DESCARTES’ EPISTEMOLOGY - Victor Lawrence. A

Introduction

In this world each and every one of us searching for some knowledge. Because our mind is feeling some emptiness in it. So it can be filled by only knowledge. Then we won’t feel any emptiness in our life. In this paper Descartes also telling about his knowledge. But he tells that knowledge can be attained only by doubt. Now the question may arise at our heart, whether the knowledge is certain or doubtable. He shows the way for the knowledge in this paper.

Since he is rationalist, he doubts everything. From that he is getting something. That is called knowledge. We can say that whatever we experience that is knowledge. It is only the sense perception. But his epistemology is different from empiricist. They give importance only to vision, touch, smell, hear and taste. But through this we are getting some knowledge. We cannot attain full knowledge. When he speaks about his basis of knowledge; he says that there should be indubitable and certain knowledge in our mind. So he gives an argument called cogito ergo sum to sustain his own existence. When he speaks about his epistemology, he mostly concentrates on doubt, because for Descartes it was the source of all knowledge.

 The property of God is the foundation for his epistemology. So we should have doubt about the things in order to get the certainty. His main aim is to get right knowledge. When we have the right knowledge it will lead us to something higher. But when we posses wrong knowledge it may lead us to distraction. So the knowledge depends upon the persons how they are acquiring knowledge. Since we are human being we have only limited knowledge. No one in this world have full knowledge about a particular theory. So we should doubt everything.

            We all know that the knowledge plays a vital role in our life. Because the right knowledge only gives the status and good respect in the society. We are not only improving ourselves, but also companies and societies. Only the society differentiates the people through their knowledge. Though we have much idea about the knowledge, Descartes is strict in the point that he wants to doubt everything. So let us ask simple question to improve our knowledge, like “who am I?”

Chapter One

Knowledge

Rene Descartes’ (1596-1650) main aim was to show how the world of physics, the mathematically describable world, could be reliably mapped out independently of the often vague and misleading deliverances of our sensory organs. So here there are four topics which are dealing about Descartes’ epistemology. He is using methphysics, mathematics to deal with knowledge and also he gives the basics of knowledge to give some explanations about his epistemology.

1.1Metaphysics As Knowledge

          Descartes’ orientation in philosophy was mainly epistemological in character; it might indeed be said that his metaphysics was founded on epistemological consideration. For the thesis for which he has become known- the radical dualism between mind and body as instinct substances, was found on the claim that we have a more direct access to our minds than to our bodies.[1] The mind is a substance whose essence is thought alone, and hence exists entirely outside geometric categories, including place.  Body is a substance whose essence is extension alone, a geometric object without even sensory qualities like colour or taste, which exist only in the perceiving mind. Such bodies exist as the courses of sensation.[2]

1.1.1Tree of Knowledge

            The aim of his epistemology is summarized in one of his writings The Preface to the French Edition of the Principles, where he wrote that “All philosophy is like a tree, whose roots are metaphysics, whose trunk is physics, and whose branches, which grow from this trunk, are all of the other sciences, which reduce to three principle sciences, namely medicine, mechanics, and morals.”[3] The Important feature of Descartes’ tree of knowledge was its hierarchical organization. Throughout his career he held firmly to the notion that the interconnected body of knowledge that he sought to build has a particular order. Knowledge, for Descartes, begins in metaphysics, and metaphysics begins with the self. From the self we arrive at God, and form God we arrive at the full knowledge of mind and body. [4]

1.2 Mathematics as Knowledge

The progressive development of Descartes’ thought is dominated by the idea of the unity of human knowledge, and at the same time of its limits. The unity of mathematics follows from the fact that identical methods, the methods of the new algebra, can be applied as well in geometry as in arithmetic, to number as well as to space, that is traditionally opposed to each other, discrete and continuous quality. The application of identical methods implies or means identical acts of the mind; which in turn reveals to us that it is not the objects  numbers, lines that matter, but those acts or, rather, operations of our mind that link the objects together, compare them to each other, measure them by each other. So far the entire conclusion he uses his mathematical arguments to deliver his ideas of knowledge. Through this he proves that mathematics also is a way to understand his knowledge.

1.2.1 Intellectual Unity

Here Descartes appeals to in explaining the method of doubt. That is he is acting like a man who has a barrel of apples and takes them out one by one to remove any rotten ones lest they infect the other s. this presupposition however does not serve by itself to explain a peculiar feature of Descartes procedure. This has too often gone unquestioned. That is while he often stated that his aim is merely to discover what is true he actually sets himself the task of discovering things that are indubitable and in a strong sense, certain. So the mathematics contains very subtle devices that can greatly help to gratify our curiosity as well as to further all the arts and lesson human toil; that moral treatises comprise various lessons and exhortations to virtue that are highly useful.[5]

1.3 Basis of Knowledge

“I am a conscious being; that is, a being that doubts, asserts, denies, understands a few things, is ignorant of mind, is willing or unwilling; and that has also imagination and sense; for as I observed before, even if the external objects of sense and imagination should be nonentities, yet the modes of consciousness that I call sensations and images do, I am certain, exist in me.”[6]In this few words he has given a list of all the things that he really knew, or at least have so far observed that he knows. Now he would consider more carefully whether there may be other things in me that in have not yet discovered. He is certain that he is a conscious being.

1.3.1 Clear and  Distinct

In this primary knowledge there is only a clear and distinct perception of what he asserts. Now this would not be enough to make him certain as to the truth of the matter if it could ever happen that something clearly and distinctly perceived in this should be false. So it looks as though he could lay down the general rule. Whatever he perceived was clearly and distinctly is true.[7] The chief problem of the ideas is taken from external objects by him. He says that the nature has taught him. And he says that, they did not depend on him. He also gets them even if he did not with. For example, he feels heat. So thinks that this sensation or idea of heat comes to him from an object without knowledge of him.[8]

1.4 The Seeds of Knowledge

The seeds of knowledge are in us. That is the deep reason why the Cartesian endeavor is not a chimera, the reason why we can and must attempt to disencumber our reason of all the content that it may have received from outside in the course of life. These ‘seeds of knowledge’ or as he will call them later this rediscovering the deep intuition of Plato, ‘innate ideas,’ ‘eternal truths,’ ‘true and immutable natures,’ purely intellectual essences that are utterly independent of the contents given to us by sense perceptions, concepts that the rigorous catharsis of radical, methodical doubt that does reveal in our soul; these are the firm and sure foundations through which we can also base our judgment.[9]

1.4.1 Sunt in Nobis Semina Scientiae 

            Descartes tells us, sunt in nobis semina scientiae that is seeds of knowledge are in us. This means that our mind is not a tabula rasa, which has to receive everything from outside by the channel of perception; on the contrary, we have in ourselves the foundations which are the principle of science and knowledge, which is the reason why our thought turning back upon itself will be able to develop in a luminous order and in perfect security those long chains of reasons that the discourse seals to us about.[10]The foundations and the method of science are firmly established. But it is human science and it is on human foundations that we are building it up. Human science is science of the weak and in any case of a finite being necessarily has limitations.

           

Further still and on a deeper level we have based our science of the seeds that are found in our minds on the simple and primitive ideas that present themselves to our mind so clearly and distinctly that we have no occasion to doubt them. Here Descartes gives the very good explanation to his epistemology. This is not only scientific but also experimental science. Because he has experienced his knowledge. So courageously he is able to give ideas and theories about his philosophy of knowledge.

Chapter Two

Descartes’ Epistemology

 In this chapter Descartes tries to show his epistemology by using different kinds of metaphysical attitudes. For that he used principles of psychology that is the mind and he connects with the body. He is proving that by telling that the pineal gland is connected with psychology and other substances. Because the essence of the substance is thought. So here he is proving his epistemology by telling the existence of real substances as well as of real qualities. 

2.1 Doubt

We should attend only to those objects of which our minds seem capable of having certain and indubitable cognition.[11] But though certainty was central to Descartes, the path to certainty begins with doubt. In Meditation I entitled what can be called into doubt. Descartes says that “I realized that it was necessary once in the course of my life to demolish everything completely and start against right from the foundations it I wanted to establish anything at all in the sciences that was stable and likely to last.”[12] Following that he presents a series of three skeptical arguments designed to eliminate his current beliefs in preparation for replacing them with certainties. The strategy is to undermine the beliefs not one by one but by undermining the basic principles on which they rest.[13]

2.1.1 Doubt as Corner Stone

When we doubt a proposition we neither believe nor disbelieve it. Rather we suspend judgment regarding it as an open question whether it is true. Doubt can thus be a skeptical attitude. Descartes made doubt the corner stone of a philosophical method. In order to place our knowledge on foundations which are genuinely secure we should try to doubt all our beliefs retaining them only if they are absolutely indubitable. Ordinary empirical beliefs are threatened by the possibility that I am dreaming as are even logical principles, because I might be deceived by an evil demon. Unless I can eliminate these possibilities I cannot escape the suspicion that all my beliefs are infected by unnoticed error. Few have been convinced by Descartes’ claims about when doubt is impossible and many have questioned his claims about the desirability of trying to extend doubt as far as possible.[14]

2.2 Cogito Argument

Cogito Ergo Sum is the formulation of the Latin word. The meaning is ‘I think therefore I am.’ From this cornerstone of self-evident certainty Descartes derived all philosophical propositions. The idea of God he argued implies the real existence of God. No finite or imperfect being like man could have produced the idea of an infinite or perfect being. Hence only god could have revealed it to man. In as much as the body can be so easily doubted it is clear that the two are radically distinct. The body as such is subject to mechanistic explanation. Animals being without rational minds are strictly to be considered as machines automatons subject to instinctive reflexes.[15]

2.2.1 Cogito Ergo Sum

In our youth Descartes held we acquire many prejudices which interfere with the proper use of our reason. Consequently later we must reject everything. We believe and start anew. hence meditations begins with a series of arguments intended to cast doubt upon everything firmly believed and culminating in the hypothesis of an all- deceiving evil genius a deceive to keep former beliefs from  returning. The rebuilding of the world begins with the discovery of the self through the ‘Cogito Argument.’ a self known only as a thinking thing and known independently of the senses. Within this thinking self Descartes discovers an idea of God in idea of something so perfect that it could not have been caused in us by anything with less perfection than God Himself.[16]

2.3 Idea of God

“If I had the power of concerning my own existence, I should have had a proportionately greater power of giving myself the perfections that I lack: for they are only attributes of substances whereas I am a substance. But I do not have the power of giving myself these perfections; otherwise I should already possess them. Therefore I do not have the power of conversing myself.”[17] The arguments begins by examine the thought contained in my mind distinguishing between the formal reality of an idea and its objective reality. The formal reality of anything is just it s actual existence and the degree of its perfection. The formal reality of an idea is this actual existence and degree of perfection as a mode of mind.[18]

2.3.1 Existence of God

Descartes argues to suggest that I have been in existence always and thus I do not need a creator since it takes as much power to sustain me from moment to moment as it does to create me anew. I could not have created myself because then I would have been able to give myself all the perfections that I so evidently lack. My parents cannot be my creator properly speaking since they have neither the ability to create a thinking thing nor to sustain it once created. Finally I could not have been created by another creator of lesser perfection than God, since I have an idea of God an idea I could not acquire from a lesser begin. From this Descartes concludes “That the mere fact that I exist and have within me an idea of a most perfect being provides a very clear proof that God indeed exists.”[19]

2.4 Innate Ideas

“I have accurately observed that there are very few things that one knows with certainty respecting corporeal objects that there  are many more  which are known to us respecting the human mind and yet more still regarding God himself. So that I shall now without difficulty abstract my thoughts from the consideration of imaginable objects and carry them to those which being withdrawn from all contact with matter are purely intelligible.”[20] The central importance of God in Descartes system lies in the deity’s role as guarantor of the reliability of human cognition. Human often go astray in their thinking. But this is because they rashly jump in and give their assent to propositions whose truth is not clear. But provides they use their God-given power of reason correctly assenting only to what they clearly and distinctly perceive they can be sure of avoiding error.[21]

2.5 Distinction Between Body and Mind

The imagination involves a certain application of the cognitive faculty to a body while intellection does not involve any such application or effort. So that when you simply and without trouble perceive the triangle as a figure consisting of these angles you say that that is an act of understanding. But when not without some effort on your part you have that figure as it were present and investigate it examine it and recognize and discern its three angles distinctly and severally they you imagine.[22] The so called mind- body problem which continues to engage the attention of philosophers today bears witness to the compelling future of the issues with which Descartes wrestled.[23]

He says that body is perfect machines. It is controlled by the mind and rational willpower. Bodily hygiene is important and also there is equally a need of a mental hygiene. Because it is based on true knowledge of the psychological factors. So it is all based on our training of the good sense. But it depends on the knowledge of truths of metaphysics. It includes the knowledge of God. So Descartes concludes that everything is depends upon our mind and values we have.

Chapter Three

Contributions and Contradictions

There are so many philosophers who are really giving voice to Descartes including Spinoza. But there are so many philosophers who are raising voice against Descartes. But Descartes did not lose his originality. Because he was called as father of modern philosophy. That is the case he was not opposed by so many philosophers. Though some of the philosophers may be against to Descartes. Since his base of knowledge was so strong still he is in the top among the modern philosophers.

3.1 Spinoza and Descartes

Benedict Spinoza’s (1632-1677) originality is now here more appeared them in the difference from Descartes which is apparent in his theory of knowledge. Descartes is a deeply inconsistent thinker in that he declares clarity and distinctness to be the criteria of truth. But still seeks guarantee that his clear and distinct ideas do in fact correspond to what is the case in the realm of physical bodies. The inconsistency resides in the attempt both to find a guarantee for the truth of an idea in the idea itself and its relationship with other ideas yet to mean by truth roughly a sort of correspondence to an extra reality. This inconsistency could be avoided either by abounding the criteria of clarity and distinctions.[24]

3.1.1 Cartesian’s Notion

Spinoza‘s originality lies in the way in which he uses Cartesian notion of combination criticizing each in the light of the other. From Descartes he accepts the deductive ideal. In his Cartesian preoccupation with necessary truth Spinoza neglects the kind of logical investigation of Aristotle.[25] Spinoza has no need of a proof of the existence of God apart from no proof of the existence of the on substance. But in his demonstration that to perceive the necessity of its existence how reproduces a form of the ‘Ontological Argument’ which Descartes used to prove the existence of God. That is the essence of God entails its existence. Moreover he who does not rest his case for the identity of God and nature upon the deduction of the necessity of there being only one substance.[26]

3.2 Conditions of Indubitability

Towards the end of the First Meditation Descartes invokes to distinction between what is indubitable and what is open to one reasonable doubt. In defense of his decision to regard as dubitable many propositions are unreasonable to doubt. Harry G. Frankfurt says that, “I cannot at present yield too much to distrust, since it is not now a question of action but only of meditation and of knowledge.”[27] In their usual concerns men are not often required to decide whether a proposition is indubitable as distinct from deciding whether there is any reason to doubt it. Questions of indubitability are theoretical. They concern only the relation between a proposition and the evidence or ground of it. And take no account of the other concrete circumstances in which a proposition is evaluated.[28]

3.3 Kant’s Argument

Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) argues that only three ways of proving God’s existence on the speculative plane. He says that first we can precede entirely a priori and maintain that the very idea of God is such that ‘God could not exist.’ This is the method of the ontological argument. Second we can move from the bare fact that the world exists to the position that God is it s ultimate cause as in the first cause. Finally we can base our contention as the particular constitution of the world as in the physical and theological proof. Kant argues that all three types of proof are fallacious.[29] Descartes formulation on the existence of God is vulnerable to Kant’s objection. Because he says that I am holding the existence to be perfection it assumes that existence is a property or characteristic since perfection like a power or knowledge or moral goodness is a type of property.[30]  God’s existence is not a property for in saying that a thing exists one is not describing it in any way. 

3.4 Russell and Hume’s Argument

Bertrand Russell (1872-1970) has objections to the occurrence of the word ‘I’ in the premise ‘I am thinking.’ According to him Descartes has no right to the premise ‘I am thinking’ but only to the weaker claim, there is a thought. The premise of cogito is put forward as indubitable but according to him ‘I am thinking’ is not indubitable. It is open to doubt whether there is an ‘I’ which thinks and is not identical with these thoughts. David Hume (1711-1776) is also one of the philosophers who challenge this. Since the ideas are open to doubt it is illegitimate for the world I to appear in the premise of the cogito.[31] Descartes responses to these challenges first of all there are good reason for using the word I in the premise I am thinking. The reason is that thinking like green is a property and if there is a property there must be something which has this property. That which has a property Descartes calls it as a substance.[32]

3.5 Personal Views

Descartes’ epistemology starts with doubt. Through the doubt he comes to know the truth. But he should have the concept to know the truth. The concept did not come all of a sudden. Reason alone cannot make the concept. Sense is the starting point. Without experience we cannot make the concept fully. For example we cannot doubt our mother. We cannot deny the fact even though we had been misled. From the childhood itself we were brought up like that. But later if we come to know that she is not our mother, we may reason out. If we reflect our mother or father in our face we cannot doubt it. God’s creation is unique. So everyone is unique.

3.5.1 God

When he proves the existence of God he says that we all have the concept of God. God is a perfect being. I am imperfect being. Then how we can have the idea of perfect being? Either we should be also a perfect being or else we should not have the concept of perfect being.  But here he shows the contradiction between perfect being and imperfect being. We may have the idea of God. But that idea did not come all of a sudden. We were insisted that there is God and we were told about His love, grace etc. When he speaks about Ontological Argument he says that there won’t be mountain without valleys. But always there won’t be mountain with valleys. The earth may be flat in some of the places. So his proves for the existence of God is somewhat contradictory to us.

3.5.2 Man

 When we speak of Descartes philosophy of man, he says that those who think they can be considered as man. Of course mind may be the important one in man. But it gets its fullness only in the body. So both are equal. To express our feelings though we don’t use mind but only the parts of body. Without body no emotions can be expressed outside. Our appetites, emotions and senses are all first go to the mind then mind insists the body to express its feelings through words. When we think of ‘Pineal Gland Theory’ it cannot unite body and soul. Soul is something extraordinary. It is metaphysical. We can not join physical with metaphysical. Of course there will not be inferior and superior among body and soul. Both are equal.

To conclude, it is proved that he is the father of modern philosophy. Because he was taken as a leader by some of the philosophers. His own ideas and epistemology were taken as the model for other philosophers. Through this he himself proves that his innate ideas, idea of God and other knowledge were true. He was criticized by other philosophers he did not give up his hope. Thus he proved that he is the father of modern philosophy.

Conclusion

Descartes’ epistemology has helped us to acquire some knowledge about something. In this paper he has explained his knowledge by basis of knowledge, foundations of knowledge, cogito argument, innate ideas, existence of God, the distinction between body and mind. Because the knowledge does not depend upon only our mind, but also body. Body and mind is interconnected. His theory of pineal gland may be wrong. But his theory of knowledge is certain.

In this paper he clearly explains that one has to get knowledge through doubt. Because the doubt makes one to think to find out the reason. Then only we can get correct knowledge. Since he is rationalist, he says that only by reasoning we can attain right knowledge. He says that those who think they are considered as human being. Without thinking we won’t be considered as not even being. Those who think they have the power to live in this world. Because if any thing is not useful to us we just throw it out. It is applicable to the human beings also.

So through this paper Descartes helps us to acquire right knowledge. We already have some ideas in us. But those things cannot be considered as right knowledge always. He is telling the existence of God as example for innate ideas. The idea of perfect being is in imperfect being. So he gives so many examples to insist that there is an innate idea. When we are trying to understand his epistemology there may be some difficulties. Because he is not giving any ideas from outside of the world. He is asking to realize ourselves. For example the idea of God is in us. We don’t realize the idea which is within us. We are not able to understand fully.

Of course this is the best help to face our own problem in the future. Because the days are flowing like anything. So the people flying like anything. In that speed some of us forget to think in most of the time. So from this Descartes gives a clue to find ourselves in the world. We should be with the people but we should lead the people not as a guide but as a friend like Descartes.

Bibliography

Primary Source

a. books

Descartes, Rene. Descartes’ Philosophical Writings. Edited and Translated by. Australia: Nelson’s University Paperbacks, 1954.

Second Sources

Marnard Hutching, Robert. Great Books of the Western World. London: The University of Chicago, 1952.

                                                                                                                                                          Thomson, Garrett. On Descartes. New Delhi: Cengage Learning India Private Ltd., 2008.

---

[1] D.W. Hamlyn, “History of Metaphysics,” in The Oxford Companion to Philosophy (New York: Oxford      University, 1995), 557.

[2] Daniel Garber, “Rene Descartes” in Concise Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2000ed, 200.

[3] Garber, “Rene Descartes,” 4.

[4] Ibid.

[5] Garber, “Rene Descartes,” 10.

[6] Ibid., 76.

[7] Ibid.

[8] Elizabeth Anscombe, Descartes’ Philosophical Writings, (Australia: Nelson’s University Paperbacks 1954), 79.

[9]  Descartes, Philosophical Writings, xxix.

[10] Ibid., xxviii.

[11] Garber, “Rene Descartes,” 6.

[12] Ibid.

[13] Ibid.

[14] J. Cottingham, “Rene Descartes,” in The Oxford Companion to Philosophy (New York: Oxford      University, 1995), 205.

[15] L.J. Beck, “Rene Descartes,” in Encyclopedia Britannica, 15^th ed, 601.

[16] Garber, “Rene Descartes,” 200.

[17] Robert Marnard Hutching, Great Books of the Western World, (London: The University of Chicago,                                                                                                                                                                              1952), 132.

[18] Garber, “Rene Descartes,” 4.

[19] Ibid., 9.

[20] Hutching, Western World, 89.

[21] J. Cottingham, “Rene Descartes,” 190.

[22] Hutching, Western World, 199.

[23] J. Cottingham, “Rene Descartes,” 191.

[24] Alasdair Macintyre, “Benedict Spinoza,” in Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 1972ed, 537.

[25] Ibid., 532.

[26] Macintyre, “Spinoza,” 533.

[27] Ibid., 413.

[28] Ibid.

[29] Ibid., 316.

[30] W.H. Walsh, “Kant,” in Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 316.

[31] Garrett Thomson, On Descartes (New Delhi: Cengage Learning India Private Ltd., 2008), 41.

[32] Ibid., 42.                                                                                                           

The Summary of the Encyclical “Deus Caritas est”

Introduction:  Pope Benedict XVI clearly brings out the destiny of Christian life in this encyclical “Deus Caritas Est”. The need of the hour has been realised by the Pope’s effort. Christian life is highlighted by Pope telling that it is an encounter with an event, which gives life a new horizon and a decisive direction. The active role of love is well explained in and through this encyclical. Understanding the present condition, Pope vastly speaks of God’s love in order to make us to share that love with others also. Various dimensions and aspects of love are dealt for our better understanding about God’s love and man’s love. The Church’s role in propagating God’s love is emphasized and its goal has been clearly dealt.

Part -I

The very beginning of the first part deals with an essential element that is love which helps us to know our purpose of our life and existence. Though multiplicity of meanings for love is mentioned, the love between man and woman stands out because of the union of body and soul as a result; it evokes irresistible promise of happiness. Of the three Greek words for love, eros, philia and agape, New Testament writers prefer the last, which occurs rather infrequently in Greek usage. Agape this word seems to be something new and significant. There was a new vision in using agape because it was new and different about the Christian understanding of love. In the pre-Christian world eros was celebrated as divine power, as fellowship with the divine. The Old Testament opposed this form of religion which represents a powerful temptation against monotheistic faith, but it never rejected eros in any way. It was rejected because of not giving dignity and for dehumanising attitudes. Human beings were not treated well just they were used means of arousing divine madness. Lack of human respect led them to exploit each other. So, there was a need to discipline and purify the eros because one thing was realised that it was not just a fleeting pleasure. In order to attain our goal, that is eternity, infinity we should not submit ourselves to instinct. This point is emphasised strongly here.

The uniqueness of human being is highlighted who is made up off body and soul. And we also understand that when both dimensions that are body and soul are united, then only man attains full stature. All of us are expected to balance both dimensions without giving importance to anyone. Today’s situation is portrayed very well where the body is so much exalted which is also deceptive. Man’s great ‘YES’ to the body is undeniable. How man’s body used as material and exploited is depicted well here. 

Christian faith always considers man a unity in duality, a reality in which spirit and matter are brought to a new nobility. Since love leads us to divine, there arises a need of purification and healing. The best way of purification entails in the love where we show concern and care for others. The two Hebrew words such as ‘dodim’ was selfish in nature, but see that a transition takes place in the second word ‘ahaba’ where it seeks the good of the beloved. We are insisted that how this sort of love enables one to sacrifice for the sake of love. Thus the power of love is well explained here. The essence of love is highlighted by the sacrifice of Jesus himself. We too are called to sacrifice ourselves by self giving for the sake of love imitating Jesus our perfect model. The two notions such as ‘ascending’ love and a ‘descending’ love is differentiated very well. 

The distinctions between those two notions are giving a clear picture about love in different aspects. The author strongly tells us that eros and agape – ascending love and descending love can never be completely separated. This above statement defends the unity and dependency of eros and agape with each other. We also get the idea that the nature of love in general is realised when we find a unity in the one reality of love. The need of giving and receiving in terms of love is a must. So in order to share the love with others we too are expected to receive from the original source that is Christ who gave himself for us for the sake of love for us (John 7:37-38). When Gregory interprets the vision of Jacob’s ladder in Genesis 28:12, he tells us that the good pastor must be rooted in contemplation. He also adds that how this contemplation helps one to offer himself for the needs of the other. Through this we understand that how love is selfless and genuine. By using the life of St. Paul, Gregory tells us that how having descended once more he was able become all things to all men (cf. 2Cor 12:2-4; 1Cor 9:22). Using the example of Moses in the Old Testament Gregory insists one thing that how the contemplation, dialogue with God enabled him to serve others. So, if we want to be at the service of others, we need to contemplate and we should have dialogue with God. This will strengthen us and enable us to serve others by giving up self seeking desires and attitudes. 

The two elements such as the image of God and the image of man are dealt to show the newness of Biblical faith. A new image of God is presented by the world of Bible. The image of God was unclear and contradictory. The image of God was held as the one who created this universe which has its source in God. This idea is derived from the content of the prayer of Israel to God, “Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God is one Lord” (Deut 6:4). 

The notion of creation is strongly emphasised as it was created by only one God who is the source of everything that lives on the earth. The dearness of God is highlighted through means of creation, which was willed by him and ‘made’ by him. The second important element that is God loves man, is described by the mention of Israel, which is chosen by God out of love for that nation, with a personal love yet it is also totally agape.

God’s passion for his people is described with images and metaphors by the prophets such as betrothal and marriage; idolatry is thus adultery and prostitution. We find a beautiful description of the relationship of fidelity between Israel and her God. God opens the Israel’s eyes to man’s true nature and showing the path leading to humanism by giving her the Ten Commandments. By being faithful to God, we can enjoy and experience real happiness and one can get the joy in God which becomes his essential happiness. We are also insisted that it is possible only through a life of fidelity to the one God. Hosea explains God’s love and passion for his people is entirely different from that of man. The uniqueness of God’s love is depicted clearly (Hos 11:8-9). God’s forgiving love can be understood if we look at the mystery of cross in which Jesus died for our sins in order to redeem us. The union between God and man creates love, a unity in which both God and man remain themselves and yet become fully one. This is explained clearly by the following reference from the Bible, “He who is united to the Lord becomes one spirit with him”.

The second Biblical faith which consists in the image of man is dealt elaborately. One idea is emphasised that only in communion with the opposite sex, he can become complete (Gen 2:24). We understand that eros is somehow rooted in man’s nature. That is why man and woman they become together as one flesh. Through this eros a bond is taking place and it fulfils its deepest purpose. God’s way of loving becomes the measure of human love. So this makes us clear that how God expresses his love through measure of man’s human love to be union with him. In Jesus Christ we see the incarnate love of God and how it has been expressed through the whole humanity. The most radical form of love can be understood by the death of Christ on the cross and he gave himself for us, suffered for us and in order to give us redemption. When we engage ourselves in contemplation we can understand that how God loves us and how his love is deep. We can understand the starting point of this encyclical letter; “God is love” (1Jn 4:8). We are instructed to begin the definition of love from Christ who is the incarnate love of God.

The contemplation results in discovering the path along which his life and love must move. The act of oblation an enduring presence of Jesus through the institution of the Eucharist draws our attention.

This bread can be understood as new manna (cf. John 6:31-33). The Eucharist enables us to act like Jesus in sharing the love with others by giving self-seeking attitudes. By receiving the Eucharist, we enter into the very dynamic of his self-giving. Thus the Eucharist plays an active role in enabling us to enter into the act of self-giving act that is seen in Jesus. We come closer to God by the union with God through sharing Jesus’ self-gift, sharing in his body and blood. Here we see a kind of human mystical elevation which could ever accomplish. The social character of sacramental mysticism is expressed by the communion with the Lord. St. Paul also confirms this union by the following passage “because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread” (1Cor 10:17). 

Love of God and Love of Neighbour:  The real union with the Lord becomes possible, only when we are united with others. This communion makes us to come out of myself to serve and help the other in the time of their need. By doing this we become “one body”, completely joined in a single existence. The true union of love of neighbour and love of God is portrayed here very clearly. So we also understand that one cannot remain separated. Both should go hand in hand. Thus agape became a term for the Eucharist, and it comes to us bodily, in order to continue his work in us and through us. We are strengthened an enabled by Eucharist to continue to work like Jesus who gave himself for others and who was at the service of others out of love. Jesus’ teaching on love can only be understood only by keeping in mind this Christological and sacramental basis. Love can be “commanded because it has first been given more importance is given to neighbour’s concern in Jesus teaching. The concept of “neighbour” is now universalized. This calls every one of us to engage ourselves in practical commitment here and now. Love of neighbour is considered as most important criterion for the definitive decision about a human life’s worth. Jesus’ identification with the poor is an invitation for all of us to love our neighbours. “As you did to one of the least of these my brethren, you did it to me” (Mt 25:40). There is an unbreakable bond between love of God and love of our neighbour is expected and emphasized very much. Our love for God becomes meaningless when we are not ready to love our neighbour. So, St. John’s words clearly portray that love of neighbour is the only way to encounter God and to see him face to face.

Part-II

Every activity of the Church is an expression of love. Because, the Church is rendering the service to these who are in need and it seeks to promote the goodness of all. Love is therefore the service that the Church carries out in order to attend constantly to man’s sufferings and his needs, including material needs. Every member of the ecclesial community has a greatest responsibility to serve others. As a community the Church is expected to practise love through charitable works which are the manifestations of love. Even the early Christians were aware of this and practising love by keeping all things in common. (Acts 2:44-45). Thus at present also the Church is expected to render service to those who are in need. Both the social and spiritual services were carried out in the early Church. In today’s situation also these both should be carried. This is what expected of us. As the Church grew, charity became an essential duty. 

The Church cannot neglect the service of charity more than she can neglect the sacraments and the word. One thing is very clear that charitable activity of the poor and the suffering was naturally an essential part of the Church of Rome from the very beginning, based on the principles of Christian life given in the Acts of the Apostles. We are expected to imitate the apostles in the early Church to do the good things for all as a greatest responsibility. Justice is both the aim and the intrinsic criterion of all politics. Politics is more than a mere mechanism for defining the rules of public life: its origin and its goal are found in justice, which by its very nature has to do with ethics. Since the 9th century, an objection have been raised to the Church’s charitable activity, subsequently, Karl Marx emphasized that the poor needs justice and not the act of charity. Though the society must be the achievement of politics, the efforts of the Church to promote common is necessary and it also concerns the Church deeply. A willingness to engage ourselves for the service of others is recommended by the Church constantly. So, every faithful is obliged to carry out this task. The second Vatican council is the best example for promoting this goodness.

The Church is constantly trying hard to help others and promote goodness of others. Man’s very nature is inscribed by the Creator through the command of love of God and love of neighbour. Every individual person is expected to be responsible to the following tasks such as feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, caring for sick, visiting those who are in the prison. These should be fulfilled not as an obligation alone but with heartfelt concern, one should fulfil. This will help one to experience the richness of humanity at a larger level. 

We should not impose our faith on others by the charitable activity that we do to others. But the very act of charity which is rooted in Christ must draw them closer to Christ. Pope explains clearly the charity that is practiced from many levels such as diocesan level, parish, and the particular churches to the universal Church. However, the Church is all the more responsible to co-ordinate to do charitable activities in many levels. We need to be humble, if we want to be at the service of others. The very life of Jesus is an incomparable example of this humble activity by giving himself on the cross for our sins. The love of Christ itself is the great motivating factor to be at the service of others. In order to be aware of this selfless love that is Christ we need to have strong faith in God, and then only it will enable us to practice the virtue of love with others as Jesus did as a great service to all.

Conclusion:  Having gone through this encyclical gives me an impression that the Pope has the interest to make the audience, the readers to be aware of God’s love fully and to share the same love with others. As we live in a competitive and consumeristic world man seems to be selfish and self-seeking but the object of this encyclical is very clear that it wants to bring a change in man’s heart from self-seeking attitudes to self giving attitudes for the sake of others. The emphasis on the love of God and the love of neighbour is fantastic and fabulous by using so many scriptural references and the Church’s teachings. Pope’s consideration to the love of neighbours is adding beauty to this encyclical. I hope certainly this encyclical would act as an inspiration to countless audience in experiencing the richness of human life.

-  Bro. Satish, I Year Theology, Bangalore

Character Study on Uriah in Social Context

2 Samuel 11:1-13  : Uriah the Hittite was a soldier in king David’s army mentioned in the Hebrew Bible. He was the husband of Bathsheba, and was murdered by order of David by having the soldiers retreat from him in battle. Uriah's wife was pregnant by King David through an adulterous affair. Although under David's order to return home and see his wife, Uriah repeatedly refused to leave his post or leave the King's presence to see her. Contact between the couple could have hidden the adulterous nature of her pregnancy by David. We are called and invited to analyze the courageous act of Uriah and his reluctance to be away from his responsibility. 

In order to hide his own mistake, David makes an attempt to send Uriah to his house from the battlefield so that all may come to know that it would be the offspring of Uriah. Uriah, however, being the patriotic warrior that he was, refused to indulge in matrimonial pleasure so long as his comrades-in-arms were “encamped in the open field,” and thus deprived of similar domestic enjoyment. Frustrated, David then sought to intoxicate the soldier, to break down his resistance, that he might go down to his wife and so cover the illegitimate conception. But, again, Uriah “went not down to his house.”

The continuous refusal of Uriah shows his patriotic zeal and his dedication towards his work as a warrior. Even when he was motivated by David the one who has authority over Uriah, he had the courage to say that he will not do such thing. This provides us about his loyalty the work which he has been entrusted to him. He was not worried of his own personal and selfish interests but he was worried of his companions in the field. Uriah shows us a best example to be responsible in our duties that are entrusted to us. But when we think of today’s condition in the society seems to be strange and conflict to the responsible behaviour of Uriah. We come across may news such as getting bribe, neglecting their duties, showing partiality to the ones who are in high authority and on. Because of pleasing mentality and personal gain many government employees involve in such activities that have been mentioned above. The corruption issue in 2G Spectrum and Commonwealth games show the pitiable condition of the society.  All these things happen because certain officials don’t fulfil their duty responsibly and faithfully. As a result they are sold for money and for certain gains. Recently namely Rajan who was in the CBCI section was arrested by the CBCI itself for the reason that he had got bribe Rs 2, 00,000. Thus responsible authorities get distracted from their ways and responsibilities without worrying about the welfare of others.

Reflection:  The best way to avoid such things that have been mentioned above is through fulfilling our responsibility and duty asUriah. Being selfish will destroy the happiness of others. The real happiness is in serving others. Do all those who work under the Government or under any private sector how much they are loyal and responsible in their work? The need of the hour is to show care and concern for others. This is possible also by doing our own responsibility by not yielding to the power and position. We are expected to say that we will never do such things Uriah said.  

Wherever we may be under various circumstances but we need to imbibe the quality of being responsible in the works that have been entrusted to us. It may be of the small work but the fruit of that little work will be beneficial for others. Life with conviction speaks lot of volumes to the forthcoming generation also. The greatest personalities in the history are the ones who have acted responsibly and sincerely. As we have been called to continue the mission of Christ, we need to have the guts to say no I will ever do such things that are against our goal and destiny. This will be better lesson for others also to be responsible in their duties. Therefore let us try our best to be responsible and sincere in our duties even amidst lot of temptation and trials.

-  Bro. Satheesh Yesu Doss, I Year Theology, Bangalore

The Summary of the Encyclical “Deus Caritas est”

Introduction: In this assignment I am going to speak about whatever I understand from the encyclical letter Deus Caritas Est of the supreme pontiff Benedict sixteenth. In this letter he has divided two parts, in the first part he has spoken about a problem of language, “eros” and “agape” difference and unity, how love goes higher level, philosophical reflection on the essence of love, the newness of biblical faith, the incarnate love of god, and love of god love of neighbor. In the second part mainly pope spoke about community of love, charity as a responsibility of the church, justice and charity, multiple structures of charitable service in the social context of the present day, and distinctiveness of the church’s charitable activity.        

Content of the Encyclical letter:  In the introduction Pope speaks mainly three points. The first one, He says that St. John’s gospel describes that God’s Love, “God so loved the World that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should have eternal life”. The second point from the book of Deuteronomy, usually Jews used to pray this words everyday, “Here Oh Israel: the Lord our God is one Lord and you shall Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your might. The third point was from the Book of Leviticus, “You shall Love your neighbor as yourself”. Then he divided two parts. The first part speaks about essential facts concerning the love which God mysteriously and gratuitously offers to man, and reality of human love. In the second part Pope speaks about ecclesial exercise of commandment of love of neighbor.

Pope speaks about problem of language. He deals the various meaning of Love. He says that the term “Love” has become one of the most frequently used and misused of words, a word to which we attach quite different meanings. Example Love of country, Love of one’s profession, Love between friends, Love of work, Love between parents and children, Love between family members, Love of neighbor and Love of God. Finally he asks that are we merely using the same word to designate totally different realities.

Pope explains about “Eros” and “Agape”. Eros is nothing but Love between man and woman which is neither planned nor willed but somehow imposes itself upon human beings was called “Eros”. Agape is clearly point to something new and distinct about Christian understanding of Love. But early Christians accepted the “Eros”. Later people came to know that it was kind of intoxication, divine madness mainly divinization of eros actually strips it of its dignity. At the same time “Eros” needs to be disciplined and purified because he explains clearly with the example of Descartes. “Man is a being made up of body and soul. Man is truly himself when his body and soul are intimately united yet it is neither the spirit alone not the body alone that loves; it is man, the person, a unified creature composed of body and soul, who loves. Only when both dimensions are truly united, does man attain his full stature; only thus is Love, Eros able to mature. But Eros, reduced to pure “sex”, has become a commodity, a mere “thing”. Man becomes a commodity. He considers his sexuality as the purely material part of himself, to be used and exploited at will. Truly Eros tends to rise in ecstasy towards the divine to lead us beyond ourselves.

Pope explains about the biblical notion of Love. He gives example from Song of Songs. He mentions two terms from Hebrew words which was used in Song of Songs “dodim”, “ahaba”. Here Love becomes concern and care for others. No longer self-seeking, instead it seeks the good of the beloved, and even willing for sacrifice. He adds the quote from bible “whoever seeks to gain his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life will preserve it’ Luke 17:33. Secondly he says about Jesus’ life, who leads through the cross to resurrection, the path of the grain of wheat that falls to ground and dies and in this way bears much fruit. So he made difference between the two words “Eros” and “Agape”. Eros, as a term to indicate ‘worldly love’ and agape referring to love grounded in and shaped by faith. So these terms are often contrasted as ascending Love and descending Love. So Pope gives example of Jacob’s ladder which reaching up to Heaven on which the Angels of God were ascending and descending.

Pope speaks about the newness of biblical faith which presents us the image of God and the image of man. First thing image of God: there is only one God, the creator of heaven and earth, one true God who is the source of all that exists. Secondly this God loves man, among all the nations he choose Israel and loves her, God’s relationship of Israel is metaphor of betrothal and marriage, his love may certainly be called eros yet it is also totally agape. He gives her the Torah there by opening Israel’s eyes to man’s true nature leading to true humanism. So God’s eros for man is also totally agape. Philosophically God is absolute and ultimate source of all being; but this universal principal of creation is Logos.

According to image of man the biblical account of creation speaks of the solitude of Adam and God’s decision to give him a helper, God forms women from rib of man. Pope says that idea is certainly present that man is somehow incomplete, the idea that only communion with the opposite sex can become “complete”. So Pope says eros is somehow rooted in man’s very nature. Eros directs man toward marriage which based on definitive Love becomes the icon of the relationship between God and his people.

He explains that Jesus Christ is the incarnate Love of God. Pope speaks Love of Jesus, Jesus cares lost sheep, lost coin, we can see in prodigal son, mainly he gives himself in order to raise man up and save him. So his love is radical form. The second point of Pope is Logos now truly becomes food for us as Love. He quotes the 1Cor 10:17 because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread. So we become “One Body” completely joined in a single existence. Love of God and Love of neighbor are now truly united. So that Agape also becomes a term for the Eucharist. Then he explains who is neighbor? Jesus identifies himself with those in need, with hunger, the thirsty. “As you did it to one of the least of my brethren you did it to me” Mk 25:40. So Love of God and Love of neighbor have become one. So he says from scripture I Love God and hates his brother, he is a liar. Love of neighbor is a path that leads to the encounter with God. Especially he loves us, he makes us see and experience his love especially in the Eucharist, and God has sent his only song into the world so that we might live through him. He explains that the love story between God and man consists in the very fact that this communion of will thus our will and God’s will increasingly coincide. He gives example we Love the person whom we do not like. This can only take place through intimate encounter with God which becomes communion of will mainly Pope says that if we serve our neighbor our eyes can be opened to what God does for me and how much he loves me. Love is divine because it comes from God and unites us to God.

In the second part of Encyclical mainly Pope spoke about the service of charity which is the responsibility of the church. He gives example of Luke’s writings. Luke provides a kind of definition of the church. “Communion” the breaking of bread and prayer which consists in the fact that believes holds all things in common. No longer distinction between rich and poor. “Diaconia” the ministry of charity exercised in a communitarian and fundamental structure of the church. The same way Pope mentioned from Justin Martyr Tertullian, Ignatius of Antioch, Deacon Lawrence, and Saint Ambrose who distributed to the poor whatever funds were available and then presented to the authorities the poor themselves as the real treasure of the Church. He spoke about Julian the Apostate who was emperor. He confirmed that charity was a decisive feature of the Christian community, the Church and also he speaks about three fold responsibility. 

1. Proclaiming the word of God 
2. Celebrating the sacraments 
3. Exercising ministry of charity. 

The same way he speaks that the church is God’s family in the world so within the ecclesial family no member should suffer through being in need.

So when Pope speaks about justice and charity he tells about the history of the church during the 19th century, society had a lot of problem. Example poverty, disease, need for better education. During that time social doctrine of the church published which becomes set of fundamental guidelines. Some way state has to accept two elements one thing religious freedom, harmony between different religions. In the society the church cannot and must not take upon herself the political battle to bring about the most just society possible. The formation of Just structure is not directly the duty of the church, the church has an indirect duty here.

Then he mentions the second nation council which tells that through better means of communication distance between people has been almost eliminated charitable activity can and should embrace all people and all needs. Concern of neighbor has increasingly broadened its horizon to the whole world. The same way he expresses the idea of John Paul II which is “respect for the rights and needs of everyone, especially the poor, lowly and defenseless. Pope explains about Christian charity which is simple response to immediate needs feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, healing the sick. They need to be led to that encounter with God in Christ which awakens their love and opens their spirits to other mainly his concern about those who practice charity in the church’s name will never seek to impose the church’s faith upon others. They realize that pure and generous love is the best witness to God their activity they may be credible witness to Christ. 

The part of the church which has great responsibility the directory for the pastoral ministry of Bishops tells about duty of Charity upon the whole church and upon each Bishop in the diocese, like the ministry of word and sacraments. He uses the Paul’s quotation “If I give away all I have and if I deliver my body to be burned but do not have love, I gain nothing”. So he says way of serving others also leads to humility. Example, Christ took lowest place in the world, the cross which is radical humility. 

Then mainly Pope says about “Prayer” is the most important thing to help our neighbor. He gives example of Blessed Mother Theresa who wrote to her lay co-worker we need deep connection with God in our daily life. How can we obtain it? By “Prayer”. For that we need to have faith, hope and charity. Mainly faith helps us to understand Love is Light to experience Love in this way to cause the light of God to enter into the world. Then he speaks about the saints who exercised charity in an example way. So he says saints are the true bearers of light within history, they are men and women of faith, hope and love. Same way he speaks about Mother Mary who is encountered both in prayer and in service of neighbor. She is woman who loves. Finally he says God’s love to become in a fountain from which flow rivers of Living Water Jn 7:38.

Conclusion:  By reading this encyclical letter I really came to know that mainly it is very useful for seminarians. This encyclical letter made me to understand what is the different between God’s love and human love, how can we feel love of God, why we have to practice love of neighbor and charity, what is Christian charity?, finally how saints exercised charity in an exemplary way ,and Mother Mary who abandoned herself completely.      

- Bro. David Rajesh, I Year Theology, Bangalore