A Christian philosopher wants to die, but has no concept of suffering

[Gottservant]

Hi there!

Naturally, being educated, I think about philosophy and being Christian, I think about how to unite mankind. The two seem to go together. But what does a Christian philosopher do?

Christ is the obvious example, but He was more the backbone, whereas philosophy is a kind of adjunct, the way John the Baptist was. So is it locusts and wild honey (Jonh the Baptist's diet) that the Christian philosopher should be pursuing? Or is this idea that you should stray from the backbone (Christ) precisely the weakness of Christian philosophy?

It is my estimation, that a Christian philosopher wants to die, because he has seen the example of Christ, but being redeemed by the resurrection, has no concept of suffering. He therefore lives a kind of philosophy of Hell, in this life, giving no pause for the flesh, that having not rested in this life and entering the next, his reward is that much greater. But is that all there is?

Does the Christian philosopher need to argue? Or does he reason? Does the Christian philosopher need prominence? Or does he wait? Does the Christian philosopher seek the lost? Or do they come to him? What is the calling of the Christian philosopher?

A theologian has various causes in apologetics to pursue, various doctrines to consider and small inner circles to penetrate, but the Christian philosopher is forced to the outside. He lives in the exterior to popular philosophies, making uncalled for comment and throwing away valuable conjecture, to win a smile, to win a nod, to win perhaps clarity? To a conversation?

It is not a desirable life to be a Christian philosopher certainly, but is it empty. There is the comfort of Christ. There is the assurance of the gospel. There is the Almighty Advice of God. These things are a bedrock, on which to begin the life of final reflection. But is that enough?

Is that enough? For you?

 

[Eudaimonist]

It is my estimation, that a Christian philosopher wants to die

Philosophy has been called "training for death", in that people who adopt philosophy as a way of life may come to no longer fear death.

But saying that a Christian philosopher wants to die clearly shows the anti-life premise behind Christianity. I fully approve. Let the Christian philosopher show the life-hating nature of Christianity.

It is not a desirable life to be a Christian philosopher certainly, but is it empty.

Indeed, one should be a real philosopher -- one who understands that this life is worthwhile in itself, and should be cherished for what it is.

There is the comfort of Christ. There is the assurance of the gospel. There is the Almighty Advice of God. These things are a bedrock, on which to begin the life of final reflection. But is that enough?

Is that enough? For you?

Not even close, since those things are negatives, especially if one understands them in the life-hating way.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Paradoxum]

Isn't the call of the Christian philosopher to create a rational faith? To have beliefs consistent with reason and evidence?

Other than that I'm not sure what you are asking.

 

[Received]

It is my estimation, that a Christian philosopher wants to die, because he has seen the example of Christ, but being redeemed by the resurrection, has no concept of suffering. He therefore lives a kind of philosophy of Hell, in this life, giving no pause for the flesh, that having not rested in this life and entering the next, his reward is that much greater. But is that all there is?

Good night, this is the greatest reason to be an atheist. Nietzsche said that this type of thinking nihilates life right now, because we're so interested in the "real" life afterwards.

But I don't see any scriptural support for this idea. The Kingdom of God is *at hand* (i.e., present-centered). When Paul spoke of "to live is Christ, to die is gain," he didn't mean that to die is somehow better than living, but that living in this life becomes best precisely *because* of Christ, and that if we have to die, we've got that covered too.

 

[Gottservant]

But saying that a Christian philosopher wants to die clearly shows the anti-life premise behind Christianity. I fully approve. Let the Christian philosopher show the life-hating nature of Christianity.

I think you mistake the nature of Christian suffering for something that is offensive. Of course the Christian philosopher "wants" to die, he is on his cross. Would you deny someone who is being crucified the desire to die? Is that really how humane you are?

It is not wrong to hate life, in any case, if it is your own (luke 14). To say otherwise would be to indulge in self-love, which is an anathema to God.

 

[Nilloc]

But I don't see any scriptural support for this idea. The Kingdom of God is *at hand* (i.e., present-centered).

Isn't that how Nietzsche interpreted the kingdom of God and Jesus's ministry in general? I think something like that tends to be the correct way of reading the NT.

It is not wrong to hate life, in any case, if it is your own (luke 14). To say otherwise would be to indulge in self-love, which is an anathema to God.

It's good to know that all my months of counseling to get over my self-hatred were in vain and that I in fact should hate myself.

Like Received said, that seems like a pretty good reason to become an atheist.

 

[Eudaimonist]

I think you mistake the nature of Christian suffering for something that is offensive. Of course the Christian philosopher "wants" to die, he is on his cross. Would you deny someone who is being crucified the desire to die? Is that really how humane you are?

The Christian Philosopher is a living person who is capable of enjoying, loving, and virtuously living out his full lifespan, even if that involves "sacrificing" evil desires. (I put the word sacrificing in scare quotes because giving up evil desires for the sake of adopting good desires isn't a sacrifice; it's a gain.)

That is what a humane person supports, not a death-wish.

If this guy thinks that putting himself up on a cross involves having a death-wish, you had better believe that it would be humane of me to intervene, just as I would try to talk someone out of commiting suicide.

Granted, a Christian Philosopher may be willing to sacrifice his life for the sake of others, in the sense that a soldier might jump on a grenade to save his fellow soldiers, but that doesn't imply a death-wish. I'm reminded of the movie Forrest Gump, where one of Forrest's soldier-friends has a death-wish, and (ironically, from your interpretation of Christianity) it is Christian peace that removes that soldier's death-wish.

It is not wrong to hate life, in any case, if it is your own (luke 14). To say otherwise would be to indulge in self-love, which is an anathema to God.

That is a horribly evil doctrine.

Self-love and a love of the good can be one. Self-love may be bad if one loves the evil in oneself, such as one's evil desires. However, one can love what is good in oneself and for oneself, and that may include one's life.

A Christian philosopher is especially well situated to examine his own desires, to understand which are good or evil and why that is the case, and to nurture a love of good values.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Gottservant]

I don't understand why you are trying to rescue me from my own cross, you do understand that it is necessary, don't you?

And self-love is the love of every evil that ever defiled the world.

 

[Eudaimonist]

I don't understand why you are trying to rescue me from my own cross, you do understand that it is necessary, don't you?

No, I understand the exact opposite. While there might be rare cases in which one could reasonably have a death wish, such as if one is in a concentration camp, it is rarely necessary outside of such extreme circumstances.

And self-love is the love of every evil that ever defiled the world.

No, it is not. That would either be self-hatred or an ignorant or foolish form of self-love.

Any reasonably knowledgable or wise person who loves herself loves what is good for herself including being a good person. That includes values beneficial for life.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Paradoxum]

And self-love is the love of every evil that ever defiled the world.

Well it depends what you mean by self-love. It can be good in moderation. I would say that a lack of self-love is more my problem, for example, than an excess. I would say a lacking of it can lead to insecurity and a dulling of the Self.

 

[Received]

Zizek (i.e., rambling philosopher man, just like life) made the point that self-love and love-of-other (or egoism and altruism) really represents a false dichotomy. To love others *means* to love oneself in a mature and well-rounded way, given that the creativity involved in loving others is pleasurable and beneficial to us simply by doing it; it's only the immature who fail to realize the happiness that comes with helping people out.

I think that's very helpful, and I think it's very true. It also fits rival ontologies. So Buddhism and secular forms holds to Annata, or no-self, in which case there is no objective room for self and other, so there's no such thing as selfishness or selflessness; we're all one, man. Buberian existentialism, which is my standing, holds that the "I" can't exist without a "Thou", even if no person is around (he held that we're basically relating to God when we "speak" to someone or relate to something in a way that's You-like rather than It-like); IOW, to have an I means to have a Thou, and vice-versa, so there's no room for selfishness or selflessness. Rather, being "selfish" really means not to be a self at all -- because you see the other as an "it", which by definition makes you not an "I".

 

[Gottservant]

Zizek (i.e., rambling philosopher man, just like life) made the point that self-love and love-of-other (or egoism and altruism) really represents a false dichotomy. To love others *means* to love oneself in a mature and well-rounded way, given that the creativity involved in loving others is pleasurable and beneficial to us simply by doing it; it's only the immature who fail to realize the happiness that comes with helping people out.

I think that's very helpful, and I think it's very true. It also fits rival ontologies. So Buddhism and secular forms holds to Annata, or no-self, in which case there is no objective room for self and other, so there's no such thing as selfishness or selflessness; we're all one, man. Buberian existentialism, which is my standing, holds that the "I" can't exist without a "Thou", even if no person is around (he held that we're basically relating to God when we "speak" to someone or relate to something in a way that's You-like rather than It-like); IOW, to have an I means to have a Thou, and vice-versa, so there's no room for selfishness or selflessness. Rather, being "selfish" really means not to be a self at all -- because you see the other as an "it", which by definition makes you not an "I".

Precisely.


There is no room for suffering, when you fully consider the other.


I agree.


But do you want to die as a result, or are you just imagining you "know" something?