From Disputing Back to Living
What is a religion for, if its scholars can win every argument and change nobody's life? The young Lessing's essay on the Moravians sides with practice against theory.
Victories in war, the essay begins, prove nothing about who was in the right, and learned quarrels are only another kind of war. Lessing imagines a new Socrates who calls scholars away from theory and back to virtue, and shows him jeered at by an algebraist, an astronomer and two metaphysicians who cannot agree whether he ought to believe in monads. So, he says, the theologians treat the Moravians, who changed no doctrine and wanted only to bring Christians back from disputing to living.
- virtue
- ethics
- wisdom
- satire
- philosophy
- self-knowledge
- persecution
- religious reform
- expertise
- knowledge
- authority
- superstition
- luck
- death
- justice
Enter a dialogue
- Your essay on the Moravians begins by saying that victories in war prove nothing about who was right. Why should winning a learned dispute prove any more?
- In your Moravian essay a new Socrates calls scholars to virtue and is jeered by an algebraist, an astronomer and two metaphysicians. What do they fail to hear?
- Someone wants less arguing about belief and more living by it. Why, in your defence of the Moravians, does that wish provoke the learned more than heresy would?
- You defend the Moravians as people who never tried to change a doctrine. If doctrine matters so little, why stress their orthodoxy at all?