I have found, with the aid of this class, that as I am reading the works of Philosophers and Theologians I often find myself saying “I agree… Oh, I disagree… Or maybe I do agree… Maybe it’s some of both?” I become quickly confused as to how I can be so conflicted with just one person’s words and the many ways you can choose to interpret them. Unlike in conversation where you can ask a person exactly what they mean, reading someone’s written work and interpreting it can be tricky. As a psychology major I’m used to asking many related questions in order to correlate an answer, whereas a religion major would be very familiar with these types of conflicting feelings. **side note: this is one of the amazing things about taking an interdisciplinary class like this, giving all of the students the opportunity to see with the perspective of a student different from themselves. For example: I am not a religion major, nor do I ever plan to be, and although I have taken the New and Old Testament Survey classes I have not had an opportunity to read raw texts like these before and have not had the pleasure of encountering other students who are well acquainted with these texts and others like them. Being in an interdisciplinary class like this class has really encouraged me to think outside the box, grow and think for myself more than I had before. This is not only beneficial for me as a person, but it will also give me insight in my major classes to offer a perspective that, perhaps, no one else has. End side note**
According to my understanding and interpretation of this text, Pico purports that through the use of intelligence, love and contemplation you can grow closer to God. He states that through the use of theology and pure contemplation you can become one with God, I agree to some of these ideas. I believe that by learning more about God through His Word, more about His creation through study and more about His Will for a person’s life through prayer (expanding one’s intelligence in these ways) a person can grow closer to God. I also agree that through love for God and acceptance of His love for them, a person can grow closer to God. I also believe that through the contemplation of this love and using the knowledge and intelligence gained through study, a person can decide for themselves what they believe thus becoming closer to God. However, I don’t agree that man can achieve oneness with the divine. I believe that the main goal of a person’s life should be to follow God and to know Him in accordance with His will, but not to become one with Him. In my opinion oneness is more of a Mystic idea than Christian; I would argue that God even in the afterlife man is not one with God, but in a state of eternal worship and praise of Him.
Pico also states that men have unlimited free will and unlimited responsibilities (or possibilities for life choices). While I agree that men have free will and that each man has a nearly infinite number of options for their life (general life choices such as occupation, marriage, children, family, education, religion, etc) and can achieve most of those things with the right amount of commitment and effort, I would also argue that the ultimate goal should be to serve God in whatever you do and not to become one with God in what you do. As I mentioned before, words and meanings can be misconstrued. Pico could have meant exactly what I am saying, we might actually be agreeing. He might have meant “oneness” as accordance with God’s will, or he could have meant what I have interpreted.
On the topic of misinterpretations, in class Cedric pointed out a possible flaw to Pico’s argument. The text reads “Beasts as soon as they are born… bring with them all they will ever possess. Spiritual beings, either from the beginning or soon thereafter, become what they are to be for ever and ever.” (Faith and Reason p.72). Cedric argued a flaw might exist because, according to scripture, heavenly beings (such as angels) do have a certain extent of freewill. For example: Biblically, Lucifer and one-third of the angels chose to become demonic and be self-serving. I would argue that Pico covered this with his line “or soon thereafter” implying that yes, the angels did have freewill, but now they are locked into place.
Overall this text from Pico correlates very well with the ideas of the Renaissance. A large idea that was prevalent during the Renaissance was the power and capability of men. This idea goes hand in hand with Pico’s opinions of the three worlds and free will that humans are allowed, unlimited responsibilities and possibility of oneness with the divine. Pico provides a fine example of the thinking that was present during the Renaissance.
No comments:
Post a Comment