Introduction to the Book of Job

I've studied the book of Job for some time now.  I'm also constantly praising the man whose name that it bears.

But I've yet to really talk about the book or the man.  At least not here.  So this will be my introduction.

I think a good point of entry is why the book is so great.  I think this is partly answered by why Job is so great.  Understanding the glory of Job is key to opening up the book in all of its glory.

In regards to the man then, I would say that Job is great because he shows us what we are made of.  He shows us what a human life made of dust and invigorated by the Spirit can do.

More precisely, Job shows us that we can stand up to God and live.  He shows us that we can call even God to account and survive the encounter.

Indeed, Job shows us that we can not only survive the encounter but that we can come out of it so valued and adored by God that God would work miracles just to keep us around.  God would even save us from the ashes to ensure our eternal presence and loving rivalry.

Job is great, pure and simply, because he reveals the full glory of humankind.  He shows what those of us who are made of dust can do and he proves that some of us are worth saving from the ash heap.  That we can equal and perhaps even surpass the Almighty in wisdom and power.

Why is the book of Job so great?  Because it reveals even greater mysteries than Job. 

Perhaps the greatest mystery of all is that we are called by God to do what Job does.  That we are made to stand up and fight in the search of goodness and truth.  To call even God to account if needbe.

What is it that God declares to Job from the storm?  "Gird your loins like a man!"

God doesn't say this to knock Job down but to raise him up.  God is calling Job to fulfill his calling as a human being and to image God.

So let us do likewise in memory of Job.

Let us show God what we are made of.

Thanks be to Job.

The Wisdom of our Ancestors

On occassion, typically as a last resort, you might hear a certain criticism being launched against Biblical philosophy, if there is such a thing, or against any ancient thinking for that matter.

The criticism is basically that, being written so long ago, such ancient teachings can hardly be right.  That we're sitting on the receiving end of a long development in thought, and as a result our thoughts today are far truer than were the thoughts of our ancestors.  The idea being that we have learned from their mistakes and long since improved upon their conclusions. 

But is this the case?  Are we wiser than our ancestors given our posterior position in history?

Another argument for this kind of thinking is based on the fairly safe premise that we have technological and scientific knowledge in excess of those who came before us.  And that just as we have superior knowledge in this regard we must have superior knowledge in matters of wisdom (or morality) as well.

But can we really make that first claim?  Are we more ingenious engineers than our ancestors?

Even when it comes to matters of science and technology it is not uncommon, when determining how the pyramids or other ancient wonders were built for example, to be flummoxed by how it was done.  Some people, because they can't fathom the process themselves, jump again to the (rather irrational) conclusion that divine (or alien!) intervention must somehow be involved.  Others, however, accept the ingenuity of humankind and hear rather the call to discern in such examples.  Instead of dismissing the inventive power of our ancestors they embrace it, and try to figure out how they could accomplish such feats...

So I ask, if we can credit our ancestors with marvels of engineering, and we can strive to discern their processes there, why not in matters of wisdom (or morality)?  Should we not, when flummoxed by an ancient text, be just as keen to figure out what is going on, or what it is that is being taught?  That here too may be a marvel of human ingenuity and inventiveness?

As great as our potential may be at the receiving end of history we should not be so full of ourselves or so dismissive of our ancestor's wisdom.  Although thinking is far from over we should not treat their works as dated but as a call to discern.  As revealing treasures as valuable today as ever before.

Thanks be to Job.

Following Postmodernism

Read an article awhile ago on postmodernism.  Or on what comes after postmodernism.

It is not an uncommon question.  Answers also abound.  As do views of what postmodernism is.

But the article did make me think.  Not so much about its proposal, but my own.

For what it's worth then, I think that postmodernism, no matter what it is besides, is an epoch of thought defined by a certain moral ambiguousness or spiritual neutrality.   It is a time of undecidability.  Of not knowing how or what to decide or believe.  It is a time when decisions and defining beliefs are elusive or hard to come by. 

Under postmodernism leadership is uninspiring.  Morality is in need of rejuvination.  Religion is doubtful and of little significance. 

Postmodernism marks a time of spiritual void or vacuity.  Of complete and utter homelessness and hopelessness.  Of having nowhere to rest our head so full of confusion about what is good and what is evil.  About what is True and what is false.

 

Postmodernism has this quality because it comes after the end of modernism, after the many (anthropocentric!) idols and projects of modernism fell and failed.  Progress.  Reason.  The systematisation of reality.  Even modernism's typically steadfast commitment to God falls into disrepute under postmodernism.  Or at least the God of so-called "onto-theology" does, which Nietzsche, and Stirner before him, declared the death of.

(Modernism too struggled with religion but the point there was not that we shouldn't commit to God, which we should, but that we should rely on our own reason rather than the authority of others when it comes to discerning God's word.  This is why modernism gave rise to the Protestant Reformation, which advocated a personal relationship with Scripture versus a Church controlled one.)

As a critique of modernism's values postmodernism is effectively a time of having nothing left upon which we can rely.  Again, it is a time of moral ambiguity and spiritual void.

But as to what follows postmodernism this gives us a vital clue.  I think Nietzsche puts it well when he describes our possible responses to nihilism: Either we can give up any search for Truth, opting instead to play Nintendo and eat cheesy poofs all day, or we could be like explorers who look yearningly into the space opened up by postmodernism.

That is, we could commit to a neutered existence or we could be enheartened and emboldened by the vista  before us.  The space cleared of all of modernism's (humanistic!) errors and ready for us to begin hoping and desiring for something new.  A foundation upon which, and from which, we can live.

The epoch of thought that follows postmodernism then, or that should follow postmodernism, is a time defined by seeking out this new home.  It is a time of searching for a new religion and inspiration for decision and spiritual fulfillment.

It too is a homeless time but at least the restless wandering of postmodernism is replaced by a moving about with purpose.  The moral ambiguity, secularity and atheism accompanying postmodernism are replaced by a hint and promise of something True.  A promised land and day of rest after the long hard work and labour pains that define the epoch of thought we are currently in.

Thanks be to Job.

The Serpent's Truth and God's Lie

We need to be careful with the serpent.  We need to remove any preconception that the serpent is evil. 

The serpent is not evil.  In fact it is the wisest of wild creatures in the beginning.

What we have to understand is that the serpent is not out to get Eve but to help her.  The serpent doesn't lie to Eve but tells her the truth.  It tells her a good thing, that eating from the tree of knowledge doesn't lead to death but to life.  That the fruits of the tree of knowledge of good and evil should be eaten.

There's nothing false about what the serpent says.  If it is trying to tempt Eve it is because it tells her about a good thing, something that she is appropriately tempted by.  Something that the serpent wants to share because it is good.  If the serpent is blameworthy it is because it is not wise enough.  It doesn't understand why God would lie, and keep Adam and Eve from the knowledge of good and evil...

So why would God lie?  Why would God tell Adam that in eating from the tree he would die?

Like the serpent God knows that knowing good and evil can produce life-giving fruit.  But God also knows that it can be hard to swallow.  A certain maturity is required before we should have such knowledge.  Having knowledge of good and evil is an important stage in moral development...

It is important that as children we don't realize our nudity.  We might be ashamed if we did...

Thanks be to Job.

Why Truth Is Not Had Through Reason

What a piece of work, Plato's Parmenides!  What a call to discern and a challenge to our wisdom!

To give some context, Plato and Parmenides were among the greatest Greek philosophers.  Plato was taught by Socrates who was in turn taught by Parmenides.  Parmenides was an elder in the time of Socrates' youth and if we trust Plato's account they had dealings with each other.  Parmenides was a mentor.

In his own time Parmenides left us a wonderful poem about truth.  Only fragments of it remain but the goal of the poem is quite clear.  It is meant to show us the way of truth.  Parmenides also claims to show us the way of untruth but this part of his work is by and large missing.  As a result it is hard to derive Parmenides' teaching.

Plato's Parmenides is a great resource then because we have it in its entirety.  In the dialogue Plato also has Parmenides make a similar promise to his interlocuters.  To show them the way of truth (and untruth).

He says that the process is long and arduous, but I think if we abstract from the particulars the result is quite clear.  What follows is his method and what I believe is the result:

When showing the way of truth Parmenides first takes a thesis.  Any thesis would do but for Parmenides it is 'being is'.

From this statement Parmenides produces an argument.  He develops an incontrovertible result from the fact that being is.  For example, all is in motion.

He then starts over and does it again, but this time he shows something completely different from the thesis.  For instance, when before he showed from 'being is' that everything is in motion he would then show that everything is still.

In an indisputable way Parmenides shows how the potential truth 'being is' yields confounding results.  He leaves us with the feeling that the statement we thought was true cannot be trusted.

What is more, Parmenides then takes the counter statement 'being is not' and repeats the process!  He shows that this too, when rationally developed, leads only to confusion.

Parmenides ultimately presents us with four fully rational but mutually exclusive arguments that ultimately undermine both that being is and that being is not.  What is shown is not just how little we know but how little we can know through rational discourse.

And that's just it: The truth that glares us in the face once Parmenides is done is not a truth obtained through reason but the truth that reason is not the way of truth.

The way of truth is some other way.  Perhaps the only way that is left once reason is dispelled and discourse ceases.

Thanks be to Job.