It has not been scientifically proven, in spite of
René Descartes’[1] (the foundational father of Cartesianism and
Rationalism) attempt of claiming otherwise in his Meditations on First Philosophy – In Which the Existence of God and the Immortality of the Soul Are
Demonstrated, which presented the philosopher’s first impressions on
metaphysics, as we now demonstrate in the third chapter, «Meditation III: Concerning God, That He
Exists»[2]. So, to begin this essay
out of curiosity and enrichment of study, Descartes divided his ideas over the
existence of God into three:
1) Adventitious;
2) Fictitious;
3) Innate.
Adventitious
The first kind is curiously related to the
philosophical point of view he will reject in the 17th century, when he lived
most of his life, i.e. Empiricism[3], fought for by Bishop George Berkeley (1685–1753),
David Hume [also known for scepticism (1711–1776)], Thomas Hobbes (1588–1679),
John Locke [the most important contributor to the laying out of Enlightenment
(1632–1704)] and Jean-Jacques Rousseau [whose philosophical views influenced
the French Revolution and Romanticism[4] in general (1712–1778)].
Fictitious
The second kind is related to imagination, the ability
humans have to produce something which does not exist in their minds, then
turning it into reality, i.e. the right cerebral hemisphere, which is also
responsible for the left side of our body, produces invented aspects in one’s
life, as well as memory storage, which enables people to remember at least the
shape of certain objects such as a chair or a table – no matter their formats,
they are always based on a, and pardon our redundancy, concrete concept,
visually acquired by the left cerebral hemisphere, held responsible by the
right side of the body, as well as many important functions such as communication
– Broca’s area, related to the ability of speech, is located in the left side
of the human brain, though this may change on the count of left-handedness.
However, it is interesting that accentuation and intonation, being related to
language and studied by the linguistic science of Prosody, are based in the
right-hand side of the brain, all of this because people can choose and thus
imagine how they wish to speak, an artistic characteristic that applies to just
about everyone.
We will see in
a short while how the philosopher responds to this as far as the existence of
God is concerned.
Innate
Finally, regarding the third type, Descartes writes
that God placed himself in us. This is an innate (natural) idea because it is
born with us. That is why the idea (antonym of concept, we must stress) of God
cannot be related to the others.
Now, when we hold on to a theory, just like us
throughout these pages, we must present actual facts that can indeed prove and
defy common sense. That is why we recur to scientific knowledge, which we study
through epistemology. Let us take a look at Descartes’ two arguments to prove
the existence of the Almighty.
«Argument I
“Something cannot come from nothing.
1)
The cause of an idea must have at least as much formal reality as the
idea has objective reality;
2) I have in me an
idea of God. This idea has infinite objective reality;
3) I cannot be the
cause of this idea, since I am not an infinite and perfect
being. I don't have enough formal reality.
Only an infinite and perfect
being could cause such an idea;
4) So God — a being
with infinite formal reality — must exist (and be the
source of my idea of God);
5) An absolutely
perfect being is a good, benevolent being;
6) So God is
benevolent...;
7) So God would not
deceive me, and would not permit me to err without
giving me a way to correct my errors”.
Argument
II
“[My existence and the causes to make it possible].
1) I exist;
2) My existence must
have a cause;
3) The only possible
ultimate causes are:
a) myself;
b) my always having existed;
c) my parents;
d) something less perfect than
God;
e) God.
5) Not b. This does
not solve the problem. If I am a dependent being, I
7) Not d. The idea
of perfection that exists in me cannot have originated
8) Therefore, e. God
exists”».
Descartes had a clear and distinct idea of God. So, in
the same way that the cogito was
self-evident, so too was the existence of God.
However, if Descartes had had the chance of taking a
look at our footnote counterarguments, we believe it would not be so easy for
him to reply. This is no case of «Aunt Sally»[9], and António Damásio[10], through his Descartes’
Error[11], did not stand up to a «straw man», he just told the
truth. Reason cannot be separated from emotion, and the legendary case of
Phineas Gage demonstrates that well enough[12].
In addition to this, there is a surprising fact about
René Descartes many are not aware of. He was said by close friends to be an
atheist. We shall leave the reader to their own conclusions.
Some people go even further and say there is no God at
all, no heaven. It is all a story written by allegedly wise men, the composers
of the Bible.
José Saramago (1922–2010), the only Portuguese winner
of the Nobel Prize for Literature (1998), is one of the most brilliant men of
our time who clearly stated there really is no such thing, though he did
explore many of the biblical subjects in his oeuvres, completely modifying
Christendom as we know it. Just to name a few titles, The Gospel According to Jesus Christ[13], Death with
Interruptions[14] and Cain[15]. If this man lived in the Middle Ages, especially
from the reign of John III of Portugal beyond, he would have been thrown in the
fire[16], just like his well-known character Baltasar, from Baltasar and Blimunda[17], the only novel studied in the Secondary Stage signed
by him, which is something soon to be changed.
One of the biggest problems Philosophy faces today is
divided into two different possibilities, as we should expect right from the
start. What is going on with intrinsic values? Is there a crisis or a
substitution of them? We can always take sides, prepare our arguments for the
debate and face the opposition. However, as we have already seen before plenty
of times, we cannot claim our position is the only right, because there is no
such thing as absolute truth, no matter how paradoxical this statement may
sound.
Debating is just that, it is about enriching, learning
and sharing our knowledge with what other parties have to say in order to keep
seeking better lifetime quality for us to live in community appropriately,
notwithstanding we must have the right to private property, especially when we
work towards it, and not just nationalise everything and let either Capitalism
or Communism prevail alone.
That is how life works, it has to scale its components
in order to obtain the required balance. Extremism is fallacious, whichever the
field (Politics [left or right-wing] is the most common to be associated to the
vocable in hand and ever since recorded History we know how civilisation has
been destroying itself and is working its way towards failure, for the thirst
for power is the work of corruption once people enthrone it, even if before
they were humble and modest), but the Arts, also commonly left behind, have
their say in this too.
From the moment a convention is made, Art is not Art
anymore. One thing is clear: when we study aesthetics, we realise how much[18] currents have travelled throughout thousands of
years, or 2,500 to be somewhat precise[19]. From 500 years of Classicism [Greco-Roman, Hellenism
and Roman] to the Christianity motifs’ stagnation in the Dark and Middle Ages
up to the Renaissance of the Classic themes comeback. After this period, the
Arts evolved into something new every 100 years until now. We are stuck in
Contemporaneity because we are not satisfied with the changes we kept doing in
our lives.
Just like planet Earth is living a cycle our pollution
is messing with, so are we. And this time it is not the Church’s fault. We have
struck the Middle Ages again. Our lack of contentment with ourselves and the
world around us keeps throwing us towards change to a point we cannot tell
fashion from ridiculousness, kindness from marginality, Jehovah from Lucifer.
Now this is a rather interesting religious debate. It
is almost unthinkable to praise the demoniac figure, taking into account all of
Mankind’s recorded History. But the truth is, however, that ever since the
constitution of the Egyptian civilisation in the Near East, multiple balances
have been kept in the West between Good and Evil, Order and Chaos, etc. In
Christianity the same happens as well, though this denomination is looked at as
pure heresy. That is why the Church found a way to permanently destroy these
heretics by founding a new order, but we all know sects are like cockroaches,
for a single squash always brings the rest of the family to the funeral.
Gnosticism is at first sight the synonym of
worshipping the devil, especially when referring to a specific group of people,
the Cathars, who originally lived in the southwest of France and because of the
Inquisition travelled to Catalonia in the 13th century, in Spain, thus gaining
their designation. For the Roman Catholic Church, what the Cathars did was to
praise Lucifer[20] in detriment of God, whose power is so great that
invoking His name is always something vain. But the fact is His name is
Jehovah, and He has an opposite[21].
As we have mentioned before (and we can go back to the
biblical Book of Genesis in support for this story), Jehovah did not want Adam
and Eve to even touch the Tree of Knowledge, let alone eat an apple from it.
Nevertheless, the first mentioned temptation of Lucifer as a snake was to
convince Eve to pick an apple from the tree, eat it and then share it with
Adam, who choked on it, but not to death. The forbidden fruit gave them
knowledge, they lost their innocence instantly. This demoniac work had them
kicked out of the Garden of Eden, never to be entered again. And because all of
Mankind was corrupt, it was wiped out by the Great Flood. We already know this
passage.
What is really important is the Cathars did not root
for Lucifer. They were the only ones who kept the balance between the two
deities. They knew that if only Jehovah was followed, then they would be
deprived from knowledge and would not possess any ambitions at all, and not
necessarily frivolities only, but useful things as well. On the other hand, by
allowing Lucifer to smite Jehovah, then the world would fall into the hands of
the worst that can happen to a soul, making it corrupt and unworthy of
Paradise, based only on ambition, determinism and individualism. The concept of
society would cease to exist and Aristotle’s statement[22] would not be true.
So the inevitable conclusion here is there has to be a
balance on the grounds of just about everything in the world, because there is
no such thing as perfection, no matter how much we aim at it. The problem is we
have not yet made ourselves aware of that.
There is no value crisis going on, not as much as
there is a substitution. There is a scale and Humanity is looking for its
balance, but we have not yet found it. We will, maybe in a few years. Evolution
stopped growing[23] by centuries when it reached the 20th. Now the time
span is shorter, it goes by the decade and can be denominated by Music starting
from the 50s up to the 2000s, i.e. Jazz, Rock/Pop rock (Hippies), Disco,
Pure/Synthesised Rock, Gangster Rap/Hip-Hop and finally Mainstream. Now we are
in the 2010s, there are brave people who are trying to eradicate the
preconceived and who are being very much successful, not only because they are trying
something new, but also because they are mixing new waveforms with what has
already been done and was good.
Unfortunately, not everyone can find the balance that
easily and cannot filter good from bad. This happens for one particular reason
Psychology supports, and that is the failure to build a mentality the same age
as the body. The Athenian motto was «a sound mind in a sound body». The problem
is they are not synchronised most of the times. People grow physically, they
age and there is nothing can be done to stop it, no matter how young we wish to
remain. However, the mind may not evolve as much as the body. This is the
consequence of a yet to be defined personality, even if the individual is
already an adult and is going for the middle age. It is not about education
alone or the way someone was brought up, raised. It is about oneself, and one
might not have yet gathered the required tools to just think properly in
consonance with particular situations.
People do not have to be ill to do psychotherapy. This
is a process that can make a person get better acquainted to themselves.
Sometimes we believe we know ourselves very well, better than anyone else, but
that is a false statement. The neural iceberg is shallow at surface, but how
deep does it go underwater? It is always a question of risking and trying to
find out, not because of others’ advice, but for us and us alone.
For instance, it is said by
some an actor needs not know how to sing properly. That is rubbish, plain
rubbish. An actor is a mime and Plato, hidden under the voice of his master,
Socrates, is wrong when he says Ion, the rhapsode, cannot speak or even stay
awake when talking about poets other than the greatest, Homer.
If we take a closer look,
we can tell Socrates’ advocate cares about the need for Man to get to know
himself, for wisdom, according to him, is knowing not more than anybody else,
but rather what we know not, the synonym of Philosophy. He also believes
knowledge makes Man virtuous, erring only on the count of ignorance.
Consciousness is required in order to avoid mistakes. Considering he is fair,
Man will have the concern of perfecting not only himself, but everyone around
him, thus becoming diviner.
So Ion is the rhapsode,
i.e. he who recites poetry not belonging to him and without the aid of a
musical instrument. This is the point in which the difference between the
rhapsode and the bard is made. The latter recites his own poems while playing
the lyre. Together with the work on declamation (paid for and presented in
rhapsodic competitions), there is a mimic process[24],
therefore driving Plato’s Socrates to similarities between reciters and actors[25],
especially because their costumes are made of vivid colours and fabrics and
they also carry a golden crown on their heads.
Homer was the poet the
rhapsodes privileged the most and that is why Ion claims to be an expert of the
Homeric poems, more than others. Socrates therefore wishes to know the origins
of poetry, whether in art or in divine inspiration. Until he is fully convinced
poetry comes from the Olympus, he will insist on the artistic perspective.
Ion, who is arriving from
Epidaurus, where the Greeks celebrate Asclepius’s rhapsody festivities, tells
Socrates he won the first prize, which is the pretext for the introduction of
the essential, having the master state he actually envies rhapsodic art, for
its practitioner must wear flamboyant clothing and master the work of several
poets, especially Homer’s, the best and most divine of them all. It is
necessary to understand the poet’s work, otherwise it would not be possible for
Ion to be a rhapsode, who is, in fact, the interpreter of he who was inflated
by the Muses’ inspiration. He fesses up what gave him most trouble was to
really understand Homer’s work, the poet for whom he best expresses his
thoughts than anyone else.
At this point, Socrates
subtly challenges Ion into proving he is the best at comprehending Homer and
his poetical oeuvre, to which he responds as being the best there is, a
specialist, we should add, only in Homer. With the obvious intent of confusing
Ion so he can actually realise what the master already knows to be true,
Socrates refers to Hesiod, another poet, as commenting several aspects of the
day-to-day life, just like Homer. Ion had said he was a specialist only as far
as Homer was concerned, but can he exclusively explain his words or Hesiod’s as
well, considering the subjects are the same? Ion is contradictory, here. Now he
says he can explain the oeuvre of both poets.
Socrates then handles the
dialogue in a different way. Both Homer and Hesiod talk about divining art, a
matter about which they will share and oppose opinions. On the grounds of
clairvoyance, Ion admits only a master of that art would be able to better
explain the difference between the poets. This remark is really not innocent,
as the intention is to start figuring out who can better understand a specific
art, and the pointer lies on those who work on it.
After that, another matter
steps above, the war and the relationships between good and bad men. Socrates
asks whether this is spoken of by poets other than Homer, so he can perceive if
the rhapsode is really specialised in the work of Homer. Ion acknowledges there
are many other poets who speak about war and the opposition between good and
evil, but they could not do it the same, extraordinary way the greatest poet
did.
Plato’s master can now
proceed without interruption with a few good examples, beginning with this
introit: only one person can confirm what is right or wrong on a certain
subject. For instance, the difference between healthy and junk food can only be
realised by the doctor. If there is the chance someone cannot acknowledge what
is right about something or what is wrong, than they will not be able to
perceive the counterpart. Ion, however, claims he can distinguish the poets who
are actually right about something from those who are not. However, there is
something particular about this ability. Why does the rhapsode feel sleepy when
talking about poets other than the greatest, Homer, who wakes him up into
activeness all over again?
The answer is quite simple:
Ion does not know Homer artistically or scientifically, as there is a poetical
art that would make him able to speak about every poet, just like there is
painting, sculpture or flute playing. For all three examples, Socrates asks Ion
whether he has already heard about someone who could actively speak of a
renowned co-artist and felt sleepy when mentioning some other artist from
another branch of the arts. Ion agrees with Socrates in every way, but cannot
let go that it is his Homeric knowledge which awakes him.
In the aftermath, Socrates
states it is not art but rather a divine force which leads the rhapsode to his
undoubtful knowledge on Homer. In fact, good poets produce beautiful, epic
poetry because they are possessed and inspired by deities, the Muses, who lead
them to a determined path or genre. That is why they are better at epics than
iambs, for instance. Poetry is the result of irrationality. It only comes out
when poets are out of control, inspired and possessed by the divine. Since
poetry is gifted with several genres, epic poets cannot produce encomiums, for
the deity controlling them led them somewhere else. They are therefore
rudimentary in the field. Socrates still adds poets are not the authors of the
words they produce. The Muses are, expressing themselves through these humans
with the gift of poetry, making them their interpreters. The rhapsodes are by
turn the interpreters of poets.
This divine force is thusly
and continuously perpetuated over everyone. First, the poet. Second, the
rhapsode. Finally, the spectators who listen to the rhapsode’s declamation. A
long ring chain is therefore created, connecting them all. The majority of
poets is connected to Homer, who is, after all, a divine poet. It is because he
is possessed by Homer that Ion can better speak of him than any other poet, who
will probably make him feel sleepy and bored.
Socrates clarifies the idea
the arts are independent from each other, confronting Ion with the fact he
might not be aware of all the matters described by Homer, though the rhapsode
is willing to refute the statement. The master then asks Ion to recite the
verses from Iliad in which Nestor gives advice to his son Archilochus,
so he can use it when horseracing against Patroclus. The recitation
deliberately explains only someone who is truly acquainted to the art in
question, such as the coachman, who would be able to tell what is right and
wrong about Homer’s verses.
Though he realises each
artist can only understand their own art and none other, Ion says the verses he
understands best are all of them. However, the statement contradicts the entire
dialogue, as all arts are separated. Ion opposes and says he is aware of the type
of language utilised by a man or a woman, a slave or a freeman, a subordinate
or a high-ranking officer. Socrates disagrees, as Ion would not be able to
understand medical or looming language. However, he should know what a general
might say to a soldier. Nonetheless, the art of being a general is not the same
as that of a rhapsode. Being so, how would Ion know what to tell a soldier?
Besides being a rhapsode, he is also a general, though this does not mean all
rhapsodes are generals and vice-versa, especially because a good general is not
a good rhapsode and, again, vice-versa.
Ion had promised Socrates
he would prove to be a master at Homer’s art, but in the end he could not keep
his promise, for he is not that well informed because of art. It is divine inspiration
that makes him go berserk and irrational.
All of this may sound very
amusing, but we must ask this ourselves quite seriously: if only those who are
specialised in a certain field may speak about it, why is Socrates so well
informed about pretty much everything? Is it really that correct to justify the
master’s knowledge and wisdom with the art of Philosophy? But are they not
separated from each other? Then how does he know what to say or think when it
comes to medicine, for instance? Medicine is not even a branch of the arts. It
is all about science, any doctor can confirm that. Physicians do not believe in
art, there is a one in a million chance that might happen.
A rhapsode can be a general
and vice-versa, but one cannot be good at both. We do not get his drift, as
many people, not only in Ancient Greece but all over the world could be
specialised in one field alone and not be able to produce admirable results,
just as much others could simply not be so well educated like the academics and
create vivid work. Sometimes, experience is much better than debiting what
books and scrolls have to offer. Should Humanity solely rely on
specialisations, we would be sentenced to death on our own risk.
Also, we cannot forget a
very important issue that will certainly discredit the master of logic, who
trapped Ion in his own reasons: Socrates did not believe in the gods, and
though the Muses are only demigods, they are divine nonetheless. How can
someone say poets get their inspiration through a divine force if they are
misbelievers? More to that, was Socrates a poet? How so, if he did not leave
one piece of written evidence behind? And even if it were oral poetry alone, he
would be a mere rhapsode, not the poet himself.
Finally, there is something
bothering us all up until today: how can Socrates know how to govern a city,
according to Plato’s Republic, if he never took the place of a ruler? It
is believed Socrates did not enjoy neither the Athenian, nor the general
democratic regime, as it was actually not flawless, imperfect. The conclusion
is quite simple – Socrates’ words had always been distorted by his disciple,
Plato, who could not stand up for his own convictions.
Whether we are playing in a
musical or something a bit more classical like Greek tragedy or Romantic drama,
we must be good singers, no matter the case, for if we can warm up to better
enunciate, then we can also use the same exercises to keep our throats from
getting hoarse and sing, miming the sounds we listen to, that is the actor’s
job, to mime.
Tiago
Filipe Lameiras
tlameiras@gmail.com
Tiago Lameiras was born in Lisbon, in 1990.
He has a Bachelor's Degree on Theatre – Acting (2011),
taken at the Higher School of Theatre and Film of Lisbon. He is currently
completing his PhD on Communication, Culture and Arts – Cultural Studies, at
the Faculty of Human and Social Science of the University of the Algarve with a
thesis titled TAT | Teaching Art and
Theatre.
He is a member of the Theater Studies Research Center
for the Faculty of Letters of the University of Lisbon.
He
also has, among several publications, titles of his own such as Portvcale – A Epopeia Portuguesa da
Contemporaneidade (Mosaico de Palavras, 2010), Viagem ao Centro de Ti – Romance Trovado (Chiado Editora, 2012) and
A Mão de Diónisos – Evangelho Grego
(EscrYtos | Grupo LeYa, 2013), as well as poetical collaborations in Chiado
Editora's Poetry Anthologies Entre o Sono
e o Sonho (Chiado Editora, 2012 – Present) and Sinapsis's Enigma(s) (Sinapsis, 2015).
Bibliography
ALIGHIERI, Dante,
1321 (1472 – 1st Printed Ed.), A Divina
Comédia, intro., trans. and notes by Vasco Graça Moura, Lisboa: Quetzal
Editores, 2011;
ALVES, Herculano
et al., Bíblia Sagrada Para o Terceiro
Milénio da Encarnação, Fátima, Leiria, Portugal: Difusora Bíblica, 2000;
ANTUNES, David
João Neves, 2002, A Magnanimidade da
Teoria: Interpretar a Ética em Teoria da Literatura, Lisboa: Assírio &
Alvim;
BLOOM, Harold,
1998, Shakespeare: a Invenção do Humano,
trans. José Roberto O’Shea, Rio de Janeiro, Objetiva, 2001;
BONNARD, André,
1954, A Civilização Grega, trans.
José Saramago, Lisboa: Edições 70, 2007;
DZIELSKA, Maria,
1995, Hipátia de Alexandria, trans.
Miguel Serras Pereira, Lisboa: Relógio d’Água, 2009;
Von GOETHE, Johann
Wolfgang, 1829, Fausto: Uma Tragédia,
intro., trans. and glossary by João Barrento, Lisboa: Relógio d’Água, 1999;
HAGEN, Rose-Marie
and HAGEN, Rainer, 2005, Egipto: Pessoas,
Deuses, Faraós, trans. Maria da Graça Crespo, rev. Paula Nascimento and
Cristina Oliveira, Cologne: Taschen;
HITLER, Adolf,
1925, Mein Kampf, trans. James Murphy, Mumbai: Jaico Publishing House, 2009;
HUGO, Victor, 1827, Preface to
Cromwell, «Famous Prefaces» col., The Harvard Classics, 1909-14;
PAVIS, Patrice,
1996, Dicionário de Teatro, trans.
coord. by J. Guinsburg and Maria Lúcia Pereira, São Paulo: Editora Perspectiva,
2001;
PLATO, Íon, trans. Victor Jabouille, Lisboa:
Editorial Inquérito, 1988.
PLATO, A República, trans. Maria Helena da
Rocha Pereira, Lisboa: Fundação Calouste Gulbenkian, 2010;
RAMOS, Mercês
Sousa, 2009, Teoria do Caos –
Potencialidades na Modelização da Aprendizagem de Conceitos Científicos,
Lisboa: Edições Colibri/Instituto Politécnico de Lisboa;
SAVATER, Fernando,
Ética para um Jovem, trans. Miguel
Serras Pereira, Lisboa: Dom Quixote, 2005;
SCHULZ, Regine and
SEIDEL, Matthias (ed.), 1997, Egipto – O
Mundo dos Faraós, trans. Luís Anjos, Sandra Barros, Daniel de Carvalho, Cristina
Conceição and Filomena Martins, Colónia, Alemanha: Könemann
Verlagsgesellschaft, 2001.
[1] 1596-1650.
[2] DESCARTES, René, 1979, Discurso do Método, trans. João Gama,
intro. and notes Étienne Gilson, Lisbon: Edições 70, pp. 31-32, 73-99.
There
are a total of six meditations, each of them prosily correspondent to six days
meditating, originally published in Latin and then translated to French by the
Duke of Luynes, supervised by Descartes. It is never too much to review our own
work when translated into other languages, especially those we master.
According
to most Philosophy textbooks, Empiricism is the opposite perspective of
Rationalism. To make it easier to understand, it is all about nature and not
necessarily reason (alone). Every species there are in planet Earth are
considered to be an animal. However, humans are the only rational, hence the
global domination and the separation from all the others, though we can
obviously share our lives with some housebroken and even wild animals,
depending on the quotidian, day-to-day lifestyles and world regions where
people live. The empirical side of humans is thus related to their animal
sphere. Nature «programs» living beings to react differently in several
occasions, namely in regards to the food chain, when they serve either as
predators or prey.
This
is why many animals have the required abilities to catch and avoid getting
caught. It is all impulsive, without the capability of thinking at least twice.
[4]
Ludwig van Beethoven (1770–1827), also an important figure in the course of
Western society, specifically in music, naturally, marking the transition from
Classicism to Romanticism, composed through the course of the French Revolution
his 3rd Symphony. It was originally dedicated to Napoleon for all the efforts
he was continuously doing for the liberation of France. When the French «hero»
proclaimed himself Emperor of France and its satellite territories (including a
great deal of the Austrian Empire, should he become victorious in the Battle of
Aspern-Essling) in 1804, however, the Maestro tore the Symphony’s title-page in
anger and rage, quite natural in his peculiar temperament. He named it later as
Sinfonia Eroica, still in honour of
Napoleon.
Immortal Beloved, directed
by Bernard Rose, starring Gary Oldman as Beethoven and Jeroen Krabbé as his
personal secretary, Anton Schindler, Columbia Pictures, 1994.
[5] But do we know what
perfection actually is?
[6]
This is not even the point, as there is no such thing as immortality for a
living being to have been born since Earth started to bear life billions of
years ago (the Universe itself has not sprung since forever).
[7]
It may be so, but if it was not for our parents, would we exist either way?
[8]
But is God perfect? If He is, why did He not avoid the existence of the rebel
angel, Satan, in the shape of a serpent when it convinced Eve to eat the
forbidden fruit from the Tree of Knowledge, thus producing the Original Sin and
the expelling of Adam and
Eve from the Garden of Eden? Why did they fall in the sin of Man? Why is there
sin and corruption after all in the world created in six days that «He saw it
was good»?
If
God does not make mistakes, does not err, why did He feel the need of washing
out Mankind in the Great Flood, rescuing Noah and his family alone? And though
he did promise not to destroy the world again with water, Sodom and Gomorra
were not spared, again on the count of the sin of Man.
This
point of the story here is interesting, as it shows that in over two thousand
years of a Church that has its origins in Judaism, both sharing the same God
and Saviour/Prophet/Messiah, Jesus, it takes a man, allegedly imperfect, though
he is representing God (Yahweh, in Hebrew) on earth, the Pope, to finally
ponder upon marriage between people of the same sex.
And
why is Abraham challenged to sacrifice Isaac? Why did God make a pact with
Satan to drive Job mad? Why is there the need of Him testing Man’s faith and
loyalty? If the people of Babel wanted to build a tower so they could be closer
to God, why did He get jealous of their abilities, changed their languages and
scattered them all over the world, which, by the way, shares neither a sole
faith nor a sole deity?
Finally,
why did he sacrifice his own son to a point where he asked «Father, why have
you forsaken me?».
[9] British expression meaning someone irrelevant in the scientific
community is defying the name of the great.
[10] Portuguese-American
neuroscientist/neurobiologist, b. 1944.
[11] Lisbon: Europa-América, 1995,
awarded the Prémio Pessoa.
[12]
Vide note 11 for further reading.
[13] Lisbon: Editorial Caminho, 1991.
[14] Id., Ibd., 2005.
[15] Id., Ibd., 2009.
[16] José e Pilar, directed by Miguel Gonçalves Mendes, starring José Saramago and
Pilar del Río as themselves, JumpCut, O2, El Deseo, 2010.
[17] Lisbon: Editorial Caminho, 1982.
[18]
The use of «much» and not «many» is deliberate; not to be confused with the
possible interpretation of «how “many”».
[19]
We highlight the paradox.
[20]
Lux Ferre in Latin, «the bearer of Light».
[21]
Id.
[22]
«Man is a political animal».
[23]
Unavoidable paradox.
[24]
Hence our introduction to this.
[25] Idem.
Sem comentários:
Enviar um comentário