Christian Theology As A Philosophical Challenge.
As I am giving this entry another look, it may be useful to summarize the point I am making in it in a single sentence: The rationality of Christianity (if any) is so complex and convoluted, and so hard to comprehend by reason, that it seems as though the sheer instinct of faith were posing the greatest conceivable challenge to rational knowledge in all history of human thought, which no other faith, even among the ones of far lesser standing and significance, has ever posed, and which is incomparably hard to conceptualize, to comprehend, to rise up to, except to repeat after Socrates: “I know that I know nothing.”
Is this peculiarity of Christianity a good or a bad thing? Once again, I say this is a challenge. If you believe that an intellectual challenge is a good thing, then you might find Christianity appealing to your taste. If not, then otherwise. But this is only as it refers to a stranger to religion looking in, from the outside. Those of us who are born to great cultures, which are inextricably connected to their respective religions, ours is “not to reason why,” ours is just to believe, irrationally. There is probably no purer faith, no faith so unmistakably distinguishable from its nemesis knowledge, than the cultural faith in the irrational and the inconceivable.
One might point to the Mormon faith as an example of outlandishness, but that would be missing my point. We are talking about pure theology, even theosophy, if you like, of Christianity, and no religious mythology comes close to this supremely esoteric category, where Christianity has always been and will always be in a class by itself.
The imponderable mystery of the two hypostases of Christ: one, fully man, that is, relative, limited in time and space, the other, fully God, that is, absolute and eternal, presents an intellectually unsolvable puzzle to the Christian thinker. (I can easily understand why the non-Christian thinker may want to dismiss all Christian theology as intellectual nonsense before ever realizing what a treasure trove he has just dismissed.) Who and what is Christ, after all: a profound teacher-philosopher. or the Absolute and Awesome God, speaking to people not in the language of parables, but of commands? Is Christ’s morality, a morality in time and place, or the Absolute moral standard, God’s Decree?
There can be no answer “Both!” here, because the two philosophical categories: Man and God, require two totally different approaches, two attitudes, two wholly different sets of conceptual analytical tools, and this problem in philosophy has never really been honestly addressed, for the simple reason that, hard as it is to deal with this problem theologically, it becomes totally impossible to deal with it philosophically. In this latter sense, Christ is not just a problem of reconciliation between two irreconcilable hypostases, but even a more serious problem of legitimacy. When we say “God,” the concept is universally accepted as one with a certain meaning: for all believers it means “The God in whom we believe.” Even for the non-believers, the concept is exactly the same, namely, “The God in whom all believers believe and the non-believers don’t.”
The situation changes dramatically when we say Jesus Christ. Here, all at once, the universal acceptance of the basic concept of God is immediately and totally lacking. The only universal fact that exists with regard to this controversy is the sectarian religious conflict. The matter is then so decidedly relegated to the field of pure religion that it completely loses its legitimate place among philosophical concepts for consideration.
No wonder, then, that as we see great Christian philosophers (such as Descartes, for instance) at work, they all very much prefer using the philosophically invulnerable word God in their treatises, and, apparently, do not feel quite comfortable entering the words Jesus Christ into a non-theological philosophical discussion. Ironically, there is a peculiar similarity here with the great Greek philosophers living within a polytheistic society, whose concept of God, transcendent, infinite and indivisible, has nothing to do with the gods and goddesses of Greek mythology (this is something, which I have previously observed in more than one place, I must say).
Returning to the previous discussion, in our Western Society, formerly known as the Christian Civilization, we have a practical, if I may call it so, resolution to the unsolvable philosophical puzzle posed by the most fundamental theological tenet of Christianity: the Two Hypostases. In modern Europe, it is the light-hearted, happy-go-lucky attitude (similar to the one shown by the pre-Christian Romans toward their polytheistic religion), finding utility in certain historical values of their religion, but otherwise paying it only lip service, or even simply ignoring the rest, and therefore, gravitating toward a secular social morality, with its unambiguous emphasis on socialist moral values, yet continuing to allow the functioning of many practical and effective forms of capitalist enterprise without trying to read too much into their ethical origin. In the United States, however, there is a persistent “theological” effort to deify and ethically justify capitalism, at the same time safely tucking the Christian religion away from the practical reality of everyday secular existence into the religious underground of the churches. The end result of this dubious convenience, however, is the virtual meltdown of Christian philosophy as such, hopelessly weighed down by its grotesque inconsistency, and its intellectual corruption.
Deification Of Human History?
(This entry in its present state is glaringly incomplete, but I am posting it anyway, as it is too closely connected to the preceding one, as another kind of intellectual challenge posed by Christianity, to disconnect them on account of this one's incompleteness. I will return to it at a later time, at which time i may probably repost it in its new expanded version. However, this event is too far removed into the future for now to contemplate it in any reasonably urgent sort of way...)
It is not only the philosophical conundrum of the two hypostases of Christ, that poses a great challenge to Christian theology, not only the imponderable mystery of the Trinity of One God, but also its unique place in the historical records of humanity.
Unlike the Old Testament story of Creation, which has had some curious significance in the context of the biological and similar scientific arguments, but was never seriously analyzed as part of human history, that is, in time, the New Testament story of God in Time is dramatically unlike anything belonging to polytheistic mythology. “And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us…” (John 1:14). This here is not only a religious claim. It is also a philosophical claim and a historical claim. Jesus deifies human history.
Schopenhauer makes the following interesting theological point in his essays on Religion, a point which is worth exploring in greater depth within the Religion Section, although right now this is little more than a memo to myself, calling for further development of this particular angle.
"Christianity has this peculiar disadvantage that, unlike other religions, it is not a pure system of doctrine: its chief and essential feature is that it is a history, a series of events, a collection of facts, a statement of the actions and sufferings of individuals: it is this history constituting dogma, and belief in it is salvation. Other religions, Buddhism, for instance, have, it is true, historical appendages, the life, namely, of their founders: this, however, is not part and parcel of the dogma, but is taken along with it. For example, the Lalitavistara may be compared with the Gospel so far as it contains the life of Sakya-muni, the Buddha of the present period of the world’s history: but this is something which is quite separate and different from the dogma, from the system itself: and for this reason; the lives of former Buddhas were quite other, and those of the future will be quite other, than the life of the Buddha of today. The dogma is by no means one with the career of its founder; it does not rest on an individual person, or event; it is something universal, and equally valid at all times. The Lalitavistara is not, then, a gospel in the Christian sense of the word, it is not the joyful message of an act of redemption; it is the career of him who has shown how each one can redeem himself. The historical constitution of Christianity makes the Chinese laugh at the missionaries as story-tellers." (Schopenhauer. Religion: The Christian System)
I will naturally return to this intriguing, provocative, and inspiring line of thinking sometime in the future...
As I am giving this entry another look, it may be useful to summarize the point I am making in it in a single sentence: The rationality of Christianity (if any) is so complex and convoluted, and so hard to comprehend by reason, that it seems as though the sheer instinct of faith were posing the greatest conceivable challenge to rational knowledge in all history of human thought, which no other faith, even among the ones of far lesser standing and significance, has ever posed, and which is incomparably hard to conceptualize, to comprehend, to rise up to, except to repeat after Socrates: “I know that I know nothing.”
Is this peculiarity of Christianity a good or a bad thing? Once again, I say this is a challenge. If you believe that an intellectual challenge is a good thing, then you might find Christianity appealing to your taste. If not, then otherwise. But this is only as it refers to a stranger to religion looking in, from the outside. Those of us who are born to great cultures, which are inextricably connected to their respective religions, ours is “not to reason why,” ours is just to believe, irrationally. There is probably no purer faith, no faith so unmistakably distinguishable from its nemesis knowledge, than the cultural faith in the irrational and the inconceivable.
One might point to the Mormon faith as an example of outlandishness, but that would be missing my point. We are talking about pure theology, even theosophy, if you like, of Christianity, and no religious mythology comes close to this supremely esoteric category, where Christianity has always been and will always be in a class by itself.
The imponderable mystery of the two hypostases of Christ: one, fully man, that is, relative, limited in time and space, the other, fully God, that is, absolute and eternal, presents an intellectually unsolvable puzzle to the Christian thinker. (I can easily understand why the non-Christian thinker may want to dismiss all Christian theology as intellectual nonsense before ever realizing what a treasure trove he has just dismissed.) Who and what is Christ, after all: a profound teacher-philosopher. or the Absolute and Awesome God, speaking to people not in the language of parables, but of commands? Is Christ’s morality, a morality in time and place, or the Absolute moral standard, God’s Decree?
There can be no answer “Both!” here, because the two philosophical categories: Man and God, require two totally different approaches, two attitudes, two wholly different sets of conceptual analytical tools, and this problem in philosophy has never really been honestly addressed, for the simple reason that, hard as it is to deal with this problem theologically, it becomes totally impossible to deal with it philosophically. In this latter sense, Christ is not just a problem of reconciliation between two irreconcilable hypostases, but even a more serious problem of legitimacy. When we say “God,” the concept is universally accepted as one with a certain meaning: for all believers it means “The God in whom we believe.” Even for the non-believers, the concept is exactly the same, namely, “The God in whom all believers believe and the non-believers don’t.”
The situation changes dramatically when we say Jesus Christ. Here, all at once, the universal acceptance of the basic concept of God is immediately and totally lacking. The only universal fact that exists with regard to this controversy is the sectarian religious conflict. The matter is then so decidedly relegated to the field of pure religion that it completely loses its legitimate place among philosophical concepts for consideration.
No wonder, then, that as we see great Christian philosophers (such as Descartes, for instance) at work, they all very much prefer using the philosophically invulnerable word God in their treatises, and, apparently, do not feel quite comfortable entering the words Jesus Christ into a non-theological philosophical discussion. Ironically, there is a peculiar similarity here with the great Greek philosophers living within a polytheistic society, whose concept of God, transcendent, infinite and indivisible, has nothing to do with the gods and goddesses of Greek mythology (this is something, which I have previously observed in more than one place, I must say).
Returning to the previous discussion, in our Western Society, formerly known as the Christian Civilization, we have a practical, if I may call it so, resolution to the unsolvable philosophical puzzle posed by the most fundamental theological tenet of Christianity: the Two Hypostases. In modern Europe, it is the light-hearted, happy-go-lucky attitude (similar to the one shown by the pre-Christian Romans toward their polytheistic religion), finding utility in certain historical values of their religion, but otherwise paying it only lip service, or even simply ignoring the rest, and therefore, gravitating toward a secular social morality, with its unambiguous emphasis on socialist moral values, yet continuing to allow the functioning of many practical and effective forms of capitalist enterprise without trying to read too much into their ethical origin. In the United States, however, there is a persistent “theological” effort to deify and ethically justify capitalism, at the same time safely tucking the Christian religion away from the practical reality of everyday secular existence into the religious underground of the churches. The end result of this dubious convenience, however, is the virtual meltdown of Christian philosophy as such, hopelessly weighed down by its grotesque inconsistency, and its intellectual corruption.
Deification Of Human History?
(This entry in its present state is glaringly incomplete, but I am posting it anyway, as it is too closely connected to the preceding one, as another kind of intellectual challenge posed by Christianity, to disconnect them on account of this one's incompleteness. I will return to it at a later time, at which time i may probably repost it in its new expanded version. However, this event is too far removed into the future for now to contemplate it in any reasonably urgent sort of way...)
It is not only the philosophical conundrum of the two hypostases of Christ, that poses a great challenge to Christian theology, not only the imponderable mystery of the Trinity of One God, but also its unique place in the historical records of humanity.
Unlike the Old Testament story of Creation, which has had some curious significance in the context of the biological and similar scientific arguments, but was never seriously analyzed as part of human history, that is, in time, the New Testament story of God in Time is dramatically unlike anything belonging to polytheistic mythology. “And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us…” (John 1:14). This here is not only a religious claim. It is also a philosophical claim and a historical claim. Jesus deifies human history.
Schopenhauer makes the following interesting theological point in his essays on Religion, a point which is worth exploring in greater depth within the Religion Section, although right now this is little more than a memo to myself, calling for further development of this particular angle.
"Christianity has this peculiar disadvantage that, unlike other religions, it is not a pure system of doctrine: its chief and essential feature is that it is a history, a series of events, a collection of facts, a statement of the actions and sufferings of individuals: it is this history constituting dogma, and belief in it is salvation. Other religions, Buddhism, for instance, have, it is true, historical appendages, the life, namely, of their founders: this, however, is not part and parcel of the dogma, but is taken along with it. For example, the Lalitavistara may be compared with the Gospel so far as it contains the life of Sakya-muni, the Buddha of the present period of the world’s history: but this is something which is quite separate and different from the dogma, from the system itself: and for this reason; the lives of former Buddhas were quite other, and those of the future will be quite other, than the life of the Buddha of today. The dogma is by no means one with the career of its founder; it does not rest on an individual person, or event; it is something universal, and equally valid at all times. The Lalitavistara is not, then, a gospel in the Christian sense of the word, it is not the joyful message of an act of redemption; it is the career of him who has shown how each one can redeem himself. The historical constitution of Christianity makes the Chinese laugh at the missionaries as story-tellers." (Schopenhauer. Religion: The Christian System)
I will naturally return to this intriguing, provocative, and inspiring line of thinking sometime in the future...
No comments:
Post a Comment