LANGUAGE ISSUES BEHIND THEOLOGICAL ISSUES

Get Complete Project Material File(s) Now! »

Chapter 2 John Paul II’s Anthropology I

A civilization, Pope John Paul II believes, must center itself on one sacred truth. His anthropology asserts the dignity of the person based on the truth that the person is an image of God. The pontiff’s teachings on the human individual do not always seem original when read in light of Friedrich Nietzsche’s vision of the human individual. Henri de Lubac notes the circular trajectory of Christian theology: Concerning “God made humans in the divine image and likeness,” “The Christian tradition has never ceased, since its inception, commenting on these words. It has recognized in them our first nobility, the foundation of our greatness.”155 Rather than creating something new in response to the philosopher, the pope emphasizes continuity with Catholic tradition because the same unchanging truth exists as it did before. He uses, for instance, neoscholasticism and natural law methodology in conjunction with Vatican II’s emphasis on concrete historical givens (historicism), and personalism’s emphasis on the individual’s importance. Pope Leo XIII’s Rerum novarum (1891), which asserts timeless, top-down deductive truths of natural law about humans everywhere and for all time, exemplifies traditional papal neoscholastic teaching.156 Natural law, as taught by the Catholic Church, asserts that the biological order follows certain universal principles or laws as defined by the Creator, which humans can discern even without the gospel and which are applicable to all.157 In his basic teaching about the human individual, John Paul uses personalism, a historical perspective, and neoscholasticism and natural law in a holistic rather than contradictory way.158
Certain issues arise from reading John Paul within a Nietzschean environment, and demonstrate the pope’s boldness in claiming the truth: 1) Both writers assert the primacy of humans as a basic idea, but use it in radically differing ways. The pontiff’s adoption of the term “dignity” presents an alternative to Nietzsche’s call to shocking, even violent individualism, non-conformity, and self-assertion over tradition, society, and people. 2) John Paul’s gospel-inspired critique of modern notions of liberty strongly opposes Nietzsche’s views. The pope grounds liberty in right relationship with God rather than in moral or will-to-power license. 3) Metaphysics, Christian morals, spirituality, and earthly realism link both thinkers, though John Paul stamps his discussion with the divine image offered by Christianity. 4) The pontiff’s antidote to the spiritual malaise that he addresses does not first and foremost critique post-Cartesian or post-nineteenth-century philosophy, but takes its most important form in expressing hope and rebirth through, for instance, prayer and the real or deeper meaning of the commandments, which find their fulfillment in Jesus. In other words, he tends in his writings towards positive solutions rather than towards exhaustive analysis of negatives.

 Nietzsche’s Anti-Christian Anthropology

Christian morals

Henri de Lubac notes a subtlety in Nietzsche’s philosophy that makes it more difficult to address the German’s atheism: “He [Nietzsche] does not combat faith in God. But what he does combat, what he says we must never stop combating in Christianity, is its ideal of humans.”159; and again: “What he combats is confidence, honesty, simplicity, patience, love of neighbor, acceptance, submission to God.”160 As we will see, de Lubac correctly observes that the German opposes Christianity’s anthropology; Nietzsche does not waste words on defaming or attacking belief in God. He attacks Christianity’s belief in humans and their virtuous living.
The here-and-now world of sensations, bodily needs, and nature, including the petty things of nature, supersedes the worlds and ideals created in our heads, the place where Nietzsche locates the origins of Christian revelation and the subsequent development of Christian doctrine. Paralleling Schopenhauer, he views these intellectual worlds to be as real as we imagine them to be; we can end them instantly. He calls for a “natural human” and an earthly view of life, where the force of nature supersedes traditional morality: “These petty things—nutrition, location, climate, recuperation, the entire logic of self-fulfillment—are much more important concepts than this Almighty, that until now has been taken as central. Now we must begin to unlearn that.”161 As in some other writings of his, this remarkable simplicity cuts through layers or potential layers of argumentation. This poetic immediacy handicaps the theologian’s seemingly timeless, carefully-layered reason- and dogma-based analysis by celebrating the instinct- and nature-oriented spirituality of the human in the here-and-now, reducing humans down to instinctive energy. The patient, step-by-step, carefully-nuanced neoscholastic assertion of natural law or timeless truths can hardly speak to such a practical, impatient, clear-cut world-view.
Yet Nietzsche goes much farther in his attack on faith than simply an indirect, Rousseau-like celebration of nature-man. Nietzsche bases his anthropology largely on a rejection of Christian morals (and Kant’s Categorical Imperative, which Kant asserted as a moral natural law relevant to all humans everywhere). Nietzsche’s morality, exalting instinct-man in all his wild moral savagery, becomes anti-morality when viewed from Christianity’s perspective. Suffering, service and sacrifice for others, humility, and forgiveness deny humans their full potential. Only those who have liberated themselves from Christian tradition can really live free and ethical lives.162 Nietzsche’s condemnation of an Ausflucht (escaping flight) into a metaphysical world, Christian or otherwise, enables him to turn solely to sensory existence and this life.163 Fully-realized humans pursue a Willen Zur Macht (will to power), “the principle of the eternally new, self-creating lives”164 by choosing earthly, sensory instincts over a supernatural, metaphysical good or being. “Eternally new” (ewig neu) implies for Nietzsche a rejection of both the treasures of Catholic tradition and a sense of the permanence of truth. “Eternally new” implies that life is constantly renewing itself and fighting to free itself of a tradition or religious-based ideal. Life casts off the ideal, and energizes and approves itself, seeking no higher blessing or guidance.
Nietzsche calls us to “maturity” by our rejection of the fear of gods and their wrath that he believes still imprison us. In calling humans to break free of morals and tradition, he does not differentiate between fear of wild animals or gods: “The first result of our recent humanity is that we no longer need to have a constant fear of wild beasts, of barbarians, of gods, of our dreams.”165 As civilized people no longer totally burdened by nature’s power, we no longer need fear nightly bear attacks. Neither need we fear any divine power or ethics, since we have likewise advanced beyond that level of existence. He bases this anti-Christian spirituality on the expression of human power, and a rejection of love and divine grace. He calls for a radically changed perception of humans and of religion. Time is meaningless, empty of the linear and teleologically-significant meaning of the Bible and Jesus’ teaching of the eschaton.

 Power

Nietzsche calls for radical egoism, and a kind of self-improvement that maximizes the individual’s instincts and will. In Ecce homo he sees fit to cite his words from Götzen-Dammerung that emphasize an affirmation (Das Jasagen) and maximization of this life: “The affirmation of life itself even in its strangest and most difficult problems; the will to life in the work of the highest type of its own luck-inducing inexhaustability—I name this Dionysian and understand it as a bridge to the psychology of the tragic poets”; and again: “But to be the eternal desire for becoming, this desire implies self-annihilation.”166 The eternal desire for Becoming is not a happy or pleasure-seeking energy, but demands sacrifice and suffering. Power is the end result of life, and the search for anything else is simply decadence. In this way, Nietzsche calls for a psychology that competes directly with Christianity and possesses its own metaphysics and morals. He believes that fullness of life issues from the taking of power for oneself, and so we cannot avoid direct competition. Self-realization, self-aggrandizement, and self-determination define the kind of human he envisions.
Nietzsche defines humans in power-oriented terms where our actions hold value only when they empower the actor and affirm his life, even at the expense of other lives or whole societies. Love and solidarity are not issues because for Nietzsche they do not empower and affirm greater life. Humans do not share any transcending, uniting characteristic. Nietzsche rejects Auguste’s Comte’s Humanité because Comte’s anthropology, also godless, first, possesses in itself a kind of divinity and second, rejects a master-slave mentality since all people participate in this divine aspect. Though Nietzsche’s humanity has no divinity, special individuals do possess god-like powers. Given this radical individualism, Nietzsche finds dignity in select, empowered humans. His notes from 1888 and published in The Will to Power outline « The typical forms of self-formation. Or: the eight principle questions:”
1. Whether one wants to be more multifarious or simpler?
2. Whether one wants to become happier or more indifferent to happiness and unhappiness?
3. Whether one wants to become more contented with oneself or more exacting and inexorable?
4. Whether one wants to become softer, more yielding, more human, or more ‘inhuman’?
5. Whether one wants to become more prudent of more ruthless?
6. Whether one wants to reach a goal or to avoid all goals (as, e.g., the philosopher does who smells a boundary, a nook, a prison, a stupidity in every goal)?
7. Whether one wants to become more respected or more feared? Or more despised?
8. Whether one wants to become tyrant or seducer or shepherd or herd animal?167
This “Nietzschean manifesto” of human development lacks traditional moral or metaphysical values or prescriptions, as well as references to a higher power, divinity, or even human community. Nietzsche radically isolates individuals and their self-importance, power, and potential for mastery beyond the personal sphere. Nietzsche ties all instincts or human nature under one movement, that of the will to power. Human freedom expresses itself most fully in this power-paradigm. He writes elsewhere that each instinct fights with the others for supremacy.
Nietzsche considers humans at the level of actions and power-oriented feelings. Contentment and happiness, and even their opposites, hold no values for the hardened human Nietzsche envisions, and community-oriented virtues are therefore also disallowed. Questions 4, 5, and 7 seem to call for a warlike, power-hungry man (Nietzsche cared little for a Superwoman). Question 6 does seem to hint, once again, at an instinct- or instincts-based life. Humans hold out no other values, either socially-based or coming from within, but live a non-reflective existence at an animal-like, instinctive level. This lifts some of us to a higher level than “normal” humans. Question 8 implies reflection in this process, though leaves undefined whether this thinking obeys any instincts-based criteria or values. By leaving such ideas undefined Nietzsche avoids creating a new value or moral system. Nowhere, however, does he imply in these eight questions any moral valuations higher or holier than these basic human instincts. Nietzsche defines us according to power alone.

READ  CHANGING MORTALITY FOR MOTOR NEURON DISEASE IN FRANCE (1968-2007): AN AGE-PERIOD-COHORT ANALYSIS

 Human nature

From 1887-88, and as published in The Will to Power under the title « The means by which a stronger species maintains itself, » Nietzsche adds to his list of personal development discussed above. This addendum includes:
To grant oneself the right to exceptional actions, as an experiment in self-overcoming and freedom. To venture into states in which it is not permitted not to be a barbarian … To learn obedience in such a way that it provides a test of one’s self-support. Casuistry of honor taken to the greatest extreme of subtlety. Never to conclude ‘what is right for one is fair for another’–but conversely! …. To have no ambition to emulate the virtues of others.168
Once again, Nietzsche fails to define important elements such as concerning “exceptional actions,” “freedom,” “honor,” or “the virtues of others.” He thereby avoids setting up another moral goal for one to attain, and focuses on right attitude. He invites his reader to be a law unto oneself, to not hold oneself accountable to anyone or anything, to seek out universal actions and states as a barbarian, that is, without respect of any external law, custom, or tradition. When we acquiesce, we should do so for anti-Christian and anti-moral reasons and spirit–to obey as a way not to construct community and fellowship, or to build up our own moral practices, but to increase our selfish powers that we can then use to attack, among other things, the person, authority, or moral law previously obeyed. Nietzsche mocks the Christian virtues by calling for his reader to adhere to them only as a means to empowerment.
Nietzsche does challenge Jesus’ teaching to turn the other cheek by inviting the reader to draw new, post-Christian definitions for fairness and justice. He does not always undermine Christianity directly. He attacks the Church and its teaching by setting up an alternative moral vision for people to follow. He calls for a creative, undoubtedly anti-Christian human nature.
Even John Paul, who so passionately loved humans, cannot easily counter Nietzsche because the latter did not philosophize from an ivory tower or in the abstract. Nietzsche deeply understood, among other things, the messy, dark, and difficult sides of life, and found inspiration from this earthly realism. Such thinking can seem full of compassion or at least understanding for humans, and thereby deeply connect with readers. It acknowledges life’s terrors, though the following words do seem particularly hard-hearted:
Type of my disciples.– To those human beings who are of any concern to me I wish suffering, desolation, sickness, ill-treatment, indignities–I wish that they should not remain unfamiliar with profound self-contempt, the torture of self-mistrust, the wretchedness of the vanquished: I have no pity for them, because I wish them the only thing that can prove today whether one is worth anything or not–that one endures.169

Divine Revelation

Humans and revelation

The pontiff’s adoption of the term “dignity” presents an alternative to Nietzsche’s call to shocking, even violent individualism, non-conformity, and self-assertion over tradition, society, and people. How does John Paul envision Christian anthropology for contemporary secular society?
First, despite the emphasis on spiritual realities and human dignity, John Paul often mutes his idealism when reflecting on humans, and instead identifies twisted, tragic-heroic qualities of each individual, referring in Redemptor hominis (14) to each person’s “continual inclination to sin and at the same time in his continual aspiration to truth, the good, the beautiful, justice and love.” The pontiff’s psychological-spiritual realism determines a caring, thoughtful, and positive outlook towards humans rather than critical assessment or condemnation.
Second, he takes a holistic view. Every aspect of human nature falls under John Paul’s reconstruction of the truth and metaphysics. He finds deeper, spiritual meaning to concepts that Nietzsche discussed. For instance, the pope claims that the Catholic Church asks questions that challenge the secular notion of freedom: “No one can escape from the fundamental questions: What must I do? How do I distinguish good from evil? The answer is only possible thanks to the splendour of the truth which shines forth deep within the human spirit, as the Psalmist bears witness: ‘There are many who say: ‘O that we might see some good! Let the light of your face shine on us, O Lord’ ‘ (Ps 4:6).” (VS 2) With this Christian meaning, freedom addresses more than the instincts-oriented, individualistic, materialistic needs that Nietzsche emphasizes. John Paul teaches that prayer and a nurturing Catholic tradition and culture transform people, rather than liberation from such prayer, tradition, and culture, because Catholic spirituality attends to deeper aspects of humans.
Third, John Paul counters Nietzsche by resuscitating elements of Christianity that secularists have attacked, including Scripture. Nietzsche rejects Christianity as overbearing, legalistic, and condemning whereas, as just one example of his use and celebration of the Christian tradition and its Bible, the pontiff praises the commandments for liberating their followers. Instead of a minimal threshold over which God forbids us to step, they invite us to a deeper, richer moral and spiritual perfection inspired primarily by love. John Paul writes in Veritatis splendor (6-9) that Jesus’ challenge to the rich young man reminds us of the necessary preconditions to spiritual growth: “The question which the rich young man puts to Jesus of Nazareth [“Teacher, what good must I do to have ,eternal life?” (Mt 19:16)] is one which rises from the depths of his heart. It is an essential and
unavoidable question for the life of every man, for it is about the moral good which must be done, and about eternal life.” (8) Even though the young man had observed all the commandments, he still failed by his own force to take the next step. This discussion of the rich young man connects this biblical passage to our own present-day lives, something John Paul does often.
Fourth, the pontiff does not compete with liberals and feminists in constantly creating theories or ritual that can replace tradition. He uses Paul’s Letter to the Romans to apply an unoriginal, neoscholastic salvation economy to human freedom, something that he roots in the very nature of theology:
We find ourselves faced with the original reality of sin in human history and at the same time in the whole of the economy of salvation. It can be said that in this sin the ‘mysterium iniquitatis’ has its beginning, but it can also be said that this is the sin concerning which the redemptive power of the ‘mysterium pietatis’ becomes particularly clear and efficacious. This is expressed by St. Paul, when he contrasts the ‘disobedience’ of the first Adam with the ‘obedience’ of Christ, the second Adam: ‘Obedience unto death.’ (DV 33)
The age-old spiritual formula still applies because its truth runs deeper than current philosophy or religious trends which are often inspired by Nietzsche.

SECTION I: KNOCKING DOWN AND BUILDING UP
Chapter 1: Nietzsche
Chapter 2: John Paul II’s Anthropology I
Chapter 3: John Paul II’s Anthropology II
SECTION II: LANGUAGE ISSUES BEHIND THEOLOGICAL ISSUES
Chapter 4: Foucault, Deconstruction, and Christianity
Chapter 5: Thought and Epistemology
Chapter 6: John Paul II: Irenicist and Uniter
Chapter 7: John Paul II’s Pastoral Language
SECTION III: CREDO UT INTELLEGAM
Chapter 8: John Paul II’s Epistemology and Religious Language
Chapter 9: John Paul II’s Spiritual Journey of Truth
Chapter 10: John Paul II the Theologian
Chapter 11: The Truth Victorious
Endnotes
Bibliography
GET THE COMPLETE PROJECT

Related Posts