critical review
Vatican II: Voice of the Church.
The website, Vatican II: Voice of the Church, provides a succinct overview of the Vatican II whilst also bearing a vast wealth of knowledge about the aforementioned phenomenon.. Through this information, a decent foundation for evangelization and catechises is found. As such, it is only natural given these qualities, that Vatican II: Voice of the Church continues the ongoing renewal of the Roman Catholic Church.
The adequacy of the website is a product of the website editor's goal, that is, 'to explain and promote the teachings of Vatican II'. On the home page alone there is a vast array of knowledge dedicated to explicating the teachings of Vatican II.
The arguments, opinions and ideologies are all present on the front page for anybody to see. The website has no qualms in outlining their position on Vatican II - which goes against the grain of 'cradle Catholics'. They present their arguments with reasoning and sources and they seem to pride themselves in having the most up-to-date information about the struggles, debates and other changes occurring in the Church - which is a good sign.
As such, due to the scholarly nature of the website, it provides a firm foundation for catechises. The documents, teachings and beliefs of the Church as influenced by Vatican II are explicated in many different documents available on the website. Documents such as Dei Verbum, Lumen Gentium, Sacrosanctum Concilium and Gaudium et Spes are all available. As well as these traditional documents there are post-Vatican II documents available, such as Nicholas Lash's Vatican II: of Happy Memory and Hope?, which provide a critique of the council. The website boasts many of these documents and each one holds vital information pertaining to Vatican II. As such the website seems to be a useful website for learning about Vatican II - and thus it's a vessel of catechesis.
There is no doubt that the website seeks to maintain a strong intellectual desire for knowledge, understanding and proliferation pertaining to the affects of Vatican II. The editor states 'Forty years on from the Council, an Even Greater Urgency arises' meaning that now more than ever it is important to catechise, to evangelise so that the Church may continue to undergo this renewal to stay healthy. This mentality, that the Church must undergo constant renewal, is not surprising given the mentality of society today - the Church is constantly struggling against secular figures, authorities and communities and thus it is important to be intellectually prepared to explicate understanding of the Church and to defend the Church. As such, the website aids in this movement. Vatican II: Voice of the Church definitely helps in the ongoing renewal of the Roman Catholic Church.
'A Fundamental issue: Who leads and governs the Catholic Church?' Asks the editor. He then goes on to explain in detail the roots of the Church. This in-depth analysis is quite rare in Catholic circles today. Many Catholics are lax and simply care not for important academic questions such as the aforementioned. So, even if this Vatican II: Voice of the Church does not get every question right - it shouldn't be scowled at because it gets them wrong - it should be appreciated because it actually asks the questions in the first place. Catechism and evangelization are inextricably linked with the ongoing renewal of the Roman Catholic Church which is intertwined with the academic ability to question and assess with logic and reasoning. This website provides a lot of material which attempts to do question, analyse and reason with logic and intelligence.
I find it evident that if a Catholic person was to arrive at the website they would be suitably humbled by the approach the editor takes to expand upon the faith. The visitor would be challenged, perhaps even perturbed by some ideas - however I think for the most part they would be interested, most definitely. This is good because an interest in the faith provides inspiration for catechesis, evangelization and of course the ongoing renewal of the Roman Catholic Church.
Furthermore, if an academic was to peruse the website I am sure that some mistakes would be found and some concepts would need clarification - however I must suggest that one should not let these small discrepancies muddle the bigger picture. What this website is doing is maximising the affect of Vatican II. It seeks to push the Church forward. It seeks to expand upon the knowledge of the Roman Catholic faith. And the questions asked, the ideas promoted, the concepts proliferated, whether right of wrong, aid the final goal - that is to have a strong, intelligent and understanding Church.
As such, it can be seen, that Vatican II: Voice of the Church is a website filled with important documents, ideas and more. It certainly is an adequate resource for basic research focusing around Vatican II. On another level it provides a foundation for catechesis and evangelisation. Finally, when all of these qualities are put together, the website definitely furthers the ongoing renewal of the Roman Catholic Church.
Thursday, 24 September 2009
Monday, 21 September 2009
Phi202
Virtue ethics says: Try to be virtuous. Virtue ethics is not saying you should consciously be motivated by the desire to be virtuous. Being virtuous is about being consciously motivated by other desires. Virtue ethics is not about being consciously motivated by being seen as virtuous.
His202
Mathematics (Neo-Platonism)
There is a certain mathematical perfection to the world - this mode of thought is not compatible with strict Aristotelianism. Scholastic Aristotelianism is the only avenue for pursuing natural knowledge, since the 13th century (Aquinas). This doesn't mean that mathematics was ignored in the schools since the 13 hundreds - mathematics was studied 'big time' in the universities across Europe.
Emphasis on the practical applicability of the mathematical sciences - mixed mathematical because they are applicable over a mix of disciplines. Astronomy, music, navigation, engineering - all of these use practical mathematics.
When it comes to questions like: What's out there? ETC
These mixed mathematical sciences are subordinate to natural law (philosophy/philosophy of nature/understanding how the world works). And Aristotelian thought dominates.
There is a certain mathematical perfection to the world - this mode of thought is not compatible with strict Aristotelianism. Scholastic Aristotelianism is the only avenue for pursuing natural knowledge, since the 13th century (Aquinas). This doesn't mean that mathematics was ignored in the schools since the 13 hundreds - mathematics was studied 'big time' in the universities across Europe.
Emphasis on the practical applicability of the mathematical sciences - mixed mathematical because they are applicable over a mix of disciplines. Astronomy, music, navigation, engineering - all of these use practical mathematics.
When it comes to questions like: What's out there? ETC
These mixed mathematical sciences are subordinate to natural law (philosophy/philosophy of nature/understanding how the world works). And Aristotelian thought dominates.
Lit202
Just doing background stuff on Hopkins (it's all found in the norton)
Haecceitas (Scodian ideas) Linked to two other poetical theories which have theological underflows: Inscape and instress
The Great Sacrifice
Double Incarnation
Christ is then somehow in the creation.
The creation then, is distilled to a pure point in the virgin Mary.
There's a created universe, it has Christ in it already, it's fallen, it's muddy, and Mary is the unblemished and pure source.
Christ takes the blemished form as his second incarnation.
Christ puts himself into the creation - kinosis.
As Kingfishers catch Fire.
The touching of bodies - each relationship is sensitive. The active and the passive are intermingled and shown to be interchangeable in this poem - as creatures act and are acted upon in a way which elicits the act of grace. Something in nature is touched by something else to become what it is. (Kingfishers catch fire). To catch fire implies that it goes out and actively catches - or does it mean that fire catches it? This is the same as grace for Hopkins (Grace touching the soul drawing it out to what it's meant to be). To him, what we are is the image of Christ - given back to the Father - the paradox is that we are most unique as individuals when we become what we are meant to be which is Christ. (The many in the one - the Pauline notion - the many gifts each have their place in the body - each of them is Christ).
A string plucked tells of itself. The Church bell sings of itself when swung.
These depend on someone acting upon it - just like we can only become who we are meant to be, who we truly are, through the activity of Christ.
The opening line can be understood both actively and passively (as we said).
For this I came into the world (allusion to the Gospel).
Why does Christ come into the world? To spend himself on the cross and in the Eucharist. All of the images Hopkins explores in the first 7 lines prepare the reader to receive the last few lines.
The just man justices and the just man justice is.
It's a poem about identity.
Lovely harmony between the many and the one, the simple and the multiple. God's reign doesn't crush diversity - the very creation speaks out for it.
God's Grandeur is about the sacramentality of nature.
Oil is mentioned - like the sacred oils.
The grape is crushed - like Jesus is crushed on the cross.
'Spring'
The conclusion is: 'Yes I can see why this world was worth redeeming. Yes I can see why your neighbour is worth redeeming.'
Thrush - rich, decant sound. Full of life.
Mayday is a pun on 'maid' (our lady).
'Hurrahing in Harvest'
The heart rears wings when touched by God.
There is an audacity when going to God - the heart now becomes bold.
Christ embodies the extremes (And seeming opposites) are captured in the images. Majestic as the stallion but also delicate as a violet.
Haecceitas (Scodian ideas) Linked to two other poetical theories which have theological underflows: Inscape and instress
The Great Sacrifice
Double Incarnation
Christ is then somehow in the creation.
The creation then, is distilled to a pure point in the virgin Mary.
There's a created universe, it has Christ in it already, it's fallen, it's muddy, and Mary is the unblemished and pure source.
Christ takes the blemished form as his second incarnation.
Christ puts himself into the creation - kinosis.
As Kingfishers catch Fire.
The touching of bodies - each relationship is sensitive. The active and the passive are intermingled and shown to be interchangeable in this poem - as creatures act and are acted upon in a way which elicits the act of grace. Something in nature is touched by something else to become what it is. (Kingfishers catch fire). To catch fire implies that it goes out and actively catches - or does it mean that fire catches it? This is the same as grace for Hopkins (Grace touching the soul drawing it out to what it's meant to be). To him, what we are is the image of Christ - given back to the Father - the paradox is that we are most unique as individuals when we become what we are meant to be which is Christ. (The many in the one - the Pauline notion - the many gifts each have their place in the body - each of them is Christ).
A string plucked tells of itself. The Church bell sings of itself when swung.
These depend on someone acting upon it - just like we can only become who we are meant to be, who we truly are, through the activity of Christ.
The opening line can be understood both actively and passively (as we said).
For this I came into the world (allusion to the Gospel).
Why does Christ come into the world? To spend himself on the cross and in the Eucharist. All of the images Hopkins explores in the first 7 lines prepare the reader to receive the last few lines.
The just man justices and the just man justice is.
It's a poem about identity.
Lovely harmony between the many and the one, the simple and the multiple. God's reign doesn't crush diversity - the very creation speaks out for it.
God's Grandeur is about the sacramentality of nature.
Oil is mentioned - like the sacred oils.
The grape is crushed - like Jesus is crushed on the cross.
'Spring'
The conclusion is: 'Yes I can see why this world was worth redeeming. Yes I can see why your neighbour is worth redeeming.'
Thrush - rich, decant sound. Full of life.
Mayday is a pun on 'maid' (our lady).
'Hurrahing in Harvest'
The heart rears wings when touched by God.
There is an audacity when going to God - the heart now becomes bold.
Christ embodies the extremes (And seeming opposites) are captured in the images. Majestic as the stallion but also delicate as a violet.
Sunday, 20 September 2009
Phi202
Phi202 Virtue Ethics
Consequentialism, deontology, virtue ethics, natural law theories
Aristotle is the paradigm virtue ethicist. Virtue ethics are neglected for some time in Anglo-American moral philosophy, in favour of theories like utilitarianism. Partly because the latter tend to give more clear-cut advice as to what to do in particular situations, or at least they attempt to give a clear-cut criteria of rightness (even if not a decision procedure).
Virtue ethics of the Aristotelian doesn't even attempt to give a criterion of rightness.
Recall, virtue ethics takes the virtue of persons as the fundamental moral notion, in terms of which the rightness of actions is to be understood. The fundamental question is what sort of person should I be?
What are moral virtues? Virtues in general, or not, are positive character traits. They are personal excellences of a certain sort. The Greek word for excellence is arete.
So virtue ethics theories are sometimes known as aretoic theories.
What is an excellence? An excellence is defined in terms of a telos or propose or end. A knife has a certain purpose or telos, to cut. Correspondingly, the excellence of a knife are those qualities that make it fit for its end/purpose. E.g. being sharp, well-balanced etc.
These excellences are virtues of a sort (though obviously not moral virtues). (We sometimes still use the term 'virtue' for such excellences in ordinary language: e.g. 'the chief virtue of this mystery novel is that it is very suspenseful.' we have a characteristic that helps the novel achieve the end of entertaining the reader.) Whether we call characteristic is a virtue shall depend on what we see as the purpose of the thing.
Is the prettiness of this rock a virtue? Depending on whether the rock is intended as an ornament or a hammer.
-How to narrow down excellences to the subclass of moral virtues?
-Part of it (though not hte whole story) is that moral virtues are dispositions to act. In this respect they are like the virtues that go into making our skilled in a particurlar way. A carpenter has a set of dispositions that make her skilled. Similarly, says Artistole, a temperate man or a just woman will have dispositions that make him or her possess the virtue of temperance or justice. Because they are able to skills, virtue can be developed by practive. The just man develops the virtuous disposition by performing just acts. Not self mandatory. One can perform just acts without being disposed to do an act before it becomes second nature.
Another part of the story, this time disinguishing moral virtues from skills more generally is that moral virtues are dispositions of the will, as opposed to dispositions of the body (physical virtues) or of the intellect (intellectual virtues) a moral virtue consists in them characteristics that underlies a disposition to indent/will in a certain way.
-E.G courage temperance and justice are all obviously dispositions of the will. 'Tendencies to intend' What about practical wisdom ? usually thought of as a moral virtue?
The wisdom to know what the right thing to do is.
Is'nt this an intellectual virtue? Yes, but not purely; it isn't just another way of knowing what the right thing to do would be (cleverness) but being disposed to intend it.
Consequentialism, deontology, virtue ethics, natural law theories
Aristotle is the paradigm virtue ethicist. Virtue ethics are neglected for some time in Anglo-American moral philosophy, in favour of theories like utilitarianism. Partly because the latter tend to give more clear-cut advice as to what to do in particular situations, or at least they attempt to give a clear-cut criteria of rightness (even if not a decision procedure).
Virtue ethics of the Aristotelian doesn't even attempt to give a criterion of rightness.
Recall, virtue ethics takes the virtue of persons as the fundamental moral notion, in terms of which the rightness of actions is to be understood. The fundamental question is what sort of person should I be?
What are moral virtues? Virtues in general, or not, are positive character traits. They are personal excellences of a certain sort. The Greek word for excellence is arete.
So virtue ethics theories are sometimes known as aretoic theories.
What is an excellence? An excellence is defined in terms of a telos or propose or end. A knife has a certain purpose or telos, to cut. Correspondingly, the excellence of a knife are those qualities that make it fit for its end/purpose. E.g. being sharp, well-balanced etc.
These excellences are virtues of a sort (though obviously not moral virtues). (We sometimes still use the term 'virtue' for such excellences in ordinary language: e.g. 'the chief virtue of this mystery novel is that it is very suspenseful.' we have a characteristic that helps the novel achieve the end of entertaining the reader.) Whether we call characteristic is a virtue shall depend on what we see as the purpose of the thing.
Is the prettiness of this rock a virtue? Depending on whether the rock is intended as an ornament or a hammer.
-How to narrow down excellences to the subclass of moral virtues?
-Part of it (though not hte whole story) is that moral virtues are dispositions to act. In this respect they are like the virtues that go into making our skilled in a particurlar way. A carpenter has a set of dispositions that make her skilled. Similarly, says Artistole, a temperate man or a just woman will have dispositions that make him or her possess the virtue of temperance or justice. Because they are able to skills, virtue can be developed by practive. The just man develops the virtuous disposition by performing just acts. Not self mandatory. One can perform just acts without being disposed to do an act before it becomes second nature.
Another part of the story, this time disinguishing moral virtues from skills more generally is that moral virtues are dispositions of the will, as opposed to dispositions of the body (physical virtues) or of the intellect (intellectual virtues) a moral virtue consists in them characteristics that underlies a disposition to indent/will in a certain way.
-E.G courage temperance and justice are all obviously dispositions of the will. 'Tendencies to intend' What about practical wisdom ? usually thought of as a moral virtue?
The wisdom to know what the right thing to do is.
Is'nt this an intellectual virtue? Yes, but not purely; it isn't just another way of knowing what the right thing to do would be (cleverness) but being disposed to intend it.
His202
There is a problem with the term the counter-reformation.
Modern devotion - been going on since early 15th century (well before anything like protestantism, generations before Luther came along).
(Vague examples)
-Modern Devotion
-Implication of not wanting reform
-Church responding to heretical
-Politics
-Reform - Savanarola
-Issues with Church hierarchy
-Imitation
-Erasmus
-Christian Humanism
-Monastic reform
-Hermetic magicians
(look at sheet)
broader political alliances (charles the Fifth) There's reform going on in this long stretch of history in the Church but obviously we are seeing something different in the 16th century - and we may refer to this as the Tridentine Reformation.
With just the term counter-reformation we bring on the implications (inaccurate) of the Church not wanting reform or not reforming at all yet.
Reform movement in monasteries, intellectuals, those interested in modern devotion. There are no pushes for reform among the higher levels of the echelons of the Church until the 16th century.
The recalcitrance, hesitance or disinterest of the former Popes does not make Pope Paul III a great pope. Family favouritism - shortcomings.
Nevertheless, Pope Paul III was very interested in the catholic reform issues and so he attempted to elevate the issues be nominating several vocal reformers as cardinals.
Council of Trent is our yardstick for Tradentine reform.
The report was buried - but also leaked, printed and distributed in some protestant regions (Germany especially).
It fuelled the protestant cause and had little impact on Church reform.
Modern devotion - been going on since early 15th century (well before anything like protestantism, generations before Luther came along).
(Vague examples)
-Modern Devotion
-Implication of not wanting reform
-Church responding to heretical
-Politics
-Reform - Savanarola
-Issues with Church hierarchy
-Imitation
-Erasmus
-Christian Humanism
-Monastic reform
-Hermetic magicians
(look at sheet)
broader political alliances (charles the Fifth) There's reform going on in this long stretch of history in the Church but obviously we are seeing something different in the 16th century - and we may refer to this as the Tridentine Reformation.
With just the term counter-reformation we bring on the implications (inaccurate) of the Church not wanting reform or not reforming at all yet.
Reform movement in monasteries, intellectuals, those interested in modern devotion. There are no pushes for reform among the higher levels of the echelons of the Church until the 16th century.
The recalcitrance, hesitance or disinterest of the former Popes does not make Pope Paul III a great pope. Family favouritism - shortcomings.
Nevertheless, Pope Paul III was very interested in the catholic reform issues and so he attempted to elevate the issues be nominating several vocal reformers as cardinals.
Council of Trent is our yardstick for Tradentine reform.
The report was buried - but also leaked, printed and distributed in some protestant regions (Germany especially).
It fuelled the protestant cause and had little impact on Church reform.
Monday, 14 September 2009
His202
1530 - French threat seemingly over - Charles bathing in the light of that triumph - he was desperate to get an army together - and this meant 'making friends' with some of the more powerful protestants - especially the Schmalkaldians.
The Hapsburg territories would be the first to be hit by any muslin invasion - this is the key to the protestant
Contarini - humanist, liberal scholar and was prepared to negotiate. Luther's keen follower - Philip Melanchthon also arrived to make some solution.
Conciliatory mood. All parties went into this Diet of 1541 talking of unity. (The idea that there could be a solution they just needed to strive for it.)
Issues:
Primacy of the Pope
Clerical marriages
significance of the sacraments of baptism and of course, especially, communion.
And so the debate continued...
So the Diet of Regensburg did not overcome the hurdle.
Emperor Charles continued to press Pope Paul III to get the council going.
After three diets all of these issues could not be resolved.
However in 1542 war broke out again between Francis I and Charles V. (These stories... are like... running on a treadmill - you get nowhere and you keep encountering the same problems and the same task).
There is a different mood.
The difference is now the main players are 25 years older and more experienced. And there are new players.
New generation of leaders under consolidated protestant Germany - rather than intellectualise the reform movement like zwingli and others - it is not a political game.
The Schmalkaldian league broke up. The French were subdued. The Turks were at bay. The Pope was on the same page, finally - and had gotten the council of Trent under way. Luther died. Henry the 8th also died. And so Charles, and the Catholic Church seemed as though they would surely triumph. While Charles' campaign was successful and the war was won - protestants still survived and were important.
The council of Trent was not going to plan. Protestant leaders were largely not there. The meetings usually broke up in hatred. Increasing tension between Pope Paul III and Charles.
Thankfully for Charles - Paul died in 1549. Julius III - council of Trent II.
Rift was growing between Charles and Ferdinand - it was based on the idea of who would inherit Charles' power after his death.
by its third session the Council of Trent was finally doing what it was meant to be doing.
The Hapsburg territories would be the first to be hit by any muslin invasion - this is the key to the protestant
Contarini - humanist, liberal scholar and was prepared to negotiate. Luther's keen follower - Philip Melanchthon also arrived to make some solution.
Conciliatory mood. All parties went into this Diet of 1541 talking of unity. (The idea that there could be a solution they just needed to strive for it.)
Issues:
Primacy of the Pope
Clerical marriages
significance of the sacraments of baptism and of course, especially, communion.
And so the debate continued...
So the Diet of Regensburg did not overcome the hurdle.
Emperor Charles continued to press Pope Paul III to get the council going.
After three diets all of these issues could not be resolved.
However in 1542 war broke out again between Francis I and Charles V. (These stories... are like... running on a treadmill - you get nowhere and you keep encountering the same problems and the same task).
There is a different mood.
The difference is now the main players are 25 years older and more experienced. And there are new players.
New generation of leaders under consolidated protestant Germany - rather than intellectualise the reform movement like zwingli and others - it is not a political game.
The Schmalkaldian league broke up. The French were subdued. The Turks were at bay. The Pope was on the same page, finally - and had gotten the council of Trent under way. Luther died. Henry the 8th also died. And so Charles, and the Catholic Church seemed as though they would surely triumph. While Charles' campaign was successful and the war was won - protestants still survived and were important.
The council of Trent was not going to plan. Protestant leaders were largely not there. The meetings usually broke up in hatred. Increasing tension between Pope Paul III and Charles.
Thankfully for Charles - Paul died in 1549. Julius III - council of Trent II.
Rift was growing between Charles and Ferdinand - it was based on the idea of who would inherit Charles' power after his death.
by its third session the Council of Trent was finally doing what it was meant to be doing.
Lit202
Charles Dickens
Hard Times
The novel did not enjoy a superior reputation until F.R Leaves - famous literature scholar from Cambridge - critiqued it and elevated it to a very high level.
It's a novel that operates on many levels -
popular novel - comedy - interesting
it also serves as a social commentary - functions as an exploration of human nature - also an exploration of pedagogy principles.
It's also a critique of industrialisation - also a critique of Victorian social morays.
The success of the work is the seamless intertwining of these ideas into one whole.
Is Charles making a point against capitalism or merely against its successors?
Are the workers inherently noble and the bosses inherently flawed?
Only rarely do we feel that Dickens is preaching and going off on a moral tangent (extraneous to the plot)
Dickens uses caricatures. Sentamentality. The obvious appeal to emotion. Which is not just a technique but is also a theme. Characters personifying world views (similar in Frankenstein).
The transition between Romanticism to Victorianism.
Victorian Age - 1830-1903 - An age of manners - Oscar Wilde - Gerard Manly Hopkins - John Ruskin - Matthew Arnold - John Stewart Mill - Alfred Lord Tennyson - Charles Darwin - Frederick Engles - Karl Marx.
A period that gave too much to manners and 'keeping up appearances'.
Dickens critiques and challenges utilitarians and recognises its all pervasive influence on his contemporary education - and the connection between the education explored in the novel and the consequences of that education - visibly realised in the Industrialisation.
Mill - along with Bentham - was one of the leaders of the utilitarian movement.
The utilitarians untied the rainbow.
For Dickens - the mechanized man perfectly gives rise to the mechanized society.
Chesterton wrote about hard times.
permanent and presiding humanity -
The book titles -
The first: sowing
The second: reaping
the third: garnering
agrarian images
'murdering of the innocence' - biblical.
Explains the character like the character is explaining himself - 'Thomas Gradgrind, sir'
Rationalistic view of life which thinks they just can just generalise, summarise and break down the mystery of existence. (by extracting we are exhausting, according to Dickens.)
Sissy Jupe ignores the truth. He is trying to manipulate the truth to make it palatable. So this is the irony - using
Hard Times
The novel did not enjoy a superior reputation until F.R Leaves - famous literature scholar from Cambridge - critiqued it and elevated it to a very high level.
It's a novel that operates on many levels -
popular novel - comedy - interesting
it also serves as a social commentary - functions as an exploration of human nature - also an exploration of pedagogy principles.
It's also a critique of industrialisation - also a critique of Victorian social morays.
The success of the work is the seamless intertwining of these ideas into one whole.
Is Charles making a point against capitalism or merely against its successors?
Are the workers inherently noble and the bosses inherently flawed?
Only rarely do we feel that Dickens is preaching and going off on a moral tangent (extraneous to the plot)
Dickens uses caricatures. Sentamentality. The obvious appeal to emotion. Which is not just a technique but is also a theme. Characters personifying world views (similar in Frankenstein).
The transition between Romanticism to Victorianism.
Victorian Age - 1830-1903 - An age of manners - Oscar Wilde - Gerard Manly Hopkins - John Ruskin - Matthew Arnold - John Stewart Mill - Alfred Lord Tennyson - Charles Darwin - Frederick Engles - Karl Marx.
A period that gave too much to manners and 'keeping up appearances'.
Dickens critiques and challenges utilitarians and recognises its all pervasive influence on his contemporary education - and the connection between the education explored in the novel and the consequences of that education - visibly realised in the Industrialisation.
Mill - along with Bentham - was one of the leaders of the utilitarian movement.
The utilitarians untied the rainbow.
For Dickens - the mechanized man perfectly gives rise to the mechanized society.
Chesterton wrote about hard times.
permanent and presiding humanity -
The book titles -
The first: sowing
The second: reaping
the third: garnering
agrarian images
'murdering of the innocence' - biblical.
Explains the character like the character is explaining himself - 'Thomas Gradgrind, sir'
Rationalistic view of life which thinks they just can just generalise, summarise and break down the mystery of existence. (by extracting we are exhausting, according to Dickens.)
Sissy Jupe ignores the truth. He is trying to manipulate the truth to make it palatable. So this is the irony - using
Sunday, 13 September 2009
Phi202
Kantian deontology has certain striking features (connect the moral theory with a certain metaphysical picture of the self a highly abstract and rationalistic picture) that make it quintessentially Modern. These features exist in embryo in our ordinary moral views but Kant articulates them in a very systematic way and places them at the heart of morality in a way that not all moral theories.
What are these features?
Moral value of an action depends on its being done with what is caused to produce a certain outcome.
That is, it depends on the will to produce that outcome. Whether that outcome actually eventuates, to the extent that that issue is outside of your control, is morally irrelevant.
E.g two people in subjectively identical circumstances spend $100 000 of their own money to buy an experimental drug for a stranger who is dying of a rare disease. Even if, due to pure luck, the drug works, in the one circumstance and not in the other, the moral value of the action is the same - this is the intuition Kant builds on. They did different things, but what they did intentionally was the same. (Subjectively identical premises rules out the pending (and had reason to know that the drug wasn't going to work.
i.e whether it is motivated by a recognition that the act is required by a purely rational moral rule.
What you will is important.
Why you will is important.
The moral rule you are motivated by, if it is to be genuinely moral, must not command you hypothetically or conditionally to do A if you want B, where B is some desire you just happen to have. Rather, it must command you categorically or unconditionally to do A, based on any rational being would enough. To say that a desire is one you just happen to have is to say that your having it is contingent fact or is an accidental feature of you; the idea is that you could have existed without desiring B, that that desire is not a necessary or essential part or feature of your make up. What makes a motivation contingent to you is that it is an empirical desire, stemming from de facto or merely given feelings. For Kant, the only motivations that are necessary for you to have, the only ones they are part of your essential make up, are not here that contain no empirical concept and are purely formal. This is another way of saying that your essential true self is your rational self.
Acting from self-imposed laws that stem from the rational nature of your essential self is freedom of autonomy; acting from externally imposed (stemming from your pathological nature of your contingent empirical self, or mere tradition) laws.
Does Kant undervalue feeling?
What are these features?
Moral value of an action depends on its being done with what is caused to produce a certain outcome.
That is, it depends on the will to produce that outcome. Whether that outcome actually eventuates, to the extent that that issue is outside of your control, is morally irrelevant.
E.g two people in subjectively identical circumstances spend $100 000 of their own money to buy an experimental drug for a stranger who is dying of a rare disease. Even if, due to pure luck, the drug works, in the one circumstance and not in the other, the moral value of the action is the same - this is the intuition Kant builds on. They did different things, but what they did intentionally was the same. (Subjectively identical premises rules out the pending (and had reason to know that the drug wasn't going to work.
i.e whether it is motivated by a recognition that the act is required by a purely rational moral rule.
What you will is important.
Why you will is important.
The moral rule you are motivated by, if it is to be genuinely moral, must not command you hypothetically or conditionally to do A if you want B, where B is some desire you just happen to have. Rather, it must command you categorically or unconditionally to do A, based on any rational being would enough. To say that a desire is one you just happen to have is to say that your having it is contingent fact or is an accidental feature of you; the idea is that you could have existed without desiring B, that that desire is not a necessary or essential part or feature of your make up. What makes a motivation contingent to you is that it is an empirical desire, stemming from de facto or merely given feelings. For Kant, the only motivations that are necessary for you to have, the only ones they are part of your essential make up, are not here that contain no empirical concept and are purely formal. This is another way of saying that your essential true self is your rational self.
Acting from self-imposed laws that stem from the rational nature of your essential self is freedom of autonomy; acting from externally imposed (stemming from your pathological nature of your contingent empirical self, or mere tradition) laws.
Does Kant undervalue feeling?
His202
`Attempts at Reconciliation
1.Calvin
2.Emperor Charles V
3.Zwingli
4.What was the condition of the Protestant movement between 1520 and 1540?
(There's a lot going on and there's a lot contributing to Luther's reason as to debate the lax clergy, the building of Cathedrals in a pessimistic economic time).
Luther's frustrations were shared by many and steadily he gained some followers. He gained so much attention that in 1520 he was sent a papal bull condemning him for heresy - these views of protestation against his perception of certain church attitudes and indulgences. Luther, however, ignored the demands of the papacy and continued to voice his frustrations against the church - such was the public support by the lay individuals of the community that in 1521 (Diet of Worms) a meeting that Emperor Charles the Fifth called in Worms, northern European city in Germany. Luther was invited to attend as an indication of goodwill to Luther he was offered assurances of safe passage to and from the city. At this diet Luther was offered the opportunity to abandon and deny his previous statements. He was given one night to consider his actions and the consequences. When he returned to negotiations he refused to play along - Charles then signed an edict banning Luther's teachings and labelling him a heretic. For Luther and his supporters, the edict, in 1521 only strengthened their resolve. It inspired other humanist supporters inspired others to form an alternative church in Saxony - and this is where things start to get out of Luther's control. He was in hiding after the edict, so he could not publicly lead any movement. And so others stepped in to lead with various ideas of what should be done. These are not just idiosyncratic figures - they have their armies of followers.
Erasmus, meanwhile, becoming quite dissillusioned with the occurrences, distanced himself from Luther. Discourse on Free Will - deliberately countered Luther's rhetoric on pre-destination.
What was the peasant's war? Are we talking about military action? (There were certainly military forces subduing peasants) So calling it a 'war' might be misleading. What we know is that there was a revolt in Germany against privileged classes. It involved between 50 000 to 100 000 peasants causing havoc. Just how damaging, just how penetrating it was, is a matter of debate. But the point is that we see this other dimension to what is happening in this period. We have an intellectual humanist movement, we have political interests playing out between Emperors, Popes, Dukes and of course we also have the interests of the lower classes during these difficult economic times, who latch onto the reformist interests of people like Luther and Erasmus and that manifests itself in the so called peasants war of 1524.
Saxony, Brandenburg, Hesse, Neuremburg (these principalities were part of the Roman empire but they openly declared their support of the Lutheran doctrine - their conviction was based on politics)
Diet of Speyer re-affirmed that Lutheranism is heretical. And again this only worked to galvanise the Lutherans - once again at the Diet of Augsburg. John of Saxony, wrote a letter to the Emperor - declaring their refusal to be run by divine law when it came to matters of the principality. It now looks like a politico-religious movement. Whatever we may say about Luther - there is no real protestant movement until 1530.
League of Schmalkalden - Led by John of Saxony.
John Calvin - second generation involved in this controversy. Calvin, born raised and educated in France - grounded in a humanist education in Paris. A turning point emerged in 1533 when Calvin decided to focus on spiritual salvation - this turning point probably had something to do with Francis the first negotiating to marry off his son to Pope Clement's niece. France had long held interest in Italy and highly valued this alliance. The bond between Italy and France manifested itself in this idea of evicting the humanists/reformists from France.
Calvin's book provided a very complete scheme of faith resting solely on the truth of the bible.
Part of his appeal was that he did not focus so heavily on the redemption of man (as Luther had done) instead he offered a guide about knowing God through Christ.
Calvin encouraged moral reform in the City's residence. The moral reform was based on civic change - Calvin negotiated with the City's rulers to make four different civic rulers. The intention was that the civic and religious life in Geneva was to be controlled and shared by these central religious and political administrators. So he set up an ideal for political and religious reform.
So you may say that in all the talk for establishing an alternative Church, Calvin was the first to act and to act about this, only in Geneva.
Charles V (another second generation).
Due to the death of the King of Aragon - Charles inherits all of his territory. Emperor Maximillian, duke of Austria, also died. Leaving Charles as heir to that region. Charles saw his role as the secular head of Christendom.
On top of this german principalities began to accept Lutheran principles. So we have, within his own dominion, this tradition of protest, as well as that, within the empire, the central German empire, we have of course, this league that has formed. The protestation of 1529, despite the appearance of the unity of the reform movement, with all 6 princes who had signed the documents, there was actually some disunity in the movement - there were attempts to reconcile the disunity - Huldrych Zwingli - tried to set up his own Church.
Zwingli denied the validity of good works in the material world to reach salvation. Expressed the link between man and God. To Zwingli, devotion was purely an inner personal experience in which sacraments and ceremonies played no spiritual role. Zwingli abolished the mass - the independence of the Swiss Confederacy allowed these reforms to go ahead so easily.
Zwingli's league was far more aggressive - he wanted to convert - Zwingli's campaign failed and he was killed in battle in 1531. He died but his reformer stance was continued by his followers. (Bullinger, Bucer - one might say that these are third generation contributors to this controversy). The main contentious point that Zwingli brought up - the believability of transubstantiation. In typical, anti scholastic reform, Luther maintained that the idea shouldn't be left up to such rationalising. Luther also maintained that the sacrament can only be found through the understanding and acceptance of the scriptures.
Zwingli thought that the sacrament was simply an old medieval tradition.
Luther and Zwingli met at Marburg to try and resolve their differences. They could not agree about the Eucharist - they did however agree on 14 points - the document became known as the confession of (Oxburg?).
All of this gives one an idea about the complex state of the protestant movement by the end of the 1520s and 1530s Luther and Zwingli tried to reconcile on many things but they couldn't do it - with this failure the die was cast for a fractured reformist movement. (Reformist protestants in Switzerland and parts of southern Germany) On the other side of the debate you have the Catholic Church - still struggling and not understanding.
So a fractured Europe not coming to an understanding of the sacraments.
So all of this is fuelling the disunity of Europe - which brings us back to Emperor Charles V
(the difference is whether you believe what is going on or whether you think it's just symbolic)
1.Calvin
2.Emperor Charles V
3.Zwingli
4.What was the condition of the Protestant movement between 1520 and 1540?
(There's a lot going on and there's a lot contributing to Luther's reason as to debate the lax clergy, the building of Cathedrals in a pessimistic economic time).
Luther's frustrations were shared by many and steadily he gained some followers. He gained so much attention that in 1520 he was sent a papal bull condemning him for heresy - these views of protestation against his perception of certain church attitudes and indulgences. Luther, however, ignored the demands of the papacy and continued to voice his frustrations against the church - such was the public support by the lay individuals of the community that in 1521 (Diet of Worms) a meeting that Emperor Charles the Fifth called in Worms, northern European city in Germany. Luther was invited to attend as an indication of goodwill to Luther he was offered assurances of safe passage to and from the city. At this diet Luther was offered the opportunity to abandon and deny his previous statements. He was given one night to consider his actions and the consequences. When he returned to negotiations he refused to play along - Charles then signed an edict banning Luther's teachings and labelling him a heretic. For Luther and his supporters, the edict, in 1521 only strengthened their resolve. It inspired other humanist supporters inspired others to form an alternative church in Saxony - and this is where things start to get out of Luther's control. He was in hiding after the edict, so he could not publicly lead any movement. And so others stepped in to lead with various ideas of what should be done. These are not just idiosyncratic figures - they have their armies of followers.
Erasmus, meanwhile, becoming quite dissillusioned with the occurrences, distanced himself from Luther. Discourse on Free Will - deliberately countered Luther's rhetoric on pre-destination.
What was the peasant's war? Are we talking about military action? (There were certainly military forces subduing peasants) So calling it a 'war' might be misleading. What we know is that there was a revolt in Germany against privileged classes. It involved between 50 000 to 100 000 peasants causing havoc. Just how damaging, just how penetrating it was, is a matter of debate. But the point is that we see this other dimension to what is happening in this period. We have an intellectual humanist movement, we have political interests playing out between Emperors, Popes, Dukes and of course we also have the interests of the lower classes during these difficult economic times, who latch onto the reformist interests of people like Luther and Erasmus and that manifests itself in the so called peasants war of 1524.
Saxony, Brandenburg, Hesse, Neuremburg (these principalities were part of the Roman empire but they openly declared their support of the Lutheran doctrine - their conviction was based on politics)
Diet of Speyer re-affirmed that Lutheranism is heretical. And again this only worked to galvanise the Lutherans - once again at the Diet of Augsburg. John of Saxony, wrote a letter to the Emperor - declaring their refusal to be run by divine law when it came to matters of the principality. It now looks like a politico-religious movement. Whatever we may say about Luther - there is no real protestant movement until 1530.
League of Schmalkalden - Led by John of Saxony.
John Calvin - second generation involved in this controversy. Calvin, born raised and educated in France - grounded in a humanist education in Paris. A turning point emerged in 1533 when Calvin decided to focus on spiritual salvation - this turning point probably had something to do with Francis the first negotiating to marry off his son to Pope Clement's niece. France had long held interest in Italy and highly valued this alliance. The bond between Italy and France manifested itself in this idea of evicting the humanists/reformists from France.
Calvin's book provided a very complete scheme of faith resting solely on the truth of the bible.
Part of his appeal was that he did not focus so heavily on the redemption of man (as Luther had done) instead he offered a guide about knowing God through Christ.
Calvin encouraged moral reform in the City's residence. The moral reform was based on civic change - Calvin negotiated with the City's rulers to make four different civic rulers. The intention was that the civic and religious life in Geneva was to be controlled and shared by these central religious and political administrators. So he set up an ideal for political and religious reform.
So you may say that in all the talk for establishing an alternative Church, Calvin was the first to act and to act about this, only in Geneva.
Charles V (another second generation).
Due to the death of the King of Aragon - Charles inherits all of his territory. Emperor Maximillian, duke of Austria, also died. Leaving Charles as heir to that region. Charles saw his role as the secular head of Christendom.
On top of this german principalities began to accept Lutheran principles. So we have, within his own dominion, this tradition of protest, as well as that, within the empire, the central German empire, we have of course, this league that has formed. The protestation of 1529, despite the appearance of the unity of the reform movement, with all 6 princes who had signed the documents, there was actually some disunity in the movement - there were attempts to reconcile the disunity - Huldrych Zwingli - tried to set up his own Church.
Zwingli denied the validity of good works in the material world to reach salvation. Expressed the link between man and God. To Zwingli, devotion was purely an inner personal experience in which sacraments and ceremonies played no spiritual role. Zwingli abolished the mass - the independence of the Swiss Confederacy allowed these reforms to go ahead so easily.
Zwingli's league was far more aggressive - he wanted to convert - Zwingli's campaign failed and he was killed in battle in 1531. He died but his reformer stance was continued by his followers. (Bullinger, Bucer - one might say that these are third generation contributors to this controversy). The main contentious point that Zwingli brought up - the believability of transubstantiation. In typical, anti scholastic reform, Luther maintained that the idea shouldn't be left up to such rationalising. Luther also maintained that the sacrament can only be found through the understanding and acceptance of the scriptures.
Zwingli thought that the sacrament was simply an old medieval tradition.
Luther and Zwingli met at Marburg to try and resolve their differences. They could not agree about the Eucharist - they did however agree on 14 points - the document became known as the confession of (Oxburg?).
All of this gives one an idea about the complex state of the protestant movement by the end of the 1520s and 1530s Luther and Zwingli tried to reconcile on many things but they couldn't do it - with this failure the die was cast for a fractured reformist movement. (Reformist protestants in Switzerland and parts of southern Germany) On the other side of the debate you have the Catholic Church - still struggling and not understanding.
So a fractured Europe not coming to an understanding of the sacraments.
So all of this is fuelling the disunity of Europe - which brings us back to Emperor Charles V
(the difference is whether you believe what is going on or whether you think it's just symbolic)
Monday, 7 September 2009
Phi202
Kant thinks that the moral rules that are accountable from pure reason must thereby have a certain 'formal' character which is to say that they should be in a certain way free of empirical matter. What does this amount to?
It's anyway plausible in any case that morality issues in categorical imperatives as opposed to hypothetical ones. It doesn't just say: do it if you want. Rationality does issue such commands, but these are dictated at prudence not morality. Example: morality doesn't say "don't lie if you want to avoid notoriety". It says "don't lie.". So the imperatives (commands) of morality are unconditional.
Because these categorical imperatives are a priori they can't take as a condition a desire for something empirical. (e.g the desire for pleasure. Such a desire doesn't arise from the very rational nature of the being; such a desire is based on feeling and not reason. It is pathological (as in pathos). This is because every rational being must accept the claim if it is to be a priori. But a desire for something empirical won't be possessed by every rational being.
See quote 1. from wk 6 handout
For Kant the fundamental moral principle must be in this way formal, non-empirical. For Kant, there are a number of ways, all equivalent, to formulate the basic categorical imperative.
(I) The Formula of the Law of Nature
Act as if the maxim of your action were to become through your will a law of nature.
His point is that our actions are always in accord with some implicit policy or maxim. If you lie, the maxim might be: Lie when convenient. He claims that you can't rationally intend or will that such a policy be universally adopted. Not because it would be unpleasant but because it would be self-defeating logically. If everyone held that policy, no-one would trust anyone's word so you couldn't take advantage by lying. It is this lack of universability that makes the use of the maxim irrational (a rational maxim would have to be universally adopted).
It's anyway plausible in any case that morality issues in categorical imperatives as opposed to hypothetical ones. It doesn't just say: do it if you want. Rationality does issue such commands, but these are dictated at prudence not morality. Example: morality doesn't say "don't lie if you want to avoid notoriety". It says "don't lie.". So the imperatives (commands) of morality are unconditional.
Because these categorical imperatives are a priori they can't take as a condition a desire for something empirical. (e.g the desire for pleasure. Such a desire doesn't arise from the very rational nature of the being; such a desire is based on feeling and not reason. It is pathological (as in pathos). This is because every rational being must accept the claim if it is to be a priori. But a desire for something empirical won't be possessed by every rational being.
See quote 1. from wk 6 handout
For Kant the fundamental moral principle must be in this way formal, non-empirical. For Kant, there are a number of ways, all equivalent, to formulate the basic categorical imperative.
(I) The Formula of the Law of Nature
Act as if the maxim of your action were to become through your will a law of nature.
His point is that our actions are always in accord with some implicit policy or maxim. If you lie, the maxim might be: Lie when convenient. He claims that you can't rationally intend or will that such a policy be universally adopted. Not because it would be unpleasant but because it would be self-defeating logically. If everyone held that policy, no-one would trust anyone's word so you couldn't take advantage by lying. It is this lack of universability that makes the use of the maxim irrational (a rational maxim would have to be universally adopted).
Lit202
Major figure of 2nd generation Romantic poets.
1st gen, wordsworth, coleridge, blake,
2nd gen, shelley, keats and lord byron.
Like lord Byron and like Shelley himself, Keats died at a tragically young age. Unlike them however, he did not die a romantic death. Shelley died at sea. And Byron died while fighting for Greek independence from the Ottoman Empire. Keats died of tuberculosis.
Trained as a doctor - Keats recognised that his life was soon to end when he coughed up blood.
Shelley who died a year later in 1822 - wrote one of the great elegies to commemorate his friends great demise and to ensure that Keats' death and life would forever be romanticised. Keats himself however had already established just how his life and death would be understood - he courted death just as he courted life - as can be seen in his famous letter to fanny brawn.
'Oh that I could have possession of them both - your loveliness and death'.
Life and death brought together in a strange way, a kiss of death, but it's typical of romanticism.
Keats had a profound vision of the role of the senses in experience and philosophical enquiry. In 1817 he wrote 'oh for a life of sensations rather than thoughts'.
Thought - the process of reasoning and thinking - is as often as not in Keats, associated with suffering and anxiety.
This type of preoccupation - the idea of being tormented by thought - the sensitivity of the mind - this is something we can see earlier in Hamlet, in Prince of Denmark.
So it's interesting to note this growing pre-occupation of the Romantics with this opposition between thought and sense.
It's no accident that the Romantics were the first systematic recreational drug users.
Thomas Quincey - seminal example: Confessions of an English Opium Eater
'Do what your heart tells you' implying there is some division between your head and your heart.
There is an opposition between the truths of rational deductive thought and emotion.
There is an interesting idea: to somehow capture and live fully in a moment and to somehow make that moment persist indefinitely, there is an interesting connection between that and some theological ideas developed, called the sacrament of the present moment - the idea of the Christian receiving each moment as a gift from God.
Even in the state of melancholy, in the state of depression, he is intellectually aware that something is going to happen and rid him of that.
There is some minor critique of reason.
Keats' poems delight in the struggle betweens the notions of mortality, the struggle, the pains of life and immortality.
The paradoxical idea of Keats' poems teasing us out of thought - is an appropriate way to describe Ode on Melancholy. An idyllic world of interacting opposites.
The rejection of the limitations of the rationalistic pursuit is typical of the Romantics.
(Dickens' Hard times traces the consequences of isolating or rejecting emotional considerations and the consequences of pursuing relentlessly a cold, rationalistic view of life)
There's a pleasure in sadness. The necessary paradoxical nature of Keats' vision is capture well by the line 'she dwells with Beauty - Beauty that must die;' Beauty must die because it depends on mortality for its being.
If beauty is the ideal than it would seem that immortality must be rejected.
But it would be simplistic to suggest that beauty is the only ideal, rather it is a part along with joy, melancholy, and other things, of a complex aesthetic vision.
Keats' poems tease us to make superficial conclusions to vastly difficult problems.
'Sonnet To Sleep'
In this poem Keats calls on sleep to save him from curious conscience.
Sleep as a kind of soothing ointment to the weakened soul is an idea we encountered in Frankenstein.
'sleep crept over me and I blessed the giver of oblivion' - sleep, in Frankenstein, soothes us from the pain of too keen sensation. Sleep is like death - just less permanent.
More paradoxes: Keats refers to the eyes as 'gloom pleased' (oxymoron)
The poem also explores the complementarity of the world - sleep compliments consciousness. The harmonious state (joy forever bidding adieu) is forever immortalised here in the opening line in the opening line.
There is a reference to poppies. To opium. And the deliberately troubling use of the religious 'amen'.
There is an idea that something is better in the imagination than in reality. So despite all the appeals to the senses and morality, there is an idea that Keats is an idealist - the idea that he understands that things are better in imagination.
if you want things perfect they will be fixed and still and they won't be lived or real.
1st gen, wordsworth, coleridge, blake,
2nd gen, shelley, keats and lord byron.
Like lord Byron and like Shelley himself, Keats died at a tragically young age. Unlike them however, he did not die a romantic death. Shelley died at sea. And Byron died while fighting for Greek independence from the Ottoman Empire. Keats died of tuberculosis.
Trained as a doctor - Keats recognised that his life was soon to end when he coughed up blood.
Shelley who died a year later in 1822 - wrote one of the great elegies to commemorate his friends great demise and to ensure that Keats' death and life would forever be romanticised. Keats himself however had already established just how his life and death would be understood - he courted death just as he courted life - as can be seen in his famous letter to fanny brawn.
'Oh that I could have possession of them both - your loveliness and death'.
Life and death brought together in a strange way, a kiss of death, but it's typical of romanticism.
Keats had a profound vision of the role of the senses in experience and philosophical enquiry. In 1817 he wrote 'oh for a life of sensations rather than thoughts'.
Thought - the process of reasoning and thinking - is as often as not in Keats, associated with suffering and anxiety.
This type of preoccupation - the idea of being tormented by thought - the sensitivity of the mind - this is something we can see earlier in Hamlet, in Prince of Denmark.
So it's interesting to note this growing pre-occupation of the Romantics with this opposition between thought and sense.
It's no accident that the Romantics were the first systematic recreational drug users.
Thomas Quincey - seminal example: Confessions of an English Opium Eater
'Do what your heart tells you' implying there is some division between your head and your heart.
There is an opposition between the truths of rational deductive thought and emotion.
There is an interesting idea: to somehow capture and live fully in a moment and to somehow make that moment persist indefinitely, there is an interesting connection between that and some theological ideas developed, called the sacrament of the present moment - the idea of the Christian receiving each moment as a gift from God.
Even in the state of melancholy, in the state of depression, he is intellectually aware that something is going to happen and rid him of that.
There is some minor critique of reason.
Keats' poems delight in the struggle betweens the notions of mortality, the struggle, the pains of life and immortality.
The paradoxical idea of Keats' poems teasing us out of thought - is an appropriate way to describe Ode on Melancholy. An idyllic world of interacting opposites.
The rejection of the limitations of the rationalistic pursuit is typical of the Romantics.
(Dickens' Hard times traces the consequences of isolating or rejecting emotional considerations and the consequences of pursuing relentlessly a cold, rationalistic view of life)
There's a pleasure in sadness. The necessary paradoxical nature of Keats' vision is capture well by the line 'she dwells with Beauty - Beauty that must die;' Beauty must die because it depends on mortality for its being.
If beauty is the ideal than it would seem that immortality must be rejected.
But it would be simplistic to suggest that beauty is the only ideal, rather it is a part along with joy, melancholy, and other things, of a complex aesthetic vision.
Keats' poems tease us to make superficial conclusions to vastly difficult problems.
'Sonnet To Sleep'
In this poem Keats calls on sleep to save him from curious conscience.
Sleep as a kind of soothing ointment to the weakened soul is an idea we encountered in Frankenstein.
'sleep crept over me and I blessed the giver of oblivion' - sleep, in Frankenstein, soothes us from the pain of too keen sensation. Sleep is like death - just less permanent.
More paradoxes: Keats refers to the eyes as 'gloom pleased' (oxymoron)
The poem also explores the complementarity of the world - sleep compliments consciousness. The harmonious state (joy forever bidding adieu) is forever immortalised here in the opening line in the opening line.
There is a reference to poppies. To opium. And the deliberately troubling use of the religious 'amen'.
There is an idea that something is better in the imagination than in reality. So despite all the appeals to the senses and morality, there is an idea that Keats is an idealist - the idea that he understands that things are better in imagination.
if you want things perfect they will be fixed and still and they won't be lived or real.
Sunday, 6 September 2009
Phi202
Kantian
Recall that Hume thinks moral claims don't answer to matter of fact (or at least, if they do, they cannot count as knowledge). His idea: such facts can be established neither a priori nor a posteriori. I.e one cannot validly derive an 'ought' from an 'is'. (Quote at beginning of MacIntyre article)
It is a form of utilitarianism that is one of Hume's main targets in arguing that moral claims can't be derived from empirical observations. We praise, he says, these actions that as a matter of fact lead to happiness, but 'were we indifferent to the ends (happiness) we would be equally indifferent t the means (the act). Our lack of indifference is not something logically required by the empirical facts.
A factiori, we can't, he says, derive moral claims without recourse to empirical facts. (He doesn't directly address the possibly counter-response that mathematical reasoning itself rests on axioms that are self-evident, known by pure reason a priori. In which case, why couldn't moral axioms be evident in the light of pure reason too? One response open to Hume is to argue that the very concepts involved in the moral axioms ahve not been shown to have objective reality. That is, it's not obvious, it might be argued that we have managed to affect any objective meaning to words like 'good' at all. It might be argued that this is different from the case of mathematical concepts e.g. 'circle'.
Kant thinks he can answer this Humean challenge, by showing how there can be objectively valid a priori knowledge, despite Hume's argument. Kant agrees that we can't know claims like 'pleasure is good' on the basis of self-evidence. Such a claim involves empirical concepts (just as 'red is a colour' involving empirical concepts) but such claims cannot be known a priori unless they're analytic (which 'pleasure is good' is not) unlike 'red is a colour') Kant derives Hume's strategy of: accepting that moral claims lack objective validity and keeping on making them anyway.
For Kant, the only claims that can be known a priori, unless they're analytic, are those that involve as empirical concepts i.e. those that are pure a priori.
Fr Kant, this insoucicience isn't good enough. He held Hume in great esteem, however, for pointing out the inadequacy of traditional accounts of a priori knowledge.
For Kant, moral truths derive from formal principles. Using these, he says, we can deduce moral claims with objective validity: claims that can't just happen to be accepted by most people, because their happen to be of a certain sort, but that must be accepted by any rational agent.
(This works, he says, because moral truths are not just knowable by pure reason, in a sense they are about pure reason; the concepts derive from pure reason.)
Recall that Hume thinks moral claims don't answer to matter of fact (or at least, if they do, they cannot count as knowledge). His idea: such facts can be established neither a priori nor a posteriori. I.e one cannot validly derive an 'ought' from an 'is'. (Quote at beginning of MacIntyre article)
It is a form of utilitarianism that is one of Hume's main targets in arguing that moral claims can't be derived from empirical observations. We praise, he says, these actions that as a matter of fact lead to happiness, but 'were we indifferent to the ends (happiness) we would be equally indifferent t the means (the act). Our lack of indifference is not something logically required by the empirical facts.
A factiori, we can't, he says, derive moral claims without recourse to empirical facts. (He doesn't directly address the possibly counter-response that mathematical reasoning itself rests on axioms that are self-evident, known by pure reason a priori. In which case, why couldn't moral axioms be evident in the light of pure reason too? One response open to Hume is to argue that the very concepts involved in the moral axioms ahve not been shown to have objective reality. That is, it's not obvious, it might be argued that we have managed to affect any objective meaning to words like 'good' at all. It might be argued that this is different from the case of mathematical concepts e.g. 'circle'.
Kant thinks he can answer this Humean challenge, by showing how there can be objectively valid a priori knowledge, despite Hume's argument. Kant agrees that we can't know claims like 'pleasure is good' on the basis of self-evidence. Such a claim involves empirical concepts (just as 'red is a colour' involving empirical concepts) but such claims cannot be known a priori unless they're analytic (which 'pleasure is good' is not) unlike 'red is a colour') Kant derives Hume's strategy of: accepting that moral claims lack objective validity and keeping on making them anyway.
For Kant, the only claims that can be known a priori, unless they're analytic, are those that involve as empirical concepts i.e. those that are pure a priori.
Fr Kant, this insoucicience isn't good enough. He held Hume in great esteem, however, for pointing out the inadequacy of traditional accounts of a priori knowledge.
For Kant, moral truths derive from formal principles. Using these, he says, we can deduce moral claims with objective validity: claims that can't just happen to be accepted by most people, because their happen to be of a certain sort, but that must be accepted by any rational agent.
(This works, he says, because moral truths are not just knowable by pure reason, in a sense they are about pure reason; the concepts derive from pure reason.)
His202
The Church - wealthy, corrupt and unwilling to understand the changes which needed to be implemented to fix the spiritual guidance.
Luther and the Protestant Movement 1500, 1517
Aims;
Examine the attitude of the Church, especially the pope, to calls for reform
Compare and contrast Luther and Erasmus
When looking at reformation Europe we shouldn't just think of Martin Luther. But we should think about a complex period extending well before the early 16th century. And that includes reformist movements since the 11th and 12th centuries, questions about the importance, primacy, power of the pope. Questions about clerical chastity, symony and ascetic life. (Lower classes were over-taxed)
What you'll see is that Luther doesn't quite chime in with the Humanist movement and this explains why some people like Erasmus who talk about some of the same things as Luther, have a difficult relationship with Luther. This is why historians can't pin the reformation solely on Christian Humanism.
Christian Humanism is not the sole reason of Protestantism.
Between 1500 and 1517 the Holy Roman Empire was not powerful enough to maintain authority during these years and this is when Protestantism really grew.
This situation began to change in part...when Charles the 5th came to the throne in 1519 and saw himself, in the spirit of Charlemagne, as the saviour of the Church.
Lots of provocative claims floating around at the start of the 16th century. Slipping authority of the Church. Lax morals of the clergy. Discrepencies between modern, mystical hermetic demotion and the traditional mediaeval forms.
The Pope took the time out to hold the Fifth Lateran Council (1512-1517)
The central issue at stake was indeed - reform - was indeed response to many of the intellectual issues floating around as well as the discontent with clerics generally in Europe.
But the council wasn't necessarily asking the same reform questions as Erasmus - that is reform over the devotion of the individual. That is going back to the original sources - going back to the Church Fathers. Those questions weren't being asked in this council.
Instead the council was aimed at resolving the question of authority within the Church and authority within the Church.
In 1305 when the Pope resided in Avignon the power of the Church came under the French King. And by the beginning of the Fifteenth century there were three popes. And so to resolve the issues The council of constance in 1414 resolved the issue of these popes - and one of its parting resolutions was to deny the Pope absolute authority over the Church - but the council does (conciliatory meetings)
With all this reformist talk floating around it was time, in the eyes of the conciliarists, to hold another meeting.
Conciliarist Council in Pisa in 1511
Pope Julius II calls Lateran Council in 1512
Savanarola.
In particular monasteries were calling on the Church authorities to encourage some reform to make spiritual observance more important. Think back to 11th and 12th centuries when monasteries agonised over observance of monastic life. And these communities arose to counter the lax faith and spirituality found within the Church.
And so Monastic call for reform.
Observant Franciscans and Dominicans set up strongholds in Ireland. They believed that the ascetic life of the monasteries was the key to maintaining Christian orthodoxy.
There's a lot of interest in this council and most groups are very positive, and hopeful, about what it can do.
Egidio (Giles) of Viterbo - Augustinian Monk.
Egidio defended hermetic humanists from the accusations of heresy.
Never the less, despite sitting for 5 years, the Lateran Council simply failed to achieve anything important. There was, essentially, too many invested interests in the higher echelons to maintain the status quo.
So its main resolutions were fairly mild.
Resolutions:
Rejection of conciliarists; rejections of Last Days prophecies; re-affirmed immortality of the soul; asserted authority of bishops over monasteries (emphatic opinion) [even though this brought up the problem of how the power of the bishop compares to the power of the pope].
And so the Church came under the direct power of the Papacy. Under the Pope. Who invested his power in the bishops to oversee their dioceses.
No resolution with...
the problem of engaging with the lay population.
And this is finally where Luther comes in.
Luther's protest was a new manifestation of discontent which existed during the 11th century and was only momentarily put at ease with the end of the investiture controversy.
Importantly and typically of a Friar he became comfortable with Augustine's writings.
He was also associated with a humanist organisation. The first one in Europe to be set up without the Pope's permission. It was a pure, untainted organisation. And as such - his education was a typical humanist one. (You might say, typical to Erasmus).
Luther came to the conclusion that what the scriptures really say is that God can be merciful - he need not always be wrathful - he can grant salvation to those who have lived a faithful life - regardless of being born from original sin. This theology was based on Luther's close reading of Augustine. Augustine discussed sin and salvation. Everything depended on the grace of God. As he also would have picked up on the platonic themes - that God's realm is perfect - and the material realm is fallen.
There were sentiments, debates, and ideas which were already hanging around before Luther made his move.
So you might say that this renewed interest in this Augustinian idea of Sin and Salvation is not isolated in Luther's brain but is part of a larger complex web of theological and philosophical debates which are all a part of the humanist movement.
Under the opulence of the Medici Pope, and the failings of the Lateran council, Luther thought that the selling of indulgences to build the cathedral in Rome was occurring.
Never-the-less the thesis and the letters he sent to the papacy, kicked off a protest that became a schism.
Erasmus was a fighter FOR the Church (militant christian) whereas Luther seems to have been less of a fighter FOR the Church and rather sought reforms outside the Church. At least that is what occurred.
Platonistic ideas - material is bad.
Empowerment of the human mind - guiding fortune through virtue - Erasmus believes in this and Luther doesn't.
Luther's emphasis on Augustine took him in a different direction.
Luther and the Protestant Movement 1500, 1517
Aims;
Examine the attitude of the Church, especially the pope, to calls for reform
Compare and contrast Luther and Erasmus
When looking at reformation Europe we shouldn't just think of Martin Luther. But we should think about a complex period extending well before the early 16th century. And that includes reformist movements since the 11th and 12th centuries, questions about the importance, primacy, power of the pope. Questions about clerical chastity, symony and ascetic life. (Lower classes were over-taxed)
What you'll see is that Luther doesn't quite chime in with the Humanist movement and this explains why some people like Erasmus who talk about some of the same things as Luther, have a difficult relationship with Luther. This is why historians can't pin the reformation solely on Christian Humanism.
Christian Humanism is not the sole reason of Protestantism.
Between 1500 and 1517 the Holy Roman Empire was not powerful enough to maintain authority during these years and this is when Protestantism really grew.
This situation began to change in part...when Charles the 5th came to the throne in 1519 and saw himself, in the spirit of Charlemagne, as the saviour of the Church.
Lots of provocative claims floating around at the start of the 16th century. Slipping authority of the Church. Lax morals of the clergy. Discrepencies between modern, mystical hermetic demotion and the traditional mediaeval forms.
The Pope took the time out to hold the Fifth Lateran Council (1512-1517)
The central issue at stake was indeed - reform - was indeed response to many of the intellectual issues floating around as well as the discontent with clerics generally in Europe.
But the council wasn't necessarily asking the same reform questions as Erasmus - that is reform over the devotion of the individual. That is going back to the original sources - going back to the Church Fathers. Those questions weren't being asked in this council.
Instead the council was aimed at resolving the question of authority within the Church and authority within the Church.
In 1305 when the Pope resided in Avignon the power of the Church came under the French King. And by the beginning of the Fifteenth century there were three popes. And so to resolve the issues The council of constance in 1414 resolved the issue of these popes - and one of its parting resolutions was to deny the Pope absolute authority over the Church - but the council does (conciliatory meetings)
With all this reformist talk floating around it was time, in the eyes of the conciliarists, to hold another meeting.
Conciliarist Council in Pisa in 1511
Pope Julius II calls Lateran Council in 1512
Savanarola.
In particular monasteries were calling on the Church authorities to encourage some reform to make spiritual observance more important. Think back to 11th and 12th centuries when monasteries agonised over observance of monastic life. And these communities arose to counter the lax faith and spirituality found within the Church.
And so Monastic call for reform.
Observant Franciscans and Dominicans set up strongholds in Ireland. They believed that the ascetic life of the monasteries was the key to maintaining Christian orthodoxy.
There's a lot of interest in this council and most groups are very positive, and hopeful, about what it can do.
Egidio (Giles) of Viterbo - Augustinian Monk.
Egidio defended hermetic humanists from the accusations of heresy.
Never the less, despite sitting for 5 years, the Lateran Council simply failed to achieve anything important. There was, essentially, too many invested interests in the higher echelons to maintain the status quo.
So its main resolutions were fairly mild.
Resolutions:
Rejection of conciliarists; rejections of Last Days prophecies; re-affirmed immortality of the soul; asserted authority of bishops over monasteries (emphatic opinion) [even though this brought up the problem of how the power of the bishop compares to the power of the pope].
And so the Church came under the direct power of the Papacy. Under the Pope. Who invested his power in the bishops to oversee their dioceses.
No resolution with...
the problem of engaging with the lay population.
And this is finally where Luther comes in.
Luther's protest was a new manifestation of discontent which existed during the 11th century and was only momentarily put at ease with the end of the investiture controversy.
Importantly and typically of a Friar he became comfortable with Augustine's writings.
He was also associated with a humanist organisation. The first one in Europe to be set up without the Pope's permission. It was a pure, untainted organisation. And as such - his education was a typical humanist one. (You might say, typical to Erasmus).
Luther came to the conclusion that what the scriptures really say is that God can be merciful - he need not always be wrathful - he can grant salvation to those who have lived a faithful life - regardless of being born from original sin. This theology was based on Luther's close reading of Augustine. Augustine discussed sin and salvation. Everything depended on the grace of God. As he also would have picked up on the platonic themes - that God's realm is perfect - and the material realm is fallen.
There were sentiments, debates, and ideas which were already hanging around before Luther made his move.
So you might say that this renewed interest in this Augustinian idea of Sin and Salvation is not isolated in Luther's brain but is part of a larger complex web of theological and philosophical debates which are all a part of the humanist movement.
Under the opulence of the Medici Pope, and the failings of the Lateran council, Luther thought that the selling of indulgences to build the cathedral in Rome was occurring.
Never-the-less the thesis and the letters he sent to the papacy, kicked off a protest that became a schism.
Erasmus was a fighter FOR the Church (militant christian) whereas Luther seems to have been less of a fighter FOR the Church and rather sought reforms outside the Church. At least that is what occurred.
Platonistic ideas - material is bad.
Empowerment of the human mind - guiding fortune through virtue - Erasmus believes in this and Luther doesn't.
Luther's emphasis on Augustine took him in a different direction.
Saturday, 5 September 2009
his202 speech
I have turned my entire attention to Greek. The first thing I shall do, as soon as the money arrives, is to buy some Greek authors; after that, I shall buy clothes.
It is an unscrupulous intellect that does not pay to antiquity its due reverence.
The habit does not make the monk.
They say that the AntiChrist will be born of a monk and a nun. If so, there must already be thousands of AntiChrists.
Women, can't live with them, can't live without them.
Education is of far greater importance than heredity in forming character.
Everybody hates a prodigy, detests an old head on young shoulders.
"[The Militant Christian] that wonderful little masterpiece of good sense and deep faith" p.6 Erasmus and the Northern Renaissance, Mann Philips, Margaret.
"...and as his whole childhood and adolescence was spent in this atmosphere, in contact with an ideal of life which roused his opposition at the time but had its deep effect on his character, it is important to examine for a moment the nature of this movement.'
P. 14-15, Ibid.
Living a monastic life yet still bound to the world. Bound by no eternal vows but associated by a common ideal of simplicity and poverty.
'A revulsion from the sterile intellectual disputes of late-medieval philosophy, a reorientation towards practical piety and the teaching of the Bible'
P. 15, Ibid.
'This, then, was a predominant note in the early education of Erasmus - a deep distrust of reliance on the powers of the reasoning intellect. A strange beginning for a humanist of the Renaissance!' P. 16, Ibid
'In later life the influence of this early teaching shows itself in his thought'
P. 16, Ibid.
Good afternoon Dr. Bosciero and fellow colleagues. Today Chris, Damian and I will be discussing the life and times of Erasmus. He was without a doubt, a very insightful, intelligent and interesting scholar of the 15th and 16th centuries, respectively. He is famously referred to as the 'Prince of the Humanists' and the 'crowning glory of the Christian humanists'. He has certainly earned these titles. His work, The Militant Christian, is a 'wonderful little masterpiece of good sense and deep faith' according to the very knowledgeable, Margaret Mann Philips.
Erasmus was a part of an unconventional family. He was born out of wedlock on the 27th or 28th of October, in Rotterdam, Holland, in either the year 1466 or 1469, most scholars would lean towards the former date as it coincides well with a history of his life - yet this still does not entirely discount the former theory. His parents both died young.
Erasmus was lucky enough to be educated in a series of monastic or semi-monastic schools. Here the love of scripture was planted and would grow and flourish in his life. The most famous school he went to was run by the Brethren of the Common Life which was a community of both male and female monks living together in a simple fashion dedicating themselves to knowledge and truth found in the practical piety and teaching of the Bible. Erasmus founds himself bored and bitter at schools like Deventer and Bois-de-Luc. Where he was forced to sit and endure hours of cumbersome and eventually unimportant Latin study. Margaret Mann Philips suggests that Erasmus was 'a bright boy with an inkling of better things, impatiently scornful of a method of instruction which offered nothing but false etymologies and diffuse definitions of terms, when what he pined for was to be introduced to poetry and history and thought, the great storehouse of untouched treasure to which Latin was the golden key. Yet instead of learning 'pure' Latin - which was the key, as Margaret Mann Philips explicated - the schools taught incorrent and time wasting versified grammars of Latin which were in fashion at the time. In spite of all this, Erasmus still managed to find inspiration through the more scholarly of his teachers. A story exists which describes Sintheim, a scholarly man of intellect, embracing the boy and inspiring him with the words "Courage, Erasmus, one day you will reach the highest peak of learning,". Such a scene may seem a bit cliché however it does fit in with the context. During these years of formation Erasmus toyed with two very important ideologies, the first one being recommended by Thomas a Kempis. This ideology argued for the humble striving after the good life. Whilst the second ideology, argued for by the Italian humanists, was centred around the exaltation of knowledge. Erasmus is known for such quotes as:
Concealed talent brings no reputation.
Do not be guilty of possessing a library of learned books while lacking learning yourself.
Don't give your advice before you are called upon.
Education is of far greater importance than heredity in forming character.
Everybody hates a prodigy, detests an old head on young shoulders.
And perhaps these wise words were formed during his time as a young man contemplating the ideological beliefs of knowledge which were affronting his desires at the time. Soon enough Erasmus had formed his own understanding and belief in himself, he called described it as an overpowering instinct; his destiny was clear to him and he knew that there was no turning from it (p. 18). Whether or not Erasmus truly knew his own destiny is hard to say, however, another quote by Erasmus explicates the courage and self-belief he held within him:
He said,
Believe that you have it, and you have it!
And so this would explain why Erasmus felt sure in saying such outlandish things like claiming he knew his own destiny for example; it is not an everyday occurrence that a young man may claim monumental attributes which only God's may possess and gets away with it. Such a feat pays tribute to the profound effect Erasmus has had on the reformation.
During this time, when Erasmus was a hot-headed young academic with a distinct taste for truth and knowledge, he travelled around Europe to different schools and places of academia. He was constantly finding such places too old and traditional for his liking and he would constantly refer to his time spent at these places as 'time wasted' (P.21). Even so, this did not deter him at all and he continued travelling, reading, writing and spending time with other academics of the period. On one trip to England he encountered John Colet - a man who was well known for his special way of interpreting the scripture - it was a very 'pure' way in the sense that he had learned the language of the ancients, Greek, and so he used this to interpret the very early editions of the scriptures. To him, the translated books were tainted by thoughts and ideologies which interrupted or even scarred the pure and beautiful knowledge which was once found within the pages. Erasmus was struck by this belief and upon returning from England he set out to learn Greek so he may to come to a pure understanding of the scriptures. This scenario has very deep humanist themes running through it. The thirst for knowledge. The way the ancients are held in such high esteem and the disenchantment with the contemporary authorities of the time. Erasmus truly did earn his title as the Prince of the Humanists. It took him three years and countless days and nights of study to learn Greek - to make the feat even more fantastic is the fact that he embarked on this quest for knowledge whilst remaining impoverished. Compare that to a wealthy student these days who still can't seem to make the grades and you get a pretty clear idea of just how seriously intelligent and hard-working Erasmus was. Perhaps, as well, he was correct in his belief that by remaining impoverished one is able to clear the mind and to focus on important things easily.
This monastic lifestyle that he led forced him to sacrifice many things - including a few different offers of high-paying and influential seats of power. Once again Erasmus' actions explicate clearly just how he was a humanist. I believe that if we compare the aforementioned actions of Erasmus, to those of the wealthy, greedy, and immoral gentlemen who held positions of power in the Church at the time, we may be able to follow the reasoning which Erasmus used in making his decisions. Perhaps he wanted to separate himself from those people who were abusing the power of the Church to shed light on the problems within - and to show that the life of solicitude and impoverishments has as many merits, and perhaps more, than the life of power, money and general wealth. I believe that one is able to make solid connections between the way Erasmus, and other humanists acted, and the way the beatniks and hippies behaved in the 1970's. Both groups, the humanists and the hippies, were moving against the wealthy, corrupt Church that had been unwilling to understand that it needed to make changes within its machinations. Both lifestyles advocated intellectual freedom and the search for truth. Both communities, or bodies of thought, sought to rebel somewhat against the system which was believed to be either oppressing or essentially wrong. At the time of the humanists and at the time of the hippies there were many provocative claims floating around. The authority of the Church was slipping - due to the lax morals of the clergy and the discrepencies between the seemingly outdated forms of devotion and the modern form. Both communities were born out of war, the Italian wars, the Vietnam war, for example. As well as greed, selfishness and irrationality, for example, the high-tax rates of the time. And just as the progression of thought between the beatniks and the hippies is evident, there is also a clear progression of thought which leads to reformation.
When looking at the reformation we shouldn't just think of Martin Luther, as Dr. B said. We should regard the reformation as a complex and tumultuous period extending well before the early 16th century. It was based around the reformist movements which had been occurring since the 11th and 12th centuries, around the questions of the importance, primacy and power of the Papacy. As well as questions about clerical chastity and the ascetic life.
I think it is most important to understand that Erasmus was lucky enough to be able to share his talents, especially his intelligence, with a culture and society that was most definitely ready to accept and understand his ideas. Erasmus was known for his care-free manner in the way in which he critiqued the Church. He was as confident as he was intelligent in the manner in which he did this. He did not feel bad about explicating the theological and philosophical short comings of the Church at the time, many of which were inextricably linked with traditional mediaeval thought, because he approached the problems with the intent of fixing them by appealing to reason. Erasmus never sought to break his fellowship with the Church - he always intended to remain faithful to the Catholic doctrine whilst also staying honest to himself, the people and God. Given that, it leaves a sobering question as to how many other Erasmus' have emerged in society throughout history and have not been given a voice?
I shall leave you with that question as my colleague, Damian, shall explicate an analysis of Erasmus' work, the Militant Christian.
It is an unscrupulous intellect that does not pay to antiquity its due reverence.
The habit does not make the monk.
They say that the AntiChrist will be born of a monk and a nun. If so, there must already be thousands of AntiChrists.
Women, can't live with them, can't live without them.
Education is of far greater importance than heredity in forming character.
Everybody hates a prodigy, detests an old head on young shoulders.
"[The Militant Christian] that wonderful little masterpiece of good sense and deep faith" p.6 Erasmus and the Northern Renaissance, Mann Philips, Margaret.
"...and as his whole childhood and adolescence was spent in this atmosphere, in contact with an ideal of life which roused his opposition at the time but had its deep effect on his character, it is important to examine for a moment the nature of this movement.'
P. 14-15, Ibid.
Living a monastic life yet still bound to the world. Bound by no eternal vows but associated by a common ideal of simplicity and poverty.
'A revulsion from the sterile intellectual disputes of late-medieval philosophy, a reorientation towards practical piety and the teaching of the Bible'
P. 15, Ibid.
'This, then, was a predominant note in the early education of Erasmus - a deep distrust of reliance on the powers of the reasoning intellect. A strange beginning for a humanist of the Renaissance!' P. 16, Ibid
'In later life the influence of this early teaching shows itself in his thought'
P. 16, Ibid.
Good afternoon Dr. Bosciero and fellow colleagues. Today Chris, Damian and I will be discussing the life and times of Erasmus. He was without a doubt, a very insightful, intelligent and interesting scholar of the 15th and 16th centuries, respectively. He is famously referred to as the 'Prince of the Humanists' and the 'crowning glory of the Christian humanists'. He has certainly earned these titles. His work, The Militant Christian, is a 'wonderful little masterpiece of good sense and deep faith' according to the very knowledgeable, Margaret Mann Philips.
Erasmus was a part of an unconventional family. He was born out of wedlock on the 27th or 28th of October, in Rotterdam, Holland, in either the year 1466 or 1469, most scholars would lean towards the former date as it coincides well with a history of his life - yet this still does not entirely discount the former theory. His parents both died young.
Erasmus was lucky enough to be educated in a series of monastic or semi-monastic schools. Here the love of scripture was planted and would grow and flourish in his life. The most famous school he went to was run by the Brethren of the Common Life which was a community of both male and female monks living together in a simple fashion dedicating themselves to knowledge and truth found in the practical piety and teaching of the Bible. Erasmus founds himself bored and bitter at schools like Deventer and Bois-de-Luc. Where he was forced to sit and endure hours of cumbersome and eventually unimportant Latin study. Margaret Mann Philips suggests that Erasmus was 'a bright boy with an inkling of better things, impatiently scornful of a method of instruction which offered nothing but false etymologies and diffuse definitions of terms, when what he pined for was to be introduced to poetry and history and thought, the great storehouse of untouched treasure to which Latin was the golden key. Yet instead of learning 'pure' Latin - which was the key, as Margaret Mann Philips explicated - the schools taught incorrent and time wasting versified grammars of Latin which were in fashion at the time. In spite of all this, Erasmus still managed to find inspiration through the more scholarly of his teachers. A story exists which describes Sintheim, a scholarly man of intellect, embracing the boy and inspiring him with the words "Courage, Erasmus, one day you will reach the highest peak of learning,". Such a scene may seem a bit cliché however it does fit in with the context. During these years of formation Erasmus toyed with two very important ideologies, the first one being recommended by Thomas a Kempis. This ideology argued for the humble striving after the good life. Whilst the second ideology, argued for by the Italian humanists, was centred around the exaltation of knowledge. Erasmus is known for such quotes as:
Concealed talent brings no reputation.
Do not be guilty of possessing a library of learned books while lacking learning yourself.
Don't give your advice before you are called upon.
Education is of far greater importance than heredity in forming character.
Everybody hates a prodigy, detests an old head on young shoulders.
And perhaps these wise words were formed during his time as a young man contemplating the ideological beliefs of knowledge which were affronting his desires at the time. Soon enough Erasmus had formed his own understanding and belief in himself, he called described it as an overpowering instinct; his destiny was clear to him and he knew that there was no turning from it (p. 18). Whether or not Erasmus truly knew his own destiny is hard to say, however, another quote by Erasmus explicates the courage and self-belief he held within him:
He said,
Believe that you have it, and you have it!
And so this would explain why Erasmus felt sure in saying such outlandish things like claiming he knew his own destiny for example; it is not an everyday occurrence that a young man may claim monumental attributes which only God's may possess and gets away with it. Such a feat pays tribute to the profound effect Erasmus has had on the reformation.
During this time, when Erasmus was a hot-headed young academic with a distinct taste for truth and knowledge, he travelled around Europe to different schools and places of academia. He was constantly finding such places too old and traditional for his liking and he would constantly refer to his time spent at these places as 'time wasted' (P.21). Even so, this did not deter him at all and he continued travelling, reading, writing and spending time with other academics of the period. On one trip to England he encountered John Colet - a man who was well known for his special way of interpreting the scripture - it was a very 'pure' way in the sense that he had learned the language of the ancients, Greek, and so he used this to interpret the very early editions of the scriptures. To him, the translated books were tainted by thoughts and ideologies which interrupted or even scarred the pure and beautiful knowledge which was once found within the pages. Erasmus was struck by this belief and upon returning from England he set out to learn Greek so he may to come to a pure understanding of the scriptures. This scenario has very deep humanist themes running through it. The thirst for knowledge. The way the ancients are held in such high esteem and the disenchantment with the contemporary authorities of the time. Erasmus truly did earn his title as the Prince of the Humanists. It took him three years and countless days and nights of study to learn Greek - to make the feat even more fantastic is the fact that he embarked on this quest for knowledge whilst remaining impoverished. Compare that to a wealthy student these days who still can't seem to make the grades and you get a pretty clear idea of just how seriously intelligent and hard-working Erasmus was. Perhaps, as well, he was correct in his belief that by remaining impoverished one is able to clear the mind and to focus on important things easily.
This monastic lifestyle that he led forced him to sacrifice many things - including a few different offers of high-paying and influential seats of power. Once again Erasmus' actions explicate clearly just how he was a humanist. I believe that if we compare the aforementioned actions of Erasmus, to those of the wealthy, greedy, and immoral gentlemen who held positions of power in the Church at the time, we may be able to follow the reasoning which Erasmus used in making his decisions. Perhaps he wanted to separate himself from those people who were abusing the power of the Church to shed light on the problems within - and to show that the life of solicitude and impoverishments has as many merits, and perhaps more, than the life of power, money and general wealth. I believe that one is able to make solid connections between the way Erasmus, and other humanists acted, and the way the beatniks and hippies behaved in the 1970's. Both groups, the humanists and the hippies, were moving against the wealthy, corrupt Church that had been unwilling to understand that it needed to make changes within its machinations. Both lifestyles advocated intellectual freedom and the search for truth. Both communities, or bodies of thought, sought to rebel somewhat against the system which was believed to be either oppressing or essentially wrong. At the time of the humanists and at the time of the hippies there were many provocative claims floating around. The authority of the Church was slipping - due to the lax morals of the clergy and the discrepencies between the seemingly outdated forms of devotion and the modern form. Both communities were born out of war, the Italian wars, the Vietnam war, for example. As well as greed, selfishness and irrationality, for example, the high-tax rates of the time. And just as the progression of thought between the beatniks and the hippies is evident, there is also a clear progression of thought which leads to reformation.
When looking at the reformation we shouldn't just think of Martin Luther, as Dr. B said. We should regard the reformation as a complex and tumultuous period extending well before the early 16th century. It was based around the reformist movements which had been occurring since the 11th and 12th centuries, around the questions of the importance, primacy and power of the Papacy. As well as questions about clerical chastity and the ascetic life.
I think it is most important to understand that Erasmus was lucky enough to be able to share his talents, especially his intelligence, with a culture and society that was most definitely ready to accept and understand his ideas. Erasmus was known for his care-free manner in the way in which he critiqued the Church. He was as confident as he was intelligent in the manner in which he did this. He did not feel bad about explicating the theological and philosophical short comings of the Church at the time, many of which were inextricably linked with traditional mediaeval thought, because he approached the problems with the intent of fixing them by appealing to reason. Erasmus never sought to break his fellowship with the Church - he always intended to remain faithful to the Catholic doctrine whilst also staying honest to himself, the people and God. Given that, it leaves a sobering question as to how many other Erasmus' have emerged in society throughout history and have not been given a voice?
I shall leave you with that question as my colleague, Damian, shall explicate an analysis of Erasmus' work, the Militant Christian.
Tuesday, 1 September 2009
The202
First question is more straight forward.
Second question deals with historiographical interpretations.
'the council would be a new pentecost'
the retrospective judgement:
1994 exultation
'the second vatican council was a providential event'
Second question deals with historiographical interpretations.
'the council would be a new pentecost'
the retrospective judgement:
1994 exultation
'the second vatican council was a providential event'
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
