posted                  

quote:

---

1. Human beings are the product of several million years of natural selection through a process which is incompletely understood. The modern evolutionary synthesis, based on the hypotheses of Darwin and Mendel has been backed by an extensive, although incomplete, fossil record and by modern genetic science. The idea that such a process ruled out divine action would have horrified both Darwin, an Anglican Priest, and Mendel, an Augustinian Abbot.
The American-South African anthropologist Robert Ardrey wrote in his much quoted African Genesis: A Personal Investigation into the Animal Origins and Nature of Man,

quote:

---

We were born of risen apes, not fallen angels, and the apes were armed killers besides. And so what shall we wonder at? Our murders and massacres and missiles, and our irreconcilable regiments? Or our treaties whatever they may be worth; our sympathies however seldom they may be played; our peaceful acres, however frequently they may be converted to battlefields; our dreams however rarely they may be accomplished. The miracle of man is not how far he has sunk but how magnificently he has risen. We are known among the stars by our poems, not our corpses.

---

While modern authorities ranging from Bertrand Russell to Kenneth Clark expressed incredulity at the Renaissance opinion, actually a quote from Protagoras, that “Man is the measure of all things,” but it is difficult to look at the Doumo in Florence, the backdrop against which Pico della Mirandola wrote, and not agree with Ardery that humans have come along way for a bipedal ape.
2. “Out, out, brief candle! Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player That struts and frets his hour upon the stage and then is heard no more. It is a tale Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, Signifying nothing.” I would dispute MacBeth’s idea that life signifies nothing, but it is both unquestionably brief and often reminiscent of a bad actor performing, although, in fairness, he is forced to improvise, having never been given a script.
Marcus Aurelius offers an alternative view of life, one which I believe to be more accurate in his Te eis heauton:

quote:

---

Empty pomp; stage plays; flocks of sheep and herds of cows; mock battles; a bone flung to lap-dogs; a breadcrumb tossed into a fishpond; the ceaseless toil of ants bearing their burdens; the flight of frightened mice; puppets dancing on their strings — such is life. Your job is to take pleasure amidst it all with a mild manner and without condescension. Bear in mind that the measure of a man is the worth of the things he cares about.

---

The nature of life is rooted in the nature of death, all complex organisms are biologically programed to pass on genetic material, but there is a human desire to pass on more than just genes. The statement Ars longa, vita brevis, originally said by Hipocrates and translated into Latin by Horace, finds echoes in many other cultures, particularly in Icelandic sögur and other Norse poems, such as Hávamál, which states that

quote:

---

Cattle die, kinsmen die,
the self must also die;
I know one thing which never dies:
the reputation of each dead man.

---

The meaning of life, is supposed to be an unanswerable question, save for the many who consider it to be 42, but the solution is neither hidden nor esoteric, the meaning of a human life is determined by the influence a man has on those around him, and, through his life, on those he will never know. Marcus’s Aurelius could be interpreted as attempting to isolate a man’s caritas from his actions, a claim which is refuted in the Meditations but borne out by much of his own life; caritas, the same “love” or “charity” found in St. Paul’s letter to the Corinthians, is, in itself, a noble sentiment, but a man who cares deeply for all things but does not act on this feeling does nothing for that which he cares.
3. The word “love” is inherently problematic, taking on such a broad range of meaning as to be nearly meaningless. Most ideas, particularly abstract ones, cannot be fully understood outside of specific context, but even so, love remains one of the most ambiguous words in the English language, so much so that almost any philosophical discussion of it lapses into Greek or, as illustrated by my previous paragraph, Latin. While the Greeks distinguished at least six major forms of love, there must exist many more, perhaps one type for each individual relationship, adding up to billions. Eros, romantic or sexualized love, is problematic from a Judeo-Christian viewpoint. Eros can be beneficial and beautiful, but only when accompanied by Philia, or affectionate love. Germanic languages distinguish between love and lust, and Eros unaccompanied by Philia is represented as the later.
The most lasting philosophical injustice of the Mediæval Church is the view of human sexuality as being base, albeit necessary for the production of children and the view that chastity was superior to marriage. The later was not Church doctrine until the Synod of Elvira in c. 300 A.D. and, in fact, many clerics were married, St. Peter among them. This view has fortunately been almost completely repudiated and is no longer of great influence. The former view, is, unfortunately, still a major influence in the Western World. While most Protestant denominations allow some forms of contraception, the negative view of homosexuality, which follows from the view that sexuality most be procreative and which has often amounted to persecution, is still a major force in more traditional Western countries, although it has been greatly relaxed in more liberal ones such as Canada, the Netherlands and the Scandinavian countries.
4. One of the first great moments in western literature occurs in Gilgamesh when the hero of humanity’s first extant epic, who is often described as “one third mortal, two thirds divine,” learns the nature of human life following the death, asking “Shall I not die too?/ Am I not like Enkidu?” (tblt IX ln 3) Death is the constant spectator to life, so well personified by the slave, riding in a triumphal chariot, whispering in the ear of a victories general, memento mori, remember me and know that all glory is fleeting and all is vanity. Such a powerful reminder can lead men either to despair or to strive for greatness in the brief time given to them.
5. Yes, there is such a thing as the divine, supernatural or transcendent. This has been accepted since the beginnings of human thought, even Nietzsche had a clear view of the transcendent. It is when an attempt is made to describe the divine/transcendent that humanity finds itself grasping in the darkness. One thing which appears clear, although this too may be an illusion, is that there is a special relationship between the divine/transcendent and humanity, rather it be because the human spirit is itself the ultimate transcendent, as some secular humanists argue, or because a connection between the human spirit and a higher spirit. One of the most intriguing and most probable theological views I know of is the Quaker concept of the Inner Light, based on John 1:9 which describes Jesus as “the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.” The Inner Light is either a saving enlightenment or a saving grace, for which reason most Quakers reject the traditional Christian view of Heaven and Hell arguing that all people are either saved through enlightenment, which combines Quaker and Pelagian philosophy, or by the universal sacrifice.
The concept of a God who is both omnipotent and omnibenevolent does not work logically, as Rabbi Kushner convincingly argues. All theodicecal arguments are forced to abandon one of these traditional divine arguments, almost universally omnipotence, not least because an omnipotent just God bears ill for humanity. It is possible to argue that God is theoretically omnipotent ant, but not functionally so, by his own choice, i.e. the universe is set up in such away that God is unable to intervene in a given situation as such an action would inherently diminish humanity. An omnibenevolent God could be angry, as a parent grows angry at a child, but never wrathful or vengeful, although he is often portrayed as thus in various religious texts. The concept of a vengeful God is a human concept based on the refusal to accept the Existential position, most famously offered by Sartre in Nausea, that the universe is indifferent to human existence. Such an argument makes far more sense than the view of vengeful God, but also rules out the concept of a practically omnipotent God, but, thankfully, allows for an omnibenevolent God, although Sartre himself would be displeased with this interpretation.
6. As evidenced by the great number of quotations in this text, I do not pretend to be an original thinker, nor do I believe that there is much original thought at all. In his introduction to
Tractus Logico-Philosophicus, Wittgenstein notes that “This book will perhaps only be understood by those who have themselves already thought the thoughts which are expressed in it — or similar thoughts.” This is, at once, both Wittgenstein’s typical arrogance and a logical extension of his philosophy: language, while inherently limited, is the only available way to communicate philosophical ideas, but such ideas can only be understood by those who already posses the seed of such a thought in their heads, albeit not always in a logical linguistic form. Such feelings of intellectual déjà vieu were perhaps best expressed by T.H. Huxley, who commented, upon reading On the Origin of Species, “How stupid of me not to have thought of it.” The degree to which one possesses such germs of thought is determined largely by a poorly understood combination of genes and upbringing.

---

Posts: 1332 | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                  

quote:

---

*blink* I have absolutely no idea what point you're trying to make. It's like a Whitman's Sampler of basic philosophy.

---

Posts: 4313 | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged |