Civilisation and Artifice
It has been far too long since I wrote on here; I shall try to do better for those few who read.
It is late now, but I simply want to ask a question: what is the relation between rational civilisation and human nature? Here is what I find odd and fascinating. What we think of as a "state of nature" is generally described as a primitive state characterized by instinct and lack of reason. Essentially, in this state, no structures exist. The hand of the artificer has failed to touch these "innocents" in the natural state.
This is all well and good, and it is easy to understand how, for the sake of convenience and mutual concord, artificial structures would have organically arisen. What is strange is that these works of artifice are universally taken to characterize that which makes us human. For is not humanity defined as reason, refinement, leisure, and study? I think that none of these exist in what we call the natural state.
So the question is, is the natural state really natural -- is it actually possible to live a life with no art of civilisation? Or have we simply improved ourselves through these means?
Another question is raised: is someone like Kant correct in assuming that after history has taken its full course, a new state of nature will evolve in which virtue will be integral to human existance? I'm reminded of passages in Jeremiah which speak of no man teaching his neighbour to love the Lord, since all will have the law written perfectly in their hearts.
On the other hand, the primal garden of paradise was a cultivated garden -- or at least destined for cultivation. The destination of the blessed is a monumental cubic city -- indeed, a city "foresquare." I think that the work of an artificer is likely rooted in the Creator's shaping of the Chaos into form, and is therefore fundamental to existance as a rational entity.
Most likely both will co-exist. Ah, synthesis.
It is late now, but I simply want to ask a question: what is the relation between rational civilisation and human nature? Here is what I find odd and fascinating. What we think of as a "state of nature" is generally described as a primitive state characterized by instinct and lack of reason. Essentially, in this state, no structures exist. The hand of the artificer has failed to touch these "innocents" in the natural state.
This is all well and good, and it is easy to understand how, for the sake of convenience and mutual concord, artificial structures would have organically arisen. What is strange is that these works of artifice are universally taken to characterize that which makes us human. For is not humanity defined as reason, refinement, leisure, and study? I think that none of these exist in what we call the natural state.
So the question is, is the natural state really natural -- is it actually possible to live a life with no art of civilisation? Or have we simply improved ourselves through these means?
Another question is raised: is someone like Kant correct in assuming that after history has taken its full course, a new state of nature will evolve in which virtue will be integral to human existance? I'm reminded of passages in Jeremiah which speak of no man teaching his neighbour to love the Lord, since all will have the law written perfectly in their hearts.
On the other hand, the primal garden of paradise was a cultivated garden -- or at least destined for cultivation. The destination of the blessed is a monumental cubic city -- indeed, a city "foresquare." I think that the work of an artificer is likely rooted in the Creator's shaping of the Chaos into form, and is therefore fundamental to existance as a rational entity.
Most likely both will co-exist. Ah, synthesis.
posted by Robert C. Hamilton at 1:41 AM
1 Comments:
Hey! I had almost forgotten about this blog of yours and hadn't read the last two entries. About the most recent one, you ask if Kant is correct in his assumption about the end of history. Will a new nature evolve in which virtue is integral to human existence (please notice that existence has no letter 'a')? Well, I know you have read your Bible enough to know that at the "end of history," there will be a new nature, but it certainly won't "evolve." It will be the new heavens and the new earth, and of course virtue will be integral--there will be no vice. And I do, in fact agree with what you are surmising about the Jeremiah 31 passage. I believe that this describes the new covenant in its fullness--at that time, Jesus will have come again and separated the wheat from the tares and truly no one in the Kingdom will need to be taught by his neighbor saying, "Know the Lord!" because all will know Him perfectly. However, contrary to what PA thinks, until that time there are and will be covenant members who are not truly elect and do not have the law written on their hearts. These are the Hebrews 10:26-31 people (and the Hebrews 6 and John 15 people, etc.)
Love,
Mom
Post a Comment
<< Home