So Mariana and I made our first period TMI on a short story by Jorge Luis Borges, "The Library of

Babel". We thought it would be great to share our reflection-discussion with you.

The Library is an allegory of the universe, in which Borges sets one of the fundamental
epistemological problems: is it possible to know something? And from that, he developed on the
possibility of knowing God (or some kind of universal superior being —which we will address under
the name of God for the major part of this text), and the possibility of knowing what the infinite is.

We centered our research on four concepts that are manifested in the story: agnosticism,
skepticism, universalism and Philosophy; and practically divided it into 3 parts. One regarding the
idea of a universal god or divine being (linked to universalism); another regarding the problem of
the possibility of getting to know it (agnosticism and skepticism); and the last regarding Philosophy
as a way of reaching that being. Here's how we developed it:

The story has practically two major topics: as we mentioned in the last paragraph, the idea of a
universal being, and the possibility of actually getting to know that being. On the first topic (which is
why the "Babel" thing is addressed), Borges states this idea of a universal superior being: a
universal god. This means that the gods of different religions, or the superior beings addressed on
them are all the same thing: Allah, the Muslims' god, is the same god as the Christians' god, God,
and viceversa.

This idea of universalism comes from two sources. One, which is the most obvious, is from the
Bible, specifically from Genesis: The Tower of Babel. In this biblical episode, it is stated that the
people in the city of Babel were building a huge tower in order to reach God's reign in heaven. In
consequence, God made all men speak in different languages (they all spoke only one) so they
couldn't get organised, as he didn't want men to reach his reign. This is referenced in Borges's
story, as this universalism would say that "we all use different words to name the same thing".

The British novelist Clive Staples Lewis also made use of some sort of universalism in his Narnia
tales, when the all-mighty lion, Aslan, once told the Pevensie kids "in your world I have another
name; you should learn to worship me under it. Perhaps that was the reason why I brought you
here in the first place". Indeed, Lewis was saying that his fictional Aslan was God.

Nevertheless, the second source is Plato's idealism. Plato said that there were two worlds: the
world of the material things (κόσμος), and the world of the ideas (τόπος υράνυς). The centre of
his theory of knowledge is that the things down here in the κόσμος are the shadows of what
happens in the world of ideas; and therefore, what really exists are the ideas themselves. This
includes the idea of God: inside the κόσμος we could name it anyway we like, and even think of it
in so many different ways as the number of people in the world; but at the end, the idea is just one,
and we are referring to the same thing.

So, for Borges, there is just one thing, one absolute truth, which is the one that rules over the entire
universe.

The second major topic in "The Library of Babel" regards the possibility of knowledge itself. Once
he described what God really is as a universal, supernatural being, Borges questioned if it was
really possible for mankind to reach him. In order to find an answer, Borges split this topic into two:
the quest for God, and the problem of the infinite. We shall start by the quest for God.

Borges mentions the idea of God under many different names (the cyclical book, the Man of the
book, the catalogue of catalogues, the prophecies, etc.), which hide the universalism message; but
he also mentions how the librarians (an allegory of the people in the universe) wanted to reach
God, and how no one had ever done so (or had anyone done so?). On these ideas, Borges
suggests two answers: an skeptic and an agnostic one (Borges sometimes claimed hisself being
an agnostic, and sometimes being an skeptic).
The skeptic one suggests that it is impossible to know God (and that, radically, there is not such
thing as God). In the story, this would make the librarians unable to reach their cyclical book/
crimson hexagon/Man of the book/catalogue of catalogues (God); and therefore they could doubt
of its existence (or affirm its not-existence). Borges hints that this argument would lead to proper
existentialism, and make people go crazy and even commit suicide.

On the other hand, the agnostic answer suggests that this absolute truth (God) exists, but we are
unable to establish a relationship with it. However, it is different from the skepticism for one thing:
agnosticism (particularly Borges's) involves hope. Hope as a belief on the idea that one day
someone will reach God/the absolute truth. In the story, this would make the librarians believe their
gods exist; and therefore they should go try to reach them (or it, as it is just one thing).

This problem is also a reference to the Tower of Babel —although it is not as clear as in the idea of
a universal being: "God didn't want men to reach his reign" (it is in bold letters some paragraphs
back); and so, is there a way to reach it? Should we say that God does not exist as there isn't a
way to reach him (skepticism)? Or should we believe there is a way to reach him?

There's a fun fact on this problem: there should be another answer to the question, which would
say "yes, there is a relation between that absolute truth and men," which is the principle of all
religions. E.g., Christians believe that there is a god that exists, God, and that they are able to
reach him and to be reached by him through insight and praying. But, as a matter of fact, Borges
wasn't a Christian (although he was educated in a deep Christian moral), and so, he didn't believe
in that there is a way of reaching God.

At the same time, Borges sets the problem of the infinite. His basic statements are: is the infinite
really possible? How can we be sure of its existence if we are finite beings? He develops on this
problem: how can we be so sure that in any case where we think that the concept of infinite is
applied, the series of events will go on repeating itself forever or creating new events forever? How
can we be so sure that in an irrational number, somewhere among the digits there will be one digit
that doesn't correspond to the rule of the series? Or how can we be so sure that in one place, what
we believed was infinite already stopped? How can we have —and create— a concept for a thing
that actually escapes the natural borders of a concept itself into the boundless? Are we capable of
knowing what is infinite?

The same two principles as in the quest for God are applied: we could believe in that there is not
such thing as the infinite, and that therefore we can't understand it; or we could believe in the
existence of the infinite, and that someday someone will understand and know what it is.

Although it may seem as it is not, the infinite is also a metaphor for God, as one of the
requirements for God to be God is to be boundless: to be infinite. And though it would be ironic, the
concept of infinite could also work as a god —a manifestation of the idea of God (the absolute truth
itself under one of its many names).

So, Borges concludes the story claiming he doesn't know the answer to the problems he has
stated; but he expresses his ideology on the last paragraphs: he believes there is a absolute truth
which hasn't been reached (or maybe has?), but he deeply hopes that one man will someday
reach the absolute truth. He is an agnostic.

It is very curious how Borges came to develop such hope being an atheist, sometimes agnostic;
but the reason comes far from his early life, when he was being instructed into Christianity by his
mother. Among all the teaching this religion tries to transmit, there is one fundamental part of them
regarding Ethics: the Hebrew anthropology.

Hebrews divided man into three parts: nefesh (‫)בפש‬, throat; baçar (‫)בשר‬, flesh; and ruaj (‫)הדר‬,
blow. All these three concepts are metaphors of what man is: man is "throat" as he is a being in
necessity; man is "flesh" as he is an ephemeral being; and man is "blow", as when the Hebrews
were in the dessert with a powerful sun shining on them, what made them still fight and go on was
the feeling they got when the wind got in touch with their sweat: it refreshed them. Because of this,
ruaj means that we can always improve; but, beyond that definition, ruaj is the synonym of hope.
This hope was taken and learnt by Borges in his Ethics, as he adopted it from the Christian
morality, in which hope lies in its roots.

Borges believes and hopes that one man will someday find out what the absolute truth is; but along
the text, he gives some clues that this man would need to be a philosopher; and here is where our
last concept enters: Philosophy. Despite of being "the science that studies all things from their final
causes," Philosophy is a way of living. It comes from the Greek words φίλος, "love", and Σοφία,
"wisdom"; so the philosopher is, literally, the wisdom lover. But there is much more on the
Etymology of the word: Philosophy indicates a "continuous trend to knowing".

To sum up, Borges, then, states the importance of being a philosopher (a wisdom/knowledge lover)
this prophetic man who would learn and reach the absolute truth would have; as his whole attitude
on being on this continuos trend of knowing would pass over all obstacles and impediments of
getting to know the absolute, universal truth.