Pieper—Faith, Hope, Love
1. Faith—first, Pieper talks about the logical end and step necessary in any belief. At a certain point, we must accept we can’t know, but trust in a person and have belief in them. So, he gives as an example, a person may say they were with my long-lost brother in a POW camp. This person gives some true characteristics of my brother, explains their interactions, etc. The mind is then in a state of anxiety b/c it cannot know. It has not seen the brother in the POW camp. But considering the things this person has said, along with the person seeming trustworthy, we come to believe them (or the opposite). Similarly, though I know next to nothing about quantum physics, I believe that it’s knowable by specialists, and I believe what I hear from them even though I in no way am qualified to confirm or deny their knowledge. I trust them, and I trust the scientific method, and so on. Religious belief is then not a step like this, but a leap, in which we must contemplate the nature of man. The main source of belief is the Bible, God’s revelation of himself through human writers, God granting these writers a “vision” through inspiration that they otherwise would not have been able to “see”, namely, the Scripture as it deals with God, God’s words, God’s actions through history. The questions then are—are these “revelations” worth believing, do they improve man’s lot, and if they do, do we believe the writer and through the writer, believe in the Person who revealed these things? The closest analogy to this in life is when a person tells another “I love you,” making clear their interior state, trying to communicate it to another, and that other can only benefit by this if they accept it and internalize the love that they recognize in another person for themselves, recognizing they are beloved. This is the relationship between God and man.
2. Hope—Hope is the thing with feathers which perches on the soul. But no, on Pieper’s view, Hope is something that comes from God, similar to ultimately Kierkegaard’s view (which Pieper references), Hope is basically an essential quality for man on his journey through life (status viatoris—the life of the pilgrim). We must keep our destination in mind and journey toward it, not giving in to despair and falling away from it. Knowledge of God is essential then, as He is our final destination, our ultimate goal, and choices leading away from Him lead to despair, of casting oneself into nothingness, the refusal to be your true self
3. Love—love is very complicated. First, he goes through a few languages to try and understand the different words for love, not unlike CS Lewis. Love has a lot of nuances…being bewitched by the beautiful, love as a gaze, love needing an object, God’s love for man, etc. The chapter on different words for love in various languages is super interesting. He tries to find some commonalities. First, love has some aspect of an assent of the will, the will essentially assenting to the thing loved, saying “It is good that you exist!/I want you to exist!” He then summarized his great distinction of the minds ability to think vs to know, thinking being grasping toward something not known, intuiting being something already known with the gaze of the mind then being able to simply contemplate/rest within it. Similarly, this aspect of the will with love isn’t a willing-to-do something, but rather an assent of the will to something that already exists. It affirms it. This leads to a larger fact: intuition/knowing is the basis for all further striving in knowledge. We have to already have a basis of understanding to build upon. So too, love is the basis for any other act of striving in the will. We do things because at bottom we love, and our acts of the will spring forth from our love. So when God wills us into creation, it is the same as saying He loved us into being. What we love then is the core of what we are, the innermost part of everything we will to do and be.
Ok, so I’m some sense that’s love. The next chapter focuses on what it is to be loved, to be the object of someone’s love. When someone loves you, they tell you all sorts of wonderful things about you, and a strange feeling that comes from that is shame. We know we’re not those things, but the lover thinks we are. Are they simply mistaken? Pieper (and Alice von Hildebrand) think otherwise. No, what the lover sees is in some sense your true self, the self you could be if you actualized yourself. Being loved becomes a call to be better than you are. Ultimately for the Christian, we recognize a desire to be loved, not by the prehistoric father figure of Freud, but by God himself, seeing in ourselves the glory he sees for us and in a childlike, unashamed way, rising up to that call.
He then goes on to say that Protestants have a real problem with Catholics combining Eros and Agape. Protestant theologians often think Agape is the only true love, their old fear of anything material rearing its ugly head. The Catholic response is grounded in being as a creature that was created and God saw as “very good.” So in loving someone or something, we are fundamentally recognizing that thing’s reality: God created it; it is good; it is “good that you exist.” All love comes from the core of man’s being and his innate desire for happiness.
Through this, Pieper (and the Catholic tradition) locates our love for everything else in the act of self-love by which we seek the ultimate ends of our own existence, the fullest realization of our own individual being.
Ultimately, in a true marriage of loving communion, there is no separation of Eros and agape—the full life unfolds in every possible angle “embracing and permeating all the dimensions of existence.” No separation is needed between Eros and agape here. In fact, Eros is the hinge point between human and divine, and without it, Eros would just become loveless sex, and reaching the divine agape would be impossible. Finally, when united with God, perfected