Soliloqui

by Agostino d'Ippona

Questo scritto di Agostino percorre, e a sua volta ripropone, la difficile strada della riflessione filosofica, volta a indagare, mediante la ragione e secondo il criterio dell'evidenza, le verità che interessano l'uomo e alle quali egli si riferisce per vivere.

Genres: Philosophy, Theology, Classics, Nonfiction, Christian, Religion, History

156 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 387

Reviews

[Brian Eshleman · Rating 4 out of 5]

Augustine's heart as discernible from his words is an interesting place. One minute he pours forth rhapsodic enthusiasm of which Christ is altogether worlthy. The next, Augustine gives unto Him the offering of a logical puzzle.

[Carlo Mascellani · Rating 5 out of 5]

Da agnostico ho sempre apprezzsto enormemente la straordinaria capacità di Agostino di giustapporre fede e ragione a comporre un percorso fecondo, a evitare gli estremismi alla Tertulliano e l'abisso del cieco razionalismo. È questo un testo d'importanza capitale per conoscere il pensiero più propriamente filosofico di Agostino (le sue tematiche principali si trovano qui esposte mediante un fittizio dialogo con la Ragione) e innamorarsi della sua inesausta sete di verità.

[Jerzy · Rating 3 out of 5]

My 2021 reading from the Great Philosophers series from Gazeta Wyborcza. I've also read:
* 2015: Seneca's Moral letters to Lucilius
* 2016: Aristotle's Protrepticus and Physics
* 2017: Aristotle's Great Ethics and Poetics
* 2018: Plato's dialogues Symposium, Statesman, Sophist, and Eutyphro
* 2019: Plato's Republic
* 2020: Cicero's Tusculan Disputations and other works

~~~

Contains Augustine's Soliloquies, On the Immortality of the Soul, and On the Magnitude of the Soul. These are 3 separate works, but appear to be meant as one continued chain of reasoning about the soul's properties.

I have to admit, I don't understand why these (out of all Augustine's works) were chosen for this collection. The Soliloquies start with a touching heartfelt prayer, wishing to get to know God... but somehow devolves quickly into mere sophistry, trying to "prove" that the soul is immortal and that it does not take up physical space. It comes across as intellectual word games, rather than legit striving to understand God and the soul in ways that would feel more meaningful (at least to me!)

At the end of On the Magnitude of the Soul, out of nowhere he finally touches on these meaningful things: How should we live? Specifically, why should we trust in the God of Christianity, and how should we worship him on Earth? ... but since it comes out of nowhere, these things are just *stated*, not actually *defended*, which is a real shame.

For instance, I *love* this (approx) quote from near the end of that book:

It is our responsibility to wish to help everyone, even those who have hurt us, or at least want to hurt us. This exactly is the true, perfect, one religion.

YES! Say more about that please! ... but no, we've just spend 100 pages talking about whether the soul has width or height or depth. You'd think a rigorous debate about that is much less interesting than a rigorous understanding of what we should DO with our souls, right? *sigh*

He's also vehemently against appreciating / celebrating good use of sensory perception---and apparently empiricism too. If God didn't want us to appreciate this world he created, why did he put our souls in bodies? But that's never addressed... until at the end, he points out that "pure reason" (distinct from sensory perception) is what separates humans from the animals, and humans are second-best to God. So we should ONLY be honing this thing that makes us "better" than animals, and neglecting the senses---whereas if you spend time learning to tell apart different wines or spices, it's not merely a neutral waste of time but an actual travesty to Augustine, a devaluing of your very humanity. I can't agree with him on this. I mean, yeah, let's hone our reason---but also hone our other senses too! We do live in the world and might as well make the most of it, right? And although Augustine doesn't realize it, all those "pure" geometric arguments he loves are very much tied to intuition built up from our senses anyway.

Ah yes, GEOMETRYYYYY! The ancient philosophers loooooved them some (ideal) circles and points and squares. This came up in a few of the earlier readings, but Augustine's is the first one where I've really been struck by just how WOWED he is by geometric proofs. This is (seemingly) pure pure
logic! The pure pursuit of higher abstract truths, very close to religious pursuit of a higher understanding of God! It's practically mystical! None of those dirty empirical senses have to muddy our path when we're talking about perfect points and circles! And I'll admit, he has a point. Math and geometry are some of the very few things that (seemingly) anyone could agree on as self-evident truths. Even if some proofs are not always self-evident, they can be convincingly proven from assumptions by pure logic with a bit of persistence. So math and geometry do a LOT of work throughout Augustine's books as metaphors/analogies for other "eternal truths" about the soul and about God. This makes me understand a bit better why, say, the Pythagoreans were not *just* mathematicians but also mystics.

(Except, of course, now we know that there are things like non-Euclidean geometry---which are ALSO completely true consequences from certain assumptions, but can differ substantially from plane geometry. Augustine's claims about perfection involve some arguments about triangles and squares on a plane---but those things work differently on, say, a sphere. These later-discovered truths about *triangles on a sphere* are also eternal, but I suspect Augustine would be upset that he can't just say "this is a truth about triangles" and leave it at that, because his whole point with the triangles is to illustrate something completely general and eternal, IIRC. To me, the idea that "math is more complicated and subjective than we thought" is kind of thrilling, but I don't think he would have liked it. Likewise, I assume we used to believe only in plane geometry because we had built up intuition from *sensory perception*. It's easy to make an approximate plane in the sand and draw approximate circles that give intuition for truths about abstract planes and circles; harder to do it on a sphere; so Augustine's own choice of which geometric proofs to trust originates with the senses, and not vice versa.)

Also, despite the tacked-on happy ending in which we're supposed to serve our fellow man, there's some very elitist and non-humanistic stuff earlier on. In a hypothetical where his loved ones won't join him in a quest for wisdom, Augustine admits he doesn't value their lives or presence for its own sake---only for its utility in helping him reach wisdom. (As Pratchett would say: "Sin, young man, is when you treat people like things. Including yourself. That's what sin is.") Or in another section, Augustine says that the masses can't be expected to tell apart a good rational argument from a misleading one, so they should just have blind faith in following the advice of "exceptional people"... instead of getting to hear well-justified arguments and judge them for themselves. Now I'll admit that many folks in the USA today haven't done a great job of discarding horribly-flawed arguments---but they've done an even worse job in listening to "exceptional" grifters and charlatans in the first place, so I emphasize with *trying* to persuade with good arguments (and educate people so they're better at dissecting arguments in the first place!), vs a worldview in which the majority is *expected* to just shut up and listen to the "right" people.

Finally: there's one incomplete thread in these books that I wouldn't have noticed if I read it earlier, before having a child with special needs. Particularly in the Soliloquies, his key arguments (about the soul's immortality) rest on a claim that "reason" resides in "the soul," and since reason deals with eternal truths, the soul must be eternal too. (There's more to it, but it still seems a shoddy argument built on fuzzy definitions. Anyway.) He DOES notice that some humans aren't well educated or otherwise aren't born with a strong ability to reason about abstract truths---but surely they do have souls, don't they? He promises to get back to this later, yet he never does as far as I could tell... except possibly when, in On the Immortality of the Soul, he seems to suggest that the souls of non-intellectual-elite folks are still souls, but "lesser" souls somehow. Seriously?!? On the contrary, I'm pretty sure my daughter has a *direct* line to Truth and Love, without needing Reason as an intermediary. Same with babies in general! Did these ancient wiseasses never hold a baby!?!??!?!?!?

In other words, I was not impressed with Augustine in these works. Despite apparent humility in his words, his beliefs show that he's quite condescending. He interrupts himself with exhortations to knock down weak arguments, but then applauds one weak argument after another. And he tacks on gratifying conclusions at the end, out of nowhere, with a "...but alas I can't explain *why* these other things are true because you're just not pure enough / prepared enough yet."

Out of this Great Philosophers series, in terms of having strong arguments as well as good values to live by, the Stoics have impressed me the most so far. Among their ranks are not only true elites (Emperor Marcus Aurelius!), but also folks like the lame, blind ex-slave Epictetus (not part of this series but I've read a little of him too). Although Epictetus and the other Stoics had *high* standards for their students, they didn't claim you have to be "pure" and freed of all worldly desire to even BEGIN contemplating the highest truths, which is what Augustine claims here.

Still, Augustine can be an engrossing writer. There are quite a few funny exchanges between Augustine and his interlocutors, sassing each other for making an argument too long or for agreeing too quickly to a shoddy assumption---it's more pleasant to read than Aristotle. At some point I would like to read The Confessions of St. Augustine in order to see how he addresses his personal journey and goes into depth on more meaningful spiritual issues, not just the intellectual games he plays here.

[Jonathan Rolfe · Rating 3 out of 5]

I blasted through this without reading almost any of the notes; I will come back for those later. I also read Augustine's notes for the third book, on the immortality of the soul--it was much like the others except that it was just a list of arguments with no charming discourse to frame it. I liked the beginning best. I am excited to see what the Old English translator does with this.


Reason. I accept that. And yet if someone were to say to you, "I will make you know God like you know Alypius," wouldn't you give thanks and say, "That's enough"?
Augustine. I would certainly give thanks, but I wouldn't say that that was enough.
Reason. Why, pray tell?
Augustine. Because I don't know God like I know Alypius, and yet I don't even know Alypius enough (I.3.8)

Reason. But I ask you, why do you want the people you love either to live or to live with you?
Augustine. So that we may investigate our souls and God at the same time and with one heart. For thus it easily happens that the first one with a discovery effortlessly leads the others to it. (I.12.20)

[Michael Hitchcock · Rating 3 out of 5]

St. Augustine picks up a pen and starts jamming with himself. He gives one line of dialogue to PURE REASON and one line to himself. His quest is to understand the nature of God and the soul and especially to find out if the soul is immortal.

The voice of reason comes in pretty strong when St. Augustine first asks himself, Ok, but how will I know when I get my answer? Since I don't know the answer isn't it quite possible that I'll quit investigating early or too late and accept an untruth?

I love the subtlety of that question so much. How do we know when an answer is right? Something to think about and the question alone is worth asking.

Unfortunately, St. Augustine sort of loses that question and accepts an easy answer for it (basically "because God")

As the dialogue continues, St. Augustine basically pushes the entire thing into this rehash of Platonic ideals. "If something chaste dies, does chastity die?" and he basically works himself up to deciding that because the soul is the mind and the mind is the essence of living then basically an individual mind must live on because it is an essence.

I know so many Christians are so enamoured with the idea of St. Augustine as a great formidable mind who can "prove logically" that God exists (a similarly wrong claim often made of C.S. Lewis as well) But he's just a man doing the absolute best with what he has. We all start with our assumptions, but Augustine feels particularly burdened with them because of when and where he comes from. His Reason is almost uniformly excellent, but we all learned from that exercise in pure logic, computer science that putting Garbage In sends Garbage Out.

The fact is he is working at trying to figure out if the soul is immortal, but he has not defined soul (or rather he has used it in multiple and flexible ways) and he has already decided God exists.

But this does not have to be a point against him. This was a very complete and honest accounting of his thought process and was very interesting to read. The process itself was not actually wrong. He serves as a good model for self reflection.

If done well this technique can serve to expose holes in your knowledge and reasoning. But it cannot expose the assumptions you're working with- those are built in and this method can serve to make your own assumptions stronger.

This is some of his very early work and he apparently in the future revisited this question without leaning at all on the ideas of Plato. I'll be interested to see how it pans out.

This is worth a look for those curious about St. Augustine or historical philosophy. The sentences are long and hard and full of concepts unfamiliar to the modern reader and so is not really appropriate for casual toilet reading. And anyone on their own religious quest is probably better off skipping this one.

All the best parts of this are where he gets into these tangents with himself about, say, the nature of truth, or hypothetical questions. If I had a time travelling device, I'd love to see how he would proceed in the modern age.

[Rebecca · Rating 3 out of 5]

One of Augustine's earliest writings, composed shortly after his conversion to Christianity. He employs a form of inner dialogue between himself and his own Reason in a philosophical search for God/truth and the nature of the soul, particularly whether the soul is immortal or not.

I found the logic a little difficult to follow at times and often my mind wandered and I would suddenly realize I was completely nonplussed at how we had arrived at a particular certainty, ready to pursue the next arcane point. I have such a fondness and admiration for Augustine from reading his Confessions some time back that this sustained me through some of the perplexity of "Soliloquies", which seems to betray some of the brittle brilliance of newly-converted youth. (He was 33 at the time of writing.)

[❀ Diana ❀ · Rating 3 out of 5]

Citesc orice are în descriere ediție bilingvă, în special greaca veche sau latina. Nu am cunoștințe vaste în niciuna dintre aceste limbi, dar sufletul îmi prinde viață când mă aflu în preajma lor. Acesta a fost și unul dintre motivele pentru care am ales să citesc Solilocviile Sf. Augustin.

Solilocviile sunt prezentate în forma unui dialog interior cu Rațiunea, care împreună cu autorul doresc să găsească un suflet. În cele din urmă, acel suflet care trebuie descoperit este al autorului însuși.

Ar fi momentul să mă apuc și de Confesiuni cândva în viața asta. :)

[carlos · Rating 5 out of 5]

Excelente!!!

Es maravilloso como Dios se manifiesta todos los dias en todas las cosas...si pudieramos entender que es lo que quiere Dios o que es lo que hace Dios todos los dias nos dariamos cuenta de su gran amor, si pudieramos hacer silencio,comprenderiamos que en cada segundo,y en todo momento Dios quiere hablarnos...El habla!!! Esta Vivo...

[Reinhard Gobrecht · Rating 5 out of 5]

Der 1. Teil des Buches sind die Selbstgespräche von Augustinus. Der 2. Teil des Buches handelt von der Unsterblichkeit der Seele. Beide Teile enthalten bemerkenswerte Gedanken über die Wahrheit. Wahrheit kann nicht zugrunde gehen, auch wenn es die Welt nicht mehr gibt. Der Geist, zu dessen Idee die Wahrheit gehört, beteiligt die menschliche Vernunft am Geist, an den Ideen und damit auch an der Wahrheit. Die menschliche Vernunft aber gehört zur Seele des Menschen. Wenn sich der Mensch mit den ewigen Wahrheiten beschäftigt, ist er dem Sein und dem Geist und damit auch den Göttern am nächsten. Da die Wahrheit nicht zugrunde gehen kann, kann auch diejenige menschliche Seele, die die Wahrheit schaut nicht wirklich zugrunde gehen.

[Mindaugas Dudenas · Rating 3 out of 5]

Tikį viskuo, ką žinome, bet žiną neviską, kuo tikime;

Didelis skirtumas, ar troškimas palaidojamas dėl dvasios nevilties, ar nugalimas dėl jos sveikatos;

Nekantri yra meilė,ir nėra galo ašaroms, jei meilė negauna to, ką myli;

[Salvador Vivas · Rating 5 out of 5]

Si alguien quiere conocer de epistemología, los Soliloquio son definitivamente la mejor fuente para leer y conocer del tema

[Connor Longaphie · Rating 2 out of 5]

I found this to be quite poo tbh

[Anderson Paz · Rating 3 out of 5]

Solilóquios é uma obra escrita logo após a conversão de Agostinho, entre 386-387. O livro é um diálogo consigo mesmo em que busca respostas para suas inquietações filosóficas e espirituais. Basicamente, Agostinho argumenta que é necessário se afastar dos sentidos para contemplar a beleza suprema e que a alma existe e não morre.
A obra é permeada de uma visão neoplatonista do ser humano que divide alma e corpo e tenta preservar a alma das sensações externas que corrompem o corpo. Apesar de ser um clássico com passagens belíssimas de orações a Deus, o neoplatonismo que influenciava Agostinho à época faz com que boa parte do texto contradite uma visão antropológica bíblica que não divide o ser humano.
No segundo texto da edição, sobre a Imortalidade da Alma, Agostinho argumenta que o espírito nunca morre. E prossegue afirmando a dependência do corpo em relação à alma. Mais uma vez, muito neoplatonismo.

[Tom · Rating 3 out of 5]

I'm sure if I better understood this literary genre that I would have benefitted more from this book. It seemed to me to be philosophical musings, not really connected to anything, which I suppose is what a soliloque is.