(I will try to make this a short summary of what Bonaventure points out. Feel free to skip over this if it is at all repetitive of what you already read)
Bonaventure starts off by stating that all gifts come from the "God of Lights," and this is the source of all illumination. However, there are many different lights from this source. These lights are the exterior light (light of mechanical art), inferior light (light of sense perception), interior light (light of philosophical knowledge), and a superior light (light of Sacred Scripture).
The purpose of the mechanical arts is to supply bodily needs, and they are divided into seven arts. Each art is intended for consolation or comfort, to banish sorrow or need. For consolation or for comfort, Bonaventure explains why he believes each of the mechanical arts is sufficient to human life.
Sense perception "begins with an inferior object and takes place by the aid of corporal light."There are five divisions corresponding to the five senses, and the nature of light is perceived through the senses.
Philosophical knowledge "inquires into inner and hidden causes" through learning and truth. This light is divided into a three-fold; rational, natural, and moral philosophy. The illumination of philosophy enlightens the mind to "discern the causes of being." Therefore, philosophical knowledge illuminates intellect and humanity is enlightened through truth of life, knowledge, and doctrine.
Sacred Scripture provides illumination through saving truth. It is superior and leads to higher things. Scripture reveals truths, transcending reason, and it comes from the God of Lights through inspiration. Beyond the literal meaning is a three-fold of spiritual meaning; the allegorical (taught what to believe), the moral (taught how to live), and the anagogical (taught how to cling to God). In summary, Scripture teaches these three truths; the eternal generation and incarnation of Christ, the pattern of human life, and union of the soul with God.
In all, Bonaventure concludes there are six illuminations all leading up to the illumination of glory. Since Sacred Scripture is the superior, all our knowledge should come to rest in Scripture according to Bonaventure.
So, wisdom of God is made clear in Scripture, and according to Bonaventure, it lies hidden in all knowledge and nature, and he believes he has explained this. (Do you?) He explains that all branches of knowledge are servants of theology, and therefore theology makes useful illustrations and terms pertaining to every branch of knowledge. Bonaventure states faith may be strengthened, God may be honored, character may be formed, and consolation may be derived from union through charity where the purpose of Sacred Scripture comes to rest.
Do you agree? Do you think Bonaventure has explained his beliefs, or is pre-supposing somethings? Do you think the correlations he makes have been justifiably argued for (mainly theology and the arts)? It has not become an issue yet, but it is obvious that interpretation of Scripture will lead to some differing opinions and thoughts.
As much as I agree with St. Bonaventure that all the things that we do, make, think, and sense should be for the purpose of understand and knowing God better (forming a stronger union between him and our soul), I have trouble with his use of Scripture. I think he depends too heavily on something that is written by many men and has been changed, edited, and translated uncountable times (not to mention that it was passed down orally for numerous years in the infancy of Christianity). St. Bonaventure believes that these Scriptures are the full truth and are the main source for knowledge of God because they have come down from God by “inspiration.” To St. Bonaventure, this is the most important of the lights, but in my opinion I think that the actions we perform and thoughts that we have, if for the betterment of others, is a stronger way of knowing God. St. Bonaventure might dispute me in saying that the way to do these things for the betterment of others can be found in the Scriptures, but I do not believe that that is the only way or a necessary way. I think that people are capable of helping others without having to read how to do so in the Scriptures.
ReplyDeleteAlong different lines, I really love how St. Bonaventure ties the six lights into the six days of the Creation story (the 7th day being that of rest). How each of these lights takes a different form and how God created a different form each day. It is a very different way of looking at the Creation for me, instead of the usual first day the sun was made, then some antelope, and then some pansies another day. These seems more in depth and more unfathomable, which works because we cannot fully understand God. It may not necessarily be how I think the world was created, but it is a very interesting way of thinking about it.
Lastly, I would just like to thank Katie(?) for asking questions in her opening of this discussion. It is so much easier to write about it when there are questions to think about and work from.
I agree that there is the question, in this generation at least maybe not in medieval times, about who/what was the source of Scripture. Obviously, Bonaventure and men of his time and past "know" for certain that God was source of Scripture which is truth. You make a really good point about Scripture being translated over, and over again from many different languages. The concept of charity in the text might closely relate your thoughts on the betterment of others as being a stronger way of knowing God (correct me if I am wrong!).
ReplyDeleteI agree that it was very creative, and important, that Bonaventure pointed out the comparison between the six lights and the six days of creation. The six lights are somewhat like a ladder to climb to get to the end (superior light) and rest. Well like the lights, the creation story states that after the sixth day God rested, and creation can be thought of as an ongoing process by some people. So maybe it's worth pointing out that the lights are an ongoing process too. This concept then made me think of how it all depends on how you interpret Scripture; allegorical or literal. I know this is after Bonaventure, but the new idea of interpreting Scripture is exemplified by your statement, Christina.
I believe Bonaventure is presupposing a lot in his argument. One which both of you touched on is the the way he is certain the scriptures are all facts. The scriptures were passed down by word of mouth for roughly 30 years. I know how stories can change in just one day after being passed down. So I have trouble believing what Bonaventure says. I don't think you can presuppose those things and have a rational argument. Although if I were to believe the presuppositions, I think the argument he makes is a logical one.
ReplyDeleteI think also that the way Scripture is interpreted can be discussed. What someone thinks literally will not agree allegorically. Bonaventure does touch on this, but this concept only adds to the fact that Scripture interpretation makes a great difference.
ReplyDeleteIn general to the whole reading, I agree with Bonaventure and how he presented the ways in which we as human beings are able to come to knowledge. What was appealing to me was when he described various types of "light" and how we can use them to gather a better understanding of our world through our craft or mechanical art (exterior light), our sense of knowledge (inferior light), and finally we can understand the truth about salvation (superior light). Bonaventure's explanation on inferior and exterior light did not really stimulate my interest in thinking a lot in the subject of inferior and exterior light that much because for the most part, inferior light was pretty what we would describe today as natural science because of how Bonaventure explained that "...the rational human soul must gather its knowledge of material things through the senses." The only part in which I found interest was how he tried to relate each sense to an element and then through these elements, we are able to form some sort of knowledge. In regards to exterior light, I agree with what Bonaventure had to say about it. I agree with Bonaventure about how each mechanic art was either for utility or pleasure and drama was the only mechanic art that was for pleasure. While reading the section, it appears that each craft served some purpose among the necessity of human society.
ReplyDeleteWhat I found to be really compelling to me was "Superior" Light and his ideas about how we can come to truth about salvation (as prompt by Katie at the beginning of the conversion) through the six lumina. I admired how Bonaventure connects the six lumina to the days of creation. In a sense I think Bonaventure is trying to say at first, our knowledge is non-existence just like the universe and then we gradually gain knowledge of various things through our existence. The scripture according to Bonaventure is the most elevated science in the hierarchy of human knowledge. I agree with Bonaventure because the Scriptures, at least according to Bonaventure, trace our origins back to God and therefore our source of knowledge prior to the fall.
I too agree that Bonaventure relies too much on scripture as his basis of argument. If logic had a more prominent role in his arguments, I feel as though it would be much easier to perceive his views. I don't think it was a wise claim for him to say that the wisdom of god lies hidden in all knowledge and nature.
ReplyDeleteOn the contrary I was very impressed with his metaphorical masterpiece in describing the six illuminations. After reading that I was able to look at the creation story from a completely different angle than before.
All in all his arguments seem too focused on theology and lack enough discussion on logic but his ways of describing and asserting his positions are second to none.
I think Bonaventure might be trying to explain why he thinks that wisdom of God lies hidden in all knowledge and nature. I think maybe he is trying to connect them all through light and theology. But I agree with Bryan that it is a very powerful, and risky, statement to make.
ReplyDeleteI also think that Timmy summarized Bonaventure's connections very well in that last paragraph. I think that makes it easier to see how every aspect of knowledge and Scripture (and theology) are related.
ReplyDeleteWhile it was a fascinating text, I must agree with my peers when they pointed out that Bonaventure relies too heavily on scripture. As Mike mentioned, many of the original scriptures may have lost some things in translation or oral tradition. Much like a game of telephone, the meaning could be twisted or changed entirely. Then one must take into account that scripture was written my humans, and while being divinely inspired, is still susceptible to human error.
ReplyDeleteIn addition, there are so many books and gospels that never made it into the bible. So, while the selection of biblical texts may also have been divinely inspired, it is another channel through which fluctuations from the intended meaning my enter.
Then one must take a look at how scripture is interpreted. Vatican II offers us Dei Verbum as an explanation of how to interpret scriptures, and it teaches that only scripture directly pertaining to our salvation are 'perfectly written by God' so to speak. However they do not include a laundry list of what passages pertain directly to salvation so once again human error gets to mess with our heads.
However, while I have spent such space devoted to dismantling the method of his arguments, I can still respect what he is trying to say. However, when he asserts that he has clearly outlined his views and how he reached them I can find no support.
I applaud his efforts to consider science, but I dislike his dismissal of the arts and science as inferior means to sate our mortal and fleshy drives and desires.
I find Bonaventure's arguments to be far too reliant on scripture. In order to avoid becoming like a broken record and endlessly repeating the views of my peers, I shall limit myself to as follows. I find his attempts to correlate meaning between such different subjects to be rather insufficient. It was most definitely an admirable effort, however I can't shake the feeling that he is attempting to assign symbolism between fundamentally different subjects
ReplyDeleteUnlike everybody else in this discussion, what struck me when I read the text was not that Bonaventure relied too heavily on Scripture. That made perfect sense to me because, as a medieval writer and as a Catholic, Scripture was Bonaventure's way of understanding the world, and he believed in it's inerrancy. What struck me instead was how he integrated all forms of knowledge under one heading and attempted to show how the human person can use everything to point them towards God. I did become confused in some of his description on light - from a modern perspective, I cannot say that I am completely sure that this is entirely relevant, but I am looking forward to discussing it further and getting everyone's opinions during class. Regardless, I found the reading interesting, as it was an insight into a profoundly different perspective than I'd looked into before.
ReplyDeleteI still cannot say, in good consciousness, that I fully believe theology and revelation from scripture can be the final end of a logical epistemic structure.
ReplyDeleteAs the original post commented: "In all, Bonaventure concludes there are six illuminations all leading up to the illumination of glory. Since Sacred Scripture is the superior, all our knowledge should come to rest in Scripture according to Bonaventure. " Such a respect for scripture as superior would only come from believers, and thus, this system can really only be efficacious amongst those who follow a Christian belief.
Now, I think Chelsey brings up a good point. Perhaps we are caught up in semantics and are missing the actual purpose of the piece. If he is writing to explain knowledge to a believing Christian only, and is looking for a way to point all knowledge towards god (In a pseudo-platonic manner) then he is successful. If he is looking to keep this exclusively in the realm of theology, he may have more leeway. However, if he is looking to explain in a concrete sense how exactly knowledge comes to be, I believe he relies too heavily on a predetermined need for faith.
(P,S, I still thought it was really interesting)
Interesting thoughts, I want to bring up the scripture interpretation. As much as we would criticize the journey of the scripture, I highly doubt the main idea/point is missing. It would have probably gone through multiple hands but it would still contain the content that lights up or stimulate the mind of a particular individual. In the end its that same scripture that people find their form of truth within. Obviously not all stars shine so bright; hence not all would find that truth others see within the same scripture. Like most mentioned, material gets lost in translation but even those who read from primary language might not shine as bright as a person reading a translation. I am using the "shine" seeing as how he compares us to stars.
ReplyDelete