Home | Philosophy | General

Cross-Cultural Dilemmas in Abelard’s Dialogue Between a Philosopher, a Jew and a Christian
By: Tamela Ice

Two of Peter Abelard’s works, Ethics (or “Know Thyself) and the Dialogue are concerned with positioning ethics (i.e., the discipline of morals) in relation to various methods of human assessment, encompassing rules imposed by civil and religious institutions. Following Marilyn McCord Adams’ model, the realm of ethics in Abelard is characterized by two fundamental questions:
(Q1) Where and what is the ultimate good/evil?
(Q2) What is the procedure by which humans may attain the ultimate good?
The Philosopher and the Christian are in accord with regard to the importance of these questions. Moreover, both interlocutors agree that insofar as “true happiness is the enjoyment of the ultimate good,” the inference is made that Q2 leads to the question:
(Q3) What is the route to true human happiness?
As theists, the three interlocutors in the Dialogue concur that the ultimate question is:
(Q4) What is the salvation of my soul?
In this paper, I will explicate the responses of the three traditions represented: Judaism, Christianity, and Hellenistic philosophy. I will point out that the views postulated lead to slightly inconsistent responses to Q4, regarding one’s salvation. Insofar as the Dialogue is incomplete, I will offer a suggestion as to how Abelard might resolve the dilemma.

The Philosopher provides a distinction between “natural justice – what human reason common to all races and nations dictates ought to be done “ – and positive justice, which depends on custom or written authority. Positive justice addresses civil laws, identifies crimes, regulates trials, and determines punishment. According to the Philosopher, the Jewish and Christian religions portray Divine law as a combination of moral prescriptions (e.g., the Ten Commandments) and positive law (as in sacramental regulations, rites of initiation – circumcision for the Jews and baptism for the Christians – and other rules of the Hebrew Bible).

The Jew and the Philosopher agree that humans are obligated to observe natural law. The issue is whether following other prescriptions of Jewish law are necessary for the salvation of one’s soul. The Philosopher questions such rituals as circumcision, Sabbath rest, prohibition of exogamy, and sharing a meal with non-Jews. How, the philosopher wonders, does adherence to these rites lead to salvation? Was salvation impossible before these laws were established?

All three interlocutors agree that it is appropriate that God’s will be known to humans through some form of law and the route to salvation requires adherence to God’s will. The Philosopher questions whether Jewish law is indeed God’s law. The Jew contends that regardless of whether this is the case, observing the Jewish laws would be pleasing to God. The assumption is that if acts are pleasing to God, salvation will not be denied.

The Jew does not offer the Philosopher incentive for accepting Judaism as the one true path to salvation. Pragmatically, the Jew’s argument that it is pleasing to God to follow certain precepts works as well with the non-Jew. The Philosopher’s main objection is that “circumcision, dietary laws, and the Holiness Code are irrelevant to true ethics.” Religious rituals focus on earthly rewards and punishments whereas God and morals “look to the heart.”

The Philosopher points out that Hebrew Scripture provides examples of Jews and Gentiles, before and after the establishment of Jewish laws, who were saved by adherence to the natural law to love God and one’s neighbor without external regulations. Physical acts are insufficient for salvation because they are not performed out of a concern for personal and material gain, not out of love. Thus the Philosopher concludes that adherence to Jewish laws is not the path to salvation.

For the Christian, salvation (the ultimate good or happiness) is not to be identified with human virtue because Divine happiness is greater. Thus, salvation of one’s soul relies on positioning oneself so that one is “so absolutely removed from sin that not only does one not sin but one cannot sin either.”

Again, the interlocutors agree that humans ought to live morally. The Hellenistic view of the Philosopher urges us to virtue for its own sake in this world, which does not allow for complete freedom from the possibility to sin. The Christian, on the other hand, advocates virtue “with a better reason or hope – freedom affliction, impeccability, and beatific vision of God in a future life.”

The Philosopher and the Christian agree that moral education is the route to salvation. Moreover, both agree that prudence, justice, fortitude, and temperance are of great importance. The Christian, however, rejects the Philosopher’s contention that all virtues are equal. The Christian maintains that the virtues are distinct and reason, experience, and authority concur that virtues “come in degrees and different humans exemplify them in different patterns.”

Thus far, the main point of contention between the Philosopher and the Christian is in whether one’s focus should be on living morally in and for this life or the afterlife. The dialogue is incomplete and this issue is not sufficiently resolved.

The goal of the Philosopher is to determine which belief system provides the correct path to salvation. Abelard’s role in the Dialogue is that of judge. Again, the discussion is incomplete so we are not privileged to the final decision. At best, all that can be offered is speculation with regard to what Abelard might conclude.

The claim that Jewish law is the route to salvation, for the Jew and non-Jew alike is rejected by the Philosopher. Abelard would reject the claim that performance of ritual is the determining factor with regard to salvation. Throughout his Ethics he stresses that acts, in and of themselves, are amoral. It is the state of one’s mind when one acts, or one’s intention, that determines the morality of an act. Insofar as the Philosopher and the Jew agree that one should live morally and follow God’s law, they disagree as to what these are. It does not appear that Abelard would recommend Judaism as the best route to salvation.

It is difficult to know what Abelard, as judge, would conclude with regard to Christianity. He allows the Christian to revise his arguments (an accommodation he did not offer the Jew), a move that may tempt one to assume he is moving toward acceptance of the Christian view. It is necessary to bear in mind that Abelard is confronting Christian authority from within Christianity. What Abelard objects to is blind adherence to rules imposed by human authority which cannot be proven as coming from God. Moreover, Abelard is not convinced that what Christianity teaches with regard to what it means to live a moral life follows from reason.

I suspect that the conclusion of the Dialogue would show the Christian view to be modified in such a way that Christianity would be proclaimed as the best path to salvation. This is mere speculation, however.

The question remains as to whether the diversity in beliefs is tolerated in Abelard. In my opinion, particular practices within a religious group would be accepted. However, would Abelard consider adherence to these practices to be living a moral life? That, for Abelard, would depend on one’s intention in following laws and performing the rituals. If the individual believes his acts to be in accord with God’s will, then Abelard would accept this as moral. If, however, adherence to laws and ritual is for the purpose of procuring material gain, Abelard would argue that one is not living a moral life. In the end, based on my speculation, Abelard would advocate a limited tolerance. The one right path to salvation remains an unresolved issue.
.

Article Source: http://journal.ilovephilosophy.com

Please Rate this Article

 

Not yet Rated

Click the XML Icon Above to Receive General Articles Via RSS!
Additional Articles From - Home | Philosophy | General
Sign Up as an Author.
Submit Articles
Member Login
Top Authors
Most Popular Articles
Submission Guidelines
Ezine Notifications
Article RSS Feeds
New Stuff
Forum
Link to Us
Contact Us

Powered by Article Dashboard