Philosophy of St. Augustine

Because Aondeug asked for it, I present... the thought of St. Augustine!

WARNING: This is not a generic religion thread. This is for questions and answers on the philosophy of the Latin-speaking Berber bishop who lived at the fall of the Western Roman Empire and arguably defined the worldview of the peoples of those lands, and the Germanic peoples to the north as they were Christianized, into the 18th century.

I'll go through and explicate what St. Augy of Horse thought on numerous subjects, but I want to start with... dun-da-dun... LOVE!

First, though, it order to understand anything, you need to understand some first philosophy (AKA metaphysics). Augustine was a Platonist before he was a Christian, and continued to hold that this was reason's most accurate model of reality:

"It is Especially with the Platonists that We Must Carry on Our Disputations on Matters of Theology, Their Opinions Being Preferable to Those of All Other Philosophers." — title of Book 8.5 of The City of God.

So what is love? Love is an appetite, a longing or attachment. Whatever attachments you have in this world you will lose, because things are in flux ("complex" in the Platonic sense, subject to change). If this is starting to sound Buddhist, there is one key difference:

God is love. If you love God, you will never lose the object of the appetite. All sin (lit. "missing the mark") is error arising from attempts to hold on to transitory objects of love. "When [the Golden] rule is applied the love of God, all vices die; then it is applied to the love of our neighbor, and all crimes vanish." (On Christian Doctrine 3.14.22)

We know by experience that love is by definition a relationship. Thus from the revelation that God is love, we can logically infer that it's inherent in his nature that God the Father beget God the Son. The details are explained in Platonic terms of emanation. Divine essence "is called simple, because it has not anything which it can lose" (City of God 11.10), i.e. "simple" means "unchanging". So when we say "God is love", love is not an attribute or emanation, but a thing fixed and eternal. As God never wasn't love, Son the God must be co-eternal with God the Father.

God the Son, called the Logos, brought all things into being (John 1.3). He made man in the image of God (Genesis 1.27). Because we are shadows of God, we have love while God is love.

Alas, we have distorted love into self-love:

"Two cities have been formed by two loves: the earthly by the love of self, even to the contempt of God; the heavenly by the love of God, even to the contempt of self. The former, in a word, glories in itself, the latter in the Lord." (City of God 14.28)

In the earthly city, men attack and kill each other, overpower and rape women, steal resources, et al to satisfy the distorted appetite.

"Justice removed, then, what are kingdoms but great bands of robbers? What are bands of robbers themselves but little Kingdoms? The band itself is made up of men; it is governed by the authority of a ruler; it is bound together by a pact of association; and the loot is divided according to an agreed law. If, by the constant addition of desperate men, this scourge grows to such a size that it acquires a territory, establishes a seat of government, occupies cities and subjugates peoples, it assumes the name of kingdom more openly." (City of God 4.4)

This being said, earthly love is not wholly bad. It's evil only in the sense of being a privation of the Good (which for love is love of God). In the last book of The City of God, Augustine speaks of how the escaped slaves and other poor and oppressed men of Romulus' robber band declared him a god because they loved him so as a benefactor:

"But who believed that Romulus was a god except Rome, which was itself small and in its infancy? Then ... [subject] nations, though they might not believe that Romulus was a god, at least said so, that they might not give offense to their sovereign state by refusing to give its founder that title which was given him by Rome, which had adopted this belief, not by a love of error, but an error of love." (City of God 22.6)

But our true good is in love of the incarnate Logos, who proved that God is love by being executed for us in the blood-soaked earthly city:

"And did a single nation worship Romulus among its gods, unless it were forced through fear of the Roman name? But who can number the multitudes who have chosen death in the most cruel shapes rather than deny the divinity of Christ?" (ibid)

Next: more love, then we'll examine in detail the political philosophy that follows from this.

edited 4th Apr '11 5:31:02 PM by Rottweiler

Sounds influenced by Judaism as well. Jews also view "sin" as error or "missing the mark."

Oooh. Thank you kindly Rott. Hmm. Yes that is certainly starting to sound Buddhist with the exception of the God is the only eternal and fixed thing to love and thing that loves in existence thing. It's starting to make a wee bit more sense as to why I got him. I await your other posts.

edited 4th Apr '11 5:33:24 PM by Aondeug

This post was thumped by the Stick of Off-Topic Thumping.
Stay on topic, please.

@Leigh: Certainly. What you're seeing in Augustine and the other Church Fathers is a religious innovation of the first order. While the human default is to venerate one's own ancestors, Christians venerate the Jewish ancestors. When Augy contrasts the history of the heavenly city with that of the earthly, the former is the deeds of Biblical figures.

@Aon: You're welcome! I shall endeavor to continue being helpful.

@Dead Man: Your way isn't the topic.

As to the cruelty behind the concept of original sin, it's an empirical fact that life is cruel. We kill, we rape, we strive to make others obey us, we steal the fruit of their labor... a philosophy that doesn't explain the predisposition to cruelty is detached from reality.

This post was thumped by the Stick of Off-Topic Thumping.
Stay on topic, please.

Can you point out that he's a fool after we get through the main purpose of this thread? That is simply explaining his shit.

Yeesh, I'll be getting to the contrast between sex and love, and the role of marriage therein, in my next major post. Hold your hatred.

<Mod Hat ON>

The Dead Mans Life, right now, you are offtopic. This isn't a bashing thread. It isn't going to be a bashing thread. Questions and Answers. "The Man was a dick" is neither a question nor an answer.

And Civility would be expected, even if it were a general discussion thread.

<Mod Hat OFF>

edited 4th Apr '11 7:04:27 PM by Madrugada

Dammit, I was searching You Tube for that "I knew who started this thread before I even clicked on it" reaction vid, and I can't find it.

Interesting read, Rott. God seems a little shoehorned in, but he always seems shoehorned in to me. If he didn't then I probably wouldn't be an atheist.

Rotty, would it be all right if I asked a question about his philosophy which you're not covering right now, or should I wait until you reach that topic? I'm curious (and confused) about Augustine's ideas on time.

Thanks for posting this, Rott. Very interesting. I had heard of Augustine and his philosophy before, but I became more curious about him after he was ranked my top philosopher on that questionnaire posted in the other thread. It's beginning to make sense to me why I scored him ... or at the very least, I do like some of his ideas that you've presented so far*

Did he have a reason for the whole "men get souls 40 days after conception, but women don't until 90 days" thing?

I'm guessing misogyny/ no understanding of the way babies work.

Personally *shrug* I don't find his philosophy edifying or funny, so I just kind of ignore it.

@Rottweiler: It was not an innovation. It was an aberration!

People should venerate their own ancestors, not the ancestors of others.

edited 5th Apr '11 12:50:18 AM by SavageHeathen

I do not see why people start bashing this thread. If some people think this philosophy is good, laugh at them, don't go off topic.

Anyways I look forward to the next thread of yours, Rott. You are the best proof modern Xianity should be reformed urgently.

Well, I had decided not to use the forum for one year, but I find myself lurking more and more, so I may as well return :)

^ Christianity is always in need of reform, and it is always in the process of reforming itself: that's pretty much unavoidable, it being a divinely ordained institution which is composed of fallible people. But Augustine is part of the solution, not part of the problem - in particular, I wish that his arguments against biblical literalism were better known among Christians.

For example, the following quote of him should be posted in any creationism debate ever:

Rott: I would be curious to hear your thoughts about the way that St. Augustine handles the issue of grace. That's one aspect in which I felt that his position was much too bleak, especially when compared to Aquinas', but perhaps I have misunderstood him...

edited 5th Apr '11 3:26:12 AM by Carciofus

@Yuan: Ask away!

@Sivartis: Where are you citing that from?

@Savage: A reasonable point, but whether Christianity is an aberration from the Perennial Philosophy (unlike Hinduism and Confucianism, which conserved ancestor worship) would require its own thread.

@Carciofus: I'm not a fan of Augustine's view of grace either. I'll do that after "time".

edited 5th Apr '11 3:39:52 PM by Rottweiler

Ooh, interesting! I was just reading a chapter on St. Augustine, I am studying medieval theology at the moment. Of course, Augustine had a massive influence on theology at the time.

edited 5th Apr '11 4:29:29 PM by Shichibukai

Many thanks Rott; Augustine's been on my To Read list for awhile now, so this is a handy introduction :)

Thanks to Rott for taking the time to do the homework for the rest of us. I would like to see some discussion about the historical context in which Augustine was writing, as I find that is very helpful in gaining some understanding of what an author thought he was trying to say, and esp. the pagan arguments he is said to have been reacting to.