A critical question is whether abortion, euthanasia, and related crimes are a logical working out of the founding principles of liberal democracy or a betrayal of those principles. Is Roe an aberration or a necessary consequence of this kind of polity?
Sometimes (like now), I am more interested in highlighting a question rather than an answer. I think the following quote explains why:
Problems do not exist in order to be solved; we can never get "behind" Being. We always look with mild contempt on everything we have solved. Problems should always become more luminous in the light of the great mystery in which we live, move, and have our being. A sense of mystery is a Catholic sense.
Hans Urs von Balthasar
The Grain of Wheat, p 21
Ignatius Press
The Grain of Wheat, p 21
Ignatius Press
11 comments:
I am surprised von Balthasar implied "Being" in that sense is a problem. It is a mystery. To the extent that Being is a problem, which there are aspects to it that are problematic--in the sense of epistemological issues and method and first principles--like I was saying, to the extent that Being is a problem, or perhaps I should say there are problematic aspects to Being or to our discovery of Being, they can be solved. Problems can be solved. Mysteries cannot ... in that sense. They are what von Balthasar describes, but they should not be confused with problems.
For more clarity on this, go to
http://virtualagora.blogspot.com/2005/10/problem-of-mystery.html.
In Christ,
W!
It would be a shame to let rationalism rob us of perfectly good terms like "problem." The word "mystery" is every bit as degraded as "problem," for the common definition of "mystery" is that which is unknowable.
Here's Fr. Giussani on the word, "Problem" (from Why the Church?):
"our attitude as modern men toward the religious fact is nonproblematic" (32).
"When a problem arises, then, it implies that an interest has been sparked. Intellectual curiousity is thus aroused, which, unlike doubt, whose existential dynamic tends to corrode the active dynamism of interest, renders us more and more extraneous to the object" (33).
And here's Wiktionary
(proballo) "to throw or lay something in front of someone, to put forward", from prefix pro- "in front of" + ballo "to throw, to cast, to hurl."
The notion that a problem is inherently something solvable is as widespread as it is pernicious (Scooby Doo springs to mind!). When my son was having difficulty at school, the school psychiatrist informed me that the district uses a "problem-solving" approach, with problem being defined as that which would interfere with Adequate Yearly Progress; since my son is above grade level in reading and at level in math, his boredom and authority issues were non-problematic.
Howdy,
I agree with the concern about not letting rationalism rob us of terms. The link above to a piece from Maritain sheds good light upon this. He was writing in light of some somewhat related remarks from Gabriel Marcel on the issue.
However unknowable a mystery may be, there are still aspects of it that can be known to some extent ... however analogous that knowledge may be. It is still knowledge in some sense. Think of God, the Trinity, the Incarnation, and so on. A mystery has a character such that one can enter into it and probe ever more deeply. Stress on "ever."
With regard to your son's school, they precluded themselves from helping by limiting their viewpoint. They limited themselves to a certain standard and since his problems were not picked up in reference to that standard, there were "no problems" for them to deal with. Or so it seems. There are so many dimensions to the human person and the contemporary educational outlook quite often only sees the human person in a limited way. Sad, but quite often true.
As regards Giussani, a bit farther down on page 33, he says something similar to what I suggested and what Maritain wrote. Giussani writes that it is possible that "the problem and all its essential components will concomitantly assume a clear form and lend itself more easily to a solution." The solvable feature of a problem.
Then he goes on to add that there are times when problems "appear in unclear terms and a human subject will easily feel impaired." These times are those when "the mentality and the environment do not provide the elements for setting in motion the dynamics of a given problem in the right way [...]" That sounds a lot like much of the modern and contemporary world's difficulties to certain realities and their rejection of our ability to know anything--or at least anything significant--about such realities.
I think Maritain and Giussani can be reconciled on this, especially when one keeps in mind that Giussani quite often uses terms much more often in their contemporary sense than in the traditional sense of the perennial philosophy. (Not a criticism, just a point of fact about Giussani choice of terms and how he uses them; seems to be heavily writing in an implicit response to Heidegger and any other continental and secular-minded thinkers.
Now about mystery, I think Giussani is saying a similar things as Maritain and sheds some more light on this when he writes (on page 103-104): "the word 'mystery' [according to the moderns] means the unknowable, the inaccessible, or the still unknown. In Christian language, too, the word 'mystery' denotes the inaccessible and the elusive. However, in the Christian sense, the word assumes a different meaning--and while it does maintain its infinite content, it also in some way reveals itself in our finite state and makes itself a part of our experience. The mystery in the Christian sense is mystery that as we live it, makes itself known to our senses." (Emphases added.)
Thus, a problem is something that can be figured out, even if it is "something unexpected that interferes with our plans."
To the extent something is solvable or can be figured out, it is a problem. To the extent something (even the same thing) has a character that cannot be comprehended completely, cannot be figured out, solved as an equation, because there are dimensions that our minds cannot sufficiently or significantly pierce, then it is a mystery.
I just noticed St. Paul's repeated use of the term, "stumbling block," which in many ways is approximate to the term, "problem." For us, the problem has become the cornerstone of our existence. This is a good thing: something different happens that interferes with our self-sufficiency.
Rationalism wants only problems that it can solve, so it discards any evidence that is truly problematic.
Fred
W,
I've found it helpful to see things as both problem and mystery: problem insofar as I stumble over it; mystery insofar as I may embrace it. Not all problems can be solved: the religious sense is precisely a problem that cannot be solved. Problems that are unsolvable for us are an invitation to beg for help.
Fred
Very interesting, indeed. I don't want to get hung up on terms. What they signify is what I am thinking about.
If you see problem that way, then I would just say we disagree but we agree on what is signified. I just call it something else. More of a mystery to the extent that it cannot be solved or figured out.
The Pauline reference was often brought up in undergrad days. The word is what we translate as "scandal." A scandal is something that is a stumbling block to someone.
I agree with your point about rationalism ... at least for the most part. And that just shows that rationalists who think that way have cut out a whole dimension to reality and to our experience precisely because it cannot be "solved" or "figured out." Rationalism discards much of the realm of the mystery and the supernatural and metaphysical. To me and my philosophical tradition, these realities are mysteries or have mysterious aspects to them insofar as they are not bound or subject to the materialistic/rationalistic standards of knowledge and proof. No, they are beyond that. In fact, they transcend that. Thus, a mystery.
Now your last point about the religious sense. I am not as saturated in Giusanni's thought as you (for now at least; am working on it), but I will take some time to consider if this is what he means: that "the religious sense is precisely a problem that cannot be solved." I agree with what you mean here; just don't agree on the term, which for me is that big of a deal ... at least I don't think it is; will have to ponder on that for a bit.
My initial thoughts are that the religious sense is both: mystery and problem. And it is so in the senses (of the two concepts mystery and problem) that I mentioned above in earlier post (and as Maritain suggested).
(Just pulled out my Marcel. Will see what he has to say on the matter.)
In Christ,
I'd love to see the Marcel. It's been ages since I read him.
I agree with *everything* you've said here.
It occurs to me this morning that the three terms: mystery, sacrament, and problem can be looked at along a continuum - all pointing to the same reality, but accentuating a different aspect of reality. Thus, mystery refers to something insofar as we can grow infinitely in it; sacrament means that it is a tangible sign to us of that infinite reality; problem insofar as it challenges our complacency and self-sufficiency, the first step on the road to freedom.
It is only because of my own complacency and self-sufficiency that problem is the most dear term to me, so that whenever I meet a problem I can look at it as a gift, something positive that I can build on.
For example, I may be reading or commenting on the Internet only to be interrupted by one of my children: problem. But then I see that they are a gift for me, a sign of God's presence, and a mystery of his tenderness towards me.
Fred
I want to thank you also for the word, scandal; I had forgotten it. A problem, it seems to me, is not necessarily a scandal or stumbling block. It is simply something thrown into our path.
Problems should always open into mystery.
Fred
I like that: problems opening up into mystery.
I am not sure if you covered this already, but what would you call what I term a "problem"? Those realities, things, that can be "solved" or "figured out"? Or perhaps I should be asking: do you think there are such things?
How about 'abstraction'? Through analysis, we can abstract a model that can be solved. This is a powerful tool, but the careless application of this tool can have unintended consequences.
A medical doctor can cure an illness, but why did the illness occur in the design of Providence? Illness is a rich experience. When Ignatius was injured in battle, reading the lives of the saints inspired his vocation. I heard Oliver Sacks talk about his book, "Awakenings" on the radio once. Some patients had a sleeping sickness that slowed their metabolism, like Rip Van Winkle. Sacks looked at the patients as problems to be solved. So, he cured one man and the man's cancer (which had been dormant due to the disease) became active again. After that, he tried to look at the totality of the patient, instead of just one detail examined in isolation.
My wife and I have backtracked to Chapter 3 of Why the Church, which astonishes me every time I look at it. On pages 54-59, Fr. Giussani discusses scientism, analysis, and solvable problems.
Thank you for these questions. You are helping me to grow.
Fred
I think more of my answers lie in The Risk of Education. Will update ... hopefully soon...with what I find there.
Post a Comment