• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Lessings “ugly broad ditch”

Somerville

Somerville

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 29, 2012
Messages
17,857
Reaction score
8,335
Location
On an island. Not that one!
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Socialist
Found this discussion this past week, while reading some of those 'weird' blogs I enjoy reading. I ended up jumping thru more than a couple websites with discussions on the matter.

Lessing's “ugly broad ditch” (der garstige breite Graben)

Lessing's ditch is a term used to describe a view of Gotthold Lessing (1729 - 1781) which argues that there is a 'ditch' between history and eternal truths that cannot be crossed. As a result, revelation in history is not possible, for historical truth cannot be demonstrated. Furthermore, he drew a distinction between the accidental truths of history and the necessary truths of reason. This view "grew out of his conviction that rationalism could be the only universally acceptable mode of understanding the world," and thus he was "convinced that the bible could not be trusted as a source of description of any truth, let alone the truth of God."
Click to expand...

One reads this definition and one might conclude that Herr Lessing was not a believer. One would be wrong. Lessing thought that Christians didn't need the support of history to believe in the faith. Lessing wrote, “accidental truths of history can never become the proof for necessary truths of reason.” He also stated that the Christian religion, the quintessence of which Lessing regards as genuine Christian love, must authenticate itself solely by its “inner truth” and a true Christian should not need any historical support for their faith.

From an atheist website, we can read a discussion of how different people look at 'evidence' and the ways in which beliefs control their examination of said evidence. What are the consequences of faith altering a person's views of the world and their specific religious beliefs.

  • Shallow and narrow: the consequences of being wrong are minimal, and the evidence is good. An example of this kind of ditch might be anything mundane that I’ve seen myself—what I had for lunch yesterday or the color of my car.
  • Shallow and wide: minimal consequences but poor evidence. One of the stories told about Alexander the Great was that he tamed the unrideable horse Bucephalus as a teenager. Believing this and then being proven wrong would have negligible consequences.
  • Deep and narrow: big consequences but good evidence. “Driving to the store will be a safe errand” is almost always true, though the unlikely bad outcome can be fatal.
  • Deep and wide: big consequences and poor evidence. The claim of the resurrection of Jesus is an example. About this kind of claim, Lessing says, “The problem is that this proof of the spirt and of power no longer has any spirit or power but has sunk to the level of human testimonies of spirit and power” (emphasis added). For some, going along with one’s community has minimal downsides, but for many of us, one’s self-respect is on the line. I must evaluate the claims of the Christian with the same standard that I evaluate the claims of Scientology, Islam, or Harold Camping’s rapture day.
Click to expand...

Basically, Herr Lessing was saying a 'true' Christian doesn't need any historical evidence to support their belief in the risen Christ.
 
Heady stuff, Somerville, not likely to get much attention.

At any rate, here is a short philosophical paper on Lessing's Ditch and Kierkegaard's leap across that ditch.

The Modal Gap: the Objective Problem of Lessing’s
Ditch(es) and Kierkegaard’s Subjective Reply
Abstract: This essay expands upon the suggestion that Lessing’s infamous
‘ditch’ is actually three ditches: temporal, metaphysical, and existential gaps.
It examines the complex problems these ditches raise, and then proposes that
Kierkegaard’s Fragments and Postscript exhibit a similar triadic organizational
structure, which may signal a deliberate attempt to engage and respond to Lessing’s
three gaps. Viewing the Climacean project in this way offers an enhanced
understanding of the intricacies of Lessing’s rationalist approach to both religion
and historical truth, and illuminates Climacus’s subjective response to Lessing
Click to expand...
https://philarchive.org/archive/BENTMG
 
revelation in history is not possible, for historical truth cannot be demonstrated.

Reminds me of a quote from Henry Ford: "History is more or less bunk. It's tradition. We don't want tradition. We want to live in the present, and the only history that is worth a tinker's damn is the history that we make today." (Chicago Tribune, 1916).
 
Somerville said:
Found this discussion this past week, while reading some of those 'weird' blogs I enjoy reading. I ended up jumping thru more than a couple websites with discussions on the matter.

One reads this definition and one might conclude that Herr Lessing was not a believer. One would be wrong. Lessing thought that Christians didn't need the support of history to believe in the faith. Lessing wrote, “accidental truths of history can never become the proof for necessary truths of reason.” He also stated that the Christian religion, the quintessence of which Lessing regards as genuine Christian love, must authenticate itself solely by its “inner truth” and a true Christian should not need any historical support for their faith.

From an atheist website, we can read a discussion of how different people look at 'evidence' and the ways in which beliefs control their examination of said evidence. What are the consequences of faith altering a person's views of the world and their specific religious beliefs.

Basically, Herr Lessing was saying a 'true' Christian doesn't need any historical evidence to support their belief in the risen Christ.
Click to expand...

Well, he's right, they don't. The foundation of any religion is faith.

But also I don't think religion is the proper target for Lessings ditch since most come to, or remain in, their faith by finding the teachings of the faith to be true to their own experience, not any different than accepting the philosophical musings of Gotthold Lessings whether or not there ever was a Gotthold Lessings.
 
Indeed, only atheists and agnostics, as per the OP extrapolation, stumble headlomg into Lessing's ditch.
Kant, Kierkegaard, even Lessing himself, not to mention the billions of believers worldwide, make the leap across with consistent grace.
 
Angel said:
Indeed, only atheists and agnostics, as per the OP extrapolation, stumble headlomg into Lessing's ditch.
Kant, Kierkegaard, even Lessing himself, not to mention the billions of believers worldwide, make the leap across with consistent grace.
Click to expand...

Yep, "faith" will get you across the ditch of reality. I believe that was the basis of Lessing's thesis - to be a Christian, one doesn't need a real Jesus to have lived and died. One only needs to believe in the teachings and not the teacher.
 
Somerville said:
Yep, "faith" will get you across the ditch of reality. I believe that was the basis of Lessing's thesis - to be a Christian, one doesn't need a real Jesus to have lived and died. One only needs to believe in the teachings and not the teacher.
Click to expand...
Yours is a misunderstanding or misrepresentation of Lessing's ditch.
 
Angel said:
Yours is a misunderstanding or misrepresentation of Lessing's ditch.
Click to expand...

"misrepresentation"? From the OP
Lessing's ditch is a term used to describe a view of Gotthold Lessing (1729 - 1781) which argues that there is a 'ditch' between history and eternal truths that cannot be crossed. As a result, revelation in history is not possible, for historical truth cannot be demonstrated.
Click to expand...
If a "truth" can't be demonstrated as factual, then one may accept it only owing one's faith in said "truth".
 
Somerville said:
"misrepresentation"? From the OP If a "truth" can't be demonstrated as factual, then one may accept it only owing one's faith in said "truth".
Click to expand...
Read again. Historical truth.
 
Somerville said:
Please explain the difference between "historical truth" and "truth".
Click to expand...
Truth is a necessary correspondence between a proposition and reality. Historical truth is a contingent correspondence between historical statements and contingent matters of fact.
 
Angel said:
Truth is a necessary correspondence between a proposition and reality. Historical truth is a contingent correspondence between historical statements and contingent matters of fact.
Click to expand...

Therefore it appears to be that your belief is that a "historical truth" is true only under certain conditions; not necessarily or universally true. This is Not the way we were taught history.
 
Somerville said:
Therefore it appears to be that your belief is that a "historical truth" is true only under certain conditions; not necessarily or universally true. This is Not the way we were taught history.
Click to expand...
The point is that this was behind Lessing's problem with contingent historical truth and necessary rational truth.
Google "necessary and contingent."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom