Donne and Findley: Comparisons Vpon Contentalist Existences
I compare John Donne to Timothy Findley and thusly derive the ways in which Donne foreshadows modern philisophical and literary trends
DONNE AND FINDLEY: COMPARISONS VPON CONTENTALIST EXISTENCES
[I]t is impossible to find in every man some universal essence which would be human nature, yet there does exists a universal human condition?the a priori limits which outline man?s fundamental situation in the universe. (Sartre, 1949)
The thought of Man having a universal condition, that is a universal environment, situation or set of circumstances, is often seen as a product of Continentalist thought. Philosophy before Hegel (or perhaps Locke ) is usually all thrown under the heading of ?analytical?, determining the nature of our world through reason. Although my previous phrase may not stress it, the most important word from my last sentence is nature. Pre-Hegelian analytical philosophy is almost completely concerned with the nature of things. To Plato and Aristotle, as well as Kant and Descartes things be and act because it is their essential nature to do so. Hegel is the first to postulate that things affect other things, and that the product of this affection is life. His ideas were refined and pushed forward in 19th century continental Europe to become the fundamentals of 20th century phenomena such as Existentialism and Post-Modernism . Timothy Findley?s 1999 publication, Pilgrim, gives us a good example of a late 20th century view of the human condition. In comparison, John Donne?s classic early 17th century religious writing Devotions upon Emergent Occasions shows a view of the human condition rising out of a reformation torn Europe. The relevance of this study rises out of the similarity of views on the human condition despite being written almost 400 years apart.
Hegel says, ?the rational is the real and the real is the rational?. Because of this we often see him as the sharp turning point between analytical philosophy, which justifies what is real through reason, and continental philosophy, which says simply if it exists, it must be rational (these are not necessarily over generalizations). Donne also finds himself on both sides of the real=rational/rational=real fence: Man has not only an essence; determined by God, but also a conditional existence; also determined by God. That is to say that God decides what you are when you are born, and can give you gifts a priori, and then, once you are born, you live, you exist under the laws of the church; conditions determined by God.
Donne?s work Devotions Upon Emergent Occasions, alike to Augustine?s Confessions, is part of the Spiritual Autobiography genre. This is a genre where writings that seem deeply personal are in fact written with mass publication in mind (Frost 1990). This allows the author a profound connection to the reader, thusly increasing the writings potential impact. Writings of this sort emphasize ?a more general sense of self than presented in the modern autobiography(Frost 1990). This is due partially to the tendency of spiritual writers to use common experiences in their discussions (such as Augustine?s pear tree example). However, in Donne?s piece especially, the generality seems to rise out of the universal relevance of his ?Meditations upon our humane condition?(Donne1624).
The Donnian humane condition is can be stated simply in three words: Death, Sin and Community. First, Death: Donne recognises that death is universal; no humans are exempt. ?Death is in an old man?s door, he appears and tells him so, and death is at a young man?s back, and says nothing.? (40) It is our condition in life to die; it is the only thing we have to do. This is especially true for Donne since he believes in the freewill of humanity, which ties us into the second condition. Sin. Sin, although certainly part of the ?humane condition? is not forced upon us by God; it is chosen, and thus it is not ?God? who ?imprinte[s]? the ?miserable condition of man! ?; his tendency to slide the ?slippery slope?(Frost 1990) into sin, but rather Man himself, whose existentialist existence professed (not in that language, of course) by the Catholic Church permits Man to choose sin. Man is thus not innately evil; in fact God did ?put a coal, a beam immortality into us, which we?blew it out by our first sin. ?(devotions 1) Thus our suffering is our own, and not caused by God. How are we to deal with our sufferings?
A slight alteration of one of the most quoted passages from the most cited meditation from Devotions (Meditation 17) yields the phrase ?[Death] is universal and so are all her actions?? This phrase, which might be termed a literary analogue to decoupage, hints at Donne?s ultimate statement about death in meditation 17: not only is death universal in that it is the final result of any human being, but that each death in itself is universal inasmuch as it affects the plurality of the church, the congregation; the community.
Of course there is one intrinsic problem which presents itself upon postulating both a catholic god and a human condition. That is that an undoubtedly large part of the human condition is the to feel temptation, and more generally to commit sin, and then for Catholics to repent for that sin. If God is Omniscient, that is to say all seeing and all knowing then he must have complete knowledge of the human condition. He must in fact have meta-understanding of it that goes beyond this world and outside the realms of potential human emotion and intellect. This complete knowledge would surely involve knowing how it feels to commit sin and be tempted by sin. However, if God is all good then how could he fall to commit sin? How could God know what it is to repent for sin? A completely righteous being would have no a posteriori knowledge of sin. There are two obvious solutions to this problem, however, they both involve dropping an axiom about God. The first (well, the first chronologically at any rate) is put forth by Plato:
?[G]od, being good, cannot be responsible for everything as is commonly said, but only for a small part of human life, for the greater part of which he has no responsibility. For we have a far smaller share of good than evil, and while god must be held to be sole cause of good, we must look for some factors other than god as cause of the evil. (Plato)
However, this view of God is not consistent with the Catholic God. If God is responsible only for what is good and man (or anything else) is responsible for evil, man must be a greater share responsible for the creation of the earth then God, since the earth is a greater share evil than good. Possibly an even greater tautology within Plato?s postulation about God is that if God created man, and man created evil, then God was at least the root cause of evil, for if he had not created man (man cannot create himself!) there would be no evil.
The second ironically also stems from an idea normally attributed to Plato: a priori knowledge. If all knowledge exists a priori to experience, and experiences merely unlock this knowledge, it is completely reasonable to assume God to have the ?key? to all knowledge, and thus could have ultimate understanding of the human experience without ever needing to experience it. However, a God with all knowledge a priori is not a Catholic god either, but a Calvinist, pre-destinative god, under whom freewill is an illusion, good acts are meaningless and the only thing that matters is to be one of the ?chosen?.
The third stems from Donne himself. In Meditations 4 Donne points out that although God ?foresawest? that man would discover ?the shame of the nakedness of the body? and ?that we should sin?, God ?causedst? neither. For there is no reason to deduce simply because a being has prior knowledge of (i.e. has predicted) an event, that he should be the cause of that event, or is there? The God Donne is presenting here is popular amoung my friends and colleagues who would consider themselves part of the ?new Christian? movement; a God that, although knowing what you will do, is not your babysitter. That is to say a God with total a priori knowledge that chooses not to act because he has granted us freewill. However, a God with total a priori knowledge that does not act to save the righteous cannot also be an absolutely benevolent God. And we see here that no matter how we defend an all knowing, benevolent God as well as a ?humane condition?(Donne somewhere) we are forced to drop one of our axioms about God.
Findley?s postmodern human condition is characterized (not surprisingly considering it is the basis of my argument) by the same elements as Donne?s: Death and Community. Findley, in Pilgrim approaches the Human condition from much the same stance as Donne; the main aspects remain Community and Death. However, Findley is a modern writer and can thusly call on ?modern psychology, psychoanalysis and drug therapy to depict his characters, himself and his readers?(Steinson 1998). Findley uses his main character to emphasize the human condition by in fact denying him community and death, with unfathomable results. Pilgrim is ?both male and female. [He is] ageless, and [he has] no access to death.?(267pilgrim) No matter how many times committing suicide, Pilgrim survives always without fail, only to die of old age and be perpetually reincarnated, maintaining knowledge of his past lives. He is also condemned to suffer ?an eternity of disbelief?(448). Pilgrim wishes beyond hope that one day a doctor ?will say: this is a man who canot die. But no one says it. Ever.? Pilgrim is mad. But not mad because he remembers millions of past lives that never happened; mad because he cannot let go of his belief that he will one day be believed.
Findley?s statement about death is very analogous to Donne?s; they both exhibit a form of Heraclitan-Parmenides paradox. Pilgrim is disallowed to die, and thusly witnesses in his constancy of life more death than any other man. Death is thus the most strife inducing through its consistent arrival. Donne writes in meditation seven ?Death is in an old man?s door, he appears and tells him so, and death is at a young man?s back, and says nothing.?
I would be a fool to argue Donne to be an existentialist like Findley, Beckett, Kobo Abe, or even Sartre see the sect of philosophy. Donne?s view of the human condition is Positive; he does not believe in the inherent pointlessness of life and action as is the view of the human condition seen in Waiting for Godot, nor does he profess the inherent isolation of individuals as is allegorized in Women in the Dunes. Rather Donne would encourage us to kindle that ?coal, [that] beam of immortality? given to us by God, and also to reform but hold true to the ?Catholic, universal? church and cohere to its community. Donne?s existentialist tendencies are just that: tendencies. It is not that his view of the human condition is modern, but rather that it is a view of the human condition at all, that makes Donne proto Continentalist.
