Matt's Hidden God of Nature Blog

The Brothers Karamazov is a novel based on interconnectedness. Everything, from the plot, characters, and themes are all intricately connected by forces that seem to extend beyond the physical. Elder Zosima (arguably the spiritual and philosophical epicenter of the novel), explicitly delves into these ideas of interconnectivity through his teachings/sermons and we see how the acceptance (or negligence) of his teachings can heavily affect a given character’s future. Alyosha, the youngest of the three (main) brothers, Dostoevsky’s personal “hero” of the novel, and arguably the spiritual successor of Elder Zosima, seems to be the only one of the three brothers to listen to Elder Zosimas teachings, leaving him fulfilled by the end of the novel. The other two brothers, (Dmitri and Ivan) seem to fall prey to the enticing promises of materialism and the physical, while secluding themselves from the spiritual, ultimately leading to their decomposing mental states and spiritual corruption. The idea of “sobornost” (or spiritual unity directly) that we discussed through philosophical readings relates to Elder Zosimas teaching regarding spiritual and the interconnectivity between individuals that play out through the novel. In this paper, Elder Zosima’s teaching will be looked at in depth in order to fully understand his world philosophy, and compare it to similar philosophies of those we have discussed in class. Then, how those teachings apply to the three main brothers in the novel will be explored.

Elder Zosima and The Philosophy of Life 

Much of Book 6 of the Brothers Karamazov is dedicated to Elder Zosima. His past is explored in detail and we learn why and how he became such a prominent religious figure. Chapter III of book VI, titled From Talks and Homilies of the Elder Zosima provides particularly useful insight into his general thought processes. This chapter is structured as a sermon that Zosima is giving to his fellow monks. Zosima begins the sermon by exploring why so much of mankind lives in sadness. In his evaluation, he explains that the world has fallen prey to materialism and status. He believes most individuals live their lives for the sake of increasing their luxury; they have fallen prey to the allures of material based hedonism. As Elder Zosima states “For the world says: “You have needs, therefore satisfy them, for you have the same rights as the noblest and richest men. Do not be afraid to satisfy them, but even increase them” (Dostoyevsky, 313).  But this leaves individuals feeling hollow and bare, or in a state of “disunity and isolation.” And because “the world” tells them that they are entitled to more and more, they keep seeking happiness through the material. Zosima references a man who was depraved of tobacco while in prison. His lust for tobacco was so strong that he was willing to betray his “idea” (or purpose in life) “just so they would give him some tobacco” (Dosteyevsky, 314). In summary “They [the general population] have succeeded in amassing more and more things, but have less and less joy” (Dosteyevsky, 314). Elder Zosima goes on to explain what he believes to be the true source of happiness in the world; love and mutual responsibility. As he states:

“Love all of God’s creation, both the whole of it and every grain of sand. Love every leaf, every ray of God’s light. Love animals, love plants, love each thing. If you love each thing, you will perceive the mystery of God in things. Once you have perceived it, you will begin tirelessly to perceive more and more of it everyday. And you will come at last to love the whole world with an entire universal love”

This is one of many quotes from Elder Zosima that emphasize the importance of unity and connectivity. The “disunity and isolation” (Dosteyevsky, 314) that the material leaves us with can only be reconciled through true and universal love.

 But the interconnectivity Elder Zosima speaks of is not limited to positive experiences, our love and connectivity to the world and those who inhabit it comes with a certain level of responsibility; a pact that we all must agree to in which we are all responsible for everything that occurs, the good and the bad. In one of the most well known quotes from the novel, Elder Zosima states:

“There is only one salvation for you: take yourself up, and make yourself responsible for all the sins of men. For indeed it is so, my friend, and the moment you make yourself sincerely responsible for everything and everyone, you will see at once that  is really so, that it is you who are guilty on behalf of all and for all. Whereas by shifting your own laziness and powerlessness onto others you will end by sharing in Satan’s pride and murmuring against God.” (Dosteyovsky, 320)

Here, Zosima is heavily emphasizing the idea of responsibility and guilt in everyday life. He is arguing that if you are not constantly feeling the weight of other people’s actions, then you do not have the deep spiritual connections to others and thus are living a secluded and isolated life. It’s important to note that there isn’t supposed to be much of a distinction between these two basic teachings. Elder Zosima’s concept of “love” and “responsibility” are almost identical, and he only separates them in order to convey his points. In short, to love all of God’s creation is to be responsible for all of God’s creations and vice-versa.

Alyosha and his Spiritual Enlightenment

The concept of “Sobernost” (and most of Elder Zosimas other teachings), while Russian in Nature, directly relates to most philosophical concepts we have discussed throughout the course. The four pillars of Christian Eco-poetics (Overlay landscape, relational identity, Marriage as symbolizing theosis, Virtue as the vehicle for realizing human identity in theosis) are all deeply rooted in ideas of spiritual/physical connection. While relational identity is particularly useful for the current discussion, each of the pillars directly relates to the teachings of Elder Zosima. Several of the philosophers we read throughout the course of the year share extremely similar ideologies to that of Elder Zosima. Additionally, a lot of them seem to experience an extremely similar form of enlightenment that Alyosha experiences near the end of Book VII.

Take Symeon the New Theologian for example. In an excerpt from Symeon’s Catechetical Discourses Symeon describes the story of a “young man” who through “fasting and ascetic struggle — attained the vision of the uncreated light.” (Medieval Philosophy, 209) The experience is ethereal, leaving Symeon in almost a trance-like state in which he didn’t know whether “I [Symeon] was in the body, or outside the body” (Medieval Philosophy, 210). He was enraptured. As Symeon states:

“I fell prostrate on the ground, and at once I saw, and behold a great light was immaterially shining on me and seized hold of my whole mind and soul, so that I was struck  with amazement at the unexpected marvel and I was, as it were, in ecstasy.” (Medieval Philosophy, 210)

However, this heightened state of ecstasy was short lived and impossible to maintain forever. When Symeon was lowered back down he experienced “grief and pain” (210). As he explains:

“Imagine, Father, if you can,” said he, ‘the pain of being separated from it, the infinity of love, the greatness of this greatest of blessings! I on my part cannot express in words or comprehend with my mind the infinity of this vision.”

            The term “infinity of love” closely resembles the dialect Zosima uses when speaking of universal love/responsibility. “Infinity” here represents a universally encompassing idea; the infinity of love is everywhere and everything. And there is “pain” when one separated from “it.”  As Elder Zosima explains, those who fall prey to the promises of materialism and neglect their spirituality and “oneness” with the universe feel “disunity and isolation” (Dosteyevsky, 314) and can never experience true happiness. Just as those who do not know the experience “the infinity of love” that Symeon speaks of, are left hollowed and pained.

            We see Alyosha reach a similar point of enlightenment near the end of book VII, after he has prayed for Elder Zosima and his encounter with Grushenka.

“The silence of the earth seemed to merge with the silence of the heavens, the mystery of the earth seemed to merge with the silence of the heavens, the mystery of the earth touched the mystery of the stars…. Alyosha stood gazing and suddenly, as if he had been cut down, threw himself to the earth. He did not know why he was embracing it, he did not try to understand why he longed so irresistibly to kiss it, to kiss all of it, but he was kissing it, weeping, sobbing, and watering it with his tears, and he vowed ecstatically to love it, to love it unto ages and ages.”   (362)

            Just as Symeon reached an ethereal state and found infinite love, Alyosha here is reaching a similar state. The way the “mystery” and “silence” of the heavens and earth merged to Alyosha is representative of his enlightenment and “sobornost.” The physical and the spiritual (represented by earth and heaven respectively) temporarily had no bounds to Alyosha, they became one ethereal entity and he understood them both together. This left Alyosha feeling a rush of emotions. As Symeon experienced “amazement at the unexpected marvel,” so too Did Alyosha. He reacted by frantically kissing the earth, physically showing his love and appreciation for the physical. Again, this all ties back into Elder Zosima’s preachings of love and responsibility. When Alyosha reached his lowest point, mutual understanding and acceptance of responsibility is what allowed him to experience the “universal love” that Zosima believes to be the root of true happiness.

Ivan and Demetri

            Unlike Alyosha, the two eldest Karamazov’s do not end up in as pleasurable positions as Alyosha by the end of the Novel. Demetri is found guilty by the court and sent to work in the Siberian mines while Ivan’s mental state deteriorates rapidly, both of them left in a state of mental chaos. Both Ivan and Demetri throughout the course of the novel somewhat reject their spiritual side and focus primarily on their own material satisfaction, that is until they are forced to reconcile with their spiritual side by the end of the novel.

            Dimitri, much like Fyodor, is a man immersed in the material world; he drinks, loves women, and tends to have some violent outbreaks. However, unlike Fyodor, over the course of the novel he becomes increasingly aware of his relationship with others and the world around him but is unable to make peace with it. Demetri, to me, is the most balanced of the three brothers; he is not overwhelmingly spiritual like Alyosha nor is he over analytical like Ivan. He lives for himself and what he wants more than anything. Demetri is a sensualist, but as said before he is not ignorant to the world around him and progressively becomes more and more aware of the consequences of his action, and in this lies his ability to be saved. His time in Siberia is meant to be a time of true reflection and thought as he mulls over his past actions and strives to be a better man. Mochulsky writes “He has to pass through the purification of suffering, through the torment of conscience and the spiritual death of penal servitude in order that the flame of Eros, which has caught fire in him might become a spiritual force that transfigures the world” (Mochulsky, 613).

Ivan even more so than Demitri is diametrically opposed to the teachings of Elder Zosima. Ivan is arguably the “smartest” of the brothers (in terms of traditional education), he is an atheist; he adamantly believes that there is no God (and that even if there was a God, he is cruel and evil and thus not worth looking up to). He particularly cites the suffering of children as a primary example. Ivan lives in his studies, looking for a reason behind everything and rejecting that which he cannot comprehend. But this does not mean that Ivan is cold hearted, it’s quite the opposite actually. Ivan denies the existence of God because of his love for man. As Mochulsky states: “With his mind he rejects that which he loves with his heart, considers his love senseless and indecent.” (Mochulsky,614) And herein lies the reasoning for Ivan’s complete mental breakdown by the end of the novel. As stated previously, Elder Zosima’s world philosophy revolves around the idea of universal love and responsibility. Ivan, the rationalist he is, sees no outlet for God in modern life. He has completely removed himself from feeling in order to seek some objective truth, but in doing so he has lost touch with reality.

Conclusion

To reiterate, inter connectivity is at the heart of the Brothers Karamazov. The central themes of sobernost, love, and mutual responsibility are what makes the story progress and the characters tick. Elder Zosima’s teachings all boil down to the essential pillars of christianity; To love one another and take responsibility for one’s own and all other actions.  The themes of this novel connect to virtually every philosophical reading we have done in this course, as most of the reading have at least at some point, but I thought Symeon the New Theologian’s enlightenment experience was so closely related to that of Alyosha’s that it was worth discussing. The emphasis that Symeon placed on “infinite love” closely mirrored Zosima’s theory of “universal love,” both of which can be directly applied to Alyosha’s spiritual awakening as well as the lack of spiritual engagement seen in many of the other characters in the novel.

I focused on the other two brothers in this paper because they work as a trinity. as Mochulsky states:

“This is an organically collective personality in its triple structure: the principle of reason is embodied in Ivan: he is a logician and a rationalist an innate skeptic and negator: the principle of feeling is represented by Dmitry: in him is the ‘sensuality of insects’ and the inspiration of eros; the principle of will, realizing itself in active love as an ideal, is presented in Alyosha. (Mochulsky, 597,598).”

            The three brothers work together in unison. Ivan represents the logistical, and rational. He is skeptical of God because he sees the injustices in the world around him and cannot rationalize to himself that a good God exists. Ivan has positive qualities in that he is intelligent and questioning, but these qualities cloud his ability to connect with the world on a spiritual level, leaving him deranged. Demetri represents emotion. Demetri lives primarily for himself and his desires. This quality is good to an extent, as a life without pleasure is arguably a life not worth living, but similarly to Ivan, his drive for pleasure will often go too far. He searches for pleasure in the material world, which directly goes against Elder Zosima’s core beliefs and ultimately leaves him in a state of disunity and isolation, just as Elder Zosima explains. Lastly there is Alyosha. Alyosha too goes through his own spiritual journey throughout the course of the novel, however, he has always had his faith in the right place, even at a young age. He is described to be “an early lover of mankind” (Dostoyevsky, 18),  he was always considered effusive, he was not talkative but he was always liked by everyone he spoke to. The narrator states: “Thus he possessed in himself, in his very nature, so to speak, artlessly and directly, the gift of awakening a special love for himself” (Dostoyevsky, 19). And therein lies Alyosha’s success throughout the novel. His simple minded, kind, and loving attitude made him loving to all and impossible to hate. He is the embodiment of Elder Zosima’s teachings and the core of Christianity, that being, to love one another.

Works Cited:

• Dostoyevsky, Fyodor, Richard Pevear and Larissa Volokhonsky. The Brothers Karamazov. Vintage Classics. New York: Vintage Books, 1991.
• Mochulsky, Konstaintin. Dosteyvsky; His Life and Work: Translate and Introduction by Michael A. Minhan. Princeton University Press, 1967

Dugins “Freedom and Will” section regarding Heideggers is particularly relevant to Pavel Fyodorovich Smerdyakov’s character in The Brothers Karamazov. Specifically, why Smerdyakov is such a strange and hard to read character. Heidigger is highly critical of human beings (in general) and their nature. Midway through Chapter 6, Dugin writes: “Herein lies his uniqueness: he is the most terrible of all that is terrible; he is the most aggressive of all that is aggressive; and he is the most subjugating among all that subjugates” (130). From what I understand from this, is that Heidegger believes that all human beings are inherently negative. This is where Heidegger turns to logos, or “the word of God” to inform our decisions and “boundless freedom” (135). He states: “Philosophy is not about Heraclitus as a man, but about the logos, and we must only listen to it; it philosophizes, and it truly risks.” 

Smerdyakov is a bizarre and hard to read character. He seems to lack a moral compass and justifies his outlook on life based on the lack of existence of a God or higher power. Perhaps, Smerdyakov’s strange (and somewhat sadistic) personality comes from his lack of faith (or “logos” as heidegger would say). However, it doesn’t seem fair to only judge Smerdyakov’s  personality on a lack of faith. His upbringing and the environments he’s been brought up in are also probably influential to his personality, specifically the fact that his father was mostly absent and his father’s relationship with his mother. 

I also think that Heidegger’s ideas of freedom and will relate back to Smerdyakov’s eventual suicide (Note: I have not finished the novel, but I do know some of the later parts from another class I was in). In the suicide note he writes “I exterminate my life by my own will and liking, so as not to blame anybody,” showing his independence as a being and his complete removal from God and society. 

Ultimately, Smerdyakov’s characterization could stem from a lack of faith that Heidegger seems to think is necessary for moral development. (*Conclusion*)

Both the wedding guest from The Rime of the Ancient Mariner and the narrator from Notes from the Underground are saddened characters because of their flawed thought processes and inability to restructure their perception of reality. 

We learn from The Philosophy of Another Being that Heidegger has extensive thoughts on originality and the thinking process. On page 16 Dugin states:

“In very rare instances, a philosopher [a thinking person]  is capable of carrying out an interesting and original synthesis of different schools; and even more rarely, with intervals measuring in centuries, those thinkers appear that blaze new trails and truly open new horizons for the rest of mankind.” He then later states “And here is the most crucial truth: one must first bow before an authority (even if also with a “secret wish” of later overthrowing this authority) and think about oneself and the world in the inner hall of great ideas and theories. Yet those who strive for originality — immediately and at any cost — do not stay long in the field of philosophy; their place is the market.” 

Essentially Heidegger believes that the pursuit of original thought is nearly pointless, and that the most “original thoughts” from those we consider great are actually just combinations and selective parts of different pre-concieved philosophies. The most meaningful and influential thinkers use a given framework (or “bowing before an authority”) before making any actual progressive or important strides. In both of this week’s readings, we see the two most extreme sides of this spectrum of thinking. 

The wedding guest is an underthinker who takes what he is given at face value without truly digesting and deciphering the knowledge, and the Narrator from N.F.T.U is the over thinker, who is so obsessively concerned with his own thoughts and place in the universe that he fails to make any progressive strides in any aspect of his life. Despite how differently these characters process information and understand their reality, they are left equally hollow and yearn for a better life. 

The wedding guest from Ancient Mariner (for the most part) is a blank character. We know virtually nothing about him other than the fact that on his way to a wedding he becomes stuck listening to the Mariner after becoming transfixed by his eye. He serves as a canvas that the themes of a story can imprint upon, which is exactly what ends up happening. The last stanza of Ancient Mariner is 

“622He went like one that hath been stunned,

623And is of sense forlorn:

624A sadder and a wiser man,

625He rose the morrow morn.”

We know from this stanza that the Mariner’s story had some effect on the wedding guest’s perception of the World/reality, specifically line 624 which states he woke up as “A sadder and a wiser man.” However, how the wedding guest came to this conclusion, is largely undisclosed. We do not see him grapple (or even think) about the Mariner’s story at all. Rather, it seems as if the Mariner’s story simply had this effect on him, and now he accepts this sadness and wisdom as part of his reality. 

Conversely, the Narrator from N.F.T.U seems as if he cannot stop thinking. In Chapter II, he states that he is “convinced that not only too much consciousness but even any consciousness at all is a sickness.” (7)  The narrator is so self aware, and so concerned with his understanding of reality that he has become entirely subsumed by these thoughts, leading him to a depressive and dark space. At one point, the narrator even states “Perhaps I really regard myself as an intelligent man only because throughout my entire life I’ve never been able to start or finish anything.” () 

Ultimately, both protagonists exist on opposing sides of the same spectrum. The wedding guest takes all information he is given at face value and doesn’t truly process or make his own meaning of the things he is told. Meanwhile the Narrator from N.F.T.U is so concerned with his existence and his lack of originality that he becomes subsumed with thought, leaving him in a state of paralysis where he is not progressing himself or the society he exists in. 

*** (I think) I used an Isocolon (from Classical English Rhetoric), in that I examined the protagonists from each reading and compared their way of thinking using Heidegger’s analysis of “original thought” as the basis for both. ***

*** I also used a Peroratio to summarize my points at the end of the blog post***

The landscape descriptions found in the fourth chapter of “The Compleat Angler,” are used to illustrate the human experience and emphasize the teachings of Free will see from Irenaeus of Lyons. 

The first half of  Chapter IV starts off with observations regarding the “Nature and Breeding of the Trout” (64). The Piscator (who serves as the main narrator this chapter), systematically examines the ins and outs of Trouts, including the differences among Trout breeds, color as an indicator of ripeness, hibernation/feeding periods, common Trout parasites (Sugs (69)) etc. Additionally, the environments of different Trout species are explored. For example, we learn that Trout’s taken from the Lake of Geneva and Lake Leman can be up to “three cubits long,” but Trout from Winchester never grow to be “bigger than a herring.”

 Overall, this half of the chapter is rather straightforward and factual. The Piscator makes some imaginative similes throughout the chapter, comparing the trouts feeding habits to that of Buck and Ox as well as their growth to that of a Crocodile (68), but for the most part, there is little left to be interpreted: It is simply a collection of observations regarding Trout in their respective environments. The second half of the chapter differs drastically from this format. The Piscator and the Venator begin speaking and go to the Piscator’s “Hostess” (71). On the way they find the attractive Milkmaid and ask her what song her daughter was singing. Throughout this section, the environment is viewed in an entirety different perspective than it was earlier. Instead of using blandish/objective dialect, the Piscatator uses much more maliloquent language to emphasize the beauty and livelihood of the landscape. For example:

“But turn out of the way a little, good Scholar, towards yonder high honeysuckle hedges; there we’ll sit and sing whilst this shower falls so gently upon the teeming earth, and gives yet a sweeter smell to the lovely flowers that adorn these verdant meadows.” 

Additionally, the aforementioned Milkmaid song is full of this lush dialect, transforming the readers view of the environment into a beautiful, living, ecosystem rather than a manipulatable/observable tool to better someone’s Trout harvest.  This difference between appreciation of nature vs. application of the environment is closely related to Iraneaus’s views of Free will seen in “Medieval Philosophy.” Iraneaus has similar views of free will to other Philosophers we have seen this year. Iraneaus compares humans to infants and God’s wisdom and knowledge to the milk used to raise us (90). He states “Those who do not await the times of increase, but ascribe to God the infirmary of their nature, are thus irrational in every respect.” Or those who are angry at God for making us capable of sin are irrational. 

The depiction of the Environment in “The Compleat Angler” is representative of the two sides of nature we see today: The exploitable, and the beautiful. While Walton’s expansive knowledge regarding fishing was not representative of the exploitable nature of the environment at the time it was written, we can view it now as text that represents the continuous degradation of the environment for personal gain. To relate this back to the teachings of Iraneaus, we as a species, are aware of the negative effects of environmental exploitation, yet we continue to degrade the environment because it is profitable and beneficial to a select few. We chose this exploitation at the expense of the natural beauty and safety of the planet.

Edmund Spencers uses thermic imagery during the Redcross Knight’s struggle with suicide because of its biblical connections as well as its visceral way of expressing pain to the reader. 

Before examining the use of thermic imagery in the Fairy Queene, the teachings of St Barsanuphius need to be examined. The St Barsanuphius’s readings assigned for today, “refer to spiritual works and to struggle with passions.” These teachings explain earthly passions/desires that are considered negative and how to overcome these feelings (specifically gluttony for my assigned section). Later in the reading, St Barsanuphius begins speaking about suffering and human’s ability to propser and grow from suffering. St Barsanuphius uses a particularly relevant simile that is stated below:

“As Gold heated in the furnace becomes pure and suitable for the royal crown, so a man from the fires of suffering, becomes the son of the Kingdom, if he endures from thankfulness. So believe that all that happens to you is for your own good, to endow you with daring before God.” (358)

Barsanuphius here is using heat as a simile to suffering. Just as the unprocessed gold must withstand intense heat and pressure to become pure, man must suffer in order to grow and expel his vices. The connections between heat and suffering are plentiful throughout most literary cannons, (specifically biblical imagery), as most depictions of hell are engulfed in flames. 

The use of hot and cold imagery in The fairee Queene is not as simple as “hot means suffering and cold means relaxing.” Rather, there are contradictory (and somewhat confusing) uses of temperature making a distorted and nonlinear reading experience for the reader. For example:
“With fire zeale he burnt in courage bold, Him to avenge, before his bloud were cold” (40-41), “And brought vnto him swords, ropes, poison, fire, And bad him choose, what death he would desire.” There are several more lines that contain these thermic images, however, I do not have the time to examine them each individually. Ultimately, my argument is that heat in the Barsanuphius reading is used as a simile for suffering. The use of temperature in the Fairy Queen may somewhat reflect this idea, as well as provide an even more nuanced take regarding the complex (and often contradictory) nature of suffering and suicide.

***I used an Epizeuxis argument in this blogpost by examining the repeated use of words such as “fire,” “heat,” “cold,” etc.  throughout the Faerie Queene.***

Gynecia’s fear of death in Book 5 of the Arcadia may stem from a lack of faith that she has in God and her own religion. 

In Chapter 3 of book 5 of Arcadia, the narrator states “Then would her own knowing of good inflame anew the rage of despair, which becoming an unresisted lord in her breast, she had no other comfort but in death, which yet she had in horror when she thought of. But the wearisome detesting of herself made her long for the day’s approach, …. And thus rested the restless Gynecia” The lines: “she had no other comfort but in death, which yet she had horror when she thought of” specifically related to the readings of Saint Simeon and what it means to be a good Catholic. 

The Saint Simeon readings reveal his extremely strict and orthodox views of spirituality. Late in the Simeon reading Simeon explains the qualities that a good priest should have, stating “he must be pure not only in his body but also his soul, and devoid of all sin. Secondly, he must be humble not merely in his external behavior and his habitual actions, but also in his inner disposition”  etc etc. Simeon essentially believes that to be a good Catholic, you must be entirely devoid of sin and live a life of cleanliness. While his standards for Priests are considerably high, they do not seem much different than his expectations of normal catholics. 

Saint Simeon’s very first principle states “Faith is (readiness) to die for Christ’s sake, for His commandments, in the conviction that such death brings life; it is to regard poverty as riches, insignificance and nothingness as true fame and glory, and having nothing, to be sure that you possess all things.” Gynecia’s fear of death seems to stem from a lack of this complete relinquishment that Saint Simeon deems necessary to be truly faithful to God. 

Book 5 of the Arcadia relates heavily to past readings as well, including the teachings of Jon Chrysostom In Chapter 3 of Book 5 of the Arcadia, Gynecia states “O Gods’ why did you make me to destruction? If you love goodness, why did you not give me a good mind? Or if I cannot have it without your gift, why do you plague me? Is it in me to resist the mightiness of your power?” This line specifically reminded me of when John explores similar questions like “Why did God make flawed beings if he can create things that are perfect?”  Chryosostom eventually came to the realization that God’s choice in making flawed beings is that God does not exist to see “a mere exhibition of works”  but rather to see a “nobleness of choice and an obedient temper.” Or, God doesn’t want to simply make a perfect reality, but rather, one in which individuals have wills and are able to find their own path. 

Chrysostom’s ideas regarding freedom of choice and Saint Simeon’s orthodox teachings seem to have some overlapping themes in this week’s reading that I am still trying to decipher.

Amphialus killing Philoxenus in Book one Chapter 11 of Arcadia is because of God’s principle in giving man “the nobility of choice” (152, Mideval Phil).

In chapter 16 of “Mideval philosophy” we see several excerpts from John Chrysostom. These excerpts deal with “divine condescension” (or a higher being stooping lower than their real form in order to communicate with lesser beings). Additionally we see Chrysostom’s “critique of philosophy” which can essentially be boiled down to all philosophies prior to christianity have failed in their respective areas, and christianity is “the one true philosophy” (149). 

Chryosostom talks a lot about the idea of choice in these excerpts. As an example, he quotes the famous and controversial verse: “Jacob I have loved but Esau have I hated” (Rom: 9:11-13). God’s jurisdiction regarding his feelings for Jacob and Esau is being questioned by Chrysostom: Why would Jacob be loved and why would Esau be hated? The reasoning behind God’s decisions seem arbitrary and cruel.  If God is an ultimate being with complete control over any and everything, why not love all? Or why make a being that can hate/be hated in the first place.

It’s a valid question that holds some truth. But Chryosostom eventually comes to the conclusion that God does not exist to see “a mere exhibition of works”  but rather to see a “nobleness of choice and an obedient temper.” Or, God doesn’t want to simply make a perfect reality, but rather, one in which individuals have wills and are able to find their own path. 

While “the nobleness of choice” sounds eloquent, it still makes God seem sadistic in a sense. Chrysostom isn’t denying God’s ultimate power, he is saying that God actively made the choice to allow humans to seek out their own destinies (for better or worse). 

These themes are very present in chapter 11 Book one of Arcadia. Specifically, the battle between Philoxenus and Amphialus. Philoxenus, who was overcome by rage and jealousy was entirely convinced that his friend had betrayed him and was set on killing him out of revenge. Amphialus drew his sword in self defence but was forced to kill Philoxenus due to his aggression. The author states “He once overtook him; but Amphialus drawing his sword, which was the only part of his arms (God knows to what purpose) he carried about him, threatening to kill him if he followed him,” I think the small parenthetical, “God know to what purpose” is the clearest point of connection between the two readings, as it takes the principles from the Medieval readings, and puts it bluntly in a very relevant context. *The author uses repetition in the chapter, continuously using the term “choice” in order to further his point.*

Welcome to Bucknell Blogs. This is your first post. Edit or delete it, then start blogging!