Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Andrew Roos Bell's avatar

This tracks very closely with my understanding from childhood, which I do believe, but I have always had these two issues with it:

1. Qualifying promises about desire by talking about things being rightly ordered, or in moderation, or prudential, makes it seem as though the simple normal human feeling of unexamined desire is always wrong, and instead we are to always be making a kind of chore or discipline out of it, or we are to take our food in the form of vegetables - in other words, the qualifying statements leach out the prospect of satisfaction in terms I understand.

2. The bigger issue is that it is one thing to defer desires to the eschaton, and in fact anything other than that ends in despair, because anyone can see that all one's desires will never be fulfilled even in an ideal life, which no one has - but it's entirely another thing to suspect that one cannot rightly defer desires to the eschaton, because those desires might be perverse, or simply because delayed gratification may be a kind of unreformed selfishness acting in prudence. But if the promise is to be transformed to have alien desires, that itself is an unsatisfying and even horrifying prospect, because even if one thing is better than another thing, aesthetically specific things are not interchangeable - the better thing does not actually fill the place of the lesser thing, if they are not the same.

Expand full comment

No posts

Ready for more?