Paradise Lost - through Book 5

[Roger]

Another minor but interesting word: in 718, speaking to his Son of the rebellion of Satan and the other angels, God is described as "smiling." Smiling??? About rebellion? What's that about?

God smiles, turns to His Son, and starts the speech in which He seems to doubt His own omnipotence and to worry that He might lose His throne. It seems to me that He is amusing Himself with irony.

[Laurel]

Everyman wrote: At 719ff Milton says:
Son, thou in whom my glory I behold
In full resplendence, Heir of all my might,
Neerly it now concernes us to be sure
Of our Omnipotence,

What, he isn't sure of their omnipotence? Isn't that curious?

It certainly is curious. I was really struck by that, too. This is Milton and not the Bible.

[MadgeUK]

Everyman wrote: "...I noted with some amusement the slap at monarchy in lines 350ff when Adam goes to meet ..."

It could equally be that MIlton was commenting on Cromwell's pomp and ceremony here Everyman. When he became Protector he was much criticised for riding to Parliament decked out much like a king. His excuse was that it was good PR for the Commonwealth and for the benefit of foreign potentates who were present at the ceremony.

[MadgeUK]

Laurele wrote: "Everyman wrote: At 719ff Milton says:
Son, thou in whom my glory I behold
In full resplendence, Heir of all my might,
Neerly it now concernes us to be sure
Of our Omnipotence,

What, he isn't sure ..."

I came across this philosophical snippet about being Omnopotent which maybe apposite here. Milton may have been philosophising about the classical meaning of omnipotence:-

'Process theology rejects unlimited omnipotence on a philosophical basis, arguing that omnipotence as classically understood would be less than perfect, and is therefore incompatible with the idea of a perfect deity. The idea is grounded in Plato's oft-overlooked statement that "being is power."

"My notion would be, that anything which possesses any sort of power to affect another, or to be affected by another, if only for a single moment, however trifling the cause and however slight the effect, has real existence; and I hold that the definition of being is simply power."

From this premise, Charles Hartshorne argues further that:

"Power is influence, and perfect power is perfect influence ... power must be exercised upon something, at least if by power we mean influence, control; but the something controlled cannot be absolutely inert, since the merely passive, that which has no active tendency of its own, is nothing; yet if the something acted upon is itself partly active, then there must be some resistance, however slight, to the "absolute" power, and how can power which is resisted be absolute?"

The argument can be stated as follows:

1) If a being exists, then it must have some active tendency.

2) If a being has some active tendency, then it has some power to resist its creator.

3) If a being has the power to resist its creator, then the creator does not have absolute power.
For example, though someone might control a lump of jelly-pudding almost completely, the inability of that pudding to stage any resistance renders that person's power rather unimpressive. Power can only be said to be great if it is over something that has defenses and its own agenda. If a deity's power is to be great, it must therefore be over beings that have at last some of their own defenses and agenda. Thus, if a deity does not have absolute power, it must therefore embody some of the characteristics of power, and some of the characteristics of persuasion. This view is known as dipolar theism.

The most popular works espousing this point are from Harold Kushner (in Judaism). The need for a modified view of omnipotence was also articulated by Alfred North Whitehead in the early 20th century and expanded upon by the aforementioned philosopher Charles Hartshorne. Hartshorne proceeded within the context of the theological system known as process theology.