Archive for ‘Second Blog Post’

My initial instinct was to place Kant under the fall.  We talked about his rejection of religion and his dependence on Science. I have a very scientific and logical mindset for the most part, but I think he was mistaken in placing science over religion and faith in God. However, his reasons for not trusting organized religion, such as fake service, external ritual, and corruption are quite valid. This makes me want to consider categorizing Kant with the restoration as this is consistent with the restorative movement in the churches.

Then you have Kant’s views regarding freedom and peace which makes me want to put him under redemption. I think Kant can’t really be categorized under one section of the C-F-R-R theory. His views seem to be oddly inconsistent…which in a way kind of reminds me of the creation. I think that as a human, not fully understanding why God does what he does that his approach to creation and how he decided to document it is confusing and inconsistent with what he teaches us through sciences.

Jean Jacques Rousseau believed that man was naturally good, but ruined by society. On the surface, this would appear to mostly relate to the Christian concept of the fall: People were good, but then turned bad. On closer inspection, however, his views conflict with the most widely-held Christian narrative, because Rousseau believed that people were not BORN into evil and that the problems society created could be overcome. This is more in line with the concept of an ongoing creation, or one that states that man didn’t actually fall, but rather that the fall is a concept invented to explain the broken state of man. In actuality, someone who held this view (not necessarily Rousseau) would say, the act of disobedience committed by Adam and Eve in the garden was not the original sin, because they were incapable of comprehending good and evil before partaking of huge forbidden fruit. It was their first, intended step toward further human development, and “creation” was still an act in-progress.

Rousseau said man was born free, but still put in chains, perhaps implying that our good nature by creation is still intact and is not destroyed at some fundamental level but by specific worldly obstacles. The imago dei (image of God) is not shattered, but more like a sculpture still being chiseled. Jesus, then, was an example for the future of humankind, rather than a flashback to the “perfection” of Adam. To put it more briefly, Rosseau’s views could be seen as relating to creation if you held that the entire Grand Narrative was “Creation, and then more creation.”

Kant regards human experience as purely subjective, this however is not taught through the writing of those living in Christ, therefore we are able to rule out the concepts of Creation and Redemption.  This line of thought leads us to believe that Kant’s philosophy relates more closely to the Fall of humanity.  While explaining his categorical imperative he stated “I should never act except in such a way that I can also will that my maxim should become a universal law”.  This idea that one man’s idea of right and wrong should become a staple in society shows the downfall of humanity.  For example, if an individual believed that it was right to rid the world of his perception of “evil men”, there would be world wide chaos.  This is evident in many cases of religious cleansing and genocide around the world.  One man’s experience can change the world for good or for evil.  However, it has been historically proven that the evil that resides in men due to the Fall overcomes the good within the soul.  It is said that the road to hell is paved with good intention.  So even if the maxim one man holds to, comes from a place of good intent, mass destruction and evil would prevail.  Therefore Kant’s utopian ideal of universal maxim’s prove to be ineffective and can even lead to the downfall of mankind, providing a link to the Fall of Humanity.

Schopenhauer was a very intelligent man and philosopher, however, his view of life is reflective of the fall. He had a very pessimistic view of how life is lived by humans, and this idea set the tone for his beliefs and discoveries. He was a German philosopher who was greatly influenced by Kant, which not surprisingly guided his ways of thinking in some areas. He believed that humans were motivated by only their own basic desires and he believed that this idea directed all of mankind. We all have a will to survive which causes an unending cycle of needs and need satisfaction. Most human behavior, because of this idea, he considered irrational. We have pain caused by an unsatisfied need and that causes us to act to satisfy that need. Furthermore, he thought that human desire was futile, illogical, directionless, and, by extension, so was all human action in the world. To address this idea, he wrote that “man can indeed do what he wants, but he cannot will what he wants.”

There are many more examples of the fall in Schopenhauer’s ways of thinking, but I want to specifically focus on this idea of the will to survive. The way he unravel’s this thought reflects the conclusion that human’s have needs and without fulfillment of those needs, there is a sense of pain that we endure. Even further, when we satisfy those needs it is only a momentary satisfaction which lasts only until another need presents itself. He continued to say that even when all the needs that we have are satisfied, there is not joy or freedom, but simply boredom. These main ideas significantly reflect some aspects the Christian idea of the fall represents. The fall is a failure of perfection. It went from a place of perfect creation, where there are no needs, no pains, and all fulfillment was in the creator, to this place described by Schopenhauer. It is evident: human’s have needs and there is a lot of pain in this world. People are seeking for fulfillment in every area they can because they want to satisfy their feelings of need, pain, and loss. These things are a direct reflection of the fall, and even though this wasn’t believed by Schopenhauer, there is power in the following idea of the resurrection which furthermore leads to restoration and a place of freedom and fulfillment. Schopenhauer seemingly believed that there was no true fulfillment and that there was only temporary satisfaction because need and pain is endless throughout life. That is the beauty of the resurrection of Jesus. This idea of the fall is real and prevalent in the lives of human’s, Schopenhauer understood that completely, but there is power in the resurrection that free’s us from the detriment produced by the fall of man and that leads to fulfillment, freedom, and true satisfaction.

Jean Jacques Rousseau stated that, “man is born free, and he is everywhere in chains.” This correlates with the fall in so many ways. int he spiritual realm, when we are ‘born again’ only our spirit man is made whole and new. The rest of us-our minds, flesh, and souls-stay the same. Yes, we are spiritually free but because there is sin in this world as a result of the fall, we have to constantly battle to keep our flesh in line with our spirit. Arthur Schopenhauer said that, “for the world is hell and men are on the one hand of the tormented souls and on the other the devils in it…” This statement blatantly shows the world we truly live in. I would not go as far to say that it is ‘hell’ but I can see where he is coming from. Because of the fall, we live in a world that is not always beautiful and just. Everyday we are faced with challenges and trials. Even in our newness in Christ, we still have to battle to keep our ‘chains’ broken off. God did not promise us an easy life, but He did promise to be by our side through all the trials and tribulations. Romanticism also placed a lot of emphasis on passion. I see this as a characteristic of the fall. We are constantly surrounded by things that tell us that it is ok to give in to our fleshly desires and passions. Instead of thinking rationally, we give in to what gives us pleasure. This is why we must hold fast and be let the Word renew and transform our flesh and mind. The world is fallen, we are a fallen people, and we need a savior to break us free of our worldly chains every single day.

Husserl took the original idea of phenomenology and put his own unique spin on it. He brought in some ideas of original essences of mental processes, believing that each mental process had a basic essence, which it derived from. I think the only possible alignment that can be made with Husserl is to creation. But even then I do not think he makes any sort of blatantly obvious connections. He doesn’t make any mention of a higher power, or a belief that someone created man, but through his ideas about consciousness and mental processes I believe he shows a part of his belief that he might not even been aware he is presenting. I like the line in which it states; “…mental acts are directed at something outside themselves.” I have no idea what Husserl meant by this statement, but I take it as our mental acts, thoughts, feelings emotions, etc. are meant for something more than to just be introspective and closed off. They are meant to be expressive, and fully of ups and downs. Our mental acts are directed at something outside of themselves because they were derived from something outside of themselves. We were created fully and wholly by an all-powerful God, and because of this our mental activities are seeking him out. This may seem a far stretch, but than Husserl goes on to speak more on the idea of essences. And I think this is where the idea of creation can really be seen. Husserl believed that every mental process had an essence, but he doesn’t give an idea of where these essences may have originated from. This could be because he has no idea, or it could be because he is afraid to admit that maybe some higher power ultimately created these essences within us, giving us the ability to process things for ourselves, but ultimately being the creator of everything. Husserl goes as far as to say, that without knowing the essences of things such as perception, memory and feeling; there is no reason to perform experiments. This could mean that, without fully understanding what our Creator had planned in creating us, we cannot fully understand all our own mental processes. Because God created us, only he fully comprehends our mental essences, and thus we are nothing without his hand of creation. And finally, Husserl believed that these mental images were a way in “…which humans experience themselves, other humans, and the world.” I think this could be expanded to say; how they experience the world and how they relate to their creator.

Rousseau argued that we were all inherently good until we become corrupted by the evils of society. He believed we are born good and that is our natural state. He also wrote in his book The Social Contract:“Man was born free, and he is everywhere in chains” in an expression of his belief we are that we are, indeed, corrupted by society. Rousseau is best described by many to be a Romantic. Rousseau also believed all citizens should participate in the greater good, even if it means even if it meant acting against their personal interests…I wonder what he would think of our government. With all that said, I associate Rousseau best with Redemption.

Rousseau saw a necessity for equality in all mankind. The lifestyle of living for the greater good would promote equality and liberty for all. I was asked a question a while back about the nature of creation. Are we sinners because we sin; or do we sin because we’re sinners? Quite the head-scratcher. I look around and I see a people who are obviously fallen. We’re selfish, greedy, clearly broken. Sometimes I wonder if we will ever truly understand equality. But if you ask me, we’ve got too many blind folds attached to too many pointed fingers with too many problems and not enough sense to look within ourselves. I read Rousseau’s quotes and wonder if there is as much pleading as I imagine. Maybe I’m projecting but it seems we’ve been screaming for equality ever since we were created. Rousseau saw that in order for liberty and equality to truly be strong, we have to put aside our own personal interests. There are pockets of this example all throughout the history of humanity, but that is not enough. We are cursed; destined for a future of self love and self gain. The only cure, of course, is Jesus and his saving grace. We can never truly know good until we know evil just like we can never know light until we’ve been in the darkness. I associate Rousseau with redemption because even though we may be corrupted, we can be saved! We have participated in the greater good when we are able to see the greater good is, indeed, greater! I think there is hope for us. I have confidence in this thought only because of what I’ve seen in my own life. So whether we were born good or bad, we must continue to fight for the fallen to be lifted.

The romantics believed that the best way to find out what humans are really like is to study the total person, not just his or her rational powers or empirically designed ideas. They believed that the emotions, instincts, and intuitions of that person were important. These philosophers emphasized that humans have a variety of these emotions and not one is the same as the other. Rousseau believed that humans were born good, but were made bad by a controlling society. He claimed that one were to find a noble savage who was not contained by society, that this human’s behavior would consists of his or her natural feelings not by the task needing to be done. These natural feelings would be feelings or harmony and goodness. Rousseau believed that humans were social animals who wanted to live in harmony, freedom and happiness, doing what is best for them and others.

To me, Rousseau portrays a thought of the fall and redemption with his idea of the noble savage. He explains how humans are born of good intentions yet fall when absorbed into the social by standards of the world. His idea that “if humans were permitted to develop freely, they would become happy, fulfilled, and socially minded.” This reminds me of redemption, his belief that human are able to go back to that state of goodness if we can change what controls us. This relates to our modern culture. For example, even with myself, I reflect what I want in life and I want to be happy, to live in harmony with others. Due to the influence of social standards, I do more of what is accepted rather than pushing those boundaries and just loving people and following my feelings. Because of all that we must get done in one week and how much a time limit has control over us, we do less for the important people in our lives and we cannot seem to fulfill what is most meaningful to us. I guess I can relate more of the fall in this idea.

I found it interesting to read more about Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s life. As he stated “Man is born free, and he is everywhere in chains” – I believe that this was largely based off of his experiences in life. As his mother died soon after giving birth to him, his father never forgave him and later abandoned him. He suffered from poor health, moved around to different relatives, going from job to job. As a young adult, he was filled with sexual desire, not knowing what to do about it. He stated, “My heated blood incessantly filled my brain with girls and women; but, ignorant of the relations of sex, I made use of them in my imagination in accordance with my distorted notion (1781/1996, p. 94). Because of these thoughts, he sought sexual satisfaction through exhibitionism – and one time when caught, he told the man who caught him that he was of good birth but suffered a brain affliction for which his family was about to confine him.

            It is because of these accounts that I believe Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s beliefs can be seen through the perspective of the fall. As a man who began life with unfortunate things happening to him – his father blaming him for the death of his mother, for example – he saw man as inherently good. Because of society, and the evil that occur in our world, Rousseau’s world was drastically changed. I believe that we see this through the fall. It’s the same question that so many people are asking, ‘why do bad things happen to good people?’ As we live in an evil world, where bad things do happen, it is because of the fall, man’s original choice to sin, that we are so deeply affected by other people (society’s) actions.

The idea of the period of romanticism is so refreshing. The focus is on the individual, and the uniqueness and the nature of the person. There is no emphasis on the world, or society, or rationale and rules. I love that there is a period where the things that matter are those of the hearts desires. Romanticism tries to put meaning to the life you live. When I think of romanticism I think of the phrase “what will you do?” To me this encapsulates some of the big points of romanticism.

I think that romanticism can relate to modern Christianity in many ways. Romanticism is about feeling, experiencing, loving, living, and carrying out a life reflective of this. It is very much a life of action, and actually experiencing things, not just reading about them. Christianity today is emphasizing this. There is such a push on mission’s trips around the globe and at home in our own backyard. And in the minds of modern believers, when you hear the words “expanding the Kingdom of God” many picture that as getting up and spreading the message around the world. Expand the Kingdom yourself, don’t just rely on others. There is also an emphasis on what are you doing in your daily life to help expand the Kingdom? Notice once again the use of the word doing as it relates to the individuals work. This can be another form of redemption; doing our duties as disciples to try to expand Christianity throughout the globe.

Romanticism can be related to redemption. People of the romanticism period wanted to redeem themselves, by getting back to the basics of life and the emphasis of the individual. Redemption can be thought of the same way. It is now the time we need to put the emphasis on our relationship with Christ, instead of our relationship with the church.