St. Augustine's roadblocks in his Confessions

[OneSheep]

The human race obviously grows in knowledge in a great many areas–math, the sciences, theology…but not in wisdom. I don’t know if that’s right (perhaps it is) but it’s rather a haunting thought, to me.

Yeah, wisdom is very personal. We seem to have to make our own mistakes. The human race is growing in charity, I think. And inclusion, of races and religions. there is a general coming together.

I’ve come to believe that spiritual people are a type of people

If you know Myers-Briggs stuff, the “intuitives” are definitely more introspective and focused on the interior, but as we grow older we all tend to become more interior-aware no matter what our personality type. Middle aged people finally look at their lives and ask, “what’s it all for?”.

But not all of us are similary disposed to engage with God in our consciences.

That’s an interesting way of putting it. From what I sense/read, God informs our conscience. It is there, available, but experience is what opens our eyes to it. So it’s like: if we have a conscience at all, that conscience is informed by God.

But, what I find most interesting is that I can identify something good/positive in each of the replies that you gave.

In a way of framing things, then, you have integrated the projected motives in those replies.

In this case from nature, one capuchin monkey has attempted to lead the entire tribe astray and in so doing, he has elevated himself above the group.

This would be an external evaluation of what the monkey did. What this monkey has experienced, by being of low status, is whenever he finds food he has to yield most of it to the higher-ups in the pecking order. The monkey wants the food for himself. Sure, he would love to have a higher status, but in the moment the monkey has found something to eat, and makes the “predator!” call to get the rest of the troop to leave while he can eat it himself, undisturbed.

In this case from nature, one capuchin monkey has attempted to lead the entire tribe astray and in so doing, he has elevated himself above the group. And this is a fundamental violation of wisdom itself.

Capuchin monkeys can be expected to violate wisdom, right?

As Spock said, “the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.”

To the runaway rail car scenario. I can’t steer it to the one guy. I refuse to choose between the two alternatives.

 

[OneSheep]

So, what would have possessed her to do this?

It might make for an interesting discussion with her someday.

Isn’t it a simpler thing to just admit “oh wait, I must have the days mixed up. No meeting today, dad” ? What could account for her “acting a part?” Perhaps she had begun watching an old video, thinking it was live, giving her own live responses to questions, only to realize, several minutes in, that the video was an older recording. Admitting at that time that she had gotten it wrong would be embarrassing. And no one wants to feel embarrassed. Perhaps she even anticipated that I or her siblings would make fun of her for getting it so wrong.

What you are doing here is essentially a self-examination. All the answers you guessed were projections of “why I would do it”, right? This is why I think it is so much easier to address the sliver in my neighbor’s eye, and then turn to examine the projected motives. Projections that I find unacceptable are very commonly aspects of myself that I have not integrated. It sounds like all of your projections were acceptable to you. If you had said something like, “because she wants to elevate herself above me”, that might sound different, depending on how it is said, especially how it is felt. Are you familiar with the cognitive concept of “attribution error”? Attribution error is very closely tied to tribal outlook, ingroup/outgroup stuff.

Whenever anyone lies, the question to be sought after is, “what good…?"

It sounds like you have accepted human capacity to lie, even though your own conscience says “Don’t lie”. I’m assuming (projecting) that your gut reacts to lies, but you quickly go to the “what good” question. I’m also guessing (projecting, again) that your gut also would react if you found yourself tempted to lie, that you would only carefully consider doing so, given the time to make the choice and state of awareness.

But see, Kant is talking about “ought”. Integration has to do with what “is”. We have a capacity to lie, that is what is real. Do we see this as a part of our nature (God given, even) that helps us in some way? Well, in my view, the answer is yes… but only when we are talking about “secondary causes” (survival stuff).

When someone has lied to me, they have violated the collective, God-given conscience, my conscience. I can forgive them, but that forgiveness is not complete until I really understand what happened, at least in a projected sense. “I could have lied also, given the circumstances/state of awareness of the person who lied, and I understand that the person did, in the moment, what he thought was best.” To me, this is essentially the same as:

Whenever anyone lies, the question to be sought after is, “what good was the person trying to achieve in the lie.” To my thinking, there will always be an identifiable good in any act of lying. What do you think?

So we are on the same page on this capacity-to-lie?

 

[Magnanimity]

If you know Myers-Briggs stuff, the “intuitives” are definitely more introspective and focused on the interior, but as we grow older we all tend to become more interior-aware no matter what our personality type. Middle aged people finally look at their lives and ask, “what’s it all for?”.

Yes, detachment and a general “letting go” approach to life does increase with age. It could be argued that there is something intrinsically spiritual about detachment itself. I would be sympathetic to that argument. I imagine many unbelievers wouldn’t. What I was arguing for was, say, the wide variety in spirituatliy/religiosity the world over among the same age group (all those aged 40, for example). To account for the wide variety/disparity in this specific case (same age group) I’m inclined to posit something like a psychological orientation as a reasonable explanation.

This would be an external evaluation of what the monkey did.

Ha, I actually know very little about these monkeys. I was only going off of what you wrote initially about the group punishing the one.

Capuchin monkeys can be expected to violate wisdom, right?

Actually, as weird as it might seem to hear this, I don’t think so. That the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the one is something intuitively known. Or, you could put it like, “the whole is greater than the sum of all its parts.” How it is that humans and capuchins know this basic truth about the world could have different explanations. Or not!

Are you familiar with the cognitive concept of “attribution error”? Attribution error is very closely tied to tribal outlook, ingroup/outgroup stuff.

No, I am not. As always, I’m grateful for your psychological knowledge and insights. I’ll look that one up.

It sounds like you have accepted human capacity to lie, even though your own conscience says “Don’t lie”. I’m assuming (projecting) that your gut reacts to lies, but you quickly go to the “what good” question.

It’s a very fast process for me, yes. I’m a deeply empathic person, so perhaps that accounts for my always wanting to know the “why” of the human behavior. And, I accept the ancient Greek insight of humans ever being oriented towards good(s). So, I try to find the good, even in the errant behavior.

 

[Magnanimity]

Well, in my view, the answer is yes… but only when we are talking about “secondary causes” (survival stuff).

So we are on the same page on this capacity-to-lie?

What would you say about the lies we tell when we believe that they will make the other feel better as a consequence of our lies?Colloquially, these would be the “little white lies” we sometimes tell. I don’t see a clear connection to survival in lying to a friend in an effort to make the friend feel better.

I would say, getting philosophical for a moment, that the trouble with lying is that our minds are meant to connect to everything around us–primarily to other persons–but also to nature, to everything in fact. Our cognition is fundamentally receptive to the world around us and the reverse is also true–our minds inform and alter the world around us. It’s a two-way street. In a lie (or a falsehood) our minds have failed to make this connection, either to a person or to nature. It always remains important that our minds are open to Reality in all its aspects. A lie can close a mind/heart off to some aspect of reality and therein lies its perniciousness.

But, there are many levels of reality. There are important aspects of Reality (whether the conscience exists, whether I’m free, whether God exists and loves me). And there are many much less important aspects of Reality (whether my wife picked up the dry cleaning already, how I perceive her in that red dress, explaining where babies come from to a 5 y.o.). I’m sort of shooting off the cuff here, but I’m thinking that lying about an aspect of Reality to which we have assigned low significance (the dry cleaning, answering the “how do I look” question) allows for some fudging of the truth. Lying, however, about the most important of things would seem to be worse and less acceptable in most scenarios.

And then there are the many scenarios in which most humans would probably claim that there is actually a moral imperative to lie, as in examples where telling a lie will likely save a life (Kant’s example of the would-be murderer arriving at your door demanding to know whether his potential victim is in your house, when this victim entered your house just moments earlier…)

 

[OneSheep]

To account for the wide variety/disparity in this specific case (same age group) I’m inclined to posit something like a psychological orientation as a reasonable explanation.

Makes sense. But are you in the Augustinian camp, such that God sort of picks the ones he wants to give grace, or are you seeing it more like that grace is there for everyone, and in order to actually experience it, you have to participate in it? I’m not talking about afterlife, I’m talking about here-and-now grace, a growth and happiness sort of grace.

I was only going off of what you wrote initially about the group punishing the one.

Yeah. And BTW, if the group doesn’t punish those caught doing this, then the predator warning call would become meaningless. The “no lying about predators” rule has to be upheld.

Actually, as weird as it might seem to hear this, I don’t think so. That the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the one is something intuitively known

Seriously, by monkeys? Maybe they’ve read Kant? Or were you only referring to Christian monkeys?

How it is that humans and capuchins know this basic truth about the world could have different explanations. Or not!

I’m looking at monkey behavior. If the one gets caught lying (i.e., the one who made the call did not skeedaddle), these monkeys are smart enough to be “on to him”. The dude is there eating while everyone else is doing the right thing. It’s already pretty complex thinking that the monkey thought to lie, but I have seen ravens do it, and robots also do it in experimental situations, somewhat mimicking the monkey situation. The robots were programmed to make a call when they found “food”, but were also rewarded when they got food. To the surprise of the researchers, some robots would make the call one place to create a distraction, drawing away the competition, then find food elsewhere.

And, I accept the ancient Greek insight of humans ever being oriented towards good(s). So, I try to find the good, even in the errant behavior.

Is it specifically a Platonic approach? I heard Aristotle thought differently about it. Is that true?

 

[OneSheep]

What would you say about the lies we tell when we believe that they will make the other feel better as a consequence of our lies?Colloquially, these would be the “little white lies” we sometimes tell. I don’t see a clear connection to survival in lying to a friend in an effort to make the friend feel better.

I think the “little white lie” as a behavior has to do with having empathy, and empathy definitely has some secondary causes (but probably not limited to such!). Telling “white lies” probably just falls under “cooperative behavior” that helps with tribal social structure.

I would say, getting philosophical for a moment, that the trouble with lying is that our minds are meant to connect to everything around us–primarily to other persons–but also to nature, to everything in fact. Our cognition is fundamentally receptive to the world around us and the reverse is also true–our minds inform and alter the world around us. It’s a two-way street. In a lie (or a falsehood) our minds have failed to make this connection, either to a person or to nature. It always remains important that our minds are open to Reality in all its aspects. A lie can close a mind/heart off to some aspect of reality and therein lies its perniciousness.

That makes sense, but you would probably agree that a person would not have a “gut level reaction” ( a roadblock) concerning failure to being unreceptive to the world in some way. When I’m talking roadblocks, I’m observing that people’s negative feelings about something stop them from accepting some aspect of their self.

Lying, however, about the most important of things would seem to be worse and less acceptable in most scenarios.

Yes, this is true for people. Our reactions may be “on” buttons, but it depends on the situation.

And then there are the many scenarios in which most humans would probably claim that there is actually a moral imperative to lie, as in examples where telling a lie will likely save a life (Kant’s example of the would-be murderer arriving at your door demanding to know whether his potential victim is in your house, when this victim entered your house just moments earlier…)

Yes. The roadblock has more to do with human natural capacity to lie, which people can commonly resent, (at least at some point in their lives), but regardless of how people feel about the capacity, we can think of situations where lying would be the better option.

The most glaring political example would be Iran saying that they are not building nukes when they remain in constant fear that Israel might nuke them at any time. If they are lying, it would be very understandable. That’s why, I think, the US does not believe them, but Iran might actually be telling the truth. The means to resolve it, of course, is to foster talks between Iran and Israel.

Shall we move onto the next (possible) roadblock?

 

[Magnanimity]

Makes sense. But are you in the Augustinian camp, such that God sort of picks the ones he wants to give grace, or are you seeing it more like that grace is there for everyone, and in order to actually experience it, you have to participate in it?

Well, now that you hold my feet to the fire, I suppose I’d have to say I’m Augustinian, if that’s what he teaches! I would hold that God creates various personality-types, even ones that aren’t particularly inclined to anything religious/spiritual. After all, someone has to run the world and the economy–and spiritual types are more inclined to retreat to the desert than lead governments or businesses!

Seriously, by monkeys? Maybe they’ve read Kant? Or were you only referring to Christian monkeys?

Perhaps you would be satisfied if I declared that the knowledge that the needs of the group outweigh the needs of the one is innate/instinctual in capuchins, how’s that?

Is it specifically a Platonic approach? I heard Aristotle thought differently about it. Is that true?

Plato held that if only the human knew more and more deeply then the human would always do the good. Aristotle was less sanguine than Plato here. Aristotle believed that moral failings were not always a fault of knowledge, sometimes people know what they ought to do and just don’t do it. Aristotle ascribed it as a “weakness” of will when this happens.

I think the “little white lie” as a behavior has to do with having empathy, and empathy definitely has some secondary causes (but probably not limited to such!).

Very well said. I emphatically agree. We tell white lies often out of the kindness of our hearts and wanting to look out for the hearts of others.

That makes sense, but you would probably agree that a person would not have a “gut level reaction” ( a roadblock) concerning failure to being unreceptive to the world in some way.

If I understand you correctly, I would affirm that we often are “ok” with being cut-off from Reality in various aspects. In fact, I would describe this as the condition of quite a few atheists–a refusal to think about Being as deeply as one can and so to make oneself unreceptive to this avenue of the Real.

The most glaring political example would be Iran saying that they are not building nukes when they remain in constant fear that Israel might nuke them at any time. If they are lying, it would be very understandable. That’s why, I think, the US does not believe them

Wonderful empathy here on your part, bravo. Yes, this is a great example where most folks (especially Iranians!) would affirm they have a moral responsibility to lie if they are building nukes.

Shall we move onto the next (possible) roadblock?

Let’s do it, friend!

 

[OneSheep]

I suppose I’d have to say I’m Augustinian, if that’s what he teaches! I would hold that God creates various personality-types, even ones that aren’t particularly inclined to anything religious/spiritual. After all, someone has to run the world and the economy–and spiritual types are more inclined to retreat to the desert than lead governments or businesses!

I think we may have different notions of grace. When I’m saying “grace”, I’m talking about a person being given life in different forms. For example, a person suffering from addiction is given the grace to be aware of her suffering and change her life. A person suffering from obsession with wealth is given the grace to see that it’s all for nothing and finds a path to fulfillment. A politician lusting for power comes to see that it is all vanity, all superficial, and is drawn to a deeper life. To me, none of this has to do with personality, and none of this precludes whether one is called to lead or is called to solitude.

Perhaps you would be satisfied if I declared that the knowledge that the needs of the group outweigh the needs of the one is innate/instinctual in capuchins, how’s that?

This is assuming that the monkeys can reason these things out, which would be a tough case to make, but it sure sounds nice.

Plato held that if only the human knew more and more deeply then the human would always do the good

Yes, the more we know about a particular choice, the more likely we are to make a good one. This has to be proven phenomenologically, though. “Know” has to be defined in an all-inclusive way.

Aristotle was less sanguine than Plato here. Aristotle believed that moral failings were not always a fault of knowledge, sometimes people know what they ought to do and just don’t do it.

A really great test of “knowledge” is “Would you do that to your own child?”. If it is something hurtful, (a “net” hurtful) then a person of normal empathy would refrain. Aristotle probably did not include an empathic “knowing”, a knowing of deep intrinsic value, infinite value. This is what I believe Jesus was referring to when he said “Forgive them, for they know not what they do.” Here is another great knowledge test: “Which is a greater state of “knowing”, when I am blinded by desire, or when I am later on very regretful?”

 

[OneSheep]

Aristotle ascribed it as a “weakness” of will when this happens.

Yes, suffering from guilt strengthens the will. If a person has the presence and awareness to remember all the suffering experienced from a sinful act, once suffered enough, he will not make the bad choice. Some alcoholics simply stop drinking. They wake up and don’t feel like pouring another. It’s a grace that works subconsciously. It’s a “knowing” even if it is subconscious. The book Thinking Fast, and Slow goes into this kind of awareness, i.e. the firefighter captain that knew without thinking that he had to immediately leave a particular room and ordered his charge to do so. When he and his coworkers left, the floor completely collapsed. He did not recall thinking “this floor is too hot”, but it was. His body knew.

If I understand you correctly, I would affirm that we often are “ok” with being cut-off from Reality in various aspects. In fact, I would describe this as the condition of quite a few atheists–a refusal to think about Being as deeply as one can and so to make oneself unreceptive to this avenue of the Real.

Yeah, I don’t see how people could think of this as “wrong” in a strongly emotional way. OTOH, Augustine thought of himself in a very negative way when he recalled his time as a Manichaean. He had been unreceptive to Christianity for various reasons. What I’m saying is that before one “sees the light”, one doesn’t condemn oneself for not seeing it.

Let’s do it, friend!

Chapter 1 of book 2 has:
“I stank in your eyes, but I was pleasing to myself and I desired to be pleasing in the eyes of men.”

This is the chapter about his 16th year, the year he was not in school and was sowing his oats and hell-raising with his friends.

I think I need your help on choosing the next one. There are very obvious ones in chapters 4-13 of Book 2, but chapters 1-3, his feelings about his sexual exploits, are more vague. He never goes right out and says “I was terrible because I fornicated”, but it is certainly implied when one reads between the lines. I’ve kind of gathered that Augustine did not think of sex as bad, but the “disorder” caused by strong desire was bad, that concupiscence was bad.

Shall we address that? Augustine, when he became a priest and bishop, would not even allow a woman in his house. “Original sin” was transferred through sex, in my reading. There was a tough line to walk because the Manichean doctrine saw sexual desire as part of the evil in people, and when Augustine promoted this idea, he was seen as a “crypto-Manichaean”. Some even charge that Augustine caused a “gnostication” of Western Christendom. Since Augustine fought these charges to his grave, it makes sense that he is a bit vague on this.

Shall we simply assume that Augustine says “concupiscence is bad”, because he has very bad feelings about when he was unchaste?

 

[OneSheep]

Something from St. Bonaventure that lends itself to this thread:

I propose the following considerations,
suggesting that the mirror presented by the external world
is of little or no value
unless the mirror of our soul
has been cleaned and polished.

 

[Magnanimity]

When I’m saying “grace”, I’m talking about a person being given life in different forms…A politician lusting for power comes to see that it is all vanity, all superficial, and is drawn to a deeper life. To me, none of this has to do with personality,

Perhaps it’s not so much grace as personality that we’re not seeing eye-to-eye on. Quite some time ago, in a different thread, I believe, I brought up social scientist Jonathan Haidt who suggests (along with the consensus of social scientists, I believe) that one’s inclination to be traditional or be progressive in one’s political and social views was likely much more reflective of one’s personality than anything else (something else like ‘discovering the truth’).

Another way to say this is that I realize that I’m a Democrat (say) not because I think I’m more knowledgeable than my Republican peers. (After all, many of my Republican peers likely greatly exceed my own knowledge of political matters.) So, my political leanings are not necessarily reflective of my having more truth/knowledge than my Republican neighbor. Rather, it’s reflective of my personality. As in, I value progress more than tradition. That is, folks are oriented towards valuing some things over other things. And, when taken as a whole (the human race) it forms a beautiful tapestry. So, far from it being a problem (to me) that my neighbor is Republican, I take it that she is the type of person who values tradition/history and wants to not see those things fly out the window in the name of “progress.”

Do you follow me here? Even in the examples of life in various forms that you give, I think each one inescapably has a certain personality-type which gives rise to various orientations–different things that one values. After all, how would anyone ever become greedy and strive for wealth if she never had an orientation to value wealth? Why would anyone ever seek to run for office if he never desired power? Do you find any of this controversial or incorrect?

Aristotle probably did not include an empathic “knowing”, a knowing of deep intrinsic value, infinite value. This is what I believe Jesus was referring to when he said “Forgive them, for they know not what they do.”

I think that’s right regarding Aristotle. Among the big three, Socrates seems to have been the most “spiritual,” not Plato or Aristotle. Aristotle, for his part, gets as far as friendship, and described true friends as “willing the good of the other for her own sake.” And he even got as far as contemplation being the highest ideal. And although both friendship/love and contemplation can be absorbed by a follower of Christ, it’s still far short of the Sermon on the Mount.

 

[Magnanimity]

If a person has the presence and awareness to remember all the suffering experienced from a sinful act, once suffered enough, he will not make the bad choice. Some alcoholics simply stop drinking.

This is true. And, there’s probably some further truth in the suggestion that those who abuse substances have something fundamentally wrong happening in their lives. And the substance is being used to anesthetize themselves to something awful in their lives. Journalist Johann Hari makes this point often.

the Manichean doctrine saw sexual desire as part of the evil in people, and when Augustine promoted this idea, he was seen as a “crypto-Manichaean”. Some even charge that Augustine caused a “gnostication” of Western Christendom.

What you write here gets at my suggestion of the various personality-types of humanity–the tapestry motif. One has to wonder why two great intellects who undoubtedly knew just as much as each other regarding the scriptures and Tradition could come to two opposite poles on eschatology? Maybe St Augustine has a personality that emphasizes justice and he is harsh towards his own internal feelings. St Gregory of Nyssa, by contrast, believes that “the only evil is estrangement from the good.” St Augustine teaches eternal conscious torment as satisfying divine justice. St Gregory teaches that everything, everything, everything is ultimately reconciled back to God. St Gregory emphasized mercy (because of personality or “the truth?”). And some later saints try to walk a tight-rope between them (maybe, St Maximus the Confessor) envisioning an eschatology that tries to incorporate the extremes of both justice and mercy.

 

[OneSheep]

I brought up social scientist Jonathan Haidt who suggests (along with the consensus of social scientists, I believe) that one’s inclination to be traditional or be progressive in one’s political and social views was likely much more reflective of one’s personality than anything else (something else like ‘discovering the truth’).

I don’t know. “Personality” in itself is treated very gingerly as a term in the psychological community. The Myers-Briggs types, for example, are “preferences”. We have personas that become our images, and we come to rest in those images, identify with us, we are “who we are” as a matter of momentum. What I have observed is that the faithful have a huge range of personality. I pretty much identified with traditionalism until my mid-twenties, and to some degree my valuing of tradition, including all of our past errors, has continued to grow, even though I continue to see/believe that the present is an improvement, and the future holds things even better.

As in, I value progress more than tradition

Tradition itself is a list of progressions, is it not? Look at Augustine! It was “progress” to incorporate Neo-Platonism into Christian theology, and it worked. Augustine was by no means a strict “traditionalist”!

Do you follow me here? Even in the examples of life in various forms that you give, I think each one inescapably has a certain personality-type which gives rise to various orientations–different things that one values.

Well, maybe, if we get into some real specific stuff.

After all, how would anyone ever become greedy and strive for wealth if she never had an orientation to value wealth?

We all value wealth before we come to modify that value, right? We are all territorial, and wealth has territorial origin. People like stuff, like pretty things, like having things. People who don’t care to accumulate stuff or have things of value have had the grace to be freed from the desire itself compelling their decisions. “There is nothing I shall want” is a discipline.

Why would anyone ever seek to run for office if he never desired power?

All people desire power before they come to modify that desire, right? Do you know someone that never desired power?

 

[OneSheep]

Maybe St Augustine has a personality that emphasizes justice and he is harsh towards his own internal feelings.

Narrowing in here on your definition of personality. As a Bishop, Augustine’s most time-consuming duty was as a judge, arbitrating cases for both Christians and non-Christians, so his vocation was mostly judicial. Somehow he found time to write!

St Gregory of Nyssa, by contrast, believes that “the only evil is estrangement from the good.”

And it was Platonists that insisted that there is a good in all that we desire. We want the good, and there is something good in all we want. This goes back to Book 2 chapter 5, where we started. Augustine was very familiar to this, and quite committed, but because of the roadblocks he struggled. The Confessions is so amazingly vulnerable. It is the writings of a person who is trying to figure it all out, but fails in some respects.

St Gregory emphasized mercy (because of personality or “the truth?”).

For some reason, it is very difficult for some people to understand “God’s justice is mercy”. I’ve had this discussion with many on CAF. St. Gregory’s words you mentioned about everything being reconciled back to God, combined with St. Paul’s “God is Love” underscores “God’s justice is mercy”. If we ask, “what is the purpose of justice itself?” one ultimately has to settle on His mercy.

Ready to tackle the sex stuff? Book 2 chapter 4?

 

[Magnanimity]

What I have observed is that the faithful have a huge range of personality.

Yes, that is precisely what I was getting at. If one looks at the macro (all the ‘faithful’) or even at all of humanity, one sees huge ranges of personality. To my thinking, God uses these ranges to maintain balance in the world, so that humanity (and the church) neither entrenches itself too much in tradition nor altogether discards tradition in the name of progress. I think the issue with Left and Right whether in religious contexts or political ones is that there is too little acknowledgement of personality-inclinations that come into play. Rather, people on a certain side want to believe they have “the truth” of the matter. So, the opposing side holds “false” beliefs. I’m inclined to settle Left and Right more within the realms of personality orientations than the possession of truth.

I pretty much identified with traditionalism until my mid-twenties, and to some degree my valuing of tradition, including all of our past errors, has continued to grow, even though I continue to see/believe that the present is an improvement, and the future holds things even better.

Then, I would say that your life-trajectory is a life of wisdom. Whatever were your earlier views, you have come to value something about all views, whether traditional or progressive. But, that says something particular about you. It doesn’t attempt to address how come there is such wide variety among humans (or among the church) on left and right. But, perhaps we’re getting too much in the weeds on this.

Tradition itself is a list of progressions, is it not? …It was “progress” to incorporate Neo-Platonism into Christian theology, and it worked.

Sort of. I think the project to Platonize Christianity was started well before St Augustine arrived on the scene (Origen, for example). So, however innovative he was trying to be, “Athens” was already in dialogue with “Jerusalem” prior to Augustine. But, in some way, A.N. Whitehead was likely right–in the West we are all just giving various footnotes on Plato. There really is no way to escape the Platonic tradition. I can’t even conceive of a way. But, I will say this–if you’re saying that St Augustine’s own thinking led him to value both tradition and progress, then that would be evidence of steep wisdom.

We all value wealth before we come to modify that value, right? We are all territorial, and wealth has territorial origin.

Sure, but I was responding to your example of greed. The point I was making is that we do not all equally struggle with, say, the seven deadly sins. There are plenty of folks who do not struggle with greed. It doesn’t follow from this lack of struggle that these folks devalue wealth. They may value it just as much as the greedy person, but what they lack is (maybe) a disordered orientation towards acquisitiveness.

 

[Magnanimity]

All people desire power before they come to modify that desire, right? Do you know someone that never desired power?

Again, to desire some power/influence over others would be universal, yes. At a bare mimimum, we hope to have power/influence over our children and sometimes our friends/acquaintances. However, the desire to hold power over (say) millions of people, as one would have in your example of running for office or being a CEO-- then no, that is not a universalized human desire. As I say, we do not all struggle with sins in the same way. Some of us genuinely are not oriented to be greedy or proud or wrathful or lustful. This is just the way it is. I don’t think we gain anything by attempting to claim that the career politician has the same ambition and desire for power as my grandmother. That’s just plainly false. Certainly, my grandmother has had her struggles, as everyone does. But greed and desire to have power/influence over large numbers of people have not been among them.

Narrowing in here on your definition of personality. As a Bishop, Augustine’s most time-consuming duty was as a judge, arbitrating cases for both Christians and non-Christians, so his vocation was mostly judicial.

Good point and quite generous of you to acknowledge about his life! We are all conditioned by circumstances, and it would be wise to acknowledge that no one (not even St Augustine) does theology in a vacuum.

And it was Platonists that insisted that there is a good in all that we desire. We want the good, and there is something good in all we want.

Absolutely! Positively! Aristotle was summarizing Greek thought before him when he penned the pithy verse, “the good has been rightly defined as that at which all things aim.”

For some reason, it is very difficult for some people to understand “God’s justice is mercy”. I’ve had this discussion with many on CAF. St. Gregory’s words you mentioned about everything being reconciled back to God, combined with St. Paul’s “God is Love” underscores “God’s justice is mercy”. If we ask, “what is the purpose of justice itself?” one ultimately has to settle on His mercy.

I know. You do fight the good fight here on all that stuff. I stand alongside you, of course. It’s fascinating to me when you question someone on the point of punishment what you hear in response. Punishment for punishment’s sake…

Ready to tackle the sex stuff? Book 2 chapter 4?

Sure! I’ll make every attempt to be more timely.

 

[OneSheep]

Good Morning! Been a busy summer, hope to stay on top of things better.

To my thinking, God uses these ranges to maintain balance in the world, so that humanity (and the church) neither entrenches itself too much in tradition nor altogether discards tradition in the name of progress

I like your thinking on this.

The point I was making is that we do not all equally struggle with, say, the seven deadly sins.

Got it. I agree completely.

Again, to desire some power/influence over others would be universal, yes.

I think that the “over others” part might be a bit of a stretch IMO. For example, I desire power over the functioning of my word program, with limited success. Desire for power, to me, is very difficult to separate from desire to be in control.

However, the desire to hold power over (say) millions of people, as one would have in your example of running for office or being a CEO-- then no, that is not a universalized human desire. As I say, we do not all struggle with sins in the same way.

I think this falls more under “desire to dominate”, which I also see as a universal desire, but absolutely some people struggle with it more than others!

Absolutely! Positively! Aristotle was summarizing Greek thought before him when he penned the pithy verse, “the good has been rightly defined as that at which all things aim.

Your depth on Aristotle and others is such a gift to me. Wasn’t Aristotle a bit more nuanced on it though? It seems like some of his stuff was a bit contradictory, but I write that without memory of where I got it.

 

[OneSheep]

Sure! I’ll make every attempt to be more timely.

“my invisible enemy trod me down and seduced me, for I was easy to seduce.”

ConfessionsBook 2, ch 3, para 8

Like I said earlier, it is really difficult to find a stand-out condemnation of his sexuality. This is the only verse that comes a little bit close, as he is referring here to lust and fornication, and saying it comes from an “invisible enemy”.

Do me a favor, friend (and all readers, please feel free to join in!). Read book 2, chapters 1-3 and read between the lines. Most of it is more of a lament, that he suffered in being enslaved by desire, but can we say that he condemned the desire itself? Was sexuality truly a roadblock for him, such that he could not “through the Spirit, we see that everything that exists in any way is good” concerning the existence in our nature of desire for sex?

Since he does not appear to be reconciled with the desire, that is, he does not seem to have integrated aspects of his sexuality (and certainly not the blindness it triggers) we could simply address sexuality without saying that it was definitely a big roadblock for him.

Suffice to say, desire for sex is a very natural roadblock for people of conscience. Such desire causes a lot of problems, and it can be difficult to see the desire as “good”, especially concerning the blindness I mentioned.

Is desire for sex an “invisible enemy”, or is it part of the beauty of being human?

(note: we can be fully open to “both”)

 

[OneSheep]

Is desire for sex an “invisible enemy”, or is it part of the beauty of being human?

(note: we can be fully open to “both”)

I invite readers to put in their own reflections on this question! What do you think?

 

[Magnanimity]

I think that the “over others” part might be a bit of a stretch IMO. For example, I desire power over the functioning of my word program, with limited success. Desire for power, to me, is very difficult to separate from desire to be in control.

I think I agree with you. At the very least, we desire to “control” our children, at least when they are young, right?

Wasn’t Aristotle a bit more nuanced on it though? It seems like some of his stuff was a bit contradictory, but I write that without memory of where I got it.

As far as we know, he was the most nuanced philosopher in ancient Greece. His complete works is incredible in its sheer magnitude! He puts the ‘poly’ in ‘polymath.’ Perhaps in places, he was contradictory, I’m not sure.

book 2, chapters 1-3 and read between the lines

I like how he begins by saying, “And what was it that I delighted in, but to love, and be loved?” This shows the underlying good of any and all conjugal love, I imagine. I also like his acknowledgment of friendship’s basis for conjugal love: “but I kept not the measure of love, of mind to mind, friendship’s bright boundary.”

More to follow later…sorry! So limited.