Ur-Platonism, Naturalism, and Atheism

[zippy2006]

I have a whole bunch of Thomists I'm hoping to get through, but I should probably be reading more Anglicans and less Catholics.

On second thought: you're right, we'd better read a Thomist.

Seriously though, Williams would presumably be a good denomination-bridger which could help dispense with the problem Philo brought up.

Like say, you choose an article or book chapter that is 20 to 50 pages to read, we read and discuss it, then we likewise read other choices from other participants, also 20 to 50 pages, and so on, and so forth.

I've done that before, and it works reasonably well, but it tends to be more involved and lengthy. Like so many of my generation, I am wary of long-term commitments.

The cool thing about the book that @public hermit proposed is that it is at bottom a collection of essays, so there would presumably be good stopping points. An Anglican friend of mine also recommended Christ the Heart of Creation, which would be less systematic.

Are others interested in reading Hardot?

I'm not altogether opposed, but it may be a more difficult book to discuss.

 

[public hermit]

Personally, I'm more up for a bi-lateral or tri-lateral, multi-variant "exchange"... where we all trade with one another our own choices of literature (or vids) that have lent themselves to our 'understanding,' and we each bring something to the discussion table. Like say, you choose an article or book chapter that is 20 to 50 pages to read, we read and discuss it, then we likewise read other choices from other participants, also 20 to 50 pages, and so on, and so forth.

Frankly, I rather hate it when one person, whether Christian or Atheist, steps up and says, "Here, read this and this only because it's what I think is the best TANG!" So, I'd rather read some 'piece' from Zippy, then one from you, and then maybe one from someone like Silmarien. Etc. etc. etc.

I'm up for this as well. I generally have several books going at once, so I'm good for more than one approach.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

On second thought: you're right, we'd better read a Thomist.

Seriously though, Williams would presumably be a good denomination-bridger which could help dispense with the problem Philo brought up.



I've done that before, and it works reasonably well, but it tends to be more involved and lengthy. Like so many of my generation, I am wary of long-term commitments.

The cool thing about the book that @public hermit proposed is that it is at bottom a collection of essays, so there would presumably be good stopping points. An Anglican friend of mine also recommended Christ the Heart of Creation, which would be less systematic.

If you all would like to go that direction, that's fine with me since I'm flexible. It's just that I kind of find a path in the Christian Faith this is too linear in any one tradition to be a little bit on the dominating side. BUT, again, I'm open to whatever you guys might propose. If you all want to read something together, then by all means, make a choice for us and I'll try to join in.

 

[Silmarien]

So long as I can read it in English, let's read Hardot. I'll order a copy this evening.

Yeah, I think all of his stuff is available in translation.

I'm a fan of Milbank. Zizek drives me nuts, but I guess I won't have to hear his sniffling if I'm reading the book.

That wasn't a recommendation! Actually, the Milbank section was pretty interesting, but I don't think I could handle Zizek again, haha. It was awful.

Speaking of Radical Orthodoxy, though, I've had David Bentley Hart's Beauty of the Infinite sitting around for two and a half years now and should get around to it eventually.

On second thought: you're right, we'd better read a Thomist.

As long as I get to choose.

The cool thing about the book that @public hermit proposed is that it is at bottom a collection of essays, so there would presumably be good stopping points. An Anglican friend of mine also recommended Christ the Heart of Creation, which would be less systematic.

That looks interesting also, though the collection of essays might be a better bet.

 

[public hermit]

Seriously though, Williams would presumably be a good denomination-bridger which could help dispense with the problem Philo brought up.

Say the word and I'll get a copy. I think everyone is up for it.

I've had David Bentley Hart's Beauty of the Infinite sitting around for two and a half years now and should get around to it eventually.

An artist friend recommended that years ago. I may have the copy she loaned me buried in a box. She used to make fun of me for having no training in aesthetics. I should probably give it back, haha.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

That wasn't a recommendation! Actually, the Milbank section was pretty interesting, but I don't think I could handle Zizek again, haha. It was awful.

It wasn't THAT bad. Although, it wasn't all that clear ... either. The strange thing is, Penner, whom as you all know I just finished reading, actually referenced the Milbank & Zizek book we read, briefly quoting both of them. So, at least when Penner referred to them, I knew who, and why, he did so.

Speaking of Radical Orthodoxy, though, I've had David Bentley Hart's Beauty of the Infinite sitting around for two and a half years now and should get around to it eventually.

You still haven't read that?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I'm up for this as well. I generally have several books going at once, so I'm good for more than one approach.

Since my interests are, for the most part, very wide philosophically and theologically, I'm usually good with whatever anyone else may suggest here ...

Just let me know what you all decide.

 

[Silmarien]

An artist friend recommended that years ago. I may have the copy she loaned me buried in a box. She used to make fun of me for having no training in aesthetics. I should probably give it back, haha.

Did you end up reading it? And if so, how is it?

It wasn't THAT bad. Although, it wasn't all that clear ... either. The strange thing is, Penner, whom as you all know I just finished reading, actually referenced the Milbank & Zizek book we read, briefly quoting both of them. So, at least when Penner referred to them, I knew who, and why, he did so.

You still haven't read that?

There were a bunch of things I wanted to read first since I thought they were relevant to it, and so far I haven't gotten around to any of it.

Anyway I'm up for the Rowan Williams one.

 

[public hermit]

Did you read it? And if so, how is it?

I guess I left that part out. I didn't, which makes the possibility that I still have it even worse.

 

[Silmarien]

I guess I left that part out. I didn't, which makes the possibility that I still have it even worse.

Well, you can always dig it out, read it, and then return it.

 

[zippy2006]

Say the word and I'll get a copy. I think everyone is up for it.

"Grease!" ...



Okay, I ordered a copy of Rowan Williams' On Christian Theology from the library.

 

[public hermit]

"Grease!" ...



Okay, I ordered a copy of Rowan Williams' On Christian Theology from the library.

I've ordered a copy.

 

[Silmarien]

Alright, I've ordered it too.

 

[public hermit]

Since my interests are, for the most part, very wide philosophically and theologically, I'm usually good with whatever anyone else may suggest here ...

Just let me know what you all decide.

Hey bud, we're reading Rowan Williams' On Christian Theology.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Hey bud, we're reading Rowan Williams' On Christian Theology.

Ok. Thank you! I've got a copy for myself on the way in 4 - 8 days. Looking forward to it.

 

[Silmarien]

I wonder if @Quid est Veritas? might be interested in something like this too. (No pressure if you're not!)

 

[zippy2006]

I've ordered a copy.

I picked up a copy today. Are you able to create a PM conversation with four participants? I am limited to three. I suppose we could also go the public route if folks prefer.

(@Silmarien, @2PhiloVoid)

 

[public hermit]

I picked up a copy today. Are you able to create a PM conversation with four participants? I am limited to three. I suppose we could also go the public route if folks prefer.

(@Silmarien, @2PhiloVoid)

I just sent a test PM. I can include up to six members. I'm good private or public.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

I wonder if @Quid est Veritas? might be interested in something like this too. (No pressure if you're not!)

I'll have a look. Bit busy right at this moment though, so I might be reading it a bit after you lot. I'll look for Rowan Williams' book.

You can include me, once you get it going. Thanks.

 

[zippy2006]

Looks like I missed a big Yule-tide philosophic discussion. Still need to read Gershon though.

On the topic of Anamnesis, this is an often misunderstood idea. To recollect, the Ancients don't have the hard barrier of myself as subject and the non-self as object beyond. When Homer or Virgil invokes the Muses, it isn't a trite little formula, but a statement of fact that the goddesses embodied their art. So when Plato tells us the soul recollects things it already knew but had forgotten, that anamnesis literally means to 'bring to mind'. It is participation in the Forms, between the soul and what it has understood. My language I feel is failing me, as all the English terms I am trying to use to describe it, keep alluding to or implying, a separation between the Self and the Knowledge, which it seems to me Plato was at pains to dispute. Owen Barfield wrote an excellent essay called the Harp and the Camera about this exact problem of our observational culture (the Camera) vs the experiential (the Aeolian wind Harp). Apologies, I wanted to link it, but couldn't quickly find a copy on the internet.

So I finally got around to reading Barfield's essay, "The Harp and the Camera." Fascinating! Granted, Jung has bequeathed to us a vision of the archetypal, but I've never seen the two ideas juxtaposed in such a way (archetype/signature; harp/camera). It is also an interesting fact that the camera has prevailed given the intense focus on self and the individual in the modern West. I am going to read a few other essays in The Rediscovery of Meaning.