E
Edward_H
Guest
It will do you good to name and differentiate them, and then substantiate them.
Get at it.
Get at it.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
B
Bradskii
Guest
Whoops…another one added to the list.
Last edited:
E
Edward_H
Guest
Didn’t think you could. Tsk
B
Bradskii
Guest
You didn’t think I had a list ready? I’ll add foolishness to these:
Presumptiousness. Anger. Pride. Sarcasm. Pretentiousness. Superiority.
Presumptiousness. Anger. Pride. Sarcasm. Pretentiousness. Superiority.
C
Cruciferi
Guest
Seven Deadly Sins
http://www.ewtn.com/v/experts/showmessage.asp?number=362724
Human Virtues
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s1c1a7.htm
http://www.ewtn.com/v/experts/showmessage.asp?number=362724
Human Virtues
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s1c1a7.htm
E
Edward_H
Guest
Sounds very judgmental.
Listen to the pope.
Listen to the pope.
N
NJada
Guest
Ignoring the ongoing argument.
A good topic and some good points. I’m not entirely clear on what does and doesn’t fall under the classical sense of “curiosity”.
I am thinking one of the main aspects of curiosity as a vice, is wanting to know about social things, what everyone is doing, to know everything going on in the community, who said this and that to whom, wanting to stick your nose in everybody’s business.
I spend a bit of discerning about this, since I’m not always clear whether my interests to learn are good things to better know God and help neighbors better understand the Faith, or if they are vain curiosities or just me restlessly wasting time. I suppose the word “curiosity” is used very differently today than it used to be, so maybe it’s less clear to us when it is of the good sort of the bad sort.
“There are those who seek knowledge for the sake of knowledge; that is curiosity.
There are those who seek knowledge to be known by others; that is vanity.
There are those who seek knowledge in order to serve; that is Love.”
St. Bernard of Clairvaux
I believe curiosity was St. Benedict’s 1st stage of the 12 stages of pride. But it seems a certain amount of “learning for the sake of learning” can be a good thing if it has to do with the Faith especially, because the Truth is to be loved for His own sake. It can kindle devotion, and the fact that a piece of the truth is beautiful, even if it isn’t clear how useful it is, should indicate that it could become useful in a way we don’t yet know. As St. Bonaventure says, “Study must not quench devotion. But it may fire devotion.” One could call it trivial to learn some nuanced detail about the angels that isn’t apparently necessary for salvation, but I wouldn’t call it trivial in the same way as seeking to know what the Church would do if martians arrived. If we love meditating on the beauty of heavenly truths, as a habit, how can it help but rub off on other people? Also, if you study Holy Scripture, you learn a lot of information long before you have a clue why it is important, and later you find out its significance. But then if we are repeatedly bashing our head against the wall because we can’t accept that we don’t understand some certain thing, that looks like pride.
From the very first Article of the Summa Theologiae:
“Objection 1. It seems that, besides philosophical science, we have no need of any further knowledge. For man should not seek to know what is above reason: “Seek not the things that are too high for thee” (Ecclus 3:22). But whatever is not above reason is fully treated of in philosophical science. Therefore any other knowledge besides philosophical science is superfluous.”
“Reply to Objection 1. Although those things which are beyond man’s knowledge may not be sought for by man through his reason, nevertheless, once they are revealed by God, they must be accepted by faith. Hence the sacred text continues, “For many things are shown to thee above the understanding of man” (Ecclus 3:25). And in this, the sacred science consists.”
A good topic and some good points. I’m not entirely clear on what does and doesn’t fall under the classical sense of “curiosity”.
I am thinking one of the main aspects of curiosity as a vice, is wanting to know about social things, what everyone is doing, to know everything going on in the community, who said this and that to whom, wanting to stick your nose in everybody’s business.
I spend a bit of discerning about this, since I’m not always clear whether my interests to learn are good things to better know God and help neighbors better understand the Faith, or if they are vain curiosities or just me restlessly wasting time. I suppose the word “curiosity” is used very differently today than it used to be, so maybe it’s less clear to us when it is of the good sort of the bad sort.
“There are those who seek knowledge for the sake of knowledge; that is curiosity.
There are those who seek knowledge to be known by others; that is vanity.
There are those who seek knowledge in order to serve; that is Love.”
St. Bernard of Clairvaux
I believe curiosity was St. Benedict’s 1st stage of the 12 stages of pride. But it seems a certain amount of “learning for the sake of learning” can be a good thing if it has to do with the Faith especially, because the Truth is to be loved for His own sake. It can kindle devotion, and the fact that a piece of the truth is beautiful, even if it isn’t clear how useful it is, should indicate that it could become useful in a way we don’t yet know. As St. Bonaventure says, “Study must not quench devotion. But it may fire devotion.” One could call it trivial to learn some nuanced detail about the angels that isn’t apparently necessary for salvation, but I wouldn’t call it trivial in the same way as seeking to know what the Church would do if martians arrived. If we love meditating on the beauty of heavenly truths, as a habit, how can it help but rub off on other people? Also, if you study Holy Scripture, you learn a lot of information long before you have a clue why it is important, and later you find out its significance. But then if we are repeatedly bashing our head against the wall because we can’t accept that we don’t understand some certain thing, that looks like pride.
From the very first Article of the Summa Theologiae:
“Objection 1. It seems that, besides philosophical science, we have no need of any further knowledge. For man should not seek to know what is above reason: “Seek not the things that are too high for thee” (Ecclus 3:22). But whatever is not above reason is fully treated of in philosophical science. Therefore any other knowledge besides philosophical science is superfluous.”
“Reply to Objection 1. Although those things which are beyond man’s knowledge may not be sought for by man through his reason, nevertheless, once they are revealed by God, they must be accepted by faith. Hence the sacred text continues, “For many things are shown to thee above the understanding of man” (Ecclus 3:25). And in this, the sacred science consists.”
N
NJada
Guest
“Seek not the things that are too high for thee, and search not into things above thy ability:
but the things that God hath commanded thee, think on them always, and in many of his works be not curious.
For it is not necessary for thee to see with thy eyes those things that are hid.
In unnecessary matters be not over curious, and in many of his works thou shalt not be inquisitive.
For many things are shewn to thee above the understanding of men.”
(Ecclus 3:22-26)
And that must have been a part of the first sin of Adam and Eve, the curiosity of the fruit, what would happen, what sort of wisdom they would receive, how their eyes would be opened. And what knowledge did they get?–“they perceived themselves to be naked”.
I also think (this is a totally other topic itself) this is basically the pride of those who use psychedelic drugs, thinking they’re gaining special wisdom. Which might sound like a silly topic altogether, but it is much more popular than one might think, and growing, even among very “sophisticated” and “intellectual” people today. I think there’s a good chance it will become widely popular soon.
Lord have mercy.
Christ have mercy.
Lord have mercy.
but the things that God hath commanded thee, think on them always, and in many of his works be not curious.
For it is not necessary for thee to see with thy eyes those things that are hid.
In unnecessary matters be not over curious, and in many of his works thou shalt not be inquisitive.
For many things are shewn to thee above the understanding of men.”
(Ecclus 3:22-26)
And that must have been a part of the first sin of Adam and Eve, the curiosity of the fruit, what would happen, what sort of wisdom they would receive, how their eyes would be opened. And what knowledge did they get?–“they perceived themselves to be naked”.
I also think (this is a totally other topic itself) this is basically the pride of those who use psychedelic drugs, thinking they’re gaining special wisdom. Which might sound like a silly topic altogether, but it is much more popular than one might think, and growing, even among very “sophisticated” and “intellectual” people today. I think there’s a good chance it will become widely popular soon.
Lord have mercy.
Christ have mercy.
Lord have mercy.
Last edited:
E
Edward_H
Guest
Where’s curiosity in those virtues?
C
Cruciferi
Guest
It’s not listed in the seven deadly sins or the virtues.
Last edited:
B
Bradskii
Guest
Darn it. I missed out judgemental. Is sloppiness a vice? Anyway, that’s eight now. And what are the odds you went back to check exactly what you said to see if I was justified.Sounds very judgmental.
Listen to the pope.
R
Roguish
Guest
Completely accurate, and @Edward_H has backed this with his own sound explanation as well as references to Aquinas’ position on this.Studiosity is when our attention takes us to the perfect truth or good in a matter. Curiosity is an excess of interest or a desire to know all things, or a labile attention span unable to serve the acquisition of the truth of a matter.
This is pure ad-hominem sarcasm. Not the slightest attempt to continue the debate based on arguments. Should get flagged, but I’m not sure I want to get into that game.Since you’re so studious, shouldn’t you be studying, praying, or writing books instead of posting on CAF?
Maybe you should be more concerned about how you come off to others.
A poster should not concern himself should be how he “comes off”. He should either ask an honest question or present a sound argument. @Edward_H has done the latter.You’re coming off in this Thread as very smug.
A
Axsenex
Guest
American Standard or Kohler?
R
Roguish
Guest
This is a good point, and the implied question of why this is the case, merits an answer.It’s not listed in the seven deadly sins or the virtues.
As I see it, curiosity is related to several of the capital sins, albeit on a mental plane rather than the physical. It is related primarily to vanity, which is an aspect of pride. The curious man is not after wisdom for the betterment of himself, but after information and facts so that he may either impress or manipulate others with it (vanity), or enhance his self-image quietly (vanity again), or – and this is the worst – exploit and manipulate nature and humans with it, and take pride in that. This last point shows that curiosity is also related to greed: modern man wants to know “how things work” so that he may exploit nature, life, and his fellow man yet more efficiently. Enough is not enough, and therefore he must “research” further and invent yet another technology, another way of manipulating nature, another way of squeezing more out of less – not so that he can do with less, but so that he may have more. Thus, curiosity is both an expression of certain capital sins, as well as an enabler of them.
I personally also find it important to see that man’s endless tinkering with nature, which is directly enabled by his curiosity, implies that man considers God’s Creation to be a shoddy project that he must endlessly improve upon in order to make it pleasant and liveable. For really, in this day and age man does not leave a single aspect of nature in peace or untouched. Even those parts of nature he claims to “respect”, he insists on controlling, for, so modern man claims, it is “fragile” and must be “protected”. Man forgets that nature was doing fine before he (man) ruined it. The disdain implied by man’s endless tinkering with nature is a grave sin if you ask me.
E
Edward_H
Guest
Great response.
Under each cardinal virtue (or vice) are related virtues or vices.
It’s interesting too. With the virtue of cheerfulness it’s generally considered an aspect of charity…but with our wife and children it’s considered an aspect of JUSTICE, as they are “due” our cheerfulness; it’s tablestakes in other words. They are “owed” our cheerfulness.
Higher demand in other words.
I like this.
Under each cardinal virtue (or vice) are related virtues or vices.
It’s interesting too. With the virtue of cheerfulness it’s generally considered an aspect of charity…but with our wife and children it’s considered an aspect of JUSTICE, as they are “due” our cheerfulness; it’s tablestakes in other words. They are “owed” our cheerfulness.
Higher demand in other words.
I like this.
R
Roguish
Guest
Our assessment of curiosity made me realize that what the current catechism has to say about science is too optimistic (as many VC2 and post-VC2 documents are). From paragraph 159:
“… methodical research in all branches of knowledge, provided it is carried out in a truly scientific manner and does not override moral laws, can never conflict with the faith, because the things of the world and the things of faith derive from the same God. The humble and persevering investigator of the secrets of nature is being led, as it were, by the hand of God in spite of himself, for it is God, the conserver of all things, who made them what they are.” (Vatican II GS 36:1, emphasis added)
This can easily be read as a blanket approval of unlimited, endless investigation. The caveat that research must not “override moral laws” is there, but it isn’t explored, and therefore it’s too weak. What should have been addressed explicitly is what moral laws must restrain scientific research.
The CCC also errs here by stating that because both the world and faith come from God, no amount of investigation of the world can conflict with faith – but that’s a non-sequitur. In fact the opposite makes much more sense: faith is confidence in God, and therefore faith makes investigation of the world unnecessary except where it serves to restore or strengthen confidence in God.
Compare this to the opening line of Pope Pius X’s “Lamentabili Sane”:
“With truly lamentable results, our age, casting aside all restraint in its search for the ultimate causes of things, frequently pursues novelties so ardently that it rejects the legacy of the human race.”
A succinct, appropriately harsh warning that modern man, including modern Catholic man, has regrettably ignored.
“… methodical research in all branches of knowledge, provided it is carried out in a truly scientific manner and does not override moral laws, can never conflict with the faith, because the things of the world and the things of faith derive from the same God. The humble and persevering investigator of the secrets of nature is being led, as it were, by the hand of God in spite of himself, for it is God, the conserver of all things, who made them what they are.” (Vatican II GS 36:1, emphasis added)
This can easily be read as a blanket approval of unlimited, endless investigation. The caveat that research must not “override moral laws” is there, but it isn’t explored, and therefore it’s too weak. What should have been addressed explicitly is what moral laws must restrain scientific research.
The CCC also errs here by stating that because both the world and faith come from God, no amount of investigation of the world can conflict with faith – but that’s a non-sequitur. In fact the opposite makes much more sense: faith is confidence in God, and therefore faith makes investigation of the world unnecessary except where it serves to restore or strengthen confidence in God.
Compare this to the opening line of Pope Pius X’s “Lamentabili Sane”:
“With truly lamentable results, our age, casting aside all restraint in its search for the ultimate causes of things, frequently pursues novelties so ardently that it rejects the legacy of the human race.”
A succinct, appropriately harsh warning that modern man, including modern Catholic man, has regrettably ignored.
Last edited:
P
PetraG
Guest
I was taught that wasting time in fruitless endeavors was a form of sloth, actually. If you think about the conversations as taking far too much time at the water cooler, that sort of assessment makes sense. (I suppose it could be counted as pride, too, or a form of gluttony or greed, like filling up on dessert.)It’s not listed in the seven deadly sins or the virtues.
I know there is a lot of work I don’t get done because I’m here doing just what the OP is warning about! (Which reminds me: I have work to do right now!!)
Last edited:
R
RandomAlias
Guest
The secret to creating an active (if not fruitful) thread seems to be to put forth a questionable opinion and aggressively strike down all disagreement.
Now to bring my remarks back on topic: I see studiosity as a kind of scholarly work lacking in imagination and creativity. Einstein’s high school science teacher was probably studious. Einstein was imaginative and what many would call curious. He was also able to put in the intellectual effort to turn curiosity into creativity.
Now to bring my remarks back on topic: I see studiosity as a kind of scholarly work lacking in imagination and creativity. Einstein’s high school science teacher was probably studious. Einstein was imaginative and what many would call curious. He was also able to put in the intellectual effort to turn curiosity into creativity.
Last edited:
E
Edward_H
Guest
Nice homework…thank you for these points/references/quotes.
On your second point. I don’t quite see the error. One pope at one time said that “truth cannot contradict truth”.
Faith and Reason are both inclined planes of coming to know God…but always converging on a coherent, singular truth. Our reason will NEVER subsume perfect knowledge of God, or likely His created world. We need faith too.
On your second point. I don’t quite see the error. One pope at one time said that “truth cannot contradict truth”.
Faith and Reason are both inclined planes of coming to know God…but always converging on a coherent, singular truth. Our reason will NEVER subsume perfect knowledge of God, or likely His created world. We need faith too.
Last edited:
R
Roguish
Guest
Maybe I’m trying to make too subtle a point. As I see it, it is the act of investigating (rather than what the investigation yields, i.e. new knowledge of nature) that is at odds with faith. But the CCC says it isn’t. It approves of the acts of investigation because the results of investigation do not contradict faith.On your second point. I don’t quite see the error. One pope at one time said that “truth cannot contradict truth”.
A comparison: if I spy on my wife to check if she’s faithful, I may well discover that she is, and her faithfulness is indeed a beautiful thing. But something is nevertheless very wrong in my marriage if I feel I need to spy on my wife. My point is that an act of investigation is not necessarily justified by the quality of that which the investigation yields.
Last edited:
- Status
- Not open for further replies.