Page History

SCANNED PDF

SOllIe Thollghts Some Thoughts about SafltayanaSantayana's "Natllralalld Natural and Ultimate ReligiollReligion" Whi'lt

Thus, in my view, in contrast to Si'lnayi'lna's, it is not really "the

What I 15 July 1998; rev. 10 Februi'lry 2010J miss most in Santayana's explanation of re1igion religion is a sufficiently clear distinction between simply living 1ife life and living it understandingly. Subhumi'ln i'lnimi'lls Subhuman animals simply live their Jives lives and therefore mi'ly may well be said to be engaged in living, or comlnitted committed to the enterprise of living, without their previous consent. But human animi'llsanimals, once they become such, live their lives IIllderstlllldillglyunderstandingly, i'lnd and this means that they have to understand themselves i'lndand lead their lives i'lccordinglyaccordingly. If they i'lre engi'lged are engaged in living, or committed to the enterprise of living, this is , in the fini'll i'lni'llysisfinal analysis, only with their previous consent. allimal

Thus, in my view, in contrast to Sanayana's, it is not really "the animal soul" that appei'lls to hei'lven appeals to heaven for help; it is the 1z,IllUlIl human soul, or in his own term, "the spirit." By the si'lme same token, it is not reaJly really "the enterprise of life" itself i'lnd simply i'lS and simply as such that is "utter1y irre1igiousutterly irreligious," and so "precisely that from which a veritable religion would come to redeem us"; whi'lt what is utterly irreligious and what i'I veritable re1igion wouId corne a veritable religion would come to redeem us from is a certain wi'ly way of (II1;Smis-) understi'lnding ourselves i'lnd lei'lding our lives-that understanding ourselves and leading our lives—that way, namely, in which we ei'lch each understand ourselves and lead our life as though it itself were, or were, somehow essentii'll essential to, the final end for which we do so.

15 July 1998; rev. 10 February 2010

  * * * * * * *

1. I should

...

say that an "ultimate religion" is

...

ultimate precisely because it

...

locates the human problem in our own

...

misunderstanding of the

...

human problem.

...

2. If, in the case of Buddhism, this problem is the problem of "ignorance"

...

and "suffering," in the case of Christianity, it is the problem of "sin"

...

and "death" (where "

...

death" is taken in a

...

transcendental, rather than

...

a merely categorial, sense, as "eternal death," analogously to the way in which Buddhism takes "su fferi ngsuffering").

  * * * * * * *

n.d.; rev. 10 February 2010

1. If, as I hold, an "ultimate religion" is distinct from a "natural religion" because it locates the human malady in human beings' self-misunderstandingmisunderstanding, the decisive revelation constitutive of an ultimate religion presupposes this universally human self-misunderstanding and offers itself as the remedy for itexplicitly it—explicitly calling all to WhOJll whom it addresses itself (in principle, every human being) both to accept and make use of it as a remedy for themselves and then to throw in with the mission of administering it as a remedy for others to make use of as well.

2. If, in the case of Buddhism , tlte the human malady is diagnosed as "ignorance" and "suffering," the remedy prescribed for it is "knowledge" (or "enJightenIllenf'enlightenment") and "nirvana" as the cessation of suffering. In the case of Christianity, on the other hand, the human malady is diagnosed as "sin" and "(eternal) death," and the prescribed remedy is "righteousness" (or "forgiveness") and "(eternal) life."

...