Comments on: Of pears and plants, rebellion and depravity: a response to Augustine and Richard Mouw http://hugoschwyzer.net/2008/06/24/of-pears-and-plants-rebellion-and-depravity-a-response-to-augustine-and-richard-mouw/ Fri, 09 Jan 2009 07:40:09 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.3.3 By: Jeremy Pierce http://hugoschwyzer.net/2008/06/24/of-pears-and-plants-rebellion-and-depravity-a-response-to-augustine-and-richard-mouw/#comment-400590 Jeremy Pierce Sat, 28 Jun 2008 01:34:51 +0000 http://hugoschwyzer.net/2008/06/24/of-pears-and-plants-rebellion-and-depravity-a-response-to-augustine-and-richard-mouw/#comment-400590 One thing to keep in mind is that Augustine's more careful and complete ethical theory in <i>City of God</i> is that virtue is well-ordered love, meaning that virtue is constituted by whether you love the right things according to how good they are. Vice, correspondingly, is constituted by loving things with distorted priorities. Loving the apples more than loving and respecting the principle of private property and belonging to someone else is thus a bad state to be in and a falling away from the ideal state God created us to be in. It's easy to see how this childish rebelliousness is a kind of depravity on that ethical view. It's a distortion of desiring properly. Now it follows that the most important virtue is going to be love for the highest goods, with love for lower goods (there is nothing that's not good on Augustine's view, since evils are privations of good) coming lower in the priority list. So the failure to put God's perfect goodness on the top is the highest of all sins, and putting all the other goods in the proper order is a necessary result of putting God at the top, so any sin is indeed a rebellion against God. He's got a well-worked-out theory to explain why this is so, and it's not so strange a view to my mind. I don't think it's fair to set Augustine against the idea of sinning vs. creation. He certainly thinks you can sin against a person, and he doesn't think it just reduces to sin against God. He does think the violation against God is more serious than the violation against the human, but that's because God is infinite and perfect. He has a strong sense of intrinsic value increasing with higher levels of creation. A plant is more intrinsically valuable than a rock, a horse more than a plant, a human more than a horse, and God more than a human. He strongly criticizes those who value their horse more than their slave or who value a gemstone more than a horse. He really does think it goes against the thing itself to value it lower than it's worth. Once that's clear, I think we can look at the original case again. What Augustine sees as the root of his sin is that he loved the rebelliousness of it. He had just wanted to be rebellious. That was what motivated him to do it. But one of the things that made it a bad act was not its rebelliousness but its wastefulness. In his fuller view, that's clear, but I think it's part of why he emphasizes that this wasn't stealing to eat the food but just to steal it. So I don't think he's necessarily saying what you think he's saying. I think what you see as the basis of the evil is compatible with what he sees as the motivation for why he did it, and I think he'd insist that both are wrong. The motivation is more seriously wrong, but what makes the act itself wrong is indeed wrong and wrong enough that he mentions it in the process of telling the story. One thing to keep in mind is that Augustine’s more careful and complete ethical theory in City of God is that virtue is well-ordered love, meaning that virtue is constituted by whether you love the right things according to how good they are. Vice, correspondingly, is constituted by loving things with distorted priorities. Loving the apples more than loving and respecting the principle of private property and belonging to someone else is thus a bad state to be in and a falling away from the ideal state God created us to be in. It’s easy to see how this childish rebelliousness is a kind of depravity on that ethical view. It’s a distortion of desiring properly.

Now it follows that the most important virtue is going to be love for the highest goods, with love for lower goods (there is nothing that’s not good on Augustine’s view, since evils are privations of good) coming lower in the priority list. So the failure to put God’s perfect goodness on the top is the highest of all sins, and putting all the other goods in the proper order is a necessary result of putting God at the top, so any sin is indeed a rebellion against God. He’s got a well-worked-out theory to explain why this is so, and it’s not so strange a view to my mind.

I don’t think it’s fair to set Augustine against the idea of sinning vs. creation. He certainly thinks you can sin against a person, and he doesn’t think it just reduces to sin against God. He does think the violation against God is more serious than the violation against the human, but that’s because God is infinite and perfect. He has a strong sense of intrinsic value increasing with higher levels of creation. A plant is more intrinsically valuable than a rock, a horse more than a plant, a human more than a horse, and God more than a human. He strongly criticizes those who value their horse more than their slave or who value a gemstone more than a horse. He really does think it goes against the thing itself to value it lower than it’s worth.

Once that’s clear, I think we can look at the original case again. What Augustine sees as the root of his sin is that he loved the rebelliousness of it. He had just wanted to be rebellious. That was what motivated him to do it. But one of the things that made it a bad act was not its rebelliousness but its wastefulness. In his fuller view, that’s clear, but I think it’s part of why he emphasizes that this wasn’t stealing to eat the food but just to steal it. So I don’t think he’s necessarily saying what you think he’s saying. I think what you see as the basis of the evil is compatible with what he sees as the motivation for why he did it, and I think he’d insist that both are wrong. The motivation is more seriously wrong, but what makes the act itself wrong is indeed wrong and wrong enough that he mentions it in the process of telling the story.

]]> By: Noli Irritare Leones » Blog Archive » Was Blind, But Now I See http://hugoschwyzer.net/2008/06/24/of-pears-and-plants-rebellion-and-depravity-a-response-to-augustine-and-richard-mouw/#comment-398864 Noli Irritare Leones » Blog Archive » Was Blind, But Now I See Thu, 26 Jun 2008 15:20:09 +0000 http://hugoschwyzer.net/2008/06/24/of-pears-and-plants-rebellion-and-depravity-a-response-to-augustine-and-richard-mouw/#comment-398864 [...] blog friend Hugo, despite his doubts about Augustine and the pears, seems to have more in common with James’ twice born than with his once born. When he tells [...] […] blog friend Hugo, despite his doubts about Augustine and the pears, seems to have more in common with James’ twice born than with his once born. When he tells […]

]]> By: catie http://hugoschwyzer.net/2008/06/24/of-pears-and-plants-rebellion-and-depravity-a-response-to-augustine-and-richard-mouw/#comment-398292 catie Thu, 26 Jun 2008 05:02:13 +0000 http://hugoschwyzer.net/2008/06/24/of-pears-and-plants-rebellion-and-depravity-a-response-to-augustine-and-richard-mouw/#comment-398292 I agree with you Hugo what is most striking about each of these stories is man's relationship with nature. I find it difficult to understand how or why it is that we not only sepperate our selves from that which we to are a part of (nature), but why at times we so knowingly destroy what we are apart of. I don't belong to any particular faith and am genrally not conserned with the question of God or what will happen after this life, however I am deeply concerned with the actions of humans in this life and how all of our actions effect all life on this earth. That being said I have a great deal of difficulty understanding and accepting man's abilty to partake in such distructive and awful behavior. Nonethatless, I can not deny that it seems to me that I have seen a great deal of such behavior, and perhaps taken part in such behavior. I know two things from my own disobedient behavior: one had some sort of rational in my own mind for taking part in the behavior; and two I latter learned from behavior. Offten what learned was that I was cappable of hurting other. As I said I'm not religious, but I can also understand these stories in the context of Paradise Lost. Spesifically it seems that our own ability to cause harm is a part of our human state (not a fallen state.) I say spesfically human state because Eve's dession to eat the apple came while she was stil in eden. Similarlly, Satan's own actions while he is still in heven cause him to fall. Thus, even in states where we are protected we still have free will and are vulenrable to temptation. While Miltion it seems would suggest that such free will is essential to proving one's faith in God, I belive that it is important so that we may grow and learn as a spesies. I believe Free will is one of the most challening and importnat parts of the human experience. I agree with you Hugo what is most striking about each of these stories is man’s relationship with nature. I find it difficult to understand how or why it is that we not only sepperate our selves from that which we to are a part of (nature), but why at times we so knowingly destroy what we are apart of.
I don’t belong to any particular faith and am genrally not conserned with the question of God or what will happen after this life, however I am deeply concerned with the actions of humans in this life and how all of our actions effect all life on this earth. That being said I have a great deal of difficulty understanding and accepting man’s abilty to partake in such distructive and awful behavior. Nonethatless, I can not deny that it seems to me that I have seen a great deal of such behavior, and perhaps taken part in such behavior. I know two things from my own disobedient behavior: one had some sort of rational in my own mind for taking part in the behavior; and two I latter learned from behavior. Offten what learned was that I was cappable of hurting other.

As I said I’m not religious, but I can also understand these stories in the context of Paradise Lost. Spesifically it seems that our own ability to cause harm is a part of our human state (not a fallen state.) I say spesfically human state because Eve’s dession to eat the apple came while she was stil in eden. Similarlly, Satan’s own actions while he is still in heven cause him to fall. Thus, even in states where we are protected we still have free will and are vulenrable to temptation. While Miltion it seems would suggest that such free will is essential to proving one’s faith in God, I belive that it is important so that we may grow and learn as a spesies. I believe Free will is one of the most challening and importnat parts of the human experience.

]]> By: Stentor http://hugoschwyzer.net/2008/06/24/of-pears-and-plants-rebellion-and-depravity-a-response-to-augustine-and-richard-mouw/#comment-397572 Stentor Wed, 25 Jun 2008 18:58:17 +0000 http://hugoschwyzer.net/2008/06/24/of-pears-and-plants-rebellion-and-depravity-a-response-to-augustine-and-richard-mouw/#comment-397572 Then we're in agreement -- I object to your Calvinist friends' reasoning as well (and not just because I'm a borderline atheist). Then we’re in agreement — I object to your Calvinist friends’ reasoning as well (and not just because I’m a borderline atheist).

]]> By: Hugo Schwyzer http://hugoschwyzer.net/2008/06/24/of-pears-and-plants-rebellion-and-depravity-a-response-to-augustine-and-richard-mouw/#comment-397448 Hugo Schwyzer Wed, 25 Jun 2008 16:54:29 +0000 http://hugoschwyzer.net/2008/06/24/of-pears-and-plants-rebellion-and-depravity-a-response-to-augustine-and-richard-mouw/#comment-397448 I think that's fair, Stentor. What I object to is the reasoning, so common among my Calvinist friends, that when we sin all of our sins are primarily against God -- that it He whom we have offended, and only He from whom we need forgiveness. It allows us to see the concerns of creation as secondary, even unimportant -- and allows us to focus on accepting God's forgiveness rather than on earning it from those whom we have more directly offended. I think that’s fair, Stentor. What I object to is the reasoning, so common among my Calvinist friends, that when we sin all of our sins are primarily against God — that it He whom we have offended, and only He from whom we need forgiveness. It allows us to see the concerns of creation as secondary, even unimportant — and allows us to focus on accepting God’s forgiveness rather than on earning it from those whom we have more directly offended.

]]> By: Stentor http://hugoschwyzer.net/2008/06/24/of-pears-and-plants-rebellion-and-depravity-a-response-to-augustine-and-richard-mouw/#comment-397428 Stentor Wed, 25 Jun 2008 16:33:12 +0000 http://hugoschwyzer.net/2008/06/24/of-pears-and-plants-rebellion-and-depravity-a-response-to-augustine-and-richard-mouw/#comment-397428 I don't think the point is that rebelliousness is a *worse* sin than destructiveness. I think the point is that rebelliousness is a *purer* sin -- most sins we try to rationalize as being somehow justified or outweighed by some other gain (even if we have a nagging voice telling us our rationalization is BS), but the kind of thing Augustine and Mouw are describing is sinning for the sake of sinning, doing something *because* it's wrong rather than *despite* its wrongness. So it makes you confront your sinfulness more clearly than a sin that causes more harm but is somehow rationalizable. I don’t think the point is that rebelliousness is a *worse* sin than destructiveness. I think the point is that rebelliousness is a *purer* sin — most sins we try to rationalize as being somehow justified or outweighed by some other gain (even if we have a nagging voice telling us our rationalization is BS), but the kind of thing Augustine and Mouw are describing is sinning for the sake of sinning, doing something *because* it’s wrong rather than *despite* its wrongness. So it makes you confront your sinfulness more clearly than a sin that causes more harm but is somehow rationalizable.

]]> By: Hugo Schwyzer http://hugoschwyzer.net/2008/06/24/of-pears-and-plants-rebellion-and-depravity-a-response-to-augustine-and-richard-mouw/#comment-397331 Hugo Schwyzer Wed, 25 Jun 2008 14:33:30 +0000 http://hugoschwyzer.net/2008/06/24/of-pears-and-plants-rebellion-and-depravity-a-response-to-augustine-and-richard-mouw/#comment-397331 No doubt, but that still doesn't elevate rebelliousness to the status of supreme sin. Destructiveness and rebelliousness are distinct; the harm to the creation is the real offense to the creator. No doubt, but that still doesn’t elevate rebelliousness to the status of supreme sin. Destructiveness and rebelliousness are distinct; the harm to the creation is the real offense to the creator.

]]> By: Robert http://hugoschwyzer.net/2008/06/24/of-pears-and-plants-rebellion-and-depravity-a-response-to-augustine-and-richard-mouw/#comment-397313 Robert Wed, 25 Jun 2008 14:19:54 +0000 http://hugoschwyzer.net/2008/06/24/of-pears-and-plants-rebellion-and-depravity-a-response-to-augustine-and-richard-mouw/#comment-397313 Ah, but whence comes the rebelliousness? Augustine's point, and Mouw's, is that the desire-to-rebel is part of the consequence of the Fall. That's the inherent depravity aspect of it. Ah, but whence comes the rebelliousness? Augustine’s point, and Mouw’s, is that the desire-to-rebel is part of the consequence of the Fall. That’s the inherent depravity aspect of it.

]]> By: Hugo Schwyzer http://hugoschwyzer.net/2008/06/24/of-pears-and-plants-rebellion-and-depravity-a-response-to-augustine-and-richard-mouw/#comment-397238 Hugo Schwyzer Wed, 25 Jun 2008 12:28:32 +0000 http://hugoschwyzer.net/2008/06/24/of-pears-and-plants-rebellion-and-depravity-a-response-to-augustine-and-richard-mouw/#comment-397238 I think that's fair, Stentor. But what matters is where we locate the sinfulness of an act. For me, it's not animus towards the plants, it's the reckless willingness to place a private desire to rebel or smash (for whatever reason) over the well-being of creation. The rebellion itself isn't good, but the smashing is the wrong part. And of course, it can be a both/and not an either/or, and I ought to have made that clearer. I think that’s fair, Stentor. But what matters is where we locate the sinfulness of an act. For me, it’s not animus towards the plants, it’s the reckless willingness to place a private desire to rebel or smash (for whatever reason) over the well-being of creation. The rebellion itself isn’t good, but the smashing is the wrong part. And of course, it can be a both/and not an either/or, and I ought to have made that clearer.

]]> By: Stentor http://hugoschwyzer.net/2008/06/24/of-pears-and-plants-rebellion-and-depravity-a-response-to-augustine-and-richard-mouw/#comment-396958 Stentor Wed, 25 Jun 2008 05:52:09 +0000 http://hugoschwyzer.net/2008/06/24/of-pears-and-plants-rebellion-and-depravity-a-response-to-augustine-and-richard-mouw/#comment-396958 I don't think the two analyses (Mouw/Augustine vs Schwyzer) are mutually exclusive -- what makes an act wrong, and what motivates it, can be two different things. So the reason there is a rule against seed-stomping is to protect the plants, but the reason Mouw broke that rule was for the joy of rulebreaking, not because he felt any animus toward the plants. I don’t think the two analyses (Mouw/Augustine vs Schwyzer) are mutually exclusive — what makes an act wrong, and what motivates it, can be two different things. So the reason there is a rule against seed-stomping is to protect the plants, but the reason Mouw broke that rule was for the joy of rulebreaking, not because he felt any animus toward the plants.

]]>