An Introduction to stoicism

 Introduction  

Stoicism arose as ancient philosophy to influence the Greco - Roman world, whose essential elements nevertheless remain relevant to us today. The Stoics provide a recipe for living the right way by seeking wisdom and its application to live a virtuous life embracing justice, courage and temperance. Christianity was to adopt aspects in the first few centuries arising principally from the many journeys of the apostle St Paul and his subsequent followers.  

St Paul as a scholar (being part of a wealthy influential Roman family and taught by eminent scholars) was also a Roman citizen. So he was very well versed in philosophy and engaged in discussions with the stoic philosophers of Athens and their followers as is evidenced in references in the Acts of the Apostles as is contained in Luke’s Gospel in chapter 17, written circa 50 AD. 

Many became followers of St. Paul’s, whilst others found the idea of the merging of Greek rationally with Hebrew mysticism in respect to Paul’s oft repeated phrase of ‘being in Christ’ a source of constant confusion.  

St. Paul found common ground with the stoics was in relation to the idea of freedom from the passions. 

But stoicism also continued to influence western philosophy throughout the Ages where aspects were refined or rejected such as Hegel’s idea they placed too much emphasis on rational inward thinking to isolate one from the reality of social life. In modernity it has provided food for thought in lessons for coping with the pressures of daily living. 

For instance there is the public face of face book stoic philosophical groups (members numbering in the hundreds of thousands )talking about how to employ those practices to enhance daily living.   

It is also claimed that elements of the processes adopted by AA have their roots in stoic philosophy incorporating ideas of "knowing "derived from the external world. 

An admirer and a critic was Frederick Nietzsche who embraced the idea of love of fate even further but was critical of their dissent in the role of the emotions.

The idea in stoicism of a GOD, imminent throughout the universe, influenced Spinoza’s philosophy and his pantheism (God is in everything) which was immensely inspirational to Einstein. 

In modernity stoicism is experiencing a minor renaissance in numerous articles demonstrating its application to daily living. 

Note stoicism is not the same as the general dictionary interpretations associated purely with resilience. 

 

Early stoic philosophy 

Zeno of Citium (305 BC) who resided in what is present day Cyprus, was influenced by the teaching of Socrates and employed the same dialectic method. Broadly, in attempting to sum up its earliest ideas it can be described as having some similarities to eastern religions in respect to the acknowledgment of a unified rational cosmic force to accept one’s fate and embrace a calm mind so that one can be in harmony with it and overcome adversity. 

The work has been transmitted down the ages, principally through the works of Cicero and that of Epictetus and Marcus Aurelius. Its appeal stems from the fact it purports to underpin a way of life - following on from the idea of living the good life by Socrates, Plato and Aristotle. 

There are different schools of thought in stoicism but the  underlying thematic is the aim to distinguish between what they considered as ethically binding values and those that are neutral which in turn informs you as to how to take responsibility for living the good life. In other words, what you can change and therefore to concentrate your efforts and not worry about things outside of your control.

 

Epictetus

Epicitus’s was a slave and treated as a non-human tool which left him lame and in ill health, unable to physically enjoy his eventual freedom from slavery. He talked about overcoming pain and suffering by accepting life and realizing serenity. In other words, to gain control of your emotions so they don’t overwhelm you. He believed in a rational GOD presiding over a deterministic universe whose rationally was shared with humanity who can live in the world according to GOD'S will as that will was similarly echoed in the will of nature.

 

Notes from: John Anthony Crook, Professor of Ancient History, University of Notes from Cambridge, 1979–84. Author of Law and Life of Rome. From notes by G. Eraclides- Darabin U3A Inc 

 

Marcus Aurelius

Roman Emperor (AD 161–180), best known for his Meditations on Stoic philosophy. Marcus Aurelius has symbolized for many generations in the West the Golden Age of the Roman Empire. A more intimate contact with the thoughts pursued by Marcus, can be acquired by reading the Meditations. To what extent he intended them for eyes other than his own is uncertain; they are fragmentary notes, discursive and epigrammatic by turn, of his reflections in the midst of campaigning and

administration. In a way, it seems, he wrote them to nerve himself for his daunting responsibilities. Strikingly, though they comprise the innermost thoughts of a Roman, the Meditations were written in Greek—to such an extent had the union of these cultures become a reality. Marcus was forever proposing to himself unattainable goals of conduct, forever contemplating the triviality, brutishness, and transience of the physical world and of man in general and himself in particular; otherworldly, yet believing in no other world, he was therefore tied to duty and service with no hope, even of everlasting fame, to sustain him.

 

Stoicism and Neoplatonism resource notes by G. Eraclides

The Meditations, the thoughts of a philosopher-king, have been considered by many generations one of the great books of all times. Though they were Marcus' own thoughts, they were not original. They are basically the moral tenets of Stoicism, learned from Epictetus: the cosmos is a unity governed by an intelligence, and the human soul is a part of that divine intelligence and can therefore stand, if naked and alone, at least pure and undefiled, amidst chaos and futility. One or two of Marcus' ideas, diverged from Stoic philosophy and approached the Platonism that was itself then turning into the Neoplatonism, into which

all pagan philosophies, except Epicureanism, were destined to merge. But he did not deviate so far as to accept the comfort of any kind of survival after death. Marcus was a statesman, perhaps, but one of no great calibre; nor was he really a sage. In general, he is a historically overrated figure, presiding in a bewildered way over an empire beneath the gilt of which there already lay many a decaying patch. But his personal nobility and dedication survive the most remorseless scrutiny;

He counted the cost obsessively, but he did not shrink from paying it. Selected Quotes from Marcus Aurelius: "You have power over your mind - not outside events. Realize this, and you will find strength." ~ Marcus Aurelius

"When you arise in the morning, think of what a precious privilege it is to be alive - to breathe, to think, to enjoy, to love." ~ Marcus Aurelius

"The happiness of your life depends upon the quality of your thoughts." ~ Marcus Aurelius

"Think of all the years passed by in which you said to yourself "I'll do it tomorrow," and how the gods have again and again granted you periods of grace of which you have not availed yourself. It is time to realize that you are a member of the Universe that you are born of Nature itself and to know that a limit has been set to your time. Use every moment wisely, to perceive your inner refulgence, or 'twill be gone and nevermore within your reach." ~ Marcus Aurelius

"Live a good life. If there are gods and they are just, then they will not care how devout you have been, but will welcome you based on the virtues you have lived by. If there are gods, but unjust, then you should not want to worship them. If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones." ~ Marcus Aurelius

"The things you think about determine the quality of your mind. Your soul takes on the colour of your thoughts." ~ Marcus Aurelius

 

Stoic philosophy - what was believed - with my responses? 

 

Question: The rational universe is a unity which imbues a (Logos) which are intelligible ideas on how to live. 

My Response 

From the Christian perspective I believe one can separate the universe from a creator GOD, so that whilst observing a largely deterministic outcome of the Universe with possibly divine laws, it’s not a given one can easily glean intelligible ideas.

Rather, one can exercise introspection and adopt a philosophy that supports a meaningful calm way of life without necessarily holding true to the idea of a rational universe as in GOD. The gift of life and our relative freedom to transcend nature means we live in a kind of mystery that engenders a sense of wonderment and reverence rather than be tied to the idea of a duty from a cosmic universe. 

2. Question: Knowing how this reality functions as a whole, will help us understand how individual things, people, ought to act.

My Response

As previously stated I am wary of holding true to a rational universe but I do believe studying the stoic ideals can help one think about differentiating between things one can change versus those beyond our powers.  

3. Question

Human beings must thus abide and live, by the rational will (Logos) of reality, conform to the divine laws of nature/reality. 

My Response

As above

 4. Question

Each human being must accept (or learn to accept or master) their rightful place in the overall scheme of things and carry out their ordained (necessary) purpose.

My Response 

I think there is merit in ascertaining what you believe to be your purpose or commitment in life. However I do think one has to be careful not to adopt a slave mentality as was rallied against by Frederick Nietzche and risk adopting abstract values implicit in the idea ascertaining a so called ordained (necessary) purpose. Herein I also believe lies the dangers of Calvinism and the perils of holding views on predestination. The so-called elect which was fervently rejected by the existentialists.  

5 Question

Doing your duty is critical and thus the most rational thing to do; it means carrying out the responsibility necessitated for you by the cosmic intelligence, (or world soul, God, providence).

My Response 

As above.  

6. Question

Virtue is knowledge. You cannot be virtuous in ignorance.

My Response 

Knowledge and virtue are two different things. Certainly the idea of studying the virtues can assist one in leading an ethical life but that doesn’t mean those armed with such information will then decide to lead a virtuous life.     

7. Question

Living virtuously is the ultimate objective of life, the ultimate good; the cardinal virtues thus ends  in themselves (reason, courage, justice, self-discipline or self-control).

My Response

Living the good life as they say has many connotations but ultimately I think it can be argued it involves the virtues. However, the question of morals and how to live is also a moving feast. Our ideas of what is moral has changed as we gain more knowledge and the application of ethics as a moral compass I believe has some merit. It is not nearly as clear cut as the stoic philosophers proposed although many aspects as in normative ethics are straightforward as to be a matter of common sense. 

8. Question

Philosophy undertaken properly will lead you to the virtuous life.

My Response 

Not necessarily but it is bound to help. There are offshoots to apply in every field of endeavour involving the expanded narrative associated with philosophy.    

9. Question

If you can attain the virtuous life for yourself, then you will (or can) achieve a tranquil state of body and mind, free from the anxieties that buffet human existence; you ought to aim for this detached state of being, free of the pull of extreme emotions such as joy or grief, pain or pleasure etc... which psychologically can destroy you or lead you astray from the rational path.

My Response 

More a question of balance not to be overly consumed with the emotions which tell us the truth about how we feel but not always the truth.

10. Question

Consistent with the virtuous life is the aim to be self-sufficient, independent of others for your physical and mental needs.

11. Question Each person possesses a part of the eternal divine reason (Logos).

12. Question.  All human beings are part of (or should see themselves as) a cooperating, rational community carrying out the obligation to fulfil the grand design of reality, the rational Logos.

My Responses – Herein stoicism takes on a pragmatic leap of faith whereas I see our life mystery and a sense of wonder with the ability at times to transcend nature.    

13. Question -Ethical action (part of living virtuously) transcends race, gender, age, class or other particular human, tribal characteristics. It is a transcending, rational system.

My Response 

Ethics as in the nature of a moral compass is subjective and has the potential to achieve such outcomes which are nevertheless at times subjective.

14. Question Everything is preordained (predestined, fated).

My Response 

Mostly but there is a degree of freedom since I believe we can transcend nature.  

 

Mystery of the elusive self

 Meaning of life 

As far as the meaning of life is concerned, from my perspective it's always been aligned to the necessity to create your own, since I believe it's inextricably tied to your personal philosophy, whether you chose to formalise it or not. 

As far as our relationship is concerned (self) in my view the universe is not GOD, nor do I believe in pantheism or naturalism. Rather, surely, if we are to take modern day science seriously then, I believe, one has to accept the idea that the Universe is some sort of chance creation – and for those of religious view, one that cannot exist without GOD. Although it exists independent of GOD's it responds with encouragement from a creator in terms of the allegory of a child to its loving parents. Camus was the only existential philosopher to claim existence or life was absurd, although Sartre saw merit in his philosophy to respond positively to living a meaningful created life in accepting such a starting reference point.   

The problem of time and the contradiction of the freedom (free will) inherent in quantum theory versus the general theory of relativity and determinism.     

On the other hand, Einstein, as a deeply religious man, found himself struggling with the obvious contradiction between quantum mechanics and his general theory of relativity so he invented his discredited theory involving a cosmological constant as a solution. In effect to appease his religious beliefs and overrule his own science contained in his general theory of relativity.

In another frame we have the inconsistency of time as we experience it. As one is aware there is no such thing as time in physics- but only space time: the amalgam of time plus motion. But as Raymond Tallis points out, from our personal experience, we always experience time as a never ending series of NOW's. This aspect troubled Einstein as well as the freedom inherent in Quantum mechanics. These realities contradicted his idea of determinism as in pantheism which suggests GOD is a controlling entity in everything.

In other words his idea of a deterministic world, GOD does not play dice with the universe.     

He became desperate to invent a solution. But his idea of a smoothing effect applicable to his so called cosmological constant was what he hoped existed but has never been detected and today is widely discredited.

Modern day science has no answer to this continuing mystery with all sorts of hypotheses suggested as solutions involving string theory and other world dimensions attempting to resolve the mystery. So science is in crisis, just as analytical philosophy and epistemology tend to be discarded as authorities in themselves within postmodernity. But they remain very useful tools to support a more comprehensive narrative process about any topic and more particularly in how to find a more meaningful life in the tradition of the great philosophers.  One could argue philosophy, given a more humble approach to embrace the expanded narrative, is even more relevant today and continues to make slow progress. 

Raymond Tallis suggests human beings move in and out of nature so that we have the ability to transcend its determinism. 

Another topic for discussions: is s philosophy making any progress?

Introduction

Until fairly recently western philosophy was regarded as science and the term metaphysics from the Greeks introduced for discussion on those aspects that lie outside of physics. 

So in the early period philosophy and science both played out on the same hymnal sheet to demonstrate progress much more easily than today. Herein one sees advances in science but in philosophy in many writer’s minds (such as the late Stephen Hawking) philosophy is claimed to have lost its relevance and not kept up to date with the advances in science.  

Postmodern philosophy.

To add to this perception, beginning with the likes of the late Richard Rorty ( Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature ) it has been argued that philosophy needs to cast aside its undue emphasis on epistemology (philosophy can’t claim specialised knowledge) and analytical philosophy (likewise nothing special can be claimed relating to philosophy) in favour of just the broad narrative. 

The future of philosophy  

The future progress is going to slow but it’s continuing in my view as opposed to saying it’s stagnated. 

Just as the enlightenment philosophers may have got a bit carried away with the idea they could view a human being as if looking outside of the world we inhabit, so the post modernisation may also want to dismiss some of the gems from the past. E.g. rescuing the self - I remain a Kierkegaardian and Kierkegaard’s existentialism to me continues to change the lives of some that study it - progress in rediscovered attributes relevant today. Likewise Stephen Hawking’s conceited view eventually science would discover a world view for everything inclusive of a quantum general theory of relativity that would uncover the mystery of quantum mechanics has not materialised. At least Hawking did later withdraw his claim.

So that, if anything, in relation to reality, science remains at the crossroads rooted in mystery. It must turn to metaphysics if we are to form philosophies that help make sense of our life.       

So I think the sense of wonder will always drive philosophical inquiry forward as I would call that progress.

 

Ballina & Byron Bay

 

We have just returned from staying in Ballina prior to attending Anne's nieces wedding (Charlotte) which was finally held in Byron Bay after 2 prior covid forced cancellations.

The weather for the entire time was fine and sunny and we were able to catch up for lunch in delightful venues with both Anne's brother Mark and his wife Shayne and sister Julie and partner Dianne.  

The wedding was a splendid affair for just the family of about 40 and was held at a large holiday home abutting the ocean with magnificent views that the picture below does not do justice to. 

Whilst at Ballina I visited the Maritime Museum which houses one of the 3 original rafts that in 1973 sailed from Ecuador to Ballina - a transpacific crossing of 14,000 km which is the longest journey by a raft ever completed. If you are interested in reading more about this feat, its purpose and the 12 men involved click on the links. 

 https://www.smh.com.au/national/nsw/the-search-for-a-missing-salvador-dali-work-in-ballina-20130805-2r9a1.html

https://www.sea.museum/2020/07/16/las-balsas-the-worlds-longest-raft-journey

Andre Rieu, "Barcarolle"

The Open Door Singers are currently learning this beautiful piece of music in tenor, soprano, alto and bass parts and with english words.     

Popularisation in politics lacks policy

The rise of popularisation in politics underpinned the reason for the initial success of Trump in the USA is well described by the interesting writings of the so-called red neck socialist Joe Bageant who authored Deer Hunting With Jesus,    

He provides a good background to explain the unexpected rise in popularity of Trump in some states - that is the continuing creeping class divide in the USA, to ultimately rob blue collar workers of pay and job security. Trump was the first to speak to them as one who understood their position, as the new working poor. He promised to bring back the manufacturing jobs to the country which had been lost to subcontracting overseas - principally to China. 

Underpinning this phenomenon in the USA of the working poor has been the lack of a realistic basic wage, exasperated by immigrants crossing the border (maybe 20 million so called illegal immigrants currently reside in the USA who have no official status) who mostly accept substandard rates of pay. There has been a propensity to turn a blind eye to this factor which equates to immigration without any policy. I’m not against immigration but you need to have some coherent policy to ensure adequate assimilation and support to benefit society as a whole. 

Trump’s unfulfilled promise to build a wall to be funded by Mexico by way of a levy from the remittances sent home by those now working in the states did strike a chord. 

In my view the phenomenon in the USA provides plenty of food for thought in relation to political philosophy. Principally what seems to ne missing is the ethical side to economics and governance as in the concept of fairness. That entails setting minimum wages and governance based on the concept of fairness rather than leaving it up to the market and thereby avoiding difficult decisions.   

The laziness of governance in this respect combined with libertarian’s confusion to link morality only to the question of freedom further contributed to the shrinking middle class and emergent working poor. The interesting point to note is the prior ground swell of support for candidates supporting smaller government and liberty in lieu of regulation were actually underpinning a policy stance against their best interests. 

After all the fathers of western economics namely Adam Smith (Wealth of Nations) and John Maynard Keynes were moral philosophers. It’s only of recent times Keynesian economics has been utilized to counter the otherwise catastrophic effect of Coved. 

There are lots of interesting questions for political discussions assuming the aim is for fairer societal outcomes. But the salient point is you can’t legislate morality but you can aim for equal opportunities. That involves a fundamental freedom of choice but it doesn’t mean we will have equal outcomes because each of us are different. But to reiterate the question of freedom is often confused with morality, but they are not the same thing. Some curtailment of individual freedom will always be necessary if you adopt policies that benefit the whole of the community. A curtailment of an individual’s freedom is explicitly implied in the multitude of regulatory measures affecting business, our working conditions, safety and the values we expect from institutions assumed  in a society where policies are designed to give maximum benefit to the most needy or vulnerable. This is in keeping with the aims of egalitarianism.

The libertarian view of a smaller government and the idea of liberty to promote freedom and avoid freeloaders is the opposite political view.

Back To Sorrento

 

Whilst holidaying at Sorrento with a walking group of friends we enjoyed our stay minus the planned walks. Afterwards we caught up for dinners. 

It was a good opportunity to mull over a few questions on political philosophy, from a course I have enrolled at Darebin U3A. The tutor had provided a few question for discussions when we next meet. These are the slightly modified questions and my answers.    

Questions such as how likely today is society prepared to accept authority and abide by decisions or policy implemented by others in control? – that’s when you don’t agree?   

Is your approach intellectual (‘what I think is right’) or are you more inclined to value emotion and intuition (‘what feels right’)? If both, then what predominates? 

Here’s a few of my musings.

Any democratic political system involves a degree of responsibility to others. The old adage that you can’t delegate responsibility unless in turn you provide the power to make ethical decisions on behalf of others applies in any well-constructed democracy. Therein the acceptance of some directions from authority figures in the form of laws passed and policies implemented become integral to our existence.  

The question of taking those directions when you don’t agree or think the course of policy is morally wrong involves questions of equity in the system. The extent that legitimate avenues of protest are acceptable subjectively involves fairness. That inevitably is going to lead to conflict so that guiding descriptive principles are usually better than too many long winded laws and policies. 

My preference is for a system of both intuition and consequentialism (Utilitarianism) to ensure the best possible outcomes. In other words a pragmatic approach that is constantly revised by scientific updates and introspection that recognises updates are a necessary part of our progress as human beings.

What was considered okay in the past inevitably becomes unacceptable as new knowledge and understanding comes to light? An important element is how we feel about things but that needs to be tempered with an ongoing narrative that looks towards the fairest outcomes. Of course you can’t always determine the outcomes in which event one proceeds with a high degree of caution and preparedness to make changes. There are many decisions and policies adopted in the past that turned out to have undesirable outcomes even though they seemed to be okay at the time. The trouble is no one wants to admit to mistakes and the need for revision yet that is principally how we progress to become a fairer society.   

Another question 

Is it a realistic assumption to expect actions without selfishness underpinning decisions?

Are we free when part of a collective which tells you how you should conduct yourself? In other words, by ignoring your self-interest, are you still a free citizen?

Do we have a democratic system involving a social contract that represents a genuine model for developing a free and fair political society? Is that just idealistic?  

Here is what I think 

Herein, I think we can accept the idea of a social contact that first arose in the 18th century provided the opportunity for a genuine model for that time which assisted in the evolutionary process of the political system. But its flaw is at the time it was underpinned by idealism.

The question of freedom and morality are often confused given the idea that restraints on an individual’s freedom as in a collective are seen as being morally wrong. Rather, a democratic ideal must curtail some individual’s freedom so that overall the enjoyment of given freedoms are realised by a greater number of people. This raises the vexed question of individual rights versus societal standards enshrined in the law.

Question 

Turning to modernity such political systems gravitate to representations in practice of hybrid models of government tending more one way or the other - Right wing or Left wing or Centre-right’; ‘Centre-left’).

Then there are others who believe that any form of government (authority) is wrong. There is a significant seam of such thinking in political philosophy, from early socialist craft guilds. 

Do you think a government (especially in modernity) spoils what is essentially good in human nature? Can we rely more on this and reduce their role of government to defence and a few basic services or is the reverse true to underpin a fairer society?     

My musings.

This type of thinking in my mind reverts to a form of naivety since it fails to recognise the advancements in complexity that underpins humanity. We are naturally inquisitive and although one might argue we have no more wisdom than the sages of old there can be little doubt in the growth in population, knowledge and new scientific discoveries that mean we are more aware of the consequences of our actions. Hence, I think some form of collective becomes increasingly a necessary part of existence. Although we are inextricably connected to nature and need to show reverence to nature that also means a form of a social pragmatic narrative needs to be entertained and constantly updated if we are to advance in a sustainable manner. 

Question 

If we are fallen beings in the religious sense how can we hope to discover the best form of political governance? Is it better to look for a pragmatic option? Or should we persist in finding the perfect system?

Can human beings create a just State?

Final thoughts  

I think it is better to take a pragmatic view based on intuition and an ongoing revised evaluation of the consequences of policies and laws. Justice is an important aspect that needs to be regarded as a work in progress. Admitting mistakes and learning from prior experiences is the key, but it's too painful for many to accept.   

 

But let’s know what you think

Philosophy remains relevant

I attended the ‘The Biennial Conference in Philosophy Religion and Culture’ held in Sydney quite some time ago. The theme then was “Creation, Nature and the Build Environment”, which is even more relevant today.     

Keynote Address.   
The keynote address was by three New Zealand academics namely Elizabeth Aitken-Rose, Douglas Pratt and Jennifer Dixon on “Community and Incarceration: The Architecture of Alienation and the Politics of Redemption”.

‘According to the International Centre for Prison Studies (Kings College, London) New Zealand has the fifth highest rate of incarceration per head of population in the OECD – after the USA, Chile, Poland and Czechoslovakia – and well ahead of Australia. New Zealanders pride themselves on breaking records and perhaps the most impressive is the rate at which they lock people up and throw away ongoing responsibility. A new prison in the city of Auckland looms large over the surrounding urban landscape: it is a larger, gloomier, shadier and more embarrassingly obvious human cage than anyone had anticipated. From a Correctional perspective, the locality addresses essential needs. It is close to the courts and a perfect situation for the requisite remand centre. ‘

The presenters argued the need for a radical improvement in the design and administration of prisons to combat the world wide high degrees of recidivism. Their multi-faceted approach highlighted the physiological and religious fundamentalism perpetuated in the design roots from a medieval societal view of incarceration. Those involved were currently working with the NZ government to instigate design improvements and were of particular interest to the press in Australia. In NZ it currently costs the state $90,000 pa per prisoner.

At the conference the conclusion reached was that a cluster of smaller type housing for prisons would engender a much better outcome over the favoured current mega structures.

 

The environment was a popular theme with a large number of papers talking about eco-spirituality and drawing attention to environmental concerns.

(Fr) Gregory Jacobs's paper argued ‘that there needs to be a change away from the dualistic model of a mechanical worldview when we look at creation, and returning to an organic, or holistic model. Here he believed that the Temple theology (the idea of reverence for the temple to encapsulate the earth as the sacred tabernacle) of the Old Testament, and a deeper understanding of the ‘creation covenant ‘are helpful starting points for analysing the creation stories, and thereby gaining a new understanding of both our place in the environment, and our use of the resources of the earth.

Cullan Joyce’s religious thinking about the environment focused on moral issues and on spirituality. His paper approached the question as something that should be of concern to the systematic theologian. As such it asked what saving the environment might have to do with the doctrine of salvation. This entailed a consideration of the connection between the doctrines of creation and salvation. In the end, it may all be a question of how we understand and communicate an adequate understanding of the eschaton.

Personally I think the wisdom of Albert Schweitzer is to be recommended though inevitably there are flaws in his philosophy as there are in any philosophy. His insight contained within his ‘Reverence for life’ involved the ethic of love evidenced in the New Testament to be realized in one’s natural occurring gifts.

Schweitzer’s ideas were to think positively about life (life affirmation as he calls it) to share with all living things in the world in which we live. His idea came from his concern about civilization which he thought had lost its spiritual roots because of our lack of reverence for life as the post enlightenment worldview which had become totally reliant on reason. His philosophy was not a utopian ideal or quantifiable to given values, outcomes, behaviours or morality. Rather he encouraged a way of thinking which would return to our spiritual roots, whose outcome, although diverse, shared in the communal ancestry of all living things which he referred to as ethical mysticism. The aim was to think about the reality of our co – inhabitants with the world by accepting our life mystery which was to show reverence for it. His thinking is much more deep seated than a casual observation might first conclude.

Another enthusiastic scholar was Robert Tilley who presented a paper entitled Cosmic Liturgy and Biblical Criticism: a Question of Method: ‘For some decades now there has been what many have called a crisis in biblical criticism. A crisis concerning many of the basic assumptions informing the methods used, which we can see now were little more than the prejudices of modernity. With the rise of the 'Third Quest' the task has been not only to assimilate the early Jewish and Christian material previously neglected, but to rethink our method. A good deal of this project has involved a focus upon the concept of covenant, not merely as a social factor but as a cosmological, even metaphysical, one as well. The effects of this have been both profound and exciting, but the new approach is not without its own attendant pitfalls. By reference to the works of Margaret Barker this paper identifies what is one of the major pitfalls: this is the failure to give due attention to the way in which common concepts can be differently employed, not least by reference to the use of irony and reversal. It is a mistake that not only flattens out the depth and dimensions of history and the texts under discussion, but lends itself to what one might call 'a conspiracy theory method'. A method that effectively means the assumptions of the critic can only ever be confirmed. Thus, we run the risk of repeating the same errors of earlier biblical criticism. ‘

Tilley invites us to think about the prevailing literature at the time and the propensity for the Hebrew writers to engage in different styles as evidenced in the prevailing literature and culture apparent at that time. His invitation was to review the societal nuances from an ironical perspective in contrast to previous scholars who attribute different styles of writing to different authors. Tilley asserts changes in style are a deliberate ploy in keeping with the cultural approach of that age which leads to more liberal interpretation of scripture which is best viewed through the prism of irony. The writer(s) use of myth, poetry, allegory and above all irony add to the rich composition and often confirms an understanding of the sacred nature of life's mystery unable to be articulated in rational dialogue.


Aristotle’s Most Beautiful City
Scholar Andrew Murray at the time was involved within the Australian government to bring peace and stability to the troubled Solomon Islands located close to Australia. By introducing the harmonious philosophy of Aristotle he aimed to bring peace and tranquillity to these troubled Islands.

‘In Book VII of the Politics, Aristotle notes that beauty is realized in number and magnitude, and the city which combines magnitude with good order must necessarily be the most beautiful. ‘{Politics VII, 4 (1326a33-35)}.

There is a number of interesting questions for discussions. For instance, what is Aristotle‘s understanding of beauty? How is it found in the physical features of a city as discussed in Book VII? How does it relate to the moral entity of the best possible city?

The paper is in sections to discuss Aristotle‘s understanding of beauty, the beauty of the built city and the beauty of the constituted city.

He provides some very useful insights as to how the design and architecture of a city create a welcoming, friendly, beautiful environment as opposed to the fortress mentality which only engenders mistrust as a bar to peaceful co-existence with one's neighbours.

If we want to create a trusting environment we need to pay attention to providing warmth and appeal in a welcoming design layout for a model city. Andres critiques Sydney’s architecture in the light of Aristotle’s beautiful city essay.  

 

Click below to read his paper.

https://www.cis.catholic.edu.au/Files/Murray_-_Aristotles_Most_Beautiful_City.pdf