With this blog post, I begin with Augustine's larger works. I'm hoping to work through The Trinity as well as sprinkle in some of Jean-Luc Marion's work on Augustine. Then, I would like to go back to The Confessions and read that in tandem with Brown's biography of Augustine.
Augustine begins De Trinitate with a letter to Aurelius of Carthage which situates this work as a work of Augustine's youth but only published in his old age. Augustine indicates that this work was pirated with many parts missing. He is handing over an "authoritative" text.
The first chapter is concerned with his audience. Augustine frames this concern as focused on those who attribute worldly features to God. He insists God is not like these worldly attributes and they are misunderstanding the concept of God's essence by understanding God only through the material world. Some of these people are too attached to reason. This book is addressed, then, to three groups of people prone to error: those who conceive of God in bodily terms, those who do so in terms of created spirit such as soul" and those who think of him as neither but still have false ideas (65). So, in order to understand the nature of God, we have to step away from ideas of God as something understood with in the logic of matter AND the soul.
Augustine admits there is a problem of understanding God's essence: "without any change in itself makes things change and without any passage of time in itself creates things that exist in time" (66)--Augustine's goal is to explain how these apparent paradoxes make sense.
The point of De Trinitate then, is to account for God as a trinity and to understand how God, Son, and Holy Spirit are "one and the same substance or essence" (67).
Monday, August 17, 2015
Friday, August 14, 2015
The Teacher: Division 2 (b) (the End)
Augustine begins with a discussion of how without knowledge of the thing, signs cannot teach us anything about the thing itself.
Augustine further argues that nothing is learned by words. For Augustine learning occurs in this sequence: "we learn the meaning of word--that is the signification hidden in the sound--once the thing signified is itself known, rather than our perceiving of it by means of such signification" (137). We learn meaning, then, once the thing is seen--it is only then that the word makes sense.
Thus, for Augustine, words only have power in their ability to get us to look for things.
For Augustine, as well, what he understands, he believes, but not everything he believes does he understand. Believing and understanding, then, are two very different things.
In the end, Augustine warns his son about the power of words and not to give them too much power. Words are merely a "prompt" to learn and nothing more (146).
Augustine further argues that nothing is learned by words. For Augustine learning occurs in this sequence: "we learn the meaning of word--that is the signification hidden in the sound--once the thing signified is itself known, rather than our perceiving of it by means of such signification" (137). We learn meaning, then, once the thing is seen--it is only then that the word makes sense.
Thus, for Augustine, words only have power in their ability to get us to look for things.
For Augustine, as well, what he understands, he believes, but not everything he believes does he understand. Believing and understanding, then, are two very different things.
In the end, Augustine warns his son about the power of words and not to give them too much power. Words are merely a "prompt" to learn and nothing more (146).
Monday, August 3, 2015
The Teacher: Discussion of Division (b)
In his section Augustine and Adeodatus discuss those things that can be "exhibited through themselves" (131) without signs, meaning things such as actions.
Augustine asks if there are things that can not be exhibited without a sign. Through a circuitous route, Augustine concludes that there are plenty of things that can be shown without signs. He uses the example of a bird-catcher--when a man comes upon a bird-catcher he desires to understand what the man is doing. Without telling him, the bird-catcher uses his tools to catch a bird thus explaining, without the use of words. The men then figures out who the bird-catcher is and what he is doing.
In this way, Augustine can move to a theological argument concluding this brief discussion: doesn't God show the sun and light without presumably telling us about them?
This jump may be a way to suggest a discussion is about to ensue on how God may reveal himself without signs?
Augustine asks if there are things that can not be exhibited without a sign. Through a circuitous route, Augustine concludes that there are plenty of things that can be shown without signs. He uses the example of a bird-catcher--when a man comes upon a bird-catcher he desires to understand what the man is doing. Without telling him, the bird-catcher uses his tools to catch a bird thus explaining, without the use of words. The men then figures out who the bird-catcher is and what he is doing.
In this way, Augustine can move to a theological argument concluding this brief discussion: doesn't God show the sun and light without presumably telling us about them?
This jump may be a way to suggest a discussion is about to ensue on how God may reveal himself without signs?
Monday, July 27, 2015
The Teacher, The Discussion of Division (a)
In this initial discussion of divisions, Augustine and Adeodatus argue over how to define those signs that signify things--which they call "signifiables."
The greater point that Augustine imparts is that the thing and the usage of the word is more important than the word itself. In other words the knowledge of the thing is more important than the sign connected to it.
In Augustine's words "the use of words should itself already be preferred to words; words exist so that we may use them. Furthermore, we use them in order to teach. Hence teaching is better than speaking to the same extent that the speaking is better than the words. The teaching is, therefore, that much better than words" (129). As a side note, Augustine seems to be championing an anti-materialist approach to language. I'm intrigued by this, since, much later, Bede (a fan of Augustine, thoug not above criticizing him subtly) in his On Things connects the creation of words to very material circumstances and events.
One who is a slave to the word, in this case, is led astray. The use of words is what must be focused on. This is a point Augustine is going to develop further in De Trinitate, in that he is going to critique a belief in Jesus only, the flesh of Jesus more specifically, as not real faith. Thus, Jesus-as-thing is not where faith lies. One must look beyond the material in order to experience the univocity of the Trinity, which cannot be materially contained (a point I will discuss in future blog posts about De Trinitate). Augustine wants to unhook the connection between sign and thing and to think about each separately, as well as how each may influence the other or how we may get caught up in understanding the sign only. Knowledge of the signified is preferable to the signs, though not to "knowledge of signs"--this is how Augustine leaves this section: the lesson here is to reinforce the knowledge of things and signs and not necessarily the signs-for-themselves. This dovetails with the beginning of this section in which Augustine asks Adeodatus if he is a "man"--when Adeodatus says "yes," Augustine jumps all over this and corrects him in thinking about how "man" is just a word. Thus knowing about signs would have allowed him to answer more succinctly. Augustine can be accused of trapping Adeodatus in a semantic trap, but his point will be greater in future discussions of distinctions.
The greater point that Augustine imparts is that the thing and the usage of the word is more important than the word itself. In other words the knowledge of the thing is more important than the sign connected to it.
In Augustine's words "the use of words should itself already be preferred to words; words exist so that we may use them. Furthermore, we use them in order to teach. Hence teaching is better than speaking to the same extent that the speaking is better than the words. The teaching is, therefore, that much better than words" (129). As a side note, Augustine seems to be championing an anti-materialist approach to language. I'm intrigued by this, since, much later, Bede (a fan of Augustine, thoug not above criticizing him subtly) in his On Things connects the creation of words to very material circumstances and events.
One who is a slave to the word, in this case, is led astray. The use of words is what must be focused on. This is a point Augustine is going to develop further in De Trinitate, in that he is going to critique a belief in Jesus only, the flesh of Jesus more specifically, as not real faith. Thus, Jesus-as-thing is not where faith lies. One must look beyond the material in order to experience the univocity of the Trinity, which cannot be materially contained (a point I will discuss in future blog posts about De Trinitate). Augustine wants to unhook the connection between sign and thing and to think about each separately, as well as how each may influence the other or how we may get caught up in understanding the sign only. Knowledge of the signified is preferable to the signs, though not to "knowledge of signs"--this is how Augustine leaves this section: the lesson here is to reinforce the knowledge of things and signs and not necessarily the signs-for-themselves. This dovetails with the beginning of this section in which Augustine asks Adeodatus if he is a "man"--when Adeodatus says "yes," Augustine jumps all over this and corrects him in thinking about how "man" is just a word. Thus knowing about signs would have allowed him to answer more succinctly. Augustine can be accused of trapping Adeodatus in a semantic trap, but his point will be greater in future discussions of distinctions.
Monday, July 20, 2015
The Teacher, Part 2: Beginning Discussion of the Division of Signs
This discussion ends with Augustine wondering where they are going with this discussion in the first place and wanting to assure Adeodatus that the exercise of the mind--even if it is in "play" is a sign of good.
Although this is a transhistorical comment, I could not help but think about how this discussion is a comment that resonates with our own age and the larger discussion about the purpose and decline of the humanities (and the university itself). What will become of university life as the push in higher education becomes more about careerism and training for work and less about a larger sense of the life of the mind--admittedly I am making a class-based comment for who can afford to pursue the life of the mind, as it is so called, except the affluent. But, I'm not sure that just because the practice of the life of the mind has trickled down from the privileged class that something at the heart of it should necessarily be abandoned. There is value to the the critical question, the investigative gaze, the refusal to bend to work (or capitalist) time by losing oneself in the book. To create, to make, to innovate--these are qualities of a life of the mind. I'm not sure how simple job training may allow one to do these things.
As we become more conversant only in small bites, i.e. twitter-speak or texting, the critical question becomes can we have longer and larger conversations that the life of the mind wants to ensure. I am certainly not a Luddite, I love texting, social media, etc., but I am also aware that the conversations I've had over a pot of coffee in an afternoon are much more enriching than a conversation that occurs and is often misunderstood over a text. Over the course of reading Augustine's dialogue, it is pointed to note that these conversations occur over days. They pickup where they leave off and, although Augustine is representing these dialogues to prove his own point, what he is unable to obscure is the good, the companionship, the bonding that occurs over the course of the conversation.
As Augustine phrases it, "to exercise the mind's strength and sharpness, with which we're able to not only withstand but also to love the heat of life of the region where the happy life is" (122).
As to this discussion regarding signs, the dialogue in this section boils down signification and how it comes in three forms. There are signs that cannot be signified by the signs they signify (conjunctions); there are those that do signify what they sign. They further divide this kind of signification into general and specific signification. This category distinction has to do with how the word "word" follows under the general definition of "sign" but means specifically linguistic signs and not, say, pictograms. Sign means "more" than "word" in terms of its ability to signify.
They will, of course, parse this further in the next section.
Although this is a transhistorical comment, I could not help but think about how this discussion is a comment that resonates with our own age and the larger discussion about the purpose and decline of the humanities (and the university itself). What will become of university life as the push in higher education becomes more about careerism and training for work and less about a larger sense of the life of the mind--admittedly I am making a class-based comment for who can afford to pursue the life of the mind, as it is so called, except the affluent. But, I'm not sure that just because the practice of the life of the mind has trickled down from the privileged class that something at the heart of it should necessarily be abandoned. There is value to the the critical question, the investigative gaze, the refusal to bend to work (or capitalist) time by losing oneself in the book. To create, to make, to innovate--these are qualities of a life of the mind. I'm not sure how simple job training may allow one to do these things.
As we become more conversant only in small bites, i.e. twitter-speak or texting, the critical question becomes can we have longer and larger conversations that the life of the mind wants to ensure. I am certainly not a Luddite, I love texting, social media, etc., but I am also aware that the conversations I've had over a pot of coffee in an afternoon are much more enriching than a conversation that occurs and is often misunderstood over a text. Over the course of reading Augustine's dialogue, it is pointed to note that these conversations occur over days. They pickup where they leave off and, although Augustine is representing these dialogues to prove his own point, what he is unable to obscure is the good, the companionship, the bonding that occurs over the course of the conversation.
As Augustine phrases it, "to exercise the mind's strength and sharpness, with which we're able to not only withstand but also to love the heat of life of the region where the happy life is" (122).
As to this discussion regarding signs, the dialogue in this section boils down signification and how it comes in three forms. There are signs that cannot be signified by the signs they signify (conjunctions); there are those that do signify what they sign. They further divide this kind of signification into general and specific signification. This category distinction has to do with how the word "word" follows under the general definition of "sign" but means specifically linguistic signs and not, say, pictograms. Sign means "more" than "word" in terms of its ability to signify.
They will, of course, parse this further in the next section.
Wednesday, July 15, 2015
The Teacher, Part Two: The Nature of Signs
The discussion continues with an agreement: words are signs.
Adeodatus and Augustine unpack the meaning of the sentence: "if nothing from so great a city it pleases the gods be left...". The conversation becomes stuck on the word "nothing." How can a word signify "no" thing if, by the very definition, it has to signify something?
What strikes me here is that they are practicing a very slow, very intense close reading, but predicating that each word must signify an object. This is going to be important for Augustine later in the debate so that he prove that words are misleading (and by extension words are necessary for faith). Augustine runs into problems with the word "nothing." To get out of this sticky wicket they include "states of mind" as also being signified in words.
As they unpack the sentence, they also come up with these rules of signification and what we don't necessarily need to signify:
a) things we are not doing when we are asked about them and can do them on the spot (without signs--and this aspect is going to come back in future discussions).
b) the very signs we happen to be doing (for example, walking).
This then turns to a discussion about the division of signs themselves which I will deal with in the next blog.
Adeodatus and Augustine unpack the meaning of the sentence: "if nothing from so great a city it pleases the gods be left...". The conversation becomes stuck on the word "nothing." How can a word signify "no" thing if, by the very definition, it has to signify something?
What strikes me here is that they are practicing a very slow, very intense close reading, but predicating that each word must signify an object. This is going to be important for Augustine later in the debate so that he prove that words are misleading (and by extension words are necessary for faith). Augustine runs into problems with the word "nothing." To get out of this sticky wicket they include "states of mind" as also being signified in words.
As they unpack the sentence, they also come up with these rules of signification and what we don't necessarily need to signify:
a) things we are not doing when we are asked about them and can do them on the spot (without signs--and this aspect is going to come back in future discussions).
b) the very signs we happen to be doing (for example, walking).
This then turns to a discussion about the division of signs themselves which I will deal with in the next blog.
Monday, July 6, 2015
The Teacher, Part One: The Purpose of Language
This debate is between Augustine and his 16-year-old son, Adeodatus. The edited edition I am using divides the dialogue into specific themes and topics. I'll follow that pattern in the blog posts.
Part One: The Purpose of Language
The debate opens with a discussion of the purpose of speaking. Adeodatus posits that to speak is to teach or learn. Augustine does not agree. For him, teaching is the purpose of speaking. Adeodatus argues that one is not necessarily teaching when one is singing. So, Augustine puts an amend on it--how about the purpose of language is to teach AND to remind ourselves (spoiler: this is going to be his conclusion, as well).
Augustine side-steps Adeodatus' challenge by suggesting that singing and speaking are two different things and that singing sometimes does not involve words (for example, bird singing). Thus, speaking words is for teaching and reminding. Adeodatus agrees. What Augustine seems to be missing here is how birds may actually be using singing. Singing is not merely aesthetic, which Augustine seems to be implying. But, he leaves behind the problem of singing to pursue speech itself.
Prayer, though, is not speaking. It happens in the mind because God does not need teaching (and Augustine will posit later on that God is the only true teacher, we're, at best, mimes). Prayer happens in the "inner man"--in the "bedchamber of the heart" and the "temple of the mind" so there is no need for speaking in prayer. Thus, when Jesus taught the disciples, he was teaching then the words to pray with. Thus when we pray, we are not teaching but "reminding" ourselves of Jesus--thus "the words are signs come to mind." Augustine concludes then that prayer is a kind of internal speaking, not external, used to remind ourselves, not teach God.
In this initial section, I can sense Augustine's need to think about the purpose of words. In later sections, he will expound on thinking about signification of words and their use and how this effects speech, knowledge, and learning.
Part One: The Purpose of Language
The debate opens with a discussion of the purpose of speaking. Adeodatus posits that to speak is to teach or learn. Augustine does not agree. For him, teaching is the purpose of speaking. Adeodatus argues that one is not necessarily teaching when one is singing. So, Augustine puts an amend on it--how about the purpose of language is to teach AND to remind ourselves (spoiler: this is going to be his conclusion, as well).
Augustine side-steps Adeodatus' challenge by suggesting that singing and speaking are two different things and that singing sometimes does not involve words (for example, bird singing). Thus, speaking words is for teaching and reminding. Adeodatus agrees. What Augustine seems to be missing here is how birds may actually be using singing. Singing is not merely aesthetic, which Augustine seems to be implying. But, he leaves behind the problem of singing to pursue speech itself.
Prayer, though, is not speaking. It happens in the mind because God does not need teaching (and Augustine will posit later on that God is the only true teacher, we're, at best, mimes). Prayer happens in the "inner man"--in the "bedchamber of the heart" and the "temple of the mind" so there is no need for speaking in prayer. Thus, when Jesus taught the disciples, he was teaching then the words to pray with. Thus when we pray, we are not teaching but "reminding" ourselves of Jesus--thus "the words are signs come to mind." Augustine concludes then that prayer is a kind of internal speaking, not external, used to remind ourselves, not teach God.
In this initial section, I can sense Augustine's need to think about the purpose of words. In later sections, he will expound on thinking about signification of words and their use and how this effects speech, knowledge, and learning.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)