The seventh day signifies the rest of God. Of the seventh day the evening is not mentioned: God does not have the knowledge 'of the night' like the creatures but only the knowledge 'of the day'. The number seven is often used to signify all numbers together (it is composed of the first odd number three and the even number four) and thus the completeness and generality of anything. In partiality there is labour, but in completeness is rest.
(Likewise in our partial knowledge we desire for the perfection which will put away all effort, like it is with the holy angels already.)
Showing posts with label knowledge. Show all posts
Showing posts with label knowledge. Show all posts
Sunday, June 26, 2011
Saturday, June 25, 2011
II.1 chapter 29
There is a difference between the knowledge through the Word of God and knowledge through the appearance of things, like it is different to know a mathematical figure by definition and to know it by figure. It is for example different to know justice by the unchangeable truth and to know it by the 'figures' in the human soul; it is different to know the physical things by their causes and reasons and to know it by their art or work. The first compared to the second is as day compared to night (see chapter 7 of this book).
[Compare the notion of 'idea', which form the unchanging basis of what we encounter, at Plato.]
[Compare the notion of 'idea', which form the unchanging basis of what we encounter, at Plato.]
Thursday, May 26, 2011
II.1 chapter 28
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.
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.
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.
Thursday, May 19, 2011
II.1 chapter 21
What do the words "God saw that it was good" indicate exactly?
It does not mean that God became a knowledge he did not have before he made it. For God does not have a body, such that seeing and thinking would be different, but is eternal and unchangeable, such that the past, present and future are comprehended without transition of thought.
It is instead a statement of approval for us to know it was Gods will that was why it was created. This also Plato has assigned as the most sufficient reason for the creation of the world, that good works might be made by a good God. This completes our knowledge about the creation:
It does not mean that God became a knowledge he did not have before he made it. For God does not have a body, such that seeing and thinking would be different, but is eternal and unchangeable, such that the past, present and future are comprehended without transition of thought.
It is instead a statement of approval for us to know it was Gods will that was why it was created. This also Plato has assigned as the most sufficient reason for the creation of the world, that good works might be made by a good God. This completes our knowledge about the creation:
- who created, was God;
- how it was created, was by the word of God
- why it was created, the will of God.
Wednesday, May 18, 2011
II.1 chapter 7
What were these days of creation like?
God created the light on the first day, and made the movement of it that made morning and evening. How this exactly happened we cannot say. We can however understand allegorical about it that the knowledge of God in comparison with the knowledge of us is like the light of the morning to the evening. (Our knowledge is not the opposite, like the night to the morning, but a modification of it.) And when our knowledge is directed to praise and love of the Creator, it will return to the light of the morning.
In this way we can see the first day as the return to the knowledge of God; the second to the knowledge of the heaven, the third to the knowledge of the earth, the fourth to the knowledge of the heavenly lights, the fifth to the knowledge of the fishes and birds, the sixth to the knowledge of man.
God created the light on the first day, and made the movement of it that made morning and evening. How this exactly happened we cannot say. We can however understand allegorical about it that the knowledge of God in comparison with the knowledge of us is like the light of the morning to the evening. (Our knowledge is not the opposite, like the night to the morning, but a modification of it.) And when our knowledge is directed to praise and love of the Creator, it will return to the light of the morning.
In this way we can see the first day as the return to the knowledge of God; the second to the knowledge of the heaven, the third to the knowledge of the earth, the fourth to the knowledge of the heavenly lights, the fifth to the knowledge of the fishes and birds, the sixth to the knowledge of man.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)