/lit/ - Literature

>>3178088

In Paradise Lost, yes. God is an ideal monarch (unlike the decidedly not-divine monarch, Charles I).

God represents mankinds wish to absolve himself of responsibility by becoming a slave.

>>3178109

So is God a dream of freedom?

Freedom from everything? Even responsibility?

>>3178120
Only for the weak.
True men already behave as they wish.

>>3178128

So does sin represent liberation?

Or is sin something outside of this altogether?

>>3178120
No, God is crushing obedience and responsibility.

Takes a real man to truly believe in God.

>>3178134
Is the nature of man to be an animal or to be a automaton?

>>3178134
>Takes a real man to be ordered around

I bet you're married

>>3178129
A man who holds no regard for anything cannot sin.
A man who seeks his own survival sins by harming himself.
A man who protects his family sins by neglecting them.
A man who involves himself in his community sins by betraying the group.
A man who loves the whole world sins by failing to improve the lives of everyone.

>>3178144

It takes a real man to take a calling larger than himself, be the cause from God or Humanity.

>>3178138

Man was born an animal.

Civilization turned him into an automaton.

Who knows what the next chapter will bring?

>>3178092
Er, tempting, but really? Satan to me is monarchy and governance in that poem, and God is in a completely other sphere. The notion of understanding God as an ideal monarch or governance as contrasted to Charles I still implies they work in the same field -- an idea Milton would've withdrawn from, I think, even if he loved the monarch. God in that poem seems the opposite of everything tied together in the idea of governance: his speeches are clotted, repetitive, the anti-rhetoric (and why should they be anything else? Isn't God's speech just the Truth over and again?) and he doesn't really govern, but provides the ground on which government and dissent can come in and out of being.

I like your idea. But I think Milton is more complex.

>>3178167
Your size fetish has little to do with being a real man.

>>3178209
I actually read Satan as being more Republican: he must give rousing (though duplicitous) speeches because he relies on his minions as a source of power. He derives his power from his followers, but that power is not guaranteed. He has to convince them to give him that power.

Meanwhile, God is explicitly called a monarch ("the Throne and Monarchy of God", "But he who reigns/ Monarch in Heav'n"). This is one of the things which makes Paradise Lost so complex and interesting to me. We know Milton's politics, and he seems to prefer Republicanism to Monarchy, but he makes the Supreme archetype of good a monarch. Thus the argument that Milton did not believe Monarchy to be inherently bad, but it required a perfect monarch. While Charles I claimed to be a divine monarch, at the end of the day, he was still a man (like Marvell says, "Nor call'd the gods, with vulgar spite,/ To vindicate his helpless right;"). So a Republic of fallible men is better than a fallible monarch; but because God is perfect and supremely benevolent, his monarchy is good.

>>3178209
To clarify more on this idea of "providing the ground on which government and dissent can come in and out of being": governance starts with self-governance, from which it becomes the self who decides to govern other men. Milton, in showing us a God who allows Adam and Eve a (faltering) form of self-governance, becomes the origin and guarantor of government in the world by virtue of staying outside it (not interfering - allowing Adam and Eve to fall - and thus allowing self-governance).

>>3178233
Why Republican? ALL power derives from followers.

>>3178233
See above. I still don't think we can compare human monarchy and divine monarchy - even as a sort of 'worst of' and 'best of' contrast - since God's "monarchy" (which you rightly point out is the poem's wording for it) is a particular kind of abdication.

>>3178220

Simple but sly. Not bad.

>>3178233
I think part of the problems here is that the language we're using causes mischief - because Milton isn't a Republican in a classical Greek sense, certainly, and he still has enormous interest in sovereignty and authority - his republicanism isn't in opposition to that. And that's ultimately what Satan represents - the arrogant individualistic challenge to properly-constituted authority.

And the other thing is that, I think, there's a complete disjunct between divine rulership and human rulership which is necessarily imperfect.

>>3178239
Power, maybe, but not authority. And I think the second is more important in general and certainly for Milton.

I'm >>3178244 and agree with you mostly. But that seems reductive on Satan too - to me he refuses to bend the knee not in a challenge to "properly-constituted" authority but in defence of it? As in, he dissents because he feels that the proper constitution of authority is violated in Jesus's sudden Employee Of The Month promotion.

There's not a solution - one of the reason why the poem is genius.

no

>>3178239
Divine Right does not derive power from its followers. Charles I, and most Continental Absolute Monarchs claimed to derive their power from God. They had no obligation to appease their subjects because their power came from above (God) rather than below (the people). Divine Monarchs don't derive their power from followers, but instead are meant to act as benevolent patriarchs.

>>3178244
But even though God "allows" Adam and Eve to fall, the terminology becomes tricky since God is omniscient, and Adam and Eve are really only "allowed" to do what God wants, since everything is part of his Divine Plan (in that God is all powerful and everything that happens ultimately comes back to him). But that brings up some ambiguous arguments of theology. But like I said earlier, it's really this difficulty in a clean interpretation which makes Paradise Lost such an intriguing read to me.

Ooops, >>3178267 was in reply to >>3178251.

>>3178276
Good points, and it feels like we're starting to get away from the poem and towards the problems of the Fall in theology (not that the too are distinct). Milton's own ambivalency for me is evidenced in the fact that Paradise Regained is NOT about the Crucifixion. A poem on Jesus's death would've clarified Paradise Lost in respect to a God who reigns in abdication ("why have thou forsaken me") and the extent to which this abdication is genuine or simply a movement of an even stronger omniscience (part of his divine plan). But Milton never turned to the subject - and maybe that's for the best.

>>3178276
>Adam and Eve are really only "allowed" to do what God wants, since everything is part of his Divine PLan (in that God is all powerful and everything that happens ultimately comes back to him)

>comes back to him

I don't agree: it comes from him.

>>3178247
Likewise, friend.

>>3178276
>But even though God "allows" Adam and Eve to fall, the terminology becomes tricky since God is omniscient, and Adam and Eve are really only "allowed" to do what God wants, since everything is part of his Divine Plan (in that God is all powerful and everything that happens ultimately comes back to him). But that brings up some ambiguous arguments of theology.

Well, this is just the question of free will and omniscience, isn't it? And I think it's fairly reasonable to say that foreknowledge does not diminish freedom of will - that is, the fact that God knows what human beings are going to will in the future does not mean that their will is not free.

God is a dream of a universe that is constituted of two halves, a greater conscience and a worldly form, of which we are given a section at the time of our birth. God is a dream of free will, in which each of us is in full control of our small cut of the greater conscience in our minds, and our small cut of worldly existence in our bodies. God is a dream of, upon death, having both our mind and bodies reunited with the universe, in which we can also be reunited with those that have died in the past, and those that will die in the future, in eternal contentment, as we are everything. God is an idea that we are everything, we are the children of the universe, we love the universe for what it gives to us, and although we want to enjoy our time as a separated section of the universe interacting with the other separated sections, we look forward to the long term goal of accomplishing some sort of worldly task or goal before being ultimately reunited with our 'Father.'

>>3178318
On the other hand, when he made the first thing, he must have known how the following things would react to it. When he made Adam and Eve he must have been aware that he created them to be a certain way, and that by being that way they would eat the damned fruit. He could have created a chain of events that would lead to nothing but good things, without removing any free will.

>>3178349

So... was God a dream of good government?

>>3178483
No. God is a dream about a universe that actually cares for our well-being, as we are a part of it. However, from an atheist's view, it is uncaring and unbiased. I suggest reading The Stranger by Albert Camus, the narrator and main character gives a nice little speech in the last few pages regarding the topic.

>>3178506

I'm familiar with Camus. The Plague. The Stranger. The Myth of Sisyphus. And many other works by him.

However, a collection of individuals governed by the same principles seek communal purpose. God provides a sense of purpose. Would God not, for the sake of argument, be connected with prototypical ideas of government in that way? Or at least in some way?

>>3178088
Home work get out >>>/hm/

>>3178506


>God is a dream about a universe that actually cares for our well-being, as we are a part of it. However, from an atheist's view, it is uncaring and unbiased.

That's not exactly true. Traditional religions saw the world as uncaring and cruel. God has more often been an explanation as to why this apparent cruelty is and why man suffers in the universe and how he might turn things around for the better and/or escape the universe that, despite some of its beauty, is so uncaring. At least this has generally been the case for the Abrahamic religions.

>>3178506
>I suggest reading The Stranger by Albert Camus
>I suggest reading The Stranger by Albert Camus
>I suggest reading The Stranger by Albert Camus

lol, too perfect, man

>>3178524
Sure, if you grant God his universal qualities you can say that literally anything that exists is an aspect of him, including "government" however you define it.

>>3178543
Abrahamic religions are more about the Demiurge than the modern "god" informed by the new testament and natural philosophy. The demiurge is basically just a dickhead wizard like a greek god or native american spirit.

>>3178524
I never thought of it in that way, and yes, I can agree with that. I still do not personally believe God was created as a dream of an ideal government, but I can agree that he is connected to it.

>>3178543
I'm talking about more evangelical and modern religions, namely Christianity.

Also, see >>3178557

>>3178092
God wasn't an ideal monarch in Paradise Lost. He majorly fucked up with Adam and Eve.

>Hey guys have some free will but obey exactly what I say
>Gee I hope Satan doesn't make his way up here, maybe I should prevent that... nah.

Milton was criticizing the monarchy.

>>3178693
your argument seems to be that milton was criticizing god, as a stand-in for the monarchy

that's stupid and you're wrong

>>3178233
>Satan as being more Republican
Satan´s "republicanism" is just another in a long line of his lies and deceptions. While he appears to give weight to the opinions of his followers, the plan he adopts - the corruption of mankind - was "first devised / By Satan" (2. 379-80), and in the crucial question of how to carry it out Satan decrees he will do it alone, "and prevented all reply" (2. 467). Thus Satan is actually an autocrat using the appearance of democracy to control his followers more easily.

>>3178233
>because God is perfect and supremely benevolent, his monarchy is good

True. PL 6. 176-81:

God and Nature bid the same,
When he who rules is worthiest, and excells
Them whom he governs. This is servitude,
To serve th' unwise, or him who hath rebelld
Against his worthier, as thine now serve thee,
Thy self not free, but to thy self enthrall'd;

>>3178550
Why do we hate Camus again? Seems like a pretty new development.

>>3178850
i don't hate Camus, really, there's just something so perfect about "Have you heard of... ATHEISM??? There's this guy called Camus you may wish to check out who will educate you about this." and the attempt at using italics is the thing that really takes it over the top.

>Was

>>3178693
>>3178727

Yeah, I have to agree with the latter post here. God didn't really "fuck up" with the Fall, because the redemption of Man through Christ needed to happen because Good is more good when evil also exists (See: "Felix Culpa, Fortunate Fall")

>>3178823
And I definitely agree. That's what I meant when I called his speeches "duplicitous". Satan abuses Republicanism by seizing power amongst his followers through deceptive rhetoric.

>>3178867
[italic]How does one use italics?[/italic] I feel like a newfag.

>>3180028
[italics]Fuck.[/italics]

>>3178129
Sin is the ultimate form of being enslaved. You are subject to your whims and a slave to your desires. Does a drug addict or alcoholic looks free to you?

>>3182037
that's a real dumb way of conceptualizing the will brother

>>3178525

No