Reading the Church Fathers discussion
Maximos the Confessor
>
Some themes from Difficulties 7 and 8
date
newest »
newest »
Nemo asked (if I recall correctly) what was the difference between Maximus and his opponents.My first answer is that his opponents believe in pre-existent souls and Maximus deems that doctrine profoundly wrong. At the high level I'm trying to think at now, it seems to me that his argument is primarily cosmological but that it feeds into and requires discussion of the first theme (theodicy).
The second theme I see (which actually comes first in the text) is the cosmological.
By "cosmological" I mean that he argues from the basis that the universe is teleological, that things (inanimate and animate) have ends and they naturally move toward them. This axiom means that human souls, pre-existing in an original perfect universe would not leave perfection and do bad stuff and thereby evoke from God a punishment and exile. He argues that if the other cosmology is correct it implies an imperfect God.
(I may be using the terms "cosmological" and "teleological" incorrectly. If so, please correct me.)
His opponents' cosmology explains how it is that human beings are/became imperfect and how/why a good God would make things happen that way. So (I argue) Maximus had to give explanations based on his cosmology. I take the following passage (from Difficulty 8) as a summary of his explanation: "Man came into being adorned with the God-given beauty of incorruptibility and immortality, but, having preferred the shame of the material nature around him over spiritual beauty, and in addition wholly forgotten the eminent dignity of his soul—or rather the God who beautified the soul with divine form—he plucked a 'fruit' which, according to the divine decree that wisely administers our salvation, was worthy of the deliberative will (γνώμη), thus reaping not only bodily corruption and death, and the liability and propensity to every passion, but also the instability (τὸ ἄστατον) and inequality of external and material being, and the capacity and proneness for undergoing change."
I think he also has to reconcile the soul's immortality with its "capacity and proneness for undergoing change." I think a large part of Difficulty 7 is about that.
As to how he and his opponents differ: They argue for a doctrine of pre-existent souls; this implies/requires certain teachings about the nature of the soul, the connection of the soul and body, etc. He presents an alternative position and lays out the corresponding teachings about the nature of the soul and its relation to the body. It seems to me his teachings and those of his opponents are radically incompatible.
Clark wrote: "Nemo asked (if I recall correctly) what was the difference between Maximus and his opponents.My first answer is that his opponents believe in pre-existent souls and Maximus deems that doctrine pr..."
Thank you for taking the time to answer my question, Clark. I've been distracted by COVID-19 in the past two months, but will try to return to our group read, and respond to your comments, in the coming weeks.
One main theme I think I'm seeing would normally be under the heading of "theodicy," I think. That is, I think one of the primary things Maximus is doing working to explain how it is that evil and misery can exist in a world created and governed by a good and omnipotent God. (This seems to me an important topic.)
Formally, the seeds or starting points for his discussion are the two passages quoted from Gregory Nazianzen's oration "On Love for the Poor" (oration 14).
In Difficulty 7 [1089D] Maximus says, "In the passage under discussion Gregory did not intend to explain how human beings came to be, but why misery attends their lives." Then in [1093C] Maximus says, "in the passage under discussion our teacher is not explaining the reason for the creation of mankind, but the reason for the misery that sin brought into our life after we were created."
Difficulty 8 seems to me to be entirely on this theme. The difficulty, it seems to me, is Gregory's quoted simile , "“So long as matter bears with it chaos, as in a flowing stream …” or, in another translation, "so long as matter stays true to its nature, unsteady as in a stream." His phrasing seems to open the door to people who want to speculate about or focus on cosmological questions. I read Maximus as writing to shut that door; and also to give answers to the theodical question.