“For if you now, as I hope, pass a more favorable judgment on religion, if you realize that a special and noble human capacity lies at its core, which must consequently also be cultivated wherever it shows itself, then it cannot be offensive to you to intuit it in the determinate forms in which is has already actually appeared.”(p.98)
This passage is about religion and what Schleiermacher believes its purpose actually is.
In Schleiermacher’s fifth speech, he explains how religion is not just language, words, or even just a communion of people; but religion is almost like a direct way to reveal our true, noble nature as humans. According to Schleiermacher, religion is a system that connects humans to their own nature, intuition (feeling). Since intuition drives human beings to participate in the actions they partake in, as well as in the ideas they choose to feed; it can be said that intuition, or feeling, governs human beings. Although, taking into account all of the negative destructive qualities of human nature, religion acts as a filter that rationally understands our intuition and puts aside the “evil” traits to lead us into a nobler state of being.
At the core of every human is feeling, and Schleiermacher goes on to explain this intuition and how it is developed. Intuition is cultivated by “Observing yourself with unceasing effort. Detach all that is not yourself, always proceed with ever sharper sense, and the more you fade from yourself, the clearer the universe will stand forth before you, the more splendidly will you be recompensed for the horror of self-annihilation through the feeling of the infinite in you”(p.68) As I read this I questioned exactly what Schleiermacher meant by saying “detach all that is not yourself”, I came to the conclusion that anything and almost everything is not your actual true self. The clothes we wear, our cars, our girlfriends/boyfriends, the things we have accomplished, our jobs, are all extensions of our life; but these things are not our self, it seems as if the purpose of religion is to make us more instinctual and easy going, rather than being attached or identified with other objects/accomplishments/people. When you detach yourself from everything that is not yourself, you are free (as a human being); and in freedom your choices and possibilities are infinite.
When this nobility and core intuition is more developed in the human, the previous traits of religion that seemed offensive will be understood thoroughly. If one has developed intuition and nobility, he/she is bound to accept situations more frequently, and not be offended by them. With religious rationality being developed to guide humans and connect them with their intuition, the human can make nobler choices. As many followers of religion are deluded by “show” of it, many of them do not truly understand how to connect to themselves; these people may offend others because of their ignorance. However when intuition is developed in the being, he/she would see it and realize it. Then after realizing it, the possibilities or choices he/she can make will be infinite (whether to be offended by it, or not). It is as if you are the only person who has control over your intuition, and things that may have previously offended you are realized as separate objects/people; and if you are detached from the other thing, then it cannot have control over your intuition.
Nevertheless, according to Schleiermacher, the real purpose of religion is to detach humans from the exterior; and connect them with their own interior, or intuition. When this connection is cultivated, then things will appear infinite. However, is this connection something we strive for on a daily basis?
It may well be that the religious intuition is pertaining to the self, however, Schleiermacher does not indicate in the Fourth Speech that the social element is the communication of the religious intuition. He considers more that the feeling wills one to comunicate it. While this is true, the association of people is the relation to this feeling through the communication of it.
ReplyDeleteThe Fifth Speech does religion more justice because it reclaims the personal aspect of it. In this view, religion can be defined as the relation between the individual and the infinite (which it ultimately is).
If one detaches from the exterior (which, as you say, is the purpose of religion) including jobs, accomplishments, relationships, etc. is such a person really a free human being? With detachment, what possibilities and choices is one really confronted with? What are our feelings about? If one extricates oneself from family, friends, passions, jobs, it seems that all that would be left would be a shell of a human being. What is a person without these things?
ReplyDeleteBy detachment I was leaning more towards not being identified with these exterior objects, people, things; not avoiding or eliminating. You're right a person is nothing but flesh, bones, and emotions without family, friends, passions, jobs, etc because those exterior things make our lives what they are. Although if a person was detached from their friends, family, passion, and jobs they would be able to make choices through their own intuition and not identify themselves or be limited by their friends, job, or passion.
ReplyDeleteScheleiemacher makes a grand metaphysical claim about the makeup of the infinite universe, but then claims that he is not making a metaphysical claim at all. Instead he is talking about something that can only be intuited or felt, and that is religion. But, isn’t he putting the epistemological cart before the metaphysical horse? Why can’t he battle the metaphysicians on their own playing field instead of creating an epistemology that is built on sand (yes, I’m making a purposeful heavy-handed allusion to Jesus)? The squawking voice in our head, the same voice that Descartes took to be the only proof of his own existence, is secondary to a poorly defined feeling, drive, or pure unmitigated sensation. How can this be if we are to have a concept of self? The issue of “self “ addressed in the post and in the subsequent comments seemed to dance around this question. So, for Schleiermacher, is the universe intuiting itself?
ReplyDelete