Christian Ethics

[philothea]

Wibble is what my brain does when it wants to stop thinking.

I know Mathematics is logic is philosophy, but at least math has premises everyone can easily define and agree on! It's the iffyness of defining words that makes me wibble.

But thanks again.

[curtins]

everyone has in them a kind of natural instinct that tells if something is good or not but we do need the guidence of God and his laws to really know what is fully good and what is fully evil. God is good. God is goodness. All goodness comes from God. No matter how small the goodness is- it comes from God because God is the source of all goodness. Goodness is that which opposes evil. It is the truth. It leads to happiness- even if not in this life- surly in the next. We do good because God tells us to. Jesus calls us to be perfect as our heavenly Father is perfect. God gave Moses the 10 Commandments which lay down the lines on what is evil so that we may know good and do good. We obey God because- come on God is the man. No one is gonna win against God. He is the all powerful, almighty, eternal one. He is the TRUTH. He is GOODNESS. He is Happiness. He gave us EVERYTHING we have. He DIED for us. He wants us to obey him and to live with his grace in our lives so that we may one day be with him forever in paradise. Simply put we obey God because it is his will and because we love him.

[Guest JeffCR07]

[quote name='Cam42' date='Jun 20 2005, 08:54 PM']At the heart of all of this is Existentialism....Sarte, Kierkegaard, etc.....

Here is the prevailing thought behind all of this.....

Existentialism is at it’s core, the highest ethical good which is the same for everyone; insofar as one approaches moral perfection. SAINT Thomas Aquinas is thought to be an existentialist, following this defintion.

The problem with existentialism is that it can lead in two directions (hence the precursor of authentic).

It can lead to loneliness and despair, possibly resulting in nihilism.  (ie. Kierkegaard and Sartre)

OR

For others still, the perceived “imperfection” of man is merely a changeable facet of his/her character, for with total freedom and total responsibility comes limitless potential (the existentialist here touches the concept of humanism). The human condition, then, is not absolute nor entirely understood; improvement (but not “enlightenment") can come through the emphasis of different or new human attributes. The individual is free to be who he chooses.

In this way, one exists, and existence precedes essence. If a similarity must be drawn between existentialism and traditional philosophies, it is through experience alone that one can “find answers” if he so chooses. Individual, not collective, experience is imperative; emotional solitude is not only necessary but unavoidable--and not uncomfortable.”

Kierkegaard ultimately advocated a “leap of faith” into a Christian way of life, which, although incomprehensible and full of risk, was the only commitment he believed could save the individual from despair.

Kierkegaard supposed that Christianity (as Paul had pointed out) makes no sense; its genius lies not in any appeal to the dictates of reason but rather in its total reliance on faith. But from that point of view, the content of an authoritative command is entirely irrelevant; all that matters is the claim that the command places upon our lives. There can be no proof of the authority behind the command, since any such demonstration of its value would make it impossible for us to accept it as a matter of faith.

This is the best slogan to describe Kierkegaard’s philosophy:  IT DOESN’T MATTER WHAT YOU BELIEVE, INSOFAR AS YOU ARE SINCERE.

Here are a couple of things, 1. To define existence; the fact or state of being.  2. essence; Something that exists, especially a spiritual or incorporeal entity.  In this way, we must exist before we have essence.  This can happen simultaneously, ie the procreative act, but in order to have essence, one must exist.  It would seem that it is impossible to derive a universal highest good from existence, except for one glaring thing.....God.

St. Thomas Aquinas takes this up in [url="http://www.ccel.org/a/aquinas/summa/FP/FP006.html#FPQ6A2THEP1"]the Summa[/url].

[quote name='Kierkegaard']Since existence will not yield universality....[/quote]

I would disagree with that. Again Aquinas takes up that goodness does not differ from being. He states, “Goodness and being are really the same, and differ only in idea; which is clear from the following argument. The essence of goodness consists in this, that it is in some way desirable. Hence the Philosopher says (Ethic. i): “Goodness is what all desire.” Now it is clear that a thing is desirable only in so far as it is perfect; for all desire their own perfection. But everything is perfect so far as it is actual. Therefore it is clear that a thing is perfect so far as it exists; for it is existence that makes all things actual, as is clear from the foregoing (Question [3], Article [4]; Question [4], Article [1]). Hence it is clear that goodness and being are the same really. But goodness presents the aspect of desirableness, which being does not present.” (Summa I-5; 1)

He also says, “Goodness and being are really the same, and differ only in idea; which is clear from the following argument. The essence of goodness consists in this, that it is in some way desirable. Hence the Philosopher says (Ethic. i): “Goodness is what all desire.” Now it is clear that a thing is desirable only in so far as it is perfect; for all desire their own perfection. But everything is perfect so far as it is actual. Therefore it is clear that a thing is perfect so far as it exists; for it is existence that makes all things actual, as is clear from the foregoing (Question [3], Article [4]; Question [4], Article [1]). Hence it is clear that goodness and being are the same really. But goodness presents the aspect of desirableness, which being does not present....But goodness signifies perfection which is desirable; and consequently of ultimate perfection. Hence that which has ultimate perfection is said to be simply good; but that which has not the ultimate perfection it ought to have (although, in so far as it is at all actual, it has some perfection), is not said to be perfect simply nor good simply, but only relatively. In this way, therefore, viewed in its primal (i.e. substantial) being a thing is said to be simply, and to be good relatively (i.e. in so far as it has being) but viewed in its complete actuality, a thing is said to be relatively, and to be good simply.” and “Goodness is a form so far as absolute goodness signifies complete actuality.” (Summa I-5; 1)

As far as Kierkegaard is concerned, here are a couple of thoughts that are opposed to the right thinking progression from philosophy to theology.

For Kierkegaard Christian faith is not a matter of regurgitating church dogma. It is a matter of individual subjective passion, which cannot be mediated by the clergy or by human artefacts. Faith is the most important task to be achieved by a human being, because only on the basis of faith does an individual have a chance to become a true self. This self is the life-work which God judges for eternity. Christian dogma, according to Kierkegaard, embodies paradoxes which are offensive to reason. The central paradox is the assertion that the eternal, infinite, transcendent God simultaneously became incarnated as a temporal, finite, human being (Jesus). There are two possible attitudes we can adopt to this assertion, viz. we can have faith, or we can take offense. What we cannot do, according to Kierkegaard, is believe by virtue of reason. If we choose faith we must suspend our reason in order to believe in something higher than reason. In fact we must believe by virtue of the absurd.

By holding this idea, Kierkegaard sets himself against the Church and her beliefs. The first is the idea that Dogma is offensive to reason. It most certainly is not. Dogma is a revealed truth and cannot be refuted. It must be accepted both from faith and reason. This is done in three ways: formally and explicitly; formally and implicitly; and virtually. According to Kierkegaard, this cannot be done, because if we choose faith, we must suspend reason.

Crucial to the miracle of Christian faith is the realization that over against God we are always in the wrong. That is, we must realize that we are always in sin. This is the condition for faith, and must be given by God. The idea of sin cannot evolve from purely human origins. Rather, it must have been introduced into the world from a transcendent source. Once we understand that we are in sin, we can understand that there is some being over against which we are always in the wrong. On this basis we can have faith that, by virtue of the absurd, we can ultimately be atoned with this being.

This simply cannot be. We can come to knowlege of right thinking and correctness through both faith and reason. The Holy Father takes this up in Fides et Ratio. Also, Kierkegaard is opposed to the idea of sacramental baptism and confession when he states that we are always in a state of sin. We can and do receive forgivness of sin. And we can ultimately overcome sin.

Finally, Kierkegaard asserts that the Christian God is represented as absolutely transcendent of human categories yet is absurdly presented as a personal God with the human capacities to love, judge, forgive, teach, etc.

To think that God is absurd cannot be because that is to imply that God is somehow less than perfect.

I realize that this moved a bit from Sartre, but Kierkegaard and Sartre were comtemporaries and their philosophies were/are very similar.
[right][snapback]617421[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


hahaha you certainly did move a bit from Sartre to Kierkegaard (no need to appologize), but I do take a but of offense at the notion that their philosophies are similar...not that I have any kind of affinity towards either, but I see them as markedly different.

While I think your exposition of Kierkegaard's position is apt, particularly with regards to your summary on his views of Christian doctrine, I think that you mistake the central tenant of Existentialism as a whole.

Existentialism understood as it is now is not, as you say "the highest ethical good which is the same for everyone; insofar as one approaches moral perfection." Rather, the core of Existentialism is what you mention a few lines down from the above cited line:

[i]Existence precedes Essence[/i]

Personally, I do not think that this tenant (and therefore all of Existentialism as a system) can be reconciled with orthodox christian thought.

Oh, and on a totally different note, Kierkegaard's "knight of faith" is way too close to Levinas' discussion of charity while looking into the eyes of "the Other" for my taste....yuck, lol.

Why can't everyone just be Anselmian

[Cam42]

First off, I am not trying to explain existentialism in the modern way, but rather in the way that Sartre and Kierkegaard saw it. They were very closely linked....sorry that you don't agree, but nevertheless, they came from the same school of thought. More research will show you that.

There is no mistake.....Existentialism in the classic sense of the word is aptly defined and aptly rendered.

Why can't everyone be Anslemian? Because not everyone thinks that the Ontological Argument is the best out there.....I don't......I tend to follow a Thomistic viewpoint.

[Guest JeffCR07]

Do you agree with Aquinas' rebuttle of Anselm's Argument? If so, I would love to discuss with you.


Edit: oh yea, and there is a bit more to Anselm than the Ontological Argument

Edited June 21, 2005 by JeffCR07

[Didacus]

[quote name='Cam42' date='Jun 20 2005, 10:32 PM']Mathematics is philosophy.....didn't you know?  What is logic?  LOL

What the heck is Wibble?
[right][snapback]617557[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Yes I knew that... all sciences stem from philosophy.

Don't know about Wibble...

Quick question... started doing some of the reading... and I find it very confusing (please, remove that 'surprised' look on your face... thank you)

Of particular confusion is:

"a thing is said to be relatively, and to be good simply." and other such statements. Seems to be contradictive to me... but I'm certain that's just me.

Now maybe I did not read far enough, but so far, here is my questions:

If being and good are the same, how is it that both may have differetn characteristics?

And if good and being are one and the same, then explain the devil to me? Does he not exist? Is he not evil?

Or is it just that I misread the term 'being' as the term 'existance'? I realize I need to read a little more...
Hence, "Goodness and being are really the same, and differ only in idea" means that it is simply a question of definition of the terms? Different world views of the same universal characteristic?

[i](actually been reading those pages more or less in the alst few weeks, I realize it's good stuff... but a little hard to grasp... I, like others that posted on this thread, exchanged the arts and poetry for mathematics and science... *sigh*)[/i]

[Cam42]

[quote]"a thing is said to be relatively, and to be good simply." and other such statements. Seems to be contradictive to me....[/quote]

You are speaking of the understanding of Aquinas' statement.

[quote]Hence it is clear that goodness and being are the same really. But goodness presents the aspect of desirableness, which being does not present....But goodness signifies perfection which is desirable; and consequently of ultimate perfection. Hence that which has ultimate perfection is said to be simply good; but that which has not the ultimate perfection it ought to have (although, in so far as it is at all actual, it has some perfection), is not said to be perfect simply nor good simply, but only relatively. In this way, therefore, viewed in its primal (i.e. substantial) being a thing is said to be simply, and to be good relatively (i.e. in so far as it has being) but viewed in its complete actuality, a thing is said to be relatively, and to be good simply.” and “Goodness is a form so far as absolute goodness signifies complete actuality.” (Summa I-5; 1)[/quote]

When something is good it is desirable. It can attain perfection. When the good is a simple good, it doesn't have the perfection that it ought to have. It isn't acutally good, because it has not attained actual perfection, but is only relatively good, because there is some part of actual goodness missing. The thing, is good, because of it's simplicity, but it lacks actual goodness, because something is missing.

The best example is man. Man was created actually good. However, he lost some of that goodness with the sin of Adam. Man from that point is deemed to be good because man has being, but man is not complete. He has being, but is lacking perfect substance, because of the fall.

The example of this actual goodness is given to us in Christ. Christ is completely good, insofar as he had being and he was substantial in goodness. There was no lack of goodness, because he was exempt from the fall. We can apply this to Christ, "Goodness is a form so far as absolute goodness signifies complete actuality."

A lot of this is understanding how Aquinas uses the terms, but that would take too long to try and explain in one or two posts. The assumption has to be made that one already understands the terms. Otherwise, we would be entering into a college level class to explain all of this.

Does the Devil exist? Yes, absolutely.....insofar as man is relatively good, and Christ is actually good, the Devil is lack of goodness.