June's Post_The Pursuit of Happiness and the Well-Demoned Life.

We live in a time subjugated by Hallmarkesque pseudo- or pop-philosophy, and wir Philosophen, “we philosophers,” should definitely be engaged in the quest of examining, eternally and recurrently, the various aspects of this our present maudlin Zeitgeist. The Days of our Lives are sugarcoated fancies; and through our rose-tinted sentimentalist glasses we perceive a world-of-men thoroughly saturated with saccharine notions of joy & happiness, love & marriage, “raindrops on roses and whiskers on kittens…”

            Then, when we finally stride across the threshold of perception to enter into the torrential onslaught of Our Life, we seem startled to find ourselves roaming around the quagmires of a Wasteland; and, slowly, we realize that we are also troubled by a disturbing ditty that has begun haunting our footsteps, and which sounds strangely familiar, like something Bilbo Baggins might have softly hummed upon leaving the Shire:

The Road goes ever on and on

Down from the door where it began.

Now far ahead the Road has gone,

And I must follow, if I can,

Pursuing it with eager feet,

Until it joins some larger way

Where many paths and errands meet.

And whither then? I cannot say.

Life is perhaps like a box of chocolates, as Mrs. Gump one day informed her young son, Forrest, who never knew what he was going to get; but it is infinitely more like an exchange with a Cheshire Cat.  One day Alice finds herself wandering around an Adventure in Wonderland, where everyone seems a bit daft… but then, maybe by way of wanting to comfort her, the CC explains that everyone is mad, to which Alice responds:

But I don't want to go among mad people"(...)
"Oh, you can't help that," said the Cat: "we're all mad here. I'm mad. You're mad."
"How do you know I'm mad?" said Alice.
"You must be," said the Cat, "or you wouldn't have come here."

The conversation goes downhill from there, of course, when, as Alice politely asks for directions: "Would you tell me, please, which way I ought to go from here?" the Cat laconically responds:

"That depends a good deal on where you want to get to" (…).
"I don’t much care where--" said Alice.
"Then it doesn’t matter which way you go," said the Cat.
"--so long as I get SOMEWHERE," Alice added as an explanation.
"Oh, you’re sure to do that," said the Cat, "if you only walk long enough."

Which brings us right the way ‘round to our meander in the Wastelands of the world-of-men, and to our question about whether Happiness is really the syrupy kind of subjective past-time suggested by the countless voices of our Zeitgeist.

Is Happiness a value or a virtue? Is it a goal to be pursued? Is it even desirable to be happy? Opinions abound.

            But just to problematize the question un tantinet reductively, let us consider whether Hitler, Time Magazine’s 1939 Man of the Year, was a happy camper as he was planning and then setting into motion the new Reich’s takeover of the knowable universe. Just the idea of a Happy Hitler is generally enough to induce a pukefest in the normal John Q. Citizen. Yet the answer to our question is undoubtedly “yes,” upon appropriate study and reflection, even though most of us prefer to believe that Hitler was one sick f&%# and that he definitely could not have been happy. So, just intuitively and just maybe, it might perhaps begin to dawn on us that Happiness, which at first blush might be thought to be a value in and of itself, probably is not; and that we should take the time to rethink its position on our virtue/value list!

            The point to our little excursion into another’s crazed imagination is to suggest that, despite its quasi-unassailable status as an Iconic Idea in the popular view, Happiness per se has no universal definition or value upon which we all might agree. It is both obvious and inescapable that one man’s happiness can easily be another man’s misery. Indeed, this is precisely the philosophical rub.

The text that serves as the primary springboard for our reflection is from the second section of the Declaration of Independence (adopted July 4, 1776), in which Jefferson posits the following: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.”

            Is it possible for us Moderns to reconstruct with any precision what the early American philosophe was thinking when he penned the Declarative and Independently minded expression: the pursuit of Happiness? Well, in addition to the infinite number and variety of pop-philosophical cultural opinions on the question of Happiness, there are also at least three reasoned schools of scholarly opinion on the question of what ideas were informing our 3^rd President as he penned these famous and, for us Moderns, famously woolly words. As always, though, scholarly debate is worth just about what you would pay to go hear it, and there is a voice for every viewpoint—the good, the bad, and the lame.

One good opinion, which I happen to favor personally, concerns Jefferson (1743-1826) the philosopher of Epicurean or Stoic thought. Stoicism teaches that personal happiness is integrally allied to self-control or self-governance (cf. Jefferson, vol. XV, 219ff. of the 1903 Library Edition). Jefferson writes in especially enthusiastic terms of Stoic Thinking as it was handed down in the writings of Epictetus, and even considered doing a new translation, “for [Epictetus] has never been tolerably translated into English.” On Epicurus and Stoic moral thinking Jefferson shares the following formula (XV, 223ff): Happiness = the aim of life; Virtue = the foundation of happiness; Utility = the test of virtue. Pleasure = active and Indolent; and Indolence = the absence of pain. By Indolence, it is clear from the context that Jefferson is referring both to the idea of body indolence, from the Latin indolentia, which is to be free from bodily pain, as well as to the Stoic notion of ataraxia, or the tranquility of mind that characterizes someone who is free from worry and distress.

            The influence of Stoic philosophy was widespread among early American philosophes, and clearly also informed the roughly contemporary American philosopher Ralph Waldo Emerson (1803-1882), which is evident in his famous essay, Self Reliance. This well-documented and pervasive Stoic connection, of course, would seem strongly to suggest that Jefferson’s “pursuit of Happiness” should best be construed as a personal philosophical attitude of Independence of Mind toward the world-of-men.

However, there is also a second scholarly school of thought on this question—that it is rather the English Enlightenment philosopher and empiricist, John Locke (1632-1704), who informs both Emerson’s as well as Jefferson’s thinking, and that Jefferson’s “pursuit of Happiness” is best understood in terms of Enlightenment empiricism imported from England. This is a plausible consideration, and is indeed representative of the mainstream scholarly opinion—that the Jeffersonian “pursuit of Happiness” derives from Locke’s political philosophy and is best interpreted in that light.

            To be sure, this is certainly an opinion, although arguably bad. In each of Jefferson’s references to Locke (cf. Jefferson, vols. VIII, 31; XI, 222; XV, 266; and XVI, 19) he speaks, almost nonchalantly, about Locke the materialist; and while he makes specific references to Locke’s writings, categorizing Locke as the man to read… Jefferson’s enthusiasm on the subject is certainly, well, stoically restrained. This stands in stark contrast to the glowing and vigorous recommendation he gives to the Stoic philosophers, praising both specific thinkers as well as the moral tradition.

            What I do find persuasive in the argument for a Lockean influence on Jefferson’s “pursuit of Happiness” is, first, that Jefferson clearly says that Locke is the go-to philosopher for wonderful ideas on materialism, which interests Jefferson as an alternative philosophical framing to the normative Christian worldview. I find even more persuasive, however, the argument from language-music.

            Locke defines property as a person's "life, liberty, and estate." That is a catchy bit of writing from Mr. Locke, rhythmically speaking; and Jefferson’s writing is in no wise inferior when he writes concerning certain unalienable Rights, among which "are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” Yet it also seems almost gratuitous to point out that, although it is obvious that Jefferson liked and borrowed the rhythm of Locke’s phrasing, he nevertheless disagreed with the idea of the phrase, thus changing Locke’s English, “and estate,” to the American, “pursuit of Happiness.”

There is at least one other mainstream scholarly opinion on the question of how to interpret Jefferson’s “pursuit of Happiness,” which is advanced by the historian Garry Wills; but this opinion seems to limp a little too much through the arcane and recherché to be persuasive in the context of this reflection.

Wind-up. Additional philosophical support for the interpretation that the “pursuit of Happiness” is best understood as a personal philosophical attitude of Independence of Mind, might also come from Aristotle’s notion of eudaimonia—what Heraclitus might have translated as the well-demoned or well-daimoned life. Let it be said, however, that while there are certainly traces of Aristotle in Jefferson’s writings, relevant to politics, republics, and materialism, there is no indication that he was in any way inspired by the Stagirite’s Virtue Ethic.

            For the General Record, though, and because we are reflecting on the question of Happiness as an Idea, it was Aristotle’s contention that we should actually thrive in our lives, and that this eudaimoniac-thriving, which is linguistically reminiscent of the Socratic Daimon who gave moral direction to that philosopher, and which we Moderns generally translate as happiness, is in fact the ultimate purpose of human existence.

So there are many reasons, even beyond Jefferson’s Declarative Announcement in its favor, for why Happiness or Thriving or Independence of Mind should come to occupy a prominent place in our hearts and thoughts as a Philosophical Value. Nevertheless, once the foundations of right thinking (read: Philosophy) give way to populist fancies, definitions for ideas such as Happiness become much fuzzier, and we Moderns are left with questions, such as: What does happiness mean to you?, which do not necessarily lead us to meaningful answers, because they also lead us to the admission that Hitler was undoubtedly as happy as a clam. Any answer to this type of fuzzy question is, philosophically speaking, a castle built on sand.

Is there more to life than being happy? There are indeed some scientists out there “who are cautioning against the pursuit of mere happiness”; and others who suggest in the same vein that trying too hard to be happy in fact makes us unhappy. I would argue, however, that such an understanding, and therefore research grounded in that understanding, is fatally flawed by Science’s fundamental mis-understanding about the essentially philosophical nature of the question. But then again, just like all the rest of us, scientists are also subject to “zeitgeistic” opinions and attitudes about happiness, and to the sweepingly sugarcoated, saccharine-fueled sentimentalism that continually seeks to supersede the hard work of Informed Thinking.

            To answer this question in kind: For us Moderns, who have been nurtured directly or indirectly on the Jeffersonian notion of We the People, is it possible for us to conceive as meaningful, philosophically speaking, an individual life where Thriving, either in body or in mind, is dislocated from the individual life? Or is it possible, philosophically speaking, to conceive of as meaningful a personal life where the individual is called to yield up his Independence of Mind, or where his I of M is trained out of him through tutelage in an impoverished educational system? Would this not be tantamount to the Abolition of the Cogito, the disintegration of the Individual, which must inevitably leave us, both as individuals and as a people, vulnerable to every possible form of totalitarian regimen?

            In and through his writings Jefferson crafted a philosophical Model of the Reasoning Man, into whose hands he put the reins of Power. And the only real burden he placed on this Reasoning Man is that he should be educated, in the sense that he should be informed about Things of State. Because there is nothing more appalling to Reason than to put power over the lives of We the People into the hands of those who choose a path of willful ignorance and self-service.

Is there more to life than being happy? No, there can be nothing greater in life than to affirm the Individual as Thinking, Self-governing Thing moving toward Virtue. Following in a long line of earlier and like-minded Stoic philosophers, Jefferson invites us to welcome and embrace Happiness as a Virtuous Habit of the well-demoned Mind, so that we might be faithful in working to secure for ourselves, and then perhaps for the world, those certain unalienable Rights, among which are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of this Happiness.

Mid-May Post_On Education and Dismay;The Death of Thinking in the Learning Process

Excuse me...?!  Dismay entered my universe yesterday morning when I read the following headline: 'Slumdog Millionaire' Professor, Sugata Mitra, Fixing Education By Bringing iPads Into Exams. Ok, he seems like a nice guy because he wants to buy iPads for disadvantaged Indian kids. Ok again, because he is a Professor of Educational Technology in the UK who has bothered to have the staggering insight that some subjects prioritized in education are no longer entirely relevant to the work-a-day world—this is certainly no “hang on, Dorothy; Kansas is going by-by” moment. Also not terribly insightful that, when you give kids new stuff, like iPads, they figure out how to make it work—then they break it. It’s one of those limited attention span things that parents and teachers learn about…  

            My dismay comes from the idea that this Professor of Educational Technology clearly seems to believe that education is a skills-based process—a kid first learns how to do a thing, then either gets about doing it, or moves on to the next skill. What, though, if Education is not really just about Learning or skills Acquisition?

            Analogy Time: It’s like I tell my wife – Language is not about Words. Words are tools, just like lego building blocks; nothing more. The real challenge with Language is using the tools in such a way that you create Ideas, and, hopefully, even Ideas that are beautiful and moving, so that you can inspire and move People. Because, says the philosopher-husband to dutifully attentive wife (DAW), Language is about People.

            Likewise, Education is not about Learning, although Learning is indeed an integral part of the process. If my DAW fails to learn her French verb tables, then that language simply will not happen for her, and her personal relationships with those autochtones qui se servent de cette langue will tend to remain rather basic. So it is with our youth in the educational  process – if they do not learn to manipulate, and hopefully master, the tools our/their society values, then Education will not happen for them. But Learning is still not the Goal of Education.

            The Goal of Education is to use the building blocks of learning to create a THINKING HUMAN. Thinking is not a skills-based kind of thing one automatically "has" or "does" at the end of the Learning process. Thinking is when you actively 1) gather together all your building blocks of Learning; 2) shuffle them around together until they make some kind of meaningful Picture that helps you to make some sense of what is going on around you; and then you 3) decide how to act for the best in the situation the world has just handed you.

            Technology, pace our Professor of Educational Technology, is just another one of the many transient skills for students to learn, manipulate, and master on their path toward being educated citizens. But the goal at the end of the path is neither learning the specific skill, nor the Education in and of itself. Rather, the end product of learning and education is a Thinking, Reasoning Human. Thus, again, the importance of the Liberal Arts model in education, where the young mind is asked to learn the myriad and diverse building blocks of the world, then invited to reassemble those blocks into an understandable, workable, and beautiful vision of the World That Can Be.
            Krugman’s latest article: How the Case for Austerity Has Crumbled, is an excellent illustration of one such Thinking Citizen.
            A former student (thank you, Shyam), provides a further example of a Thinking Citizen--the philosopher Dennett, who suggests seven fine tools for good thinking.

Marriage & the Bible

Marriage & the Bible. So… it seems that a Big Question on many minds at this moment concerns Marriage.  How often do we hear the term, the “biblical view of marriage,” in the various media? Is Marriage really only for one man and one women? It just seems that among all the variety of interesting social possibilities for Human Coupling, there should be more than just this one single possible biblical marital model that we Moderns might consider.

            Other possible cultural and religious models abound – among which is polygamy or polygyny (multiple wives); polyandry (more than one husband—really! …imagine the dirty socks! This is apparently something of a Buddhist thing, practiced in India, Bhutan, and Tibet, and legally recognized in Thailand until 2010); then there is always bigamy (two distinct marriages at the same time… count them both!); polyamory or group arrangements; endogamy, which might sometimes begin to look like incest, but which some might think of as simply keeping a close-knit family (cf. Egyptian pharaohs) -- this was the conception of marriage, in fact, that frames the Jesus parable (Matthew 22:25ff, Mark 12:20ff, & Luke 20:27-40) concerning the one woman married to the guy who had seven brothers, her husband dies, etc., etc., etc., etc.); and then, finally, there is of course the really hip “open marriage.”

Or, alternatively, there are also social Coupling practices taken from the world of Pure Nature, which we might consider adopting for our Human societies. Consider, for example, the bonobo ape, which, it seems, “is the closest extant relative to humans.” Just think, the Wiki-god suggests that there may actually be some advantages for humans seeking to couple if they would imitate the Coupling Culture of their more remote, native bonobo cousins, for whom “Sex functions in conflict appeasement, affection, social status, excitement, and stress reduction. It occurs in virtually all partner combinations and in a variety of positions.” What is not to like in this model from Nature?

            That said, however, this little reflection is not especially about the bonobo or Left Bank Ape; but I cannot resist one last little thought -- our “extant relatives” in Nature also have been seen to do all the good stuff that humans seem to obsess about sexually, if pornography (for humans) and empirical observation (for bonobos) is any indication; but these latter also use sexuality socially, as a form of greeting, as a “means of forming social bonds, a means of conflict resolution, and post-conflict reconciliation.”

            I personally think sex as a form of social greeting has special comedic promise… but I must not let my imagination stray around loose in Nature’s playground.

Western Society could be simply reeling with the multi-dimensional diversity of possible expressions of Social Coupling and Uncoupling, if, of course, it were not so fixated on what the biblical narrative has to say about Marriage. So… what does the Bible “say” about marriage? Is there any actual biblical “teaching” that is particularly meaningful in contextualizing the question of Human Coupling? And, of course there is the entirely different question: Is there a Christian ideal for marriage for which an argument could be made using the biblical texts?

First, before entering into le vif of our subject, it seems to me that a caveat is in order: To use the Bible to substantiate any type of argument at all, reasonable or other, is not terribly reasonable. If, for example, we in the 21^st century have questions concerning with whom to “join” in the coupling act, and how the ceremonial ritual for that Coupling might possibly be practiced in this modern social context, in what way is it reasonable for us to limit our search for guidance and possible social Coupling models to those that might be found in the Bible; for this Bible only narrates the history of very specific and minor inhabitants of ancient Near Eastern time and space, and does not allow us to open up our search to include any, or all, of the other and diverse Coupling Models peppered around the countless nooks and crannies of this planet of ours?

            Did you notice what just happened? In a very slick logical move regularly used by philosophers and other well-reasoning folks, I simply turned around the slippery slope charge, which is one of the favorite arguments used by zealots protecting “the traditional institution of marriage,” and I counter-charged the zealots with cherry-picking! Because why in the world should we limit our search for possible Coupling Models to a single specific document of antiquity, which is not even culturally relevant to us Westerners? This type of zealotry argument is a nec plus ultra illustration of the fallacy of special pleading at its very best; for why not pick the Sumerian culture for guidance instead, or the Bantu cultural traditions, or even in a moment of complete desperation, heaven forbid, the bonobo ape society?

            All right… maybe not the bonobo ape society. Because despite all the interest and social promise of their sexual-social interactions, it seems obvious that the natural model provided by the bonobos must inevitably fail as a model for their less sociosexually progressed human cousins (that would be Us), because it seems that “Bonobos do not form permanent monogamous sexual relationships with individual partners. They also do not seem to discriminate in their sexual behavior by sex or age, with the possible exception of abstaining from sexual activity between mothers and their adult sons.”

            It goes without saying, of course, that with our ongoing proclivity for moralizing and religious-ifying our Social Coupling practices, we 21^st century Western humans just will not stand for anything that smacks of non-monogamous Coupling. Which brings us around full circle to our first little caveat in this reflection: that using the Bible to justify any type of Cultural Coupling is clearly special pleading and therefore unreasonable.

That first little caveat aside, though, perhaps we should also explain that some biblical arguments might actually be better than others. In general, if the intent is to win arguments instead of alienating every reasoning person on the planet, then it is better to use the Bible with contextual sensitivity, rather than to use it literally. For example, Pastor Guyton, a culturally contextualizing reader of the Bible, recently reflected on another American pastor, a literalist, who wrote a book in which he defended slavery in Civil War America, because the Bible tells him so!

            So goes the literalist argument: “the abolitionist movement was wrong and the Civil War should never have happened, because if Southern slave-owners had been allowed to implement the Bible's teachings on slavery, then a more humane transition would have taken place through ‘gospel gradualism.’” And there you have it, straight [almost] from the literalist’s mouth.

            The point of this little distinction between a culturally contextualized and a literalist reading of the Bible illustrates the problem one has when using the Bible to defend or argue any given position—it is almost always impossible to determine convincingly whether, in its capacity as historical witness, the Bible simply contains illustrations of specific ancient cultural usage, or whether, in its capacity as moral authority, the Bible is actually trying to teach us, in a timeless here and now, also to go and to do likewise.

Do you want the good news first or the bad news? First, there is just a little bit of bad news, which is that the good news about sexuality and Coupling in the Bible is not all that good.

Bestiality & the Bible. Some good news is that the Bible is not very positive toward bestiality. Germany can soon rest easy, because its Agriculture minister is set, soon, to introduce a new ban on bestiality, which will reverse a 1969 decision to legalize zoophilia. I am not quite sure how best to respond to zoophiles, German or other, “who argue that they treat animals as equals and never force them to do anything against their will.” I have also just learned that it is not illegal to rape an animal in Denmark. Really?

            Also noteworthy on the question of animal sex in the Bible is that men and women are treated with absolute equality—everybody and anybody who does it with an animal “must be put to death.” Perhaps it needs to be clarified that the injunctions against animal love are only in the Hebrew Bible; the Christian Testament is silent on this question. At this point, we are left to determine whether the Bible’s attitude toward animal love is simply a reflection of specific ancient cultural usage, or whether it is actually trying to teach us also to go and to do likewise. This may not be good news for zoophilic groups in Denmark, Finland, Germany, Hungary, and Sweden—user beware!

Incest & the Bible. More semi-good news is that incest of one sort or another is generally frowned upon in the Bible, although it is not always frowned upon. It seems clear, after all, that if things really started from one man and one women, an Adam and Eve type of story, then it could not have taken too long before the sociological situation evolved into “family fun games” (an expression that I borrow from my grandmother).

            So, on the question of incest and the Bible, as the tempus has fugited [tempus fugit = times flies], so have definitions of incest—one man’s incest is another man’s endogamy, and that sort of thing. Abraham, to name perhaps the most famous/notorious example in the Bible (Genesis 12:10-20), marries his half-sister, Sarai/h. So when famine drives Abraham, Sarai, et al into Egypt, and the princes of Pharaoh see the very beautiful Sarai, Abraham had a really nifty built-in excuse when the Egyptians threaten to kill him for the girl: that he is willing to trade Sarai, his sister, to the Pharaoh in return for safe-passage. Pharaoh, though, nobody’s fool, “Upon discovering that Sarai was a married woman, Abram's wife as well as his sister, […] demanded that they and their household leave immediately, along with all their goods.” Does this narrative teach us about incest, or about badly lying about incest?

            In the Deuteronomic texts, there is a rather straightforward list of forbidden relationships, which forbids intercourse between male [implied] members of family, and daughter/sister, father’s wife, and mother-in-law. However there are also some notable exceptions in the Bible to this general rule of thumb, such as, again, Abraham who shares a common father with his wife Sarai, and Jacob, who married Rachel, the younger sister of his first wife, Leah.

            More on Incest & the Bible. (This information is derived from Wiki sources, but has been verified for accuracy.)

·      Noah and his son Ham (Genesis 9:20-27), who was checking out his father’s nakedness. The Babylonian Talmud suggests that the son may have sodomized the father (Sanhedrin 70a).

·      Nahor, Abraham’s brother, marries one of his nieces (Genesis 11:29).

·      Lot’s two daughters (Genesis 19:32-35) got their father intoxicated in order to sleep with him. Both girls conceived sons, who became sons/grandsons, and half-brothers. This is certainly one-up on old Oedipus!

·      There are numerous examples of cousins, 1^st, 2^nd, and so on, marrying in the Bible – Isaac to Rebekah, Esau to Mahalah, Jacob to Leah and Rachel.

·      Reuben, eldest son to Jacob (Genesis 35:22), slept with Bilhah, Jacob’s concubine/mistress.

·      Judah, another of Jacob’s sons, “went into” Tamar (Genesis 38), his daughter-in-law.

·      Amnon, eldest son to King David, raped his half-sister Tamor (II Samuel 3).

            Just a wee bit more on Incest & the Bible. I was comforted to learn from a Christian website that incest in the Bible was not wrong before God issued his command against incest in Leviticus 18:6-18. “Until God commanded against it, it was not incest. It was just marrying a close relative.” Nothing more need be said.

            

 Perhaps it again needs to be clarified that when there are injunctions against incest in the Bible, it is only in the Hebrew Bible, and that the Christian Testament is again silent on the question. And that again we are left with the interpretative question – which is how to determine whether the Bible’s somewhat inconsistent attitude toward incest is simply a reflection of specific ancient cultural usages, or whether the Bible is actually trying to teach us also to go and to do (and/or not do) likewise.

Polygamy & the Bible. Now the bad news for the Bible debate team on the question of Marriage & the Bible: polygamy is the normative biblical relationship for the period. Besides all the evidence from the Hebrew Bible, which is coming up in the following little section, there is also New Testament evidence (finally) to consider in the form of Paul’s 1^st letter to Timothy. A first comment: the consensus of most modern scholarship is that the Letter to First Timothy is pseudepigraphical, which is to say that most scholars are pretty sure that Paul did not write the letter. Make of this what you wish.

            The text of interest in First Timothy is 3:1-13. The author, “Paul” if you will, is speaking to Timothy of those who would aspire to the offices of church bishop (pastor) and church deacon, both of which the author considers noble callings. For either of these offices, Paul counsels Timothy that the candidate should be the husband of (only) one wife (3:2 & 3:12), and that how the candidate rules his own family is a reflection of how the candidate will rule the flock of faithful. Again a caveat: some translations, such as the NRSV, translate our passage of interest as “married only once.” But the Greek clearly reads for both candidates that they should be a “man of one woman (mia◊ß gunaiko\ß a‡ndra).” Read and weep.

Two conclusions are patent. Primo, the author’s recommendation that the candidates should be men of only one woman extends only to those seeking to fill certain offices in the church, and is not in any way advanced as a general or normative family standard for all men of that day. The author is not trying to start any kind of social revolution in the family. Secondo, the reminder that the candidate should have only One woman (+ attendant children) clearly suggests the following hypothetical situation: that church overseers with the more normative type of polygamous families would have a much harder time keeping “order in the roost”; and it is precisely this quality of orderliness in the roost which the candidate is supposed to be able to demonstrate in order to qualify for the overseeing offices of the church. Therefore only one woman.

            This is clearly one of those “oops” moments in modern and populist biblical interpretation—sic transits the glorious “biblical” argument [sic transit gloria mundi = thus passes the glory of the world], because the “biblical” view of marriage that everyone is talking about, that the Bible teaches a one man, one woman model of marriage, falls in the face of actual textual evidence. The dominant model for Social Coupling in the ancient biblical period, both Hebrew Bible and New Testament, is one man and many women. 

(Much of the following information comes from www.biblicalpolygamy.com/)

·      Perhaps a first occurrence of an extreme form of alternative Coupling in the Bible is in Genesis 6, where sons of God, commonly thought to be angels, took human wives to themselves. As you read further along in the story, you will see that this did not do much to impress the Deity, and resulted in gigantic offspring, floods and rainbows. It is not quite clear whether this Coupling was in fact polygamous.

·      Abraham, father of the Hebrew nation, had 3 wives.

·      Jacob, father of the twelve patriarchs of the tribes of Israel, had 4 wives.

·      Esau had 3 wives.

·      Moses, of Pentateuch fame, had only 2 wives.

·      Saul, king, had only 2 wives.

·      David, king of Israel and man after God’s own heart, had 18 wives and 10 concubines.

·      Solomon, son of King David, had 1,000 women at his disposal, which included “seven hundred wives, princesses, and three hundred concubines: and his wives turned away his heart." (1 Kings 11:3) Because Solomon was tolerant in his choice of women, choosing from among Sidontans, Tyrians, Ammonites, and Edomites, it appears that he began to wander from the religion of his Fathers, whence his later problems.

·      Ezra, of Ezra and Nehemiah fame, had only 2 wives.

·      Gideon (Judges 6-8), one of the judges of Israel, "had threescore and ten sons of his body begotten: for he had many wives." Case closed.

Other biblical illustrations of ancient cultural usage. Remember another one of the favorite arguments used by zealots protecting “the traditional institution of marriage,” is that in Genesis God brings “them” together, Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve. The too-convenient-to-forget part of that clever language rhyme is that Marriage was not part of the equation. There was no ritual performed – Adam wakes up from the nap, naked Eve is snoozing right next to him, and the rest is history.

            There is also the biblical illustration from the life of Hosea, one of the twelve minor prophets in the Hebrew Bible. In and of itself, the Book of Hosea can rightly be read as a metaphor, which is certainly plausible; but the story line is, nonetheless, that God commands the prophet Hosea to go out and marry a “working girl,” which, in the metaphor, would represent the world gone whoring after other gods. This is when biblical interpretation, and the to-contextualize or to-literalize question becomes interesting. Because if the biblical literalist is to take his sacred text seriously, then based on Hosea’s story he should go out and marry a working girl, and advise others of their moral imperative to do likewise. If, however, the Hosea story is simply to be contextualized, because it seems clear that the story is not simply a reflection of normative ancient cultural usage, nor is it to be interpreted as some sort of moral imperative, then the story looses all meaning to today’s world. 

Which brings us to the question of Gay Marriage & the Bible. I have written elsewhere in the Nonimprimatur blogspot about homosexuality and the Bible. The biblical texts, both Hebrew Bible and New Testament, are explicit, and seconded by a long and consistent interpretative tradition in the Church Fathers. The answer is no. Get over it.

            Fortunately, though, we have once again come full circle to the original caveat of this essay – that using the Bible to justify any type of Cultural Coupling is clearly special pleading and therefore unreasonable. The Enlightenment in Europe, which oversaw the birth of a Land whose governing body is an Idea called We the People, and whose governing principle is an Idea called Human Reason, called this People out of Tyranny, both political and religious, and into the public arena of reasoned debate and consensus.  In this New World of ours, the informed opinion is informed precisely by debate and reflection, and not by religion. If this is to remain true about America, then the public conversation about Gay Marriage, and any other type of social change that will occur in the dynamic future of this Land of the Free, may only and ultimately hinge on the question of guaranteeing for all citizens equal standing before the Law. Religious opinions, although freely guaranteed to all men as part of their inalienable rights in this Land, are inadmissible as evidence in the courts of American Public Debate.

April's Blog_Dead Gods Wandering Around Lost in the World of Men

(Part I of a loosely knit series).

I can think of few topics more appropriate to this particular season than Dead and Dying Gods. The season is especially festive for Christians, of course, coming off the long season of Lent, which culminates in Easter, a surfeit of chocolate bunnies and Easter eggs, and the Holy Week, which prepares the way for Whitsun (Pentecost) and the descent of the Dove; but also for Jews because it marks the beginning of Passover, and the life of a people over whom the Shadow of Death has passed. 
            The Christian Whitsun also happens to correspond seasonally to the Pagan festival of Beltane, the Walpurgis Nacht of Faustian fame, which, falling six months after All Hallows Eve, marks the beginning of summer (traditionally early May). 

In this springtide season, then, during which men’s fancy seems to turn away from the dying and the dead, and lightly turn to thoughts of God, the question for our reflection concerns the possibility of verifying authentic religious experience in a period of existential intellectual crisis. The short and honest answer to this question is that, although everyone seems to have an opinion, no one actually knows anything for real. HOWEVER, what I, the Reasoning Man, do absolutely know about the possibility of authentic religious knowledge in an existential period, is that the onus remains on the Magical Man TO DEMONSTRATE to all and sundry that Gods are relevant to human existence, which is to say that they can in fact be experienced.

            Insufficient to this task is any pretend-answer that seeks to pawn off on the philosophically shortsighted some religious ritual, which is nothing but a metaphor for interpreting an in-experience, or a lack of some quantifiable experience. It is necessary for the Magical Man—the religiously minded—to bring to the round-table of thoughtful citizens neither metaphor nor psychology (i.e., some vague notion of “belief” as a precondition of psycho-experience), but rather some real, verifiable human evidence for an experience of the Gods.

            Let me also be quite clear when I say that although my naturally critical nature is fairly indisposed to the more philosophical concept that gives support to the idea of “deity,” I am certainly not opposed philosophically to the possible historical existence of Gods, as are some. So I am sure that any Divine Critters out there will forgive me if I presume to be so intellectually bold as to pose questions concerning Their relevance and/or existence, and concerning how men might acquire knowledge about these things… But then I suppose that Such Enormities as Gods must be big enough to get over my little pissant philosophizing.

            However, if it should in fact turn out that the Gods cannot tolerate the pint-sized musings of thinking humans, Dear Reader, which might actually be the case upon closer reading of the story of the Tower of Babel (Gen. 15), then you best watch out for the bolt of lighting coming your way if you dare to continue reading this post—friendly fire is just as deadly as if the bolt were meant for you! The Index Librorum Prohibitorum was intended for just such as me, whence the name of our Phrontisterion URL: nonimprimatur.

[The following essay is condensed from research (complete with references) entitled, “On the Death of God. Reflections on His Life and Post-mortem Future (2011),” which is archived on our Phrontisterion site. ]

Other prophets of the Death of God… and other Dead and Dying Gods.

Similar to generic dying God stories typical to agrarian cultures, announcements of the death of a God in the western world may also perhaps be seen to follow cycles. A first important announcement occurred in the mid-first century, at sea off the western coast of Greece, with the proclamation that the Great God Pan was dead. Some believe that this moment marked the beginning of the end of the pagan era. The announcement was heard a second time, in the late 19^th century, when Nietzsche’s Zarathustra, returning into the world of men from a self-imposed exile, encounters a holy man in the wood worshipping, says the Heiliger, “the God who is my God”-- a statement that leaves Zarathustra wondering at the fact that this holy man had not heard in his woods that God is dead. Nietzsche mitigates the matter-of-fact flatness of Zarathustra’s wonder by also composing an exalted, quasi-mystical dirge in the now-famous madman story from the Gay Science.

God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him. How shall we comfort ourselves, the murderers of all murderers? … Is not the greatness of this deed too great for us? Must we ourselves not become gods simply to appear worthy of it?

Many have been the assertions that “God is dead,” and sundry the variations on the theme: from the “flight of the Gods,” the “Entflohene Götter”, of Hölderlin, to the contemporary God is Dead movement in America. It seems, however, that there is always hidden within the very language of the assertion, a second proposition: namely, that the Gods, and especially the God that surfaced in the theological traditions of the Christians, once existed. More philosophically oriented than the German romantics and their “Gods,” the high priests of the American Death of God movement offered up the death of the Christian God not by talking about “Him,” but rather, by talking about how humans seem to have transcended the need, interest, or even the possibility, of Him. So what has been at issue in this Death of God tradition, it would seem, is really not (the) Deity, but rather the human (lack of) interest story.

         In the light of the various traditions of God/s in the West, then, and of Their dyings, let us examine a different alternative—let us assume that we moderns do in fact live post mortem Dei christiani. Let us also assume that there are plausible intellectual justifications for why the modern world has moved beyond the Christian faith.

In the Great Conversation, the "death of God" thinkers have laid the theoretical foundations of an idea. For when Plato posited the reality of the Forms to explain how things came into being and (were) moved, it was not long before Aristotle came along to point out that, at the end of the day, the Forms are only a theoretical model with logical issues (e.g., their immovable, yet causative natures), and that a very adequate, persuasive, and almost entirely empirical description of reality could be posited without them. Similarly, I would like to suggest that the modern God-is-Dead propositions and treatments also contain an untenable logical assumption – that the Christian God ever existed.

         The wider evidence of Western history, and not simply the evidence from the history of the Western philosophical tradition, suggests that it is in fact the Christian God, and very specifically The-God-of-the-Bible, who has gone missing. And there is no need of a romantic and exalted post mortem: for the failure of The-God-of-the-Bible, equal to that of His Alter Ego The God of the Christians, is that as a philosophical Fiction derived from debate and consensus, He/They never had any historical reality.

Is the Christian God, the Protagonist of the Bible, really dead? The question is certainly of academic interest to the scholar of religions, and also a challenge for the believer in the fides christiana.

            Evidence clearly shows that The God of the Christians is not The-God-of-the-Bible; rather “It” is a Concept of philosophy—an extraterritorial Deity of Logic born out of the speculations of the earliest Platonized Christian philosophers. It could in fact be argued that Western philosophy already reached its zenith in the first half of the Common Era with the philosophical conception and articulation of this God, whose genealogy can be traced in its evolution from a Hellenistic Abstraktum, to a Supreme philosophico-religious Idea(l). This “God,” conceived very literally out of season, corresponds to the highest ideals of western neo-platonic thought, and bears no comparison, either in actions or character, to the historico-geographical deities of the Hebrew Bible. There is considerable evidence to substantiate this argument.

The-God-of-the-Bible.

Buttressed by archaeology, biblical scholarship has paved a wide road for the articulation of this argument; and much of recent scholarship received its impetus from Albrecht Alt’s groundbreaking 1929 essay on the God of the Fathers, which was so fruitfully furthered by the works of Albright, Gordon, D.N. Freedman, and the Harvard scholar Frank Cross, of Dead Sea Scrolls fame. The Albright “school,” in seeking to identify more fully the various Deities of the Bible in the light of Their ancient Near Eastern origins, has led some to wonder whether the Western Religious narrative has not in fact completely “lost” the Yahweh of the Hebrew Bible in its attempt to articulate a philosophical God. Such is R. Friedman’s recent thesis: that the Hebrew Bible is literally a record of the disappearance of God—that it is the story of a God who has gone into retirement, who, like the Canaanite El a thousand years before him, is become deus quiescens.

            This is a troubling state of affairs for the study of western religions. Indeed, it is potentially a worst-case scenario. For in addition to having perhaps identified the wrong deity as God, western religious scholars now must consider the possibility that the Hebrew Bible may be the narrative record of a God-become-absent from the world of men (deus absconditus).  Indeed, it has always been difficult for the missionary to make a persuasive case for a God who is not present to defend himself publicly—the Baalite priests of I Kings 18 learned from Elijah, much to their detriment, that les [dieux] absents ont toujours tort.

The German Assyriologist Friedrich Delitzsch profiled this argument already in a 1920 volume entitled, The Great Deception, in which he argued that, just like the other olden gods: “the Hebrew national god (Nationalgott) belongs also to the ‘anemic’ ones (elîlîm)—as the Old Testament relishes designating the gods of other peoples—and it is impossible that he should be identified … with the most-powerful GOD.” Delitzsch concludes with this: “Israel is not the people of ‘GOD’, but the people of Jaho, as Moab is the people of Kemosh and Assur the people of the god Asur.” In a similar iteration in the Interpreter’s Bible one reads: “The religion of the fathers was not the same as the worship of the thundering Yahweh of Sinai. The God pictured in Genesis is not like the God who reveals himself to Moses in the book of Exodus.”

End of Part I.