Browsing for the" vast sea "of the internet I came across a site" Homolaicus.com "and as the curator says, a certain Henry Galavotti, is "a site educational, cultural and scientific. It has no editorial character, not" chasing "the present and not involved in politics and the ideal setting in general is in favor of secular humanism and democratic socialism." So far nothing wrong.
browsing I came across the section "Theory" to the page on St. Augustine. And here 's incipit is truly remarkable:
" For Augustine was completely overlooked the idea that evil can set up special structures, concrete realities. '!
The statement is derived from the following passage: "To say that evil is non-being or that has no reality of its own, is like saying that good eventually triumphs, because that is what the" divine providence ". "From there
then all the obvious conclusions about the inability to read the history of the Church and its sinister power to please.
continues in fact, the author illustrating the theory of evil, " Augustinian theory of the substantiality of evil is not an implicit admission of the weakness of the socio-political church, unable to resolve the contradictions of his time.
theory reflects an attempt to reduce the objectivity of the social contradictions of a metaphysical relativism.
With this theory in fact the church was intended to comfort the oppressed, leading him to believe that evil, as a simple "no" for good, beyond a certain limit would not be able to go, and that in any case, reach the limit, it even without meaning to, he would do God's interests, under the concept of providence (similar to that of the 'cunning of reason ", to matrix idealistic).
slaves so they could rest assured that one side should be limited to thinking that they were serving a universal source of guilt, on the other were to think that the injustices committed by the owner could not harm them forever or at least not beyond a certain limit . The same owner knew that the "evil" made in heaven on earth he would find an appropriate penalty.
This reasoning may seem optimistic, however, or only sustainable in a social context towards the future: in fact it leads to resignation. The Christian slave was to simply wait for the social contradictions, having reached the highest point of gravity, they turn themselves in "good". "
Okay secular thought, okay that the site is purely educational and not political ... but to give some account of the ingenuous to Augustine, and then also from his personal experience of evil is very historic too!
The assertion of evil as non-being is but first and foremost a formidable insight that is absolutely not intended as the author does not like whether or not actual harm with a view simplistically defined as "comforting" when he should speak of eschatology .
It 'obvious that the author has a poor vision or "ignorance" or "science", however untrue, I would say quite free thought and person of Augustine! The teaching and the intellectual honesty would, however, that what is cloaked in objectivity that was providing adequate means of verification.
How else to open the card with the claim that Augustine was "completely missed the idea that evil can set up special structures, concrete realities."? How does the author to say "honestly" that of Augustine?
How can you say this knowing that Augustine believes in Jesus Crucified and Risen One True God and True Man? Who killed the Christ? Why and for whom he died? All unanswered questions will probably the author of the card, or perhaps more realistically meaningless given its location! Not that of a layman, but that of a secularist!
But the problem is that, as Chesterton says, "Become a Catholic does not mean stop thinking, but learn to do it.." Augustine by Manichean dualism became mired in a joint principles of good and evil from which he could not go out, full of contradictions and a duality of positions "not human" because they interfere with freedom and human dignity understood as a "person" .
This, in my opinion, fall back to where the author says:
" The Manichaean position he fought, that of the" cosmic evil " (Or inevitable), in which man is only a spectator, was obviously wrong, but he has chosen an alternative location is not at all convincing. For if it is true that man is not going to hurt more than it is for the good, it is also true that, faced with certain structures of evil, man is almost never free to choose. The only choice that remains is to arm themselves to destroy those structures. (...) Agostino came close to the truth when he realized that without "outside help", the man could not be free, but they went away quickly when he made this match, "help" with God's grace, transforming man into a puppet in the hands of God and the human race into a "bloody mass".
In fact, foreign aid is none other than the man himself, aware of itself and the way how to resolve the fundamental contradiction of his time. No man, alone, can overcome the social antagonism, even if he had chosen dall'insondabile divine predestination. .
Feel "real tolerance" and, moreover, at a stroke, the positions Manichean, Augustine, the Pelagian quell'abbozzo socialism alluded to in the last statement shows, does that really just do what you sentence in Augustine: "quitting think! The much acclaimed
identification of evil in "structures of evil", which Augustine would not be able to see the historical objectivity and the "structural dimension" of evil to which Augustine is blind, is in fact the first misstep theoretical author unjustified because "reduction" that makes manifest where is the blindness.
fact, what is evil? To this question the author does not respond. To him, that is secular and socialist enough to say that evil has its social, political, etc.., Without addressing the problem where it is and what it actually is.
But how can "solve" the evil if you do not "understand"? What sense is the solution "childish" proposed by the author of evil, or that "foreign aid [with which to overcome evil] is none other than the man himself ?
The answer does not satisfy, so it's meaningless unless it is responding to "What is evil?". If evil belongs to all men, in that sense it can help a fellow? If evil can be consciously willed and determined coherent social and political structures, and who decides what is evil?
In short I would not want the magic word "socialism", proposed by the author, was actually what Chesterton said about who claims to be "practical" or "One has to be practical, because has not been logic; what a greek or Chinese would be to say that the cashiers London excel in accounting, because they are too strong in arithmetic.. "
Agostino, a real sense, solving the problem of evil as non-being tells us a fundamental truth: Being evil is not a member but existent. The Devil although spiritual being is still a creature. It follows that evil, rather than a cognitive dimension has to do with "freedom" of man. If Socrates and ancient evil is due to error in some way to not knowing, not a precise knowledge of reality, so it follows that "it is well known, for Augustine Christian experience of Jesus illuminates many other scenarios.
For Augustine, evil is not a simple "no knowledge", an error is a "position", then evil is a reality, historical, because both fully owned by a creature (the devil) and at the same time " owned "by every man.
Moreover it is not clear, as the author of the card, can be attributed to Augustine a "fallen intellectual" with his use of the Grace to solve the problem of evil, when its use to man is certainly much more thump serious!
Jesus said: " Can a blind lead the blind? Not both fall into a pit? (Lc.6, 39).
Agostino can consistently and reasonably, that is, rationally, seek to Grace that is the Holy Spirit who is God, because God is Being, that is the only reality completely devoid of evil. It's not that simple, solitary monad tautologically that wants to himself, but as love, communion of three persons in one divine substance: Love. And 'this is the revelation of God who gives us Jesus Christ!
Giving the "moralist" Augustine and the Catholic Church with him in the terms set out above is pure fantasy, the result of bad faith, is therefore a "conclusion" which I gladly refer you to sender asking him to explain with his theory of unspoken hurt the Nazi death camps, the socialist gulag, or those or Maoist Khmer Rouge, before they try to pull off, not to deal rationally and would add that the serious problem of evil black legend on the "Holy Inquisition"!
ethics effort, with the inevitable psychological consequences, the author attributed to Augustine in humans can safely and happily acknowledge that you self referent (secular socialist): "If I do, you have to do it well ";" While it is clear that this thing is good because you do not? Are you sick, you're on re-educate. " These statements are not sad can be recognized in St. Augustine but in many other texts by anti Catholics!
's insistence on the attribution to Augustine Catholic Church and the desire to comfort the slaves to make them stay that way, contradicts the historical truth, and is a real insult to the intelligence of readers! E 'was precisely the emergence of Christianity in a non-violent led to the abolition of slavery. A fact that in non-fertilized by the Gospel and in the person of Jesus, as Islam and other companies based in other faiths or atheism still persists!
Evil is a question that Augustine consistently binds to human freedom and thus to the will. This is the solid basis on which to work! Because it's only on this basis that we can actually change the structures of evil! But first it is necessary to modify them to account: Why are there? Who has asked? What are they for? Why would you want evil? Or rather, why does evil while desiring the good?
Augustine would say: The evil that you see outside yourself, is the result of what lives in you, that flows from your heart, the center of your creaturely existence.
It 'just this analysis of Augustine, who laid the foundations for a serious critique of the "structures of sin", typical of a culture of death which arise, as defined them Pope John Paul II.
do not intend to pursue the topic that deserves much more space that of a blog, or want to go further in the examination of many more "malicious interpretations" of Augustine on the card. Interpretations that feel justified for the consumption of the "master" and, of course, to the detriment of the unaware "student" who picked up the site.
For all worth last one on language. Galavotti says Henry, " The fundamental thesis of the book" The Master "is the following: You can not communicate with words, you communicate what the other already knows.
Augustine reflects the position of an institution here, the church, who does not believe in the possibility of a liberation from slavery on earth. Human relationships do not used to build an alternative to this . "
How can we not recognize this as a criticism in perfect bad faith to the Catholic Church?
In fact Augustine is convinced that we might call "classical" theory of knowledge proper to the Socratic-Platonic (remember the Socratic?) Which, incidentally, is the communication in Kierkegaard liberating, in contrast to that of knowledge, understood as something else because the communication from the "possibility" means that the disciple is in itself what it needs to know as the possibility of free adherence to the truth of the self.
Yeah, but it got to this point, Pilate the Author I might ask: What is Truth? Or as already
Pilate to Christ in amounts that you want the truth?
MEDITATE PEOPLE, meditate!
0 comments:
Post a Comment