The purpose of the paper is to show a mutual interaction of Platonic and Christian ideas in the pear theft narrative from Book Two of the Confessions. Augustine is provocatively questioning the Platonic theory of good, evil, and love by suggesting that in the theft he loved evil itself. He is considering three possible explanations, but is not fully content with any of them. Not having any better theory than the Platonic one, Augustine is suggesting that moral evil is completely beyond understanding. What is new in Augustine’s provocative analysis is placing the irrationality and incomprehensibility of moral evil in the context of the “I-Thou” relationship of the soul with God.
Purchase
Buy instant access (PDF download and unlimited online access):
Institutional Login
Log in with Open Athens, Shibboleth, or your institutional credentials
Personal login
Log in with your brill.com account
For summaries see E. Kevane, ‘Christian Philosophy: the Intellectual Side of Augustine’s Conversion’, Augustinian Studies 17 (1986), 49-83 and R. Crouse, ‘Paucis mutatis verbis: St. Augustine’s Platonism’, in R. Dodaro, G. Lawless (eds.), Augustine and His Critics: Essays in Honour of Gerald Bonner (London – New York, 2000), 37-50. Cf. also R. Sorabji, Time, Creation, and the Continuum: Theories in Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages (Ithaca, 1986), 163-73; J.J. McEvoy, ‘Neoplatonism and Christianity: Influence, Syncretism or Discernment?’, in T. Finan, V. Twomey (eds.), The Relationship between Neoplatonism and Christianity (Dublin, 1992), 155-70; P. Cary, Augustine’s Invention of the Inner Self. The Legacy of a Christian Platonist (Oxford, 2000), 45-60; C.G. Vaught, Encounters with God in Augustine’s Confessions (Albany, 2004), 37-42; B. Dobell, Augustine’s Intellectual Conversion: the Journey from Platonism to Christianity (Cambridge, 2009).
Rist, Plotinus, 120. Cf. also J.N. Deck, Nature, Contemplation, and the One. A Study in the Philosophy of Plotinus (Toronto, 1967), 34-42.
O’Brien, Théodicée Plotinienne, 48. Cf. also D. O’Brien, ‘Plotinus on Matter and Evil’, in L.P. Gerson (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Plotinus (Cambridge, 1996), 185-7.
Cf. R.D. Williams, ‘Good For Nothing? Augustine On Creation’, Augustinian Studies 25 (1994), 11.
J. Wetzel, ‘Splendid Vices and Secular Virtues: Variations on Milbank’s Augustine’, Journal of Religious Ethics 32, 2 (2004), 276.
Cf. G.W. Schlabach, ‘Friendship As Adultery: Social Reality and Sexual Metaphor in Augustine’s Doctrine of Original Sin’, Augustinian Studies 23 (1992), 130-34.
L. Asher, ‘The Dangerous Fruit of Augustine’s Confessions’, Journal of the American Academy of Religion 66, 2 (1998), 247.
Cf. J.C. Cavadini, ‘The Darkest Enigma: Reconsidering the Self in Augustine’s Thought’, Augustinian Studies 38,1 (2007), 119-123 and 128; J.P. Kenney, ‘Confession and the Contemplative Self in Augustine’s Early Works’, Augustinian Studies 38,1 (2007), 135-7 and 146. About the role of pride in Augustine’s concept of sin see also W.M. Green, Initium omnis peccati superbia: Augustine on Pride as the First Sin (Berkeley – Los Angeles, 1949); Macqueen, ‘Contemptus Dei’, 227-93; B. Kent, ‘Augustine’s ethics’, in E. Stump, N. Kretzmann, (eds.), The Cambridge Companion to Augustine (Cambridge, 2005), 217-20; S. MacDonald, ‘Petit Larceny, the Beginning of All Sin: Augustine’s Theft of the Pears’, in W.E. Mann (ed.), Augustine’s Confessions. Critical Essays (Lanham, 2006), 45-69.
Gaul, ‘Augustine’s on the Virtues’, 248-9; Asher, ‘The Dangerous Fruit’, 238-9; MacDonald, ‘Petit Larceny’, 62-3.
All Time | Past 365 days | Past 30 Days | |
---|---|---|---|
Abstract Views | 454 | 79 | 6 |
Full Text Views | 291 | 11 | 0 |
PDF Views & Downloads | 156 | 31 | 0 |
The purpose of the paper is to show a mutual interaction of Platonic and Christian ideas in the pear theft narrative from Book Two of the Confessions. Augustine is provocatively questioning the Platonic theory of good, evil, and love by suggesting that in the theft he loved evil itself. He is considering three possible explanations, but is not fully content with any of them. Not having any better theory than the Platonic one, Augustine is suggesting that moral evil is completely beyond understanding. What is new in Augustine’s provocative analysis is placing the irrationality and incomprehensibility of moral evil in the context of the “I-Thou” relationship of the soul with God.
All Time | Past 365 days | Past 30 Days | |
---|---|---|---|
Abstract Views | 454 | 79 | 6 |
Full Text Views | 291 | 11 | 0 |
PDF Views & Downloads | 156 | 31 | 0 |