The most interesting remark - that wasn't a point of contention for me personally - was in regards to observing purity and impurity as contrasting colors. "Who is to say whether their purity was real or feigned, or rather whether it wasn't simply an impurity that differed from mine and that troubled it only because of its difference, as two colors will sometimes enhance each other by contrast, though both are colors still."
I think this line emphasizes the sort of attitude C-S is taking to purity. The rest of the passage illustrates purity as a sort of continuum where one can neither be completely pure nor completely impure. Taken that into consideration with colors, there's an interesting discussion to be had about purity. Green is a "pure" color but it only exists because of mixing yellow with blue. Yellow and blue are pure colors that are made impure when mixed with each other, but through that mixture a new pure color comes through.
I think this is what C-S is getting to when he's discussing sexual activity and transcendence through that act: two entities come together to transform into something other than themselves. But this can only happen when the entities contribute equally, or, as C-S would probably say it, deny their ego in submission to the unity. So, green is blue and yellow, but the potential for green already exists in blue and yellow. That's what that continuum is, that recognition of one in the other, and the shifting between the phases. So, this true purity of union happens at the abandonment of self.
And this is where he bring in his discussion about Agape and calls it true purity, the only god. It's a pretty audacious statement; it reveals a lot of his attitude. And what this does for me personally is reinforce my opinion that each of these chapters have just been musings on iterations of love. I'll leave that for Karlie, however.
One of the ideas I really connected with in this chapter is presented near the beginning; Comte-Sponville talks about purity with a physical meaning, saying, "...what is pure is clean, spotless, unsoiled" (174). This description and representation of purity makes me think that purity is an idea that we as humans need to know exists. If something has been 'soiled,' it has been ruined in some way, never to be able to return to its former, 'unsoiled' state. That's quite a depressing thought if you think about it. How miserable would life be if we thought that purity was impossible, nonexistent? Without the ability to be pure, or to be able to behold something completely pure, why would we ever strive to think, act, or love purely?
This also brings into thought the idea of cleansing, which I relate to mostly in the Christian sense- the washing away of one's sins through forgiveness that produces a renewed purity. This belief brings purity to my life in a very real way, and leads me to strive to live as purely as possible, but to know that purity is possible again after a mistake if I truly repent. Without the possibility of purity in my life, of being able to be forgiven, why would I even try to do anything pure or 'right?' I think we all need some sense of purity to be accessible or conceivable in our lives to keep us striving toward the 'good' and to keep us interested and involved in the act of living. If there is a goal of purity, we certainly may slip up, but we can continue to live and grow toward that goal our whole lives. Without that goal, life becomes dismal, and seemingly pointless, at least in my opinion.
The concept of purity is perhaps the most abstract that we have studied thus far, but I particularly enjoy this chapter and feel that the abstract nature of purity does not detract from its status as a virtue. Comte-Sponville begins the chapter by acknowledging the impression that I and most of the world have about purity: that it is directly related to sexuality, and therefore a bodily virtue (174). The basis for this conception is certainly religious; chastity until marriage is emphasized in almost all religions, and we are taught that violating the promise to remain abstinent makes us impure. There are certainly cases in which sex is impure but, as a whole, I feel that the purity of which C-S speaks is a virtue of motivation rather than a virtue of the body.
Purity transcends sexuality; an excellent example of this concept is provided on page 176. While women who have been raped often state that they feel “dirtied, defiled, and humiliated,” they are in no way impure. Rape in itself, however, is certainly impure; for one to be motivated to rape, he must be intent upon humiliating, defiling, and demeaning another human being. It is here that C-S relates purity to respect, gentleness, and consideration—a comparison that helped me to better understand its virtuous nature. But what ultimately forces someone to have impure thoughts and motivations? Kant answers this question by stating that egoism is the source of all impurity (178). Our own bodies do not corrupt us; we become impure when we are motivated to act simply on our own behalves and without any consideration of others.
A particularly thought-provoking facet of this chapter was purity as it relates to love. C-S explains that, “One can love another person as an object, wanting to possess, consume, and enjoy him as one would a wine or a good cut of meat” (178). I wouldn’t have thought so before reading this chapter, but C-S makes the interesting point that it is possible for love, the summit of all virtues, to be impure. The purest forms of love are those that are disinterested—forms from which we are prepared to receive nothing and give everything. C-S provides the examples of love of children and of the dead as the purest forms of love; we love both unconditionally knowing that they can give us nothing—not even, in some cases, love in return (180).
I appreciate that C-S recognizes, however, that love of adults and of the living can be just, or at least almost, as pure as the love of children and of the dead. Even if desire is involved, we can still experience pure love toward another; all that is required is that the desire is not simply lust and does not manifest itself in a violent manner (181). All told, I enjoy C-S’s definition of purity; it provides a much more positive outlook than the definition of purity I had hitherto understood. We cannot suppress our desire, and it is useless to try. All we must do is strive to love without excessive self-interest (182).
I really enjoyed reading Compte-Sponville’s definition of purity in this chapter. It is probably the most I have understood, or at least felt that I understood, one of his descriptions of the virtues thus far. I could relate to and certainly agree with his explanation that purity is more a matter of the heart or soul than of the body. As C-S mentions and Andrea points out above, we are typically taught that it is a bodily matter as children. I find the whole idea of purity being of the body and not of the heart somewhat contradicting, even from a Catholic or Christian standpoint. I mean, is not the beatitude “blessed are the pure in heart?” Jesus, in making this statement does not glorify being or striving to be a pure in a sexual sense at all. He merely calls for us to be pure of heart in seeking to love others, therefore pure of intention, just as C-S describes. However, in Catholic education, young women saints are typically revered for their “purity” in being virgins and this notion of purity being a virtue of sexuality thus takes hold and is instilled in our minds as children.
However, C-S points out that “only the heart is or can be pure” (176). He goes on to describe purity as an essence of being, a disregard for one’s self in a way that we are solely giving of ourselves and expecting nothing in return, the purest kind of love. It would certainly be easier to classify purity with regard to sex. After all, is it not easier to classify an individual as being pure simply by the fact that he or she has had sex or not than to think about his or her intentions and motivations in doing something, anything? However, the simplicity of classifying people is not the point of purity, as C-S explains. He points out that it is much, much more complex, or “abstract,” as Andrea notes. C-S says that purity is impossible by the very nature of being human, and perhaps that is why I find this definition so intriguing. I find it much more definitive in its abstractness than the “childhood version,” if you will, of purity. I find the fact that humanity is impure in totality and that no one individual can be defined as holistically pure to be rather comforting. Thus, I find myself in agreement with Compte-Sponville on his ideas of purity and find those ideas to be described relatively clearly, at least when compared to the other virtues, despite their abstractness.
“Purity exists whenever love ceases to be ‘mixed with self-interest.’” (182) I found this to be Comte-Sponville's most excellent definition of purity. Purity is all about motivation. Purity is about having others in mind, serving others without personal motives. If one is truly generous, therefore, they are acting in a pure manner. This definition of purity can be applied to so many aspects of life. We can practice sexual purity by practicing love without self-interest. We can practice relational purity by striving to make others happy without personal gain.
As Jon mentioned above, C-S suggests that Agape (the perfect love of God for man, man for God, and man for fellow man) is true purity. God's love for man is the epitome of true purity in the scope of the above definition. God sent his Son, and watched his painful death, not for personal gain, but to save the human race. God gave up His one and only son out of love, with no selfish motives.
As Kaylan suggests, purity is something to strive for daily. Purity is a goal. We are all humans and as C-S states, "purity does not exist and is not human." (182) However, purity gives us something to strive for, something to seek out relentlessly. We, as humans, are not pure, but are made pure only through Christ's true act of purity, love with self-sacrifice. Only can Christ make us pure, however purity can be our goal. If we strive to live our lives as a thank-you note to God for his gift of purity, we will seek to live a pure life ourselves.
Like others have stated before me, I agree with Comte-Sponville in the sense that purity in today's society is usually first and foremost associated to a physical state. It is, in reality, so much more than that, however. I really liked C-S' thought provoking point that "only nothingness is pure, and nothingness is nothing, whatever exists is a stain on the infinite void, and all existence is impure" ( 175). After making this point, C-S mentions that it is possible for the body to be "pure and it can be innocent" (176). He also mentions confessors and contemplates what they must think on the other side of the screen as they hear confessions, a thought that I myself have pondered countless times when receiving the sacrament of confession. However, I, like C-S have come to the conclusion that "by now they probably given up quizzing, judging, and condemning" (176).
C-S continues from this point to talk about how nothing can be pure or impure in itself, and that "only the heart is or can be pure; only the heart purifies" (176). I especially liked C-S' point on what exactly purity is, or rather is not. "Purity is not an essence; nor it is an attribute that one either has or lacks. Purity can never be absolute; purity is not pure; purity is a certain way of not seeing evil where there is no evil to be seen. An impure person sees evil everywhere and takes pleasure in the fact. A pure person sees evil nowhere, or rather sees it only where it exists--in selfishness, cruelty, spitefulness--and it grieves him" (177). Our selfish, heartless intentions behind out actions are what make us impure. "Love that takes is impure; love that gives or contemplates is pure" (177). It's not necessarily the action itself, but the intention behind it that makes it pure or impure. One of my favorite quotes from this section is from Cesare Pavase: "'You will be loved,[. . .], the day when you will be able to show your weakness without the person using it to assert his strength"' (177). I guess I have never quite thought of this in those terms before, yet it makes perfect sense. This is true, pure love. Continuing on the impurities of love... "Jealousy,[. . .], is not the most important thing about love, and while it is often love's most violent form--as everyone knows from experience--it is not its purest or highest form" (181). It is also mentioned that it is easier to love friends or children purely, because we expect less from them or we love them enough not to expect anything from them, and I have definitely experienced this in my own life.
In concluding this section, C-S reiterates that "one must therefore not confuse purity with continence, prudery, or chastity. Purity exists whenever love ceases to be 'mixed with self-interest[. . .]"' (183).
I loved this quote. "...what is pure is clean, spotless, unsoiled"(174). When I think about purity, this is what I think of. I couldn't have put it in better words. We once described Kaylan as pure, and that definition is her. The first winter’s snow is pure. Children are pure.
Most of the time we think that virginity is synonymous with purity. But that is not always the case in my opinion, and C-S agrees. “The fact is that in our day purity tends first to be understood in sexual terms. Because sex is impure? That remains to be seen” (pg. 174). I agree. Sex used to be completely kosher. It was never frowned upon and look at King Henry VIII, he had all the sex he wanted and no one said a word. Granted, that’s not the ideal model but he was the first that popped in my head. Only now is it “dirty” and “bad” but it’s whatever. Next think you know riding a bike will be a sin.
Another line that I liked of C-S was, “Love that takes is impure; love that gives or contemplates is pure” (176). To me this says that a loving relationship is one that gives back. When the two objects in the relationship give to each other, then their relationship is pure. But when one takes more that one gives, that is impure. Going to the glass of wine example. One can love a glass of wine because one is giving use to the wine and glass and the wine is giving happiness and satisfaction to the drinker. In my opinion, one can love a wine glass as much as a person. Just because I don’t doesn’t mean that someone else can’t.
Karlie posed some questions: “How miserable would life be if we thought that purity was impossible, nonexistent? Without the ability to be pure, or to be able to behold something completely pure, why would we ever strive to think, act, or love purely? “
I think that life would be the same without purity. No one is pure. The scientists and actors and singers that we tend to, for lack of a better phrase, “look up to” are definitely not pure. Kim Kardashian for example. She has been married for two and a half months and is getting divorced. She had a sex tape leak a few years ago and has already been married once. But we watch her show and follow her life and I am sure that if given the option, some people would chose to be her for one day rather than Mother Theresa.
I do not think that we necessarily strive to love, act, think purely. We strive to do our best. It is impossible to be THE best, no one is perfect. Jesus is one of the most pure examples that pops into my head and no one can be the next Jesus, that is well known and so no one is trying. It is impossible to be 100% pure, so no one is trying, in my opinion at least.
I agree with Sponville completely when he states that purity is "perhaps the most difficult to grasp or apprehend" (173). I also understand what Dan has said about purity and colors, and I agree with him. I think it is a very interesting way of thinking about purity, and it brings more truth to Sponville's statement that "Only nothingness is pure, and nothingness is nothing" (175). A pure red would be a red color that has just "redness" in it, and pure purple is a color that has just "purpleness" in it. However, if you mix red and purple, one would say that this mixing would make it impure. This mixture would make "blue," so is blue impure red and purple or is it just "pure blue"? In essence, everything is like "blue" - a mixture of different concepts that are relative to culture and time. Thinking of pure as in the most natural or the origin of something is nonsensical. What is the "purest teacher"? The purest teacher may simply be the impure drill seargent or the impure follower? In fact, I have heard that the pure leader can also be a follower, so does that mean that the purest leader has some traces of impure leading? Because every definition of a term is muddled with perceptions and combinations of other ideas, I would think that they are all somewhat impure. That is why Sponville says that "only nothingness is pure…" (175).
In essence, the only pure thing is something that happens in the present moment because as soon as a pure thing looks at the past or goes into the future, it is influenced by something else and is no longer pure. It is no longer what it was originally, it no longer has quite the same focus. . Sponville mentions religious purity. While I said in the first paragraph that this "pure origin" concept is nonsensical, purity in terms of religion typically goes back to a set of outlined laws. Therefore, purity in this sense is not nonsensical but unreachable. While we cannot reach perfection through ritual, ritual does help get us closer to the original focus than what we were originally Religious purity is supposed to bring us back to the original focus, to put us in a state of mind that allows us to be more religious. "Rituals are not the essential thing; what is essential is what they suggest or engender" (175).
In the same way, to love purely is to love as love was originally without any outside influence. In other words, to love without an alternate motive to love. That is why it is "easier to love friends or children purely, because we expect less of them…" (180). We are not thinking about love in relation to them in the past or loving what they will become in the future; rather, we are loving them in the present for who they are now witthout any other reason than to love them.
There is a sentence in this chapter that I absolutely love: “The poverty of the lover and the saint: they have placed all they have in what cannot be possessed or consumed and have made of themselves a kingdom and a desert for an absent god.” I love this idea of the poverty of love. (Also, here’s a great example of C-S’s poetry.) This sentence hints at a kind of sadness in this pure love, and yet I don’t believe it has to be a sadness at all. It is a joyful poverty—the poverty of loving someone who cannot be possessed—because this is the only way it truly is love. This is one of the most difficult parts of love and yet possibly the most important. It’s especially difficult in romantic relationships but I think Comte-Sponville downplays its difficulty in other relationships. I don’t have children, but I know that many parents want to control their children’s lives—isn’t this a manifestation of possession? Isn’t it difficult to love someone to the same extent when they make choices that we don’t agree with—when their life heads in a direction that we don’t want it to? If we truly had this poverty of love, we would accept and love whatever decisions and life choices the person made, loving them without possessing any part of them. But we all know that this kind of absolute pure love is just that: an absolute and therefore unattainable. I was intrigued by the fact that Comte-Sponville brought up the whole idea that life is by its nature impure—that in fact pure water is dead water. This brings up a serious problem for me—is purity really a virtue if it is a “dead” one? An unattainable one? One that is inconsistent with life? But to me this question is answered by the fact that physical purity and spiritual purity are so different. However, the fact that our language uses the same word for both highlights some of the confusion around both. The physically impure water is spiritually pure, since it promotes life. In a similar way, we often think of people who are physically pure—sexually or merely hygienically—as being superior in some way. But I think this is a mistake. This physical pureness is irrelevant to spiritual pureness and the sooner that we can understand this, the sooner we will be able to be more spiritually pure.
C-S mentions purity as being a "dead" virtue; that is, an unobtainable one. That is possibly true, but then, if we talk of unobtainable virtues, aren't they all sort of unobtainable? (At least for the typical person; some people may be exceptions). Are there really any people who are truly humble? Or loving. (Maybe Karlie :) )Or even generous? Isn't it impossible to truly live up to any of the virtues?
The class discussion about loving things for their utility or for themselves was interesting. I don't know how well it works for inanimate objects in real life--there may be some people who can love a tree for being a tree, but I think that is beyond most of us.
I do think that sort of love works much better as far as people go. I think it is possible to love a person just for being a fellow human being, or for what one can get out of that person (whether that be sex or power or even just entertainment). I think that the latter kind of love, even if it doesn't involve sex, is impure, while the former is pure. Based on that definition, I would say there are a lot of people who "love" impurely without even knowing it, since the popular definition is not necessarily accurate.
It seems as if many are asking, "If purity is a 'dead' virtue, is it really even a virtue?" My first inclination was to say, No, no it is not; virtues are things we have that build a good character and if we can't have it (by the definition of it being dead = unobtainable), i don't see how it could be a virtue. However, I was thinking this; could we not redfine the word "virtue" so as to make it a goal or standard to be living towards? Perfection is impossible (it does not exist naturally in the world; a fact used to prove the existence of a god by Descartes) and thus purity, being so closly tied to perfection, is also impossible. It is the act of striving towards, I would say,purity (and then, depending on one's beliefs, eventual attainment after death and being reunited with God) that is the virtue itself.
A simple question, in reaction to Ellen's last paragraph; Is our best not strive to love, act, think purely? Is that not the very, albeit vague, height of human experience with one another?
“Purity exists whenever love ceases to be ‘mixed with self-interest.’” (182) I think that if this is the definition of purity, then purity really is a dead virtue. I don't know how anybody could love anyone purely for who they are, and for being themselves, and not have self-interest mixed in. People need a motivation to love. I cannot love a carrot for being a carrot. I hate carrots. I hate all carrots. I love a cake because it gives me pleasure. I love cake for what I can get from it. I don't love it for being a cake. If the cake tastes like crap, I hate that cake. It doesn't matter that it is trying to be a cake. If I like somebody, there is a reason for it. I get something for loving them. I don't love them with no self-interest. When I was a baby, I loved my mother because she fed me. I didn't love her because she was my mother. If I had had a wet nurse, I would have loved her, and not my mother. When I have children, I will need a reason to love them. It might be a simple reason at first, like the fact that they are my children, but I imagine that I will derive some pleasure from having them. I don't see how anybody can love without self-interest. I think there has to be some motivation for it. I imagine that God loves us "purely" but I don't think it is possible for a human to come close to that standard of purity. JJ Ruwe
The most interesting remark - that wasn't a point of contention for me personally - was in regards to observing purity and impurity as contrasting colors. "Who is to say whether their purity was real or feigned, or rather whether it wasn't simply an impurity that differed from mine and that troubled it only because of its difference, as two colors will sometimes enhance each other by contrast, though both are colors still."
ReplyDeleteI think this line emphasizes the sort of attitude C-S is taking to purity. The rest of the passage illustrates purity as a sort of continuum where one can neither be completely pure nor completely impure. Taken that into consideration with colors, there's an interesting discussion to be had about purity. Green is a "pure" color but it only exists because of mixing yellow with blue. Yellow and blue are pure colors that are made impure when mixed with each other, but through that mixture a new pure color comes through.
I think this is what C-S is getting to when he's discussing sexual activity and transcendence through that act: two entities come together to transform into something other than themselves. But this can only happen when the entities contribute equally, or, as C-S would probably say it, deny their ego in submission to the unity. So, green is blue and yellow, but the potential for green already exists in blue and yellow. That's what that continuum is, that recognition of one in the other, and the shifting between the phases. So, this true purity of union happens at the abandonment of self.
And this is where he bring in his discussion about Agape and calls it true purity, the only god. It's a pretty audacious statement; it reveals a lot of his attitude. And what this does for me personally is reinforce my opinion that each of these chapters have just been musings on iterations of love. I'll leave that for Karlie, however.
One of the ideas I really connected with in this chapter is presented near the beginning; Comte-Sponville talks about purity with a physical meaning, saying, "...what is pure is clean, spotless, unsoiled" (174). This description and representation of purity makes me think that purity is an idea that we as humans need to know exists. If something has been 'soiled,' it has been ruined in some way, never to be able to return to its former, 'unsoiled' state. That's quite a depressing thought if you think about it. How miserable would life be if we thought that purity was impossible, nonexistent? Without the ability to be pure, or to be able to behold something completely pure, why would we ever strive to think, act, or love purely?
ReplyDeleteThis also brings into thought the idea of cleansing, which I relate to mostly in the Christian sense- the washing away of one's sins through forgiveness that produces a renewed purity. This belief brings purity to my life in a very real way, and leads me to strive to live as purely as possible, but to know that purity is possible again after a mistake if I truly repent. Without the possibility of purity in my life, of being able to be forgiven, why would I even try to do anything pure or 'right?' I think we all need some sense of purity to be accessible or conceivable in our lives to keep us striving toward the 'good' and to keep us interested and involved in the act of living. If there is a goal of purity, we certainly may slip up, but we can continue to live and grow toward that goal our whole lives. Without that goal, life becomes dismal, and seemingly pointless, at least in my opinion.
The concept of purity is perhaps the most abstract that we have studied thus far, but I particularly enjoy this chapter and feel that the abstract nature of purity does not detract from its status as a virtue. Comte-Sponville begins the chapter by acknowledging the impression that I and most of the world have about purity: that it is directly related to sexuality, and therefore a bodily virtue (174). The basis for this conception is certainly religious; chastity until marriage is emphasized in almost all religions, and we are taught that violating the promise to remain abstinent makes us impure. There are certainly cases in which sex is impure but, as a whole, I feel that the purity of which C-S speaks is a virtue of motivation rather than a virtue of the body.
ReplyDeletePurity transcends sexuality; an excellent example of this concept is provided on page 176. While women who have been raped often state that they feel “dirtied, defiled, and humiliated,” they are in no way impure. Rape in itself, however, is certainly impure; for one to be motivated to rape, he must be intent upon humiliating, defiling, and demeaning another human being. It is here that C-S relates purity to respect, gentleness, and consideration—a comparison that helped me to better understand its virtuous nature. But what ultimately forces someone to have impure thoughts and motivations? Kant answers this question by stating that egoism is the source of all impurity (178). Our own bodies do not corrupt us; we become impure when we are motivated to act simply on our own behalves and without any consideration of others.
A particularly thought-provoking facet of this chapter was purity as it relates to love. C-S explains that, “One can love another person as an object, wanting to possess, consume, and enjoy him as one would a wine or a good cut of meat” (178). I wouldn’t have thought so before reading this chapter, but C-S makes the interesting point that it is possible for love, the summit of all virtues, to be impure. The purest forms of love are those that are disinterested—forms from which we are prepared to receive nothing and give everything. C-S provides the examples of love of children and of the dead as the purest forms of love; we love both unconditionally knowing that they can give us nothing—not even, in some cases, love in return (180).
I appreciate that C-S recognizes, however, that love of adults and of the living can be just, or at least almost, as pure as the love of children and of the dead. Even if desire is involved, we can still experience pure love toward another; all that is required is that the desire is not simply lust and does not manifest itself in a violent manner (181). All told, I enjoy C-S’s definition of purity; it provides a much more positive outlook than the definition of purity I had hitherto understood. We cannot suppress our desire, and it is useless to try. All we must do is strive to love without excessive self-interest (182).
I really enjoyed reading Compte-Sponville’s definition of purity in this chapter. It is probably the most I have understood, or at least felt that I understood, one of his descriptions of the virtues thus far. I could relate to and certainly agree with his explanation that purity is more a matter of the heart or soul than of the body. As C-S mentions and Andrea points out above, we are typically taught that it is a bodily matter as children. I find the whole idea of purity being of the body and not of the heart somewhat contradicting, even from a Catholic or Christian standpoint. I mean, is not the beatitude “blessed are the pure in heart?” Jesus, in making this statement does not glorify being or striving to be a pure in a sexual sense at all. He merely calls for us to be pure of heart in seeking to love others, therefore pure of intention, just as C-S describes. However, in Catholic education, young women saints are typically revered for their “purity” in being virgins and this notion of purity being a virtue of sexuality thus takes hold and is instilled in our minds as children.
ReplyDeleteHowever, C-S points out that “only the heart is or can be pure” (176). He goes on to describe purity as an essence of being, a disregard for one’s self in a way that we are solely giving of ourselves and expecting nothing in return, the purest kind of love. It would certainly be easier to classify purity with regard to sex. After all, is it not easier to classify an individual as being pure simply by the fact that he or she has had sex or not than to think about his or her intentions and motivations in doing something, anything? However, the simplicity of classifying people is not the point of purity, as C-S explains. He points out that it is much, much more complex, or “abstract,” as Andrea notes. C-S says that purity is impossible by the very nature of being human, and perhaps that is why I find this definition so intriguing. I find it much more definitive in its abstractness than the “childhood version,” if you will, of purity. I find the fact that humanity is impure in totality and that no one individual can be defined as holistically pure to be rather comforting. Thus, I find myself in agreement with Compte-Sponville on his ideas of purity and find those ideas to be described relatively clearly, at least when compared to the other virtues, despite their abstractness.
“Purity exists whenever love ceases to be ‘mixed with self-interest.’” (182) I found this to be Comte-Sponville's most excellent definition of purity. Purity is all about motivation. Purity is about having others in mind, serving others without personal motives. If one is truly generous, therefore, they are acting in a pure manner. This definition of purity can be applied to so many aspects of life. We can practice sexual purity by practicing love without self-interest. We can practice relational purity by striving to make others happy without personal gain.
ReplyDeleteAs Jon mentioned above, C-S suggests that Agape (the perfect love of God for man, man for God, and man for fellow man) is true purity. God's love for man is the epitome of true purity in the scope of the above definition. God sent his Son, and watched his painful death, not for personal gain, but to save the human race. God gave up His one and only son out of love, with no selfish motives.
As Kaylan suggests, purity is something to strive for daily. Purity is a goal. We are all humans and as C-S states, "purity does not exist and is not human." (182) However, purity gives us something to strive for, something to seek out relentlessly. We, as humans, are not pure, but are made pure only through Christ's true act of purity, love with self-sacrifice. Only can Christ make us pure, however purity can be our goal. If we strive to live our lives as a thank-you note to God for his gift of purity, we will seek to live a pure life ourselves.
Like others have stated before me, I agree with Comte-Sponville in the sense that purity in today's society is usually first and foremost associated to a physical state. It is, in reality, so much more than that, however. I really liked C-S' thought provoking point that "only nothingness is pure, and nothingness is nothing, whatever exists is a stain on the infinite void, and all existence is impure" ( 175). After making this point, C-S mentions that it is possible for the body to be "pure and it can be innocent" (176). He also mentions confessors and contemplates what they must think on the other side of the screen as they hear confessions, a thought that I myself have pondered countless times when receiving the sacrament of confession. However, I, like C-S have come to the conclusion that "by now they probably given up quizzing, judging, and condemning" (176).
ReplyDeleteC-S continues from this point to talk about how nothing can be pure or impure in itself, and that "only the heart is or can be pure; only the heart purifies" (176). I especially liked C-S' point on what exactly purity is, or rather is not. "Purity is not an essence; nor it is an attribute that one either has or lacks. Purity can never be absolute; purity is not pure; purity is a certain way of not seeing evil where there is no evil to be seen. An impure person sees evil everywhere and takes pleasure in the fact. A pure person sees evil nowhere, or rather sees it only where it exists--in selfishness, cruelty, spitefulness--and it grieves him" (177). Our selfish, heartless intentions behind out actions are what make us impure.
"Love that takes is impure; love that gives or contemplates is pure" (177). It's not necessarily the action itself, but the intention behind it that makes it pure or impure. One of my favorite quotes from this section is from Cesare Pavase: "'You will be loved,[. . .], the day when you will be able to show your weakness without the person using it to assert his strength"' (177). I guess I have never quite thought of this in those terms before, yet it makes perfect sense. This is true, pure love.
Continuing on the impurities of love... "Jealousy,[. . .], is not the most important thing about love, and while it is often love's most violent form--as everyone knows from experience--it is not its purest or highest form" (181). It is also mentioned that it is easier to love friends or children purely, because we expect less from them or we love them enough not to expect anything from them, and I have definitely experienced this in my own life.
In concluding this section, C-S reiterates that "one must therefore not confuse purity with continence, prudery, or chastity. Purity exists whenever love ceases to be 'mixed with self-interest[. . .]"' (183).
I loved this quote. "...what is pure is clean, spotless, unsoiled"(174). When I think about purity, this is what I think of. I couldn't have put it in better words. We once described Kaylan as pure, and that definition is her. The first winter’s snow is pure. Children are pure.
ReplyDeleteMost of the time we think that virginity is synonymous with purity. But that is not always the case in my opinion, and C-S agrees. “The fact is that in our day purity tends first to be understood in sexual terms. Because sex is impure? That remains to be seen” (pg. 174). I agree. Sex used to be completely kosher. It was never frowned upon and look at King Henry VIII, he had all the sex he wanted and no one said a word. Granted, that’s not the ideal model but he was the first that popped in my head. Only now is it “dirty” and “bad” but it’s whatever. Next think you know riding a bike will be a sin.
Another line that I liked of C-S was, “Love that takes is impure; love that gives or contemplates is pure” (176). To me this says that a loving relationship is one that gives back. When the two objects in the relationship give to each other, then their relationship is pure. But when one takes more that one gives, that is impure. Going to the glass of wine example. One can love a glass of wine because one is giving use to the wine and glass and the wine is giving happiness and satisfaction to the drinker. In my opinion, one can love a wine glass as much as a person. Just because I don’t doesn’t mean that someone else can’t.
Karlie posed some questions: “How miserable would life be if we thought that purity was impossible, nonexistent? Without the ability to be pure, or to be able to behold something completely pure, why would we ever strive to think, act, or love purely? “
I think that life would be the same without purity. No one is pure. The scientists and actors and singers that we tend to, for lack of a better phrase, “look up to” are definitely not pure. Kim Kardashian for example. She has been married for two and a half months and is getting divorced. She had a sex tape leak a few years ago and has already been married once. But we watch her show and follow her life and I am sure that if given the option, some people would chose to be her for one day rather than Mother Theresa.
I do not think that we necessarily strive to love, act, think purely. We strive to do our best. It is impossible to be THE best, no one is perfect. Jesus is one of the most pure examples that pops into my head and no one can be the next Jesus, that is well known and so no one is trying. It is impossible to be 100% pure, so no one is trying, in my opinion at least.
I agree with Sponville completely when he states that purity is "perhaps the most difficult to grasp or apprehend" (173). I also understand what Dan has said about purity and colors, and I agree with him. I think it is a very interesting way of thinking about purity, and it brings more truth to Sponville's statement that "Only nothingness is pure, and nothingness is nothing" (175). A pure red would be a red color that has just "redness" in it, and pure purple is a color that has just "purpleness" in it. However, if you mix red and purple, one would say that this mixing would make it impure. This mixture would make "blue," so is blue impure red and purple or is it just "pure blue"? In essence, everything is like "blue" - a mixture of different concepts that are relative to culture and time. Thinking of pure as in the most natural or the origin of something is nonsensical. What is the "purest teacher"? The purest teacher may simply be the impure drill seargent or the impure follower? In fact, I have heard that the pure leader can also be a follower, so does that mean that the purest leader has some traces of impure leading? Because every definition of a term is muddled with perceptions and combinations of other ideas, I would think that they are all somewhat impure. That is why Sponville says that "only nothingness is pure…" (175).
ReplyDeleteIn essence, the only pure thing is something that happens in the present moment because as soon as a pure thing looks at the past or goes into the future, it is influenced by something else and is no longer pure. It is no longer what it was originally, it no longer has quite the same focus. . Sponville mentions religious purity. While I said in the first paragraph that this "pure origin" concept is nonsensical, purity in terms of religion typically goes back to a set of outlined laws. Therefore, purity in this sense is not nonsensical but unreachable. While we cannot reach perfection through ritual, ritual does help get us closer to the original focus than what we were originally Religious purity is supposed to bring us back to the original focus, to put us in a state of mind that allows us to be more religious. "Rituals are not the essential thing; what is essential is what they suggest or engender" (175).
In the same way, to love purely is to love as love was originally without any outside influence. In other words, to love without an alternate motive to love. That is why it is "easier to love friends or children purely, because we expect less of them…" (180). We are not thinking about love in relation to them in the past or loving what they will become in the future; rather, we are loving them in the present for who they are now witthout any other reason than to love them.
There is a sentence in this chapter that I absolutely love: “The poverty of the lover and the saint: they have placed all they have in what cannot be possessed or consumed and have made of themselves a kingdom and a desert for an absent god.” I love this idea of the poverty of love. (Also, here’s a great example of C-S’s poetry.) This sentence hints at a kind of sadness in this pure love, and yet I don’t believe it has to be a sadness at all. It is a joyful poverty—the poverty of loving someone who cannot be possessed—because this is the only way it truly is love. This is one of the most difficult parts of love and yet possibly the most important. It’s especially difficult in romantic relationships but I think Comte-Sponville downplays its difficulty in other relationships. I don’t have children, but I know that many parents want to control their children’s lives—isn’t this a manifestation of possession? Isn’t it difficult to love someone to the same extent when they make choices that we don’t agree with—when their life heads in a direction that we don’t want it to? If we truly had this poverty of love, we would accept and love whatever decisions and life choices the person made, loving them without possessing any part of them.
ReplyDeleteBut we all know that this kind of absolute pure love is just that: an absolute and therefore unattainable. I was intrigued by the fact that Comte-Sponville brought up the whole idea that life is by its nature impure—that in fact pure water is dead water. This brings up a serious problem for me—is purity really a virtue if it is a “dead” one? An unattainable one? One that is inconsistent with life? But to me this question is answered by the fact that physical purity and spiritual purity are so different. However, the fact that our language uses the same word for both highlights some of the confusion around both. The physically impure water is spiritually pure, since it promotes life. In a similar way, we often think of people who are physically pure—sexually or merely hygienically—as being superior in some way. But I think this is a mistake. This physical pureness is irrelevant to spiritual pureness and the sooner that we can understand this, the sooner we will be able to be more spiritually pure.
C-S mentions purity as being a "dead" virtue; that is, an unobtainable one. That is possibly true, but then, if we talk of unobtainable virtues, aren't they all sort of unobtainable? (At least for the typical person; some people may be exceptions). Are there really any people who are truly humble? Or loving. (Maybe Karlie :) )Or even generous? Isn't it impossible to truly live up to any of the virtues?
ReplyDeleteThe class discussion about loving things for their utility or for themselves was interesting. I don't know how well it works for inanimate objects in real life--there may be some people who can love a tree for being a tree, but I think that is beyond most of us.
I do think that sort of love works much better as far as people go. I think it is possible to love a person just for being a fellow human being, or for what one can get out of that person (whether that be sex or power or even just entertainment). I think that the latter kind of love, even if it doesn't involve sex, is impure, while the former is pure. Based on that definition, I would say there are a lot of people who "love" impurely without even knowing it, since the popular definition is not necessarily accurate.
It seems as if many are asking, "If purity is a 'dead' virtue, is it really even a virtue?" My first inclination was to say, No, no it is not; virtues are things we have that build a good character and if we can't have it (by the definition of it being dead = unobtainable), i don't see how it could be a virtue. However, I was thinking this; could we not redfine the word "virtue" so as to make it a goal or standard to be living towards? Perfection is impossible (it does not exist naturally in the world; a fact used to prove the existence of a god by Descartes) and thus purity, being so closly tied to perfection, is also impossible. It is the act of striving towards, I would say,purity (and then, depending on one's beliefs, eventual attainment after death and being reunited with God) that is the virtue itself.
ReplyDeleteA simple question, in reaction to Ellen's last paragraph; Is our best not strive to love, act, think purely? Is that not the very, albeit vague, height of human experience with one another?
-j.notor
“Purity exists whenever love ceases to be ‘mixed with self-interest.’” (182) I think that if this is the definition of purity, then purity really is a dead virtue. I don't know how anybody could love anyone purely for who they are, and for being themselves, and not have self-interest mixed in. People need a motivation to love. I cannot love a carrot for being a carrot. I hate carrots. I hate all carrots. I love a cake because it gives me pleasure. I love cake for what I can get from it. I don't love it for being a cake. If the cake tastes like crap, I hate that cake. It doesn't matter that it is trying to be a cake. If I like somebody, there is a reason for it. I get something for loving them. I don't love them with no self-interest. When I was a baby, I loved my mother because she fed me. I didn't love her because she was my mother. If I had had a wet nurse, I would have loved her, and not my mother. When I have children, I will need a reason to love them. It might be a simple reason at first, like the fact that they are my children, but I imagine that I will derive some pleasure from having them. I don't see how anybody can love without self-interest. I think there has to be some motivation for it. I imagine that God loves us "purely" but I don't think it is possible for a human to come close to that standard of purity.
ReplyDeleteJJ Ruwe