I’m going to take poetic license and mix Lewis Carroll‘s classic work with the sequel that is Through the Looking-Glass. Originally Through the Looking-glassand What Alice Found There (also known as Alice Through the Looking-Glass or simply Through the Looking-Glass) is a novel published on 27 December 1871 (though indicated as 1872) by Lewis Carroll, a mathematics professor at the University of Oxford, and the sequel to his Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland. Alice goes to Wonderland as a little girl, comes back to the real world, forgets everything, and has to come back as a teenager to save Wonderland.
Typically, the meaning about those two masterpieces invoke dreams, jokes, food, drugs and sex, but I will limit myself to the symbolism and metaphors, specially in their relation to time and reality.
Alice in Wonderland’ has a recurring metaphor: Alice going down the rabbit hole is a philosopher’s quest for true knowledge. Could it be that Wonderland is a world of philosophers?
Alice’s stubborn adherence to logic in the face of absurd and nonsensical characters is seen as a vehicle for humour and a metaphor for the complexity and meaning of life. On the other hand, the nonsensical characters themselves are seen as parodies of our society.
Both works are about identity and orientation attempting to decipher reality. It is a metaphor dressed up as a “roman à clef” (where real persons or actual events figure under disguise) loosely structured around dreams, jokes, food, drugs and sex, under the prevalent notions of the Victorian Era.
The characters in both novels are also united by their protectiveness of their respective worldviews and how quickly they jump to assumptions that fit their frame of reference. The Flowers, for example, live in a world divided into flowers and weeds. When Alice says she is not a flower they denounce her as a weed, despite her protestations, because they follow a binary version of reality.
Perhaps the most impressive feature of Lewis Carroll is to present the effect of this characteristic in a number of situations which stand the same as of today and the identification of who he was referring to is irrelevant. We will present the characters and their famous quotes and what they represent to help our endeavor to decipher reality.
The Rabbit Hole
Perhaps the most important symbol in Alice in Wonderland, the Rabbit Hole and Alice descending through it represents the pursuit of philosophers for true knowledge. The White Rabbit in Alice in Wonderland symbolizes truth and following the white rabbit means following an unlikely clue and finding yourself in the middle of an extraordinary situation. This situation often challenges your beliefs and changes your life. The White Rabbit is so curious, so strange, that Alice cannot help but to follow him.
White rabbits are symbolic of love, tenderness, and inner power. In art, White hares and rabbits were sometimes the symbols of chastity and purity. Although rabbits are considered lucky animals, white rabbits in particular are symbolic of good luck and impending opportunity, things that are extremely depending on how the time flows. The pocket watch symbolizes time in relation to its particular owner and time shows up in more absolute terms at the castle of eternity in Alice in wonderland.
Time in Wonderland is troubled and topsy-turvy. Characters rush around, a sense of haste predominates, and everything seems to happen ‘just in time’ or ‘suddenly’. The arrival of the White Rabbit, running late, starts Alice’s adventures.
These adult-like features – anxiety about lateness, the watch – are indicators of a time-obsessed society. By 1855, ten years before Wonderland was published, most clocks across Britain had adopted Greenwich Mean Time. This standardisation of the clocks was often termed ‘railway time’ since it was largely brought about by fixed timetables and a faster transport network. Time was no longer local, it was national and, increasingly, universal.
The various depictions of time (late rabbits, ageing, a tea party existing out of time) don’t just challenge linear time, but the idea that time is predictable at all. Through the Looking-Glass, too, challenges the normal order of things by suggesting that underneath seemingly rigid rules and order (the chess game, predictable nursery rhyme endings), chaos is never too far away.
The Cheshire Cat
The Cheshire Cat is sometimes interpreted as a guiding spirit for Alice, as it is he who directs her toward the March Hare’s house and the mad tea party, which eventually leads her to her final destination, the garden.
What does the Mad Hatter symbolize? Ralph Steadman wrote this about his version: “THE HATTER represents the unpleasant sides of human nature”.
10 quotes from “Alice in Wonderland” that have stood the test of time:
Six impossible things Before Breakfast
“Why, sometimes I’ve believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast.”
If there’s one thing that endears Alice in Wonderland to generations of readers, it’s its charm. Some may call Alice naive for believing “impossible things,” but those aren’t the type of people who would chase a rabbit down its hole, so who needs them?
The Red Queen turns red in the face in the 1951 Disney film adaption of ”Alice in Wonderland.”
The fact that this catch phrase immediately brings to mind the image of the the Red Queen pointing and screaming until she’s red in the face shows just how much this story remains a part of popular culture
“It’s no use going back to yesterday, because I was a different person then.”
Alice (and many of Carroll’s characters) are excellent at making statements that hold greater meaning. Alice is undergoing an identity crisis because she has grown and shrunk back down, but the literal conversation she has with the caterpillar lends itself to reflection about less physical types of changes.
“We’re all mad here.”
The Cheshire Cat says this to Alice in one of the most concise descriptions of the strange world down the rabbit hole. Unlike the world Alice left behind, “mad” isn’t necessarily a bad thing. Here (and as you’re reading), you should embrace a side of you that is quirky and unpredictable, and maybe when you get back to reality, you’ll want to take a little of that with you.
Other quotes from the Cheshire Cat
Imagination is the only weapon in the war with reality.
No one does [play fair] if they think they can get away with it.”
“I’m stranger. You’re a stranger. Together, we are… strangers.”
“Never let anyone drive you crazy; it is nearby anyway and the walk is good for you.”
“I can’t know everything.”
“A rose is still a rose, even hidden under different petals.”
“You used to be much more…muchier. You’ve lost your muchness.”
“No one does [play fair] if they think they can get away with it.”
Alice was so surprised by the strange circumstances she found herself in that she (and Carroll) made up a word, according to the Oxford English Dictionary. The expression is still used to mean that something is getting increasingly confounding.
“I don’t think — ” “Then you shouldn’t talk.”
This rather cheeky interruption of Alice by the Mad Hatter is why we love him but would also never want to meet him. Indeed, not having thoughts is an excellent reason to refrain from talking. But then again, the Hatter is one to talk
“It takes all the running you can do, to keep in the same place. If you want to get somewhere else, you must run at least twice as fast as that!”
This piece of advice presents a glass half-empty, glass half-full scenario. Either it’s cause for an existential crisis that we must work hard without making any real progress, or it’s motivation to be the one that gets somewhere.
“‘Who in the world am I?’ Ah, that’s the great puzzle!”
Here’s another quote that’s transcended its place in the story. Alice has undergone so much change in so little time that she doesn’t know who she is anymore. Rather than fret over it, though, Alice considers her identity crisis to be a fun challenge, calling it a “great puzzle” to figure out.
“It would have made a dreadfully ugly child; but it makes rather a handsome pig.”
“I don’t think — ” “Then you shouldn’t talk.”
“It takes all the running you can do, to keep in the same place. If you want to get somewhere else, you must run at least twice as fast as that!”
This piece of advice presents a glass half-empty, glass half-full scenario. Either it’s cause for an existential crisis that we must work hard without making any real progress, or it’s motivation to be the one that gets somewhere.
“‘Who in the world am I?’ Ah, that’s the great puzzle!”
Here’s another quote that’s transcended its place in the story. Alice has undergone so much change in so little time that she doesn’t know who she is anymore. Rather than fret over it, though, Alice considers her identity crisis to be a fun challenge, calling it a “great puzzle” to figure out.
“‘And what is the use of a book,’ thought Alice, ‘without pictures or conversation?'”
On the anniversary of the book’s release, we’re still talking about the way this book can invoke both amusement and contemplation in readers of all ages. What’s a book without conversation, indeed.
It’s natural that different people have different ways of viewing the world. What is frustrating is their dogmatism. Not only are they closed-minded, they also see no need to justify themselves or their decisions with rationale or logic. An excellent example of this is presented in the movie at the mad tea-party. Alice asks what an un-birthday is, so the March Hare tries to explain. He struggles to explain, fails, then shifts blame onto Alice, expressing exasperation that Alice doesn’t know what an un-birthday is. It’s ridiculous and frustrating to the March Hare that he should have to explain something that is so obvious to him. As adults, we have all found our own ways of understanding the world and living our lives. There’s no simple solution to understanding the meaning of life and happiness. It’s OK that we can’t rationally justify everything we believe. What we cannot do is fool ourselves into thinking that we see the world exactly as it is, and that those who disagree with us are wrong.
Pássaros idosos não voam e não existem casas de repouso para pássaros. Portanto, os passarinhos mais jovens os alimentam. Essa é uma EXPRESSA mensagem para que seres humanos, senão conseguirem ser humanos, pelo menos exercitem o mesmo tipo de cuidado, como o fazem outros seres vivos ditos “inferiores”, que carregam em suas células Amor, Compaixão, Respeito, Fraternidade, União e Amor digno de um Cristão e que formam o eixo de uma atitude adequada.
Como e o que fazer seguindo o exemplo da natureza
Idosos
No nosso pais, legalmente, o idoso é que atinge 60 anos e embora nossa preocupação no que vai ser discutido aqui sejam pessoas com mais de 80 anos, é interessante ter em mente o Estatuto da Pessoa Idosa, sancionado através da LEI Nº 14.423, DE 22 DE JULHO DE 2022, que pode ser vista em detalhe neste documento oficial.
Deste Estatuto, os seguintes itens vão servir de base para estabelecermos como podemos enfrentar este problema dentro da nossa comunidade, especialmente a nível Municipal.
Conforme reza o conteúdo do Estatuto, os seguintes assuntos eventualmente serão resolvidos se conseguirmos uma solução adequada para o que nos propomos r
Cadastramento da população idosa em base territorial
II – atendimento geriátrico e gerontológico em ambulatórios; III – unidades geriátricas de referência, com pessoal especializado nas áreas de geriatria e gerontologia social;
Conselho Municipal da Pessoa Idosa;
IV – Conselho Estadual da Pessoa Idosa; V – Conselho Nacional da Pessoa Idosa.
Essência do Estatuto do Idoso
“Art. 20. A pessoa idosa tem direito a educação, cultura, esporte, lazer, diversões, espetáculos, produtos e serviços que respeitem sua peculiar condição de idade.” (NR)
“Art. 21. O poder público criará oportunidades de acesso da pessoa idosa à educação, adequando currículos, metodologias e material didático aos programas educacionais a ela destinados.
§ 1º Os cursos especiais para pessoas idosas incluirão conteúdo relativo às técnicas de comunicação, computação e demais avanços tecnológicos, para sua integração à vida moderna.
§ 2º As pessoas idosas participarão das comemorações de caráter cívico ou cultural, para transmissão de conhecimentos e vivências às demais gerações, no sentido da preservação da memória e da identidade culturais.” (NR)
“Art. 22. Nos currículos mínimos dos diversos níveis de ensino formal serão inseridos conteúdos voltados ao processo de envelhecimento, ao respeito e à valorização da pessoa idosa, de forma a eliminar o preconceito e a produzir conhecimentos sobre a matéria.” (NR)
‘Art. 46. A política de atendimento à pessoa idosa far-se-á por meio do conjunto articulado de ações governamentais e não governamentais da União, dos Estados, do Distrito Federal e dos Municípios.’ (NR)
O que diz o Estatuto para o Grupo que nos interessa, i.e., incapazes de cuidar de si mesmos
IV – serviço de identificação e localização de parentes ou responsáveis por pessoas idosas abandonados em hospitais e instituições de longa permanência;
V – proteção jurídico-social por entidades de defesa dos direitos das pessoas idosas;
VI – mobilização da opinião pública no sentido da participação dos diversos segmentos da sociedade no atendimento da pessoa idosa.’
Não existe nem pode existir Conselho Tutelar para Idosos
O Estatuto originado pela lei teve em mente a integração do Idoso na sociedade sem discriminação e com facilidades para facilitarem seus problemas naturais e existe um parecer do Conselho Nacional do Idoso esclarecendo isso, do qual extraimos:
O Estatuto do Idoso, em seu art. 7.°, prevê que os Conselhos Nacional, Estaduais, do Distrito Federal e Municipais do Idoso previstos na Lei n.° 8.842, de 04 de janeiro de 1994, que dispõe sobre a Política Nacional do Idoso, por sua vez, atribui aos Conselhos do Idoso a supervisão, o acompanhamento, a fiscalização e a avaliação da Política Nacional do Idoso nas respectivas instâncias administrativas, zelarão pelo cumprimento dos direitos do idoso.
Ao contrário, toda política do idoso e todas as reinvindicações dos movimentos de pessoas idosas são voltadas ao protagonismo e à autonomia da pessoa idosa. Por sinal, a 4.ª Conferência Nacional dos Direitos da Pessoa Idosa, realizada de 24 a 27 de abril de 2016, teve justamente o tema “Empoderamento e Protagonismo da Pessoa Idosa”. Portanto, a reinvindicação do segmento idoso não é de “tutela” ou “guarda”, e sim de reconhecimento e implementação de direitos.
Malgrado fato de o idoso não ser posto sob tutela, cabe esclarecer que, se o idoso, por causa transitória ou permanente, não puder exprimir sua vontade, ele deverá ser declarado Nota oficial de esclarecimento CNDI 0231616 SEI 00005.214336/2016-83 / pg. 2 relativamente incapaz, nos termos do art. 4.°, III, do Código Civil. Tal declaração somente poderá se dar em processo judicial de interdição, no qual é assegurado o direito de defesa. Se ao final do processo de interdição o juiz considerar o idoso relativamente incapaz, nomeará curador para o idoso e estabelecerá os limites da curatela.
Em suma: a tutela nunca se aplica à pessoa idosa. A pessoa idosa mantém sua capacidade civil. Caso a pessoa idosa não tenha condições de expressar sua vontade, deverá ser interditada e posta sob curatela, nos limites fixados pelo juiz.
Endereço: Rua Major Correa, nº 485 – Centro CEP: 13.880-000 Telefone: (19) 3641-5509 Email: socialvgsul@gmail.com
Sao Joao da Boa Vista
Criado em 2014 tem fundo do Idoso
Endereço: Rua General Carneiro, 344 Centro CEP: 13.870-000 Telefone: (19) 3631-0301 R 213 Email: cmi@saojoao.sp.gov.br
Fundo do Idoso
Fundo Estadual do Idoso
O que é? O Fundo Estadual do Idoso se destina a financiar programas e ações voltadas à pessoa idosa, com o objetivo de assegurar os seus direitos sociais e criar condições para promover sua autonomia, integração e participação efetiva na sociedade.
Fundo Municipal do Idoso
O Fundo Municipal dos Direitos da Pessoa Idosa será gerenciado pela Secretaria Municipal a que se vincula o Conselho Municipal dos Direitos do Idoso, sendo de competência deste a deliberação sobre a aplicação dos recursos em programas, projetos e ações voltados à pessoa idosa. Existem muitos incentivos, principalmente sob o Imposto de Renda legalmente disponiveis.
Vargem Grande do Sul tem que promulgar a seguinte Lei para se beneficiar deste mecanismo
Cadastrar para poder fazer jus aos repasses vinculados as doacoes com uso do Imposto de Renda
Ter CNPJ com natureza jurídica de Fundo Público e situação cadastral ativa. Estar vinculado ao CNPJ com endereço do município ao qual está subscrito. Contar com uma conta bancária aberta em instituição financeira pública e associada ao CNPJ informado.
Ad hoc significa “para esta finalidade“,“para isso” ou “para este efeito“. É uma expressão latina, geralmente usada para informar que determinado acontecimento tem caráter temporário e que se destina para aquele fim específico. Um exame ad hoc, um método ad hoc ou uma função ad hoc são exemplos que definem a criação de algo provisório, que vai atender apenas determinado propósito.
Tarefas designadas a este grupo
Materializar o Fundo do Idoso de Vargem Grande do Sul sancionando a lei que esta descrita na Minuta
Verificar se da tempo para sensibilizar as empresas do Município a fazerem suas declarações do Imposto de Renda pensando em contribuir para este Fundo. Se não der tempo, deixar provisão. Acionar os Escritórios de Contabilidade ou os Departamentos encarregados das Declarações do Imposto de Renda nas empresas para esta possibilidade.
Conferir com S. João da Boa Vista como eles estão agindo
Fazer um levantamento estatístico do tamanho do grupo de pessoas que eventualmente poderiam ser contempladas pelas providências a serem tomadas
Verificar se Em S. João da Boa Vista e eventualmente outros municípios num raio de x klms existem estatísticas similares e como estão lidando com o Fundo Municipal do Idoso, quando existir e com o Conselho Municipal do Idoso, também quando existir.
A Prefeitura de Dracena e Região tem um projeto em andamento com estas características de levantamento para identificar a população atendida que pode ser vista pressionando o nome dela acima.
Talvez seja um pouco cedo, mas poderia ser lançada a idéia de tornar a Vargem e Região num Polo de Atração para a Vivencia de Idosos, com oferta de espaços e incentivos fiscais, que geraria muitos empregos, consumo do comércio e industria da cidade e renda tanto para os envolvidos como os impostos. Duas hipóteses me ocorrem de imediato: Casas para Idosos e Comunidades de aposentadoria contínuas . No Brasil existem geralmenteCasas de Idosos, e tem gente já interessada tentando trazer ao Brasil o modelo americano, como por exemplo A Dom Senior Living e a Garden Ville.
No caso de ser examinado a hipótese de criar um Polo de Atração para a Vivência de Idosos as soluções indicadas foram para exemplificar e a escolha de uma que atendesse o que pretendemos teria que ser selecionada através de um estudo de caso especialmente feito para isso.
O que está inglês pode ser traduzido automaticamente bastando clicar o lado esquerdo do mouse ou tocar a tela e escolher. Pode ser criado em Português uma explicação como este projeto funciona.
Isto aqui foi um esboço para uma discussão inicial e gostaria de lembrar que nossos pais, Ana e Weimar, passaram os últimos anos da vida deles ai na Vargem. Tinham uma casa só para eles, com quatro cuidadoras, sendo 3 em turnos de 8 horas e uma para as folgas. Tinham um atendimento médico impecável ai no Hospital da Cidade. Tiveram um fim de vida invejável e claro que seu atendimento, dependeu muito da Maria Rosa e foi importantíssimo, mas sem a existência de um ambiente como o da Vargem, não seria possível a oportunidade de ouro que eles tiveram para terminar a vida de forma decente.
Para encerrar, devo mencionar que com o dinheiro que isto custou, aqui em Campinas, nossa cidade de origem, ou em S. Paulo, eles seria jogados em algum quarto dentro de alguma casa, e submetidos a um tratamento que prefiro não discutir, mas conheço bem pelas experiências de meus pares com seus pais.
Roque Ehrhardt de Campos (irmão de Maria Rosa de Campos Andrade)
Atonement. Detail of the Monument to Dante in Trento by Cesare Zocchi
I will sumarize here the entry above at Wikipedia.
Bear in mind that the word Atonement is used to describe the saving work that God did through Christ to reconcile the world to Himself, and also of the state of a person having been reconciled to God. According to The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, atonement in Christian theology is “man’s reconciliation with God through the sacrificial death of Christ.
In this monument, Cesare Zocchi depitcs two souls who have expiated, reconciled with God and are about to reach Paradise and the devil (evil) lost its quest and shows his frustration perhaps crying in desperation with his face down to the ground.
I return to the same reasoning that I presented in the introduction to Dante’s Inferno: You may not believe in God or the devil, you may think that all these religious teachings are nonsense, but how can you deny that evil exists, that we practice it, that we lose ourselves, that the devil helps to bury us, even if figuratively when we project our weaknesses and wickedness onto him and that after a lifetime all of us in some way when we have to meet ourselves, thinking about that while alive, we can never be sure that, if there is a final judgment defining our destiny, it is impossible to know what our destiny would be and the existence of a possibility like the one created by the sacrifice of Christ is an extremely attractive option and brings peace in the face of a risk of these proportions, that is, as the religious say, not returning to Father’s house and be cast into the darkness of hell. These ideas may be false projections of our ignorance, but they make such universal sense, specially when tied together with the teachings of Christ, including prayer as a crutch to carry on, especially the incredible Our Father prayer, when Jesus teaches us to pray for the things that we need. “Give us this day our daily bread.Forgive our sins.Save us.” Jesus also teaches us to pray for God’s ways above our own. All that makes such a good, perhaps perfect, sense, that most human beings espouse it making Christianity the most adopted religion by mankind.
Zocchi’s sculpture can be interpreted as God’s response to the Lord’s Prayer.
The most striking feature of all that is its simplicity and if you’re a hard core agnostic or atheist, such as myself, if I let myself be carried away by reason, the problems are all solved, because you’re really going to disappear and you don’t have to worry about anything else, but… what my heart insists on telling me that this does not happen, even without any proof or “scientific” evidence.
The ransom theory of atonement was a theory inChristian theology as to how the process of Atonement in Christianity had happened. It therefore accounted for the meaning and effect of the death of Jesus Christ. It was one of a number of historical theories, and was mostly popular between the 4th and 11th centuries, with little support in recent times. It originated in the early Church, particularly in the work of Origen. The theory teaches that the death of Christ was aransomsacrifice, usually said to have been paid to Satan, in satisfaction for the bondage and debt on the souls of humanity as a result ofinherited sin.
Aulén interpreted the ransom theory as a “victory over the powers which hold mankind in bondage: sin, death, and the devil.”[4] According to Pugh, “Ever since [Aulén’s] time, we call these patristic ideas the Christus Victor way of seeing the cross.”[5] It is sometimes known as the fishhook theory of atonement, since Church Fathers such as Cyril of Alexandria andGregory of Nyssa envisioned Christ as bait on a fishhook, luring Satan to take the bait and destroy himself.[6][
The recapitulation theory of the atonement is a doctrine in Christian theology related to the meaning and effect of the death of Jesus Christ.
While it is sometimes absent from summaries of atonement theories ,[1] more comprehensive overviews of the history of the atonement doctrine typically include a section about the “recapitulation” view of the atonement, which was first clearly formulated by Irenaeus of Lyons.[2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9]
One of the main New Testament scriptures upon which this view is based states: “[God’s purpose is, in] the fulness of the times, to sum up all things in Christ, the things in the heavens, and the things upon the earth…” (Ephesians 1:10, RV). The Greek word for ‘sum up’ was literally rendered ‘to recapitulate’ in Latin.[10]
In the recapitulation view of the atonement, Christ is seen as the new Adam who succeeds where Adam failed. Christ undoes the wrong that Adam did and, because of his union with humanity, leads humankind on to eternal life (including moral perfection).12]
As William Barclay puts in simple words: Through man’s disobedience the process of the evolution of the human race went wrong, and the course of its wrongness could neither be halted nor reversed by any human means. But in Jesus Christ the whole course of human evolution was perfectly carried out and realised in obedience to the purpose of God.
Objective paradigm
While the idea of substitutionary atonement is present in nearly all atonement theories, some argue that the specific ideas of satisfaction and penal substitution are later developments in the Roman Catholic church and in Calvinism. Both Anselm’s satisfaction theory and the penal satisfaction theory hold that human beings cannot rightfully repay the debt (to God’s honour [Anselm], or to God’s justice [penal substitution]) which was incurred through their willful disobedience to God. Since only God can make the satisfaction necessary to repay it, rather than merely forgiving humanity, God sent the God-man, Jesus Christ, to fulfill both these conditions. Christ is a sacrifice by God on behalf of humanity, taking humanity’s debt for sin upon himself, and propitiating God’s wrath. The penal substitution theory has been rejected by liberal Christians as un-Biblical, and an offense to the love of God.
According to Richard Rohr, “these theories are based on retributive justice rather than the restorative justice that the prophets and Jesus taught.” The Governmental theory, introduced by Hugo Grotius (17th century), states that Christ suffered for humanity so that God could forgive humans without punishing them while still maintaining divine justice. Jesus’ death demonstrated God’s hatred of sin, and thus God’s law (his rule, his government) is upheld (people see that sin is serious and will lead to death), and God forgives people who recognise this and respond through repentance. The governmental theory rejects the notion of penal substitution, but is still substitutionary itself in that Christ, in his exemplary sufferings, substituted for believers and the punishment they would otherwise receive.
The satisfaction theory of atonement is a theory in Catholic theology which holds that Jesus Christ redeemed humanity through making satisfaction for humankind’s disobedience through his own supererogatory obedience. The theory draws primarily from the works of Anselm of Canterbury, specifically his Cur Deus Homo (“Why was God a man?”). It has been traditionally taught in the Roman Catholic tradition of Western Christianity. Since one of God’s characteristics is justice, affronts to that justice must be atoned for. It is thus connected with the legal concept of balancing out an injustice. Anselm regarded his satisfaction view of the atonement as a distinct improvement over the older ransom theory of atonement, which he saw as inadequate, due to its notion of a debt being owed to the devil. Anselm’s theory was a precursor to the innovations of later theologians like John Calvin, who introduced the idea of Christ suffering the Father’s just punishment as a vicarious substitute.
Scholasticism was a medieval school of philosophy that employed a critical organic method of philosophical analysis predicated upon the Aristotelian 10 Categories. Christian scholasticism emerged within the monastic schools that translated scholastic Judeo—Islamic philosophies, and thereby “rediscovered” the collected works of Aristotle. Endeavoring to harmonize his metaphysics and its account of a prime mover with the Latin Catholic dogmatic trinitarian theology, these monastic schools became the basis of the earliest European medieval universities, and scholasticism dominated education in Europe from about 1100 to 1700. The rise of scholasticism was closely associated with these schools that flourished in Italy, France, Portugal, Spain and England. Scholasticism is a method of learning more than a philosophy or a theology, since it places a strong emphasis on dialectical reasoning to extend knowledge by inference and to resolve contradictions. Scholastic thought is also known for rigorous conceptual analysis and the careful drawing of distinctions. In the classroom and in writing, it often takes the form of explicit disputation; a topic drawn from the tradition is broached in the form of a question, oppositional responses are given, a counterproposal is argued and oppositional arguments rebutted. Because of its emphasis on rigorous dialectical method, scholasticism was eventually applied to many other fields of study. Scholasticism was initially a program conducted by medieval Christian thinkers attempting to harmonize the various authorities of their own tradition, and to reconcile Christian theology with classical and late antiquity philosophy, especially that of Aristotle but also of Neoplatonism.
Anselm of Canterbury
Anselm of Canterbury (1033/4–1109), also called Anselm of Aosta (Italian: Anselmo d’Aosta) after his birthplace and Anselm of Bec (French: Anselme du Bec) after his monastery, was an Italian[7] Benedictine monk, abbot, philosopher and theologian of the Catholic Church, who held the office of Archbishop of Canterbury from 1093 to 1109. After his death, he was canonized as a saint; his feast day is 21 April. As archbishop, he defended the church’s interests in England amid the Investiture Controversy. For his resistance to the English kings William II and Henry I, he was exiled twice: once from 1097 to 1100 and then from 1105 to 1107. While in exile, he helped guide the Greek bishops of southern Italy to adopt Roman rites at the Council of Bari. He worked for the primacy of Canterbury over the bishops of York and Wales but, though at his death he appeared to have been successful, Pope Paschal II later reversed himself and restored York’s independence. Beginning at Bec, Anselm composed dialogues and treatises with a rational and philosophical approach, sometimes causing him to be credited as the founder of Scholasticism. Despite his lack of recognition in this field in his own time, Anselm is now famed as the originator of the ontological argument for the existence of God and of the satisfaction theory of atonement. He was proclaimed a Doctor of the Church by a bull of Pope Clement XI in 1720.
Penal substitution (sometimes, esp. in older writings, called forensic theory) is a theory of the atonement within Christian theology, which declares that Christ, voluntarily submitting to God the Father’s plan, was punished (penalized) in the place of sinners (substitution), thus satisfying the demands of justice so God can justly forgive sins making us at one with God (atonement). It began with Luther and continued to develop with the Calvinist tradition as a specific understanding of substitutionary atonement, where the substitutionary nature of Jesus’ death is understood in the sense of a substitutionary fulfilment of legal demands for the offenses of sins.
Calvinism (also called the Reformed Tradition, Reformed Protestantism, Reformed Christianity, or simply Reformed is a major branch of Protestantism that follows the theological tradition and forms of Christian practice set down by John Calvin and other Reformation-era theologians. It emphasises the sovereignty of God and the authority of the Bible. Calvinists broke from the Roman Catholic Church in the 16th century. Calvinists differ from Lutherans (another major branch of the Reformation) on the spiritual real presence of Christ in the Lord’s Supper, theories of worship, the purpose and meaning of baptism, and the use of God’s law for believers, among other points. The label Calvinism can be misleading, because the religious tradition it denotes has always been diverse, with a wide range of influences rather than a single founder; however, almost all of them drew heavily from the writings of Augustine of Hippo twelve hundred years prior to the Reformation.
Arminian
Arminianism is a branch of Protestantism based on the theological ideas of the Dutch Reformed theologian Jacobus Arminius (1560–1609) and his historic supporters known as Remonstrants. Dutch Arminianism was originally articulated in the Remonstrance (1610), a theological statement submitted to the States General of the Netherlands. This expressed an attempt to moderate the doctrines of Calvinism related to its interpretation of predestination. The Synod of Dort (1618–19) was called by the States General to consider the Five Articles of Remonstrance. Classical Arminianism, to which Arminius is the main contributor, and Wesleyan Arminianism, to which John Wesley is the main contributor, are the two main schools of thought. Many Christian denominations have been influenced by Arminian views on the will of man being freed by grace prior to regeneration, notably the Baptists in the 17th century, the Methodists in the 18th century, and the Pentecostals in the 20th century.
The moral influence or moral example theory of atonement, developed or most notably propagated by Abelard (1079–1142), is an alternative to Anselm’s satisfaction theory of atonement. Abelard focused on changing man’s perception of God as not offended, harsh, and judgmental, but as loving.[1] According to Abelard, “Jesus died as the demonstration of God’s love,” a demonstration which can change the hearts and minds of the sinners, turning back to God.
The governmental theory of the atonement (also known as the rectoral theory, or the moral government theory) is a doctrine in Christian theology concerning the meaning and effect of the death of Jesus Christ. It teaches that Christ suffered for humanity so that God could forgive humans without punishing them while still maintaining divine justice. In the modern era it is more often taught in non-Calvinist protestant circles, yet also bearing in mind that Arminius, John Wesley and other Arminians never speak clearly of it. It is drawn primarily from the works of Hugo Grotius and later theologians like John Miley and H. Orton Wiley.
Socinianism is a nontrinitarian belief system deemed heretical by the Catholic Church and other Christian traditions. Named after the Italian theologians Lelio Sozzini (Latin: Laelius Socinus) and Fausto Sozzini (Latin: Faustus Socinus), uncle and nephew, respectively, it was developed among the Polish Brethren in the Polish Reformed Church during the 16th and 17th centuries and embraced by the Unitarian Church of Transylvania during the same period. It is most famous for its Non-trinitarian Christology but contains a number of other heretical beliefs as well.
Limited atonement (also called definite atonement or particular redemption) is a doctrine accepted in some Christian theological traditions. It is particularly associated with the Reformed tradition and is one of the five points of Calvinism. The doctrine states that though the death of Jesus Christ is sufficient to atone for the sins of the whole world, it was the intention of God the Father that the atonement of Christ’s death would work itself out in only the elect, thereby leading them without fail to salvation. According to Limited Atonement, Christ died for the sins of the elect alone, and no atonement was provided for the reprobate. This is in contrast to a belief that God’s prevenient grace (or “enabling grace”) enables all to respond to the salvation offered by God in Jesus Christ Acts 2:21 so that it is each person’s decision and response to God’s grace that determines whether Christ’s atonement will be effective to that individual. A modified form of the doctrine also exists in Molinism.
Unlimited atonement (sometimes called general atonement or universal atonement) is a doctrine in Protestant Christianity that is normally associated with Amyraldism (four-point Calvinism), as well as Arminianism and other non-Calvinist traditions. The doctrine states that Jesus died as a propitiation for the benefit of all humans without exception. It is a doctrine distinct from other elements of the Calvinist acronym TULIP and is contrary to the Calvinist doctrine of limited atonement.
A doctrinal issue that divides Christians is the question of the extent of the atonement. This question typically goes as follows: “Did Christ bear the sins of the elect alone on the cross, or did his death expiate the sins of all human beings?” Those who take this view read scriptures such as John 3:16; 1 Timothy 2:6; 4:10; Hebrews 2:9; 1 John 2:2 to say that the Bible teaches unlimited atonement.
John Main, Prior of the Benedictine Priory of Montreal, in one of his lectures, opens by saying that “The impersonal theory, however correct it may be, seems to me to be always floating in the stratosphere. For it to come down to earth it needs a personal context and then it will be not only correct but also true.
I don’t know if time passes us by or if we pass through time. The impression of this passage is a concept of time that has no alternative but an example. The place I’ve lived the longest in the US is Endicott, NY and that place for me is the US in a way. I like surfing the Internet and looking for things about that place. The story of this Italian immigrant who made his life there is perfect for the monk John Main’s commentary. RECampos
Even as a little kid, Romolo Romeo Mario Alexander De Ritis set his mind on getting his family out of poverty. That was when World War II raged around his native Fara Filiorum Petri in the Abruzzo region of Italy, a town measuring just over seven square miles.
One of three children of Maria and Nicola De Ritis, Romolo showed not only early determination, but ample and diverse talents. At one point, all the town’s residents were displaced due to an evacuation order from the occupying Germans, forcing them to travel by foot, seeking refuge in neighboring towns. “They lost nearly all their belongings,” son Armand DeRitis said. Romolo’s father — a Sacristan, musician and shoe repairman — worked in exchange for whatever money or goods others could muster to pay him. When allowed to return, the De Ritises discovered their dwelling, which had suffered much from the war, already occupied. The strangers and DeRitises coexisted in the premises until the strangers found other shelter. To find a piece of wood to start a fire was a big deal, let alone to find food. “The authorities would dump grain in the middle of the town and people would rush with their buckets so they could make bread,” Armand said. He would never forget the trauma of bombings, of Nazi occupation, of near-starvation. As he grew, he promised his parents and siblings that he would someday, somehow, give them a life of security and prosperity. And within 12 years, he fulfilled that monumental task, bringing them all to the United States and helping them find their own successes, as he had done in his three Vestal businesses.
Romolo, second left, leaving Italy and in 2015
One of three children of Maria and Nicola De Ritis, Romolo showed not only early determination, but ample and diverse talents. At one point, all the town’s residents were displaced due to an evacuation order from the occupying Germans, forcing them to travel by foot, seeking refuge in neighboring towns. “They lost nearly all their belongings,” son Armand DeRitis said. Romolo’s father — a Sacristan, musician and shoe repairman — worked in exchange for whatever money or goods others could muster to pay him. When allowed to return, the De Ritises discovered their dwelling, which had suffered much from the war, already occupied. The strangers and DeRitises coexisted in the premises until the strangers found other shelter. To find a piece of wood to start a fire was a big deal, let alone to find food. “The authorities would dump grain in the middle of the town and people would rush with their buckets so they could make bread,” Armand said. As a 12-year-old apprentice, Romolo demonstrated a natural ability in woodworking, a skill that would serve him well the rest of his life, including time in Rome when he labored as an antique furniture refinisher after the war.
Before Romolo died on July 23 at age 83, he captured his memories on handwritten pages, painstakingly translated from Italian by son Joe. “Up to that time, we believed that we knew our father very well,” said Joe, who lives in Vestal. “We were always close as a family; he told us many stories and we shared many experiences together.” They had always respected and loved him. Now talking about his trials, successes — and the diligent provider he had been — brings tears of pride and gratitude to their eyes.
Gifted child
Two years ago during a trip to Italy, Armand witnessed a reunion of his father and the man who had employed him. “They hadn’t seen each other for 50 years but immediately recognized each other,” said Armand, of Binghamton. “And they both started crying.” When Romolo had worked there, three hours from his hometown, he sent money home and saved for what he hoped would be a new life in America. That opportunity came when his uncle Armand, who lived in Binghamton, offered to sponsor him.
New life awaits
Romolo began his grueling journey across the Atlantic on April 24, 1956, on board the Queen Frederica. He arrived in America 10 days later as a man with many possibilities but only pennies in his pocket — and even less ability to communicate. But life barreled forward for the young man determined to help his family back home.
Living with Uncle Armando and Aunt Teresa De Ritis on Hawley Street, he asked the age-old question, “Which way EJ?” He found a position in the Endicott Johnson Shoes Scout factory in Johnson City, doing anything from sweeping the floor to assembling the products by day and playing in their orchestra as a lead trumpeter on the weekends. “I remember him telling us he would often stay late and work overtime to earn more money for the family,” Joe said. Almost immediately, too, Romolo started night school at the American Civic Center so he could learn not only to read and write English but to attain the necessary knowledge to become an American citizen.
Within three months of Romolo’s arrival, he met his future wife and love of his life, Italian-American Agatha Angela Vilasi of Second Street, while he was playing at one of EJ’s functions. “The orchestra had taken a break and the wife of an American coworker introduced him to a group of women,” Joe said. Agatha was among them. Another month passed and he pressed forward into a better job, using his hard-forged skills. He began designing and constructing kitchens for Valley Craft in Johnson City, while he and his trumpet continued their weekend gigs with the EJ Orchestra. Two years after leaving Italy, he forked over money he had saved in order to buy his first car, a blue-and-white 1956 Ford Fairlane Sunliner convertible. “Owning a large American vehicle was a big highlight and he considered it one of his first accomplishments in the U.S.,” Joe explained. That same year, on Nov. 8, 1958, he wed the soul mate with whom he would spend 48 happily married years.
First son Nicola entered the world in December 1959. Grief closed 1965 when son Romulus died due to complications from his pre-term birth. Joe was born in 1968, and Armand two years later. Jan. 3, 1962, was a banner day, when Romolo both graduated from night school and became an American citizen. Both filled him with extreme pride — but didn’t come close to satisfying his ambitions. A year and two months later he and Agatha opened Rommie’s Luncheonette inside Kent’s Drug Store in Vestal Plaza.
Then in October 1963, an even more soul-satisfying event: Romolo picked up his emigrating parents from New York Harbor. “He talked about that moment a lot,” Joe said. “Going to New York and seeing their ship coming in.” The family’s joy doubled when, in March of 1964, his brother Silvano came to the United States through his marriage to Linda, who was American by birth. That luncheonette was such a success that in March of 1965, the couple opened The Gondola Restaurant, directly across from the drug store in the Vestal Plaza, Nick said. The Gondola would later expand to three times its original size and add a formal dining area and elegant cocktail lounge, with Romolo doing all the construction himself while still working for Valley Craft. He and his wife worked long, hard hours making their locally famous lasagna, fresh pasta and Italian pastries.
They never neglected their duties to the church, though. Friend Paul Morabito of Conklin remembers those days, when several families would move from the pews to somebody’s house, enjoying each other’s company a while longer. “I spent a lot of time with him,” Paul said. “He influenced how I look at family, how I raise my children, even how I view my heritage.” The Gondola would flourish for 30 years, and Romolo’s career with Valley Craft, ending as department manager and shareholder, would span 43 years.
As the hard work began to take its toll on Agatha and somebody made an offer to buy the restaurant, they sold their interest in The Gondola. Son Nick, a travel agent at another agency, suggested they open one of their own, whereupon they launched the A-Royal Travel Agency on the Vestal Parkway. “They had always been interested in that business because they knew others who had done it,” Nick said. “They thought it might be very interesting.”
And indeed it was, until Agatha died in 2006. Not that Romolo spent every split-second working. He loved to golf, was part owner of a harness racehorse named Buckeye Billy and he loved when family gathered around his table on Sundays. And as his sons grew, started their families and found their own paths in life, so did his burgeoning pride in them.
Back to his roots
Agatha had harbored a lifelong dream of visiting Italy, and in September 1967 she, Romolo and son Nick toured the country of their shared ancestry.
The couple enjoyed another monumental milestone in June of 1968: completion of their home on Indiana Street in Binghamton, with much of the construction done by Romolo. Not needing a mortgage or financial help of any kind, he and Agatha were appropriately proud. Nick has a vivid memory dating back to 1978, a year after he had become obsessed by the Trans Am in the movie “Smokey and the Bandit.” He talked about it all the time, but his dad never seemed to pay attention. So Nick saved every cent he could for a down payment, and intended to also trade in his Firebird to buy the car of his dreams. “I went down to Dietzsch Pontiac-Cadillac on Court Street and gave them my money and signed the contract for a Trans Am,” he said. “I went back to The Gondola and showed my mom the contract.
She didn’t share his enthusiasm. Romolo looked at the contract, and told Nick he had better go get his money back. So off Nick went again, this time on a Monday with his very unhappy father riding shotgun. “I told them, ‘My dad’s sitting outside in the car and he’s gonna come in here and make a big scene,” Nick said. They reluctantly gave him his money — and told him never to come back. The next two days found Nick supremely depressed. Then on Thursday, he had a class at Broome Community College, and his girlfriend and her dad drove him back and forth. “When I got home, my Firebird was right in the driveway where I left it, and next to it was this Trans Am I had been trying to get,” Nick said. “My mother told me, ‘It’s not that your father didn’t want you to get it — it’s just that he wanted to get it for you.’” That’s how he was, Nick said. He just wanted to make everybody happy.
Intentions fulfilled
Romolo never forgot his promise to his family, and he fulfilled it in October of 1968 when his brother Lorenzo, with his family, arrived in the United States. The whole clan was now reunited, and his brothers would go on to achieve their own versions of success. Romolo Romeo Mario Alexander DeRitis’ long-ago promise for reunification — and even prosperity — had been realized. “He did a lot with little education and little money, which is very admirable,” son Armand DeRitis said. “His main goal was always making everybody else happy.” Romolo is survived by his three children Nicola De Ritis and Ann Mihalko, Joseph and Joanna De Ritis, Armando (Dino) De Ritis and Ashley Sayre, grandchildren Christie, Lisa and Andrea De Ritis and their mother Colleen Miller De Ritis. He is also survived by his brother Silvano and Linda De Ritis, sister- in-law Theresa De Ritis, brother-in-law Joseph and Nancy Vilasi as well as many nieces, nephews and cousins.
Follow Valerie on Twitter @PSBValerieZehl.
ROMOLO DE RITIS OBITUARY
De Ritis, Romolo Romeo Mario Alexander
Romolo Romeo Mario Alexander DeRitis, 83, beloved husband, father and grandfather went to be with the Lord on Thursday July 23, 2015. He passed away peacefully surrounded by his loving family. He was predeceased by his loving wife, Agatha De Ritis of 48 years, his parents Maria and Nicola De Ritis, his brother Lorenzo De Ritis. He is survived by his three children Nicola De Ritis and Ann Mihalko, Joseph and Joanna De Ritis, Armando (Dino) De Ritis and Ashley Sayre, grandchildren Christie, Lisa and Andrea De Ritis and their mother Colleen Miller De Ritis. He is also survived by his brother Silvano and Linda De Ritis, sister in law Theresa De Ritis, brother in law Joseph and Nancy Vilasi. Niece Maria and Anthony Mincolla, nephew Filandro and Kim De Ritis, nieces Maria and Carlo Ognibene, Silvia Russell and Patricia and JP VanOrman, nephew Anthony De Ritis, nephews Biagio and Santo Del Villano, nephews Joseph Jr. and Shelley Vilasi, Peter and Susan Vilasi, nieces Donna and Dale Powers and Angela and Matt McConnell; many cousins and special friends in United States and Italy, including Tony and Rose Guido, and Paul and Charlene Morabito. He was born on September 25, 1931 in Fara Filiorum Petri, Italy. As a young man in Italy, he played trumpet in the town orchestra. He also worked in Rome Italy as an antique furniture refinisher. He immigrated to the United States in 1956 and married Agatha in 1958. He worked for the Endicott-Johnson Corporation and was a lead trumpet player in their orchestra. He moved on to a career designing and building kitchens at Valley Craft in Johnson City. Most significantly, he along with his wife Agatha, started and operated their own successful businesses spanning nearly forty years – The Gondola Restaurant in the Vestal Plaza and A- Royal Travel Agency in Vestal. He was very proud of his Italian heritage and felt great honor in becoming an American citizen. He enjoyed playing golf, playing as often as possible. He was a skilled craftsman in the art of carpentry and enjoyed woodworking projects. He was a talented musician who loved playing his keyboard. He loved to cook and have traditional Sunday dinners with his family. He had a wonderful sense of humor and enjoyed making people laugh. He will be missed very much by everyone who knew him and will live on forever in our hearts. We are sure he is happy now, eternally reunited with his beloved wife Agatha. A funeral mass will be offered on Monday, July 27, 2015 at 9:30am at St. Mary of the Assumption Church. Entombment will follow in Calvary Cemetery. The family will receive friends on Sunday, July 26, 2015 from 2-5 pm at the James V. DeMarco & Son Funeral Home, 737 Chenango Street, Port Dickinson NY.
Obituary Published by Press & Sun-Bulletin on Jul. 25, 2015.
Da mesma maneira que o tempo não tem definição, pois é uma ilusão e, para fins práticos, é o que o relógio indica, a realidade compartilha a mesma condição: é uma ilusão e, para fins práticos, é o que nossos sentidos indicam para nós. Isso é agravado pelo fato de expressarmos tudo isso através da palavra escrita ou impressa ou, finalmente, através da literatura, que é extremamente estreita e limitada para conter todas as dimensões que compõem a realidade como ela se apresenta a nós. Mesmo se ampliarmos as dimensões da palavra impressa para acessar a realidade, através do teatro, cinema ou formas mais amplas do que a literatura, ainda de alguma forma ficamos presos nela, especialmente em nossa cultura que abandonamos outras formas de expressão por séculos para nos comunicarmos em favor da palavra impressa. Racionalmente, é bastante simples, quase uma piada, definir que existem três tipos de realidade, como a figura indica:
Tipos de Realidade
1. Realidade Objetiva
A realidade objetiva é o “padrão ouro” ou padrão científico para o que é real. Descreve tudo o que é mensurável, observável e existiria mesmo que os seres humanos não existissem. Os exemplos seriam: Leis físicas. Coisas físicas. Se você estiver segurando uma laranja, poderá comê-la.
2. Realidade Subjetiva
A realidade subjetiva é o que você acredita. Outros podem acreditar no oposto completo e ainda estaria bem. A realidade subjetiva é uma escala que varia de um extremo ao outro, com algumas pessoas acreditando em um extremo, algumas no outro extremo e a maioria no meio. Geralmente, há evidências abundantes para apoiar todas as posições na escala. O exemplo mais simples são as crenças. Algumas pessoas têm crenças úteis sobre algo, outras têm crenças limitantes sobre a mesma coisa. Outros exemplos incluem: Visões políticas. Copo meio cheio ou copo meio vazio.
3. Realidade Intersubjetiva É um sub caso de realidade subjetiva. Descreve coisas que existem porque acreditamos coletivamente que existem, a ponto de quase considerá-las realidade objetiva. Os exemplos incluem: Dinheiro. Religião. Fama e celebridade. Leis.
A realidade tipo 1, objetiva, científica, foi aqui amplamente discutida e sugiro as seguintes postagens para situá-la: (use o tradutor automático)
Essas noções estão muito longe de nossa experiência cotidiana e, para todos os propósitos práticos, não significam nada. A intenção aqui é explorar os outros dois tipos, fortemente apoiados nesse elo fraco e limitado que é a literatura. Em vez de tentar descobrir com minha capacidade medíocre, usarei um artigo de um gigante da literatura, Salman Rushdie, publicado há algum tempo na New Yorker:
A ruptura nos antigos acordos sobre a realidade é agora a realidade mais significativa, e o mundo talvez possa ser melhor explicado em termos de narrativas conflitantes e muitas vezes incompatíveis. Fotografia de Juergen Loesel / VISUM / Redux
“O que, você está louco? Você está louco?” Exigências de Falstaff ao Príncipe Hal, em “Henrique IV, Parte 1” de Shakespeare. “Não é a verdade a verdade?” A piada, é claro, é que ele está mentindo, e o príncipe está em vias de expô-lo como um mentiroso.
Em uma época como a atual, quando a própria realidade parece estar sob ataque em todos os lugares, a noção dúbia da verdade de Falstaff parece ser compartilhada por muitos líderes poderosos. Nos três países com os quais passei minha vida me preocupando – Índia, Reino Unido e Estados Unidos – falsidades egoístas são regularmente apresentadas como fatos, enquanto informações mais confiáveis são denegridas como “notícias falsas”. No entanto, os defensores do real, tentando represar a torrente de desinformação que nos inunda a todos, muitas vezes cometem o erro de ansiar por uma idade de ouro em que a verdade fosse incontestável e universalmente aceita, e de argumentar que o que precisamos é retornar a essa idade feliz consenso.
A verdade é que a verdade sempre foi uma ideia contestada. Como estudante de história, em Cambridge, aprendi desde cedo que algumas coisas eram “fatos básicos” – isto é, eventos indiscutíveis, como a Batalha de Hastingsocorrida em 1066, ou que a Declaração de Independência Americana foi adotado em 4 de julho de 1776. Mas a criação de um fato histórico foi o resultado de um significado particular atribuído a um evento. A travessia do Rubicãopor Júlio César é um fato histórico. Mas muitas outras pessoas cruzaram aquele rio, e suas ações não interessam à história. Essas travessias não são, nesse sentido, fatos. Também a passagem do tempo muitas vezes muda o significado de um fato. Durante o Império Britânico, a revolta militar de 1857 ficou conhecida como Motim Indiano, e, porque um motim é uma rebelião contra as autoridades competentes, esse nome e, portanto, o significado desse fato, colocaram os índios “motinados” no lugar errado . Os historiadores indianos hoje se referem a esse evento como a Revolta Indiana, o que o torna um tipo de fato totalmente diferente, o que significa uma coisa diferente. O passado é constantemente revisado de acordo com as atitudes do presente.
Há, entretanto, alguma verdade na ideia de que no Ocidente do século XIX havia um consenso bastante difundido sobre o caráter da realidade. Os grandes romancistas da época — Gustave Flaubert, George Eliot, Edith Whartone assim por diante — podiam presumir que eles e seus leitores, falando de modo geral, concordavam sobre a natureza do real, e a grande era do romance realista foi construída sobre aquele fundamento. Mas esse consenso foi construído sobre uma série de exclusões. Era de classe média e branca. Os pontos de vista, por exemplo, dos povos colonizados ou das minorias raciais – pontos de vista a partir dos quais o mundo parecia muito diferente da realidade burguesa retratada, digamos, em “A Era da Inocência“ ou “Middlemarch” ou “Madame Bovary” – foram amplamente apagados da narrativa. A importância de grandes assuntos públicos também foi muitas vezes marginalizada. Em toda a obra de Jane Austen, asGuerras Napoleônicasmal são mencionadas; na imensa obra deCharles Dickens, a existência do Império Britânicoé reconhecida apenas de relance.
No século XX, sob a pressão de enormes mudanças sociais, o consenso oitocentista revelou-se frágil; sua visão da realidade começou a parecer, pode-se dizer, falsa. A princípio, alguns dos maiores artistas literários procuraram narrar a realidade em mudança usando os métodos do romance realista – como Thomas Mann fez em “Buddenbrooks” ou Junichiro Tanizaki em “The Makioka Sisters” (As irmãs Marioka) – mas gradualmente o romance realista parecia mais e mais problemático, e escritores de Franz Kafka a Ralph Ellison e Gabriel García Márquez criaram textos mais estranhos e surreais, contando a verdade por meio de inverdades óbvias, criando um novo tipo de realidade, como que por mágica.
Argumentei, durante grande parte da minha vida como escritor, que a ruptura nos antigos acordos sobre a realidade é agora a realidade mais significativa e que talvez o mundo possa ser melhor explicado em termos de narrativas conflitantes e muitas vezes incompatíveis. Na Caxemira e no Oriente Médio, e na batalha entre a América progressista e oTrumpistão,vemos exemplos de tais incompatibilidades. Também tenho sustentado que as consequências dessa nova atitude argumentativa e até polêmica em relação ao real têm profundas implicações para a literatura – que não podemos, ou não devemos, fingir que ele não existe. Acredito que a influência no discurso público de mais e mais variadas vozes tem sido uma coisa boa, enriquecendo nossas literaturas e tornando mais complexa nossa compreensão do mundo.
E, no entanto, agora enfrento, como todos nós, um verdadeiro enigma. (suponho que no significado de problema confuso e questão difícil REC). Como podemos argumentar, por um lado, que a realidade moderna tornou-se necessariamente multidimensional, fraturada e fragmentada e, por outro lado, que a realidade é uma coisa muito particular, uma série indiscutível de coisas que são assim, que precisam ser defendidas contra os ataques, para ser franco, das coisas que não são assim, que estão sendo promulgadas, digamos, pela administração Modi na Índia, a equipe do Brexit no Reino Unido e pelo presidente dos Estados Unidos? Como combater os piores aspectos da Internet, esse universo paralelo em que informações importantes e lixo total coexistem, lado a lado, com, aparentemente, os mesmos níveis de autoridade, tornando mais difícil do que nunca diferenciá-los? Como resistir à erosão da aceitação pública de “fatos básicos”, fatos científicos, fatos comprovados por evidências sobre, digamos, mudanças climáticas ou vacinas para crianças? Como combater a demagogia política que busca fazer o que os autoritários sempre quiseram – minar a crença do público nas evidências e dizer aos seus eleitorados, com efeito: “Não acredite em nada exceto em mim, pois eu sou a verdade”? O que fazemos sobre isso? E qual seria, especificamente, o papel da arte, e o papel das artes literárias em particular?
Não pretendo ter uma resposta completa. Acho que precisamos reconhecer que a ideia de verdade de qualquer sociedade é sempre o produto de um argumento, e precisamos melhorar para vencer esse argumento. A democracia não é educada. Muitas vezes é uma disputa de gritos em praça pública. Precisamos estar envolvidos na discussão se quisermos ter alguma chance de vencê-la. E no que diz respeito aos escritores, precisamos reconstruir a crença de nossos leitores no argumento a partir de evidências factuais e fazer o que a ficção sempre fez bem – construir, entre o escritor e o leitor, um entendimento sobre o que é real. . Não pretendo reconstruir o consenso estreito e exclusivo do século XIX. Gosto da visão mais ampla e controversa da sociedade encontrada na literatura moderna. Mas quando lemos um livro de que gostamos, ou mesmo amamos, nos encontramos de acordo com seu retrato da vida humana. Sim, dizemos, assim somos, assim fazemos uns aos outros, é verdade. Talvez seja aí que a literatura pode ajudar mais. Podemos fazer com que as pessoas concordem, neste tempo de discordância radical, sobre as verdades da grande constante, que é a natureza humana. Vamos começar a partir daí.
Na Alemanha, após a Segunda Guerra Mundial, os autores do que se convencionou chamar Trümmerliteratur, ou “literatura de escombros”, sentiram a necessidade de reconstruir sua língua, envenenada pelo nazismo, assim como seu país, que jazia em ruínas. Eles entenderam que a realidade, a verdade, precisava ser reconstruída de baixo para cima, com uma nova linguagem, assim como as cidades bombardeadas precisavam ser reconstruídas. Acho que podemos aprender com o exemplo deles. Estamos mais uma vez, embora por razões diferentes, no meio dos escombros da verdade. E cabe a nós – escritores, pensadores, jornalistas, filósofos – assumir a tarefa de reconstruir a crença de nossos leitores na realidade, sua fé na verdade. E fazer isso com uma nova linguagem, do zero.
Tendo em vista as limitações que temos como bem discutido anteriormente, eu, REC, quero particularizar uma situação que estamos vivendo no Brasil neste momento, Natal de 2022, quando estamos diante da possibilidade de Lula poder se tornar Presidente do Brasil, que ele conseguiu por meio de uma eleição fraudada e claramente seguindo um padrão que ele, com Fidel Castro instalado em toda a América Latina no chamado Foro de São Paulo, que em uma imagem pode ser entendido do que se trata (a partir de dezembro de 2022):
Este mapa supõe que o atual vencedor das eleições no Brasil, Lula, assumirá e não considera o fato de que Pedro Castilho, do Peru, recentemente sofreu impeachment após tentar dissolver o parlamento. Essa situação foi orquestrada e executada sob um plano conhecido como Foro de São Paulo, que funciona basicamente por meio do sistema democrático a ser manipulado para trazer o poder para as ideias de Fidel Castro. No Brasil, 9 dos 11 desembargadores do STF são vermelhos, foram colocados lá pelo Lula e colocam o país numa camisa de força que chamamos de ditadura do judiciário, com um ministro que manda mais que o nosso presidente. A única forma de quebrar isso é colocar os militares no comando, o que já aconteceu de 64 a 83 em uma experiência desastrosa, que faz os militares hesitarem em fazer o mesmo novamente. Mas parece inevitável, pelos excessos que esse ministro ditador está fazendo, sendo os mais graves, corrompendo o cálculo eleitoral dando a vitória a Lula, um dos orquestradores do Foro de São Paulo e que tem dado bilhões, sim, exatamente, bilhões, de dólares de Cuba para todos esses esquerdistas desses países latino-americanos, que os levaram a tomar o poder. Lula governou o Brasil por cerca de 12 anos. Há uma previsão formal de como seria a lei e a ordem se entrarmos em guerra, que pode ser por invasão externa, mas também pode ser por tentativa de golpe de Estado organizado internamente e, no nosso caso, há evidências de que isso está acontecendo com influência e ajuda externas. O comunismo, em sua versão clássica, previa que sua forma de ver a realidade se espalharia e se apoderaria naturalmente, já que a classe trabalhadora existe em todos os países e, na opinião deles, é explorada e vilipendiada e bastava perceber que tudo iria caia no lugar por si só. Como se viu, foi o motor da guerra fria e a realidade prevaleceu e a queda do muro de Berlim que detonou o fim da União Soviética explodiu diante desses imbecis que querem criar uma realidade que não tem ligação com a realidade . Como é sabido, nós latino-americanos, principalmente os brasileiros, somos lentos, ignorantes e tudo aqui é tardio e estamos um dia depois da experiência da civilização, se é que nossos hábitos e costumes podem ser enquadrados como civilização… No caso da Europa e dos EUA, apenas como observação, o marxismo clássico resultou no que é geralmente conhecido como Escola de Frankfurt, e, como explicarei em detalhes no Post Realidade nos moldes da Escola de Frankfurt, que é a estratégia para reviver o fracasso que foi a União Soviética e as previsões de Marx sobre a Revolução do Proletariado.
A Escola de Frankfurt (A primeira frase da entrada da Wikipedia é uma mentira açucarada no estilo da esquerda, pois omite que o motivo pelo qual apareceu foi o fracasso em instalar o comunismo na União Soviética. Explico em detalhes na sequência. REC) é uma versão moderna da visão de Marx de como seria instituída a ditadura do proletariado. Seus títulos mais conhecidos são O Manifesto Comunista e sua magnum opus, Das Kapital. Seu pensamento político e filosófico teve uma enorme influência na história intelectual, econômica e política subsequente, criando uma escola de teoria social. Ele acreditava que a história humana poderia ser reduzida a uma única fórmula, com base em sua visão sobre o que nos move. Pode ser resumido em sua famosa frase: “A história de toda sociedade existente até hoje é a história das lutas de classes” Seu primeiro aspecto importante é que, até então, as pessoas pensavam em coisas centradas em heróis e líderes individuais, ou em ideias geralmente aceitas. Ele introduziu a ideia de que o verdadeiro protagonismo era entre as classes. Diferentemente dos filósofos que o precederam, que tentaram entender ou interpretar o mundo, ele queria mudar o mundo, ênfase compartilhada por Engels, que assinou com ele o Manifesto Comunista. Seu panfleto visa explicar os valores e a agenda política do comunismo, um sistema de crenças proposto por um grupo de alemães socialistas radicais. Em suma, o Manifesto prega que existem apenas duas classes em conflito direto, a burguesia, dona do capital, e o proletariado, a classe trabalhadora. Para Marx, o sistema dos artesãos até então havia sido substituído pela manufatura. Para Marx, também, a burguesia não tinha outro valor senão “pagamento em dinheiro” e o valor pessoal tornou-se “valor de troca”. Ele explora isso em sua “mais-valia”, onde interpreta que os valores morais, religiosos e até sentimentais foram esquecidos e que de cientistas, advogados a padres, eles passaram a ser assalariados, o que foi substituído por “uma ampla exploração, sem vergonha, direta, bruta.” Ele atribuiu isso à “liberdade irracional” introduzida pelo livre comércio. A única solução para esse estado de coisas era transformar todos os meios de produção econômica, como terra, matérias-primas, ferramentas, fábricas, em propriedade comum, daí sua famosa frase “De cada um segundo sua capacidade, a cada um segundo suas necessidades”. A Dialética Marxista vem das ideias que ele tomou de Hegel, que descreveu a realidade não como sendo um estado de coisas, (tese), mas um processo de mudança contínua que contém em si um conflito interno (antítese). Ele acreditava, como Hegel, que nos é proibido saber, ou sentir, como as coisas realmente são no mundo, mas apenas sabemos e sentimos como elas aparecem para nós. Para Hegel, a mente, ou o espírito, em seu percurso histórico, em incontáveis ciclos dialéticos, progrediria rumo a um estado de harmonia absoluta, o Geist, ou ZeitGeist. Marx separa-se aqui de Hegel, porque no lugar da viagem, ele quer uma mudança real, aqui e agora e no lugar do Geist de Hegel, ele, no final do processo, na sociedade perfeita, acreditava que todos trabalhariam harmoniosamente rumo a um maior bem-estar. O que o interessa e excita é isso. Nos grossos volumes da obra Das Kapital, ele discorre detalhadamente sobre a formação das classes, descrevendo-a como em tempos anteriores os seres humanos, responsáveis únicos pela produção de tudo o que consumiam, passaram a depender uns dos outros, com o surgimento de uma forma de “negociação”. Isso teria levado a uma especialização de cada atividade, que passaria a definir as pessoas, que ditaria onde e como essa pessoa deveria viver. Também ditaria com quem essa sociedade se harmonizaria e com quem entraria em conflito. Daí o conflito de classes, que Marx dividiu em quatro etapas principais. Ele também elaborou que política, leis, arte, religiões e filosofias, ou “superestruturas”, teriam se desenvolvido para servir aos valores e interesses da classe dominante, e o governante seria impedido de alterar os eventos, mas poderia apenas promovê-los. Ele chama isso de Zeitgeist, ou espírito da época, que seria regido por um espírito absoluto que teria se desenvolvido ao longo do tempo conforme descrito acima. Para Marx, ninguém deixa sua marca, a época define as pessoas. De Feuerbach ele tirou que a religião é intelectualmente falsa e contribui para a miséria humana, pois criaríamos deuses à nossa própria imagem a partir de um amálgama de virtudes e sendo uma invenção que seria um sonho e nada tem a ver com o mundo real. Como a religião resgata o nosso “eu”, que é desprezado e alienado pelo sistema descrito acima, o melhor é acabar com a religião, para que surja a consciência. Ele até discutiu sua utopia marxista, poder político e como o caminho para a revolução seria inevitável. Ele não previu o comunismo do tipo que foi implantado no século XX, e o que dele resultou na China, na União Soviética, em Cuba, etc.
Crítica
A maior crítica que pesa sobre ele é que ele é simplista e superficial, restringindo-se à dialética em seus moldes e ignorando a realidade, a criatividade humana e o progresso, que, aliás, ocorreu e impediu a classe trabalhadora de desejar algo diferente do que conseguiu. Ele imaginou um proletariado virtuoso e dominante, um novo tipo de ser humano emergiria do proletariado. Imaginou também que o crime era efeito da pobreza e que desapareceria quando passassem os efeitos da nova ordem. Ele não previu que o comunismo promove o culto da personalidade do ditador dominante, o que ocorreu em todos os lugares onde suas ideias foram a base de alguma revolução e mudança de sistema. A Escola de Frankfurt primou por entender porque fracassou e propôs novos caminhos para alcançar sua “nova ordem”. (Para quem entende Inglês, a postagem nesta lingua é mais completa )
A Escola de Frankfurt
Essa escola de pensamento trabalha principalmente sobre o que Marx chamou de superestrutura e estrutura ou “Base”:
Superestrutura: tudo que não é diretamente ligado com a produção
Base:
Meios de produção (ferramentas, máquinas, fábricas, terra, matéria prima)
Relações de Produção (Lumpemproletariado, Proletariado, Aristocracia do Trabalho, Pequenos burgueses e burgueses, propriedade privada, capital, comodities, etc.)
O conjunto se move num padrão espiral e a base geralmente domina
O marxismo analisa a sociedade topograficamente, ou seja, como se fosse um edifício. Na “Base” ou estrutura, estão as forças produtivas e suas relações com a produção, as tecnologias para produzir, as forças produtivas, ou os materiais e recursos, que geram os bens de que a sociedade necessita. Na “Superestrutura” está o Estado, a ideologia, a religião, a cultura, as artes, etc. O objetivo da Escola de Frankfurt é demolir esse prédio, explodindo os pilares de sustentação, que são principalmente a família, a religião, o patriotismo, que se dão principalmente pelo viés educacional e filosófico. Era preciso penetrar o pensamento pela consciência, gerar uma mudança de paradigmas socioculturais que permitisse às pessoas cooptar suas vontades sem suspeitar que eram vítimas de manipulação mental, ou seja, trabalhavam pela revolução sem saber. Para isso foi preciso corromper a herança cristã, portadora da moral ocidental, criando novas formas e manifestações culturais e grupos que as representassem. Uma coisa difícil de entender, porque é intencionalmente e cuidadosamente disfarçada, é que a forma de atacar o capitalismo e a moral cristã, difere dos livres pensadores e filósofos que não aceitam esta ordem de coisas. No caso da Escola de Frankfurt, isso se faz dentro de uma ótica que confereimanênciaao marxismo, ou seja, uma noção como a de Deus ou de uma mente ou espírito abstrato que permeia ou está entremeada como um todo na realidade do mundo.
Eles não são meros concorrentes. Eles formam uma equipe interdisciplinar que estuda e aprende os conceitos mais importantes dos críticos predecessores, incorporando deles tudo o que poderia ser valioso e complementar à tese marxista, reunindo tudo sob o mesmo corpus ou vade mecum, que é sua inefável “teoria crítica“ (pela qual ela também é conhecida) . Outra característica, que já aparece na obra de Gramsci, em seus “Cadernos do Cárcere” (use o tradutor automático, não tem em Português) é a preocupação em deixar tudo mastigado e desamarrado para que os esquerdistas do futuro possam simplesmente se apropriar da realidade “desmontada” que supostamente ficará com os destruição de valores cristãos ou afins, para que apliquem os postulados do socialismo, ou do comunismo, da forma que a teoria de Marx previu sem a resistência que a sociedade tradicional apresenta. Marx Horkheimer escreveu a um amigo em 1930, preocupado com a ascensão do nazismo na Alemanha: “Diante do que agora ameaça engolir a Europa e talvez o mundo, nosso trabalho é essencialmente projetado para preservar certas coisas na noite que se aproxima: é uma espécie de mensagem em uma garrafa”. Fidel Castro encontrou esta garrafa e entendeu seu conteúdo com maestria, leu e explicou para Lula, que é analfabeto e não sabe ler, e que deu origem ao Foro de São Paulo, que levaria pouco mais de 30 anos para se concretizar, como acontece neste momento do início de 2023, na América Latina, que só falta o Brasil para continuar sendo o contexto perfeito para finalmente aplicar a utopia de Marx. Eu, REC, não sou futurólogo, mas a habitual superficialidade e a tradicional falta de ética que caracterizam tudo o que a esquerda faz, vão levá-los a uma explosão de proporções memoráveis que deverá criar uma quarta versão da Escola de Frankfurt, já que esta é o terceira e está prestes a falir como tudo o que se constrói sob a ótica marxista.
É bastante difícil discutir em detalhes os principais teóricos e defensores da teoria crítica pois é muito extenso, redundante e demorado, mas tentaremos mencionar brevemente seus principais atores e suas ideias. Eles se concentram em conceitos e ideias que não são imediatamente óbvios e vamos aprofundá-los um pouco mais: A imanência forjada para o marxismo, ou seja, uma noção como a de Deus ou de uma mente ou espírito abstrato que permeia ou permeia como um todo a realidade do mundo, deve ser compreendida sob o conceito de reificação, ou seja, o processo pelo qual as relações sociais são percebidas como atributos inerentes às pessoas nelas envolvidas, ou atributos de algum produto da relação, como uma mercadoria negociada.
Um dos efeitos mais significativos do fim da Primeira Guerra Mundialfoi a derrota do czarismo em fevereiro de 1917 por uma revolta em massa na Rússia, que terminou em outubro daquele ano com a Revolução Bolchevique. Como Marx previu que a revolução se espalharia rapidamente para o resto da Europa, as esperanças dos socialistas comunistas foram reavivadas. No entanto, houveram sucessivos insucessos. Na Alemanha, que chegou em 1918 a declarar a República Soviética da Baviera como um estado independente, acabou sendo esmagada em 1920. Na Hungria aconteceu algo parecido: foi criada uma república soviética que foi rapidamente desarmada pelas tropas romenas. Na Áustria, o proletariado desistiu de fazer a sua revolução. Na Itália, houveram greves e revoltas em Turim entre 1919 e 1920, conhecidas como Biennio Rosso, protagonizadas por meio milhão de trabalhadores que lutaram pelo anarquismo e pelo socialismo. Mas o governo deGiovanni Giolitti encerrou a revolução antes que fosse tarde demais e abriu caminho para Mussolini assumir o poder dois anos depois. Na Espanha, a guerra civil espanhola, com Franco ajudado pelo nascente nazismo na Alemanha, acabou com as expectativas dos comunistas espanhóis. Paralelamente, Leninmorreria em 1924 e Stalin três anos depois teria o poder máximo na URSS. Stalin trouxe a instalação total da burocracia, ponto principal de sua administração, combinada com um regime de terror, fome e pensamento único, que foi enfiado goela abaixo dos soviéticos como passo necessário para a instalação da “ditadura do proletariado”, como previsto por Lenin como pré-condição necessária para alcançar a “sociedade de classes”. Os expurgos acabaram com a vida de Trotsky, Bujarin, entre outros e enquanto Marx e Engels foram totalmente teóricos, longe das massas reais, Lenin foi totalmente orgânico e a consolidação do regime soviético sob a bota de Stalin disciplinou os intelectuais, colocando-os não à a serviço da revolução, mas da burocracia, criando uma “doutrina oficial” que limitava a ação da atividade intelectual ao que assim se definia.
Segunda Versão da Escola de Frankfurt ou Marxismo Ocidental
Nesse contexto, o minguante pensamento marxista sofre outro deslocamento geográfico, saindo do Oriente e retornando ao Ocidente, daí o apelido de “marxismo ocidental”. Nasceu e desenvolveu-se no período entre as duas guerras mundiais até ao final dos anos 60. Seus representantes notáveis são: Lukacs (Hungria), Gramsci (Itália) Korsch (Saxônia Ocidental-Reino Unido) Della Volpe Romênia, Sartre, (Paris), França), Althusser (Argélia francesa) e os mais conhecidos e importantes, todos na Alemanha , Walter Benjamin, Herbert Marcuse (que se mudaria para os EUA) Horkheimer (Suábia) e Adorno (Frankfurt).
Numa cápsula, aqueles filósofos/? (o ponto de interrogação é porque eles também se autoproclamaram profetas, revolucionários, etc.) estavam preocupados com o que é discutido no verbete da Wikipedia Humanismo Marxista. Por que esse interesse pelo humanismo e essa virada, esse redirecionamento do foco de Marx da economia para a esfera cultural? Por que esse abandono de ideias concretas por assuntos abstratos mais adequados à filosofia, ou sociologia e afins? Por que a Escola de Frankfurt, sob a percepção marxista, embarcou nestes empreendimentos que iam desde a crítica literária e musical, análise de filmes, análise e compreensão da sociedade de massa, estudo minucioso das formações sociais, como a família e o núcleo familiar, vínculos humanos, definições e orientações sexuais, especialmente o erotismo? Além do artigo da Wikipedia sobre Marxismo e Humanismo, seria desejável ler o livro de Anthony King A estrutura da teoria social, (The structure of social theory) do qual cito o que está por trás do interesse pelos assuntos mencionados. Discutindo Zeitgeist e Geist na concepção de Hegel, ele explica o seguinte com foco na imanência, ou seja, a noção como a de Deus ou uma mente ou espírito abstrato que permeia ou permeia como um todo a realidade do mundo que abre a oportunidade de aplicar a reificação:
Para Hegel, o Geist não se referia a nenhuma mente ou espírito individual. Não se referia nem à cognição individual do mundo nem às categorias subjacentes a essa cognição individual. Para Hegel, a percepção individual era de fato dependente do Geist preexistente. Geist referia-se amplamente à consciência de um povo de si mesmo e do mundo em que viviam. Referia-se à autocompreensão de um povo. Denotava as práticas que um povo considerava apropriadas, o tipo de relação social em que esse povo se envolvia e, finalmente, o tipo de mundo que havia para aquele povo.
King argumenta que o Geist pode ser mais efetivamente traduzido como cultura, pois refere-se aos estilos de vida distintos que vários grupos humanos adotaram historicamente e aos entendimentos compartilhados que os sustentam… Die phenomenology des Geistes é, portanto, o estudo da manifestação histórica das culturas humanas. Examina como a cultura humana se desenvolveu ao longo da história mundial.
Para ir direto ao ponto, King não disse, mas é óbvio que o Geist no final das contas é a mente, o espírito e a cultura refletidos simultaneamente no indivíduo ou em seu grupo, ou na sociedade/cultura em que ele está na Weltanschauung ou visão de mundo e onde deveria ser instalada a interpretação marxista da realidade, que é basicamente o que todos aqueles filósofos/? (o ponto de interrogação é porque eles também se autoproclamaram profetas, revolucionários, etc) discutiram de uma forma ou de outra em suas obras, propondo como conectar a teoria com a prática, dando origem à Nova Esquerda
Terceira Versão da Escola de Frankfurt ou A Nova Esquerda
Os principais expoentes da Nova Esquerda são Marcuse, HorkheimereAdorno, há uma adoração particular por Gramsci, talvez porque ele veio da classe trabalhadora e não teve educação formal e trabalhou na prisão, morrendo com apenas 46 anos devido às condições de encarceramento, em 1937, antes de ver o efeito dessa mudança de orientação. Existem muitos outros autores e talvez devam ser mencionados: Jacques Derrida, Paul de Man, Samuel Weber, Rainer Nagele, Michel Foucault, Hannah Arendt. A revolta de 1968 é o carro-chefe da Nova Esquerda e particularmente ligada a Marcuse e Adorno e pode ser claramente identificada na Dialética do Esclarecimentode Adorno & Horkheimer e é um assunto em si a ser discutido talvez em outro post. Suas ideias, que hoje estão presentes em todas as culturas ocidentais e já começam a invadir a oriental, fazendo muito barulho, são basicamente o que se chama de “politicamente correto” com a estratégia adicional de agrupar, ou rotular, tudo o que não segue seu caminho com a seguinte captura:
Demonizando tudo o que não é de esquerda com o estigma de “fascismo”
Aqueles que discordam são “fóbicos” e devem sofrer
“Cancelamento”, que é um tipo de censura “legal” em favor de “minorias”
Explorar a sexualidade para gerar fraturas ou divisões políticas, questionando a orientação e a identidade como algo “construído” e que pode ser qualquer coisa que a pessoa assim desejar, inclusive que sua definição foi algo imposto artificialmente em detrimento da “liberdade”
Destruir religião, tradição, civilidade ou amor ao país ou nacionalidade, especialmente em sua hierarquia, símbolos, valores e sentimentos de nacionalidade
Em suma, quebrar os pilares básicos que sustentam o edifício que metaforicamente é a sociedade, como explicado no início deste post, para derrubá-la.
Funcionaria se fôssemos formigas como E.O. Wilson explica que todas as formigas que vemos andando por aí são fêmeas. Os machos são produzidos na colônia para um único propósito e por um período de tempo muito curto. As fêmeas mais velhas são as que lutam contra os inimigos. Não há hospital para formigas feridas, elas são comidas. As formigas compartilham com os insetos, mesmo com seus cérebros pequenos, a capacidade de falar de dez a vinte “palavras”, por assim dizer, que ele cunhou de feromônios, os sinais químicos que eles passam de um lado para o outro, que compreendem suas comunicações sobre tudo em seus vidas, ao contrário da nossa espécie, que optou pelo audiovisual, como algumas outras espécies, como as aves, o que é bastante evidente nas duas formas básicas como desenvolvemos a nossa cultura, que é visual ou através da palavra impressa, ou acústica, ou através da palavra falada. Tendemos a não entender ou diferenciar porque damos por certo que o único e correto caminho é através da palavra impressa.
E.O. Wilson escreveu que Marx estava certo, era uma boa ideologia, mas aplicada à espécie errada, porque funcionaria perfeitamente para as formigas… Ele estava se referindo às ideias de Marx aplicadas à União Soviética, mas se você pensar n’ A Nova Esquerda, que pode ser resumida no que chamo de “capturas” acima, são metáforas perfeitas para os feromônios das formigas e o vocabulário restrito sob o qual eles querem que a espécie humana seja organizada.
The Frankfurt School (The first sentence of the Wikipedia entry is a sugar-coated lie in the style of the left, as it omits that the reason it appeared was the failure to install communism in the Soviet Union. I explain in detail in the sequence. REC) is a modern version of Marx’s vision of how the dictatorship of the proletariat would be instituted. His best-known titles are The Communist Manifesto, and his magnum opus, Das Kapital. His political and philosophical thought had an enormous influence on subsequent intellectual, economic and political history, creating a school of social theory. He believed that human history could be reduced to a single formula, based on his insight into what drives us. It can be summarized in his famous phrase: “The history of all existing society to date is the history of class struggles” Its first important aspect is that, until it, people thought about things centering on individual heroes and leaders, or generally accepted ideas. He introduced the idea that the real protagonism was with the classes. Unlike the philosophers who preceded him, who tried to understand or interpret the world, he wanted to change the world, an emphasis shared by Engels, who signed the Communist Manifesto with him. Their pamphlet aims to explain the values and political agenda of communism, a belief system proposed by a group of radical socialist Germans. In short, the Manifesto preaches that there are only two classes in direct conflict, the bourgeoisie, owners of capital, and the proletariat, the working class. For Marx, the system of artisans until then had been replaced by manufacture. For Marx, also, the bourgeoisie had no value other than “payment in cash” and personal value became “exchange value”. He explores this in his “surplus value“, where he interprets that moral, religious and even sentimental values had been forgotten and that from scientists, lawyers to priests, they had become salaried, all of which was replaced by, “a wide open exploitation, shameless, direct, brutish.” He attributed this to the “irrational liberty” introduced by free trade. The only solution to this state of affairs was to transform all means of economic production, such as land, raw materials, tools, factories, into common property, hence, his famous phrase “From each according to his ability, to each one according to his needs.” The Marxist Dialectic comes from the ideas he took from Hegel, who described reality not as being a state of affairs, (thesis) but a process of continuous change that contains within itself an internal conflict (antithesis). He believed like Hegel that it is forbidden for us to know, or feel, how things in the world really are, but we only know and feel how they appear to us. For Hegel, the mind, or the spirit, in its historical journey, in countless dialectical cycles, would progress towards a state of absolute harmony, the Geist. Marx separates from Hegel here, because in the place of the journey, he wants real change, here and now and in the place of Hegel’s Geist, he, at the end of the process, in the perfect society, believed that everyone would work harmoniously towards a greater well-being. What interests and excites him is that. In the thick volumes of the work Das Kapital, he elaborates in detail on the formation of classes, describing how in previous times human beings, from being solely responsible for the production of everything they consumed, began to depend on each other, with the emergence of a form of “bargaining” . This would have led to a specialization of each activity, which would then have come to define people, which would dictate where and how that person would have to live. It would also dictate who this society would harmonize with and who it would clash with. Hence the class conflict, which Marx divided into four major stages. He also elaborated that politics, laws, art, religions and philosophies, or “superstructures“, would have developed to serve the values and interests of the ruling class, and the ruler would be prevented from altering events, but could only promote them. He calls this the Zeitgeist, or spirit of the age, which would be governed by an absolute spirit that would have developed over time as described above. For Marx, no one leaves his mark, the era defines people. From Feuerbach he took that religion is intellectually false and contributes to human misery, as we would create gods in our own image from an amalgamation of virtues and being an invention that would be a dream and has nothing to do with the real world. As religion rescues our “I”, which is despised and alienated by the system described above, the best thing is to put an end to religion, so that conscience can arise. He even discussed his Marxist utopia, political power and how the path to revolution would be inevitable. He did not foresee communism of the kind that was implanted in the 20th century, and what resulted from it in China, the Soviet Union, Cuba, etc.
Criticism
The greatest criticism that weighs on him is that he is simplistic and superficial, restricting himself to dialectics in his moldings and ignoring reality, human creativity and progress, which, incidentally, occurred and prevented the working class to wish for something different than what it got. He imagined a virtuous and dominant proletariat, a new kind of human being would emerge from the proletariat. He also imagined that crime was the effect of poverty and that it would disappear when it was over with the effects of the new order. He did not predict that communism promotes the personality worship of the dominant dictator, which occurred everywhere where his ideas were the basis of some revolution and system change. The School of Frankfurt excelled in understanding why it failed and proposed new ways to reach its “new order“.
The School of Frankfurt
This school of thought works primarily over what Marx called superstructure and structure or “Base“:
Marxism analyzes society topographically, i.e., as if it were a building. In the “Base” or structure, are the productive forces and their relations with production, technologies to produce, production forces, or the materials and resources, that generate the goods society needs.
In the “Superstructure” is the State, ideology, religion, culture, arts, etc. The objective of the Frankfurt School is to demolish this building, exploding the support pillars, which are mainly family, religion, patriotism, which occur mostly from Education and philosophical bias.
It was necessary to penetrate thought through consciousness, generate a change in sociocultural paradigms that would allow people to co-opt their wills without suspecting that they were victims of mental manipulation, i.e., they were working for the revolution without knowing it. For this it was necessary to corrupt the Christian heritage, bearer of Western morals, creating new cultural forms and manifestations and groups that represented them.
One thing that is difficult to understand, because it is intentionally and carefully disguised, is that the way of attacking capitalism and Christian morality, differs from free thinkers and philosophers who do not accept this order of things. In the case of the Frankfurt School, this is done within an optic that grants immanence to Marxism, i.e., a notion like that of God or an abstract mind or spirit that pervades or permeates as a whole the reality of the world.
They are not mere contestants. They form an interdisciplinary team that studies and learns the critical concepts of the predecessor critics, incorporating from them everything that could be valuable and complementary to the Marxist thesis, gathering everything under the same corpus or vade mecum, which is its ineffable “critical theory“. Another characteristic, which already appears in Gramsci‘s work, in his “Prison Notebooks”is the concern to leave everything chewed up and untied so that the leftists of the future can simply appropriate the “dismantled” reality that supposedly will be left with the destruction of Christian or similar values, so that they apply the postulates of socialism, or communism, in the manner that Marx’s theory foresaw without the resistance that traditional society presents. Marx Horkheimer wrote to a friend in 1930, worried with the rise of Nazism in Germany: “Faced with what now threatens to engulf Europe and perhaps the world, our work is essentially designed to preserve certain things in the night ahead: it is a kind of message in a bottle“. Fidel Castro found this bottle and masterfully understood its contents, read it and explained it to Lula, who is illiterate and cannot read, and who gave rise to the Foro de Sao Paulo, which would take just over 30 years to materialize, as it does at this moment in early 2023, in Latin America, which only needs Brazil to remain the perfect context to finally apply Marx’s utopia. I, REC, am not a futurologist, but the usual superficiality and traditional lack of ethics that characterize everything the left does, will lead them to an explosion of memorable proportions that should create a fourth version of the Frankfurt School, since the that this one is the third and is about to fail like everything which is built under the Marxist optics.
It is rather difficult to discuss in detail the main theorists and advocates of thecritical theory,it is very extensive, redundant and time consuming, but we will try to briefly mention its main actors and their ideas.
They dwell in concepts and ideas which are not immediately obvious and let’s go a little deeper into them:
The immanence crafted to Marxism, i.e., a notion like that of God or an abstract mind or spirit that pervades or permeates as a whole the reality of the world has to be understood under the concept of reification, i.e., the process by which social relationsare perceived as inherent attributes of the people involved in them, or attributes of some product of the relation, such as a traded commodity.
First Version of the Frankfurt School
One of the most significant effects of the end of the First World War was the defeat of Tsarism in February 1917 by a mass uprising in Russia, which ended in October of that year with the Bolshevik Revolution. As Marx had predicted that the revolution would spread rapidly to the rest of Europe, the hopes of communist socialists were revived. However, there were successive failures. In Germany, which arrived in 1918 to declare the Soviet Republic of Bavaria as an independent state, ended up being crushed in 1920. In Hungary something similar happened: a Soviet republic was created that was quickly disarmed by Romanian troops. In Austria, the proletariat gave up on carrying out its revolution. In Italy, there were strikes and revolts in Turin between 1919 and 1920, known as Biennio Rosso, starring half a million workers who fought for anarchism and socialism. But Giovanni Giolitti‘s government ended the revolution before it was too late and paved the way for Mussolini to take power two years later. In Spain, the Spanish civil war, with Franco aided by nascent Nazism in Germany, ended the expectations of Spanish communists. Parallel to this, Lenin would die in 1924 and Stalin three years later would have the maximum power in the USSR. Stalin brought the total installation of the bureaucracy, the main point of his administration, combined with a regime of terror, hunger and single thought, which was shoved down the throats of the Soviets as a necessary step for the installation of the “dictatorship of the proletariat”, as predicted by Lenin as necessary pre condition to achieve “class society“. The purges ended the lives of Trotsky,Bujarin, among others and while Marx andEngels had been totally theoretical, far from the real masses, Lenin was totally organic and the consolidation of the Soviet regime under Stalin’s boot disciplined the intellectuals, placing them not at the service of the revolution, but of the bureaucracy, creating an “official doctrine” that limited the action of intellectual activity to what it was defined as such.
Second Version of the Frankfurt School or Western Marxism
In this context, the dwindling Marxist thought suffers another geographical displacement, leaving the East and returning to the West, hence its nickname “Western Marxism”. It was born and developed in the period between the two world wars until the end of the 60s. Its notable representatives are: Lukacs (Hungary), Gramsci (Italy) Korsch (West Saxony-UK) Della Volpe Romania, Sartre, (Paris) , France), Althusser (French Algeria) and the best known and most important, all in Germany, Walter Benjamin, Herbert Marcuse (who would move to the USA) Horkheimer (Swabia) and Adorno (Frankfurt)
In a capsule, those philosophers/? (the question mark is because they were also self proclaimed prophets, revolutionaries, etc) were concerned with what is discussed at the Wikipedia entry Marxist Humanism
Why this interest in humanism and this turn, this redirection of Marx’s focus from economics to the cultural realm? Why this abandonment of concrete ideas for abstract subjects more suited to philosophy, or sociology and the like?
Why did the Frankfurt School, under the Marxist perception, embark on undertakings that ranged from literary and musical criticism, film analysis, analysis and understanding of mass society, meticulous study of social formations, such as the family and the family nucleus, human bonds , sexual definitions and orientations, especially eroticism?
In addition to the wikipedia article on Marxism and Humanism, it would be desirable to read Anthony King’s book The structure of social theory, from which I quote what lies behind the interest in the mentioned subjects:
Discussing Zeitgeist, and Geist in Hegel’s conception, he explains the following focused on immanence, i.e., the notion like that of God or an abstract mind or spirit that pervades or permeates as a whole the reality of the world which opens the opportunity to apply reification:
For Hegel, the Geist referred not to any individual mind or spirit. It referred neither to individual cognition of the world nor to the categories which underlay that individual cognition. For Hegel, individual perception was in fact dependent upon the pre-existing Geist. Geist referred broadly to the consciousness of a people of itself and the world in which they lived. It referred to a people’s self-understanding. It denoted the practices which a people regard as appropriate, the kind of social intercourse in which that people engaged and, finally, the kind of world there was for that people.
King argues that Geist may be more effectively translated as culture, as it
refers to the distinctive lifestyles which various human groups have historically adopted, and to the shared understandings which underpin them … Die phenomenology des Geistes is, therefore, the study of the historical manifestation of human cultures. It examines how human culture has developed in the course of world history.
To go to the point, King didn’t say, but it is obvious that Geist at the end of the day is mind, spirit and culture simultaneously reflected in the individual or his group, or the society/culture he is in Weltanschauung or world view and where should be installed the Marxist interpretation of reality, which is basically what all those philosophers/? (the question mark is because they were also self proclaimed prophets, revolutionaries, etc) discussed one way or another in their works, proposing how to connect theory with practice, giving birth to the New Left.
Third Version of the Frankfurt School or The New Left
The main exponents of the New Left are Marcuse , Horkheimer and Adorno, there is a particular adoration for Gramsci, perhaps because he came from the working class and had no formal education and worked in prison, dieyng only 46 years old due to his imprisonment conditions, in 1937, before seeing the effect of this change of orientation.
There are many other authors and perhaps they should be mentioned: Jacques Derrida, Paul de Man, Samuel Weber, Rainer Nagele, Michel Foucault, Hannah Arendt.
The 1968 upheaval is the flagship of the New Left and particularly connected with Marcuse and Adorno and it can be clearly spotted in the Adorno & Horkheimer Dialectic of Enlightment and is a subject in itself to be discussed perhaps in another post.
Their ideas, which today are present in every Western culture and are already starting to invade the Eastern one, making a lot of noise, are basically what is called “politically correct“ with the additional strategy of bundling, or labelling, everything which does not go their way with the following catch:
Demonizing everything that is not leftist with the stigma of “fascism”
Those who disagree are “phobic” and must suffer
“Cancellation”, which is a type of “cool” censorship in favor of “minorities”
Explore sexuality to generate political fractures or divisions, questioning orientation and identity as something “constructed” and that it can be anything the person so desires, including that its definition was something artificially imposed to the detriment of “freedom”
Destroy religion, tradition, civility or love of the country or nationality, especially in its hierarchy, symbols, values and feelings of nationality
In short, break the basic pillars that sustain the building which metaphorically is society, as explained at the beginning of this post, to bring it down.
It would work if we were ants as E.O. Wilson explains that all ants, which we see walking around, are females. Males are produced in the colony for just one purpose and for a very brief period of time. The older females are the ones that do battle to the enemies. There is no hospital for injured ants, they are eaten. Ants share with insects, even with their small brains, the have the ability to speak ten to twenty “words”, so to speak, which he coined pheromones, the chemical signals they pass back and forth, which comprehends their communications about everything in their lives, contrary to our species, which opted for audio-visual, as some other species, such as birds, what is quite obvious in the two basic ways we developed our culture, which is either visual or through the printed word, or acoustic, or through the spoken word. We tend not to understand or differentiate because we take for grant that the only and correct way is through the printed word.
E.O. Wilson famously wrote that Marx was right, it was a good ideology, but applied to the wrong species, because it would work perfectly for ants… He was referring to Marx ideas as it was applied to the Soviet Union, but if you think about the New Left, which can be summarized on what I call “catches” above, they are perfect metaphors to the pheromones of the ants and the narrow vocabulary which they want the human species to be organized under.
In the same way that time has no definition, as it is an illusion, and for practical purposes, it is what the clock indicates, reality shares the same condition: it is an illusion and for practical purposes, it is what your senses indicate to you.
This video is excellent in the proposition about our senses but there is a Silver Lining or perhaps a biased misconception interpreting this functioning of our senses as flawed, because although we can use our senses to extract scientific truth about reality, this is not the whole picture and pardon me, but I would say that is is simply a myopic vision of what is involved when it comes what the senses are for.
Since Silver Lining is a metaphor for optimism, which means a negative occurrence may have a positive aspect to it may not be a good comparison, as it would be to accept as essential the scientific view and the function for which the senses are designed as a positive aspect in a negative picture.
Perhaps another metaphor, “Is the glass half empty or half full?” which depends of the point of view to indicate that a particular situation could be a cause for pessimism (half empty) or optimism(half full).
I found a video which although uses a glass of water to build up a point not exactly as half full of half empty, is perfect to figure our the role of our senses.
Let’s expand a little bit more, now with the half empty/half full glass of water:
I would still risk saying that it would be impossible to see reality from the human point of view if we saw it as science establishes. Science is interested in the data related to what is in analysis for the mathematical construction of some model and we, human beings are interested in the information contained in the data presented. Information is data which makes sense to me and the bold italics says everything.
Figure and Ground
Normally Figure and Ground is associated with Gestalt Psychology and the “figure-ground” illusion commonly experienced when one gazes at the illustration of a white vase, and the outline of which is created by two black profiles.
Basically people instinctively perceive objects as either being in the foreground or the background and this is not only visually, but all our senses are subject to that and we have to establish a pattern to figure out what our senses are telling us.
This is compounded by the fact that we express all of this through the written or printed word, or, ultimately, through literature, which is extremely narrow and limited to contain all the dimensions that make up reality as it comes to us. Even if we increase the dimensions to access reality, through theater, cinema or broader forms than literature, we still somehow get stuck in it, especially in our culture that abandoned other forms of expression for centuries to communicate with each other in favor of the printed word.
Reflection of the Reflection
As it would be beyond the scope of this post and complicate it, I propose a discussion about the Reflection of the Reflection, as in front of a mirror and as a notion of awareness or reflective and critical thinking about the process.
The first picture, at left, Nicholas Burlett depicted exactly as I mean, i.e., thre reflection in the mirror is not what she sees, it is her “reflection”about what is reflected in the mirror. The second picture is from the Yosemite Park site and does note give credit to the author, but you can think anything and the last is from a 1918 cabinet catalogue, where it is obvious that the woman is reflecting about something looking at her reflected image.
The emphasis here was in the vision, but our other senses also have a work range that does not cover everything and this is the criticism of the video initially shown. Let’s see for example the question of sound and the electromagnetic spectrum that we definitely cannot capture, except for some not yet proven theories of telepathy, communications between people, etc.
Rationally, it is quite simple, almost a joke, to define that there are three types of reality, as the figure indicates:
1. Objective reality Objective reality is the “gold standard” or scientific standard for what is real. It describes anything that is measurable, observable and would exist even if human beings did not. Examples would be: Physical laws. Physical stuff. If you are holding an orange, you can eat said orange.
2. Subjective reality Subjective reality is what you believe. Others can believe the complete opposite and it would still be fine. Subjective reality is a gradient scale, with a few people believing one extreme, a few the other extreme, and most people in-between. There is usually abundant evidence to support all positions on the scale. The most simple example are straight-up beliefs. Some people have useful beliefs about something, others have limiting beliefs about the same thing. Other examples include: Political views. Glass half-full or glass half-empty.
3. Intersubjective reality Intersubjective reality is a special subset of subjective reality. It describes things that exist because we collectively believe they exist, to the point where we would almost consider them objective reality. Examples include: Money. Religion. Fame and celebrity. Laws.
Reality type 1, objective, scientific, has been discussed here extensively and I suggest the following entries to situate it:
Those notions are far away from our everyday experience and for all practical purposes, means nothing. The intention here is to explore the other two types, strongly supported on that weak and limited link which is literature.
Instead of trying to figure it out under my mediocre capability, I will use an article from a literature giant, Mr. Salman Rushdie, published a while ago at New Yorker:
The breakdown in the old agreements about reality is now the most significant reality, and the world can perhaps best be explained in terms of conflicting and often incompatible narratives. Photograph by Juergen Loesel / VISUM / Redux
“What, art thou mad? Art thou mad?” Falstaff demands of Prince Hal, in Shakespeare’s “Henry IV, Part 1.” “Is not the truth the truth?” The joke, of course, is that he has been lying his head off, and the prince is in the process of exposing him as a liar.
In a time like the present, when reality itself seems everywhere under attack, Falstaff’s duplicitous notion of the truth seems to be shared by many powerful leaders. In the three countries I’ve spent my life caring about—India, the U.K., and the United States—self-serving falsehoods are regularly presented as facts, while more reliable information is denigrated as “fake news.” However, the defenders of the real, attempting to dam the torrent of disinformation flooding over us all, often make the mistake of yearning for a golden age when truth was uncontested and universally accepted, and of arguing that what we need is to return to that blissful consensus.
The truth is that truth has always been a contested idea. As a student of history, at Cambridge, I learned at an early age that some things were “basic facts”—that is, unarguable events, such as that the Battle of Hastings took place in 1066, or that the American Declaration of Independencewas adopted on July 4, 1776. But the creation of a historical fact was the result of a particular meaning being ascribed to an event. Julius Caesar’s crossing of the Rubicon is a historical fact. But many other people have crossed that river, and their actions are not of interest to history. Those crossings are not, in this sense, facts. Also the passage of time often changes the meaning of a fact. During the British Empire, the military revolt of 1857 was known as the Indian Mutiny, and, because a mutiny is a rebellion against the proper authorities, that name, and therefore the meaning of that fact, placed the “mutinying” Indians in the wrong. Indian historians today refer to this event as the Indian Uprising, which makes it an entirely different sort of fact, which means a different thing. The past is constantly revised according to the attitudes of the present.
There is, however, some truth in the idea that in the West in the nineteenth century there was a fairly widespread consensus about the character of reality. The great novelists of that time—Gustave Flaubert, George Eliot, Edith Wharton, and so on—could assume that they and their readers, broadly speaking, agreed on the nature of the real, and the grand age of the realist novel was built on that foundation. But that consensus was built on a number of exclusions. It was middle-class and white. The points of view of, for example, colonized peoples, or racial minorities—points of view from which the world looked very different to the bourgeois reality portrayed in, say, “The Age of Innocence,” or “Middlemarch,” or “Madame Bovary”—were largely erased from the narrative. The importance of great public matters was also often marginalized. In the entire œuvre of Jane Austen, the Napoleonic Wars are barely mentioned; in the immense œuvre of Charles Dickens, the existence of the British Empire is only glancingly recognized.
In the twentieth century, under the pressure of enormous social changes, the nineteenth-century consensus was revealed as fragile; its view of reality began to look, one might say, fake. At first, some of the greatest literary artists sought to chronicle the changing reality by using the methods of the realist novel—as Thomas Mann did in “Buddenbrooks,” or Junichiro Tanizaki in “The Makioka Sisters”—but gradually the realist novel seemed more and more problematic, and writers from Franz Kafka to Ralph Ellison and Gabriel García Márquez created stranger, more surreal texts, telling the truth by means of obvious untruth, creating a new kind of reality, as if by magic.
I have argued, for much of my life as a writer, that the breakdown in the old agreements about reality is now the most significant reality, and that the world can perhaps best be explained in terms of conflicting and often incompatible narratives. In Kashmir and in the Middle East, and in the battle between progressive America and Trumpistan, we see examples of such incompatibilities. I have also maintained that the consequences of this new, argumentative, even polemical attitude to the real has profound implications for literature—that we can’t, or ought not to, pretend it isn’t there. I believe that the influence on public discourse of more, and more varied, voices has been a good thing, enriching our literatures and making more complex our understanding of the world.
And yet I now face, as we all do, a genuine conundrum.(I suppose in the meaning confusing and difficult problem or question REC). How can we argue, on the one hand, that modern reality has become necessarily multidimensional, fractured and fragmented, and, on the other hand, that reality is a very particular thing, an unarguable series of things that are so, which needs to be defended against the attacks of, to be frank, the things that are not so, which are being promulgated by, let’s say, the Modi Administration in India, the Brexit crew in the U.K., and the President of the United States? How to combat the worst aspects of the Internet, that parallel universe in which important information and total garbage coexist, side by side, with, apparently, the same levels of authority, making it harder than ever for people to tell them apart? How to resist the erosion in the public acceptance of “basic facts,” scientific facts, evidence-supported facts about, say, climate change or inoculations for children? How to combat the political demagoguery that seeks to do what authoritarians have always wanted—to undermine the public’s belief in evidence, and to say to their electorates, in effect, “Believe nothing except me, for I am the truth”? What do we do about that? And what, specifically, might be the role of art, and the role of the literary arts in particular?
I don’t pretend to have a full answer. I do think that we need to recognize that any society’s idea of truth is always the product of an argument, and we need to get better at winning that argument. Democracy is not polite. It’s often a shouting match in a public square. We need to be involved in the argument if we are to have any chance of winning it. And as far as writers are concerned, we need to rebuild our readers’ belief in argument from factual evidence, and to do what fiction has always been good at doing—to construct, between the writer and the reader, an understanding about what is real. I don’t mean to reconstruct the narrow, exclusive consensus of the nineteenth century. I like the broader, more disputatious view of society to be found in modern literature. But when we read a book we like, or even love, we find ourselves in agreement with its portrait of human life. Yes, we say, this is how we are, this is what we do to one another, this is true. That, perhaps, is where literature can help most. We can make people agree, in this time of radical disagreement, on the truths of the great constant, which is human nature. Let’s start from there.
In Germany, after the Second World War, the authors of what was called Trümmerliteratur, or “rubble literature,” felt the need to rebuild their language, poisoned by Nazism, as well as their country, which lay in ruins. They understood that reality, truth, needed to be reconstructed from the ground up, with new language, just as the bombed cities needed to be rebuilt. I think we can learn from their example. We stand once again, though for different reasons, in the midst of the rubble of the truth. And it is for us—writers, thinkers, journalists, philosophers—to undertake the task of rebuilding our readers’ belief in reality, their faith in the truth. And to do it with new language, from the ground up.
Salman Rushdiehas written fifteen novels, including “Victory City,” which will be published in February.
Bearing in mind the limitations we have as it is well discussed previously, I, REC, want to particularize a situation we are living in Brazil at this moment, Christmas of 2022, when we are facing the possibility that Lula might become President of Brazil, which he managed through a rigged election and quite clearly following a pattern he, with Fidel Castro installed throughout Latin America in what is called Foro de São Paulo, which in an image can be understood what it is all about (as of December 2022):
This map is supposing that the actual winner of the elections in Brazil, Lula, will take over and does not consider the fact that Pedro Castilho from Peru, recently was impeached after trying to dissolve parliament. This situation was orchestrated and executed under a plan known as Foro de São Paulo, São Paulo forum, which basically works using de democratic system to be rigged to bring the power under the ideas of Fidel Castro. In Brazil, 9 out of the 11 Supreme Court Judges are red, and were put there by Lula and they put the country in a straight jacket that we call a dictatorship of the judiciary, with a minister who is commanding more than our president. The only way to break this is to put the military in command, what once happened from 64 to 83 in a disastrous experience, which makes the military hesitant to do the same again. But it seems inevitable, due to the excesses this dictator minister is doing, being the most serious, corrupting the election calculation giving victory to Lula, one of the brain masters of the Foro de São Paulo and who has given billions, yes, exactly, billions, of dollars from Cuba to all these leftists in those Latin American countries, which made them to take the power. Lula ruled Brazil for some 12 years. There is a formal forecast of what law and order would look like if we go to war, which could be due to external invasion, but it could also be due to an attempt at a coup to take power organized internally and, in our case, there is evidence that this is happening with outside influence and help. Communism, in its classic version, predicted that its way of seeing reality would spread and take over naturally, since the working class exists in all countries and, in their opinion, is exploited and vilified and it was just a matter of realizing that everything would fall into place by itself. As it turned out, it was the engine of the cold war and reality prevailed and the fall of the Berlin wall that detonated the end of the Soviet Union exploded in the face of these imbeciles who want to create a reality that has no connection with reality. As is well known, we Latin Americans, especially Brazilians, are slow, ignorant and everything here happens late and we are a day after civilization experience, if our habits and customs can be framed as civilization… In the case of Europe and the USA, just as an observation, classical Marxism turned out what is generally known as the Frankfurt School, and, as I will explain in detail in the Post Reality Frankfurt School Way, which is the strategy to revive the failure which was the Soviet Union and the predictions of Marx about the Revolution of the Proletariat.
In Athens, around 300 BCE, at the very beginning of what we now call democracy, elections did not involve votes in a way we would recognize. Instead, all the major positions of government, from the parliament to criminal juries, were assigned by a method called sortition, or election by lottery. A machine called the kleroterion used a sequence of colored tokens to determine who would occupy which post. While we think of ancient Greece as the birthplace of our modern electoral system, the Greeks themselves considered this machine-enabled random selection to be the cornerstone of their equality. Aristotle himself declared, “It is accepted as democratic when public offices are allocated by lot; and as oligarchic when they are filled by election.”
I will start with an example with Lottery. I am not sure if it is the same system for all lotteries, but basically it looks like that:
It has been like that for ages. How do you make sure that the balls are producing a random number? You can’t. There is no such thing for real. Obviously you can make it very difficult to find out the pattern, which is the flaw that makes random not random and if you find it, you can bet for winning with a lot more chances.
And that’s exactly the story I am going to tell: How a friend of mine discovered the pattern of the draw in an underground betting system, won a lot of money and ended up loosing all of it, how and why that happened.
One of the first jobs I had in my life, at the age of 21, which is the age of majority in Brazil, I went to work in a multinational that was settling in Brazil and was allocated in times and methods. This was 1963. The multinational had bought a large Brazilian industry which had a line of beauty and personal care products and was to expand to food and refreshments, and home care products.
To bring the new lines of production we had to turn the actual installation inside out and one of the findings we made was a collection of notes about the result of the “jogo do bicho” or “animal game” from the local bookmaker. More than 5 years of weekly results, carefully stored. Maybe more, because 52 weeks x 5 = some 250 lists and I remember that they looked like much more. It looked more like more than 500 weeks or 10 years. This game is illegal and underground and a tradition as it has ever been, because it is oriented for “small people” and there is an unquestionable trust between the involved and it has never been heard of someone who won and didn’t receive the prize.
You can see in detail how it works but before summarizing let’s take a look at is its origins and bring a more simple explanation which is how people gamble at it.
History and origins
Like the capirinha, samba and carnival, the animal game is a very Brazilian invention, unique, only in Brazil. This lottery was created in 1892 by Baron João Batista Viana Drummond, founder of the Rio de Janeiro Zoo. The intention behind the idea was noble: the baron wanted to attract more people to the zoo, offering the cut of government funds, which kept the place. To feed the entire fauna, Drummond had the 25 animal drawing printed on tickets. Punctually at 5 pm, it was drawn one of them. Who had the winning figure earned 20 times the value of the entrance. “At first, every zoo visitor received a note with the image of an animal. But from 1894 each could buy as many tickets as they wanted. From that year on, the animal game is no longer a simple draw and has become a gambling, ”says film screenwriter Elena Soárez, author of a master’s thesis on the subject. To combat the bets, which became a craze throughout the city, the city prevented the draw in 1895. But it turned out to be a zebra (Brazilian expression for something improbable): instead of weakening gambling, the ban strengthened the bicheiros (jogo do bicho bookmakers). If before they bought the tickets at the Zoo and resold them around the city, from that moment on they joined to hold the draw on their own. Not even the threat of imprisonment for the bicheiros (bookmakers) with the criminalization of the game in 1946 managed to hold the gambling. By then, the animal game was already a craze installed in the popular imagination, supported by a network of personal relationships and the unfailing “Brazilian way” to circumvent repression. The animal game caught up in the 80’s: with stratospheric bets, when the strong men of the game joined with organized crime and I must say, with the help of politicians. They launched tentacles in at least six areas: drug and weapons trafficking, real estate speculation, prostitution, electronic games and clandestine transportation, and some say also regular transportation, such as taxis, buses, vans, and believe it or not, somehow the subway. Even forbidden, the animal game continues to this day with three daily draws, representing a small slice of dirty money that feeds criminals. “With the proliferation of official lotteries, electronic games and bingos, the animal game went into decay and lost a lot of public,” says Elena. But legend has it that those who enable the wonderful carnival of Rio de Janeiro, carioca, with nothing that compares in the world, is the animal game bookmakers, of course with the complicity of organized crime. Even clandestine, the animal game survives for over a century thanks to relations between bicheiros bookmakers and gamblers. Generally, the game “pools” and their “customers” are people in the same neighborhood, who discuss the bets together. The prize is paid instantly and a basic requirement to maintain the credibility of the draw and traditional pools know by heart the guess of their customers. Some gamblers protect the bicheiros bookmakers from the police, hiding them in their homes when the inspection passes. Because of repression, the animal games results are disseminated in a disguised manner, not to draw the police attention. One custom is to announce the animals drawn in classified or clandestine radios. In some neighborhoods, to prevent bookmakers from being caught with the crime proof, the bicheiros hang the results of the draw in a public place – a tree, for example. Each gambler pulls out a sheet with the animal of the day and takes its “fruit” quietly home
Those who study the game guarantee: the possibility of associating the animals with everyday life and even with dreams was fundamental to fix the game in the popular imagination. For gamblers, everything is reason for a guess. Was it betrayed by a fake friend? Play in the bear. Did you dreamed of escape or chase? Bet on the dog. Was stolen? Stop the cat, because the feline represents the thief. In the wisdom of the streets, the combinations are endless… Of course the extremely superstitious nature of the Brazilian helped a lot …
Back to our finding back in 1963, the lists of the weekly results showed that any animal chance to repeat itself would take no longer than 37 draws. You would have only to keep the results and check them. After experimentation, we concluded that to begin with, you could start with an animal after not showing for more than 20 weeks and to really hit the jack pot, after 30 weeks.
The normal bets were up to 50 dollars today, paying a thousand dollars. When we started betting much more than that, we had to negotiate with the Bookmakers, who agreed to accept the risk. We accumulated around 20 to 30,000 dollars and it was a horrible tension to wait for the results. Suddenly we started to lose and lost all the money earned. We came to the conclusion that the draw system had been changed, and the random flaw of the new system was different from what we had.
Is the dice game random?
Exploring a question that was debated in the 17th century by scientists and mathematicians Blaise Pascal and Pierre de Fermat, and many others before and since, doctoral student Marcin Kapitaniak at the University of Aberdeen, Scotland and his co-authors created a sophisticated theoretical model of the die throw in three dimensions. They considered how the effects of gravity, air resistance, friction of the table, and other factors influence the outcome of the roll. In addition, they observed the fall of the die with a high-speed camera that could capture the die’s trajectory at a rate of 1500 frames per second. What did they find to be the most important factor?
Their conclusion and whoever approaches the subject is that dice game is not random.
Why it is not possible to have a truly random number?
To start with, Software-generated random numbers only are pseudorandom. They are not truly random because the computer uses an algorithm based on a distribution, and are not secure because they rely on deterministic, predictable algorithms.
Randomness is relational. The problem modern computers have with randomness is that it doesn’t make mathematical sense. You can’t program a computer to produce true randomness—wherein no element has any consistent, rule-based relationship to any other element—because then it wouldn’t be random.
Theorized in statistical mathematics, the notion of randomness exists as a concept. But the definition of random models assumes that different events can be observed following identical initial circumstances. Such a form of randomness cannot exist in a world governed by determinism under the laws of physics.
Determinism forms an essential part of the image of classical physics: however, there are a few reasons to question whether physics was indeed deterministic up until the introduction of quantum mechanics.
The quantum universe is fundamentally probabilistic, unlike the deterministic universe described by classical physics. Einstein believed that the universe and its laws must be strictly deterministic. He felt that there could be no role for probability or chance, in nature’s foundation.
Unfortunately, generating random numbers looks a lot easier than it really is. Indeed, it is fundamentally impossible to produce truly random numbers on any deterministic device.
A conjecture called superdeterminism, outlined decades ago, is a response to several peculiarities of quantum mechanics: theapparentrandomness of quantum events; their apparent dependence on human observation, or measurement; and the apparent ability of a measurement in one place to determine, instantly, the outcome of a measurement elsewhere, an effect called nonlocality.
Einstein, who derided nonlocality as “spooky action at a distance,” insisted that quantum mechanics must be incomplete; there must be hidden variables that the theory overlooks. Superdeterminism is a radical hidden-variables theory proposed by physicist John Bell. He is renowned for a 1964 theorem, now named after him, that dramatically exposes the nonlocality of quantum mechanics.
Bell said in a BBC interview in 1985 that the puzzle of nonlocality vanishes if you assume that “the world is superdeterministic, with not just inanimate nature running on behind-the-scenes clockwork, but with our behavior, including our belief that we are free to choose to do one experiment rather than another, absolutely predetermined.”
Physics, which tracks changes in matter and energy, has nothing to say about love, desire, fear, hatred, justice, beauty, morality, meaning. All these things, viewed in the light of physics, could be described as “logically incoherent nonsense,” as Hossenfelder puts it. But they have consequences; they alter the world.
It seems to me that Max Born has the best approach when he says
“I believe that ideas such as absolute certitude, absolute exactness, final truth, etc. are figments of the imagination which should not be admissible in any field of science. On the other hand, any assertion of probability is either right or wrong from the standpoint of the theory on which it is based. This loosening of thinking (Lockerung des Denkens) seems to me to be the greatest blessing which modern science has given to us. For the belief in a single truth and in being the possessor thereof is the root cause of all evil in the world.”
BIBLE MYTHS AND THEIR PARALLELS IN OTHER RELIGIONS BEING A COMPARISON OF THE Old and New Testament Myths and Miracles WITH THOSE OF HEATHEN NATIONS OF ANTIQUITY CONSIDERING ALSO THEIR ORIGIN AND MEANING – BY T. W. DOANE1882
This book has withstood the test of time, as after 150 years it is edited and sold normally as a reference on the subject. I’m using its content as a reference, to confirm my idea that since I consider religion to be something that comes from the inside out, the things that are embedded in religions today, always have been the same, even if in a potential way with the characteristics that would present today. As the Bible is the best known, adopted and respected religious book, examining its contents with the oldest traditions, we will have evidence of what I am saying.
Contents of the Book
PART I
CHAPTER I – THE CREATION AND FALL OF MAN
CHAPTER II – THE DELUGE
CHAPTER III – THE TOWER OF BABEL
CHAPTER IV – THE TRIAL OF ABRAHAM’S FAITH
CHAPTER V – JACOB S VISION OF THE LADDER
CHAPTER VI – THE EXODUS FROM EGYPT
CHAPTER VII – RECEIVING THE TEN COMMANDMENTS
CHAPTER VIII – SAMSON AND HIS EXPLOITS
CHAPTER IX – JONAH SWALLOWED BY A BIG FISH
CHAPTER X – CIRCUMCISION
CHAPTER XI – CONCLUSION OF PART FIRST
PART II
CHAPTER XII – THE MIRACULOUS BIRTH OF CHRIST JESUS
CHAPTER XIII – THE STAR OP BETHLEHEM
CHAPTER XIV – THE SONG OF THE HEAVENLY HOST
CHAPTER XV – THE DIVINE CHILD RECOGNIZED, AND PRESENTED WITH GIFTS
CHAPTER XVI – THE BIRTH PLACE OF CHRIST JESUS
CHAPTER XVII – THE GENEALOGY OF CHRIST JESUS
CHAPTER XVIII – THE SLAUGHTER OF THE INNOCENTS
CHAPTER XIX – THE TEMPTATION, AND FAST OF FORTY DAYS
CHAPTER XX – THE CRUCIFIXION OF CHRIST JESUS
CHAPTER XXI – THE DARKNESS AT THE CRUCIFIXION
CHAPTER XXII – “HE DESCENDED INTO HELL”
CHAPTER XXIII – THE RESURRECTION AND ASCENSION OF CHRIST JESUS
CHAPTER XXIV – THE SECOND COMING OP CHRIST JESUS, AND THE MILLENNIUM
CHAPTER XXV – CHRIST JESUS AS JUDGE OF THE DEAD
CHAPTER XXVI – CHRIST JESUS AS CREATOR, AND ALPHA AND OMEGA
CHAPTER XXVII – THE MIRACLES OF CHRIST JESUS, AND THE PRIMITIVE CHRISTIANS
CHAPTER XXVIII – CHRIST CRISHNA AND CHRIST JESUS
CHAPTER XXIX – CHRIST BUDDHA AND CHRIST JESUS
CHAPTER XXX – THE EUCHARIST OR LORD’S SUPPER
CHAPTER XXXI – BAPTISM
CHAPTER XXXII – THE WORSHIP OP THE VIRGIN MOTHER
CHAPTER XXXIII – CHRISTIAN SYMBOLS
CHAPTER XXXIV – THE BIRTH-DATE OF CHRIST JESUS
CHAPTER XXXV – THE TRINITY
CHAPTER XXXVI – PAGANISM IN CHRISTIANITY
CHAPTER XXXVII – WHY CHRISTIANITY PROSPERED
CHAPTER XXXVIII – THE ANTIQUITY OF PAGAN RELIGIONS
CHAPTER XXXIX – EXPLANATION
CHAPTER XL – CONCLUSION
CHAPTER I – THE CREATION AND FALL OF MAN
Before proceeding to show from whence this legend, or legends, had their origin, we will notice a feature which is very prominent in the narrative, and which cannot escape the eye of an observing reader, i. e., the two different and contradictory accounts of the creation. The first of these commences at the first verse of chapter first, and ends at the third verse of chapter second. The second account commences at the fourth verse of chapter second, and continues to the end of the chapter. In speaking of these contradictory accounts of the Creation, Dean Stanley says : “It is now clear to diligent students of the Bible, that the first and second chapters of Genesis contain two narratives of the Creation, side by side, differing from each other in most every particular of time and place and order. J Bishop Colenso, in his very learned work on the Pentateuch, speaking on this subject, says :
The following are the most noticeable points of difference between the two cosmogonies :
1. In the first, the earth emerges from the waters and is, therefore, saturated with moisture (This logical sequence is supposed to be one of the first attempts to reconcile science with the Bible and failing at it) In the second, the whole face of the ground requires to be moistened.
2. In the first, the birds and the beasts are created before man. (The Etruscans believed in a creation of six thousand years, and in the successive production of different beings, the last of which was man.) In the second, man is created before the birds and the beasts
3. In the first, all fowls that fly are made out of the waters. In the second the fowls of the air are made out of the ground.
4. In the first, man is created in the image of God. In the second, man is made of the dust of the ground, and merely animated with the breath of life; and it is only after his eating the forbidden fruit that the Lord God said, Behold, the man has become as one of us, to know good and evil.
5. In the first, man is made lord of the whole earth. In the second, he is merely placed in the garden of Eden, to dress it and to keep it.
6. In the first, the man and the woman are created together, as the closing and completing work of the whole creation, created also, as is evidently implied, in the same kind of way, to be the complement of one another, and, thus created, they are blessed together.
” In the second, the beasts and birds are created between the man and the woman. First, the man is made of the dust of the ground; he is placed by himself in the garden, charged with a solemn command, and threatened with a curse if he breaks it; then the beasts and birds are made, and the man gives names to them, and, lastly, after all this, the woman is made out of one of his ribs, but merely as a helpmate for the man.
“The fact is, that the second account of the Creation, together with the story of the Fall, is manifestly composed by a different writer altogether from him who wrote the first.
“This is suggested at once by the circumstance that, throughout the first narrative, the Creator is always spoken of by the name Elohim (God), whereas, throughout the second account, as well as the story of the Fall, he is always called Jehovah Elohim (Lord God), except when the writer seems to abstain, for some reason, from placing the name Jehovah in the mouth of the serpent. This accounts naturally for the above contradictions. It would appear that, for some reason, the productions of two pens have been here united, without any reference to their inconsistencies.”
Dr. Kalisch, who does his utmost to maintain as far as his knowledge of the truth will allow the general historical veracity of this narrative, after speaking of the first account of the Creation, says :
” But now the narrative seems not only to pause, but to go backward. The grand and powerful climax seems at once broken off, and a languid repetition appears to follow. Another cosmogony is introduced, which, to complete the perplexity, is, in many important features, in direct contradiction to the former. “It would be dishonesty to conceal these difficulties. It would be weak mindedness and cowardice. It would be flight instead of combat. It would be an ignoble retreat , instead of victory. We confess there is an apparent dissonance.”
Dr. Knappert says : ” The account of the Creation from the hand of the Priestly author is utterly different from the other narrative, beginning at the fourth verse of Genesis ii. Here we are told that God created Heaven and Earth in six days, and rested on the seventh day, obviously with a view to bring out the holiness of the Sabbath in a strong light. “Now that we have seen there are two different and contradictory accounts of the Creation, to be found in the first two chapters of Genesis, we will endeavor to learn if there is sufficient reason to believe they are copies of more ancient legends. We have seen that, according to the first account, God divided the work of creation into six days. This idea agrees with that of the ancient Persians. The Zend-Avesta the sacred writings of the Parsees states (adherent of Zoroastrianism) that the Supreme being Ahuramazdii (Onnuzd), created the universe and man in six successive periods of time, in the following order : First, the Heavens; second, the Waters; third, the Earth ; fourth, the Trees and Plants ; fifth, Animals ; and sixth, Man. After the Creator had finished his work, he rested. The Avesta account of the Creation is limited to this announcement, but we find a more detailed history of the origin of the human species in the book entitled Bundehesh, dedicated to the exposition of a complete cosmogony. This book states that Ahuramazda created the first man and women joined together at the back. After dividing them, he endowed them with motion and activity, placed within them an intelligent soul, and bade them “to be humble of heart ; to observe the law ; to be pure in their thoughts, pure in their speech, pure in their actions.” Thus were born Mashya and Mashyana, the pair from which all human beings are descended. The idea brought out in this story of the first human pair having originally formed a single androgynous being with two faces, separated later into two personalities by the Creator, is to be found in the Genesis account (v. 2). “Male and female created he them, and blessed them, and named their name Adam.” Jewish tradition in the Targum and Talmud, as well as among learned rabbis, allege that Adam was created man and woman at the same time, having two faces turned in two opposite directions, and that the Creator separated the feminine half from him, in order to make of her a distinct person.
The ancient Etruscan legend, according to Delitzsch, is almost the same as the Persian. They relate that God created the world in six thousand years. In the first thousand he created the Heaven and Earth ; in the second, the Firmament ; in the third, the Waters of the Earth ; in the fourth, the Sun, Moon and Stars ; in the fifth, the Animals belonging to air, water and land ; and in the sixth, Man alone. Dr. Delitzsch, who maintains to the utmost the historical truth of the Scripture story in Genesis, yet says : “Whence comes the surprising agreement of the Etruscan and Persian legends with this section ? How comes it that the Babylonian cosmogony in Berosus, and the Phoenician in Sanchoniathou, in spite of their fantastical oddity, come in contact with it in remarkable details ?” After showing some of the similarities in the legends of these different nations, he continues : ” These are only instances of that which they have in common. For such an account outside of Israel, we must, however, conclude, that the author of Genesis 1 has no vision before him, but a tradition” Yon Bohlen tells us that the old Chaldean cosmogony is also the same? To continue the Persian legend ; we will now show that according to it, after the Creation man was tempted, and fell. Kalisch and Bishop Colenso tell us of the Persian legend that the first couple lived originally in purity and innocence. Perpetual happiness was promised them by the Creator if they persevered in their virtue. But an evil demon carne to them in the form of a serpent, sent by Ahriman, the prince of devils, and gave them fruit of a wonderful tree, which imparted immortality. Evil inclinations then entered their hearts, and all their moral excellence was destroyed. Consequently they fell, and forfeited the eternal happiness for which they were destined. They killed beasts, and clothed themselves in their skins. The evil demon obtained still more perfect power over their minds, and called forth envy, hatred, discord, and rebellion, which raged in the bosom of the families. Since the above was written, Mr. George Smith, of the British Museum, has discovered cuneiform inscriptions, which show conclusively that the Babylonians had this legend of the Creation and Fall of Man, some 1,500 years or more before the Hebrews heard of it. The cuneiform inscriptions relating to the Babylonian legend of the Creation and Fall of Man, which have been discovered by English archaeologists, are not, however, complete. The portions which relate to the Tree and Serpent have not been found, but Babylonian gem engravings show that these incidents were evidently a part of the original legend. The Tree of Life in the Genesis (see also Tree of Life (Judeo-Christian) – New World Encyclopedia and Numerology and Tree of Life) account appears to correspond with the sacred grove of Aim, which was guarded by a sword turning to all the four points of the compass. A representation of this Sacred Tree, with ” attendant cherubim” copied from an As Syrian cylinder, may be seen in Mr. George Smith’s “Chaldean Account of Genesis.” Figure No. 1, which we have taken from the same work, shows the tree of knowledge, fruit, and the serpent. Mr. Smith says of it :
“One striking and important specimen of early type in the British Museum collection, has two figures sitting one on each side of a tree, holding out their hands to the fruit, while at the back of one (the woman) is scratched a serpent. We know well that in these early sculptures none of these figures were chance devices, but all represented events, or supposed events, and figures in their legends; thus it is evident that a form of the story of the Fall, similar to that of Genesis, was known in early times in Babylonia.” This illustration might be used to illustrate the narrative of Genesis, and as Friedrich Delitzsch has remarked (G. Smith’s Chalddaische Genesis) is capable of no other explanation. M. Renan does not hesitate to join forces with the ancient commentators, in seeking to recover a trace of the same tradition among the Phenicians in the fragments of Sanchoniathon, translated into Greek by Philo of Byblos. In fact, it is there said, in speaking of the first human pair, and of AEon, which seems to be the translation of Havváh – (Hebrew name meaning life and in Phenician Havâth) and stands in her relation to the other members of the pair, that this personage “has found out how to obtain nourishment from the fruits of the tree.” The idea of the Edenic happiness of the first human beings constitutes one of the universal traditions. Among the Egyptians, the terrestial reign of the god Rah, who inaugurated the existence of the world and of human life, was a golden age to which they continually looked back with regret and envy. Its “like has never been seen since.” The ancient Greeks boasted of their ” Golden Age,” when sorrow and trouble were not known. Hesiod, an ancient Grecian poet, describes it thus : “Men lived like Gods, without vices or passions, vexation or toil, in happy companionship with divine beings, they passed their days in tranquility and joy, living together in perfect equality, united by mutual confidence and love. The earth was more beautiful than now, and spontaneously yielded an abundant variety of fruits. Human beings and animals spoke the same language and conversed with each other. Men were considered mere boys at a hundred years old. They had none of the infirmities of age to trouble them, and when they passed to regions of superior life, it was in a gentle slumber.” In the course of time, however, all the sorrows and troubles came to man. They were caused by inquisitiveness. The story is as follows : Epimetheus received a gift from Zeus (God), in the form of a beautiful woman (Pandora). “She brought with her a vase, the lid of which was (by the command of God), to remain closed. The curiosity of her husband, however, tempted him to open it, and suddenly there escaped from it troubles, weariness and illness from which mankind was never afterwards free. All that remained was hope.”
Among the Thibetans, the paradisiacal condition was more complete and spiritual. The desire to eat, of a certain sweet herb deprived men of their spiritual life. There arose a sense of shame, and the need to clothe themselves. Necessity compelled them to agriculture ; the virtues disappeared, and murder, adultery and their vices, stepped into their place. The idea that the Fall of the human race is connected with agriculture is found to be also often represented in the legends of the East African negroes, especially in the Calabar legend of the Creation, which presents many interesting points of comparison with the biblical story of the Fall. The first human pair are called by a bell at meal-times to Abasi (the Calabar God), in heaven; and in place of the forbidden tree of Genesis are put agriculture and propagation, which Abasi strictly denies to the first pair. The Fall is denoted by the transgression of both these commands, especially through the use of implements of tillage (land under cultivation), to which the woman is tempted by a female friend who is given to her. From that moment man fell and became mortal, so that, as the Bible story has it, he can cat bread only in the sweat of his face. There agriculture is a curse, a fall from a more perfect stage to a lower and imperfect one. Dr. Kalisch, writing of the Garden of Eden, says: “The Paradise is no exclusive feature of the early history of the Hebrews. Most of the ancient nations have similar narratives about a happy abode (place of residence), which care does not approach, and which re-echoes with the sounds of the happy bliss.” The Persians supposed that a region of bliss and delight called Heden, more beautiful than all the rest of the world, traversed by a mighty river, was the original abode of the first men, before they were tempted by the evil spirit in the form of a serpent, to partake of the fruit of the forbidden tree Hôm. Dr. Delitzsch, writing of the Persian legend, observes: “Innumerable attendants of the Holy One keep watch against the attempts of Ahriman, over the tree Hôm, which contains in itself the power of the resurrection.
The ancient Greeks had a tradition concerning the “Islands of the Blessed,” the Elysium,” on the borders of the earth, abounding in every charm of life, and the “Garden of the Hesperides, the Paradise, in which grew a tree bearing the golden apples of Immortality. It was guarded by three nymphs, and a Serpent, or Dragon, the ever-watchful Ladon. (Ladon was amongst the most famous of the dragons talked of in Greek mythology. Ladon was also known as the Hesperian Dragon, for he was to be found in the Garden of the Hesperides, where he guarded the famous Golden Apples.)
It was one of the labors of Hercules to gather some of these apples of life. When he arrived there he found the garden protected by a Dragon. Ancient medallions represent a tree with a serpent twined around it. Hercules has gathered an apple, and near him stand the three nymphs, called Hesperides. This is simply a parallel of the Eden myth. The Rev. Mr. Faber, speaking of Hercules, says : “On the Sphere he is represented in the act of contending with the Serpent, the head of which is placed under his foot ; and this Serpent, we are told, is that which guarded the tree with golden fruit in the midst of the garden of the Hesperides. But the garden of the Hesperides was none other than the garden of Paradise; consequently the serpent of that garden, the head of which is crushed beneath the heel of Hercules, and which itself is described as encircling with its folds the trunk of the mysterious tree, must necessarily be a transcript of that Serpent whose form was assumed by the tempter of our first parents. We may observe the same ancient tradition in the Phoenician fable representing Ophion or Ophioneus. And Professor Fergusson says : “Hercules adventures in the garden of the Hesperides, is the Pagan form of the myth that most resembles the precious Serpent-guarded fruit of the Garden of Eden, though the moral of the fable is so widely different”
The ancient Egyptians also had the legend of the “Tree of Life.” It is mentioned in their sacred books that Osiris ordered the names of some souls to be written on this “Tree of Life,” the fruit of which made those who ate it to become as gods. Among the most ancient traditions of the Hindoos (a follower of hinduism, a Hindu), is that of the Tree of Life – called Soma in Sanskrit the juice of which imparted immortality. This most wonderful tree was guarded by spirits. Still more striking is the Hindoo legend of the “Elysium” or “Paradise,” which is as follows: “In the sacred mountain Meru, which is perpetually clothed in the golden rays of the Sun, and whose lofty summit reaches into heaven, no sinful man can exist. It is guarded by a dreadful dragon. It is adorned with many celestial plants and trees, and is watered by four rivers, which thence separate and flow to the four chief directions.”
The Hindoos, like the philosophers of the Ionic school (Thales, for instance), held water to be the first existing and all-pervading principle, at the same time allowing the coperation and influence of an immaterial intelligence in the work of creation. A Vedic poet, meditating on the Creation, uses the following expressions: “Nothing that is was then, even what is not, did not exist then.” “There was no space, no life, and lastly there was no time, no difference between day and night, no solar torch by which morning might have been told from evening.” Darkness there was, and all at first was veiled in gloom profound, as ocean without light.” The Hindoo legend approaches very nearly to that preserved in the Hebrew Scriptures. Thus, it is said that Siva, as the Supreme Being, desired to tempt Brahma (who had taken human form, and was called Swayambhura – son of the self-existent), and for this object he dropped from heaven a blossom of the sacred fig tree.
Swayambhura, instigated by his wife, Satarupa, endeavors to obtain this blossom, thinking its possession will render him immortal and divine ; but when he has succeeded in doing so, he is cursed by Siva, and doomed to misery and degradation. The sacred Indian fig is endowed by the Brahmins and the Buddhists with mysterious significance, as the “Tree of Knowledge ” or “Intelligence”.
There is no Hindoo legend of the Creation similar to the Persian and Hebrew accounts, and Ceylon was never believed to have been the Paradise or home of our first parents, although such stories are in circulation. The Hindoo religion states – as we have already seen – Mount Meru to be the Paradise, out of which went four rivers.
We have noticed that the “Gardens of Paradise” are said to have been guarded by Dragons, and that, according to the Genesis account, it was Cherubim that protected Eden. This apparent difference in the legends is owing to the fact that we have come in our modern times to speak of Cherub as though it were an other name for an Angel. But the Cherub of the writer of Genesis, the Cherub of Assyria, the Cherub of Babylon, the Cherub of the entire Orient, at the time the Eden story was written, was not at all an Angel, but an animal, and a mythological one at that. The Cherub had, in some cases, the body of a lion, with the head of another animal, or a man, and the wings of a bird. In Ezekiel they have the body of a man, whose head, besides a human countenance, has also that of a Lion, an Ox and an Eagle. They are provided with four wings, and the whole body is spangled with innumerable eyes. In Assyria and Babylon they appear as winged bulls with human faces, and are placed at the gateways of palaces and temples as guardian genii who watch over the dwelling, as the Cherubim in Genesis watch the ” Tree of Life.”
Most Jewish writers and Christian Fathers conceived the Cherubim as Angels. Most theologians also considered them as Angels, until Michaelis showed them to be a mythological animal, a poetical creation. We see then, that our Cherub is simply a Dragon. To continue our inquiry regarding the prevalence of the Edenmyth among nations of antiquity. The Chinese have their Age of Virtue, when nature furnished abundant food, and man lived peacefully, surrounded by all the beasts. In their sacred books there is a story concerning a mysterious garden, where grew a tree bearing “apples of immortality,” guarded by a winged serpent, called a Dragon. They describe a primitive age of the world, when the earth yielded abundance of delicious fruits without cultivation, and the seasons were untroubled by wind and storms. There was no calamity, sickness, or death. Men were then good without effort ; for the human heart was in harmony with the peacefulness and beauty of nature. The “Golden Age” of the past is much dwelt upon by their ancient commentators. One of them says : “All places were then equally the native county of every man. Flocks wandered in the fields without any guide; birds filled the air with their melodious voices; and the fruits grew of their own accord. Men lived pleasantly with the animals, and all creatures were members of the same family. Ignorant of evil, man lived in simplicity and perfect innocence.”
Another commentator says : “In the first age of perfect purity, all was in harmony, and the passions did not occasion the slightest murmur. Man, united to sovereign reason within, conformed his outward actions to sovereign justice. Far from all duplicity and falsehood, his soul received marvelous felicity from heaven, and the purest delights from earth.”
Another says: “A delicious garden refreshed with zephyrs, and planted with odoriferous trees, was situated in the middle of a mountain, which was the avenue of heaven. The waters that moistened it flowed from a source called the Fountain of immortality: He who drinks of it never dies. Thence flowed four rivers. A Golden River, betwixt the South and East, a lied River, between the North and East, the River of the Lamb between the North and West.”
The animal Kaiming guards the entrance.
Partly by an undue thirst for knowledge, and partly by increasing sensuality, and the seduction of woman, man fell. Then passion and lust ruled in the human mind, and war with the animals began. In one of the Chinese sacred volumes, called the Chi-Kinoit is said that : “All was subject to man at first, but a woman threw us into slavery The wise husband raised up a bulwark of walls, but the woman, by an ambitious desire of knowledge, demolished them, Our misery did not come from heaven, but from a voman. She lost the human race. Ah, unhappy Poo See ! thou kindled the fire that consumes us, and which is every clay augmenting. Our misery has lasted many ages. The world is lost. Vice overflows all things like a mortal poison.” Thus we see that the Chinese are no strangers to the doctrine of original sin. It is their invariable belief that man is a fallen being ; admitted by them from time immemorial. The inhabitants of Madagascar had a legend similar to the Eden story, which is related as follows : “The first man was created of the dust of the earth, and was placed in a garden, where he was subject to none of the ills which now ailed mortality; he was also free from all bodily appetites, and though surrounded by delicious fruit and limpid streams yet felt no desire to taste of the fruit or to quail the water. The Creator, had, moreover, strictly forbid him either to eat or to drink. The great enemy, however, came to him, and painted to him, in glowing colors, the sweetness of the apple, and the lusciousness of the date, and the succulence of the orange.” After resisting the temptations for a while, he at last ate of the fruit, and consequently fell.” A legend of the Creation, similar to the Hebrew, was found by Mr. Ellis among the Tahitians, and appeared in his ” Polynesian Researches.” It is as follows : After Taarao had formed the world, he created man out of araea, red earth, which was also the food of man until bread was made. Taarao one day called for the man by name. “When he came, he caused him to fall asleep, and while he slept, he took out one of his ivi, or bones, and with it made a woman, whom he gave to the man as his wife, and they became the progenitors of mankind. The woman s name was Ivi, which signifies a bone.” The prose Edda, of the ancient Scandinavians, speaks of the “Golden Age” when all was pure and harmonious. This age lasted until the arrival of woman out of Jotunheim the region of the giants, a sort of ” land of Nod” who corrupted it. In the annals of the Mexicans, the first woman, whose name was translated by the old Spanish writers, “the woman of our flesh,” is always represented as accompanied by a great male serpent, who seems to be talking to her. Some writers believe this to be the tempter speaking to the primeval mother, and others that it is in tended to represent the father of the human race. This Mexican Eve is represented on their monuments as the mother of twins.
Mr. Franklin, in his ” Buddhists and Jeynes,” says : “A striking instance is recorded by the very intelligent traveler (Wilson), regarding a representation of the Fall of our first parents, sculptured in the magnificent temple of Ipsambul, in Nubia. He says that a very exact representation of Adam and Eve in the garden of Eden is to be seen in that cave, and that the ,serpent climbing round the tree is especially delineated, and the whole subject of the tempting of our first parents most accurately exhibited.”
Nearly the same thing was found by Colonel Coombs in the South of India. Colonel Tod, in his “Hist. Rajapoutana”, says: “A drawing, brought by Colonel Coombs from a sculptured column in a cave-temple in the South of India, represents the first pair at the foot of the ambrosial tree, and a serpent entwined among the heavily-laden boughs, presenting to them some of the fruit from his mouth. The tempter appears to be at that part of his discourse, when
‘………… his words, replete with guile, Into her heart too easy entrance won: Fixed on the fruit she gazed.‘
“This is a curious subject to be engraved on an ancient Pagan temple.”
So the Colonel thought, no doubt, but it is not so very curious after all. It is the same myth which we have found – with but such small variations only as time and circumstances may be expected to produce – among different nations, in both the Old and New Worlds.
Fig. No. 2, taken from the work of Mont-faucon, represents one of these ancient Pagan sculptures. Can any one doubt that it is allusive to the myth of which we have been treating in this chapter?
That man was originally created a perfect being, and is now a fallen and broken remnant of what he once was, we have seen to be a piece of mythology, not only unfounded in fact, but, beyond intelligent question, prove untrue.
What, then, is the significance of the exposure of this myth? What does its loss as a scientific fact, and as a portion of Christian dogma, imply? I implies that with it – although many Christian divines who admit this to be a legend, do not, or do not profess, to see it – must fall the whole Orthodox scheme, for upon this MYTH the theology of Christendom is built. The doctrine of the inspiration of the Scriptures, the Fall of man, his total depravity, the Incarnation, the Atonement, the devil, hell, in fact, the entire theology of the Christian church, falls to pieces with the historical inaccuracy of this story, for upon it is it built tis the foundation of the whole structure. According to Christian dogma, the Incarnation of Christ Jesus had become necessary, merely because he had to redeem the evil introduced into the world by the fall of man. These two dogmas cannot be separated from each other. If there was no fall, there is no need of an atonement, and no Redeemer is required. Those, then, who consent in recognizing in Christ Jesus a God and Redeemer, and who, notwithstanding, cannot resolve upon admitting the story of the Fall of man to be historical, should exculpate themselves from the reproach of inconsistency. There are a great number, however, in this position at the present day. Although, as we have said, many Christian divines do not, or do not profess to, see the force of the above argument, there are many who do; and they, regardless of their scientific learning, cling to these old myths, professing to believe them, well knowing what must follow with their fall. The following, though written some years ago, will serve to illustrate this style of reasoning. The Bishop of Manchester (England) writing in the ” Manchester Examiner and Times,” said :
“The very foundation of our faith, the very basis of our hopes, the very nearest and dearest of our consolations are taken from us, when one line of that sacred volume, on which we base everything, is declared to be untruthful and untrustworthy.”
The ” English Churchman,” speaking of clergymen who have ” doubts,” said that any who are not thoroughly persuaded “that the Scriptures cannot in any particular be untrue,” should leave the Church. The Rev. E. Garbett, M. A., in a sermon preached before the University of Oxford, speaking of the “historical truth” of the Bible, said :
” It is the clear teaching of those doctrinal formularies, to which we of the Church of England have expressed our solemn assent, and no honest interpretation of her language can get rid of it
And that :
“In all consistent reason, we must accept the whole of the inspired autographs, or reject the whole.”
Dr. Baylee, Principal of a theological university St. Aiden’s College -at Birkenhead, England, and author of a “Manual,” called “Bailee’s ‘Verbal Inspiration'”, written “chiefly for the youths of St. Aiders College” makes use of the following words, in that work:
“The whole Bible, as a revelation, is a declaration of the mind of God towards his creatures on all the subjects of which the Bible treats.”
“The Bible is God’s Word, in the same sense as if he had made use of no human agent, but had Himself spoken it”
“The Bible cannot be less than verbally inspired. Every word, every syllable, every letter, is just what it would be, had God spoken from heaven without any human intervention.”
“Every scientific statement is infallibly correct, all its history and narrations of every kind, are without any inaccuracy.”
A whole volume might be filled with such quotations, not only from religious works and journals published in England, but from those published in the United States of America.
Not so easy! (R E Campos)
My intention here was to demonstrate that the basis of all religions in its core is the same because it comes from something inside of us and, to be honest, I didn’t expect to end up subscribing atonement as something false without the power to be the foundation of the most professed form of faith in the world which is Christianity. Since my point seems to me proved, lets dwell a little bit in this unexpected consequence and how we can deal with it maintaining our act together, which in my case is that if God and all which comes with it, didn’t exist, it better be invented, what, to me is what happened. Why did we, then invented it that paradoxical way? I will use the same reasoning I used when I did my site blog on Dante’s Inferno. I was motivated by an article in our local newspaper scorning Dante’s work as being an invention of the Catholic Church for the naive, or stupid, who could not stand up to science or the perception of reality in the modern world. I will sumarize it here, but it can be seen in detail there.
My point of contention is the panel Dulle Griet by Pieter Bruegel the Elder done in 1561:
Who was this mysterious, colossal woman that the painting earned its nickname Dulle Griet’ (‘crazy girl’, often translated as ‘Mad Meg’) wearing a military costume and seems to be heading for the mouth of hell, visible on the left. Her female followers loot the house on the other side of the bridge. Another giant figure, sitting on top of the building, carries a boat on his shoulder. And these are only a few elements of this picture, which is chock-full of monstrous creatures and enigmatic symbols that were probably easily understood by Bruegel’s contemporaries.
The present appreciation of Dulle Griet does not necessarily imply that one understands a lot more of this work, although many scholars have speculated about the significance since then. For example, the panel has been interpreted in the context of the warfare in sixteenth-century Flanders, Dante’s Inferno, Erasmian humanism, medieval allegory, gender studies and much more.
In my opinion, the safest interpretation is that Bruegel wants to show us an upside down world, in which all social and ethical standards that make civil society liveable are inverted. As such, it delivers an implicit warning: if we don’t behave in a proper way, i.e. without folly, greed and cruelty, our world ends in complete madness.
Whenever the subject Inferno or Hell in Dante’s vision which dominates the western culture, comes up, in our 21rst century, even before, there is a general acknowledgement that hell is actually already here. If you take a look on the depiction of Dante’s Inferno, you will see a detailed list of the improper ways which we don’t behave:
You may not believe in God, or the devil, or hell, but let me ask you: do you believe that this list depicts something which exists? Try for a moment to exclude the idea that Dante framed his Inferno centered in Jerusalem and physically projected it in three dimensions in a typical allegory, once that at the time he did it basically almost nobody could read and notions where normally passed on verbally with some kind of picture. Take a look on the concept he was embedding:
With the help of Dante, i.e., from a depiction his master piece originated we will discuss very briefly:
Atonement. Detail of the Monument to Dante in Trento by Cesare Zocchi
I will sumarize here the entry above at Wikipedia.
Bear in mind that the word Atonement is used to describe the saving work that God did through Christ to reconcile the world to Himself, and also of the state of a person having been reconciled to God. According to The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, atonement in Christian theology is “man’s reconciliation with God through the sacrificial death of Christ.
In this monument, Cesare Zocchi depitcs two souls who have expiated, reconciled with God and are about to reach Paradise and the devil (evil) lost its quest and shows his frustration perhaps crying in desperation with his face down to the ground.
I return to the same reasoning that I presented in the introduction to Dante’s Inferno: You may not believe in God or the devil, you may think that all these religious teachings are nonsense, but how can you deny that evil exists, that we practice it, that we lose ourselves, that the devil helps to bury us, even if figuratively when we project our weaknesses and wickedness onto him and that after a lifetime all of us in some way when we have to meet ourselves, thinking about that while alive, we can never be sure that, if there is a final judgment defining our destiny, it is impossible to know what our destiny would be and the existence of a possibility like the one created by the sacrifice of Christ is an extremely attractive option and brings peace in the face of a risk of these proportions, that is, as the religious say, not returning to Father’s house and be cast into the darkness of hell. These ideas may be false projections of our ignorance, but they make such universal sense, specially when tied together with the teachings of Christ, including prayer as a crutch to carry on, especially the incredible Our Father prayer, when Jesus teaches us to pray for the things that we need. “Give us this day our daily bread.Forgive our sins.Save us.” Jesus also teaches us to pray for God’s ways above our own. All that makes such a good, perhaps perfect, sense, that most human beings espouse it making Christianity the most adopted religion by mankind.
Zocchi’s sculpture can be interpreted as God’s response to the Lord’s Prayer.
The most striking feature of all that is its simplicity and if you’re a hard core agnostic or atheist, such as myself, if I let myself be carried away by reason, the problems are all solved, because you’re really going to disappear and you don’t have to worry about anything else, what my heart insists on telling me that does not happen, even without any proof or “scientific” evidence.
The ransom theory of atonement was a theory inChristian theology as to how the process of Atonement in Christianity had happened. It therefore accounted for the meaning and effect of the death of Jesus Christ. It was one of a number of historical theories, and was mostly popular between the 4th and 11th centuries, with little support in recent times. It originated in the early Church, particularly in the work of Origen. The theory teaches that the death of Christ was aransomsacrifice, usually said to have been paid to Satan, in satisfaction for the bondage and debt on the souls of humanity as a result ofinherited sin.
Aulén interpreted the ransom theory as a “victory over the powers which hold mankind in bondage: sin, death, and the devil.”[4] According to Pugh, “Ever since [Aulén’s] time, we call these patristic ideas the Christus Victor way of seeing the cross.”[5] It is sometimes known as the fishhook theory of atonement, since Church Fathers such as Cyril of Alexandria andGregory of Nyssa envisioned Christ as bait on a fishhook, luring Satan to take the bait and destroy himself.[6][
The recapitulation theory of the atonement is a doctrine in Christian theology related to the meaning and effect of the death of Jesus Christ.
While it is sometimes absent from summaries of atonement theories ,[1] more comprehensive overviews of the history of the atonement doctrine typically include a section about the “recapitulation” view of the atonement, which was first clearly formulated by Irenaeus of Lyons.[2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9]
One of the main New Testament scriptures upon which this view is based states: “[God’s purpose is, in] the fulness of the times, to sum up all things in Christ, the things in the heavens, and the things upon the earth…” (Ephesians 1:10, RV). The Greek word for ‘sum up’ was literally rendered ‘to recapitulate’ in Latin.[10]
In the recapitulation view of the atonement, Christ is seen as the new Adam who succeeds where Adam failed. Christ undoes the wrong that Adam did and, because of his union with humanity, leads humankind on to eternal life (including moral perfection).12]
As William Barclay puts in simple words: Through man’s disobedience the process of the evolution of the human race went wrong, and the course of its wrongness could neither be halted nor reversed by any human means. But in Jesus Christ the whole course of human evolution was perfectly carried out and realised in obedience to the purpose of God.
Objective paradigm
While the idea of substitutionary atonement is present in nearly all atonement theories, some argue that the specific ideas of satisfaction and penal substitution are later developments in the Roman Catholic church and in Calvinism. Both Anselm’s satisfaction theory and the penal satisfaction theory hold that human beings cannot rightfully repay the debt (to God’s honour [Anselm], or to God’s justice [penal substitution]) which was incurred through their willful disobedience to God. Since only God can make the satisfaction necessary to repay it, rather than merely forgiving humanity, God sent the God-man, Jesus Christ, to fulfill both these conditions. Christ is a sacrifice by God on behalf of humanity, taking humanity’s debt for sin upon himself, and propitiating God’s wrath. The penal substitution theory has been rejected by liberal Christians as un-Biblical, and an offense to the love of God.
According to Richard Rohr, “these theories are based on retributive justice rather than the restorative justice that the prophets and Jesus taught.” The Governmental theory, introduced by Hugo Grotius (17th century), states that Christ suffered for humanity so that God could forgive humans without punishing them while still maintaining divine justice. Jesus’ death demonstrated God’s hatred of sin, and thus God’s law (his rule, his government) is upheld (people see that sin is serious and will lead to death), and God forgives people who recognise this and respond through repentance. The governmental theory rejects the notion of penal substitution, but is still substitutionary itself in that Christ, in his exemplary sufferings, substituted for believers and the punishment they would otherwise receive.
The satisfaction theory of atonement is a theory in Catholic theology which holds that Jesus Christ redeemed humanity through making satisfaction for humankind’s disobedience through his own supererogatory obedience. The theory draws primarily from the works of Anselm of Canterbury, specifically his Cur Deus Homo (“Why was God a man?”). It has been traditionally taught in the Roman Catholic tradition of Western Christianity. Since one of God’s characteristics is justice, affronts to that justice must be atoned for. It is thus connected with the legal concept of balancing out an injustice. Anselm regarded his satisfaction view of the atonement as a distinct improvement over the older ransom theory of atonement, which he saw as inadequate, due to its notion of a debt being owed to the devil. Anselm’s theory was a precursor to the innovations of later theologians like John Calvin, who introduced the idea of Christ suffering the Father’s just punishment as a vicarious substitute.
Scholasticism was a medieval school of philosophy that employed a critical organic method of philosophical analysis predicated upon the Aristotelian 10 Categories. Christian scholasticism emerged within the monastic schools that translated scholastic Judeo—Islamic philosophies, and thereby “rediscovered” the collected works of Aristotle. Endeavoring to harmonize his metaphysics and its account of a prime mover with the Latin Catholic dogmatic trinitarian theology, these monastic schools became the basis of the earliest European medieval universities, and scholasticism dominated education in Europe from about 1100 to 1700. The rise of scholasticism was closely associated with these schools that flourished in Italy, France, Portugal, Spain and England. Scholasticism is a method of learning more than a philosophy or a theology, since it places a strong emphasis on dialectical reasoning to extend knowledge by inference and to resolve contradictions. Scholastic thought is also known for rigorous conceptual analysis and the careful drawing of distinctions. In the classroom and in writing, it often takes the form of explicit disputation; a topic drawn from the tradition is broached in the form of a question, oppositional responses are given, a counterproposal is argued and oppositional arguments rebutted. Because of its emphasis on rigorous dialectical method, scholasticism was eventually applied to many other fields of study. Scholasticism was initially a program conducted by medieval Christian thinkers attempting to harmonize the various authorities of their own tradition, and to reconcile Christian theology with classical and late antiquity philosophy, especially that of Aristotle but also of Neoplatonism.
Anselm of Canterbury
Anselm of Canterbury (1033/4–1109), also called Anselm of Aosta (Italian: Anselmo d’Aosta) after his birthplace and Anselm of Bec (French: Anselme du Bec) after his monastery, was an Italian[7] Benedictine monk, abbot, philosopher and theologian of the Catholic Church, who held the office of Archbishop of Canterbury from 1093 to 1109. After his death, he was canonized as a saint; his feast day is 21 April. As archbishop, he defended the church’s interests in England amid the Investiture Controversy. For his resistance to the English kings William II and Henry I, he was exiled twice: once from 1097 to 1100 and then from 1105 to 1107. While in exile, he helped guide the Greek bishops of southern Italy to adopt Roman rites at the Council of Bari. He worked for the primacy of Canterbury over the bishops of York and Wales but, though at his death he appeared to have been successful, Pope Paschal II later reversed himself and restored York’s independence. Beginning at Bec, Anselm composed dialogues and treatises with a rational and philosophical approach, sometimes causing him to be credited as the founder of Scholasticism. Despite his lack of recognition in this field in his own time, Anselm is now famed as the originator of the ontological argument for the existence of God and of the satisfaction theory of atonement. He was proclaimed a Doctor of the Church by a bull of Pope Clement XI in 1720.
Penal substitution (sometimes, esp. in older writings, called forensic theory) is a theory of the atonement within Christian theology, which declares that Christ, voluntarily submitting to God the Father’s plan, was punished (penalized) in the place of sinners (substitution), thus satisfying the demands of justice so God can justly forgive sins making us at one with God (atonement). It began with Luther and continued to develop with the Calvinist tradition as a specific understanding of substitutionary atonement, where the substitutionary nature of Jesus’ death is understood in the sense of a substitutionary fulfilment of legal demands for the offenses of sins.
Calvinism (also called the Reformed Tradition, Reformed Protestantism, Reformed Christianity, or simply Reformed is a major branch of Protestantism that follows the theological tradition and forms of Christian practice set down by John Calvin and other Reformation-era theologians. It emphasises the sovereignty of God and the authority of the Bible. Calvinists broke from the Roman Catholic Church in the 16th century. Calvinists differ from Lutherans (another major branch of the Reformation) on the spiritual real presence of Christ in the Lord’s Supper, theories of worship, the purpose and meaning of baptism, and the use of God’s law for believers, among other points. The label Calvinism can be misleading, because the religious tradition it denotes has always been diverse, with a wide range of influences rather than a single founder; however, almost all of them drew heavily from the writings of Augustine of Hippo twelve hundred years prior to the Reformation.
Arminian
Arminianism is a branch of Protestantism based on the theological ideas of the Dutch Reformed theologian Jacobus Arminius (1560–1609) and his historic supporters known as Remonstrants. Dutch Arminianism was originally articulated in the Remonstrance (1610), a theological statement submitted to the States General of the Netherlands. This expressed an attempt to moderate the doctrines of Calvinism related to its interpretation of predestination. The Synod of Dort (1618–19) was called by the States General to consider the Five Articles of Remonstrance. Classical Arminianism, to which Arminius is the main contributor, and Wesleyan Arminianism, to which John Wesley is the main contributor, are the two main schools of thought. Many Christian denominations have been influenced by Arminian views on the will of man being freed by grace prior to regeneration, notably the Baptists in the 17th century, the Methodists in the 18th century, and the Pentecostals in the 20th century.
The moral influence or moral example theory of atonement, developed or most notably propagated by Abelard (1079–1142), is an alternative to Anselm’s satisfaction theory of atonement. Abelard focused on changing man’s perception of God as not offended, harsh, and judgmental, but as loving.[1] According to Abelard, “Jesus died as the demonstration of God’s love,” a demonstration which can change the hearts and minds of the sinners, turning back to God.
The governmental theory of the atonement (also known as the rectoral theory, or the moral government theory) is a doctrine in Christian theology concerning the meaning and effect of the death of Jesus Christ. It teaches that Christ suffered for humanity so that God could forgive humans without punishing them while still maintaining divine justice. In the modern era it is more often taught in non-Calvinist protestant circles, yet also bearing in mind that Arminius, John Wesley and other Arminians never speak clearly of it. It is drawn primarily from the works of Hugo Grotius and later theologians like John Miley and H. Orton Wiley.
Socinianism is a nontrinitarian belief system deemed heretical by the Catholic Church and other Christian traditions. Named after the Italian theologians Lelio Sozzini (Latin: Laelius Socinus) and Fausto Sozzini (Latin: Faustus Socinus), uncle and nephew, respectively, it was developed among the Polish Brethren in the Polish Reformed Church during the 16th and 17th centuries and embraced by the Unitarian Church of Transylvania during the same period. It is most famous for its Non-trinitarian Christology but contains a number of other heretical beliefs as well.
Limited atonement (also called definite atonement or particular redemption) is a doctrine accepted in some Christian theological traditions. It is particularly associated with the Reformed tradition and is one of the five points of Calvinism. The doctrine states that though the death of Jesus Christ is sufficient to atone for the sins of the whole world, it was the intention of God the Father that the atonement of Christ’s death would work itself out in only the elect, thereby leading them without fail to salvation. According to Limited Atonement, Christ died for the sins of the elect alone, and no atonement was provided for the reprobate. This is in contrast to a belief that God’s prevenient grace (or “enabling grace”) enables all to respond to the salvation offered by God in Jesus Christ Acts 2:21 so that it is each person’s decision and response to God’s grace that determines whether Christ’s atonement will be effective to that individual. A modified form of the doctrine also exists in Molinism.
Unlimited atonement (sometimes called general atonement or universal atonement) is a doctrine in Protestant Christianity that is normally associated with Amyraldism (four-point Calvinism), as well as Arminianism and other non-Calvinist traditions. The doctrine states that Jesus died as a propitiation for the benefit of all humans without exception. It is a doctrine distinct from other elements of the Calvinist acronym TULIP and is contrary to the Calvinist doctrine of limited atonement.
A doctrinal issue that divides Christians is the question of the extent of the atonement. This question typically goes as follows: “Did Christ bear the sins of the elect alone on the cross, or did his death expiate the sins of all human beings?” Those who take this view read scriptures such as John 3:16; 1 Timothy 2:6; 4:10; Hebrews 2:9; 1 John 2:2 to say that the Bible teaches unlimited atonement.
Man & Time J B Priestley 
