"Love is the highest form of knowing"

[fnr]

It’s a slogan I heard uttered by Anglican scholar and bishop N.T. Wright. It seems right and profound.

Does that comport with Catholic teaching? He brought it up in arguing that modern, scientistic epistemological limits on knowledge (constrained to that which is repeatable) fails to adequately describe how we understand the world.

Thoughts?

 

[jonathan_hili]

I think it depends how you interpret the sentence.

“Love [that is, the metaphysical reality of love, that is, God] is the highest form of knowing” - well, I don’t see anything wrong with that.

“Love [that is, the subject of love] is the highest form of knowing” - I don’t have much of a problem with this, since to know love is to know God in essence, and this is indeed the greatest form of knowledge possible.

“Love [that is, as an epistemological means] is the highest form of knowing” - I’m less certain of, since it is unclear how love of itself can know anything.

 

[Hortenzie]

Slogans are tricky. And this slogan doubly so. You would have to define what you mean by Love (sexual passion, warm affection, charity, kindness,…) and Knowing (being aware of, having information, having experience, having understanding,…), and then explain what you mean by the whole sentence. This “slogan” would mean different things to different people, nevermind that many would see it as an oxymoron as they think of love as a feeling and knowledge as an amassing of facts.
BTW I like N.T.Wright. I read three of his books.

 

[Cartesian]

Slogans are tricky. And this slogan doubly so. You would have to define what you mean by Love (sexual passion, warm affection, charity, kindness,…) and Knowing (being aware of, having information, having experience, having understanding,…), and then explain what you mean by the whole sentence. This “slogan” would mean different things to different people, nevermind that many would see it as an oxymoron as they think of love as a feeling and knowledge as an amassing of facts.
BTW I like N.T.Wright. I read three of his books.

What about Agape?

 

[clem456]

It’s a slogan I heard uttered by Anglican scholar and bishop N.T. Wright. It seems right and profound.

Does that comport with Catholic teaching? He brought it up in arguing that modern, scientistic epistemological limits on knowledge (constrained to that which is repeatable) fails to adequately describe how we understand the world.

Thoughts?

Yes that would be true.
vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p1s1c2a1.htm
Great stuff

SECTION ONE
“I BELIEVE” - “WE BELIEVE”

CHAPTER TWO
GOD COMES TO MEET MAN

50 By natural reason man can know God with certainty, on the basis of his works. But there is another order of knowledge, which man cannot possibly arrive at by his own powers: the order of divine Revelation.1 Through an utterly free decision, God has revealed himself and given himself to man. This he does by revealing the mystery, his plan of loving goodness, formed from all eternity in Christ, for the benefit of all men. God has fully revealed this plan by sending us his beloved Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit.
…
52 God, who “dwells in unapproachable light”, wants to communicate his own divine life to the men he freely created, in order to adopt them as his sons in his only-begotten Son.3 By revealing himself God wishes to make them capable of responding to him, and of knowing him and of loving him far beyond their own natural capacity.
…
68 By love, **God has revealed himself **and given himself to man. He has thus provided the definitive, superabundant answer to the questions that man asks himself about the meaning and purpose of his life.

8Charity never falleth away: whether prophecies shall be made void, or tongues shall cease, or knowledge shall be destroyed. 9For we know in part, and we prophesy in part. 10But when that which is perfect is come, that which is in part shall be done away. 11When I was a child, I spoke as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child. But, when I became a man, I put away the things of a child. 12We see now through a glass in a dark manner; but then face to face. Now I know I part; but then I shall know even as I am known. 13And now there remain faith, hope, and charity, these three: but the greatest of these is charity.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

It’s a slogan I heard uttered by Anglican scholar and bishop N.T. Wright. It seems right and profound.

Does that comport with Catholic teaching? He brought it up in arguing that modern, scientistic epistemological limits on knowledge (constrained to that which is repeatable) fails to adequately describe how we understand the world.

Thoughts?

Yes this is quite consistent.
Knowing is an act of the intellect and love is an act of the will.
These are the highest powers of intelligent beings (man and angels).

In creatures these powers are separate but in God they are one and the same.
Creation cannot perfecty mirror God’s perfection, that is why creatures participate in these perfections separated in various manners and degrees. So says Aquinas and others.

Therefore it could be said that not only is great love the greatest wisdom,
but it could also be said that great wisdom is the greatest love.

 

[Hortenzie]

Love - an act of will? Who came up with that definition and what dictionary can I find it in?

Yes, Agape is certainly more accurate but how many people know what it means?

 

[clem456]

Love - an act of will? Who came up with that definition and what dictionary can I find it in?

Yes, Agape is certainly more accurate but how many people know what it means?

Aquinas defines love as (sorry if I butcher this)
“Love is to will the good of the other, as other.”

It is completely agape, or sacrificial.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Love - an act of will? Who came up with that definition and what dictionary can I find it in?

Probably Aristotle, and adopted by Aquinas C13.
His philosophy of Man/God haof God.
But in God they are one and the same. Has been used by the Church ever since.
Intellect (by which we know truth and acquire wisdom) and Will the the highest powers of the soul which, made in the image of God, reflects those.

See CCC 271 or so.

 

[Hortenzie]

Probably Aristotle, and adopted by Aquinas C13.
His philosophy of Man/God haof God.
But in God they are one and the same. Has been used by the Church ever since.
Intellect (by which we know truth and acquire wisdom) and Will the the highest powers of the soul which, made in the image of God, reflects those.

See CCC 271 or so.

The problem with philosophy is that while the sentences sound ‘pretty’ and ‘smart’ they are really useless unless you spend a lot of time in study and at the end philosophy doesn’t bring you closer to God anyway because we cannot create an understanding of God with our intelect (we end up with another idol).

 

[oldcelt]

Hortenzie,

I find a lot of philosophy(ers) to be a bit pretentious. Some I have known do not really seem to be interested in the question at hand, but how many fallacies they can point out. If a fallacy makes the point untrue I can understand, but not just to show that they took Phil101.
I prefer a more ragged approach to discourse, but I leave when it ceases to be civil.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

at the end philosophy doesn’t bring you closer to God anyway because we cannot create an understanding of God with our intelect (we end up with another idol).

This may be true for you if your talents lie elsewhere.

Like most things, including guns, alcohol, sex, money etc, it is the excessive love of them that really causes the problem you raise. If an educated person believes that his understanding is equal to the task of seeing God then of course there is going to be trouble. That is pride. It doesn’t make the theologising itself bad as you suggest.

The simple fact is that each of us usually comes closer to God by making good use of the talents, skills and expertise God gave us. In fact that is the normal way we come to God.

As Pope JP II put it:
“…the knowledge of the existence of God through faith which we express with the words “I believe in God” has a rational character which reason can investigate. “I believe, that I may understand,” as also “I understand, that I may believe” this is the path from faith to theology.”

In other words rational investigation of our Faith can increase personal faith if undertaken with humility.

 

[tonyrey]

Yes this is quite consistent.
Knowing is an act of the intellect and love is an act of the will.
These are the highest powers of intelligent beings (man and angels).

In creatures these powers are separate but in God they are one and the same.
Creation cannot perfectly mirror God’s perfection, that is why creatures participate in these perfections separated in various manners and degrees. So says Aquinas and others.

Therefore it could be said that not only is great love the greatest wisdom,
but it could also be said that great wisdom is the greatest love.

Love helps us to understand others and understanding others increases our love because then we become more united:

That they all may be one, as thou, Father, in me, and I in thee; that they also may be one in us; that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.

John 17:21

 

[tonyrey]

The problem with philosophy is that while the sentences sound ‘pretty’ and ‘smart’ they are really useless unless you spend a lot of time in study and at the end philosophy doesn’t bring you closer to God anyway because we cannot create an understanding of God with our intelect (we end up with another idol).

To denigrate philosophy is to belittle Aquinas and all the other great thinkers who have defended the Faith - unlike Luther who proclaimed that reason is a whore!