My brother and friend,
I have read and re-read your piece on Pride with keen interest. I think, in truth, it is often
misconceived of as pride, that one is committed to authenticity. So here I will begin with only a polite suggestion of disagreement, in your insistence on pride as sin, and therefore a man of ethically-proper defiance as sinful. It does not take much effort to think of Christ himself, flipping tables at the marketplace, an iconoclast par excellence, rueful of the mediocrity of commerce, of violation of the holy and the sacred.
It is often thought that my own view is idealistic. And it is funny, because much of my own reading these days portrays idealism as a kind of intoxicant, akin to drugs, or ideology as a whole as a kind of self-enclosure of the mind as a response to social complexities, complexities about humanity as a whole in general.
Your recent piece also makes me think of two things - on the one hand, humility is not a violation of strength, dignity, or virtuous disregard of non-noble conduct. There are many ways to speak about it, but it is true that a critique of the social re-purposing of humility is really about telling people to, in the words of Kendrick Lamar, “sit down.” Often times I think it is funny how conflagration results from a departure from clarity of mind. It is funny to me how meaning is derived from so many things that relate to social utility alone. And when an ego is attacked, someone says, “how dare you,” we are moved to respond. But if authority is ever wielded in a contrived way, it is through invoking our “lack of humility” that we are often thrown back into some vague state of servility.
This is why Nietzche wrote of Christian morality as slave morality. But it is clear to me that this is incorrect, and AS USUAL throwing the baby out with the bathwater. (Actually, it is worth remembering that Bertrand Russell himself disavowed Nietzche’s cruelty for what it was, though they are often presented together as upstanding atheists. I am happy to defend the latter, and of Nietzche, I believe that plenty of development of thought has taken place to override his contributions almost entirely, through means of things laid out by many in the traditions of psychoanalysis in the conservative side of the world, and direct democracy advocates on the political left.) And in this sense, I remain sympathetic to Kant, for as much as I am growing to disagree with some of his reasoning, I think he is right in suggesting that Principle stands above us who attempt feeble execution.
If you proclaim yourself “guilty of pride” for suggesting you are imperfect, I would act to proclaim, this man is ignorant of his innocence! For, remember that Christ did not ask us to bow our heads, but held great expectations. It is odd that many Christians do not remember this passage, but it speaks to the failure of his disciples:
“Very truly I tell you, whoever believes in me will do the works I have been doing, and they will do even greater things than these, because I am going to the Father.” John 14:12
As Christians, we look to the figure in the person of Christ and yield -- yes, rightly so. But we then should observe closely the gauntlet thrown down by the Messiah himself. He asks us not to bow to Him. He lets us know that as Followers, we are not merely Followers. But called to rise to the occasion and embrace our inner excellence.
When it is said we can do all things through Christ who strengthens us, this gives us the idea of a moral compass that does not depend on any one to realize purpose. Karl Popper, in a chapter I just finished reading from his book The Open Society has an excellent critique of Plato, likening the whole history of intellectuals as it begins with him to the problems of the Pharisees. So, we must ask ourselves, if we have NO leaders, if we have NO heroes, if we have NO lasting ideals, NO ideological structures of lasting value, NO examples of genuine soul -- again, I would say your indictment stands as indicative of, not pride, but principle.
This is the shame of our mortal being.
But I would argue against any proclamation that it is in our nature to be fallen, as expressed so succinctly, cynically, and incorrectly by Sigmund Freud when he is known to say that “man is to man a wolf.”
Let us recall the words of St. Paul:
For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things
contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves....
They show that what the law requires is written on their
hearts, their conscience bearing witness....
Well, who is right? I believe they both are, but Freud is funnily enough making observations more fitting of a SOCIOLOGIST, while it is the Saint being the proper psychoanalyst. The Law of the Inner, he describes as the ultimate. This is certainly not a slave morality. It means that the Christian soul is not known by Christian identity, but by fact of the freedom that comes when aligned with the laws of conscience. There is no mystery to the mind, here, no magic. This is ontological fact.
Freud’s observation about man being dog-eat-dog, well, this is not a sufficient comment on the law. It is instead a comment about the falling from that inner law, and the emergent hellscape of his time. He is a tourist in Hell.
Whereas, if we believe Paul to be right, which there are reasons both scientific and sensible to believe true, he is the Sociologist of an UNFALLEN MAN, in an UNFALLEN WORLD.
Truly I tell you, says this Heretic:
There is no Christianity in a theology of a Fallen World. I do not believe that this is truly Christian doctrine. It is the basis for a mythos very UNLIKE that of Christ, who believe in our innate excellence.
I will not say there is no such thing as sin. That is dangerous, and also the call of the cultist.
But, as you stand by Pride, one of the seven deadly, and redeem it of its sinful reputation, I would go a step further to proclaim thus:
There cannot be a Christianity that perpetuates itself on the idea of Original Sin.
The origins of disobedience to God are a mystery, not a fact of our permanent failure. And is it not disobedience of the social norms of the Pharisees that was Christ’s way? Is this not part of why He Rises?
And so further, we therefore, we must imagine Sisyphus wrong.
His rock tumbles and rolls by gods of his making.
But I will not blame God for the logic of Sisyphus, nor will I blame God for the errors of my own life’s actions.
We will never be perfect.
But this is not what makes us fallen.
It is what allows us to look to the stars, and to learn the art of rising.
-- Wittgenstein
Comentários