I haven't read Rousseau and I don't know from what context the sentence is taken. But my first impression upon reading it is that I guess he has never had any chance to interact with differently-abled persons. Or, to give him the benefit of the doubt, the 'we' in his sentence ONLY refers to a group of people who is born with the capability of reading and understanding his sentence. The 'we' there certainly cannot include people who were born with severe brainEver since my visit to the Red Cross Home for the Disabled in 2007, I'm quite sensitive to sweeping statements like Rousseau's. Are WE really born capable of learning? If WE is meant to refer to human beings, is EVERY human being really born capable of learning? What about the man (let's call him "Bobby") whom I fed in the Home for the Disabled? Bobby couldn't move his body. He was only able to lay down there on the bed from the day he was born and perhaps as long as he may live. What he could do was just to move his head and all the organs located in his head. Perhaps we can never be certain if, being born in such condition, he is capable of learning. But, having interacted with him, I really really doubt that he is able to learn in any way. I may be wrong. I can't help but ask, "Is he able to know God? How is it possible for him to understand his existence if his brain is severely damaged?" So, I wonder if the understanding of the image of God as rationality (an understanding which says what differentiates human beings, being the image of God, from other creatures is their ability to think rationally) is still tenable. I guess there is no way to defend it unless we want to exclude Bobby from the human race.
My encounter with Bobby forces me to stop and ponder: "What does it mean to be human? What does our human-ness consist of?"
A photo of manbearpig (human-bear-pig chimera)
Source: http://www.thinkgene.com/scientists-successfully-create-human-bear-pig-chimera/
6 comments:
Hi Andreas,
I guess those who argue that image of God consists *only* rationality might say that the Fall has affect some like Bobby who lack the faculty of rationality. Yet that does not:
1) Diminish the fact that image of God consists only rationality, and
2) Deny the fact that those, whose rational faculty is affected by the Fall to the extend cannot learn, are created in the image of God as that was the initial endowment (which is now tarnished).
Could this be the case? Just thinking out loud.
Hi Josh,
That seems to be plausible, but not without difficulties. I guess now the issue is the nature of the Fall. Some questions that may be asked: Why does the Fall have such a severe consequence ONLY for some people, like Bobby, and NOT the same for every living human being? What makes people like Bobby so special and, hence, have to bear the consequence of the Fall which other people do not need to bear? Does it mean that the consequence of the Fall is universal but NOT impartial (by this I mean everyone suffers because of the Fall but there is a kind of hierarchy of suffering. Some, like Bobby, suffer more. Others suffer less)?
Hi Andreas,
You asked, "Why does the Fall have such a severe consequence ONLY for some people, like Bobby, and NOT the same for every living human being? What makes people like Bobby so special and, hence, have to bear the consequence of the Fall which other people do not need to bear?"
Hmm...deep questions which I don't have the answer at all.
Nonetheless, may I draw a parallel with this other story: People once asked why people are blind. They asked if there is any purpose for some people to be blind. They don't see a role for blindness to play in the economy of redemptive-history. Then came Fanny Crosby.
Does this story say anything about the questions you raised?
Hi Josh,
I think I know where you're getting at. You're still a true-blue Presbyterian! :D
I guess it's much easier to grasp God's purposes in and through the life of the blind Crosby rather than in and through the life of the paralyzed Bobby... Or perhaps it's not something that needs to be grasped but to be accepted and to do something about it (love those who are suffering) as much as we can?
Perhaps there will be no answer to my questions until we meet and ask the Creator himself...
Hahahahaha...
So does that mean those who think that the image of God is *only* rationality is not that wrong? Or at least their position is as defensible as others?
I think I would rather put it in this way: The view of the image of God as being located in rationality is as INadequate as the relational or functional view of the image of God. I'll leave this question open-ended. :)
Post a Comment