Chris likes Monads

On pages 20-1 in Dillenberger, Luther’s Preface to Romans, Luther says “What is the use of teaching others not to steal if you are a thief at heart yourself and, if you dared, would be one in fact?...It follows that, if you teach others, but not your own selves, you do not know what you teach, and have not rightly understood the nature of the law.” I had a lot of interest in these few lines.

These lines “What is the use...nature of the law” discuss the idea that the Jews teach and then do not practice what they teach. They are hypocritical. Luther questions what the point of teaching virtue is when the teachers indulge in vice. I feel that the point of teaching here could be a manipulative and negative. A thief, to use his example, would teach others not to steal so he could steal all the more. Also, if everyone knew how to steal then everyone would be able to discern when the teacher thief was trying to steal. They would be able to read his actions because they would know how to act like that.

He also says that if you teach but do not follow that doctrine that you do not understand what you are trying to teach. I feel that this is also not logically true. Just because I do not practice what I preach does not mean that I do not understand what I preach. The argument could be made that if I tell people to act conscientiously to one another and then I act rudely that I do not understand the meaning of acting conscientiously. However, I could fully well know and expect and demand that people act conscientiously and then act otherwise because I do not want to act so. I could treat these people poorly to show them how they were originally acting and so they could see that such behavior is bad. Or I could just dislike them. Also, I could feel that I want them to treat me in such a good way even if I did not like them, so I would tell them to act conscientiously and then treat them poorly regardless.

Dillenberger, John. Martin Luther Selections from His Writings. New York: Anchor Books, 1962.

giant's causeway in northern ireland

Comments on "On the Love of Solitude and Silence"

In the piece On the Love of Solitude and Silence the author makes the claim that a life spent in solitude and with only God is the best life an agent could lead. The author says that “...every bodily pleasure brings joy at first, but at length it bites and destroys.” He lumps intelligent discourse with “idle talk.” He feels that all time spent in the world with other peoples will lead to a damaged heart and will cause the agent unnecessary pain and will pointlessly take time away from personal study of God’s will.

In paragraph 8 the author says “You hope, perhaps to find complete satisfaction...” but I do not think that anyone, at least in the holy order, would aim to find complete satisfaction in company with other people. Most people do value solitude and meditation. However, I feel that full personal and mental growth cannot be possible without community with other peoples. Interpersonal discourse can lead to a creation of new insight and knowledge which may not be possible in solitude. Every person brings new and different understanding to the world, and in this case scripture.

It can be argued that scripture does not need other perspectives because it has one meaning, the meaning God intended it to have. However, what if one person does not fully or correctly understand part of it, but they believe they do. If they stay in personal meditation and solitude then they will never hear the perspective of someone else; they could possibly never be exposed to the correct meaning. Some people may say that in such a case God would reveal this seemingly hidden meaning to the person, and for this I do not really have an answer.

I also feel that, in regard to the idea of idle talk burdening a soul and disturbing its peace, if an agent’s soul never experiences any distress how will the soul fully recognize and appreciate the peace it has? Without a change in state the wonderful peace of the soul will become the norm and will be assumed and expected to be the usual. It will cease to be a special and wholly appreciated thing. An agent could witness the unrest of the souls of others, or experience it himself, if and only if he was to venture into the world and experience other human beings.