There's no reason to follow a religion unless one not only believes it is true, but conveys the ultimate truth(s). But in what manner does it do this? Literally? Symbolically? Experientially? Explicitly? Implicitly? And by what standard, and compared to what? In other words, how do we judge its truth?
Yesterday's post set me off into an unplanned exploration of these and related questions, and now I'm going to share some of my preliminary findings, for example,
every philosophical interpretation of the world and human existence relies, at least subconsciously, on certain general assumptions, which are not so much "knowledge" as rather "belief."
And Christian doctrine in particular, although its primary focus is salvation,
implies as well certain fundamental teachings on specifically philosophical matters -- the world and existence as such (Pieper).
After all, it's not falsehood that sets one free. And to engage in philosophy as such "means to reflect on the totality of things we encounter, in view of their ultimate reasons," so there is an unavoidable convergence of philosophy and religion, unless one begins by placing arbitrary limits on one's philosophizing. No, "philosophy consists in the simple question, 'What is it all about?'"
And who is it that knows what it's all about? If we're reflecting on the totality of things, "the subject as well as the object is part of the totality encountered," and "true philosophy deals with everything given, within as well as without."
Yesterday we touched on the ever-present distinction between reality and appearances. Now, no one ever says "ultimate appearances," since this would be an oxymoron; rather an appearance is always of a "deeper" reality (i.e, toward synthesis and unity). And
Precisely this dimension constitutes the aim of the philosopher's question. He investigates the ultimate, the "real" meaning -- not of this or that but of all that is.
Conversely, "Each science formulates one particular aspect" of the totality, and "studies only one tiny slice of reality but does so with extreme precision."
Which reminds me of an aphorism:
Properly speaking, the social sciences are not inexact sciences, but sciences of the inexact.
Likewise, we are proposing a view of religion that considers it to be the ultimate science of the inexact, for "exactitude" and "infinitude" are at antipodes. Thus,
there exists a certain dimension the philosopher is concentrating on, about which the empirical sciences have little or nothing to say.
I think we need both, although philosophy must be subordinate -- or ordered -- to something transcending philosophy per se. Pieper suggests "the image of a polyphonic counterpoint," and why not? After all, as Balhasar says, truth is symphonic, thus implying a vertical harmony of voices within a horizontal melodic development:
In such a composition, independent melodies correlate with each other, accentuate, challenge, perhaps even disturb each other in such a way as to create a fresh, rich and captivating harmony that can no longer be explained by merely adding together its individual components (Pieper).
Yes. Sounds like the cosmic symphony to which I alluded on pp. 22-23 of The Book. Let's glance at it, and hope it's not too embarrassing:
The universe is like a holographic, multidimensional score that must be read, understood, and performed. Like the score of a symphony, it is full of information that can be rendered in different ways.
A little fruity for current tastes, but the point is well taken.
Today's little symphony will attempt to harmonize Pieper and Voegelin, although we won't have time to finish. In an essay called The Gospel and Culture, Voegelin asks why early Christianity attracted "an intellectual elite who restated the meaning of the gospel in terms of philosophy and, by this procedure, created a Christian doctrine?"
Come to think of it, that's precisely what this post is trying to be about: restating the meaning of the gospel in terms of philosophy.
If the community of the gospel had not entered the culture of the time by entering its life of reason, it would have remained an obscure sect and probably disappeared from history...
Which I'm afraid it will do if it fails to reenter the culture of our time. It's too late to enter it's life of reason, since there isn't one. But perhaps it's not too late to resuscitate that life of reason, if not collectively, at least one assoul at a time. But in any event, consider the fact that once upon a time, "the gospel appeared to offer the answer to the philosopher's search for truth" (emphasis mine).
That would be total truth, or the truth of the totality, but how does it do this? To be continued...
2 comments:
If the community of the gospel had not entered the culture of the time by entering its life of reason, it would have remained an obscure sect and probably disappeared from history...
I'm reminded of the practice of artists throughout much of Christian history, who were probably more likely to paint Biblical scenes using contemporary and local settings than to aim for historical accuracy. When we see it done today, it tends to look... a bit silly or even cringeworthy, if we're being honest, but I wonder how many people come to an understanding they wouldn't otherwise have when they see it presented that way. I also wonder how many people - during the Renaissance, say - looked at the work of famous artists and found it cringe to have Mary dressed in the latest fashions, or Roman soldiers who looked more like conquistadors prancing across Italian hillsides instead of the deserts of Israel?
Point here, Dude, being that maybe most people in any generation need to hear the message in their own words, even if the message itself hasn't changed.
Why a religious 12 year old can have more wisdom than a secular person of any age.
Post a Comment