Hope

[davidv]

{snip}I want to thank you both, FH and David. Since St. Paul appears to indicate that the greatest of the virtues are faith, hope and love, they are virtues i want to obtain. Yet, how can i better attain a virtue like Hope if i don’t fully understand who she is?{snip}

I’d like to address this point. One does not need “full understanding” in order to pursue the betterment of something. For example, a college freshman does not have a full understanding of what have a degree means, yet they take on a sequence of courses and subsequently become more and more proficient in the area of study.

In the case of virtue, this “perfection” comes from practice.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

I don’t.

I can’t define life either. If I do not know what Life is, then how do I know that life is.

I have no choice, but to live it. Just like hope. You have no choice, but to submit to it, once you accept it’s there.

Do you need to define life, to live it?

But if you don’t know what existence is then how do you know you exist?

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

I’d like to address this point. One does not need “full understanding” in order to pursue the betterment of something. For example, a college freshman does not have a full understanding of what have a degree means, yet they take on a sequence of courses and subsequently become more and more proficient in the area of study.

In the case of virtue, this “perfection” comes from practice.

Agreed. It might be better to say i want a fuller or better (though in no way complete or perfect) understanding of Hope. With this mountain before me and you being gracious enough to help me climb higher, would you say that Hope is more like Love than Faith?

I mean, it appears that you and i understand Hope to be a virtue and a desire (as the CCC quoted earlier tells us). Yet Love is a desire, too, or at least appears to have desire as one of its attributes. It would appear, then, that Hope has more in common with Love than Faith. Do you think this is the case?

 

[LukeS]

I like your thoughts, Luke. One doubt i have: Is it possible to have hope without any faith?

Let me use an example: If i were to say i hope Santa Clause exists, i’d be lying. I have no trust in the idea that the jolly old man drives a sleigh of flying reindeer each year and delivers toys to good little girls and boys. Since i have no faith in him, i have no glimmer of hope for him, either.

On the other hand, the idea that life exists on other planets or parallel universes is intriguing. There is a slight possibility that this might be the case, so the door is open for me to desire that such might be true. In that case, if i so choose, hope might faintly glow.

Faith is the mother of hope, it seems to me. Faith can exist where there is no hope (such as the example of the man who is certain that he is condemned to life imprisonment). Hope, however, cannot be born without Mother Faith.

If i’m correct (and please correct me if i’m not) Faith is the cause of Hope. The stronger Faith is, the more her offspring Hope will be nurtured and become strong, too.

I would say that hope is possible without faith in x (or any other form of sincere belief in the possibility of x), but also that without that belief it would be irrational or unrealistic to hope.

So, *you *do not believe in Santa Claus. Still it is possible to wish for a future in which he interacts with your history. I imagine you could hope for magically delivered presents in midwinter, even though you did not believe in it being a realistic possibility.

So, I think that hope can be realistic or unrealistic. Realism is defined from the relative perspective in accordance with one’s world view. Note I say relative not absolute in order to focus on the subjective element of definitions of “reality”, and not the objective independent reality.

So, realism for the Christian is different for realism of the atheistic naturalist. They have different definitions of “reality”, different world views. Now, for both hoping for Santa - if they did not believe in him - would be a silly thing to do, but it would not be psychologically impossible. Again, for the atheistic naturalist to hope for heaven would be to go against the grain, as would it be for the Christian to hope that God was not real… but both hopes are possible psychological attitudes in spite of the fact that they are inconsistent with their world views or realities.

 

[Dameedna]

But if you don’t know what existence is then how do you know you exist?

hehe…I know you’re being cheeky, but I’ll respond anyway.

I don’t know that I exist …(NOTE: however for the record I never said, I don’t know what “existance” is, I said I didn’t know what life is. Of course, I don’t know what existance is either, but it’s best not to put words in anothers mouth. It causes confusion not clarity. Clarity is better…and no I’m not sure of that either, but it seems to be related to truth,which is a higher concept I accept and live with, sort of like hope )

I cannot know anything for sure. I just accept it.

I still give in to life wether it’s real or not. I let it happen

I have no choice

Cheers
Dame

 

[Dameedna]

… that Hope has more in common with Love than Faith.

Spot on

 

[Dameedna]

I would say that hope is possible without faith in x (or any other form of sincere belief in the possibility of x), but also that without that belief it would be irrational or unrealistic to hope.

Depends on the hope.

I can hope my child will get straight "A"s, on their exam. This is neither irrational or unrealistic.

Hope for an eternal life, to an athiest however, would be unrational or realistic.

Athiests don’t have “NO” hope, they just don’t have the same kind of hope.

So, I think that hope can be realistic or unrealistic.

Exactly. Athiests have a realistic form of Hope. They only hope, for what they can be assured of, is possible.

Again, for the atheistic naturalist to hope for heaven would be to go against the grain, as would it be for the Christian to hope that God was not real… but both hopes are possible psychological attitudes in spite of the fact that they are inconsistent with their world views or realities.

You were good up to this piont. An athiest not hoping for heaven, is not the same as a christian to not hope for a real God.

These two version of hope that you are describing are completely different.

No athiest, “hopes” there is no heaven. That is ludicrious. No athiest “hopes” there is no God. The athiest does not “submit” to the hope that there is something there, because their submission to truth(which requires verifiable evidence) takes precedance.

Sigh…no-one ever understands the poor old athiest

 

[markhiggins01]

Mark:

Are you saying that the stronger your faith becomes, the more your hope will grow?

Yes, in the case of Divine Faith and Divine Hope, due to the perfection of the object.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

I would say that hope is possible without faith in x (or any other form of sincere belief in the possibility of x), but also that without that belief it would be irrational or unrealistic to hope.

So, *you *do not believe in Santa Claus. Still it is possible to wish for a future in which he interacts with your history. I imagine you could hope for magically delivered presents in midwinter, even though you did not believe in it being a realistic possibility.

So, I think that hope can be realistic or unrealistic. Realism is defined from the relative perspective in accordance with one’s world view. Note I say relative not absolute in order to focus on the subjective element of definitions of “reality”, and not the objective independent reality.

So, realism for the Christian is different for realism of the atheistic naturalist. They have different definitions of “reality”, different world views. Now, for both hoping for Santa - if they did not believe in him - would be a silly thing to do, but it would not be psychologically impossible. Again, for the atheistic naturalist to hope for heaven would be to go against the grain, as would it be for the Christian to hope that God was not real… but both hopes are possible psychological attitudes in spite of the fact that they are inconsistent with their world views or realities.

Agreed. It is possible for a person to hope for what she knows is not possible. Such a person would be out of her mind, or at the very least irrational.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

hehe…I know you’re being cheeky, but I’ll respond anyway.

I don’t know that I exist …(NOTE: however for the record I never said, I don’t know what “existance” is, I said I didn’t know what life is. Of course, I don’t know what existance is either, but it’s best not to put words in anothers mouth. It causes confusion not clarity. Clarity is better…and no I’m not sure of that either, but it seems to be related to truth,which is a higher concept I accept and live with, sort of like hope )

I cannot know anything for sure. I just accept it.

I still give in to life wether it’s real or not. I let it happen

I have no choice

Cheers
Dame

Dame:

Is there anything that you accept as absolutely true?

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

Spot on

If my words were spot on, then perhaps i was too hasty in putting the silver medal around Faith’s neck. For, if St. Paul speaks the truth in saying Love is the greatest of all virtues, then it stands to reason that any virtue most like Love would be the second greatest. Faith, unlike Hope, seems to have nothing to do with desire.

Help me judge between our competitors, Dame. In your opinion, who gets the silver and to whom should the bronze medal go?

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

Yes, in the case of Divine Faith and Divine Hope, due to the perfection of the object.

I concur, Mark. It would be irrational to lose hope as your faith in a favorable outcome grows. Likewise to become more hopeful as one’s faith in some good result dwindles is the sign on psychological instability.

 

[davidv]

If my words were spot on, then perhaps i was too hasty in putting the silver medal around Faith’s neck. For, if St. Paul speaks the truth in saying Love is the greatest of all virtues, then it stands to reason that any virtue most like Love would be the second greatest. Faith, unlike Hope, seems to have nothing to do with desire.

Help me judge between our competitors, Dame. In your opinion, who gets the silver and to whom should the bronze medal go?

Why do you think it is a competition rather than each working with the others toward a common goal (teamwork)?

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

Question for anyone who cares to answer:

Could it be that genuine virtues of Christian Faith and Christian Hope are like two sides of the same coin?

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

Why do you think it is a competition rather than each working with the others toward a common goal (teamwork)?

It’s a technique Socrates himself often used. When discussing the merits of one virtue over another he often personified them. In Philebus, for example, he described Pleasure and Reason as two athletes competing for the prize of being the greatest of all human pursuits. Thinking of Faith, Hope and Love as Olympic athletes helps me use my imagination to come to a better understanding of the three, and just might make the conversation more interesting.

 

[davidv]

It’s a technique Socrates himself often used. When discussing the merits of one virtue over another he often personified them. In Philebus, for example, he described Pleasure and Reason as two athletes competing for the prize of being the greatest of all human pursuits. Thinking of Faith, Hope and Love as Olympic athletes helps me use my imagination to come to a better understanding of the three, and just might make the conversation more interesting.

If sports metaphors help, why not consider them teammates on a three-man basketball team?

Now you can consider:

1. the goal
2. each ones role in achieving that goal, and
3. and what each one does for the others to aid in achieving that goal.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

If sports metaphors help, why not consider them teammates on a three-man basketball team?

Now you can consider:

1. the goal
2. each ones role in achieving that goal, and
3. and what each one does for the others to aid in achieving that goal.

Sounds good to me! Now who would you say is the MVP? Do you agree with St. Paul that he is Love? or do you think Hope or Faith are more valuable players?

 

[fhansen]

Sounds good to me! Now who would you say is the MVP? Do you agree with St. Paul that he is Love? or do you think Hope or Faith are more valuable players?

It seems to me that, if we had to rank them, then love, as St Paul says, is the ultimate goal, the others being vehicles to it and probably contained within it. It could be said, I think, that love is what Adam & Eve rejected and love is what we must come to recognize as the highest good and be perfected in. When that is accomplished in creation, then God will be all in all.

 

[davidv]

Sounds good to me! Now who would you say is the MVP? Do you agree with St. Paul that he is Love? or do you think Hope or Faith are more valuable players?

All right, I’ll play.

For MVP I nominate Faith, for without faith the others do not exist or do not know the goal.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

All right, I’ll play.

For MVP I nominate Faith, for without faith the others do not exist or do not know the goal.

I was thinking the same thing. Why, then, would St. Paul write this?

If I speak in the tongues[a] of men and of angels, but have not love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. …

And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. **But the greatest **of these is love.

(1 Corinthians 13)