Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Sorry that I can't give you an exact page reference, but I believe it is somewhere in his 3 volumes of "Lectures on the Philosophy of Religion" It might be in the first volume as that is mostly general stuff.
It is strange my wife said I should reference that quote, but I told her this stuff I do is non-academic and references are not needed, and I really don't expect people to actually read it that close. If I locate it again I will give it to you as I generally go through them often. I am using the Humanities Press, 1974.
Ok so my opinion is that there is immaturity and maturity in both youngsters and adults or what would be everyone.
If an adult is mature and stable it wouldn't necessarily mean that the adult is coming from an immature place.
I think this gets into sketching out idea's of the soul, and the state of the soul allowing the reference for the subject itself.
As its fairly well agreed, knowledge and academic accomplishment wouldn't be a boundary which prohibits any value in the state of the soul. It would be a possible positive addition through cultivating reason, what could not be anything but a more dynamic experience in the going relationship between self and the state of the soul. A master mind bank robber or corrupt leader could be said less mature with less in measure or value in the state of the soul, then in his or her youngsters years.
So as I understand the maturity issue can go both ways...forward or backwards. Therefore its not reasonable to suggest that the children at large would have less, in measure or value. This doesn't imply junior knows best or junior cannot add dynamic value to the state of the soul in the upcoming life and experience. In evidence, youngsters are not born deliberately and intentionally biting when feeding for their milk.
When we wind back to the occasion where Jesus advised in the becoming directive (living the life and rules) ....we are to become as children to enter the kingdom, virtue hope connected to faith are in mention. Children were not asking the questions with vigor and passion such as what is this thing called life, where is meaning, it makes no sense and so on. The children in the setting had the guidance of their parents and were in an obedient state, which allowed the teaching to be...man then has Gods guidance alongside the journey allowing ourselves and others to be.
there is an assumption in meaning and purpose, ( hope....faith in the substance, of the God. Also Ive seen youngsters in bad shape, a burn victim comes to mind and through things the virtue courage (fortitude) would seem to add to this understanding.
Whether or not its specifically earned or persevered for, which we know as adults must be, the value in faith is less interfered with through this challenging thing called life and shows in the natural joy. I don't think the occasion and setting we are to become as children, would be something indifferent to the probable setting...
...the children were not interfering, they were being decent and away from being 'corrupt and degenerated in a declining state' a requisite for luminosity in soul, adding openness to humble .. so we have... Obedience, Hope, Faith, Fortitude, all connected to Mother Virtue charity by their nurturing association.
Last edited by stargazzer; 06-22-2013 at 01:44 PM..
I have doubt that maturity just "is" based in some age criteria. One can know many dumb adults, and smarter children. But, obviously one transitions in life from child to adult to old to death, physically; is it too much to ask that a mental transition take place as well? One should be, however, what one stage one is in. Immature adults are a sorry sight, and children that do not grow are defective. Children do not necessarily search for meaning but an adult does or should-that is a major distinction between them, that is universally recognized I would assume, well, except amongst christians who desire to be ignorant children rather than understanding what the term "revelation" means. One can always posit these stages and their characteristics through their bias, that is the characteristic of an age that has not developed, like ours, where, our age no longer wants to know what a thing is in-and-for-itself, such as maturity, or a god, or whatever. Everyone just wants to be a child (as children wish to have their own reality), and now, evidently, children can't wait to grow up and still be children. In a dumb age such as ours, a finite age, each individual posits "truth" through his or her own being (with such terms as opinion, "I feel", "it makes sense", and the like). In the old philosophy, that stage was the stage of "reflection" or termed the understanding. Its an incomplete stage and remains in the finite, produces everything as finite (even the god becomes finite, which, logically, it can't be [free will does this by making the god's will finite, as my will limits the god's, so his will becomes finite as well, and I posit this in myself, even though I attempt, if I am religious, to allow the god to be infinite, which I also arbitrarily posit even though it is a contradiction}, that is because when the immature individuals posits its finiteness, or projects its "truth" outside of itself, it tricks itself into thinking that this projection is the objective, when it fact it is its own idea posited as objective, or the object and the finite consciousness are actually one, so the "thing" is what it is as I have determined it, not what it is in-and-for-itself)-it is an immaturity, and today on a mass scale. In Hebrews, since no one mentioned it, the writer chews out the readers because they have become stupid, like children, is the comparison he uses; he is accusing them of being stupid children. The interpretation he wants to make is about Melchizedek and because the interpretation will be too difficult for their stupidity, he must for go the interpretation, or, when one is stupid, one can not know higher things; what is higher than the god? There are children and then there are children, one has to know which one of the two terms one is using when using the term; just as there is knowing, and knowing, and knowing. Some languages are better at this distinction, as our one word "idea' has different words, say in German, to distinguish between concepts of this term. Here we have this one term and it gets misunderstood in it use.
The first immediate aesthetic sphere is an immature or mentally un-reflective unity of existence without clear distinctions being present to the subjective mind. Philosophically, this sphere is an abstract infinite as it lacks differentiation and content. Egoistic information development is a very subjective process. Although distinctions are present, this existence misses many of these distinctions and lives primarily in a self-centered world of subjective arbitrariness that characterizes existence within this sphere. The second existence sphere is the ethical and this is the sphere of mind drawing distinctions and positing differentiation. The ethical sphere, the sphere of the finite, operates through a process of mediation.
To arrive at meaning, the egoistic aesthetic sphere, grounded in feeling, must interpret feeling. Finding out through interpretation what a feeling means is the first mediation of the immediateness of feeling into thinking. At this first mediation of feeling we draw a distinction between feeling and thought that places us into the ethical sphere even if we don’t notice this transition. Feeling and thought is not the same thing. When feeling is mediated, the feeling and my infinite empirical self are left behind and both are converted into thought, or into an idea. The consciousness, spirit, works and reproduces itself with thought (termed autopoiesis), not feeling. Feeling and thought, however, do share a close relationship because feeling is made determinate or defined by thought. Without the information derived from thought, or mediation, feeling would be closed up into the meaningless and impulsive chaotic life of the aesthetic sphere. Human beings are designed to think; they are qualified as spirit, so a mere existence grounded only in feeling is not human.
By “spirit,” I mean here thinking in general. Later in this series, I will discuss spirit in the religious sphere. Spirit, as thinking, is associated with the mind and the word, as higher thought and communications function with words. Qualifying human beings by other “accidental characteristics” such as race and gender does not raise them into a higher existence but predicates (determine them to be what is in the predicate of a communication) them by those characteristics. For example, to forget that we are spirit and predicate us primarily by a lower finite characteristic, such as, “sexual beings,” may determine our primary mode of existence as sexual beings rather than as spirit (naturally, human beings can be formed by a multitude of finite characteristics. A single finite characteristic is too simplistic and makes human beings abstract without complex content). Biblically, spirit is primary and it is to rule over these finite accidental characteristics.
This second existence sphere is the ethical because it is characterized by mediation and distinction. Once there are distinctions in the finite world, these distinct things (objects and ideas) can conflict and collide. When I become aware of another person in the ethical sphere, that the other is also an I, then I know that I become an other to this other person. A distinction is drawn between two individual selves, and the I of the aesthetic sphere loses its central place in the reality that determines the aesthetic sphere. Each distinction, whether a person, place, or thing, begins where the other ends, and each ends where the other begins. This differentiation of immediate “oneness” into a mediated otherness eventuates into collisions. All finite and temporal things are bounded and boundaries are what give finite things existence. Boundaries collide and conflict; therefore, they need management, and this is ethics. To attempt to eliminate these boundaries would confuse finite and temporal things with other finite things in their environments (everything outside of me is in my environment, including you; I am in your environment along with everything not you). Attempts to remove distinctions—and, therefore, ethics—to merge objects or concepts with each other is an attempt to re-enter the aesthetic sphere, perhaps in the form of a mysticism.
In the parable of the “Good Samaritan” one sees this differentiation developed out in the direction of the ethical. I have heard various meanings applied to this parable ranging from that we are NOT supposed to love ourselves to only love Mexican immigrants. This parable was given in the context of the ancient world that lacked a modern notion of individuality. One of its purposes is to establish individuality. To love another as I love myself places both the I and the other in distinction and makes us theologically equal. Modern societal concepts of rights seem to me to be an intrusion into this parable; they do violence to the parable. Although equal, neither individual merges into the other; each remains distinct and free in relation to the other. I must have this individual freedom in order to exercise love. This being a beginning of a biblical ethics grounded in love. Ethics grounded in individual love in relation to another is here established, although not worked out in detail, as the category of ethics will eventually and continually require.
With this development of the other as an I, a true social system becomes possible. What unites these two now distinct individuals is language. Successful language will require our communications theory of information/utterance/understanding. For these communications to be possible and to grow into complexity requires the strengthening of distinct individual boundaries. As I presented in a previous post, communications are the very structure of the church.
Morality is distinct from ethics; morality is more of an individual trust in one’s conscience. If my morality were completely isolated, I would most likely exist in a pure aesthetic sphere. An isolated morality could very well be developed from subjective impulses, arbitrariness, traditions, emotions, and the like. Ethics is more related to objectively or socially developed law or ethical systems. The ethical individual places her trust in social or objective law more than in her own conscience. Ideally, my morality is identical with the ethical system rather than the two being in conflict; however, reality rarely provides such reconciliation between morality and ethics. Theologically, for Christians, when our morality agrees with the law of God, we are in freedom. This reconciliation took place when God wrote His law onto the hearts of His elect.
The reader should keep in mind that this series is Theological; therefore, a distinction is drawn between the church and the world. Much of the information developed here may have applications to both church and the world, but the focus is on the Theological. Next post will begin to explore informational development within the ethical sphere.
The ethical existence sphere is the sphere of distinctions. Distinction means division, and therefore, individual things: the ethical sphere is the sphere of the finite. Here, all individual things have their existence in-and-for-themselves. The ethical mind may observe relations between these independent things and realize the need for the management of those relations, hence an ethics is needed, but this consciousness may not know of an essence that may run through and intimately connect some of these things beyond mere observable relations. One should keep in mind that, primarily, this series is not about things outside of the mind, the things we term as real or actual, but about concepts and ideas within the mind that determine our views of reality. All the things outside the mind are only known within the mind; everything becomes a thought and an object for mind, even thought itself.
Aesthetic sphere thinking avoids complexity through feeling, desiring God to be simple. An older dogmatics held to the idea that God, as a “One” was absolute simplicity, but this is a simplicity that is, inwardly, very complex. But aesthetically, mental distinctions are avoided through feelings (where there is no thought). Thought is mediation or the drawing of distinctions. For example, in the aesthetic sphere, the notion that God is love may be satisfactory without any further determinations; it may satisfy most interpretations of subjective feelings associated with God. In the ethical sphere, distinctions are drawn and determinations, or characteristics of things are posited. Divine love is available for further determinations that will increase the complexity of God. I may hold that God is love, but I also observe that the actual world under God’s dominion is in a state of chaos and destruction. This world exhibits a wisdom in its natural order on the one hand, but on the other hand, this wisdom appears to be annulled in the pain and destruction inherent within existence observable as the wrath of God.
Here, one has three determinations: love, wisdom, and wrath. The aesthetic consciousness cannot begin to comprehend their relationship as these determinations contradict each other within the one Divine Being. This consciousness may ignore the latter two and hold just to love. The latter two conflicting determinations remain a mystery or are given over to non-divine powers and causes with an ability to act freely. A simple or pure concept of love seemingly cannot contain conflicting determinations, as these would taint it.
The ethical consciousness, although accepting a relationship between conflicting determinations, attempts to maintain all three terms (love, wisdom, and wrath) as distinct and separate. This consciousness views each term as a thing in-and-for-itself and indifferent to the others. Because of this indifference, if the terms come into proximity to each other, there is the possibility of each term annulling the others; one is left with a contradiction that one may not be able to reconcile. At this stage, Theology (information, utterance, and understanding) develops around each term in an independent fashion, filling each term with an exclusive content that may be unrelated to the others in the attempt at keeping the terms distinct. For example, one may hear a sermon on God’s love. The next Sunday, one hears a sermon on God’s wrath. But in reflection (the mode of thought in this sphere that keeps terms isolated), one avoids bringing the two sermons together as the sermons seem to cancel each other.
The ethical consciousness then exists in a finite world and may think of Divine attributes as finite as well. The finite is anything that exists through another, rather than purely and simply existing through itself; in other words, the finite is viewed as existing through cause and effect. In contrast, Divine attributes must be infinite as God is infinite, as He has no cause but Himself. So love, is not something apart from God that may be predicated to Him, God must be Love Himself; the two are the same. With us, love is a universal, or idea, that is predicated to us, and our love is a momentary appearance of this universal, an image.
The ethical consciousness may wish to posit God as infinite while still maintaining finite characteristics. In other words, it holds a contradiction within its concept of God, rather than uniting all of these potentially conflicting terms. The Christian in the ethical sphere falls back on training, tradition, a personal loyalty to orthodoxy, or faith, merely ignoring the contradictions. What may actually occur is that the Christian in the ethical sphere (as the subjective individual) provides the Divine essence to God from its own finite reasoning, emotions, education, and desires. The knowledge of God as a Being in-and-for-Himself may be completely lacking.
For the mind, God is known by His actions and His attributes. If I subjectively deny, limit, or add to these, this adjusting of the Divine essence gives me a “formal” knowledge of the Divine structure. In other words, God is of my own making.
Ancient Greek poets sort of solved this problem of the ethical consciousness and it’s penchant for contradictions by developing the Pantheon of gods. Each god possessed a different divine attribute, so each attribute could be a distinct god. For example, Athena is the goddess of wisdom and Diana was the goddess of the hunt. Because the gods were distinct, the poets wrote about collisions and intrigues among them. However, each of the gods of the pantheon was a part, or a moment of the “One” that ruled all, and the poets described that “One” as fate. The pantheon was a unity of all the attributes that also allowed each to remain distinct.
The Christian religion, if orthodox, cannot construct a pantheon, although the ethical consciousness may operate close to this ancient Greek structure. Dogmatically, for now, Christianity remains within a Trinitarian theology, which must accept as united all of God’s “contradictions” and this unity must be harmonious. The ethical consciousness may tend to assume that some Divine characteristics do not belong to God and simply refuse to recognize them as belonging to God.
“The fear of Jehovah is the beginning of wisdom” (Proverbs 9:10). The infinite (God) negates the finite (me), and the ethical sphere is the sphere of the finite. One may wish to remain in this sphere of finite distinctions, “as there is a way which seemeth right unto a man; but the end thereof are the ways of death” (Proverbs 14:12). God is only worshiped in truth and in Spirit. Next post will begin to look at the negation of the finite and the first positing of the infinite.
I can not as yet give an exact location to the Hegel quote as I am not looking for it, but the quote is not meant to be an exact quote, but I have found this one which is close, Volume 3, Philosophy of Religion, Humanities press, 1974, page 148. If I run across the other I will give it. I go through the works regularly, so I will find it eventually. However, it takes a while for each work.
The aim of philosophy is to know truth, to know God, for He is absolute truth, inasmuch as nothing else is worth troubling about save God and unfolding of God's nature.
The philosophical sphere is the sphere of unity. Knowing in this sphere is characterized by a structured or systematic content. The knowing process attempts a closure in order to contain all relevant knowledge. In systematic thought, the system re-enters itself as a logical movement in the form of the syllogism. Each individual part or moment of the system is of the same essence and essential for the entire system; therefore, the identity of this systematic thinking is infinite (the Trinity can be thought about in this fashion). One can view this thinking as forming a circle, rather than as a linear process with its “faulty infinite;” the circle is a true infinity. I will deconstruct this systematic form of knowing later in this series.
Unity of thought in this sphere is more than just a coming together and forming a simple relation. A mere relation does not form a tight, cohesive structure, as mere relationship assumes that whatever elements included in the relation are not necessarily bound to each other in an essential necessity; they may at some point part and go their separate ways. Each element may lack the essential essence that could be contained and required by an entire coherent system; an essence that all the elements need to share.
The best term applicable to the relation of elements in a system is “sublimation.” Sublimation is the process of bringing various elements (terms or ideas since knowing is our subject) together and actually placing them into each other. In the process each term keeps its distinct meaning; however, because these terms are brought into each other, each term undergoes a change or modification from the influence of the other elements. In the thinking of the philosophical sphere, this modification is actually the term reaching its correct meaning. Usually, in sublimation, a third term can be applied to the unity of the sublimated terms. To have an actual concept, the united terms are usually opposites that appear to cancel each other (a contradiction for the first two spheres, but necessary in the knowing process) and the unity is essence bound and inseparable. Marriage as a concept is an example of this; two distinct opposites are united into “one flesh,” and when the two opposites are separated (such as a divorce), the marriage concept is annulled; therefore, a separation of the terms out of the third formed by them (or a “diremption” by reflection) loses the concept.
Another example is fate. Fate is the sublimation of accident and necessity. When one speaks the term fate, one without saying so (and very possibly without knowing), also uses the terms accident and necessity in their unity. The terms “accident” and “necessity” are united and modified with fate as the resulting third term. In Christian theology, this fate becomes predestination. Fate is usually viewed as a blind necessity where necessity is similar to or derived from a thoughtless substance. In the Christian form of predestination, God as thinking subject is directed towards “ends,” rather than a mindless determining. God’s determining is accomplished through His wisdom and the Christian in faith understands that by this dogma, “all things work together for good” Romans 8:28.
The aesthetic sphere may be aware of accident, necessity (such as a law of gravity), and fate, but thinking in this sphere would most likely not see a direct relation or unity between these terms involving a singular essence. Feeling would be the controlling factor as a reaction to them, and knowledge of these terms would be in simple unsystematic forms such as rumor, common belief, and the like. I would imagine that dread would be this thinking sphere’s relation to fate, as it would view fate as originating outside of it as an immanent contingent possibility ready to leap out and interfere in life at any time. The aesthetic thinker would have little control over this dread, and most likely fate would be thought of as bringing with it undesirable experiences.
The ethical or reflective sphere would want the three terms distinct and each one containing developed indifferent or distinct meaning in relation to the other terms. A mere loose relation may be viewed as a possibility for this form of thought. For example, one may observe this form of reflection in an event such as a car accident. The accident would be viewed as totally random and purely contingent; however, necessity is also involved because of the “laws” pertaining to the forces, causes, and effects. But this necessity is “external” to the accident just as in reflection contingency is external to necessity. In this view infinite necessity (in the form of fate or predestination) is not reached and the view remains in reflective thought. The accident, as a merely contingent event, is not pulled up into necessity but remains distinct. As a result, essential unity would be thought not possible as the terms accident and necessity contradict each other. In reflective thought a concept of fate or predestination is not possible except as a vague and disjointed common idea. Without the unification or sublimation of the terms, one is left with abstract, or concepts lacking systematic content and understanding.
When we say, “God is love,” we describe a content-less form of being by using the word “is” to predicate God. This lack of content (an abstraction) is because the term “love” has not been given meaning. We need to know what this love is in order to know who God is. With this phrase standing alone, I am tempted to define this love from my own experience, as I understand it (one should by now sense the need for “revelation”). My meaning for love may come from several sources such as my desire, cultural conditioning, media, and such like. However, what I assume love to be may not necessarily be this love that God is.
If we return to those conflicting attributes of God mentioned in a previous post, such as, love, wrath, and judgment, we need to unite all of these into His love, because God is revealed as love, not as wrath. This presents a difficulty for consciousness. In the philosophical sphere wrath must be sublimated into God’s love; wrath must become a momentary manifestation of love. Within love, Divine wrath acquires its proper meaning. Outside of Divine love, as viewed within the first two spheres, wrath acquires an abstractly developed meaning separated from love, and this meaning will most likely be indifferent to love. This abstract one-sided meaning of wrath constructed up in-and–for-itself may be in contradiction and maintained apart from Divine love that conditions all of God’s attributes. For aesthetics and ethics Divine wrath exhibited by God in the Bible becomes a mystery, and in fact this mystery of Divine wrath must be ignored or removed from interpretations. These interpretations lead to mystery and move God toward being either incomprehensible or like me. Where does this form of reflective thinking lead? Marcion, a second century Christian bishop believed that the violent actions of the Jewish God in the Old Testament were incompatible with the Christian God revealed in the New Testament, causing him to posit two different divinities: an inferior, wrathful, Old Testament god distinct from a loving New Testament god. Rightly he was labeled a heretic; however, his heresy enjoyed considerable success for a time. In response to Marcion, the church began to unify the cannon of scripture and think of God in terms of Trinity.
One may be able to see from these posts that knowing is characterized by which sphere one is thinking in. In ignorance, we could very well use the one term “knowing” without realizing that hidden in this term are three different meanings that reach three different conclusions.
Liberty is the ability to choose. Freedom is making the right choice.
God is not logic as man perceives logic. Jesus said to "turn the other cheek." That is not logic as man knows and practices logic and it illustrates liberty but thwarts freedom when we choose to strike back.
Several Amish children were murdered in their school by a deranged man who died himself. The Amish community took it upon themselves to comfort and care for the family of the murderer. It was big news because it is not logical to man's way of thinking---and I suspect many of us who claim to be Christian wondered if we possessed the same fortitude as those in that Amish community.
Christianity is about DOING, not thinking. When making right choices becomes second nature then we have achieved freedom in Christ.
But the more interesting philosophical question is what ARE right choices and do circumstances ever dictate that what is right in one instance is wrong in another.
I imagine I never said god "is" logic, but surely when he says to turn the other cheek, it is a rational statement (I can show this using the "good Samaritan story"-it is very logical and one must "think" about it just to read it, and it can move through the 3 forms I have placed here and it reaches a higher logical form in this 3rd). For one, turning the cheek sets in a syntactically form, ie, one can both hear and read the statement and understand it, well, in various forms, if it was not rational, how would one make the statement and how would one understand it, or even actualize it, I suppose one can actualize something and never hear it or hear it as a confusing glob!
I suppose the belief now is that god is irrational? Or doesn't have a mind at all! But then one gets so many rational statements from god. Even the creation account is a logical structure, it sets in a logical syllogism, that is all there is to it, I didn't write it, but god evidently placed it in such a form, so that is not my problem.
"that is not logic as man, etc" in other words you are implying that there is a correct form of logic yourself, if there is and there is, then it would seem that one should find it, you should give that to us, if you do not know then you should find it.
"Christianity is about doing not thinking." One should look at this statement, as what you wrote here goes against this post of yours-you are already engaged in thinking. Christians are to give a good account of themselves, I suppose an irrational form is what is required? How can they believe unless they hear?, it says somewhere, how is this done without their minds? Does not speaking imply thought? Does not hearing imply thought as well?
"But the more interesting...." this statement of yours already points in the direction of an ethics, I assume a christian ethics, which means you are moving once again in the direction of thinking. Since you evidently have nothing more to say but this question, you are rummaging around in thoughtless thought, perhaps tricking yourself into thinking you are not thinking-but you are attempting a thought system here, so you have already, several times went against a "doing and no thinking." Obviously, if one is a christian and puts forth a need for ethics, this ethics must be grounded in theology, and then that means one needs to organize one's thoughts, and to put forth a teaching, and that means a rational system, or are you advocating some cobbled together unorganized irrational system?
Amusement, such as an amusement park, means "made not to think" so one can see what christanity one can get out of that
Doctoring is about doing, same with accounting, I suppose you want your doctor and account not thinking as well.
The Amish in relation to my post is irrelevant and added only to take it off track. Amish exist in a idea too, in other words, they organize their life style around a structure, they are thinking too, as their behavior reflects their thoughts. You are attempting to get around thinking with "will", "fortitude", and such, but you do not address your main point that christianity is supposed to be filled with thoughtless dolts, or demand that christians not be human and use their minds, you are advocating thoughtless behavior. Animals do not have will and fortitude in the same way as men, they act instinctively, men are burdened with thinking, and that draws a distinction between animals and men, the wills of men and their fortitude is to be, well, should not be separated from thought, one can not will if one has no thought (this allows man to be responsible for his act-he thinks), one can not be in ethics, if one does not think. The big problem in christiaity, which by and large is dumb and composed of crummy thinking (which you admit we have as non-Amish), is that there is not enough thinking in it. It has been a stupid movement for several years and its stupidity has brought it to the critique you are giving it (outside of those Amish), and now you are advocating more stupidity. The way things are going you will obviously get your wish for thoughtless doing.
I have a moment so I want to say some more on this advocation of christian lobotomizing. One of the most strangest activities nowadays is the need to defend thought; I suppose this is not new, but in 2013 having to do this is strange.
Common thinking views act and thought ("being," in a way) as distinct separate terms. If the person above had read anything I wrote, he/she would know that setting these terms apart, well, they develop independent meanings to each other and seem somewhat unrelated (we do the same with such terms as cause and effect, not realizing that they come out of each other). As held independent of each other, or indifferent to each other, the lazy mind can merely select one side and exclude the other. The contradiction formed in this manner is that, say having selected act and excluded thought, one has to exclude thought, and then use thought to explain how one can act thoughtlessly-one always develops doctrine and systematizes it, even if its a system of no doctrine. If one is a parent, one probably has told their child that he/she has acted thoughtlessly and encouraged more thought going into their act, to grow up some; what is christianity if not a growing mature? That is a desire that the child grow in rational behavior, who wants an irrational child? Well, from observing the herd, maybe several do nowadays. Christianity seems very thoughtless now, ask any christian about doctrine and they seem lost (even when the bible says it is good for doctrine and the church has been given teachers).
The true way is that thought and act are united, and separating them into indifference is a falsity and leads to both false thought and useless acts. It is true that act negates thought, and thought negates act, but this negation does not mean that thought is not in the act, but sublimated into it, ie, thought and act are moments of a singular process, and without them united, one falls into abstraction. Your act contains your thought, one might want to think "well."
"Freedom is tied to the right choice," it is said. One needs to "know" the right choice then to have this freedom. Even if one drags this out of bible, one will find in one place a right choice seems to be contradicted in another place. This mentality that needs separate distinct terms as in act and thought, will have issues with this, and will need a bias to select, in bias there is little freedom as the bias predetermines the selection, only in thought does one reach to freedom. One has to determine a reconciliation in the contradiction or ignore something. This determining is a rational theological process, where it still exists in dumb christian land.
"Liberty is the ability to choose," it is also said, and here there is nothing else, that means my un-thinking cat has liberty, and one could very well get her into freedom with this, with her right choices. But for humans, in other words, if I choose bondage, I am in liberty, but for freedom one would have to "know" if bondage was the right choice. This is a common error for modern christianity because of its thoughtlessness. In other words, choosing sin and death is just as free as choosing life, or it sets the person in some "middle" somewhere or elevates the "fallen" into something profound, which contradicts the already given position of sin, sin selects sin, or one is a slave to sin. There is a contradiction between this liberty and freedom. Both of these statements set in a separateness as liberty is made distinct from freedom and freedom from liberty, as if my selecting has nothing to do with my freedom. But with only "act" as the criteria one actually loses the christian. This is because christianity attaches thought both to the liberty and the freedom, or that thought is characterized either as the mind of Christ or the mind of Adam (there is no mind of Neutrality), or "being in" one or the other, here a biblical differentiation is possible, Paul, a thinker as well as a doer, lays this out in Romans. The natural man will conceive his liberty and freedom, a fiction, from his being (thought) and the one in Christ will conceive this from his being in Christ. From the theological perspectives these terms must be pulled out of their immediacy and given a Christian emphasis. Both liberty and freedom need thought content, not just slung out into "reality" empty and made into a seemingly profound slogan.
Amish....this is an attempt to introduce a sensuous simile into the argument. One can dialectically remember Amish shaving beards of others that disagreed with them, or their "neighborly" insistence requiring buggies on highways. Or the time one drove 40 miles to inquire from an Amish guy about lumber because they have no phones to ease potential customers efforts, and being told by a wife, "I have no idea where he is and I can not get in touch with him"-love one's neighbor, I reckon. I can increase these examples with Mennonites and their treatment of animals and children, not to mention my mailbox. Doing, doing, doing, and no thinking, thinking, thinking.
Jesus prayed for the doers of the criminal act against him, that his Father in heaven would forgive them because they new not what they were doing. If one deconstructs this prayer, one will see that doing alone is not the criteria, but that the doing is coupled to "knowing." Even in ignorance one is responsible. They thought they were doing right in their ignorance, but a knowing what they were doing would have changed their doing. One's thinking is in one's doing, and one is responsible for both act and thought as it is men who judge the acts, but god judges the heart.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It's not about "figuring" it out
