Skip to main content

I'm Sorry, My Explicate-y Brain Came Out Here - Jamie Peters

Dark Night of the Soul is extremely interesting for a couple of reasons. First, I am having trouble figuring out where exactly in the timeframe of the Catholic faith this occurrence of the "night of sense" is supposed to happen. According to Thomas Aquinas in his work the Summa Theologiae, the process that St. John of the Cross is describing is the journey towards perfect charity, which is what St. John calls it too. In response to the specific time frame in which this "night of sense" is supposed to occur, Aquinas says, "The spiritual increase of charity may be considered in respect of a certain likeness to the growth of the human body" (Q.24, art.9). In other words, the "night of sense", in which God "weans them from the breasts of these sweetnesses and pleasures, gives them pure aridities and inward darkness...and by all means causes them to win the virtues" is a lifelong process (St. John 1.VII.5). In making this comparison, it is clear that one primary source for St. John's philosophical debate is Thomas Aquinas, and this book will be used to explain at least two of the three stages of charity that Aquinas writes about in his Summa Theologiae. For those of you who want to know, the stages are "beginning, progress, and perfection", and I think that St. John is combining all three of these ideas into two "nights" the night of sense and the night of spirit (Aquinas Q.24, art.9).


Aquinas, Thomas. Summa Theologiae. 1260.

P.S. I commented on Abigale's and Madalyn's posts.

Comments

  1. Having some actual, historical knowledge of the context of St. John's spiritual journey is extremely beneficial! I could not seem to categorize this procession in a normal manner and thus invented my own interpretation of the text.

    Utilizing the teachings of Aquinas makes A LOT more sense!

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Aristotle Might Not Like Me...Or Jesus//Haylee Lynd

      Aristotle says that the man who does not get angry at the things he should be angry at "is thought unlikely to defend himself; and to endure being insulted and put up with insult to one's friends is slavish" (Aristotle 41). While he states that passivity is preferred to excessive anger, he still gives great criticism to it.  In contrast to Aristotle, the man who Christians believe to be the most just is Jesus who states in Matthew 5:39-40, "...do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other also. And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well." Essentially, arguing that one is not to respond in anger when insulted or hurt, to not defend one's self. Most individual's are unable to achieve this. Our natural instinct is to defend ourselves, especially in physical cases. However, Christians strive to be like Jesus in this way. I would also argue that it is a very admirable wa...

Oedipus’ Children/Siblings—Lily Caswell

Ok, so Oedipus is a bit of a train wreck to say the least. I love the fact that even after Oedipus found out about his less-than-appealing relationship with his mother, he still tried to look after his children/siblings. After he gouged his eyes out, his children came to him at which point Oedipus talked about how that when they were old enough to marry, no one would want them due to them being products of incest. He said for the people not to condemn them based on what their father had done. Even after he knew what he had done and what his children were, he still wanted the best for them. I commented on Logan’s and Ian’s posts.

Overanalyzing Everyone's Intentions Here-Rachael Gregson

 First off, I'd like to say this is going to be a two part blog post, because a lot of things happened in this reading assignment that demands to be discussed.  As with any war I've realized, it's tricky not to fall into the initial perspective I am given. I began this book skeptical of Hector because I was bias toward the movie Troy, which was told mostly through the eyes of Achilles, but neither were what I was expecting. It's actually funny that they both hold values completely opposite from one another. Hector represented everything related to city-state pride, honor, and humility whereas Achilles was everything wild, reckless, and unpredictable solitary. This isn't to say that Hector is all good and Achilles all bad. Both had instances where I rooted for the other more or less. I just thought it was interesting how their two personalities represented something that basically causes all wars: the clash between civilization and savagery.  Secondly, I'm not de...