Our Histories, Ourselves [3]
Nov 21st, 2007 by Micah Tillman
We are “as coming from.” We are each “arriving” at whatever moment or place we are.
(E.g.: “I come to you today with news.” “In what capacity are you here?”)
Nietzsche said that we as humans do not “go into the present” without a “remainder.” We are not just our DNA. We have a history that makes us who we are.
This is why our views of history matter. They help us decide who we are. And that’s why people get so worked up over (some) historical events. They are talking about where they come from. They are as coming from the events and people they are discussing.
(This is not to say that we are our histories. Use of the first person plural with regard to our ancestors is dangerous. Rush Limbaugh was doing that a lot today. By the way. If you care.)
But our views of history also tell us about the future (ironically), and therefore tell us what our possibilities are:
Is it futile to work for a better world? (Take a look at some of those illustrations in pt. 2. *cringe*).
Does it matter what we do? (Take a look at some of those illustrations in pt. 2. I wonder if any of them are actually views of history as contingent/determinable rather than necessary/determined.)
Etc.
Do you have any special thoughts about Whitehead or process theology?
Before reading these last few postings of yours I never really thought about the inttelectual tradition he springs out of… but there are clear links from where he began to where he ended up. (Which on a wider level might be your point here: none of us pop up out of a vaccuum.)
Another interesting ramification of these posts (at least to me) is the idea that it isn’t so much what happened as how we view it. This is a common sense view on the personal level– two people might go through identical trauma and turn out quite differently. Largely, this difference is a result of way the traumatic experience is viewed. The idea is a little more novel (at least to me) on a societal level… Not only do we carry with us an experience of what has happened, but we also carry with us a view of how history works, and why the specific events in our past happened, etc.
This comment meant a lot to me. Thanks!
To my shame I have never studied Whitehead. What I know of process theology sounds like Hegel and the German Idealists (Schelling, in particular).
I like Hegel (as much of him as I can understand) and Schelling (as much of him as I can understand), but find their views of history to be exhilarating thought-experiments rather than believable presentations of the world.
If process theology denies that God is the creator of all, then I’ll never be able to buy it. And it seems to me that it does deny that God is the creator of all. But I’d be very happy to be corrected on this point if I am wrong.
The first people to ever point out to me that history could be looked at in certain ways were discussing the atrocities of the 20th Century after the lofty expectations of the 18th and 19th.
Then, growing up in a church setting where the Rapture and Tribulation were always being expected, the idea that people could think history was getting better and better was especially striking.
Then encountering some post-modernist-influenced people talking about having moved beyond modernism and rejected modernism’s view of history really got me thinking.
Lots and lots of thinking . . . .
Your eclecticism continues to amaze me, Mr. Tillman. I can’t decide whether you are too far from the golden mean (being undiscriminating) or simply much, much closer to it than I am. (Of course, I’m an archetype — the uber-rationalist — the faults of which I probably don’t have to elaborate on, but it’s far too late for this leopard to change his spots.)
Your criticism of Hegel reminds me of my criticism of Kant. An impressive intellectual edifice, stunning in its conception and execution, but one is left wondering why he bothered. Hegel himself I find incomprehensible simply because I cannot understand his system of logic. It seems like merely a mad experiment to me. However, if anyone knows of a translation of Hegel (preferably footnoted) which is actually clear and comprehensible, I’d be happy to try him again.
Much of what the process theology folks have to say strikes me as aptly described by Andrew, “an impressive intellectual edificie… but one is left wondering why he (they) bothered”
I think it’s pretty fair to say that the process folks don’t view God as the creator… They view God as concurrently arising with the universe. The metaphor they sometimes use is that God is the mind or soul of the universe.
Of course, when we give up on God as creator we lose all sorts of the reasoning we hypoethesized his existence in the first place.
They make the claim in support of their notion (which I have no reason to doubt, but also don’t find compelling enough to ditch the whole notion of God-as-creator) that a more accurate translation of Genesis I, where more careful attention is paid to the tenses would be:
“When God began creating, The Earth was without form…” This, for them, implies that there were raw materials lurking about, waiting to be wielded by the emerging mind of the universe.
Process theology sounds like just a variant on pantheism. This is probably unsurprising; pantheism is Man’s natural religion which then evolves into polytheism and monotheism. Lots of people seem to think that monotheism is a natural religion, but it’s actually a very late development in history, always springing from polytheistic cultures.
I can see the pantheistic tendencies in process theology.
You’re brief history of religious development is certainly one way to read the evidence. A brief history of religion that I’d endorse would go a bit like this:
The first humans were rebellious and arrogant, seeking after things a God-like status. This rebellion and longing to be God is expressed in all sorts of ways, because God plants a longing eternity within us… So this longing gets perverted with our natural knuckleheadness and expresses itself as pantheism. God sent out Jesus and then the Holy Spirit to draw us closer to him, and so we progress toward the truth of monotheism.
(O.K. Mine’s a bit less brief than yours… And perhaps more didactic too. My main point is to observe that religion may be more discovery than invention.)
I did not intend the above to be as rigid as it probably sounded. It’s just how I read the historical record. Obviously a theist would read it differently. As you say, a theist believes it is discovery rather than invention.
Andrew–
I appreciate the “eclectic” label, as I often feel I’m not eclectic enough for the philosophy world. There are whole genres of philosophy I have yet to touch, so I always feel like I’m “behind” where I should be. *grin*
As you point out, however, the drive to know all things might be a vice (Nietzsche claims it is in On the Advantages and Disadvantages of History for Life) just as easy as it might be a virtue, so I try to calm myself down whenever I find myself fretting over having not read some book or other.
I like your introduction of the history of religion. That’s a great topic, and one that didn’t occur to me as I was thinking over the various ways of looking at history for these posts.
It’s especially interesting in that if a monotheist agrees with Jeff that religion is about discovery, and with you that the record indicates a development toward monotheism, then she/he would have to drop the “Back to the Beginning” view of history (if she/he ever held it) in favor of the Progress(ive?) View.
Jeff–
I think there’s something comforting about the thought that God is the soul of the universe. It makes one feel like one is part of something larger than oneself. Not unlike the New Testament view of the members of the church as the Body of Christ.
And that’s not to rip on the Process Theology view as a crutch for the weak, or anything. It seems to me more that such an idea is meeting a real need. And whether it’s the right theology of not, the fact that it fills a need reveals a truth about human nature. And understanding human nature is extremely important.
I wasn’t actually talking about knowing things, exactly; knowledge is a good without limit, the more the better. (The ideal philosopher is an expert on absolutely everything.) I was talking about how many things you find useful in your own philosophy. E.g. I have always regarded Hegel as a bit of a waste of time. Similarly with Nietzsche. When I’m reading poets and mystics, I’m doing so purely to learn biographical details. I don’t actually expect them to have anything useful to say to me. The only chance they might is if I discover something useful while refuting them.
Jeff, of course, would accuse me of “worshipping a shallow kind of rational thought, and ideas divorced of their context,” unrepentant modernist that I am.
Aww, you know me. I feel all warm and fuzzy inside…
(Unrepetant post-modern Christian that I am.)