Hindsight on the course on Interpreting a Philosophical Text

M.Ph. Seminar: METHODS OF INTERPRETING A PHILOSOPHICAL TEXT

Maria Anthuvan, SDB

Divyadaan: Salesian Institute of Philosophy, Nashik 422 005

June - October 2015

Text to be interpreted:

Bernard Lonergan, Method in Theology, chapter 10: Dialectic

            I would like to leave a note of appreciation to Fr. Maria Anthuvan SDB, who has taken an extra mile to guide and correct all the presentations of the 10 students. Here, I would like to high-light two things that I learn from the seminar: i) the difficulty involved in the research to really understand the mind of the author as close as possible and ii) the many ways of investigation to arrive at the same.

            After the course, I personally come to know that it is not an easy task to interpret a philosophical text and so also any other reality be it literature, human life and situation. In order to arrive at objectivity, one needs to do a lot of home-works. It also helps me to see things from a broader perspective. At the end of the day, what I cherish most is the experience of the whole process in trying to understand the mind of the author and present it in the class.

 

Hindsight of a seminar on Interpreting a philosophical text

M.Ph. Seminar: METHODS OF INTERPRETING A PHILOSOPHICAL TEXT

Maria Anthuvan, SDB

Divyadaan: Salesian Institute of Philosophy, Nashik 422 005

June - October 2015

Text to be interpreted:

Bernard Lonergan, Method in Theology, chapter 10: Dialectic

            I would like to leave a note of appreciation to Fr. Maria Anthuvan SDB, who has taken an extra mile to guide and correct all the presentations of the 10 students. Here, I would like to high-light two things that I learn from the seminar: i) the difficulty involved in the research to really understand the mind of the author as close as possible and ii) the many ways of investigation to arrive at the same.

            After the course, I personally come to know that it is not an easy task to interpret a philosophical text and also any other reality be it literature, human life and situation. In order to arrive at objectivity, one needs to do a lot of home-works. It also helps me to see things from a broader perspective. At the end of the day, what I cherish most is the experience of the whole process in trying to understand the mind of the author and present it in the class. 

Broken thoughts

Will you give all that a child asks?
Most probably not. You know what is good for the child and what is harmful; what is needed and what is desired.

There is an inner child in each one. Take care of your inner child and live life fully.

Broken thought!

Summary of Beavers' article on Levinas

The Summary of the article: “Introducing Levinas to Undergraduate Philosophers” (by Anthony F. Beavers)

Down the philosophical history till today, there is a question that is lingering: “What is the source of the moral ‘ought’?” Let us examine three answers: Kant believes that it begins from reason, Utilitarianism propagates human desire for pleasure as the source and Thomas Aquinas traced it back to the will of God. Basically, our concept of good and evil will depend on this answer. For Levinas, ethics is, first and foremost, born on the concrete level of person to person contact. Therefore, it is the voice of the Other, who sanctions all our moral obligation. Thus, he is of the opinion that ethics come before reason.

Ethics occurs always in relation to the other persons. The root of Levinas’ concern is to establish the source of contact between persons or the source of interpersonal meaning, and in finding this meaning, Levinas finds the ethical. Ethics in a way shows that the Other is important: Kant’s Categorical Imperative indicates that the Other be treated as an end, Mill’s “principle of utility” implies the greatest happiness for greatest number, and St. Thomas says that harm should not be given to the Other.

It is still relevant to pursue the source of contact between persons, because the Other exists concretely and not as ideas. Levinas comes directly out of the tradition established by Descartes, Kant and Husserl. They give importance to consciousness and ideas. But these do not refer to independently existing persons, while ethics refers to real human beings who exist apart from one’s interpretations. To relate with the Other as an idea, means to deny the autonomy of the Other. For Levinas, this is a violence “totalization.” Totalization is a denial of the Other’s difference and the refusal to accept the otherness of the Other. If ethics presupposes the real Other then such tolalization will, in itself, be unethical.

It is obvious that the contact with the Other cannot be established through ideas. So, Levinas turns to sensibility to find the real Other. Sensibility precedes thought, it is passive and characterized primarily by enjoyment. In the encounter with the other Levinas, unlike Heidegger who looks at the things as tools and implements, views others as nourishments. The process of nourishment consists of enjoyment, wherein the other become the means of my satisfaction and part of me. So, enjoyment is the quenching of the memory of the thirst. It is clear that sensibility reaches further out into the domain of the extra-mental.

Having established subjectivity on the level of sensibility, Levinas points out that the Other cannot be met in the consciousness but on the concrete ground. Secondly, he also establishes that human subject is, first and foremost passive. The ethical moment, is found, for Levinas, on the level of sensibility when the egoist self comes across something that it wants to enjoy, something that it wants to make a part of itself, but cannot. That which the self wants to enjoy but cannot is the other person. The Other resists consumption. The Other is transcendent, beyond the categories of one’s thought. The epiphany of the face of the Other speaks thus: “I am not yours to be enjoyed: I am absolutely Other.” In other words, “Thou shalt not kill.”

The Other comes in surprise or in human rupture that one is caught off guard. It is not mere the perception of the other but more about the presence of the Other. To understand the ethical responsibility in Levinas, the concept of proximity and substitution are important. Proximity means the interpersonal contact. This implies responsibility for the Other. The very meaning of being a social subject is to be for-the-other. So, Levinas writes, “Subjectivity is being a hostage,” which means the Other is dominant and never reducible to other. Substitution means standing in the place of the Other. It arises from the self as held hostage by the Other. It is the means by which one responds to the Other before he or she knows. It is through substitution that one is not ‘another,’ but a different individual. It is the conversion of one’s being as a subjection by the Other into a subjection for the Other.

The notion of “responsibility” is important for Levinas. Responsibility means that in being a subject I am already in the grip of the Other. This paves a way to pass from an encounter with the real Other into ethics. Levinas writes: “I speak of responsibility as the essential, primary and fundamental mode of subjectivity. For I describe subjectivity in ethical terms. Ethics, here, does not supplement a preceding existential base; the very node of the subjective is knotted in ethics understood as responsibility. Thus, responsibility is the source of the moral “ought.” So, when we say responsibility is foundational for ethics and interpersonal relations we mean that the meaning of the Otherness of the Other is given in responsibility, and not in my interpretation of the Other. Therefore, the meaning of the Other is “the one to whom I am responsible.” Now, we come to the conclusion that the contact with the real Other becomes the source of the moral “ought.”

By Sebastian Kamsuan                                                                                                              Guide: Fr. Felix sdb

10 days with Emmanuel Levinas

10 days with Emmanuel Levinas

-“Ethics precedes ontology”
-A philosophy that made ethical responsibility for the Other (good for human dignity, human sacredness and social discriminations).

1-Totality (the “Same”)
"As a pastor but above all a brother" to the inmates of the Philadelphia prisoners.
Totality refers to the narcissism of the knowing ‘I’ and it’s compulsive need to possess the Other and reduce it to a copy of itself. Levinas claims that Western Philosophy, with its Greek categories favoring universalism, has consistently practised a suppression of the Other. The fact is, “the Other is not a new edition of myself.” He enjoys a separate existence, independent of me.

2-Infinity (The “OTHER”)
Infinity refers to alterity and its radical otherness, as different from the Same. Levinas’ claim is that the Other is not knowable. Further, the experience of fecundity, death and time speak of alterity. Fecundity speaks of the child who is similar and yet distinct, from the parent. Death catches us by surprise; it does not fit into the willed project of man. Time is not a simple experience of duration, but a dynamism which leads us to a relationship with unattainable alterity. Levinas challenges us to respectfully listen to the voice of the Other.

The terms “Said” and “Saying” speak further about the distinction between Totality and Infinity. Whereas the “Said” refers to thematization and closed-ness, “Saying” refers to openness towards the alterity of the Other. “Saying” is much more than the “Said,” inasmuch as language is above all the fact of being addressed, of being acknowledge as a person, in the first place.

3-The Asymmetrical Relation
As different form a symmetrical relation (as seen in Buber’s ‘I-Thou,’) wherein the two parties involved stand on common ground, sharing equal terms, Levinas proposes the model of the asymmetrical relation which speaks of a subject who is at the service of the Other, and who feels ethically responsible for the Other. The face of teh Other commands this non-reciprocal responsibility.

The face expresses both, vulnerability and mastery. Confronted with mortality as it is, it expresses vulnerability. In approaching the self as teacher, it expresses mastery. The Other, as appeal and not as demand, commands the attention of the self from on high. The ethical relation is more about conscience, rather than consciousness.

4-The Levinasian subject
Levinas speaks of an ethical ‘I’, a vulnerable, fragile self. It speaks of a sub-jectiveness in relation to the Other. Subjectivity, he claims, is in-vested by the Other; it is not self-invested. The self is possible only in its calling out by ‘the Other.”

5-The Asymmetrical relation and Justice
Our world consists of more than just me and my neighbour. The presence of the Third party calls for the creation of institutional laws and socio-political structures. Thus, for the sake of justice in general, consciousness and reason are once again brought into play in a necessary way. Justice necessitates a certain amount of universality, in the name of objectivity. What is notable is that Levinas insists that it is ethics that prompts justice, not the other way around. The socio-political order is ultimately founded on an ethical responsibility towards the Other.

Scope: personal change of attitude of oneself and the Other and any sort of social discriminations.

-Elemental Evil
It is based on ideas, blood and heredity. Eg. Hitlerism.

-Tyranny of the universal
Universality of truth gives way to the ideal of expansion. Levinas argues strongly for respecting the singularity and distinctness of the Other.  This has rich implications in a context wherein victims of social discrimination have been totalized into controllable entities by dominant groups in society boasting of the so-called purity of blood, race and caste.

-The Other pointed out as Enemy
Since the Other threatens the unity of “the Same,” he is pointed out as the enemy and his annihilation is sought by the keepers of the system.

-Reification, or Objectification of the Other
The Other is made out to be a mere thing, a mask, without transcendence or mystery.
(One calls the Other: a worker, a mahar...)

-Work and Alienation
The Other, as worker, does not have total control over the work of his own hands. It can be usurped any time by another.

-Ethical Resistance of the Face
The Other remains transcendent in the face of death and murder, exceeding the powers of the murderer infinitely. Paradoxically, such a resistance of what has no resistance is what may be called ethical resistance. The Other’s force is not so much physical, as moral.

-In Pluralism’s Favor
Levinas makes a strong case for plurality and multiplicity. The distinctness and unicity of the I consists in existing without having a genus. The distinctness of the human person thus favors pluralism and multiplicity. Levinas alleges that relating only within the circle of totality and the same amount to incest. Again, his challenge is to reach out to the first one that comes along. So long as I reach out to my neighbour in recognition (re-cognition) of him, I am already practicing discrimination. Plurality, then, is an antidote to racism and casteism.

-Good beyond Being
Levinas does not absolve anyone from his responsibility to his neighbour, not even the exploited one. He even recommends taking responsibility for the actions of the exploiter, thus preserving the asymmetrical character. Violence cannot be cured by violence.

-Justice Relations
Ethics is the foundation of justice and there is violence in justice. Comparing the incomparable for justice’s sake implies a violence. Justice, then, is a necessary evil. Furthermore, justice always desires a better justice. Levinas also sees a relationship between justice and religion. He said, “it is not a gift of the heart, but of the bread from one’s mouth, of one’s own mouthful of bread.”

Levinas’ understanding of metaphysics is creditable. Metaphysics, he explains, is the relation with the Other, and is accomplished in service and hospitality. So also, it is not reason that creates the relation between me and the Other, but it is the Other’s teaching me that create reason. Thus we see that it is the ethical relation with the other that decides the character of metaphysics and reason. Levinas calls for a Permanent revolution against the injustice in the system for the betterment of the individuals. One thing is clear that Levinas is inviting us to reach out in solidarity with the ones suffering injustice and unfair treatment.

Face:
Enigma= mysterious, ‘evasion’, ‘rupture’, ‘interruption’ or ‘invasion,’ epiphany

The different connotations of the word Face
The French word visage, like the German Gesicht, refers to seeing and being seen.
The Hebrew expression panim, not unlike the German Angesicht or Antlitz, emphasizes the face facing us or our mutual facing. The Russian term lico means face, cheek, but also person, similar to the Greek prosoˆpon which literally refers to the act of ‘looking at’ and
which stands not only for the face, but also for masks and roles, rendered in Latin by persona.

The speaking face: the call of the other
-everyone is reduced to what he or she achieves in an
anonymous way: life and workare nothing more than masks
-the interhuman asymmetry is a double-sided one.
-the other’s otherness eludes every qualification we may apply

Movie Review: Da Vinci Code

Movie Review:

The Da Vinci Code

Directed by Ron Howard

Produced by Brian Grazer, Ron Howard, John Calley

Screenplay by Akiva Goldsman

Based on The Da Vinci Code by Dan Brown

Starring Tom Hanks, Audrey Tautou, Ian McKellen, Alfred Molina, Jürgen Prochnow, Paul Bettany
Jean Reno, Jean-Pierre Marielle

Music by Hans Zimmer

Cinematography  Salvatore Totino

Edited by Daniel P. Hanley, Mike Hill

Production company: Imagine Entertainment Rainmaker Digital Effects Skylark Productions

Distributed by Columbia Pictures

Release dates May 19, 2006

Running time 146 minutes (theatrical version), 174 minutes (extended version)

Country United States

Language English and French

Budget $125 million

Box office $758.2 million

Plot analysis:

     The movie began with the murder of the Jacques Saunière, who seemed to know the secret of the Holy Grail. The whole movie lies in the search for the Holy Grail, buried under the pyramid in the Louvre (Museum). In this movie, the Opus Dei group try their best to find the hidden Holy Grail and destroy it, because they believe that the Holy Grail could shake the foundations of Christianity.

Silas, an Opus Dei, for every murder that he commits, flagellates himself for the forgiveness of his sin. In the mean time, Robert Langdon and Sophie Neveu too are determined to find the Holy Grail. However, a police captain suspected Robert Landon to be the murderer of Jacques Saunière and pursued him till the end.

     The core group of Opus Dei in this movie consists of a professor called Sir Leigh Teabing and his assistant Remy Jean, Bishop Manuel Aringarosa and Silas, and a police captain Bezu Fache. The whole group was secretly directed and deceived by a teacher called Sir Leigh Teabing. He betrayed the whole group and was arrested at the end.

     Towards the end of the movie, Tom Hanks confirms that Audrey Tautou is the last descendent of Jesus and Mary Magdalene, whom the Priory of the Sion are supposed to protect. He placed Audrey Tautou in the care of the Priory of the Sion.

Catholic and other reactions:

• The Vatican: At a conference on April 28, 2006, the secretary of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, a Vatican curial department, Archbishop Angelo Amato specifically called for a boycott of the film; he said the movie is "full of calumnies, offences, and historical and theological errors."
• Opus Dei
• American Catholic bishops
• Peru (Peruvian Episcopal Conference) 

Censorship of the Movie:

China, Egypt, India, Jordan, Lebanon, Pakistan, Philippines, Singapore, Solomon Islands, Sri Lanka, Thailand and some other countries.

Critical evaluation: Davin Ci Code

1.      What is the purpose of this film?

     The primary purpose is to earn profit. Secondly, in the name of fictional movie it attacks on the Church’s belief on Jesus Christ.

2.      What does the film communicate to the audience about God?

     The film presents that the Catholic Church is a lie and that Mary Magdalene was the wife of Jesus and had their descendents.

3.      Do you agree with the concept of Jesus and Catholic Church presented in the film?

     Absolutely not, it is a fictional movie.

4.      Why do you think the protagonists have an atheistic view of reality?

     In this movie the protagonists: Robert Langdon and Sophie Neveu were not believers of God. Robert Langdon was raised a Catholic but not a practising Catholic, while Sophie Neveu who was supposed to be the descendent of Jesus too did not believe in God.

5.      What implications do media and religion have for each other in this film?

     In the name of fiction, media is used here to instil in the minds of some people doubts and heresy.

Further analysis of the movie: 

     Dan Brown's best-selling 2003 conspiracy fiction novel The Da Vinci Code and the subsequent 2006 film,[1]  is all about finding the Holy Grail. This refers to the womb of saint Mary Magdalene and the sacred royal bloodline she gave birth to and the Church tried to kill off all remnants of this bloodline and their supposed guardians, the Cathars and the Templars, so popes could hold the Episcopal throne through the apostolic succession of Peter without fear of it ever being usurped by an anti-pope for the hereditary succession of Mary Magdalene.

     Many things are said about the Priory of Sion, what is the truth? In The Da Vinci Code, the Priory of Sion is a secret society, founded A.D. 1099, claiming such members as Isaac Newton, Victor Hugo, and Leonardo Da Vinci. According to The Da Vinci Code, the primary purpose of the Priory of Sion is to maintain the truth that Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene and had children with her. These children then intermarried with the Merovingian line of Frankish kings, with the sacred bloodline surviving into modern times.

     As with most of what is contained in The Da Vinci Code, there is very little, if any, evidence that would support these conclusions about the Priory of Sion. The Priory of Sion was founded in 1956, not 1099. The supposed ledgers of members of the Priory of Sion are considered to be fraudulent by most respected historians and scholars. The Da Vinci Code takes the Priory of Sion, attaches unfounded conspiracy theories about its origins and purposes, and uses it as evidence of a vast cover-up of Jesus’ marriage to Mary Magdalene.

     Jesus was not married to Mary Magdalene or to anyone else. Jesus did not have children with Mary Magdalene or with anyone else. The early church did not seek to cover this up because there was nothing to cover up. The only conspiracy theory that involves the Priory of Sion is the one invented by author Dan Brown and others, who are using wild imaginations and unfounded theories to attack what the Bible says about who Jesus Christ truly was and what He came to earth to do.[2]

Some glaring misrepresentations of the truth: 

     The movie shows Opus Dei as a secret society of the Church, whose work is to destroy anything that will hinder the stability of the Church. In reality, Opus Dei means ‘Work of God.'

     The purpose of the association is to call all the people to holiness. It was founded by St. Josemaria Excriva de Balaguer in Spain. Besides it also shows that self flagellation can obtain forgiveness from God for the sins of murder, which is absolutely false. There is a particular scene where the captain says that the Bishop reveals confessional secret to him and that the bishop tells him to kill Robert Langdon, a murder. This is an absolute lie, because the confessional secret can never be revealed.  It was also said that the Divinity and Immortality of Jesus was confirmed by men in the Council of Nicene. However, in truth Jesus was the Son of God. It is also shown that Mary Magdalene carried the child of Jesus and gave birth to a child in France. This is nothing else but a wild fiction. At the end, Robert Langdon tells Sophie that she was the descendent of Jesus and says that Jesus was just the creation of man and was not extraordinary. This again is a total lie and it is just a fiction. The movie is but a wild imagination and nothing to do with the truth of the Church.

     Any Christian and even people of the other faith should try to find the truth from reliable sources and persons. To believe in this movie is to believe in the imagination of some people whose prime motive is to gain profit. This movie has taken a great liberty in distorting the truth of Christianity. Therefore, it met with opposition world wide. However, for a believer the truth will not be shaken by this movie. This movie also gives an insight that one should not merely believe in whatever is presented in the movie, especially with regard to the faith and religion.

Bro. Sebastian                                                                                                       Guide: Fr. Robert Pen 

---

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Priory_of_Sion, accessed September 29, 2015.

[2] http://www.gotquestions.org/Priory-of-Sion.html, accessed September 29, 2015.

“The influence of Internet on the spiritual life of the Salesians in Dimapur Province”

“The influence of Internet on the spiritual life

of the Salesians in Dimapur Province”

About the Interview:

     The whole process is to focus on the impact of internet in the spiritual life of the Salesians of Dimapur Province and in their apostolate. It is being conducted as part of the course on “Media and Religion: Mutual Influences.” The method applied here is online interview. The respondent is not individually identified and the responses are used for the better understanding of the focus of the same.

Respondents: 20 Salesians (Priests, Theologians and Clerics)

Context:

     Living in the IT World, the information and knowledge is on one’s palm (Miniature technology). The Internet has satisfactorily provided a space to meet human’s innate desire, that is, to know and to stay connected.

 

     It is surprising to note that the Catholic Church has spoken about the media long before:  “Vigilanti Cura” in 1936 by Pope Pius XI, “Miranda Prorsus” in 1957 by Pope Pius XII, “Inter Mirifica” in 1963 (Vatican II Decree), “Communio et Propessio” in 1971 and many more. The Church speaks of Media as a ‘Gift’ and to use media to impart “religion pure and undefiled.”

      The emergence of digital civilization has entered into every culture, tribe and community of the people in North-East, India, where the Salesians of Dimapur Province are present. Therefore, the Salesians, as well as, the bulk of the young people have access to the internet in their computers and more so in smartphones. So, it leads us to reflect on the influence of the internet on the spiritual life the Salesians of Dimapur Province and to see how they can in turn share their spirituality with the youngsters.

• What is Salesian Spirituality?

•          *Integrated life lived in Don Bosco’s spirit.

•          * It is based on St. Francis de Sales’ spirituality.

•          *Union with God.

•          *Reason, religion and loving kindness.

• Does internet contribute to the growth of Salesian Spiritual life? How?

•         *  Yes. The latest encyclicals of the Holy Father, Salesian website or ans, good reading material, sermons and talks, inspiring audio-visuals, Catholic facebook pages and other Catholic websites, all these contribute to the growth of one’s spiritual life.

•         * Depends on the users.

•         * Neutral tool-depends on the choice.

•         * A platform to share faith with the young and thereby enriching one’s own faith.

•          *It unites all the Salesians.

•  Does Internet provide a greater space for Salesians to reach out to the youngsters?

•         *Beyond doubt.

•         *Internet is the “New Areopagus” (Pope John Paul II).

•         * It is a unique Salesian presence.  Here distance does not matter.

•         *It helps in networking with the youth.

•         *It helps to keep the young informed of the various activities of the Church and the Salesians.

•  Will the use of internet make a Salesian more effective in today’s context? Why?

•         * Don Bosco with the time. The numbers of youngsters present in the internet is much greater than in the schools and boardings.

•         * Being the educators of the young, we can enter straight into their heart and mind through facebook, whatsapps, youtube, twitter etc… If we don’t who else will?

•         * Salesians need to be present where the young are present.

•         *We can equally fill the internet with holy materials to counter attack the filthy materials.

•   Should the young Salesians be educated and trained in the effective use of Internet? Why?

•          *Definitely Yes! Living in an IT age, this has become mandatory. Either we lag behind without being literate or lead ahead with IT.

•          Yes, to enable them to learn various possible ways to be effective in their ministry.

•          *Yes, a Salesian needs to understand the four dimensions and the Church’s teaching in order to be effective.

•          *Yes, because it is the digital age. If you do not run, you may be run over or at least thrown to the sides. Don Bosco was at the van guard of progress what about you?

• Conclusion
• •          Greater need to be present and accompany the young in the virtual world.
• •          Celebrating Salesian’s spirituality and sharing faith.
• •          Dissemination of Salesian Youth spirituality:

    *The dimension of education to the faith,

    *The educational and cultural dimension,

    *The dimension of group and social experience,

    *The vocational dimension.

         The internet gives a new opportunity to grow and acquire insight in the realm of spirituality. it also provide a greater space to reach out to many more youngsters.

By Cl. Daisinlung Sebastian Kamsuan sdb                                                                                             Guide: Fr. Robert Pen sdb