Do you dare?

[public hermit]

I think it's the "I don't care" option.

As for Edmund Husserl, he was definitely an interesting read back in college and I liked his hermeneutic of "Framing." That was one idea that has always stuck with me, however badly I may appropriate it.

Same. His method of bracketing basic assumptions has been helpful for me in trying to see things with a fresh perspective.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

I have to look it up. Is two d's or two g's or who cares? I am a fan of his teacher, Husserl, though.

Ricoeur's Time and Narrative Vol. 3 starts out with Husserl's Phenomenology of internal time consciousness. Wow! I may have to read the actual guy.

I can just see my librarian now, "Can you get me a copy of Edmond Husserl's Phenomenology of Internal Time Consciousness please?"

I may have to get my own copy of Jurgen Moltmann's The Crucified God. I am a slow reader with these guys.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

Maybe this has been discussed, but in terms of theology, the primary Heideggerian is Rudolph Bultmann (not to be confused with Moltmann, who was a very different German animal). Bultmann basically appropriated (in the usual sense of the term) Heidegger for Christianity. It is an existential/phenomenological approach.

Another big name (that is influential) . How about Habermas? Derreda and Gadamer? I never heard of these guys and Tracy talks about them in the same sentences as Plato and Aristotle.

 

[public hermit]

Ricoeur's Time and Narrative Vol. 3 starts out with Husserl's Phenomenology of internal time consciousness. Wow! I may have to read the actual guy.

I can just see my librarian now, "Can you get me a copy of Edmond Husserl's Phenomenology of Internal Time Consciousness please?"

I may have to get my own copy of Jurgen Moltmann's The Crucified God. I am a slow reader with these guys.

As I mentioned to @2PhiloVoid
I have found Husserl's phenomenological method helpful. His idea of bracketing, in particular, is interesting and useful. When we observe phenomena, we bring all kinds of assumptions (physical, metaphysical, ontological, etc.) to the experience. By "bracketing" those assumptions (suspending judgment) we are able to analyze the experience and, perhaps, see the thing in itself. I don't know about seeing the thing in itself, but I have found it helpful to try and bracket my own assumptions when trying to perceive something (anything, really) and see it for its own sake.

Bracketing (phenomenology) - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Husserl, as a primary source, can be difficult to read. For my own purposes, I have found secondary sources to be a bit more helpful. Moltmann, by contrast, is not difficult reading, and he kind of carries you along. I would definitely read The Crucified God, but his other writings are also good (Theology of Hope). His experience as a German POW was transformative and informs his theology.

Jürgen Moltmann - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

 

[public hermit]

Another big name (that is influential) . How about Habermas? Derreda and Gadamer? I never heard of these guys and Tracy talks about them in the same sentences as Plato and Aristotle.

I have heard of all three (Habermas more than Gadamer; Derrida is notoriously difficult reading they say) but I have not read them.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Another big name (that is influential) . How about Habermas? Derreda and Gadamer? I never heard of these guys and Tracy talks about them in the same sentences as Plato and Aristotle.

Yes, those three have been influential, but just keep in mind that Habermas, Derrida and Gadamer can't be lumped together. Each of them represents a different school of thought---they're not buddies working on the same project. Derrida is a hard post-modernist who more or less paved the way for the concept of Deconstruction. Habermas, on the other hand, is essentially a proponent of Modernist permutations in reasoning.

For my part, my approach to things has been influenced, even if not fully reliant upon, the Philosophical Hermeneuticists like Gadamer and Ricœur and their subsequent students.

Anyway, enjoy your journey through David Tracy's thought. It sounds like you are.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

Anyway, enjoy your journey through David Tracy's thought. It sounds like you are.

It would help if I read they guys he talks about....maybe.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

It would help if I read they guys he talks about....maybe.

That all depends on exactly what David Tracy is doing by his name dropping, because there are conflicting aspects between each of the three hermeneutical positions of Habermans, Derrida and Gadamer. My guess is that David Tracy is attempting to consolidate and synthesize what he thinks is useful from each of the three hermeneutical strands to present his own theory. So, you can read whomever you want-----if you're daring enough to-----but I'd handle Derrida carefully since I don't agree with him about his essentially "reader-based" assumptions.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

Long way from OP but I just read this short thing In Journal of American Medical Association.

"Ethical dilemmas of medicine often defy rational solutions. They create situations that are the stuff of classic Greek tragedy, more in need of the intuitive perceptions of an Aeschylus rather than of the logical analysis of an Aristotle. At the moment, without the guidance of either, the physician facing such dilemmas must be his own dramatist and his own philosopher."

Be Your Own Philosopher

Contrary to prevailing impression, medicine’s concern with ethical problems is not a by-product of recent advances in medical knowledge and skills. True, problems such as allotment of a limited organ supply among the many in need of a transplant or deciding to terminate an artificially sustained...

jamanetwork.com

Tracy was talking about how Plato and Gadamer "best construe reason" as dialogue while Aristotle and Habermas best construe reason as argument.

"Best construe reason"? The process of reasoning?

How many of us have studied Aeschylus or Sophocles? Sometimes I feel so ignorant. I hope they at least teach some Aesop Fables in primary school these days.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

I have found Husserl's phenomenological method helpful. His idea of bracketing, in particular, is interesting and useful. When we observe phenomena, we bring all kinds of assumptions (physical, metaphysical, ontological, etc.) to the experience. By "bracketing" those assumptions (suspending judgment) we are able to analyze the experience and, perhaps, see the thing in itself. I don't know about seeing the thing in itself, but I have found it helpful to try and bracket my own assumptions when trying to perceive something (anything, really) and see it for its own sake.

Sounds a little Zen. Is it even possible to effectively bracket? so Much seems unconscious.

Now I have to read a little more about wirkungsgeschichtliches Bewusstsein and maybe use it for a password.


Then, I think, I am taking a break form this stuff. Something easy like "See Spot run."

 

[Derf]

Why rehash the last the last 300 years of scripture scholarship?

Is that what you are pointing to as truth? If so, then alternative views for you would be those challenge the last 300 years of "scholarship".

It is there for all the world to see and decide.
And, as I said., I am not trying to convince anyone. I am looking for people desiring to share their alternate views.

I understand wanting to find truth in a haze of different views, or through the solidity of estabished, even if false, doctrine. But I don't see how just airing alternative views will be helpful, if the established view turns out to be the true one and you've discounted it as a premise.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

Is that what you are pointing to as truth? If so, then alternative views for you would be those challenge the last 300 years of "scholarship".

I understand wanting to find truth in a haze of different views, or through the solidity of estabished, even if false, doctrine. But I don't see how just airing alternative views will be helpful, if the established view turns out to be the true one and you've discounted it as a premise.

What do you think the "established" view is? And considered "established " by whom.

 

[okay]

So for me, creation accounts are myth. Patriarchs, well who knows probably some mixture of legend and history. The closer we get in time, I think, the more reliable the historical content. I certainty think focusing on a polemic asserting a literal interpretation of Genesis 1 & 2 is completely missing the point.

I basically agree with your thoughts here. And like you, I am not interested in convincing others that they should adopt this posture towards scripture.

And for me, a turn towards embracing biblical scholarship helped both my faith and my ability to even read the bible on my own again. It was tremendously helpful to learn that most scholars agree that the archeological evidence doesn’t support the biblical narrative of the Canaanite genocide. So now I can read those accounts and try and understand what this narrative may have meant to the ancient writers and audience, instead of having a crisis of faith over God having thousands of children slaughtered by sword and spear.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

I basically agree with your thoughts here. And like you, I am not interested in convincing others that they should adopt this posture towards scripture.

And for me, a turn towards embracing biblical scholarship helped both my faith and my ability to even read the bible on my own again. It was tremendously helpful to learn that most scholars agree that the archeological evidence doesn’t support the biblical narrative of the Canaanite genocide. So now I can read those accounts and try and understand what this narrative may have meant to the ancient writers and audience, instead of having a crisis of faith over God having thousands of children slaughtered by sword and spear.

I less critical reading of those texts might find unlimited justification and support for everything Israel is doing right now. That is why hermeneutics are so important. They drive our actions far beyond promoting Genesis in a science classroom. I am only just beginning to become aware of the importance.

 

[Derf]

What do you think the "established" view is? And considered "established " by whom.

This is a most excellent question. I can tell, because it is the converse of the one I've been asking you. So, if you'll tell me what the "alternate" views are you are proposing, then we'll understand what the established view is the alternate views are the alternate of.

Without that answer from you, all we are left to believe about your view(s) is that it is merely contrary to whatever the church is teaching. Which is not a very good position to take, in my opinion.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

This is a most excellent question. I can tell, because it is the converse of the one I've been asking you. So, if you'll tell me what the "alternate" views are you are proposing, then we'll understand what the established view is the alternate views are the alternate of.

Without that answer from you, all we are left to believe about your view(s) is that it is merely contrary to whatever the church is teaching. Which is not a very good position to take, in my opinion.

What? You choose to dodge the question and have me do all the work? Very well. I will play a long for a while.

I can only guess that what you mean by "established view" is biblical literalism. Biblical literalism - Wikipedia
And an "Alternate" view must be something like a Historical-Critical methods. Historical criticism - Wikipedia

And what "church" are you talking about? Even the stodgy ol' conservative Catholics church has joined the protestant scholars in accepting historical critical methods. This is especially true with the Genesis creation accounts as mentioned in OP.

So the actual "established view" among most scholars, protestant and Catholic, is no longer literalist, at least with respect to Genesis.

 

[Derf]

What? You choose to dodge the question and have me do all the work? Very well. I will play a long for a while.

I can only guess that what you mean by "established view" is biblical literalism. Biblical literalism - Wikipedia
And an "Alternate" view must be something like a Historical-Critical methods. Historical criticism - Wikipedia

And what "church" are you talking about? Even the stodgy ol' conservative Catholics church has joined the protestant scholars in accepting historical critical methods. This is especially true with the Genesis creation accounts as mentioned in OP.

So the actual "established view" among most scholars, protestant and Catholic, is no longer literalist, at least with respect to Genesis.

Excellent reply, thank you! If the historical critical view is the established view, in your opinion, then for your thread here, a validly alternative view for your thread is the literal view, of Genesis at least. And an invalid view for your thread is the historical critical view, since it can't be both the established view and an alternative view at the same time.

Am I understanding correctly now?

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

Excellent reply, thank you! If the historical critical view is the established view, in your opinion, then for your thread here, a validly alternative view for your thread is the literal view, of Genesis at least. And an invalid view for your thread is the historical critical view, since it can't be both the established view and an alternative view at the same time.

Am I understanding correctly now?

No.. I think for many on this form, in their minds, the Literal view is the "established view". Anything else is alternate.

And, I tried to be clear that I am not interested in disputing which view is more accurate or correct. Rather, I am more interested in exploring aspects beyond the literal. So far it has taken us to some very challenging and inportant concepts of hermeneutics.

 

[public hermit]

No.. I think for many on this form, in their minds, the Literal view is the "established view". Anything else is alternate.

I agree, and to be fair, some form of literalism is probably how many begin reading the scriptures.

I think for many people, when they are first confronted with a historical-critical approach, it can be jarring. But the tools can be really helpful for approaching texts (form criticism, source criticism, contextual analysis, historical setting, etc.). I would say historical-critical methods are good tools but horrible masters.

On the other hand, literalism is just a horrible master. The idea from early on was to encounter the living Christ through the text. Early commentators understood that although many start from a literalist standpoint, that was not the place to stay. What one was seeking transcends the written accounts.

 

[okay]

I less critical reading of those texts might find unlimited justification and support for everything Israel is doing right now. That is why hermeneutics are so important. They drive our actions far beyond promoting Genesis in a science classroom. I am only just beginning to become aware of the importance.

Those passages in the bible influenced things like the treatment of indigenous people in the Americas by European powers. It is hard to condemn atrocities if you believe God has committed and ordered things like the mass killing of children in the past. If God does it then there is nothing inherently wrong with it, right?

I know someone who saw so much dissonance between the divine violence in the OT (which they thought they must take literally) and the love of God displayed in Jesus that they decided Christianity had to be false and walked away from faith altogether. It was extremely painful for them - their most important relationship was with God, and it literally felt like that relationship was severed because God died. Fortunately, after a number of years they eventually regained faith. Thank heaven for the 'liberal' mainline church where they could freely adopt other hermeneutics (which is all they would have needed in order to keep their faith in the first place) and explore different expressions of Christianity. The stream of Christianity they had been raised in had set them up for a very painful and completely avoidable crisis of faith.

So I agree. Hermeneutics are hugely influential in all kinds of ways ...