Augustine in the age of transitional dualism wrote the book De Civita te Dei, and Comparison of the opinions of John Salisbury and Epicurus
Biography Augustine
Augustine lived 354-430. Augustine is a Christian.
In his book "Confession" Augustine has written his own biography.
Augustine in dualism
In the book, it is said that Augustine lived in a state of dualism, meaning that Augustine experienced a transition period from one civilization to another.
At the time of his life he experienced a period of social depravity caused by many contradictions that arose, especially conflicts between people who adhere to Christianity and people who do not have a religion, between the belief in one supreme God and idolatry.
After all, there was a very important event that occurred in the year 409, when the king of the Gota-West named Alarik laid siege to Rome.
Then invade and make plunder. Regarding this event people's opinions may differ.
Some people argue that because Alarik himself was an Aryan who embraced Christianity, this event meant a victory of Christianity over idolatry, thus meaning a punishment for those who worshiped idols.
But meanwhile on the other hand, people argue that in the past, when he was not religious, his situation was calm, how different is the current situation under Christianity.
This incident was a strong reason for Augustine to write his book, named "De Civita te Dei", about "The State of God".
De Civita te Dei
The main content of De Civita te Dei is aimed at defending Christianity, and contains a polemic between adherents of Christianity and non-religious people.
De Civita te Dei is also a philosophy of history and religion, a teaching on beliefs and morals
Originally De Civita te Dei was not intended as a textbook for state and church politics, although it eventually became such a book.
This is evident from the teachings of Augustine regarding the balance of position or power between the state and the church, between the king and the Pope.
Church and State according to Augustine
According to Augustine, whose teachings were very Theocratic in nature, it was said that the position of the church led by the Pope was higher than that of the state ruled by the King.
Why is that ?
In this connection, Augustine said that the existence of a country in the world is an ugliness, but its existence is a must.
What is important is the creation of a country as what religion dreams of or aspires to, namely the Kingdom of God.
Therefore, in fact, the state in the world is only an organization that has the task of eliminating religious obstacles and enemies of the church.
So here it is clear that the state has a lower position or power and is under the church
The state is merely a tool rather than the church to eradicate the enemies of the church.
The opinion of Augustine mentioned above, is clearly explained in his book De Civitate Dei, and in which the contents of his entire essay are intertwined with a sharp contradiction and difference and which reflect the school of thought in the medieval era in which he lived.
In his book, Augustine mentions two kinds of countries, namely :
- Civitas Dei, or God's State. This country was highly praised by Augustine, because it was the country that Religion dreamed of, aspired to be.
- Civitas Terrena, or Diaboli, or Demon Nation, or Worldly Country.
This country was very angry and rejected by Augustine. The best country is the State of God, but this country will never be achieved in this world, but the spirit is owned by some of the people in this world, and they must always try to achieve it.
And people can only reach this State of God, by means of the church, as representatives of God's State in this world. But actually people who are outside the church can also work towards the achievement of God's state, as long as they obey God's commands.
So actually the Worldly State and the Church are not entirely the same as the meaning of God's State with the Demon's Country
However, the worldly kingdoms were mostly true Civitas Terrena or Diaboli.
As evidence, for example Rome, said Augustine, who subsequently also criticized Cicero's opinion, in his book "Republic", because there was defined the state as a nation, while the notion of a nation was never known by the Roman empire, what was known was the understanding of the multitude who were united. because of an order from a ruler, and because of the keeping of a covenant.
The Roman Empire was never a state because never its rule was based on justice
For this reason, Rome fell into depravity, which at the same time showed that they were passionate about grandeur and worldliness.
Thus Augustine went on to say that Cicero had experienced an error, because he argued that the state was an incarnation of justice, whereas in fact justice could only be achieved in a state ruled by religion, namely in the Civitas Dei.
Augustine's whole mind is directed to the later days by setting aside the history of the past, and his mind is nothing more than a vague statement, the meaning of which is not yet a firm meaning.
It seems that Augustine's opinion equates the notion of the state with the understanding of society, as well as his opinion that the church is considered a shadow of the Dei Community in this world which covers the whole world, and the power (worldliness) of the state is obtained from the gift of the church.
This reminds us of the two sword theory
At that time people were talking about why the power of the Pope, especially after the crusades, was so influenced by worldly matters? Meanwhile, at that time, a policy from the Pope had just been born which was to free the church from all worldly affairs and aimed at deepening religious life.
This happened in the XII century, carried out by the Cisterciensa under the leadership of Bernard Clairvaux
In fact this is only a continuation of the Cluni movement in Bourgondia, which occurred in the X century.
Regarding the above fact, Bernard Clairvaux in his book entitled "De Consideratione" (regarding mystical review) argues that the Pope who pursues worldly goals is slave, and not according to his dignity.
People at that time were also busy talking about law, but what was meant was not the law from God, but the law from Justinian.
Then he proved (is it true that the Pope has been influenced by worldly matters) with the two sword theory.
With the two swords, the meaning is religious or religious power, so the power of the church or the pope and worldly power, namely the power of the state or king
With the teaching of the two swords, that the Pope gives a worldly sword, in essence means that the Pope has released from his hands worldly power.
So that what resides in him is religious power. Because worldly power is incompatible with the dignity of the church, which always encourages a pious life in an atmosphere of peace.
However, actually the theory of the two swords can also be explained in another way, because the biblical text does not say anything about the relationship of the two swords. even though this is precisely the problem.
Therefore, even stronger evidence is sought, this seems to be Pope Innocentius III.
Innocentius III strengthens his position on the relationship between religious, religious and worldly power, state power or king power, no longer with Lucas' two-sword theory, but with an ambition from Genesis.
That is, the Emperor or the King can be considered the moon, while the Pope is considered the sun, the Moon gets its light from the sun. Thus, it means that the Emperor or the King gets his power from the Pope.
Even in worldly affairs, the Pope has a higher power than the Emperor, or King.
The theory of two swords and the theory of the moon and sun
How is the truth of the two theories above? (the theory of the two swords, and the theory of the moon and sun).
May people also think differently, so as to arrive at exactly the opposite conclusion.
Because in both theories people have been influenced and even determined, by the delusions of his mind.
This is the strong reason for the legists to reject the Canoniciary teachings entirely.
Unless it is also proven by the legists by holding on to the scriptures, that in fact the king's power does not depend on the power of the Pope.
It was shown by the legists that the verse in the holy book, namely Rome in XIII, Chapter 1 says that, there is no power, apart from the power of God.
This is a description of the way of thinking in the Middle Ages, which turned out to be very simple and deteriorated, and less rational. Everything is thought theocratically.
But fortunately, since the year of the thousand there has been a gradual change in the way of thinking that leads to rational thinking.
Thus was born the philosophy of the medieval era, in addition to the science of Deity (theologie), which already existed.
From the comparison between the truth of theblogies and philosophical truths, there are many disputes that result in developments and changes in people's minds.
Medieval Scholastic philosophical teachings
Scholastic teachings are rational to understand and explain the teachings that have been issued by the church.
The creator of the Scholastic philosophy is Anselm Canterbury, who lived from 1033-1109.
The main basis of the teaching of Scholastic philosophy is: That a person must believe in order to understand.
But this was later changed by Abaclard, who lived in 1079-1142 to the opposite, namely that understanding should take precedence over belief.
This led to the emergence of contradictions that are in nature leading to the Renaissance.
Opponent of Augustine's teachings, John Salisbury
Meanwhile we come across an expert thinker on state and law, whose teachings can be said to be against the teachings of Augustine.
That person was: John Salisbury. He lived in the middle of the XII century (1150).
According to John Salisbury, the state should not only create peace for the benefit of the church, as taught by Augustine, who in his lifetime experienced depravity and barbarity, which caused him to reject the worldly state, and to glorify the teachings of the church; rather, it should also guarantee the safety and order of people's lives.
So from then on, namely the XII century, people began to give hope to society.
The result of the teachings of John Salisbury is the disappearance of the teachings of the two swords, and the teachings of the sun and moon, which sharply illustrate the contradiction between state power and church power.
Because from then on there arose a close cooperation between state power and church power, because both were part of an organic unity.
This unity occurs because the church is considered a part of the state organism.
This is illustrated by making a comparison, in that the church is likened to a soul rather than an organism, while the king is its head.
So the soul leads the body and head, which means that the spirit of the church should lead the country.
But for the sake of its dignity, the church should not interfere in worldly affairs, therefore worldly affairs must be carried out by the state.
From a socio-ethical point of view, John Salisbury argues that if each person works for his own interests, then the interests of the community will be well preserved.
Comparison of the opinion of John Salisbury and Epicurus
What if John Salisbury's opinion above compares with that of Epicurus? I think it cannot be equated. Strictly speaking, the two opinions are actually different from one another.
Because if Epicurus with his individualistic teachings was intended to overcome the depravity of society at that time, by giving priority to individual interests rather than those of society.
Because if the individual's interests are guaranteed, so will the public's interests be.
Thus one can achieve his goal, namely happiness.
But this happiness is not meant to be material happiness, but is happiness that is psychological or spirituality.
Meanwhile, John Salisbury with his teaching that if each person works for his own interest, then the interests of the community will be well preserved; That is, presumably what is meant is not that he will create individualistic teachings as taught by Epicurus, but rather to prevent someone from interfering in the affairs of others who have become a part of them, he stressed that the state and the church should not fight for power, but they must always make ties. close cooperation.
Because both are part of an organism.
John Salisbury also spoke of the king's attitude.
In this case what is important is his opinion which says that against a king who is a tyrant, people have the right to kill him.
Because he had trampled the law, had enslaved his people as a Tyran.
Thus the question arises: Who has the authority to determine the attitude of such a king ? This is an unanswered question .
It was only later in the sixteenth century that the question gained great significance, as people began to search for answers.
John Salisbury, Policraticus and Metalogicus
In addition to his book, which was named Policraticus, John Salisbury also wrote a book called Metalogicus.
Policraticus' book is mostly about the discussion of the state and law, while his latter book contains general philosophy, so it is not about the state and law, or the philosophy of law.
The subject of discussion is about the teachings of universalia, which is about a problem that very plagued people in the second part of the Middle Ages.
People think in such a way as to give rise to two schools.
The two schools are: realism and nominalism, the latter being a modern school.
Realism in Policraticus' book
Realism, its adherents are called realists, and it should be noted that the meaning of this term is completely different from the meaning given to it by people today, thinking Neo-Platonically.
This means that realists argue that, the more general the nature of something is, the closer it is to the Godhead, and the more real it becomes, and it actually happens.
For God is the most common thing that can be thought of, and therefore the greatest truth.
An example of a realistic thinking is that of Anselm Canterbury, whose ontological philosophy proves the existence of God.
Regarding something that is general in nature, it is something that is specific in nature, does not have a separate meaning, but only has a meaning drawn from the general meaning, so that something that is general in nature cannot be disturbed in its general form.
So realism maintains that the general description of the medieval era is the ultimate truth, which cannot be disturbed by new specific truths.
Nominalism in the book Policraticus
In fact, the opinion of realism has existed for centuries, but people only realized this situation after the emergence of another school, namely the flow of nominalism, as a modern school of the XII century, which argues that general goods do not have the ultimate truth.
They are only abstractions rather than thoughts.
Only the specific things, which have been drawn from the common goods by a logical line of thought, are the ultimate truth.
So the new special items can really interfere, can affect, can even change general items.
It is this line of thought which is the way out of the dilapidated, dark medieval times.
The thoughts that have been started since the crusades, his acquaintances with strangers, and thoughts from ancient times have given birth to this solution.
Especially after people got to know Aristotle's teachings again, these major changes emerged, and from that moment a new rational philosophy emerged.
Then there is also a desire to incorporate new things into old things, so that there is a system that can maintain a balance between ratio and revelation, and maintain or continue to be in harmony.
This goal is the key to the philosophical teachings of the undergraduate which later followed, namely: Thomas Aquinas.
