Daily Mail UK | Nov. 21, 2007
Had Toni Vernelli gone ahead with her pregnancy ten years ago, she would know at first hand what it is like to cradle her own baby, to have a pair of innocent eyes gazing up at her with unconditional love, to feel a little hand slipping into hers – and a voice calling her Mummy. But the very thought makes her shudder with horror.
Because when Toni terminated her pregnancy, she did so in the firm belief she was helping to save the planet.
Incredibly, so determined was she that the terrible “mistake” of pregnancy should never happen again, that she begged the doctor who performed the abortion to sterilise her at the same time.
He refused, but Toni – who works for an environmental charity – “relentlessly hunted down a doctor who would perform the irreversible surgery.
Finally, eight years ago, Toni got her way. At the age of 27 this young woman at the height of her reproductive years was sterilised to “protect the planet”.
Incredibly, instead of mourning the loss of a family that never was, her boyfriend (now husband) presented her with a congratulations card.
While some might think it strange to celebrate the reversal of nature and denial of motherhood, Toni relishes her decision with an almost religious zeal.
“Having children is selfish. It’s all about maintaining your genetic line at the expense of the planet,” says Toni, 35. “Every person who is born uses more food, more water, more land, more fossil fuels, more trees and produces more rubbish, more pollution, more greenhouse gases, and adds to the problem of over-population.”
While most parents view their children as the ultimate miracle of nature, Toni seems to see them as a sinister threat to the future.
It’s an extreme stance which one might imagine is born from an unhappy childhood or an upbringing among parents who share similar, strong beliefs.
But nothing in Toni’s safe, middle- class upbringing gave any clues as to the views which would shape her adult life. The eldest of three daughters, she enjoyed a loving, close-knit family life.
[…]
Most young girls dream of marriage and babies. But Sarah dreamed of helping the environment – and as she agonised over the perils of climate change, the loss of animal species and destruction of wilderness, she came to the extraordinary decision never to have a child.
“I realised then that a baby would pollute the planet – and that never having a child was the most environmentally friendly thing I could do.”
[…]
Ironically, the couple who have decided to deny themselves children for the sake of the planet, actively enjoy the company of young children. Sarah says: “We both have nieces who we love dearly and I consider myself a caring, nurturing person.
[…]
Mark adds: “Sarah and I live as green a life a possible. We don’t have a car, cycle everywhere instead, and we never fly. “We recycle, use low-energy light bulbs and eat only organic, locally produced food. “In short, we do everything we can to reduce our carbon footprint. But all this would be undone if we had a child.
“That’s why I had a vasectomy. It would be morally wrong for me to add to climate change and the destruction of Earth. “Sarah and I don’t need children to feel complete. What makes us happy is knowing that we are doing our bit to save our precious planet.”
. . . more
Hm. I don’t suppose they could bother to adopt one of the BILLIONS of kids out there ((perhaps in their own city even)) who need parents, either. After all, raising a kid would make them have to give up what is ultimately a rather selfish and cynical view of mankind as a whole.
Oh, wait, don’t most of these radical environmentalists regard humans as viruses on the face of the planet anyway ((or worse because they probably would rather not eradicate a virus as opposed to a human baby))? So no, they would probably advocate for the elimination of these poor kids as well, a la Jonathan’s Swift’s A Modest Proposal.
RE: #1. No, adopting would be just as selfish. They are too far deep into narcisistic nihlism. They want to “save the earth” because a) they feel they actually need to and can; b) it makes them feel good about themselves which is acutally the primary reason–it makes them feel righteous. They don’t have to worry about the sacrifice and self-denial that comes with acutal righteousness. The logical conclusion to their train of thought is either mass murder or suicide or both. Not unlike Cho at Virginia Tech except less personal, less overtly psychotic, but no less a complete denial of their own humanity.
The good thing coming from this is that they in the end delete themselves from the “gene pool” …. These are intellectually diseased people.
“Evolution sees death as the engine of progress. Christianity sees death as an enemy to be destroyed. The two views are not compatible.” (Fr. Hans)
Unfortunately, Caneel, ideas don’t die as easily as people. As long as we continue to accept nihilism with a shrug, it will continue to add destruction upon destruction.
Caneel writes: “The good thing coming from this is that they in the end delete themselves from the ‘gene pool'”
So the answer to dealing with the “culture of death” is to wish death upon them and their children (since they’ve apparently got that “disease” in their genes). Gotta love the “Culture of Life ©”!
JamesK:
What children?
Caneel isn’t wishing death upon these people, merely observing that they are wishing death on themselves. If you’ve got an argument that they’re not, I’d love to hear it. If you don’t like hearing this kind of thinking described as diseased, perhaps you’d like to explain how it reflects a healthy outlook?
JamesK, In criticizing Caneel you are employing a Christian value system that the nature worshipers themselves reject. If the “save the planet, kill your baby” crowd chooses to exterminate themselves and their own, who are you to judge them or others who comment on their actions. 🙂 I thought the secularists and paganists keep harping on Christian conservatives for daring to impose their value system on the world, and here you are doing the exact same thing. But this is strange since the people in whose defense you speak reject the very worldview and Christian morality you employ. Now that’s ironic! No matter how hard one tries to purge God out of the picture He stubbornly persists in one’s conscience.
Your post reminded me of this excerpt from the book “The ACLU vs. America” I reviewed a few years ago:
ChrisB,
Of course JamesK is using a Christian value system–there is no other except destroy and eat. That is the choice. It is impossible to have any value system that is positive except that it reflects in substantial ways the way of Christ.
However, JamesK does it without knowing what he is doing. It is only when one fosters a living communion with the author of those values that they mean anything other than leglistic, rote repetition.
It sounds like what you’re saying is that, anyone who really spends some time thinking about a valid value system will come up something similar to Christ’s?
@Phil
YES…!
NO!!! That would make Christianity simply another rationalistic, man-made system. It is simply that all good comes down from above, Jesus Christ is that good Incarnate. Absent Him, there is no good. Anyone who seriously wants to approach good has to approach Him whether they realize it at first or not.
Christ or nothing.
@Michael Bauman
Sorry Michael, I did not mean to imply that I shrug and accept nihilism. I think it is an abomination and in secular terms, a suicidal death wish. I should have been more specific.
I just hope these people will bring their wish upon themselves. Unfortunately, as history shows, they are more likely to populate the “selection committee” that determines which of us unworthy ones is to walk upon their “sacred planet”…
@Michael
He’s talking about a “valid” value system. The only valid system comes from God. Thus I said YES…
Caneel, we all shrug and accept nihilism to one extent or another. The temptation is in all of us. I was not speaking to you personally, mostly to myself.
I also understand why you said yes, but Phil said “anyone who really spends some time thinking about a valid value system will come up something similar to Christ’s?”
Thinking alone is not sufficient. JamesK did not “think” when he made his criticism, it is just in him. We all know the truth, it is just that we choose to worship the created thing more than the creator just as St. Paul described in Romans 1. One of the ways in which we do this is to attempt to place legalistic moral systems in the place of real communion with God.
One does not come to God by being moral, that is the Law.
@ Michael
I understand and agree…
To avoid confusion: I am not even remotely suggesting that just because someone claims to be Christian he/she is more moral than non-Christians or that Christianity per se has a corner on the morality market. That too is merely a legalistic, formulaic way of looking at the question.
I am simply saying that since God created us the way we are and Jesus Christ Incarnated and assumed our nature (which He still has), there is no other possible way to think except in ways that tend toward destruction or tend toward the Life, i.e. Jesus Christ. The Law is now written on our hearts and we are without excuse. Since it is part of our being, there can be no other categories than those which flow from the Christian revelation. It is up to us how fully we embrace the reality of that revelation and therefore embody rigtheousness and virtue (something quite different from mere morality). Those that attempt to understand virtue and righteousness apart from communion with Christ inevitably have a confusing time of it. They either end up out-and-out nihlists or confused, impotent rationalists. These rationalists then tend to demand perfection from Christians while allowing great license to all others.
The young woman featured in this article committed a terrible act. An act of hubris that cost the life of another. I can only pray that her heart be softened to the point that she becomes aware of what she has done and repent of it. At the same time I recognize the horrible agony that would cause for her. Better the temporary agony of recognition than the rather permanent agony of separation from God however.
Better the temporary agony of recognition than the rather permanent agony of separation from God however.
Well said.
Michael writes: “Those that attempt to understand virtue and righteousness apart from communion with Christ inevitably have a confusing time of it. They either end up out-and-out nihilists or confused, impotent rationalists. These rationalists then tend to demand perfection from Christians while allowing great license to all others.”
But the rational, philosophical tradition has had a huge impact on Christianity. The concept of human rights, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, religious toleration, and so on have little to do with Christianity per se. For much of history Christians of various persuasions were at each other’s throats. Nor were Christians always examples of religious toleration. (E.g. Chrysostom and the Jews.) The reason that the Southern Baptists aren’t burning your house or throwing you in prison for heresy is because of rational, humanistic morality.
The Greeks were having sophisticated discussions about ethics, (ἠθικὴ) and virtue, (ἀρετή) long before the Christians showed up, and Christians, especially in the west, built upon that tradition. The Jewish tradition of talmudic reasoning, the “oral law,” developed hundreds of years before Christianity and formed the matrix in which Christianity was born. I don’t want to take anything away from Christianity, but it’s just plain unhistorical to assert that Christianity is single-handedly responsible for all the good things in ethics.
Jim, I did not say that Christianity was single handedly responsible for all the good in ethics. In fact I said:
All good comes down from above and Jesus Christ is the Incarnation of that good, the Good. The revelation of God to His Creation was fulfilled in the Incarnation, it did not begin there. The Jewish tradition is inextricable linked to the the I AM. (Before Abraham was, I AM). The Church spent the first 800 years, roughly, authenticating and digesting the strands of the Greek insights and found them fullfilled in the Person of Jesus Christ (the unknown God whom the Greeks in their philosphy felt was always just out of reach). He is the Person from whom our personhood flows, in whom authentic humanity is recognized and realized by whom we are capable of making moral choice because of the divine energy that makes us living souls. We have to live in the mystery of the Incarnation to begin to understand even the smallest consequences of God becoming man.
Once again your linear, two-dimensional view of history clouds your vision. History is a mobius strip with the Cross as the supra-dimensional focal point. I wish I had the words to show it to you Jim because you miss such unfathonmable beauty.
Michael writes: “He is the Person from whom our personhood flows, in whom authentic humanity is recognized and realized by whom we are capable of making moral choice because of the divine energy that makes us living souls.”
But how do you move from an individual ethic, based on personal religious experience, to a social ethic that can be comprehended by everyone? I know you don’t see Christianity as a “system” of ethics, but don’t you have to have a system of ethics in order to interact with the larger world? A system at least gives people something to talk about. When it comes to someone’s personal religious experience, I don’t what to do with that, because I’m not the one with the experience.
Speaking of morality — you live in Kansas, right? Am I wrong, or did the Republican Party of Kansas just walk away from the abortion issue:
http://www.kansas.com/611/story/214409.html
Or do you have some other take on it?
Jim RE a Social Ethic: The Russian Church has produced a comprehensive document on social issues. We have individuals and groups who comment on specific issues. However, there are a significant number of Orthodox who simply don’t think a social ethic is necessary if one lives the life of the Church. Also, the Church has never had to live in a society with a paticipatory government before. We have only begun to address the task in the last 50 years mostly only in the last 20. Catholics and Protestants have been doing it for centuries.
One of the frustrations for me of this site is that it could be a place where such questions were asked and answers worked toward in a limited way. But we have allowed you and others to redirected the course of conversation away from such attempts toward doubtful disputation.
Repeatedly here we have stated that many of the social issues are a matter of how one views the human person. For Christians that understanding is inextricably bound to Jesus Christ.
Abortion is wrong because of the ontological reality that the person in the womb is made in the image and likeness of God. And you are right, we often don’t act as if we really believe that.
Homosexuality is wrong because of gender corruption, its essentially idolatrous quality, and its hedonistic assumptions concerning sex. It is a specific sub-set of the societal trend toward absolute sexual license. A trend which is nothing but destructive.
From an internal Orthodox stand point, the appropriate use of military force is the most unsettled.
Personally, I don’t think it is possible to formulate an Orthodox social agenda and articulate it in political terms. Further, I think such attempts are counter-productive even damaging to the acutal mission of the Church. Any political response and activity is in the venue of the personal–founded in the life of the Church. Each of us must do our utmost to live the life of Christ in the world. Fr. Patrick Reardon recently called that seemingly messy, organic approach, the Incarnational Principal, i.e., we each are responsible for receiving the grace of God and transmitting it to others around us, giving to the extent that we have received. Such an approach is not intellectually satisfying because it defies geo-political analysis and requires humility since the actions will often go unnoticed or even be denigrated.
The transformation necessary for the United States to remain a viable country is not political in nature, it is spiritual. The politics will naturally follow the spiritual state of the populace. The Church needs to fulfill her role of evangelization which includes the call to repentance. A recent role-model for this activity is St. John of Kronstadt. We can also look at the approach of the Apostles.
If I haven’t made myself clear by many words, I can only come back to a few: Christ, and Him crucified or nothing. My “system of ethics” is equally simple: “Take up your Cross daily and follow me” People do that unthinkingly out of the goodness of their hearts (your wife comes to mind) such goodness flows from the ontological reality of our connection with Jesus Christ. A connection that is real whether we acknowledge Him or not.
Jim, How many times in how many different ways do we have to explain to you that we are CONSERVATIVES, not Republicans. Our value system and beliefs come from Jesus Christ (GOD) and from Universal Truths, not from some politcal hack or group that may or may not share those values. It just so happens that by and large the GOP comes closest to those values and tends to support the same truths. However, and this is a BIG however, there are many times when sinful men and women diverge from the ideal and buy into the lies of “this world” and try to compromise themselves in the mistaken belief that they can “reach” more voters.
Jim, How many times in how many different ways
It does not matter – he is not here to understand that distinction, he is here to “debate” so it simply becomes a debating point. You will have to explain this for another 4 years unless you ban him first…
Jim. Abortion in Kansas is a scandal. Ol’ doctor tiller has quite an organization and he spreads quite a bit of money around to buy protection. You are at least 4 years behind on this story, the state “Republicans” walked away from the issue the first time that Cruella Deville, excuse me Sebellius, first ran for govenor. She is a cold-hearted fanatical abortionist and acts as Tiller’s front man. Kansans elected her. The official Republican party refused to give any support to their putative candidate until he made a deal not to bring up the abortion issue (all hush-hush of course). The “support” they gave him assured that he would be defeated. Her highness continues to set the political tone on the abortion issue.
Voting in Kansas is mostly an exercise in futility. 90% of the elections are a forgone conclusion before the polls even open. All it takes in most counties to be elected to the state legislature is about 1000 votes maybe 2000. Liberal and populous Johnson County controls a lot of the poltics. To be elected govenor requies getting a decent plurality in Sedgwick County where Wichita, strong support in Johnson County near Kansas City and not be entirely wiped out in the rest of the state. Once elected, two terms is virtually assured unless you kill someone and I’m not sure that would matter.
Conservatism is not much found in this state. Considering what appear to be the overwhelming political views of the majority of the active electorate, I cannot figure out why it is considered a red state. It isn’t in any meaningful sense. Nothing but sleaze, corruption and incompetence. A residue of the exhaustion of the radical Populist mentality that is the acutal political foundation in Kansas. It should not be forgotten either that a fascist mentality has long been a significant part of Kansas political thought. We certainly have had more than our share of political crazies.
Michael writes: “You are at least 4 years behind on this story, the state “Republicans” walked away from the issue the first time that Cruella Deville, excuse me Sebellius, first ran for govenor. She is a cold-hearted fanatical abortionist and acts as Tiller’s front man. Kansans elected her. The official Republican party refused to give any support to their putative candidate until he made a deal not to bring up the abortion issue (all hush-hush of course).”
Very interesting! In the media Kansas is often portrayed as a bedrock of conservatism and bastion of opposition to abortion. Wichita is often used as a kind of “ground zero” in the abortion debate because it’s home to both Tiller and Operation Rescue.
As I was reading the article, I was trying to “read between the lines.” I couldn’t tell if the GOP was actually moving away from the abortion issue, or whether they were more just trying to expand the number of issues so as to appeal to more people. (Whatever the issue, I think a one-issue party would have a hard time of it.) I also couldn’t tell if the harsh response from the GOP was an attempt to distance themselves from Operation Rescue, or an attempt to distance themselves from Cheryl Sullenger, the OR spokesperson. (The article doesn’t say this, but Sullenger spent two years in a federal prison for conspiracy to bomb an abortion clinic. She has since renounced violence, but for obvious reasons is a “lightning rod” that attracts controversy. Back in my fundamentalist days she was a member of the same group I was with; a few years ago we exchanged emails.)
Michael: “One of the frustrations for me of this site is that it could be a place where such questions [social ethics] were asked and answers worked toward in a limited way. But we have allowed you and others to redirect the course of conversation away from such attempts toward doubtful disputation.”
Well, Dean hasn’t posted anything here in the last three weeks. In the last month JamesK and Phil had a couple of posts. I’ve made a few posts, one recent one that was largely in agreement with the relevant lead article. I think my posts in this thread have not been overly disruptive. Taken together, the recent posts of JamesK, Phil, and myself might take two minutes to read.
At this point, if the home team want to pursue a particular topic I don’t see why you can’t do that. For a long time I have suggested that it would be perfectly appropriate for the moderator to designate certain threads “invitation only” for personal posts. So far that has not happened.
As I have mentioned before, what typically happens is that if the “liberals” don’t reply to a lead article, the home team doesn’t either, except to say “me too” or “I agree.” Going out on a limb here, but it may be that the conservatives here just aren’t interested in an extended, in-depth discussion from an Orthodox perspective. If not, prove me wrong. But this whole thing of blaming the “liberals” — well, it just doesn’t work any more. If you want to have the Great Orthodox Discussion, you can have it. I’d like to see it.
So, any value system that approaches good will be Christ-like, or similar to a Christian value system?
Banescu, in post 7, wrote No matter how hard one tries to purge God out of the picture He stubbornly persists in one’s conscience.
It sounds like, from what you’re saying, Michael, this goodness is inherent–written on our hearts. So, it’s not entirely necessary to say one might try hard to “purge God out of the picture,” because even if God was never in the picture in a literal sense (for example, if one has never heard of God or Christ), if one comes up with a value system that approaches the good, then one has come up with a value system that is similar to Christian morality.
Is that an accurate interpretation?
Phil, not exactly. You’re still looking at it from the wrong end of the telescope. Years ago, long before I became Orthodox, I was required to study Romans 1:17-32. In many ways the rest of Romans is an extended commentary on the themes presented in those verses. The crux of the matter though is in 1:17-21.
The attitude toward virtue is written in the very core of our being. Ontologically we are built to respond to Him that made us. Any scrap of goodness we manage to demonstate comes from that ontological reality. We do indeed have to purge God from our consciousness by choosing darkness over light in order to avoid Him. Unfortunately, we humans have become quite good at that. God allows us to do that because free choice is an attribute of love. He desires that we come to Him (so much so that He went to the Cross), but He will never force us. Whenever humans consciously discipline themselves in order to seek the good, we find Christ waiting for us, “closer than hands and feet”
Here’s where IMO you went off the track, it is not a “value system” that is created, it is virtue lived for no other reason than it is good, i.e, love with out expectation. Virtue leads to virtue when we work at it. All “systems” are legalistic. St. Paul is famous for letting folks know that legalistic systems don’t save. He is right.
Many people think it is possible to extract the principals of goodness from the Gospel and live a “good life” without having to deal Jesus Himself–some call themselves Christian, some don’t. It can’t happen. Either they will get serious about virtue and find Him waiting or they will dabble at thinking about virtue. The latter folks are the ones to whom He will say “Depart from me you workers of iniquity for I never knew you.” I ernestly pray that neither you, nor I will end up in that category.
If you really seek understanding Phil, read Romans, especially the first chapter, in context of all of the discussions we’ve had here. Don’t really “think about it” so much as just let it sink in and penetrate to higher levels of awareness than your brain alone.
If you decide to do that, I’d be interested in your perceptions.
Michael,
I appreciate your answer. I may read Romans when I get the chance, although, I can’t really promise not to think about it (quotes or no-). I mean no disrespect by to you or the book, but I imagine if someone asked you to read a religious text that was for a faith quite different than your own, you’d be honest if you said that you’d read it from a Christian perspective, and not, say, a _______ perspective.
I think what I was getting at with my question was this:
Banescu seemed to be pointing out to JamesK that he was employing a Christian value system (post #7 does use the word system.) I interpreted this as a critique, essentially saying that JamesK, whether he realized it or not, was rasied in a culture steeped in Christian values and this materialized in his thinking.
Your statement, that Christian morals are writ upon our hearts, seems to be saying a slightly different thing than Banescu. I read his as cultural (Along the lines of, “JamesK, don’t you realize that you are using the very Christian value system that these people reject?”) and yours as philosophical (each of us was designed to understand the good, to gravitate toward Christian virtue.)
Phil, you may be correct in your analysis. I can’t speak for Chris. I wouldn’t use the word ‘philosophical’ for my approach however. I’d describe my approach with the word I used: ontological. Culture is an external manifestation of an ontological reality so I don’t know that it makes much difference in the long run.
The specific passage in Romans to which I refer is not convoluted in its language. If one merely takes the words at face value and relates them to the discussions which have gone on here….who knows? I did not have a Christian perspective when I first really read it. I was a new age syncretistic heathen at the time.
Phil, I actually believe that God’s values were embedded in our souls as well as reflected in the culture we live in. You should read C.S. Lewis. He does a fantastic job of explaining it. I believe Lewis’ explanation is the closest I have seen to the truth. If I have time I will post a few excerpts.
Michael, it is this innate sense of right and wrong (you call it an “ontological reality”) that has led me to different conclusions than you have about the inspiration of Scripture. How is it “good” or “virtuous” to be willing to murder one’s own child for the pleasure of a deity who cannot suffer (as Abraham was willing to do)? How is it good to place a lesser monetary value of women children than men as it does in Leviticus? How are the many genocides and atrocities of the Old Testament deemed noble when viewed through any lens, let alone when viewed by one who should supposedly have a developed conscience?
It is exactly these shared objections to the abhorrent that has led me away from the notion that all of Scripture is inerrant or is a reliable means of knowing God.
It can’t be suggested that those who object to Scripture are judging with a pagan conscience while simultaneously insisting that that same conscience has been enlightened by a Christian culture or through some common grace bestowed by a loving Creator.
James, interpretation of Scripture has NOTHING to do with what I am talking about. You are simply using an old carnard of yours that is simply wrong. I don’t have the expertise to really explain to you (even if your question were genuine) the Orthodox approach to scriptural intrepretation except to say it is not a personal matter, it is a liturgical and doctrinal matter. The Church interprets the Scripture, individual Orthodox do not.
Would you Phil and JamesK be sympathetic or agree with this quote??:
“All sciences are now under the obligation to prepare the ground for the future task of the philosopher, which is to solve the problem of value, to determine the true hierarchy of values.”
Note 33: No. Is it not the duty of science to extract any particular meaning behind the physical world. It can merely describe its physical and material qualities in varying degrees and can only answer the question “what” … not “why”.
the term “sciences” here is used in a more classical sense. For example, theology, and even such things as “literature” can be thought of as a “science”. Your using the term science in a decidedly modern sense – as a synonym for “natural science” or even more accurately “natural philosophy”.
Think of it as a field, or a category of human Endeavour. In this sense, would you be sympathetic to the above statement?
Even in your particular reading of natural philosophy known today as “science”, the purpose of doing “science” (the “what”) is of course related to a “why”. Even when in a theoretical sense, science done “for the sake of knowledge” elevates something called “knowledge” to a why – something of importance and meaning to the persons who do it and of course benefit from it. Man is a rational creature, an inherently “meaningful” being. a “why” on it’s own is an unreal abstraction, in that it is always in the last analysis connected to a “why”.
Also, even most philosophers and historians of science find your definition of “science” hopelessly sophomoric, popular, and frankly ignorant. Most of them hold to methodological naturalism as a method and technique, but then understand the term “science” in a human context, as a field of human endeavor that includes much more (including metaphysical constructs such as a “why”). Thus a Kuhn can talk about “the structure of scientific revolutions”, etc.
Of course, many (including men such as C.S. Lewis) would disagree even with methodological naturalism being without a metaphysic (I.e. a “why”) inherent in it’s structure. Many modernists don’t agree with such a view, but it becomes apparent when methodological naturalism is applied to life for example, and the resulting theory turns out to be neo-Epicurean. That’s not by accident: methodological naturalism rests on certain metaphysic assumptions about not only physics, but epistemology, etc.
Christopher posts for discussion: “All sciences are now under the obligation to prepare the ground for the future task of the philosopher, which is to solve the problem of value, to determine the true hierarchy of values.”
As a philosophy major in college focusing on ethics and religion, I never saw any evidence whatsoever that philosophers are capable of solving “the problem of value.” Western philosophy has been at that task for something like 2,500 years, and no “solution” was ever found by any of them. But to be fair, no philosophical issue has ever been “solved.”
In my experience, philosophy is not about finding solutions, but about discussion. Issues are clarified, simplistic answers are demolished, and new questions arise. Once in a great while, there is progress. In my opinion, the greatest progress has been in the area of symbolic logic, that I suppose is more accurately categorized as mathematics rather than philosophy. Philosophy of language has also seen progress. But progress in values? Possible, but I haven’t seen it.
Of course, all of this is in the context of rational, humanistic thinking, and thus not relevant to Orthodoxy.
But back to the original quotation. I think that Nietzsche was quite overly-optimistic. Were he around today I very much doubt that he would have said something like that. But since more than a century has elapsed between his quotation and now, perhaps his enthusiasm for science and philosophy can be forgiven.
Jim, you are the first person ever I’ve seen describe Nietzche as an optimist. I was wondering if anyone would fall into Christopher’s little trap, evidently not.
Of course, the fact that philosophy and science cannot answer questions of value is percisely why they are secondary to faith and in fact contingent on faith. Nietizche’s call for science and philosophy to fill the void was because he realized that Christianity provided the value, he just did not agree with the values of the Chrisitian faith.
Jim’s view of philosophy is (no surprise here) decidedly modern – and goes along perfectly with his faith and religion. Notice how it’s about “discussion”, and truth becomes an object unreachable, ever receding into the future.
This view of philosophy would have struck most philosophers (before modern ones) as outright relativism or sophistry. In this sense, Nietzsche was of course simply being honest about his enterprise.
When a modern like Jim says something like:
“Were he around today I very much doubt that he would have said something like that.”
It really is just to confuse a tactic or feature of Jim’s thinking (self-denial about his faith and it’s consequences) with Nietzsche’s thinking.
So indeed, he did call for a “fill of the void”. What Jim does not admit is that so does he – he fills it with every word he Troll’s with (uh um, I mean posts with 🙂
Christopher writes: “Jim’s view of philosophy is (no surprise here) decidedly modern – and goes along perfectly with his faith and religion. Notice how it’s about “discussion”, and truth becomes an object unreachable, ever receding into the future. This view of philosophy would have struck most philosophers (before modern ones) as outright relativism or sophistry.”
I don’t know what pre-modern philosophers thought they were doing. But since they were all discussing the same basic topics for a couple thousand years, and since they all disagreed with each other to some extent, and since they all couldn’t have been right, it must have occurred to some of them that their conclusions did not constitute absolute, unchangeable truth. From a philosophical point of view, on most topics it would be ludicrous to say that you were the only one who was right, that all before you were wrong, and that all that might disagree with you in the future would be wrong. Only in religion can you make that kind of claim.
As ususal Fr. Stephen Freeman elequently describes the nature of the ontological approach I so bumblingly talk about. http://fatherstephen.wordpress.com/2007/12/01/in-the-secret-place-of-the-most-high-god/
An excerpt:
Note 33–
I have difficulty agreeing with that quotation, because the terms “sciences” and “value” are so vague the statement almost becomes meaningless.
As someone who writes a lot of multiple-choice tests, I will say that the term “All” is a red flag that means that a true/false statement is probably “false.”
M. Banescu,
#30
“Phil, I actually believe that God’s values were embedded in our souls as well as reflected in the culture we live in.”
In what context…diametric, as in the Garden of Eden or after the fall: Nod, the Flood, etc? There is the why of Sodom and its aftermath or our salvation via the Resurrection. Does this dipensation relate to the people who live without any context of the Christian God or to the very many denominations within Christianty or just to the Orthodox?
Culture, in its self, presuppoes pluralism; we thus have wars and elections.
It is an interesting assumption.
Sincerely,
J R Dittbrenner