Pyhä Teresa ja keskiajan mystiikan teoriat

In my dissertation I have studied St Teresa (1515-1582) in the light of medieval mystical theories. I have two main levels in my research: historical and theological. On the historical level I study St Teresa s personal history in the context of her family and the Spanish society. On the theological level I study both St Teresa s mysticism and her religious experience in the light of medieval mysticism. St Teresa wrote a book called Life , which is her narrative autobiography and story about her mystical spiritual formation. She reflected herself through biblical texts interpreting them in the course of the biblical hermeneutics like allegory, typology, tropology and anagogy. In addition to that she read others life stories from her period of time, but reflected herself only slightly through the sociological point of view. She used irony as a means to gain acceptance to her authority and motive to write. Her position has been described as a double bind because of writing at the request of educated men and to the non-educated women as she herself was uneducated. She used irony as a means to achieve valuation to women, to gain negative attributes connected to them and to gain authority to teach them mystical spirituality, the Bible and prayer. In this ironic tendency she was a feminist writer. In order to understand medieval mysticism I have written in the first chapter a review of the main trends in medieval mysticism in connection with the classical emotional theories. Two medieval mystical theories show an important role in St Teresa s mysticism. One is love mysticism and the other is the three partite way of mysticism (purification, illumination and union). The classic-philosophical emotional theories play a role in both patterns. The theory of love mysticism St Teresa interpreted in the traditional way stressing the spiritual meaning of love in connexion with God and neighbors. Love is an emotion, which is bound with other emotions, but all objects of love don t strengthen spiritual love. In the three partite way of mysticism purification means to find biblical values in life and to practice meditative self-knowledge theologically interpreted. In illumination human understanding has to be illuminated by God and united to mystical knowledge from God. St Teresa considered illumination a way to learn things. Illumination has also psychological aspects like recognition of many trials and pains, which come from life on earth. Theologically interpreted in illumination one should die to oneself, let oneself be transformed and renewed by God. I have also written a review of the modern philosophical discussion on personal identity where memory and mental experiences are important creators of personal identity. St Teresa bound medieval mystical teaching together with her personal religious experience. Her personal identity is by its character based on her narrative life story where mental experiences play important role. Previous researchers have labelled St Teresa as an ecstatic person whose experiences produced ecstatic phenomena to the mysticism. These phenomena combined with visions have in one respect made of her a person who has brought physical and visionary tendencies to theology. In spite of that she also represents a modern tendency trying to give words to experiences, which at first seem to be exceptional and extreme and which are easily interpreted as one-sided either physical or sexual or unsaid. In other respect I have stressed the personality of St Teresa that was represented as both strong and weak. The strong personality for her is demonstrated by religious faith and in its practice. The weak personality was for her a natural personal identity. St Teresa saw a unifying aspect in almost all. Firstly, her mysticism was aimed towards union with God and secondly, the unifying aspects and common rules in human relations in community life were central. Union with God is based on the fact that in a soul God is living in its centre, where God is present in the Trinitarian way. The picture of God in ourselves is a mirror but to get to know God better is to recognize his/her presence in us. When the soul recognizes itself as a dwelling place of God, it knows itself as God knows him/herself. There is equality between God and the soul. To be a Christian means to participate in God in his Trinitarian being. The participation to God is a process of divinization that puts a person into transformation, change and renewal. The unitive aspect concludes also knowledge of opposites between experience of community and solitude as well as community and separateness. As a founder of monasteries St Teresa practiced theology of poverty. She renewed the monastic life founding a rule called discalced that stressed ascetic tendencies. Supporters of her work were after the difficulties in the beginning both society and churchly leaders. She wrote about the monasteries including in her description at times seriousness at times humor and irony. Her stories are said to be picaresque histories that contain stories of ordinary laymen and many unexpected occasions. She exercised a kind of Bakhtinian dialogue in her letters. St Teresa stressed the virtues like sacrifice, determination and courage in the monastic life. Most of what she taught of virtues is based on biblical spirituality but there are also psychological tendencies in her writings. The theological pedagogical advice is mixed with psychology, but she herself made no distinction between different aspects in her teaching. To understand St Teresa and her mysticism is to recognize that she mixes her personal religious experience and mysticism, which widens mysticism to religious experience in a new way, although this corresponds also the very definition of mysticism. St Teresa concentrated on mental-spiritual experiences and the aim of her mystical teaching was to produce a human mind well cured like a garden that has God as its gardener.

Eru Ilúvatar : Jumala J.R.R. Tolkienin legendariumissa

The purpose of my research is to inquire into the essence and activity of God in the legendarium of the English philologist and writer J.R.R. Tolkien (1892-1973). The legendarium, composed of Tolkien’s writings related to Middle-earth, was begun when he created two Elvish languages, Quenya based on Finnish, Sindarin based on Welsh. Tolkien developed his mythology inspired by Germanic myths and The Kalevala. It is a fictional ancient history set in our world. The legendarium is monotheistic: God is called Eru ‘The One’ and Ilúvatar ‘Father of All’. Eru is the same as the Christian God, for Tolkien wanted to keep his tales consistent with his faith. He said his works were Christian by nature, with the religious element absorbed into the story and the symbolism. In The Silmarillion, set in the primeval ages of Middle-earth, the theological aspects are more conspicuous, while in The Lord of the Rings, which brings the stories to an end, they are mostly limited to symbolic references. The legendarium is unified by its realistic outlook on creaturely abilities and hope expressing itself as humbly defiant resistance. ”The possibility of complexity or of distinctions in the nature of Eru” is a part of the legendarium. Eru Ilúvatar is Trinitarian, as per Tolkien’s faith. Without contextual qualifiers, Eru seems to refer to God the Father, like God in the Bible. Being the creator who dwells outside the world is attributed to Him. The Holy Spirit is the only Person of the Trinity bestown with names: the Flame Imperishable and the Secret Fire. When Eru creates the material world with His word, He sends the Flame Imperishable to burn at the heart of the world. The Secret Fire signifies the Creative Power that belongs to God alone, and is a part of Him. The Son, the Word, is not directly mentioned, but according to one writing Eru must step inside the world in order to save it from corruption, yet remain outside it at the same time. The inner structure of the legendarium refers to the need for a future salvation. The creative word of Eru, “Eä! Let these things Be!”, probably has a connection with the Logos in Christianity. Thus we can find three “distinctions” in Eru: a Creator who dwells outside the world, a Sustainer who dwells inside it and a Redeemer who shall step inside it. Some studies of Tolkien have claimed that Eru is distant and remote. This seems to hold water only partially. Ilúvatar, the Father of All, has a special relation with the Eruhíni, His Children, the immortal Elves and the mortal Men. He communicates with them directly only through the Valar, who resemble archangels. Nevertheless, only the Children of Eru can fight against evil, because their tragic fortunes turn evil into good. Even though religious activities are scarce among them, the fundamental faith and ultimate hope of the “Free Peoples” is directed towards Eru. He is present in the drama of history as the “Author of the Story”, who at times also interferes with its course through catastrophes and eucatastrophes, ‘good catastrophes’. Eru brings about a catastrophe when evil would otherwise bring good to an end, and He brings about a eucatasrophe when creaturely strength is not sufficent for victory. Victory over corruption is especially connected with mortal Men, of whom the most (or least) insignificant people are the Hobbits. However, because of the “primeval disaster” (that is, fall) of Mankind, ultimate salvation can only remain open, a hope for the far future.

Kristallivalheita : Itsepetos filosofisen tulkinnan lähtökohtana eräissä draaman klassikoissa

The philosophical problem of self-deception focuses the relation between desire, advantage, evidence and harm. A self-deceptive person is irrational because he or she belives or wants to belive contrary to the available evidence. The study focuses on different forms of self-deception that come out in certain classical Western dramas. The first self-deception forms are: "S knows that ~p but still belives that p because he wants that ~p", "S wants that p and therefore belives that p.", "S belives that p against evidence t because he wants to belive that p.", "S belives that p if t but S would belive that p even if ~t because S wants to belive that p.", "S belives that p (even if there is t that ~p) because S is ignorant of it." and "S belives that p (even if there is t that ~p) because of ignorant of t due to an internal deception." The main sources on self-deception are the views of contemporary researchers of the subject, such as Robert Audi, Marcia Baron, Bas C. van Fraassen, Mark Johnston, Mike W. Martin, Brian MaLaughlin, Alfred Mele, Amélie Oksenberg Rorty, William Ruddick and Stephen L. White. In this study it is claimed that Shakespeare´s Othello presents self-deception as a tragic phenomenom from witch it follows deceptions and murders. Moliére´s Tartuffe deals with a phony hypocrite´s attempts at cheating. Ibsen´s Wild Duck defends the necessity of vital lies. Beckett´s Waiting for Godot deals with the self-deception witch is related to the waiting of the supernatural rescuer. Miller´s The Death of a Salesman tells about a man who, while pursuing the American myth of success, winds both himself and his family into the skeins of self-deception. They are studied with a Barthesian method that emphasizes the autonomy of literary work and its interpretation independently of the author´s personal history and social conditions. Self-deception has been regarded as an immoral way of thinking or way of action. However, vital lies show the necessity or necessity of the self-deception when it brings joy and optimism to the human being and supports his or her self-esteem and does not cause a suffering or damage, either to self or others. In the study, the processual character of self-deception is brought out.

Ethics and Aesthetics : Intersections in Iris Murdoch's Philosophy

The study addresses the question concerning the relationship between ethics and aesthetics in the philosophy of Iris Murdoch. The main argument is that Murdoch s philosophy cannot be accurately understood without an understanding of the relationship she sees between the aesthetic experience and morality. Reading Murdoch s philosophy with this relationship in mind shows that it must be considered as a relevant alternative to the main forms of aesthetic-ethical theories. The study consists of seven previously published articles and a summary. It shows that Murdoch belongs to a tradition of philosophers who seek to broaden the scope of ethics by reference to aesthetic value and aesthetic experience. She sees an attitude responsible for aesthetic experiences as relevant for morality. However, she does not collapse morality into aesthetic experience. The two meet on the level of the subject s attitude towards its object, but there is a distinction between the experiences that accompany the attitudes. Aesthetic experiences can function as a clue to morals in that they present in a pleasing manner moral truths which otherwise might be psychologically too difficult to face. Murdoch equates the aesthetic attitude with virtuous love characterized by unselfish attention to its object. The primary object of such love is in Murdoch s account another human individual in her particularity. She compares the recognition of the other person as a particular existence to the experience of the Kantian sublime and offers her own version of the true sublime which is the experience of awe in the face of the infinity of the task of understanding others. One of the most central claims in Murdoch s philosophy is that human consciousness is evaluatively structured. This claim challenges the distinction between facts and values which has had an immense influence on modern moral philosophy. One argument with which Murdoch supports her claim is the nature of great literature. According to her, the standard of greatness in literature is the authors awareness of the independent existence of individuals in the particularity of their evaluative consciousnesses. The analysis of the standard of greatness in literature is also Murdoch s only argument for the claim that the primary object of the loving unselfish attention is the other particular individual. She is convinced that great literature reveals a deep truth about the human condition with its capacity to capture the particular. Abstract philo¬sophical discourse cannot compete with this capacity but it should take truths revealed by literature seriously in its theorising. Recognising this as Murdoch s stand on the question of the relation between philosophy and literature as forms of human discourse settles whether she is part of what has been called philosophy s turn to literature. The answer is yes.