Jun 17 2009

Old Books

I’ve wanted to learn more about St. Athanasius for a while, ever since a visiting priest quoted him in his homily:  “For the Son of God became man so that we might become God.”  That got my attention; I’d never heard it put that way before.  Athanasius emphasized the Divinity in ways we don’t hear all that much these days, because he was battling the Arian heresy, which said God never became man.  That’s probably all I should say about that until I learn more.

photo by ryan_franklin_az

photo by ryan_franklin_az

So anyway, I was looking for a copy of Athanasius’s On the Incarnation, hoping it would be available online.  (He wrote it in 318 A.D., but you never know, Disney might have bought the copyright.)  The copy I found has a very good introduction by T.S. Eliot, which is what this post is about.  The whole thing is worth reading (it’s not too long), but here’s the part that jumped out at me:

Every age has its own outlook. It is specially good at seeing certain truths and specially liable to make certain mistakes. We all, therefore, need the books that will correct the characteristic mistakes of our own period. And that means the old books. All contemporary writers share to some extent the contemporary outlook – even those, like myself, who seem most opposed to it. … We may be sure that the characteristic blindness of the twentieth century – the blindness about which posterity will ask, “But how could they have thought that?” – lies where we have never suspected it. … None of us can fully escape this blindness, but we shall certainly increase it, and weaken our guard against it, if we read only modern books. Where they are true they will give us truths which we half knew already. Where they are false they will aggravate the error with which we are already dangerously ill. The only palliative is to keep the clean sea breeze of the centuries blowing through our minds, and this can be done only by reading old books. Not, of course, that there is any magic about the past. People were no cleverer then than they are now; they made as many mistakes as we. But not the same mistakes.

I’ve always known we should read old books, but never known exactly why.  I resisted reading them because, frankly, many are deadly boring.  Especially fiction—classic fiction just doesn’t have the characterization and dialogue of the modern fiction I enjoy.  But Eliot explains very well why we should make the effort to read the old books anyway.  It’s a way to see reality through the eyes of someone who doesn’t see it through the same filters that we do.  A way to learn things that are hidden from us by our contemporary assumptions.

It’s easy for us to see some of the filters of the past.  Slavery would be an obvious example.  To civilized people today, slavery is so obviously wrong that we can’t even imagine debating it.  We can even see that it doesn’t make economic sense.  But to most people throughout history (and still in some parts of the world today) it was assumed to be a fact of life.  If your tribe won a war, you got to make slaves of the losers.  If your tribe lost, you became a slave—if you looked like you were worth feeding.  Plenty of people didn’t like it—especially the slaves, of course—but few people seriously thought it could be eliminated in entire nations.  They couldn’t see past that filter.

So, what are the filters or assumptions that we have today, that we can’t see?  By definition, I guess we can’t answer that question; if we could, we wouldn’t be blind to them.  But I think by reading old books, as Eliot says, and trying to see ourselves through the eyes of another time, we might be able to get a glimpse of those filters from the outside.

If I had to guess, I’d say one of our assumptions might be the importance and inherent goodness of personal freedom, especially economic and political freedom.  In modern Western society, we pretty much believe that unless you’re directly hurting someone, you should be allowed to do whatever you want to do.  There are exceptions, of course—gun control, recent laws against politically incorrect speech, and a few others.  But for the most part, we think people should be free to say whatever they want, live and travel wherever they want, worship however they want, work wherever and at whatever job they want, buy or sell whatever they want, eat whatever they want, read/watch whatever they want, marry/live/sleep with whomever they want, choose whatever leaders they want, and so on.

Now, I’m not saying these freedoms are wrong.  I’m just saying that we don’t even argue the concept of freedom anymore.  We take for granted the basic idea that it’s good for individuals to be as free as possible, as long as they don’t step on someone else’s toes.  That would have been a very strange notion to most of our ancestors.  That’s not because they hadn’t considered such freedom a possibility, but they saw it as an option with pros and cons in a way that we don’t.  They likely would have looked at our drug use, illegitimacy rate, and full prisons and said, “Hmm, I think you guys could use a little less freedom.”

That’s my first guess: freedom as an inherent good.  Maybe I’ll be able to come up with some others after I read more old books.

If you enjoyed this article, why not rate it and share it with your friends on Twitter, Facebook, or StumbleUpon?

GD Star Rating
loading...

3 Comments

  • Angel says:

    “For the Son of God became man so that we might become God.” That’s actually a pretty good summation of the Unity view of Christ. :)

    I particularly like your discussion of current prejudices. On a related note, several weeks ago, I wandered into the excellent website below thanks to Dr. Michael Eades.

    http://www.thincs.org/Malcolm3.htm#sep%2028

    Here’s the quote I copied (from an essay about drug companies) because I liked it so much, and it’s related to your discussion of freedom:

    “But, as I have said before, and will continue to say, the problem does not lie with individual actions, or individual companies. The problem is inherent to capitalism, the unfettered free market. In the end, if you put profit before anything else, then profit is what you will get. And you cannot expect individual pharmaceutical companies to take the moral high ground. They can’t afford to, even if they might like to.

    Capitalism, like any other ism from socialism to environmentalism to animal rights(ism), has good bits and bad bits. And like any other ism, when uncontrolled, it becomes extremism, and extremism is always a disaster for humanity.”

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
    • Aaron says:

      The drug business is far from an “unfettered free market,” though. It’s the worst of both worlds: a capitalist free market on the supply end (well, mostly capitalist, because research grants aren’t), combined with a mostly socialist market on the demand end. So on the one end, you have people trying to make a profit, but on the other end, you have customers whose bills are being paid by third parties (government or employer insurance plans). Neither person on either side of the counter has an incentive to keep the price down, to balance the profit incentive that pushes the price up.

      People who make shoes would like to be just as rich as people who make drugs, but they can’t put a $1000 price tag on a pair of sneakers because people have to pay for their own shoes. Capitalism works when the motives of buyer and seller are opposed and balance each other, but it doesn’t make things affordable for everyone. When we take away one side of the equation to try to make it fair, the other side runs rampant.

      GD Star Rating
      loading...
  • Theosis (“deification,” “divinization”) is the process of a worshiper becoming free of hamártía (“missing the mark”), being united with God, beginning in this life and later consummated in bodily resurrection. For Orthodox Christians, Thé?sis (see 2 Pet. 1:4) is salvation. Thé?sis assumes that humans from the beginning are made to share in the Life or Nature of the all-Holy Trinity. Therefore, an infant or an adult worshiper is saved from the state of unholiness (hamartía — which is not to be confused with hamárt?ma “sin”) for participation in the Life (z?é, not simply bíos) of the Trinity — which is everlasting.

    This is not to be confused with (apothé?sis) – “Deification in God’s Essence”, which is a heresy.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Comment

*

WordPress Themes