St. Augustine's roadblocks in his Confessions

[Magnanimity]

I’m wondering what it would be like for you to try on “God using competition for His purposes” or “God creating in part through mechanisms identified by science” for a day.

It’s a good point. I do happen to hold to the classical view of God as the only defensible and reasonable view. And, as Aquinas well argues, there is nothing outside of the providence and care of God. So, I do have to reconcile competition in nature with this classical view. And yet, the phenomenologically compelling nature of beauty and life and repulsive nature of ugliness and death cannot be ignored either. Our ongoing reactions to ugliness and death are “ought-not’s” We say to ourselves that it ought not to be that way.

Wow, there are a ton of human instincts.

You’ll note that my question was very specific: “at birth, what instincts do humans have?” We observe in many other high-order animals that there are quite a few instincts available to the newborn. Take horses or whales, as examples. Standing, walking and swimming at birth - instinctual, not learned.

What you are describing in the rest of that paragraph is the behavior, not of newborns, but of developing babies/toddlers. And these behaviors have everything to do with being in reciprocal relationships with others humans, most importantly the mother, then the immediate family and finally widening out beyond. They are produced within the environment of the child.

Yes, all these things are influenced by environment, but the idea of humans as an “empty slate” has long been debunked.

I think the distinction here is between animal instinct (unlearned and there from the beginning) and human potential which emerges only within the human relational environment.

Maybe once we get the “mechanical” language ironed out, we can go back to the jealousy question…?

I’ve gotten us off-track again! I’m sorry, friend. My tendency to tumble down rabbit holes is annoying, I’m sure. Help me to stay focused on what is important to you. Remind me again, maybe?

 

[OneSheep]

To note various dark aspects of the animal world and extrapolate out to a wider perspective that the animal kingdom is fundamentally brutal, competitive and gross is, to my mind, a non sequitur.

This would mean that the aliens derive essence from behavior rather than intent.

Are you considering the first chapter we discussed in this thread? St. Augustine looked at the good intent behind the worst of actions, murder. He was deriving Cataline’s essence not from his behavior, but from his “wanting the good”, even though it was a perceived good.

Those aliens may be taking a more superficial look than St. Augustine…?

how dark much of 19th century Europe…not work itself into how Darwin views … The [communist] manifesto described much of the class-struggle and inhumane treatment of the “people”…

This sounds like a thesis of Darwin being part of a depressing downward spiral. Can you see the good intent behind all the players, as demonstrated by St. Augustine? The good intent of beneficiaries of the industrial revolution (the owners), the Communists, Darwin?

From where does it come, to look at history in way that does not see the work of the Spirit in all of it? Indeed, such an interpretation in itself is one in which the reader can seek to find the good intent of the interpreter. Is the storyteller looking at the theory of Evolution or the Communist Manifesto as coming from an “evil place”, and then shows how those ideas continue to lead to evil happening in the world today? That view of history appears to discount the work of the Spirit. People make mistakes, and the Spirit guides us out. Darwin’s theories are not perfect, but his intent was good, and there is much to glean from the science. The same can be said for the Manifesto, and those leading the industrial revolution. Sure, there was a bit of blindness involved.

the phenomenologically compelling nature of beauty and life and repulsive nature of ugliness and death cannot be ignored

The repulsiveness can be discounted in terms of seeing that our emotional reactions to these color our cognitive framework, the emotional reactions create a dualistic illusion. St. Augustine was able to put his emotional reactions aside and see the underlying goodness, the good intent.

 

[OneSheep]

You’ll note that my question was very specific: “at birth, what instincts do humans have?”

Yes, and I see that you disagree, which I accept, but I answered with all the human instincts we have at birth that are not necessarily manifested at birth. While environment and parenting play a role in how jealousy is dealt with or to some degree expressed, every child, regardless of parenting or environment, is going to have feelings of jealousy, just as can be seen in other species.

The capacity of jealousy can be accepted as instinctual, and as given by God, if one can come to see the capacity as in some way beneficial to mankind. Jealousy was probably one of Augustine’s roadblocks, based on the way he wrote about the child. St. Augustine was able to put aside his revulsion to the acts of Cataline, finding Cataline’s good intent, but could not put aside his revulsion to the capacity for jealousy, by instead seeing the good intent behind the creator of capacity for jealousy and the benefit of jealousy itself. Jealousy was a part of his shadow that he could not integrate.

Here is a little primer, but much more has been studied about jealousy:

Is It Only Natural for Us to Be Jealous? | Psychology Today

Do you see another means by which he could have integrated capacity for jealousy without seeing its evolutionary benefit? I am very open to possibilities.

 

[OneSheep]

" Through the Spirit we see that whatsoever exists in any way is good…

-Book 31, Ch 31

But then, he contests these thoughts with, such as when referring to the Manichaeans:

They themselves are truly evil, when they think such evil things ." I wouldn’t totally call that a contradiction.

I’m sorry, I responded to your post before you edited it, and then I did not look back.

Yes, there is the possibility that there is no contradiction at all. The way I am addressing it is to assume his literal language, for the simple reason that he does not clarify his words one way or another. It would be quite charitable to assume that he sees no evil in the Manichaeans, but only is talking about their behaviors. However, it is certain that readers can buy into the literal, that the Manichaeans are evil, and since this is a quite probable buy-in that is not addressed by Augustine himself, then it is fruitful to address the reasons for such normal buy-in, as the buy-in seems quite rational vis-a-vis the workings of the shadow in the reader.

Do you recognize that it very well could be a contradiction, and that readers could buy-in that the Manichaeans were evil based on Augustine’s words?

 

[Magnanimity]

Yes, and I see that you disagree, which I accept, but I answered with all the human instincts we have at birth that are not necessarily manifested at birth.

I’m not sure that we do disagree, except in how we’re using the word “instinct.” When I use the word instinct I’m referring to something not only innate but unlearned. However, when you use this word, you seem to refer to that which is both innate and learned, as well. As long as I understand how you’re using the term, I don’t suppose it much matters. Since you shared a link with me, allow me to do the same. Please see this excellent article on the book I’ve mentioned to you before: Persons in Relation. Of particular relevance to our discussion of human instincts, please note this illustrative quote,

Human existence depends on thought and action. However, infants
can neither think nor act. They are born utterly helpless and quickly
perish without care. They depend for their lives on the thoughts and
actions of others. As Macmurray observes, it is not the infant’s ability
to adapt effectively to its circumstances that is key to its survival. Quite
conversely, it is a complete absence of ability to do so that creates the
relation of dependence essential to securing the infant’s life. Our sur-
vival and development takes shape as a relation of dependence
inscribed by individual and collective intentions. This relation of
dependence is most evident in infancy and early childhood. Infants are
dependent on a mother or other caregiver who creates a shared exis-
tence in the effort to sustain them. In Macmurray’s description, the
infant “lives a common life as one term in a personal relation” (1961,
p. 50). We enter personhood, not as already integral individuals, but as
an aspect of personal relatedness and coexistence.
The life of the newborn takes shape largely through the intentions of
the primary caregiver whose ministrations regulate feeding and sleep-
ing. In contrast to animal offspring, which quickly and instinctively
adapt to their environments, human infants develop more gradually by
acquiring skills…

This distinction between humans and nearly all other animal life is instructive, I think. It shows the peculiarity of humans and how they really only develop communally, as persons in relation to other persons. And, as far as we know, it is only within such communal contexts that various behaviors emerge in the slow process of human development. I just don’t think that “instinct” captures the uniqueness of this particular development. I don’t see how we’re in a place to say “regardless of parenting or environment,” since all humans are raised in communal, relational contexts. Tarzan is an interesting concept, but the real human world consists of persons in relation

 

[Magnanimity]

This sounds like a thesis of Darwin being part of a depressing downward spiral. Can you see the good intent behind all the players, as demonstrated by St. Augustine? The good intent of beneficiaries of the industrial revolution (the owners), the Communists, Darwin?

Yes I can. But, in fairness, you and I have the luxury of a bit of hindsight here. When the Manifesto was written, it was a time of revolution and upheaval. All I wanted to acknowledge about Darwin was that he, like all authors, does not write in a vacuum. So, when you say,

Darwin’s theories are not perfect, but his intent was good, and there is much to glean from the science. The same can be said for the Manifesto, and those leading the industrial revolution. Sure, there was a bit of blindness involved.

I completely agree. I only wanted to note that Darwin’s views were undoubtedly colored by his wider cultural context, which included substantial human suffering, conflict and revolution. Thomas Hobbes, an English philosopher writing much earlier than Darwin asserts that life for man, outside of organized society, would consist of “continual fear, and danger of violent death; and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.” As you can see, a fundamental negativity undergirds this way of viewing the world. And that is my hesitation. Generally speaking, nature seems to consist of harmony, abundance and cooperative living. To view life itself as a continual struggle and competition is to hold to a fundamentally negative viewpoint, and I just don’t see it. I’m not polyanna about it–I’m aware of the violence and war and competition that has littered the history of the world. I’m just also aware that these aspects are not the overarching motif. Rather, they are interruptions to the norm of peace.

So too, jealousy is not a state we would persist in. It’s an interruption to whatever level of equanimity we had previously held. But, I quite agree with you that this interruption can have a positive purpose. Jealous feelings can serve as reminders of our own sense of self-worth and the universal good of equality.

St. Augustine was able to put his emotional reactions aside and see the underlying goodness, the good intent.

Yes, I like this a lot. This aligns with Aristotle.

The repulsiveness can be discounted in terms of seeing that our emotional reactions to these color our cognitive framework,

But, it is the thing itself that gives rise to our reactions. Sure, my reaction is my own, but the environment has been the catalyst for it (as when, conversely, I am compelled by a beautiful object). Right?

 

[OneSheep]

I’m not sure that we do disagree, except in how we’re using the word “instinct.” When I use the word instinct I’m referring to something not only innate but unlearned. However, when you use this word, you seem to refer to that which is both innate and learned, as well.

Well, let’s use an example, Augustine’s example. An infant sees another infant feeding at her mother’s breast; a look of jealousy is seen on the face of the observing infant. It is obvious that an emotion has been triggered, a want of what the other has in the moment. The feeling of want was not there beforehand, when the other infant was not feeding.

Three possibilities here, but feel free to come up with another:

1. The infant’s triggered feeling is completely innate, that is, the want of something desirable in possesion of another is innate, and the seeing that what, specifically, the other has is desirable is innate, and the specific look on the infant’s face and the magnitude of its reaction is innate.
2. The infant’s feeling is not triggered by wanting something the other has. The specific wanting what the other has (vs wanting it before such possession) is learned from his parents, and would not exist if the parents (or other children) had never modeled this wanting of what others have. The specific look on the infant’s face is learned from others as well as the magnitude of the infant’s reaction. The child has learned that making the face is rewarding, and is thinking “this is a good thing, and I want it, so I will make this face to motivate the people around me to satisfy my needs or send a message to the other to give it to me.”
3. The feeling of want of what another has is in the innate capacity of the infant, but it is the infant’s experience of what the other has as desirable, plus witnessing in the moment the other child’s enjoyment of what is possessed, (which was also learned from experience) that has led to the specific trigger of the capacity. The “program” was already in the infant, but what had to be “(name removed by moderator)utted” was “this is something good” and “this is another enjoying this good thing”.

Indeed, have you ever seen an infant playing with a ball, and the infant sees another infant playing with another of the same type of ball, yet the observing infant drops the ball he has and tries to get the one held by the other? The infant does not have the awareness that the other is having just as much (potential) fun as he. The observing adult is puzzled and exasperated, but it makes sense in terms of our innate capacity.

 

[OneSheep]

Please see this excellent article on the book…

I keep in mind that the nature v. nurture discussion has been around for centuries. The consensus is that it is some of both. When observing humans, one group that seems to defy the innateness of some aspects of our nature is the !Kung bushmen, but their parenting is (was) probably the most highly evolved on the planet, and they had very unique and gentle methods of nurture. Upon evaluating their methods, however, they had developed means of dealing with the same set of innate drives, emotions, and capacities that everyone else has.

All I wanted to acknowledge about Darwin was that he, like all authors, does not write in a vacuum.

Yes, this is certainly true, but observations of inter-and-intra species competition is very real. It can be proven in any setting. I suppose we could try to imagine a world where there is no competition for resources at all, but then by what mechanism would the world create new species? Did God create limitation of resources as punishment to Adam and Eve, or is limitation of resource part of the mysterious (God-guided) mechanism that leads to creation (of life) itself? It starts with one’s image of God, right?

Hobbes

Whew! What a pessimist. Psychologist Marshall Rosenberg said something like “Man’s greatest (internal, felt) need is to fulfill the needs of others”. I’ll go with that instead of Hobbes.

To view life itself as a continual struggle and competition is to hold to a fundamentally negative viewpoint, and I just don’t see it.

Me neither. Scientifically it would beg the definition of “thrive”; theologically it would beg the image of benevolence.

 

[OneSheep]

So too, jealousy is not a state we would persist in. It’s an interruption to whatever level of equanimity we had previously held. But, I quite agree with you that this interruption can have a positive purpose. Jealous feelings can serve as reminders of our own sense of self-worth and the universal good of equality.

Well, you are suggesting another means of integration. It has a bit of a hitch in it, though, because jealous feelings are not an uplifting thing when actually experienced. One thing for sure: When I feel jealous, I am motivated to get what I want, which if acted on increases my chances of surviving until tomorrow. I know that sounds repulsive, but consider the possibility that the feeling of repulsion comes from a place in a person’s shadow. Ideal: harmony, Resented: competition. Such a shadow component would be a very functional component of a person’s conscience, guiding their behaviors away from competition/disharmony.

But, it is the thing itself that gives rise to our reactions. Sure, my reaction is my own, but the environment has been the catalyst for it (as when, conversely, I am compelled by a beautiful object). Right?

If the long-term objective, however, is to find the truth, we can remember these words:

“Anytime you have a negative feeling toward anyone, you’re living in
an illusion.” - Anthony de Mello

This can definitely be extended to negative feelings about parts of ourselves, parts of our nature. A repulsion is essentially a condemnation. When it is a negative feeling toward some aspect of our existence, then it creates an illusion, an illusion upheld as “truth” by Manichaeism. Feelings are real and have function; they can guide our behaviors. That is all good, but the side effect is that they also create illusions.

So, I am wondering if Augustine were to acknowledge that jealousy can lead to feelings of self-worth and universal equality, he would be able to see that the capacity for jealousy is worthwhile enough to be put in us by God. If you are seeing this possibility as a means of integration, we can move on to the next roadblock. For me, I think your suggestion has some merit!

Edit: Actually, your suggestion has a lot of merit, especially for those who have “roadblocks” about evolution and science in general. Excellent suggestion.

 

[Magnanimity]

Well, let’s use an example, Augustine’s example. An infant sees another infant feeding at her mother’s breast; a look of jealousy is seen on the face of the observing infant. It is obvious that an emotion has been triggered, a want of what the other has in the moment. The feeling of want was not there beforehand, when the other infant was not feeding.

Sure, I don’t mind engaging with the great Saint here. But, I would like to note the (to my mind) odd propensity toward original sin that we see when he writes, “For before You, none is free from sin, not even the infant which has lived but a day upon the earth.” I take it as self-evidently true that only a person who had an a priori commitment to a doctrine like original sin would grant that his statement here is true. That is, the overwhelming majority of all people everywhere would affirm the falsity of his position that a one-day-old newborn somehow personally participates in “sin.”

Since, in the English language, we have so many overlapping and unspecified terms for early childhood development of humans, I’ll appeal to this site (somewhat arbitrarily) to define terms. Going forward, I will use “newborn” to exclusively refer to humans 0-2 mos and “infant” to humans 2 mos-1 yr and “toddler” to humans 1 yr-4 yrs and “child” to refer to 4+ years (prepubescent). I’ll avoid the word “baby” altogether as it can be used to encompass the entire age-range from newborn to toddler.

As MacMurray notes, the newborn human exhibits very little instinctual behavior. The expression of discomfort revealed by the newborn’s cry may well be the only “behavioral” instinct exhibited at this stage.

But, in the transition to the infancy period (2 mos-1 year), the human will begin to manifest behavioral potentialities (e.g., the jealous reaction) but only within its relational development environment. As I said, there are no Tarzans. There are only persons-in-relation and it is via this reciprocally-relational upbringing that human behaviors are actualized. In some way or another, the actualization of these behaviors must arise in a responsive way (a response to what is observed in the human relational environment of the infant). Perhaps then, this perspective aligns with your option 3.

Indeed, have you ever seen an infant playing with a ball, and the infant sees another infant playing with another of the same type of ball…

Oh, believe me, yes. My 5 were all close in age growing up (roughly 2 years apart).

 

[Magnanimity]

I keep in mind that the nature v. nurture discussion has been around for centuries. The consensus is that it is some of both.

OK, but the nature v. nurture debate doesn’t entirely apply to the beginnings of human development, since humans are never raised in isolation from other humans. As MacMurray notes, the newborn/infant/toddler human is not adapted to even survive in its environment without substantial and ongoing assistance provided by the “mother.” So, we have no examples of a “natural” upbringing of a human, only examples of humans-in-relation, which necessarily incorporates “nurture” as intrinsic to it. So, a question like, “does that human behavior arise regardless of how/whether the human was nurtured?” cannot be answered, it seems to me. There are no instances of unnurtured humans.

observations of inter-and-intra species competition is very real. It can be proven in any setting.

When we observe the natural world, we are not necessarily trying to “prove” anything are we? We are more trying to acknowledge what is. And for every example of competition you could give, I can only imagine that I could supply ten examples of cooperative living, even if we were observing the same plain in Africa, for example. As I say, the overarching motif of nature does not seem to be brutal and competitive. It seems to be altruistic and cooperative, interrupted in spurts by moments of competition and violence.

I suppose we could try to imagine a world where there is no competition for resources at all… It starts with one’s image of God, right?

It’s a good question. Earlier I made the statement (to which perhaps you didn’t respond) that “aggressiveness and competition are intrinsically opposed to equality and love because there is always a ‘loser.’” As far as I can tell, an atheist can hold the same opinion that I do regarding aggression and competition, irrespective of any image of God. The tension between my earlier statement on aggressiveness and competition and what we believe about evolution is difficult to reconcile. I’m not asking you to. But, if you think that aggressiveness and competition are in fact reconcilable with equality and love, I’d like to hear how.

 

[Magnanimity]

because jealous feelings are not an uplifting thing when actually experienced.

This fact in itself is very interesting to me. How is it that we stigmatize “jealousy” almost universally? Isn’t this an example of human conscience entering in as “judge” of the behavior? I don’t know if there is anything physiologically unpleasant when I’m feeling jealous. You say it’s not “uplifting,” but this doesn’t refer to anything in the actual embodied reaction, does it? As in, you’re referring to the internal judge of the conscience, is that right?

“Anytime you have a negative feeling toward anyone, you’re living in
an illusion.” - Anthony de Mello

Wonderful quote

A repulsion is essentially a condemnation. When it is a negative feeling toward some aspect of our existence, then it creates an illusion

I just don’t know about this. I’d like to follow you on it. I’d like to agree. But, the ongoing work of the conscience rears its head again in repulsion by subtly reminding us that “this is not how it ought to be.” The untimely death of a child. The wife developing debilitating cancer. The instances when our consciences inform us that it-ought-to-be-otherwise-than-it-is are innumerable. The repulsion toward death or ugliness (say) judge the state of affairs under consideration (whatever that state is). And, again, I don’t think we can escape the judgment of conscience, can we? Moreover, this work of conscience never lets us get completely comfortable in the world. It’s a nagging reminder that there is something wrong with this place–something that never seems to get fixed. Perhaps something that cannot be fixed–the “fallen” world.

If you are seeing this possibility as a means of integration, we can move on to the next roadblock.

Yes, let’s move on to the next one! Although we are still engaging each other on specific issues here (and they’re all important), I have an unfortunate tendency to mire discussions down in nuance. So, let’s keep going!! Upward and onward!!!

 

[OneSheep]

I take it as self-evidently true that only a person who had an a priori commitment to a doctrine like original sin would grant that his statement here is true. That is, the overwhelming majority of all people everywhere would affirm the falsity of his position that a one-day-old newborn somehow personally participates in “sin.”

While I agree that “sin” is not applicable, I do think that Augustine’s gut reaction to the behaviors of infants preceded his “a priori” commitment to the doctrine of individual sin. It’s like he felt negatively about certain behaviors in infants, and then concluded that there must be “original sin”.

As MacMurray notes, the newborn human exhibits very little instinctual behavior.

This site lists 13. Number 13 is pretty fun, number 12 is a stretch, number 11 is not an infant instinct.

There are only persons-in-relation and it is via this reciprocally-relational upbringing that human behaviors are actualized.

I do think we are thinking along the same lines, especially if the word “actualized” does not rule out that the capacity for triggered jealous feelings (not the content of the trigger, nor what is desired) is genetically present.

So, a question like, “does that human behavior arise regardless of how/whether the human was nurtured?” cannot be answered, it seems to me. There are no instances of unnurtured humans.

We do know, however, that regardless of culture, race, or geography, every human experiences what it is like to want what someone else has. If a person is convinced that such a feeling is a “bad part” of him/herself (as formed in the normal conscience), then it is not likely something integrated, not something that the person can accept as being okay, but something that does provide evidence of depravity or something like that,( a negative affect attached to human value). Remember: accepting the “okayness” of jealousy does not mean letting it influence our chosen behavior! What I am saying is that jealousy does not change the essence of a person. We all have the capacity, and the capacity, in itself, is part of being a beautiful human. Chosen bad behaviors are not who we are, but they do reflect our own lack of awareness.

 

[OneSheep]

And for every example of competition you could give, I can only imagine that I could supply ten examples of cooperative living, even if we were observing the same plain in Africa, for example.

Yes. I’m remembering that I have observed ravens being hyper-aware of when one of their brethren is feeding. When they see this, they immediately go to where the action is! The reason I bring this up is that when one raven begins to eat, another feels something, a pull to feed also. If there was something standing in its way, there would be a feeling of frustration, right? Would we call it jealousy?

Those birds are so smart, I remember watching one “fake eat” for long periods, pretending to eat but nothing was there. Its cohorts learned that going to the faker was a waste of time, so this was a way that the bird was able to find something to eat without being bothered.

As I say, the overarching motif of nature does not seem to be brutal and competitive. It seems to be altruistic and cooperative, interrupted in spurts by moments of competition and violence.

This I also agree with. If this were not true, then what would it mean to “thrive”? Mere survival? God wants something more for his creatures, like an enjoyable life especially for us people, who have a great capacity to be thankful and enjoy His gifts to us. Indeed, social justice itself would be completely meaningless if suffering was ignored or shrugged off as “natural”, therefore not something to act upon. Capacities like jealousy are violent, they are “lower” goods, as mentioned by Augustine. They have their place and purpose, but we are called to distance ourselves from making decisions based on what they are doing in our minds, generally speaking. There are times that jealousy is telling us something is unfair, and it really is unfair! If it kicks up some anger in us, then that’s good!

But, if you think that aggressiveness and competition are in fact reconcilable with equality and love, I’d like to hear how.

Competition goes back to image of God, the question I raised earlier:
Did God create limitation of resources as punishment to Adam and Eve, or is limitation of resource part of the mysterious (God-guided) “mechanism” that leads to creation (of life) itself? Zero-sum is often too harsh an option. It’s more like the more (genetically) successful this group is, the more offspring they have that make it to adulthood.

Humanity has been created (or is still in process), and within man is Love. What is understandable in light of a benevolent God is that even though the world is fairly violent (even the weather can be very aggressive) we can be in contact with Love because we have the human capacity to do so. (continued)

 

[OneSheep]

And while we can see such love in the animal kingdom (especially my loving dog at my feet! ) they do not have the theory of mind to be in relationship with such love. Disease is aggressive, yet it is part of the creative process. Aggressiveness in our species has helped us (lower good) to survive and live in relationship. So no, neither aggressiveness or competition are in themselves love, but both have contributed to survival and creation of the human, just as disease has done, and can be seen to have come from a benevolent God in the violence of creative process. While the creative process may violate some human moral codes, the fact is that we have competition and aggression, and these have helped create us and survive, and the net effect is that we have a species walking this Earth that can be in relationship with Love, and love one another. And this product, it seems, is what the Father wants: us.

How is it that we stigmatize “jealousy” almost universally? Isn’t this an example of human conscience entering in as “judge” of the behavior?

Yes. Our consciences are formed to judge the subsequent behaviors and the feelings of jealousy, the capacity for jealousy, as part of our human nature. Conscience formation is a beautiful thing, as I mentioned before, but there comes a time to reconcile with those parts of ourselves that judge/condemn. The impetus is spiritual freedom, it is freeing to come to accept all the parts of our nature.

I don’t know if there is anything physiologically unpleasant when I’m feeling jealous.

Hmm. It’s a feeling of want, something lacking. Is that not a bit unpleasant? And since it often involves some negative feelings toward that person that has something more, it is not a freeing feeling, it is confining right?

I just don’t know about this. I’d like to follow you on it. I’d like to agree. But, the ongoing work of the conscience rears its head again in repulsion by subtly reminding us that “this is not how it ought to be.”

Yes, I agree. But again, you are referring to behaviors. I’m referring to condemnation of people or part of our internal nature, which are not behaviors. We view bad behaviors, our repulsion is triggered, and our feeling of negativity toward the misbehaving person is also triggered. We project our own negatives onto him or her. We naturally “hate” both the sin and the sinner until we reflect on what has happened in our minds.

I have an unfortunate tendency to mire discussions down in nuance.

I regret none of the “miring”. What you have done is provided another means of integrating jealousy, that it can lead to feelings of self-worth and come to value “universal equality” (though we could also use “universal human rights” or “universal social justice”). Bring on the miring, It’s expanding my horizons!

To continue:

Book 1, Chapter 9:

I will get back to you, I need to reread what we already posted about disobedience.

 

[OneSheep]

Getting Back on Track

Okay, @Magnanimity, I did a search and found this question that remained mostly unanswered. We got sidetracked a bit. The original line from Confessions was here:

“I sinned…I was disobedient, not out of a desire for better things, but out of love for play. I loved to win proud victories…”

-Book 1, Chapter 10

I might add that later in that chapter (I think) he is down on himself about not studying hard enough, disobeying his teachers’ demands for him to work harder. So while it is still quite possible that St. Augustine did not really have a problem with capacity for disobedience, many people do condemn their own capacity, and Augustine does not specifically address the possibility that his own words endorse such condemnation in the mind of the reader. So, just to “cover it”, I’d like to put this one to rest.

My comment when I first presented the line was this:

While Augustine does not include the language of self-condemnation in this chapter, given the tone it appears that both the capacity for disobedience and the love of play (especially at the expense of the “better”) are in his shadow.

Where we went from there was a discussion where you were rightfully questioning the idea that all disobedience comes from God, and I hope that I clarified that we are not in the process of justifying all disobedience, but merely looking at man’s capacity for it.

I think I remember suggesting some material causes, and then there might have been a bit of gentle push-back on your part, the reductionism of it, etc.

Now that you have demonstrated a formal cause for jealousy (did I get that right?), I am wondering if you or I are able to come up with a formal cause for capacity for disobedience, and how it relates to the final cause.

So, with a nod of respect for your love of Aristotle, let me give this a shot. Please feel free to completely straighten me out, since I am rather new at this:

Material cause: Capacity for disobedience

Formal Cause: A free person, capable of escaping enslavement

Efficient Cause: Our creator, by means of evolution (or other means)

Final Cause: A creature capable of conscious, loving relationship with God

Does that measure up as a means of integrating human capacity for disobedience? I am keeping in mind the idea of “net positive”, so while we are certainly capable of disobeying in ways that are extremely counterproductive (in terms of relationship), there is a net-positive in having the person wanting to be, and capable of being, free from an enslaving authoritarian tyranny, which can be very possible in a tribal setting that relies on some sort of pecking-order structure to survive. I think @Vico alluded to this also, but in much more doctrinally-correct terms. Oh yes, and he also mentioned the importance of free will, which should be there with the formal cause, perhaps. (But I am wondering if Vico might fill in the final cause, if it is different from what I presented.)

Does that work as a formal cause, something that makes capacity for disobedience more capable of being integrated by a person?

Next: “Proud victories”?

 

[Magnanimity]

It’s like he felt negatively about certain behaviors in infants, and then concluded that there must be “original sin”.

Right, when you see an infant (not a newborn) exhibit behaviors that elicit a negative gut reaction from yourself, you naturally look for an explanation. We should note here though that many theologians in the history of the church have similarly looked for an explanation and have found an adequate one in the theological concept of concupiscence–without having to go down a road that makes us affirm rather wild ideas like the one-day-old newborn is not “free from sin.” The newborn is almost maximally free because she is something like a pure potentiality, constrained by nothing other than the limitations of human nature itself, and awaiting the communal actualization of all her potential. That is, it could be her imperfect environment/upbringing that will foster the arising of sin (so, concupiscence).

This site lists 13. Number 13 is pretty fun, number 12 is a stretch, number 11 is not an infant instinct.

Ha! OK, you got me on #13. That is cool and honestly one I had forgotten. #1 is good too–tongue thrust. The rest are either a stretch or don’t substantially contribute to a newborn’s survival (besides the ones I already brought up–the instinct of expressing discomfort though crying and and the sucking reflex for feeding). It’s important to note that the link you provided does not list the instinct for human proximity within it. I think this is truly a human instinct present from birth. A newborn requires “being held.” A newborn/infant enters into a rhythmic pattern with the mother of withdrawal and return (being held then being alone then being held then being alone…) Still and all, if we grant two additions to MacMurray’s short list of newborn human instincts, his overall point is unaffected. From above,

[Humans] are born utterly helpless and quickly perish without care. …it is not the infant’s ability to adapt effectively to its circumstances that is key to its survival. Quite conversely, it is a complete absence of ability to do so that creates the relation of dependence essential to securing the infant’s life…In contrast to animal offspring, which quickly and instinctively adapt to their environments, human infants develop more gradually… [emphasis mine]

Among all altricial species on Earth, humans definitely take the cake! For the first 20-25% of their lives, humans are developing and unsuited for independent living. But, it’s not just the slow pace of human development that is key to seeing humans as utterly unique and distinctive. It’s that humans can only develop communally. At birth, this care is the deliberate and planned efforts of other humans in the newborn’s community. The amount of adult investment on behalf of human children is truly staggering, in terms of time, energy, resources and the scope/scale of everyone involved in the nurturing of a particular human child.

 

[Magnanimity]

I do think we are thinking along the same lines, especially if the word “actualized” does not rule out that the capacity for triggered jealous feelings (not the content of the trigger, nor what is desired) is genetically present.

Agreed. Any actualization entails that what is actualized was already potentially present within the organism.

If a person is convinced that such a feeling is a “bad part” of him/herself (as formed in the normal conscience), then it is not likely something integrated, not something that the person can accept as being okay, but something that does provide evidence of depravity or something like that,

Yes, and there are even “commandments” that do not seem to assist with integrating. Whether from Jewish or Catholic tradition, we are taught to not covet. Or, do these commandments assist by being reminders of what we’re capable of?

Competition goes back to image of God, the question I raised earlier… the net effect is that we have a species walking this Earth that can be in relationship with Love, and love one another. And this product, it seems, is what the Father wants: us.

Wow, there is a lot of mature insight within those two paragraphs of yours. If I understand you, various aspects of existence (competition, aggression, jealousy) have all played roles in bringing about the rise of humanity. This is “to bring about a greater good” reasoning? Have I understood you correctly?

Sometimes I wonder whether the arc of an individual human life is like the arc of the entire human race. Young and immature humans can often see no problem with zero-sum thinking and aggressive/competitive behavior (winners and losers). But, as a human ages, the thinking and behavior alters–at least for a human seeking wisdom and understanding. If humanity could get to a place where slavery/human trafficking and war were really “in the rearview mirror,” then perhaps this arc interpretation of human history would hold. There is something very attractive about this arc view and bringing-about-a-greater-good reasoning, but the race progresses rather slowly. Perhaps this isn’t cause for concern though–I myself progress rather slowly.

Conscience formation is a beautiful thing, as I mentioned before, but there comes a time to reconcile with those parts of ourselves that judge/condemn. The impetus is spiritual freedom, it is freeing to come to accept all the parts of our nature.

The very act of doing this–reconciling, freeing, coming to accept–is all within the realm of the conscience, no? That is, a mature conscience is able to reconcile and accept. If so, we never “transcend” conscience. We may be able to transcend a desire to condemn others (judge not lest ye be judged) but I don’t know how one might ever go “beyond” the conscience, right?

 

[Magnanimity]

But again, you are referring to behaviors. I’m referring to condemnation of people or part of our internal nature , which are not behaviors. We view bad behaviors, our repulsion is triggered, and our feeling of negativity toward the misbehaving person is also triggered… We naturally “hate” both the sin and the sinner until we reflect on what has happened in our minds.

This brings us back to Aristotle–you are what you repeatedly do. I suppose the aspect that allows us to keep from condemning the person is the fact of change. We know a given person can change. She can sober up, she can stop yelling at her child all the time, etc. It seems that the only way to separate a person from her behavior is by thinking of her potentiality and believing that it’s real. That she can really change. Or, are you saying more than this?

So, with a nod of respect for your love of Aristotle, let me give this a shot.

Wow, your kindness must know no boundaries if you’re engaging with Aristotelian categories out of a nod towards me! Thank you!! I think that you are generally after the final causes of all these things–jealousy, capacity for disobedience. That is, you’re looking for the purpose of these things–that, for the purpose of which, something is.

We have explored valuable corollaries of jealousy. Underlying the jealous impulse, so I’ve reasoned, are at least three good things: acknowledgement of one’s own intrinsic worth, desire for equality with others and it keeps one from being complacent.

I like where you’re headed with disobedience here. It helps us to resist any form of tyranny. And, it forces anyone behaving tyrannically toward us to acknowledge our own intrinsic dignity (e.g., “My boss spoke very disrespectfully toward me in the presence of others right before she told me to finish the report by close of business. So, I will not finish the report. Not because I can’t. But as a lesson to her…”). So, we can use disobedience as a way of imposing moral norms on others–to remind others of what they should already be mindful of. Like, treating others with dignity is not optional in communal human life. It’s required.

Next: “Proud victories”?

Bring it on!

 

[OneSheep]

That is, it could be her imperfect environment/upbringing that will foster the arising of sin (so, concupiscence).

I mostly equate “concupiscence” with “(innate) appetites that our conscience comes to detest”.

It looks like we are pretty much thinking the along the same lines on babies.

It’s important to note that the link you provided does not list the instinct for human proximity within it.

Yeah, I’m not super pleased with that list. It needs some things added (and subtracted). Thanks for all the other insights, I am in agreement.

Yes, and there are even “commandments” that do not seem to assist with integrating. Whether from Jewish or Catholic tradition, we are taught to not covet. Or, do these commandments assist by being reminders of what we’re capable of?

Well, they are not meant to assist with integrating, they are meant to be behavioral guides, to form our consciences, correct? Conscience formation involves some dis-integration, though it all happens subconsciously. The commandments are the voice of the conscience. i.e.: ideal: respect what you own, what they own. condemned: theft, coveting Shadow: innate coveting of what someone else has (jealousy) is evil.

If I understand you, various aspects of existence (competition, aggression, jealousy) have all played roles in bringing about the rise of humanity. This is “to bring about a greater good” reasoning? Have I understood you correctly?

Yes, it appears that there is some pretty negative stuff that takes place in order to create us. I know, it doesn’t fit the means/ends moral code, but maybe God didn’t read that code. What I am saying is that there is good intent underneath it all, at least that is what I am seeing through my relationship. Not sure competition fits with those others, though (needs some defining).

Sometimes I wonder whether the arc of an individual human life is like the arc of the entire human race.

I think I have visited this arc enough times to be convinced that yes, this is the case.

Young and immature humans can often see no problem with zero-sum thinking

…until they develop a conscience, yes.

There is something very attractive about this arc view and bringing-about-a-greater-good reasoning, but the race progresses rather slowly. Perhaps this isn’t cause for concern though–I myself progress rather slowly.

Me too, like a snail! And so much stepping backwards first!