DrRocket ([info]drrocketanski) wrote,
@ 2009-04-13 15:56:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend  Next Entry
Note on faith, or why being smart makes you stupid

There’s always a reason, a misunderstanding, a skewed perspective, a “righteous” anger, a frustration – always an argument for me to do what I will. Do I dare to confuse my will with my reasons? They are not the same thing. The best reasons do not make the best will. Goodness does not work up from reasons to will, but corruption does work it’s way down. The best reasons are corrupted by a bad will. For reasons are simply the tool of the will, seeking its own way. Reasons are helpless before the will.

 

So, what does it mean to be reasonable? Simply that you are better at bending the information at hand to your will. A particular conservative group puts out commercials exhorting us to “be logical” – as if that is the solution. This, rather, seems to be the perennial temptation, under the guise of either “reason” or “religion”. The latter is obvious to us modern enlightened ones. The former, though, keeps tempting us into ignorance – as if our will is made good by the application of logic and reason to the world around us. Obama declared, in allowing government support of stem cell research, that he was bringing science (that is, the most rational of human activities) back to its proper place. But this was an ethical question (whatever the answer may be) – something science can say nothing about. Reasons again.  Behind this flimsy and lauded claim (that science was depreciated below it’s proper place under Bush), Obama declared his will to be properly in line with reason. But that doesn’t even make sense.

 

As long as the human will is bad, no reason(s) whatsoever can make us good. That was stated by Paul a long time ago in many ways, evidenced in the work of Jesus, and persistently ignored by a bunch of self-justifying humans throughout history.

 

Maybe this is why the most important truths are paradoxes, graspable only by faith. We can’t use reason to grab hold of them and bend them to our will. We just have to look at them in confusion, reason struggles vainly to take control, and eventually flees in exhaustion. Then our wills, having lost their hiding place behind reasons, are laid bare for all to see.




(4 comments) - (Post a new comment)


[info]buckholler.wordpress.com
2009-04-18 04:28 pm UTC (link)
Well said, thank you.

So, is the will informed by truth?

Buck

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]drrocketanski
2009-04-19 07:07 am UTC (link)
Considering we're both heavy into (the) Trinity, I think I could safely say, "Yes, the will is in-formed by Truth." But I'm not entirely sure that that was the question you were asking...

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]buckholler.wordpress.com
2009-04-19 11:49 pm UTC (link)
That was the question.

I wonder, how does the will (would you say, soul?) "know" Truth? Is it intuitive upon the encounter, or must one begin with a creed? Is the knowledge of Truth in-formed through the act of creation, or is it in-formed through education?

(I am not using "knowledge" as a reference to the mental faculty, but in reference to the faculty of the soul whereby it perceives and apprehends reality; and by soul I mean the human being, animated dust.)

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]drrocketanski
2009-04-23 02:35 pm UTC (link)
I think we're both taking Truth personally. If I'm right in what I said, then Truth must be experienced as a boundary to the self (most importantly one's will). I stand before Truth, and find Him as an Other, and even as Lord. Because the Truth stands over me. This is where reason kicks in to "save" us. It builds a quick little wall between my will and the Truth, in that it makes my apprehension (or lack of apprehension) of the Truth purely rational. He must play by the rules of my reason to have an audience with me.

(I might be willing to say any other who stands as a boundary to my self is truth, simply by virtue of being a boundary...which means that selfishness is the state of being untruth...something Kierkegaard suggests...)

Kierkegaard writes about the infinite paradox (namely, the Incarnation), and how the paradox is both the desire of learning and the end of learning. Education keeps moving forward, as if it is wanting to feel out the limits of human thought - to find its boundaries. The paradox is that boundary, and so is the goal of education. But of course our thought can't really grasp the paradox. So, the paradox is the end (in both senses) of education. And the paradox is the Truth.

So, education can lead us to desire and maybe even "recognize" the paradox in a thoughtful way. But usually education does the opposite. It trains us to believe that anything we can't understand is nonsense. Of course, I'd say that is bad education (one example might be analytic philosophy).

I'm still not sure I've nailed down the terms soul, mind, spirit enough to use them properly.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


(4 comments) - (Post a new comment)

Create an Account
Forgot your login or password?
Login w/ OpenID
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…