A pregnant passage from Ratzinger's Introduction to Christianity:
Let us listen once again to St. Augustine: "In God there are no accidents, only substance and relation." Therein lies concealed a revolution in man's view of the world: the sole dominion of thinking in terms of substance is ended; relation is discovered as an equally valid primordial mode of reality.
Our team of vertical fact checkers has determined that this is almost entirely true. We cannot confirm the bit about "no accidents," because there is reason to believe that an absence of all contingency would negate the revolutionary insight into the supernatural rights of relativity.
We're on p. 184, by the way. I want to flip back to p.180, where Ratzinger expresses a view that is shockingly similar to mine as to the implications of elevating the category of relation to the plane of absoluteness. In short, the so-called paradox of a Godhead of three persons in or of one substance
is connected with the problem of absolute and relative and emphasizes the absoluteness of the relative, of that which is in relation.
I don't want to put words into his mouth, but this does indeed have revolutionary consequences on every plane, from metaphysics on down.
Off the top of my head, I would say that the principle of Relation is precisely where freedom is anchored: in the "space" between I and Thou, or Father and Son, or, more abstractly, between the Absolute-One and the Relative-Many.
And since freedom is not determinism, it seems to me that something like "accident"or contingency is introduced into the Godhead. Experts say this is Impermissible and even insulting to God, but he's been called worse things than related and therefore relative to his creatures. I think it's rather nice.
Conversely, if everything is necessary, then freedom reduces to determinism, and we're back to an inconceivable and unrelatable Immutable Immutability.
I'm thoroughly familiar with arguments that prove God is immutable, but they are ultimately purely deductive. Using the same sort of logic, one could deduce that there is no such thing as change, anywhere or at any time, rather, that the cosmos is just one solitary block of spacetime.
This has been a long argument. In one corner of Ancient Greek thought is Heraclitus, father of all philosophies of Becoming, right down to present day process philosophers and metaphysical evolutionists. In the other corner is Parmenides, who repudiated relativism and change by insisting "on an eternal, single Truth." He
taught a strict Monistic view of reality. Philosophical Monism is the belief that all of the sensible world is of one, basic, substance and being, un-created and indestructible....
[His] thought could not be further removed from that of Heraclitus in that Parmenides claimed nothing moved, change was an impossibility, and that human sense perception could not be relied upon for an apprehension of Truth.
The central vision of Parmenides' work is that change is an illusion -- appearances change but not essence -- which is later reflected in Plato's Theory of Forms which claims that the observable world is only a reflection of a higher, truer, reality (worldhistory.org/Parmenides).
Pre-Christian thought is locked in this endless debate between the immovable object of eternal Being and the irresistible force of pure Becoming. No it isn't. Yes it is! That's just a contradiction, not an argument! No it's not!
Time's up.
How about a compromise? Why not just say reality is both -- i.e., changing and changeless? Well, for starters, because the intellect has an innate desire for unity, which is its natural telos. We're always looking for more comprehensive ways to account for diverse phenomena. What is science, for example, but the reduction of multiplicity to unity?
Same with the supreme science of metaphysics. The least it can do is not end its search in an ugly dualism, whether it is between mind and matter, subject and object, empiricism and idealism, man and woman, whatever.
Looked at this way, we can appreciate how the trinitarian Godhead is indeed a breakthrough -- albeit from God's side into ours and not ours into his.
We might say that the Incarnation is the breakthrough of the Trinity into time and history. On the one hand, the ultimate principle of substance-in-relation cannot be arrived at via mere (lowercase) reason, but on the other, not only is it not in any way repugnant to reason, but installs a giant picture window into the realm of natural reason, allowing the higher light to stream in.
A window for the intellect and a door for the will. But first you have to turn around and open it. Don't worry, it only locks from the inside.
That's about it for today. To be continued...
8 comments:
Ellul, socialist though he was, consider arguments about the Trinity as "interminable theological discussion," and so it is. Ellul's thought regarding our own human complexity cast a light on the subject. As individuals, we all have a body, thought, feelings, and a will, yet each of us is one individual, though these traits may be masked by us, or shown as the need arises. We have God as a Father and Creator, He is the Son and our loving Savior, and He also is our Counselor in the gift of the Holy Spirit. Personally, I always consider Ellul's seemingly simplistic explanation of the Trinity as a high use of reason to understand the Trinity. But that's just me. One could also take Lewis' advice, if this or any other theological concept is too difficult to grasp, just leave it.
The eternal trialogue. Must be full of delightful surprises, or why bother?
I liked the post.
The three-in-one of the trinity is easy to cope with and grok.
Please deal with this anxiety provoking concept: The supposition that God can view all of history from start to finish and God does not move along a path under the impetus of space-time like we do, but sees it all at once.
How to avoid determinism in this scenario? Maybe the entire epic art-piece of spacetime and happenstance from start to finish scintillates and changes even as God looks on? Based on what the stirring nuggets within the mass decide to do with their free will?
It is troubling. The more reductive you get towards absolute unity the more free will starts to look unwieldy.
However, from our seats as souls, free will necessarily becomes the whole point of the exercise.
There are savants who can see a little ways ahead. Yes, they know what will happen before it happens, and this indeed occurs. Don't even bother being skeptical, you would just be going off on a wrong tangent. So now where also can this fit into total free will?
There is probably a functional short-range free will, but since it is possible to view ahead, that places absolute free will at all ranges in some jeopardy.
Free will is all very much up in the air. At some point the future gels and becomes viewable before it happens. That is very concerning.
I liked the post.
The three-in-one of the trinity is easy to cope with and grok.
Please deal with this anxiety provoking concept: The supposition that God can view all of history from start to finish and God does not move along a path under the impetus of space-time like we do, but sees it all at once.
How to avoid determinism in this scenario? Maybe the entire epic art-piece of spacetime and happenstance from start to finish scintillates and changes even as God looks on? Based on what the stirring nuggets within the mass decide to do with their free will?
It is troubling. The more reductive you get towards absolute unity the more free will starts to look unwieldy.
However, from our seats as souls, free will necessarily becomes the whole point of the exercise.
There are savants who can see a little ways ahead. Yes, they know what will happen before it happens, and this indeed occurs. Don't even bother being skeptical, you would just be going off on a wrong tangent. So now where also can this fit into total free will?
There is probably a functional short-range free will, but since it is possible to view ahead, that places absolute free will at all ranges in some jeopardy.
Free will is all very much up in the air. At some point the future gels and becomes viewable before it happens. That is very concerning.
Oops I posted twice, I apologize. I can't work this thing.
Same with the supreme science of metaphysics. The least it can do is not end its search in an ugly dualism, whether it is between mind and matter, subject and object, empiricism and idealism, man and woman, whatever.
So often, the duality is only one of appearances; for instance, The North and South poles may exist on opposite sides, but they aren't separable from the sphere whose axis they mark, and from time to time they even change places.
"Same with the supreme science of metaphysics. The least it can do is not end its search in an ugly dualism, whether it is between mind and matter, subject and object, empiricism and idealism, man and woman, whatever."
You know what they say, don't put Descartes before the source.
Hello all. Gen Lee has been dismounted in Virginia. Weigh in.
They are going to open up Gen Lee's 1890 time capsule. What do you suppose they will find?
In my restaurant you can order a la carte, or a la Descartes. Try to guess what the difference is.
A Koan for you: What is the sound of one hand giving the bird?
Post a Comment