In Response to "A Mystery behind the Text"

by Charles Uy

This is in response to Patrick Cruz’s blog post, “A Mystery behind the Text.” This is a paper I wrote last school year when we read Josef Pieper’s “The Philosophical Act”. Patrick’s blog post reminded me of the things I discussed in this paper such as the mystery and richness of being; and I thought that perhaps this may help in understanding some of the things we discussed in class.

. . . . .

Christianity is a religion of mystery, full of contradiction that confounds the human mind. An enduring question, by way of example, and still widely debated in sects of Christianity is the nature of Jesus: is he man or God? For a certain sect of Christianity, Jesus is a reincarnated God who adopted human form. Another sect would disagree and argue that Jesus is merely a man who God chose to deliver the saving message. Yet another would say Jesus is both fully God and fully human. Perhaps the most fundamental mystery of Christianity is the nature of God himself. Most Christians agree that God exists in three forms as Father, Son and Holy Ghost. Many who would assume that these entities are separate would question if a hierarchy exists between them. If so, whom do we worship? Church doctrine declares that these entities are one and the same. Many, like myself, cannot grasp the concept that there are three of the same being. Defining them by themselves is daunting task. Going back to the question of the nature of God, I myself know what or who God is according to what my church teaches me. But I cannot grasp God in his entirety even though I understand the holy trinity concept. How can God be a Father, a Son and a Spirit at the same time? There are just different facets of God, my pastor tells me. I don’t understand it, neither does he. Now, my very devout friend tells me that this is because God, using her words, is too staggering, magnificent and powerful for us to comprehend. Humans, according to her, cannot bear the omniscient mind of God, and so He remains a mystery all of us know of, ironically. We can only hope that our notions of God is right.

Like Christianity, philosophy also deals with a mystery—an unknown. One of the many ultimate mysteries of philosophy is being which can be likened to the mystery of God. I’m not saying that both are similar in concept, but they are alike in the manner we approach them. Both Christianity and Philosophy deal with mystery as an eternal article which serves the purpose of inspiring man to have deeper engagement. Both do not treat mystery as something formulaic which deals with definite answers and solutions. People dedicate themselves to these mysteries for the sake of the contemplation of the mystery itself and its questions. Yet why is God and being a mystery in the first place? One, both God and being are infinite. Two, we humans are finite. With our limited nature, it is impossible to grasp something infinite it its wholeness, yet we still try to engage in the mystery. Our finitude can never swallow the entirety of God and being, we only have the knowledge of its wholeness. We are aware of the boundlessness and all-encompassing nature of mystery. We can possess it but not see its wholeness because there is always more to God and being. It is not due to our lack knowledge that we fail to grasp its wholeness. It is only that there is always, always more to God and being because of their richness. There is always a different way of experiencing. By way of example, when I first read The Little Prince back in third grade, I was thrilled with the thought of adventure, of travelling across different worlds via taking advantage of the migration of birds—that was my experience of The Little Prince at that time. When I read it again two years later, I experienced the theme of friendship and intimacy and in doing so, I enriched my understanding of the book. Notice that when I read it two years later, it is still the same book. Heck, it is even the same Katherine Woods translation yet I gained a broader sense of it. Is it because I lacked knowledge the first time I read it? No, it’s just that there are a lot of ways of seeing and enlightening oneself with being.

So what changed? What caused me to see another facet of the same book? This brings me to the third point as to why being is a mystery: being is always at play with the circumstances when one opens himself to it. Being always eventing. It is up to our openness on how we will receive the eventing of the being. We need to assume a certain kind of attitude and openness to see the eventing. Every day, every single moment, we are in a play of circumstances affected by human history, our present, our character and all the factors that make one’s life what it is. Because being is at play, we may experience the same thing but in a different circumstance, thus, the eventing of being is always a different experience. Being is still the same and consistent but the play of circumstance is in a state of flux. Because of this, we gain a diversity of experience of the same being and thus, enriching—not changing—our understanding of it. The circumstances when I first read The Little Prince were different from when I read it again two years later. In third grade, I was this playful little kid whose curiosity always got the upper hand but exploration of the outside world had a lot of restrictions—that play of circumstance brought me to a certain eventing of The Little Prince. It was the spirit of adventure and exploration that presented itself to me at first. Then, two years later, I became a bit of a recluse and lonely and so longed for someone of my age to connect with. These circumstances brought me to another eventing of the same book. This time, the themes of friendship presented itself to me and deepened my perception. I acquired this new experience not because I was lacking something some piece of information or knowledge two years prior. I magnified my intimacy with The Little Prince because I recognized the richness of its being in a different point in my life—the same book, different circumstances and a new eventing which synthesizes and enriches the way I experience the book.

On a different note, philosophy always draws from concrete experience. It first considers the things we readily see, the reality of the world we live in, and the traditional views we already hold. According to Pieper, this comes from divine revelation which is basically what Theology interprets. Pieper quotes Plato and Aristotle when he argues that our traditional interpretation of nature is handed down to us by a divine being and before Philosophy began, this tradition is what enlightens us. This reasoning therefore implies that Theology is always prior to philosophy since philosophy first considers the things of the world and its the critical interpretations which is what Theology provides. Our sense of wonder is always enriched and drawn from experience. The nature of philosophizing takes a theological position since it is first, a “human relationship to reality” and second, philosophizing “necessarily involves the adaptation of a definite position with respect to ultimate things” (Pieper 23). In my favourite book, The Little Prince, before the fox tells the little prince his secret, “It is only with the heart that one can see rightly; what is essential is invisible to the eye” (Saint-Exupéry 64) the fox first lets him experience friendship. Without the concrete reality of friendship, the little prince would have never learned the wisdom of the fox. Nor would he have enriched this wisdom if he had not created a tangible relationship his rose. Our reflections only illuminate us if we put it side-by-side with experience and experience can only be enriched if we reflect upon it. In a nutshell, that is the relationship of Philosophy with Theology, according to Pieper. Reality compels us to search for meaning, to wonder about the traditions handed down to us or observed in nature.

The approach to mystery and the necessity of visible experience is why Pieper believes that Christian philosophy “fully grasps and expresses a truly philosophical sense of “wonder”” and “more than any other philosophy, it is inspired by the sense of mystery” and so he concludes that the Christian character of philosophy and the philosophical character of Christianity is “genuine and powerful” (23). Pieper asserts that this is the true attitude of a philosopher.  Christian philosophy paves way for a genuine philosophical act by allowing one to “break down methodological barriers” and engage in a true “loving search for wisdom” (Pieper 24). Though I do believe Pieper when he says the philosophical act starts upon a consideration of concrete experience, his usage of terms such as ‘Theology’ and ‘Christian’ is loose and ambiguous. Pieper generally describes Theology “as the interpretation of that which is revealed” (21) and what is revealed is a traditional interpretation of the world handed down by a divine entity to the ancient peoples whom passed it on through generations. This description pertains more to culture not Theology. Culture is the lens by which we perceive and understand the world, human experience and events. Theology refers more to the critical examination of our faith—our relationship with God. I agree with his description of the nature of philosophizing but his terminology has a tendency to be misleading. The word Christian itself connotes religious themes that only appeal to particular groups. In a pluralistic world, Pieper ought to be more sensitive with his phrasing. He could still retain his meaning of ‘Christian’ philosophy without using the word Christian itself. Let’s say an extremist non-Christian devotee happens to read Pieper and sees Biblical terms applied to Philosophy. The probability of that person to miss Pieper’s point is alarmingly high. In substance, he describes the philosophical act as an opening to an infinite universe even with the restrictions of human finitude; and that we engage in philosophizing not because it will bring us to a certain end but because our ardent search for meaning enriches our very selves; and also that we draw upon worldly, tangible experience to contemplate the infinity of being. It seemed to me that Pieper over-stretched the terms ‘Christian’ and ‘Theology’ to fit to a description of the nature of philosophy. I will not deny that Pieper elaborated and reason well-enough that a ‘Christian’ philosophy is the genuine approach in doing philosophy but there is an issue with his terminology. One day in a talk show on television, an atheist was being interviewed in front of a Christian audience. He was asked to clarify atheistic views which were just an advocacy of reason and humanism. On one occasion, they were spreading this advocacy of reason on the streets, holding a placard that said something like, “One man’s religion is another man’s blasphemy.” Pieper may not have intended it but highly probable that other religious sectors will inevitably see a bias underlying his philosophical view. It does not help that the word ‘Christian’ has negative connotations for people of a different culture and even to some Christians as well. There will always be a tendency for human beings to place prejudice above everything else. If that would happen when someone reads Pieper, every meaning Pieper had intended would be twisted according to the biases of the one who read it, then his extensive meaning of philosophizing would be lost.

Works Cited

Pieper, Josef. Leisure, The Basis Of Culture / Translated From The German By Alexander
Dru; With An Introd. By T.S. Eliot. n.p.: New York : Pantheon Books, 1963.

Saint-Exupery, Antoine de, and Katherine Woods. The Little Prince / Written And Drawn By
Antoine De Saint-Exupery; Translated From The French By Katherine Woods. n.p.:
London : Egmont, 2002.