Flesh and What We Know, 8-4-2010

 I go back to St. Augustine for this piece. The following comes from The Confessions, IV xi (17):

Why, then, be perverse and follow your flesh? Rather let it be converted and follow you. Whatever by her you feel, is but in part; and the whole, of which these are portions, you are ignorant of, and yet they delight you. But had the sense of your flesh been capable of comprehending the whole, and not itself also, for your punishment, been justly limited to a portion of the whole, you would that whatsoever exists at the present time should pass away, that so the whole might please you more. For what we speak, also by the same sense of the flesh you hear, and yet wouldest not thou that the syllables should stay, but fly away, that others may come, and the whole be heard. Thus it is always, when any single thing is composed of many, all of which exist not together, all together would delight more than they do simply could all be perceived at once. But far better than these is He who made all; and He is our God, and He passes not away, for there is nothing to succeed Him. If bodies please you, praise God for them, and turn back your love upon their Creator, lest in those things which please you you displease.

I would give much to know what my friends think of a Baptist quoting so much of St. Augustine.

I see here support for the idea that humanity cannot know the whole truth of everything. We can only know partially and provisionally. I still remain attached to William James.

While James retains his influence, incarceration teaches the attraction of Bishop Berkeley. Quite often I think the only reality is this dorm where I have lived now almost five months. I find I cannot remember people I have known most of my life but as ghosts. (But am I not the true ghost? I haunt what had been my life, do I not?) The idea that reality only exists insofar as I can observe its physical manifestations possesses a simplistic but also egocentric attraction.

SCH