Analogismoi Eleven: The Pathology of Virtue

The art of our necessities is strange, That can make vile things precious. William Shakespeare, King Lear (1606)

In our last post we discussed the temptation and the fall from paradise. Today I want to look at the sins of Adam and Eve from a slightly different angle.

Whether if it is the totalitarian kallipolis which arises from the notion of Platonic justice (Republic, Books II-IV), the paralytic moderation from Aristotle’s Golden Mean (Nicomachean Ethics, II.6-9), the sadistic Übermensch from Nietzsche’s will to power (Thus Spoke Zarathustra) or the “piety” of the Pharisees which blinds them to Christ’s miracle because it was done on the sabbath (John 9:1-5) we see, time and time again, that virtue made pathological is of the greatest dangers man can face.

Indeed, from the fall from paradise to the judgement of Christ in Revelation, we can see that this warning permeates the biblical library to its core. In the story of the fall we see the pathology of virtue on full display. In order to see it in Adam and Eve, I want to first begin with Jesus.

There are numerous times in the gospels where Jesus uses the phrase ὀπίσω μου (opiso mou). Opiso Mou means “behind me” and the simplicity of it makes it easy to look past the wealth of depth in there. The first use of opiso mou comes in Matthew 4:19 when Jesus calls Simon Peter and Andrew by the Sea of Galilee. He says, Come (lit. behind) with me, and I will make you fishers of men.”

We see this again in Matthew 10:38 when it is used as a condition of discipleship. Jesus says to the disciples they will need to take up their cross and “follow behind me” (literal translation). Again we see Jesus use opiso mou when he rebukes Peter and says “get behind me, Satan!” in Matthew 16:23. Again we see it in Mark 1:17, Mark 1:20, Mark 8:33, Mark 8:34, Luke 9:23 and Luke 14:27.

With the constant insistence that his followers, and even Satan, be behind him we see one of the key motifs which finds its full explication in the sermon on the mount when Jesus says “seek first the kingdom of heaven.” The idea, one we will discuss in depth many more times in the following essays, is subordination to the divine. Whether if it is a disciple, the law itself or Satan there is a proper place for things and that is subordinated to Christ (the logos) and aiming towards the divine (the theos). It is with this upward aiming that we can properly participate in the world and, just as importantly, when this aim is lost even the most virtuous of attributes becomes pathological.

When Jesus rebukes Peter it is because Peter is trying to protect him. You might think “get behind me Satan” is a harsh rebuke for the crime of attempting to protect Jesus, but this is exactly the point. I find that the biblical authors have a tendency to hide the greatest treasures in phrasing that seems wrong meaning when something seems off that is a sign that future investigation is necessary. This is something common in Greek philosophy dating from the 5th century BC well into the 3rd century AD and would not have been lost on the gospelists writing in Greek. This is summed up both in form and meaning of the tagline of this website, φύσις κρύπτεσθαι φιλεῖ.

φύσις κρύπτεσθαι φιλεῖ (physis krypthesthai philei) is from Heraclitus’ fragments and is often translated as “nature loves to hide.” While this translation is accurate, the meaning is buried. To begin with you have physis which means nature insofar as it is presented to the consciousness. It’s root denotes that of an exhalation, just like the root of psyche, soul, and those has an element of blowing out. Krypthesthai, on the other hand, is where we get our word crypt or cryptic from. The word means “concealed” in the way a crypt conceals a copse from the world. But it is not concealed in the way one would conceal themselves if they were hiding that is a different word altogether. Krypthesthai  implies an innate quality  of being concealed and becoming unconcealed or uncovered.

So the question becomes how foes physis become uncovered. It is logos, properly understood and applied, that can uncover physis. The correct logos is the ontology of being and it is mediated or aided by philei — love. And so Heraclitus, as he often does, is playing around with opposing forces…in this case an exhalation breathing into the world and its nature to remain concealed opening itself up to the logos with love. This idea from the 5th century BC plays a great role in the emergence of Christianity which is fairly plain to see. But, with Heraclitus, it is never that simple. Heraclitus is also pointing to his own work. He is known, in the ancient world, as Heraclitus the obscure. He gets this name from the concealment of meaning in these simple phrases. In this three word phrase we get an ontology of being, a mediation of opposites into understanding through love (love, as construed in the greek philosophy and speculative logic is something we will need to discuss at length in the future) while also pointing backwards at his own writings with a clue that through love and logos the natural meaning can be unconcealed and still further is able to talk about how nature herself is filled with secrets until love and logos extract its meaning. It is out of this milieu that we get the gospels, most especially that of St. John and it is important to keep an eye open for.

Back to the rebuke of Peter by Jesus from the crime of trying to protect him.

While the protection of a friend, a teacher or God himself is a noble aim, we see Jesus here ascribing it a satanic (the negation of the logos) value. What we learn here from the rebuke of Peter (and other instances of Jesus using opiso mou) is that even the most noble and virtuous attributes, when not properly subordinated to the divine, are misplaced and counter-indicate the kingdom of heaven.

This making pathological, in the biblical corpus, is the very definition of a sin. A trait which is in service to something other than the ineffable receding transcendent point, God, elevates itself to the highest point and in doing so misses the target (literal: sin).

With this in mind we take a look back to the fall from paradise in Genesis.

The fall and subsequent entrance of sin into the world comes as a consequence of Eve being beguiled by the serpent, eating of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil and then giving the fruit to Adam who also eats. So much is going on here, but I will reign in the discussion to the topic at hand, the pathology of virtues.

One of the first things we can notice is that it is Eve that the serpent comes to, not Adam. As we’ve mentioned in past posts, the modern feminist reading on this is that Eve is portrayed as the weaker sex setting up a three thousand year history of misogyny and the subjugation of women. I’ve already dealt with why this is an absurd take with absolutely no merit and how it is that the feminists managed to get it (and everything else) wrong so I won’t belabor the point other than to say it is a naive and foolish way to approach the text.

So what is going on here?

As I mentioned in previous posts (Eve, Ezer Kenegdo), it is no wonder that it is Eve, rather than Adam, who first pays attention to the serpent. The female, responsible for reproduction and care of infants, has a nervous system which is attuned to the mother-infant dyad and not to the mother herself. The biblical literature poses this hypothesis and the relevant modern psychological and neurobiological literature bares this out.

We see this in oxytocin surges during labor and breastfeeding (Numan & Insel, 2003), prolactin and estrogen/progesterone fluctuations which sensitize the amygdala and hypothalamus to infant cues shown on human fMRI studies of lactating mothers which show heightened amygdala activation to their own babies cries versus that of others’ (Kim et al., 2011) and postpartum olfactory bulb changes which help mothers identify the scent of their own babies within hours of their birth (Levy & Fleming, 2021).

The heightened amygdalin sense is one to pay close attention to. The amygdala is an ancient part of the brain which is the primary component of the limbic system and is tasked with the release of negative emotion in response to fear and threat. Studies show, cross-culturally, that this is heightened in women and evolved as such as a pre-prepared neural circuit activating hormonal triggers owing to reproductive needs. Once again, as it turns out, the story of Adam and Eve got it right.

So Eve, with her predisposition to predator detection, is the one who pays attention to the serpent. Here is the problem. It is a very good thing for the human species that the female is hyper-attuned to the predator. If not for that the snakes would have won and humans would not have existed. It is a primary biological function unique to the female. However, we need to remember Jesus’ rebuke to Peter: get thee behind me satan. Just as the heightened amygdalin senses are one of the greatest virtues of the female, the Genesis hypothesis goes, if it becomes pathological that is not a good thing. This, the pathology of the virtue of protection of the infant, is what would later be called the devouring mother in the oedipal framework.

Eve is so well attuned to the serpent, she pays such close attention, that she listens to the serpent despite its suggestion to negate

the will of God. Eve allows her greatest virtue to elevate her self-referential status to the highest point, the point reserved for God. Properly construed, the highest aim would have made Eve immune to the beguiling of the serpent. She would still have listened but would not have put the serpent before the command of God. This inversion of the human virtue with the divine virtue is the problem we will see persist throughout the biblical stories. It is exactly the same problem Peter has when he wills himself and his desire to protect Jesus above the will of Jesus himself and that is what earns him the harsh rebuke.

There is nothing wrong with Eve being predisposed to listening to the serpent. In fact, more than nothing wrong it is one of her finest attributes …. but only when it is in service to God. As soon as her attribute takes the place of God and she abandons his will for her own the problems begin. This is the same hypothesis Christ will give in the sermon on the mount when he says to seek first the kingdom of God and the world will array itself properly before you.

Moving from Eve on to Adam we see a very similar pattern. Eve offers the fruit from the tree of knowledge of good and evil to Adam and he eats it. Seems innocuous enough, right? The only problem is, Adam knows God. Adam walks with God in the garden. Adam knows God has made a paradise for him and has forbidden him nothing with the exception of the fruit from the tree of knowledge of good and evil and the tree of life (more on that tree when we get to Christ). So what is Adam up to here?

Adam’s virtue, the desire to be everything to Eve, allows him to be corrupted. It is far from a vice to make yourself into the highest value mate for your partner — quite the opposite. If Adam subordinated this natural instinct to God he would have known that no matter how virtuous one’s intentions are, if they violate the spirit of that which is most high they are going to have catastrophic consequences. Ignoring this, Adam, in his desire to impress Eve, eats of the fruit which he has been forbidden by God. Once again we see the elevation of one’s own virtue to the place reserved exclusively for God leading to the most dire of consequences.

This pattern, the pattern of virtues becoming pathological when not in the service of the most high, when not opiso, behind, God is the chief cause of sin in the world. If you recall, from our discussion on the temptation and fall, it is the human proclivity for evil as such that is Satan. This is a bit tricky, but ultimately quite understandable. God speaks the word into the abyss extracting habitable order out of it. The word, logos, is made manifest flesh in the figure of Christ. The human proclivity for evil seeks to destroy the world out of malice where God has created the world out of love with the logos. As such, the human proclivity for evil is the negation of the logos or, quite literally, the anti-christ.

Further, we see that even things which one might consider vices can be virtues when they are properly subordinated to that principle which is highest. We will see this time and time again in the story of Abraham who makes many moral errors but all without breaking his covenant with God and as such his errors are rewarded while Adam and Eve’s virtues are punished. The point to understand here is that the entire biblical library puts the focus on our aim, our orientation and what it is we subordinate our will to. The narrow path that Christ talks about (Matt. 7:13-14) is defined as the path where the will and the subsequent actions which follow it are properly subordinated to God rather than the desires of man, whether they be virtue or vice.

In the final analysis, women are attuned to predators and men are attuned to women. This is good. This is more than good, it is a necessary biological fact for the survival of the species. This will be the first of many warnings to avoid a misuse of your virtues.

In sum, we see the idea emerge that it is not the act but that which the act is in service to which decides its moral force. Is the act used as a tool for self-glory or is it to the glorification of God. We see this with all of our virtues and even with our vices. There is nothing wrong with ambition, cleverness, lust or even anger so long as they remain properly subordinated to, behind if you will, the highest transcendent value.