6 ms·

Paradox is not really so alien to Western philosophy, as this article initially suggests. It does end up referencing a number of modern Western philosophers, bu

Paradox is not really so alien to Western philosophy, as this article initially suggests. It does end up referencing a number of modern Western philosophers, but the idea is older than that. It's ironic he refers to "Western orthodoxy" as being strictly anti-paradox, as traditional Christian theology is full of official paradoxes; a major example would be the doctrine that Jesus is simultaneously fully human and fully divine. Many were declared anathema for refusing this and other paradoxical doctrines. So rather than Western orthodoxy being unaware of paradox, it has insisted on it. The concept of the dialectic also touches on this idea of reconciling apparent contradictions, rather than defeating your opponent as one does in a debate, and this idea originates not truly with Hegel but spans all the way back to Socrates, and probably before. I agree with the sentiment, however, that understanding paradox is extremely important to a person's capability for nuance and understanding. If you insist on a simplified internal consistency, you will end up sacrificing (and demonizing) whole parts of your thought process rather than trying to reconcile them as having some truth. It can be a process of self-indoctrination purely to avoid the pain of confusion. Another way to think of paradox is simply rejecting false dichotomies in favor of a more complex and uncertain reality. I don't think the lesson here is to "break the chains of Aristotelian logic" (God forbid) but rather, well, reconcile it with the idea of paradox.

andreasvc 12y ago
I don't think Christian theology makes the Western tradition any less anti-paradox, because the paradoxes of Christian orthodoxy are dogma, they do not give rise to a systematic treatment of paradoxes as described in the article.
CPLX 12y ago
> Another way to think of paradox is simply rejecting false dichotomies in favor of a more complex and uncertain reality. That, as it so happens, is an excellent shorthand for Buddhism as well. Which I believe is a fruitful avenue for discussion, as the author does here.
Daishiman 12y ago
I think the difference between the Christian and Buddhist approaches to the paradoxes is the fact that Christian theologists have spent centuries devising new doctrine that accomodates the contradictory statements in a sort of logical superstructure, whereas no such thing happens in Buddhist contradictions. Part of the reason why I suspect this is because Christian dogma ultimately reflects on concrete precepts that the faithful must abide to, since belief is an essential component to salvation in Christianity and relates to concrete actions and thoughts. Buddhist dogman in general, with the notable, extremely fuzzy, and highly opinionated exception of karma, does not have such a problem, since no particular belief system is considered critical for enlightenment, since all beliefs are delusion and only a direct experience with reality (the Deathless) is truly relevant.
- muraiki 12y ago
  The approach in Eastern Christianity (pre-Great Schism groups such as the Orthodox, Coptic, and others) is generally that of Apophatic or Negative theology. "Leave behind the senses and the operations of the intellect, and all things sensible and intellectual, and all things in the world of being and non-being, that thou mayest arise by unknowing towards the union, as far as is attainable, with Him who transcends all knowledge." --St. Dionysius the Areopagite A consequence of the Apophatic approach is that of an emphasis on knowledge of God through union with His uncreated Energy; that is, experiential knowledge. This is termed theosis or deification, to become by grace that which God is by nature (albeit while retaining the essential distinction between created human and uncreated God). As such, dogma is the accumulated experience of the Saints in this way of union, not arbitrary beliefs that must be adhered to. Salvation is not a destination with a ticket (believe X to get into Heaven) but rather the process of deification, a process which begins in this life and proceeds unceasingly in the eternal Kingdom. It should also be noted that I'm not talking about some fringe group of Christianity, but rather the second largest group of Christians in the world. If these ideas interest you, a good book to pick up is "The Mountain of Silence," in which an anthropologist visits Orthodox monasteries in Greece to try and understand these things, under the tutelage of a monk. He presents the teachings from the standpoint of an outsider in a very readable way.
  - 12y ago
livingparadox 12y ago
I would clarify that the "paradox" of being fully human and fully divine is an apparent paradox, not an actual paradox. Most theologians I've come into contact with hold to Jesus' nature being the intersection of all divine traits and all human traits, allowing him to be both God and Man without contradiction. The confusion I think lies in the ambiguity of the word "fully". Its a paradox if we take it to mean "100% of Jesus is human and 100% of Jesus if divine, resulting in a total of 200% Jesus." But if it is clarified as "Jesus possesses 100% of the qualifications required to be considered human and Jesus possesses 100% of the qualifications required to be considered divine," then the contradiction is gone.
- phreeza 12y ago
  Not to start a theological debate here, but doesn't that imply none of the traits are mutually exclusive? Fallible and infallible comes to mind as a counterexample.
  - livingparadox 12y ago
    Its a good question that got me thinking. so thank you. I'm not sure if either one would be necessary traits, though. Fallability and infallibility in this case are most likely just functions of our knowledge. And humans do not, by necessity, have to have imperfect knowledge; it just so happens that no normal human being has imperfect knowledge.
- septerr 12y ago
  Is there any statement/belief in Christian philosophy that Human cannot be divine or Divine cannot be human? If there is then the paradox does exist.
  - jackbravo 12y ago
    Christian philosophy is a monotheistic philosophy. There is only one god. That is why Jesus being god and human is part of the larger paradox of the holy trinity.
  - 12y ago
grifpete 12y ago
I don't believe that what most would consider to be 'Western philosophy' would properly include religious thought, including 'traditional Christian theology.' This is not to deny that early philosophy was coincident with religion, just as was early scientific thought. But I think that to argue that the paradoxes of theology is relevant to what would in any meaningful sense be considered remotely modern Western Philosophy is mistaken. It is perhaps for this reason that philosophy and religion and science are different 'subjects.' There are overlaps to be sure (the philosophy of religion or scientific studies of religious experience) but these fields are distinct for a reason. And by and large the author makes a very fair point that the Aristotelean principles have guided western philosophy and science whereas religion has gone its own way.

andreasvc 12y ago

I don't think Christian theology makes the Western tradition any less anti-paradox, because the paradoxes of Christian orthodoxy are dogma, they do not give rise to a systematic treatment of paradoxes as described in the article.

CPLX 12y ago

> Another way to think of paradox is simply rejecting false dichotomies in favor of a more complex and uncertain reality. That, as it so happens, is an excellent shorthand for Buddhism as well. Which I believe is a fruitful avenue for discussion, as the author does here.

Daishiman 12y ago

I think the difference between the Christian and Buddhist approaches to the paradoxes is the fact that Christian theologists have spent centuries devising new doctrine that accomodates the contradictory statements in a sort of logical superstructure, whereas no such thing happens in Buddhist contradictions. Part of the reason why I suspect this is because Christian dogma ultimately reflects on concrete precepts that the faithful must abide to, since belief is an essential component to salvation in Christianity and relates to concrete actions and thoughts. Buddhist dogman in general, with the notable, extremely fuzzy, and highly opinionated exception of karma, does not have such a problem, since no particular belief system is considered critical for enlightenment, since all beliefs are delusion and only a direct experience with reality (the Deathless) is truly relevant.

muraiki 12y ago
The approach in Eastern Christianity (pre-Great Schism groups such as the Orthodox, Coptic, and others) is generally that of Apophatic or Negative theology. "Leave behind the senses and the operations of the intellect, and all things sensible and intellectual, and all things in the world of being and non-being, that thou mayest arise by unknowing towards the union, as far as is attainable, with Him who transcends all knowledge." --St. Dionysius the Areopagite A consequence of the Apophatic approach is that of an emphasis on knowledge of God through union with His uncreated Energy; that is, experiential knowledge. This is termed theosis or deification, to become by grace that which God is by nature (albeit while retaining the essential distinction between created human and uncreated God). As such, dogma is the accumulated experience of the Saints in this way of union, not arbitrary beliefs that must be adhered to. Salvation is not a destination with a ticket (believe X to get into Heaven) but rather the process of deification, a process which begins in this life and proceeds unceasingly in the eternal Kingdom. It should also be noted that I'm not talking about some fringe group of Christianity, but rather the second largest group of Christians in the world. If these ideas interest you, a good book to pick up is "The Mountain of Silence," in which an anthropologist visits Orthodox monasteries in Greece to try and understand these things, under the tutelage of a monk. He presents the teachings from the standpoint of an outsider in a very readable way.
- 12y ago

livingparadox 12y ago

I would clarify that the "paradox" of being fully human and fully divine is an apparent paradox, not an actual paradox. Most theologians I've come into contact with hold to Jesus' nature being the intersection of all divine traits and all human traits, allowing him to be both God and Man without contradiction. The confusion I think lies in the ambiguity of the word "fully". Its a paradox if we take it to mean "100% of Jesus is human and 100% of Jesus if divine, resulting in a total of 200% Jesus." But if it is clarified as "Jesus possesses 100% of the qualifications required to be considered human and Jesus possesses 100% of the qualifications required to be considered divine," then the contradiction is gone.

phreeza 12y ago
Not to start a theological debate here, but doesn't that imply none of the traits are mutually exclusive? Fallible and infallible comes to mind as a counterexample.
- livingparadox 12y ago
  Its a good question that got me thinking. so thank you. I'm not sure if either one would be necessary traits, though. Fallability and infallibility in this case are most likely just functions of our knowledge. And humans do not, by necessity, have to have imperfect knowledge; it just so happens that no normal human being has imperfect knowledge.
septerr 12y ago
Is there any statement/belief in Christian philosophy that Human cannot be divine or Divine cannot be human? If there is then the paradox does exist.
- jackbravo 12y ago
  Christian philosophy is a monotheistic philosophy. There is only one god. That is why Jesus being god and human is part of the larger paradox of the holy trinity.
- 12y ago

grifpete 12y ago

I don't believe that what most would consider to be 'Western philosophy' would properly include religious thought, including 'traditional Christian theology.' This is not to deny that early philosophy was coincident with religion, just as was early scientific thought. But I think that to argue that the paradoxes of theology is relevant to what would in any meaningful sense be considered remotely modern Western Philosophy is mistaken. It is perhaps for this reason that philosophy and religion and science are different 'subjects.' There are overlaps to be sure (the philosophy of religion or scientific studies of religious experience) but these fields are distinct for a reason. And by and large the author makes a very fair point that the Aristotelean principles have guided western philosophy and science whereas religion has gone its own way.