what we learn from remembering one dead

Perhaps there is only worldly equality in death. - Isn’t it so? Once we have passed on, the distinctions that place one above another fade away into eternity and we are all equal at last. Walk amongst the gravestones and look at how each is given their own plot, no one bigger than the other. You may notice that one has a larger headstone or is perhaps placed near a tree or on a hill, but these only serve as mockeries because they illuminate the meaningless of worldly distinction. It is in the graveyard that one is able to see the true equality of humankind; one is able to see that in spirit, we are all equal before God. How foolish we are to place such weight on how we are perceived in the world! What are all the riches and statuses one gains in the world but larger headstones on the graves of those dead and gone? And what is poverty if we are all in the end buried six feet beneath the earth, no one different from the other?

Perhaps we can only love unselfishly in regards to remembering one who is dead. - How do you remember one who is dead? In that relationship, one must love unselfishly because you love without any hope of return. You are not loving their physical self, but their psychical self; their spirit. There is no physical self to distract one from loving unconditionally and unselfishly. How freeing it is! No conditions are placed on the love because it is given from one freely without any expectation of return. If you have forgotten the dead or ceased in loving them, it is not that they changed or became more selfish, as is often the case in worldly relationships; no, there is no changing when one is dead – only you have changed! There are no excuses here. You are held accountable for your love as it must be given freely and unselfishly. The dead demand nothing of you, yet we are to love them as our neighbor. Simply because they are dead does not mean they have ceased to exist. This sickness is not unto death, Jesus tells us (John 11:4), instead in death we have life. The physical may have passed away, but the psychical still remains. Do not forget that our task is to love the eternal in man, which is precisely that which does not pass in death. If you have forgotten one who is dead, only you are responsible, not he, for he demands nothing of you. How easy it is to cease loving when we feel we are not demanded to do so, yet this is precisely the problem. Love should flow naturally from a pure heart, given from God who himself is love. The task is to be written on one’s heart (I cannot find the verse at the moment – sorry! Jesus says it.. somewhere..) in such a way that one loves without expectation of reward, because no worldly reward compares to the reward of eternity. This one can learn from remembering one who is dead.

So, how does this affect our relationships with the living? If our task is to love our neighbor as ourselves, all men, without distinction, even in their sin and imperfection; it follows that we are to love equally and unselfishly. This we can learn from remembering one who has passed. Worldly distinctions serve as barriers to us loving one another in truth, but when the love is given freely and unselfishly, there are no barriers because the worldly is not what is being loved: one is loving the eternal in man, his spirit. I am simply reiterating here what I said in my previous entry and thus I will not talk at length about it, but I feel it is a very important issue and is one that I struggle with very often. I think that a lesson is to be learned from loving one who has passed on. May God provide us with the patience, courage and strength to love our neighbor with unselfishness and without worldly distinctions; may He calm our impatience and make us quick to listen, slow to speak and slow to anger (James 1:19) so that we are able to love one another deeply and in truth.

therefore, if you will test whether or not you love faithfully, note sometime how you relate yourself to one who is dead. ­-Kierkegaard in Works of Love

dear mother, heart of my heart

Mother listened and shook her head: “My dear, it’s your illness that makes you talk like that.” “Mama, my joy,” he said, “it’s not possible for there to be no masters and servants, but let me also be the servant of my servant of my servants, the same as they are to me. And I shall also tell you, dear mother, that each of us is guilty in everything before everyone, and I most of all.” At that mother even smiled, she wept and smiled: “How can it be,” she said, “that you are the most guilty before everyone? There are murderers and robbers, and how have you managed to sin so that you should accuse yourself most of all?” “Dear mother, heart of my heart,” he said (he had begun saying such unexpected, endearing words), “heart of my heart, my joyful one, you must know that verily each of us is guilty before everyone, for everyone and everything. I do not know how to explain it to you, but I feel it so strongly that it pains me… “You take too many sins upon yourself,” mother would weep. “Dear mother, my joy, I am weeping from gladness, not from grief; I want to be guilty before them, only I cannot explain it to you, for I do not even know how to love them. Let me be sinful before everyone, but so that everyone will forgive me, and that is paradise. Am I not in paradise now?” –Fyodor Dostoevsky in The Brothers Karamazov

above all, love each other deeply, because love covers a multitude of sins – I Peter 4:8

for to be able to love a man in spite of his weaknesses and errors and imperfections is not perfect love; it is rather to be able to find him lovable in spite of and together with his weakness and errors and imperfections - Søren Kierkegaard in ‘Works of Love’

This is probably the most difficult aspect of the task and yet this is also perhaps the highest expression of love one could give to another. The task of Christian love is to love your neighbor as yourself, all men, without distinction, even in their sin and imperfection. We’ve already seen how difficult this task has turned out to be for the existing individual and now it has become even harder, at least for myself. We are all sinners. We are, everyone of us, totally equal before God. No one is better than anyone else in the world, because before God we all become nothing and worldly distinctions fade away. This is a truth that we do not readily accept because it is just so contrary to how we naturally think. We have barriers that we have built in ourselves that we must tear down before we are able to love in truth.

We have a self-love (a self-love in the wrong way) that is an impediment to us understanding our fundamental equality as human beings; it is a self-love that wants to assert our worth above others; it is a self-love that thinks we deserve credit for our actions before God. This is a misunderstanding of the God-relationship. It is not a mutual benefit relationship: we deserve nothing, yet God provides. The temptation is to think of the God-relationship in worldly terms and this is a misunderstanding. Christianity calls for the individual to become nothing before God, because that is his true self; all else is an evasion, a lie. This is a terrifying thought because it demands transparency and complete openness. Before God, your worldly distinctions, your mask that you have worked so long to create and to perpetuate before others: these distinctions have no merit before God, because we are all equal before Him. Your status in the world all that you have is meaningless because as God has given He can take away from you. He can demand all from you in an instant: how would you respond? Your self-love responds in anger because you feel that you deserve better or that God was unjust or unfair in the lot that you have been given in life. But the truth is that you are worthy of nothing, yet God provides. A man sins against you. In your self-love you judge that person for their sin. A man is trapped by a sin and this is revealed to you. In your self-love you judge his imperfection. But who are you judging? Is it not yourself that you are judging? Who are you to decry the sins of others when you yourself are in sin? You are doing nothing but compounding sin upon sin and falling further away. The God-relationship is not the only place that suffers. In your relationships to others, if your view towards them is one clouded by self-love, then you are not loving in truth. Others become ways for you to build yourself up or to gain some advantage from the relationship. You are attempting to place yourself above others but we are all equal before God. Who is it that you are really loving? Is it not yourself then? Relationships to others are only understood in relation to how you are affected by them. They become wholly conditional and dry up as soon as the well of esteem and prestige from others dries up. Your commitment is to a source that is finite and subject to change. Others will always in one way or another disappoint you; they will fail to follow through for you; they will fail to build you up in the way you would like them to: and therefore you live in despair. Your stock is placed in a conditional ‘love’ that is subject to change at any moment, for God can demand all from you in an instant.

The masks we create for ourselves also prevent us from loving one another in truth. The demand is openness and transparency before God, yet we don’t want to give up these masks because with it on we do not feel the threat of eternity. We pride ourselves in our ability to fool those around us, even thinking God is fooled, but we are only fooling ourselves. One becomes inauthentic. You are only evading your true self and making excuses so you don’t have to take responsibility for yourself. You fool yourself thinking you can hide, but there is no where you can run to. An account for your actions will be demanded from you: will you deny yourself? Because isn’t that the defense, to deny that you are the choices and experiences that have created you? The task then becomes to resist the urge to flee from yourself and to face the truth, no matter the difficulty. You cannot run forever and eventually an account will be demanded of you: are you using your time and life experience wisely? The mask leads us to believe that we have hidden ourselves from everyone else, like Adam in the Garden. But God’s interest is in the individual and He can pick you out from your hiding and before Him there is no mask clever enough that can cover you. We create personas for ourselves and create parts to play so that we can be who we think others want us to be. In the world, you are judged by how great of an actor you are before men; if no one suspects anything, then you have won. Before God it is reversed: being an actor puts you further from God, where acknowledging yourself as a sinner and imperfect brings you closer. There is no love for the other when the mask is involved. The mask pervades through all relationships and prevents authenticity. You are just suffering from more self-love. You don’t give enough of yourself away, only just the amount so that the mask still stays intact; however, you think you fooled the other into thinking the mask has fallen. Yes, that is how good you are at keeping the mask in place. You know the limits and just how to exploit them. When you think others think you are being open and true, you think you have won; yet, before God there is only the truth. One is terrified of this thought, one may even think that God is being unjust, but it is we who are mistaken in this thought. You have nothing to lose (because you have and are nothing) and only the world to gain through the God-relationship, because He has overcome the world.

So we see how self-love, in its many forms, is a barrier to loving others in truth. Dostoevsky writes that we are to become guilty before all and take the sins of others upon ourselves out of love and compassion. Isn’t this a beautiful thought? We are all sinners and we are all equal before God. In love, let us share the burden of sin amongst one another so that we become as equals and are able, in strength, to bear the burden of sin as a body of believers in Christ. Worldly distinctions call us away from this equality, but in distinction there is no true love. True love is only in equality before God, who is Himself love.

Our love for others must not be a conditional love: it must be unconditional. The barrier of self-love teaches us that we love others to our advantage, but this is a conditional love and it is subject to change or variation. Love in truth, however, is unconditional because it is resting in an eternal source. Loving another in their sin and imperfection does not occur if the love is dependent on external characteristics of the individual, because we are all sinners and humans, so there will be disappointment if our source of love is solely in the conditional, for no one will be able to live up to our expectations. In conditional love, we are only loving the mask. Instead, love them in spirit for their inwardness, see beyond the mask and play-acting, love them for who they are in truth. This is Christian love. It is our mutual brokenness that bonds us together as we become guilty before all and bear one another’s burdens. We are all equal before God and there is no mask.

This is not easy, for we naturally base our love on the appearance of the mask. We are unwilling to look beyond it, nor is the other so readily willing to remove the mask before you, and this is the condition in which we find ourselves. Loving becomes a difficult enterprise that demands much of us if we are unwilling to completely remove the mask be who we are in truth before God and others. Only Christian love loves the neighbor in truth, because it is an eternal love not rooted in the conditional, but the unconditional. One can only take part in this joy once he has the blessings of eternity within himself first. Only through experiencing the eternal love and forgiveness of God’s love in our own lives are we able to love one another in truth. This is the as yourself of the task. But this is self-love in the right way, in the way God intends. The self-love comes from becoming nothing before God and others and becoming guilty for all and before all. All other self-love is pride and vanity; self-love in truth is acknowledging the other and the mutual condition of sinfulness between you as equals before God. This is where the beauty of friendship is so important, at least in my opinion. Friendship is not false superficiality, true friendship is mutual openness before one another and expressing love unconditionally no matter the sins or faults that we may perceive in the other. You have no right to judge for you are no better than the other. The mutual brokenness is humbling but also a source of great comfort. You understand that you are not alone in the world, that there are others that face the same problems as you, even though it may be in a different form. The other is also one before whom you must be held accountable. You can only bear the burdens of others if you and the other are willing to remove the mask before one another, because true love does not love the mask, it loves the spirit. You have a partner is your walk with Christ; you learn from one another, especially the mistakes of one another; you learn that the burden of life is much easier to bear when you have an other that shares it with you.

if one of you should wander from the truth and someone should bring them back, remember this: whoever turns the sinner away from error will save them from death and cover a multitude of sins – James 5:20

We are all no different. We are all sinners. I say all these words to you, but I admit I fail at this in practice, for I am a sinner after all. I have been slowly learning the importance of being open and transparent before myself, God and others. I have been noticing my defense mechanisms and my natural inclination to hide behind the mask. Luckily, God has provided (and is providing) with a wealth of friends before whom I can remove the mask at long last and be accepted for who I am. I am the sum of my choices and life-experiences. This very existentialist idea has truth behind it. Us not accepting these aspects of ourselves is an evasion; we become inauthentic. Authenticity demands responsibility and acceptance of who we are in truth before God, for God has given us this life and provided us these experiences for a purpose. every good and perfect gift is from above. Our denial of ourselves essentially means we deny that God gives good and perfect gifts, which is a misunderstanding. Do not hide from yourself any longer (and as I speak to you, I speak to myself first of all) become who you are in truth, remove the mask, and humble yourself before God and others. Only in this is love and equality among men possible.

action action action

‘precisely because existence will test you, test your love or whether there is love in you, for this very reason with the help of the understanding it presents you with truth and deception as two equal possibilities in contrast to each other, so that there must be a revelation of what is in you since you judge, that is, since in judging you choose. Alas, many think that judgment is something reserved for the far side of the grave, and so it is. But one forgets that judgment lies much closer, that it takes place every moment, because existence judges you every moment you live, inasmuch as to live is to judge oneself, to become open’ –Søren Kierkegaard in ‘Works of Love’

We are confronted with an epistemological problem when we are speaking of the existing individual. How does knowledge relate to how one lives one’s life? Clearly there is a difference between knowledge and action, but one must consider where that line meets and how the two interact with each other. In Concluding Unscientific Postscript, Johannes Climacus (one of Kierkegaard’s pseudonyms) argues the claim that ‘truth is subjectivity and subjectivity is inwardness’. This is made in reference to the issue of Christianity and how an objective, world-historical event i.e. such as Jesus, God being on earth, is related to how we live our daily lives. In this case something external (and in ancient history) has internal, present effects and consequences. This doesn’t makes sense right away, nor should it because this is a paradox of faith and Christianity. So how does this happen? This depends, for example, on one’s relation to the utterance of: Christ was fully God and fully man, died for the forgiveness of sins and thus through Him I receive salvation and eternal life. The utterance itself means nothing, they are just words; the meaning comes from how you stand in relation to the utterance. If you are a Christian, this statement has plenty of meaning because it pertains to you specifically, right now and how you are living your life. The relation comes about by a choice given to us by our Christian freedom in Christ. The words are presented to us, so what do we do with the information? This is where the decisive leap to faith comes in; where the paradox has its purpose. According to Climacus, the paradox of faith results in our experiencing passion in our inner being. Essentially, the passion derives from our choosing, on the strength of the absurd, the paradox and entering into a subjective relation to it. He also gives us a definition of truth, according to subjectivity: “An objective uncertainty, held fast through appropriation with the most passionate inwardness, is the truth, the highest truth there is for an existing person.” By objective uncertainty, he explains that our knowledge of history is essentially only an approximation because, on the one hand, the facts aren’t all in and there are still volumes and volumes of information to be gathered about events in history that truth ends up only being an approximation. This uncertainty is precisely where the choice comes in. It isn’t a matter of just receiving knowledge. No, it is us taking that knowledge and applying to our existing selves.

the definition of truth stated above is a paraphrasing of faith. without risk, no faith. faith is the contradiction between the infinite passion of inwardness and the objective uncertainty. If I am able to apprehend God objectively, I do not have faith; but because I cannot do this, I must have faith. If I want to keep myself in faith, I must continually see to it that I hold fast to the objective uncertainty, see to it that in the objective uncertainty I am ‘out on 70,000 fathoms of water’ and still have faith’ - Søren Kierkegaard in ‘Concluding Unscientific Postscript’

Jesus spoke to the people in parables for the reason that, instead of the knowledge he was imparting them becoming just more facts to be disputed, judged or approximated, he spoke to them in such a way that the truth would come to them through applying what they learned in the lesson to their daily lives. In this way, one’s only relation to Jesus’ lessons are essentially through application or ‘appropriation’ because they apply specifically to the existing individual and his walk in faith. An either/or is implicit in each of Jesus’ parables: either you follow their instruction or you don’t; or, either you follow God or you don’t. The inward passion results in the choice, in the expression of one’s freedom. You are choosing for yourself and you are choosing the Good, thus this is your expression of faith. In choosing the Good, you are proving that you have entered into the right relation to God, because you could only have chosen the Good if the condition was provided to you first by your relation to God. Thus, you have a standard of judging and a right and wrong answer available to you: either you choose right or you choose wrong; or, either you follow God or you don’t. In this way, faith is less a belief, so to speak, but more of an action. A belief implies that you simply believe that something is true or that something is false. But an action involves choice, it involves doing one thing instead of another; it involves an either/or. Living in faith isn’t just living in belief of something, it means to live by acting according to faith.

do not merely listen to the word, and so deceive yourselves. do what it says. those who listen to the word but do not do what it says are like people who look at their faces in a mirror and, after looking at themselves, go away and immediately forget what they look like. but those who look intently into the perfect law that gives freedom, and continue in it – not forgetting what they have heard, but doing it – they will be blessed in what they do – James 1:22-25

Just saying the words, I am a Christian, do not make you a Christian, it takes the action that the statement implies. If you have salvation and eternal life and are in faith, this should be part of your life-view and perception of events in the world. So Christianity is a matter of inwardness (as we decided above) and is also a matter of action.

Martin Luther wanted to remove James from the Bible because he felt that James put too much emphasis on the ‘works’ of Christianity and less on the ‘faith alone’ aspect. I see his argument, but what does living by ‘faith alone’ really mean? The phrase does seem to imply anything about the existing individual, only sounds like a type of knowledge. Perhaps I am just misunderstanding what is meant by ‘faith alone’, but ‘faith alone’ seems useless unless there is action or some type of inward relation accompanied to the phrase. James 2:14-24 says straight out that faith alone, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead (James 2:17). Faith needs works, it needs action – or it is dead. These are strong apostolic words: is dead. If our task is to love one’s neighbor, without distinction, even in their sin and imperfection, then our faith must be expressed through action, namely: through love.

Yes, love is a ‘good and perfect gift from above’ and it is an action that necessarily follows faith. Without faith, no love. Love is an action that results from choice. Our choice of faith and our relation to God has certain active, existential consequences. Loving one’s neighbor results from first loving ourselves – loving ourselves by entering into a subjective, inward relation to God and by making the movement of faith. From this results: love. Yet, the same still applies here to love, that saying that you must love one’s neighbor is a different matter than actually loving one’s neighbor. This is true only true when faith is chosen in freedom and one rests transparently in the Creator and humbly at His feet; only true when the command becomes an appropriation and becomes a daily action for the existing individual. Without action, faith is dead.

the unburdening of transparency

I don’t think I can do it. I find it easy to type up the tasks that Christianity is demanding of me and explain them in a way I can understand, etc. But it is an entirely different matter to live them in actuality. Isn’t this the issue with modern day Christianity? I am immediately reminded of the chapter in Dostoevsky’s Братья Карамазовы entitled “The Grand Inquisitor”, which if you haven’t read it yet, you simply must because it is one of the most powerful and beautiful things I have ever read.

Ivan Karamazov, an intellectual, is having lunch with his brother Alyosha, a devout Russian Orthodox monk and they are discussing spiritual matters, specifically the goodness of God. Ivan argues that God is not an all good God because suffering children exist in the world. A God that allows children to suffer is not a God he will accept. Even though he claims to believe in God, he says he faithfully “returns him the ticket” and will not abide by His creation. Ivan goes on to say that he does have “faith like a child that all will be made up for” in the end and that in eternity we will see the contradictions and human atrocities that have been committed on Earth in reality did serve as good and perfect gifts from above, but at the same time, he is not satisfied with everything being solved in eternity and demands an explanation for the present time and since one is not offered he simply refuses God on these terms.

This is not the curious part however. Alyosha claims his brother is in rebellion and that if he is looking for one who would have the right to forgive for all the injustice in the world, there is one: Christ and He gave his innocent blood for everything. At the mention of Christ, Ivan proposes that he has a story to tell, the story of The Grand Inquisitor. The setting Seville, Spain during the Spanish Inquisition in the 15^th century and Jesus has returned, unannounced and only for a moment, and even though he made no declaration of his presence, everyone at once knew who was walking among them. He began performing small miracles in the streets, even bringing a small child back from the dead. At the sight of this man performing miracles, the Grand Inquisitor, who saw everything and knew at once who he was, had him arrested. The questioning begins and the Inquisitor asks repeatedly, “Why have you come here now?” claiming that they had everything under control and didn’t need him to return because they have taken care of everything. What he was afraid of was the freedom of faith that Jesus would return to his people. The Inquisitor claims that that freedom wouldn’t be necessary because no man wants that burden and gladly would give that burden over to them. Passages from Matthew 4, where Jesus is tested in the wilderness by Satan, are cited and explained in reference to the issue of human freedom. He discusses the three tests, but I’m mostly concerned with the first test.

after fasting forty days and forty nights, he [Jesus] was hungry. the tempter came to him and said, ‘if you are the son of God, tell these stones to become bread’. Jesus answered, ‘It is written: ‘people do not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of God (Deuteronomy 8:3)’ – Matthew 4:2-4

Here Jesus is denying earthly bread for heavenly bread. How often is that the case where a person, existing, will deny an earthly reward or pleasure for the pleasures and rewards of heaven? Isn’t it just too difficult? Yet, that is precisely how we must act: we are to reject the earthly bread for what is higher, as Jesus did. The Inquisitor states that he is relieving man of this terrible burden and they are humbly placing that burden at their feet. They, the Inquisitors, are the providers of earthly bread and make sure that when man has laid that burden at their feet, they are ultimately unaware of the consequences and still they continue to think themselves free. Yet, they have become nothing but mere slaves to the world. But this is no easy task. Imagine fasting for forty days and then denying bread when it is offered to you. This takes strength of will and severe patience, yet because Christ overcame such a test, we too have the ability to overcome this same test.

We repeatedly give away our gift of freedom to the world because it scares us to know that we are responsible and accountable to ourselves and before God. We would rather give that burden away and make excuses that attempt to justify our weaknesses and we accept the earthly bread without a second thought. Isn’t it so much easier to blame our shortcomings on our births, our heritage, our age, our circumstances? When in fact we have this beautiful gift of freedom that allows us to take this responsibility and thus enter into a relation to God by accepting this gift and blessing. We begin to have a better understanding of ourselves and our relation to God and others once we have understood that we are responsible and accountable for ourselves and that we do have a guide that goes with us so we are not alone in our freedom.

Freedom is a burden, but it is a beautiful burden because we no longer need to make excuses for anything because we are who we are in truth, in the present, and no longer hiding away from ourselves. That is the case isn’t it? We give up our freedom because we wish to hide from ourselves, our true selves. We would rather assume this persona, this mask, because it is much easier that way and we are relieved of the fear of openness and transparency. Because that is what we are afraid of the most, isn’t it? Our freedom forces us to be transparent and no longer concealed and that terrifies us to our core. We would prefer to cover ourselves with leaves and hideaway in the garden from God’s presence. But as Adam and Eve soon learned: there is no hiding from God. Sooner or later, transparency is demanded of you, of every one of us. When that time comes, I ask you, which bread are you accepting? Are you really free?

it is for freedom that Christ has set us free. stand firm, then, do not let yourselves be burdened again by a yoke of slavery – Galatians 5:1

Notice how Paul says that the burden is not freedom but one’s giving up of one’s freedom. Though the task of transparency before yourself and God is a fearful one, its reward is eternal and its significance for you as an existing individual in the world a necessary for the life of faith. One who is not responsible for himself and lives as if he is a third party observing his actions at a distance is not really living. He is only a shadow of a person. So, one can even see the temporal benefit of freedom, because only in acceptance of one’s freedom are we truly living. The either/ors of existence, our choices and ability to choose, give us a passion for living because through action we are living out our gift and blessing from God, our freedom, which, as all things, is a good and perfect gift from above. So now the difficulty of Christianity presents itself: living it in truth.

the cost of discipleship

‘whoever comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters, yes, and even life itself, cannot be my disciple. whoever does not carry my cross and follow me cannot be my disciple. for which of you intending to build a tower, does not first sit down and estimate the cost, to see whether he has enough to complete it? otherwise, when he has laid the foundation and is unable to finish, all who see it will begin to ridicule him, saying: ‘this fellow began to build but was not able to finish’… Luke 14:26-30

Who has heard these words and yet did not fear the command that they imply? Such harsh words, such dreadful words to the ear of the humble Christ-follower. Must we leave our homes like this? How could God demand this of us, I hear some of you cry. Truly, this is a commandment that, in itself, could take a lifetime to fulfill. But this is the demand of Christianity. Are you ready?

but wait, you ask. I thought the task was to love one’s neighbor? Yes, so what is this about hating one’s father and mother? Doesn’t it seem to contradict the commandment ‘you shall love your neighbor as yourself? Only look closer: the parable reveals what we have missed. Notice, the tower-builder has the foundation but cannot complete his project. He has overlooked something… Ah, this is turning out much like my previous entry. Our man has forgotten something vital in his relation to God; they have missed the same step (but don’t we all?), but for a different reason. He has laid the foundation but cannot build further because he lacks the necessary materials. We discussed previously that before love to others could take place we must first fulfill the necessary as yourself of the commandment. This is only completed by resting transparently in the Creator and humbling yourself before God and accepting his love and blessing, because He is love. Once you have accepted true love and true blessing from God, who is love, you have learned what it means to have true Christian self-love because you are no longer residing in despair but resting in relation to God, who Himself is love. We also concluded that this is a very difficult, yet certainly not impossible, task for every human being. It requires true openness and ability to see beyond distinction and reach into the infinite, eternal side of man as well as reconciling the temporal and finite side of man. This is how true self-hood is achieved, according to Anti-Climacus.

So now with acquiring the materials for building. Before becoming a true self, there is the double-movement that leads to faith. The movement of resignation is where the finite world is reconciled away in place of the infinite, then followed by the movement of faith under the guidance of God where, on the strength of the absurd, the finite is reclaimed and we can live in the world as a new being in Christ. The first movement of resignation cannot be skipped over and is a necessary step in the Christian’s journey. He must become reconciled to existence before he can truly live in the world. So if this step cannot be skipped, then we must obey the demands it presses on us. Jesus tells us here that whoever comes to me and does not hate his father and mother…cannot be my disciple meaning that in order to be a disciple of Christ we must hate our father and mother. But who can do such a thing? Yet, this is the demand. Again I hear you ringing: how could God demand this of us?

The task is to love your neighbor, which is all men, without distinction, even in their sin and imperfection. without distinction. This task is just as difficult as the first; easily a task that could fulfill a lifetime of work. This is not how we usually perceive our love of others. We often love those we are closest to more than the common individual we see; there are those we hold closer to our hearts than others. This presents a problem for us loving all men equally. Moreover, this present a problem for us loving God with our full attention. Our beloved, our parents, our friends, all these are potential temptations for us. Now, before I go further, let me clarify: what I mean is that we are not to love these until we are able to love them in the right way. As it stands, we do not love them in the right way, at least it is that way for me. It begins with the God-relationship because before you can love another you need to receive love and blessings from God. This helped us to love all the men we see and it is now the same love we are able to use in loving others without distinction.

In as sense, we must earn the ability to have our beloveds or to love our friends or our parents because we must understand that the God-relationship comes first and we must devote an infinite passion to that relationship. Worldly relationships are bound to disappointment, and it is only through the step of faith that worldly disappointment is reconciled away because you then are resting in God where ‘every good and every perfect gift is from above’ (James 1:17). You are no longer disappointed by your relationships in the world. The fear of loving but not being loved in return or being loved less than you are loving an individual often leads one to not giving his full love to anyone but those he chooses. This is not loving in the right way; this is not loving without distinction. Through the God-relationship we have the love of the eternal and the infinite capacity it has to love all men, without distinction, even in their sin and imperfection. So, now you are able to love your beloved, your friend and your parents in the right way, because you have understood true Christian self-love and fulfilled the law as Jesus commanded and can now love your neighbor in truth. But none of this happens if we continue to not hate our mother and father and beloved. Until we have made this step and received the love and blessings individually from God, we cannot possess true, genuine love for that is reserved only for those who first receive it from God, who is love.

Perhaps these words aren’t so dreadful after all. In reality, they help you to love your loved ones better than you ever could alone, for now you have the strength of the eternal on your side. You are really doing them a favor by this because you are now loving them in truth, without distinction, even in their sin and imperfection.

let us love in truth and action

let us love, not in word or speech, but in truth and action. and by this we know that we are of the truth and shall assure our hearts before him. for if our heart condemns us, God is greater than our heart and knows all things. beloved, if our heart does not condemn us, we have confidence toward God. and whatever we ask we receive from Him, because we keep His commandments and do what is pleasing in His sight. and this is His commandment: that we should believe on the name of His Son Jesus Christ and love one another, as he gave us commandment. now he who keeps His commandments abides in Him and He in him. and by this we know that He abides in us, by the spirit whom He has given us. –I John 3:18-24

So this is the task. We must love one another in truth and action. Who could accomplish this? Where does one even begin? We are to love our neighbor as ourselves, Scripture tells us; we are to love our neighbor, all men, without distinction, even in their sin and imperfection. Ask yourself if you are capable of such a love. Is this not one of the most difficult of tasks for a human being? Yet, this is what we are called to do for Love is the fulfillment of the law. Love in truth also calls us to bear the burdens of our neighbors (Galatians 6:2). We are to help each other along in life by sharing the load and weight of our sin and suffering between ourselves. Dare I say we are even to become responsible for the sins of all men, in a sense, because in that way we show true equality among every man. So this is the task. Who could accomplish this in truth?

A young man sets out to perform this task. He professes his love for every man that he sees; he feels within him that this is a true feeling. He believes he is expressing love for his neighbor as he should. How long would you say this man could keep up this enthusiasm? One would be mistaken if he were to say that this is something he could maintain for the rest of his life. It is inhuman, he might say. Who is so strong that he sees all men without distinction and can love them, even in their sin and imperfection? He laments his inability to perform the task efficiently and so he contents himself with showing Christian brotherly love only on occasion, or when the opportunity so presents itself. I ask you though, is he any longer performing the task? The answer is no. Yes, he is right to lament, for no human alone can accomplish so strenuous a feat. The young man has missed a vital step. Man is a finite creature, bound by necessity and temporality; he is prone to worldly wants and often places absolute value in relative, finite ends. This is his condition: despair. Yet, this despair is not a condition that man is incapable of escaping from. He has only one true escape: relation to God. Yes, so the code has been cracked. I give up the finite world and all its disappointments, the man says. He chooses only God and lives with his focus entirely on eternity and the infinite of God’s nature and power. Though I say still that he has not changed his condition; he is still in despair. What? How could this be possible? Dear one, you have devoted yourself to the infinite and the eternal, but you are forgetting the most important thing: you are a finite, temporal being. No matter how long you try to escape into the infinite, the finite will always be there, demanding from you that you return to its grasp. Now, what is the man to do? The finite world has been resigned away to infinity, and yet not even infinity alone can provide him the eternal happiness he seeks. You are so close, friend, do you not see the answer?

Perhaps, he cannot see the answer because it is absurd. A human being is a spirit; he is a synthesis of the infinite and the finite, the temporal and eternal. This is why you have failed for so long, friend. You have not understood the reality of your condition. You have made the step of infinity and resigned the finite world away and chosen the infinite, but you cannot exist there: you must return to the finite eventually. He is where the difficulty lies: after resigning away the finite, you take it back. This is the paradox of faith, as Kierkegaard calls it. What? That is just ludicrous! Yet, this is the task. Death to immediacy and worldly desires, no doubt, causes suffering within us but this suffering is precisely the Christian’s strength. You are a finite being with the eternal abiding in you and you are called to love your neighbor as yourself. Do you see now the step you missed? This as yourself is an implication that must precede the action of loving one’s neighbor. Too often have people not grasped the power of this statement; too often have they forgotten the first step that must be taken.

Jesus says in Matthew 6:33 that we must seek first God’s kingdom and His righteousness before we can become like the bird of the air or the lily of the field; before we can truly live as a Christian ought to live. Furthermore, Philippians 2:1-16 details that we must first receive blessings like love, freedom, purpose and consolation from God before we can ever experience them in our own lives or spread them to others. In other words, we cannot love in truth until we have entered into a relationship with God. The paradox of faith is the infinite passion with which we are able to love our neighbor in full and it will be an eternal love, a divine love; first, we must experience the inwardness of faith before we can love another in truth. This task you thought was so easy at first has now just become the most difficult task a human being can undertake – but also the most rewarding.

In expressing true love for our neighbor, we must, in truth, become a neighbor ourselves. By becoming a neighbor ourselves we see the need for brotherly love. It teaches us to be compassionate towards our fellow man. Yes, indeed another paradox has come up in this discussion: we must become servants of one another to gain true freedom. Only in loving one’s neighbor do we achieve Christian freedom. We are also given equality. The irony is that the world, in not professing love for one’s neighbor on the account that it makes one unable to do what he wishes, there is more disunity and slavery because their absolute relation is to a relative ends. This is not so for the Christian. His task is eternal, for his neighbor is always before him and his love is an infinite love.

Dostoevsky writes: Love man also in his sin, for this likeness of God’s love is the height of love on Earth. So this is the task. Who could accomplish it? The answer to this question is that everyone has the ability to do so; specifically you. This is your calling and your task as an individual in relation to God. He loved you in your sin and you shall, in the likeness of Christ, love every man, without distinction, even in their sin and imperfection. The task has been set: you know what you must do.

the unhappiest one.

He [the unhappiest one] enjoys the honor of being regarded as being in his right mind, and yet he knows that if he were to explain himself to anyone how it really is with him, he would be declared insane. This is enough to drive one mad, and yet this does not happen, and this is precisely his trouble. His calamity is that he came into the world too early and therefore continually comes too late.

He is continually very close to the goal, and at the same moment he is far from it; he then discovers that what is making him unhappy now, because he has it or because he is this way, is precisely what would have made him happy a few years ago if he had had it, whereas he became unhappy because he did not have it.[…]

His life knows no repose and has no content. He is not present to himself in the moment, nor is he present to himself in the future, for the future has been experienced, nor in past time, for the past has not yet come.[…]

Abandoned to himself, he stands alone in the wide world; he has no contemporaries to attach himself to, no past he can long for because the past has not yet come, no future he can hope for, because his future is already past. All alone. he faces the whole world as the ‘you’ with whom he is on conflict, for the rest of the world is for him only one person, and this person, this inseparable bothersome friend, is misunderstanding. He cannot grow old, for he has never been young; he cannot become young, for he has already grown old in a sense, he cannot die, for indeed he has not lived; in a sense he cannot live, for he is already dead.

He cannot love, for love is always present tense, and he has no present time, no future, no past, and yet he has a sympathetic nature, and he hates the world only because he loves it; he has no passion, not because he lacks it, but because at the same moment he has the opposite passion; he does not have time for anything, not because his time is filled with something else, but because he has no time at all; he is powerless, not because he lacks energy, but because his own energy makes him powerless.

-soren kierkegaard

hairdresser on fire.

things that ruined my summer:

john calvin & the five points of calvinism

soren kierkegaard - the seducer's diary

distance

various '-isms'

mitral valve prolapse(mvp)

anxiety

depression

insomnia

skull-crushing migraines

c.s. lewis - the screwtape letters(an issue of bad timing)

mitral valve prolapse, again

chronic writers-block

myself

things that saved my summer:

fyodor dostoevsky - the brothers karamazov

katelyn carter(bff)

two weeks in iowa with girl and landscape

weekend trip to TVR with sofia cantrill

friends, essentially

soren kierkegaard - either/or (minus the seducer's diary chapter) & fear and trembling

dexter

prospect of the next semester beginning again soon

secret cover songs

annie hall

goethe - faust

ella fitzgerald

does the one outweigh the other?.. I wonder..

This has been a long summer: an arduous journey to metaphorical hell and back, yet mixed with some of the best fun of my life. Too exhausting. I would have never imagined that doing mostly nothing would have been like this. I've had enough of it. The summer has ended and the next semester begins now. Friends are returning and my best friend will be joining as I soon move myself downtown. I have high hopes for this coming semester. Don't let me down CofC. You've done well so far..

the moment.

“It dissipates day,

It shows men the thin images of appearance,

It robs men of the possibility of amusment.

It is hard as stone,

Formless stone,

The stone of movement and sight,

And its brilliance deforms all armor, all masks.

What the hand has taken does not deign to take the shape of a hand,

What has been understood no longer exists,

The bird was confused with the wind,

The sky with its truth,

Man with his reality.”

-“The Mirror of a Moment” Paul Éluard

---

it is too hot. how are we expected to breathe in this way? how can we live? suppressed, as if under a cloud of haze, our movements slow; words become dull and redundant.

Have you ever considered the question of the importance in our being born when we are, this generation? To think, centuries lie behind us with countless lives lived and gone. Now it has come to us; you and I. We are the next generation to be on the earth, now. What does this mean? What is the significance of this moment?

So, life is like a person standing on the ledge of a tall building, hovering at a mid-point in indecision. Imagine the anxiety, the dread, that fills him as he contemplates his next move. Either he jumps, or he steps down. Is there any other option? Or must he stay stuck in that mid-point never committing to make the choice? No, he must choose. Feel that unexplainable, irresistible desire to jump. The possibility of actuality. How terrifying. Contemplate further, see how it begins to fill your thoughts. What must he do next?

He doesn’t jump: he steps back off the ledge. Perhaps he takes a moment to stare at the ledge and envision the possibility of what could have happened, else he should forget such a fateful moment in his life. Let us follow him and see what happens next. In choosing to step down, he has, in effect, decided the next stages of his life. His choice follows him wherever he goes, that eternal stepping-backward. He struggles to move forward and reverse this fate of his. But his forward movement always brings him back to the ledge. The paragon illuminating his choice not to act, but to step back in cowardice. Again, he cannot make the movement. Forever passes-still he cannot make movement. Once or twice, as if toying with his fate, he steps a foot on the ledge. Possibility fills him. Feel that power, that burden being placed on him. He closes his eyes and tries to picture what would happen if he were to take that step into the unknown. Yet he cannot. He senses that only one who has made the movement knows what lies beyond. At this moment, the dread creeps back in; the uncertainty. He jumps back in fear and instantly feels the regret and the sorrow of once again not being able to make the movement.

He does jump: forward he walks off the ledge into the unknown. This step, the man soon realizes, cannot be undone. He has made his choice and now that the possibility has been realized, there is no turning back. Perhaps all this man does is continually fall further and further down. This leap, however, has its consequences as well. This choice too will follow him and influence his every action. Only, don’t you feel the power he now holds? He made the bold choice and did not step back. He chose. He chose himself, for what else could he possibly choose if not himself? Now his self is confronted with the eternity in which he falls forever. Humbled, he does not regret his decision to jump. For only now has he become fully realized as an individual. He understands his self and his relation to the eternal. He is free from the sorrow and despair of being stuck behind, as with one who did not choose to jump or still waiting to make the movement. He is his own master, answering only to God and himself. He is not tied down by the sins of his father or society. He has made the choice. A positive choice of the will and only now is he able to live.

What really happens with the man who has chosen to jump, I cannot say with certainty. I have not made that step; I can only speculate. Perhaps I am on the ledge. Yes, I feel the air around me, feel the anxiety of the possibility of actuality. My choices are therefore filled with indecision and uncertainty. To no either/or have I committed. I rest in between, in that moment. The eternal moment. I must either jump, or step backward. Oh, how terrifying and important everything becomes!

-choose now. what are you waiting for?

Perhaps that voice within me would rather I didn’t jump. Then I would become its slave further. With the choice I would master that ‘demon’ on my shoulder. I would be free of his torment. I would become myself and begin understand my relation to God.

Or maybe I have already made the choice: the choice to step back. I feel the redundancy, don't I? Perhaps I merely just walk up to the ledge on occasion and like the man, I eventually step back; I always step back.

NO.

The power of the choice lies within me. I must jump. I will jump. jump jump jump…

-have you made the movement yet?... hello? …

What do I believe? pt. I

I recently had a discussion at lunch with some friends and we went through the five points of Calvinism. This was essentially our conclusion:

1. Total Depravity: essentially the idea of original sin. Because of the Fall, man is sinful by nature and is helpless without God. There isn't much I can really say about this doctrine (I will expand more on this later). Some may try to blame Adam for essentially damning us all because of his action in the Garden. But, would you have acted any different? No, our nature is sinful and we must, only through the Holy Spirit, choose to follow God in faith. Without the guidance of God, man is eternally helpless.

2. Unconditional Election: God, before eternity, chose some to be saved and some not; not based on any merit, choice or sin. Man, due to his depraved state, cannot choose his salvation. God holds all the power to give mercy to those he elects. The Calvinist conception of this predestination is used to show the power and grace of God's love:

"Those of mankind that are predestinated unto life, God, before the foundation of the world was laid, according to His eternal and immutable purpose, and the secret counsel and good pleasure of His will, hath chosen in Christ, unto everlasting glory, out of His mere grace and love, without any foresight of faith or good works, or perseverance in either of them, or any other thing in the creature, as conditions, or causes moving Him thereunto; and all to the praise of His glorious grace." -reformed doctrine of predestination[1]

But what about the others? Funny, I can find almost no information on them other than phrases like: "passed by", "judged justly", "reprobation", etc.. Scripture itself is also lacking in this respect. The best I could get was a sentence from the Westminster Confession of Faith:

"The rest of mankind, God was pleased, according to the inscrutable counsel of His own will, whereby He extendeth or withholdeth mercy as He pleaseth, for the glory of His sovereign power over His creatures, to pass by, and to ordain them to dishonor and wrath for their sin, to the praise of His glorious justice."[2]

"To ordain them to dishonor and wrath for their sin". Let's look at this statement. We can almost immediately throw out the latter statement of "wrath for their sin." Didn't we just say before that man is not judged based on sin or merit? And doesn't this statement imply that man is being judged by their sin? What sin exactly? It's not like they chose of any free decision of theirs to sin or be eternally damned. I think this statement isn't a very good description of the fate of the reprobates because it seems to be to be too contradictory.

To 'ordain them to dishonor' implies that God decreed them to be reprobates. So, from eternity past, God created a section of the human race to be helplessly lost in sin without any hope of salvation; since we can do nothing to achieve salvation ourselves. Let me ask you this then: "What is their purpose?" The reprobates are essentially damned before their birth. Are we to say then that God simply created a bunch of useless people? If they lack any kind of free will or choice in the matter of salvation, then living becomes quite useless in my opinion. Part of what keeps me living day to day is my ability to make decisions and to continually hope for something better in life. I'm not saying that I do this all on my own. I have guidance and support from the Holy Spirit in my daily life. It is the Holy Spirit that allows me the ability to choose to follow God in faith and obedience. In my natural state, I am sinful and unable to choose God because 'every inclination of my thoughts and my heart are only evil continually.'[3] The inclusion of the Holy Spirit into my life gives me a freedom from this depraved state and provides me with a choice between following God and not following God.

Choice. It is all about the choice. Faith could not exist without man's free will decisions. What makes those great stories of faith so significant, such as Abraham and Isaac, is his decision to be obedient and faithful to God. It comes down to the choice. What makes faith and obedience so important is the fact that we, through help of the Holy Spirit, choose faith over ignoring it. Do you see? There is no faith otherwise. If our faith is only dependent at our birth, whether we are elect or not, and our actions are determined, then what is faith? You would be acting without really acting. It would almost as if you had no other choice. I am reminded of the character of Alex in A Clockwork Orange. He was a psychopathic criminal who was brainwashed through behavioral psychology to be a 'good citizen'. His treatment included watching, with his eyelids forced continually open, horrible crimes and rapes while being injected with a serum that makes him very nauseous. From that point on, any criminal inclination would be followed by an intense feeling of sickness. The question then becomes: "Is he good?" How would we define goodness in that circumstance? What makes 'good' actions good ones is the fact that we chose them over 'bad' ones.

Some claim that this view of human choice brings God 'down to our level' or diminishes His power. I believe that it raises God to a new high. God gave us the gift of free will and to exercise it is to utilize our gift. By using our gift to follow God in faith rather than turn away or deny Him seems to me to be an unparalleled act of devotion and worship to God's greatness. Also, God's ability to 'limit' His unlimited power to give us the power of choice is an even greater testament to His ultimate power. Note, I did not say that God's power is limited, only that He chooses of His own Divine free will to limit His power. In no way does this bring God down at all. I am not undermining God's abilities in any way. To say that God limits his salvation only to an elect view seems to bring God to a lower level in my opinion. Is His love not sufficient for all?[4] This also makes punishment for the 'reprobates' just. Rather than being punished for crimes they never committed (or haven't committed yet), they are punished for their rejection of the Holy Spirit and Christ's redemption. This is in fact the 'sickness unto death' after all.[5]

The sickness that does not lead to death is the acceptance of Christ's redemption on the cross. One we choose of our free will under guidance and through the power of the Holy Spirit. Through Christ, all are granted the ability to receive the gift of salvation, though not everyone does accept this gift. In this way there is a kind of 'elect' and 'reprobated' group, but the division is over one's willingness to accept Christ's sacrifice and live a life of faith. While we are on the topic of Christ's sacrifice...

3. Limited Atonement: this doctrine states that Jesus died on the cross only for the elect. He came to redeem those from Hell that God has chosen before eternity to enter the Kingdom of Heaven. This doctrine was completely shocking to me when I first read it. I was unaware that theories like this even existed. Not only does it challenge all that I ever believed in, but it also makes God sound even more unjust than unconditional election did.

So, Jesus died on the cross only for the elect few? Again, I say: "what about the others?" It seems they are denied salvation again! Not only were they excluded before time began, but yet again when Jesus came to redeem man of the sins of his nature and provide him with salvation. The Calvinists, in response, claim that Jesus' redemption was not insufficient. It was infinite but only applied to the elect. Where is the justice here? Where is the loving God? I do not believe this doctrine because I believe in a loving God. Isn't God love, after all?[6] This limited scope of God's salvation seems to contradict the view of God being love. He loves his elect and...what, hates the reprobates? I refuse to believe that. God loved all mankind and sent His only Son our Lord to die on the cross for our sins.[7][8][9] (I could probably quote a hundred more Bible verses to back me up) Titus 2:11-14 pretty much sums it all up:

^"11For the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all men. ¹²It teaches us to say "No" to ungodliness and worldly passions, and to live self-controlled, upright and godly lives in this present age, ¹³while we wait for the blessed hope—the glorious appearing of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ, ¹⁴who gave himself for us to redeem us from all wickedness and to purify for himself a people that are his very own, eager to do what is good."

This fits right with what I have been saying. With the help of the Holy Spirit we can say 'no' to our sin and live lives of righteousness through Christ.

I leave off the last two points: "Irresistible Grace" and "The Perseverance of the Saints" because I feel they can be reconciled and are more or less true. Once you are saved, you are always saved and cannot be un-saved. If you believe yourself to be saved but do not live a life of righteousness then perhaps you were not saved to begin with.

So, now where are we? What if I am a reprobate? What am I if not saved truly? There is no way I can know. I must live the Christian life and act accordingly. I have faith in God and I believe in the power and sufficiency of His will.

There are some more specific details that I omitted due to a)the length already, b)laziness, c)I aimed to just get the general points. We can discuss this together sometime if you would like. I always love a good philosophical discussion among friends.

Antinomy of Human Reason

"God decreed the free acts of man, but also that man is nonetheless free and responsible for his acts." -westminster confession of faith

I am taking a presbyterian theology course this summer. I anticipated that I would have problems with Calvinist doctrine before the class began, but I didn't realize I would have an issue this early. I cannot sleep because my mind is racing. So I provide my thoughts.

At first glance, it would appear that the above statement from the westminster confession of faith was a contradiction. If God decreed the free acts of man from before time, then how are man's actions free? By definition, God's eternal decree implies no deviation or mistakes. Also, to say that all man's acts are free without determination would undermine the eternal power of God's decree and make Him more of a spectator rather than an active influence; this is something I am not willing to commit to. If only it could be so easy as a contradiction. But no, the statement is actually something much worse: it is an antinomy.

I can hear your gasping. It is an antimony because neither option can be fully proven or disproven with satisfaction. Either way you run into problems but it is also true to a certain extent. What is to be done? Let us examine each statement.

How can free will exist if God has decreed the 'free acts of man'? We may begin by first examining the definition of what we call 'freedom'. If we follow the existentialist view of freedom held by guys like Sartre, we quickly find that it cannot work. Freedom as Sartre defines it is a free power of choice with no restraints whatsoever. A kind of ultimate free will. This completely rules out the possibility of a decree or plan from God. In this sense we would say that God would be uncertain or unaware of future events because the kind of spontaneous free action that is evoked by this existentialism could not be calculated, by the mere definition of spontaneity. I thought through some other conceptions of free will that I have studied and one that comes to mind that seems likely is Hume's definition. He defines ('liberty' as he calls it) freedom as essentially a freedom from constraint. The fact that I have the ability to type on my computer or rise from my chair are examples of this kind of freedom. But can we really call this free will? I say not. Even Hume rejected that this is free will as other conceive it. He argued that we are in fact determined through causality. All of our actions are determined by factors such as past actions, habits, and patterns of thought. So, even my typing or rising from my chair is even less of a free will decision than I thought. Maybe those examples were picked because I've either used them before or Hume used them. In that case, I did not really pick those examples from a free decision, but rather due to habit or a pattern of thought. I digress. As you can see, not only did we not prove anything at all but things may have been made even more confusing. This is starting to sound like an antinomy to me.

How can man be responsible for his acts if God decreed them before his birth? This takes us back to the Fall. Adam fell from grace when he ate of the fruit in the garden, as we surely all know. The question is whether he acted freely in his decision or not. If God decreed that Adam was going to sin, then doesn't that mean God played a role in sin entering the world? I don't accept this. If God were the 'author' of sin, then how can we be justly punished? But, to say that Adam fell because of his own free choice without God's knowledge calls into question the omniscience and all-knowing-ness of God. I don't want to admit this either. So now what? Yet again we cannot prove or disprove either statement. And again we are back to square one with only more confusion and no conclusions.

This was basically the lesson that Kant taught us when discussing free will. This is where reason gets us. Two pretty good answers that cannot coexist nor be disproven. The best answer I can come up with is that God has not chosen to reveal to us a clear answer. This would explain the odd nature of the confusion, but unfortunately does not appease my philosophical mind.

I have no answer. I have consulted people and various literature and I cannot reach a conclusion. If you have thoughts or solutions for me, I would love to hear them. I have SO many more issues, but that will be saved for later. Now it is bedtime. 12:08am. My BFF is graduating tomorrow morning so I must get to sleep soon. I go to bed in confusion and frustration.

Goodnight.

On Parables

" Many complain that the words of the wise are always merely parables and of no use in daily life, which is the only life we have. When a sage says: 'Go over', he does not mean that we should cross to some actual place, which we could do anyhow if the labor were worth it; he means some fabulous yonder, something unknown to us, something he cannot designate more precisely either, and therefore cannot help us here in the very least. All these parables really set out to say merely that the incomprehensible is incomprehensible, and we know that already. But the cares we have to struggle with every day: that is a different matter.

Concerning this a man once said: Why such reluctance? If you only followed the parables you yourselves would become parables and with that rid of all your daily cares.

Another said: I bet that is also a parable.

The first said: You have won.

The second said: But unfortunately only in parable.

The first said: No, in reality: in parable you have lost. "

-franz kafka

Sleep Tight

I have had a long couple of days. I feel unwell.

I feel like Quentin Compson, trapped in a world which no future exists for me, only a cold indifferent past. While the present, lasting only a mere moment, fades quickly into a dream.

I haven't been sleeping well. I haven't been eating. I guess the realization of one's own mediocrity and unimportance is never pleasant.

Luckily, Steinbeck has been saving me. Everyone was right. 'East of Eden' is fantastic.

On Schopenhauer and Existence

"The scenes of our life resemble pictures in a rough mosaic; they are ineffective from close up, and have to be viewed from a distance if they are to seem beautiful. This is why to attain something desired is to discover how vain it is; and why, though we live all our lives in expectation of better things, we often at the same time long regretfully for what is past. The present, on the other hand, is regarded as something quite transient and serving only as the road to our goal. That is why most men discover when they look back on their life that they have the whole time been living ad interim (in or for the meantime; temporarily), and are surprised to see that which they let go by so unregarded and unenjoyed was precisely their life, was precisely that in expectation of which they lived"

"In our early youth we sit before the life that lies ahead of us like children sitting before the curtain in a theatre, in happy and tense anticipation of whatever is going to appear. Luckily we do not know what really will appear. For to him who does know, children can sometimes seem like innocent delinquents, sentenced not to death but to life, who have not yet discovered what their punishment will consist of. Nonetheless, everyone desires to achieve old age, that is to say a condition in which one can say: 'Today it is bad, and day by day it will get worse - until at last the worst of all arrives.'"

Today, using the birthday money I received, I bought a book: Arthur Schopenhauer's Essays and Aphorisms. I throughly enjoy this man. Considered a 'proto-existentialist', he helped establish the philosophical movement that guys like Kierkegaard and Nietzsche would later take up.

I read his master work The World as Will and Idea, which was essentially a response to Kant's conception of the things-as-appearances and the things-in-themselves. Kant claimed that we have no access to things-in-themselves, and so we only perceive the world as things-as-appearances. Essentially, the world is a construct of our perceptions that are ordered by the natural laws of space, time, and causality. We have no free will because all appearances (any things we can have access to) are subject to the laws of cause and effect. I am not actually touching the desk or computer in-themselves, but only the mere appearance of them.

This paints existence in a very negative light. We have no free will and nothing is actually real; well, we can't have access to anything 'real', only it's appearance. This is one of the premises (there are many) that Schopenhauer's pessimism is founded on. Yet, he felt that something was missing from Kant's conclusions and set out to fix the problem. Kant alludes to this thing-in-itself very mysteriously and never commits to a real answer, only that we cannot access the thing-in-itself through our perceptions. There is one specific reference he makes to the nature of this mysterious 'thing' in the opening of The Critique of Pure Reason:

"...so the principle of causality applies to things only in the first sense (things-as-appearances), insofar as they are objects of experience, but that these same objects are not subject to that principle when taken in the second sense (things-in-themselves). On these suppositions, no contradiction arises when we think the same will in both these ways: in its appearance, as conforming necessarily to natural law and as to that extent not free; yet on the other hand, qua belonging to a thing-in-itself, as not subject to that law, and hence free."

So there. Kant seems to have begun to solve this riddle...only he never mentions any of this again. So Schopenhauer takes up the argument. He paints the 'world as idea' in the same way as Kant - all our perceptions are like 'phantom dreams'. He goes further and claims that there exists another world, a 'world as will'. Schopenhauer uses will to refer to the things-in-themselves. The will is present in all things. The body is the will, objectified. Because we, according to Schopenhauer, have this double knowledge of our body as idea and our body as we understand its movements and desires more than any other being in existence, the body is essentially the will objectified. All beings have a specific grade of the objectification of the will, with man being the highest grade. Yet, even through all this, we are still subject to the world as idea and cannot help but be trapped by the perceptions of space, time and causality. So, we are still not free in the strictest sense. Our will is free but we are not entirely will, so we have restrictions .We cannot not view the world in terms of space, time, and causality. Kant said that it is this very order of perceptions that makes perceiving possible in the first place.

A consequence of the will is it's continuous striving. The will strives and desires what it cannot have, and once it possesses it, it soon grows tired or bored and so wants something new. Is this not true for us? We want what we cannot have and once we have it we no longer want it. This constant unfulfillment is the primary cause of most of our sufferings, according to Schopenhauer. (There are many quotes in The World as Will and Idea that I could back this up with, but Katelyn Carter is borrowing it currently :) ) -- But there are some in this other book too:

"The vanity of existence is revealed in the whole form existence assumes: in the infiniteness of time and space contrasted with the finiteness of the individual in both; in the fleeting present as the sole form in which actuality exists; in the continual desire without satisfaction; in the continual frustration of striving of which life consists. Time and that perishability of all things existing in time, that time itself brings about is simply the form under which the will to live, reveals to itself the vanity of its striving. Time is that by virtue of which everything becomes nothingness in our hands and loses all real value."

Depressing, but oh so wise. Do you not agree?

These are the thoughts that have been plaguing my mind. This summer so far has been most interesting. Though I have had high points to speak of, they only lasted for certain evenings and for periods far too short. I am, through a daily progression, losing my sanity. Time is persecuting me as I fill out endless job applications, read hundreds of pages of books a day and wait patiently for something to happen. I have been forced to become very introspective lately and it is driving me up a wall. I need a job. I need money. I have neither. I cannot escape the continual pounding of failure as I keep applying only to wait in vain for a reply. Close to a hundred job applications resulting in nil. Is something wrong with me? Somedays I wonder if 'all is vanity' and if I shouldn't just hide away for the rest of my life. Or (as Sofia Cantrill and I decided) rob some banks, gather some close friends, and create and live on a commune for ourselves in the country air of Greece, provided their infrastructure doesn't collapse. So, if you have a special skill and are sick of jobs and school, then join us. We leave soon.