About a blissful life. (Augustine the Blessed.)
Federal Agency for Railway Transport
Siberian State Transport University
Department of Philosophy
Augustine the Blessed. Man's problem
Abstract on the discipline "Philosophy"
Head: Developed:
Professor student gr.U-213
Bystrova A.N ________ Logacheva I.B
(signature) (signature)
_________ ____ __________
(date of inspection) (date of submission for inspection)
Novosibirsk 2012
Introduction………………………………………………………………………………3
1 Life of St. Augustine……………………………………4
2 The problem of man through the eyes of St. Augustine……………6
3 Augustine on the origins of sin………………………………………….10
Conclusion…………………………………………………………….11 References……………………………………………………. .12
Introduction
The works of Augustine the Blessed aroused my particular interest. Having studied some facts from his biography, I realized that Augustine’s works are devoted to the problem of man.
The whole life of St. Augustine took place against the backdrop of catastrophic events, terror, we are talking about the Late Empire the first of the totalitarian states of the modern type. His childhood coincided with the last surge of Roman power. In his mature years, the fortress walls of Rome fell - on August 24, 410 - before the Visigoth king Alaric.
Century of St. Augustine became a period of demographic, social, spiritual and intellectual prosperity of Christianity, the golden age of the church fathers - great thinkers who gave Christian literature their classical creations.
St. Augustine can be considered the true father of Western Christianity. While there were many great theologians in the East, Augustine had no equal in the West, and his teaching dominated Latin theological thought until the rise of medieval scholasticism.
Augustine's personality is extremely attractive for its sincerity, depth and liveliness of mind, and the specificity and spontaneity of his interests make Blessed Augustine not only interesting, but also a very close person to us.
1 Life of St. Augustine
Augustine was born on November 13, 354 in the city of Tagaste, in North Africa. His father was a pagan, his mother, Saint Monica, was a deeply religious Christian. In 370, Augustine went to study rhetoric in the capital of Africa, Carthage. The training was conducted in Latin and Greek, but during all this time Augustine never learned Greek, but his professional training in the field of rhetoric increased. He was always aware of language as a tool of creativity; for him, language as a means of communication was art.
At the age of nineteen, Augustine became acquainted with the Manichaean teachings. In Carthage, a cosmopolitan city where a variety of sects and beliefs flourished, Manichaeism enjoyed considerable popularity. Manichaean influence forever left its mark on the thought of St. Augustine.
After receiving his education, St. Augustine began teaching rhetoric. At this time he was living with a woman who had been his friend for many years. They had a son, Adeodatus, his only child, and Augustine in his writings always speaks of him with special tenderness.
In 383 he moved to Rome and lived there for some time, teaching rhetoric. He soon moved from there to Milan, where the bishop was the great Ambrose, who made an indelible impression on Augustine and gave a decidedly Christian direction to his spiritual development.
Augustine's final conversion to Christianity is described in an unusually moving and convincing manner in Book VIII of the famous Confessions. This event changed Augustine's whole life. He was baptized in April 389, was ordained a presbyter in 391, and spent the rest of his life in the African city of Hippo, of which he became bishop in 395. He remained Bishop of Hippo for 35 years, until his death. During this period, he wrote many essays and also took an active part in church life. He became an indispensable participant in all African councils. As a theologian and rhetorician, Augustine actually led the church life of Africa. His enormous popularity and influence enabled him to make a major contribution to the legislative activities of the African Church.
St. Augustine died on August 28, 430 during the siege of Hippo by the Gothic army.
2 The problem of man through the eyes of St. Augustine
In his autobiographical work “Confessions,” Augustine describes his life in terms of mystical and spiritual experience; he speaks of that period of his life when, having already freed himself from Manichaeism, he had not yet converted to Christianity: “Trying to bring the structure of my thought out of the abyss, I plunged again , and often making efforts, I plunged again and again." This book is
a manifestation of the indomitable power of his faith, inner honesty, ardor, imagination and freedom of mind.
The main problem is the problem of the concrete self, man as an irreproducible individual, as a personality in its individuality and particularity. “I myself,” says Augustine, “became for me a tangible problem, a big question, I am not aware of everything that I am." With these words, Augustine makes us understand that he has become an observer of his life from the outside, but he also turns to the inner world of our soul, where only the truth should be sought. He constantly talks about himself in in his “Confession,” without hiding anything, he talks not only about his parents, homeland, people dear to him, but reveals his soul in all its subtlest bends, commands and intimate experiences.
For example, “What did I, unfortunate one, gain from that, remembering about which I now blush, especially from that theft, in which the theft itself and nothing else was sweet to me? ... And yet, as far as I remember my state of mind at that time, I alone would not have accomplished it. Consequently, I also loved the community of those with whom I stole here...”
Analyzing his life, St. Augustine discovers in the depths of his being an emptiness, the absence of God for those living in sin. This is how he talks about it: “...I laughed at these holy servants and prophets of Yours. What did this laughter lead to? Only to the point that You laughed at me: gradually and little by little I was brought to an absurd belief, for example, that a wine berry, when it is picked, and the tree from which it is picked, cry tears like milk.”
The author repeatedly talks about his sins; he actually confesses to God. I realized that this is the true value Confession it must be studied, re-read, thus looking for a model of inner life, mastering the art of reflection, the ability to transform the most modest events into a sacrifice of praise.
I can say that confession is an expression of human feelings, a cleansing of the soul. The statement that man consists of soul and body is directly related to the idea of two levels of knowledge. At one level, cognition is related to bodily sensations: we see, hear, etc. and thus learn about changeable objects. Such knowledge is unstable, impermanent. But there is, in addition, knowledge of the soul. The soul is capable of comprehending unchanging, permanent objects. The soul is immortal. Augustine deepens and complements the evidence for the immortality of the soul. Thus, it comes from the self-awareness of simplicity and spirituality, from which follows the indestructibility of the soul. Elsewhere he deduces the immortality of the soul from the presence of eternal truth in it: “If the soul were mortal, then Truth would die with it.” The soul, in relation to everything corporeal, has autonomy and spontaneous activity, since, together with the mind, it evaluates and judges on the basis of those criteria in which there is a certain “plus” regarding corporeal objects. The latter, as is known, are fluid, changeable and imperfect, while the evaluation criteria that the soul possesses are unchanged and perfect. This is especially convincing when we evaluate sensory objects in the light of mathematical, geometric, aesthetic concepts, or when we judge actions as a function of ethical parameters.
Augustine Aurelius desires to know his soul through confession, which is the main goal of his work. He said that he confessed what he knew about himself and what he did not know about himself. Knowledge and understanding are possible only thanks to God. It is He who allows a person to comprehend something.
There is another way for knowledge, a rational one. We collect together all sorts of scraps of information from various corners of memory, as well as abstract knowledge about patterns, relationships, numbers, in general, about what cannot be directly delivered to memory by any of the senses.
St. Augustine said: “And my mental states are preserved by memory, only not in the form in which the soul once experienced them, but in another, completely different one, corresponding to the power of memory.” Indeed, memories of experiences remain, but they either do not evoke the same emotions, or the emotions do not correspond to the experiences. It turns out that memory contains all the information obtained by a person while studying science. “All my knowledge about grammar, about dialectics, about different types of questions live in my memory, and it is not the image of the object that remains in me that is retained by it, but the object itself. It did not fade away and did not disappear, like a voice that left its mark in the ears.” Augustine believes that thoughts are hidden in the distant caves of memory, and he could not think about them if someone had not prompted him to dig them up. And when he has extracted them, he must bring them together, so a process of collecting takes place in the mind, which Augustine called “deliberation.”
For example, mental states are stored in memory, but it is no longer possible to save these experiences, since they were once experienced; it may be sadness, which we later experience more calmly. “Memory is like the stomach of the soul, and joy and sadness are food, sweet and bitter: entrusted to memory, they are, as it were, intertwined in the stomach, where they can lie, but cannot retain the taste.” This is all the power of memory, the power of the mind: we remember what we knew before, remembered at a certain period, at the right moment this information emerges again.
So we can say that God lives in the memory of a person, because he remembers him: “You live in it, because I remember You from the day I recognized You, and in it I find You, remembering You.”
Knowledge here is like recollection, a new acquisition of eternal images that have already been laid down by God in human memory. Memory contains everything, absolutely everything that can be known.
For Augustine, God is a symbol of a happy life and joy. “And the real happy life is to rejoice in You, from You, for Your sake: this is a real happy life, and there is no other.”
After reading the Confessions, I noticed that Augustine most often talks about his sins, this is the problem for each of us. The cause of all human ills is a sin committed earlier, many pagans of the period of late antiquity were convinced of this.
It is believed that upon reaching adulthood, when a person already has free will, he is capable of consciously committing a sin. To this Augustine objected that sin is not only the result of free choice: it is a property of the very fallen nature of man. If a person is not with Christ, then he is against Christ. How can one be against Christ if it is through sin? Therefore, unbaptized infants are also sinful.
Augustine, following the Apostle Paul, insisted that we often
We do what we don’t want, or, on the contrary, we want what we don’t want.
The state of doing, and, therefore, will and actions are not related to each other
Friend - we sin against our will.
This is how he describes the conflicts of will: “It was I who wanted, I who did not want: it was precisely me who wanted this obsessively, recklessly rejecting the other. Why did I fight with myself, tearing myself apart.”
More often this condition occurs in a person when he is faced with a choice. This means that he is free. We make a choice thanks to our will, but in this case it may not be rational, i.e. without reasonable justification, erroneous. This choice is where sin lies.
Conclusion.
So, confession is an expression of one’s feelings, state of mind, cleansing of the soul. Confession is accomplished by submitting to one's sins, which are a person's problem. Reading the “Confession”, you find in it examples of yourself, as well as similar psychological processes that we all experience to a greater or lesser extent, but not everyone is equally sinful before God, for each person this is subjective. So the author of the work I reviewed describes the problem of a specific “I”, which is a model for us, which will help us understand ourselves and get rid of sins.
Bibliography
- Aurelius Augustine. Confession M., 1992
- Bystrova A.N. How to write an essay on philosophy/methodological instructions. - Novosibirsk, 2007.
THE TEACHING OF AUGUSTINE AURELIUS ABOUT THE SOUL. THE CONCEPT OF TIME AND THE MEANING OF HISTORY.
Augustine understands the soul as an original substance that does not contain anything material, has only the function of thinking, will, memory, but has nothing to do with biological functions. The soul differs from the body in perfection. Moreover, it is the soul, and not the body, that knows God, but the body prevents knowledge. The superiority of the soul over the body requires that a person take care of the soul and suppress sensual pleasures. This understanding also existed in Greek philosophy, but Augustine was the first to say that this perfection comes from God, that the soul is close to God and immortal.
Augustine's entire philosophy focused on God as a single, perfect, absolute being, while the world matters as God's creation and reflection. Without God, nothing can be accomplished or known. In all of nature, nothing can happen without the participation of supernatural forces. Augustine's worldview was very clearly opposed to naturalism. God as a single being and truth is the content of metaphysics, God as the source of knowledge is the subject of the theory of knowledge; God as the only good and beautiful is the subject of ethics, God as an omnipotent person and full of mercy is the main issue of religion. Happiness can be achieved in one thing - in God. Achieving human happiness presupposes, first of all, the knowledge of God and the testing of the soul.
The truth about God cannot be known by reason, but faith can. By emphasizing the role of the senses or the heart, Augustine asserted the unity of faith and knowledge. “Understand so that you can believe, believe so that you can understand” - this is the quintessence of his idea. Augustine's philosophy rejects the concept of an autonomous position of science, where reason is the only means and measure of truth. This understanding corresponds to the spirit of Christianity, and on this basis the subsequent phase, scholasticism, could be built.
The assessment of good and evil in the world and their distinction were the most problematic in Augustine's philosophy. On the one hand, the world as a creation of God cannot be unkind. On the other hand, the existence of evil is undeniable. When defining the concept of theodicy, or the defense of the perfection of creation, Augustine proceeded from the fact that evil does not belong to nature, but is a product of free creativity. God created good nature, but evil will poisoned it. Evil comes from man and has an earthly character, while good comes from God, a product of God's mercy. Man is responsible for evil, but not for good.
Augustine, emphasizing the spiritual aspect of the perception of time, believed that time exists only in the spiritual world of man, who tends to divide time into past, present and future. He writes that in the strict sense it would be more correct to talk about three times: this is the present of the past, the present of the present, the present of the future. The present of the past is memory; the present of the present is immediate contemplation; the present of the future is an expectation. Although time is associated with movement, it does not coincide with movement and the moving (Aristotle wrote about this); rather, it belongs to the soul, since it is structurally connected with memory, intuition and expectation [ibid., ch. XXIV – XXVI].
Impressed by the capture of Rome, Augustine writes the treatise “On the City of God” (413-426), the main idea of which is to replace the unity of the Roman world empire (state power) with the unity of the world Catholic Church (spiritual power). Augustine formulates the theocratic idea of the primacy of spiritual power over secular power.
The course of human history, according to Augustine, is predetermined by Divine conduct and represents a struggle between light and dark forces. Divinity is only the source of good; evil stems from free will striving for independence and not recognizing Divine institutions. In accordance with the struggle between light and dark forces, world history falls into two directions: adherents of God on earth, recognizing His will, entering the bosom of the church, build the city of God, and supporters of Satan build the city of man: a secular, earthly state. Augustine had a negative attitude towards all kinds of violence, but understood its inevitability in this world. Therefore, he recognized the need for state power, although he himself characterized its bearers as “a large gang of robbers.” By linking the kingdom of the devil with the state, Augustine laid the foundation for many medieval heresies. The meaning of history, according to Augustine, is the victory of Christianity on a worldwide scale.
The page layout of this e-book corresponds to the original.
About the blessed life.
ONE BOOK
This book, written for three days, contains competitions dedicated to Theodore, which reduce the matter to the determination that the blessed life consists exclusively in the knowledge of God.
Chapter I.
Preface
Dedicates the book to Theodore, and reveals to him what
by a kind of wind he was driven into the harbor of Christians skoy philosophy.
Reason for competition.
If only, most benevolent and great Theodore, in that harbor from which they enter the country and onto the soil of a blessed life, they would bring this direction with their minds ( to the ship) and self-imposed good will: I don’t know whether I would or would not have reason to say that a much smaller number of people would then have reached this harbor; although even now, as we see, very rare and few are included in it. For when God, or nature, or the law of necessity, or our will, or something else connected with this, or all of this together (for this question is very obscure, although you have already taken up the task of explaining it) throws us as if for no reason and as it were necessary into this world as if into some stormy sea; how much and who would give
an account of where he needs to strive, which way to return, if someday some adversity, seemingly unfortunate to the stupid, did not nail the ignorant and wandering, against even their will, and contrary to the direction they had taken, to the most desirable land?
So the people whom philosophy can accept (into its harbor) seem to me like three kinds of sailors. One of them is those who, from a short distance, where their age, which controls the mind, finds them, with the help of a small wave and blow of the oars, they leave and take refuge in this peaceful place; and from there the rest of the citizens, whoever they can, are given the clearest sign of what to do, so that those who are inspired by this will strive for them. Another genus, opposite to the previous one, are those who, seduced by the deceptive appearance of the sea, decided to go out into the open sea, dared to sail away from their homeland and often forget it. If (I don’t know how this happens, but it happens in an extremely mysterious way) the wind blows from the stern, which is considered favorable, they reach the greatest disasters, proud and rejoicing that they are constantly flattered by the most deceptive bucket of pleasures and honors. What, in fact, can they wish for in such circumstances, which, pushing, catch them, if not bad weather, but, if not enough, then a severe storm and contrary wind, which would lead them, although crying and sighing, to joys true and strong? However, many of this kind, who have not yet wandered very far, are brought back by certain and not so great sorrows. These are those people who, either due to the sad and tragic fate of their wealth, or due to annoying failures in small matters, as if for lack of other things to do, having read the books of learned and wise people,
Somehow they awaken in the harbor itself, from where no promises of the insidiously smiling sea can lure them out. The third kind of people among these are those who, either on the very threshold of youth, or having been blown by the wind for a long time, see some signs behind them, remember among the waves about their dear homeland, and, without being deceived in any way, without hesitation at all, rush to her in a straight direction; and most of them, having lost their way from the straight path among the fogs, or locating it according to the setting stars, or being seduced by certain temptations, postpone the time of a good voyage and wander further; They are often exposed to danger. Often they too are driven to their most desired and peaceful homeland by the collapse of fleeting blessings, as if by some storm contrary to their efforts.
But all of them, no matter how anyone was brought to the land of blessed life, should be extremely afraid and with special caution avoid one terrible mountain, located in front of the harbor itself, which causes great danger to those entering. For it is so brilliant, so clothed in false light, that it offers itself to those who have not only arrived, but also those who have not yet entered, for habitation and promises to satisfy all their wishes, like the most blissful earth; but very often he attracts people from the harbor itself and sometimes keeps them on himself, letting them enjoy the height itself, from where it is pleasant for them to look at others with contempt. However, the latter often remind those walking to beware of rocks hidden under the water, or not to consider it easy to climb to them; and in the most favorable manner they instruct how to enter (the harbor) without being exposed to danger from the proximity of this land. Envying them in their emptiest glory, they thus show the place
most reliable. Under this mountain, which those approaching philosophy and entering its region should be wary of, common sense allows us to understand nothing more than a proud passion for the emptiest glory. To such an extent it does not have anything dense and solid within itself that it plunges and absorbs the proud people walking on it into the breaking, fragile soil and, returning them to darkness, deprives them of the brightest home, which they have almost already seen.
If this is so, take heed, my Theodore, for in you I see and always honor the only and most capable person who can satisfy my desires, take heed, I say, to which kind of people from the said three I belong, in what place I am in your I’m looking at what kind of help I can probably expect from you. I was twenty years old when, at the school of rhetoric, I read the famous book of Cicero, called Hortensius, and was inflamed with such a love for philosophy that I thought of switching to it at the same time. But there was no shortage of fogs for me that made my path difficult; For so long, I confess, I was guided by the stars plunging into the ocean, which misled me. At first, a certain childhood timidity kept me from researching this kind of research; and when I became more cheerful, dispersed this darkness and came to the conviction that one should rather believe those who teach than those who command, I came across such people to whom this light, perceived by the eyes, seemed worthy of veneration on a par with the highest and divine. I didn't agree with this; but I thought that under this cover they were hiding something great that they would reveal someday later. When, after their dispersion, I escaped from them, especially after I had crossed this sea, my rudders, opposing all the winds, held Akara in their hands for a long time among the waves.
demics. Then I came to these lands; here I recognized the northern constellation, to which I could entrust myself. From the speeches of our priest, and sometimes from yours, I saw that you should not think of anything corporeal when you think about God, nor when you think about the soul; since this is the one thing of all that is closest to God. But, I admit, the attractiveness of a woman and a career kept me from plunging immediately into the bosom of philosophy: having experienced this, I then thought—as only the happiest few manage—to rush with all sails and oars into this harbor and calm down there. Having read several books of Plato, of whom I know you to be an ardent follower, and comparing with them, as best I could, the authority of those who have taught us the divine secrets, I was inflamed to such an extent that I was ready to cut off all these anchors, if my opinion had not swayed me some people. Then, what else could be done but for a storm, considered a misfortune, to come to the aid of me, who had indulged in empty exercises? And so I was overcome by such heartache that, not being able to bear the weight of that profession, which, perhaps, would have carried me to the sirens, I dropped everything and brought the shattered ship into the desired calm.
So you see in what philosophy, as if in a harbor, I float. But although this harbor opens wide before me and although its space is no longer dangerous, it does not completely exclude error. For I absolutely do not know in which part of the earth, the only blessed one, I should approach and land. In fact, what solid thing have I developed when I am still hesitating and perplexed by the question of the soul? Therefore, I beg you, in the name of your virtue, in the name of philanthropy, in the name of the union and communion of souls, extend your hand to me. And this means
love me and believe that in turn I love you and you are dear to me. If I beg this from you, then very easily and without much effort I will achieve the most blissful life, the owner of which I consider you to be. And so that you know what I’m doing and how I’m gathering my friends to that harbor, and so that from here you can more fully recognize my soul (I don’t find any other signs with which I would show myself to you), I decided to address you and dedicate the beginning of my competition to your name, which, it seems to me, came out both more reverently and more worthy of your name. And this is very natural: because we were talking about a blessed life; but I don’t see anything that should more be called a gift from God. I am not embarrassed by your eloquence: for I cannot be afraid of what I love, although I do not possess it; and I am even less afraid of the heights of fortune: for in your opinion, no matter how great it is, it is of secondary importance; over whom it dominates, it makes them themselves second. Now I ask you to listen to what I convey to you.
The Ides of November was my birthday. After dinner, so modest as not to burden any of the mental faculties with it, I invited everyone who shared the table with us that day, as every day, to sit in the bathhouse; because this place seemed to me appropriate to the weather and secluded. There were with me - I dare to make them known by name to your rare cordiality - firstly, my mother, to whose merit, I think, everything I live belongs; then my brother Navigius, then my citizens and students Trigetius and Licentius; even I wanted my cousins, Lastidian and Rustic, to be there; although they do not tolerate anyone even from grammarians, I considered their general common sense necessary in the work that I was undertaking. - Reality, finally, is with us and the least of all in years,
but whose abilities, if love does not deceive me, promise something great; this is my son Adeodate. When they set their attention, I started like this.
Chapter II
First day competition
We consist of soul and body. Food is necessary for the body: And for the soul there is a kind of food. He is not blessed who does not have what he desires. But not everyone who has what he desires is blessed. What a person must acquire in order to be blessed. Who has God. An academician cannot be blessed, therefore he is not wise.
Does it seem clear to you that we consist of soul and body? - When everyone agreed, Navigius answered that he does not know this - - Do you know absolutely nothing, I ask, or something that you don’t know. should this also be included? - I don’t think so, he answers, so that I don’t know anything. - Can you, I ask, tell us something of what you know? - I can, he says. - Tell me, I say, something if it's not hard for you. And when he hesitated, I asked: Do you at least know that you are living? “I know,” he said. “You know, therefore, that you have life?” No one can live otherwise than by life. I know, he says, and this too. “You also know that you have a body?” He said that he knows. So, do you already know that you consist of body and life? - By the way, I know this too; But whether only the body and life exist, I don’t know. “So, I say, you have no doubt about these two, body and soul; but you don’t know if there is something else that serves to replenish and improve
the development of man. - Yes, he says. - What is this, - we, I say, will explore, if we can, at another time; and now, since we all agree that a person cannot be either without a body or without a soul, I ask everyone: for which of them do we need food? - For the sake of the body, says Licentius. The rest hesitated and reasoned among themselves how food could seem necessary for the body, when it is required for life, and life belongs only to the soul. “Does it seem to you, I said then, that food has to do with that part which, as we see this, food grows and becomes stronger? - Everyone agreed with this, with the exception of Trigetius. He objected: Why didn’t I grow larger as a result of my gluttony? “All bodies,” I said to this, have their own size established by nature, which they cannot outgrow; however, they become smaller in volume if they lack food, as we most easily notice in animals. And no one doubts that the bodies of all animals lose weight as soon as they are deprived of food. “To lose weight,” Licentius objected, does not mean to decrease. For what I wanted, I said, what was said was enough. For the question is, does food belong to the body? And she belongs to him, because the body, when deprived of food, is reduced to thinness. - Everyone agreed that this is so.
Isn’t there, I asked, food for the soul as well? Does knowledge seem to you to be the food of the soul? “Quite so,” answered the mother: I believe that the soul feeds on nothing other than the understanding of things and knowledge. When this opinion seemed doubtful to Trigetius, his mother said to him: Didn’t you yourself now teach us where the soul comes from and where it feeds? For, after one dinner dish, you said that you didn’t notice what kind of utensils we used, because you were thinking about something else, although from the blue itself
Yes, he could not hold back his hands and teeth. So, where was your spirit at the time when it did not observe this while you were eating, from there and with this kind of food, believe me, and your soul is fed, fed, that is, by speculation and reflection, if it can learn something through them - something. “Don’t you agree,” I said when they argued noisily about this subject, “that the souls of the most learned people are, in their own way, fuller and greater than the souls of the ignorant?” “Undoubtedly so,” they answered. “So, it would be correct to say that the souls of those people who are not enriched by any science, not saturated with any good knowledge, souls are thin and, as it were, hungry? - I believe, Trigetius objected, that the souls of such people are full, but of vices and debauchery. - This is what I said, it represents - believe me - a kind of infertility and, as it were, hunger of the spirit. For just as the body, when it is deprived of food, is almost always subject to diseases and abscesses, which serve as an indication of hunger in it; Likewise, the souls of those people are full of such ailments that indicate their hunger. On this basis, the ancients called debauchery the mother of all vices, because it is something negative 1) that is, because it is nothing. The opposite virtue to this vice is called temperance. So how did this last one get its name? from the fetus 2), for the sake of some spiritual productivity, is called debauchery from barrenness, i.e. from nothing: for nothing is everything that is destroyed, that is destroyed
________________
1) Nequidquam sit, yes Not-something, i.e. Not There is something, otherwise: represents something negative. Nequidquam is a play on words with nequitia, debauchery.
2) Temperance, frugalitas,... from the fruit, and fruge: again a play on words.
It seems that it is disappearing and, as it were, constantly dying. That is why we call such people dead. On the contrary, there is something abiding, permanent, always remaining the same: this is precisely virtue, a significant part of which, and the most beautiful, is called moderation or abstinence. If this does not seem so clear to you that you can understand, then at least agree with me that for both bodies and souls - since the souls of the ignorant are, as it were, full - there are two kinds of food , one healthy and useful, the other unhealthy and harmful.
And if this is so, then I believe that on my birthday I should offer a slightly better meal, not only for our bodies, but also for our souls, since we agree among ourselves that a person consists of body and soul, But I will offer you this meal only if you are hungry. For if I try to feed you when you are unwilling and disdainful, then I will waste my labor in vain; but it would be more desirable that you demand more of this type of food than bodily food. This will happen if your souls are healthy; because the sick, as we see it, even when their bodies are ill, refuse their food and do not accept it. With a contented look on their faces and in one voice, they all said that whatever I made, they already accept and thank me in advance.
Do we want to be blessed, I asked, entering the conversation again? - As soon as I uttered these words, everyone answered with one voice that this is so. - Do you consider the one who does not have what he desires to be blessed? - No, they answer “So, blessed is everyone who has what he desires?” “Blessed,” the mother answers, if he desires and has good things; if she wants bad, then she is unhappy, even if she had it. - You, mother, I tell her with
a smile of joy decisively took possession of the very strength of philosophy. Only, due to a lack of words, no doubt, you did not express yourself as extensively as Tullius, with whose saying your words agree. Exactly, in the essay Hortensius, written by him in praise and defense of philosophy, he says the following: “Here, everyone—not philosophers, however, but people ready to argue—say that the blessed are those who live the way they want; but this is not true, since wanting what is not decent is in itself the greatest misfortune. Not getting what you want is not so much disastrous as wanting to get what you shouldn’t. For the depravity of the will does more evil to everyone than the fortune of good. “With these words, she (the mother) spoke in such a way that we, completely forgetting about her will, thought that some great man was sitting with us, while I understood, as best I could, from what and how divine a source they flowed.” But, says Licentius, you must tell us what everyone should desire and what he should strive for in order to be blessed. “If you like,” I told him, invite me to your birthday, I will willingly eat whatever you offer me .—On the same conditions, I ask you to eat from me today, and not to demand what, perhaps, has not been prepared.—When he began to regret his modest and fearful remark, I said: So we agree that whoever does not have that what he desires cannot be blissful; and on the other hand, not everyone is blessed and he who has what he desires? - They answered that they agreed.
Would you not agree, I ask, with the fact that he is unhappy who is not blessed? - There were no doubters. - So, I ask again, everyone who does not have what they desire is unhappy? - Everyone agreed that this is so. “Well,” I continue, a person must prepare for himself,
to be blessed? It may be that at this feast of ours it will be served, so that Licentius’s hunger will not remain unsatisfied: for, in my opinion, I should prepare for him what he would have whenever he wanted.—They said that this is certain.—So, , I say, it must always be abiding, independent of fortune and not subject to any accidents. Because we cannot have anything mortal and transitory at the time we desire and as quickly as we desire.” Everyone agreed with this. But Trigetius objected: There are many such lucky people who have in abundance these things that are perishable and subject to chance, but for real life are pleasant, so that they do not lack anything that they desire - To this I said to him: Does it seem To you, blessed is he who is afraid? “I don’t think so,” he says. But can, I say, everyone not be afraid if he can lose what he loves? - He cannot answer. - However, these random benefits can be lost. Consequently, the one who loves them and possesses them cannot be blessed. - He did not argue against this. “But,” the mother objected, even if he were calm about the fact that he would not lose all this, in that case he cannot be satisfied with this kind of thing. This means that he is unhappy just because he remains constantly in need. - To this I said to her: Doesn’t a person seem blessed to you if he possesses all these things in abundance, if he limits his desires, and, satisfied with these things, enjoys them decently and with joy? pleasantness?—In that case, she answered, he is blessed not by these things, but by the moderation of his spirit. “Great,” I said; There shouldn’t be any other answer to this question, not even from you. So we have no doubt
in no way that the one who decides to be blessed must acquire for himself that which always abides and that cannot be stolen by any fierce fortune. - With this, Trigetius noted, we agreed even earlier. - Don’t you think, I asked, God is eternal and always abiding? - This, answered Licentius, is so certain that there is no need for a question. - Others agreed with this pious answer. - So, I said, blessed is he who has God.
When they joyfully and quite willingly accepted this, I said: I think that we should ask nothing more than about which of the people has God; for such a one will be truly blessed. What do you think about this? - To this Licentius said that he who lives well has God; and Trigetius - that he has God who does what is pleasing to God. Lastidian also agreed with the latter’s opinion. “Our youth, the least of all, answered that he who has God does not have an unclean spirit.” The mother approved of all opinions, but especially the last one. Navigius was silent; and when I asked him what he thought, he answered that he liked the latter. I should, I thought, also ask Rusticus, who was silent and at a loss, more through shyness than reflection, what his opinion was on such an important subject; he agreed with Trigetius.
Then I said: I have everyone’s opinion about a truly great subject, beyond which nothing should be asked, and nothing can be found; if only we will explore it as calmly and sincerely as we began. But since today there would be a lot of this, and since there is a kind of immoderation in food and for souls, how soon they pounce on everything beyond measure and greedily (for in this case
they digest it poorly, which poses no less a danger to the health of minds than from hunger): then, if you like, let’s tackle this question tomorrow from hand to mouth. Now I ask you to enjoy only what it occurred to me, your servant, to quickly serve at the table; and that, if I’m not mistaken, it was made and baked, as it were, with school honey, like those dishes that are usually served last.-Hearing this, everyone seemed to reach out to the dish that was brought in, and forced me to quickly say what it was.-And What do you think, I said: isn’t this whole question you raised already over with the Academicians? - As soon as this name was heard, those three to whom this subject was known quickly stood up and seemed to stretch out their hands to help - how this is done - to the servant bringing in (the food), showing in the best possible words that they did not intend to listen more willingly about anything.
Then I put the matter this way: obviously I said that he is not blessed who does not have what he desires, as you proved a little earlier. Meanwhile, no one seeks what he does not want to find; They are constantly looking for the truth, the trace. want to find her. But they don't find her; therefore, they do not have what they desire and therefore are not blessed. But no one is wise except the blessed one; therefore, the Academician is not wise.” At this they, as if grasping everything at once, cried out. But Licentius, dwelling on the subject with great attention and caution, was afraid of his consent and added: I grabbed it along with you, because I cried out, amazed at this conclusion. But I won’t let anything into my stomach, but I’ll save my part for Alivius: let him suck it with me or convince me why I shouldn’t touch it. “Sweet,” I said, should
rather be afraid of Navigius, with his damaged spleen. - On the contrary, he said, grinning; such things will heal me. I don’t know why, but this twisted and prickly thing that you suggested has, as someone put it about Imet honey, a sharp-sweet taste, and does not bloat the stomach at all. Why is all this, although it stings the palate a little, I can put it into my stomach with great pleasure. For I don’t see how your conclusion could be refuted.” “It absolutely cannot,” said Trigetius. Therefore, I am glad that I have long since developed an unfriendly attitude towards them (Academicians). I don’t know under what influence of nature or, more accurately, of God, I don’t even know how they should be refuted, but I will be their decisive opponent.
And I, Licentius said to this, will not leave them yet. So, objected Trigetius, you disagree with us? “And you,” he asked in turn, do you disagree with Alypius on this? “I don’t doubt,” I said to this, that Alypius, if he were here, would agree with my conclusion. For he could not hold the absurd opinion that the one who does not have such spiritual good as he most ardently desires is considered blessed, or that they (Academics) do not want to find the truth, or that the one who not blessed: for what You were afraid to taste is seasoned with these three (positions), as if with honey, flour and nuts. - Would he, Licentius objected, be carried away by this little childish bait, abandoning that abundance of Academicians, which if spilled, would this short thing, I don’t know what to call it, destroy or absorb? - As if, I said, we are asking about something extensive, especially against Alypius: for from his own body he can conclude that this little thing is no less strong and useful.
But you, who have decided to judge based on the authority of the absent, why do you not approve of gold? Do you think he is blessed who does not have what he desires? Or do you deny that Academicians want to find the truth that they are strenuously searching for? Or does someone wise seem to you not to be blessed? “Blessed is he who does not have what he desires,” he said, laughing as if with his heart. “When I ordered that these words of his be written down, he said, groaning: “I didn’t say that.”? when I gave a sign that this too should be written down, he said: “I spoke.” And when I gave a sign that this too should be written down, he said: “I spoke.” But I once ordered forever that not a single word should remain unwritten. Thus I kept this young man within the bounds of respect and constancy.
But while we, jokingly, seemed to force him to listen to his portion, I noticed that the others, who did not know the whole matter, but wanted to know what we were talking about among ourselves so pleasantly, looked at us without laughing. They seemed to me - as usually happens very often - to be similar to people who, being at a feast among very hungry and greedily grabbing comrades for food, are in no hurry to take due to their respectability, or are timid due to shyness. And since I was treating, and at this feast I represented the face of some great man, and, moreover, to speak out fully, treating a true person, I could not allow this; and the difference and inequality at my table alarmed me. I smiled at my mother. She, as if with complete readiness to order that something was missing from her pantry, said: Tell us, what kind of people are these Academicians and what do they want? - When I briefly and clearly outlined the matter, so that none of them remained ignorant, she said: these people are fitful (so
We have a common name for people who are susceptible to epilepsy); and with this she stood up to leave, Then we all began to disperse, being satisfied and rejoicing that the end had come.
Chapter III.
Second day competition.
Who has God so as to be blessed? Nechi-
The strong spirit is usually called in two ways.
The next day, also after lunch, but a little later than the day before, sitting down in the same place, I said: you came late to the feast, what happened to you, I think, was not due to the unripeness of the food, but due to the confidence in their smallness: no It seemed to you that you needed to rush to what you thought you would soon eat. For it was impossible to think that there were many remains left where so little would have been found on the very day of the feast. It may be good. But what is prepared for you, neither do I know, nor do you. For there is another who does not cease to serve everyone with both all kinds of food and this kind of food; but for the most part we stop eating, sometimes due to ill health, sometimes due to dampness, sometimes because of being busy with business, and that this other, being in people, makes them blessed, regarding this, yesterday, if I’m not mistaken, we came among ourselves to piety and firm agreement. Since reason has proven that blessed is he who has God, and none of you opposed this opinion, then the question was proposed about who, in your opinion, has God? To this question, if I remember well, three opinions were expressed: “Some believed that he who does what is pleasing to God has God; some said that he who lives has God
Fine; finally, according to others, God dwells in those who do not have the spirit called unclean.
But maybe by different words you all meant the same thing. For if we pay attention to the first two opinions, then everyone who lives well thereby does what is pleasing to God; and everyone who does what is pleasing to God, therefore lives well: living well means nothing more than doing what is pleasing to God. But maybe you see it differently? They agreed with me. But the third opinion should be considered a little more carefully; because in the Christian religion the name unclean spirit, as far as I understand, is usually used in two ways. On the one hand, this is a spirit that from the outside, taking possession of the soul and disturbing the feelings, exposes people to some kind of demon, and to expel which those with the power are invited to lay hands and make spells, that is, to expel them through religious ritual spells. But, on the other hand, every unclean soul in general is called an unclean spirit, that is, a soul defiled by vices and errors. So, child, I ask you, who expressed this opinion, of course, with a brighter and purer spirit: who, in your opinion, does not have an unclean spirit, is he who does not have a demon, which usually makes people possessed; or the one who cleanses his soul from all vices and sins? - It seems to me, he answered, that he does not have an unclean spirit who lives chastely. - But, I asked, who do you call chaste - is it the one who is neither what does he not sin, or the one who abstains only from impermissible cohabitation? - How, he answered, can one be chaste who, abstaining from impermissible cohabitation, does not cease to defile himself with other sins? He is truly chaste who is devoted to God and trusts in Him alone.
- Having made an order that these words of the youth be written down as they were expressed to him, I said: Such a person certainly lives well, and whoever lives well necessarily lives like that; but maybe you imagine it differently? - He and the others agreed with me. - Therefore, this, I said, is one of the opinions expressed.
I’ll ask you a few more questions: does God want man to seek God? - They answered in the affirmative. - I also ask: can we really say that the one who seeks God lives badly? - In no case, they answered. - Answer me and to the third question: can an unclean spirit seek God? - This was rejected by everyone, with the exception of the somewhat doubtful Navigius, who then agreed with the opinion of the others. - So, I said, if the one who seeks God does what is pleasing to God and lives well, and has no unclean spirit; and whoever seeks God does not yet have God: then not everyone who lives well, does what is pleasing to God, and does not have an unclean spirit, must certainly be considered to have God.—When everyone began to laugh that they were caught by their own concessions, mother, who had been in amazement for a long time, asked me to unravel and explain to her the conclusion I had made through inference. - When this was done by me; she said: But no one can reach God if he does not seek God. “Very well,” I answered; however, the one who only seeks has not yet reached God, even if he lived well. This means that not everyone who lives well has God. “I think,” she objected, that no one has God; but whoever lives well, He is merciful to him, and whoever lives poorly, He is hostile to him. In this case, I said, yesterday we unfoundedly agreed that he is blessed who has God. Because although
Every person has God, but not everyone is blessed. “A merciful God, add,” she said.
Do we agree, I said, enough, at least, that blessed is he to whom God is merciful? “And I would like to agree,” answered Navigius, but I am afraid that you will not draw the conclusion that blessed is the one who is still searching, especially that Academician, who yesterday was called, although by the common people and not quite Latin, but, as it seems to me, a completely apt name for the epileptic . For I cannot say that God is hostile to a person who seeks God: if it is not decent to say this, then He will be merciful to him, and the one to whom God is merciful is blessed. Therefore, the one who seeks will be blessed. But everyone who seeks does not yet have what he desires. Consequently, the person who does not have what he desires will also be blessed - and this seemed absurd to us all yesterday, and as a result we thought that the darkness of the Academicians had been dispelled. And therefore Licentius will triumph over us, and, as a prudent doctor, he will prescribe punishments for those sweets that I recklessly ate, contrary to my health.
When even his mother smiled at this, Trigetius said: I do not agree that God should necessarily be hostile to those to whom He is not merciful; I think there is something in between. “However,” I answered him, do you agree that this average person, to whom God is neither merciful nor kind, has God? “When he hesitated in answering, his mother said: it is another thing to have God, another thing not to be.” without God. “What is better,” I asked, “to have God, or not to be without God?” “As far as I can understand,” she answered, my opinion is this: whoever lives well has a merciful God, and whoever lives poorly has God, but
hostile. But whoever only seeks God and has not yet found Him has Him neither merciful nor hostile; but he is not without God. - Isn’t that the same, I asked everyone, and your opinion? “That’s it,” they answered, “Please tell me, I say, doesn’t it seem to you that God is merciful to the person to whom he benefits?” They said that this is so. looking for? He is good, they answered. “So, I say, whoever seeks God, God is merciful to him, and everyone to whom God is merciful is blessed.” Therefore, the one who seeks will be blessed. And he who seeks does not yet have what he desires. Consequently, the one who does not have what he desires will also be blessed. “To me,” my mother objected, “the one who does not have what he desires does not seem blessed at all.” In this case, I noted, not everyone is blessed to whom God is merciful. - If, she said, reason requires this, I cannot deny. - So, I concluded, the following division will result: everyone who has already found God and to to whom God is merciful, therefore he himself is blessed; the one who seeks God, God is merciful to him, but he is not yet blessed; and the one who distances himself from God through vices and sins is not only not blessed, but God is not merciful to him either.
When everyone agreed with this, I said: All this is good; Only I fear that you might be swayed by what we already agreed on earlier, namely, that everyone is unhappy who is not blessed. From this it will follow that the person who considers God merciful in himself is unhappy; because we have not yet called such a one blessed while he is seeking God... Is it already, as Tullius says, calling the gentlemen who own many estates on earth, rich people, people who have everything?
by virtues, shall we call the poor people? But pay attention to whether it is true that everyone who is unhappy is in need, just as it is true that everyone who is in need is unhappy? For in this case it will also be true that misfortune is nothing other than need—an opinion which, you thought, I approve of when it was expressed. But today it will take a long time to talk about this; why I ask you not to disdain to gather at this table tomorrow too. When everyone said that they accepted the invitation with complete readiness, we stood up.
Chapter IV.
Third day competition.
Should talk about the question proposed on the eve. Anyone in need is unhappy. The wise man needs absolutely nothing. Every poor person is in need. Mental poverty. Fullness of spirit. Who is finally blessed?
On the third day of our competition, the morning clouds that had driven us into the baths cleared, and in the afternoon the weather became very clear. We decided to go down to the nearest meadow, and when everyone sat down where it seemed comfortable, the rest of the speech was introduced in this way. “I said, “Almost everything that I wanted to achieve your consent with my questions, I received your consent.” Why is it that today, when we could interrupt this feast of ours for a while, there is either nothing left, or there is little left, for which I think I would need to get your answer. Mother said that misfortune is nothing more than need; and we co-
It was said that all those in need are unhappy. But are all the unfortunate people in need? This remained one of the questions that we could not resolve yesterday. Meanwhile, if reason proves that this is so: then it is completely found who is blessed; for such will be the one who does not need. Because everyone who is not unhappy is blessed. Therefore, blessed is he who has no need, if it is proven that what we call need is misfortune itself.
Why, asked Trigetius, from the obvious truth that everyone in need is unhappy, could not the conclusion be drawn that everyone in need is blessed? After all, I remember, we agreed that between the unfortunate and the blessed there is nothing in between. “But don’t you find, I said, something in between the living and the dead?” Isn’t every person either alive or dead? “I confess,” he answered, that there is nothing in between here either. But why this question? “And then, I said, I think you also admit that everyone who was buried a year before is dead.” He did not deny this. “Does it follow from this that everyone who has not been buried a year before is alive?” “It doesn’t,” he answered. “So,” I said, “and from the fact that everyone in need is unhappy, it does not follow that everyone who is not in need is blessed.” ; although between the unfortunate and the blessed, as between the living and the dead, nothing in between can be found.
Some of them did not understand this immediately, but after I had made explanations and changes in expressions, as far as possible adapted to their understanding; then I said: So, no one doubts that everyone who is in need is unhappy. That there is something
necessary for the body of the wise, this cannot be an objection to us. For it is not the spirit itself that needs this, in which the blessed life rests. He is perfect, and no one who is perfect needs anything; but if there is something that seems necessary for the body, it uses it, and if not, the lack of it does not crush it. For everyone who is wise is strong, and everyone who is strong fears nothing. Therefore, the wise man is not afraid of either bodily death or illness, for the removal, or avoidance, or postponement of which it is necessary to have something in which he may be lacking. But he, however, does not stop using it properly if he has it. For the well-known saying is very true: “It is foolish to allow what you can avoid.” 1) Therefore, as far as possible and decent, he will avoid death and illness, and if he had not avoided it, he would have been unhappy, not because it happened to him, but because he didn’t want to avoid them when he could avoid them, which is a clear sign of stupidity. So, without avoiding this, he will be unhappy not as a result of enduring such things, but as a result of stupidity. If he is unable to avoid them, although he tries diligently and decently, then, falling on him, they do not make him unhappy. For another saying of the same comedian is no less true. “Since what you desire is impossible, then desire what is possible” 2). How can he be unhappy if nothing happens to him against his will? For he cannot wish for what, in his opinion, cannot come true. He desires what is most certain, that is, when he does something,
1) Terent., in Eunucho,act. IV, scene. 6.
2) Terent., in Andria,act. II, scene 1.
does nothing other than according to some precept of virtue and the divine law of wisdom, of which he cannot be deprived in any way.
Now pay attention to whether every unfortunate person is in need. For what prevents us from agreeing with this opinion is the fact that many are furnished with a great abundance of random things that make everything so easy for them that, at their wave, everything that a whim demands appears. True, such a life is not easy to meet. But let us imagine someone like Oratus, according to Tullius. Who will say that Orat was in need - he, the richest, most luxurious, most tender man, who lacked neither pleasure, nor beauty, nor good and unspoiled health? He had as many souls as he wanted, the most profitable estates, and the most pleasant friends, and he used all this quite in accordance with his physical health, and in short, every intention and every desire of his was accompanied by happy success. Unless one of you says that he would like to have more than he had. We don't know this. But in this case it is enough for you to assume that he did not want more than what he had. Does it seem to you that he was in need? - Even if I agree, answered Licentius, that he did not want anything - although I don’t know how to allow this in a man who is not wise - however, being, as they say, a man of good sense, he he was afraid that he might lose all this in one unfortunate moment. For it was not difficult to understand that everything, no matter how great it is, depends on chance. “You, Licentius,” I said laughing, see an obstacle for this man in a blessed life in a good sense. Because the more insightful he was, the better he saw that everything
may lose this; this fear crushed him, and it sufficiently justified the popular saying that a crafty person is sincere in relation to his misfortune.
When at this both he and the others smiled, I said: however, we must delve into this more carefully, because although he was afraid, he did not need it; and that's exactly what the question is about. For to need means not to have, and not to be afraid of losing what you have. Meanwhile, he was unhappy because he was afraid, although he was not in need. Consequently, not everyone who is unhappy is in need - This, along with others, was approved by the one whose opinion I defended; but somewhat hesitantly she said: However, I don’t know and don’t yet fully understand how it is possible to separate misfortune from need and, conversely, need from misfortune. For even he, who was a rich man and abundantly supplied with everything, and, as you say, did not want anything more, nevertheless, because he was afraid of losing all this, needed wisdom. Wouldn't we call him needy if he needed silver and money if he needed wisdom? - At this, everyone exclaimed in surprise; and I myself was not a little pleased and glad that it was she who expressed the best that I was preparing to offer from the books of philosophers, as something great and last. “Don’t you see,” I said, that there are many and varied doctrines and another is a spirit devoted to God? For where did that thing that we marvel at come from, if not from God? - Decisively, Licentius exclaimed, nothing more true and divine than this could be said! For there is no greater or more disastrous deficiency than the lack of wisdom; and the one who needs wisdom can no longer need anything decisively.
So, I said, poverty of the soul is nothing else,
like stupidity. For it is opposite to wisdom, and as opposed to death as life, as blessed life to unhappy life, that is, without anything in between. Just as every person who is not blessed is unhappy, and every person who is not dead is alive, so, obviously, every person who is not stupid is a wise person. From this we can already see that Sergius Oratus was unhappy not because he was afraid of losing certain gifts of fortune, but because he was stupid. It follows that he would have been even more unhappy if he had not been at all afraid for these so random and fluctuating things that he considered blessings. In this case, he would be more careless not due to spiritual courage, but due to mental sleep, and an unfortunate person, immersed in the deepest stupidity. But if everyone deprived of wisdom suffers great poverty, and everyone possessing wisdom needs nothing, then it naturally follows that stupidity is poverty. And just as every stupid person is an unhappy person, so every unhappy person is a stupid person. So, it is undeniable that just as every poverty is misfortune, so every misfortune is poverty.
When Trigetius said that he did not quite understand this conclusion, I asked him: What do we agree on regarding this argument? - That, he answered, is that he is in need who does not have wisdom. - What does it mean, I say, to need? “Not to have wisdom,” he answered. What does it mean, I asked, not to have wisdom? - When he was silent to this, I added: doesn’t it mean to have stupidity? - Yes, he answered. - Therefore, I said, to have poverty is nothing more than to have stupidity; whence it is already necessary to call poverty otherwise when we are talking about stupidity. Although I don’t know how they could say: “he has poverty,” or “he has stupidity.” It would be
it is as if we said of some place devoid of light that it has darkness, which means nothing more than that it has no light. For to be dark does not mean that the darkness seemed to come or go; which simply means being deprived of light, just as being deprived of clothing means the same as being naked. For, with the approach of clothing, nakedness does not flee as if some moving object. Thus, when we say that someone has poverty, we also say that he has nakedness. For poverty is the name of lack. Therefore, in order to express, as far as possible, one’s thought, it is said: “he has poverty,” that is, as if: “he has lack.” So, if it has been proven that stupidity represents the most genuine and undoubted poverty: then see if the task you have undertaken has already been resolved. There remained a doubt between us as to whether we mean something other than poverty when we talk about misfortune. Meanwhile, we have given the reason why stupidity is correctly called poverty. So, just as every stupid person is an unhappy person, and every unhappy person is a stupid person, it is necessary to admit that not only everyone who is in need is unhappy, but also every unhappy person is a person in need. But if from the fact that every stupid person is unhappy, and every unfortunate person is stupid, the conclusion is drawn that stupidity is misfortune: then why not from the fact that everyone who is in need is unhappy, and every unfortunate person is in need, we can draw the conclusion that misfortune Is there anything other than poverty?
When everyone agreed on this, I said: Now we must consider who does not tolerate poverty; for he will be wise and blessed. Poverty is stupidity, and the name of poverty is usually denoted by something
type of infertility and deficiency. Please delve deeper into the care with which ancient people composed all or, as is obvious, some words, especially for such subjects, the knowledge of which is most necessary. You have already agreed that every stupid person is in need, and everyone who needs is stupid; I think that you agree that a stupid spirit is a vicious spirit, and that all the vices of the spirit are contained in the one name of stupidity. On the first day of our competition, we said that debauchery was so named because it represents something negative, and that its opposite, abstinence, received its name from the fruit. In these two opposites, that is, abstinence and debauchery, being and non-being especially appear. What now do we consider the opposite of the poverty that we are talking about? - When they were somewhat slow in answering, Trigetius said: I would call wealth; but I see that poverty is the opposite of it. “There is closeness,” I noted; for poverty and poverty are usually taken to mean one and the same thing. However, another word should be found so that the better side does not remain with one name, so that the side represented by poverty and scarcity is abundant in the word, and the opposite side opposes it with only the name of wealth. For nothing can be more absurd than the paucity of the word on the very side that is opposite to paucity. If the word: completeness is applicable, said Licentius, then it seems to me directly opposite to paucity.
Maybe later, I said, we will talk about the word in more detail. But when seeking the truth, this is not what we should strive for. Although Sallust, who is very picky in his words, contrasts sufficiency with poverty, I nevertheless contrast it with fullness. But in this case we
let us fear grammarians; otherwise we would have to fear punishment for the careless use of words from those who left their property for us to use. -When they laughed at these words, I said: Since I decided not to neglect, when you are deep in God, your minds, as some kind of oracles, I invite you to pay attention to what this name means (completeness); for, I think, there is nothing more consistent with the truth. So, fullness and poverty are opposite to each other; and here, just as in debauchery and abstinence, the same ideas about being and non-being appear. And if poverty is stupidity itself, then fullness will be wisdom. Not without reason, many have called temperance the mother of all virtues. In agreement with them, Tullius in one popular speech says: “Let everyone understand how he wants, and in my opinion, temperance, that is, moderation and balance, is the greatest virtue” 1). And this is quite learned and quite decent. For he meant fruit, that is, what we call existing, as opposed to non-existent. But due to the popular way of expression, in which moderation is called frugality, he explained his thought by adding the words moderation and balance. We need to look at these two terms more closely.
Moderation is so named from the measure of balance—from weight. And where there is measure and weight, there is nothing too big or too small. So, fullness, which we contrasted with poverty, is a much better term than if we used the word excess. Because by excess we mean excess and, as it were,
_________________
1) Orat. pro Dejotaro.
spilling something too much. When there is more of this than is needed, then a measure is desirable; and too much needs moderation. Therefore, extreme excess is not alien to scarcity; both what is greater and what is less are equally alien to measure. If you look at the expression “secured state”, you will find in it the concept of measure. For a secured state is called from provision. And how can that which is excessive provide for it, when it often does more trouble than the small? So, everything that is small is equal, and everything that is excessive, because it needs moderation, falls into poverty. The measure of the spirit is wisdom. Since none of us denies that wisdom is the opposite of stupidity, stupidity is poverty, and poverty is the opposite of fullness: then wisdom will be fullness. In fullness there is measure, therefore the measure of the spirit lies in wisdom. Hence this famous and not in vain extolled first, practically useful, rule of life: “Nothing in excess” 1).
At the beginning of this competition, we said that if we find that misfortune is nothing other than poverty, then we admit that blessed is the one who does not tolerate poverty. It has now been found; therefore, to be blessed means nothing more than not to endure poverty, that is, to be wise. If you ask what wisdom is (for it too is subject to discovery and investigation by reason, as far as this is possible at the present time), then it is nothing more than a measure of the spirit, that is, what the spirit uses to keep itself in balance , so as not to expand too much, nor contract below fullness. And it expands in luxury, in domination, in pride and other similar things, with which the souls of immoderate and unfortunate people think condescendingly.
__________________
1) Terent., in Andria, act I, scene. 1.
give yourself joy and power. On the contrary, it is reduced in dishonesty, fear, sadness, greed and other similar things, in which the unfortunate believe human misfortune. But when he contemplates the acquired truth, when - to use the expression of this youth - he holds on to it, and not disturbed by any vanity, ceases to turn to the falsity of statues, the load of which falls and is overthrown by the power of God, then he is not afraid of any immoderation, any poverty, and therefore, no misfortune. So, everyone who has his own measure, that is, wisdom, is blessed.
What kind of wisdom should be called wisdom, if not the wisdom of God? by divine testimony we know that the Son of God is nothing other than the Wisdom of God (1 Cor. I, 24); and this Son of God is truly God. Therefore, everyone who has God is blessed, a position with which we agreed earlier when we began this feast of ours. But what is wisdom, in your opinion, if not truth? For this is also said: I am the truth(John xiv. 6). Truth, in order to be truth, receives its existence from some highest measure, from which it originates and to which, complete, it returns. For the highest measure itself, no other measure is required; for if the highest measure is measured by the highest measure, then it is measured by itself. But it is necessary that the highest measure should also be a true measure, so that just as truth is born from measure, so measure is recognized by truth. So, truth was never without measure, nor measure without truth. Who is the Son of God?—It is said: True: Who, having no Father, who else is He but the highest measure? So, whoever comes to the highest degree through the truth is blessed. And this means having God in the soul, that is, enjoying God. Everything else, although from God, is without God.
Finally, from the very source of truth comes a certain exhortation, urging us to remember God, to seek Him and to passionately, without any disgust, thirst for Him. This illumination to our inner eyes comes from this mysterious sun. Everything that is true that we say comes from Him, even in the case when we are still afraid to boldly use and look at everything with our either unhealthy or newly opened eyes. And it is obvious that it is nothing other than God, whose perfection is not diminished by any rebirth. Complete and everything in Him is perfect, and at the same time this is omnipotent God. But for now, however, we are only looking, but from the very source, from the very - to use a well-known expression - fullness is not yet saturated, we must admit that we have not yet reached our measure; and therefore, although we use God’s help, we are not yet wise and blessed. So, complete spiritual satiety, a real blessed life, consists in piously and completely knowing who leads you to the truth, what truth you feed on, through which you unite with the highest measure. These three, after eliminating the vanity of various superstitions, reveal to the discerning the one God in a single essence.—At the same time, the mother, recalling the words deeply engraved in her memory and, as if awakening in her faith, cheerfully uttered the famous verse of our high priest: “Look, Trinity, on those praying!” 1) and added: without any doubt, a blessed life is a perfect life, and striving for it, we must know in advance that we can come to it only with firm faith, living hope, and fiery love.
So, I said, the very measure convinces us to interrupt this feast of ours for a few days; so I
1) Ambrosius, in hym. Deus creator omnium.
I offer, to the best of my ability, thanks to the highest and true God the Father, Lord and Liberator of souls. And then I thank you, who, having unanimously accepted the invitation, showered me with many gifts. For you brought so much to our speech that I cannot but admit that I am saturated with my guests. - When everyone was rejoicing and praising God, Trigetius said: How I would like you to feed us like this every day? - He answered in everything I must preserve and love moderation if you want our return to God.” After these words, since the competition was over, we parted.
The page was generated in 0.06 seconds!
Viktor Petrovich Lega talks about how and what can be seen with the mind, whether the statement of Blessed Augustine that God is being contradicts the teachings of the Fathers of the Church, how the theologian determined the “day” of creation, measured “non-existent” time and proved the immortality of the soul.
“If you don’t believe it, you won’t understand”
The main question that Augustine poses to himself and to which he himself gives the answer is: “What do you want to know? - God and soul. - And nothing more? “And nothing more.” “But wait!..,” we say. “We know God through faith, but what does philosophy have to do with it?”
The fact is that before Augustine, as before a Christian who has a philosophical education and loves philosophy, the question arises: “How are faith and reason related?” And he constantly - both in his earliest and most recent works - returns to this problem, examines it from different sides - and does not see any contradiction between faith and reason. The essence of the mind can be understood in different ways. Reason can be considered as reason, as demonstrative thinking. In this case, yes, faith and reason are opposites. But, on the other hand, faith is a property only of a rational being, therefore faith and reason cannot contradict each other.
In one of his later works, “On the Predestination of the Saints,” Augustine writes: “And yet it is necessary that everything that is believed should be preceded by reflection in order for it to be believed. Although believing is nothing more than thinking about something with agreement.” In other words, in order to believe, you first need to think. We cannot believe in some kind of nonsense, in some kind of paradox. Therefore, when we believe, we agree with what we believe. On the other hand, to believe is always to take some position as obvious, and it is the beginning of our thinking. After all, it is impossible to prove everything; we need to start our reasoning from somewhere. But why do we think? We think in order to know more deeply.
Therefore, “to the study of sciences,” Augustine continues in another work, “a twofold path leads us - authority (that is, faith) and reason. In relation to time, authority takes precedence, and in relation to the essence of the matter, reason.” Faith and reason are perceived in different aspects. At first I believe (the teacher, the author of the book, etc.), but then I strive to understand what I believed in, I strive to comprehend the essence of the issue.
Augustine sums up his thoughts on faith and reason with reference to the prophet Isaiah, who said: “If you do not believe, you will not understand.” Faith is primary, faith is the basis for our reason. But at the same time, reason is also highly valued by Augustine. In his work “On the City of God,” he writes: “And how great the love of knowledge is and how much human nature does not want to be deceived can be understood from the fact that everyone would rather cry in a state of sound mind than rejoice in a state of insanity.” Involuntarily I remember Alexander Sergeevich Pushkin: “God forbid I go crazy, / It’s better to have a staff and a bag...”
See with your mind
Having shown that reason does not contradict faith and therefore it is possible and even necessary, as a Christian, to reflect, Augustine poses the following question: “How to reflect correctly in order to know the truth and not make a mistake?” This is a question in that part of philosophy called the theory of knowledge.
If we agreed with Augustine that we need to know the truth, that is, God, then we need to know how to know Him. Man has two ways of knowing – by feeling and by reason. For Augustine, as a Christian, it is obvious that it is impossible to know God through the senses, but equally unacceptable for him is such a contemptuous attitude towards sensory knowledge that we find in Plato and Plotinus. Man was created as a bodily being, the material world was also created by God, therefore sensory knowledge also reveals the truth to us. But how? But here Augustine uses the logic of Plotinus, one of the provisions of whose philosophy says: the higher affects the lower, and the lower cannot influence the higher, the lower can only contemplate the higher. Action can only be from a higher level of being to a lower one. Since the soul is higher than the body, the feelings are not independent in knowledge. The soul uses the body to learn about the material world. It cannot be argued that material things influence us, this is absurd, because matter does not have the ability to move itself. The body does not move independently, but is set in motion by the soul, and in the process of sensory cognition, the soul also uses the body, so to speak, “feels” objects with the help of the body, and thus comprehends them, acquires some knowledge about them.
But in any case, knowledge about the material world is temporary and changeable, and therefore, although this knowledge gives us some truth, this truth is much lower than that which we comprehend with our minds. Reason is the ability with which we can cognize the eternal, divine world. The eternal world is immaterial, because everything material is changeable and therefore impermanent. Based on the ancient concept that like is known by like, Augustine says that we can cognize the immaterial world only with the mind, which is also immaterial.
But knowledge of the immaterial world is also a kind of And denition (here there was a certain influence of Plotinus), only in And thinking not with the eyes, but with the mind. Augustine writes: “Nothing can be more absurd than the assertion that what we see with our eyes exists, but what we perceive with our mind does not exist.”
Augustine is not engaged in proving the existence of God - for him it is obvious. You just need to see it, look with your mind's eye at this eternal, unchanging, Divine world in which eternal truths exist. For example, the truths of mathematics, the truths of morality, the truths of Revelation. They are, of course, comprehended by the mind, which alone can comprehend the eternal and unchanging truth. And this truth is in our soul, and we feel it. We feel it because God Himself as Truth is present in our soul.
“God, who created everything, is closer to us than everything created” - after all, He illuminates us with the light of His truth, and therefore, thanks to God, this Divine light, we cannot doubt everything, we are confident in the existence of truth and can know it. We feel it directly present in us.
God as being
But what is God? What can we say about Him? What can we say about God other than that He exists? Since God is eternal, He always exists, He cannot not exist. Therefore, God is being. “God is the highest and unchangeable being,” writes Augustine in his work “On the City of God.” Philosophy leads us to this conclusion. But we also know about this thanks to Divine revelation. Augustine points out that God Himself revealed itself to us precisely under this name, under the name Jehovah: “And who is greater than He who said to His servant Moses: “I am Jehovah” (Ex. 3:14)? And therefore it is the only unchangeable substance (On the Trinity, V, 3).
God is the fundamental principle of the world. God is an eternally existing being. God is a substance. He has “in Himself the reason for being, as it was said to Moses: “I am the Existing One,” that is, existing in a completely different way from the existence of everything else created by Him,” Augustine continues, “since it exists truly, initially and immutably, does not pass into anything.” that He created everything and has everything in Himself as Self-existent” (On the book of Genesis, V, 16).
There may be some confusion here. According to Augustine, as we see, God is being, and therefore there seems to be some contradiction with what the Eastern Fathers of the Church said, for example the Cappadocian Fathers, who argued that God is higher than being and higher than any essence. One might also think that Augustine is not characterized by apophatic theology. But there is no contradiction, it is apparent and stems from a misunderstanding of the philosophical principles of Augustine and the Cappadocian fathers. The Cappadocian Fathers, especially St. Basil the Great, to whom Aristotle was closer, argued that being is our sensory material world. Therefore, God, as the Creator of this world, is above being. For Augustine, as for a Platonist, being cannot in any way be the material world, because it changes and exists in time. And being can only be eternal and unchanging, like Plato’s world of ideas. Therefore, only God is being.
Our world is created from non-existence, it has this non-existence in itself, and that is the only reason it changes. The soul also changes - over time: we can forget something, acquire some knowledge and impressions... This is also variability, and this shows that the soul, although spiritual, is also created from non-existence. There is no change in God. I think that such knowledge of the philosophical foundations from which the theological conclusions of Augustine or the Cappadocian Fathers stem helps us understand that in both St. Augustine and St. Basil the Great we see both apophatic and cataphatic theology. True, the watershed takes place in a slightly different philosophical vein. For Augustine, he does not go along the line of “essence” and “super-essence,” as with the Cappadocian fathers, but rather along the line of “eternity” and “time.” God is eternal, there is no change in Him. Time exists in the world because it changes. But then the question arises: “What is time? How did it come about?
Time in... the shower?
Of course, Augustine understands that the question of time is connected with the question of the creation of the world by God. Starting to talk about this, Augustine recalls the caustic question of opponents of Christianity: “What did God do before He decided to create the world?” Augustine writes in his “Confessions”: “I will not answer as they say someone answered, dodging with a joke the persistent question: “he prepared hell for those who inquire about high things.” It is one thing to understand, another to ridicule. I won’t answer that way.” Augustine’s answer is very simple: to talk about God, what He did before the creation of the world, means to place God in time, but God is eternity, questions “before” or “after” simply cannot be attributed to Him. Moreover, by creating the world, God also creates time, so there was no time before the creation of the world. Therefore, in any sense, asking the question: “What did God do before the creation of the world?” - wrong.
Having answered this question, Augustine is still perplexed: what is time? He admits: when he didn’t think about time, everything seemed clear to him, but as soon as he began to think about it, a lot of incomprehensible things opened up. It would seem that it is clear to everyone what time is, and any person will say that time consists of the past, present and future. What is the past? The past is no more. What is the future? There is no future yet. What is the real? This is some elusive moment that was just in the future and is now in the past. Therefore, there is no time, there is only the present, which constantly eludes us.
Time is the fickleness of the soul
But even if there were time, it cannot be measured. When we measure something, we apply a certain standard: for example, we measure the length of an object by applying a standard to it - a meter. How to apply a standard to a period of time? The beginning of this standard will be in the past, which no longer exists, the end of this standard will be in the future, which does not yet exist. Therefore, firstly, there is no time, and secondly, even if it existed, it cannot be measured. Time is completely paradoxical. It is impossible to imagine that it exists objectively, independently of man, as some kind of fluidity that could be measured. Therefore, Augustine comes to the only possible conclusion: time exists in the soul. The future is our expectation, the past is our memory, and actually all this exists only in the present, which a person directly experiences. Therefore, time is the variability of the soul. “In you, my soul, I measure time,” writes Augustine. Augustine's discussion of time in his Confessions has received well-deserved recognition as one of the most profound reflections on time in the entire history of philosophy. For Augustine, these considerations are, of course, important not so much from the point of view of the nature of time, but from the point of view of the doctrine of God and His relationship to the world.
How long - six whole days!
How to understand this complex, incomprehensible doctrine of the creation of the world, set forth in the first verses of the Book of Genesis? Augustine devotes two works to this issue. He is not a big fan of exegesis, he does not have many works devoted to the interpretation of the books of Holy Scripture. But he wrote two about the Book of Genesis: “About the Book of Genesis” and “About the Book of Genesis literally.”
Many questions arise here, one of which we have already answered: time is created along with the world. There was no time before peace. By the way, this answer of Augustine surprisingly coincides with the teaching of modern physics, which in the Big Bang theory says in the same way that there was no time before the emergence of the Universe, so to ask: “What brought the Universe into existence?” - also pointless.
Our learned contemporaries very often laugh at how the Bible talks about the creation of the world: did the world come into being in six days? Isn't that enough? Augustine puts the question a little differently: for six whole days God tinkers with creation! He is omnipotent. Why did He take six whole days? For God, the world can be created in an instant. Actually, that’s how it was. God doesn't even create the world in a moment. He created it in His eternity. He thought it out to the smallest detail, but matter cannot perceive this Divine wisdom. Therefore, it takes time for the world to assimilate these Divine ideas. And here Plato’s influence on Augustine again manifests itself, only Augustine does not agree with Plato that ideas exist as a kind of independent world, independent of God. No, ideas are the eternal thoughts of God, which He has in Himself, according to which He creates the world. And then, having created matter, God places these ideas, like some seeds - seed logoi, in the world, and they germinate as if on their own.
The answer to the question: “How long did the days of creation last?” - Augustine doesn’t know either, but admits that it was not six days, because the sun is created on the fourth day - as it is said: “To separate day from night.” Therefore, in the first three days there was neither evening nor morning. This means that “by the word “day,” writes Augustine, “we mean the types of created things, and by night, the absence or lack of a form, or, if a better word can be found, something that denotes the moment of deprivation of a form during the transition from formlessness to form.” . Or, as Augustine writes more clearly in his work “On the Book of Genesis”: “By the evenings of all the first three days, until the luminaries were created, one can understand the end of a perfect creative act, and by the mornings – the beginning of a new one.”
Thus, Augustine understands by the word “day” a certain ontological essence, as the creation of something new. The next three days in the same way should be perceived not as 24 hours, not as a day, but precisely in ontological terms. On the seventh day, God stopped creating, so the seventh day continues until the present time: this is the Providence of God, this is the economy of the Son of God. For Augustine, a day may well last not 24 hours, but an indefinite amount of time.
Augustine will express another very important idea about the creation of the world, and it will have a huge impact on European culture - albeit in the 17th century. When God thought through, so to speak, the world, He thought through it not only in the form of many different objects, but also as its harmony. After all, in the Book of the Wisdom of Solomon, Augustine recalls, it is said that God created everything by measure, number and weight. God creates the world according to a numerical pattern. There is also a number in the Divine mind. “There is a Number without number, according to which everything is formed.”
G. Galileo will say: “The Book of Nature is written in the language of mathematics.” This is an echo of Augustine's thought
This idea of Augustine, that God creates the world by measure, number and weight, which is number in the Divine mind, will become the basis for the creation of modern mathematical science. G. Galileo will say: “The Book of Nature is written in the language of mathematics.” This phrase echoes Augustine's thought. Who wrote this book? Of course, God wrote this book in the language of mathematics. We must, while cognizing nature, be able to read this divine mathematical language.
How to prove immortality?
The pinnacle of creation is man, who has both soul and body. Augustine disagrees with Plato, who believed that the body is the tomb and grave of the soul. How can a man love his tomb? But a person loves his body, Augustine reminds, and “if some say that they strongly wish to remain without a body, then they are decisively deceived. For they do not hate the body, but its illness and heaviness.”
But despite the fact that the body is a necessary and most important part of human nature, the body is still material and mortal, and the soul is spiritual and immortal, and this immortal part of human nature is the most important. True, some doubt the immortality of the soul, and therefore Augustine, like Plotinus before him, writes a treatise, which he also calls: “On the Immortality of the Soul,” where he offers many different proofs that, in their logic, resemble Platonic and Plotinian reasoning. We are already familiar with one thing: if I have the ability to cognize eternal truth, then this can only be if there is in me some part of my nature that has eternal existence. Some say that the soul is the harmony of the body. Augustine objects to this. How can it be? Every thinking person knows that thinking is much more effective when he tries, as it were, to distract himself from his body, from his bodily habits, from some external, bodily stimuli.
The soul cannot be mortal because the soul has no enemies. Everything that dies dies from some external influence, from some enemy. The most powerful enemy for the soul is a lie, but a lie cannot kill the soul, because man is deceived by nature. To be deceived is to think. To think means to seek the truth. Therefore, only the one who lives is deceived. Therefore, even a lie can only be a property of someone who lives. How can a lie kill a soul if it is a property of a thinking being?
As we remember, Augustine was constantly in the thick of events to which he could not help but react. He responded both to his past passions for Manichaeism and to emerging heresies - he considered the heresy of Pelagius to be especially dangerous. The main questions were questions of good and evil, human freedom and God's Providence, human responsibility for good and evil. But we’ll talk next time about how, using the clear Christian philosophy he developed, Augustine responds to the challenges of the Manichaeans and Pelagians.
(To be continued)
“On the Quantity of the Soul” is the work of the outstanding Christian theologian Augustine the Blessed Aurelius (lat. Aurelius Augustinus Hipponensis, 354-430). *** The soul is a substance that does not consist of earth, water, air, fire, or any combination of them. Other famous works of St. Augustine are “On the Immortality of the Soul”, “Confessions”, “Letters”, “On Various Questions”, “On Order”, “On the Blessed Life” and “Monologues”. The works of the genius of theological thought Augustine the Blessed Aurelius served as the basis for the emergence of new movements: Christian Neoplatonism and symbolism.
Evodiy. Since I see that you have a lot of leisure, I ask you to answer me questions that, as it seems to me, occupy me quite opportunely and appropriately. Agree that quite often, when I asked you about something important, you stopped me with some Greek saying, warning me to seek out what is above us. But I don’t think we are above ourselves. And if I ask about the soul, then I don’t deserve the answer: “What do we care about what is above us?”, for I only want to know what we are.
Augustine. Briefly list what you want to hear about the soul.
Evodiy. Please: I have prepared this with much thought. I ask: where does the soul come from, what is it like, how great is it, why is it given to the body, what does it become when it enters the body, and what kind does it become when it leaves it?
Augustine. I am forced to understand your question about where the soul comes from in a double sense. After all, we can ask: where is this person from? both when we want to know where his homeland is, and then when we ask what he consists of, from what elements and things. Which of these do you want to know when you ask the same about the soul?
Evodiy. Both, but what you should know first - I prefer to leave at your discretion.
Augustine. The homeland of the soul, I believe, is God himself who created it. But I cannot name the substance of the soul. I do not think that it was one of those ordinary and well-known elements that fall under our bodily senses: the soul does not consist of earth, water, air, fire, or any combination of them. If you asked me what a tree is made of, I would tell you these four well-known elements, from which, one must assume, everything like this consists, but if you continued to ask: what is the earth itself made of, or water, or air, or fire,” I wouldn’t have found what to answer. Likewise, if they ask: what is a person made of, I will answer: from soul and body, and if they also ask about the body, I will refer to the indicated four elements. But when asked about the soul, which has its own special substance, I find myself in the same difficulty as if asked: what is the earth made of?
Evodiy. Why do you say that it has its own substance when you said that it was created by God? I don't understand this.
Augustine. But I do not deny that God created the earth, but at the same time I cannot say what the earth consists of. For the earth is a simple body precisely because it is earth, and for this reason it is called the element of all those bodies that consist of four elements. therefore, the idea we expressed that the soul was created by God and has a certain nature of its own does not contain a contradiction. After all, God himself created this special, her own nature, just as he created the nature of fire, air, water and earth, from which everything else is made up.
Evodiy. But we produce mortal things, but God created the soul, as it seems to me, immortal. Or do you think differently?
Augustine. So, would you like people to create the same things that God created?
Evodiy. I didn't say that. But just as he, being immortal, created something immortal in his own likeness, so what we create in our own likeness, created immortal by God, should have been immortal.
Augustine. You would be right if you painted a picture in the image of what you consider immortal in yourself, but in this case you depict on it the likeness of a body that is completely mortal.
Evodiy. How can I be like God if I cannot create anything immortal, as he does?
Augustine. Just as the image of your body cannot have the same power that your body itself has, so one should not be surprised if the soul does not have as much power as the one in whose image it was created.
