http://forum.wgbh.org/wgbh/ram.php?id=3076&size=lo

I like what Franz Rosenzweig has to say:
“The philosopher does not permit his wonder stand as it is, to be released into the flow of life. Of necessity, he must “hook” the problem from where he stands. He has forcibly extracted thought’s “object” and “subject” from the flow of life and he entrenches himself within them. Wonder stagnates and is perpetuated in the motionless mirror of his meditation; that is in the subject. He has it well-hooked; it is securely fastened and it persists in his benumbed immobility. The stream of life has been replaced by something submissive, statuesque, subjugated.”

The solution and dissolution of their wonder is at hand-the love which has befallen them. They are no longer a wonder to eachother; they are in the very heart of wonder. Life becomes numb in the face of death and dies. The wonder is unravelled . And it was life itself that brought the solution.”

ability and freedom. Great way of putting it. But I wonder if other people have been able to ‘think’ except for (paid) philosophers? My own prejudice is to think that there has been a hypertrophy of the mind in the west and a rather unbalanced type of thinking has come to the fore rather than an integral intelligence. Freedom? I wonder. truthfulness over Truth perhaps, no? a wise man once said the Truth shall set you free…he did not say that freedom shall lead to the truth. Perhaps the difference is the obsession with ‘knowing’ and an acknowledgement of a reality that is beyond us…we see through a glass darkly.

I have not read Eisenmann but I use the word Nazarene based on a general consensus among academic Biblical scholars (Ie. there is no record of the town of Nazareth during Jesus’ time and Jesus was probably a part of the Nazarene sect).

When it comes to differences between philosophy and science, one must distinguish between who are the philosophers and who are the scientists. Ancient and Modern philosophers (as opposed to contemporary) took on many subject matters that we now limit to science because of that faculty’s own developments. What they would have once called “epistemology” may now include what we now call “epistemology” in addition to behavioural psychology, brain mapping, genetics, etc etc etc.

The beauty (figurative speech) is that if you are good enough and have the right credentials, you can get paid to think - others can definitely be “philosophers” but eventually has to make money somewhere. I wouldn’t even have much qualms with using Augustine’s definition, but the liberty I speak of was probably much more figurative - a better word might have been somewhere between ability and freedom.

I like your use of the word ‘Nazarene’ and not Nazareth. Have you read Eisenmann. It would be really interesting to read a post on that.
i think one can believe it is representative of the society and revealed. As some say: the water takes on the shape of the container..but remains water. Levinas on Jewish Revelation is one of my favourite texts in this regard.

Yes, you are quite right! Everyone seems to believe that they and only they have access to the absolute truth.

If you sharply distinguish then I have no qualms. It was just , I think, that you used the word ‘philosopher’ which gave me the impression that you were talking about *all* philosophers.

I don’t understand your point about it being a job and not a vocation or what is meant by ‘nature’ in your statement. And so, there is no beauty if one is not being paid?!

Perhaps we are really talking about different ideas of liberty. I think Augustine might have called it a lonely freedom. Still, the tide is with the moderns. What use lamenting that….

Whether people quote things and to what purpose seems -to me at least -to be a defence mechanism (which is not to say what you’re saying isn’t correct Brad…people will always quote what they want to satisfy their own interests. But isn’t that detracting from the issue at hand?

so, there is a specific disgustment? And the one verse you mentioned-Corinthians, i think-is not the only explicit one?
May I ask in whose eyes it is disgusting in this verse and on what grounds do you say it is a social construct?

you say philosophers have the liberty ..I’m not sure about that..even Descartes would say that the infinite was *placed* in him and didn’t he have to assume that a malign demon was not deceiving him so that there was a conformity between the mind and the world? At least in certain traditions i think the view would be : I am , therefore I can think..i.e existence is given to us and we cannot posit the ‘I’ like that. Also, I think Fergus Kerr in Theology after wittgenstein is right to suggest that this idea of the mind, independent of the world or ‘the other’ is really an attempt to be like God and see sub specie aeternitatis.

Thier duty is to question everyhting?does that include questioning whether they should indeed question everyhting? Is there a point where thought, explanation comes to a limit? Wasn’t that the whole point of the Ontological ‘proof’: the need for the unconditioned…and isn’t this acknowledgement of what is not us another word for love?

what you say about science makes sense but isn’t a large part of modern thought that statements about the metaphysical are meaningless or devoid of sense? In practice, anyhting that does not conform to science and its criteria of truth are ruled out?

I think you’ve struck on something though.Science does not seem to care for or have the words for soemthing like ‘inherent’ anyway which shows-to me at least-that it will always be a partila view of reality.

Sure, but are you saying that God does not judge? And if sinners do not accept Christ are they still sinners? and what happens to them after that? Are you saying that sin is also a ’social construct’?

well, thinking of sins and not sinners can also create a level playing field ; by focusing on the act as sinful and not the person a gap is created and I would say that is where grace can come in.

I appreciate your view about Righteousness. I come from a different tradition. What ever happened to those who enter the ‘broad gate’ and the ‘lukewarm’?

but yes, I agree with you in some sense: it is possible to think of this in terms of one up-manship.

Joke:
a sunni makes it to heaven and is shown around by an angel.
He is taken toa large hall where he sees a lot of Christians devoutly praying.
Sunni: “on no, not the Christians, how did they get here?”

and then on to another room where he sees some jews.
again,to the angel: “Don’t tell em they got here as well!”

And so on: Hindus and Shias and…

eventually he come s to a room . The angel puts his fingers to his lips and says “shh”. He quietly opens the door.

In the room the sunni sees only one sunni praying and instantly recognizes him as one of his own.
to the angle he says: “but why so quiet?”

angel: “Because he thinks he’s the only one up here!”

As for philosophers and scientists my bias is clear because of my study of philosophy (and maybe my lack of science). I never said that only science can make meaningful statement about reality. I am sorry if I led you to believe that. I said that philosophers have the liberty to question even basic presuppositions. This means that it is their job and duty to question everything - even they’re own presuppositions. Scientists, however, cannot afford to philosophize when it is not needed for them to do so - Ie. the ball is red. A scientist does not need to inquire into the inherent ‘redness’ or how we know that the ball is red, as an epistemologist does. It can take such presuppositions for granted so they can continue their work.

All in all, I am continually trying to stick to the topic at hand. To say what I needed to say could be summed up in a few short lines. The New Testament is concerned with anti-judgmentalism and salvation of all sinners. It is better to think not of sins, but of sinners, which creates a level playing field. Righteousness does not get you a better seat - the last shall be first. Humans, however, will always fight to keep a score. They want to be better than the person next door - and religion is one of the greatest tools because you can condemn them in the next life time.

1. I’m not quite sure what you’re saying. That there is hypocrisy and double standards is undeniable. Perhaps that is the nature of ‘the world’. But does that, should that , in itself negate the view that homosexuality is wrong or a sin? Are these not separate questions?

2. Your second point: Are you saying that there is nothing in the OT or that that doesn’t apply? I remember you saying something earlier about the laws of the Old Testament. Isn’t Romans 1:26 pretty explicit? So, again, what is your point? Are you emphasising the word “extreme”..as if to say that homosexuality is a sin but not an extreme one? Or are you saying that orthodoxy has thought of it as a sin but you personally do not view it that way for whatever reasons?

3. You say there is no hierarchy of sins. as that been the traditional understanding of it? Of the Church Fathers, say? Again, with reference to Heaven is it not said that there are many mansions? I don’t understand what your problem with hierarchy is to be honest? Why is that a “problem”? Aren’t heaven and hell in relation to eachother a hierarchy? Is it not possible to say that there is an equality in “getting to heaven” but not otherwise?

4.I don’t agree with your bias towards philosophers. Why cannot an ordinary person or a theologian question the presupposition that only science can make meaningful statements about reality? why are they in any privileged position? I tend to agree with Leo Strauss here: philosophy is bound by the Law.

5. Again, i detect a bias towards science in your answer. You could equally have said that if they had to answer questions-and why shouldn'’t they?- then they may not have invented the Bomb. you may also have said that a mechanical view of relaity can and has (NOT must) lead to nihilism. As Blake and the Romantics would say: satanic mills! If you get the chance Brad, do have a look at the chapter on Goethe ’s views of science in Heller’s ‘Disinherited Mind’.

Keep well,

K.