Adam, the Philosophy Professor

[grannymh]

What can a simple gardener, in the Garden of Eden, teach the smart phone generation?

Sometimes a question is more significant than the answer.

Blessings,
granny

 

[meltzerboy]

What can a simple gardener, in the Garden of Eden, teach the smart phone generation?

Sometimes a question is more significant than the answer.

Blessings,
granny

Then I’ll give you an insignificant answer, while I think of a profound one. Adam, the simple gardener, can teach us not to always pay attention to our wives.

 

[RedFox0456]

Adam can teach us to not take it upon ourselves to decide what is good and evil. He can also teach us to not stand idly by and allow others to be tempted into sin.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Professor Adam is an expert authority on teaching us how pride goeth before the fall.

 

[grannymh]

What can a simple gardener, in the Garden of Eden, teach the smart phone generation?

That money does not grow on trees.

 

[wmw]

There is more to death than stopping a beating heart
and more to life than keeping it going.

 

[fhansen]

What can a simple gardener, in the Garden of Eden, teach the smart phone generation?

Sometimes a question is more significant than the answer.

Blessings,
granny

Pre or post Fall?

 

[ynotzap]

Adam can teach us qualitative knowledge instead of quantitative knowledge, and you don’t need batteries He can also teach us experience is the best teacher.

 

[Michael19682]

Like Sir Isaac Newton, his grandson, he taught us that the apple doesn’t fall far from the tree.

 

[grannymh]

Pre or post Fall?

Being a full professor, Professor Adam has tenure. He is also the unchallenged head of the Philosophy Department. Therefore, his expertise spans both pre-Fall and post-Fall.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Being a full professor, Professor Adam has tenure. He is also the unchallenged head of the Philosophy Department. Therefore, his expertise spans both pre-Fall and post-Fall.

But I believe there is a new Adam who has bumped the old Professor Adam from his position as head of the department.

 

[grannymh]

Adam can teach us qualitative knowledge instead of quantitative knowledge, and you don’t need batteries He can also teach us experience is the best teacher.

As a philosophy professor, Adam demonstrated qualitative knowledge by referring to the inherent essence of various species, that is, he taught that there is a natural inherent difference between regular species in the animal kingdom and his own human species. Professor Adam added a bit of basic scientific knowledge which is that species are often determined by the ability to breed within the species.
(Information source. Genesis 1: 26-28; Genesis 2: 20)

Both philosophically and scientifically, Professor Adam imparted the knowledge that the human species is peerless.
(Information source. Genesis 1:28; *CCC *355-357)
From paragraph 356, Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition

Of all visible creatures only man is “able to know and love his creator”. He is “the only creature on earth that God has willed for its own sake”, and he alone is called to share, by knowledge and love, in God’s own life. It was for this end that he was created, and this is the fundamental reason for his dignity:

Links to Catholic teachings
scborromeo.org/ccc.htm

usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/what-we-believe/catechism/catechism-of-the-catholic-church/

 

[Nihilist]

What can a simple gardener, in the Garden of Eden, teach the smart phone generation?

Sometimes a question is more significant than the answer.

Blessings,
granny

Sure. Adam can teach us this- to regret, and to suffer- the lesson of life. Adam left to all his children this inheritance- the sin of existence.

 

[grannymh]

Sure. Adam can teach us this- to regret, and to suffer- the lesson of life. Adam left to all his children this inheritance- the sin of existence.

You young’uns !!!

Always coming up with new ideas like the “sin of existence”. This granny may be older than dirt, but I am sure existing.

So, you need to explain the “sin of existence” and you better remember to mind your Ps & Qs.

 

[grannymh]

There is more to death than stopping a beating heart
and more to life than keeping it going.

This would be the key teaching of Professor Adam because it can refer to his individual self as a complete person.

Without going into the creation of our universe, what we need to look at is the abrupt change from many animals, birds, swimming creatures, and all the creatures that crawl on the ground to the individual description of the first sole human. Genesis 1: 26 and Genesis 2: 15 combined present human nature which unites the spiritual and the material into one marvelous being who is called to share, by knowledge and love, in God’s own life. (Information source. CCC 355-357) Professor Adam could say in one of his early classes – “Look at me and you will see your own nature clearly.” Clearly is the important word.

Speaking of clarity, CCC 1730 needs to be studied. That was probably Professor Adam’s first homework assignment.
**CCC 1730 **God created man a rational being, conferring on him the dignity of a person who can initiate and control his own actions. “God willed that man should be ‘left in the hand of his own counsel,’ so that he might of his own accord seek his Creator and freely attain his full and blessed perfection by cleaving to him.”

Man is rational and therefore like God; he is created with free will and is master over his acts.
From CCC 404
"But we do know by Revelation that Adam had received original holiness and justice not for himself alone, but for all human nature.

​

The words in bold is an amazing proposition when compared with CCC 1730 which says that the human creature is “left in the hand of his own council…” Comparisons are often used because they force one to really delve into the nature of what is being compared. When the nature of the singular Adam is compared to the rest of living creatures, irrefutable differences are seen. ( Genesis 2:20)

Both CCC 1730 and CCC 404 sentence quoted above are true; therefore, comforting common sense tells us there can only be one first human man and subsequently one first human spouse of that man. Because the key aspects of our own nature are real, just as the key aspects of Adam’s nature described in the first three chapters of Genesis are real…this means that Adam is real as the first human being.

 

[balto]

Sure. Adam can teach us this- to regret, and to suffer- the lesson of life. Adam left to all his children this inheritance- the sin of existence.

I think you may have Adam confused with Nietzsche there…

 

[Nihilist]

I think you may have Adam confused with Nietzsche there…

Well, I suppose Adam symbolizes all that is fallen the human condition- which Nietzsche looked at, and (if we take his ideologies out of the picture) he expressed pretty honestly.

 

[balto]

Well, I suppose Adam symbolizes all that is fallen the human condition- which Nietzsche looked at, and (if we take his ideologies out of the picture) he expressed pretty honestly.

Yes he did. He may have been virulently anti-Christian, but he was way more consistent in his views than contemporary anti-Christians.

But I think you are overlooking an important characteristic of Adam. He represents the fallen human condition yes, but fallen from what? Adam also symbolizes man in his natural state in union with God. We’ve lost that natural state and it’s the source of all human longing for happiness, because we have this innate desire for Eden where we can exist in our original state. If you’re Nietzsche or Freud or a modern philosopher, then you don’t see that original state (or you think it is an illusion) and are left with the conclusion that pursuing happiness is in vain. We keep judging man’s state using the diseased state as the “natural” state. That’s why Christ is the key, since we cannot get back to that original state on our own unless God gives us the grace to get there.

 

[grannymh]

Yes he did. He may have been virulently anti-Christian, but he was way more consistent in his views than contemporary anti-Christians.

But I think you are overlooking an important characteristic of Adam. He represents the fallen human condition yes, but fallen from what? Adam also symbolizes man in his natural state in union with God. We’ve lost that natural state and it’s the source of all human longing for happiness, because we have this innate desire for Eden where we can exist in our original state. If you’re Nietzsche or Freud or a modern philosopher, then you don’t see that original state (or you think it is an illusion) and are left with the conclusion that pursuing happiness is in vain. We keep judging man’s state using the diseased state as the “natural” state. That’s why Christ is the key, since we cannot get back to that original state on our own unless God gives us the grace to get there.

Thank you for responding to my concern about the “sin of existence”.

I am very interested in the conversation between you and Nihilist. This is because “representation” and “symbolism” are second to reality according to Catholicism. In addition, “this innate desire for Eden where we can exist in our original state” is not part of practical Catholicism. It is simply a symbolic reason which, in fact, distorts the purpose(s) of the Garden of Eden per Catholic teaching. Granted that the original state of Adam, which included the amazing gift of immortality, is very appealing. However, human longing is actually for joy eternal in the presence of the Beatific Vision…which comes after life in the Garden.

After years of asking – what is it that the “symbol” is symbolizing? I now have some beginning answers which can be compared to Catholic doctrines. Thank you sincerely.
And please, Nihilist and Balto continue so that I may continue to learn.

 

[Nihilist]

You young’uns !!!

Always coming up with new ideas like the “sin of existence”. This granny may be older than dirt, but I am sure existing.

So, you need to explain the “sin of existence” and you better remember to mind your Ps & Qs.

Sorry- I overlooked your question. I did not mean to seem to ignore it.

“Sin of existence” is the ‘guilt’ which necessarily pertains to human existence. That is, not a personal guilt, but like Original Sin. Yes, the Original Sin is removed in baptism, but its consequences (suffering, death, the tendency to personal sin) all continue.

This idea, of some kind of original sin, is retained also by otherwise atheistic philosophers like Sartre and Heidegger. I suppose that what it comes down to is were born into a particular narrative and human state which is imperfect, and our very selves are born with various imperfections- as if, to paraphrase the Psalm, we are born into guilt. Not that we have done anything personally wrong…

It’s exactly the same reality as Original Sin.