January 24, 2013
Benedict XVI on Christian Hope Invokes Adorno and Horkheimer
Benedict XVI quotes Negative Dialects:
In the modern era, the idea of the Last Judgement has faded into the background: Christian faith has been individualized and primarily oriented towards the salvation of the believer's own soul, while reflection on world history is largely dominated by the idea of progress. The fundamental content of awaiting a final Judgement, however, has not disappeared: it has simply taken on a totally different form. The atheism of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries is—in its origins and aims—a type of moralism: a protest against the injustices of the world and of world history. A world marked by so much injustice, innocent suffering, and cynicism of power cannot be the work of a good God. A God with responsibility for such a world would not be a just God, much less a good God. It is for the sake of morality that this God has to be contested. Since there is no God to create justice, it seems man himself is now called to establish justice. If in the face of this world's suffering, protest against God is understandable, the claim that humanity can and must do what no God actually does or is able to do is both presumptuous and intrinsically false. It is no accident that this idea has led to the greatest forms of cruelty and violations of justice; rather, it is grounded in the intrinsic falsity of the claim. A world which has to create its own justice is a world without hope. No one and nothing can answer for centuries of suffering. No one and nothing can guarantee that the cynicism of power—whatever beguiling ideological mask it adopts—will cease to dominate the world. This is why the great thinkers of the Frankfurt School, Max Horkheimer and Theodor W. Adorno, were equally critical of atheism and theism. Horkheimer radically excluded the possibility of ever finding a this-worldly substitute for God, while at the same time he rejected the image of a good and just God. In an extreme radicalization of the Old Testament prohibition of images, he speaks of a “longing for the totally Other” that remains inaccessible—a cry of yearning directed at world history. Adorno also firmly upheld this total rejection of images, which naturally meant the exclusion of any “image” of a loving God. On the other hand, he also constantly emphasized this “negative” dialectic and asserted that justice —true justice—would require a world “where not only present suffering would be wiped out, but also that which is irrevocably past would be undone”. This, would mean, however—to express it with positive and hence, for him, inadequate symbols—that there can be no justice without a resurrection of the dead. Yet this would have to involve “the resurrection of the flesh, something that is totally foreign to idealism and the realm of Absolute spirit”.
Posted by Robin Varghese at 07:46 AM | Permalink






















Comments
is nothing sacred to the pope?
Posted by: specter of adorno | Jan 24, 2013 4:31:58 PM
I've seen this all so many times before. Apologetics. We start with what is known to be true, and then create a set of syllogisms that lead to the predetermined truth. Since we know there is a God, and that God must be good, then all the nasty stuff that happens in human history must be set right by a good and loving God. Therefore, there is a resurrection of the flesh, so that the flesh can enjoy later, what was denied earlier. It is a variation on the argument from 'justice.'
I like Karen Armstrong's admonition to religions. They should stop trying to make up answers for problems that have no answers. Instead, their role should be to help people deal with the horrible things that happen in life, and that defy any meaningful answer. The anguished questions of "Why?" need to be answered more honestly with "We do not know." Life is suffering [among other things], but from suffering it is possible for us to learn compassion and, perhaps, find some wisdom.
Posted by: Norman Costa | Jan 24, 2013 11:33:32 PM
Norman: You're right -- honesty is the best policy in this area as in others. But I'm afraid that the honest answer that there is no "answer" to suffering that would entail a Sky Superhero fixing everything is just too honest for many people. They just have to believe, and if their intellectual conscience bothers them there's always a Plantinga or such-like philosopher to give them the assurance that religion is intellectually respectable after all (see the recent op-ed by a Notre Dame philosopher in the New York Times, for example.
Posted by: JonJ | Jan 25, 2013 5:38:19 PM
The idea, only sometimes to do with religion, that suffering is (somehow) redemptive will die awfully hard. It has enabled many to endure grief, loss and hardship that would otherwise have crushed them. If you give that idea up, you will find many more people weighing the losses against the gains and heading straight for the nearest Swiss-style Assisted Suicide Center. Sure, "we don't know" -- but we know it is probably better to endure, and we attach some value to what we learn through devastating crises. There is no human being who doesn't need a lesson in compassion, and suffering can be exactly that, if we survive it.
Posted by: Elatia Harris | Jan 25, 2013 8:38:15 PM
Elatia, George Santayana made a very good point about the idea of redemptive suffering: "If pain could have cured us we should long ago have been saved."
Posted by: Georg | Jan 26, 2013 10:31:40 AM
Georg, he's not wrong. But then there will never be that "control group" subset of humanity to settle the question once and for all.
Posted by: Elatia Harris | Jan 26, 2013 11:32:42 AM
An earlier analysis of Marx, and Heidegger, in the Pope's Spe Salvi:
http://readingthemaps.blogspot.com/2009/10/is-pope-marxist.html
Posted by: Luther Blissett | Jan 31, 2013 7:48:39 PM
Post a comment