About his theory that God IS the light, which is one that struck me especially: this is one of the first Jewish philosophers we've read about this year that doesn't require God to be a transcendent and omnipotent overseer. The fact that God is the reason we look is different than God being what we're looking for. Of course, that begs the question, what ARE we looking for? Personally, I think it's less an understanding of our light, but a deeper appreciation of the light. I think this relates to Josh's fantabulous square / circle masterpiece. I can try to recreate it here:
Sorry, Josh, but I think I may have actually surpassed your skill. Anyway.
The fact that God isn't just in us, but that we are in God, as I interpret this, is also new. Illuminated, one might say [ha ha]. Again, a sign not of transcendence but of being among us. God is wherever we invite him in. Does that mean we can invite him into ourselves? Does that mean we can invite him into someone else? Is God inviting us in, too?
If God is inviting us in, that poses a problem. Not only where we are being invited into, but why? Could God learn from us? This is getting off-topic, I know, but it is true that Abraham gave God a piece of his mind on Sodom and Gemorrah Night. Maybe it's a two-way street and God needs to accept us like we have to for Him.
Back to Heschel, though, I found it shocking that it was so poetic. It seems remarkably informal, in a way, to be a text of philosophy. It seems like Heschel sat down one day and literally put his own feelings on paper, and they sort of just happened to be about God. I mean... light? the literal poems scattered throughout our text? Rarely do we see any text these days that lets its hair down - or pages, I guess. Such an "informal" style actually seems beneficial. I mean, Judaism doesn't use a four-hour midnight mass every December 24-5, it's a relatively quick service that is, for a majority of the time, personal. Silent. So for people who are so interested in praying to God by themselves, in a community [Paradox? Not really.], it would stand to reason that a book designed in such a relatable style would work.
Well, in any case, it worked for me. I've been writing poetry since I was young, and only recently I've lost my inspiration, and a person with such amazing ideas and theories about the very nature of our beliefs is admirable. It's a tough subject, and if God didn't inspire him, maybe his Light did. But if what that square / circle masterpiece and what I think AJH was trying to say is true, then the Light and God are one and the same. Same with God and... a butterfly. Or a dragonfly. Or a dragon! God is, just like I am and we all are. It's an existence that needs no defense and no reason, it's just a fact of life. Of course our lives are remarkably shorter than God's, obvs, but the point is that God is a reason to keep on looking, to keep on praying. Maybe it's humans themselves who make miracles happen, but without a reason - God - nothing would ever happen at all.
Am I making any sense?
Didn't think so.
Anyway, my period's almost over, and I'll try to do the real post soon, because this was basically stream-of-consciousness, but I just wanted to have something up. And this doesn't nearly accurately express how much I fell in love with AJH.
1 comment:
the idea of a give and take, as you put it, is central to Heschel's thought. good one!
i am really glad you "fell in love" with him. it's hard not to ;-)
Post a Comment