Friday, July 26, 2002

Does George W. Bush Violate the New Science? I'm trying to read Vico's New Science again. It's replacing Augustine's City of God as my subway reading. In the introduction (or the "Idea of the Work," as it's called), I came across this aside: For divine providence ordered human institutions with this eternal counsel: that families should first be founded by means of religions, and that upon the families commonwealths should then arise by means of laws. I was not present during the development of human society, and I don't know that the historical record that is available to us could prove or disprove this assertion, so I wouldn't be comfortable judging its accuracy. But I think that we can see the reverse of this process in many communities around us. In those places where religion has become marginal, families have fallen apart, and there communities have begun to disintegrate (leaving gated communities, disaffected youth, envy, and distrust). And as we've lost local communities, we have (recent galvanizing events aside) also lost the shared definition of our commonwealth. A little later on in the "Idea of the Work," there is this: But because of the corruption of human nature, the generic character of men cannot without the help of philosophy (which can aid but few) bring it about that every individual's mind should command and not serve his body. Therefore divine providence ordered human institutions with this eternal order: that, in commonwealths, those who use their minds should command and those who use their boies should obey. I'm less comfortable with that notion, as I'm sure anyone who has watched Michael Jordan or Clint Mathis closely would be. But could this be read to say that we as a nation have flouted the eternal order of divine providence by electing our current president? 8:52:27 PM     What do you think? ()

Mr. Parsons, Could You Please Do a Little Better? Eric has pretty well summed up what it's like to work for the former Time Warner these days. Do we think there will be any formal reponse? 6:10:47 PM     What do you think? ()

What Does the City of God Look Like Now? I recently finished reading Augustine's City of God, and I found myself feeling frustrated. Much more than his Confessions, it is a work of doctrine--having done more to define western Christianity than anything written since (and more than anything but the Pauline epistles written before it). But like his Confessions, it puts the reader in close contact with a lively and fascinating mind. I was frustrated upon completion of the book because I wanted to learn more from him--because I really wanted to talk to him. What Augustine wrote was meant to be eternally true, but it was not (nor did he claim it to be) divinely inspired. Thus, it was written within the limits of his mind and what it could know in its context. It is easy to dismiss much of what he wrote, based as it was on the geography of a flat Earth and a physics and chemistry that knew nothing of atoms or molecules, for instance. Yet he describes his ideas and his logic in exhaustive detail, so it should be possible to adjust his conclusions for different presuppositions. If the reader focuses on Augustine's thinking (rather than his conclusions), he or she will find great generosity and humility. A great disservice has been done to Augustine and his writings by their association with those who have more recently taken up the effort of forming Christian doctrine, but who share neither of those qualities. He would have had no patience with Catholic hierarchy and corruption or fundamentalism, that much is clear. But I want to know what he would be for rather than would he would be against. Given the presuppositions of our time and place, what conclusions would he reach? 5:40:35 PM     What do you think? ()

© Copyright 2003 Morgan N. Sandquist. Last update: 11/2/03; 10:25:04 AM.

Links

Weblog Roll

Currently Reading