The wound that Rudra’s arrow opened in Prajāpati’s groin [. . .] The idea that in some future time that tattered edge of bleeding flesh might close was enough to suggest the possibility of a higher level of fullness, something in respect to which the fullness of the Beginning seemed crude and stifled. It didn’t matter whether that further fullness turned out to be (as indeed it would) unattainable. — Ka, Roberto Calasso

On New-Age Motivational Gurus

A short time ago I had the privilege to attend a seminar on, "Mastering Creative Energy: Unlocking Da Vinci and your Super Qi". Afterward, I was happy to have unleashed my Super Qi, though in the moment I had wondered, "why is it always necessary to reach for the top shelf of historical (action) figures." Why is it that these seminars never have as their subject a certain minor Franciscan who, after having extruded his life's work into five unread illuminated volumes, has produced a short commentary on one of the esoteric Saints which is to be his first and only true opus (in the sense of an indeterminate "truth" which continues to elude us (around the corner)). Surely it had required a great mustering of Super-Qi for this scholar to vault himself over such Scholastic mediocrity. When had Da Vinci ever required such gaseous assistance. And surely we should be satisfied merely to have unlocked Normal Qi, which ought to be sufficient for all but the most severe of our personal troubles. (Such quibbles were expunged when the Holy Spirit (Super Qi) filled my body).

Though I continue to be exceptionally permissive of such new-age sloganeering. As long as such movements capture more than a cynical adherence, they continue to remind us that "Ontology is Generous," as long as we continue to recognize such movements to be empirically false (First Upbuilding Discourse). That Ontology is always permitting a popular belief in anodyne falsehoods suggests a surplus value which has not yet been exploited; something which continues to lie fallow for "the lily of the field and the bird of the air." This is a nutriment which depends upon an ontological tension (potential energy), which evaporates if we consider the mystical notion to be true in earnest, which would, in a horror-film moment, have the scales fall from our eyes in view of all the lonely hospital dead — starved-to-death of Super Qi.

Saved from our decay.
Admire that perfect skeleton,
those veins, that skin like cellophane.
Take them and press them in a book.
Dare we behave as if the meek
will mark the places of the wise?

On Tillich

Everything is within the sacrifice. With the sacrifice one heals the sacrifice. I say this so that you might not imagine it easy to escape from sacrifice. In every sacrifice there is the uncertainty [anxiety] of a journey toward an unknown destination." — Ka, Roberto Calasso

As much as the spontaneous appearance of Da Vinci should rouse our suspicion, the peep show sequence that is the so-called "History of Philosophy" has always been un-believable. The arrangement of "Great Philosophers" into easy continuity (dubious) so that we might demonstrate the "Progression of an Idea" is always an extraneous movement. If the final idea were enough, it would be sufficient to have it at once. Rather, we are always building connections "ligatures" between discrete points. The construction of the connection/ligature, rather than incidental to the Tillich text, is necessary form of response to the sub-text that the original wound (from Rudra) is not closed. The secret promise of the ligature (i.e. History of Philosophy) is something that can tie closed that wound at the origin. We are therefore pursuing "the fullness of the Beginning" by drawing the progression of ideas from Beginning (unknowable) to End (unknown), yet every such text becomes a demonstration of the work which is the wound itself.

The role of the Brahman is to take the wound into himself and neutralize it in the sacrifice. We have not yet "gone beyond" the sacrifice, since this sacrifice is precisely what is occurring in the Text. In ontic/spiritual/moral categories a sure victory cannot be had for nothing. Regarding the "[anxiety] of a journey toward an unknown destination," Tillich delineates, "[the anxiety] of fate and death, that of emptiness and loss of meaning, and [the anxiety] of guilt and condemnation." Like the Pharmakos (in the Derridean sense of a poison/cure with the person to be condemned under erasure), Tillich produces a solvent which dissolves the problematic of these categories, which is the (fraught) psychological turn towards "Courage."

In the Kierkegaardian sense, Courage is perhaps the hardest thing in the world ("No such person one was ever comforted by the phrase, 'One does what one can,'"'(what/how much is that?)), so how is it that Tillich can produce it so cheaply. We have a foreboding, such as when reading those awful works of Apologetics, which all begin meekly enough, yet somehow find a way to conclude with a raunchy Broadway number (and, not infrequently enough, the Sieg Heil. (I do not wish to Pharmakos-the-Well, so to speak.)) Tillich would like to help us to Courage (Faith). Rather than a Kierkegaardian "swimming in 20,000 fathoms of water," we can stand on the shore and practice our movements, or perhaps merely study them on television. Tillich's Courage, which is a negative category without ethical/eschatological content, and which at worst breaks even (this is also the quality of the "sure investment"), is taken back into the sacrifice, which it does not escape for having been bought too cheaply. As the body of the Brahman digests the sacrificial offering, so is Tillich's courage dissolves into a pure cellularity. The cellular structure of the body, which cannot help but continue to exist, is the only necessary actor, and the Ground:

"He who is in the grip of doubt and meaninglessness cannot liberate himself from this grip; but he asks for an answer. He asks for the ultimate foundation of what we have called the courage of despair. There is only one possible answer: namely that the acceptance of despair is in itself faith and on the boundary line of the courage to be. [...] The paradox of every radical negativity, is that it must affirm itself in order to be able to negate itself. Even in the despair about meaning being affirms itself through us. The act of accepting meaninglessness is in itself a meaningful act. It is an act of [courage]."

"Laugh at the stupidities of the world or weep over them, you will regret it either way." Doubt or do not doubt, the negative act is still a positive act (in the "can't do nothing" sense), and non-courage is still a kind of courage (Hegelian, this). We continue to be dependent, then, on Ontology's Generosity for allowing us to continue to walk on solid Ground, though, by rights, we should pass right through.

Nothing I fear
has ever harmed me, why should you? ( )

High 3.

A short book, but not a brisk read. First and foremost a philosophy book, and not for laymen. I'm not well read on philosophy, so some of it was tough to chew. There's a lot of comfort to be found in the way Tillich unpacks the nature of fear, anxiety and the courage to overcome existential dread. Theology doesn't really come into it until the very end, at which point the conclusion feels a touch rushed. The foundation is built with such detail that it seems a shame not to spend more time unpacking the crux of the argument. As such, I'm not sure if I'm on board with everything or not, though it's certainly food for thought.


It seems Tillich is often confused as a pantheist. I'm not sure I entirely understand his theology, but, far from the latter view, his criticism of most theologies seems to point to him placing "God" in increasingly higher esteem, whereas pantheism would reduce this to equal footing. I Feel like Tillich's very discussion of his own theology causes him to fall into the same trap he accuses other theologies of, but then again, maybe I'm missing the point. The central idea is absolute faith in the "God above God"; the God above the God that becomes limited to our own sphere, even if "He" is the most important thing in our sphere. There is a God above the God of our theology and that God cannot be contained by our arguments for or against His existence. It's an interesting idea, but it raises more questions. It probably deserves its own book, rather being relegated to 3 pages. ( )

Once I realized that due to the density of the material that I needed to limit my reading to around 5 pages per day, things began to make more sense. As someone who frequently has allowed myself to be overcome by the anxieties of doubt and meaninglessness, the idea of "the courage to be" as a courage that encompasses and transcends both the mystical and the divine-personal encounter with God is comforting. The idea of a courage to be that encompasses and transcends the ideas of being part of a community and as oneself is a timely message for me. Of course, I could have it all wrong:) ( )

Summary: A philosophical discussion of being or ontology, the crisis of anxiety, and the nature of the courage to be, the affirmation of our being in the face of nonbeing, accepting our acceptance by the God above God despite our unacceptability.

This book has been around all my life (plus a couple years) on certainly on the edge of my awareness. I read, more or less uncomprehendingly (this is a dense read), an excerpt from this in my Intro to Philosophy course. Tillich was one of the giants of Twentieth century theology. In my Jesus Movement evangelical days of the early ’70s, I just dismissed him as one of “those” theological liberals.

Consequently, I ignored him in my reading. Until now. The Courage to Be, based on the Terry Lectures given at Yale in the early 1950’s, strikes me as an attempt to do at Yale something like another Paul did on the Areopagus.

Tillich writes in what has been describe as “The Age of Anxiety,” memorialized in a poem of W. H. Auden by that name. One of the most significant contributions of this book is an analysis of our anxiety, which he describes as coming in three forms: ontological, concerned with death (non-being) and our ultimate fate, spiritual, concerned with despair and loss of meaning, and moral, concerned with guilt and condemnation. The “courage to be” is the honest facing of this anxiety and choosing to affirm one’s being.

He traces the expression of this “courage” in the history of thought, discussing collectivist thought under the head of “courage and participation,” from feudal societies to Nietzsche, Marx, and the rise of communism and fascism. Under the head of “courage and individualization, he looks at the concept of selfhood both in religious contexts and the rise of Romanticism and naturalism, culminating in Existentialism, a radical courage in the face of life without inherent meaning.

The concluding chapter is the most “Christian” as he describes courage as the ultimate faith that accepts our acceptance despite our guilt and unacceptability, finding its source in “the God above God” the ground of our being. Tillich concludes with this italicized peroration:

“The courage to be is rooted in the God who appears when God has disappeared in the anxiety of doubts.”

In his analysis of anxiety stemming from the human condition and his historical survey of forms of “the courage to be” in face of the inescapable realities of death, the loss of meaning, and our implicatedness, Tillich names our reality. His framing of justification by faith is an imaginative re-framing of this core Reformation idea that retains the “I-Thou” nature of faith. Yet it is a framing without the central figure of Jesus and the crucial events of cross and resurrection. Jesus only receives two passing references in this work. As such, this work is only prolegomenon, leaving me wondering what follows in Tillich’s thought.

Perhaps that was Tillich’s intent in these lectures and this book, to invite his hearers and readers to say more about “the God who appears.” ( )

I came to Paul Tillich after a long period of searching, and my overwhelming feeling is of having arrived. Like a spiritual physician, Tillich diagnoses the existential disease condition of modern man, describes the pathophysiology going back to Classical times, and prescribes the cure. Along the way, he delivers penetrating analyses of Stoicism and other philosophies, various types of political collectivism, Existentialism, the Reformation, and much more. The premise of the book itself, brilliant in its simplicity and originality, is that courage reveals being and vice versa. Other resounding ideas include absolute faith, accepting acceptance, existential anxiety, anxiety vs. fear, theological theism, God above God (of theism), non-being (and its dependence on being), the courage of confidence and of despair, and many others. These are ideas with the power to fundamentally alter one’s worldview. They have definitely altered mine.

Regarding the categorization of Tillich as a liberal Christian: I bristle at this because of liberal Christianity’s emphasis on feeling over reason, its relativism, the tenets of its social(ist) Gospel, and its inaccurate but inevitable association with political liberalism (I am a conservative). Though I see how certain of Tillich’s conclusions could lead to this categorization, particularly his anti-authoritarianism, I think it is mistaken. If Tillich rebels against worldly religious authority, it is because he appeals to a higher authority: Christ himself. “The Church stands under the judgment of the Cross” is one of his most important ideas. How could a man who reaches back through the ages to establish an absolutist view of God, and who believes that secularism is a type of faith inimical to Christianity, be accurately associated with a movement that embraces relativism and social(ist) Gospel? I just don’t see it. Elsewhere he is categorized as neo-orthodox. Little minds try to box in what they cannot understand. This is exactly what Tillich rails against in what he calls theological theism. Tillich’s thinking is too original to fit into a tidy box. ( )