About that we love that we love: it is obvious, for we desire that one does not only know what is good, but also loves it.
We love that we love that is good: for in man a love for what is bad can exist alongside a love for what is good, and the good for us will be that the first diminishes and the last grows. For animals love a sensual life, plants a vegetative life, but man should recognize that these things are only imprints from God their creator, and return (like the son in the gospel [Luke 15]) to his true being, eternal truth, and eternal and true love.
We know about our being, knowledge and love by inner enlightenment; but about the outcome of their good or bad use we do not know, but need to have or look for truthful witness about these things, which we shall treat later. Instead, we will now continue with what we already started, from the City of God, not in a state of pilgrimage and mortality, but immortal in the heavens, about the angels who forever maintain their allegiance to God, separated, as we told, from those that fell from God and became darkness.
Thursday, May 26, 2011
II.1 chapter 27
Man chooses misery above death or being not at all. Even nature in all its movements confirms that it wants preservation: all living beings, even plants, strive for life. This is a proof that we love that we are.
About that we love that we know: one does not like to be deceived; one desires to know the truth, even if it hurts, above knowing nothing or being deceived. This attitude and right judgement is in man only, not in any other living being, although some animals have better senses; for man is enlightened from within, through which we can distinguish by an intellectual idea between just and unjust.
About that we love that we know: one does not like to be deceived; one desires to know the truth, even if it hurts, above knowing nothing or being deceived. This attitude and right judgement is in man only, not in any other living being, although some animals have better senses; for man is enlightened from within, through which we can distinguish by an intellectual idea between just and unjust.
II.1 chapter 26
Do these three things in man, being, knowledge and love, form a unity in him too?
Man is made in the image of God, although he is not equal to God, rather, very far removed from him: not eternal, nor, to say all in a word, of the same being. But because man is the image of God we find the same unity: we are; we know that we are, we know that we love; and we love that we are, and love that we know.
These things are sure, not bothered by sceptical questions; for they are not dependent from any deceivable senses. Because: if I were deceived, I would therefore be; and therefore I can know that I am. Moreover, I know that I love: because I may be deceived in my love, but even if I loved false things, I would know that I loved. Finally, who does not love that he is, because to be happy, one has to be, and who does not desire happiness?
[Note: the last backward transitivity of desire does not seem to apply. If we desire to be married to Mary (D(p)), but it is impossible to marry Mary without killing John (p ↔ q), it does not follow that we desire to kill John (D(q)).]
[Note that Descartes took the same argument for being as a starting point of his metaphysics: dubio, ergo (cogito, ergo) sum.]
Man is made in the image of God, although he is not equal to God, rather, very far removed from him: not eternal, nor, to say all in a word, of the same being. But because man is the image of God we find the same unity: we are; we know that we are, we know that we love; and we love that we are, and love that we know.
These things are sure, not bothered by sceptical questions; for they are not dependent from any deceivable senses. Because: if I were deceived, I would therefore be; and therefore I can know that I am. Moreover, I know that I love: because I may be deceived in my love, but even if I loved false things, I would know that I loved. Finally, who does not love that he is, because to be happy, one has to be, and who does not desire happiness?
[Note: the last backward transitivity of desire does not seem to apply. If we desire to be married to Mary (D(p)), but it is impossible to marry Mary without killing John (p ↔ q), it does not follow that we desire to kill John (D(q)).]
[Note that Descartes took the same argument for being as a starting point of his metaphysics: dubio, ergo (cogito, ergo) sum.]
II.1 chapter 25
Do we not find the same trichotomy of being, knowing, and loving, in man?
In the philosophy we find the same trichotomy: it has been divided in physics, logic, and ethics. These three correspond to three necessary things with which a human artificer is able to make something: nature, education, use. [Compare the four causes from Aristotle: working cause (artificer), material cause (nature), formal cause (education), final cause (use).] Here within use I do not distinguish between use for a purpose and enjoying something, although we know there is this difference: the things of time should rather be used than enjoyed, because the last becomes the eternal things (but the opposite is often done).
If our nature would be from ourself, we would produce our own knowledge (and not have to learn it) and our joy would return to itself (and need nothing external); but as God is our creator, we have to learn from him and our joy has to be turned to him.
In the philosophy we find the same trichotomy: it has been divided in physics, logic, and ethics. These three correspond to three necessary things with which a human artificer is able to make something: nature, education, use. [Compare the four causes from Aristotle: working cause (artificer), material cause (nature), formal cause (education), final cause (use).] Here within use I do not distinguish between use for a purpose and enjoying something, although we know there is this difference: the things of time should rather be used than enjoyed, because the last becomes the eternal things (but the opposite is often done).
If our nature would be from ourself, we would produce our own knowledge (and not have to learn it) and our joy would return to itself (and need nothing external); but as God is our creator, we have to learn from him and our joy has to be turned to him.
II.1 chapter 24
How can you explain the full origin of creation in God?
We believe that the Father begot the Word, which is the wisdom by which everything is made, and is of the same unity, eternity and goodness; and that the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of the Father and the Son, and the same in being and eternity. Still these are united as one almighty God. The Holy Spirit may be called the holiness of both, or, more explicit, the goodness of both, although the Father and the Son are both holy and good.
So this is the origin of the City of God: God made it; the wise are by illumination from God; the happiness is from enjoying in God. It is, it sees, it loves: in God's eternity is its life; in God's truth its light; in God's goodness its joy.
We believe that the Father begot the Word, which is the wisdom by which everything is made, and is of the same unity, eternity and goodness; and that the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of the Father and the Son, and the same in being and eternity. Still these are united as one almighty God. The Holy Spirit may be called the holiness of both, or, more explicit, the goodness of both, although the Father and the Son are both holy and good.
So this is the origin of the City of God: God made it; the wise are by illumination from God; the happiness is from enjoying in God. It is, it sees, it loves: in God's eternity is its life; in God's truth its light; in God's goodness its joy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)