Date: Sun, 18 Feb 1996 14:28:31 -0500
From: Jeff Irvin (jirvin@UOFT02.UTOLEDO.EDU)
I have been thinking lately about the relationship of nihilism and Christianity. I have come to the conlcusion that each of these belief systems have as their underlying assumption the meaninglessness of human existence.
Ecclesiastes talks of this meaninglessness. Yet the Judeo-Christian philosophy ultimately comes down on the side of meaning in obedience to God. (Ecclesiastes 12:1-7)
Existentialism recognizes the absurdity of human existence and yet argues for striving manfully on. (Jean-Paul Sartre - Being and Nothingness)
Nihilism simply recognizes the meaningless of life and argues for no prescription to make us feel better. In fact, it often argues against doing anything, except living like the animals we are.
I believe that this is why Christians have been generally opposed to the nihilistic philosophy but not to existentialism. Human beings cannot abide meaninglessness.
I realize there is not much new under the sun. Thus I would like some feedback on these comments. Maybe you know of works which deal with this subject? Maybe you would like to set me straight? Whatever. Hope to hear something.
Jeff Irvin
Department of History
University of Toledo
2801 Bancroft St.
Toledo, Ohio 43606
e-mail: jirvin@uoft02.utoledo.edu
Give me Women, Wine, and Snuff
Until I cry out, 'Hold, enough!'
You may do so sans objection
Till the day of resurrection;
For, bless my beard, they aye shall be
My beloved Trinity.
--John Keats
Date: Mon, 19 Feb 1996 13:57:41 -0600 (CST)
From: Christopher Forth (CFORTH@msuvx2.memphis.edu)
I'm very interested in Jeff Irvin's comments on nihilism, existentialism, and Christianity, but would like to know which thinkers he has in mind when speaking about nihilism.
I also wonder if a distinction can be made between *ultimate* and *everyday* (or social/cultural) meaning, in which case I'd argue that humans often live quite well live without the former but have a much harder time doing without the latter. Obviously there are a fair number of atheists who still manage to survive within social contexts that they find meaningful. Any thoughts on this?
Best,
Christopher Forth
Univ. of Memphis
cforth@cc.memphis.edu
Date: Tue, 20 Feb 1996 10:02:06 +0100
From: Bo Dahlin (Bo.Dahlin@munin.dc.hks.se)
It seems that various things can be covered by the term nihilism: - there are no objectively existing values, i e no values independent of man - even subjectively existing values are in reality illusions, we only delude ourselves when we identify ourselves with them - there is no objective *purpose* to human life, or life/eistence in general - even subjectively constructed, individual purposes are illusions we create in order to cover up the ultimate meaninglessness and there probably are other types of nihilisms as well.
The same thing could be said about Christianity: there are many sorts of it. One type of Christianity may perhaps be called objectively nihilistic in the sense that it leaves man, i e each indvividual, absolutely free to create and sustain his own values in life. But he/she must of course bear the consequences of their choices and creations, the "rewards" and "punishments" as it were.
In fact, the german philosopher Karl Jaspers has written a book where he claims that Nietzsche's supposedly nihilistic thinking is actually compatible with the deeper sense of Christianity:
Jaspers, K. 1946: Nietzsche und das Christentum. Hameln: Verlag der BFCcherstube Fritz Seifert.
My 2 cents.
Bo
Bo Dahlin
Dept. of Educational Science & Psychology
University of Karlstad
S-651 88 Karlstad
tel: ++ 46 54 83 81 82
Date: Mon, 19 Feb 1996 12:15:08 -36000
From: Timothy Bratton (bratton@acc.jc.edu)
On Feb 18, Jeff Irvin wrote:
"I have been thinking lately about the relationship of nihilism and Christianity. I have come to the conlcusion that each of these belief systems have as their underlying assumption the meaninglessness of human existence. Ecclesiastes talks of this meaninglessness. Yet the Judeo-Christian philosophy ultimately comes down on the side of meaning in obedience to God. (Ecclesiastes 12:1-7) Existentialism recognizes the absurdity of human existence and yet argues for striving manfully on. (Jean-Paul Sartre - Being and Nothingness) Nihilism simply recognizes the meaningless of life and argues for no prescription to make us feel better. In fact, it often argues against doing anything, except living like the animals we are. I believe that this is why Christians have been generally opposed to the nihilistic philosophy but not to existentialism. Human beings cannot abide meaninglessness. I realize there is not much new under the sun. Thus I would like some feedback on these comments. Maybe you know of works which deal with this subject? Maybe you would like to set me straight? Whatever. Hope to hear something."
Dear Prof. Irvin:
In fact there is a school of Christian Existentialism that began with Soren Kierkegaard. You might want to look at Walter Kaufmann's reader, *Existentialism from Dostoevsky to Sartre* (N.Y., N.Y.: New American Library, 1975).
Dr. Timothy L. Bratton
Department of History/Pol. Science
6006 Jamestown College
Jamestown, ND 58405
bratton@acc.jc.edu
work: 1-701-252-3467, ext. 2022
home: 1-701-252-8895
home phone/fax: 1-701-252-7507
"All ignorance is dangerous, and most errors must be dearly paid. And good luck must he have that carries unchastised an error in his head unto his death." -- Arthur Schopenhauer.
Date: Mon, 19 Feb 1996 14:17:02 EST5
From: Kenneth D. Pimple (pimple@lanshare.ucs.indiana.edu)
Jeff Irvin wrote:
"I have been thinking lately about the relationship of nihilism and Christianity. I have come to the conlcusion that each of these belief systems have as their underlying assumption the meaninglessness of human existence.
Ecclesiastes talks of this meaninglessness. Yet the Judeo-Christian philosophy ultimately comes down on the side of meaning in obedience to God. (Ecclesiastes 12:1-7)"
Disclaimer: I am a Roman Catholic, and I write from the perspective of my beliefs, derived from but not necessarily synonymous with those of the Church.
Ecclesiastes is hardly representative of the Bible. My sense is that most Catholics (and probably most Christians and Jews) would say that life *without God* is meaningless. And I'm not sure how many would characterize meaning as deriving from "obedience" to God. It all depends on the spin you want to put on obedience, I guess; I would reject an image of God as anal-retentive rule-maker who demands obedience to Its every whim. But if you understand "obedience to God" as including simply living a life of love (Christian love, if you will), then I guess I would remove the objection.
"Existentialism recognizes the absurdity of human existence and yet argues for striving manfully on. (Jean-Paul Sartre - Being and Nothingness)"
If you make a distinction between "absurdity" and "meaninglessness" (which I do, though I'm not sure I could easily describe the substance of the distinction), then I have no problem with understanding life as absurd, but I would reject the notion that life is meaningless. It seems to me that absurdity assumes a vantage point, a framework that could give meaning but, perhaps, fails. Christ is absurd to non-believers, and even believers can see and (possibly) laugh at that absurdity, all the while denying that the absurdity is the true meaning.
"Nihilism simply recognizes the meaningless of life and argues for no prescription to make us feel better. In fact, it often argues against doing anything, except living like the animals we are.
I believe that this is why Christians have been generally opposed to the nihilistic philosophy but not to existentialism. Human beings cannot abide meaninglessness."
I should think the Christian rejection of nihilism is akin to the Christian rejection of suicide. In a Created world, despair and hopelessness deny the goodness and the power of the Creator.
=Kenneth D. Pimple, Ph.D., Research Associate
=Poynter Center for the Study of Ethics and
=American Institutions; 410 North Park Avenue;
=Bloomington IN 47408; 812/855-0261; FAX 855-3315
=http://www.indiana.edu/~poynter/index.html
Date: Tue, 20 Feb 1996 11:49:24 EST5
From: Kenneth D. Pimple (pimple@lanshare.ucs.indiana.edu)
Christopher Forth wrote:
"I also wonder if a distinction can be made between *ultimate* and *everyday* (or social/cultural) meaning, in which case I'd argue that humans often live quite well live without the former but have a much harder time doing without the latter. Obviously there are a fair number of atheists who still manage to survive within social contexts that they find meaningful. Any thoughts on this?"
I think this is a very important distinction, and I think you are exactly right. *Everyday* meaning is essential for survival -- from what I know (very little), even "insane" people make sense of the everyday world, the problem being that their "sense" is very different from the sense of "sane" people.
In many circumstances many people can do quite well without any sense of *ultimate* meaning. For some people, like mystics, a sense of ultimate meaning is more important than -- perhaps even overlays -- a sense of everyday meaning. In some situations, like after the death of a loved one or a time of widely-shared crisis (a war, a flood, a famine), more people are more likely to seek for a sense of ultimate meaning.
Ken
=Kenneth D. Pimple, Ph.D., Research Associate
=Poynter Center for the Study of Ethics and
=American Institutions; 410 North Park Avenue;
=Bloomington IN 47408; 812/855-0261; FAX 855-3315
=http://www.indiana.edu/~poynter/index.html
Date: Mon, 19 Feb 1996 15:30:46 -0600 (CST)
From: GILDRIER@LYNX.APSU.EDU
Prof. Irvin's request for a recent discussion of Christian "Meaning" as opposed to Nihilism leads me suggest a brilliant book, Charles Davis - Religion and the Making of Society: Essays in Social Theology - (1994) which addresses the issue with historical as well as theological sophistication. R.P. Gildrie gildrier@lynx.apsu.edu
Date: Tue, 20 Feb 1996 11:53:42 EST
From: glm@cunyvms1.gc.cuny.edu
Jeff Irvin wrote:
"I have been thinking lately about the relationship of nihilism and Christianity. I have come to the conclusion that each of these belief systems have as their underlying assumption the meaninglessness of human existance."
Nothing in Christianity leads to this conclusion. The standard reply is that God's only begotten Son became human and suffered through the passion to prove his love for us.
Our existence here on earth is of crucial importance for Christians. Life is short, only three score and ten years. Our souls, they argue, are immortal, and it is here on earth that we face a crucial test. Through the vissitudes of our coroporeal life, do we deceive ourselves and become prideful, rejecting God, and becoming contemptuous of those less well off? During disasters, do we forsake God, deny him, or thank him for reminding us that this life is temporary and that we ought to key an eye on the prize, the salvation of our immortal soul.
There are many variation in Christianity. Calvin, for instance believed that life was pre-destined, that there was no way to earn one's admission into heaven. Does one who holds to a determinist metaphysics consider human existance to be meaningless? Yes, I think so. But many Christians, and certainly those in the late classical period, and throughout the Middle Ages believed that this life was important. They became monks, donated their inheritance to the Church, did penance, bought indulgences, all on the assumption that their actions would earn them admittance into God's presence.
This life, they felt, was a test. Life was not considered to be meaningless.
Gilbert Midonnet
GLM@Cunyvms1.gc.cuny.edu
P.S. I am aware of the fact that the buying of indulgences did not become commonplace until the 14th C.
Date: Tue, 20 Feb 1996 18:46:52 -0500
From: Jeff Irvin (jirvin@UOFT02.UTOLEDO.EDU)
Chris,
I was thinking mainly of Nietzsche's work, since he seems to represent most nihilists. I realize there are others, some who even greatly influenced Nietzsche himself.
This is in response to Christopher Forth's message, which said in part: "I'm very interested in Jeff Irvin's comments on nihilism, existentialism, and Christianity, but would like to know which thinkers he has in mind when speaking about nihilism."
Jeff Irvin
Department of History
University of Toledo
2801 Bancroft St.
Toledo, Ohio 43606
e-mail: jirvin@uoft02.utoledo.edu
Give me Women, Wine, and Snuff
Until I cry out, 'Hold, enough!'
You may do so sans objection
Till the day of resurrection;
For, bless my beard, they aye shall be
My beloved Trinity.
--John Keats
Date: Tue, 20 Feb 96 11:58:00 PST
From: Cerling, Lee (lcerling@pepperdine.edu)
I must also reject the view that Christianity can best be understood as grounded in an acknowledgement of the meaninglessness of human existence. One could make an interesting case that it is grounded in tragedy: from the early pages of Genesis, there is palpable longing to be free of everything that destroys human life--murder, greed, injustice, oppression, despair, exploitation, selfishness, death, tears. Besides tragedy, however, as Frederich Buechner and Northrop Frye and others have pointed out, there is also comedy: the promise of better things to come, the promise of redemption. It is, as a previous writer on this thread has pointed out, laughably absurd--impossible to believe, too good and too contrary to all we know about human existence to be true.
Finally, there is--what?--romance/fairy tale: the Transformation of human beings and of creation itself by God, most dramatically symbolized in Christ's resurrection. Again, drawing on Buechner, the ugly frog really *is* transformed by a kiss into a handsome prince; human beings really are made new.
In Christianity, meaning fills the universe--in Hopkin's phrase, "the world is charged with the grandeur of God." But that meaning belongs to God, and is often inaccessible to human beings--even Moses, Job, David, the prophets and the disciples are frequently in the dark as to what is going on. So: Christianity is a story that absolutely denies meaninglessness, even while it acknowledges that the experience of meaninglessness is a part of the tragedy of the human condition. The theological notion of "fallenness" is the rubric under which the problem of meaninglessness is considered.
In existentialism, as I understand it, meaninglessness can be rendered meaningful by human action--by telling and believing a good story about oneself and the world that makes it meaningful.
In nihilism--again, as far as I understand it, which admittedly isn't very far--such a response to meaninglessness is, well, cowardly. Nihilism acknowledges and even embraces meaninglessness--it does not try to escape from brute fact.
Consequently, Christianity condemns nihilism as intrinsically opposed to its own essential features: a meaningful universe that is best grasped by faith, hope, love.
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 1996 14:38:20 -0600 (CST) From: Christopher Forth <CFORTH@msuvx2.memphis.edu>
Jeff Irvin wrote:
>I was thinking mainly of Nietzsche's work, since he seems to represent most
>nihilists. I realize there are others, some who even greatly influenced
>Nietzsche himself.
I was afraid that you had Nietzsche in mind, which raises the question whether or not Nietzsche really qualifies as a nihilist. Actually, if you accept N. at his word--that his philosophy teaches one how to truly live in a world without an ultimate metaphysical ground--I think one is left with something like Sartre's position, which you don't see as nihilistic. What do you see as the primary differences between these two on this issue? Is it Sartre's humanism that prevents him from toppling into the nihilist abyss?
I'd argue that Nietzsche celebrated the creation of new meanings (however contingent) rather than slavishly adhering to "the old tables," which leads back to my point about the difference between cosmic and social meaning. While there are many who contend that there is no ultimate meaning to life, I think one would be hard pressed to find many who consistently reject *all* meaning. Even the most apparently "nihilistic" of avant-garde artists still worship at the altar of "pure" art to some extent or another, which places them squarely within a meaningful community or belief-system. It's amazing how easily one can find one's own meaning in "meaninglessness."
Chris Forth
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 1996 13:01:00 -500
From: Richard Swerdlin <Swerdlin@COEFS.COE.unt.edu>
Interestingly, sometimes people get irritated if any "ultimate" questions are posed. Apparently the "everyday" world is easier to handle.
Richard Swerdlin
(swerdlin@coefs.coe.unt.edu)
Univ. of North Texas
Denton, TX 76208
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 1996 21:00:30 -0500
From: Allan Mayberry Greenberg <amayberg@curry.edu>
One place to look for considerations of the role of religion is Nietzsche (esp. _Twilight of the Idols_). At the same time, I would strongly suggest that you not look at Nietzsche if you are seeking a spokesperson for nihilism. Philosophizing with a hammer may seem nihilistic, but no more than is Camus (was Camus) in _The Rebel_. Implicit in many instances, although some might argue that he is sufficiently explicit, N. does present a very positive approach to a "new" world, and the path for what in various ages has been referred to as _the new man [person--albeit not for N.]_. A "philosophy for everyone and no-one" is hardly nihilkistic (- the "k").
Allan C. Mayberry Greenberg
Curry College
Milton MA 02186
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 1996 17:59:33 -0600 (CST) From: Annemarie Helen Sammartino <ari@owlnet.rice.edu>
February 21st, Kenneth Pimple wrote:
>
> In many circumstances many people can do quite well without any sense
> of *ultimate* meaning. For some people, like mystics, a sense of
> ultimate meaning is more important than -- perhaps even overlays --
> a sense of everyday meaning. In some situations, like after the death
> of a loved one or a time of widely-shared crisis (a war, a flood, a
> famine), more people are more likely to seek for a sense of ultimate
> meaning.
>
I would argue that it is not only in mystic's lives that a sense of "ultimate" meaning overlays everyday meaning. In fact, I would argue such a distinction between the ultimate and the everyday is unfruitful. Really it depends on how you are defining ultimate. If only strictly religious (or mystic) thought is considered to be ultimate than I believe that you are correct, the vast majority of people go through their lives without consulting the oracle on a daily basis. On the other hand, if we accept some sort of Nietzschean definition of truth as belief, than every assertion of validity would at some level access a sort of ultimate (i.e. metaphysical) belief system. I think what we have to distinguish between is a conscious search for meaning and an unconscious one. I think that is where the real distinction lies; a mystic or a person in crisis will look consciously for meaning in their lives, and this may not be the case for someone going through their everyday life. However, to frame this in terms of ultimate vs. everyday seems somewhat misleading.
Ari Sammartino
Rice University
ari@owlnet.rice.edu
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 1996 08:02:05 -0600 (CST) From: Christopher Forth <CFORTH@MSUVX1.MEMPHIS.EDU>
Ari Sammartino wrote:
>I would argue that it is not only in mystic's lives that a sense of
>"ultimate" meaning overlays everyday meaning. In fact, I would argue
>such a distinction between the ultimate and the everyday is unfruitful.
>Really it depends on how you are defining ultimate. If only strictly
>religious (or mystic) thought is considered to be ultimate than I
>believe that you are correct, the vast majority of people go through
>their lives without consulting the oracle on a daily basis. On the other
>hand, if we accept some sort of Nietzschean definition of truth as
>belief, than every assertion of validity would at some level access a
>sort of ultimate (i.e. metaphysical) belief system. I think what we have
>to distinguish between is a conscious search for meaning and an
>unconscious one. I think that is where the real distinction lies....
I think this is a good point--indeed, cultural anthropologists and others have shown that a categorical distinction between religious ("ultimate"?) and cultural ("everyday"?) is really untenable. No doubt often "everyday" assertions of validity in the social world are made with all the conviction of a more explicitly metaphysical ("ultimate") belief system. Also, I agree that limiting our pool of conscious searchers for the ultimate to mystics is too narrow--rather, I'd say in that case we have people looking for the *experience* of the ultimate, which is not the primary goal for most believers.
However, the statement that initiated this thread was that humans cannot live without meaning, but the only examples of meanings offered were those of more explicitly spiritual nature--hence the references to Christianity, existentialism, and nihilism. My point is that one could easily include under this rubric other metaphysical ideas like humanism or nationalism, which while often unarticulated or uncritically accepted don't strike me as being "unconscious" per se. They do seem to be further examples of more secular belief systems that provide a meaningful context within which many people exist. While consciousness/unconsciousness might be as problematic as spiritual/ secular, clearly we should expand our category of "meaning" or "ultimate" beyond that initially offered.
In response to the list participant who chuckled at an apparent unwillingness to speak about "ultimate" issues by the simple mention of the "everyday," I did not detect any value judgements being made on either side, and thus don't understand the brief objection that was made.
Chris Forth
Univ. of Memphis
cforth@cc.memphis.edu
Date: Sat, 24 Feb 1996 00:01:15 -0800 (PST) From: Leonard Charles Porrello <lporrell@harp.aix.calpoly.edu>
I wonder if we can draw a distinction between what we perceive as meaning and what meaning there actually might be. In other words, is it coherent to talk about experiencing epistemic meaninglessness (or nihilism) while believing that ontologically there actually is meaning? I want to make the distinction between ontology and epistemology because it seems that metaphysical ontology (from whence meaning is derived, granted it exists) is for most (if not all) grounded in faith. So, although I believe that life is meaningful, I could choose to believe it to be meaningless; neither faith nor despair are univocally warranted by either my experience or noetic speculations (or however you might mix and match the "two").
I am very unsure if what I am getting at makes any sense whatsoever. My brain seems to clunk-out before I can get too far.
Thanks in advance for all of your ideas.
L. Porrello
English Department
Cal Poly State University, San Luis Obispo
Date: Sat, 24 Feb 1996 22:47:04 -0500 (EST) From: GTORDJMAN@runt.dawsoncollege.qc.ca
The subject of "nihilism" has come up recently in my class in reference to popular and youth culture as its alleged modern deciminator. In this sense, and in Nietzsche's sense (I think) is it correct to call "nihilism" a "philosophy" at all or is it an anti-philosophy, literally a "belief in nothing" (nihilo)? Obviously, such a definition would not make nihilism at all attractive to Christianity.
Any comments about accuarcy of my definition and relevance to youth culture would be greatly asppreciated.
Date: Sun, 25 Feb 1996 17:25:21 -0500
From: Jeff Irvin <jirvin@UOFT02.UTOLEDO.EDU>
Chris Forth wrote:
Is it Sartre's humanism that prevents him from toppling into the nihilist abyss?
I would say that Sartre did tumble into the nihilist abyss and that it was his humanism which pulled him from this pit(e.g., Nausea). In fact, I would say that "staring into the abyss" is a prerequisite to becoming an existentialist, or a Christian for that matter. I believe Kierkegaard said the same thing in his writings. Paraphrased, I believe Kierkegaard would have written something like, "It is the realization that life has no meaning or purpose that leads us to despair, and it is this despair which leads us to belief in God."
Chris also raised the question of cosmic as opposed to social meaning. I do believe that this is a viable dichotomy, but I cannot say whether Nietzsche believed in a social order(meaning). It is my impression from his writings that he would be loath to lock himself into such a static model. Afterall, meaning requires a sense of good and evil, and I think Nietzsche rejected this idea completely for himself.
Jeff Irvin
Department of History
University of Toledo
2801 Bancroft St.
Toledo, Ohio 43606
e-mail: jirvin@uoft02.utoledo.edu
Give me Women, Wine, and Snuff
Until I cry out, 'Hold, enough!'
You may do so sans objection
Till the day of resurrection;
For, bless my beard, they aye shall be
My beloved Trinity.
--John Keats
Date: Mon, 26 Feb 1996 18:09:40 -0600 (CST) From: Christopher Forth <CFORTH@msuvx2.memphis.edu>
Commenting on the distinction between cosmic and social meaning, Jeff Irvin wrote:
I do believe that this is a viable dichotomy, but I cannot say whether Nietzsche
>believed in a social order(meaning). It is my impression from his writings
>that he would be loath to lock himself into such a static model. Afterall,
>meaning requires a sense of good and evil, and I think Nietzsche rejected
>this idea completely for himself.
I agree that Nietzsche said very little about the social order, except when he disparaged the conformism of living as one among the "herd." Yet I'm not certain that this means he rejected the possibility of "meaning." In fact, repeatedly throughout his writings he calls for the creation of new values to replace those purportedly founded upon absolutes. The Overman is for him not only someone with the guts to live in a world without cosmic meaning, but someone able and wiling to create his own truth. The sense of good and evil which Jeff claims is necessary for meaning is here created by this superior being. Shifting to the *Genealogy of Morals*, one sees that the masters name things/create values based on an affirmation of themselves rather than a ressentiment in the face of one's superiors (as the slaves did). This is not at all "cosmic" meaning here, but it's not quite "social" either, unless you read the caste of masters as a social group.
I admit that we could dance around like this in Nietzsche's writings for some time on this issue, but I think that we will finally have to decide exactly what definition of "nihilism" we are using before we attach such a label to Nietzsche--if for no other reason than to address his own take on the question.
Chris Forth
Date: Sun, 25 Feb 1996 18:31:35 -0500
From: Jeff Irvin <jirvin@UOFT02.UTOLEDO.EDU>
Leonard Porrello writes:
>I wonder if we can draw a distinction between what we perceive as
>meaning and what meaning there actually might be. In other words, is it
>coherent to talk about experiencing epistemic meaninglessness (or
>nihilism) while believing that ontologically there actually is meaning?
>I want to make the distinction between ontology and epistemology because it
>seems that metaphysical ontology (from whence meaning is derived,
>granted it exists) is for most (if not all) grounded in faith. So, although
>I believe that life is meaningful, I could choose to believe it to be
>meaningless; neither faith nor despair are univocally warranted by either my
>experience or noetic speculations (or however you might mix and match the
>"two").
>
Leonard,
I would say that Christianity recognizes meaning because it is ontologically demanded. Yet it sees human existence when laid against eternity as unimportant, and consequently, in my opinion, meaningless while we reside on this earth.
". . .we are considered as sheep to be slaughtered." Romans 8:36
"For our light and momentary troubles are achieving for us eternal glory that far out outweighs them all(suffering)." 2 Corinthians 4:17
"Put to death, therefore, whatever belongs to your earthly nature. . .." Colossians 3:5
"I tell you the truth, unless a kernel of wheat falls to the ground and dies, it remains only a single seed." John 12:24
What it comes down to is that we all experience times of meaningless because it is part of the existential question. Whether we choose to belive there is meaning, or construct our own, is up to us.
Jeff Irvin
Department of History
University of Toledo
2801 Bancroft St.
Toledo, Ohio 43606
e-mail: jirvin@uoft02.utoledo.edu
Give me Women, Wine, and Snuff
Until I cry out, 'Hold, enough!'
You may do so sans objection
Till the day of resurrection;
For, bless my beard, they aye shall be
My beloved Trinity.
--John Keats
Date: Mon, 26 Feb 1996 23:53:36 -0500
From: Jeff Irvin <jirvin@UOFT02.UTOLEDO.EDU>
On Sat, 24 Feb 1996 GTORDJMAN@runt.dawsoncollege.qc.ca wrote: >
>The subject of "nihilism" has come up recently in my class in reference to
>popular and youth culture as its alleged modern deciminator. In this sense, and
>in Nietzsche's sense (I think) is it correct to call "nihilism" a "philosophy"
>at all or is it an anti-philosophy, literally a "belief in nothing" (nihilo)?
>Obviously, such a definition would not make nihilism at all attractive to
>Christianity.
>Any comments about accuarcy of my definition and relevance to youth culture
>would be greatly asppreciated.
>
It seems to me that Christians would be attracted to Nihilism because it ultimately shows life on this earth to be of little value outside of a relationship to God. Nihilism is encompassed, so Christians would say, by a larger order and meaning in the universe--God. It is Nihilism which is the starting point for any true philosophical journey. Some do not go beyond Nihilism. Their journey ends when they decide to accept contingency. Others flee the abyss, running to the arms of humanism, Christianity, or any other belief system which will assure them that life is not contingent, and thus meaningless.
Even an anti-philosophy is a philosophy, just as anti-matter is still matter.
Jeff Irvin
Department of History
University of Toledo
2801 Bancroft St.
Toledo, Ohio 43606
e-mail: jirvin@uoft02.utoledo.edu
Give me Women, Wine, and Snuff
Until I cry out, 'Hold, enough!'
You may do so sans objection
Till the day of resurrection;
For, bless my beard, they aye shall be
My beloved Trinity.
--John Keats
Date: Mon, 26 Feb 1996 18:37:16 -0600 (CST) From: JA Good <gem@owlnet.rice.edu>
On Sun, 25 Feb 1996 Jeff Irvin <jirvin@UOFT02.UTOLEDO.EDU wrote:
> In fact, I would
> say that "staring into the abyss" is a prerequisite to becoming an
> existentialist, or a Christian for that matter. I believe Kierkegaard said
> the same thing in his writings. Paraphrased, I believe Kierkegaard would
> have written something like, "It is the realization that life has no
> meaning or purpose that leads us to despair, and it is this despair which
> leads us to belief in God.">
>
Is Kierkegaard right about this? Must one experience profound despair in order to be a "true" Christian? I've always thought Keirkegaard overstated his case on this point. He seems to assume his experience is the "true" experience.
Jim Good
Rice University
Date: Tue, 27 Feb 1996 08:53:45 -0500
From: Allan Mayberry Greenberg <amayberg@curry.edu>
It is clear, and very understandable, that there are a variety of interpretations of Nietzsche, as is the case with so many other critical "intellectuals." I know that I have a particular view of him and his writings, and have a sense of what I have taken from his writings and what I have done with that. What I note is the lack of any references which go beyond general assertions, leaving therefore little basis for determining what new direction--if any-- we/I might consider moving in. So, let me note the following: I believe that the most important, or one of the most important things that N. has to say is to be critical, to reject "idols," to take risks, and to define one's own being. From _Die froehliche Wissenschaft_: "It is enough to love, to hate, to desire, to just experience--immediately we are gripped by the spirit and the power of the dream, and we ascend the most hazardous paths with open eyes and indifferent to all perils,high up to the roofs and towers of fantasy, without any dizziness, as if born to climb--we night-walkers of the day! We artists! We concealers of genuineness! We moonstruck and godstruck ones! We dead silent, indefatigable wanderers on heights that we do not perceive as heights, but as our plains, as our places of safety!" (second book in Werke, ed. K. Schlechta [Munich, 1954-56], II, 79)
And from _Beyond Good and Evil_: speaking of philosophers and friends of knowledge, that hey need not defend the "truth," "as though 'the truth' were such an innocuous and incompetent creature as to require protectors!....you know well enough that it cannot be of any consequence if you of all people are proved right, and that there might be a more laudable truthfulness in every little question mark that you place after your special words and favorite doctrines (and occasionally after yourselves) than in all the solemn gestures and trumps before accusers and law courts." In this particular edition, a footnote refers us to a N. footnote: "A very popular error: having the courage of one's convictions; rather it is a matter of having the courage for an attack on one's convictions!!!" N. continues to note: beware "of the stupidity of moral indignation, which is the unfailing sign in a philosopher that his philosophical sense of humor has left him." (#25) Also from BGE, #260: "The noble human being...has power over himself,... knows how to speak and be silent,...delights in being severe and hard with himself and respects all severity and hardness."
Had I _Twilight of the Idols_ by my side, I would move to that short work now. But I hope my point becomes clearer.
Allan C. Mayberry Greenberg
Curry College
Milton MA 02186
Date: Tue, 27 Feb 1996 15:55:06 -0500
From: Steve Kreis <stevek@gate.net>
>On Sun, 25 Feb 1996 Jeff Irvin <jirvin@UOFT02.UTOLEDO.EDU wrote:
>
>> In fact, I would
>> say that "staring into the abyss" is a prerequisite to becoming an
>> existentialist, or a Christian for that matter. I believe Kierkegaard said
>> the same thing in his writings. Paraphrased, I believe Kierkegaard would
>> have written something like, "It is the realization that life has no
>> meaning or purpose that leads us to despair, and it is this despair which
>> leads us to belief in God.">
>>
To which Jim Good responded:
>Is Kierkegaard right about this? Must one experience profound despair in
>order to be a "true" Christian? I've always thought Keirkegaard
>overstated his case on this point. He seems to assume his experience is
>the "true" experience.
Well, my understanding of Kierkegaard is that despair is necessary and we must all experience it in order to become a true Christain (whatever that is). I remember how I felt after having read Kierkegaard's account of Abraham in "Fear and Trembling"---must man relive Abraham's dilemma on a daily basis? According to Kierkegaard, yes. Did Kierkegaard overstate his case? Well, I suppose that all depends on what a true Christian mighjt be. I haven't a clue but Kierkegaard thought he did and of course, he assumed his experience, was the "true" experience.
Dr. Steven Kreis Department of History stevek@gate.net Florida Atlantic University
"I am not one who was born in the possession of knowledge; I am one who is fond of antiquity, and earnest in seeking it there."
Date: Tue, 27 Feb 1996 14:45:49 -0600
From: Will Wagers <wagers@computek.net>
Jim Good wrote:
>Is Kierkegaard right about this? Must one experience profound despair in
>order to be a "true" Christian? I've always thought Keirkegaard
>overstated his case on this point. He seems to assume his experience is
>the "true" experience.
Isn't Kierkegaard a Scandinavian - in whom profound despair and clinical depression are endemic?
Will
Date: Thu, 29 Feb 1996 11:07:45 -0600
From: Robin Kornman <rkornman@csd.uwm.edu>
You know, as a Buddhist, I always thought Kierkegaard's idea that one must give up hope first was extremely logical. That's rather the way our more philosophical meditators progress. There are some pretty definite and explainable reasons why a sense of hope is an obstacle to making utterly sound commitments.
Date: Thu, 28 Mar 1996 20:36:56 -0800 (PST) From: Michael Gregory <mgregory@sfsu.edu> >
> On Sun, 25 Feb 1996 Jeff Irvin <jirvin@UOFT02.UTOLEDO.EDU wrote:
>
> > In fact, I would
> > say that "staring into the abyss" is a prerequisite to becoming an
> > existentialist, or a Christian for that matter. I believe Kierkegaard said
> > the same thing in his writings. Paraphrased, I believe Kierkegaard would
> > have written something like, "It is the realization that life has no
> > meaning or purpose that leads us to despair, and it is this despair which
> > leads us to belief in God.">
> >
To which Jim Good responded:
> Is Kierkegaard right about this? Must one experience profound despair in
> order to be a "true" Christian? I've always thought Keirkegaard
> overstated his case on this point. He seems to assume his experience is
> the "true" experience.
How about "The Dark Night of the Soul"?
Mike Gregory
NEXA
SFSU
Date: Fri, 29 Mar 1996 11:55:54 -0400
From: jirvin@UOFT02.UTOLEDO.EDU
>> On Sun, 25 Feb 1996 Jeff Irvin <jirvin@UOFT02.UTOLEDO.EDU wrote:
>>
>> > In fact, I would
>> > say that "staring into the abyss" is a prerequisite to becoming an
>> > existentialist, or a Christian for that matter. I believe Kierkegaard said
>> > the same thing in his writings. Paraphrased, I believe Kierkegaard would
>> > have written something like, "It is the realization that life has no
>> > meaning or purpose that leads us to despair, and it is this despair which
>> > leads us to belief in God.">
>> >
>To which Jim Good responded:
>> Is Kierkegaard right about this? Must one experience profound despair in
>> order to be a "true" Christian? I've always thought Keirkegaard
>> overstated his case on this point. He seems to assume his experience is
>> the "true" experience.
>
>
>How about "The Dark Night of the Soul"?
>
>Mike Gregory
>NEXA
>SFSU
Jeff Irvin responded:
I would respond to this point by saying that it is my personal belief that most people who call themselves Christian never experience this "deep, dark depression, excessive misery." Therefore, Kierkegaard has only touched upon one of the many ways in which people come to the Christian faith.
I do believe though that the mystic, of necessity, must pass through this flame of doubt. Unfortunately, not all of us are of the same stuff as mystics.
Date: Sat, 30 Mar 1996 11:53:06 -0500
From: Cartiermin@aol.com
In reference to Jim Good's response to Jeff Irvin:
Meyer Abrams, in his classic study of Neoplatonism, _Natural Supernaturalism_, locates Kierkegaard's thought within the Romantic perspective of Carlyle in _Sartor Resartus_ , in which Carlyle describes human existence in terms of a "split personality," derived from Augustine's "two selves" and Wordsworth's "two consciousnesses." Abrams says this is a familiar Romantic (by which he consistently means Neoplatonic) theme: An I confronts a non-I. Existence begins with untroubled childhood but must confront the confusing and threatening world. This experience is followed by the erosion of all his inherited certainties.
Abrams:
Having lost all traditional supports, the mind moves into the "Everlasting No" of what Carlyle calls its "Fever-crisis," taking a spiritual beating whose savagery has rarely been equaled in the long history of Christian soul-crises. "Falling, falling toward the abyss," the protagonist "turns pilgrim" and carries out an "extraordinary world-pilgrimage" which is the outward correlate of an agnonized inner journey and quest."
Abrams likens Kierkegaard to Carlyle's protagonist in _Sartor_, who experiences the Angst of existence: "I lived in a continual, indefinite, pining fear...apprehensive of I knew not what," as well as a spiritual nausea, "the foredone soul drowning slowly in quagmires of Disgust!" The protagonist's "redemption" is the existentialist theodicy that maintains man can achieve resignation, wisdom and the power of insight through the use of his own mind, purified by this intense personal suffering.
Abrams is explicit in stating that Neoplatonism/Romanticism is fundamentally alien to Christianity. Though elements of the Neoplatonic world view were incorporated into its doctrinal categories by Augustine, Aquinas and Dante, these writers maintained the distinction between the literal and allegorical meanings of Scripture, whereas the Romantic tradition melds the two: "Neoplatonism, with its abstract and impersonal first principle and unending circle of procession and epistrophe" (i.e., the Romantic separation from Certainty into the cycles of grief, temporary calm and grief again before a final resolution) "is radically alien to the Christian _Heilgeschichte_, with its personal God and its plot, which occurs in time and only once for all time....We can recognize the impact of Neoplatonism by the strains it imposed on the essential Christian categories...by the assimilation of a historical religion to a timeless pagan metaphysic." (pp. 150-53).
Kierkegaard's Romantic stance toward human experience, regardless of the Christian emphasis he (like others before and after him) tried to give it, thus, as Abrams explains, undermines the spirit and substance of basic Christian doctrine, with its basic orientation of trust in a personal Creator.
Jacqueline Cartier
Date: Mon, 1 Apr 1996 18:57:12 -0600 (CST) From: JA Good <gem@owlnet.rice.edu>
In response to Jacqueline Cartier's response to my response: Amen: Abrams hits the Kierkegaardian nail on the head. Surely you don't have to be desperately ill to become a Christian. Could Christianity possibly be the healthy response of a healthy individual -- at least some of the time?
Jim Good
Rice University
Date: Mon, 1 Apr 1996 18:43:13 -0600 (CST) From: JA Good <gem@owlnet.rice.edu>
> >> On Sun, 25 Feb 1996 Jeff Irvin <jirvin@UOFT02.UTOLEDO.EDU wrote:
> >>
> >> > In fact, I would
> >> > say that "staring into the abyss" is a prerequisite to becoming an
> >> > existentialist, or a Christian for that matter. I believe Kierkegaard said
> >> > the same thing in his writings. Paraphrased, I believe Kierkegaard would
> >> > have written something like, "It is the realization that life has no
> >> > meaning or purpose that leads us to despair, and it is this despair which
> >> > leads us to belief in God.">
> >> >
> >To which Jim Good responded:
> >> Is Kierkegaard right about this? Must one experience profound despair in
> >> order to be a "true" Christian? I've always thought Keirkegaard
> >> overstated his case on this point. He seems to assume his experience is
> >> the "true" experience.
> >>
> Jeff Irvin responded:
>
> I would respond to this point by saying that it is my personal belief that
> most people who call themselves Christian never experience this "deep, dark
> depression, excessive misery." Therefore, Kierkegaard has only touched upon
> one of the many ways in which people come to the Christian faith.
>
> I do believe though that the mystic, of necessity, must pass through this
> flame of doubt. Unfortunately, not all of us are of the same stuff as
> mystics.
>
Here, Here. I'm not even a Christian, but some of the finest Christians I've known (and I have no doubts about their sincerity or depth of conviction) never experienced the kind of despair Kierkegaard seems to think is essential to being a "true" Christian. If Kierkegaard is right about Christianity, I'd say he lends credence to the critiques of Nietzsche, Marx, and Freud -- that Christianity is for weak individuals who can't cope with the harsh realities of life. Surely most Christians don't believe this about their faith.
I'm curious, however, why it is "unfortunate" that most of us are not made of the same stuff as mystics. I'm glad I'm not made of the same stuff as most of the mystics I've read.
Jim Good
Rice University
Date: Tue, 2 Apr 1996 06:15:07 -0600 (CST) From: Rosemary Grant <fhr010@mail.connect.more.net>
In regard to despair seems like I remember C. S. Lewis wrote about the significance of experiencing pain and despair from a Christian perspective. It's my understanding (correct me if I'm wrong) that it helps us appreciate the pain of others and develop empathy for them. Pain also can strengthen our faith. It can be a blessing as well as a curse.
How would this relates to Kierkegaard's position would be interesting to know. Lewis was suprised by joy and went through a stage as an atheist before he found this joy.
Respectfully,
Rosemary Bradford Grant
Monett High School History/Humanities Instructor UMKC adjunct professor fhr010@mail.connect.more.net Monett, MO 65708 1-417-235-5445 & fax 1-417-235-7884
Date: Wed, 03 Apr 1996 12:44:59 +0000
From: Jeff Irvin <jirvin@UOFT02.UTOLEDO.EDU>
Jim Good wrote, in part:
>. I'm not even a Christian, but some of the finest Christians
>I've known (and I have no doubts about their sincerity or depth of
>conviction) never experienced the kind of despair Kierkegaard seems to think
>is essential to being a "true" Christian. If Kierkegaard is right about
>Christianity, I'd say he lends credence to the critiques of Nietzsche,
>Marx, and Freud -- that Christianity is for weak individuals who can't
>cope with the harsh realities of life. Surely most Christians don't
>believe this about their faith.
>
>I'm curious, however, why it is "unfortunate" that most of us are not
>made of the same stuff as mystics. I'm glad I'm not made of the same
>stuff as most of the mystics I've read.
>
>Jim Good
>Rice University
>
Jim,
I would say that everyone is weak. Therefore, the argument that weak people become Christians is valid, but also redundant. This means that people come to Christianity for diverse psychological reasons. They are the same reasons people turn to Socialism, Nazism, or any other -ism.
The reason I respect the mystic is because they are usually self-reflective and question what appears to be real. I believe it is this type of individual who ultimately gives us a greater understanding of our world. It is even possible that the intellectual, as defined by Richard Hofstadter, could be classed as a mystic.
Jeff Irvin
Date: Wed, 3 Apr 1996 09:36:15 -0500 (EST) From: Eric Goodfield <labia@yorku.ca>
On Monday, April 1, Jim Good wrote:
> In response to Jacqueline Cartier's response to my response:
> Amen: Abrams hits the Kierkegaardian nail on the head. Surely you don't
> have to be desperately ill to become a Christian. Could Christianity
> possibly be the healthy response of a healthy individual -- at least some
> of the time?
Sorry Jim,
There is no such thing as a "Christian Individual" in any theological sense approximating Christ's humanity(except, of course, as a result of the 17th C. liberal/capitalist paradigm merger in England). Perhaps, then, you don't actually intend "healthy", but rather "a wealthy individual".
much love,
labia
Date: Wed, 3 Apr 1996 09:09:19 -0600 (CST) From: JA Good <gem@owlnet.rice.edu>
On Tue, 2 Apr 1996, Rosemary Grant wrote: > In regard to despair seems like I remember C. S. Lewis wrote about
> the significance of experiencing pain and despair from a Christian
> perspective. It's my understanding (correct me if I'm wrong) that it helps
> us appreciate the pain of others and develop empathy for them. Pain also
> can strengthen our faith. It can be a blessing as well as a curse.
> How would this relates to Kierkegaard's position would be
> interesting to know. Lewis was suprised by joy and went through a stage as
> an atheist before he found this joy.
Why couldn't Lewis be a joyful atheist? Your statement makes joy and atheism sound mutually exclusive.
It's been too long since I've read Lewis to respond precisely to your questions, but I'm sure Kierkegaard would agree that we are incapable of empathy unless we've suffered. This gets back to the point I'm really curious about. Is it possible for a person (a rare individual I will concede) to be capable of being genuinely empathetic without having first suffered? Is pain an essential prerequsite to enlightenment? Can a person have a strong faith without having first experienced terrible pain?
Surely others out there have known people who grew up going to church everyday the doors were open, and who have not sufferred terribly, but have very strong faith. My point is that such a person can be a genuine, sincere Christian, although I'm willing to concede this may be rare. Obviously, many of us have also known the preacher's kid who turned into a shallow rebel.
Jim Good
Rice University
Date: Wed, 03 Apr 1996 17:49:43 -0500
From: Wilbur Streett <wstreett@monmouth.com>
OK, my two cents on this topic..
Emotion is the motor of thought. You don't think very much if you don't have strong feelings, because if you don't have strong feelings, why bother to figure things out?
The definition of Christian used to be the one that believed that God was something that each individual could access directly, with the permission of the clergy or the King. (After all, that's what made Jesus so popular, the peasant's didn't have to let the clergy define what God was for them, Jesus told them that they could speak directly to God themselves) In short, the Christians were a bunch of trouble makers with their own minds. Given the herd mentality of the time, you had to be pretty motivated to become a Christian. Of course, Christianity is no longer the "rebel" religion, it's as mainstream as any other, so you don't have to suffer to come to christianity anymore.
On the other hand, my understanding of the existential pain of life causing depression and suffering is because you can't make a substantial life altering decision by just "going along" with the crowd. If you don't spend the time to actually come to terms with the meaning in life, then you are simply going along for the ride. But there has long been a noted correlation between Genius and Insanity (depression). I think that it takes a bit of an obsessive/compulsive nature to come to understand any concept in great depth. Modern Psychology would have us believe that is an illness, and has pointed out that obsessive/compulsive people are often "victims" of depression. In my case, I wouldn't have traded my depressions for anything in the world, since without ever feeling sad, how would I know when I'm happy?
So on to emphathy, if you can't or won't or don't allow your feelings to travel into sadness or depression, how are you going to have the depth of feeling necessary to understand another's sadness? Empathy is feeling where another human is, and if you don't have the emotional strength to feel your own feelings, (both the good ones and the bad), then how can you possibly feel the feelings of others?
As to pain strengthing faith, you have to have faith in order to survive pain, and surviving pain builds faith. Belief in God aside.
The "Joy" of the "God" of men is something that quite different from belief in God. On our United States currency we have "In God We Trust", which is a basic statement of optimism in life. Not a statement that we are all christian and that we all believe in God, but a statement that life supports us and we trust in it. Now some will claim that the statement is just an outdated religious statement there for historical reasons, but from my perspective it is a statement that we believe in the world and that things will work out. Indeed, our belief in the device of currency speaks volumes about our beliefs.
Wilbur
>
>Why couldn't Lewis be a joyful atheist? Your statement makes joy and
>atheism sound mutually exclusive.
>
>It's been too long since I've read Lewis to respond precisely to your
>questions, but I'm sure Kierkegaard would agree that we are incapable of
>empathy unless we've suffered. This gets back to the point I'm really
>curious about. Is it possible for a person (a rare individual I will
>concede) to be capable of being genuinely empathetic without having first
>suffered? Is pain an essential prerequsite to enlightenment? Can a
>person have a strong faith without having first experienced terrible pain?
>
>Surely others out there have known people who grew up going to church
>everyday the doors were open, and who have not sufferred terribly, but
>have very strong faith. My point is that such a person can be a genuine,
>sincere Christian, although I'm willing to concede this may be rare.
>Obviously, many of us have also known the preacher's kid who turned into
>a shallow rebel.
>
>Jim Good
>Rice University
>
>
Date: Wed, 3 Apr 1996 15:28:29 -0600 From: Rosemary Grant <fhr010@mail.connect.more.net>
Jim,
Certainly that is possible. I was just telling what happened to Lewis.
>but I'm sure Kierkegaard would agree that we are incapable of
>empathy unless we've suffered. This gets back to the point I'm really curious about. Is it possible for a person (a rare individual I will
>concede) to be capable of being genuinely empathetic without having first suffered? Is pain an essential prerequsite to enlightenment? Can a person have a strong faith without having first experienced terrible pain?<
I have a similar question that I have heard along these lines. Do we have to get down in the gutter to know what it's like in the gutter? Usually people answer in the negative. On the other hand I've heard counselors and those who teach counseling say that it is best to never say to a person in their despair that you know how they feel. No one really knows how another person feels who is suffering. Just because your father died when you were a grown person doesn't mean you would understand how a child in elementary would feel losing a father. (This is one example I know that happened during this school year)
You wrote: >Surely others out there have known people who grew up going to church>everyday the doors were open, and who have not sufferred terribly, but>have very strong faith.<
Yes, for some people faith grows as life endures. Their perspective of Christianity is not that you have to go down in drink and sin in order to experience conversion. I suppose my faith is somewhat like this except I certainly realize that I need the redemption of Christ's death on the cross for my sins. I became a believer,however, when I was 8 years old.
How can we measure our faith? I've certainly had doubts; my daughter's an atheist. Nevertheless, I have never turned my back on Christ. I don't think I could ever do that. Nor would I want to.
My point is that such a person can be a genuine,>sincere Christian, although I'm willing to concede this may be rare.
I've had my share of suffering because I have an incurable chronic disease, but I don't see what that has to do with my faith. It hasn't changed my faith one way or the other. I faced the realization of death as a young person. Perhaps that's why this disease makes no difference. When I found out I had it I was angry, but not with God. It had no effect on my faith.
On the other hand, if I had not been a Christian I suppose I would have felt wiped out.
Respectfully,
Rosemary Bradford Grant
Monett High School, history & humanities instructor 1-417-235-5445 UMKC adjunct, fax 417-235-7884
Monett, MO 65708
Date: Thu, 4 Apr 1996 10:23:03 -0800 (PST) From: Leonard Charles Porrello <lporrell@harp.aix.calpoly.edu>
Jeff:
While agree with your idea that we are all weak (although, I would say in need of love and (self)discipline), and I respect your valuable insight about the mystics, I think that your are a little too general in lumping "-isms" together, and then lumping "Christianity" in with them.
At the great risk of being too general myself, I see two basic types of people (who are attracted to institutionalized forms of belief); first, there is the "true believer", and second, their is one who seeks the best explanation for one's multifaceted and often incongruous experiences, many of which can not be subsumed under the stale category of "the rational". We all (even the mass movement minded (or mindless) true believer) seem to seek answers to three basic questions: Who am I?; Why am I here?; Where am I going? While we can say that these concerns are "psychological," I would not want to reduce them to "merely" psychological (for I believe that humans are more than mere products of mindless evolution). The questions evoke speculation, as you imply, about the true nature of reality (ontology); they invoke speculation about humanity's ultimate meaning(s). At stake then, regarding the various "-isms" and Christianity, is the issue of which system best accounts for objective reality. And to bring this back to Kierkegaard, even though he is not concerned with "objective" reality, since, as another contributor on this thread mentioned, we need not assume that his experience was the "true" experience, we CAN concern ourselves with objective reality--and along these lines, the "-isms" and Christianity are very much dissimilar, and should hardly be lumped together merely as interchangeable systems of belief which meet psychological needs.
Leonard Porrello
English Department
Cal Poly State University, San Luis Obispo
Date: Thu, 4 Apr 1996 17:24:45 +0100
From: Perry Tapper <TAPPER@zlin.vutbr.cz>
It seems to me that a regular church-goer with "strong faith" is not truly solid Christian until that faith has been tested by terrible suffering. After all, without the trial of His crucifixion and His successful maintainance of faith, would Christ's message have had such an influence?
Perry Tapper
Palacky University
Olomouc
Czech Republic
Date: Thu, 4 Apr 1996 11:29:02 -0600 (CST) From: JA Good <gem@owlnet.rice.edu>
Rosemary Grant wrote:
> I have a similar question that I have heard along these lines. Do
> we have to get down in the gutter to know what it's like in the gutter?
> Usually people answer in the negative. On the other hand I've heard
> counselors and those who teach counseling say that it is best to never say
> to a person in their despair that you know how they feel. No one really
> knows how another person feels who is suffering. Just because your father
> died when you were a grown person doesn't mean you would understand how a
> child in elementary would feel losing a father. (This is one example I know
> that happened during this school year)
>
> Yes, for some people faith grows as life endures. Their
> perspective of Christianity is not that you have to go down in drink and
> sin in order to experience conversion. I suppose my faith is somewhat like
> this except I certainly realize that I need the redemption of Christ's
> death on the cross for my sins. I became a believer,however, when I was 8
> years old.
> How can we measure our faith? I've certainly had doubts; my
> daughter's an atheist. Nevertheless, I have never turned my back on
> Christ. I don't think I could ever do that. Nor would I want to.
>
> I've had my share of suffering because I have an incurable chronic
> disease, but I don't see what that has to do with my faith. It hasn't
> changed my faith one way or the other. I faced the realization of death as
> a young person. Perhaps that's why this disease makes no difference. When
> I found out I had it I was angry, but not with God. It had no effect on my
> faith.
> On the other hand, if I had not been a Christian I suppose I would
> have felt wiped out.
>
Rosemary,
I commend you on your faith. I've often thought that the best critique of Kierkegaard's portrayal of Christianity is the testimony of persons who have had different types of experiences in their life. Kierkegaard, I think, did what many of us have a tendency to do, and that is assume his particular experience was somehow universal. I don't condemn Kierkegaard for doing this; I just think it's worthwhile to consider that this might have been part of what was going on in his thought.
And, I'm willing to commend Kierkegaard for trying to point out to the people in his native Denmark that many of them (he thought all of them it seems) had become complacent, and "everyday" about their convictions. I am also willing to consider the possiblity that, in the interest of rhetorical force, he intentionally overstated his case. What concerns me at times is that it seems many religious Kierkegaardians read him rather literally. His melodramatic way of stating his points can be quite seductive.
I hope others find this discussion as fruitful as I do. I think the discussion is important because it speaks to our human tendency to overgeneralize. Moreover, from many pulpits today, you can hear Kierkegaardian sounding analyses of the Christian life. Again it has rhetorical force, but I think it should be heard critically.
Moreover, (perhaps to open another can of worms) remember that Kierkegaard's fideism would make it difficult, if not impossible, for him to demarcate what we would today think of as radical, dangerous cults from "true" Christianity. A pure Kierkegaardian, in my opinion, could not consistently condemn Jim Jones and the mass suicide in Guiana. I think he painted himself into this corner by his emphasis on the radically alienated individual who stands before God completely alone. Only this type of person could be a "true" Christain, according to Kierkegaard. Only the desperately ill (psychologically speaking) person could be a "true" Christian.
For Kierkegaard, our society could not condemn those who murder abortion doctors. For all we know those people were doing precisely what God told them to do. This is the problem of the "teleological suspension of the ethical." And that doctrine, I would submit, followed quite naturally from his portrayal of the Christian life as pervaded by suffering, of the Christian as always a stranger in a strange land.
This sort of "crisis" thinking (a la Allan Megill, "The Prophets of Extremity*) can lead to the conclusion that desperate measures are necessary.
Sincerely,
Jim Good
Date: Thu, 11 Apr 1996 08:47:57 -0500 (CDT)
From: Rosemary Grant <fhr010@mail.connect.more.net>
Perry's post reminds me of Dante's _Inferno_ and the levels of hell. Wasn't one of the levels for people who were neither really for Christianity or against it. Neither on the side of Satan, but not necessarily against his influence.
It seems that there's a lot of folks who would fit into this mind set, and I wonder how they influence other believers. Such people don't appear to have much faith and whether or not a tragedy in their lives would shake them out of their indifference is doubtful. In society today it appears to be rather acceptable to be _ho-hum_ about faith in God, but there's always been people like this. Dante's work tried to address this problem and IMHO he was saying that these people need a stronger commitment to be included in with the category of believers. On the other hand, some people think a little faith is better than none at all. This might be true if a person is open to the possibility of rethinking some of their disbeliefs.
I certainly don't know the answer to this question, but my students don't like the people that Dante describes in his class work. Maybe it's like the adage, _A little learning is a dangerous thing_. Maybe it goes like this,..._A little faith is a dangerous thing_ Respectfully,
Rosemary Bradford Grant
Monett High School History/Humanities Instructor UMKC adjunct professor fhr010@mail.connect.more.net Monett, MO 65708 1-417-235-5445 & fax 1-417-235-7884
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 1996 17:45:59 -0500 (CDT)
From: 5SH6FREEBURG@vms.csd.mu.edu
Jim,
I'm not sure I would agree with you on Kierkegaard's thought logically leading to atrocities such as the Jim Jones and the killing of abortion doctors. To try and solve one's own personal existential crisis by reacting in some real-world way is antithetical to Kierkegaard. These are worldly solutions and the expression of anger and rage in a physical manner. His thought was oriented differently. To Kierkegaard the ideal was the man who lived complacently with his fellow citizens but internally was the lone individual before God. "Most men are subjective towards themselves and objective towards others--terribly objective sometimes, but the real task is to be subjective toward others and objective towards oneself." (I need to check the citation).
Date: Thu, 11 Apr 1996 19:29:29 -0600 (MDT) From: Helen Liebel-weckowicz <hliebelw@gpu.srv.ualberta.ca>
The idea of faith is not Western alone. There exists (in Japan) the so called Amida Buddhist sect. Their adherents have dispensed with the study of the voluminous scriptures of the religion and believe in called on the name of Buddha in an act of faith, for succour. HLW
Date: Thu, 11 Apr 1996 21:09:32 -0700 (PDT) From: Leonard Charles Porrello <lporrell@harp.aix.calpoly.edu>
Perry Tapper had referred last week to "Christ's message": Which message do you mean: that He is God's son (and God himself), and that our only chance at relationship with God lies in faith in him?; or, that we really should all love one another?; or, that institutionalized religion need not get between one and God?; or, what?
L. Porrello
Date: Fri, 12 Apr 96 14:21:00 PDT
From: "Brown, Alex" <BROWNA@tp.ac.sg>
Perry Tapper writes:
It seems to me that a regular church-goer with "strong faith" is not truly solid Christian until that faith has been tested by terrible suffering. After all, without the trial of His crucifixion and His successful maintainance of faith, would Christ's message have had such an influence?
Curious comment this. What gives Buddha, Mohamed, Lao Tsu and other major religious figures their 'influence'?
As far as I know, none of them were crucified or died tragic deaths. Could it be simply their message itself. I think we could also say that it was not their assassination that gave Ghandi and Martin Luther King significance as great humanitarians, but their moral example and articulate leadership.
According to the logic of Perry's argument the ultimate proof of one's Christianity would be to get oneself staked up on a cross, just like Christ. (So much for the rainforests of the world when Christians decide to do this).
Although not a Christian, I would suggest that we don't need the spectacle of pain and suffering to justify the Christian theology. We would only need the Sermon and the Mount.
Regards
Alex Brown
Singapore
Date: Fri, 12 Apr 1996 09:42:15 -0500 (CDT) From: JA Good <gem@owlnet.rice.edu>
On 10 Apr 1996 17:45:59 -0500 (CDT) a message said: >
> I'm not sure I would agree with you on Kierkegaard's thought logically
> leading to atrocities such as the Jim Jones and the killing of abortion
> doctors. To try and solve one's own personal existential crisis by reacting
> in some real-world way is antithetical to Kierkegaard. These are worldly
> solutions and the expression of anger and rage in a physical manner. His
> thought was oriented differently. To Kierkegaard the ideal was the man who
> lived complacently with his fellow citizens but internally was the lone
> individual before God. "Most men are subjective towards themselves and
> objective towards others--terribly objective sometimes, but the real task is to
> be subjective toward others and objective towards oneself." (I need to check
> the citation).
>
I didn't mean to imply a strict logical connection between Jones, etc. and Kierkegaard. Perhaps I overstated my case. What I would suggest is that the emphasis on extreme individualism one finds in Kierkegaard and others is dangerous. Moreover, more directly related to the initial impetus for this discussion, I worry about the notion that one must be sick before one can be well. I think this is an overgeneralization and can be a self-fulfilling prophecy.
I just finished reading Ian Hacking's _Rewriting the Soul: Multiple Personality and the Sciences of Memory_, in which he discusses the "looping effect of human kinds." I take Hacking's notion to be quite similar to what I am concerned about with the view expressed by many in the present discussion that we are "all weak," or "all sick," "most of us are just to shallow to realize it," etc. Hacking believes that when authority figures (in the book therapists) tell people that they have repressed memories because of sexual abuse when they were children, or that they have multiple personalities, etc., many of these people will begin to conform to the diagnosis of the authority figure. And then, of course, the authority's diagnosis is confirmed, and so on. In the same way I wonder if Kierkegaard didn't assume that because he came from a "dysfunctional" family everybody must have a dysfunctional background (because after all we are all sinful), and everybody must be miserable before they can be "saved." This then, I would suggest, may have had a looping effect, especially in evangelical circles which seem to emphasize Kierkegaardian-like analyses.
Further, my understanding of Kierkegaard is that the "true Christian" would not live "complacently with his fellow citizens," but in fact would be like Abraham who was always a stranger in a strange land. The story of Abraham and Issaac (which Kierkegaard uses masterfully) does not make Abraham sound like a particularly normal guy who blended into the woodwork of society. Rather, a Christian, for Kierkegaard, has to be willing to sacrifice his or her own son if God commands it. The problem with this, which I believe Martin Buber pointed out well, is that when you emphasize alienation (and individualism) as much as Kierkegaard did, you lose social checks on what believers believe God's will is. This, I think, makes Jones, etc. possible, although I would not say it makes such wackos necessary.
Finally, if Kierkegaard believed in getting along complacently with society, he certainly had a hard time practicing it in his own life. Did he not lose his journalism job because he was ruthlessly attacking respected ministers in his column? I think these actions were quite consistent with Kierkegaard's thought. Should we say that Kierkegaard was using a "real-world way" to express rage and anger rather than focussing on his relationship to God. And, do those who murder abortion doctors think they are being worldy? Of course not. They could use Kierkegaard's notion of the teleological suspension of the ethical to justify their actions (in their own minds at least). If society condemns them they merely assert that they stand alone before God and have no duty to follow societal conceptions of morality. Why would they listen to society if everyone in society is weak or sick, but too shallow to realize it?
Jim Good
Date: Sat, 13 Apr 1996 06:10:19 -0400
From: Allan Mayberry Greenberg <amayberg@curry.edu>
If we were to examine the issue currently under consideration (Kierk. and faith), what would we find as the underlying values/concerns? That is, what are the elements that make this particular focus more generalizable? Among the things to be separated out, as I see them, are faith as opposed to fanaticism, inner-directedness as opposed to other-directedness, personal decision-making in defining oneself as opposed to "social" decision-making and defining the group/society/world. There certainly are others. m I think that in order to expand this discussion, we do need to go beyond what currently seems to be a rather monolithic consideration of faith--which clearly does not require a traditional religious basis of any sort, but rather one or more values that are crucial in some way to one's decision-making, or to how one lives one's life. And it is, as I see it, in times of crisis thast one may begin to assess what those decisive or determining values are.
In order to begin to try to understand how people acted in the past and how they might act in the future in matters that affect their world, on whatever level (personal, local, national, etc.), it is essential to determine the bases for the decisions affecting actions. Or, if determined that certain actions are not amenable to a rational analysis, to be as clear as possible about that. The most difficult task I have with students is helping them to assess their values, in order--at least in part--to enable them to evaluate past, present, and (hypothetically) future both in light of and in spite of those values.
(On a personal note, I too have endured crises--and there is no traditional faith in the mix, nor is there a severe stoicism. There are values and beliefs [small "v," small "b"].
Allan C. Mayberry Greenberg
amayberg@curry.edu
(617) 333-2374
Date: Wed, 17 Apr 1996 20:50:17 -0500 (EST) From: Jeff Irvin <jirvin@UOFT02.UTOLEDO.EDU>
Mr. Mayberry has hit upon another generalization in addition to the one I was trying to make when I first suggested that Christianity, Nihilism, and Existentialism might have a common referent.
What is that referent? Mr. Berry says that it is "underlying values and concerns." This an even broader generalization than I recommended. I believe it is the development of worldviews based on the belief that life on this planet is ultimately meaningless.
Christianity says there is no meaning, except God and living our lives for him; there is no intrinsic meaning in human existence itself.
Nihilism says there is no meaning and you had better just get used to it.
Existentialism states that yes life is ultimately meaningless, but we are free to create meaning for our lives. In fact, we are slaves to this freedom. The only way to get rid of our freedom is suicide. Jeff Irvin
Department of History
University of Toledo
2801 W. Bancroft St.
Toledo, Ohio 43606
e-mail: jirvin@uoft02.utoledo.edu
It is not enough that I succeed, others must fail.
--Gore Vidal
Date: Sat, 20 Apr 1996 00:58:58 -0400
From: Cartiermin@aol.com
Jeff Irvin states:
"This an even broader generalization than I recommended. I believe it is the development of worldviews based on the belief that life on this planet is ultimately meaningless.
Christianity says there is no meaning, except God and living our lives for him; there is no intrinsic meaning in human existence itself."
The exception you refer to regarding Christianity includes the belief that human life does have intrinsic meaning because human beings are 1) created as persons, in the image of the trinity of persons, and are intended by the creator to participate in that shared personal life; 2) as persons, participate in the human life of Jesus, fully human and the second person of the trinity, restored by his redemption to full participation in the trinitarian life they had distanced themselves from by sin. The Catholic church and all but the most rigid right-wing christian churches (drawing their principles more from Romanticism than from the New Testament) has claimed directly and continually that human life has value in itself, as created and intended by the Creator. That is a primary difference between the closed-system concept of existence that forms the basis of the Greek philosophic system (nothing is ever truly given, always retained by the first principle) and the open-system concept represented by a creator capable of genuine, eternal interaction and actual giving.
Jacqueline Cartier
Date: Mon, 22 Apr 1996 18:58:05 -0500 (CDT) From: Rosemary Grant <fhr010@mail.connect.more.net>
I don't know exactly how this fits in to the conversation begun on Keikegaard, or even if it does, but it helped me understand the perspective of the ancient world. The Greek citizen had the opposite conception of public and private from what we do today. Their private lives were restricted, and what they did in their homes was highly regulated by the father. Therefore, as they left their homes and entered into public space in the polis, the large amount of freedom they had was much appreciated. In contrast, people today have large amounts of freedom within their private space and increasingly less within the public. Practice of religion is another area with noticeable differences. With the Greek temple worshippers could come in and out; their gods were accessible to all. The structures of churches today are closed with people usually entering by a front entrance. Another factor to consider is that the ancient world did not have the same concept of the individual self as we do today. Although they knew about the spirit within a person, they didn't have today's concept of a soul.
Although God seems accessible to most Christian individuals, for some there may be some difficulty in becoming well-acquainted with the Divine. Certainly propriety seems to have placed certain restrictions on how to communicate with Him and in the form of worship we pursue. Nevertheless, in the confines of one's home we have a great deal of lattitude in how we conduct our worship and live our daily lives. Some people have stretched their lattitude to the ultimate, and either have rejected God or decided to use God as a rabbit's foot when we roll the dice. Some have lost an appreciation for the concept of the soul.
IMHO it is not good to trivialize one's worship or practice devil-may-care conduct within one's Christian life. The situation may be similar to the one that the ancient world eventually reached. Their public practice of religion became mundane, routine, meaningless, and lackluster. The people lost their zest for religion as well as their appreciation for the traditions of their ancestors. They set sail on a stormy sea never to return.
I'm certainly short of knowledge about these questions, but I am most interested in learning more about what other people know. Respectfully,
Rosemary Bradford Grant
Monett High School History/Humanities Instructor UMKC adjunct professor fhr010@mail.connect.more.net Monett, MO 65708 1-417-235-5445 & fax 1-417-235-7884