My first post is to comment in brief on the title I chose for this blog: "Faith Seeking Understanding" or "fides quaerens intellectum." Perhaps I chose this title because I thought it appropriately describes my Sitz im Leben (i.e. setting in life).
I'm currently in graduate school at Princeton Theological Seminary, so at the backdrop of such a statement is the understanding that the task of my self-examination (and general reflection of all things material and spiritual) rests on the assumption that faith and inquiry are inseparable. Perhaps what I assume reflects the age-old adage posited by Augustine, "I believe in order that I may understand." But, of course, any Princetonian who dabbles in theology knows I am ripping off the great St. Anselm who is credited with coining the phrase from his piece entitled, Proslogion, 1. Still, my sense is that all this is indicative to the fact that as religious human beings, we desperately seek to understand in what we claim to believe.
But in the end, I have to believe that this faith seeks understanding, and ultimately understanding will bring joy amidst this miserable world.
3 comments:
i love the title, but ol' anselm was the most clueless bastard ever to live. i remember being blown away by his ontological proof until this dawned on me: gawd, that's freaking retarded.
it's right up there with hegel "proving" that there MUST be seven planets. actually, i think it's a myth that he did that, but still. hegel could have done it. that's how he rolled.
Anselm is a bit nuts. I remember reading his ontological proof last semester and being confused as all get out. However, Jonathan Edwards picks up his "necessary beings/contingent beings" and repackages it into some reformed thought, which I found thoughtful.
As for Hegel, what could he not prove? Certainly that is how he rolled.
Seriously, I've only flirted with Hegel this semester. He may be onto something, though. How much of what we know to be "reasonable" is really an amalgamation (synthesis) of other ideas--namely, two opposing ideas? I may not agree with some of his conclusions, but I found his methodology fascinating.
you've only read a little hegel, eh?
well a little goes a long way. i've read two books i think. on on justice/right, the other on history. and i've looked at other stuff.
mostly what i do when i read hegel is move my eyes across a page that might as well look like this "&$(#)(*#)(* )(*#)))!^^^&) while at the same time i think, "mmmm...hungry for pizza."
that's not true.
well, not exactly.
Post a Comment