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.