Frankel, Charles - The Rediscovery Of Sin

06/26/2009

The Case For Modern Man, Harper & Brothers 1956, Ch 6

This is a review of Niebuhr's main philosophies regarding the human condition. The discussion takes the form of a detailed exposition of Niebuhr's philosophy, and then a longer refutation of it. Niebuhr's main points are as follows:
-Humanity is trapped between ideal infinity and its finite nature, creating the defining emotion of anxiety.
-Anxiety in relation to unattainable perfection tends toward considering human finite nature to be the only worthy attainment, e.g. sin.
-The concept of original sin in the human condition plays a powerful explanatory role in human history. The concept works in this manner: because humanity does not recognize its finite nature it continually oversteps what it is capable of, ending in great disappointments (pg90).
-Liberalism attempts to deny that humanity has original sin and is therefore misguided and prone to failure.
-Original sin isn't a psychological phenomenon; it is somehow more: some sort of metaphysical condition on humanity that is insoluble (pg93-5). The insolubility comes from a fundamental 'paradox of human freedom', that humanity is free to choose yet bounded by causal necessity.

Author claims that this paradox is actually a logical mistake: there is no contradiction between being subject to the laws of nature and having freedom. Being predictable (subject to causal laws) doesn't entail lacking freedom (being able to choose based on your judgment). (pg96-98) Further, author claims that adding 'original sin' to human history does little to offer a better explanation, since sin is (1) ever present and (2) is a side-effect of the finite nature of humanity, though it has yet to be seen how finite humanity is. (pg100)

The next discussion relates to Niebuhr's indictment of liberalism's hope for man's progress. Yet Niebuhr makes a straw man out of liberalism; modern liberals were intimately familiar with humanity's self-interested motives and egoism. Author takes an extended look at the writings of Condorcet, whose writings, when translated into English, had the targeted term "the indefinite perfectibility of man'. (pg101-106) Condorcet was talking about how there are definite limits on how knowledge and social structures can improve mankind, but we aren't in a position to know what those limits are (until we reach them?). Really, it was a belief in the indefinite improvability of man'.

More importantly, author argues that the shift from 'man's sinfulness' to 'the goodness of man' wasn't a fundamental contradiction but instead a shift in focus. It wasn't an attempt to claim that the human condition was essentially good, but instead an attempt to redefine the focus of debate from soul/redemption-talk to social/societal-talk. (pg107-8) What the 'goodness of man' stance tries to get right is the primacy of social structures, government and knowledge in human flourishing, as opposed to the primacy of personal salvation in humanity's redemption.

The last discussion is an analysis of the context of Niebuhr's writings: they come at a time where 'everything seems to have contrived to make ... heightened moral impulses appear irrelevant' (pg112) and modern society experiences increasing alienation. Niebuhr's writings then make this experience a deep-seated, widespread metaphysical one, yet author argues that it explains little other than what we already know-- that humanity involves a struggle of ideals in a finite world. (pg113-5)