Critique of Dostoevsky and Freud

            Fyodor Dostoevsky wrote about two brothers, Ivan and Alyosha. Ivan is telling Alyosha about a poem that he wrote. He describes Christ visiting Seville during the most intense period of the Inquisition. Many people gather around him but the Grand Inquisitor comes, captures the Jesus, and takes him away for questioning. He then interrogates the Jesus. He goes on to talk about the freedoms that humans possess, primarily the freedom of religion and how the church has taken the freedoms of the people and enforced Christianity. Ivan then describes the three temptations of Christ as being the three fundamental temptations and flaws of all humanity. Man’s freedom, Ivan says, leads to a need to worship something. However man desires more than to just worship something; man must have unity in worship and is always seeking for community. He also says that God desires man to have this freedom because to be loved out of free will is far greater than to be loved by coercion.

            This concept of freedom is expressed well by Dostoevsky. He shows humans as being slaves and rebels, but also as having been given freedom by God. There is some validity to this statement. Additionally, Dostoevsky is almost condemning the church for its actions. The church has eliminated that basic freedom of man by forcing man to worship Christ. The Inquisitor thinks that it is for the service of Christ but it is truly just taking away his pleasure.

            Sigmund Freud had a personal correspondence with Albert Einstein concerning the causes of World War I. He answers Einstein’s question by saying that although war is so hated and despised, it is necessary because it is conflict is the essential nature of man. The mind, as seen by Freud although not in this work, is always fighting between the two conflicting parts of the Id and the Superego. He gives a psychological history of man that shows its longing to avoid conflict, but that conflict will always exist. His conclusion to Einstein’s question is that war is natural, but it should be avoided because it ends hopeful human lives and it forces men to murder.

            Freud correctly analyzes the fundamental aspect of human nature as possessing conflict. In his own terms, there is a sinful side of us, the Id, which is always in conflict with our new nature, the Superego. While it was not a perfect analysis, there are many correct perceptions in his theory. He also identifies man’s desire for community as being essential.

            Dostoevsky and Freud both describe the same basic nature of man as being in conflict. Dostoevsky’s approach is more spiritual, as he illustrates the slavery and freedom of the soul. Freud rejects the idea of a soul and the conflict he describes is mental, between the Superego and the Id, with the Ego mediating. Man’s nature is not essentially conflictual, although the ensuing effect is. Calvin shows that man’s nature is depravity. However, in Christ we have been given a new nature that is like Christ. These two natures come into conflict which is beautifully expressed by Paul in Romans 7 where he says that “For I do not do what I want, but I do the very thing I hate.” Paul had recognized that his new nature wanted to live justly, but his sinful nature, the thing he hates, triumphed over his Christ nature. However, Dostoevsky’s and Freud’s views were based on a Godless, or at least non-Christian, philosophy. Therefore they did not see any redemption in the eternal conflict of man. After the rejection of God in the Enlightenment, the optimism of man gradually fell towards pessimism and despair. Why would a human want to live their entire lives in conflict? Especially with themselves? Dostoevsky admitted that man desires peace. However this peace will never be found solely by man’s efforts, it can only be found in Christ. 

Life Elsewhere?

            Recently, scientists published an article in the journal Astrobiology in which they ranked every discovered planet and moon according to their likelihood of having life. They organized two different rankings: the Earth Similarity Index (ESI), which measures how similar they are to Earth in their size, density, and distance from the center of the solar system, and the Planetary Habitability Index (PHI), which measures factors such as whether or not the surface is rocky or water, and if so if it is frozen or liquid, the chemistry of the planet, and if there is an atmosphere or a magnetic field. The exoplanet Gliese 581g, which scored the highest on the ESI with a 0.89 (Earth is a 1 on the scale) and a 0.45 on the PHI, had the highest composite score out of all the planets and moons tested. The highest scorer on the PHI was Titan, Jupiter’s moon. Mars was the highest scoring planet other than Earth in our solar system. All of the exoplanets in the Gliese solar system scored highly on both of the indices, and are continuing to be studied by astronomers.

            As the search for extraterrestrial life expands, scientists now have a reasonable order in which to search the universe. The results of the ESI were promising. However the PHI results were quite low, so low in fact that if they were on a standard testing scale, every planet and moon would have failed. The results are especially troubling because the PHI is a far more important test when testing for the possible origins of life and its early sustainability. Moreover, some astronomers doubt the existence of Gliese 581g, which was the highest scorer. The prognosis does not appear to be good if the most likely extraterrestrial “world” to host life does not even exist.

            The main purpose of astronomers is to find extraterrestrial life. Their goal is twofold: they believe the discovery of extraterrestrial life will disprove the Bible and finally disprove Christianity, and to add to the possibility that life arose by randomly by chance (yes that is redundant but it further adds to the extreme uncertainty that life came from non-life). The antiscientific practices that have taken over all science are driving it to its breaking point. Science should be practiced by always trying to disprove theories, and once something cannot be disproved beyond absolute doubt, it can be accepted. Now scientists look for ways to prove their own theories and reject opposition. Biology is fully corrupt. Evolution is built upon false proof, and if any serious scientist tried to disprove it, they could do so without a blink. Astronomy has grown to be the same monster. Rather than accept the Biblical Creation, scientists fabricate ridiculous theories such as the Big Bang and the Multiverse hypothesis to explain how something appeared from nothing, and then how life appeared from non-life. A famous physicist once said that “Astronomers search their whole lives to find the origin of life. After they have looked everywhere, and come to the highest peak of astronomy, they climb on to the peak to find that theologians have been there all along.” Scientists spend their entire lives thinking there is a universe without God, but will spend eternity knowing that the universe exists because of God. 

Hegel and Darwin critique

            Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel’s first point is that Reason, or the Idea of truth, is the essence of history. He also says that the Spirit is self-existent and does not rely on any outside sources of sustenance. Everything exists in the world of the spirit, but also has connection to matter, which is the opposite of the spirit. For the essence of matter is gravity, and everything is being drawn towards the center; but in the Spirit, it is the center of itself, and relies on no other influence, therefore it is free. He then says that the law, morality, and the State are the fulfillment of freedom. Hegel proceeds to deduce that because the law is the fulfillment of freedom, only the will which obeys the law is fully free. History, Hegel says, is progressive, and is always nearing a fuller grasp of the Idea. He ends by saying that the Idea is eternally present, meaning that it cannot be found in the past or the future.

            Hegel appears to promote a kind of pantheism by saying that everything exists in the Spirit. However, although he never fully clarifies the relationship, he says that matter and the Spirit are opposites. He considers man to be the highest entity of the Spirit, because its ultimate goal is to satisfy itself. His glorified view of the State is ominous because of its supreme power especially since the ultimate freedom can only come through full submission to the law.

            Charles Darwin published On the Origin of Species in 1859 to extreme opposition. He claimed that life has slowly evolved over time, progressively building up numerous beneficial mutations. Darwin considers variability to be governed by correlated growth, compensation, use and disuse of organs, and outside influences. Darwin still believed in a creator God that created a few primitive species which gave rise to all life on Earth as it is today.

            Darwin has at the basis of his theory an incomplete and unobserved view of the fossil record. He himself admits that the fossil record is “highly imperfect.” He forms a hypothesis based on an estimation of what he thinks the fossil record will produce. Additionally, Darwin’s view of mutations is flawed. Over 80% of all mutations are harmful or neutral, and only a small few are largely beneficial. Furthermore, Lamarck’s theory of Use and Disuse, which is used by Darwin, is extremely ridiculous and false. Since the beginning of the world, the genetic code is declining; every mutation causes the loss of information. Evolution, if it were reality, would be degenerative, not progressive.

            Hegel and Darwin were both extremely influential in solidifying the Romantic Movement and completely removing the concept of a God from society. Hegel’s theory of the ultimate freedom being found under law, which echoes the absolutism of Hobbes, is a slippery slope. He saw the government, and all of mankind, as fully enlightened and good. He rejected the Lutheran and Calvinistic views of depravity. Moreover, the Socratic view that the beginning of all knowledge was the knowledge of ignorance was rejected. Man was now the ultimate standard. Absolutes were only established by the will of the present desire of man. The infinite truth, the basis for all civilization, was discarded.  Both Hegel and Darwin considered this rejection necessary because the old views were formed by men who were not as knowledgeable or enlightened as present man was. Hegel’s main contention, and indeed Darwin’s also, is that history is progressive. While Hegel applies his view to philosophy, and Darwin to science, the two men’s views are synthesized in modern thought. The Marxian view of communism was borne out of the progressive view of history, as it is always striving for communism. This view, that is considered progressive, is only progressively despairing. Schaffer’s observance of Western Civilization shows its decline though the ages. The idea that man is just a result of nature, and that it is only separated from the other beasts by its superior mind is hopeless. To rephrase Darwin, there is NO grandeur in this view of life, only despair. Our only hope can be found in the eternal, infinite grace of God. 

Thoughts on Oedipus Rex

            The play, Oedipus Rex, or the King, starts with a problem. The wonderfully crafted tale leads through the life of Oedipus as the story evolves until the end, where everything is fully revealed. the play begins with a plague striking the city of Thebes. The priest and the people cry to Oedipus for help. A prophet proclaims to the people that they must “drive the corruption” from their lands and they will be free. The priest, Tiresias, accuses Oedipus as the corruption saying that he killed the previous king of Thebes, Laius. He also says that the murderer, the corruptor, killed his own father and married his own mother. Jocasta tells the defiant Oedipus that the prophecy was made that her and Laius’s child would kill the father and marry the mother so they had the child killed. Oedipus begins to believe some of the prophet’s story as the events are unfolding. He summons a shepherd, who is the witness of the killing of Laius. A messenger comes and says that Polybus, the king who Oedipus thought was his father, is dead. The messenger then says that Polybus was not Oedipus's real father, but found him as a baby abandoned on a mountainside. The shepherd then arrives and Oedipus interrogates him about the killing of Laius. The shepherd tells Oedipus that he killed Laius, his own father. Now knowing that he is the prophesied child, Oedipus is overwhelmed with shock. Jocasta, his own mother and wife, kills herself because of the atrocity. Oedipus blinds himself when he sees that his wife/mother is dead. The play ends with Oedipus being taken away from his daughters, his sisters.

            The play is a tragedy. It ends in horror with the two main characters dead or exiled. It is not like many modern plays (from Shakespeare to modern) in that it is only one main event, rather than several separate acts or scenes. The entire play is set in a court with a large group of people observing everything that happens. It represents that no political scandal can be hidden from the citizens. While the play is a tragedy, and its characters are not typical of the people of the time, elements of Greek worldview are still expressed. The heavy dependence of prophecy, both by the oracle at Delphi and Tiresias, play an immense role in the play. The oracle’s prophecy caused a king and queen to try to kill their own son. Tiresias is presented as insane and is hated by Oedipus but eventually is found to be right. The word of the prophets is as much truth to the Greeks as the Bible is to Christians.

            The view of gods, and especially prophets, is very similar to that in The Iliad. Achilles knows that the prophets communicate with the gods and therefore deserve respect. Oedipus, like Agamemnon, refuses to accept the word of the prophets, and ultimately faces his downfall. Their lives are controlled by fate. Determined by a higher power, no human can escape it. The Greeks, as seen in Oedipus Rex and the Iliad, have a strong belief in fate. The dependence of the Greeks on the gods is not a correct worldview, but it was successful in that it served as the basis for the most powerful society in the world for several hundred years. As Francis Schaeffer points out, society must have a strong base to be successful. Christian society has its roots in Scripture and in God. The infinite standard serves as a basis for all belief and reason, and dictates our lives. The Greeks had that strong base in their gods. Greek society was far more intertwined with the idea of gods than the Latin society. Although they had the exact same gods, just differing in name, the Greeks were far more pious in their worship and devotion to the gods. They were still wrong with their ideals, but it was sufficient to support Greek civilization. This play was not meant to be a display of Greek worldview or ideals, although it did to a degree, it was simply a play. It was not the grand epic like the Iliad and the Odyssey. It did not have a specific moral like Aesop’s fables. It most certainly was not a parable like Plato’s cave analogy. It was simply a play, a system of entertainment for the Greeks. Its renown has lasted through the ages as one of the greatest tragedies of all time. 

Critique of Inferno

            Dante Alighieri starts off his epic in the Inferno, which is hell and its environs. His first occurrence is meeting Virgil, who will serve as his guide through hell. The outermost ring, Limbo, is where Virgil says are the people that lived before Christ and lived righteous lives but did not get into heaven. There is still suffering there, but it is minimized. They then trek further in to hell, and after crossing the river into the pits of the underworld, come across the normal hell. There Dante sees Celestine V, who supposedly renounced his papacy for selfish reasons. With him are many other vile and unrighteous sinners. Virgil then tells Dante that the people such as Abraham and David, who are “missing” from hell, are in heaven with Christ because he took them up with him after he rose from the dead. Virgil shows Dante the four great ancient poets. Dante encounters Ugolino, who recounts his unfortunate life and death to Dante and Virgil. They finally reach the inner ring of hell, and can see Satan himself at the center. Around him are Judas, Brutus, and Cassius. Finally, they climb out of the inferno and are back in the realm of the living.

            The strict rhythm of Dante’s verses give order to the great epic. It further applies the idea that hell is made of several layers, that each get progressively worse in correspondence to the transgressors. Virgil is an interesting choice for a guide, but helps in the storytelling because he was such a great poet. When Virgil shows Dante the four great ancient poets, who are led by Homer, they call out to him as if he is one of them. Dante then considers himself to be among the great poets such as Homer, Ovid, and Virgil.

            Dante has an interesting worldview. Throughout his journey are mixed elements of Catholic beliefs and mythology. The Greek titans as well as the layout of the underworld with the river Styx are straight out of Greek mythology, and even from Homer himself. He says in his journey that good works are not enough to keep someone out of hell, however Virgil tells Dante that “the signature of honor they left on earth is recognized in heaven and wins them ease in Hell out of God’s favor.” Dante believes then that works cannot lead to salvation, but are still necessary in order to keep a person in the “good” parts of hell rather than the center. Moreover, Dante considers some sins to merit more punishment than others. In the Bible, we are warned that all sin is equal in God’s sight, save the unforgiveable sin of blasphemy. In Dante’s Inferno, the worst sin is betrayal, which is why Judas, Brutus, and Cassius are in the deepest part of hell with Satan himself. The Christian worldview does not allow for different parts of hell. A soul can go to either heaven or hell, with no inner or outer rings. Works, according to Dante, cannot lead to salvation, but still have bearing on eternity. While this idea is Biblical, his view is incorrect. We will be rewarded with riches based on our deeds on the earth when we are judged by God. Works will not keep people out of the deeper parts of hell. Dante takes a nearly Lutheran stance when criticizing the pope, but does so for a far different reason; Luther criticized popes for their inadherence to the scripture, but Dante criticized the pope because he stepped down from the papacy because it was too corrupt. Finally, Dante’s placing of Aristotle above Socrates and Plato shows that his reason is more based on induction and observable facts than from the source of an infinite truth. Dante appears to be a true medieval Catholic humanist that shows the corruption of the church from its original beliefs, in which he is trying to synthesize ancient reason and logic with his Christianity. 

Rousseau and Locke Critique

            Jean Jacques Rousseau gives a history of man that explains the origins of inequality. His opening sentence condemns the first man who over claimed personal property. His history begins with pre-civilized, and even pre-barbaric, man. The first step towards inequality came when man proclaimed himself chief among the animals. Then through several steps, man’s association amongst itself became the breeding ground for judgment based on inequality. Rousseau ends by saying that independent man is the pinnacle of mankind and that civilization is corrupt because of the congregation of men. In Emile, JJR gives his view on the raising of children and the acquisition of knowledge. His basis is that God made all things, and that it was good until it was ruined by man. When a child is born, it is dependent on man, not God, but it is the duty of a parent to remove this dependence for it is an evil. He then says that man cannot experience the absolutes (i.e. joy and total despair), but can only experience happiness, and the lack of happiness. Furthermore, a child must only be given what is essential to live, and must not be trained that anything in excess is good. JJR ends by saying that man is born basically good and that “he does not know how to do wrong.”

            Rousseau does not follow a strict theology through his works. His views on the nature of man are anti-biblical and seem to be a predecessor to Darwin. Additionally, his evaluation that happiness is the greatest state which man can achieve is incorrect; man can achieve true joy which is our ultimate end. JJR also implies that God made all things good and that man corrupted it, therefore the deeds of man are greater than the works of God.

            John Locke was the first of many great philosophers to ask the question, where does knowledge come from? His response began with the fact that man is born with “no inborn qualities.” Locke goes on to say that all knowledge comes about by experience. That experience has two forms: sensory observation and reflection in the mind. He attempts to show his point by saying that the ability to reason comes only once things have been observed by the senses, then the mind has enough capacity to reason. The mind then organizes the experiences.

            Locke introduced a massive topic that would be addressed by many further writers. The reason they felt the need to discuss it was because Locke did not do enough to prove his points, and merely left them as his beliefs and rarely tried to prove them. Moreover, to say that man is born with no “inborn qualities” is errant because if man were born as a blank slate, man would not know how to use his senses to observe and experience nature. The most basic ability to know how and to desire to observe is inherent in man.

            The fundamental flaw of both authors is their misunderstanding of human nature. Both Rousseau and Locke, although emphasized more by Locke, say that man is born basically good, and is corrupted by the world. Their solution is also very similar; man must be removed from the evils of the world, or can only experience ameliatory influences. This solution only works if man is naturally good and if experience is the only way in which knowledge can be acquired. Clearly man is sinful. But not just sinful, man is completely and totally depraved. Paul states that “there is no one righteous, not one.” Additionally, experience is not the only path to finding knowledge. Immanuel Kant said that “although all our knowledge begins with experience, it does not follow that it arises from experience.” (Yes I have used this quote a lot, but it’s one of my favorites) There are three distinct, but intrinsically connected, parts to our ability to gain knowledge: experience, reason, and revelation. Revelation is the greatest of the three because through it, we are given the knowledge and ability to observe absolute truth. Experience gives us abstract examples of our knowledge. And through reason, we can synthesize the knowledge that we observe because of the truth revealed to us by God. Just as Kant proved that pure reason alone is incapable of bringing the ship back to the shore, experience also falls far short of steering the ship in a positive direction. There is no hope if man relies on reason alone, or on experience alone, but as Christians we have been given revelation which allows us to use reason and experience the way they were meant to be used which gives us hope and joy, which is our ultimate end. 

Reflections on Francis Bacon and Rene Descartes

            Francis Bacon in his New Organon, which was meant to supersede the Organon of Aristotle, compiled a collection of his thoughts concerning a variety of matters, but most importantly, the learning process. His first statement is that man can only learn through nature. He then states that knowledge and power are intrinsically connected to each other. He then gives several reasons concerning the importance of logic and reason. Bacon describes four “idols” which stand in the way of human reason: first is that man is the measure of all things, second is that man is stuck in a cave and should work together for “the common good”, thirdly he says that words can cloud something’s true meaning, and finally he states that religion and philosophy can be errant. Bacon also states that raw experience or experimentation is useless without reason to synthesize the information. He concludes by saying that the goal of science is to understand nature, not just to gain experience.

            Even though it was not his intent, Bacon’s work is certainly secular. He elevates the powers of observation and analysis above that of reason, and indeed revelation. He was the first of many great thinkers and philosophers to quash the power of reason for that of experience. Bacon puts such emphasis on the importance of experience in regards to knowledge, which, as Bacon says, is power.

            Rene Descartes wrote in a similar fashion to Bacon, except that his “thoughts” became several paragraphs rather than just a few sentences. His first statement is that good sense, or reason is equally distributed to all men, but that some people use it better than others do. He then proposes his own four-step method to finding knowledge: to doubt unless something has been explicitly proven, to divide the difficulty/problem in to manageable pieces, to begin from the simplest of the pieces of the problem and work toward the more complex, and finally to be clear and thorough. Descartes then goes on to say his famous statement, “I think, therefore I am” while attempting to prove that the spirit exists separately from the physical. He uses the example that a person can dream something that does not happen in reality; therefore it must be separate from reality.

            Descartes stressed the role of reason in synthesizing experience. His main argument was to propose a dualism of the spiritual and the physical. His treatment of learning is beneficial because it is an easier path to reason and experimentation. However, he applies his method to too much by saying that only that which can be reasoned is true.

            Bacon and Descartes both stress the vitality of experience in regard to knowledge. They stress the importance of facts, very much like the schoolteacher and principal in Dickens’s Hard Times. They follow in the footsteps of Aquinas and Aristotle who all said that knowledge is useless unless synthesized by reason. Descartes takes his philosophy too far by saying that only things which can be proven by reason are true, which is similar to Bacon’s statement that knowledge can only arise from observation. As the great philosopher Immanuel Kant later said, “But although all our knowledge begins with experience, it does not follow that it arises from experience.” Kant was correct in saying that knowledge is connected to experience, but that it is fully dependent on experience. Bacon and Descartes both neglect the revelation of God, which reveals knowledge to man that cannot be accessed through experience or reason. God would not need to reveal himself to man if man could seek God on his own. In Romans 3, Paul says that “there is no one that seeks God.” The fundamental flaw with both philosophers is that they believe that God can be reasoned. The very nature of God is beyond reason. Although He has created a rational universe that operates by predictable laws, God does not operate by its simplicity and has qualities that cannot be reasoned such as His eternal and infinite presence and the Trinity. Moreover, there are simple truths about God’s existence which cannot be accessed without God’s revelation. Jesus said that he spoke in parables to keep truths of his kingdom from those that do not believe. As Christians, God revealed his truth to us so that we can have knowledge and understanding of him. God’s revelation is not only necessary to our spiritual lives, but is the source of our ability to understand our observations. Bacon and Descartes both admitted that raw observations are useless without synthesis, and our reason to synthesize observation comes from God’s revelation. Without it, we would be chained in the darkness, only able to see shadows of reality. 

Luther and Calvin Critique

            Martin Luther wrote his address to the nobility in Germany that were Christian. He begins with a proper and humble greeting. He then goes on to say that no good works come without faith and that our trust and hope should not be in our own strength, but in God alone. Luther then lays out the three main walls that the Roman Catholic Church has built to give itself the authority is has. The first wall is that the temporal powers of the world have no power over the church and that it is above all worldly powers. The second wall is the RCC claims they alone can interpret the scriptures, namely via the authority of the pope. The third wall, which seems most ridiculous of the three to Luther, is that no one may call a council but the pope. He then states the heresy of the RCC for believing such things and goes on to call the Romanists (bishops) “wolves in sheep’s clothing.”

            Luther certainly did not consider the Church inerrant. His critique of the church is vilifying, to say the least. The RCC has accumulated far too much power and none of it, Luther says, is anchored in scripture. He cites the Apostle’s Creed, the main creed of the RCC, against the Church, showing how far it has come from its original beliefs. His most brutal attacks are against the pope, who is the main transgressor of the Church and is the main reason for its corruption.

            John Calvin wrote the Institutes as his definition of the basis of Christian doctrine. It begins with the ultimate authority and inerrancy of scripture and from there works to show how a Christian should truly live. He also calls the RCC erroneous because they claim that they decide how and to what extent to apply scripture, rather than taking it as the supreme decree of God. He then describes the nature of man as completely unrighteous which is important because then salvation can only come “from the mercy of God”, not from any works of man. Calvin then lays out the Christian Liberties. First, Christians are above the law because we have been justified. Secondly, because we are above the law, does not mean we should act as such, but rather willfully obey the law in obedience to God. Lastly, the indifferent pleasures of the world can be ours if they are not forbidden in scripture. He ends by showing the corruption in the visible church, but says the true church, the invisible church, is infallible because it is a direct work of God.

            Calvin’s logic and theology are remarkable. He treats matters with the proper amount of severity and does not go too far as to brazenly state his points, but makes them in a mannerly fashion and moves on. His basis of scripture is a solid base, indeed the only true foundation. His view of the law as in relation to the Christian can be construed as antinomian to an extent, especially his first Christian liberty. It is further clarified in the second liberty. The main point of all the Christian liberties is that the life of a Christian need not be ascetic, but allows for pleasure while still on earth.

            Calvin and Luther both agree on a great amount of material, the most important being the sovereignty and the absoluteness of scripture. Scripture must be the basis of salvation because it is the only direct revelation from God. Both reformers, especially Calvin, heavily quote Paul because in his books and epistles is laid out the way Christians should live. Both agree on the complete bondage of humans to sin. This view is dramatically different than many of the philosophers throughout history beginning with Plato and Aristotle, to Aquinas and the medieval church, to Machiavelli and Erasmus and More. Many of the thinkers believed in some sort of imperfect natural state of man but none went as far as saying man was completely and totally depraved. One of the many quotes Calvin takes from Paul concerns the depravity of the race of man in which there is “no one righteous, not one.” For one of Paul’s main points throughout all his works is the unrighteousness of man who can be saved only by the grace and mercy of Christ. Over the years the RCC had been growing increasingly corrupt, denying much of the authority of the Bible and introducing their own extra-scriptural measures to a Christian life. It had been the point of much criticism, even from Catholics such as More and Erasmus that were for reform. The Church’s main fault was ignoring that salvation came come “by faith alone, not by works so that no man can boast.” They grew away from the truth of the scriptures, which is why it was necessary for the great Reformation, led by Luther and Calvin to reestablish the supreme authority of the Bible. 

Analysis of Utopia and Don Quixote

            Thomas More wrote Utopia through the storytelling of Raphael, a traveler that had been to Utopia and was sharing its culture and civilization to Thomas and his one friend. He starts by describing the work conditions in Utopia. Farming is the basic job, with everyone being trained as a farmer. People can then choose another vocation if they desire. Men and women are given equal job opportunities and education. Utopian society is patriarchal, with households living in the same home, with the patriarch leading them. There is a population limit for each city. There is no money or private property. The last major aspect of Utopia described by Raphael is its religious freedom. Everyone in Utopia believes in God in some fashion, but there are numerous different religions.

            Utopia is presented in vivid detail; so much that it has an almost realistic feel to it. It is clear that More is critiquing the failures of society while showing his view of what society should be. Not only are the ideologies of English society critiqued, but even the economy of Utopia is different than England’s at the time. More’s main criticism is of the wastefulness and the inefficiency of England. The free time of Utopians is spent learning or being entertained rather than the wasteful amusement found in taverns and brothels in England.

            Don Quixote was Miguel de Cervantes way of telling his elaborate stories and making them have meaning. Don Quixote starts as a poor farmer who is obsessed with reading ancient tales of chivalry and heroics. He decides to go on his own great adventure and finds Sancho who becomes his squire. He goes on several adventures, one of which is described in the book. In the distance, he sees monsters with large arms waving around and charges at them. He finds out the hard way that they were not monsters, but windmills. He eventually is encountered by one of his friends that disguises himself as the Knight of the White Moon. He defeats Don Quixote and tells him to return home because Don Quixote had been a joke as a knight. He realizes the errors of his ways and repents right before he dies.

            Don Quixote learned too late the meaning of life. It is not epic pursuits or quests, but finding true purpose in life, which is found in God. He spent all his life trying to imitate the knights that he had read about and be just as great and chivalrous as they were. The final act of his life, his death, shows his turning from his vain pursuits to the meaningful pursuits of being a Christian. He realizes that mankind cannot survive alone, but must rely on God.

            More’s evaluation of society is very similar in layout to Plato’s Republic and Aristotle’s view of society seen in Ethics and Politics. The ideas of communalism and even of having servants/slaves to do menial work is almost exactly like the Spartan view expressed by Herodotus. The main goal in all the views and ideas of society is the greatest, most efficient way to produce goods and to avoid corruption. More describes Utopia as having no “ways of disgusting idleness”, the same idleness that is condemned by Benedict as evil. The wrongful pursuits of worldly pleasures lead to immorality, which is why in Utopia there are no taverns or brothels. The same evils of the world that Paul urges us to avoid are recognized by More as being evil. The worldly pursuits of Don Quixote ultimately prove to be his downfall, and he realizes too late the vanity of the pursuits of the world. Cervantes says that “nothing human is eternal, but every earthly thing, especially mankind, is always decaying.” These two protagonists, Don Quixote and Raphael, reflect the theology of their writers, and of Solomon, that “everything is vanity” unless it has a foundation in Christ. Don Quixote fully understood the vanity of the world and of its pleasures. Raphael understood it also, except in the case of religion. Beliefs should not be kept to oneself. We are not called to be secluded from the world, but to be its salt and light. The effects of salt on fresh meat are not soothing, but are ultimately beneficial for it. It is the same with light that darkness is pierced by light. After being in the dark for a long time, being exposed to bright light is extremely painful. Therefore, it is clearly our mandate to go into the world and preach the gospel, knowing the ramifications that it will have. Raphael was right in pointing out that religion is no cause for war and death, but it should be at the heart of life, and therefore be shared to everyone. There is a good example of how we should live as Christians from Lord of the Rings. Galadriel gives Frodo the light of Earendil, which is to be a light “when all other lights go out.” Christ gives us his eternal light of truth to use in a world where all other lights have gone out. 

Review of Machiavelli and Erasmus

            Niccolo Machiavelli wrote a book to Lorenzo the Magnificent, giving him guidance on how a prince should rule his subjects. He begins by describing the importance of war to a state. Machiavelli says “war is the only essential art to those who govern.” Even in times of peace, according to Machiavelli, preparation for war is crucial. He then describes the qualities a prince should possess. He says that theorizing about ideal societies is a waste of time because humans can never achieve them and that too much thinking of this subject will “ruin” a leader. Machiavelli then goes through a progression of good qualities with their negative opposites (i.e. charity vs. stinginess) and shows that a balance in all qualities is optimal for a leader. The leader should not be too charitable or stingy. Finally, Machiavelli states that it is not necessary for a ruler to actually be good and possess good qualities, but to appear to have them. He ends by praising Lorenzo and his magnificence.

            Machiavelli noticed several very important and significant qualities that are imperative to successful rulers. His vast amount of evidence of successful rulers from history cements his case. His analysis of qualities of a ruler are sound, especially that they only be superficial or have the appearance of possessing the qualities. People don’t care what a person actually is; rather what they act like. His wisdom in advising the rulers not to be on the extremes of good or bad, so they are not hated or taken advantage of, but to find a suitable middle ground is very astute. The reason why these tactics are successful is that man’s nature is corrupt and are too corrupted to discern the differences.

            Erasmus wrote his book as a scathing satire of society in the late 15^th and early16^th centuries. Folly, the protagonist of the story, starts by explaining the goals of man, which is to return to the childhood, where the greatest happiness can be found. He then goes on to criticize the church’s idolization of Mary above Christ. Folly next mocks the lawyers, scientists and theologians, the learned people of the day, for being too prideful in their work. Especially the scientists, Folly says, are so arrogant that they think they have tremendous knowledge, while they really have none at all. The theologians and church leaders focus too much on their own interpretations of passages of scripture to make themselves sound wise rather than following its commands. The monks are then criticized for being too rule-bound and legalistic. Finally, Folly mocks the people of the court for being too pompous about their wealth.

            The satire of Erasmus is certainly effective. Many of the criticisms are blatant rebuking and mocking. Looking back, it is easy to see how much the scientists at the time did not know but they still thought they had an accurate view of the workings of the world. The humanisticness of Erasmus certainly shows through in his evaluation of the church because it had grown too far away from the Bible and relied on its own authority.

            The common theme in both works is the natural state of corruption of man. Machiavelli’s ruler can only be successfully because men are corrupt and those qualities of a leader are meant to lead corrupted people. Erasmus shows the fallen nature of man in his criticisms of the more educated people of society that love themselves more than anything else. The best example of this is his criticism of the monks who will “go on endlessly” bragging about their accomplishments claimed to be in service of Christ. The ignorance of man of its own arrogance is expressed heavily in Erasmus’s work, and reflects the Platonic view of the nature of man. Even according to Herodotus, “God tolerates pride in none but himself.” Man’s arrogance is falsely anchored man is not simply corrupt, but, as said by Calvin, is completely depraved. Machiavelli shows this false view when he says that God does not want to “take away our free will and the share of glory which belongs to us.” No glory belongs to us as humans because the only good in our lives is from Christ. Additionally, in Christ, we find the ultimate meaning and purpose in our lives, the joy which comes from glorifying him. From Aristotle to Machiavelli, philosophers think of happiness of the ultimate end of life. The ultimate goal of every man is to find happiness in one way or another. Folly explains that men seek to return to the days of their childhood, when they were most happy. The very fact that Folly is saying that when men try to return to their happy childhood, they are seeking her, shows that, even if Erasmus did not mean it, happiness is not enough. Only true joy can fill men’s hearts and satisfy their deepest desires. This joy can only be found in Christ. 

Critique of Thomas Acquinas

            The first work by Thomas Aquinas is the doctrinal beliefs of the Church. He first describes the way in which humans can grasp truth: through reason and through divine interpretation. He says that it is “stupid to say something is false just because it cannot be reasoned. Aquinas then writes about the importance of belief where reason is unsuccessful. He says it is not foolish to call beliefs derived from faith truth simply because they are beliefs. He concludes the first work by saying that the truth found by reason and truth found by faith, if searched for correctly, are the same. The second selection, part of the Summa Theologica, addresses two questions: is it lawful to cheat in trading and is it a sin to commit usury? He follows a very strict format in asking and answering these questions. He first gives arguments for its lawfulness, then he gives his view on the question which contradicts the first arguments, then he writes about the issue as a whole with both sides, then he counters each of the first arguments to prove his answer to the question.

            Aquinas was very wise in his observations. He noticed that man could not reason everything about God, but should trust the Bible and revelations for truth about God. He did point out that modern knowledge starts with observation from the senses. Therefore by modern observation, we cannot reason the immaterial, which is God. In his second work, he uses logic and reason to answer the questions and supports then with great amounts of scripture. He makes sound arguments because he synthesizes reason and faith.

Aquinas tries too hard to connect faith with reason, especially with the secular reason of Aristotle. Aristotle found little room in his philosophy for an infinite power, unlike Plato and Socrates who thought it necessary to life for it to exist. Reason itself cannot lead you to God. Aquinas wrote that it was crucial to rely of faith for much of the Christian truth, but found himself too much in love with human reason. Augustine greatly agreed and connected Plato into his works, contrary to Aquinas and Aristotle. Augustine, like Aquinas, were both brilliant, wise Christian men, but chose different sides in debate on the revelation of truth. Aquinas said that man’s natural knowledge will never be contrary to God, but it will never be enough and that revelation is necessary. Despite the good in his writings, Aquinas relied too much on human reason. Similarly, the RCC relied too much on human authority rather than divine authority. While they believed themselves to be the divine authority on earth, only one of the points in the first papal document out of 30 addresses that authority, while the rest discuss the earthly power of the RCC. The church had grown so blinded by its beliefs that they believed they were the sole authority on earth, the sole way to heaven for believers, and that submission to the pope was necessary for salvation. All of those beliefs had biblical roots but were so stretched that it was not true Christian doctrine. Their presuppositions of the Bible did not allow them to see its true meaning. The presuppositions that Aquinas describes as “the mother of all error” had erred the RCC into making their own interpretations of the Bible, even to believe in their own inerrancy. The same presuppositions that Plato saw at the root of all humanity, still were chained around the hearts of the leaders of the RCC. They had yet to be freed from their chains, from, as Luther describes, the bondage of their sinful will, and freed in the perfection of Christ. 

Benedictine Rule

            St. Benedict wrote a book in which he listed all the rules and guidelines for monasteries and monks. He begins by describing the qualifications necessary for becoming the abbot of a monastery. Since the abbot represents Christ as the head of the monastery, he must show no bias or favoritism and must be strict in nurturing his flock to obey Christ. The monks must show complete obedience to the abbot or face severe punishment. All of the rules and regulations for monastic life ultimately come from humility, which Benedict discusses thoroughly. Benedict then explains the regulations for how monks are to live during their stay in the monastery. Worship is segmented in to seven services throughout the day and night. Monks also must always be kept busy. He then lays down some house rules such as the abolishment of personal property and the equal treatment of all monks. Benedict writes about the process of accepting new monks and how they are to be received. There are several “tests” to determine the devotion of a candidate, then a trail period in which the person can leave if they do not think it right to be a monk. Finally, after a year, they become an official monk. During their tenure, they can have no unnecessary contact with the outside world.

            Monastic life is too structured. There is no “free time” for a monk to do as he pleases. “Idleness is the great enemy of the soul” is what Benedict says in regards to free time. There is no room for Sabbath rest, which is necessary to men. Seclusion from the sinful world is a good thing, to an extent. Total seclusion, as enforced in Benedictine monasteries, does not allow for the spreading of the gospel into the world.

The monastic order, as ordered by Benedict, exhibits communism/communalism. The lack of personal property and capitalism gives no reason to try hard or be thrifty. Men can take no pride in their God-given abilities and in God himself if they own nothing. The idea of equal treatment is unbiblical. Luke 12:47-48 demonstrates that God will judge people differently, according to what they have been given. The Parable of the Minas and the Parable of the Sower both show the unequal distribution of gifts among believers. Benedict says that owning personal property is a “sin”, however, if we are given gifts from God, there is no sin in possessing them. The only sin can come from greed. This view of society is extremely similar to the Spartan society described by Xenophon as well as Aristotle’s ideal city state.

Benedict describes humility as essential for monks. He says that “for we have special favor in His sight only in so far as we excel others in all good works and humility.” The heart of this statement rings true, although it leans slightly toward works-based faith. Romans 12:10 tells us to “Outdo one another in honor” (ESV). A Christian must imitate Christ, whose main mission was to serve. In order to be a true servant, to “outdo one another in honor”, we must “excel others in all good works and humility.” All throughout Greek civilization, honor was essential quality to possess; a man was nothing without it. From Homer to Xenophon and Thucydides, from Aristotle to Sophocles, honor was everything. The true honor to which Benedict and Paul refer to is the honoring of God. All of the Greeks were only concerned with bringing honor to themselves, or in some rare cases to their city-state. They were right in that honor is a good thing, but wrong as to whom the honor must go. Benedict saw and knew what was necessary to be a true Christian and servant of Christ. While the monastic life and order were not perfect, the underlying ideals behind it were pure. 

Augustine Critique

            Augustine begins his work by describing the fundamental flaws of Romans and why its civilization is crumbling. He then goes on to describe the holy city, the City of God. He compares the holy city to the earthly city, Rome. Augustine illuminates the major differences between the two cities and their citizens. Augustine then goes on to describe the Socratic school of thought, analyzing it and scrutinizing it. He then examines Plato’s philosophy in a very similar manner.

            Augustine blatantly states that the Romans are at fault for the downfall of the empire. Idolatry has captured their hearts, and they began to hold themselves and the world above the King of the universe, and even above their own pagan gods. This selfishness originates from Adam. His analysis of Plato and Socrates is not shy to point out their failure to identify the origin of the eternal struggle between good and evil. While they came close to the reality, they ultimately ended just as far away as the rest of humanity.

            The earthly city, Rome, as described by Augustine mirrors Israel throughout the Old Testament. The abandonment of truth for other gods and idols always has selfishness at its heart. This temporal longing can produce only misery because our hopes will always fade away. Humans are born into the bondage of sin, as described by Luther, and therefore are born into the selfishness that presents us from seeking God. Augustine said that “it takes faith to believe that we need His help.” Without noticing our need for a savior, without admitting our ignorance, we, as Augustine says, will only end up with misery. Augustine echoes the sentiments of Paul that everything is “rubbish” if it is not for God. Augustine and Socrates both recognized the natural state of man as selfish and ignorant. Herodotus and Aesop both agree in that the fundamental evil of man is selfishness or pride which brings about greed and all other sins. Man is born sinful and is ignorant of its own sinfulness. As the movie Seven vividly illustrates, “only in a world this screwed up can you call people innocent.” Justice, as seen by humanity, begins with the Aristotelian assumption that the nature of man is good, and is therefore innocent until proven guilty.

            Augustine describes God as the “cause of all being, reason of all thinking, the rule of all living.” He nearly paraphrases John 1 in saying that God is at the heart of all existence, and nothing could exist without him. God is the heart of all existence, and our service to him, we must, as instructed by Jerome, cast our worldly possessions aside and solely seek God, for “no one who puts his hand to the plow and looks back is fit for service in the kingdom of God.” (Luke 9:62) Augustine encourages people to seek God to find the Truth since it cannot be found elsewhere. Socrates recognized that an Infinite being was the source of all perfection and truth and should be sought. We, as Socrates realized, discover our own ignorance and sin, but are powerless against it unless God saves us and wipes away all our iniquities. 

Reflections on Aristotle's Ethics and Politics

            Aristotle begins by explaining the definition of good and the purpose of man. He then describes how man can function to achieve good, and defines happiness as the chief end of man. Aristotle then spends the rest of the book talking about the ideal man: his virtues, actions, beliefs, and the importance of high-mindedness.

            Aristotle proposes a seeming oxymoron; good things harm people. Wealth is a good thing but it corrupts, and courage is an outstanding quality but it leads to more deaths than lives. Good, he says, will ultimately perish because “evil is infinite…while good is finite”. The ideal end of man is happiness, and to achieve happiness reflects success. There is little hope in this worldview, and little reason to live, but for fleeting happiness.

            Aristotle also describes the ideal condition for a city-state and its government. He begins by describing the importance of a good location that is situated where it can be accessible by sea and very habitable, but must be very inhabitable for enemies. The population of the city-state should be limited to conserve resources. The city-state should have a powerful navy. Additionally, the citizens should not engage in menial labor, but have servants. Finally, its government should exist to establish and protect the virtue of happiness in its citizenry. The highest goal of the city is universal happiness.

            The description of the ideal city-state shows communalism. While private property is allowed, the goal of the government and the citizens is to make and keep everyone happy. Just as with his view of an ideal man, Aristotle’s view of the ideal city-state gives no real hope for the future but the desire for happiness. Happiness is the highest goal of the city, and it cannot exist without it. However, it can be taken away at any moment, and can never be guaranteed for the future of the citizens. Once again, there is no hope in this worldview.

            Though they were master and apprentice, Plato and Aristotle had vastly different worldviews. Plato believed in the infinite form of Goodness that was central to our being. Evil was a lack of goodness, and did not exist in the perfect world. Aristotle taught that good fades while only evil is eternal. Plato had the hope that he would pass into the eternal realm after his death. His last words reflect his view, “We go our ways-I to die, and you to live. Which is better God only knows.” Plato had a very similar view on life to Paul, both knowing that “to die is gain.” They possessed hope. We as Christians have hope that we will be with God in heaven and that evil will be defeated at the last day. Hope is what drives us to achieve; true hope in the eternal, not carnal hope for fleeting happiness.

            The idea of communalism in Aristotle in regard to his ideal city-state is very similar to Xenophon’s description of Sparta. Both believed that citizens were above menial work and should subject slaves to work for them. They believed that high-mindedness and pride were essential to a government because they are above all mankind. This separation of humanity is found in Plato’s work as well, but in a much different context. Plato believed that knowledge led to freedom to ascend to the upper world. He, unlike Aristotle, knew that the responsibility of the upper world was to go back to the shadow world, the cave, and to free the rest of mankind. As Christians also we must realize the importance of our freedom and that we no longer belong to this world but are here for the purpose of freeing others from the bondage of sin. Humility is what Aristotle lacked, and the selfishness of man is its downfall. Aesop warned that vices are often their own downfall and the Greek hubris as seen in Aristotle and Xenophon is its golden example. Without eternal hope, we are only humans chained by our sin, forced to only see shadows of reality, in hopes that we may someday achieve happiness. Once we are free, our hope is in Christ Jesus, who gives our lives true purpose.

Thoughts on Plato's Republic

            Plato tells a parable, in which men are in a cave surrounded by darkness. They are chained so that they can only see the shadows in front of them. If a man was released, he would slowly emerge in pain and he would not know what is going on around him. He would observe the new world with awe and wonder, realizing it to be far better than the cave. The man returns to the lowly realm in the cave and tries to tell others and free them of their bondage of ignorance but is only met with rejection and hatred.

            Earlier in The Republic, Plato records conversations of Socrates. He discusses the ideal leader and what qualities that leader would have. He then explains the training for the Guardians to satisfy the goal of the commonwealth, which was for the greatest happiness of the whole. Then he discusses the roles of men and women and proposes that women be given the same opportunities for Guardianship as men.

             The cave parable illustrates perfectly the extent to which men are ignorant. We are, as Plato said, ignorant of the truth; the truth being God. God saves us from darkness and calls us into light. Once we are free, we are no longer of that world and can rejoice in our freedom. However our duty is to go back into that world and tell others about the light. Because we know the truth of our ignorance, our mission as true disciples of Christ is to minister to those in need, which is also what Plato instructs the knowledgeable to do. The Matrix illustrates perfectly the relationship between the cave world (the matrix) and the real world. Though miserable, the free people of Zion would never willingly return to the matrix because they know the truth, and do not want it to rule their lives. The free men return to the darkness to free others, but, as shown in The Matrix, “not all are ready to be freed”. The essential problem that prevents Plato’s ideal world from being reality, and that prevents men from turning to the light is pride. Pride is at the heart of “Men, who above all else desire power” (Galadriel). In the parable, the man who returns to the cave world to save his fellow men similar to Jesus in that he left his world of beauty and descended down to minister to the ignorant. They “despised and rejected” him and scorned and murdered him. Even though men are chained to their ignorance, they will rather die than examine their own faults and serve an almighty God. Socrates was not afraid to look within himself and found the eternal truth, the infinite God. He, like Paul, realized that because of eternity, to die is gain.

General Philosophy

Man’s fundamental state is ignorance. Humans only rely on what they perceive their senses as telling them. Humans must trust their senses that what they perceive as true by their senses is actually true. Experience is fallible if the senses are fallible since experience relies on the observation of the senses.

 Humans see particulars and categorize and study them as particulars. They are only glimpses of the ideal. The ideal is a perfect, absolute, which cannot exist in a fallen world. Humans only see and observe the particulars, not the ideal. Human knowledge is then extrapolated based on the particulars and by reason as to the properties of the ideal. The knowledge that comes from humans studying and observing the particulars arises from experience in observing the particulars. Therefore, the knowledge of the particulars arises from experience. Reason serves to analyze the raw observations and experience. Through reason, the image of the ideal can be imagined from the particulars.

However, since humans do not know the true properties of the ideal, their reason and analysis of the particulars as they see them is merely theory.  When a new chair is made, it is called a chair because people have called similar things chairs. Therefore, there are properties to a chair that can be found only fully in a chair; nothing else can have all the properties of a chair and not be a chair. The human idea of a chair is based on the ideal of a chair. Humans have artificially defined the properties and the idea of a chair. The ideal of a chair is not observable and consequently cannot serve as a standard for judging true chair-ness. Moreover, humans have defined the properties of a chair and artificially determined the ideal of a chair which serves as a standard for the defining of objects as chairs based on the properties of the standard. Therefore, no absolute truth or ideal can be attained through human reason, rather humans artificially set things in positions where they act and are treated like ideals, although they are simply humans’ perception of the ideal.

Hence, there is no possibility that man can achieve knowledge of God through reason alone. Because man’s natural state is ignorant, and because humans cannot reason the absolute, God must reveal himself to man. God reveals himself to man which allows man to be saved. Without God’s revelation of himself to man, no man can be saved. Thus, the way in which God reveals himself to man is entirely the act of God because of the human inability to reason the absolute. Since because man has no action in God’s revelation, which cannot come about through human reason, revelation from God is not experience nor belief, but revelation leads to faith, which leads to belief, and in turn, knowledge from the experience of belief.