I am slightly unclear on Dante's depiction of the Church and it's future in the Purgatorio. Canto 31 represents the Four Cardinal Virtues as present in the best of men to prepare the way for the triumph of the Church. These virtues can be achieved within men and work to drive them to the Church, through which they can know the Divine Love of Christ (the Second Vision). Led by the Four Cardinal Virtues, Dante sees the reflection of the Griffin through the eyes of Beatrice and achieves his first revelation. The notes explain that Beatrice is a representation of the Church here, indicating that it is through the Church that one is able to achieve the first fruits of Faith by seeing as much of the nature of God as is perceivable in the first life. But in Canto 32, Dante witnesses and discusses the corruption of the Church through wealth in an extended allegory, in which a chariot (the Church), is attacked by an eagle (the Roman Empire), a fox (heresy), and a dragon (Satan). The chariot then converts into a monstrous beast covered in feathers (riches), and is ridden by a harlot (the corrupted papacy), and attended by a giant (the French Monarchy). Dante presents the evils of the rich and arrogant Church and the sins that have taken root within it. In Canto 33 Beatrice states that "man's ways, even at his best, are far from God's" (575), but the notes explain an earlier line in Latin from Beatrice to mean that "the pure in heart shall rise above the corruption of the Church to see Christ again in Heaven. More likely, Dante meant that the Church shall be purged until Christ is once more truly visible in its workings" (577). It is clear that Dante believes in the purification and reworking of the Church so that it is no longer corrupt and instead reflects Christ, but does what he has written express belief that this is possible, since men fall short in all ways? Does he believe that he stands above the Church as one who was endowed with special virtues and was capable of achieving a vision of Christ's Divine Love without the Church? But wasn't he also one who was so lost in his ways himself that the Divine powers interfered to save his soul? I'm just slightly confused on all of  the depictions of the Church and their meanings. Anyone understand this better and have any thoughts?

Paradiso

All of the souls left in the inferno are left there for all of eternity to regret the sins they made in their lives and hate themselves for being in the position that they are in while the souls that are put in paradise live and are content with where they are even if their situation isn't the best.  We see this when Dante meets up with Piccarda.  She says that she is perfectly fine with the sphere she is in because she has love for God.  This shows that Dante is writing saying that people should follow God blindly even if you aren't given the best situation.  Though she is in heaven, she isn't at the best sphere, but she trusts God enough.  This is a good sentiment, having faith that God will guide you right, but it seems like like blind faith.  It's a lot like in the book of Job in the old testament.  God hit Job with terrible tragedies, but Job kept his faith the whole time.  Job would certainly be put in a good sphere of paradise, but it is encouraging people to follow the bible strictly literally and put all of your faith in something that you can't be sure of.  If you lived in this time, and could remember your time in paradise when you returned to earth, would you choose the "right path" that Dante was trying to inspire in us, or would continue living your life as you had?

Repentance In Hell

So far in the Cantos we have focused on, the punishments have seemed to have given a whole new meaning to the phrase "poetic justice." With the lovers being thrown about in the storm of their passions, and with the avaricious and the hoarders pushing at each other for all eternity...these people's punishment seems to me to be the state of their souls. You might add that hell is an exaggerated condition of these people's souls, but I'm not too sure Dante would agree; if you think back to the way in which Aristotle believes that wrongdoing warps the soul into a twisted shadow of its former self, it's plausible that maybe, if given a physical representation, an unrepentant sinner's soul might look like one in the circles of hell. That is also something Dante mentions a lot - those guilty of sins of the flesh refuse to repent. Dido herself said that the Love which condemned her to the Second Circle "has not left [her] yet" (I.105). If a sinner were to repent, would they be released from hell? Is the whole point of hell that these sinners will never repent? What do you guys rhink?

Cantos 12-19

It seems to me that Dante's relationship with his guide, Virgil, has grown increasingly more affectionate and loving, and there are some interesting interactions between the two in these Cantos. Dante refers to Virgil as his "Guide," "Lord," and "Master," and recognizes that Virgil has overcome "every dread [they] have encountered" (114), increasing his regard of, and trust in, Virgil as his guide. Virgil is his "stay…comfort…and courage in other perils" (136), and when Dante displays fear, as he does with the beast in Canto 17, Virgil gathers and embraces him. Dante also observes the ways Virgil berates the souls as they go deeper into Hell, and begins to emulate him. When Dante condemns the sinner in Canto 19 he notes that it pleases his Guide, and the two then share an affectionate moment as Virgil "approached, and with both arms lifted [him]…and gathered [him] against his breast," carrying him up an arch where he then "tenderly set down the heavy burden he had been pleased to carry up that ledge" (153). I think the relationship that Dante shares with Virgil could be a representation of the growing strength of his own reason, and his growing trust in it. He is becoming more devoted to the improvement and use of his reason, and it is in turn rewarding him. Any other ideas on the loving relationship between Dante and his guide displayed in these Cantos?

In Cantos 1-11, I found Dante's reactions to the suffering souls interesting. In the second circle, he meets the lovers Paolo and Francesca and says to Francesca, "What you suffer here melts me to tears of pity and of pain"(50), and their story and displays of grief cause him to faint. When he meets Ciacco in the third circle of gluttons he expresses the same compassion, saying, "Your agony weighs on my heart and calls my soul to tears"(56). But in the fifth circle of the wrathful, Dante sees Filippo Argenti and wishes to "see the wretch scrubbed down into the swill"(69), praising God for his torment. He then witnesses a group of wraiths attack Filippo. This is one of the most disturbing sufferings that Dante has seen thus far, but instead of showing the same remorse that he was so moved by previously, he is pleased by Filippo's punishment. The notes for the chapter explain that Filippo was one of Dante's political enemies, but even so, it's striking to me that even on his journey away from wordily affairs that plague men's souls and towards a more enlightened state guided by Reason and the Divine, he still denies his enemies any compassion and pleasures in their pain.

Realistic vs. Idealistic

​​​In Question 96, Thomas Aquinas discusses the purpose and power of human law. He claims that the law isn't aimed for the benefit of the individual, but for that of the common good. This seems similar to the opinion of other philosophers such as Socrates and Aristotle. However, I found it interesting that Aquinas does not believe that human law has the ability, or even the right, to suppress all human vice. His philosophical predecessors banked heavily on human law to purge vice from our species; in Plato's Republic, Socrates debated which laws were necessary to create a city full of virtuous people. Aquinas, according to Article 2, appears to disagree with Plato and the others here; he says that "human law is framed for a number of human beings," all at varying levels of virtue, and that a vicious person should not be held to the same standard as a virtuous person. Here we see in Aquinas a level of realism not often appreciated by philosophers: he accepts that the law cannot condemn every immoral behavior. You can do something wrong without breaking the law - and Aquinas does not believe that this makes the law deficient. It's a very modern notion. For someone who is both a philosopher and a member of the Church, Aquinas might deserve respect purely on the grounds that he understands how human law plays out in practice. What do you think? Is Aquinas being realistic here, or is he maybe just being lazy, letting people wallow in their sin?

Individuality

While reading the second part of St. Thomas Aquinas on Politics and Ethics I noticed a trend, which is that he focuses a lot of the individual. He discusses whether "a Private Person Can Kill a Criminal" (69), if "It is Permissible to Kill in Self-Defense" (70), he rules of suicide, etc. It is logical that he denied the individual power over so many things and condemned the acts of suicide and taking justice into one's own hands, due to his position in the church. He lived during a time when Holy Roman Empire was still in existence and the sense of unity that was felt by the Romans must have been incredible. This is why he emphasizes that many decisions should be left to a higher power, like the Emperor or God, because the average individual is just a piece of the community and therefor should not make decisions for it.

It is interesting how although he gives the individual so little power, our founding fathers set up a nation based on the principles of individual rights and liberties. His work was groundbreaking in the 13th century and was very influential in the Western world, given he did die five hundred years prior to the founding of the United States and almost all works lose some of their influence over time, it is still odd. His work continues to lose traction in the United States as everyday individuals gain more and more power. My question to the class is whether you think that our world today would be better off if we followed St. Thomas Aquinas' rules or if we continues to live by the rules that govern society as it is now?

The Summa of Theology

On page 30, St. Thomas Aquinas makes the following statement: "Therefore if there were a God, evil would not exist." I disagree with this statement. According most theological texts, namely The Bible and The Qur'an, it was human beings that were responsible for creating sin. I am most familiar with Christian theology, and God distinctly told Adam and Eve not to eat from the tree of knowledge, yet Eve did anyway. She then told Adam to try the fruit, leading the God of the Old Testament to force them out of the paradise of Eden. God did not intend for sin to occur; it was the notion of free will that led to sin. St. Thomas Aquinas then continues on to list 5 reasons that God does exist. In your opinion, do you think God and the idea evil can exist together, and that man was responsible for the entrance of evil into society? If so, why or why not.

True Happiness

On page 42 of St. Thomas Aquinas on Politics and Ethics, Qu. 3 and Qu. 5 talk about happiness and how happiness can be achieved. In Qu. 3 this is said, "First, man is not perfectly happy as long as something more remains to be desired or sought." He is saying that no one can be perfectly happy if there is something else they want to achieve. In Qu. 5, this is said, "Some partial happiness can be achieved in this life, but true perfect happiness cannot." So what is true perfect happiness? This question is also answered in Qu. 5, "Full and sufficient happiness excludes every evil and fulfills every desire." Based on this, is anyone truly happy? I believe this is being taken a little too far because someone can be truly happy without everything he wants. Everyone has a different idea of what true happiness is. What do you guys think?

letter 6

In letter 6, I was struck by the inconsistency and borderline hypocrisy of Abelard's remarks to Heloise. He asks her to "write no more"(pg.86) to him, and entreats her to remove him from her heart and focus on her own salvation. He recognizes that she is still "enslaved to human love"(pg.88), and speaks to her of temptation and suffering. But Abelard shows signs throughout the letter that he still struggles too in turning his heart from her to Christ, and his plea for the cessation of her letters reads to be as much for his sake as for hers. He writes,

"Think not, Heloise, that I here enjoy a perfect peace; I will for the last time open my heart to you; I am not yet disengaged from you, and though I fight against my excessive tenderness for you, in spite of all my endeavors I remain but too sensible of your sorrows and long to share in them. Your letters have indeed moved me; I could not read with indifference characters written by that dear hand! I sigh and weep, and all my reason is scarce sufficient to conceal my weakness from my pupils. This, unhappy Heloise, is the miserable condition of Abelard. The world, which is generally wrong in its notions, thinks I am at peace, and imagining that I loved you only for the gratification of the senses, have now forgot you. What a mistake is this! People indeed were not wrong in saying that when we separated it was shame and grief that made me abandon the world. It was not, as you know, a sincere repentance for having offended God which inspired me with a design for retiring" (pg.87).

He not only admits his continued love for her, but admits to having retired to be a monk out of shame and grief for losing her and the events that transpired, rather than out of a desire to repent. To me, Abelard seems almost unfair in his letter in the way he expresses himself to her, in one moment even dwelling in the idea of making his home at the Paraclete and watching over her and the other sisters, and then instructing her to forget him and focus on religious perfection. Anyone else agree that Abelard seems inconsistent in what he gives Heloise to think about and what he tells her to think about?

Dear Fellow Classmates,

I would like to draw your attention today to a quote from Abelard's reply to Heloise's Letter 6, "Although women are the weaker sex, their virtue is more pleasing to God and more perfect" (pg 118).

In this quote, Abelard is responding to Heloise's blatant sexism towards her own gender, "the weaker sex" in the previous letter. The reason my attention was drawn to this quote was in part because I was surprised by Heloise's attitude towards women but I was even more surprised that Abelard felt the need to clarify and praise women...in a backhanded sort of way. I feel as though his justification of women being born into paradise and therefore it being their native land and native way to be almost insulting. I may be reading too far into it, but I feel like he is insinuating that men are innately going to be harder to control so they should have a different Rule than women. Though he does go into and cover a bunch of successful women in his letter I feel as though he still rejects the idea of equality. Other than their use of the term, "the weaker sex", there are tones and comparisons the two writers use that ultimately show the common idea of the day of women being inferior. I am wondering if you all agree on the attitude I am picking up? Or, perhaps you feel these letters expressed rather progressive ideas and thoughts on sexism?

The Letters of Abelard and Heloise Chapters 2-5

"It was the first woman in the beginning who lured man from Paradise, and she who had been created by the Lord as his helpmate became the instrument of his total downfall" (67)

 In Letter 4, Heloise really places emphasis on the obvious and deeply engrained sexism of the time. She asks Abelard why he would write her name in front of his on his letter to her and backs her argument that women are the lesser beings of the two sexes with multiple examples, such as the one above. I always find it interesting to hear different interpretations of the fall of mankind. The author of this text takes the stance that is was Eve's fault that man was kicked out of the Garden of Eden, however, I have read several other texts, including Paradise Lost, that suggest otherwise. Milton's Paradise Lost, had tremendous amounts of influence on how people perceived the fall of man (both Adam and Eve share the blame equally) and it was also written half of a century before The Letters of Abelard and Heloise was published. I do not know enough about the history of the religious and literary worlds in France to understand why the author of The Letters chose one interpretation while many others chose another or if it was purely a result of the social norm of sexism at the time. Does anyone have background knowledge of France and can answer why the author chose this interpretation? Also, what side do you take in this argument over who is to blame for the fall of man and why?

Letters 2-5

Many times in both of my semesters of Search and in my first year writing seminar people have questioned why we don't read more stories written by women.  Now we finally have something from a woman's perspective, but I don't know if it's the best representation of women during this time.  Heloise was a nun, but is remembered more for her affair with Abelard instead of what she did with her life beyond her love life.  I don't feel that Heloise was necessarily depicted in a bad light, of course she did a lot of good, but in a class based on the search for values in western culture, there should be more literature with a stronger female lead.  How do you think Heloise was depicted in these letters and do you think this is a good choice for this class?

Averroes

My Fellow Classmates,

Averroes states on page 165 that "the law has rendered obligatory the study of beings by intellect, and reflection on them, and since reflection is nothing more than inference and drawing out of the unknown, and since this is reasoning or at any rate done by reasoning, therefore we are under an obligation to carry out our study of beings by intellectual reasoning."

Although the purpose of this, which is meant to promote  "knowledge of God", is fairly noble and logical in theory, it also contradicts what God told Adam and Eve to not do when they awoke in the Garden of Eden. God commanded that they not go near the tree of knowledge and to at all costs avoid the temptation of feasting on its fruit. Satan was able to persuade Eve do do just the opposite of that with the argument that eating the fruit would provide Eve with incredible knowledge, which would raise her status to that of God. Therefore, the law that Averroes' speaks of in the passage above defies God's law, because it argues that the pursuit of all unknown knowledge is good. Although the Qur'an "[urges] the study of totality of beings", modern day Turkey and Iran, the two most largest Muslim-majority countries in the Middle East, are not very scientifically or technologically advanced. One would assume that if the Qur'an was taken literally then most Muslims would attempt to pursue the sciences and therefore Turkey and Iran would be more modernized nations, but they are not.

Do you think that this law conflicts with what God commanded of Adam and Eve and if so if this is significant? Also, if acquiring knowledge is labeled as important in the Qur'an, then why are nations like Turkey and Iran still deemed 'third world countries'?