St. Augustine's roadblocks in his Confessions

  • Thread starter Thread starter OneSheep
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
fhansen:
He certainly wasn’t happy…He disdained their ignorance…
Okay, I’m still trying to bring some focus here. Is it accurate to say that he looked upon the Manicheans, and himself as a Manichean, with some negative emotion?
I expect he did given his history with them. Though “negative emotions” are not always a bad thing.
And while the language was strong-and probably not theologically precise-he also said, "they shall become good only when they come to hold the truth and consent to the truth that thy apostle may say to them: “You were formerly in darkness, but now are you in the light in the Lord.”
Yes, it is not theologically precise. Specifically, it is not anthropologically precise; his own emotion was influencing his statements. This is an example of a “roadblock”. We all do this: we see goodness in people except this, this, and this, etc. These are all roadblocks to seeing “through eyes of the Spirit” as Augustine describes.

We see bad behaviors, and our negative emotion is triggered. While we may adhere to “love the sinner, hate the sin” or something like that, we can honestly admit that our gut reaction is to initially feel some negative affect toward both the sin and the sinner, this is a very normal activity of the human conscience. Augustine was not immune, but he went a long way toward reconciling with his own natural drives/motives.
However, I think you’re overanalyzing these two quotes out of context, either not understanding the first example of what he means when he writes all things are good insofar as they exist or insisting on reading the two statements univocally when he was referring to different things in different contexts. He was not contradicting himself.
 
Last edited:
I wonder if St Augustine would argue that these inordinate preferences lead to a trapping of the human mind & heart by force of habit, akin to an Aristotelian theory of vice—the repetition of the act leads to habituation of the act, which, over time, forms the character of the person. And if overcoming these inordinate preferences/attachments to lower goods is the goal, I wonder what might be his suggested method for achieving this ongoing preference for the higher and better things of God?
This is something like what I was getting at, especially if we’re considering grave sin. While, by becoming habitual, culpability for some sins can actually be mitigated according to Church teachings, persistence in mortal sin will come to destroy love for God and neighbor in us. This is where our choices, our good or poor use of our freedom, come into play, freedom that can shape our lives, our characters, for better or worse according to the Church.
 
Last edited:
I expect he did given his history with them. Though “negative emotions” are not always a bad thing.
Exactly, given his history. Now if one said negative emotions are a bad part of our nature, that might indicate that negative emotions are in the content of the “dark part” of the the individual’s shadow. Let’s say a child gets scolded whenever he feels angry, and he experiences some hurt when he experiences anger (and accompanied violence) from someone else. Over time, anger itself subconsciously becomes “bad”, and anger itself is seen as unconscionable. This shadow development is very normal, and is a guide to moral behavior, but as we become adults we can find an inner harmony (wholeness) by coming to reconcile with the “darkness”, i.e. embrace and find goodness in our capacity to anger. Do you see what I mean?

What I was hoping, in this thread, is to come up aspects of Augustine’s shadow with which he had not identified and reconciled.

Can you see, in Augustine’s severe reaction to the Manicheans, that there might have been involved some aspect of his shadow? If so, what was he resenting/repressing in himself?
He was not contradicting himself.
He was a very intelligent man, and he made it all congruent in his mind. He had formed a definition of “existence” such that he made it all work. That said, he had to form the definition because he truly perceived that certain people were bad (including himself, in some cases), and that is what I am trying to address here. If he did not have these specific manifestations of his shadow, he would not have found it necessary to have the complex definition of “existence”.

So what I am hoping to study are the possible elements of Augustine’s shadow.
 
40.png
Wesrock:
He was not contradicting himself.
He was a very intelligent man, and he made it all congruent in his mind. He had formed a definition of “existence” such that he made it all work. That said, he had to form the definition because he truly perceived that certain people were bad (including himself, in some cases), and that is what I am trying to address here. If he did not have these specific manifestations of his shadow, he would not have found it necessary to have the complex definition of “existence”.

So what I am hoping to study are the possible elements of Augustine’s shadow.
Complex definition of existence? There’s nothing complicated in reconciling these two passages. I don’t even think Augustine was without his faults, but I just don’t see anything difficult with the reading accounting for context.

I think I’m done with this topic.
 
Last edited:
In the legal practice, there is a common expression that “possession is nine-tenths of the law.” It would seem that in Bk 2, Ch 5, this is what St Augustine is after.
Hmm. How do you make the comparison? Are you seeing some rationalizing?
But ignorance never stopped a contemporary American from delving right into any given subject, so here goes! 😜
Hey, let’s not keep out the ignorant from other nations!😄
I like how Augustine admits, early in ch. 5, “The life which we live here has also its peculiar attractiveness, through a certain measure of comeliness of its own…” and “through an inordinate preference for these goods of a lower kind, the better and higher are neglected…”
Yes, it is a great intro.
I wonder if St Augustine would argue that these inordinate preferences lead to a trapping of the human mind & heart by force of habit, akin to an Aristotelian theory of vice—the repetition of the act leads to habituation of the act, which, over time, forms the character of the person. And if overcoming these inordinate preferences/attachments to lower goods is the goal, I wonder what might be his suggested method for achieving this ongoing preference for the higher and better things of God?
I think, like most saints and the Gospel itself, the method is to commit oneself to discipline, a life in prayer relationship. What I am hoping to address in this thread, though, is dealing with what is in the content of the subconscious. There is a means to becoming aware of the contents of our shadow, such that we can identify it and even come to reconcile with the specific aspects of our humanity we come to repress/resent/deny.
 
Complex definition of existence? There’s nothing complicated in reconciling these two passages.
I was talking about Augustine’s formulation. How would you reconcile the statements in an uncomplicated way?

“All things that exist are good”
“The Manicheans are bad”
I don’t even think Augustine was without his faults
I am not trying, in this thread, to point out his faults. We all have faults. What I am hoping is that we can look at Augustine’s dealing with his shadow, much of which he had already addressed, which we can see in Book 2, Chapter 5. I’m starting with the premise that St. Augustine was a very spiritual, prayerful person, which is quite demonstrated in his Confessions.
 
And yet emotion can be valuable in our identifying and responding to negativity, to sin or injustice.
What your statement demonstrates is that if you ever had repressed/resented/denied any of your own reactionary emotions, you have come to accept and see the beautiful functionality of these. This developed acceptance is an example of “shadow work”. This developing acceptance doesn’t have to happen in a psychotherapists office; it happens in a person’s prayer life, it happens when a person spends enough time in reflection, and it happens subconsciously when experiencing life, especially (IMO) being a parent.

There are several references in the Gospel to the same phenomenon.

Have you ever noticed that you, or others as they get older, become more accepting of people? This is part of what is going on, a subconscious reconciliation.
 
Hmm. How do you make the comparison? Are you seeing some rationalizing?
I was attempting to sympathize with his arguments in claiming there is always an other who is the “victim” in criminal activity. When placed in the context of the harm we can do to ourselves, this is not obviously true (eg, gluttony, pride, envy would seem to only have myself as the obvious victim). But, I think I get his point if we approach it from the legal/criminal aspect—possession is indeed 9/10 of the law. There is almost always an other who is the victim in crimes.
Hey, let’s not keep out the ignorant from other nations!😄
Haha! Too funny. Ok, I concede the point. 😉
What I am hoping to address in this thread, though, is dealing with what is in the content of the subconscious. There is a means to becoming aware of the contents of our shadow, such that we can identify it and even come to reconcile with the specific aspects of our humanity we come to repress/resent/deny.
I would love to explore this aspect more too—subconscious, dualistic thinking, etc. I think I may need to read other sections of this work to find him exploring this specific topic though. It doesn’t jump off the page at me here in Bk 2, ch 5.
 
And yet I tend to think that moving away from or towards perfection has to do with something deeper than mere external acts.
Abso-freakin-lutely, not too put it too mildly. You’re definitely on to something here.
In Catholicism we can become? better or worse as our justice is increased or decreased; we can approach more nearly who or what we were created to be.
Yes, I think it is a type of becoming, but not so much by striving as by “stepping away” and “letting go” of various attachments that keep us away from union with God. I think it does come by conscious effort but not so much by strict determination to be other than what one is—that would still be a “false self” scenario, an ongoing narrative that we keep running in our heads about who we are and how it isn’t who God meant us to be… But, I definitely think you’re headed in the right direction with this line of thought.
 
Yes, I think it is a type of becoming
What I hope to be addressing here is what that “becoming” is about. Specifically, there are windows, pathways, by which we can become more aware of what is going on in our subconscious.

I think we can all agree, at least those participating so far, that growth is not a matter of “becoming good”. A newborn child is most certainly beautiful and innocent, but when the child does hurtful behavior, our conscience reacts with “bad!” and we experience some negative affect in the direction of the child. This negative affect comes from the conscience, from the shadow. It is a good thing, but it also is fruitful to become more aware of it and its contents.
It doesn’t jump off the page at me here in Bk 2, ch 5.
Okay. On Bk2 ch5, I am starting with aspects of the shadow that people normally acquire that he, in his spiritual development, was able to reconcile with. The example I gave in the beginning was
“the capacity to desire ‘power to command and rule over others’ which is, more simply put, the desire to dominate, to be in control.”

I don’t think it is an exaggeration to say that most people during childhood (at least in the West) come to repress/resent their own desire to dominate and be in control. While society makes it fairly acceptable in the sports arena, even those in the sports arena who look a little too “excited” about winning, or gloating, hit the “triggers” of peoples’ shadows, and some disdain or resentment is expressed. I’m pretty sure that our POTUS hits plenty of triggers whenever he expresses words celebrating his domination of a certain situation. The existence of the term “control freak” is likely an expression of the content of people’s shadows.

A person who represses/resents their own desire to dominate is likely condemning that part of himself. He may deny that it is part of his nature, and probably think it is a “bad part” of human nature, even though he might not use that terminology. The main indicator is not the words, but the emotion behind the words.

From bk 2 ch 5, another common shadow aspect he appears to have integrated is desire for “worldly honor”. Do you see this as a very common part of people’s shadows?
 
Last edited:
Have you ever noticed that you, or others as they get older, become more accepting of people? This is part of what is going on, a subconscious reconciliation.
I tend to think we either get better, or worse. 😀 But if we haven’t learned by an older age how to deal with the human shame that affects are acceptance of ourselves and others, and learned in any case that we aren’t as holy as we once thought (and this is a problem regardless of whether we’re believers or atheists), then we’re probably not the sharpest knife IMO. Or, IOW, pride continues to have an especially tight hold on us -and that is observed in the elderly sometimes.
 
I tend to think we either get better, or worse. 😀
While I can see cases of stagnation, I’ve never seen “worse”. People may become bitter because of conflict, but that is a circumstance that is an exception to the trend, in my observation. Hurts happen, and people react. There are grievances. These are not contrary to the general observation of people becoming more accepting as they age. I’m not saying that a person couldn’t get “worse” in terms of acceptance, I am speaking in terms of people experiencing a “normal” growth curve, if such could be demonstrated. Maybe you know some especially grumpy people. 🙂
But if we haven’t learned by an older age how to deal with the human shame that affects are acceptance of ourselves and others, and learned in any case that we aren’t as holy as we once thought (and this is a problem regardless of whether we’re believers or atheists), then we’re probably not the sharpest knife IMO.
You’re referring to awareness, I think. If a person avoids prayer and reflection, they may be a very “sharp knife” but have avoided a very important path, right?
Or, IOW, pride continues to have an especially tight hold on us -and that is observed in the elderly sometimes.
Okay, “pride” is one of those words that can describe (but not necessarily so) something that is repressed or resented. Based on what we have gleaned so far from Book 2 ch 5, how would you describe how Augustine felt about what we may refer to as “pride”? Can you pick that out? Can you distinguish an aspect of pride that he does not address in that chapter?
 
Maybe you know some especially grumpy people. 🙂
Yes, I know some really nasty older people. But as a rule I believe your right; people tend to mellow.
You’re referring to awareness, I think. If a person avoids prayer and reflection, they may be a very “sharp knife” but have avoided a very important path, right?
I’m just saying there are reasons behind why people grow more accepting.
 
Last edited:
I’m just saying there are reasons behind why people grow more accepting.
Well, it looks like we observe the same, then. Yes, there are definitely reasons, spiritual growth reasons. We all have “roadblocks” to acceptance of people, sometimes the roadblocks seem a bit bizarre, like “why do I have such a problem with that guy?” We are not aware because it is part of the subconscious, but we can bring forth these roadblocks by addressing what it is that we specifically repress/resent, the slivers that we see in the eyes of the other.

The slivers that we see in the eyes of the other are projections of the repressed/resented aspects of ourselves, the contents of our shadows.

So what do you think? Did Augustine cover all the common elements of “pride” (in terms of drive or motive) in that chapter, or did he miss something? I think he might have missed something, but maybe not; and I’m not suggesting that he tried to cover all the elements, even though that is, in effect, what he attempted.
 
Last edited:
So what do you think? Did Augustine cover all the common elements of “pride” (in terms of drive or motive) in that chapter, or did he miss something? I think he might have missed something, but maybe not; and I’m not suggesting that he tried to cover all the elements, even though that is, in effect, what he attempted.
It just seems that he identified various reasons people sin, in pursuit of some perceived good rather than in pursuit of evil.
 
Last edited:
It just seems that he identified various reasons people sin, in pursuit of some perceived good rather than in pursuit of evil.
Yes, that is the emphasis in the second paragraph, though it also contains elements of the first, which is where the shadow aspects come into play.

Looking at “pride”, which as i stated is a very common element in people’s “shadow”, we can describe the demonstration of prideful emotion, thought, or action coming from at least these human appetites referred to by St. Augustine:
  1. human desire to dominate: “Power to command and rule over others”
  2. human desire for status: “worldly honor”
What I see missing from Ch 5 is:
  1. human desire for autonomy (freedom)
Do you see any other motives or appetites underlying “pride” that may not have been addressed In the Chapter?
 
Last edited:
Do you see any other motives or appetites underlying “pride” that may not have been addressed In the Chapter?
Related to these might be a general desire, conscious or otherwise, to be supreme.
 
Last edited:
when the child does hurtful behavior, our conscience reacts with “bad!” and we experience some negative affect in the direction of the child.
I suppose that, as parents, we behave this way toward our children, especially younger parents. But I don’t observe the same judgmental attitudes among, say, grandparents toward their grandchildren, at least not nearly so often. But a grandparent would have the advantage of wisdom and may even be spiritually-mature enough to realize that a young child is capable of behaving to the highest level of her consciousness, however low that may in fact be.

What is the point of me saying this? It’s to indicate that the wiser (more enlightened) among us have disengaged from knee-jerk, negative reactions, especially toward those at a low level of consciousness (e.g., children). They simply don’t participate in that judgmental behavior. And that probably means something important. Moreover, not even all parents engage in knee-jerk, negative reactions towards children. I have known many parents who try to redirect their children rather than express harsh judgment.
The example I gave in the beginning was
“the capacity to desire ‘power to command and rule over others’ which is, more simply put, the desire to dominate, to be in control.”
It’s an ok point, as far as it goes. But, similarly to the point I make above, I’m not so sure this is a universally-experienced phenomenon. By which I mean, when one considers those medieval great temptations (power, pleasure, wealth and honor) it simply is not the case that all humans are tempted in these categories. What I mean to say is that a person might go her whole life and be mildly drawn (on rare occasion) to seek her own honor, for example. But, generally speaking, this is not a temptation to which she is susceptible. Perhaps she is more drawn to the temptation toward pleasure. I happen to think that power (control) is likely to be similarly displaced among populations. As in, a desire to control others will be pronounced in some and hardly ever felt by others. Within ourselves and within others that we know and observe, this seems to be the case.

But, I’d like to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you are referring to this power/control phenomenon in the broadest sense possible—as in, an innate human desire to transform others to be more like ourselves (which could be a form of attempted control). To cajole, coerce, persuade the other—is this the sort of thing you have in mind within this category of power/control/dominance? A very wide sense of attempted power/control? If so, then yes, that seems to be more universal. But concepts like repression, resentment and control freak would seem to apply only to a more particularized human propensity to be controlling over others. And, as I say, I’m not ready to grant that this specific temptation is very widespread at all. The 4 great temptations, like the 7 deadly sins, seem to be more unevenly distributed among humanity, than universally-experienced on a regular basis by all.
 
Last edited:
Related to these might be a general desire, conscious or otherwise, to be supreme.
I’m wondering how one might distinguish that from desire to “power to command and rule over others”. Can you give examples?
 
Like I said, probably related. But the idea of being supreme, of being like God, is less specific. And might be said to be the basis of pride
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top