Time and Eternity (philosophy book)

Last updated

Time and Eternity: An Essay in the Philosophy of Religion
Time and Eternity.jpg
Author Walter Terence Stace
CountryUnited States
LanguageEnglish
Subject Religion, Philosophy, Philosophy of Religion, Mysticism
Published1952 by Princeton University Press
Pages169
ISBN 0837118670
OCLC 1142510
201
LC Class BL51 .S6257
Preceded byReligion and the Modern Mind 
Followed byTeachings of the Mystics 

Time and Eternity - An Essay on the Philosophy of Religion (1st imp. Princeton New Jersey 1952, Princeton University Press, 169 pp) is a philosophy book written by Walter Terence Stace. At the time of writing, Stace was a professor of philosophy at Princeton University, where he had worked since 1932 after a 22-year career in the Ceylon Civil Service. Time and Eternity was one of his first books about the philosophy of religion and mysticism, after writing throughout most of the 1930s and 1940s that was influenced by phenomenalist philosophy.

Contents

In his introduction Stace writes that Time and Eternity is an attempt to set out the fundamental nature of religion, and to deal with the conflict between religion and naturalism. He explains that the basic idea set out in the book is that all religious thought is symbolic, and that his influences include Rudolf Otto, especially his Mysticism East and West, and Immanuel Kant. He says he was motivated to write the book in an attempt to add to the "other half of the truth which I now think naturalism [as espoused in his 1947 essay Man Against Darkness] misses".

The book begins by looking at religion, specifically God as non-being and as being, put by Stace as the negative and positive divine. Stace then defines two orders of being - time and eternity, which he says intersect in the moment of mystic illumination. He goes on to say that the nature of God or eternity is such that all religious language is symbolic and that it is necessarily subject to contradictions.

Synopsis

The first chapter asks what religion is, stating that religious thought is contradictory, is rooted in intuition, and that God is fundamentally a mystery. The second and third chapters look at the negative divine - the characterisation of God as void, silence or non-being - which Stace maintains is an idea found in all religions. He maintains that mystical experience is shared by all mankind, it is only the theories about it that differ. [1] On this point he says he is in agreement with Otto. In this experience the distinction between subject and object is overcome, indeed there is no difference between the experiencer and the experience.

"It is not that the mystic has an experience, even a direct vision, of God. For in that case God would be the object for the soul as subject. The distinction between God and the soul, as object and subject respectively, is wholly done away with. The soul passes into the being of God, becomes God, is God."
[2]

Stace then goes on to explain that all religions say that religious revelation is ineffable, because no words or concepts can be applied to God who is without qualities or predicates. Thus, God cannot be comprehended by the intellect, but is apprehended by intuition. "... it is of the very nature of intellect to involve the subject-object opposition. But in the mystic experience this opposition is transcended. Therefore the intellect is incapable of understanding it. Therefore it is incomprehensible, ineffable." [3]

Stace then looks at the positive divine; he asks how concepts can be applied to that which is above all concepts and finds that all propositions about God are symbolical. He defines religious and non-religious symbolism as differing in two respects. Firstly, religious symbols cannot be translated into logical propositions because they refer to an (ineffable) experience rather than a proposition. Secondly, the relationship between the religious symbol and what is symbolised is one of evocation rather than "meaning", as meaning is a concept, which is absent in the mystical experience. "Yet in some way this symbolic language evokes in us some glimpse, some hint, seen dimly through the mists and fogs which envelop us, of that being who stands above all human thought and conception." [4] He goes on to write that some of these symbols feel more appropriate than others (e.g. God is love not hate).

"Thus when Plotinus speaks of "the flight of the alone to the Alone,"... [this] evoke[s] in us a measure of the same experience which the author of them had." Plotinos.jpg
"Thus when Plotinus speaks of "the flight of the alone to the Alone,"... [this] evoke[s] in us a measure of the same experience which the author of them had."

Next Stace explains that there are two orders of being: time (or the world) and eternity (or God), and these intersect in the moment of mystic illumination. He maintains these orders are distinct, so one order cannot dictate to the other. Here he says that he agrees with Kant, who made a distinction between the world of phenomena and the noumenon, although he is critical of Kant’s disregard for mystical experience. [6]

Looking at symbolism in religion, Stace states that there are two types of predicates applied to God: first, the ethically-neutral sort, such as God being mind, power or personhood. Secondly, the ethical kind, where he is love, mercy, or righteousness. He explains that the former qualities are justified by an appeal to a hierarchy of being, and the latter to a hierarchy of value. In both cases the more adequate symbol are those that are higher in each hierarchy. In rooting symbolism in hierarchies, Stace explicitly states he is in opposition to Otto who thought religious symbolism was based on analogy between the numen and qualities found in the natural world. [7]

Stace next looks at religion’s claims to truth. He draws an analogy between mystical illumination and aesthetic truth, as the truths of both rest on revelation rather than reason. "Either you directly perceive beauty, or you do not. And either you directly perceive God in intuition, or you do not." [8] Further, he maintains the arguments of both mystics and naturalists in denying each other's positions are invalid, as they concern different realities.

"What is the meaning of the metaphor of intersection? This intersection means precisely what the eternal moment is experienced to be. It is one and the same human consciousness which experiences both the temporal or natural world and that eternal and infinite order which is disclosed in mystical illumination."
[9]

These separate spheres lead Stace to reflect on both proofs for God and acosmism. He writes that proofs and disproofs for God are equally false, as God is only accessible by intuition and not logic. "… the production by philosophers of proofs of the unreality of space, time, and the temporal world generally, is a direct result of their mistaking of their mystical propositions for factual propositions." [10] Further, proofs of God actually harm religion as they make him a part of the natural order - a point on which he says that he agrees with Kant. [11] Conversely acosmism (the denial of the reality of the world) has its root in the mystical moment, within which there is no other truth, God is the supreme reality and there is no naturalistic world. However, this is a symbolic truth, rather than a statement of fact. Its counterpart in naturalism is atheism, which denies the reality of God.

"The pure religious consciousness lies in a region which is forever beyond all proof or disproof. This is a necessary consequence of the "utterly other" character of God from the world, and of the "utterly other" character of the world from God. The eternal order is not the natural order, and the natural order is not the eternal order. The two orders intersect, but in the intersection each remains what it is. Each is wholly self-contained. Therefore, it is impossible to pass, by any logical inference, from one to the other. This at once precludes as impossible any talk either of the proof or disproof of religion."
[12]

In the final chapter Stace looks at mysticism and logic. He returns to the idea that theology and mystical philosophies (he gives the examples of Vedanta, Spinoza, Hegel, and Bradley) will always contain contradictions. Known as the doctrine of the Mystery of God, he maintains this is because the intellect is inherently incapable of understanding the Ultimate. All attempts to state the nature of the ultimate necessarily produce contradictions.

"The Upanishad says flatly that Brahman "is incomprehensible, for it cannot be comprehended". The creed of St. Athanasius agrees with the Upanishad: 'The Father incomprehensible, the Son incomprehensible, the Holy Ghost incomprehensible. . . . Yet not three incomprehensiblies, but one incomprehensible.'" Ikone Athanasius von Alexandria.jpg
The Upanishad says flatly that Brahman "is incomprehensible, for it cannot be comprehended". The creed of St. Athanasius agrees with the Upanishad: 'The Father incomprehensible, the Son incomprehensible, the Holy Ghost incomprehensible. . . . Yet not three incomprehensiblies, but one incomprehensible.'"

Critical response

Virgil C Aldrich reviewed the book alongside Religion and the Modern Mind and The Gate of Silence, also by Stace and published in 1952. He points out that all three books mark a new direction for Stace who was previously best known as an empiricist and naturalist. For Aldrich this new intellectual interest results in a sharp dualism in both Stace’s personality and his thought. However, he writes that fortunately Stace’s philosophical background prevents him from supposing that scientific empiricism can confirm religious experience, indeed his religious philosophy is the sort “that a Hume or a Kant can consort with.” Aldrich argues that Stace's intellectual sophistication is most evident in his ideas about the negative divine, but his thought is liable to all the standard objections where he proposes notions of the positive divine and religious intuition. Specifically, the notion that religious language is evocative of the mystical experience is problematic, because it is difficult to determine what language is adequate without resorting to literal or abstract ideas. Rudolf Otto's notion of analogy, rejected by Stace, is more robust. Aldrich points out a contradiction in Stace's reliance on hierarchies of being and values to more adequately refer to God, as this implies continuity between the world and eternity, which Stace denies. [14]

Julius Seelye Bixler reviewed the book twice, in 1952 and 1953. In his first review he wrote that he believed Stace was trying to have his cake and eat it with regards to the truth of both naturalism and mysticism. Bixler also wonders whether the revelation of God can really be free of concepts and thus whether time and eternity are utterly unrelated as Stace maintains. He identifies points in Stace's thought where there is continuity between these two states and mystical language does appear to refer to concepts. Finally he rejects the book's analogy of mystical experience to the evocative power of art, maintaining that art must be somewhat related to logic. Nonetheless, Bixler does concur that the book is a fascinating confessio fidei and personal statement. [15] A year later, he reviewed Time and Eternity alongside Religion and the Modern Mind. As well as reiterating the points he had made earlier, Bixler judges the second book more favourably and recommends reading the two together to better understand the problems they address. [16]

Stace was praised for his clarity and ambitious aims in Time and Eternity by Abraham Kaplan who believed the book was one of the best on the subject for many many years. He pointed out that the book's distinction between the orders of time and eternity owed much to Kant (which Stace himself acknowledged). Kaplan reflected that it was the book's emphasis placed on mysticism and a universal religious intuition that would be of particular interest to students of “Oriental and comparative philosophy”. The central idea upon which Stace's thought stands or falls, for Kaplan, is that religious language is evocative rather than descriptive. In this both religionists and naturalists will find problems. For the former, Stace can only account for the appropriateness of religious language by relying on ‘nearness’ to the divine rather than on resemblance, and this relies on ‘a vague panpsychism’ and levels of being in the manner of Samuel Alexander. While for the naturalist, Stace's system of religious symbolism is doomed to remain mysterious, because it does not allow religious metaphors to be translated literally and neither can it be said how they evoke the experience to which they refer. [17]

Also noting the unachievable ambition of solving the conflict between naturalism and religion, Martin A Greenman, remarks that one must come to the book “with a certain mood”. Too critical a mood would blind the reader to its religious insights, while the sensitivity and depth of its philosophic insights would be lost if one were to approach it in a too enthusiastically religious mood. Greenman finishes by justifying Stace's philosophy to logical positivists by quoting from Wittgenstein's Tractatus: “My propositions are elucidatory in this way: he who understands me finally recognizes them as senseless, when he has climbed out through them, on them, over them….He must surmount these propositions: then he sees the world rightly” (6. 54.) [18] Dorothy M. Emmet found issue with the notion that the mystical experience is the point of intersection between the temporal and eternal orders. She writes that there are difficulties in Stace defining these orders as two distinct “orders of being”, rather than just as a way of speaking, because this then means some statements about the temporal order are relevant to what is said about the eternal order and vice versa. Indeed, the interrelation between these two orders is difficult to maintain. She also questioned Stace's characterisation of mystical consciousness as being the same everywhere. [19]

More recently, Maurice Friedman writes about the book in the context of the various attempts to find a universal essence - or perennial philosophy - within religion. He finds that Time and Eternity is a more systematic attempt at this than those proposed by Aldous Huxley or Ananda Coomaraswamy, but no more successful. For Friedman, the philosophy that Stace lays out in the book is derived from metaphysical speculation (that, like the ideas of Huxley and Coomaraswamy, is influenced by Vedanta), rather than mystical experience. Central to Friedman's critique is the notion that there is a vast gulf between the mystical experience which Stace defines as beyond thought, and his philosophical system built on this. He also mentions that mystics do not always agree on what experiences, symbols and philosophies are the closest to the divine. [20]

The book has received more positive support however. Robert C Neville called Time and Eternity “the most sophisticated treatment of eternity and time in our century so far”. [21] In his Thought: A Very Short Introduction , Tim Bayne says the book contains a “classic” discussion of ineffability. [22] American writer Arthur Goldwag has said that the phrase "that than which there is no other" that he encountered in Time and Eternity was one of a number of factors that contributed to him giving up praying. [23]

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Abraham Joshua Heschel</span> Polish-American Conservative Judaism Rabbi

Abraham Joshua Heschel was a Polish-American rabbi and one of the leading Jewish theologians and Jewish philosophers of the 20th century. Heschel, a professor of Jewish mysticism at the Jewish Theological Seminary of America, authored a number of widely read books on Jewish philosophy and was a leader in the civil rights movement.

In metaphilosophy and ethics, metaethics is the study of the nature, scope, and meaning of moral judgment. It is one of the three branches of ethics generally studied by philosophers, the others being normative ethics and applied ethics.

In philosophy, rationalism is the epistemological view that "regards reason as the chief source and test of knowledge" or "any view appealing to reason as a source of knowledge or justification", often in contrast to other possible sources of knowledge such as faith, tradition, or sensory experience. More formally, rationalism is defined as a methodology or a theory "in which the criterion of truth is not sensory but intellectual and deductive".

The perennial philosophy, also referred to as perennialism and perennial wisdom, is a perspective in philosophy and spirituality that views religious traditions as sharing a single, metaphysical truth or origin from which all esoteric and exoteric knowledge and doctrine has grown.

Fideism is a term used to name a standpoint or an epistemological theory which maintains that faith is independent of reason, or that reason and faith are hostile to each other and faith is superior at arriving at particular truths. The word fideism comes from fides, the Latin word for faith, and literally means "faith-ism". Philosophers have identified a number of different forms of fideism. Strict fideists hold that reason has no place in discovering theological truths, while moderate fideists hold that though some truth can be known by reason, faith stands above reason.

<i>Critique of Pure Reason</i> 1781 book by Immanuel Kant

The Critique of Pure Reason is a book by the German philosopher Immanuel Kant, in which the author seeks to determine the limits and scope of metaphysics. Also referred to as Kant's "First Critique", it was followed by his Critique of Practical Reason (1788) and Critique of Judgment (1790). In the preface to the first edition, Kant explains that by a "critique of pure reason" he means a critique "of the faculty of reason in general, in respect of all knowledge after which it may strive independently of all experience" and that he aims to reach a decision about "the possibility or impossibility of metaphysics". The term "critique" is understood to mean a systematic analysis in this context, rather than the colloquial sense of the term.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Rudolf Otto</span> German theologian, philosopher and comparative religionist (1869–1937)

Rudolf Otto was an eminent German Lutheran theologian, philosopher, and comparative religionist. He is regarded as one of the most influential scholars of religion in the early twentieth century and is best known for his concept of the numinous, a profound emotional experience he argued was at the heart of the world's religions. While his work started in the domain of liberal Christian theology, its main thrust was always apologetical, seeking to defend religion against naturalist critiques. Otto eventually came to conceive of his work as part of a science of religion, which was divided into the philosophy of religion, the history of religion, and the psychology of religion.

The existence of God is a subject of debate in theology, philosophy of religion and popular culture. A wide variety of arguments for and against the existence of God or deities can be categorized as logical, empirical, metaphysical, subjective or scientific. In philosophical terms, the question of the existence of God or deities involves the disciplines of epistemology and ontology and the theory of value.

A religious experience is a subjective experience which is interpreted within a religious framework. The concept originated in the 19th century, as a defense against the growing rationalism of Western society. William James popularised the concept. In some religions this may result in unverified personal gnosis.

In philosophy, transcendence is the basic ground concept from the word's literal meaning, of climbing or going beyond, albeit with varying connotations in its different historical and cultural stages. It includes philosophies, systems, and approaches that describe the fundamental structures of being, not as an ontology, but as the framework of emergence and validation of knowledge of being. These definitions are generally grounded in reason and empirical observation, and seek to provide a framework for understanding the world that is not reliant on religious beliefs or supernatural forces. "Transcendental" is a word derived from the scholastic, designating the extra-categorical attributes of beings.

<i>The Perennial Philosophy</i>

The Perennial Philosophy is a comparative study of mysticism by the British writer and novelist Aldous Huxley. Its title derives from the theological tradition of perennial philosophy.

Acosmism, held in contrast or equivalent to pantheism, denies the reality of the universe, seeing it as ultimately illusory, and only the infinite unmanifest Absolute as real. Conceptual versions of Acosmism are found in eastern and western philosophies.

Scholarly approaches to mysticism include typologies of mysticism and the explanation of mystical states. Since the 19th century, mystical experience has evolved as a distinctive concept. It is closely related to "mysticism" but lays sole emphasis on the experiential aspect, be it spontaneous or induced by human behavior, whereas mysticism encompasses a broad range of practices aiming at a transformation of the person, not just inducing mystical experiences.

Metaphysical naturalism is a philosophical worldview which holds that there is nothing but natural elements, principles, and relations of the kind studied by the natural sciences. Methodological naturalism is a philosophical basis for science, for which metaphysical naturalism provides only one possible ontological foundation. Broadly, the corresponding theological perspective is religious naturalism or spiritual naturalism. More specifically, metaphysical naturalism rejects the supernatural concepts and explanations that are part of many religions.

Higher consciousness is the consciousness of God or, in the words of Dawn DeVries, "the part of the human mind that is capable of transcending animal instincts". While the concept has ancient roots, it was significantly developed in German idealism, and is a central notion in contemporary popular spirituality, including the New Age movement.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Walter Terence Stace</span> Philosopher and epistemologist

Walter Terence Stace was a British civil servant, educator, public philosopher and epistemologist, who wrote on Hegel, mysticism, and moral relativism. He worked with the Ceylon Civil Service from 1910 to 1932, and from 1932 to 1955 he was employed by Princeton University in the Department of Philosophy. He is most renowned for his work in the philosophy of mysticism, and for books like Mysticism and Philosophy (1960) and Teachings of the Mystics (1960). These works have been influential in the study of mysticism, but they have also been severely criticised for their lack of methodological rigor and their perennialist pre-assumptions.

Metaphysics is the branch of philosophy that investigates principles of reality transcending those of any particular science. Cosmology and ontology are traditional branches of metaphysics. It is concerned with explaining the fundamental nature of being and the world. Someone who studies metaphysics can be called either a "metaphysician" or a "metaphysicist".

Articles related to philosophy of religion include:

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Mysticism</span> Practice of religious experiences during alternate states of consciousness

Mysticism is popularly known as becoming one with God or the Absolute, but may refer to any kind of ecstasy or altered state of consciousness which is given a religious or spiritual meaning. It may also refer to the attainment of insight in ultimate or hidden truths, and to human transformation supported by various practices and experiences.

<i>The Teachings of the Mystics</i> 1960 book by Walter T. Stace

The Teachings of the Mystics is a 1960 work of popular philosophy by the Princeton philosopher Walter T. Stace that lays out his philosophy of mysticism and compiles writings on mystical experience from across religious traditions. The book’s comprehensive selections met with broadly positive responses.

References

  1. Stace, W. T. (1952) Time and Eternity. Princeton University Press. P. 22.
  2. Stace (1952) P. 23
  3. Stace (1952) P. 40
  4. Stace (1952) P. 51
  5. Stace (1952) P. 91
  6. Stace (1952) P. 148
  7. Stace (1952) P. 94-95
  8. Stace (1952) P. 142
  9. Stace (1952) P. 82
  10. Stace (1952) P. 134
  11. Stace (1952) P. 147-8
  12. Stace (1952) P. 136
  13. Stace (1952) P. 37
  14. Aldrich, Virgil C. (Jan. 21, 1954). "Book Reviews", The Journal of Philosophy , 51(2), 75-77
  15. Bixler, J.S. (Oct., 1952). "Book Reviews", The Journal of Bible and Religion , 20(4), 272-274, OUP.
  16. Bixler, J.S. (Jul 1953). "Reviews of Books", The Philosophical Review , 62(3), 479-480.
  17. Kaplan, Abraham (Oct 1953). "Book Reviews", Philosophy East and West , 3(3), 1953, 275-276.
  18. Greenman, Martin A. (Mar. 1953). "Reviews", Philosophy and Phenomenological Research ,13(3), 416-417.
  19. Emmet, Dorothy, M. (Jan 1954). "New Books", Philosophy , 29(108), 77-78
  20. Friedman, Maurice. (2012) A Heart of Wisdom: Religion and Human Wholeness SUNY Press. pp. 98-100. ISBN   9781438403366
  21. Neville, Robert Cummings. (1993). Eternity and Time's Flow , SUNY Press. pp. 236-237. ISBN   9780791415993
  22. Bayne, Tim. (2013). Thought: A Very Short Introduction Oxford University Press. p. 121. ISBN   9780199601721
  23. Goldwag, Arthur (October 9, 2009) Confession: Why I Don't Pray. Killing the Buddha magazine