瓦尔特·本雅明：火警报警器

有关阶级斗争的观念会具有误导性。它所指的并不是决定“孰胜孰负”的力量抗衡，也不是指凭决斗的结果来定胜者为王，败者为寇。如此去理会，也就是以浪漫化的方式掩盖了实际所指。
 
因为，无论资产阶级在这场斗争中是输还是赢，它内在固有的矛盾都会使它走下坡路，这个矛盾在其发展过程中对资产阶级来说将成为其致命的灭亡因素。问题的唯一所在是：它是自行灭亡还是经由无产阶级之手。三千年的文化发展会持续下去，还是走向终结，将取决于这个问题的答案。
 
有关这两位斗士将永远争斗下去的糟糕假设是不会与历史相一致的。真正的政客只是从日期上来估算。如果消灭资产阶级直到一个几乎可以估算出的经济和技术发展的特定时刻（通货膨胀和毒气战争就宣示了这一时刻的到来）还没有完成，那么，一切就都完了。
 
要阻止爆炸，就必须在火花碰到炸药之前将燃烧着的导火索切断。政客们的干涉，制造险情和控制速度是操作技巧——而不是侠义之举。
 
 

- 瓦尔特·本雅明，《单向街》，中信出版社：2021.

瓦尔特·本雅明：教学用具

写作鸿篇巨制的原则，或者炮制厚书的技巧：
 
Ⅰ 整个写作必须从没有间断、语词丰富的叙述中生发出来。
Ⅱ 对概念术语的使用必须恪守它的定义，不能脱离这一定义而在全书中对之随意乱用。
Ⅲ 正文里费尽心思阐明的概念间差异，在对相应地方的注释中应该重新抹去。
Ⅳ 对只是在其一般意义上提及的概念必须举例，比如在一般意义上提到机器的话，就应当列举出机器的所有种类。
Ⅴ 先验地具有某客观含义的一切东西都必须用大量例子来证实。
Ⅵ 能够用图形表示的关系一定要用词语去阐明，比如所有亲缘关系都必须加以陈述和阐释，而不是用诸如树状谱系图去展示。
Ⅶ 对持有相同论据的不同论敌，必须一个一个地驳倒。
 
当今学者们的平庸之作都愿意像目录索引那样被人阅读，但什么时候人们会像写目录索引那样去写书呢？假如糟糕的内容是这样挤渗到外面来的，那么，一部其观点无须阅读就会自己显露出价值的杰作就会以此方式诞生。
 
只有当规整形式准确地直接参与到了文人所写著作的内容构想中时，打字机才会使他们的手疏远笔。估计，那时将会需要一些字体造型具有可变性的新系统。在这样的系统里，给予指令的手指动作将取代迄今整个手的活动。
 
一个按诗韵学构想的、对韵律中唯一不协调的地方死死不放的时期，会造就出可以想见的最美篇章。穿越墙上裂缝的光束，就是这样射进了炼丹术士隐居的小屋，并使结晶体、球体和角形铁闪闪发光。
 
 

- 瓦尔特·本雅明，《单向街》，中信出版社：2021.

Wisdom Is Liberation

Wisdom is freeing precisely because it submits to authority outside the self. But in a world preoccupied with power dynamics—oppressors and oppressed, the hegemony, the patriarchy, intersectionality, cultural appropriation, and so forth—we are skeptical of this notion. And it’s true that many human authorities are oppressive and not conducive to our flourishing. But that doesn’t mean the very idea of authority should be dismissed.

At its best, external authority is for our growth, not our repression. Italian Catholic philosopher Augusto Del Noce observes that the etymological root of the word authority is about growth (auctoritas derives from augere, “to make grow,” which is tied to the words Augustus, “he who makes grow”). This is in direct contrast to how authority is popularly viewed today: as a stifling barrier to growth.4 Today’s world has reframed freedom as a defense mechanism: a freedom “from” rather than a freedom “to.” We are “free,” our society declares, insofar as we are subject to no external authority or objective reality outside the self. But is this really freedom?

Jesus did not say “total autonomy will set you free.” He said the truth will set you free (John 8:32). True freedom is always hitched to truth—an objective, true-for-everyone truth that gloriously exists outside of our opinions, moods, and fickle temperaments. Without the truth, we are locked into a prison of our own making. But thanks be to God, the truth is out there and not in an abstract sense. It’s there in the form of a person, Jesus Christ, who said “I am the way, and the truth, and the life” (John 14:6), and who calls every exhausted digital wanderer to sit at his feet and find rest:

Come to me, all who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn from me, for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light. (Matt. 11:28–30)

Notice the equation here: “come to me” + “learn from me” = “you will find rest for your souls.” If ever there was a simple equation for true freedom, it is this.

But when we are wise—feeding on the bread of life (John 6:35), abiding in the vine (John 15:4–5), and drawing upon God-given sources of truth—we become like a robust tree planted near water (Ps. 1:3), with green leaves and vibrant fruit even when drought comes (Jer. 17:8). Our roots deepen securely into the ground, drawing life from vibrant streams. And our branches keep growing upward—like hands lifted in praise to their Creator. When the winds come—as they inevitably will, sometimes with furious force—these branches of wisdom won’t break off. They will simply sway, as if clapping or dancing with joy, turning every storm into an opportunity to sing. Soli Deo gloria.

- Brett McCracken, The Wisdom Pyramid:

Feeding Your Soul in a Post-Truth World, 2021

Three Marks of Wisdom

1. Discernment in a "Too Much" World
In today’s world of information gluttony, wisdom looks like intention—approaching the glut not haphazardly, but with a plan. Rather than being passive and pulled around by the cacophony of alluring voices of folly, beckoning us to veer off the straight path (Prov. 9:13–18), the wise man keeps his gaze fixed straight ahead, following the path of righteousness, not swerving to the left or the right (Prov. 4:25–27).

2. Patience in a “Too Fast” World
In today’s world of speedy information, wisdom looks like patience—a willingness to slow down and process things well rather than simply amassing information and experience as fast as you possibly can. Wisdom looks like going against the grain of the bite-sized, low-attention-span spirit of our age, opting instead for longer and deeper chunks.

3. Humility in a “Too Focused on Me” World
In today’s hyper-individualized iWorld, wisdom looks like humility—a recognition that, as much as technology puts us at the center of all decisions, we are not the best or highest authority. Wisdom looks like an eager willingness to seek guidance from others; a healthy skepticism about your own instincts and proclivities. Wisdom is an intellectual humility neither over-confident in one’s own grasp of truth, nor under-confident in the fact that God reveals truth. Wisdom is knowing that, as Packer puts it, “our own intellectual competence is not the test and measure of divine truth.” He goes on:

It is not for us to stop believing because we lack understanding, or to postpone believing till we can get understanding, but to believe in order that we may understand; as Augustine said, “unless you believe, you will not understand.” Faith first, sight afterwards, is God’s order, not vice versa; and the proof of the sincerity of our faith is our willingness to have it so.

- Brett McCracken, The Wisdom Pyramid:

Feeding Your Soul in a Post-Truth World, 2021

Three Orientations of Wisdom

1. Looking to God
There is much to look at in life. Our eyes flutter back and forth faster than they can properly process. Wisdom is focusing our gaze on God: looking to him, praying to him, zealously seeking after him. The Psalms constantly reinforce this:

“My eyes are ever toward the Lord” (Ps. 25:15).

“For your steadfast love is before my eyes” (Ps. 26:3).

“Those who look to him are radiant” (Ps. 34:5).

“Our eyes look to the Lord our God” (Ps. 123:2).

The author of Hebrews calls us to “[look] to Jesus, the founder and perfecter of our faith” (Heb. 12:2).

 
Tozer describes faith as “the gaze of a soul upon a saving God . . . a redirecting of our sight, a getting out of the focus of our own vision and getting God into focus.” This orientation of sight is where wisdom, and life generally, thrive. Look to Jesus for peace instead of your circumstances. Look to Jesus for affirmation instead of Instagram. Look to Jesus for truth instead of yourself. Look to Jesus for wisdom before you look anywhere else.
 
2. Listening to God
Wisdom is quieting ourselves in a noisy age and tuning our ears to God’s speech through Scripture, his creation, and his church. Just as we are inundated with visual stimuli in today’s world, so are we overwhelmed with voices beckoning us to hear their rant or sales pitch. What voices are we listening to? Are they trustworthy, consistent with the divine voice of wisdom (Proverbs 8)? This book has largely been about guiding us through this question.
Proverbs is constantly associating wisdom with listening:
“A wise man listens to advice” (Prov. 12:15).
“The ear that listens to life-giving reproof will dwell among the wise” (Prov. 15:31).
“Listen to advice and accept instruction, that you may gain wisdom in the future” (Prov. 19:20).
“Cease to hear instruction, my son, and you will stray from the words of knowledge” (Prov. 19:27).
Our age is unwise in large part because we are going deaf from the cacophony, losing our ability to listen well, if we listen at all. Wisdom means pressing mute on the voices speaking lies, and then opening our ears to the voice of God, listening intently to his every word. As Jesus said repeatedly: “He who has ears to hear, let him hear” (Matt. 11:15; 13:9, 43; Mark 4:9; Luke 8:8; 14:35).
 
3. Loving God
Wisdom is not just intellectual knowledge of God. It’s a deep longing for God. More than a desire to know the world like God, wisdom is the desire to know the world with God. Wisdom is a relentless pursuit of God’s presence. It is a desperate hunger and thirst for God, the bread of life and living water. Wisdom is worship.
“Do not be content to have right ideas of the love of Christ in your mind unless you have a gracious taste of it in your heart,” wrote John Owen. “Christ is the meat, the bread, the food provided by God for your soul.”

- Brett McCracken, The Wisdom Pyramid:

Feeding Your Soul in a Post-Truth World, 2021

The Nature of Love

That all true Christian love is one and the same in its principle. It may be various in its forms and objects, and may be exercised either toward God or men, but it is the same principle in the heart that is the foundation of every exercise of a truly Christian love, whatever may be its object. It is not with the holy love in the heart of the Christian, as it is with the love of other men. 

Their love toward different objects, may be from different principles and motives, and with different views; but a truly Christian love is different from this. It is one as to its principle, whatever the object about which it is exercised; it is from the same spring or fountain in the heart, though it may flow out in different chan- nels and diverse directions, and therefore it is all fitly comprehended in the one name of charity, as in the text. That this Christian love is one, whatever the objects toward which it may flow forth, appears by the following things:

First, it is all from the same Spirit influencing the heart. It is from the breathing of the same Spirit that true Christian love arises, both toward God and man. The Spirit of God is a Spirit of love, and when the former enters the soul, love also enters with it. God is love, and he that has God dwelling in him by his Spirit, will have love dwelling in him also. The nature of the Holy Spirit is love; and it is by communicating himself, in his own nature, to the saints, that their hearts are filled with divine charity. Hence we find that the saints are partakers of the divine nature, and Christian love is called the “love of the Spirit” (Rom. 15:30), and “love in 
the Spirit,” (Col 1:8), and the very bowels of love and mercy seem to signify the same thing with the fellowship of the Spirit (Phil. 2:1). It is that Spirit, too, that infuses love to God (Rom. 5:5); and it is by the indwelling of that Spirit, that the soul abides in love to God and man (1 John 3:23, 24; and 4:12, 13). 

Second, Christian love, both to God and man, is wrought in the heart by the same work of the Spirit. There are not two works of the Spirit of God, one to infuse a spirit of love to God, and tile other to infuse a spirit of love to men; but in producing one, the Spirit produces the other also. In the work of conversion, the Holy Spirit renews the heart by giving it a divine temper (Eph. 4:23); and it is one and the same divine temper thus wrought in the heart, that flows out in love both to God and man.

Third, When God and man are loved with a truly Christian love, they are both loved from the same motives. When God is loved a right, he is loved for his excellency, and the beauty of his nature, especially the holiness of his nature; and it is from the same motive that the saints are 
loved—for holiness” sake. And all things that are loved with a truly holy love, are loved from the same respect to God. Love to God is the foundation of gracious love to men; and men are loved, either because they are in some respect like God, in the possession of his nature and spiritual image, or because of the relation they stand in to him as his children or creatures ­ as those who are blessed of him, or to whom his mercy is offered red, or in some other way from regard to him. Only remarking, that though Christian love be one in its principle, yet it is distinguished and variously denominated in two ways, with respect to its objects, and the kinds of its exercise; as, for example, its degrees, etc.

- Jonathan Edwards, Charity and Its Fruits

What Does Agape Love Really Mean?

Maybe you’ve already heard that agape (ἀγάπη) is the standard word for love in the Greek New Testament, and maybe you’ve heard that it points to a specific kind of love: a selfless, giving, non-emotional love—as opposed to the friendship love of philia (φιλία).
 
What does agape love really mean?
 
And now to love, because John 21 provides a perfect example of what Dr. Decker is talking about. I actually remember the day as a college freshman when I was given the (supposed) secret Greek key to unlocking Jesus’ famous conversation with Peter in that passage. Jesus asks three times, “Do you love me?” Peter replies each time: “Yes, I love you.” I was told that, hidden underneath the surface of the weak, imprecise English word “love” were two different Greek words: agapao (ἀγαπάω) and phileo (φιλέω). I was further told that these two Greek words pointed to two vastly different kinds of love, the one selfless and non-emotional and the other merely emotional and friend-ish. Peter, so the interpretation goes, twice couldn’t bring himself to say he loved Jesus selflessly and unconditionally, so Jesus asked him, in effect, “Do you even love me like a friend?”
 
…The fact is that the Bible never says anywhere that real love, ideal love, is non-emotional. In Jesus’ conversation with Peter, he appears to be varying agapao and phileo for purposes of style, not meaning.
 
One of the problems with using Greek without knowing it well is that you tend to fail to apply your principles rigorously. Are all synonyms in John 21 used to point up their differences rather than their similarities?
 
As D. A. Carson points out… Jesus doesn’t just vary his words for love in his conversation with Peter, he varies his word choice for the noun “sheep”:
 
“Feed my lambs,” he says.
Then, “Shepherd my sheep.”
Then, “Feed my sheep.”
 
Is it lambs or sheep? If Jesus intends to highlight a significant difference, he does not choose to make that clear. There do not seem to be obvious differences among the three imperative verbs, either: “feed,” “shepherd,” “feed.” The verb “shepherd,” in fact, also means “feed” sometimes, especially in the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Old Testament). 
 
And John 21 isn’t the only place where Jesus varies his use of agapao and phileo in the Gospel of John. In John 3:35, Jesus says, “The Father loves the son,” and in John 5:20 he says precisely the same thing—only in one verse he uses agapao and in the other phileo, with no discernible difference in meaning. Jesus isn’t invoking two radically different kinds of love in his conversation with Peter.
 
One of the most popular linguistic and exegetical fallacies in modern times is that the Greek word for love, agapao, carries in it the implication of a divine love that is unconditional and comes to us in spite of our sin.
 
That is not true. Context must decide if agapao refers to our proud, cliquish love for our cronies (as in Matthew 5:46) or if it refers to God’s merciful and sacrificial love for sinners (as in John 3:16), or if it refers to our love for leaders, not unconditionally but precisely because of their labor (1 Thessalonians 5:13)
 
To be clear, the New Testament does speak of a special kind of love, but we don’t know that by looking up Greek words in the dictionary. We know it by reading the New Testament. People who can read the Bible only in English can still know what love is.
 
Debunking beloved interpretations of Scripture is a favored pastime of young seminarians. But constructive help, not destructive criticism, is my goal here. It is my impression that the church in general—and perhaps the most studious of us in particular—put too much weight on looking up Bible words and not enough weight on reading Bible sentences in their contexts. There is nothing necessarily wrong with looking up words, and Logos can do it so incredibly well! I do it all the time—and if you’re curious as to what I think “love” really means, I actually believe the standard Greek dictionary defines it pretty well if you put senses one and two together: “to have a warm regard for and interest in another; to have high esteem for or satisfaction with something, cherish, have affection for, love, take pleasure in.”
 
But you’ll learn far more about “love” by reading the resurrection accounts in the Gospels, or by reading the story of the Good Samaritan—Scripture passages which don’t even use the word—than you will by looking up agape in a dictionary. By all means do both, but know in advance which one weighs more than the other.
 

Excerpt from: https://blog.logos.com/what-does-agape-love-mean/