Dr.Ivo da Conceiçao Souza
In my Website there will be several sections: Bible, Theology, History, Philosophy, Science, Psychology, Ethics, Poetry, Questions and Answers. It is still under construction…
This has been my dream for years until today—to have a website where people can learn and grow. It is interdisciplinary website, without limiting itself only to one subject. It will help people to read and learn more and more. There will be questions that are awaiting answers. We do not claim to solve all problems or to answer all questions satisfactorily. But it is an effort for dialogue and harmony. Hence the name of archer for peace (from my Celtic name, IVO, which means ‘sagittarius’, ‘archer’)…
The Hebrew word SHALOM means peace, sum of all goods, well-being…
This website is personal, it does not represent any organization. But the study of Bible will be historico-critical, conducted according to the guidelines of the Catholic Church.
We hope that the readers will help us to construct the website, for it is still under construction. It will try to offer some substantial matter for study and reflection. There will be also some excerpts from authorities on the respective matter.
We start it with pleasure… We shall avoid any controversies and unlimited discussions, which arise sometimes from different perspectives… We do not impose our views on others, nor do we change our views just by reading different authors.
We live in a difficult, complex time, when we cannot understand the universe through one discipline only. We need the dialogue of several disciplines to know about the World, Man and God. We should remember the tradition that will help us to see the steps taken by human thought throughout the centuries. We cannot overlook the accumulated thought of centuries, the wisdom of the people, the growth of subjects.
This effort should be the routine in our schools and colleges, in our universities and libraries. This effort will help people to grow…
We do appreciate any constructive criticism. Your suggestions are most welcome.
BIBLE:
What is Bible?
Bible is the “record of salvation history“, a narrative of the saving deeds of God for humankind in general and for Israel in particular. God is love (cf.1 Jn 4:8). He comes out of his silent, inner, Trinitarian life and sets out for a creative adventure of love. His salvific plan is the outcome of his effusive love. Out of his initiative of love God created MAN (that is, humankind), with whom there was communion. But due to the abuse and misuse of his freedom, Man refuses God’s love. In the process of saving Man from sin and its consequences, the historical God reveals himself as compassionate, merciful love. The God of the Bible is YAHWEH, the source of being and love. His ultimate aim was to give his only Son, the Word (cf. Jn 1:14; 3:16). God’s salvific design for humankind is recorded in the Bible. His Revelation is historical. It is expressed in words and works/deeds (cf. DV 2). His self-communication is described in the Bible in terms of a covenant (Hb berith–Gk, diatheke), from which a permanent relationship between Yahweh and humankind results. He is God of covenant, of promises, who intervened in the history of humankind. Covenant is a relational concept: God writes a love-letter to humankind.
The Bible is a COVENANT, divided into OLD and NEW (testaments/covenants, for the term diatheke means a disposition, covenant, or last will, cf. 2 Cor 3:14), instead of the more ordinary, syntheke). The former word does not require the death of the testator for the last will (or testament) to become effective. It also insists upon the independent declaration of a person’s intention rather than upon a mutually agreed treaty. God’s supreme, generous and eternal love (hesed) lies behind the biblical appreciation of this word. The Old Testament is the record of the plots of covenants/relationships of Yahweh with his chosen people, ISRAEL, and a preparation to the NEW COVENANT, inaugurated by Jesus of Nazareth. This is the woop and warf of the whole Bible. When Jer 31:31-34 refers to a “new covenant/testament“, the new emphasizes the “interior spirit” (God’s Grace itself) with which the ancient covenant is to be followed. Jeremiah was seeking a renewal of the ideals of Dt 6:4-9, which asks that God be loved with all one’s heart, soul and might and that God’s words “be [inscribed] upon your heart“. Jesus too insisted upon this interior attitude of love in obeying the ancient law and traditions (Lk 10:26f). Old and new in this case connote the continuously new way of keeping the Word of God alive in one’s daily life.
The term “Old Testament” was first used by Melito of Sardis (circa 180 CE.), and set more firmly in place by the popular theologians, Tertullian (160-230 CE.) and Origen (185-254 CE.). It is based upon passage, like 2 Cor 3:14 (“When they read the old covenant, that same veil remains unlifted, because only through Christ is it taken away“); and Heb 8:7 (“If that first covenant had been faultless, there would have been no occasion for a second“). Yet these passages do not abrogate the ancient scriptures, but rather affirm the light of Christ to appreciate their full meaning (cf. Mt 5:17). The theological writers, who fixed the term OT in Christian tradition clearly argued for the
value of the OT against such persons as Marcion, the first major anti-Semitic writer in Christian tradition (circa 150 CE.).
Etymologically, the word BIBLE is derived from the seaport town of Byblos in Lebanon, named after the papyrus which was imported here from Egypt. It is the book of books, the anthology-library of the People of God, the BOOK par excellence. Originally, it was the Greek neuter plural, indicating the many books in the sacred collection. Because of the Christian usage, common by the fourth century, to bind biblical books in a single codex, the Gk word BIBLIA evolved into a Latin equivalent. It was taken into later Latin from Greek in the Middle Ages and taken to be a feminine singular noun, indicating the single book of the Bible (1 Macc 12:9). Theologically, the Bible is a collection of many books (or literary traditions), transmitted orally for many
centuries, edited and grouped into small units, dictated and written down especially in times of religious reform, to assure strength and clarity (2 Kgs 22:1-23:25; Jer 36:32). It is called also “scripture” (GRAPHE, cf.2 Tim 3:16; Jn 5:39; Mt 21:42; Rm 1:2). It is sacred, divine, inspired, inspiring.
Jews today speak of The Holy Scriptures or of the TaNaK (acronym of Torah [Law]/Nebiim [Prophets] and Kethubim [Writings], cf.the Prologue to Sirach, where the grandson, translating the work of “my grandfather Jesus [ben Eleazar, ben Sirach--50:27]“, refers three times to the “law, the prophets and the other books of our ancestors“; and Lk 24:44, where Jesus calls attention to “‘the law of Moses and the prophets and the psalms“, the latter being the first book in the Writings).
Dei Verbum After Forty Years
Biblical studies today are, ever increasingly, becoming complex and difficult, given the progress due to multifaceted research, historico-archaeological discoveries, as well as study of literary genres of the Ancient Eastern World. They are being enriched by new discoveries as well as by new exegetical methods, approaches and trends, both in the Old/First Testament and in the New/Second Testament. Studies of the historical Jesus are complicated by the discovery of new kind of historicity of Gospels as faith traditions (or documents of faith). At the same time, they are enriched by the discovery of reflections on the significance of Jesus rather than tape-recorded accounts or sheer history. God works in space and time; therefore, biblical studies should take into account the cultural background and the spatio-temporal circumstances. Theology develops with the progress of human sciences, such as psychology, sociology, anthropology. In this tremendous progress, we have to remember the “golden rule” for the teaching of the Church clearly enunciated by John XXIII, the Pope of “aggiornamento”, at the beginning of the Second Vatican Council. We have to distinguish between the truth and the formulations of faith, within the Scripture or within the Church. We should acknowledge the limitations of the formulations, but at the same time know for certain that there was a grasp of truth in those formulations. There was no distortion in the transmission of Revelation. The good Pope John XXIII opened the windows to new trends in the life of the Church. In his inaugural address, he clearly stated: “One thing is the substance; the other thing is the formulation of doctrine”. The Church has an insight into the Truth, since Jesus promised the Paraclete: “The holy Spirit whom the Father will send in my name will lead you to the whole truth” (cf.Jn 14:26). In this essay, I shall give a glance through the history of biblical exegesis and the biblical approaches and methods, and then I shall pinpoint a few avenues to face the new challenges in the biblico-theological field.
Vatican II is clear about the centrality of the role that Scripture consistently plays in the life of the Church:
“The Church has always venerated the divine Scriptures, as she venerated the body of the Lord, in so far as she never ceases, particularly in the sacred liturgy, to partake of the bread of life and to offer it to the faithful from the one table of the Word of God and the Body of Christ…it follows that all…preaching…should be nourished and ruled by sacred Scripture. In the sacred books, the Father who is in heaven comes lovingly to meet his children, and talks with them” (DV n.21; see alson.24).
Preaching should necessarily improve with the biblical wealth. Regarding the formation of the seminarians it states: “The ‘study of the sacred page’ should be the very soul of sacred theology. [1][7]The ministry of the Word, too—pastoral preaching, catechetics and all forms of Christian instruction, among which the liturgical homily should hold pride place—is healthily nourished and thrives in holiness through the Word of Scripture” (DV, n.24). In the priestly formation there is a need of a deep knowledge of critical methods. All these methods cannot overlook the work of the Spirit of God, the spiritual meaning of the text. Faith does not detract from the scientific study, on the contrary it enriches it and nourishes the ‘crucified love’ (cf.Gal 5:6). [2][8]
THEOLOGY:
Evangelization and Inculturation
Introduction:
Mission is at the centre of Systematic Theology today. Theology is critical reflection on the living praxis of the Christian community, which can be summed up as “mission”. Mission is the raison d’etre of the Church. Methods of proclamation of the Gospel have been always the object of study in Missiology. We have to admire the methods of “missionizing” employed by Father Joseph Vaas. I shall give a glance through the missionary methods of Fr.Joseph Vaz, with a special attention to his study of languages. Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (now Benedict XVI) called Blessed Joseph Vaz ‘Asia’s great Colossus of Spirituality, Evangelization and Inculturation’. He is India’s ‘first and greatest native missionary’, declared Blessed by John Paul II on January 21, 1995, at Galle Face Green, Colombo.
1.Development and Inculturation: The relationship between evangelization and development has been a perennial question, right from the beginning of Christianity, at the very first preaching of the Gospel. The Christian community has to be open to the problems, longings and aspirations of the human race. Our longings cannot be different–nothing that is human can be alien to us. The joys, hopes, griefs and anxieties of men and women are also those of the followers of Jesus (GS 1). Proclamation of the Gospel has to be an answer to the deep questions of the people. It has, therefore, to enter into their culture, assume it and transform it.
2.Language and Inculturation: The first task of the missionary is to learn the language of the people that are entrusted to him. It was an essential and powerful tool of evangelization. Several missionary stalwarts launched themselves into the missionary field with the study of language. Language entails the culture of the people. He has to learn their way of expressing, their reaction to the environment, their culture, their customs and mores. Without languages the missionary cannot be a leaven of the people of different cultures. We have several examples:
a)Fr.Thomas Stephens:
The Christian missionaries in Goa taught their message in the people’s language. The printing Press was brought to Old Goa on September 6, 1556. The first Goan priest, Fr.Andrew Vaz, from Karamboli, wrote the first Konkani grammar in 1563. The first preaching in Konkani was in Banastarim. The first Konkani vocabulary was compiled in the year 1626 by the Jesuit Father Diogo de Ribeiro. Fr.Thomas Stephens (1540-1691), the first Englishman in India, wrote Kristi Purana and Konkani Grammar.
b)Mateo Ricci:
He was the pioneer of inculturation in China from 1589 till his death in 1610. He could gain the sympathy of the Emperor (Mikado) by studying the Chinese language and customs.
c)Roberto De Nobili:
The Jesuits reached Madurai in 1606. Fr.Gonsalo Fernandes, during his tenure of 12 years in that great cultural city, in spite of his virtue and zeal, could not influence the local population. At that juncture, the Italian Jesuit, Roberto De Nobili, appeared on the scene, and tried to express the Gospel in terms of Hindu culture. He acquired command of Tamil and Sanskrit, and with the dress, diet and social customs of the Brahmins, started ascetical life of a recluse. He expressed Christian doctrine in terms of Upanishadic thought. He donned the white robes of a Sannyasi and influenced mostly high caste Brahmins. He composed several religious works, especially for children, when he shifted to Jaffna to recuperate his health (1645-1648).
He had to defend his methods against the accusations of his enemies, but the Archbishop Aleixo de Menezes upheld his defence, and Rome tolerated his methods for the time being. There were more than 4,400 converts at the time of De Nobili’s death in 1665.
d)John de Britto:
The Portuguese Jesuit St.John de Brito followed the methods of Roberto de Nobili in Tamil Nadu. He studied well Tamil and donned the saffron robes of “Pandara Swami”.
e)Joseph Beschi:
In spite of the martyrdom of St.John de Brito, the Jesuit Father Joseph Beschi worked in 1707 in Tamil Nadu and died in 1742. He left his contribution to every branch of Tamil literature: poetry, prose, grammar, lexicography, and particularly his epic poem, Thembavani, ‘the unfading garland’.
f) St.Francis Xavier:
When Francis Xavier was alone among the Paravas and Mucavars, that is, the fisherfolk of South India, in 1545, he prepared a brief Tamil catechism with the help of persons who knew both Tamil and Portuguese, and left a copy of it in each village, so that each Kanakkapillai could read out from it for the instruction of the people.
3.Fr.Joseph Vaz and Languages:
Fr.Joseph Vaz has been a model in his missionary methods, both in Canara and Sri Lanka. He has founded the Congregation of Oratory in Goa and the Asia’s first Catechetical Centre at Bolwatta church in the Kammala area.
When he arrived there, he had to learn both Sinhala and Tamil. He had already picked up a working level of Tamil during his secret movements in South India, especially as a coolie in the harbour of Tuticorin, Tamil Nadu. One of his early compositions in Konkani, “Meditations for the Way of the Cross”, was later translated into Tamil. He also compiled in Tamil a ‘Catechism of Christian Doctrine’ and a ‘Manual of Prayers and Litanies”. Also he composed a ‘Vocabulary of the Sinhalese Language’ in Portuguese. He learnt Sinhala during his imprisonment (1692-1694), in Kandy. Even in his old age, Fr.J.Vaz would dedicate some minutes towards the end of the day to the study of both Sinhala and Tamil, by candle-light.
When Fr.Jacome Gonsalves arrived in 1705, Fr.Joseph Vaz knew that he had flair for languages. Fr.Jacome had a working knowledge of Tamil, picked up during his travelling through South India to Jaffna. Therefore, Fr.Joseph Vaz directed him to live in Kandy mission and learn classical Sinhala. Fr.Jacome perfected his Sinhala by studying the Sinhala classics with the monks of the Malwatta Chapter. It is interesting that at that time, Fr.Joseph Vaz sent a priest for training in a Buddhist monastery, in such a fanatical set-up.
Fr.Jacome wrote both in Sinhala and Tamil, in prose and in verse, in the literary as well as in common language. He wrote books and popular passion plays, carols and hymns, that reveal his linguistic acumen and wide, deep knowledge of the vocabulary of the two languages. He is credited with the recto-tono composition of the Our Father. He produced a small library of Catholic literature suitable to the needs of the times. Today Fr.Jacome is considered one of the literary heroes of Sinhalese. All this was the fruit of the pastoral vision and concern of Fr.Joseph Vaz, a stalwart of inculturation.
HISTORY:
PERSECUTIONS
Rome was very tolerant of the different religions and beliefs of her subjects. Romans in general, never imposed their gods on the conquered people. She protected the religion of the Jews since commerce in the empire was mainly in their hands. Since, in the official eyes, there was little distinction between Christianity and Judaism, the followers of Christ profited from their Jewish background. Though not particularly liked by the pagans, the Christians kept aloof from pagan revelries and debausheries common at that time. The Christians managed to live in peace until the burning of Rome in 64 CE. when Nero was the emperor.
Emperor Nero ruled the Roman world from 54 to 68 CE. For the first ten years of his reign, there was peace. Then in the summer of 64 CE. there was a fire in Rome and a large part of the city burnt down. The lunatic emperor was blamed for the calamity. To save himself from the anger of the mob, Nero blamed the Christians for the fire. A handful were rounded up by the soldiers. By means of torture, confessions and accusations of those involved were obtained. Thus, Nero turned the tragedy of a burnt city to a spectacle for his brutal subjects by the crucifixion of Christians in the circus. He had the crucified Christians covered with pith and had them ignited as human torches to light up the night festivities. Both Peter and Paul died in the persecution of Nero. Tacitus the Roman historian tells us that the victims Were many. However the persecution was limited to Rome. It ended with the suicide of Nero in 68 A.D.
Then followed Domitian, Trajan, Marcus Aurelius, Septimius Severus, Maximin of Thrace, Valerian, Decius.
Ethics:
The Eucharist is the centre and summit of the Christian life. If we think of Mass as something forced to attend by the law (legal constraint), then we really miss the point. It is a privilege to be invited to take part in the Lord’s Supper, to share a meal with Him, to experience (as in any good family meal) the reality of belonging to the same family. We all need rules, coaxing and coercion, we cannot be left to our moods, likes and dislikes, whims and fancies.
Eucharist began with the Lord’s Supper. After the death and Resurrection of Jesus, something totally unexpected and humanly inexplicable happened–they experienced Jesus as alive among them in a new way. They understood the teaching of Jesus with new eyes and new hearts; they came together to pray, to share their experiences of Jesus. At these meetings (Agape-meals), they shared meals, reached out to the needy.
This was the setting of the early Eucharist. We inherited this tradition–not to watch or hear, drop a coin to the collection and go home. We come to share table fellowship with Jesus and with one another, and to learn to treat one another with love and respect, as the Body of Christ. We lost a lot of initial purity of faith. Are we living witnesses to Jesus’ life and teaching? Like the first Christians, are we “of one heart and one soul“? “They sold their possessions and shared them with the needy. They shared meals with joyful hearts“(Ac 2:42; 4:36, in fulfillment of (Lk 6:20). But we watch or hear the Eucharist from far; we are not personally involved in it. Had Jesus this in mind? Would not an act of mercy or service help us to meet Christ better than the average liturgy?
Jesus left us not an empty ceremony, but a way of life–whole way of life based on truth, love, forgiveness and service. Loving and serving one another is never easy. He did not start the last supper by getting into special robes, but by washing the soiled feet of his disciples (something which only slaves were expected to do in his culture; hence the shock of Peter and others when Jesus knelt before them to do this).
Liturgy is not mainly about books and rituals; it is about community building. The Eucharist is the celebration of God’s love and forgiveness by a community that tries to grow in love and forgiveness. The priest is at the service of building such a community; he is not a pear whose responsibilities lie most in the correct handling of ritual. To the degree that we (like the early Christians) move from possessiveness to sharing, from
Discrimination to openness, from division to unity, from indifference to service of the least, we become a Eucharistic community.
Personally, we can make our Mass meaningful in the following ways: i)Forgive from your heart; if you find it difficult, ask God’s help. ii)See if you can help people needier than yourself; do not reduce your generosity to the few coins or notes you put in the collection box. iii)Pay attention to the Word of God. God longs to talk to you, to heal you, give you what you need today. iv) Communion is not just an act of swallowing the consecrated host. It is a commitment to see yourself and every other human being as the Body of Christ.
PHILOSOPHY:
I shall provide a few thoughts from Existentialism, namely with Gabriel MARCEL, who is my favourite thinker.
GABRIEL MARCEL
Introduction:
What is philosophy? He phile tes sophias=love of wisdom (cf.Pythagoras, Cicero, Tusc.). The starting-point is WONDER. We begin with wonder, and end up with the reflection: How to explain the multiplicity of phenomena? How to reduce many to one, multiplicity to unity? Mythology is pre-philosophical reflection. What is Existentialism? It is reflection on the particular condition of Man. Philosophy was proceeding through abstraction in three degrees. Now it is concerned with the concrete situation of Man. It leads to ask questions (‘cur-iosity’), when the crisis-shock comesm, again questions. Our response to the problem of One and Many—to reduce multiplicity to unity.
The starting-point was post-war crisis. Despair, anguish, forlornness, dread. During the First World War (1938-1940), in the Red Cross Society, Marcel experienced terror and horror of war, the pain, the agony, the cries for help touched him to the core. Persons were regarded as “objects”, like the cogs in the wheels of the military machinery. These heart-rending experiences stimulated his reflections on the meaning of human existence. The result was his neo-Socratic philosophy of man intended to point the way for a new order where human values such as love, fidelity and mutual understanding would apply a soothing balm to the “broken world”.
The Dane Sören Aabey KIERKEGAARD, known as the founder-father/chief originator of existentialism, has contributed at least three things: i)interest in feelings, like boredom, dread, and anxiety (angoisse); ii)his Christian faith and his anti-clericalism; and iii)most important from our point of view, his ideas on existence.
Existentialism is humanism. The central datum for Marcel’s reflection is the value and significance of interpersonal relationships (intersubjectivity), not “inner world” or self-concentration/introspection. Gabriel MARCEL arcel is classified as “Catholic existentialist” (by Jean-Paul SARTRE), but he himself repudiated the label. His philosophy has been suggested to be neo-Socratic, which he accepted because of his questioning/interrogating attitude. Gabriel MARCEL is one of the great thinkers of contemporary times.
Metaphysics, not in its traditional sense, as a philosophy of the abstract, of the essence, of system (G.M. calls it “philosophie de pensée pensée”), but as a concrete approach, reflection on human experience in its totality, a description at the same time phenomenological and metaphenomenological of the existential situation of Man. The central datum of metaphysics is the incarnation of Man, as linked to a body.
Here there is a consequence of this ontological approach for the epistemological field: philosophical knowledge is not adequation (or intentional conformity) between the knowing subject and the known object, but it is a mode of participation in Being, which founds and envelops it.
His philosophy reflects the inquietude and anguish/dread of the situation in which he lived, during the World War and in its aftermath. His reflection is clear in thought, depth of analysis and expression, and particularly in his concern for engagement, intersubjective communion, dialogue/dyadic relation, participation in the world. It is not a system of set theses. Existentialism is a new way of philosophizing. It is a reaction against Idealism, Empiricism and Positivism. It deals with the concrete human condition. It is a philosophy of life.
His Life: Born in Paris, in the quartier of the plain Monceau, on December 7, 1889. His father, Henri Marcel, was a Catholic turned agnostic, a state counsellor and for a time French Ambassador to Sweden (Stockholm), later Director of the Beaux-Arts, Bibliotheque Nationale and of the Musées Nationaux. His mother, from a Jewish family, died when he was only four years-old. He was brought up by his auntie, a convert to liberal Protestantism, who became his father’s second wife, his step-mother, and played an important role in the development of his mind and character. Till his marriage with Jacqueline Boegner (she died on November 13, 1947), he dwelt there. When he was eight years old, Marcel spent a year with his father at Stockholm, soon after his return to Paris he was sent to the Lycée Carnot. He was brilliant, but he dedicated himself more to music. He started composing at an early age and writing plays. After his studies at the Lycée, he went to Sorbonne and in 1910 obtained Aggregation in Philosophy. After his bacchalaureat and licenciate of philosophy, he completed his diploma of Superior Studies in 1909 with Lévy-Bruhl on “Les Idées métaphysiques de Coleridge dans leurs rapports avec la philosophie de Schelling”. This choice of theme indicates already his taste for the English metaphysicians. (Marcel wrote a thesis relating Coleridge’s Metaphysical Ideas with Schelling’s Philosophy). Later he studied philosophy at Sorbonne, in Paris, attaining his Agrégation de Philosophie in 1910, but he never completed his doctoral Thesis (on the necessary conditions for the intelligibility of religious thought). He was a free-lance writer and a thinker. He wrote several dramas. He worked as a reader for two Paris publishers, Plon and Grasset, and was the editor of Plon’s Feux Croisés series (a collection of translations of works by notable contemporary foreign writers) from 1927. In 1948 Marcel won the Grand Prix de Littérature of the French Academy. In 1949-1950 Marcel gave the Gifford lectures at Aberdeen and William James lectures at Harvard University in 1961. In 1956 Marcel received the Goethe Prize and in 1958 the Grand Prix National des Lettres, the German Booksellers’ Peace Prize in 1964, and the Erasmus Prize in 1969. He was elected a member of the Institut de France and of the Académie des Sciences Morales et Politiques, an officer of the Légion d’Honneur, a commander of the Ordre des Arts et des Lettres and of the Ordre des Palmes Académiques, he received the honour of Grand Croix in the Ordre National du Mérite in 1972. The renowned philosopher, musician and playwright breathed his last in Paris, at the age of 83, on October 8, 1973.
Methodology: It is not a system of cubbyholes or a pyramid of billiard balls, but “concrete approaches” (not imposing a formula or Procrustean definitions and norms), providing a series of solutions to problems. They are responses to urgent inner demands. He wrote plays, essays, articles. The actual process of reflection counts rather than results. It is an analysis of the labyrinth of reality.
His Works: He was a renowned concert pianist. He wrote about twenty dramas. Through dramas, Marcel presented man in real life-situations, frustrated, alienated, bewildered and rootless, when he cuts himself off from his fellowmen and from God. He underscored man’s deepest longing for friendship, fidelity and communion with others. He wrote: Metaphysical Journal, Being and Having, Homo Viator, The Mystery of Being, From Refusal to Invocation, Gifford Lectures on the The Mystery of Being. He followed diary method/phenomenological.
Influences: Marcel was strongly influenced by the sudden death of his mother when he was only four years old. It was an experience of irreparable loss. Being shy, sensitive by nature and delicate in health, Marcel endured an unhappy home life. He starved for friendship and love. He volunteered himself for the military service during the First World War (1914-1918), but due to his delicate health, he could only work in the Red Cross as a messenger to convey the sad message to the families of soldiers who were found dead, wounded and “missing”. There he developed his concern for the human beings and realized the emptiness of rarefied abstract idealism and disincarnated ideologies.
Conversion: He felt spiritual vacuum in his life. His experiences in the Red Cross brought him face to face with the phenomenon of death. He started reading about conversion to Catholicism. At the invitation of the French intellectual Francois Mauriac, he embraced Catholicism. After a long search for answers that haunted him since his childhood, he was baptized at the age of 39 in 1933.
Marcel’s Background and Approaches:
At the beginning Marcel was influenced by William E. Hocking and Josiah Royce, American philosophers, as well as by Henri Bergson, Marcel soon perceived that an abstract system, which equates being with thought is a traitor to reality. Such a totally impersonal, desiccated and artificial abstraction offers man no hope, no meaning or purpose in the world. At best, it engulfs him. Cartesian ”Cogito, ergo sum” reduces man to a mere thinking being. Marcel followed the phenomenological method and strove to ascend from the concrete experiences, like faith, hope, fidelity, love to the genuine Encounter with the Absolute THOU by way of I-Thou relationship. He followed a Socratic method, for philosophy for him is not a closed system, but a constant probing, questioning and revising. Marcel develops no system by a deductive process, but a series of ‘concrete approaches’, which are convergent and can be regarded as contributing towards a general interpretation of human experience. They are not solutions to the problems. For him, philosophical exploration is a very personal affair, we cannot simply separate the result from the exploration and pass it on as impersonal truth” (Cf.Frederick Coppleston, History of Philosophy, bk.3, vol.9, New York, 1974, p.330).
His experience in the Red Cross Society brought him to the notion of relationism and need of fraternity and intersubjectivity. The world has neglected the human person and has considered it as a cog in the wheel. Hence he took the remedial approach of I-Thou–when I go out of myself and regard others as Thou, I exercise my freedom and both of us grow in mutual love and recognition. According to Marcel, there is in each one of us an urgent inner need which requires recognition–”a need for transcendence“–every being is constituted in such a way that s/he clamours for the Absolute and Unconditioned Being, God. Through my love and fidelity to the other, we both begin to participate in the Unconditioned Being himself. In the exploration of this relationship, we re-discover the personal Transcendent Absolute. Thus, the need for transcendence is fulfilled. Marcel approaches are not merely horizontal, but also vertical to the Absolute Thou.
“A Broken World“: He wrote in 1933. In our everyday life we are dominated by a search for truth (like extracting a pure metal from a mixed ore). There are various effective methods to arrive at truth. A person who does not follow these methods is in danger of losing himself/herself, like a no man’s land, where the difference between truth and error, reality and dream tends to vanish away. We are living in a broken world. It is like a broken watch–the mainspring has stopped working. Nothing has changed, everything is in place, but put the watch to your ear, and you do not hear any ticking. The world, the world of human creatures, must have had a heart at one time, but today you would say the heart has stopped beating (The Mystery of Being, Harvill Press, London, 1950, p.25).
In the words of the heroine Christiane in his play “A Broken World“(Le Monde Casse), gives a fitting introduction to the ills of the present day world. She is a personification of the mass ‘dis-ease and anguish’–she is a “fashionable lady, smart and witty but busy rushing life that she seems so much at home in obviously masks an inner grief, an anguish which breaks through to the surface in her speech” (p.27).
Human society is becoming like a anthill. In the growingly complex organization, the human urge for transcendence is lost. Each one of us is treated as an agent towards the progress of the society–we are registered or enrolled for it till life lasts. M. speaks of “nudity“–man is stripped by the society of all protection and suffers from social nakedness. The underlying factor is fear. But in the presence of a real God, this fear is linked to our feeling for the sacred only. In today’s world man is becoming less human, more like a function. The totalitarian state can take him over, like a giant Octopus with its tentacles reaching out in all directions–the state arrogantly invades the sacred precincts of individual human rights. The ‘functional man’ is demeaned, dehumanized. In today’s state everything is organized, systematized and categorized with efficiency.
Man is an agglomeration of functions. The intrinsic dignity and sacredness of the human being has now been replaced by his functioned value. Man is no longer considered in terms of his humanness. Man’s dignity is also not accorded its place among entities. Man evaluates himself almost unconsciously from the viewpoint of three functions in society: a)Industrial function–he serves this function perhaps at a meaningless job. b)Biological function–through this function he degrades the sexual act to a purely physical encounter which results in collapse of marriage and family. c)Social function–he serves as a consumer, voter and taxpayer. His capacity to love, admire and hope dries up, the functional man even loses the ability/desire to transcend his situation of alienation and captivity. Life in a functionalized world becomes a process without a purpose, a utilization of means with no clearly defined end. When the sense
of dignity and purposefulness is lost, nothing ultimately matters.
Technocracy: Contemporary Man experiences a throwness into the world, a gnawing homelessness. He feels an overwhelming estrangement and alienation. This alienation is due to the fact that the world is increasingly under the leadership of technology and as a result human life tends to lose its existential weight. In a world where technology enjoys absolute primacy, a desecralizing process inevitably sets in, that is directed against life and its manifestations, and particularly against the family and everything connected with it. Thus, technology reduces man’s worth and the world to the calculable, it alienates and estranges them.
Devaluation of Life: Marcel discovers something within the human creature that protests against the sort of violation of which he is the victim. This protesting state of Man justifies our statement that the world we live in is a broken world. Our world is given to the power of words such as person and democracy–which tend to lose their authentic significance. The realities for which these words stand are dwindling away, just like the inflation of money when goods are scarce. Depreciation today of both words and currency corresponds to a general failure of trust and confidence. Self-destruction of the world can take place if man refuses to reflect and to imagine. If man had imagined the evils brought about the two World Wars, they would have become impossible. Failure to reflect is not merely the fault of a few individuals, but it is due to the radical incapacity to draw conclusions from the events that were happening in the last fifty years.
SELF AND BEING:
Self as being: Man necessarily questions: “Who am I?” With this question I interrogate about my own being. Man is a factual being, since he exists, but he is not mere ‘sum-being’. He is free, but not totally free. He has his existence, which is to be handled in trusteeship. He realizes then that he is not merely a sum, but a sursum. His horizontal dimension puts him in relation to himself and other beings/things, while idimension puts him in connection with God. According to Marcel, man’s life can be considered from two standpoints: Present and Past. In the past, life appears as something that can be narrated by reason of its very essence. Life cannot be reproduced by a narrative, in as much as it has been actually lived. But it can be recaptured as particles irradiated by flashes of memory. My life cannot be identified with the notes on my diary nor with my work. Even my acts, which are recorded in objective reality are unable to tell exactly the realities that are within me. In so far as I am still living it, my life appears to me as something I can consecrate or sacrifice and the more I feel that I am striving towards an end, the more alive I feel. It is, therefore, essential that my life be articulated on a reality which gives it a meaning and a trend, and as it were justifies it. To give one’s life is neither to part with one’s self nor to do away with one’s self. It is to respond to a call. Death can, thus, be life in the supreme sense. His life is infinitely beyond the consciousness he has of it as any given moment. It is essentially unequal in itself and transcendent. Life is essentially ungraspable that it eludes him in all directions. It is as if man is condemned to act in a play that he has not read. Life is not found in our path, we cannot decide in order to avail ourselves. Awareness of one’s self as living is indeed to be aware of a former existence and the role of reflection is to recognize the prior participation with a reality which consciousness cannot encompass. As it goes beyond consciousness of self, it is met with in two directions: a)Relationship to others; and b)relationship to one’s self. Consciousness of self appears only in pretentiousness, aggressiveness, humility. When the living link connecting me and another is broken by overpassing the I-him opposition. The consciousness of self appears as the breaking of the inner city, which ego forms with itself, with its past. Here comes the role of intersubjectivity.
PRIMARY REFLECTION AND SECONDARY REFLECTION:
Philosophic thought is reflective. Reflection occurs when life faces a certain obstacle or is being checked by a certain break in the continuity of experience. At that juncture, it becomes necessary for life to take recourse to reflection in order to restore the unity lost by the obstacle. In this case, reflection appears as promoter of life. It discovers that I am not someone nor am I someone in particular, though I am led to recognize that the ego that I am, which is not someone, cannot be set as either existent or imaginary.
Marcel distinguishes two degrees or types of thinking, viz. Primary and Secondary Reflection.
PRIMARY REFLECTION:
Primary reflection is characterized as abstract, analytical, objective, universal and verifiable. The thinking subject in primary reflection is not the individual human person, but the thinker himself. It deals with the realm of problematic. The distinguishing feature of the problematic approach to reality is the separation of the questioner from the data about which he questions. The data of primary reflection lie in the public domain and are equally available to any qualified observer. It tries to reduce my love or faith to a mere bundle of experiences, which can be understood and exhausted.
SECONDARY REFLECTION:
Secondary reflection is concrete, individual, heuristic and open. Strictly speaking, it is concerned, not with objects, but with presences. Its contemplation begins with wonder and astonishment. It reclaims open to its object as a lover does to his beloved. It seeks a richer understanding by a return to the unity of deep human experiences as life, being, love, appreciation, fidelity, faith. Moreover, it asserts its rights of participation over observation, encounter over objectification, concrete existence over abstraction. Only with the aim of secondary reflection can we have unity of experience.
PROBLEM AND MYSTERY:
What is man? Some philosophers have fallen into materialism or idealism. In order to avoid these two pitfalls, Marcel distinguishes problem from mystery. Problem belongs to the primary reflection, whereas mystery belongs to the secondary reflection.
PROBLEM:
For Marcel Problem is a question which be answered purely objectively, without involving the questioner himself. For example I may be interested in solving a mathematical problem, but in solving it I hold it purely objectively, leaving myself out of the picture. I am the subject, the problem is the object. I do not enter into the object. Solving could be done by anybody or by a machine. Thus, a problem moves purely on the plane of objectivity. But if the problem is to put a man in the space and then to bring him back safely, it is better that more people tackle it objectively.
MYSTERY:
For Marcel, mystery is not revealed truth nor the unknowable. Mystery is a “something in which I am myself involved and which is therefore thinkable only as a sphere where the distinction between what is in me and what is before me loses its significance and its initial validity“. Mystery involves the being itself of the questioner in such a way that he cannot disregard his own self. Mystery is that which cannot be solved or explainable but only experienceable in our lives.
If I ask “What am I?” and answer “I am a soul or mind“, then I objectify my body as something over against me, something which I can never possess, as I can possess an umbrella. It is then quite impossible to reconstitute the unity of the human person. “I am my body” (Moi, c’est mon corps). But I am not identifiable with the body when it is distinguished from ‘soul’ and objectified as a thing. If I separate myself into soul and body, objectify them and then try to link them together, I shall never be able to do so. I can grasp the unity of myself only from within. Therefore, I should explore on the level of second reflection “that massive, indistinct sense of one’s total existence“, produced by primary reflection. It can be illustrated thus: John and Mary love each other, they think of each other, but they do not think of love in an abstract way. There is a concrete unity of mutual loving in which both of them are involved. When John begins to stand back from the actual experience of loving, objectifies this love, lived by them within a concrete situation, asks: “What is love?”, he tries to analyse love into constituent elements or he interprets it as something else. This analytic process is an example of first reflection and love is considered as setting a problem to be solved. When John sees the remoteness of this analysis from the actual experience of loving and returns to the actual togetherness of love, the communion or unity, he tries to grasp it in reflection but as from within, as a lived personal relationship. This is an example of second reflection.
Marcel admits that second reflection can easily degenerate into first reflection. Marcel is not an absolute idealist but the project of grasping in reflection what is the first present in feeling, is a basic feature of his philosophy. For example, my relation to my body which is sui generis and irreducible is explained on the level of ‘feeling’ (Cf.Frederick Coppleston, The History of Philosophy, book 3, vol.9, Image Books, New York, 1974, p.333). On the level of the first reflection, the unity of this feeling experience is broken up by analytic thought. But it does not mean it is devoid of value. It can serve practical ends. But in order to grasp the sui generis relation between myself and my body it is necessary to return to the original feeling-experience at the level of second reflection.
PARTICIPATION IN BEING:
The second reflection is an exploration of the metaphysical significance of experience. For example, John sees love as an act of transcendence on the part of the human person and as a participation in Being. Marcel asks: What does this experience reveal to me of myself as a human person and of Being? He insists that Being is not and cannot be made into an object. In case Mary, the beloved of John dies, John can transcend the level of empirical evidence with love and hope in union with Mary and be confident in Mary’s continued existence and of their future reunion. For Marcel, it is grounded in a mysterious presence, which is a participation in Being. Though bond is broken on the physical plane, yet it persists on the metaphysical plane for “creative fidelity”, which is the active perpetuation of presence (Ibidem, p.335).
HUMAN RELATIONS:
Marcel makes a distinction between liberty and fidelity in the context of human relations. Liberty is the primary subject-object relation and fidelity is the ultimate subject-object relation. If one can relive in reflection the experience of fidelity, it is the most promising approach to the exploration of Being. It is the existence of another person which gives me my primary notion of existence. It is my genuine response to another person that initiates and sustains the creation of my own being in fidelity. Reflection upon this central core of moral experience shows the way to a metaphysics of Being.
I-THOU RELATION:
In case of first reflection I can exist and act inauthentically as a faceless individual. I am like an atom caught up in a whirlwind. Here I treat another as atom where I do not reflect others, but treat them as a machine or a function for my pleasure and benefit. But in second level of reflection I treat other as thou and see him as a person. I become present to the other in a mutal openness and self-giving, where we are no longer two isolated entities or strangers. I no longer treat other as an object.
PRESENCE:
This concept gets appropriate meaning only at the mystery level. It is found where there is I-thou relation. Marcel cites an example of a conductor whom we have habitually to deal with in the train or bus. At the start, this man has only the functional reality bound up with the fact of punching the tickets. But suppose he is caught up with an ailment or moral distress, the link between him and us ceases to be purely functional. He really becomes a human being for us, a presence. If I ask him: “What is the matter?”, and he answers me, we become really present to one another at least for a brief moment. It is the dawn of intersubjectivity (or mutual openness). When we become presentially aware of one another, we can no longer be considered as two terms external to one another. We are on the verge of becoming interior to one another. For Marcel, presence implies much more than a mere “being there alongside others“.
ENCOUNTER:
It is not something accidental, that takes place by chance, but has a deep metaphysical implication. It is something that involves, as it were, a mingling of two presences. To encounter someone is to be near to or with him at least for the moment. It means being a co-presence. A genuine meaningful dialogue takes place between gracious I and thou. This encounter is a “reciprocal intercourse of I and thou, who get to know one another as persons“.
INTERSUBJECTIVITY:
In his Presence and Immortality, the notion of intersubjectivity is developed. “Presence is intersubjective“, says Marcel. The subject is treated, not like an object, but as the magnetic centre of presence. At the root of presence, there is a being who takes me into consideration, while the object does not. Presence belongs to the being who is capable of giving himself.
Marcel says, “in order to grow we must open out to the other and different beings and must be capable of meeting them without allowing himself to be dominated or neutralised“. This is what he calls ’Inter-Subjectivity’.
BEING AND HAVING:
Often man tends to forget the mystery element in his own life and in the life of others and tries to live only in the domain of the ‘problem’. He is more concerned with the horizontal dimension of our life, our involvement with things, than the vertical dimension: to be.
BEING:
Marcel’s use of the word ‘Being’ is somewhat perplexing. He insists that Being is not and cannot be made into an object, a direct object of intuition. It can only be alluded to indirectly. Rather it is an exploration of the metaphysical significance of experience.
HAVING:
The verb ‘to have’ means that I have the power to keep to myself or give up. In all having, even in the case of most complete intimate possession of properties, there is a tension between the exterior and the interior. When I possess an external object I am involved in anxiety. Even a thing is desired, the desire is also a form of having. This desire corresponds to the anxiety about losing what one possesses.
Marcel points out that to live on the level of having is to renounce what I am and be one what I have. I become reduced to a thing. On the other hand, it is not possible for me to stand apart from the world and draw or pull the world so that it becomes absorbed in me.
There is a tension between having and being. The nature of human body is such that it cannot be completely reduced to something we have. It is intimately connected with our own existence. It is something animate and the animate entity as it is cannot be separated from my existence. The ideas and opinions can be possessed but things which I have do not have the intimate and unique connection which I have in regard to my body.
It is difficult to say: “I have my body“. We should rather say: “I am my body“. At the same time, I cannot say, “I am merely my body“, for I have some independence from the body. It is for these reasons that there is a tension between having and being.
The themes of being and having have their parallels in the realm of perception and cognition. He advocates some form of realism. My scenes are responsive to being and they bear witness to Being. My body does not belong to me but extends into the world beyond into which it carries me. Thus, he invites me to participate in the pursuit of Being.
When a person identifies himself with some transient object, he loses his life and being with it. “The more we allow ourselves to be the slaves of ‘having’, the more we shall let ourselves fall a prey to the gnawing anxiety which having betokens” (Homo Viator, 78).
Another aspect of yielding to this ‘having’ is the losing of men in ’everydayness’. The majority of men tend to gravitate into a fixed round of neatly compartmentalised daily events which prevent the insertion of spontaneity, excitement and wonder in their life. It gives the impression that there is nothing of value beyond this routine events of life. Man loses himself in an abstract, regular routine. Such ’everydayness’ may encourage nihilism, boredom by preventing us to see real values beyond the functional domain that we fulfill.
HIS VIEW ON FREEDOM
In general, freedom is self-determination to do good. Existentialists hold that man is not free but he becomes free by choosing each and every moment. Human freedom integrally taken has three dimensional freedom that is personal, social and transcendental freedom.
Marcel’s understanding of freedom is different–it developed during the First World War where he served as a messenger to inform the families of the soldiers who were found dead or wounded or missing–it was there that he understood our freedom only through intersubjectivity: It means when I treat the other person as thou I discover my own freedom. As Marcel says, “When I consider another as thou, I treat him and apprehend him qua freedom. I apprehend him qua freedom because he is also freedom and not only nature (facticity). What is more I help him in a sense to be freed, I collaborate with his freedom”.
Marcel presents four kinds of freedom with the aim of bringing out man’s true freedom: 1)A capricious child does not want to eat/go to school–this is not real freedom for the child really does not know what it wants. 2)A young man want to manage his own affairs, do what he wants–here there is autonomy, freedom to conquer. 3)Freedom of Choice: When one chooses a partner in life. 4)Freedom of Commitment: A rich man looks after her bed-ridden wife dutifully and faithfully he commits himself to her without marrying another. Freedom coincides with love which no longer seeks itself but with the other, it is self-creating, self-transcending freedom.
Freedom is not mere autonomy. It is the domain of having. A man of talents and money can do whatever he wishes but cannot waste his talents or money. A person is really free who is able to act authentically and integrally and realize the fullness of Being. Freedom is neither a task. In every concrete situation, man is called to decide the way in which he must commit himself in that situation. It is an answer. If one thinks of freedom as power he will be a fanatic, dictator and may lead to terrible consequences. His passion will rule over his thinking and his being and he will be a prisoner in the solitude of his pride. He is not free for he has used his freedom to become his own ‘slave’. Freedom is essentially something that proceeds from the inner person. Even the chained prisoner can have it if he without bitterness uses his freedom to give meaning to this imprisoned life.
THE EXISTENCE OF GOD
Gabriel Marcel denies the very possibility of theodicy as does Kierkegaard–God cannot and must not be judged, for judgement is only possible regarding essence. That explains why every kind of theodicy necessarily implies a justification. So God cannot be justified. He further says: “The thought that justifies is the thought that has not yet been elevated to love and to the faith that claims to transcend the mind. Theodicy is Atheism” .
Marcel points out that the proofs of the existence of God have not always seemed convincing, even to the historians of philosophy who expounded them most minutely. ”The proofs are ineffectual precisely when they would be most necessary to convince an unbeliever, then they seem to serve no useful purpose”, says Marcel.
“If a man has experience the presence of God, not only has he no need of proofs, he may even consider proofs as a slur on what is for him sacred evidence“. The reasons for the existence of God are useless because they do not do what they actually claim. In actuality they are deceptions. These arguments presuppose that we have already grounded ourselves on God and they are bringing God to the level of discursive thought. He rejects the ways of St.Thomas, saying: “These are not ways but blind ways, as one can have blind windows”. Marcel specifically denies the viability of the arguments for God’s existence from causality. “If we claim to make of the idea of cause a transcendent use, we arrive at a dead end or
which amounts to the same thing, we get lost in a labyrinth”. The words ’transcendent use’ mean a use which extends beyond the domain of instrumentality strictly speaking–that is, that in which man exercises his mastery. He says: “It is to be feared indeed that the idea of causality is inseparable from the existence of a being provided with instrumental powers: it is in short, bio-teleological”. For Marcel, then, to regard God as a cause is to demean him and to reduce him to the level of a maker and user of tools. Marcel’s God is not instrumental producer but he is the centre of all things. He is the infinite Person who communicates being to us and we are participants in being from him. We also seek his personal presence as the goal of our desire, as the only way of bridging our inquietude to its proper fulfillment“.
He is not prepared to regard God as an object, the existence of which is asserted as a conclusion that solves a problem. Faith is a matter not of believing that but of believing in. And God is for Marcel, as for Kierkegaard, “The Absolute Thou’. He is thus encountered rather than proved.
ABSOLUTE THOU AND FIDELITY:
Marcel believes that it is on the level of mystery that man can discover his authentic personhood. And so it is only in a genuine I-Thou relationship, in that encounter on the plane of intersubjectivity that I can engage in such personal relationships as disponibility, fidelity and love. When a person enters into communion with another, he thereby transcends the level of having, the level of object, and rise to the sphere of Being. Every human being has an existence of Being, which is an orientation to the Absolute Thou. He constantly desires him and reaches out for him in all his activities. But there are various ways in which the orientation to God can be appropriated, i.e.that are various concrete approaches to God. God is ‘Absolute Presence’ and can be approached through intersubjectivity relationships such as love and creative fidelity which are sustained by and point to him.Through his spiritual availability, love and fidelity to the other and his to him, they both begin to participate in the unconditioned Being who is Absolute Thou or God itself. Or a man can encounter God in worship and prayer, in invocation and response. These various ways are not of course mutually exclusive. They are ways of coming to experience the divine presence.
We cannot experience or have relation with Absolute Thou without having relation with other people. When we are totally committed to each other we reach out for an absolute and complete Fidelity, Love and Disponibility. By beginning on the plane of human we mutually assist each other in our ascent to the Infinite. Thus, in the exploration of the relationships which arise on the plane of intersubjectivity I discover ‘God’ as the personal transcendent Absolute. In fidelity we find that we become Absolute and totally committed, without any reservations whatsoever. He explains: “I cannot base my argument on the effort of my own will. I must admit then that something unalterable is implied in the relation itself. I must start from Being itself–from commitment to God”. This act of genuine commitment is something transcendent in its very nature because it is beyond my own limited powers. It is made possible only because of my complete and unquestioning faith in God.
Like Abraham, the knight of faith, I place my complete trust in God or the Absolute Thou. Being conscious of my insufficiency I call upon God himself to serve as a ground the fidelity, which I exhibit towards my neighbour. Hence this ground of fidelity seems unshakable when it is based on a certain appeal delivered from the depths of my own insufficiency. As it is the most stringent commitment it cannot be a matter of counting on oneself to cope with this unbounded commitment but in this act I extend an infinite credit to him to whom I did so.
My fidelity becomes possible towards my fellowmen because my fidelity is a part of Absolute Fidelity who is present in me through my faith. Marcel says: “To display my real fidelity towards my fellows, I must give myself completely to God, who is the Faithful One. For this reason fidelity can only rest upon faith in God, and this faith is the highest existential relation in which I transcend myself“.
When my fidelity is in constant communion with the very source of fidelity, my fidelity is constantly revitalized and becomes a “creative fidelity”. Such a fidelity is characterized by those rare qualities of humility and patience. Fidelity is unmistakable and its face shines with clearest light and she goes hand in hand with patience and humility. Thus, fidelity, faith, love and hope are the aspects through which we can experience the Absolute Thou.
FAITH:
Fidelity is manifestly impossible without a faith in the other, for faith is the highest expression of fidelity. It can be understood in two different ways: a)As conviction; and b)As commitment.
As conviction, faith is still on the level of the problematic and that of having. When understood as commitment, faith is that which is far more enriching and productive on the ontological plane, because it carries with it the richness of a binding obligation. “Through faith as genuine commitment, I engage in a mystical encounter with the other. Since such an encounter carries with it a complete bundling together of all the forces of being, it adds a new dimension both to me and the other. By becoming spiritually available to my neighbour I overcome the restrictions of my egocentricity and discover at this moment the Absolute Thou. I find that God is the very ground of my faith and fidelity; I invoke him and enter into a loving communion with him“.
LOVE:
Whenever there is faith and fidelity, there is love: love of God by man, love of man by God and love of man by his fellowmen. The mutuality of this reciprocal love gives meaning and authenticity to men’s existence in the world. All true love of the other must ultimately be based on the love of God. It is this love, which gives value to man’s actions. Only love makes man to go out of himself to others. And so really love a creature, is to love him in God. Marcel says: “Love is the active refusal to treat itself as subjective and it is in this refusal that it cannot be separated from faith, in fact it is faith”. Therefore, it is only through love we can treat others as ourselves”.
HOPE:
The genuine love always carries with it a necessary concomitant, namely hope. For it is hope which gives meaningfulness to man’s existence. Man hopes in God and the future which makes him to have an aim or purpose in life. If a man has no hope and does not experience love, he will either commit suicide or be addicted to drugs. Love plays an important role but if he does not have hope, he cannot love others. Hope is like breathing.
It is mainly through hope I discover my relationships to the Absolute Thou. Therefore, man is full of hope. Thus, he refuses to agree with Albert Camus’ thesis that Man is condemned to live hopelessly in a world of absurdity.
EVALUATION:
Gabriel Marcel, a theistic existentialist, has made a great contribution to the philosophy of life. He is inspired by the feelings of love and devotion and thinks that God can produce in man the principle of creativity by which the world can be rendered once more beautiful. He wants to understand philosophy as an expression of the living experience and for that reason, wants to remain close to the intimate testimony of the intensely felt moments of human life. He believes that man’s quest is the pursuit of what he calls Being.
As Michelle Sciacca pays his highest tribute to Marcel, saying: “Of all the forms of existentialism, Marcel’s is the only one that does not refuse but rather fulfills the experience of a Christian existence“. Yes, he inserted all the important Christian values life faith, love, fidelity and hope in his Philosophy to show man’s existence and dignity.
Contribution: –Marcel’s greatest contribution to contemporary thought is the bringing of a genuine Philosophy of Hope. He refutes philosophers like Albert CAMUS who said: “Man is condemned to live hopelessly in a world of absurdity“. He also said that man is doomed to live out his life in an absurd world endlessly plotting to make an object of another, whereas the keynote of Marcel’s vision of life is hope. For him the experience of despair can become the prelude and vehicle for an authentic hope that far transcends mere naive optimism.
Today man is caught up in the grip of despair, which tears him out of himself and forces him to question the meaning of the existence. Marcel passionately affirms that in love, faith and hope, man encounters Something that transcends the ‘purely natural’. Thus, Marcel shows the road that leads from despair to hope–and to God.
Another important thought of Marcel is I-Thou relation. It is here that one treats another as person, respects him and works for the betterment of the other. In the world of today man has become more and more individualistic and impersonal like a cog in the wheel. With the view of making man more human, Marcel suggests I-thou relationship.
To conclude: One can assert that in spite of the limitations of this philosophy, he has contributed much in restoring man to his rightful and meaningful place in reality, insuring thereby his contact with a personal God. Gabriel Marcel, the Great Existentialist Apostle of hope to all mankind has definitely influenced the hearts of thousands and will ever continue to do so in the years to come.
PSYCHOLOGY:
Sigmund Freud
Sigmund Freud was born in Frieberg, Moravia in 1856, but when he was four years old his family moved to Vienna, where Freud was to live and work until the last year of his life. In 1937 the Nazis annexed Austria, and Freud, who was Jewish, was allowed to leave for England. For these reasons, it was above all with the city of Vienna that Freud’s name was destined to be deeply associated for posterity, founding as he did what was to become known as the ‘first Viennese school’ of psychoanalysis, from which, it is fair to say, psychoanalysis as a movement and all subsequent developments in this field flowed. The scope of Freud’s interests, and of his professional training, was very broad – he always considered himself first and foremost a scientist, endeavouring to extend the compass of human knowledge, and to this end (rather than to the practice of medicine) he enrolled at the medical school at the University of Vienna in 1873. He concentrated initially on biology, doing research in physiology for six years under the great German scientist Ernst Brücke, who was director of the Physiology Laboratory at the University, thereafter specialising in neurology. He received his medical degree in 1881, and having become engaged to be married in 1882, he rather reluctantly took up more secure and financially rewarding work as a doctor at Vienna General Hospital. Shortly after his marriage in 1886 – which was extremely happy, and gave Freud six children, the youngest of whom, Anna, was herself to become a distinguished psychoanalyst. Freud set up a private practice in the treatment of psychological disorders, which gave him much of the clinical material on which he based his theories and his pioneering techniques.
In 1885-1886 Freud spent the greater part of a year in Paris, where he was deeply impressed by the work of the French neurologist Jean Charcot, who was at that time using hypnotism to treat hysteria and other abnormal mental conditions. When he returned to Vienna, Freud experimented with hypnosis, but found that its beneficial effects did not last. At this point he decided to adopt instead a method suggested by the work of an older Viennese colleague and friend, Josef Breuer, who had discovered that when he encouraged a hysterical patient to talk uninhibitedly about the earliest occurrences of the symptoms, the latter sometimes gradually abated. Working with Breuer, Freud formulated and developed the idea that many neuroses (phobias, hysterical paralyses and pains, some forms of paranoia, etc.) had their origins in deeply traumatic experiences which had occurred in the past life of the patient but which were now forgotten, hidden from consciousness; the treatment was to enable the patient to recall the experience to consciousness, to confront it in a deep way both intellectually and emotionally, and in thus discharging it, to remove the underlying psychological causes of the neurotic symptoms. This technique, and the theory from which it is derived, was given its classical expression in Studies in Hysteria, jointly published by Freud and Breuer in 1895.
Shortly thereafter, however, Breuer, found that he could not agree with what he regarded as the excessive emphasis which Freud placed upon the sexual origins and content of neuroses, and the two parted company, with Freud continuing to work alone to develop and refine the theory and practice of psychoanalysis. In 1900, after a protracted period of self-analysis, he published The Interpretation of Dreams, which is generally regarded as his greatest work, and this was followed in 1901 by The Psychopathology of Everyday Life, and in 1905 by Three Essays on the Theory of Sexuality. Freud’s psychoanalytic theory was initially not well received – when its existence was acknowledged at all it was usually by people who were, as Breuer had foreseen, scandalised by the emphasis placed on sexuality by Freud – and it was not until 1908, when the first International Psychoanalytical Congress was held at Salzburg, that Freud’s importance began to be generally recognised. This was greatly facilitated in 1909, when he was invited to give a course of lectures in the United States, which were to form the basis of his 1916 book Five Lectures on Psycho-Analysis. From this point on Freud’s reputation and fame grew enormously, and he continued to write prolifically until his death, producing in all more than twenty volumes of theoretical works and clinical studies. He was also not adverse to critically revising his views, or to making fundamental alterations to his most basic principles when he considered that the scientific evidence demanded it – this was most clearly evidenced by his advancement of a completely new tripartite (id, ego, and super-ego) model of the mind in his 1923 work The Ego and the Id. He was initially greatly heartened by attracting followers of the intellectual calibre of Adler and Jung, and was correspondingly disappointed personally when they both went on to found rival schools of psychoanalysis – thus giving rise to the first two of many schisms in the movement – but he knew that such disagreement over basic principles had been part of the early development of every new science. After a life of remarkable vigour and creative productivity, he died of cancer while exiled in England in 1939.
The Theory of the Unconscious
Freud’s theory of the unconscious, then, is highly deterministic, a fact which, given the nature of nineteenth century science, should not be surprising. Freud was arguably the first thinker to apply deterministic principles systematically to the sphere of the mental, and to hold that the broad spectrum of human behaviour is explicable only in terms of the (usually hidden) mental processes or states which determine it. Thus, instead of treating the behaviour of the neurotic as being causally inexplicable – which had been the prevailing approach for centuries – Freud insisted, on the contrary, on treating it as behaviour for which is meaningful to seek an explanation by searching for causes in terms of the mental states of the individual concerned. Hence the significance which he attributed to slips of the tongue or pen, obsessive behaviour, and dreams – all, he held, are determined by hidden causes in the person’s mind, and so they reveal in covert form what would otherwise not be known at all. This suggests the view that freedom of the will is, if not completely an illusion, certainly more tightly circumscribed than is commonly believed, for it follows from this that whenever we make a choice we are governed by hidden mental processes of which we are unaware and over which we have no control.
The postulate that there are such things as unconscious mental states at all is a direct function of Freud’s determinism, his reasoning here being simply that the principle of causality requires that such mental states should exist, for it is evident that there is frequently nothing in the conscious mind which can be said to cause neurotic or other behaviour. An ‘unconscious’ mental process or event, for Freud, is not one which merely happens to be out of consciousness at a given time, but is rather one which cannot, except through protracted psychoanalysis, be brought to the forefront of consciousness. The postulation of such unconscious mental states entails, of course, that the mind is not, and cannot be, identified with consciousness or that which can be an object of consciousness – to employ a much-used analogy, it is rather structurally akin to an iceberg, the bulk of it lying below the surface, exerting a dynamic and determining influence upon the part which is amenable to direct inspection, the conscious mind.
Deeply associated with this view of the mind is Freud’s account of the instincts or drives. The instincts, for Freud, are the principal motivating forces in the mental realm, and as such they ‘energise’ the mind in all of its functions. There are, he held, an indefinitely large number of such instincts, but these can be reduced to a small number of basic ones, which he grouped into two broad generic categories, Eros (the life instinct), which covers all the self-preserving and erotic instincts, and Thanatos (the death instinct), which covers all the instincts towards aggression, self-destruction, and cruelty. Thus it is a mistake to interpret Freud as asserting that all human actions spring from motivations which are sexual in their origin, since those which derive from Thanatos are not sexually motivated – indeed, Thanatos is the irrational urge to destroy the source of all sexual energy in the annihilation of the self. Having said that, it is undeniably true that Freud gave sexual drives an importance and centrality in human life, human actions, and human behaviour which was new (and to many, shocking), arguing as he does both that the sexual drives exist and can be discerned in children from birth (the theory of infantile sexuality), and that sexual energy (libido) is the single most important motivating force in adult life. However, even here a crucial qualification has to be added – Freud effectively redefined the term ‘sexuality’ here to make it cover any form of pleasure which is or can be derived from the body. Thus his theory of the instincts or drives is essentially that the human being is energised or driven from birth by the desire to acquire and enhance bodily pleasure.
PERSONALITIES:
GANDHI’S MESSAGE ON POLITICS
Of Gandhi, the great scientist Albert Einstein wrote in July 1944 that “generations to come, it may be, will scarcely believe that such a one as this ever in flesh and blood walked upon this earth” is true. He is one of the most dynamic and saintly figures of modern times and a truly great leader. He was really a ”great Soul/MAN” (MAHATMA).
At the end of a prayer meeting on January 30, 1948, Gandhi was pleased to hear from his Hindu and Muslim friends that Delhi had experienced “a reunion of hearts“, but soon after he touched the hands of Nathuram Vinayak GODSE together, smiled and blessed them, he fell at the shot of a pistol and died with a murmur: “Oh, God“. Godse, a thirty-five year old editor and publisher of a Hindu Mahasabha weekly in Pune, was bitter that Gandhi made no demands on Muslims, although he did not hate Gandhi.
After 50 years, his message still resounds on our ears. Gandhi should lead us today to progress and peace. It is disheartening to witness national disintegration based on the wrong notion of religion, politics and human welfare.
Born on October 2, 1869, in the small state of Porbandar (Western India), of Karamchand (alias Kaba) Gandhi and Putlibai, Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi was the youngest son. He passed his childhood in Porbandar (known also as Sudamapuri). He was mediocre, but honest student, of sluggish intelligence and raw memory. He married Kasturbai, the daughter of merchant Gokuldas Makanji. His marriage lasted sixty-two years. He was shy, but he persevered in his hard work. When his father died in 1885, his mother took advice on family matters from a Jain monk, Becharji Swami, who helped him go to England. His first days in England were an agony–everything was strange: people, houses, life-style, idiom of the language, food. He was homesick, but he settled down gradually and started his studies. He was a conscientious worker, read the prescribed books and was duly called to the Bar by the Inner Temple, which later disbarred him because of his conviction in the Indian civil disobedience movement. After having finished his studies, he returned to India.
On his arrival at Bombay, he was greeted with the tragic news of his mother’s death. He felt that the background of his life had collapsed. After some hesitation, he began his legal practice in the Bombay courts. His first case was a trial of his courage–to speak in public had always been an ordeal for him. He became tongue-tied and begged to be relieved of his case. He was offered a commission to go to South Africa to work as lawyer for an Indian firm. After arriving to Durban in 1893, he understood the problem of colour-bar. After completing his task, he decided to work for his countrymen. They were dubbed contemptuously “coolies” (Gandhi himself was known as “the coolie barrister”}
But he won his victory through peaceful means and came to India to work for freedom. He had to fight against untouchability–he called the scheduled castes “children of God” (HARIJANS). He believed in non-cooperation with the British Government of
India. Love was his weapon, harmony between Hindus and Muslims was his aim to be achieved through non-violence, through fast. No bribery, no deceit, no immoral means. Gandhi opposed the ”vivisection” of India into part for the Muslims, part for the Hindus.
BAPU was shot dead by Godse.
In his political struggle, Gandhi was led by his religious principle of self-realization. He narrates his “experiments” in the spiritual field, from which he has derived power for working in the political field. Therefore, he says, there can be no room for self-praise, but only for humility by feeling his own limitations and shortcomings. Let us hear his own words: ”For me, politics bereft of religion are absolute dirt, ever to be shunned. Politics concern nations and that which concerns the welfare of others must be one of the concerns of a man who is religiously inclined, in other words, a seeker after God and Truth….God and Truth are convertible terms and if anyone told me that God was a God of untruth or a God of torture I would decline to worship Him. Therefore in politics also we have to establish the Kingdom of Heaven” (YOUNG INDIA, June 18, 1925).
Being a sincere seeker of truth, he could not subscribe to the methods of bribery and deceit. For he would say, by these methods we cannot enter heaven, much less gain “India‘s freedom“. If we gain heaven or freedom through these methods, heaven will not be heaven and freedom will not be freedom. We should remain loyal to an institution, if it conduces to our growth, to the growth of the nation. Otherwise, he would say it clearly, “I hold it my bounden duty to be disloyal to it…”
It was devotion to Truth that has drawn him into the political field. His experiments in the political field are but expression of his spiritual life. What he wanted to achieve was self-realization, to see God face to face, to attain MOKSHA (or salvation which was for him oneness with God and freedom from later incarnations). He lived in pursuit of this goal (see The Story of My Experiments with Truth, Phoenix Press, London, 1949, Introduction).
This is the end of all his endeavours: to see the universal and all-pervading Spirit of Truth face to face. But one cannot aspire after that unless one loves “the meanest of creation as oneself“. Without the slightest hesitation he could say that ”those who say that religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion means[1]” (M.K.Gandhi, The Story of My Experiments with Truth, “Farewell”, p.420).
Politicians of today are exploiting the ignorance of the millions of illiterate people of India for their political mileage. They are giving them wrong notion of religion and exploiting even religious symbols to gain votes. But people should know what is the “true religion” and abide by it. When we witness rampant political immoral gimmicks and scams, we cannot shun religion from politics. Only religion can purify politics, which has become a dirty game in India–a mockery of Democracy…
HEALTH AND WELL-BEING:
Different Medical Systems:
Well-Being and Happiness:
POEMS:
GOEANK BHETTOIL’LI KOVITA MHOJI
Dp: Goem mojem mannkulem,
Devagelem vhodd dennem,
Goem tum omolik mhojem,
Sobhit-sundor-daizachem.
1) Doria, nodi, rukh-zhaddam,
Dongor, narlam-madd, ranam,
Suriachim zhogzhogit kirnnam,
Ditat sobhitai amchea Goeam.
2)Amchi bhas amkam ektthaita,
Tambddi zomin bhiradd dita,
Sonvskrutai amkam grestaita,
Amchem poriovronn sambhallta.
3)Sobhit-sundor Goem amchem,
Tem amim zagrutaen rakhchem,
Bhas, osmitai, daiz amchem
Duddvam-axen tem na vikhchem.
4)Sobhit-sundor vello,
Rakhpak asat jhilkutam,
Zhaddam-pedd, doriaxim
Varea-lharancher surokxim.
CURRENT AFFAIRS:
We shall give from time to time relevant news and views.
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS:
You are welcome to ask me questions that bother you.I shall give a few questions and answers.
What is the meaning of the term “Covenant”?
Covenant (from latin cum+venire=’to come together’) means “disposition, agreement, pact, alliance’. In Hebrew it is berith and in Greek diatheke. God is love (cf.1 Jn 4:8). He comes out of his silent, inner, Trinitarian life and sets out for a creative adventure of love. His salvific plan is the outcome of his effusive love. Out of his initiative of love God created MAN (that is, humankind), with whom there was communion. But due to the abuse and misuse of his freedom, Man refuses God’s love. In the process of saving Man from sin and its consequences, the historical God reveals himself as compassionate, merciful love. The God of the Bible is YAHWEH, the source of being and love. His ultimate aim was to give his only Son, the Word (cf. Jn 1:14; 3:16). God’s salvific design for humankind is recorded in the Bible. His Revelation is historical. It is expressed in words and works/deeds (cf. DV 2). His self-communication is described in the Bible in terms of a covenant (Hb berith–Gk, diatheke), from which a permanent relationship between Yahweh and humankind results. He is God of covenant, of promises, who intervened in the history of humankind. Covenant is a relational concept: God writes a love-letter to humankind.