Eckhart's notion that the soul does not know and remains ignorant of herself is something I found quite interesting. Granted, many of the preceding philosophers discussed were not mystics, however this does address and explain the soul as something as something more than previous readings. I like the idea that creatures can only comprehend sensory data and since the soul is not sensory, it cannot be entered by any material elements; but also that the soul cannot enter or truly engage itself, as she creates images with her own power based on what she encounters, however she cannot create one such as herself for she has no image.
For Cusanas, I find his perspective on truth fascinating. I agree with him insofar as the requirement for truth has to be a greatest upper bound as to what is; however that upper bound must be infinite, as it is something which is incomparable to everything else and serves as a maximum. I also agree with the examples he uses, comparing a polygon to a circle and how it there is not true equivalence among the two, but there is a correspondence of some sort among the two. This brings Cusanas to the conclusion that our ignorant instruction of the pursuit of truth is what brings us ever so closer to it, which is a very interesting viewpoint.
1. It was interesting how Eckhart describes how a creature obtains some knowledge of God through the soul. He states how the soul can know of this only though its power of the senses, like how eyes can only know of things through sight. However, God enters the soul through its essence and not the powers of its soul. Therefore the soul can not not of God the way it knows of other things. The only thing that the soul can't know is itself and since God has entered the soul through its essence, the soul cannot truly know of God.
2. It was really interesting seeing Cusanas argue for a synthesis of reason and faith as a "learned ignorance." His claim is such that reason is not capable of grasping the divine absolute because of it's infinite nature. Reason can only grasp that which is finite and use this as comparison to the infinite which attempts at but is unable to obtain true knowledge. Therefore since God has paradoxical qualities that cannot ever be truly known, all that we can know of God is that which he is not through negative theology.
I am a little confused as to what he means by "the birth". It seems as though this might be a way of speaking about communication with God? I am unsure what this part means but I found it interesting that Eckhart tries to understand what part of the soul or how the soul understands God. He also follows neo-platonic ideas that being "pure of soul" and distant from the world is ideal to acquire true knowledge except he substitutes that with God.
Nicholas Cusanas makes an interesting claim about why mathematics is a crucial means of understanding. It seems apparent that most knowledge is based on comparative relations and I thought it was insightful to use this as a way of explaining why it is we cannot comprehend infinity.
It seems that unlike earlier notions of the soul, Eckhart has embraced an unorthodox interpretation. Whatever side of the earlier debates one falls on, it was almost certainly interpreted that the soul influenced the body. According to Aristotle, it gave a body motion and, in the case of men, intellect. To Scotus, the soul contained within it the characteristics that made each person an individual. But Eckhart he appears to be saying something else entirely. He suggests that the body leaves an impression on the soul, and that this impression is what the soul knows by accepting into itself, but as a result “there is nothing so unknown to the soul as herself.” This seems a dramatic departure from the many ideas (previously or concurrently) considered orthodox at that time.
Maybe ironically, Cusanas’s ideas on intuition strike me as rather intuitive. While he uses them as a means of relating to God where I would not, the idea that there is an intuition that exists naturally within the mind of intellective beings that serves its desire to thrive seems to easily align with the experience of being an intellective creature.
1. What Eckhart says about the soul in silence being the place where we can commune with God actually makes sense to me. His sermon is beautiful, and though I wonder how his message sounds like in plain language, it is believable to me. I can sort of confirm what he says with my own experience, and what he says resonates with what I've read from other mystics in my past.
2. I also liked what Cusanas said about the limits of our knowledge. As the progress of science has shown, our knowledge has increased over time, but there are still many aspects of the workings of reality (including our own psyches) that we don't understand. I think it is important to recognize those limitations, although they may be decreased in the future.
the discussion on the soul by Eckhart was most interesting because it reminded me of previous discussions about the human sense that we have had hen he talks about how the soul and how it does not have any sensory characteristics as creatures do.
Cusanas reading and the discussion on reasoning, perspective, and knowledge was seemed to be more convincing than the previous reading about how math is a basic and innate function of a human because he more clearly argues how mathematics is apart of the comprehensive learning we do as humans.
I like the concept that we as humans cant grasp the soul and that we need a "mystic" experience to truly understand it. This seperates us from the true nature of the soul and we need to understand its devine meaning.
I also like that normal rational can grasp the soul and it is through expereience. We cannont grasp what the soul truly is but by blissful and meaningfull events we can come to know what the soul is.
1) Eckhart's description of the Soul reads to me as a connection line to God. Here the Soul works as the medium through which God connects and reveals to us religious truths. When I think of a religious soul, his description was basically what I had in mind.
2) Cusanes was a bit difficult for me to understand. It is clear that Reason doesnt straightaway reveal truth to us. Sometimes the ways in which we use Reason are incomplete, inadequate, or misguided. Is he trying to argue that ignorance is what guides us to truth, or the fear of it is?
I found Eckhart’s belief that soul are like animals in that they lack self-actualization to be interesting. He believes that the soul does not realize it is a soul. It is interesting because of the way many philosophes have discussed the soul as being ever-lasting. You would expect an entity that lives forever to realize what it is. The point that an entity needs physical form to interact with itself helps me understand why Eckhart claims that the soul does not know that it is a soul.
I feel like the fact that Eckhart help bring the vernacular of the bible to the church to be astonishing. The church is something that was of high importance during Eckhart’s time. Bringing the vernacular to the church so everyone can understand it is a big deal. I believe that Eckhart’s action made his words much more respected in his time.
Eckhart's notion that the soul does not know and remains ignorant of herself is something I found quite interesting. Granted, many of the preceding philosophers discussed were not mystics, however this does address and explain the soul as something as something more than previous readings. I like the idea that creatures can only comprehend sensory data and since the soul is not sensory, it cannot be entered by any material elements; but also that the soul cannot enter or truly engage itself, as she creates images with her own power based on what she encounters, however she cannot create one such as herself for she has no image.
ReplyDeleteFor Cusanas, I find his perspective on truth fascinating. I agree with him insofar as the requirement for truth has to be a greatest upper bound as to what is; however that upper bound must be infinite, as it is something which is incomparable to everything else and serves as a maximum. I also agree with the examples he uses, comparing a polygon to a circle and how it there is not true equivalence among the two, but there is a correspondence of some sort among the two. This brings Cusanas to the conclusion that our ignorant instruction of the pursuit of truth is what brings us ever so closer to it, which is a very interesting viewpoint.
1. It was interesting how Eckhart describes how a creature obtains some knowledge of God through the soul. He states how the soul can know of this only though its power of the senses, like how eyes can only know of things through sight. However, God enters the soul through its essence and not the powers of its soul. Therefore the soul can not not of God the way it knows of other things. The only thing that the soul can't know is itself and since God has entered the soul through its essence, the soul cannot truly know of God.
ReplyDelete2. It was really interesting seeing Cusanas argue for a synthesis of reason and faith as a "learned ignorance." His claim is such that reason is not capable of grasping the divine absolute because of it's infinite nature. Reason can only grasp that which is finite and use this as comparison to the infinite which attempts at but is unable to obtain true knowledge. Therefore since God has paradoxical qualities that cannot ever be truly known, all that we can know of God is that which he is not through negative theology.
I am a little confused as to what he means by "the birth". It seems as though this might be a way of speaking about communication with God? I am unsure what this part means but I found it interesting that Eckhart tries to understand what part of the soul or how the soul understands God. He also follows neo-platonic ideas that being "pure of soul" and distant from the world is ideal to acquire true knowledge except he substitutes that with God.
ReplyDeleteNicholas Cusanas makes an interesting claim about why mathematics is a crucial means of understanding. It seems apparent that most knowledge is based on comparative relations and I thought it was insightful to use this as a way of explaining why it is we cannot comprehend infinity.
It seems that unlike earlier notions of the soul, Eckhart has embraced an unorthodox interpretation. Whatever side of the earlier debates one falls on, it was almost certainly interpreted that the soul influenced the body. According to Aristotle, it gave a body motion and, in the case of men, intellect. To Scotus, the soul contained within it the characteristics that made each person an individual. But Eckhart he appears to be saying something else entirely. He suggests that the body leaves an impression on the soul, and that this impression is what the soul knows by accepting into itself, but as a result “there is nothing so unknown to the soul as herself.” This seems a dramatic departure from the many ideas (previously or concurrently) considered orthodox at that time.
ReplyDeleteMaybe ironically, Cusanas’s ideas on intuition strike me as rather intuitive. While he uses them as a means of relating to God where I would not, the idea that there is an intuition that exists naturally within the mind of intellective beings that serves its desire to thrive seems to easily align with the experience of being an intellective creature.
1. What Eckhart says about the soul in silence being the place where we can commune with God actually makes sense to me. His sermon is beautiful, and though I wonder how his message sounds like in plain language, it is believable to me. I can sort of confirm what he says with my own experience, and what he says resonates with what I've read from other mystics in my past.
ReplyDelete2. I also liked what Cusanas said about the limits of our knowledge. As the progress of science has shown, our knowledge has increased over time, but there are still many aspects of the workings of reality (including our own psyches) that we don't understand. I think it is important to recognize those limitations, although they may be decreased in the future.
the discussion on the soul by Eckhart was most interesting because it reminded me of previous discussions about the human sense that we have had hen he talks about how the soul and how it does not have any sensory characteristics as creatures do.
ReplyDeleteCusanas reading and the discussion on reasoning, perspective, and knowledge was seemed to be more convincing than the previous reading about how math is a basic and innate function of a human because he more clearly argues how mathematics is apart of the comprehensive learning we do as humans.
I like the concept that we as humans cant grasp the soul and that we need a "mystic" experience to truly understand it. This seperates us from the true nature of the soul and we need to understand its devine meaning.
ReplyDeleteI also like that normal rational can grasp the soul and it is through expereience. We cannont grasp what the soul truly is but by blissful and meaningfull events we can come to know what the soul is.
1) Eckhart's description of the Soul reads to me as a connection line to God. Here the Soul works as the medium through which God connects and reveals to us religious truths. When I think of a religious soul, his description was basically what I had in mind.
ReplyDelete2) Cusanes was a bit difficult for me to understand. It is clear that Reason doesnt straightaway reveal truth to us. Sometimes the ways in which we use Reason are incomplete, inadequate, or misguided. Is he trying to argue that ignorance is what guides us to truth, or the fear of it is?
I found Eckhart’s belief that soul are like animals in that they lack self-actualization to be interesting. He believes that the soul does not realize it is a soul. It is interesting because of the way many philosophes have discussed the soul as being ever-lasting. You would expect an entity that lives forever to realize what it is. The point that an entity needs physical form to interact with itself helps me understand why Eckhart claims that the soul does not know that it is a soul.
ReplyDeleteI feel like the fact that Eckhart help bring the vernacular of the bible to the church to be astonishing. The church is something that was of high importance during Eckhart’s time. Bringing the vernacular to the church so everyone can understand it is a big deal. I believe that Eckhart’s action made his words much more respected in his time.
Christopher Atuahene
Delete