In rhetoric, prominent contradictory figures of speech are: paradox, oxymoron and antithesis. Lesser known are contradictio interminus and anachronism.
Let's focus on paradox.Many dictionaries don't define paradox properly. Let's see one:
par·a·dox
(pār'ə-dŏks') Pronunciation Keyn.
- A seemingly contradictory statement that may nonetheless be true: the paradox that standing is more tiring than walking.
- One exhibiting inexplicable or contradictory aspects: "The silence of midnight, to speak truly, though apparently a paradox, rung in my ears" (Mary Shelley).
- An assertion that is essentially self-contradictory, though based on a valid deduction from acceptable premises.
- A statement contrary to received opinion.
The key points to the meaning of paradox are 'seemingly contradictory' and 'nevertheless true'. However, how it is it true but contradictory? In my own understanding, the contradiction in a paradox lie on different planes (Yes, Margaret Atwood again, context is all). Thus, they are only 'seemingly' contradictory but they cannot be compared in the first place because of different contexts. For example consider my last post titled 'Paradox'. The paradox is obvious: I hate you but I love you. At a glance, the conflict is glaring - but if you think deeper it is fairly obvious that when the hatred arises hypothetically, when the person addressed were to disappear or the like.
So how about the paradox of the Holy Trinity? Three in One, One in Three.
From literary and philosophical point of views, again we can argue that the conflicting elements belong to different planes, different contexts. There are many famous analogies concerning the Trinity. I shall list some and also explain the limitations of each:
1) The father, the driver and the businessman
So imagine your father. When he is driving a car he is a driver. When he is dealing with his business, he is a businessman. Filially, he is your father. Voilà! Three but one, ain't it?
No.
In fact, for theologians, this is considered one of the weakest or even misleading analogy.
This is because it is wrong. 'Father' is one person while the Trinity is three different entities. When Jesus was baptised, Holy Spirit came down in the form of a dove and there was a voice from the heaven. So there are three persons. However, this analogy is correct in saying that there are different roles in in the Trinity (But, isn't this obvious? There are three Persons, of course three different roles).
2) The Shamrock leaf, a triangle
Three leaflets but one leaf. Three sides but one triangle. Though depicting the separateness and equality of the three entities, it doesn't highlight their distinctiveness.
A triangle might be more favourable since the concept is more coherent. If one sees a broken Shamrock leaf, he can tell that it is a broken Shamrock leaf. But once a triangle, say lose one of its sides, you can't call it a triangle, can you?
3) Three lines stacked
Draw a line. Draw another line of the same length superimposed with the first one. Draw a third line also superimposed. So how many lines now? Three or one?
I like the third analogy because it best reflects the confusion caused by the paradox. In (1) and (2) the contradictions are not so obvious anymore and the paradoxical meaning disappears.
In any case, the confusion is what should be at the conclusion. Jastrow once said something like this: scientists have reached the summit where they have to remove the last obstacle to the highest peak and they are greeted with the theologians already sitting there for centuries.
What I mean is that God is incomprehensible, that's why He is God. If we can comprehend God, then He is not God at all. So the final obstacle is the incomprehensible God.
So let's see a paradox from a theological point of view.
Ever heard of dual behaviour of light or electron? Light and electron both behave as waves and particles. If you understand physics, this is clearly a paradox. But the important thing is that the contradiction is there because of our current knowledge is limited to comprehend it fully. The light or electron in itself do not have contradicting elements or else they would not exist.
So it is with God. To us the Trinity seems like a a paradox but it is so because our human knowledge is limited to fully comprehend God.
So: If you are trying to fully comprehend the incomprehensible God, you are being paradoxical.
So how about the paradox of the Holy Trinity? Three in One, One in Three.
From literary and philosophical point of views, again we can argue that the conflicting elements belong to different planes, different contexts. There are many famous analogies concerning the Trinity. I shall list some and also explain the limitations of each:
1) The father, the driver and the businessman
So imagine your father. When he is driving a car he is a driver. When he is dealing with his business, he is a businessman. Filially, he is your father. Voilà! Three but one, ain't it?
No.
In fact, for theologians, this is considered one of the weakest or even misleading analogy.
This is because it is wrong. 'Father' is one person while the Trinity is three different entities. When Jesus was baptised, Holy Spirit came down in the form of a dove and there was a voice from the heaven. So there are three persons. However, this analogy is correct in saying that there are different roles in in the Trinity (But, isn't this obvious? There are three Persons, of course three different roles).
2) The Shamrock leaf, a triangle
Three leaflets but one leaf. Three sides but one triangle. Though depicting the separateness and equality of the three entities, it doesn't highlight their distinctiveness.
A triangle might be more favourable since the concept is more coherent. If one sees a broken Shamrock leaf, he can tell that it is a broken Shamrock leaf. But once a triangle, say lose one of its sides, you can't call it a triangle, can you?
3) Three lines stacked
Draw a line. Draw another line of the same length superimposed with the first one. Draw a third line also superimposed. So how many lines now? Three or one?
I like the third analogy because it best reflects the confusion caused by the paradox. In (1) and (2) the contradictions are not so obvious anymore and the paradoxical meaning disappears.
In any case, the confusion is what should be at the conclusion. Jastrow once said something like this: scientists have reached the summit where they have to remove the last obstacle to the highest peak and they are greeted with the theologians already sitting there for centuries.
What I mean is that God is incomprehensible, that's why He is God. If we can comprehend God, then He is not God at all. So the final obstacle is the incomprehensible God.
So let's see a paradox from a theological point of view.
Ever heard of dual behaviour of light or electron? Light and electron both behave as waves and particles. If you understand physics, this is clearly a paradox. But the important thing is that the contradiction is there because of our current knowledge is limited to comprehend it fully. The light or electron in itself do not have contradicting elements or else they would not exist.
So it is with God. To us the Trinity seems like a a paradox but it is so because our human knowledge is limited to fully comprehend God.
So: If you are trying to fully comprehend the incomprehensible God, you are being paradoxical.
No comments:
Post a Comment