Loading ...
"You, Gentleman, take your lists of human interests from averages furnished by statistics and economic formulas. Your lists of interests include only prosperity, riches, freedom, tranquility, and so forth, and anyone who openly and knowingly disagreed with these lists would, in your opinion, (as in mine also, for that matter), be either an obscurantist or a madmanâ€That was said more than a hundred years ago-- by no less a person than Feodor Dostoivesky. (Letters from the Underworld first published. 1864 Eng. Tr. Everyman's London, 1964.) The controversy about the nature of man rose to high heat in the verbal exchanges among the Russian intelligentsia of the latter half of the 19th century.The major spokesman for advanced revolutionary socialist opinion then was N. G. Chernyshevsky. Both Chernyshevsky and Dostoievsky came from the revolutionary underground of Czarist Russia. The debate between them is of intense interest both for our educational systems and our civilizations.In fact Chernyshevsky seems to have been the main target of Dostoievsky’s attack. (we will now refer to them as C and D). C had just brought out his revolutionary work, What Is to Be Done? in 1864. He was in jail when he wrote the book. But, on publication of the book, he was sentenced to hard labour in Siberia, where he remained for 19 years. D’s book was written as a reply to C. D too had been in prison and in Siberia.C spoke for the progressive young radicals of his time. The main point was that man could be understood rationally, that human life and human behaviour were to be explained in material and physiological terms. To them the reform of society was purely a matter of scientific reflection and strategic planning. They remind one of the early planners of India's own economy.The distinction between C and his previous generation of revolutionaries like Bakunin and Turgenev lay in the fact that the latter were intellectuals without a programme, while C and his type were incipient Marxists with a social programme for the remaking of man. The previous generation was basically theoretical utopians. Chernyshevsky and his colleagues were practical socialists who wanted to build an economy that would banish the profit motive, competition and exploitation. It was more practical utopianism.Their main purpose, however, was not to build the economy, but to create “new men†in a new society. These new men were to be practical, regular and calculating in their activity, self-less, hard-working, co-operative, responsible, decent, peaceful, tranquil, prosperous, rich, free. Small wonder then that Lenin hailed him as “a great Russian Socialist“ though open to criticism as utopian.It is against this gray, humourless, unpoetic, streamlined utopia that Dostoievsky revolted in his Letters from the Underworld. D satirizes on the “Golden Palace†which the “practical utopians†wanted to build; ordinary human beings would be bored to death with such a universe.“For instance, I should not be surprised if, amid all this order and regularity of the future, there should suddenly arise, from some quarter or another, some gentleman of lowborn-- or, rather, of retrograde and cynical-- demeanour who, setting his arms akimbo, should say to you all: ‘How now, gentlemen? Would it not be a good thing if, with one consent, we were to. Kick all this solemn wisdom to the winds, and to send those logarithms to the devil, and to begin to live our lives again according to our own stupid whims?" Yet this would be as nothing; the really shameful part of the business would be that this gentleman would find a goodly number of adherents. Such is always man's wayâ€D explains himself later on “See here, reason is an excellent thing. I do not deny that for a moment; but reason is reason, and no more, and satisfies only the reasoning faculty in man, whereas volition is a manifestation of all life (that is to say, of human life as a whole, with reason and every other sort of appendage included)â€Here, Dostoievsky speaks as a Slavophil and an Augustinian.For St. Augustine, in any case, the will was the central element in man. Man is totally evil for his will is totally enslaved to evil. His reason too is distorted by his evil will.In fact, it seems impossible for Christians to come to terms with any doctrine of man until we have re-examined our Augustinian heritage. Writers like Chernyshevsky proceed on the assumptions that progress is inevitable and that man is capable of recreating himself as the “new man". Even such a profoundly Christian thinker as Teilhard de Chardin seems to operate on the basis of a doctrine of inevitable progress and development, though he carefully qualifies himself in this regard.But the stark Augustinian contrast between the infinite power and goodness of God and the total weakness and sinfulness of man, still plays a large role in Christian thought and bedevils every attempt to formulate a usable anthropology in education. We cannot, with Augustine draw the sharp antagonism between Jerusalem the city of God and Babylon the city of the earth, the one totally good, the other totally evil. The wheat and the tares are growing together and history is always an inseparable union of Jerusalem and Babylon, no man belonging exclusively to the one or to the other.Neither can we accept Augustine’s basic dictum that the human will, without special grace, is incapable of any good. The divine will does operate through human wills, and human beings do will the good from time to time, even when they are not Christians who have experienced the special grace of God in baptism.Augustine has also, because of his preoccupation with sin as a tyrant who holds us in slavery, failed to provide us with a notion of salvation that is sufficiently positive, this-worldly and corporate. We cannot become true educators today without such a positive view of man.Augustine’s views on the body as generically corrupt and on the regenerative act as essentially concupiscent and therefore sinful, also cry out for revision today.Augustine’s epistemology and soteriology both of which are implicitly individualistic, cannot stand without some balancing qualifications in our time.It may be of some interest to our readers to know that not all Christians have accepted Augustine as a teacher of the Church. The whole Eastern tradition has consistently refused to regard him either as one of the fathers of the Church or as an authentic teacher of the faith. Only the Medieval Western church made his ideas so central and all- pervasive in western Christianity.A more dynamic, less defective, and certainly more acceptable anthropology is offered to us by one who is regarded as a Father and Doctor by both the Western and Eastern traditions-- Gregory of Nyssa, who lived a generation before St. Augustine in the 4th Century. Only in the light of Gregory’s thought can we begin to grasp the basic insights of a Teilhard de Chardin, or to develop some categories with which to judge between Dostoievsky and Chernyshevsky.There is room here only to state the main lines of Gregory’s thought in slogansque sentences.l. Man is an integral part of creation and cannot be understood or saved in isolation from the rest of creation. The creation was made for man and finds its fulfillment in him. The salvation of man has to be also the salvation of creation, of matter itself.2. Man is distinguished from the rest of creation by his “ruling power†over the creation. Man is made to be the Lord of Creation. This is his essential nature and vocation, as created in the image of God. Man’s capacity for tool-making is an essential aspect of this Lordship of Man. He is born more weak and defenseless than other animal infants and continues longer that way in order that he has to acquire mental qualities which compensate for his helplessness. He is not born equipped with all the strength of the ox or the claws of the lion, but by developing tools and weapons he has to master the lion and the ox. Man’s education therefore should involve the development of this ruling power.3. Man's mind which is the ruling power within him operates through the senses; the senses work through different parts of the body. Mind-senses-body -- these are inseparable, and the growth of man involves the development of all three -- inseparably and integrally.4. Man’s essential nature is given him-- to be in the image of God. Sin is not his created being; by creation he is good, and called to be the perfection of all good. Sin is Extrinsic, an intruder, something which has come in from outside his nature. Man cannot be understood in terms of sin, though sin remains pervasive in human nature.
(1) Evolution is infallible; it cannot miscarry; it must go through to the end of what it has set out to achieve, despite many failures along the way. Industrialization is the consequence of evolution; .The whole of the history of creation forms one single movement forward of God’s dynamic will immanent in the universe, according to Teilhard. Consciousness, which becomes most manifest in Man, goes back to matter itself for its origin. All sciences deal with aspects of this movement forward -- Astronomy, Palaeontology and Geology dealing with the history of material creation, biology with the history of life, world history with the dealings of men with each other and with their environment, and Church history or holy history dealing with the transcendent God’s breaking into man through Christ Jesus and the Holy Spirit.The question then is about the orientation or direction of the whole process, and particularly about the goals for man. Point Omega as a goal does not suffice to orient without greater amplification.Teilhard finds the orientation by an analysis of the process of movement. He finds a dialectic in the total process between death and life, between the tangential or external energy which governs the physical and chemical relations of the elements to each other on the one hand, and radial or internal energy, which is really psychic energy drawing every group of life forward towards greater complexity and centricity. The physico-chemical movement is subject to Carnot’s second law-- the increase of entropy, the running down of the universe, the drift to death and non-being. The psychic energy of consciousness overcomes this tendency to death by the creation of life, which by greater complexity of organization and by being more centred, is able to make the particles of matter function in such a way as to move forward to hominization or cosmogenesis.Thus, according to Teilhard, there is in the stuff of the universe, and not merely in man, a growing force of desire and invention, very feeble and unsure at first, but growing in intensity as time progresses. This then becomes life, “something that arranges, converges, becomes concentrated, interiorized, developes corpuscles†through something else that “disarranges, diverges, expands, and loses its corpusclesâ€. It is this process which we call evolution.The appearance of Man in this evolutionary continuum creates a new situation, precisely because of the existence of nous or human consciousness. It is no longer the body that evolves, but the sphere of the mind-- the noosphere. The fundamental direction is the same-- namely increasing complexity and centricity. The region and the technique of evolution has now radically shifted.The new Fact is that it is no longer the body that evolves, but the human mind, moving forward towards more complexity. Complexity means not merely greater diversity, but also a multivariate of levels and currents of relationship. Centricity means a more centred and therefore more wide-embracing and more consciously directed process of human development. It is no longer simply the original impulse within creation that directs the universe towards its fulfillment centred in point Omega. A part of the stream of evolution, namely human consciousness, becomes capable, not only of comprehending the process that gave birth to it, but also of directing it towards freely chosen goals. “God makes things make themselvesâ€, says Teilhard.It is in fact no longer evolution, giving rise to a multiplicity of forms of life. A new process has begun with man -- namely that of involution. Man finds himself confronted not only with the task of liberating himself from the evolutionary stream that carries him forward through the double process of expansion in diversity of species and concentration or selectivity in survival. He is also called upon to gather up the multifarious universe and bring it under centred and directed control.Man is no longer the plaything of the reproductive urge which produces indiscriminately and the fact of death which eliminates the unfit. He assumes control of the mainstream of evolution by being able to transcend it and transform it. Science and technology thus become the instruments of salvation. Economics and Politics become part of the activity of increasing the centred complexity of a pluralistic world. Human creativity goes forward through not only science and technology, but also through the production and distribution of new goods, and the organization of power in society.Human culture itself is influenced by this process. Changes in the pattern of production and distribution and in the organization of power radically alter the way of life, thought and action of men--their attitudes and aspirations included.Thus Teilhard becomes the exponent of a new way of looking at life or existence. History is now unified into one vision that comprehends the history of the universe and the earth palaeontology, geology), the history of matter (the physico-chemical sciences), the history of life (biology) and the history of man (history, including science and technology, politics and economics as well as culture).History thus becomes the magnificent all-pervading movement of all existence in its proud though painful march towards fulfillment, and here in this process is where modern man seeks his own fulfillment or salvation. As Montuclard says:“Modern man is convinced that history has a liberating part to play as regards humanity. To him, history is the mediatrix of salvation. And if he has no religious faith, he carries this conviction to the lengths of believing that it is up to history alone-- that say, for human effort inserted in the historical process --to secure is to for men, through justice, freedom and solidarity, the deliverance that they seek. There are in some men a faith, a hope, a sense of the future, and at times an overwhelming vision of the historical situation from which they can draw self-control, freedom of thought and action, courage and initiative. What did they have to do, in order thus to be ‘saved’? No more than enter actively into the current of history†(From La Mediation de l’ Eglise et la mediation de I' histoire, in Jeunesse de I‘Eglise. fasc. 7 entitled Delivrance de I' homme quoted in Olivier Rabut, Dialogue with Taiihard de Chardin. p 169)It is this hope and trust in history and in the human effort to be inserted in human history, that constitutes the common ground for many Christians, secular humanists, and Marxist humanists. It is on this basis that they seem willing to enter into a dialogue about the humanization of the world.
(2) The end already exists -- as point Omega, a personal centre able to sum up all consciousness within itself, and finally to unify the human super-organism.
1. Evolution is infallible, it cannot miscarry, it must go through to the end of what it has set out- to do. It is written within its very law that it will end up at a definite point-- the point at which mankind is unified in one higher person. Everything necessary to achieve this end, is, therefore, already in existence2. The end would not be achieved did there not already exist a personal centre able to sum up all consciousness within itself, and finally to unite the human super-organismâ€These, as we have stated earlier, are Christian affirmations, about the purpose of God in Jesus Christ. Their antecedents are not in Marx and Lenin, but in the doctrine of the recapitulation of all things in Christ as taught by St. Paul, St. Ireneus and St. Gregory of Nyssa.If secular man wants to secularize these faith-affirmations and hold them as secular affirmations, as Montuclard suggests, should we deny him this privilege? Perhaps secularized man’s own faith will become more articulate when he sees Christians working side by side with him for the emancipation of man and his unification.We should be prepared to welcome secular man’s faith in the historical process as a pre-figuration of his faith in God.