Synopsis:
On Free Choice of the Will: Book Two by Augustine, explores the reasoning (logic) behind our universal attainability of knowledge. This particular book is written through a Socratic Dialogue between Augustine and Evodius, eventually giving way to the culmination of insight that is God’s unmistakable power to provide us with all knowledge of which, using our free choice of will, can be attainable through our omnipresent faith in the deity.
Premises:
1) Evil in the world is the foundation of sin, at the same time, “wisdom, [is] the sweetest light of a purified mind” (61). Explicit
2) Sin (evil’s accomplice) is the inevitable result of a lack knowledge provided to us by the all-truthful, sinless wisdom of God. “But truth and wisdom are common to all, and all who are wise and happy become so by cleaving to truth and wisdom”(68). Explicit
3) “But every good thing comes from God, so there is no nature that does not come from God. On the other hand, every defect comes from nothing, and that movement of turning away, which we admit is sin, is a defective movement” (69). All of those whom do not follow God and his divine wisdom are considered sinners, simply promulgating a “defective movement,” a changeful and corruptive pursuit of nothingness, unable to attain knowledge through the wisdom of God. Implicit
Conclusion:
C) Sin (evil) equates to dynamic nothingness, a pliable globule if you will, providing the world with no imminent sustainable value and evidently lacking discernible reasoning. Further, sin is resultant of a mere defect that is not provided to us by nature, but by that of man’s (the sinner's) own impiously willed contrivances.
Question(s):
Q. A) Although, God inculcates us with the ability to chose faith in order to reason or attain knowledge as result of God’s all-truthful wisdom, are we in-fact destined to faith as a part of God’s master (void the obvious paradox) plan which eventually converts to death, life fulfilled with knowledge, or life lacking-in knowledge or reason? In other words, despite the conception of Free Will, does God in-fact determine our ability to pursue the wisdom of God through individual faith, permitting us to bear the fruits of God’s wisdom (knowledge or ability to reason), while we metaphorically skip down the yellow brick road?
Q. B) As sin is neither a piece of the eidos, nor a function provided to us by the most superior unchangeable entity that provides us with holistic truth (God), does sin in-fact exist? According to Augustine, nothingness is a euphemism for sin, thus can sin be demarcated with its own conception? Considering its figurative vivisection, can sin be discovered through any concurrence of epistemological validity?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
I believe that sin does not exist in the form of the eidos because it is an act or a thought bound by either space and/or time. Being bound by these elements, as well as the changing nature of what is evil define it as something that does not exist- or at least has less existence than humans and animals. As far as 'nothingness' being a euphemistic comparison for sin, it can be said that the absence of good - which we do in fact have an eidos for - is what compromises evil. Sin can only be discovered by the imperfect - for in perfection, only good is done and known. To accept the existence of evil is to admit imperfection, which is a precursor to evil. As evil must be thought, original sin proves to be this very teaching.
I think that an interesting point was brought up. If evil is really just the lack of good and is therefore nothing then why would people be persuaded or impacted by it? How can you be impacted by nothing? Also, how do we determine evil? Is it simply by eliminating it from the good that we determine it must be a sin? Is there never a case of something that is somewhere in the middle? If there are things in the middle then wouldn't that mean that sin would need some sort of eidos since people are able to connect different acts under the same grouping of sin?
For the sake of clearing up, or maybe even dispelling, potential hindrances associative with question A, let me elucidate on my original intention. I meant to say: despite our cohort's (including myself in this equation) original, prevailing assumption for what could be considered a choice in our ability to utilize our 'free will', does God predetermine our ability (or fate) and/or inability to pursue faith in The Almighty himself? This would be insinuating, insofar, that every living being would be subjected to a different scenario, systematically selected for how one will, as a matter of due course, make use of their own free will? Could this not suffice logically for a more vivid and unobstructed exposition as to why, "100,000 people die together in a Tsunami"?
Post a Comment