Love the development of these ideas since our conversation. I’ve been thinking about Kastrup’s own fixation on suffering in the world. Both manmade horrors like the war in Ukraine and nature itself (how many animals go peacefully?).
I suspect being hung up on the problem of evil is a misunderstanding of the nature of the universe (ie, God). I don’t really have an answer for evil, but view that as my own limited view.
Thanks Andrew! I appreciate you drawing my attention to Kastrup in the first place.
It's interesting, the problem of evil has never been a big issue for me (at least not since I was an atheist teenager). Maybe I'm not thinking deeply enough about it, but I answer it in a few ways:
1. human evil: evil is a byproduct of free will - God allows us to choose to act in good or bad ways, knowing that there are worldly and spiritual consequences for our actions. This means that evil acts are possible, but it can also be countered by human good (good acts, good government, etc.).
2. natural disasters: disasters are simply a byproduct of physical processes doing what they do - earthquakes, tsunamis, bushfires, etc. just happen. This is not an evil, but it can be a tragedy if humans get caught in the crossfire.
3. evil as a metaphysical concept: all things have a shadow; good could not exist without evil. Evil is necessary for good to flourish.
There is a tension between this perspective and the idea of God having a plan for us/the universe. I haven't resolved this tension yet, except that right now I probably lean more toward God *not* having a plan, or it being a very loose one.
I like the Mormon response to the problem of evil, which is that every human is a god in embryo, so the upside of growth is so big it dwarfs any pain felt in life. As such, one can justify a lot of evil resulting from free will in this playground.
Interesting - I'm not sure I fully understand this, but is the idea that any evil caused by a person (either voluntarily or involuntarily) is a deviation, or perhaps even a stepping stone, on the path to goodness/Godhood?
If God isn't able to be self-conscious how or why would He create beings who can be self-aware or ask questions, and so forth? This seems to be just another way of formulating the current belief that humans are lumps of protoplasm brought into being by per chance.
"how or why would He create beings who can be self-aware or ask questions, and so forth?"
How: I don't know for sure, and that's why I'm not totally committed to Kastrup's idea. I think the better way to put it this: it's not that God *can't* be self-conscious, it's that we are the means by which he chooses/prefers to reflect on His own nature. He could do it without us, and maybe He does that too, but for some reason He want us to be involved.
Sounds like Darwinian evolution. Survival of the fittest. If Allah tells Mohammed he can marry his cousin and they do this for 1,400 years might God be wrong? Or if God tells Thomas Jefferson there is privilege without obligation, I.e., human rights, is God wrong again?
Okay, God wants humans involved. But, surely He wouldn’t be a joker.
I'm not sure I follow - are you asking why humans make mistakes if we are emanations of God?
If so, I don't see us as being merely extensions of God's will. I believe we are granted free will of our own, and with this free will we make/have made many mistakes.
The good thing about free will is that adds an element of chance and creativity to the question-asking process. I think God wants this - he wants us to think deeply and ask surprising questions. I can only imagine that one of the greatest joys an all-knowing creator can experience is to be surprised by his creations.
Sorry, I didn't make myself clear. I guess I'm curioius about your thesis but what about absolute rules that are eternal? Like the law of gravity. Surely, God represents something like this and humans struggle to see "through a glass darkly."
In other words, human life tends towards tragedy. The Apollonian hero mocked by the Dionysian chorus of satyrs.
There are physical laws that bind the universe into a stable form, and I think this stability is needed for anything to happen at all. If I understand the theology and Kastrup's ideas right, these laws can be understood as somehow an outgrowth of God's will and nature. These 'rules' are coded at a deeper 'level' of reality (if that makes sense), and humans simply don't have access to this level.
Thank you. I imagine Kastrup has no interest in a moral order. He kind of sounds like a Gnostic – humans live under the rule of evil/mechanical gods while the supreme being has retired, so to speak. In that case, humans couldn't become like the supreme god since the higher coded knowledge is forbidden, I would think. Or, they would imitate the evil gods, maybe.
I'm also inclined to answer the old puzzle about a tree falling in the forest with no one around to hear in the same way as you, that there is no "tree" without someone to name it - science requires a scientist after all. I also agree (with you and Thomas) that we naturally know something about being, or esse, given our obvious, real existence, but this doesn't entirely, or adequately, cover the difference between general and particular, or substance and forms (in Thomas' terms). How is it that we can share an essence, being human, for example? Are essence and existence somehow added onto our being, and how does all that find its home in Divine Beauty, Will and Truth such that we are emanations or, in your words, participants? Just some thoughts as I've been reading Gilson on Some Philosophers and Being. regards!
Sounds like an interesting book, shame I didn't know about it before writing this!
"How is it that we can share an essence, being human, for example?" Do you mean share an essence with each other, or share an essence with God? I think of it a bit like a parent and his/her kids. Each child (human) is a distinct entity, very much its own thing. But at the same time each child shares something in common, and the source of that common thing is the parent (God). This 'thing in common' is similar to that which the parent has (certain features, behaviours, etc.), but is not exactly the same; the form of 'child' is not the same thing as (and is in fact less than) the form of 'parent'.
I think emanations is a good word for it, actually. But I chose participants because I think God wants us to be active participants in Creation with a will of our own, not just passive expressions of His will (which is implied by 'emanation').
Hi Dan, yes, the parent-child categories are a good example for these relationships. Of course, mistakes we make with classification scheming are among our most profound, and Aristotle is sometimes called the Great Classifier. The terms for Thomas roughly are being, essence and existence. You raise the interesting term of a "thing" which is likewise a good word to consider in regard to discussion about me, you and what it is real. The transcendental Thomists tend to include "the subject" and how we know that we know anything. Anyway, that's how I've found value in this type of discussion. Here's to hoping your substack encourages more posting!
Love the development of these ideas since our conversation. I’ve been thinking about Kastrup’s own fixation on suffering in the world. Both manmade horrors like the war in Ukraine and nature itself (how many animals go peacefully?).
I suspect being hung up on the problem of evil is a misunderstanding of the nature of the universe (ie, God). I don’t really have an answer for evil, but view that as my own limited view.
Thanks Andrew! I appreciate you drawing my attention to Kastrup in the first place.
It's interesting, the problem of evil has never been a big issue for me (at least not since I was an atheist teenager). Maybe I'm not thinking deeply enough about it, but I answer it in a few ways:
1. human evil: evil is a byproduct of free will - God allows us to choose to act in good or bad ways, knowing that there are worldly and spiritual consequences for our actions. This means that evil acts are possible, but it can also be countered by human good (good acts, good government, etc.).
2. natural disasters: disasters are simply a byproduct of physical processes doing what they do - earthquakes, tsunamis, bushfires, etc. just happen. This is not an evil, but it can be a tragedy if humans get caught in the crossfire.
3. evil as a metaphysical concept: all things have a shadow; good could not exist without evil. Evil is necessary for good to flourish.
There is a tension between this perspective and the idea of God having a plan for us/the universe. I haven't resolved this tension yet, except that right now I probably lean more toward God *not* having a plan, or it being a very loose one.
I like the Mormon response to the problem of evil, which is that every human is a god in embryo, so the upside of growth is so big it dwarfs any pain felt in life. As such, one can justify a lot of evil resulting from free will in this playground.
Very similar to your response
Interesting - I'm not sure I fully understand this, but is the idea that any evil caused by a person (either voluntarily or involuntarily) is a deviation, or perhaps even a stepping stone, on the path to goodness/Godhood?
If God isn't able to be self-conscious how or why would He create beings who can be self-aware or ask questions, and so forth? This seems to be just another way of formulating the current belief that humans are lumps of protoplasm brought into being by per chance.
"how or why would He create beings who can be self-aware or ask questions, and so forth?"
How: I don't know for sure, and that's why I'm not totally committed to Kastrup's idea. I think the better way to put it this: it's not that God *can't* be self-conscious, it's that we are the means by which he chooses/prefers to reflect on His own nature. He could do it without us, and maybe He does that too, but for some reason He want us to be involved.
Why: No idea! No one can know for sure.
Sounds like Darwinian evolution. Survival of the fittest. If Allah tells Mohammed he can marry his cousin and they do this for 1,400 years might God be wrong? Or if God tells Thomas Jefferson there is privilege without obligation, I.e., human rights, is God wrong again?
Okay, God wants humans involved. But, surely He wouldn’t be a joker.
I'm not sure I follow - are you asking why humans make mistakes if we are emanations of God?
If so, I don't see us as being merely extensions of God's will. I believe we are granted free will of our own, and with this free will we make/have made many mistakes.
The good thing about free will is that adds an element of chance and creativity to the question-asking process. I think God wants this - he wants us to think deeply and ask surprising questions. I can only imagine that one of the greatest joys an all-knowing creator can experience is to be surprised by his creations.
Sorry, I didn't make myself clear. I guess I'm curioius about your thesis but what about absolute rules that are eternal? Like the law of gravity. Surely, God represents something like this and humans struggle to see "through a glass darkly."
In other words, human life tends towards tragedy. The Apollonian hero mocked by the Dionysian chorus of satyrs.
There are physical laws that bind the universe into a stable form, and I think this stability is needed for anything to happen at all. If I understand the theology and Kastrup's ideas right, these laws can be understood as somehow an outgrowth of God's will and nature. These 'rules' are coded at a deeper 'level' of reality (if that makes sense), and humans simply don't have access to this level.
Thank you. I imagine Kastrup has no interest in a moral order. He kind of sounds like a Gnostic – humans live under the rule of evil/mechanical gods while the supreme being has retired, so to speak. In that case, humans couldn't become like the supreme god since the higher coded knowledge is forbidden, I would think. Or, they would imitate the evil gods, maybe.
I'm also inclined to answer the old puzzle about a tree falling in the forest with no one around to hear in the same way as you, that there is no "tree" without someone to name it - science requires a scientist after all. I also agree (with you and Thomas) that we naturally know something about being, or esse, given our obvious, real existence, but this doesn't entirely, or adequately, cover the difference between general and particular, or substance and forms (in Thomas' terms). How is it that we can share an essence, being human, for example? Are essence and existence somehow added onto our being, and how does all that find its home in Divine Beauty, Will and Truth such that we are emanations or, in your words, participants? Just some thoughts as I've been reading Gilson on Some Philosophers and Being. regards!
Sounds like an interesting book, shame I didn't know about it before writing this!
"How is it that we can share an essence, being human, for example?" Do you mean share an essence with each other, or share an essence with God? I think of it a bit like a parent and his/her kids. Each child (human) is a distinct entity, very much its own thing. But at the same time each child shares something in common, and the source of that common thing is the parent (God). This 'thing in common' is similar to that which the parent has (certain features, behaviours, etc.), but is not exactly the same; the form of 'child' is not the same thing as (and is in fact less than) the form of 'parent'.
I think emanations is a good word for it, actually. But I chose participants because I think God wants us to be active participants in Creation with a will of our own, not just passive expressions of His will (which is implied by 'emanation').
Hi Dan, yes, the parent-child categories are a good example for these relationships. Of course, mistakes we make with classification scheming are among our most profound, and Aristotle is sometimes called the Great Classifier. The terms for Thomas roughly are being, essence and existence. You raise the interesting term of a "thing" which is likewise a good word to consider in regard to discussion about me, you and what it is real. The transcendental Thomists tend to include "the subject" and how we know that we know anything. Anyway, that's how I've found value in this type of discussion. Here's to hoping your substack encourages more posting!