(i) "'I know him now, the son of Zohak and agent of Ahriman! Kill him!'"
-Poul Anderson, "Brave To Be A King" IN Anderson, Time Patrol (Riverdale, NY, 2010), pp. 55-112 AT 5, p. 79.
In this world-view, evil exists independently of the Creator Whom it opposes. Another example is the Adversary in Poul Anderson's Operation Chaos.
(ii) Poul and Karen Anderson's Gratillonius converts from Mithraism, an example of (i), to Christianity, in which Satan is a rebel creature, not an independent principle. (As I understand it, in Mosaic monotheism, God caused both the hardening of Pharaoh's heart and the miracles of Moses. Thus, Satan as a rebel angel was a post-Exilic synthesis of monotheism with the Zoroastrian idea of an opponent of God.)
(iii) In Poul Anderson's Technic History, most of the environment of the planet, Ikrananka, is so hostile to life that its inhabitants imagine supernatural beings that are entirely demonic.
(iv) In Anderson's Psychotechnic History, the Planetary Engineers see the external environment as an enemy to be fought whereas the psychotechnicians see mankind as the protean enemy.
(v) When Patrick McGoohan's Prisoner unmasks his ultimate enemy, Number One, he sees his own face.
(vi) Alan Moore's plant elementals see not good and evil but light and darkness, life and death, growth and decay. They ask:
"Is aphid evil? Is ladybug evil? Is soil evil?
Where is evil, in all the wood?"
-Alan Moore, Swamp Thing: A Murder Of Crows (New York, 2001), p. 113, panel 6.
When evil magicians conjure the Original Darkness that was before the Creation, hoping that it will destroy Heaven, the elementals' advice enables the hand of the Darkness - emerging from Chaos and advancing through Hell - to clasp the descending hand of Light while, during a seance on Earth, the yin-yang symbol appears in the eye of a psychic observer who is going insane.
17 comments:
Kaor, Paul!
Except I don't believe Satan was imported from Zoroastrianism. I believe there's enough in the OT/NT for bad angels as rebels against God for there to be no need to stress any alleged influence from Zoroastrianism.
I'm not hostile to Zoroastrianism, I simply don't agree with some of its most basic doctrines. My view is more that of Chesterton (in THE EVERLASTING MAN), who considered Zoroastrianism the best of the non Jewish/Christian faiths.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Whereas I think that Buddhism is far ahead both in its philosophical analysis and in its meditation practice.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
And I would point out that Christianity, esp. Catholic and Orthodox Christianity has its own equally sophisticated (or better) tradition of philosophy, contemplation, and meditation.
And I still have a higher opinion of Zoroastrianism than I do of all others of the non Jewish/Christian faiths.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Christians had to adapt Plato and Aristotle. The origins of Christianity were prophetic, not philosophical. As to whose meditation is better, I don't think there are any objective criteria for judging.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
Of course! All Christians, not just the Catholics, should accept what is good and true outside Christianity. Which is why Catholics, at least, had so little difficulty with Plato and Aristotle. And I wish "evangelical" Protestants would stop making fools of themselves when it comes to matters such as the age of the Earth/universe, evolution, the merely bodily origins of humans, etc. To say nothing of their obstinate misunderstanding of the Creation and Flood stories in Genesis!
"Pure"Buddhism (which I distinguish from "popular" Buddhism, with its gods, demigods, demons, avatars, etc.), while I consider it to have some elements of truth in it, has never appealed to me. Things like acceptance of reincarnation, its passivity and fatalism, being among some of my objections. And a meditation/contemplation not directed toward that Ultimate called God seems so pointless.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
My point is that Buddhism generated profound philosophical systems from within itself and did not need to adapt anyone else's philosophies.
It seems that acceptance of rebirth is essential to Buddhism. If that is the case (and it seems that it is), then I am not a Buddhist. But I find Zen meditation supremely "pointful" (to coin an opposite of pointless) for understanding motivations, actions and their consequences. ("Karma" means "action.")
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
I am skeptical that Buddhism has generated anything like Platonism, Aristotelianism, Stoicism, Scholasticism, and so on to other philosophies shaking and transforming the world. It took a uniting of Classical philosophy with Christianity--plus a dash of hardheaded Germanic pragmatism before a true science, for example, arose. Nothing like that ever came from Buddhism.
If Zen helps you to understand actions, motivations, and their consequences, then I can't object.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Science is indeed a unique phenomenon and I think that it is a synthesis of philosophy with pragmatism. It does not incorporate Christian dogmatism.
Buddhism did generate profound philosophies. You might find them by googling. My present focus is on meditation practice which is what the philosophies point toward.
Paul.
There is a Wikipedia article on Buddhist philosophy.
The Greeks had formulated monotheism and also the concept of Logos which was incorporated into the Fourth Gospel.
Kaor, Paul!
I still have to disagree, and I think Anderson would as well, judging from what he wrote in "Delenda Est" and IS THERE LIFE ON OTHER WORLDS? In both we see either his characters or him directly saying a true science had to be based on the lawfulness of nature, going straight back to the Christian belief in God respecting His own laws. That sure sounds like Christian "dogmatism."
Has Buddhism generated profound philosophies? Maybe, but they have not been TRANSFORMATIVE worldwide as Classical philosophy united with Christianity has been. And if people have to google for these Buddhist philosophies, then it"s plain they are not all that well known or influential.
What you said about St. John's Gospel merely illustrated my point: the prophetic monotheism of the OT/NT taking over concepts from Hellenistic philosophy. To clarify and draw out the implications of what had been learned from revelation.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
But science is the opposite of dogmatism. Scholastics developed their intellects to reason about doctrines but then intellect had to be applied to nature and had been applied to nature by Greeks who believed in the importance of reason and (some of them) in the principle of the Logos.
When I said that you can find Buddhist philosophy on google, I just meant that that is a convenient way to learn about it, not that it is so obscure that people in general have to google to find it! But anyone who does google will easily find it.
Of course the European scientific and industrial revolutions have changed the world, leaving medieval scholasticism far behind. India contributed "Arabic" numerals and yoga. China has contributed medical techniques that complement Western scientific medicine. We need a combined world-view, not Western triumphalism.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
Scholasticism still exists and even had major 20th century advocates and developers, such as Jacques Maritain. But my major point was that it too contributed to the rise of a true science. Not that it is still dominant.
And the Greeks STILL failed to develop a true science, recall. At least partly because they were more interested in merely abstract, theoretical knowledge. They never went on to extrapolate from the beginnings of what they had potentially discovered. That was still the achievement of Christianity, making use of Classical philosophy, allied with Medieval/late Medieval pragmatism.
Yes, but I don't think most people will ever look up the various kinds of Buddhist philosophies you mentioned. And of course I'm aware of how some unknown invented genius invented "Arabic" numbers in India. And of how China has contributed things like gunpowder and the compass. We can and should learn from what others have discovered.
And if it seems "triumphalistic" for some, like me, to defend the achievements of the West, so be it! Because I do not believe in things like ALL cultures and ideas being of equal worth and value.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
But I still think that it was the philosophy and the pragmatism that produced the science.
I think that your "most people" means many people in Western countries who are not interested in any kind of philosophy anyway.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
And that also included the Christian belief in the lawfulness of God and the universe He created.
Not just Western countries. I seriously doubt most people in Buddhist nations like Thailand or Cambodia have much interest in philosophy.
Ad astra! Sean
And of course, a certain philosopher said it was really "Good" and "Bad" rather than Good and Evil.
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
I have some interest in philosophy, but I will never claim to be deeply read in it, so I'm not sure which philosopher you had in mind. The use of scare quotes seem to indicate that philosopher denied good and evil were real. The only one I can think of being Nietzsche.
Ad astra! Sean
Post a Comment