AUGH! I JUST CREATED A TABLE OF CONTENTS AND IT SUCKS! AUGH!
In other news, I had another wash over feeling of "There is so much to do, my eyeballs are going to bleed from the pain of it all." That happened while I sort of skipped around to a grad website and e-mailed them about applying. Yay.
I think I will go and get some books after I send some more e-mails to grad schools, and then go read some.
Thursday, September 21, 2006
OK,
I MAY have an idea about a proposed outline...here's my first attempt
-I want to say that Augustine is wrong in a certain respect because Augustinian thinking about sin and evil remove the goodness completely from human nature. Since we are made from nothing, human nature basically is nothing. While this makes sense when taken to its extreme, it's still a little strange. How can we talk about any sort of goodness at all if it's all grace? Augustine seems to change his mind about the effectiveness of grace and the effectiveness of free will later in his life.
-I want to say that Augustine's change in thinking happened because of battles between the Manicheans (which the original thesis of evil is founded) and the Pelagians (where it gets a bit too practical and not exactly solved, either) and that he could never quite resolve the problem because the Pelagians were asking a question about the human being and its nature, and this has to do with Augustine's thinking on how he thinks original sin is transmitted.
-From this I want to glean that every evil for Augustine is a moral evil, and that this means that evil is a justified concept for Augustine, and an explainable one. I think I need to look up some stuff on Augustine and theodicy, here, since I am wondering whether or not people would consider Augustine proto-theodicy, or perhaps even having a theodicy of his own. This seems strange to me, (my gut instinct tells me) but I'm not sure.
-As well, I want to say that Augustine makes sin a moral concept, and evil a theological concept. This is what will actually require an argument, the rest is merely historical interpretation of philosophical disputes and texts. This would be my one thought, if it can be called that, dealing with the problems and ramifications of how every form of sin is a form of moral evil. Other than that, I don't think I need much.
So, maybe my thesis will look like this:
-stages of Augustine's thinking, rely on texts that point out the changes in his thought (that article in the bookmarks should help.) This needs to be precise, and therefore briefer than what I think.
-Augustine on evil from a Biblical(Starting with the Garden of Eden, but moving elsewhere), theological (the Garden of Eden), moral (lying, for example) point of view.
-From the moral stage, we can see that every form of evil is a moral form of evil, and that this means evil itself is explainable only theologically, since evil requires first origins, which Augustine locates in the Myth of the Fall (Might need to look at Ricoeur again, here). Sin, however, is the human problem of badly willing, and this makes sin a moral problem, not a theological one. By shifting the grounds like this, it is easy to make the link that every form of evil is a form of moral evil, since the explanation of why evil happens, has a moral cause, but that every form of sin, um......um.....ok, I started at my computer screen for about 7 minutes blankly. We'll figure this part out in a bit. Back to writing and reading.
I MAY have an idea about a proposed outline...here's my first attempt
-I want to say that Augustine is wrong in a certain respect because Augustinian thinking about sin and evil remove the goodness completely from human nature. Since we are made from nothing, human nature basically is nothing. While this makes sense when taken to its extreme, it's still a little strange. How can we talk about any sort of goodness at all if it's all grace? Augustine seems to change his mind about the effectiveness of grace and the effectiveness of free will later in his life.
-I want to say that Augustine's change in thinking happened because of battles between the Manicheans (which the original thesis of evil is founded) and the Pelagians (where it gets a bit too practical and not exactly solved, either) and that he could never quite resolve the problem because the Pelagians were asking a question about the human being and its nature, and this has to do with Augustine's thinking on how he thinks original sin is transmitted.
-From this I want to glean that every evil for Augustine is a moral evil, and that this means that evil is a justified concept for Augustine, and an explainable one. I think I need to look up some stuff on Augustine and theodicy, here, since I am wondering whether or not people would consider Augustine proto-theodicy, or perhaps even having a theodicy of his own. This seems strange to me, (my gut instinct tells me) but I'm not sure.
-As well, I want to say that Augustine makes sin a moral concept, and evil a theological concept. This is what will actually require an argument, the rest is merely historical interpretation of philosophical disputes and texts. This would be my one thought, if it can be called that, dealing with the problems and ramifications of how every form of sin is a form of moral evil. Other than that, I don't think I need much.
So, maybe my thesis will look like this:
-stages of Augustine's thinking, rely on texts that point out the changes in his thought (that article in the bookmarks should help.) This needs to be precise, and therefore briefer than what I think.
-Augustine on evil from a Biblical(Starting with the Garden of Eden, but moving elsewhere), theological (the Garden of Eden), moral (lying, for example) point of view.
-From the moral stage, we can see that every form of evil is a moral form of evil, and that this means evil itself is explainable only theologically, since evil requires first origins, which Augustine locates in the Myth of the Fall (Might need to look at Ricoeur again, here). Sin, however, is the human problem of badly willing, and this makes sin a moral problem, not a theological one. By shifting the grounds like this, it is easy to make the link that every form of evil is a form of moral evil, since the explanation of why evil happens, has a moral cause, but that every form of sin, um......um.....ok, I started at my computer screen for about 7 minutes blankly. We'll figure this part out in a bit. Back to writing and reading.
Wednesday, September 20, 2006
I started working on my thesis again, after an extremely long hiatus, while I tried to get everything figured out for my job and stuff. I started writing on September 18, 2006, and I wrote about a page for the preface-esque like part.
Today, however, I JUST REALIZED WHAT PROF. STEEL WAS TALKING ABOUT. I should feel smart, but OH MY GOSH DO I FEEL STUPID. IT TOOK ME 6 MONTHS OF READING TO FIGURE OUT WHAT PROF. STEEL WANTED ME TO PUT IN MY THESIS. THIS IS GOING TO BE MUCH, MUCH EASIER.
The argument goes as follows. The Manicheans say that there is a substantial difference between good and evil, and Augustine claims that the Manicheans ask the wrong question first, starting with 'where is evil' instead of 'what is evil.' Augustine starts with asking what is evil, using the framing and explanation of this question to refute the Manicheans, and eventually we come to the idea that evil is a corruption of our natures, because we are made from nothing, not directly of God's nature. So our nature is from nothing, not from God directly. So, corruption is natural, and therefore part of our natures. This means that corruption is purposeful, and as Augustine says in the 'Against the Fundamental Epistle of Manichaeus' corruption is used to chastise sinners, and therefore every evil is a form of moral evil, since corruption serves the purpose of chastising us and bringing us closer to God. In other words, corruption is meant to bring us back to God, every time. This is huge because this means the question of evil becomes one of finding meaning in evil, and this could mean the beginning of theodicies, the start of the idea of Heidegger's idea of truth, everything. This has huge ramifications for how to think about the history of philosophy, and what connects where. This not only solidifies the link from Plato, to Augustine, to Descartes, to Derrida/Heidegger, but almost dwarfs Plato in creating the first real link of philosophy since ancient Greek philosophy. This is because the problem of evil has its first real start in Augustine, and this means that philosophy ever after is indebted to this sense of 'sensible moral evil,' which has shaped centuries of philosophy. This could mean that the real start comes from Augustine, and through Augutinian eyes, we look back to Plato to re-examine these texts. For surely, every problem of looking at Greek philosophy has been a problem of somehow separating the Christian lens from the Platonic lens. And who created this fusion and confusion better than Augustine? Whether this is good or bad is hard to say, since it's had such a huge impact on history, I guess, but man, nothing like figuring out way too late that your thesis advisor is saying things that make perfect sense and that you're a complete dummy.
Oy.
OK, back to reading.
Today, however, I JUST REALIZED WHAT PROF. STEEL WAS TALKING ABOUT. I should feel smart, but OH MY GOSH DO I FEEL STUPID. IT TOOK ME 6 MONTHS OF READING TO FIGURE OUT WHAT PROF. STEEL WANTED ME TO PUT IN MY THESIS. THIS IS GOING TO BE MUCH, MUCH EASIER.
The argument goes as follows. The Manicheans say that there is a substantial difference between good and evil, and Augustine claims that the Manicheans ask the wrong question first, starting with 'where is evil' instead of 'what is evil.' Augustine starts with asking what is evil, using the framing and explanation of this question to refute the Manicheans, and eventually we come to the idea that evil is a corruption of our natures, because we are made from nothing, not directly of God's nature. So our nature is from nothing, not from God directly. So, corruption is natural, and therefore part of our natures. This means that corruption is purposeful, and as Augustine says in the 'Against the Fundamental Epistle of Manichaeus' corruption is used to chastise sinners, and therefore every evil is a form of moral evil, since corruption serves the purpose of chastising us and bringing us closer to God. In other words, corruption is meant to bring us back to God, every time. This is huge because this means the question of evil becomes one of finding meaning in evil, and this could mean the beginning of theodicies, the start of the idea of Heidegger's idea of truth, everything. This has huge ramifications for how to think about the history of philosophy, and what connects where. This not only solidifies the link from Plato, to Augustine, to Descartes, to Derrida/Heidegger, but almost dwarfs Plato in creating the first real link of philosophy since ancient Greek philosophy. This is because the problem of evil has its first real start in Augustine, and this means that philosophy ever after is indebted to this sense of 'sensible moral evil,' which has shaped centuries of philosophy. This could mean that the real start comes from Augustine, and through Augutinian eyes, we look back to Plato to re-examine these texts. For surely, every problem of looking at Greek philosophy has been a problem of somehow separating the Christian lens from the Platonic lens. And who created this fusion and confusion better than Augustine? Whether this is good or bad is hard to say, since it's had such a huge impact on history, I guess, but man, nothing like figuring out way too late that your thesis advisor is saying things that make perfect sense and that you're a complete dummy.
Oy.
OK, back to reading.
Thursday, September 07, 2006
I have done nothing this week, but I have managed to go out with Ralph and met his friends, all of which were very nice. I realized there was a large part of me missing, and I was slowly killing it, and that was slowly killing all the good things in me. I was too much in the culture I hated, and that hated me. So, it's sort of a new day of sorts, and while I have LOADS of work to do, I have managed to start reading a little bit of Tears of Derrida, so go me. (I don't know if Derrida is going to be in the thesis or not, probably a little, I think.) I also forgot what being fresh meat is like. Eh heh. Yeah. I'm not sure how I feel about that...but I am sure how I feel about myself and what I want. Anyways, time to check my e-mail. It's my birthday in two days. ;D
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)