Classics and the Western Canon discussion
Discussion - Paradise Lost
>
Paradise Lost--through Book 3
date
newest »
newest »
Roger wrote: "Dianna wrote: "Where do our standards of good and bad come from but our culture and our upbringing?"Is this what Milton would say?"
I don't know what he would say because I haven't really researched him but I looked up an interesting link that seems to say he was influenced by sources in addition to the Bible. Of course, Jung came along after Milton but I just thought the previous material I posted went with the spirit of what we were discussing. I am sorry if I got off topic.
http://books.google.com/books?id=uvhF...
I liked the Jung quotes you linked, Dianna and your thoughts fit in nicely with the discussion. It isn't at all clear to me what Milton would say to this. He didn't take social, religious or political norms as unquestionable truth so I am not sure he approached the bible that way either.
Dianna wrote: "Roger wrote: "Dianna wrote: "Where do our standards of good and bad come from but our culture and our upbringing?"Is this what Milton would say?"
I don't know what he would say because I hav..."
I think where you are headed is that Milton's ideas of the standards of good and evil differ from [some of:] ours. That's quite on topic, I say. So based on what Milton shows us of his world in Paradise Lost, where do standards of good and evil come from?
Dianna kindly shares a comment from Carl Jung: In the last resort there is no good that cannot produce evil and no evil that cannot produce good.
Psychology and Alchemy (1944). CW 12: P.36
I think Milton would dispute this. Or, more precisely, he might concede it as a possibility in the postlapsarian world. On the other hand, evil is clearly possible in Heaven; Satan's sin of pride and rebellion being the obvious example.
In Milton's Heaven there seems a single standard of good (and evil): obedience to authority.
In Eden it is the same. Milton (and God) go to great pains to show how easy this single standard should be to respect.
Before even getting to Jung's notion of good and evil producing each other, I am still working my way through a different assertion: Good cannot even conceive Evil, while Evil can know Good having been good before falling.
Psychology and Alchemy (1944). CW 12: P.36
I think Milton would dispute this. Or, more precisely, he might concede it as a possibility in the postlapsarian world. On the other hand, evil is clearly possible in Heaven; Satan's sin of pride and rebellion being the obvious example.
In Milton's Heaven there seems a single standard of good (and evil): obedience to authority.
In Eden it is the same. Milton (and God) go to great pains to show how easy this single standard should be to respect.
Before even getting to Jung's notion of good and evil producing each other, I am still working my way through a different assertion: Good cannot even conceive Evil, while Evil can know Good having been good before falling.
Zeke,
In heaven and Eden there is a single expectation for behavior: obedience to authority.
I am not sure that this is a standard of "good", just as Milton has very carefully not defined God as "good". It just is.
If you start with the idea that only God can know what good and evil are (until man consumes the fruit of the tree of knowledge), it makes complete sense that God would have to demand obedience to his will, just like a parent would to a pre-verbal child. Because the child can't understand for himself.
That would eliminate the some of the difficulty in your assertion, because man's knowledge of good and evil happen at the same time.
Not sure how this applies to angels, though.
In heaven and Eden there is a single expectation for behavior: obedience to authority.
I am not sure that this is a standard of "good", just as Milton has very carefully not defined God as "good". It just is.
If you start with the idea that only God can know what good and evil are (until man consumes the fruit of the tree of knowledge), it makes complete sense that God would have to demand obedience to his will, just like a parent would to a pre-verbal child. Because the child can't understand for himself.
That would eliminate the some of the difficulty in your assertion, because man's knowledge of good and evil happen at the same time.
Not sure how this applies to angels, though.
Zeke wrote: "Before even getting to Jung's notion of good and evil producing each other, I am still working my way through a different assertion: Good cannot even conceive Evil, while Evil can know Good having been good before falling. I would simplify this even further and say that Good simply cannot conceive. The ability to distinguish good from evil comes with the Fall -- for humans, anyway. And from the human perspective I'm not sure good can exist without evil. Good and evil are borne of knowledge -- but more of this will come in the Book 4 discussion, I'm sure.
Zeke wrote: In Milton's Heaven there seems a single standard of good (and evil): obedience to authority.In Eden it is the same. Milton (and God) go to great pains to show how easy this single standard should be to respect.
What about freedom?
Is freedom freedom if one uses it differently than the omnipotent authority demands?
Zeke wrote: "Is freedom freedom if one uses it differently than the omnipotent authority demands?"I would say yes, at the time, but it doesn't end up that way unless one takes the second chance offered him.
Laurele wrote: Zeke wrote: "Is freedom freedom if one uses it differently than the omnipotent authority demands?"
I would say yes, at the time, but it doesn't end up that way unless one takes the second chance offered him.
Understood. And respected, given God's omnipotence. But, if the second chance undermines the authenticity of the first chance, is it really freedom?
I would say yes, at the time, but it doesn't end up that way unless one takes the second chance offered him.
Understood. And respected, given God's omnipotence. But, if the second chance undermines the authenticity of the first chance, is it really freedom?
Roger wrote: "Dianna wrote: "Where do our standards of good and bad come from but our culture and our upbringing?"Is this what Milton would say?"
I suspect that Milton would say either "from God" or "from the Bible."
The question whether good and bad are cultural or universal, or partly each, is a fascinating one. Maybe sometime down the road we'll read a work on that and really get into it. Plato's Meno or Republic would be great for this.
Dianna wrote: "don't know what he would say because I haven't really researched him but I looked up an interesting link that seems to say he was influenced by sources in addition to the Bible. Of course, Jung came along after Milton but I just thought the previous material I posted went with the spirit of what we were discussing. I am sorry if I got off topic. "Not a problem at all! Sometimes these little eddies of thought which emerge from aspects of the reading lead to some of our best discussions. An article which discusses influences on Milton is very much in order, and the issue of good and evil is very relevant to the issues of Paradise Lost. After all, don't we have to wonder why Satan was evil, and where his evil came from?
Zeke wrote: "In Milton's Heaven there seems a single standard of good (and evil): obedience to authority."
This may be better explored down the road when we get into the chapters where the actual rebellion is discussed in more detail, but I'm not sure it's so much obedience as it is willing submission to authority. If there's a difference, which I think there is but maybe I'm wrong.
Zeke wrote: "Before even getting to Jung's notion of good and evil producing each other, I am still working my way through a different assertion: Good cannot even conceive Evil, while Evil can know Good having been good before falling. "If that's so, then how can God have conceived Satan rebelling or Adam disobeying? Or is Milton's God not Good? Is he a mixture of Good and Evil?
Zeke wrote: "Is freedom freedom if one uses it differently than the omnipotent authority demands?"Well, Adam and Eve used their freedom, if they had it, to act differently from what the omnipotent authority demanded, didn't they? Unless you want to contend that Milton's God was omniscient but not omnipotent, in which case does omnipotence even exist? What were Adam and Eve doing but exercising freedom contrary to the demands of authority?
Zeke wrote: "Is freedom freedom if one uses it differently than the omnipotent authority demands?"WWTS?
[That's sort of an in joke with Zeke -- he's on his way to a great Thoreau convention, so the question is "What Would Thoreau Say?":]
Everyman: This may be better explored down the road when we get into the chapters where the actual rebellion is discussed in more detail, but I'm not sure it's so much obedience as it is willing submission to authority. If there's a difference, which I think there is but maybe I'm wrong.
I agree it may be better later. Hope we remember. Honestly, three weeks ago, I would have said obedience vs willing submission was a distinction without a difference. From the discussion and reading, I am rethinking this.
I agree it may be better later. Hope we remember. Honestly, three weeks ago, I would have said obedience vs willing submission was a distinction without a difference. From the discussion and reading, I am rethinking this.
Zeke wrote: "Before even getting to Jung's notion of good and evil producing each other, I am still working my way through a different assertion: Good cannot even conceive Evil, while Evil can know Good having been good before falling. "
Everyman: If that's so, then how can God have conceived Satan rebelling or Adam disobeying? Or is Milton's God not Good? Is he a mixture of Good and Evil?
I don't know the answers to these questions. But I think it is important that the poem leads us to answers to them in order for it to cohere as a whole.
Everyman: If that's so, then how can God have conceived Satan rebelling or Adam disobeying? Or is Milton's God not Good? Is he a mixture of Good and Evil?
I don't know the answers to these questions. But I think it is important that the poem leads us to answers to them in order for it to cohere as a whole.
Zeke wrote: "Is freedom freedom if one uses it differently than the omnipotent authority demands?"
Everyman: Well, Adam and Eve used their freedom, if they had it, to act differently from what the omnipotent authority demanded, didn't they? Unless you want to contend that Milton's God was omniscient but not omnipotent, in which case does omnipotence even exist? What were Adam and Eve doing but exercising freedom contrary to the demands of authority?
Well, people in the Soviet Union had freedom to vote as they chose.
You raise a great point that we will also have to grapple with: What if God is omniscient but not omnipotent. I first encountered that idea as part of the discussion about how can God allow children to starve, wars to occur, etc.
And I think Thoreau would come down squarely in favor of the individual's freedom--as I suspect you'd agree. I'll have to find out what he and Emerson thought of Milton.
Everyman: Well, Adam and Eve used their freedom, if they had it, to act differently from what the omnipotent authority demanded, didn't they? Unless you want to contend that Milton's God was omniscient but not omnipotent, in which case does omnipotence even exist? What were Adam and Eve doing but exercising freedom contrary to the demands of authority?
Well, people in the Soviet Union had freedom to vote as they chose.
You raise a great point that we will also have to grapple with: What if God is omniscient but not omnipotent. I first encountered that idea as part of the discussion about how can God allow children to starve, wars to occur, etc.
And I think Thoreau would come down squarely in favor of the individual's freedom--as I suspect you'd agree. I'll have to find out what he and Emerson thought of Milton.
Everyman wrote: This may be better explored down the road when we get into the chapters where the actual rebellion is discussed in more detail, but I'm not sure it's so much obedience as it is willing submission to authority. If there's a difference, which I think there is but maybe I'm wrong. ..."
I think that is a very pertinent and helpful distinction. Thanks.
I also think that distinction is useful to understanding Satan. He can obey, to a point. He is absolutely unwilling to submit.
I think that is a very pertinent and helpful distinction. Thanks.
I also think that distinction is useful to understanding Satan. He can obey, to a point. He is absolutely unwilling to submit.
Zeke wrote: " I'll have to find out what he and Emerson thought of Milton. ."There you are -- you'll be showing up at the conference with a specific question to ask the experts there.
Thoreau purportedly referenced PL in his Maine Woods, chapter 6, when he wrote "Nature was here something savage and awful, though beautiful. I looked with awe at the ground I trod on, to see what the Powers had made there, the form and fashion and material of their work. This was that Earth of which we have heard, made out of Chaos and Old Night."
Milton:
"Sonorous mettal blowing Martial sounds:
At which the universal Host upsent
A shout that tore Hells Concave, and beyond
Frighted the Reign of Chaos and old Night"
And footnote 6 in this essay links to another Thoreau reference to Paradise Lost, and then claims that " Milton, be it remarked, was Thoreau’s favorite poet of the English cycle." [There are apparently two numbering systems in the essay, one perhaps to endnotes that didn't show up on my copy and the other to footnotes; search for "Day, or the sweet approach of even or morn" to find the Milton passage Thoreau quotes." :]
So you may hear some interesting things if you ask the question at the conference!
Zeke wrote: "Dianna kindly shares a comment from Carl Jung: In the last resort there is no good that cannot produce evil and no evil that cannot produce good."The problem with comparing Milton with Jung or any other post Enlightenment philosopher is that in Milton's day there were no atheists, or none that dare speak out and so it was impossible for them to look at these problems without having God in mind. As a 'born and bred atheist' I find all these arguments about good and evil not being possible before the Fall or about God giving us freedom, being omnipotent and/or omniscient too esoteric. To me it just seems the same as wondering what Milton and/or his contemporaries thought about the Iliad or Aesop's Fables or any other mythology, except that the tales in the Bible took precedence over others for Milton.
I am so confused. I just am not so sure that Milton really did believe all this that he is writing. I think maybe he was trying to write an epic poem and he knew he would get lots of readers if he based it on the common religion of the culture. Also, since it wasn't safe sometimes to come right out and say one didn't believe the accepted doctrine I am not so sure he would have risked his reputation like that.This is, of course, all speculation because I don't know much about him and all I have to go by is the book we are reading. I haven't checked out any of the reference links that have been posted, which maybe I should do.
I think people see what they want to see and so far all I see is a man that wants to make an epic poem so he writes one on Western tradition like the Iliad was written from Greek culture, etc.
Dianna wrote: "I am so confused. I just am not so sure that Milton really did believe all this that he is writing. ...This is, of course, all speculation because I don't know much about him and all I have to go by is the book we are reading."You might want to skim his unfinished work "On Christian Doctrine," which lays out many of his beliefs. It's not easy to find on the Internet, but I did find this site where you can read it online in HTML format or apparently download it in several formats, including PDF and Kindle.
It's a fair question (though probably unanswerable) how much of this he believed. Did he believe that Satan actually gave birth to a physical being sin, or is that allegorical? Certainly he made up the actual speeches given in Hell by the fallen angels, but did he believe that they had actually fallen and landed in a physical place similar to that which he described?
I do believe that he believed the basic Biblical report of God creating the universe, creating Adam and Eve, the tempting of Adam and Eve by Satan, the fall and salvation by Christ, and so on. But as to how much of the rest of the poem was based on belief and how much was an extension of belief is a fair, but as I noted perhaps unanswerable, question.
Milton was an exceptionally devout man who believed himself to be a divinely inspired writer and whose youthful ambition was to become an ordained Minister of the Church of England. His other youthful ambition was to write an English epic in the Greek tradition. He certainly did believe what he read in the Bible but he differed from some of his compatriots about some aspects of the Christian doctrine as it was taught in the CofE at that time, which was one of the the reasons he abandoned the idea of becoming a Minister. There has always been dissension about certain aspects of Christian and Biblical doctrine so he was not unusual in this, especially at a time of such religious turmoil.He spent 20 years of his adult life writing about the religious (and doctrinal) issues which affected 17C English politics, during which time he started PL, which he finished after the Restoration and the failure of the Commonwealth, which so disappointed him..
In Milton's time serious writing in English was still a relatively new phenomenon and there was still a case to be made for English poetry in general, and for an English epic in particular. In our time the novel is the prime mode of comment in literature on matters of the day. Poetry for us has a different status but in Milton's day attitudes to prose and poetry were very different, and if he was to be regarded as the greatest writer in his country - which was his ambition - Milton had no option but to write in English and to write in verse. Whilst in Italy he resolved to be 'an interpreter & relater of the best and sagest things amongst mine own citizens throughout this Illand in the mother dialect.
This link, put together by Christ's College, Cambridge, Milton's old college, summarises his life, religion and politics:-
http://www.christs.cam.ac.uk/darkness...
Some folks here may be interested in this in depth article which goes into the reasons why he abandoned Archbishop's Laud's church and began to campaign against it. The quote on Abdiel beginning 'Servant of God, well done, well hast thou fought' (PL VI 29-37) is apposite:-
http://extra.shu.ac.uk/emls/iemls/pos...
after all the learned comments re book III I'm somewhat hesitant to ask my question, but here goes anyway...when "the Son of God" offers hmself to die for man, he says "I shall not long lie vanquished: thou hast giv'n me to possess/Life in myself forever..."why is his offer so important; if he in fact has eternal life what about his offer to die for man is (to be vulgar) such a big deal?
Were the angels also given to possess life...forever?
I think that's a great question Helyn and it is one of a few inconsistencies that have been perplexing me to. I hope you won't mind if I expand the question a bit.
Awareness of death comes from Adam and Eve's original sin. I don't believe that has happened yet when the Son makes his offer. How does he even know what death is?
What is the "substantive" difference between the Son and the other angels? God created them all in an asexual manner: why is the Son different?
What is the significance of the nine degrees of angel?
Awareness of death comes from Adam and Eve's original sin. I don't believe that has happened yet when the Son makes his offer. How does he even know what death is?
What is the "substantive" difference between the Son and the other angels? God created them all in an asexual manner: why is the Son different?
What is the significance of the nine degrees of angel?
The only thing I can add to Amanda's explanation is that He also had to suffer a separation from the Father for three hours at least while on the cross. (My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?)
I still have a doctrinal question and a literary one.
Why does Christ have to spend three days in Hell?
Being wholly spirit in essence while in Heaven, how does he know about mortal, organic life before God creates earth and Adam and Eve?
Why does Christ have to spend three days in Hell?
Being wholly spirit in essence while in Heaven, how does he know about mortal, organic life before God creates earth and Adam and Eve?
Zeke wrote: "I think that's a great question Helyn and it is one of a few inconsistencies that have been perplexing me to. I hope you won't mind if I expand the question a bit."In discussing this, though, we perhaps need to differentiate our own questions about these issues from the theological and philosophical world in which Milton was writing. Some of these questions might not have been questions for Milton since they were given facts in the Bible; others were probably addressed by theological writings available to Milton.
Zeke wrote: "Awareness of death comes from Adam and Eve's original sin. I don't believe that has happened yet when the Son makes his offer. How does he even know what death is?"Well, there is a Tree of Life in the Garden of Eden, which would seem redundant if there were no knowledge of death. And God says that if they eat of the Tree of Knowledge, they will surely die, so he must have had knowledge of death at that point.
Zeke wrote: "Being wholly spirit in essence while in Heaven, how does he know about mortal, organic life before God creates earth and Adam and Eve? "It seems that the angels have physical bodies, which Milton presumably thought were organic of some sort. They can make and yield weapons, build Pandemonium, change shape, all of which it seems pretty clearly would suggest that Milton saw them as physical beings.
The above were all helpful comments. I can understand the three days better now, though I would probably subscribe to the version that Christ goes to Hell to defeat sin and death with "It is finished" referring to his earthly mission. (Of course, I am saying that with no knowledge of the Greek!)
However, Everyman, you still leave me confused about the make up of the Son. I agree with all you say about the constitution of the angels (and admire how well you did it while avoiding spoilers!). But we are given to believe that the Son is different in more than just degree being created from (not by)God. If not different, why bother with the distinction. And if different, I am still trying to understand how.
However, Everyman, you still leave me confused about the make up of the Son. I agree with all you say about the constitution of the angels (and admire how well you did it while avoiding spoilers!). But we are given to believe that the Son is different in more than just degree being created from (not by)God. If not different, why bother with the distinction. And if different, I am still trying to understand how.
Zeke wrote: "However, Everyman, you still leave me confused about the make up of the Son."I'm not sure which post of mine left you confused, but I don't pretend to have a clear answer that in any case. Nor am I sure that Milton had a clear answer, though he may well have that I'm just not aware of.
@E-man: I just finished Book VI and found many of the answers to my questions there--which, of course, I will not share prematurely.
The main confusions I have remaining are:
1. How the Son differs from other angels
2. The significance of the nine orders of angels--which, presumably are present in both the heavenly angels and the rebels.
The main confusions I have remaining are:
1. How the Son differs from other angels
2. The significance of the nine orders of angels--which, presumably are present in both the heavenly angels and the rebels.
Zeke wrote: "@E-man: I just finished Book VI and found many of the answers to my questions there--which, of course, I will not share prematurely."We'll look forward to hearing your answers in two weeks!
With respect to what Milton believed, there can be no disagreement that Christ spent 3 days and nights in some place after his death on the cross. This is stated in Matthew 12:40. The justification is often given, correctly so, that Christ held the keys to hell and death (Rev 1:18). Milton was a consummate Bible scholar and knew where Christ spent those 3 days and nights as per scripture. 1 Peter 3:18-20 seems the best source of several Biblical sources.However I believe that two things explain further that he did spend his 3 days and nights in hell (and I will omit the greater argument about whether he did so in part or completely.) First, consider the story from Luke 16:19-31 for a better explanation of how hell was separated from paradise. Lazarus does not go to hell, but to the "bosom of Abraham", the place where the Old Testament saints reside waiting for the redemption of their sins through knowing Christ. It is significant that Christ knows (while he alive as a man on earth) not only what he must do but where he will go and what he must do. His distress in his abandonment by God is indicative of His going to hell. Thus concerning God forsaking Christ, (Matthew 27:46) I believe that (according to scripture) it is the abandonment by God which makes hell what it is.
Secondly, these Old Testament saints require Christ's cleansing. For support of this, I cite Hebrews 9:12: Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us.
Further, 2 Corinthians 5:21 for he (God) hath made him (Christ) to be sin for us, which knew no sin, that we by his means should be that righteousness which before God is allowed.
It is worth mentioning that Christ's life was not a cakewalk but one with a real possibility of sin which he avoided. This was the only way in which he could take on the sins of the world.
Thus it is the blood of Christ which is offered through the Holy Spirit without sin which is the sole redemptive power for man. Paradise is taken to heaven with Christ upon His resurrection. This explains how Paul can tell the story of visiting paradise which seems remarkably different from the earlier version. New Testament saints, of course, go directly to heaven.
As to an earlier comment about the goodness of God, I think that Milton would have said that Paul's argument about God's justice and his incapacity for evil in Romans 3 was a reasonably sufficient explanation. I do not read where Milton ever sees God as other than just.
How so?