Tears and weeping: An Augustinian view

Griffiths, P. J. (2011). Tears and weeping: An Augustinian view. Faith and Philosophy, 28(1), 19-28.

本文分析了奥古斯丁《忏悔录》中论述眼泪的段落：

1，母亲为奥古斯丁的异教信仰而哭泣（Book 3）——眼泪，作为与上帝的交流，作为祈祷

2，奥古斯丁为朋友之死而哭（Book 4，4.4.9–4.7.12）——但是，此时奥古斯丁未受洗，眼泪只是表达痛苦【注意，受洗前后，眼泪的意义不同】

3，花园的信仰转变的哭泣（8.12.28–8.12.30）——眼泪，类似于business（(ad negotium flendi），是一种sacrificial offering。另外，为什么是孤独中哭泣，可能与福音书中祈祷要求孤独有关

4，母亲之死的哭泣（9.11.27–9.13.37），奥古斯丁葬礼时忍住不哭，洗澡独处时哭泣——tears are understood to be a form of judgment or understanding (p. 23)，即需要判断，在哪种场合下，眼泪是appropriate。

伤痛wound是人的一部分，而眼泪治疗伤痛。

眼泪是有听众的，涉及他者的。Tears have an audience: they are communicative, and in thinking about what they communicate it is important to think about their audience. (p. 24) 眼泪中，有人听。【weeping and hearing!!】

眼泪是忏悔告白的一种形式，主听见我们的哭泣。The Lord listens to our tears and knows them for what they are, which is a form of confession. (p. 25) 

There (10.1.1–10.4.5) weeping is assimilated to confession: both are means by which sinners open themselves more fully to the Lord, and in that way become more intimate with him. In weeping, as in confessing, we show that we understand what we are and what the world is. Not to weep would be to show that we misconstrue both; in restraining our tears we distance ourselves from the Lord. (p. 25)

奥古斯丁的人禽之辨。Passions are, for Augustine, rational or irrational (most often a complex mix of both); they can never be arational. And this is why, we might say (though Augustine so far as I know does not), nonhuman animals do not cry: tears, being rational or irrational but never arational, cannot belong to them. (p. 27) 奥古斯丁认为，激情绝不是与理性无关的，因此，动物不哭，因为动物无理性。