Wisdom: Platonic and Christian
In a letter lamenting human folly, Marsilio Ficino presents many examples, such as when he said, “The magistrates forbid murder, and allow instruments for killing men to be made everywhere.”[1] Ficino points to an obvious fact: as long as we provide the means for sin, such as murder, we should not be surprised such sins occur. Moreover, if we do not properly prepare people to a life of virtue, which includes the practice of prudence, we should not be surprised that they will take what is offered them and use it to their detriment. “They desire an excellent crop of men, yet they do not take sufficient care of the seedling, that is the child.”[2] This is manifest, he points out, in how we pursue our own selfish gains, no matter who it hurts. We value money more than anything else:
How many people will you find who value a man as much as money; who cultivate themselves in the same way as they cultivate their fields and other affairs; who bring up the family with as much care as many rear their horses, dogs and birds; who consider how grave is the waste of time? In spending money we are very mean, in expending time we are extravagant beyond measure. How many can you name who recognise the poverty of their soul?[3]
Ficino’s words should remind us as to what is central to our lives. Yes, we might be able to make a place for ourselves in the world, but at what expense? Jesus, in his complement to the beatitudes gives the following woes, woes which are in accord with Ficino’s wisdom:
But woe to you that are rich, for you have received your consolation. Woe to you that are full now, for you shall hunger. Woe to you that laugh now, for you shall mourn and weep. Woe to you, when all men speak well of you, for so their fathers did to the false prophets. (Lk.6:24-26 RSV)
What we own today can be lost tomorrow. We can try to preserve our way of life, but if we do so at the expense of others, we will find that Jesus’ other warning will come true: “Whoever seeks to gain his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life will preserve it” (Lk. 17:33 RSV). This is not to say wealth is to be rejected, that everyone needs to be poor, but rather, we must understand what such wealth is for: the benefit of humanity. Those who are granted it are meant to be stewards, sharing it with others, not hording it up for themselves:
And he told them a parable, saying, “The land of a rich man brought forth plentifully; and he thought to himself, `What shall I do, for I have nowhere to store my crops?’ And he said, `I will do this: I will pull down my barns, and build larger ones; and there I will store all my grain and my goods. And I will say to my soul, Soul, you have ample goods laid up for many years; take your ease, eat, drink, be merry.’ But God said to him, `Fool! This night your soul is required of you; and the things you have prepared, whose will they be?’ So is he who lays up treasure for himself, and is not rich toward God” (Luke 12:16-21 RSV).
What ties many evils together is the attempt to make an idol out of oneself, and to demand the sacrifice of everyone and everything for the preservation of that self. People accumulate weapons for “self defense,” thinking that we are allowed no expense in the defense of the self. This is far from the Christian ideal, the ideal of Christ who shows us the path of self-surrender. People accumulate wealth for themselves, thinking if they own it then anything they want to do with it is acceptable. This, too, is far from the Christian ideal, which sees the world and all that is within it as God’s. Those who have been given much, much is expected of them. They starve themselves and their souls as they accumulate at the expense of others. We must never confuse ourselves as God, and place ourselves as the center of being. This is what it is to be like god in a sinful sense: to try to displace God in the hierarchy of being. And this is what is done when we try to claim absolute rights over any part of the world. Any system which is founded upon this ideology must be, in the end, Satanic, and the evils it produces are going to be the byproducts of this Satanic core. This is not to say we should not deal with the evils which plague us as a society, but we must do so wisely. “I beg you, my friends, let us seek the same ends that we are already seeking, but let us not continue to seek them in the same place. The man who believes he will find one thing in its opposite is mad and miserable.”[4]
[1] Marsilio Ficino, Letter to Piero Vanni, in The Letters of Marsilio Ficino Volume I. trans. Members of the Language Department of the School of Economics, London (London: Shephard-Walwyn, 1975; repr. 1988), 104.
[2] ibid., 104.
[3] ibid., 105.
[4] ibid., 105.
Comments are closed.
There is something uniquely subversive to modern expectations about Ficino’s moral writings, if only because they represent a very ancient attitude towards the spirit that we do not have. There is nothing in there about dark nights of the soul and consolations, no individualistic ascetisicm and talk about how much one should love Jesus. Just straigtforward talk about virtue, and how to be virtuous. With devotio moderna and its progeny, we have systems in which we can be fooled into thinking that virtue is a feeling, a burning in the bosom, when in reality it is an action.
But even more subversive is Ficino’s Platonic counsel to “rejoice in the present”. If we all followed that, where would there be room for upward mobility? Consumerism? Capitalism? Modernity is a blind faith in the future. We will all be happy in the future. God forbid that we should only look here to the present for our happiness! If we did that, we might actually take care of the duties to our loved ones and our community that are right in front of us, rather than “participate” in imagined communities like Glenn Beck rallies in Washington or liberation theology seminars in Brazil. If we were only to rejoice in the present, we might actually change what we can change right in front of us rather than obsess over things over which we have no control.
Modern society wants to brainwash us into thinking that our lives are meaningless, monotonous, and boring, unless we have / buy X. X can be social justice, a new car, the newest exercise trend, the other political party etc. Ficino knew what he was talking about, even if he did live almost six hundred years ago.
“All things are directed from goodness to goodness. Rejoice in the present; set no value on property, seek no honors. Avoid excess; avoid activity. Rejoice in the present.”
Yes, the whole rejoicing in the present is classical and something entirely lost in modernity with its push for constant “progression” and “change.” It is shared by mystics of all cultures, the desire to get to the root of the present, and I think because the West has lost this (not entirely for the intellectuals, to be sure), this is one of the reasons why people look to the East as it tells people how to get to such presence. Of course, I think there is more to the East than this, but I can understand why this is the primary reason people explore the East.
“What ties many evils together is the attempt to make an idol out of oneself, and to demand the sacrifice of everyone and everything for the preservation of that self.”
This is well put, Henry. I’m of the view that what we call the self is in some sense a narrative construct. Therefore, the idol of the self is an idol made of self-constituting narratives. I sense a post in my future…
Kyle
Oh yes, the self is a narrative construct which needs to be deconstructed, among other things.
Without falling into the Anglo-western prejudices of academia and its tendency to call things “of the East” or even worse “Oriental” one can find some very interesting treatments of the idea of self in non-European cultures, treatments which are frequently dismissed out of hand because of their Asian or South Asian origins. Perhaps the most horrific treatments have come from those who have “journeyed to the East” out of dissatisfaction with the hollow worship of Anglo-American technology and “science” to find meaning. Alan Watts was perhaps the most tragic of the popularizers.
I recommend a reading of the Prajnaparamita Sutra and its various commentaries and to give some thought. It is better to read original texts even if only n translation. Also of note would be reading the Futuhat al Makkiyya by Muhiyuddin Ibnul Arabi, translations by Michel Chodkiewicz in French or the French translated into English by Chittick would be illuminating.
It is great that this blog is showing interest in Marsilio Ficino.
A good study of Evagrios Pontos would be fine thing too.
LeoRufus
A few things. One, I’ve studied and continue to study the East, with Vijñānavāda as being an academic specialty of mine. I was not speaking against the search Eastward, but rather, pointing out why many have done so. For me, I find it sad that much of the wisdom of the East is lost, and indeed, misconstrued, when this is the extent of the search. Buddhist logic, Buddhist psychology, Buddhist epistemology all bring up valuable insights.
Second, Evagrius is indeed worthy of study, though I think his insights are brought forward, with even better content, in St Maximos the Confessor. There is much dialogue that can be hard between St Maximos and Buddhism (especially with St Maximos’ discussion of pleasure/pain as cycles which are overcome by Christ).
Third, Ficino is a major influence on me. I might not always discuss him on here, but the past few days I thought it would be nice to do a few posts based upon him if for no other reason than to introduce him to people who might find his work interesting.
Henry, could you give a little background on Ficino for those of us who are not as well read?
It was an interesting post. It gets at what I am starting to think might be a central demand that the Jesus of the canonical Gospels makes on us: give up ownership over a material possessions and eventually our very being.
Ok. There is much which can be said about Ficino, but here are a few things:
1) he lived in 15th century Florence, and was chosen by the Medici to translate the whole of the Platonic corpus into Latin. He was the first to do so (this includes Plato and many of the Neo-Platonic authors). This led him to “found” the new “Platonic Academy.”
2) he was also a priest, and his tomb is in the Dumo.
3) he was, in many respects, central to the renaissance — he helped develop the arts, to make those who produce works of art as seen as more than mere carpenters, while he was himself a specialist in music (called the new Orpheus, and some trace the development of opera to him)
4) he was also a doctor, though his medical treatises were controversial
5) he helped develop the notion of a perennial philosophy (he didn’t use the term), and saw unity between many ancient philosophical traditions (especially the Platonic, Mosaic, and Hermetic)
6) his own work also developed a new understanding of love (“Platonic love”)
7) his major treatise was his Platonic Theology which combined his Dominican background with Platonic thought, working especially to discuss the immortality of the soul (his work led to a conciliar definition supporting the immortality of the soul)
“Second, Evagrius is indeed worthy of study, though I think his insights are brought forward, with even better content, in St Maximos the Confessor.”
Or Cassian in the West….
Sure, we can find many influences of Evagrius and Cassian is very important in bringing the tradition West.
Henry, that’s a pretty darn tame description of Ficino. I think, being a son of a physician, Ficino saw himself primarily as a healer, whether of soul, body, or spirit. He was also an astrologer, a magus, and a compiler of various types of occult wisdom. I think he is the perfect example of what scholars now call, “bricolage”. In other words, I think he wore many hats for various occasions. It is pretty clear that he saw paganism as more than a preparation for the Gospel.He would read Plato from the pulpit of the church, and sing the Orphic hymns to the pagan gods on his lyre. Although I hate that term, I would have to call him the West’s first major syncretist, but he wouldn’t be the last by any means.
And I mean all of the above in a good way. It should not be construed as a criticism of Ficino by any means, because I am the same way in many respects.
I know, Arturo, it was tame, but just was meant as a quick intro.