« soc. | Main

apie paklusnumą

pagalvojau, kad kažkaip šita krikščioniška paklusnumo tradicija rings a bell ir šiandien:

'when a Greek entrusted himself to a doctor or a philosopher, it was in order to arrive at a particular result. This result could be knowledge of a craft, or some kind of perfection, or a cure, and obedience is only the necessary and not always agreeable route to this result. So in Greek obedience, or anyway in the fact that a Greek submits himself at a given moment to the will or orders of someone, there is always an objective – health, virtue, the truth – and an end, that is to say there will be a point when this relationship of obedience is suspended and even turned around. When one submits oneself to a philosophy professor, in Greece, it is in order to succeed in becoming master of oneself at a certain moment, that is to say to reverse this relationship of obedience and to become one’s own master. Now in Christian obedience, there is no end, for what does Christian obedience lead to? It leads quite simply to bedience. One obeys in order to be obedient, in order to arrive at a state of obedience. I think this notion of a state of obedience is also something completely new and specific that is absolutely unprecedented. The endpoint towards which the practice of obedience aims is what is called humility, which consists in feeling oneself the least of men, in taking orders
from anyone, thus continually renewing the relationship of obedience, and above all in renouncing one’s own will. Being humble is not a matter of knowing that one has committed many sins, and it is not merely accepting being given and submitting to the orders given by anyone whomsoever. Being humble is basically, and above all, knowing that any will of one’s own is a bad will. So if there is an end to obedience, it is a state of obedience defined by the definitive and complete renunciation of one’s own will. The aim of obedience is the mortification of one’s will; it is to act so that one’s will, as one’s own will, is dead, that is to say so that there is no other will but not to have any will. And this is how Saint Benedict defines good monks, in chapter V of his Rule: “They no longer live by their free will, ambulantes alieno judicio et imperio, in marching under the judgment and the imperium of another, they always desire that someone command them.”'
-- M. Foucault, Security, Territory, Population

Post a comment


This page contains a single entry from the blog posted on March 7, 2014 3:41 PM.

The previous post in this blog was soc..

Many more can be found on the main index page or by looking through the archives.

Powered by
Movable Type 3.35