Introduction: I wrote this after I finished writing. It began as a spiel on what people meant when they say "heart." I quickly discovered it could be either feelings or thoughts, which is a disjunct, meaning one or the other and due to a passage I decided to use as an example, it quickly became a theological bout on the meaning of the passage. The work doesn't ultimately end with what we mean by heart since definitions are merely beginnings, but it does say something as to the nature of Love.
Sigh, I said I wouldn't write philosophy anymore, but only speak it. Nostalgia here I come...
What is this word, "heart?" I ask for two reasons:
One
(1) I hear it spoken so often at Wesley.
(2) When spoke it often refers to emotionalism.
(3) I don't prescribe to emotionalism.
(4) Thus, I don't prescribe to such a definition.
(5) My understanding is only right insofar as it is consistent with Scripture.
(5) If the Bible is defining heart as such, then I must come to understand what the true definition is.
Two
(1) Heart is used in Christ's first commandment.
(2) I ought to fulfill commandments.
(3) To fulfill a commandment I must understand what it is saying.
(4) Thus, I must understand heart before I can fulfill my commandment.
Now, the first to be clear on, is that some sort of epistemology is needed in order for the ethical life to occur. We say that ethical decisions are in accordance with the Good and unethical ones are do to decisions that actively create a lack of Good. I do not propose that certainty will ever be within our grasp, but I do suppose that some definitions and/or propositions must be grasped to some degree, even if not be to the highest. There is a difference in ignorance where one wills a perpetual lack of knowledge and ignorance where one simply hasn't had the opportunity to see and understand their ignorance, and thus have potential to correct it. In the case of the former, the person might not know the right from the wrong, but it is because of their own will that they do so. And willfully avoiding right action is by prior definition, wrong, for it creates a lack of Good in one's life, which is attributable to one's own decision.
All of this has been stated a thousand other times by men a thousand times wiser than myself. Simply put, ethical behavior requires intentional will. Willful ignorance is no excuse for any action, for it puts the causation on yourself. On the other hand, ignorance with no potential to change is excusable as what we call innocence.
As always I'm still struggling with "lack of action" as being a cause. What to do with such things? But I suppose in this case it is a lack of action in a physical sense, although ultimately the will is deciding to actively disengage from a situation, which is something -- for it is a thought, is a deed, and requires the mind to shut itself down and the body to leave circumstances which could alter the decision making process. In this sense, they are things, so I suppose I can say willful ignorance is blameworthy.
All this serves to say is that willful ignorance is not an excuse for evil deeds, but I still have yet to get to the point -- can we be ethical and ignorant? If it be the case that we are willfully ignorant, then no, for we have decided on a thought and mode of acting which actively goes away Good behavior. If it be ignorance not of one's will, then no, for by the same token neither can we say that their behavior is attributable to them. For their telos in their behavior was not toward the end that one proposes came, being a good act. What occurs instead is an illusion. We believe we see a good act, such as the man who saves the drowning girl because he saw news crews were near and new he would become famous. He didn't save her because it was good, but rather because of the fame.
I suppose means and ends have worked their way into this conversation. Lawd, I feel like I'm going through sophomore college year all over again. I'm rusty in the brain, though my mouth seems to have too much oil on it. If I found a balance I must not be so stupid. The problem occurring here is that the deed, being good in nature, was a means to the man's end, fame. The concept of Good is that it is something ultimate, that is, there is no reason to do it other than that it is itself. And means are always done for their ends, and never vice versa. This is because we believe the end to be better than the means, such as exercising and health. If someone had to pick between the means and the end they will always pick the end. E.G. pick between exercising and health, working and financial security, thinking about what's right or wisdom. We will undoubtedly say the end is the reason we ever engage in the means. Insofar as someone engages in ethical behavior it requires that they do it for its own sake, for to do otherwise would be to subdue the good to something else. As a corollary, whatever this thing is that the person places in value as higher than the good, is what the person believes to be the Good.
Ipso facto much evil is caused by poor and/or wrong definitions.
In order to do good, our intent must be to the end of the Good. In order for this to occur, I must have an an idea of the Good. I might not know it's nature, though I might know its effects and why it is worthy to do. Such as the case with not being able to look directly into the sun, though we see the beams, or we might not understand chemical combustion, though we can take a car apart and put it back together blindfolded. There is a grasping of the idea, though full explanation escapes us.
Quod erat demontrandum, epistemology is needed for ethical behavior. Now, let's get onto this whole Christ command jibberish. :)
Matthew 22:37- Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.
- ο δε ιησους ειπεν αυτω αγαπησεις κυριον τον θεον σου εν ολη τη καρδια σου και εν ολη τη ψυχη σου και εν ολη τη διανοια σου
Firstly, I've color coded the words so as to show which word means which from English to Greek. Secondly, I'm no Greek scholar, but I'm going to make an appeal to authority, but rightly so, insofar as I can trust men more intelligent than myself, and can make the justifiable assumption that thousands of years of scholarly work would weed out those who make clear errors within the limits of our knowledge of the language. As a note, I say justifiable because I have reasons to believe such men are trustworthy, not because I have a deductive argument to prove it -- for it wouldn't be an assumption then.
I should note that this passage perturbs me. According to what I have already worked out in my mind, it seems to be overly repetitive, to the point of pointlessness. Allow me to explain...
We're supposed to love God with all of our heart, soul, and mind. My theological understanding of heart is that the Hebrew word for it, implying Old Testament, has a two-fold meaning of both intellect and emotion. By soul I hear the Greek "psyche" from philosophy which is the thing which creates motion in ourselves, which just so happens to be the intellect and emotion. And then lastly we have mind, which I take to be intellect. This all of course is a first approach, immediate reaction to the text.
Then of course we have others who read heart as emotion, soul as something eternal, and mind as the intellect. I'm not sure how accurate this is, or mine, since both seem to imply problems of some sort or another for a consistent theology. So what do I do? I look it up in Greek and get some definitions.
Step 1: Get DEFINITIONS -- if you cannot define a thing in any way or sort, then you cannot possibly know what you are talking about. If you insist on talking, the listener will hear words but their mind will only translate it as "blah blah blippity blah." Any attempt to rationalize their statement given their lack of definitions is a post hoc justification on your part to try to understand that which is a series of incoherent propositions. You'll only succeed in understanding what you already think is the case, and most likely agree with the person verbally, though in truth you have nothing on which to agree, since you have something coherent and they have something incoherent in mind.
In essence I'm really speaking to those who say, "You cannot understand God" and don't make a distinction between direct and indirect attributes, or inner and outer nature, or equivalence of persons in the Trinity versus ordering of the Trinity in some sense. Surely we know some things, e.g. God is Love (agape), God is Good, Father begot the Son, Father is greater than the Son. It might be we don't fully understand such things, but we have a loose understanding of them. Parables is a big part of Christ's teachings, which I think is acknowledgment of such concepts. Surely we cannot know God in His fullness, but we know of Him. Thus, to say "We cannot know God and that is what is so cool/beautiful/mysterious" is a nonsense statement. For to say we cannot know X but X is so beautiful, the most logical thing one can do after such a statement is say, "What's X?" Followed shortly by "I don't know X but it's beautiful," to which the original responds, "What's X?" So goes such fallacious thinking ad infinitum. Then let us posit that if we are to say anything about God, it is of Him, but not directly of Him.
καρδια or Heart or kardia (kar-dee'-ah): the heart, i.e. (figuratively) the thoughts or feelings (mind); also (by analogy) the middle -- (+ broken-)heart(-ed).
ψυχη or
Soul or
psuche (psoo-khay'):
breath, i.e. (by implication) spirit, abstractly or concretely -- heart (+ -ily), life, mind, soul, + us, + you.
διανοια or Mind or dianoia (dee-an'-oy-ah): deep thought, properly, the faculty (mind or its disposition), by implication, its exercise -- imagination, mind, understanding.
So, I've made an assumption that the Greek is correct, passed down from men more knowledgeable in the field than myself. I believe it to be justified by this, and in tandem with the fact that God is speaking to a people through their own language, so if we understand the people and their culture, then we understand what God meant, for His Son was sent to speak to the people. This implies they would understand what he means, which means there exists a necessity for communication and a common language. If God spoke in words we didn't understand, that is, if you're willing to make the claim that what God meant through these words and how the people then understood were two different things, then interpretation and history fall apart, it makes no sense to say the Apostles understood anything since not even they would fall under the category of those who understand God's language, as well as this would challenge Scripture's history and why some texts were canonized and others were not. Of course one's understanding of God comes from reason, experience, as well as Scripture, and a consistency is needed in all three, as well as Scripture being revelation requires that the subject of the other two conform to it rather than
vice versa. By God, the Scripture is the way we come to better understand God since the other two are not sufficient. I say this because logic is a form and needs propositions by which to work, it's much like having a hammer and no boards or nails to create something, and whereas emotion is nothing more than a concomitant to reason's product(s). What we see then is that in order to challenge language of Scripture requires one already having a sufficient concept of God, which comes from Scripture, and thus in order for one to challenge such language is to use their foundation to destroy it, which is a great postmodern problem if you're into pulling yourself up by your bootstraps. Now that the assumption is wrapped up, I've also given three definitions and the proposition which Christ spake unto us. Let's proceed.
In order to deal with my first problem, of it being repetitious, let's throw out some ideas -- shall we? First, let's take the saying and substitute all the possible meanings given the definitions we have found.
Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy [ thoughts or feelings ], and with all thy [ spirit or heart or life or mind ], and with all thy mind.Then we'll substitute thoughts for mind wherever it appears; I believe the reasoning behind this move to be self-evident. Could be wrong :) We'll also substitute thoughts or feelings for heart since it showed up in the definition of soul.
*Note* I already cut out soul as being "concrete heart" for I hope, obvious reasons. If it's not obvious...stop reading...hahaha, more seriously if not then it's because one's concrete heart is an organ which pumps blood and is not a conceptual part to our being which can be part of love.)
Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy [ thoughts or feelings ], and with all thy [ spirit or (thoughts or feelings) or life or thoughts ], and with all thy [ thoughts ].Now, before we begin to look at this, I should probably give a better explanation why repetition is something to be avoided while interpreting. Clearly Christ repeated himself; he did so to the people, he did so to his own Apostles, he did so to the world. But within a single proposition? Why? Why the need, or even desire, to say the same thing over and over with the conjunction "and?" It makes no sense to say:
- Eat that burrito with your mouth and your mouth and your teeth.
- Indiana! Save that woman with your whip and your whip and the handle to your whip.
- Beat that redheaded stepchild within an inch of his life with your fist and your fist and don't forget to use your knuckles too.
Now some might point to it as an oratorical method, some rhetorical technique...wait. That's actually a contradiction in terms since rhetoric is but a knack. Even modern which claims the logos but doesn't practice it isn't a
techne. Moving on :) some rhetorical knack by which Christ was using to drive his point home. Speaking in parables will help someone of lesser understanding to grasp difficult concepts, but repeating the same thing does nothing for those of little understanding, and for those that do understand, repetition does nothing to add to the intellect, and thus nothing to the emotion since it is but a result of the intellect. Proper intellect I do mean, which is another discussion in-and-of-itself. But it ought to suffice to say, emotion without or prior to intellect is nonsense, for one wouldn't have the proper intent, which is an exercise of the intellect. The reason a parable is being used is because the listener is incapable of fully grasping the subject -- to what possible end could repetition help here? If they don't understand the subject in its fullest nature, then saying it repetitively will not rescue the intellect. Likewise, if the person is listening to a parable, and one given why He whom is said to have divine knowledge, then the point is already made clear by simplification a la the parable mode. Repetition becomes a vacuous exercise in either case.
So, the question is, would Christ say something which helps neither those of lesser or greater understanding? We might say sure in cases where Christ has already spoken and is showing the product of such things, which we might call love, but such counter-arguments I do not apply to commands. This goes back to the first part, for if the intellect must be prior to emotion, and to follow a command requires intent, which is of the intellect, then the command must be presented in a way which the intellect might grasp. God's knowledge is aware of our finite nature as well as His own
telos in sending His Son, thus the Son will communicate in a coherent way which has the
telos of adding to our understanding what it is we ought to do. So, for those who say this is a rhetorical knack Christ is using, I say, "Tis absurd sir," for a command's
telos is to add to the intellect and such knacks as repitition do not add to the grasping of our commands by the intellect for those of greater or lesser understanding. It is in effect, useless to the intellect, and this is chiefly why we label those who use such knacks as demagogues, not as a label of reverence, but as a warning for all who would hear such a brute speak.
Corollary TangentSuch knacks were devised to prey upon those who make emotion prior to the intellect, and such men who use them are monsters who prey upon the weak and lost. They themselves have used their intellect first before emotion (for those who don't buy into their own vain repetition), but they are not guided by the Spirit, but rather a self-instantiated
telos for their own life which sets about to manipulate others as means to its logically absurd end. I say it is absurd because the artist gives the urn its
telos, not the urn giving itself one. The same applies here, the Creator gives the created its
telos, not otherwise, for this says the the temporally bound thing existed before it had temporal existence and determined its own final cause, which is contradictory. Final cause is part of a full account of causation and thus necessarily exists within a thing at least at the moment it achieves actuality, though this is still another conversation in and of itself. If one does accept this though, then silliness I say for those who posit otherwise (see
Existentialism for a chuckle).
Back to the passage where words' definitions were put into place:
Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy [ thoughts or feelings ], and with all thy [ spirit or (thoughts or feelings) or life or thoughts ], and with all thy [ thoughts ].
I could set about listing every possible permutation (I think this is the correct term and not combination?) but that might take a while. Instead lets eliminate some possibilities quickly then list out what's left.
Now, if the last term,
διανοια or Mind or dianoia, is thoughts, and the first is either thoughts or feelings, and Christ would not use vain repetitions in commands [ for this would posit a problem if it were the case and we were to pray and reflect upon this with God (Matthew 6:7). But alas, I've said enough on the matter. ] then we can say that the first term (
καρδια or Heart or kardia) means feelings here. I cannot of course say it always means feelings since it is a disjunct, and I cannot generalize from the particular. From here we have thoughts and feelings covered, meaning the middle term,
ψυχη or
Soul or
psuche, cannot be either, leaving us with either spirit or life.
From here there's no telling. It's either spirit or life. Of course we might say "IT'S BOTH IT'S BOTH! IT WORKS SO WELL OUR SPIRIT IS OUR LIFE AND
VICE VERSA," which sounds really pretty and makes ya' feel all warm and special, but that's not what we're left with. Whereas heart was defined as "thoughts or feelings" in a disjunct, the definition of Soul was a list consisting of commas with no sort of conjunction by which to eliminate possibilities. Perhaps it's both, perhaps it's one or the other. As always I'm not going to say or "perhaps something else" because of prior reason 1 -- my assumption is to trust scholars across history -- and reason 2 -- this would be an appeal to ignorance if one were to conclude it's something else at worst and a non-falsifiable hypothesis at best. Either way it's a horrible idea.
What is nice to know, is that the passage can thus be read as:
Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy (feelings), and with all thy (spirit or life), and with all thy (thoughts).On second thought...I don't think one could say life or both, for life consists of one's actions, decisions, relationships, etc. which all imply a self which is doing so. The thoughts and feelings are two of the fundamental parts which make up one's life, and thus this would be repetitious in a way, like saying "Let's play the game of baseball with bats and the game of baseball and balls." Not to mention Love is a part of life, conceptually so, even if we put to it as some ultimate goal of life, nope nope NOPE. I was contradicting myself there, a thing cannot be a part of something and the purpose of doing that thing, that creates separation. I only say running is part of health insofar as it causes health, but the running itself is only related to health, it isn't health-itself. Likewise if I were to say love is part of life an the
telos of life I would be proposing it was both of and out of life. Ridiculous, what am I talking about? I don't say that the urn's "holding water" is outside of the urn, for the final cause is a part of the thing. I seem to be confusing means-to-ends with
telos. Hmm, how to deal with this...
... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... .. ... ... ... ...
it seems the efficient cause mixes the material and formal causes so that the thing upon achieving actuality may reach this potential, which is already inside the thing, e.g. tree is already in the acorn in potentiality.
... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...
Hmm
... ... ... ... ... i ... ... e ... n ... j ... o ... y ... ... d ... o ... t ... s ... ... e ... a ... c ... h ... i ... s ... ... a ... ... t ... i ... c ... k ... ... o ... f ... ... t ... h ... e ... ... m ... i ... n ... d ... ... p ... l ... e ... a ... s ... e ... ... h ... o ... l ...d ... ... ... c ... o ... n ... t ... e ... n ... t ... ...
Ok, so it doesn't seem to make any sense to say because the thing is a
telos to conclude it it outside the thing, quite the contrary actually. What was I talking about again?
... l ... o ... a ... d ... i ... n ... g ... ... ...
Life or spirit or (life and spirit) in relation to? Gah, I don't want to scroll up; I need to work on my memory. ... .... ... ... ... ... I give up, scrolling...oh yeah, loving.
Alright, back to something a little more orderly in format. So even if we posit love (of God first and other second in accordance with the two new commands) as the
telos of life it still doesn't seem to help us. It would be like sayiny:
Dear Urn,
Please hold water with all your (clay) and (circularity) and (both as far as their purpose is to hold water.)
Sincerely,
The Artisan
...goes right back to repetition. Hmm, maybe this has helped. I suppose now I know we cannot say it is both life and spirit, but we're still stuck with either life or spirit.
Dear Santa,
All I want for Christmas is wisdom. I promise not to abuse it too much.
Love,
Blake
Hahahaha, oh jeeze it's getting late. Here I am...talking to myself again. Writing seems to drive me mad in some ways and brings clarity in others.
I got it! That last conclusion was a step too far. The logical conclusion is that "life" cannot be the answer since it implies both already mentioned, and by extension, both cannot be the answer since one is falsified. Spirit it is. Wait, why was that so hard? Couldn't I just have said, thoughts and feelings are part of life so that would be repetitious? The long road it is...
The final interpretation is as follows:
Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy (feelings), and with all thy (spirit), and with all thy (thoughts).
Haha, scrolling back up to copy this somehow ended up with me cutting and pasting the Artisan down here without knowing, all within about a two second span. I suppose some would say that's God giving His "mark of approval" to the interpretation, yet I can give an account of how it occurred, I was already poised to hit the code for cut and paste and hit it too soon. I think. Oh well, that's probably something better to file away and keep for testing
rather than to spill out.
Another question has arisen to my mind though, how do I know spirit does not refer to feelings or thoughts or some combination to both? Well naturally I could roll through Scripture and look for differences in them, or make the appeal to what I've already been taught, that the spirit is more central than the soul which refers to feelings, thoughts, and will. I could look up the Greek for spirit that would be unnecessary since spirit is the English interpretation given as a definition for the word, which could have been otherwise. I will assume they were consistent and would have used thoughts or feelings if that were the case, and distinguished the two for a good reason, that being one of their judgment on language usage.
Given the definition we know that it could not be that spirit refers to thoughts since this was suggested and seen as absurd. One might try the "it's emotion" but again this would be a non-falsifiable hypothesis at best or an appeal to ignorance at worst. The burden of proof would be on someone else to show me why this is not the case at worst since I think my case is solid, and at best you have a more accurate definition that I am ignorant of and that you might be...morally obligated to tell me of. :D Ultimately through elimination of vain repetition this passage can still work with my understanding of our state of becoming, since I believe the spirit gives guidance to the intellect, and the intellect to the emotions. It might be very well that I already presupposed this in saying that God would say that which adds to understanding, implying a move from His spirit to ours, which then speaks to our intellect, but I believe my reasons for doing so are sound and valid.
I probably should have begun with a prayer, but to be honest this day has been nothing but searching for God so I'll say I did pray in the beginning, at 10:30 a.m. So let's say an evening prayer to wrap up this wonderful day shall we?
Recite with me, if you will, a prayer as Christ taught us to say:
Our Father,
Who art in heaven,
hallowed by name.
Thy kingdom come
thy will be done,
on earth as it is in heaven.
Give us this day our daily bread.
And forgive us our trespasses,
as we forgive those who trespass against us.
And lead us not into temptation,
but deliver us from evil.
For thine is the kingdom, the power and the glory,
for ever and ever,
Amen.
Celestial Father,
Thank you for your guidance in our meditations and study of your Word. I desire to know more of these things that you have said to us, and to understand more each day what it is that I am to do. More so I desire that I might live the ethical life insofar as it seeks to bring your kingdom to fruition. Use me in whatever way possible for this, I fear not in this universal claim for I know of your unfaltering Goodness and faith in us. I pray that the Spirit might fill me and give me direction and word anytime I ponder over your curious and mysterious nature. Shape my desires in a way so that I would desire what is capable of being known of you and what is not, I would not worry about, so that I might use my time wisely and fulfill the
telos you have set forth for me. I do not presume it is anything physical: a place to go, a job to take, a person to be with, but rather an all encompassing claim to me, as all I do now and here on this tainted world is not yet fulfilled, though it shall come to be. There are many doors beset before me, some good and some evil. I do no fret on which to choose or set up series of conditional prayers asking you to come down and show me which one, for I wish not to test you Lord. Instead, use me and make any road I might take righteous. I pray for righteous intervention so that penultimately my spirit might better hear yours, that my intellect might take it, use it properly, to produce a better will and emotion -- to the
telos of loving (agapao) you Lord. Help me to fulfill my command, for while it is commanded of me, without you I am nothing, yet with you all is possible. If need be, give me ears to hear, give me words to pray, give me whatever is necessary for me to align my spirit to Yours.
I also pray for my family, that you might bring about a sense of peace and love within us, for we quarrel over ridiculous matters most of the time. I am guilty of reverting into some habitual form of myself when I return home. I pray protection over my identity in you at these times, so that I might not revert into some slothful, wrathful individual who lashes out at those who I love due to differences and sits about wasting days in childish entertainments.
I especially pray for Ahmaud, Ben, Frank, Josh, Lindsay, Kirk, Stephen, Ling, Hao, Tao, David, Whitey, Draper and Thomas for those matters which they need help and guidance. I do not ask for those things which do not help salvation nor their journeys to you Lord, but only that which will ultimately be used by you Lord.
In nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti,
blake
