Civilization and Its Discontents

Civilization and Its Discontents is Sigmund Freud’s analysis on the nature of civilization and how those within it can become discontent. Beginning with the source of religion, he posits that religion has its roots in infantile dependence on a father figure for its support and provision. From here, he moves into the general realm of relationships between people, namely that he strongest bond is that of sexual gratification, because it provides the greatest amount of pleasure and happiness, which is the goal of human life. Civilization though comes against the pursuit of these pleasures by enforcing a need for communal over personal happiness. This struggle continues into the realm of primal human aggressiveness as well. Freud later says that civilization introduces the super-ego, the initiator of one’s conscience, as a deterrent against aggressiveness, namely the form of guilt. However, Freud believes the restriction of these aggressive impulses can cause more damage to the person than if they had been acted out. Thus, there seems the inevitable, eternal struggle between the individual and civilization.

Frankly, I disagreed with a lot of what he said. I think it may be because he does not seem to have a correct understanding of love, that it is not something that must be selfishly indulged but one of self-sacrifice. He gives his definition of power of love as “the male unwilling to be deprived of his sexual object – the woman –, and the woman unwilling to be deprived of the part of herself which had been separated off from her – the child,” (79-80). In both these relationships, there is nothing of sacrifice on the part of the lover; no thought is given to the well-fare of the beloved. Everything revolves around the maintaining of happiness for the individual, even at the cost of the beloved. No wonder there is so much turmoil in Freud's view of civilization if its basis is such an understanding of love.

Anna Karenina - Part 2

After her recovery, Anna leaves to live her life with Vronsky. Traveling across Europe, they visit the major cities, living in Italy for a short time, before returning to Russia. It seems that nearly all her dreams have true. Her brother Stepan Arkadyich says of her, “She, though, you’ll see how she’s arranged her life, how calm and dignified she is,” (695). Her life is how she’s wanted it. She is no longer under Karenin’s control; she is with the man she adores above all others. She can finally live. So long as she is with Vronsky nothing else matters. So long as he loves her, the rest of the world and all its concerns are irrelevant.

However, the harder Anna tries to hold onto Vronsky, the farther he seems to go from her. “[He] coldly look[ed] at her, her hair, the dress he knew she had put on for him. … He liked it all, but he had already liked it so many times! And the stony, stern expression she had been so afraid of settle on his face,” (667). By all her arts and charms, Anna tries to tie Vronsky inseparably to herself, just as when they first met. Yet, despite her efforts, he keeps pulling away. She cannot live without his love but she cannot seem to keep it now. She has tried, almost smothering him with, love and dependence but still he leaves her. Even when Vronsky says that he cannot live without her, she sees that it is agony for him to be tied to her in the way she desires. “But the look that flashed in his eyes as he spoke those tender words was not only the cold, angry look of a persecuted and embittered man. She saw that look and correctly guessed its meaning. ‘If it is like this, it is a disaster!’ said the look. It was a momentary impression, but she never forgot it,” (668).

Anna Karenina - Part 1

Anna Karenina leads a respectable life, if not a happy one. She is comfortably situated with a government official, Alexei Alexandrovich Karenin, and absolutely adores her son. However, everything changes once she meets Count Alexei Vronsky. His devoted attention arouses in her feelings of passion and desire that she had not hitherto known with her husband. Before too long, she and Vronsky are deeply in love, and she becomes further and further estranged from her husband. Eventually, she tells him everything. He is mortified but asks only that she not see Vronsky. When Anna is unable to do this, he begins the painful filing for divorce.

However, after a separation, Karenin hears that Anna is ill and hurries over to see whether or not she has died. At first, he goes there secretly hoping that she has already died but, after he sees her desperately looking for him and asking for his forgiveness, his heart is overwhelmed with pity and love. He forgives her and even does what he can to help her back to health and take care of her daughter by Vronsky.

From the beginning to the middle of the novel, Alexei Alexandrovich changes drastically. He begins as a hard, driven man who cares minimally for his wife and son. He does not seem to see in them a real need but a tool by which to augment his rising career, and above all, believes in the importance of keeping appearances. Yet, when he sees his wife at death’s door, his heart of stone begins to melt and feel for, possibly, the first time. He finds joy in forgiving and loving Anna that he had not known while living respectably with her. He wants to put her wants before his own.

The Rules of the Game

Credited as one of the greatest films of all times, The Rules of the Game follows the romantic interactions of several members of a party of the French nobility, both guests and servants. Constant flirting and intrigue surround everyone as they pursue those they love, or seem to love, and no one seems to take no for an answer. From the servants to the hosts, both men and women deplore the state of the opposite gender as hopeless and yet still try to impress and win one another. Above all though rides this principle of dignity and propriety that must be followed when in love. The cast either respects these rules or tries to break them for their love.

When I’d first read a synopsis of the plot, I didn’t really understand the title. As I watched though, it became clearer: the game was love and everyone had to follow certain rules, or at least look like it. The aviator Jean and hostess Christine want to runaway but, Jean wants to follow propriety and tell her husband, the Marquis, that they are going away. Christine doesn’t feel the same and wishes that he would simply take her in his arms and runaway with her. She couldn’t care less about the rules of the game called love; all that matters to her is action dictated by feeling. Her wish is granted when her true love, Octave, says that they will runaway together. However, their plans are foiled when a case of mistaken identity leads to death, really meant for Octave. What might the director be saying about those who try to break the rules?

Jane Eyre - Part 2

After hearing Rochester call her name from across the moor, Jane rushes to find him from her home with her newly discovered family. She reaches the village outside Thornfield only to learn that the manor has burned and vacated. Unable to understand how all this has happened, she coaxes the story from an innkeeper. She learns that Bertha, Rochester’s mad wife, set the place ablaze and then dove from the roof to her death. Her husband, meanwhile, hurried the servants out before trying to save his wife. Unsuccessful, he was trapped in the house but came out alive, blinded and crippled. Finally though, she hears that he has locked himself away in a country cottage. Coming to the cottage, the servants allow her to see him.

When she enters, she coyly reveals himself to him. Both are overjoyed and filled to overflowing with love for one another. Over the next few days, Jane nurtures Rochester to better health and they give accounts of their time since parting. Probably the most profound realization comes from Rochester as he describes God and his re-discovery of Him.

He sees not as man sees, but far clearer: judges not as man judges, but far more wisely. I did wrong: I would have sullied my innocent flower – breathed guilt on its purity: the Omnipotent snatched it from me. . . . Of late, Jane – only – only of late – I began to see and acknowledge the hand of God in my doom. I began to experience remorse, repentance, the wish for reconcilement to my Maker. (514-15)

Rochester resented Jane’s removal; he saw her as his salvation and she left him. He could not understand how God could take from what was his saving grace and leave him to wallow in his despair. Only after disaster struck did he begin to reflect on the purpose behind Jane’s leaving.

This is what I have heard called a severe mercy. God, in His infinite mercy, removes something dear from one’s life that has become a hindrance to the progress of one’s soul. Often, the one left behind feels betrayed and embittered towards God. However, it is only upon reflection that they realize the goodness of severance and how wise God was in His judgment. For Rochester, only after Jane left was he able to see what he would have done to her, that he was trying to pollute the purity that would save him. In this realization, he experiences remorse for his actions and repents to the Master that Jane obeyed against the love she bore her earthly one.

Jane Eyre - Part 1

Charlotte Bronte’s classic novel Jane Eyre relates the history of the titular character. Beginning with her tortured childhood at Gateshead with her Reed relatives, the reader is introduced to a scared, unhappy Jane. She is abused by her cousin John and rejected by her Aunt Reed; her spirits are trampled on and repressed. Finally, she breaks. She lashes out at her cousin and aunt and is then sent to Lowood School where she is educated. Here though she watches as another girl is treated mercilessly by one of the teachers. Jane becomes upset for the girl, later named as Helen Burns.

Later in the novel when Jane discusses with Mrs. Fairfax, the housekeeper, Mr. Rochester’s character, she comments that the master is peculiar and abrupt. The matron brushes it off saying, “Partly because it is his nature – and we can none of us help our nature,” (149).Mrs. Fairfax, and young Jane at Lowood, believe that if something is in a person’s nature, there is no way to change that nature. Even if the traits are bad, no one can change it into something else. It can be curbed, perhaps, but not removed or transformed.

However, in contrast, Helen holds a different perspective. While at Lowood, she encourages Jane to go against her nature and forgive and submit to those who abused her. When Jane tells Helen that she could not bear to endure mistreatment for no cause, Helen replies that it is her duty and that she ought to, as a Christian, obey Christ’s command to love those who hate you. Here, Helen says that one’s nature doesn’t matter and should not be an excuse for allowing selfish behavior. Rather, one should try to emulate Christ and form their will and nature to His.

Franco Zeffirelli's Romeo and Juliet

Franco Zeffirelli’s film adaptation of Shakespeare’s classic tragedy is at once beautiful and provocative. The vibrant colors in the scenery and costuming support the life and gaiety that will eventually be crushed in the end. Romeo and Juliet’s passionate yet short-lived love arouses the watcher’s sympathies and holds their up their purity and devotion as the best as could be hoped for.

The film though portrays its protagonists as much more innocent than their stage originals. In the play, Romeo is desperate to reach Juliet. In the process, he threatens his servant Balthazar with death if he should stay to watch Romeo and then kills Paris when Paris tries to stop him from opening the Capulet family grave. The film though has Romeo speak only the kindly lines to Balthazar and removes Paris from the scene completely. Likewise, Juliet lies to Paris and her parents about loving Paris and delaying wedding over her grief over Tybalt’s death. However, the film shows Juliet merely sobbing and her parents assume that she is in deep grief over her murdered cousin and she never speaks of loving Paris at all.

Why would Zeffirelli choose to cut such actions from the characters? Perhaps it is to create a greater contrast between their love and their familial circumstances. By painting the lovers in such a way, they are pure, without fault except perhaps in loving one another. Their love is thus elevated because of this. By comparison, the constant turmoil and fighting between their families darkens the lives and feelings of all involved, each side calling out for more blood to be spilt in restitution of theirs lost. Everyone has been tainted by the feud. So when Romeo and Juliet die for their almost holy love, they are victims of circumstances beyond their control. While they tried their utmost to find a place of peace and love, their families ripped them apart.

Romeo and Juliet

The classic fatal romance of Romeo and Juliet has been repeated innumerable times throughout literature and cinema. Almost everyone knows the story of the two young lovers from warring families who would rather brave the abandonment of life and family than lose their love. As they pursue their forbidden attraction, they find their way grow steadily more difficult. Friends and family inadvertently get caught in the cross-fire. Yet their love still burns true, eventually consuming both of them. Only after their deaths do their families realize what kind of price their hatred has cost.

This tragic tale opens with a word from the Chorus, a non-participatory character.

Two households, both alike in dignity

(In fair Verona, where we lay our scene),

From ancient grudge break to new mutiny,

Where civil blood makes civil hands unclean.

From forth the fatal loins of these two foes

A pair of star-crossed lovers take their life;

Whose misadventured piteous overthrows

Doth with their death bury their parents’ strife. (Prologue 1-8)

In these few lines, the entire history and plot of Romeo and Juliet is given. It states the setting (Verona) with its two families warring over some grudge, much like the family feud in Adventures of Huckleberry Finn. From these two families come two lovers who eventually die for their love, thus ending their familial strife. It would seem plausible that without reading any further in the play the reader would know the entire story, of course in its simplest form.

Yet one must wonder why Shakespeare would begin his play in such a strange fashion. It’s like giving away the punch line in a joke without having even given the joke yet. Normally, a story’s plot, and especially ending, is allowed to play out along their course without any foretelling. One idea is that, though the reader may know the eventual outcome of everything, he does not know the details and that is why he would keep reading. However, this seems a bit silly. Shakespeare is a lot smarter than that. As much as I think about it, I can’t really come up with a good explanation. Perhaps I just need more time to think and process but I do know that it is not an accident or whim that the Chorus gives such a speech as a prologue to the play.

As You Like It

As You Like It is one of Shakespeare’s most romantic and amusing comedies. Having such unforgettable characters like Rosalind, Jacques, and Touchstone, the story trips along, carrying the reader, or watcher, for a pleasant ride. The witty banter amidst the characters only heightens its enjoyment. Following the interactions between the lovers Rosalind and Orlando and their various friends and relations, the reader vicariously experiences all their frustrations, heart-aches, and merriment. By the end, everyone is happy and no one is left alone.

While masquerading as the young man Ganymede, Rosalind meets the love-sick Orlando, who tells her his woes of unspoken love. In response, she says, “Love is merely a madness, and, I tell you, deserves as well a dark house and a whip as madmen do; and the reason why they are not so punished and cured is that he lunacy is so ordinary that the whippers are in love too. Yet I profess curing it by counsel,” (407-412). She, in guise of a “saucy youth,” makes fun of the very man she loves and the malady from which they both suffer. By her own definition, they ought both to be whipped out of their lunacy.

She agrees with Plato in her categorization of love as madness yet not to the extent that it is divine. Rather, she places it on the same level as other madnesses, curable by human means and ought to be cured at that. On that point, I believe that Plato would fight with her. Plato would say that love is not “merely a madness,” something to be cured, but something to be nurtured and allowed. And, if it can be rid of, it could not be done by human means such as counsel, as Rosalind says. Granted, she is being a little ridiculous, but the ideas still remains, the idea that love is a madness to be cured by human means. Can it really? And should it?

Othello

One of literature’s greatest tragedies, the story of Othello exemplifies in tragic clarity what can happen when mistrust and revenge take root in the lives of trusting individuals. Relational lines are blurred by assumption, and provocation on the part of the villainous Iago. From the very start, Iago plans Othello’s downfall and inserts himself into everyone’s lives, poisoning their ears with lies and half-truths. No one is safe. In the end, everyone’s lives fall apart only to learn the truth too late.

At the beginning of the play, Brabantio, Desdemona’s father, accuses Othello of bewitching his daughter. Only after hearing from Desdemona herself does he reluctantly acknowledge the marriage. When Othello is called to Cyprus to fight the Ottomans and Desdemona decides to follow him, Brabantio gives his new son-in-law some advice. “Look to her, Moor, if thou hast eyes to see: / She has deceived her father, and may thee,” (1.3.293-294). Having suddenly learned that his daughter has run-off and married a man he considers beneath her, the father feels betrayed. In retribution, he gives Othello the advice to watch his new wife so that she doesn’t surprise him like Brabantio was.

However, this line seems to bear more weight, and prophecy, in the course of the story. The major tragedy of the play revolves around Othello believing that Desdemona has deceived him when she really has not. Up until this point, there has been no suggestion of falseness or disloyalty on either side, known or plotted. It isn’t even until the second act that Iago concocts the plan to bring Othello down through distrusting his wife. I think this line plants the first seed in the Moor’s mind of the possibility that Desdemona would lie to him, insinuating that if she could deceive her doting, loving father, she could certainly do it again. Though they don’t seem to affect him at the moment, I believe that these words stayed with him, thus allowing Iago’s conniving words to penetrate further and take root.

Selected Poems of John Donne

Emotion flows freely from the lines of John Donne’s poetry. From witty flirtation to near-overwhelming sorrow to awestruck love, he covers the whole gamut of human feeling. One cannot read his poems with something within them moving. One laughs at Donne’s mockery of woman’s constancy in saying that their constancy is inconstancy. In poems for those who have died, one suffers with the poet in his loss and can easily imagine the one deceased in all their virtue and grace. Finally, in some of his most beautiful poems, one learns to see God in a, possibly, new light, one cast in love and the greatest adoration. Wherever one looks in Donne’s poetry, there is no end to the ways to exercise the heart.

In his Holy Sonnet XIV (Batter my heart, three-person’d God), Donne speaks to God as one would speak to a lover, passionate and intimate.

Yet dearely ‘I love you,’ and would be loved faine,

But am betroth’d unto your enemie:

Divorce mee, ‘untie, or breake that knot againe,

Take mee to you, imprison mee, for I

Except you ‘enthrall mee, never shall be free,

Nor ever chast, except you ravish mee. (9-14)

Normally, I would not have imagined such vehement language to be directed towards God. And yet, by looking at the book of Song of Songs, this kind of speaking is not uncommon in its direction towards God. Likewise, God is the lover of our souls. Why should we not speak to Him in this fashion? Ultimately, we are to be totally in love with God alone so it seems only appropriate to speak to him in language like John Donne.

All-Night Vigil

Sergei Rachmaninoff’s All Night Vigil leads the listener through a service of prayer and worship. Singing prayers to both God and the Virgin Mary, the work uses many of the psalms as its source material, just as if at a regular church service. Other passages of Scripture are used such as the Magnificat and re-tellings of the resurrection. The choir performs beautifully, blending together beautifully and seamlessly. Yet the focus is always on God, His glory, mercy, and praiseworthiness. All these are not lost on the listener.

With no accompaniment, the vocals carry the work but do not sound as if they are lacking anything. Rather, one feels enraptured by the music. The choir brings to mind images of the angelic host before the throne of God, forever singing His praises. Interestingly, Rachmaninoff uses the altos, tenors, and basses repeatedly to carry the melody or be the primary vocal, a difference from the usual sopranos. However, by doing this, the sopranos add an almost ethereal air to the piece as they float lightly at the top of the vocal arrangement.

My favorite portion of the Vigil is V. Nunc Dimittis (Lord, now lettest Thou). A lone tenor sings the melody in a hauntingly calling way. As background, the female vocals sound like a hovering choir of angels. Towards the end, however, the whole choir enters strongly singing praise for God’s providential salvation. Then, when speaking of incoming light, the sopranos enter lightly almost like delicate sunbeams coming through the clouds. It finally ends with the basses descending slowly to the lowest note of the piece. For me, this piece utilized all the vocal parts uniquely and beautifully while, at the same time, portraying the lyrics in an audible way.

Four Centuries on Love - Part 2

Struggle, according to St. Maximos, is a given for Christians. To be close to God, one must be holy and, since humans are not naturally born so, they must toil to overcome their sinfulness. No part escapes unscathed from sin’s temptation; the intellect, the soul, the body, all are susceptible to sin. However, hope still remains. By practicing the virtues one may purge oneself of those sins that ail them, whether they be of the intellect, soul, body, or any combination thereof. Though the removal is never easy or fast, it allows the soul to ascend closer and closer to the one with whom it longs to be.

One of the dangers that man can fall into is the love of wealth, which can be produced by one of three things: self-indulgence, self-esteem, or lack of faith, the last being the worst for “the person who lacks faith loves [wealth] because, fearful of starvation, old age, disease, or exile, he can save it and hoard it. He puts his trust in wealth rather than in God, the Creator who provides for all creation, down to the least of living things,” (Third Century 18). The person who lacks faith is trusting in what he own to save him. And yet this is not possible. Though wealth can be used as a bribe to deter a person from murder, it has never in and of itself saved a person. All it can do is sit and gather dust; it has no saving power. Only God can provide salvation from trying circumstances. We must trust that He is truly good and that He does care for His creation.

Four Centuries on Love - Part 1

As a part of the Philokalia, St. Maximos writes about how a person can become whole and pure so that they can love God, and thus love people, perfectly. Vices or passions come between the person and truly loving others. Ascetic exercises such as prayer and fasting help to control the bodily passions such as greed while virtues like humility and gentleness help to curb, even eliminate, passions of the soul. By eliminating the soul’s passions and replacing them with their opposing virtues, the person comes to a closer understanding and knowledge of God which in turn leads to deeper and truer love.

St. Maximos raises an interesting point when he says “when the intellect is detached [from every worldly attachment] it will acquire love for God,” (First Century 3). Normally, love is thought to be connected to the heart, not the intellect. It would seem to make more sense that it is when the heart is detached from every worldly attachment that love for God is acquired. How then does the detached intellect let one acquire love for God? Perhaps it is because what the mind contemplates is what the heart mulls over. The thoughts that run in the head are connected to what is felt in the heart and thus if the mind is clear of all sin and vice, it would be reasonable that the heart would only feel those things which are pure.

Confessions - Part 3

Discoursing on time and creation, Augustine begins to draw an end to his Confessions. While pondering the miraculous work of creation, he finds the Triune Godhead within the first two verses of Genesis: the Father – God, the Son – the Beginning, the Spirit – above the waters. All three are present at from the very first moment of creation. However, he takes an interesting stab at the formless darkness above which the Spirit hovered.

Rather than taking the traditional, modern interpretation of that passage, that it was a descriptive way to say that what would become earth was not yet anything but darkness, Augustine chooses a more spiritual route. He says, “It [the earth invisible and unorganized] is dark because of the disordered flux of spiritual formlessness; but it became converted to him from whom it derived the humble quality of life it had, and from that illumination became a life of beauty,” (276, section 6). The earth wasn’t dark merely because it was not yet physically formed but because nothing had been formed of the spiritual nature that would sustain all life. Only after being given to God to form and mold could it have any life. Yet it is not merely life that God gives but a “life of beauty.” When you come into the presence of God and everything is revealed in the light of His splendor, your life is completely altered; you begin to see things in a new way. The world once drab and dark is now beautiful and bright.

Confessions - Part 2

After rejecting the doctrine of the Manichees, Augustine begins looking elsewhere for truth and rest for his restless soul. In his searching he finds the Platonic texts which lead him to search within himself for how he sees the world. Eventually, he comes to accept that superior, unchanging things are preferable to inferior, changeable things. By accepting this, Augustine comes to accept that a changeable thing cannot know the desirability of an unchangeable thing unless the unchangeable has made itself known to the changeable.

In that moment, he caught a glimpse of the reality that is Christ, that he, being God and thus unchangeable, took on changeable flesh thus allowing inferior man to come to a place of union with the superior God. “They see at their feet divinity become weak by his sharing in our ‘coat of skin.’ In their weariness they fall prostrate before this divine weakness which rises and lifts them up,” (128, section 24). Man strives with everything within him to find that thing which is superior and unchanging, that thing which will satisfy beyond all else. Everything earthly is unfulfilling, even if its origins may be traced back to an unchangeable source, such as marriage. However, none of those are unchanging by nature; only God is unchanging. Thus the thought that God would put himself into the changeable flesh of man so that He could lift man from his place of weakness to one of strength startles to no end. What can we do but fall at the feet of him who was divine and became weak for our sake? Only by his hand may we be raised.

Confessions - Part 1

At the beginning of his Confessions, Augustine explains the way in which he was educated. As a boy, he learned Latin and Greek so that he could read the great epics of Homer and Virgil. Using them as their source, the students then used these texts and other works related to these texts as ways to learn new words and phrases. However, Augustine does not approve of such methods of teaching as the literature given promotes vicious behavior.

It is as if we would not know words such as ‘golden shower’ and ‘bosom’ and ‘deceit’ and ‘temples of heaven’ and other phrases occurring in the passage in question, had not Terence brought on the stage a worthless young man citing Jupiter as a model for his own fornication. . . . There is no force, no force at all, in the argument that these words are more easily learnt through this obscene text. The words actually encourage the more confident committing of a disgraceful action. (19, section 26)

By this teaching method, one would think that there was no other way in which to learn a language without having to promote immoral behavior. Even by speaking them, one would be more prone to act on these words and not let them be as mere learning tools.

So one might then ask how to get a good education in the midst of such muck. Augustine says that it is not so much the fault of the words themselves that the student is led astray to think immoral behavior as god-sanctified but that of the teachers and their erroneous thinking. “I bring no charge against the words which are like exquisite and precious vessels, but the wine of error is poured into them for us by drunken teachers. If we failed to drink, we were caned and could not appeal to any sober judge,” (19, section 26). Language and words themselves are not wrong or bad. However, when the idea that the only way in which to learn is by reciting or emulating passages praising sinful behavior, then the words are tainted. There is no reason why it would be better to learn words and phrases from an immoral passage than from an edifying one. It is the choice of the teachers what they choose to encourage in their students whether consciously or not.

Homilies on 1 Corinthians 13

One of the most famous passages in all of Scripture is 1 Corinthians 13, sometimes called the chapter of love. Through three of his homilies, St. John Chrysostom goes phrase-by-phrase and verse-by-verse of that particular chapter in order that the people of the church fully understand Paul’s meaning about what it means to love. He starts by saying that, without love, everything sacrificial that man may try to do is worthless if it is done without thought about one’s neighbor. Then he proceeds to show how love, when practiced rightly, prevents the practice or thought of vice and promotes and nurtures virtue. Finally, love is the greatest of all virtues that will not pass away even when all the rest of the world with its tongues and knowledge do.

What most intrigued me was when he quoted and explained 1 Corinthians 13:3, “And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, but have not love, it profiteth me nothing.” I have always known this verse, even memorized it for Sunday school, but it was not until reading this homily that I finally tried to understand the significance of this verse. To me, I could understand giving away everything to the poor without love, such as if it were done for self-righteous reasons or for boasting rights, but it seemed nigh impossible to die without love. Wouldn’t they still be highly honored by God for what they’d done? And why would they die unless they loved someone? But then, St. John Chrysostom used a telling analogy. “[If] anyone had a beloved child in whose behalf he would even give up his life, and someone were to love the father, but pay no regard whatever to the son, he would greatly incense the father; nor would he feel the love for himself, because of the overlooking his son. Now if this ensue in the case of father and son, much more in the case of God and men,” (35). Yes, you could say that the person loved God and died for Him, but God would not honor it because the person did not care for the people around him. What good is dying for God if you do not love the people He loves? This point hit me the most.

On Marriage and Family Life

In a series of sermons, St. John Chrysostom covers a variety of topics relating to marriage and family life within the context of the church. He instructs wives on why and how they should submit to their husbands as Paul instructs in his letter to the Ephesians. Interestingly though, he spends much more time on the role of the husband and how he ought to love his wife in the majority of his sermons. He repeatedly makes reference to how Christ loved and died for the Church despite seeming unlovable as the model for how husbands should love and treat their wives. Also, he speaks about the importance of raising children to pursue godliness. Finally, he gives instructions to unmarried people about how they ought to conduct themselves and what they should look for in their future spouses.

While reading, I noticed a thought that had been previously expressed in Plato’s Socratic dialogues, the idea that one ought to desire a beautiful soul rather than a beautiful body in the beloved. “Praise, hatred, and even love based on outward beauty come from impure souls. Seek beauty of soul,” says St. John Chrysostom (48). In today’s image-driven culture, it seems necessary to be beautiful if one wants to be loved. Girls and guys, though not as much, develop all kinds of disorders and pain in order to shape their bodies into what is deemed beautiful. In contrast, St. John Chrysostom and Socrates say that the outward appearance of a person should not be the ultimate criterion for a life-long companion. That is a sign of a soul that still needs growing. St. John Chrysostom goes on to say:

“The beauty of the body, if it is not joined with virtue of the soul, will be able to hold a husband for twenty or thirty days, but will go no farther before it shows its wickedness and destroys all its attractiveness. As for those who radiate the beauty of the soul, the longer time goes by and tests their proper nobility, the warmer they make their husband’s love and the more they strengthen their affection for him.” (100)

He acknowledges that physical beauty does attract and can even lead to marriage. That beauty though will not be able to cover for long the wickedness that lies beneath. However, if one finds a beautiful soul to love, that love will not only last but grow and beautify the one with the beautiful soul. Nothing can replace the resplendence of a beautiful soul in love.

Philippians and Colossians

Though short, the letters Paul wrote to the churches of Philippi and Colossians contain wonderful advice on how to live the Christian life on a daily basis. In Philippians, he encourages them to remain united under Christ and to not fall into the trap of believing that their righteousness is of any account because it is only through faith in the righteousness of Christ that they may attain holiness. Finally, he entreats the church to put God first in everything and to love one another. The Colossians, meanwhile, are praised for their good fruit. However, Paul warns them not to think that through any sort of rituals or actions that they may attain salvation but only through the saving work of Christ on the cross. As new creations in Christ, they are to put off old habits of sin and destruction and put on the garments of life, the most important of which is love. And lastly, they are to be kind and just to one another and gracious to those outside the faith.

In both these letters, I found Paul speaking of the goodness of suffering. Normally speaking, suffering is not considered a good thing, usually coming as retribution for a bad action. However, Paul says that suffering for Christ’s sake is an accompanying good to belief in Christ. In Philippians, he says, “For to you it has been granted on behalf of Christ, not only to believe in Him, but also to suffer for His sake,” (1:29). Granting something to someone implies that they would otherwise not have had access to it at a previous time. So here, Christ has granted that people believe in him and suffer for his sake. In the language used, the suffering seems to be a desired bonus. For Paul, it is a privilege to suffer for Christ and to bring Him glory through suffering.

He even goes so far to say that it is a proper role of minister. Colossians 1:24-25 says, “I now rejoice in my sufferings for you, and fill up in my flesh what is lacking in the afflictions of Christ, for the sake of His body, which is the church, of which I became a minister according to the stewardship from God which was given to me for you, to fulfill the rod of God.” Here, it sounds like Paul is suffering not only for Christ’s sake but also for the church. As one of its ministers, he sees that he is duty bound to protect the church and to act as an example of how they ought to live. So, it is his joy to suffer so that he may bring greater glory to his Lord as well as be an encouragement to those to whom he ministers should they ever encounter similar trials.

Galatians and Ephesians

Written to the churches in the cities of Galatia and Ephesus respectively, Galatians and Ephesians covers range of issues presented to early Christian believers. Galatians mostly covers the issues of converts from Judaism and how much of the Old Testament law to follow. In his letter, Paul reminds the Galatian church that they need not impress the law of Moses on Gentile converts because all have come under the law of grace. Ephesians presses the importance of being unified. From men and women to slaves and masters, Paul urges all to work together for Christ’s glorification.

At the beginning his letter to the Ephesians, Paul reminds them that it is through Christ that they are reconciled to God. “In Him we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of His grace which He made to abound toward us in all wisdom and prudence, having made known to us the mystery of His will, according to His good pleasure which He purposed in Himself,” (Ephesians 2:7-9). Because of Christ’s shed blood, all people can be forgiven of their sins through his grace to mankind. But what caught my attention was the part just after where it says that he “made known to us the mystery of his will” and “the dispensation of the fullness of all things in Christ”. I have heard a lot of pastors preach on what God’s will is and what it means to follow His will. There are some who have said that it is the Great Commission to go into all the world and preach the gospel, making new disciples and baptizing them; others have said that it’s more specific and specialized to each person depending on their gifts and talents. But according to Paul, the mystery surround God’s will has already been revealed to us. If this is so, why are there so many different opinions then?

1 & 2 Corinthians

1 and 2 Corinthians are two letters written by the apostle Paul to the church in the busy city of Corinth. Since its planting though, something had gone wrong and members of the church were falling back into their sinful ways. As its founder and spiritual father, Paul writes to them to show them their errors and how to remedy them. Also, he gives them useful instruction on how to pursue God and live righteously.

In the course of his first letter, Paul talks about the roles of men and women in relation to one another. He says that just the man is the head of the woman as Chris is of the head of the man. Then he proceeds to discuss the appropriate ways that men and women ought to pray. Interestingly, the apostle says that men must have their heads uncovered while women must have their covered. The reason he gives is because women were originally made for men and “[for] this reason the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels,” (1 Corinthians 11:10).

So, most of this verse makes sense to me, but the last half seems unrelated. What do the angels have to do with man’s authority over women? I think it might be because angels are guardians and thus may be representative of those they guard. Like how members of a family can be recognized by their family’s crest or colors, perhaps the angels have a similar distinction for those they guard. I don’t know if this makes much sense, but I’d like to know why it would say that women ought to have a symbol of authority on their heads during prayer because of the angels.

Phaedrus - Part 2

In apology for enjoying and giving a speech that disparaged love, Socrates gives his speech praising love and its positive effects on mankind. He begins by saying that though love is madness, it is a divine madness that only benefits those who suffer from it. Then, Socrates explains how it is from sights of real things that the soul saw while following the gods that cause madness to fall upon him. When he sees the brightness of reality shining through a person, he is inevitably drawn to it and can only find comfort by being close to it, thus causing people to think he’s mad because he does anything to be close to the reflection of that reality.

Once the speech is over, Socrates says a prayer to love. “[Convert Lysias] to philosophy like his brother Polemarchus so that his lover [Phaedrus] here may no longer play both sides as he does now, but simply devote his life to Love through philosophical discussions,” (257b). It is interesting that Socrates would word his prayer this way. Rather than praying for Phaedrus directly, he prays for Lysias so as to free Phaedrus. When they first meet, Phaedrus is wonderfully enthralled with Lysias’ speech even going so far as to try to memorize it. However, after a short discussion with Socrates, he realizes how wrong the speech was and agrees that amends must be made. Because of his love for Lysias and for true Love, Phaedrus in caught in a pickle between the two. In his prayer, Socrates acknowledges this and asks that the gods change Lysias’ power over Phaedrus so that he may pursue what is higher and better, Love.

Phaedrus - Part 1

The Phaedrus begins with Phaedrus, one of the speech-givers in the Symposium, presenting to Socrates a speech that argues that a boy give favors to a non-lover rather than to a lover because of the unwanted retributions that would occur by yielding to a lover. While enjoying the speech, Socrates gives a speech of his own on the same subject, presenting everything in a more organized and reasonable manner. However, Socrates realizes how impious these speeches have been and thus seeks to remedy the situation by giving a speech in praise of the lover.

Resting upon the fact that lovers are in a state of divine madness in response to seeing true Beauty, Socrates explains that the immortal soul of a man has seen all true things on a high plain while following the gods in procession but, being unable to control and curb its baser desires, falls to earth where it becomes incarnate in flesh. Depending on how much of the heavenly plain it saw determines what kind of person will result from that soul. Also, there are laws as to when the soul may return to the gods’ procession.

[Any] who have led their lives with justice will change to a better fate, and any who have led theirs with injustice, to a worse one. In fact, no soul returns to the place from which it came for ten thousand years, since its wings will not grow before them, except for the soul of a man who practices philosophy without guile or who loves boys philosophically. (248e-249a)

These are the fates of the souls while bound to a human form. It must wait ten thousand years while acting justly in all ways before it may once again return home.

I wonder though why a philosopher’s or lover’s soul is given a reprieve from the ten thousand year wait. It would seem fairer that if any kind of soul had lived its life justly for several consecutive lifetimes, it would be honored with the same privilege. However, it may be because the philosopher and lover reach something beyond what any other soul can. Both the philosopher and the lover pursue what is divine rather than what is human or earthly. While the philosopher pours all that he is into finding Wisdom and Truth, the lover gives up everything for Beauty. Neither can be found purely on earth so they look past the earthly and temporary to the divine and eternal. Only there do they find what satisfies their soul and, consequently, they are prepared sooner for their return ascent.

Symposium - Part 2

In Disney’s Beauty and the Beast, the Beast asks two of his main advisors, Lumiere and Cogsworth, how he can impress Belle. Cogsworth replies, “There the usual: flowers, chocolates, promises you don’t intend to keep.” Though this comment is given in comic contrast to Lumiere’s much more romantic, and accurate, suggestion, it brings up an interesting point about lovers that the speakers of Plato’s Symposium also address. It is the notion that a man may be forgiven for breaking a vow, or acting in a manner completely unlike himself, if he is in love. Pausanias, in his speech, endorses such behavior as acceptable and even expected of lovers in order that their beloved understand the depth of their love.

To be more specific, Pausanias says:

Imagine . . . [a man] went to his knees in public view and begged in the most humiliating way, . . . swore all sorts of vows, . . . spent the night at the other man’s doorstep, . . . [was] anxious to provide services even a slave would have refused . . . [Let] a lover act in any of these ways, and everyone will immediately say what a charming man he is! No blame attaches to his behavior: custom treats it as noble through and through. And . . . the gods will forgive a lover even for breaking his vows – a lover’s vow, our people say, is no vow at all. The freedom given to the love by both gods and men according to our custom is immense. (183 a-c)

A man in love is given much leniency in society. Where in any other circumstance, enemies would jeer and friends are ashamed, a man may be encouraged in his actions. Rather, custom upholds the often strange actions of a lover as a right and honorable thing to do. But what they say in vows in taken with a grain of salt since it is an overflow of emotion rather than a sincere vow.

Now to me, this seems wrong. Why should a man no longer be accountable for his actions because he’s in love? Shouldn’t a lover’s vow be taken more seriously and be considered more binding because it is made in love and to the beloved, who Phaedrus has said must not see the lover as dishonorable? And in any other circumstance, breaking one’s vow would be deemed not only dishonorable but also impious. This double standard between lovers and non-lovers seems an easy way to brush aside responsibility for actions that one would normally be condemned for.

Syposium - Part 1

As the premise for of Plato’s Symposium, each of the guests gives speeches dedicated to the god Love. Phaedrus begins as the whole idea was his original idea. Opening his declaration of Love’s greatness, the orator states the reason why Love is the oldest, and thus best, god. He then spends most of his speech giving reasons why men in love would form the best society. First, they would shun doing shameful things so as to always be honorable before their lover. Second, they would be willing to die for their lovers, making them good soldiers. Third, they would be more blessed by the gods because their virtues are motivated by Love.

While discussing his first point, that lovers shun shameful behavior, Phaedrus made an interesting statement. “Theirs [lovers’] would be the best possible system of society, for they would hold back from all that is shameful, and seek honor in each others’ eyes,” (179 a). His point is that a person can be kept from doing something because they fear to appear guilty before the one they love. The horror of shame would prevent people from doing things that, otherwise, they might commit if they did not care who knew.

However, this seems very naïve to me. Rather than preventative, love can be a powerful motivator to do what would normally be abstained. Lying, theft, and murder have all been committed in the name of love and its pursuit. For some, love can prevent shameful behavior, those with a high sense of honor. But, as seems more often seems the case, one is more liable to do something regrettable when in love than when one is not.

Oedipus the King

Known the world over as the man who murdered his father and married his mother, Oedipus leads a terribly tragic life. The first of Sophocles’ three Theban plays, Oedipus the King opens the tragedy with a plague tormenting Thebes. The people ask their king, Oedipus, to save them as he did from the Sphinx, and he tells them that he has already asked for words from the oracle at Delphi for the answer, the answer being justice done to the man who murdered Laius, Oedipus’ predecessor. From that moment on though, everything turns against the king of Thebes as he slowly learns the truth of his own existence, that he is the man that must be punished. In the end when all is revealed, he gouges out his own eyes and demands that he be sent into exile.

When the people of Thebes learn of the horrible truth of Oedipus’ life, they mourn with him. They ask, “[D]oes there exist, is there a man on earth, / who seizes more joy than just a dream, a vision? / And the vision no sooner dawns than dies / blazing into oblivion,” (lines 1314-1317). After the defeat of the Sphinx, Oedipus and the city of Thebes had been wondrously happy and prosperous. Everything seemed so perfect. Yet, in the life of the man who had saved them, the people of Thebes watched it all come tumbling apart. Was what Oedipus had no more than a fleeting dream that is so easily broken? If he was not able to attain such happiness and he a great among men, what hope would there be for those lesser of mankind? Not only did Oedipus’ fall hurt himself and his family but also demoralized the hopes of the Thebans as well.

Song of Songs

Song of Songs details a kind of conversation between a Bride and Bridegroom and interjections from the Bride’s companions. Both Bride and Bridegroom speak of the intense love that they bear one another and how their love is the best of the best. With dramatic imagery, they paint a picture of a beautiful couple enthralled with one another. When asked why they have chosen each other, Bride and Bridegroom respond with overflowing words of praise.

Unlike most books of the books for this class, I read many of the footnotes giving commentators ideas about various parts of the book, and I found them incredibly interesting. Through the entire work, they showed how the Bride and Bridegroom are the Church and Christ respectively. I loved it. From the roles that the Bride and Bridegroom possess to how they are described, every detail highlights the role that Christ plays in the life of the Church. I had known that this book foreshadowed how Christ would love the Church; however, the footnotes helped me to see just how much the imagery of the book could be applied to Christ and the Church.