God Is Watching You

Call me cynical, and perhaps a sinner, for having the image of Orwell's Big Brother pervade my mind as I read the rules of St. Benedict. Especially in the chapters where the degrees of humility are discussed, does the emphasis of one's lowliness as a human being, pathetic and powerless in the eyes of God, shine. A passage from chapter 7, for instance, is as follows: "The eyes of the Lord observe the good and the evil and the Lord is always looking down from heaven on the children of earth... our deeds are daily, day and night, reported to the Lord by the Angels assigned to us, we must constantly beware."  God, like Big Brother, is always watching, ready to judge or smite at a whim. Worse than Big Brother, though, is that God can condemn us after we die, and commit us to eternal torment by barring us from Paradise, though St. Benedict would exhort that it is not God's fault, but our own puny fault. 

Most of these rules involve suffocating our own human nature, which is thought-provoking, because didn't God make us in his image? So, if we censor our nature, couldn't we also be censoring the nature God has imbued within us? There is probably a reasonable explanation for this, and I realize that I am definitely showing my non-Christian bias here. St. Benedict's rules are quite austere and inhibit enjoyment of any kind, just to prepare for everlasting, heavenly joy in the afterlife, yet why even be born if not to enjoy the life we are given? Must we force ourselves to be austere for that alleged spot in heaven, sacrificing the life we know to be true, on earth?  

List of Benedict

This level of Bible-thumping always holds me at bay from a text, but Benedict says a bunch of things I can get down with. The whole premise of the text is that Benedict is establishing "a school for the service of the Lord," and the first thing he does after confirming this objective is distinguish the different kinds of monks, half of which are absolute trash, so that's kind of a funny way to start. 

One of the early chapters that was poignant in my opinion was Chapter 4: What Are the Instruments of Good Works. This chapter is a thorough list of ways to behave in accordance with the will of God. It immediately reminded me of my class on the Buddha, because the Buddhists are obsessed with lists. The Buddha's lists are definitely more concise; many of Benedict's bullet points same nearly identical things.     

Even conceding the redundancies, and approaching the text without a real religious backdrop, many of these decrees are still worthy endeavors. For example: "not to become attached to pleasures," "to keep constant guard over the actions of one's life," and "then not to murder" are all pretty decent tid-bits of advice. Some, though, are a little more heavy handed, like "to love fasting" and to attribute to God, and not to self, whatever good one sees in oneself... but to recognize that always that the evil is one's own doing, and to impute it to oneself."

I do believe it is important to bear responsibility for one's own shortcomings in life, considering we all have a handful, but I do not think that it is healthy to internalize everything bad you do and externalize everything good.       

What is Peace?

What is peace? Chapter 12 in Book XIX of The City of God proposed a view of peace that I had never considered: that peace is what every person strives for and because it is everyone's ultimate goal, the manifestations of peace can be vastly different depending on people's differing perspectives. St. Augustine goes on to define several of the different types of peace which exist in the world. Perhaps the most difficult for me to grasp when first reading it was the idea that even war is a form of peace or rather a quest for peace. At first, this seemed like a paradox: how can war be peace? But upon further analysis, St. Augustine’s interpretation of peace is completely logical. Augustine writes “Thus their desire is not that there should not be peace but that it should be the kind of peace they wish for” (866).
Can utopia exist when if someone wishes to change that utopias peace? Augustine writes “In fact, even when men wish a present state of peace to be disturbed they do so not because they hate peace, but because they desire the present peace to be exchanged for one that suits their wishes” (866). So what if someone living in a utopia wished to change the present peace? The example that comes to mind is Omelas and the people who leave because they disagree with the treatment of the child. What if rather than simply leaving, they wished to change the current state of peace? War and utopia don't seem to coincide with each other. If two utopias were at war, the result would be each becoming a dystopia. To avoid dystopian consequences, I became curious of whether there was a “right peace” and a “wrong peace” and if The City of God held the answer.
What is St. Augustine’s definition of Godly righteous peace? 
The answer, as far as I could discern, is that there is “earthly peace” and “eternal peace.” Earthly peace is when man “observes” two things: “to do no harm to anyone, and, secondly, to help everyone whenever possible” (873). Augustine’s idea of peace opposes Plato’s definition of justice because he concludes that justice is not “meddling” in other people's lives. Augustine also states that earthly peace is to be on a pilgrimage towards eternal blessings and peace. One question I had is as follows: is there no such thing as “true” earthly peace, but rather one must accept that a real sense of peace will only come when a person enters the Heavenly City?

Utopia is a Process Rather Than a 'Place'

Jake’s comment about utopia being a metaphor for single person transitioned perfectly into the reading of St. Augustine, leading me to believe he is a plant by Dr. MB to manufacture continuity. The idea of a utopia being a spiritual state for a human being rather than a place is one that sparked my interest long after class dismissed yesterday. On page 108 of The Republic, Socrates summarizes important qualifiers for a utopia: moderation, courage, wisdom and justice. I want to explore these requirements and how they could reflect a single human being in addition to describing a well-organized society.  

 Moderation

    

The first utopian characteristic Socrates emphasizes that for a utopia to function productively, there should be an agreement between the ruler and the ruled. We also see the themes of self-control and moderation woven into the narrative. On page 106, Socrates even says,” isn’t the expression ‘self-control’ ridiculous? The stronger self that does the controlling is the same as the weaker self that gets controlled, so that only one person is referred to in all such expressions.” If a utopia requires an agreement between the ruler and the ruled, it is possible for a person who is described by Socrates as being the controller and the controlled in regards to their own desires, emotions and reason to reach their own enlightenment. 

Courage and Wisdom

      

Miranda also made a valid point in class about how she believes utopia to be more of an ongoing process than a destination. This key component of utopia widens the definition of the word to be able to go beyond a ‘place’ towards something that is more like a realization. St. Augustine never uses the word ‘utopia’ but he writes that a man, whether he be a Christian or a philosopher, desires to reach ‘ultimate good,’ though for the former it comes through God and the latter aims to achieve it through itself. Socrates writes that the soldiers of a utopia should be able to distinguish what is to be feared from what isn’t. St. Augustine and Plato probably have differing opinions about what is considered harmful to the utopian states they have each described, but each understands the need to defend their own values when they are under attack.

Justice

Socrates describes justice essentially as each member who has a different function in society sticking to their own affairs and not meddling in the business of others. This is a systemic view of utopia, and one that can be compared to the systems of the human body. Imagine if your liver decided that it wanted to try to do the job of the heart and vice versa. You would have two organs designed for certain tasks doing something that is far less efficient than the way that the system was originally structured. Socrates poses that justice is achieved when every child, woman, slave, freeman, craftsmen, ruler and ruled each stick to their own roles in a society. I believe that a single person can be all of these—after all, each of us was once a child, each of us has masculine and feminine qualities, each of us is dependent on something (be it caffeine or something more serious), each of us is autonomous, each of us has a specialized skill that is unique from everyone else, and each of us is both the ruler and subject of his or her own soul.

An Internal Utopia

St. Augustine's utopia greatly differs from many of the others we have seen in that it is one that is essentially attained in one's self. By this I mean that the utopia is not necessarily a specific place that is created (like Plato's Republic for example), but rather a spiritual journey that brings a person's soul to this peaceful "utopia" which in turn would make everyone live in perfect harmony. St. Augustine's utopia is one that is more easily and realistically attainable than others we have studied; all you have to do is choose to follow this spiritual path.

Despite these differences, the utopia presented here still shares some common themes with the others. The concepts of truth, justice, and desires are all mentioned in this book. One quote that stood out to me was: "the desires of the flesh oppose the spirit" (pg 854). It seems to be a common idea in all utopian literature that people's desires need to be maintained, because that is often the cause of problems. From our discussions, however, it seems that we all seem to be in agreement that the idea of suppressing our desires is more dystopian than utopian.


 My final thought is on a quote from page 861:

"For when men cannot communicate their thoughts to each other, simply because of difference of language, all the similarity of their common human nature is of no avail to unite them in fellowship."

Although St. Augustine mentions language here, this applies to more than just differences in language. Even when a common language is spoken, a difference in culture is enough to have this same result. We see this way too often, throughout history and even today. It is the cause of racism and wars and many other problems in our world. It is a very critical reason as to why a utopia has been unattainable. Some people just can't seem to get past the differences enough to realize that underneath we are all the same.  

Augustine's "City of God": More Than a Manifesto?

Augustine's text is clearly one that advocates Christianity, but is there more to be understood than just Bible verses? What does this text add to the conversation about Utopia?

He provides us with two cities in his discussion: the City of God and the Earthly City. The City of God is, of course, a place outside the earthly, mortal realm, and the Earthly City is merely the one we all currently reside in. There are a few key differences between the City of God and the Earthly City:

1. The Earthly City is full of evil and misery.

2. There can be periods of happiness or peace in the Earthly City, but the City of God one is one of eternal peace.

3. Unlike the Earthly City, you have to earn your way into the City of God.

Based on Augustine's discussion of the City of God, it may easily be viewed as a Utopia.  It's a place stripped of everything bad, and not only are its citizens living in peace--they're living in peace forever.  This sounds pretty unimaginable (a no-place, if you will), but also pretty great (who wouldn't want to be at peace for all eternity?).  Augustine argues that Utopia cannot be achieved in this life, but the next.  Those that believe they can achieve complete happiness on their own are considered delusional. This is in part due to human imperfection and sin; the Earthly City was created to determine the perfect citizens for the City of God.

There is one interesting difference between this Utopia and the ones commonly found in literature: entering is a privilege that must be earned.  This raises the question, should a true Utopia be inclusive rather than exclusive?  Although there isn't anything in the definition of Utopia that rules out the possibility for exclusiveness, the idea just doesn't feel right to me.  For a Utopia, I've always envisioned a society where all people -- any people -- coexist in perfect harmony.  By introducing a higher power to which all people obey and respect, Augustine suggests that people will begin a journey that leads to a perfect self without sin.  Those that do not share this belief live in ignorance, according to Augustine, and thus are not suited to live in a Utopia.

Plato Republic Miranda

In Plato's Republic, Socrates explains how excess wealth and excess poverty are two problems the people will not be allowed to experience. He justifies that extreme wealth will result in the craftsmen becoming lazy and not fulfilling their duties, and that extreme poverty will result in denying the workers money to sustain their lives. Essentially, having too much or too little of wealth has the potential to cause damage. This concept connects to the idea of 'moderation' that is brought up earlier in The Republic. There appears to be an ongoing trend in The Republic that moderation is a key component towards reaching a Utopia. If there is not a balance, then the society is not in a Utopia because too much or too little of one thing can cause damage.

The idea that there needs to be a balance in a society in order for it to be good for the state is particularly intriguing. In Omelas, the child was the one part of the city that made it not perfect. Everything in the city was theoretically characteristic of a Utopia, but the child's suffering offset everything. It is interesting to consider how something like poverty, which has an inherent connotation of being bad, could actually be good in moderation. Without having the good and bad exist, how can there be balance in a Utopia? Would there be something to measure a Utopia as a Utopia if there was not something that is not perfect to reference it against? For instance, in our society we know what is good because we also know what is bad. However, that in itself also varies across cultures and ideological beliefs. How can a Utopia be a Utopia without taking the concept of balance into consideration?

Reading The Republic and repeatedly seeing the word 'moderation' leads one to believe that perhaps Utopia is not a destination but a journey. Since so many people were leaving a place like Omelas, but some of those people also stayed, perhaps there is more than one Utopia existing at a time as well. When that is taken into consideration, maybe Utopias are personal. In other words, maybe the idea of making them a society is impossible since know two people can think and agree on everything the exact same. That would suggest we do not have individuality. Is a Utopia maybe a slow convergence of consciousness where everyone becomes 'one' then? It is confusing where the line between balance and individuality should be drawn.