0

I totally couldn't understand what is trying to be said because of the complex grammatical structures and ambiguous words. Here is the full sentence:

God to him was the incarnation of the pure Intellect, a being whose activity was the contemplation of his own perfection, one whom Philosophy might imitate but whom prayers could never move, to the sublime indifference of whose passionless wisdom what were the sons of men, their desires or their sins?

where did the question mark come from? What is the writer trying to say with 'whom prayers could never move'? Move? I'd be glad if you can use simpler phrases, commas and full stops and synonyms to help me understand the sentence.

1 Answer 1

0

It's hard to explain the sentence exactly, without knowing where it's from. Every kind of theology and philosophy uses words in its own special way. Also, it's an ugly and very old-fashioned sentence, and hard to understand, even for educated, native speakers of English.

However, here's an attempt to simplify it. I'll break it into phrases first:

God to him was the incarnation of the pure Intellect

He believed that God was the embodiment of pure Intelligence ...

a being whose activity was the contemplation of his own perfection,

... and that all God does is to be aware of how perfect He [God] is, ...

one whom Philosophy might imitate but whom prayers could never move,

... and philosophy could try to be like God, but nobody could make God do anything different by praying ...

to the sublime indifference of whose passionless wisdom what were the sons of men, their desires or their sins?

... God was wise in a cold way. He didn't care about people's wishes or sins. Did he?

Move is used in a deliberately ambiguous way here, I think - meaning both to "change from one state, opinion, or activity to another", and to "arouse a strong feeling, especially of sorrow or sympathy, in (someone)". The implication is that prayers can't make God feel sorry for the person who prays, or make God do anything to help them.

What were ... ? This is a rhetorical question. It's another way of saying that people meant nothing to God (as the person in the sentence imagined God).

To put that all together in a simple way, I'd say:

He thought that God was just a mind that looked at itself. He thought people could try to copy God by doing philosophy, but they couldn't influence God at all. He thought that God didn't care much about what people wanted or did, because God was wise in a totally unemotional way.

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.