Archive for September, 2013

Gottfried Wilhelm Von Leibniz was a noteworthy German mathematician. His contributions to the development of psychological thought largely reflect a Creation perspective. Leibniz explored the possibilities of the unknown/unseen world that exists outside of and within the mind. He did not distinguish between living and non-living, but declared everything in the world to be living. He supports this declaration with his concept of monadology, or the separate live atoms that make up matter. Leibniz presented the idea that all monads were active and capable of thought.

Similar to Aristotle’s proposition, Leibniz believed there to be a hierarchy of the clarity of thought. God had the highest clarity and plants had the lowest. Man was second to God in clarity of thought.  Monads had a goal of increasing their clarity of thought because this manner of thinking was thought to be pleasurable. One way that monadology represents Creation is that monads had this ability to advance in the hierarchy and become actualized. Therefore monads had the ability to fulfill a purpose. Since man was made of these monads, they shared this purpose as well. So, following the question of where does man come from, Leibniz’ answer is monads and their purpose is to increase their intelligence to the point were they become actualized. Realizing one’s full potential is still a prominent concept in modern societies and is often expressed in US culture by athletes, academics, and those are mastering an art or a craft.

Leibniz also presents a Creation perspective in his understanding of the mind-body relationship in human beings. His proposition that God created a preestablished harmony explores the question of what is the universe in which we live. He also stated that the very agreement of the mind and body was designed by the nature of monads and this idea of preestablished harmony.

The debate on free will may fall into the category of Creation, because it is related to the understanding of human being and the relationship with God. It may also fit the category of New Creation, because it is also related to the redemption and salvation. St. Augustine had mentioned free will before Erasmus and Martin Luther. According to Augustine, individuals are free to choose between the way of Stan, which is sinful, and the way of God, which is good. He accepted free will and believed that people are personally responsible for their actions. However, according to Augustine, choosing to live a life free of sin doesn’t lead to eternal salvation. He argued that salvation was nothing to do with one’s action and is determined only by God’s grace.

On the basis of Augustine’s postulate, Erasmus and Luther hold two contrasting views over free will. According to Erasmus, he admitted God’s grace but he emphasized the role of human free will. Erasmus defined free will as “the power of the human will whereby man can apply to or turn away from that leads unto eternal salvation”.  In other words, with Erasmus, salvation is attained by two critical factors. One is God’s grace, and the other is human free will. That is, when God’s grace befalls, those who choose well in their lifetime will eventually enter heaven.

Contrarily, Luther denied free will. As he considered, “free will is like a beast of burden. If God rides it, it wills and goes whence God wills…if Satan rides, it wills and goes where Satan wills. The riders themselves contend who shall have and hold it.” The will Luther thought was enslaved and had no effect on being saved. Like Augustine, he believed that people were not able to know God and attain eternal life in heaven by their endeavors. In fact, there is nothing people can do. Salvation can be provided by God’s grace alone.

Erasmus idea is in line with Renaissance humanists’ great concern with human potential, while Luther’s view insisted on God of all glory. This thought-provoking debate let people think more about human being, the relationship with God and the way of salvation.

The Renaissance was undoubtedly a time of incredible progress and movement intellectually, spiritually, and even artistically. During a point in history when so many things were moving forward, it only seems in natural progression that all major factors of life were being challenged in new ways. This onset of deep thinking and big questions gave rise to some of the most influential and important people we know today. Most of the accomplishments of the modern world centered and began in this time period. Based on knowledge, wealth, art and talent great minds refocused the priorities of many. Johannes Gutenberg, specifically, is someone that I admire and who fascinates me greatly. As a prominent believer in the Bible and the innovator of moving metal in the West, he was able to capitalize on modern printing techniques in Europe. His Bible was the first book to be extensively published and it quickly spread all throughout the world. By stimulating the literacy rate of many people, especially towards Scripture, he certainly has my respect. Since reason and skepticism were a vital part of this time, it is interesting and refreshing to me that the Bible was still something so pivotal to Gutenberg. As a devout Catholic, there are many parts of his faith that I disagree with but overall, I admire who he is and what he accomplished. He chose the Bible to be what he used his brilliant mind for and that is incredible. The method of printing he created is notable because it allowed not only for revolution in how books were made, but also for ensuring the rapid development in science, arts and, most significant to me, religion through transmission of texts.

In studying the philosophies of Averroes, I have decided to put him into the category of redemption. One of his most famous ideas is that religion and philosophy can go hand in hand. I think that this idea is a very forward thinking idea for him. They are rather different paths to get to the same truth. He also believed that souls are not eternal. All humans are at the same basic level and share one divine soul. This idea that the collective soul of all human beings in divine speaks very much into the idea of redemption. He fully believes that we can be saved, or already saved from our own terrible fate because our pure forms, souls, are divine. Destiny was another idea that he spoke into. Man’s destiny is to progress towards pure thoughts. After the fall, we are searching for meaning in our own lives. Averroes thought that “to think is to live; it is to unite with the cosmos”. I think this is a very cool idea for us as humans. We are such small creatures compared to what the entire universe contains. Averroes is so hopeful that we can unite, not only together as humans, but also into whatever is out there in the entire universe. The last idea that I think plays a large part in redemption is he thought the future held education of women and equality of the sexes. Redemption is about bringing peace and hope to a broken world and human souls. I think that this is a very interesting moment when someone predicted that there would be equality. This was not the custom at the time, and even though there would not be equality between the sexes for a very long time.

Francesco Petrarch’s writing marks the beginning of the Renaissance (pg. 94). This period of time was characterized by extreme individualism, very personalized religion, increased interest in the past and Anti-Aristotelianism (pg. 94). I believe that because of this focus on God, and religion and having such an individualized and personal relationship with God, that much of Francesco’s ideologies and beliefs fit into the category of Restoration or New Creation. It could even be argued that he fits into the category of original creation.
Petrarch states: “by actualizing the potential God has given to us, we can change the world for the better” (pg. 94). So although humans may have in the past created chaos and destruction in this world they still have a chance to fix what they have done and create a new world in which there can be peace and harmony. Petrarch believed in “freeing the human spirit from the confines of medieval traditions…” (pg.94). Again supporting the idea that although humans have messed up in the past, and spent to much time drawing away from God, they still have a chance for restoration and redemption. Petrarch also believed that “God wanted humans to use their vast capabilities, not inhibit them” (pg. 94). With this statement I believe that he supports the idea of creation. He supports the idea that God created man ultimately for good, he created man to do good things in this world and to make something of himself. Not to tear the world apart and fight against all of God’s creation. I think looking at Petrarch’s Renaissance influence is also important for understanding some of his beliefs. Because this time period so supported a personal religion, people were becoming more aware of who God could be in their lives. I believe many people at this point were repenting of their sins and looking for a relationship with a God who loves them instead of looking to be part of a church that tells them what they can and cannot do, in this way I think again Petrarch supports the idea of Restoration. I think it is interesting that Petrarch did not necessarily contribute anything new to the philosophical world, but he challenged religion and philosophy enough that it made people think a different way. It made people more aware of who they were meant to be, and who Christ created them to be, so in this way they sought restoration of their nation and of their world.

For far too long the church did the thinking for the people. In today’s culture this sounds less and less like a bad idea. What with Miley being Miley (whatever that means) and the constant demand of today’s progressing world for more shock value, to some of us who still retain more conservative ideals, the world needs a little more advice from the church. But as many thinkers during The Renaissance will tell you, even the church doing the thinking for you can be harmful. Before The Renaissance the church had a habit of telling the people what was right and what was wrong. It was very legalistic in its behaviors and standards and often committed unspeakable things in the name of God. Where am I going with this? The Renaissance challenged much of that mindset much like Desiderius Erasmus.

Erasmus challenged the day’s standards and ways of thinking. His opinion was that women should be allowed to be educated, he believed anything created by humans could not be perfect. He challenged exorcisms and alchemy on nonsense as well as beliefs in superstitions. One of the highlighted statements he constantly made was the challenge to take their life lessons from the simple life of Jesus and not rely completely on organized religion. I think it’s safe to say Erasmus would not be a fun man to go fishing with on account of all the boat rocking. With all of this said, I would most associate Erasmus with Redemption.

As humans, we have often had a knack for counting one above the other. We can put people down, and argue to be in the right. We strive to be perfect but as it says in Romans, we all fall short of the glory of God, – we all fall short of true perfection. Legalism is what God’s creation was into when Jesus came to this planet. He challenged common knowledge, challenged societal norms, saw all the flaws that were in this creation, and yet, his ultimate calling was to die for it. He died so that this imperfect creation would know redemption. Erasmus, in my opinion, saw there was a need for a change. He saw that what were considered normal ways of life were not right. Erasmus is responsible for a book entitled The Praise of Folly where he stated that fools were almost better off than the so-called wise persons because they live in accordance with their true feelings and not by superstition or doctrines. Erasmus was so critical of the excess of the Catholic church he practically raised the reformist “egg” that would later be hatched by Luther. (J. Wilson, 1994). He saw the church was doing more harm than good. So why associate him with redemption? I believe it’s safe to say he started us down the road to making faith our own. In the end, faith in Jesus is about having a relationship with him. It’s about grace and love and forgiveness. It doesn’t seem like the church, back then, was very interested in any of that. Erasmus, I believe, helped bring about a voice of conviction and change. He saw all was not well and did what he could to redeem it, did what he could to teach and share that we will not get everything right all the time. Redemption is necessary and I think Erasmus saw there was a need for that which is why he challenged.

Otherwise known as the “Jewish Plato,” Philo shared much of his reasoning.  Philo believed that the senses cannot provide knowledge and that sensory experiences can interfere with our direct understanding of and communication with God.  He believed that all knowledge and wisdom came from God, not from introspection. However he did believe that the soul should be purified and that true knowledge can be attained only with a purified and passive mind.

Because of his belief that all knowledge comes from God, I think I’m going to categorized Philo with creation. Honestly I’m really torn as to where to put him at all, I like how much he depends on God, but I don’t think it really agrees with our world today which I would classify as in the restoration stage. Today we gain to much of our knowledge from Science and our own life experiences, and in some cases from introspection. Philo’s complete dependance on God for any and all knowledge strikes me as how Eden would have been. Adam and Eve knew nothing, they didn’t study science or sit and ponder, up until the fall they relied fully on God. I wish we lived in a society that depended more on God in this way, I think it would be a more peaceful and agreeable place.

Niccolò Machiavelli should be considered under the fall. His views about how a good leader does not always have to do a good deeds as long as his people are shown the proper way show how he can neglect morals for a greater good. Although his thoughts where shown to be more under redemption, his methods of the people he wrote about in his book the prince did not fallow moral code leading to the fall. Because he did not believe in the wellness of man but the wellness of the state over man his views where not that of an individual being more important than the greater good. When a person does not get his needs met the strength of that man’s community suffers leading his views to be wrong. He should be places under the fall because of the things he values in a proper leader. If a country is ruled under a iron fist then it is bound to decline in the long run leading his views to be placed under the fall.

St. Thomas Aquinas has been one of the most influential voices in the history of the Church as well as having some important things to say about subjects that fall under the field of psychology. I believe that while he said many important things I think his ideas about the Reconciliation of Faith and Reason fit him into the category of Redemption. He shows Redemption because he is able to take two viewpoints that most people of the time thought were totally opposite and was able to show that in fact they were able to work together. This shows redemption in the sense that while their was a broken situation that led to struggles between groups the situation could be renewed and made better. This helped Christians who felt like they had to turn off their brains when they went to church because Aquinas made the point that no matter how the truth is found it is still pointing you to God. He believed that the way to best understand the world was to use both methods. You could observe things around you and use reason to try and explain how they worked but he believed that they only worked when talking about particulars but not universals.

Nicolas de Malebranche who agreed with Descartes’s separation of the mind and body, developed his own explanation of how the mind and body interact. This is likely to be due to his lack of belief that ideas come from experience. He believed “knowledge can only come from what God reveals to us.” Malebranche believed in divine intervention, that is the term for a miracle caused by a deity’s involvement in the human world. Malebranche believed God is the mediator between mind and body interactions. For example, when a person has the desire to kick a ball, God is aware of this desire and moves the person’s leg to kick the ball. Same with the experience of a person who feels sad, God is aware of this persons emotions(mind) and causes the person to cry (body). Without this intervention from God, the body and mind would be unrelated.
Malebranche’s idea may sound similar to God’s gift of creation. God put us here on earth to experience different emotions, thoughts, and actions. In each of these experiences he plays an active role. In the book of Genesis, it is evident that God wanted to walk beside man. Malebranche sees the human race as God’s creation who, with out God, would not be able to live. He explains that God is aware. Aware of our desires and our thoughts. He hears our desires and he gives us the satisfaction. Malebranche’s idea, is a reminder that God is active around us. We are God’s creation.

Michelangelo’s masterpiece, The Creation of Adam, Illustrates when God breathes life into Adam. I do not know Malebranche personally, but I think he would have loved this painting!