the people of the power of Joseph’s God. In this way Joseph is almost a prophet figure, especially when compared to other Old Testament figures such as Jonah or Elijah.
Joseph’s dreams seem to be self fulfilling prophecies – in having and telling of his dreams, Joseph’s family, specifically his 12 older brothers, were led to jealousy in anticipating their youngest brother being honored over them. The dreams almost ensure that Joseph is led to his fate by irritating his brother’s hateful attitude towards him and planting the seeds of fear in their mind of his superiority to them.
The term “dream” also implies the more general idea of those things and goals you aspire to in life. Joseph’s story testifies to an amazing amount of faith on Joseph’s part, that despite all the crap he had been through (all according to God’s plan?!) God would fulfill his promise of Joseph’s dreams. If God gave Joseph the dreams, God would have to make them come true. Of course, if Joseph chose to give up on God’s plan, God has no obligation to force Joseph to follow Him. But I am amazed at Joseph’s ability to trust God so fully. There’s no way that Joseph could have guessed that being sold into slavery by his brothers would lead him to become second in command over Egypt, only answering in power to Pharaoh. As a human being I am not sure I could have that kind of faith, to suffer so much and still trust that my entire life had been according to God’s plan.
In the movie, “Joseph King of Dreams,” the visual portrayal of Joseph’s dreams gives them a very mystical, magical feeling. They are supernatural and almost trippy in the sense that they only vaguely reflect reality and also exaggerate events. This whole movie goes in depth into Joseph’s character, and examines his feelings as well as his actions. It brings up the question of faith, and demonstrates the power in Joseph’s story as a source of hope and a testament to God’s care for our lives. This however, brings up the question of God’s involvement in our lives. If taken out of a spiritual context, Joseph could be said to have merely done the best with what he was given and been ready for opportunities that came his way. How much control does God really have over our lives? Does he have a plan? Can the plan be different than reality if we choose to follow our own path? But then wouldn’t God already know that we would choose another path (if he is omniscient)? I guess this again brings us back to faith.
I have always been fascinated with dreams and their significance in relation to real life as well as their connection to imagination. Looking at the dreams in the story of Joseph through a literary lens, as well as a spiritual lens, reveals a lot about God’s nature and the character of Joseph. I would be very interested to study these dreams and perhaps other dreams in the Bible in different contexts to see how dreams shape Biblical narrative, resulting theology, and how these dreams relate to traditional dream interpretation or to modern day views.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Everybody loves MOSES! …but really he was kind of a bitch.
Moses was always complaining and trying to tell God he chose the wrong man. Hello – you are talking to GOD. Just do what he says! But then again, in modern theology people struggle with this exact problem all the time. Granted, we don’t have a burning bush and a glimpse of God’s backside as proof that we’re not crazy (…or that we are?). But if Moses did have those things and still questioned God, maybe we shouldn’t feel so terrible for doing the same thing millennia later. The Old Testament is full of characters and people struggling with God. That’s what these stories are about. Jacob wrestles with him! Abraham questions his destruction of Sodom. Joseph tried to take matters into his own hands while he was in prison. David ..well, he got himself into quite a few messes. The Old Testament can be confusing, and the character of God can be even more difficult to understand; but it seems like the characters in these Biblical tales dealt with those same doubts and difficulties.
I like that these Biblical characters are not just perfect examples of what we should strive to be. The Old Testament, rather, shows us characters who are like us, who have the same struggles and questions and doubts. The fact that they aren’t perfect makes their experiences more relatable to our own. I think the modern day Christian church tends to gloss over these imperfections and flaws of character within Biblical characters in an attempt to make us focus on the examples these people left us. Their flaws are minimized or condemned while their better qualities are raised on a pedestal. However, the Bible is not written in a way that leads us to do such a thing. The Bible confronts the flaws and the perfections as they are and deals with them instead of hiding them. Kierkegaard focusing in many of his works, especially “Fear and Trembling,” on the theology of Philippines 2:12: “Therefore, my dear friends, as you have always obeyed—not only in my presence, but now much more in my absence—continue to work out your salvation with fear and trembling.” This means confront your doubts and flesh out your faith, don’t gloss over things to make it seem pretty and simple.
This brings me to my next question: Why do we feel the need to glorify Moses as a perfect example for following God? And for that matter, whatever happened to Aaron?! As a fellow older sibling I am incensed on his behalf that in the popular versions of the story Aaron gets no credit at all. In the movie, “The Prince of Egypt” Aaron completely loses his role as Moses’ spokesperson and becomes the bratty, doubting Thomas of an older brother. Miriam, their sister, becomes a huge figure in the story despite her brief mentioning in the Biblical text. In Exodus, Moses has a direct line to God and then passes the information on to Aaron, who then peaks for him because Moses was too much of a wimp to do it himself. I can see how, in making a movie for modern audiences, it was simpler to combine the characters of Aaron and Moses and use Aaron to represent the views of the Hebrew people towards Moses/God. The Hebrews were not happy with how Moses was doing things, and were constantly complaining and trying to tell Moses (and God) that he was messing everything up. After they escaped their Egyptian bondage and had spent some time in the desert they even started complaining that they’d rather go back to being slaves! (In a way this reminds me of New Testament teachings where Christians would rather stick to their old imperfect ways instead of taking a risk and accepting God’s new and better ways). While Moses is up on Mt. Sinai getting the Ten Commandments, Aaron is with the people helping them build idols to worship instead of God.
So WHY is Aaron glossed over so much? Does his role detract from Moses’ glory/role as a Savior?
While the Bible (especially the Old Testament) is full of imperfect characters, it is also full of savior figures. These characters, from a Christian perspective, seem to foreshadow Jesus, the ultimate savior. Moses, like Jesus, has a direct line to God, and also performs miracles and leads the Jewish/Hebrew people out of “slavery” and to a new era/understanding of God. Moses and Jesus both intercede to God on our behalf, and both are glorified as saviors. Many other Old Testament stories, such as that of David, the story of Isaac and Abraham, Cain and Able, Joseph, etc., have this savior figure in them. Each of these saviors is also a fellow human, with the same struggles and temptations and doubts that we have (Jesus being the exception only in that he was perfect, but still experienced being human).
From a Jewish perspective, perhaps these characters are in fact saviors, and the Jewish people are continually waiting for the next savior to come. Do Jewish people really believe in an “ultimate” savior, as Jesus was supposedly (and as Christian tradition believes), or do they just believe that God will keep providing saviors? One thing I have learned from reading the Hebrew Bible (basically the Old Testament) is that one thing Jewish people can believe in is suffering, and along with that hopefully God’s salvation or forgiveness, or both. Suffering – and as a result, fear and trembling – is the constant in Old Testament tradition.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
LASCAUX
I found this image on the National Geographic, and I was (and still am) amazed at the actual size of these paintings. They’re huge! For some reason I had automatically thought of these 16,000 year-old paintings as smaller, not much bigger than a sheet of paper, as if the Paleolithic artists weren’t capable of thinking on a bigger scale. Realizing the sheer immensity of these paintings, and what an undertaking it must have been for the artist/artists to create these masterpieces, completely changes my understanding of their culture. The Lascaux paintings show not only an importance to the Paleolithic culture of preserving history and recording observations of their surroundings; the paintings evidence an importance placed on the art itself, the importance of a creative outlet for this primitive culture.
As an art minor, this gives me a great sense of being connected to a great human tradition, and I also find it encouraging that even so long ago and in such a primitive (according to our Western idea of “primitive” as opposed to “civilized”) culture, that art was considered so important to human survival. Not as a physical survival need (water, food, shelter), but as an emotional, psychological, and cultural need to express both as an individual and as a group, and to unite a culture through visual/creative means. The Lascaux paintings, especially given their size, are amazing evidence of this kind of use of art, even in a time when we assume physical survival was the only thing on these people’s minds. Art is a luxury, an extra – it is an expense. But at the same time it is just as necessary to survival as the meeting of physical needs. To the people of the Lascaux caves, whoever they were, these paintings cost them time and manual labor, detracting from other more practical work that probably needed to be done (i.e. cooking, hunting, etc). Yet here the paintings are, sixteen thousand years later. Art seems to crop up in some form or another anywhere humans gather, anywhere humans exist and think and be.
