Somewhat based on a theme in a post by the Maverick Philosopher, and being something I’d given thought to a little bit previously, it is impossible for a person to live an examined life that doesn’t reveal certain tensions between their actions and beliefs. Not all tensions are of contradiction between an action and a belief; sometimes the tension is between two actions or two beliefs.
There are four options Vallicella lays out;
1. Deny the tension by eliminating Athens in favor of Jerusalem.
2. Deny the tension by eliminating Jerusalem in favor Athens.
3. Live the tension as a philosopher who takes seriously the claims and demands of revelation.
4. Live the tension as a religionist who take seriously the claims and demands of philosophy.
Being someone who would be described as a religionist, I would be described by the 4th branch of Vallicella’s options, considering I am also aware of the tension between philosophy and religion and the fact that I cannot reject philosophy. But Vallicella calls the first two options non-starters. Why?
I think the reason is principally that a life void of tension is clearly one in which a person practices no self-examination. But we must examine ourselves; therefore we will find tension. It is like if you take a person who finds no contradiction between their actions and their ethical beliefs, then that is probably because they don’t have a comprehensive ethics worth speaking of.
So tension is something brought into the world just by the contradicting pulls of the human nature; one that pulls us down to our animal lusts and desires, while our humanity pulls us to overcome it and live the examined life.
But there are other tensions inherent to our human nature than fallen desires and a (potentially) enlightened.
Take, for instance, the tension between government and individualism. Government is natural; it’s what occurs spontaneously when people band together for protection from exterior threats. But on the other hand, individualism is also natural; people have a right to live their life in their own way and should be free from the threat of violence as long as they don’t bring violence against other people’s rights. Both are perfectly natural, yet government and individualism are opposed.
Now, why is there tension? Even procuring an answer would invite a tension, it seems.
Leave a comment