Here’s the deal: Aging gracefully is a nice idea. In theory, one hopes to mobilize as a free agent in the world, gleaning from others, and collecting what is useful without the repercussions of removal, disconnect, or release. Temporality assigns each movement to a chronology, permitting an order and developing a notion of progress, or at least provides a representation of advancement, hence aging. The spatial component is where grace comes in.
Grace, as defined by the Oxford dictionary, is “smoothness and elegance of movement.” The second definition says, “courteous good will.” The third definition is a Christian one; it goes as “the free and unmerited favour of God, as manifested in the salvation of sinners and the bestowal of blessings.”
- the aesthetics of grace suggests beauty, but it is dynamic in practice and fluid in nature. emphasis on “in nature” because beauty is natural( pristine vs corrupt dichotomy). elegance draws its power from its simplicity. therefore, grace is not complex. one might argue that there is a positive correlation with simplicity and power that is to say intricate the image of grace is, the less powerful grace can be.
- the ethical dimension of grace consists of a morality which is why it must be good. as a form of governance, the will plays ( as Nietzsche might say) to power, or as I aforementioned, a motivation to drive or stimulate progress. the courteous bit just means polite and/or respectful which is nice to have as opposed to rude and/or disrespectful forms of governance. how could that even be considered gracious?
- it might be strange to attempt to classify the Christian definition. it might be safer to just label it as “Christianity” but I am leaning towards metaphysics, or Christian metaphysics if you must categorize it. the Oxford dictionary is missing an important part of God’s grace. it is His love for the sinner that makes grace possible. you see, love, more specifically, Agape, is a prerequisite for grace.
- human logic: favour/pleasure/good/right determines what can deserve love. it is conditional, entirely, and based on faulty reasoning because of human error
- agape (ἀγάπη) is the standardized referent for love in the New Testament. it is a selfless, giving, non-emotional love—as opposed to the friendship love of philia (φιλία). non-emotional can also be understood as non-conditional, or unconditional. the distinction between philia and agape is stark.
Phew, that was a long introduction. NOW WE BE TALKIN BOUT PHILIA, OKAY?
We, the people, the sinful, complicated, annoying, flawed humans, cannot exercise proper grace without the filling of the Holy Spirit. Dis is why i said it’s gonn be metaphysics bc that’s pretty meta. We can love(the homie love), or love( the sexy love)but we cannot love(the overwhelming, never-ending love)unless we accept God’s love.
did not intend on this. i was gonna go off on a rant but now i’m convicted. whoops.
collectif de cole 