|
Docta Ignorantia LXXX Classical Idealism, Tillich And Theology Talking about classical idealism. Is there any specific area of Christianity where this sort of theology is prevalent? Could you also explain the connection of metaphysics to idealism. Tillich himself is an example of classical idealism, accommodated to modern linguistic tastes. His ancestry is Plotinus and the Pythagoreans, who marginally included Plato, whom I think we get a warped view of. 19th Century popular Christianity was idealistic in its flavor, without being self-consciously so. And of course Augustine, who Christianized it, is in the line of classical idealism. But in general in the Western Church idealism is not the preferred format, although it underlies everything in the Western Church that is good. You do understand, don't you, that the term idealism used by Tillich does not mean high-minded ideals. It means neo-Platonic Realism, a philosophical system having specific parameters the most important of which is emphasis on the prius, the a priori, the ineffable Given that is assumed necessarily as the basis of everything and anything at all. In West Point parlance idealism is the philosophical system that underlies the use of the concept of a moral base line (which is a prius or a priori or existence). Technically the word is capitalized, Idealism, to indicate that it is a philosophy, a formal, technical system, and not just high-minded ideals, which can or cannot be based on any prius. In Idealism, everything is taken as derived from the prius. Idealism, of which there are several varieties but having a common theme of reliance on the Ground or Being as the prius of everything, is usually promoted by non-Christians, such as Hegel, but during the Middle Ages it in Christian form was promoted by the Franciscans and the Templars and is in Masonic tradition right through the years. Although they don't call it that, that's what it is. When it is used Christianly, it is called, during the Medieval years, Realism. Realism then was just their word for Idealism. But modernly the word Idealism refers most memorably to Hegelian philosophy, which is good stuff, in general, but has problems in details. Hegelian Idealism is a response to the awareness of Vedas -- the original Idealistic Philosophy -- which were being translated just before Hegsl's life and which deeply affected the German people. Metaphysics is an area of philosophy, not a philosophy itself, such as Idealism is. All philosophies have metaphysics, they all have to come up with a metaphysics in order to qualify as respectable. Metaphysics is the area of philosophy which deals with the causalities that underlie the tangible world, or in other words, underlie physics, which has to do just with the realm of the tangible. Behind or under or prior to the tangible realm there is at least one realm that is intangible, and that realm is metaphysics. Tangible means accessible to the senses, an epistemology (process of knowing) based on information provided by the five senses. Whatever underlies in the sense of providiing the causality for the realm of the tangible is metaphysics. Physicists today pretend that they are addressing this world of the metaphysical with their physical theories and mathematical theories but they aren't because their theories are all sense-based. The metaphysics a philosopher or theologian makes or uses derives from their philosophical type. The metaphysics is secondary to the philosophy type, in other words. Modern physicists' metaphysics aren't that, they're physics in fancy language and their general theories are sense-based and so infructuous. Idealism elicits the only satisfying metaphysics, and that at numerous levels of subtlety. Causation goes by subtlety: the more subtle the more causative, the more gross the less causative. So for example, a murderer is gross relative to the society and weaks mayhem but on a comparatively limited scale. But a legislative body is subtle relative to the soceity and can wreak mahem on a comparatively large scale. So the laws of the legislature are more subtle and therefore more powerful and affective than the gross behavior of a murder. The more subtle a thing it, the more it can cause things to happen. This is what makes MI so pleasant to work with: finding the subtleties, such as that the harbor of Inchon wasn't protected at certain tide times, offering possibility of a landing. What exactly does he mean by "a priori" of experience? Is this just a fancy word for "base" or a more specific reference to theological background? Yes, sort of a fancy word for base. It goes back to the phenomenon of the prius or that-before-which which is the defining premise of Idealism and genuine Christian Theology (and Vedas). a priori means literally before the fact. a posteriori means after the fact. Tillich and all proper Theologians assert that the most important things in life are a priori, before the fact of experience. So that to one who says I won't believe it unless I experience it -- or even worse, it doesn't exist unless I experience it or acknowledge it or declare it to exist, which is the popular position today -- a Theologian points out that this is nonsense, that there is a huge a priori to such an attitude, namely, the I who is doing the talking, and that when that a priori is examiined it turns out to be the Gound of Being itself, the immutable Base. Very few "clergy" today would assert that there are any a prioris, mirroring the popular attitude. This is just a way for people to try to do what they want without having accounts. A prominent example of this is in the media. It's pretense, however. The a priori is there no matter what -- the moral base line is one way of describing it -- and this phenomenon accounts for the fact that people, even when they say they can do anything they want, express disapproval when they see someone doing something that is considered wrong. The fact that there is a sense of right and wrong, no matter how that sense is expressed, itself demonstrates the presence of an a priori, a reality that is brought to an experience rather than being dervied from that expereince. Our scientists, of course, want to say that the only things that exist are those that derive from experience -- and we need more funding to expand our experience. Sages go the other way, into the a prioris and from there they experience the experiences that the a prioris emit. Why do people seek reclusive Sages? Because the a priori is the key to experience. Experience is good and necessary, but it makes sense only from the base of the a priori, the Gound of Being, to use Tillich's Idealism-derived word. "...based on an immediate experience of something ultimate in value and being of which one CAN become intuitelvy aware." I thought most every one had at least some intuition of this. What is he referring to? Actually, everyone does have some intuition of this, but you have more than most and you must allow for this privilege you have. Most have far less of it than you do and many very little and very few have awareness of having this experience via intuition. What he is getting at is experience -- intuitive -- arising from an existential (felt) participation of the subject in the object and vice-versa. He is confirming Heisenberg's Indeterminacy Principle from another direciton. Participation in the occasions of life is something most don't do, aren't able to do, but all the zest and thrill of life is in this sort of living. I tell you to relish WP and your experience there, but most will be treating it as a thing to do, a stepping-stone or rung in a ladder. Rather, I urge you to relish the moment, to participate fully and enthusiastically in the routine, to live it and the reason is that true wisdom emerges from this participation or what some call knowledge from intuition. Actually, it is just participation in which the thing experience, the experience and the one experiencing are taken to be one and the same. Life is this triple thread -- one thread of three strands, the seer, the seen and the sight. Relishing the moments one is in is the way to genuinely understand and learn about that thread, by enjoying it and observing it as one participates willingly in its drama. This is the opposite of being swept along by outside events. It's an irony, that the deepest freedom comes from the deepest participation. The key is the intuitive awareness that one IS the a priori, the prius, the Ground. That awarness makes one free and happy and relaxed no matter what. Could you explain again the difference between orthodox and pietism methods. This refers to a period of German theology -- 17th to 18th Centuries -- when the orthodox Lutherans went to a dry formalism, devoid of the sense of feeling, and there was a reaction from a group who came to be called pietists. The same thing happened in the Reformed (Calvinist) circles about the same time. What happened was Reformation theology matured and got leaden and some folks came along and reintroduced the element of zest or feeling based on the love of God. Bach was in the pietist tradition and so is Tillich. Tillich graduated at Halle, the pietist center. However, Tillich, being the universalist that he is, also appreciates what the orthodox had. The specific disagreement was, as usual, over the issue of how one knows that one is saved or technically, regenerate (re generated, born again). The orthodox said, following long tradition, there's no real way to know -- Calvin: "There are no visible signs of either election (regeneration) or reprobation (unregeneration)." In other words, all the signs of one's estate of grace are a priori, prior to experience. So the question emerged, if we can't tell if we're saved or not, how can we know who is a theologian to be trusted or not? This is an important question, going to the heart of the daily life of the church and of the whole humanity. Tillich points out that both pietists and orthodox are right so far as they go and wrong if they try to exclude the other -- this is Tillich's usual method, why I like him, the method of inclusion or expansion. His last sentence in that para is the summation. The theologian must be in the circle of faith if he or she is to be honored and their advice followed and that the way one knows whether or not they are inside that circle is whether they accept the Christian message -- the religious message -- as their ultimate concern. If they discuss theology as a pass-time, if they are merely students or scholars of religion -- as the schools today are full of -- then they merit no attention at all. But if the transforming message of God's love in Jesus the Christ or any other figure whose Name is a Name of God is their life's absolute focus, then one knows that they are indeed a Theologian and merit attention and can be relied upon at least to some extent, which one still must gauge for oneself. Always test everything on the touchstone of one's experience, intuitive and otherwise, but if the theologian is ultimately concerned in the right way, then they are worthy of heeding. This is a very important point Tillich is making, about the authenticity or non-authenticity of the leadership. I think I understand everything from p.11-15 (dealing with the term "ultimate concern" and it's meaning in theology) but please add anything or point out anything you find important. Ultimate concern is Tillich's unique term for describing what religion is at its very most simple and plain. He uses it in succession to several famous terms made to express the same thing, the heart of religion, and in particular Schleiermacher's word that comes to us, inappropriately, as "feeling." Tillich wants to avoid the unfortunate misinterpretation of Schleiermacher's word while still holding its wonderful existential flavor. Ultimate concern is his answer to the problem in English. It think it's a good one. It allows us to do Christian Theology in an apologetic context again, which we really must do, that is, a context in which we discuss with non-Christians on THEIR terms or at least on neutral middle-ground terms based on phenomena where we are allowed to make up new words to describe religious impulses and strivings just as much as non-Christians are, and may the best terms win. Tillich's ultimate concern has stood the test of time and is used widely in popular context without an awareness of where it came from. This means it is a good term, meaning, it communicates at the level that is needed, a non-proprietary level. Christian Theologians need to be cross-platform, interoperable, to use CS jargon, and this is what apologetic theology is. It's what I like and Tillich and to a lesser extent Teilhard are the pioneers in this century.
Adwaitha Hermitage
|
