(see, it's like this. Poesy, whether erudite academic or beatniks, is at least 95% Bogus. A scam; really, I would say mostly a zionist-bourgeois swindle (tho'even the holy Kats guilty of it, with their st. Juans delacruz, etc). Always has been. Lo seento, pero es verdad).
i beg to differ i had the immediate sense of your response taken to the street in the hood and i got it but i do not digg
my judgement on art all art no matter how pretentious is every body must do something so if academics do poetry and it is boring well so what they're doing something and it is constructive if a street person does some poetry off the cuff and calls it good so what i applaud any effort for people to be eloquent or expressive i may not wish to watch or hear it myself but hey every body must do something
frost is perhaps my favorite poet the one from whom i learned most when i was younger the one to whom i would go back to time and again and read and reread and try to hear
so a streetbleep shuffleoo wisecrack rendition of rap on a profound poem strikes me only as mildly amusing wrenching words out of the profound and into the merely amusing now every body must do something indeed
i have a friend wo likes to take old patsy kline tunes and turn them into funk R&B it wore thin very soon on me
it's kool to have fun but is everything to me mocked?
i don't know what to say when the surreal licks the plate of the macabre...art si so cosmic maan
Actually wasn't meant as mockery. Parody perhaps, but with like social ...intent.
I agree Frost's a great, even if occasionally sentimental: that's one reason for the parody. The hepcats (and hepcatettes) you see around the lit-blogs (or linking to Sillyman, or K-O) are no Frosts. Street raps are the usual now.
Achieving Frost-like eloquence, however, requires a great deal of work, and decent knowledge of Latin, at least (if not other romance tongues, and Deutsch). Pound suggested as much. It's like playing Chopin--doesn't happen overnight, or even over two or three years.
Usually, like classical musicians, most powerful poets come from wealthy families--another reason I sort of frown on poesy biz. It's for Frosts, or TS Eliots, or PB Shelleys--all with rich daddies (if not aristocratic), estates, big chateaus. Ordinary joes (like me) are probably better off with prose or journalism, and really, I generally would prefer to read say Dash Hammett, Orwell, or PK Dick than even grand poeticals like TS or Frost (though again, Frost sort of reached something like near-perfection in terms of the Merican language and verse, without all the BS, and mystic vapors of most poetics (like that monkey boy Yeats))
it seems to me frost had his ear trained in the english countryside he heard the talk of common folks and the talk of preachers he dabled in latin and greek but for the most part his eloquence was that of a rather perfect ear for the english language and hearing that in an american new england way
i at least agree with silliman that the radical experimental conceptual poets are tryin things out to see if they work and doing something it may not be all great but some of it rings with genuine authenticity..the creative urge...whatever that is
eliot pound joyce were not poets bound to institutions even though eliot taught one or two courses they were poets who took the meaning of poetic license seriously as did frost some poets have to work and feed families soem get jobs in schools some just get jobs to stay alive and write
james dickey is a neglectorino as was thomas merton
i enjoy the argument that holds that the real voices of america were not heard well for the celebrities took all the steam in the 20th century marrianne moore was an exotic but very articulate american and her poems sound about as american as they come and she just piddled and pranced and dawdled through life
any pome one can stand to read out loud is a good enough poem
Do the church fathers approve of poesy, JH? I don't think they did, back in the day, as the saying goes. Poesy's a pagan invention. Now, there are religious poets (like Herbert), but poetry's not scripture, and it's not really Reason (ala Aristotelian logic/metaphysics). Aristotle may have allowed for some literature; Plato did not (ie the Republic).
The clerics probably had a problem with the "truth functionality" of poetry: it's not logic, for one, not empirical science, and again not revealed in the bible. An eloquent lie perhaps? What does St. Augustine say about De Mendacio? According to St. Augie, it's always wrong to tell lies, even when it might benefit someone--indeed Augie sounds sort of Kantian re mendacity.
(a point lost on corrupt jurors and judges every day).
the poetry tradition of israel was adopted quite readily into early christian practice the psalms have been used continuously since the first gatherings of christians it is generally understood that paul himself wrote lyrics the famous hymn of his letter to the pillipians for instance
the liturgy itself was the gathering together of elements of symbol and gesture which formed itself into a poetic form of live experience an experiential acted out long poem the establishing of the anaphoras and the eucharistic prayers were and are the work of ongoing reflections on the use and missuse of poetry
what i always say is -- what most people do not get about the orthodox practices of christianity which persist is not the doctrine so much but the poetry
i'd say poetry aplenty form the beginning
MELITO OF SARDIS is a good place to start if looking for tangential poetic expression within christian consciousness in the first 2 centuries
augustine wrote poems that's for sure -- late have i loved thee O beauty so ancient yet so new...
an argument could be made which insists that the basic predisposition of orthodox christianity is and always has been an essentially poetic phenomenon
O antiphons are poems put to use every year at the climaxing of advent
Augustine may have penned some verse, but his central preoccupation concerned, dare we say, Christ's message of Justice (and let's not forget he wrote before the rituals had all been permanently established...). JC was not merely a functionary for Pax Romana (or western imperialism...I don't think).
Or that's how I read St. Augustine (City of G*d, Confessions, and a few other tracts...like that interesting epistle, De Mendacio). He still retained a bit of the greek rationalist, even after his conversion.
j of course your're correct once A opened his eyes and heart to the essential message of christ and it's relevance to the world we live in he did not swerve from his commitment and your'e also correct to say that he never let go of the platonic methods of argument and thomas might argue that A's metaphysix could use some refinement by way of aristotleian emphasis on the transcendent nature of being
once augustine heard ambrose recite (sing) christian poems he knew it wwas OK for the christians many of his homilies translate better as poetry
the disturbing contradiction in terms around the cross is what fascinated A from the moment of his conversion to his death
greek orthoodox thinkers consider him the last of the patristic writers whereas western thinkers see him as the first western intellectual giant more of us should try to be like him
thanks for your words here j blessed yuletide what would a zappa christmas look like?
Wouldn't you term Au.'s neoplatonic ontology transcendent and dualistic, to some degree? (--as is the New Testament, I believe...consider the gospel of John) Aq.'s an Aristotelian --thus somewhat closer to empiricism (Ari. did not accept the Platonic forms, etc.). I don't pretend to be a cleric, but gaps there are between the views of the early church fathers and the Thomists (in ways, however, Aquinas sort of...spookier, and in ways, more dogmatic. Augie. denounces the soothsayers and astrologers, for one. Aquinas seems to accept all manner of superstitions.... Augie also read Cicero, and the stoics from time to time....)
ZappaMas? Who you jivin' wit' dat cozmic debris--tho' FZ was born on the Solstice. About 1/3 of FZ's musick is quite bootyful. Hopefully that made up for the rest.
peter brown argues that Augustine never completely shook the manichaean curse...he wrestled with it his whole life
but he certainly came to understand women in a far more christian way and the sacrament of marriage although he never trusted sex always thought there was something inescapably insidious about it insofar as it was sacralized in marriage it was OK but that's about as far as he got whereas thomas argues for the good of sex - he was in no way gnostic
only in his later writing does augustine betray some insights stemming from aristotle
yes there is some dualism in augustine but it is generally resolved in his clear understanding of christ's meaning for the world something that becomes apparent in his homilies
Dualism in a philosophical sense--ie substance dualism (mind/matter, in brief). Aug.'s views not so far from Cartesian views (that might not please the neo-Darwinist crowd, but does offer a means to preserve the autonomy of Reason).
Re Manicheanism, well, it might be heretical but the ancients probably felt that explained...the problem of Eeevil (instead of G*d being the author of all Eevil, suggest a cosmic battle between opposing forces of light/dark etc.)
I was struck by one section of Aug. (in Confessions?) where he asserts "there are degrees to Gehenna", or words to that effect--sounding rather...Dantean; a liar is not yet a thief; a thief or usurer is not yet a mass-murderer. Au. also upholds some degree of free will. Which is to say, the Reformers misread him.
(delete the edited post/deletions if you will.thx)
descartes does not place a moral value on the res extensa whereas most gnostic thought did decartes was enough of a catholic to be at ease with the goodness of the world he sort of skips over the metaphysical question of the transcendent nature of created being and simply states IT IS ( a radical empiricism) after of course cogito ergo sum
No, it's the other way around, Frater: the world is fallen--for Descartes, Aug.--and gnostics (a "massa damnata" as Aug. said.). Descartes simply doesn't bother with the quaint Aristotelian "essencia," or final cause.
You sound almost like a Kirby O -like evangelical at times--hopefully you won't be offering a blessing to Foxnews
i used to read a lot of descartes i use d to think he had the real deal but it turns out he doesn't he opens the way for idiosyncratic beginning points for philosophy but he ignores some very basic agreements worked out over the centuries since parmenides adn heraclitus i don't recall rene ever alluding to soemthing inherently "evil" in nature in the way plotinus does
augustine believed mankind was fallen but he uses the natural good of the created world a lot in his sermons
the basic coherent theme of gnosticism is the dualism of evil matter and good spirit
on that i know i ain't wrong
descartes in order to acknowledge the ttranscendent qualities inherent in all created being would have had to say i am therefore i think
he begins with epistemology whereas aristotle thomas and the rest of the tradition in catholic philosophy start with sensation/perception with the acknowledgement of being first soemthing is then we ask what is it existence precedes essence
Yes, but that was mainly in response to British empiricists (--not to say Copernicus, Galilleo, etc), who had by D's time already waged war on the scholastic/Aristotelian dogma. So he doesn't accept "a priori" truths, or "substance", or assume that we definitely perceive a real world (as Aristotle just assumes, really--Aristotle posits his causes-- doesn't really prove them).
DesCartes proceeds towards rationalism in a different way--though he arrives at a position not so different than Augustine, or neo-platonists. He may not, as the early church fathers did, claim the material world-res extensa-- is fallen, but it is different than res cogito. We perceive ourselves before anything....Essence, a thinking subject, precedes existence for Descartes (and really, for the platonic tradition).
Aristotelian tradition really overlooks the entire problem. I suspect the aged Ari. (or his "school") were really more like an early medical school/natural scientists. He doesn't accept the platonic metaphysics, and the "essencia" was arguably a type of early taxonomy (ie species are fixed---yet even early on there was a notion of change (from Heraclitus, perhaps), and thus---probability--))-so, regardless of what church tradition says, Ari. was an early empiricist (unlike the platonists, who were more akin to mathematical realists)--and that was the case for Ari's pragmatic-rightist politics as well. Aristotle's no holy man--more like an ancient Barry Goldwater. Bertrand Russell such much the same (not too copacetic for churchies, but his reading of the greeks quite interesting. And he respected Augustine the metaphysician to some extent).
whereas aristotle thomas and the rest of the tradition in catholic philosophy start with sensation/perception with the acknowledgement of being
I agree, at least for Aristotle. He's an empiricist. But the ancients didn't really address the mind/body problem. They just assume our senses represent a real world (which they most likely do). But they don't prove it. The aristotelian catholics often sound like nature mystics--ie G*d directs everything towards a final goal, and He arranges motion, physical/natural laws, continuity, etc.-- The Great Flower Arranger on High. Following that line of argument, He also arranges black plagues, insects, cancer,etc ....And I don't think there's such a difference between the older thomistic code, and well, hinduism, at least in principle. The 1000 names of Vishnu, frater....
Poets tend to be mobsters. They use words instead of machine guns, though (though some shoot daffodils, not bullets).
What about the padre who gives La Misa (and orisons) to a known mobster: is he guilty too? Priests blessed Lucky Luciano, Joe Dimaggio, probably even Caponay--and now Schwarzenegger (not to say quite a few nazis).
Doesn't the dispensation of the Mass in a sense pardon---anything?? So in effect the orthodox catholic may not be so different than the Billy Bob baptist who thinks all things are possible with Jeezuss (and his Rev. insists on that, via that great WASP slogan "just shall live by faith"--). It's "solo fide" either way, at least in practice.
the church allows for anyone to be genuinely penitent
it seemeth that you prefer the errors of judgement over the errors of mercy god's mercy extends to the depths of hell in the final analysis dante or no
I think you mean, New Testament or not. Whether we agree or not, it's pretty evident that JC upholds something like eternal damnation--but it's not for merely eating shellfish, or sloth, but like for corrupt politician or judge, pharisee, as well as the ordinary murderers, thugs, thieves, whores etc. Caiaphas is quite below the thieves (as are Hitler, Stalin, et al)--sort of like where Schwarzenegger, or Antonio Scalia's headed, regardless of how many holy crackers they ingest pre-mort. Zut!
And the priestly caste is not immune from a certain...spiritual opportunism--one might say Machiavellian aspects. Support La Iglesia, take the Mass, confess, donate boo-coo shekels to the Friar's club, so forth, and you're blessed--indulgences, but of a subtle sort. The MO of Schwarzeneggers, Giulianis, mobsters, Kennedys etc. Most evang. churches operate like that as well, though not quite as...posh (or jewish/muslim temples as well). It has little to do with ethics, per se.
insofar as JC lives those who believe beleive they are baptized into the life of christ we share in the priesthood that is christ all believers do the purpose of the MASS is (for lack of time and thought here) a "re-enlivenment" of the last supper
it has everything to do with ethice per se
priests are human subject to all the flaws of humanity most of them take seriously the obligation to live beyond the tug of earthly passions of lust and anger and the will to power some fail some fail miserably but most priests do good work and keep the faith nobody hears about them and most die in relative obscurity
I agree for most part, sir. Most priests I have met have been decent people (though, alas, not all. One's a few dozen miles away in the CDC for some nasty business).
Even the new cathedral in El Lay impresses me (and what a Maria over Los Puertos). But then...Schwarzenegger and Maria pull up in their Hummer to take La Misa.
Sorry to derail your humble post.
Do you ever read Hegel? I don't think GWFHegel's too beloved by the cat. church, but he at times blessed the greek philosophers, and seems somewhat...clerical. Maybe he made it to Purgatory? Hope so. Maybe with a few more decades of prayers he can be promoted to...Hebbin
many theologians in the late 19th and 20th century many in the catholic church adopted the historical structure mapped out by hegel the thesis antithesis synthesis spiel- you find many writers using the layout provided by the observations of hegel -- his influence extended beyond public universities -- most of what we know about historical criticism of the bible is indeed a result of hegelian historical speculation
his thought is attractive because it seems so logical...yet i determined long ago that it is prone to reductionism and the thought of hegel spawned numerous reductionist movements in the last two centuries most of them hairbrained
i think the most that can be said for him in honest catholic practice these days is that his thinking must always be in the equation of philosphical dialectic
we cannot ignore the 20th century
is there something too easy about hegel to consice too negligent of life the way it is really lived --- i think so
the thought of hegel spawned numerous reductionist movements in the last two centuries most of them hairbrained
Yes, Hegelianism--or Hegel misread, and misapplied-- has arguably resulted in bad politics, if not totalitarian politics. That was Popper's view (and Bertrand Russell's, though BR knew more about Hegel's system than Popper ever did), but the Popperian sort of reaction may have been guilty of a "post hoc,ergo propter hoc" fallacy. Many writers at the time of the French Rev. wrote stirring, romantic and philosophical prose. And Hegel did, via the World Spirit, the dialectic, historicism, and so forth glorify german nationalism to some extent (really, euro-nationalism) . Yet he also supported abolition, a constitution, and early forms of feminism.
To pin the nazis, or communists on Hegel thus seems rather absurd. Hegel also favored the jacobins (at first, until the reign of Terror at least). That said, I think there are two Hegels (if not more): the lover of the Roman empire and the german state, history, heroic leaders, Napoleon etc, and the leftist Hegel, who favors the people, somewhat progressive ideas, ending theological/monarchist tyranny, and supports rational institutions, science, the arts etc. His system tends to overwhelm, however, and though I am reluctant to bless Uncle Bertie, BR was correct in so far that Hegel only purported to create a Science of History: his dialectic can't really predict historical movement--it's a posteriori (regardless of what some hegelians claim). And Marx does sort of repeat the error, though is conscious of the ....problems, and as many forget , Marx also blessed British empiricism, and fact-based writing (rather than pure metaphysics). Marx and Engels routinely offer pages of historical and economic data to buttress their points on exploitation, etc
Yet there remains a undeniable power to the Hegelian model which is quite different from the usual dull writing of Darwinist/positivist academics, or the clergy for that matter. Hegel never mistakes reality--or politics-- for some static, given thing. Process is all....
not just political fallout but the whole spectre of the human sciences and the rereading of history in the 20th century all take their inspiration from the hegelian school - a very interesting british philosopher mary midgely does a good overview of the reductionist thinking that pervaded all academics throught the 20th century
in a positive sense i think hegel allowed more scholars to say things like "it ain't necessarily so" and i suppose that is a good thing
36 comments:
The 'hoods are ugly, dark and deep,
But I got promises to keep,
And miles to go to cap the creeps,
miles to go 'fore sheet's put to sleep.
(Grazi to Frosty Bob)
who grazi?
Whaa, you no savvy Frosty?
Updated, wit' monsta urban relevance.
(see, it's like this. Poesy, whether erudite academic or beatniks, is at least 95% Bogus. A scam; really, I would say mostly a zionist-bourgeois swindle (tho'even the holy Kats guilty of it, with their st. Juans delacruz, etc). Always has been. Lo seento, pero es verdad).
i beg to differ
i had the immediate sense
of your response taken to the street
in the hood
and i got it
but i do not digg
my judgement on art
all art
no matter how pretentious
is
every body must do something
so if academics do poetry and it is boring
well so what they're doing something
and it is constructive
if a street person does some poetry
off the cuff and calls it good
so what
i applaud any effort for people to be eloquent or expressive
i may not wish to watch or hear it myself
but
hey
every body must do something
frost is perhaps my favorite poet
the one from whom i learned most when i was younger
the one to whom i would go back to time and again and read and reread and try to hear
so a streetbleep shuffleoo
wisecrack rendition of
rap on a profound poem strikes me
only as mildly amusing
wrenching words out of the profound
and into the merely amusing
now
every body must do something indeed
i have a friend wo likes to take old patsy kline tunes and turn them into funk R&B
it wore thin very soon on me
it's kool to have fun
but is everything to me mocked?
i don't know what to say when the surreal licks the plate of the macabre...art si so cosmic maan
jh
WV flantic
Actually wasn't meant as mockery. Parody perhaps, but with like social ...intent.
I agree Frost's a great, even if occasionally sentimental: that's one reason for the parody. The hepcats (and hepcatettes) you see around the lit-blogs (or linking to Sillyman, or K-O) are no Frosts. Street raps are the usual now.
Achieving Frost-like eloquence, however, requires a great deal of work, and decent knowledge of Latin, at least (if not other romance tongues, and Deutsch). Pound suggested as much. It's like playing Chopin--doesn't happen overnight, or even over two or three years.
Usually, like classical musicians, most powerful poets come from wealthy families--another reason I sort of frown on poesy biz. It's for Frosts, or TS Eliots, or PB Shelleys--all with rich daddies (if not aristocratic), estates, big chateaus. Ordinary joes (like me) are probably better off with prose or journalism, and really, I generally would prefer to read say Dash Hammett, Orwell, or PK Dick than even grand poeticals like TS or Frost (though again, Frost sort of reached something like near-perfection in terms of the Merican language and verse, without all the BS, and mystic vapors of most poetics (like that monkey boy Yeats))
it seems to me frost had his ear trained in the english countryside he heard the talk of common folks and the talk of preachers
he dabled in latin and greek but for the most part his eloquence was that of a rather perfect ear for the english language and hearing that in an american new england way
i at least agree with silliman that the radical experimental conceptual poets are tryin things out to see if they work and doing something it may not be all great but some of it rings with genuine authenticity..the creative urge...whatever that is
eliot pound joyce were not poets bound to institutions even though eliot taught one or two courses
they were poets who took the meaning of poetic license seriously as did frost
some poets have to work and feed families soem get jobs in schools some just get jobs to stay alive and write
james dickey is a neglectorino
as was thomas merton
i enjoy the argument that holds that the real voices of america were not heard well for the celebrities took all the steam
in the 20th century
marrianne moore was an exotic but very articulate american and her poems sound about as american as they come and she just piddled and pranced and dawdled through life
any pome one can stand to read out loud is a good enough poem
j
Do the church fathers approve of poesy, JH? I don't think they did, back in the day, as the saying goes. Poesy's a pagan invention. Now, there are religious poets (like Herbert), but poetry's not scripture, and it's not really Reason (ala Aristotelian logic/metaphysics). Aristotle may have allowed for some literature; Plato did not (ie the Republic).
The clerics probably had a problem with the "truth functionality" of poetry: it's not logic, for one, not empirical science, and again not revealed in the bible. An eloquent lie perhaps? What does St. Augustine say about De Mendacio? According to St. Augie, it's always wrong to tell lies, even when it might benefit someone--indeed Augie sounds sort of Kantian re mendacity.
(a point lost on corrupt jurors and judges every day).
the poetry tradition of israel was adopted quite readily into early christian practice
the psalms have been used continuously since the first gatherings of christians
it is generally understood that paul himself wrote lyrics
the famous hymn of his letter to the pillipians for instance
the liturgy itself was the gathering together of elements of symbol and gesture which formed itself into a poetic form of live experience an experiential acted out long poem
the establishing of the anaphoras and the eucharistic prayers were and are the work of ongoing reflections on the use and missuse of poetry
what i always say is -- what most people do not get about the orthodox practices of christianity which persist is not the doctrine so much but the poetry
i'd say poetry aplenty form the beginning
MELITO OF SARDIS is a good place to start if looking for tangential poetic expression within christian consciousness in the first 2 centuries
augustine wrote poems
that's for sure --
late have i loved thee
O beauty so ancient yet so new...
an argument could be made which insists that the basic predisposition of orthodox christianity is and always has been an essentially poetic phenomenon
O antiphons are poems
put to use every year
at the climaxing of advent
poetry aplenty
jh
Augustine may have penned some verse, but his central preoccupation concerned, dare we say, Christ's message of Justice (and let's not forget he wrote before the rituals had all been permanently established...). JC was not merely a functionary for Pax Romana (or western imperialism...I don't think).
Or that's how I read St. Augustine (City of G*d, Confessions, and a few other tracts...like that interesting epistle, De Mendacio). He still retained a bit of the greek rationalist, even after his conversion.
j
of course your're correct
once A opened his eyes and heart to the
essential message of christ and it's relevance to the world we live in he did not swerve from his commitment
and your'e also correct to say that he never let go of the platonic methods of argument
and thomas might argue that A's metaphysix could use some refinement by way of aristotleian emphasis on the transcendent nature of being
once augustine heard ambrose recite (sing) christian poems he knew it wwas OK for the christians
many of his homilies
translate better as poetry
the disturbing contradiction in terms around the cross is what fascinated A from the moment of his conversion to his death
greek orthoodox thinkers consider him the last of the patristic writers
whereas western thinkers see him as the first western intellectual giant
more of us should try to be like him
thanks for your words here j
blessed yuletide
what would a zappa christmas look like?
jh
Wouldn't you term Au.'s neoplatonic ontology transcendent and dualistic, to some degree? (--as is the New Testament, I believe...consider the gospel of John) Aq.'s an Aristotelian --thus somewhat closer to empiricism (Ari. did not accept the Platonic forms, etc.). I don't pretend to be a cleric, but gaps there are between the views of the early church fathers and the Thomists (in ways, however, Aquinas sort of...spookier, and in ways, more dogmatic. Augie. denounces the soothsayers and astrologers, for one. Aquinas seems to accept all manner of superstitions.... Augie also read Cicero, and the stoics from time to time....)
ZappaMas? Who you jivin' wit' dat cozmic debris--tho' FZ was born on the Solstice. About 1/3 of FZ's musick is quite bootyful. Hopefully that made up for the rest.
peter brown argues that Augustine never completely shook the manichaean curse...he wrestled with it his whole life
but he certainly came to understand women
in a far more christian way and the sacrament of marriage
although he never trusted
sex always thought there was
something inescapably insidious about it
insofar as it was sacralized in marriage it was OK but that's about as far as he got
whereas thomas argues for the good of sex - he was in no way gnostic
only in his later writing does augustine betray some insights stemming from aristotle
yes there is some dualism in augustine
but it is generally resolved in his clear understanding of christ's meaning for the world
something that becomes apparent in his homilies
jh
Dualism in a philosophical sense--ie substance dualism (mind/matter, in brief). Aug.'s views not so far from Cartesian views (that might not please the neo-Darwinist crowd, but does offer a means to preserve the autonomy of Reason).
Re Manicheanism, well, it might be heretical but the ancients probably felt that explained...the problem of Eeevil (instead of G*d being the author of all Eevil, suggest a cosmic battle between opposing forces of light/dark etc.)
I was struck by one section of Aug. (in Confessions?) where he asserts "there are degrees to Gehenna", or words to that effect--sounding rather...Dantean; a liar is not yet a thief; a thief or usurer is not yet a mass-murderer. Au. also upholds some degree of free will. Which is to say, the Reformers misread him.
(delete the edited post/deletions if you will.thx)
descartes does not place a moral value on the
res extensa
whereas most gnostic thought did
decartes was enough of a catholic to be at ease with the goodness of the world
he sort of skips over the metaphysical question of the transcendent nature of created being
and simply states
IT IS ( a radical empiricism)
after of course
cogito ergo sum
yo santa
dude
what's in the bag
jh
No, it's the other way around, Frater: the world is fallen--for Descartes, Aug.--and gnostics (a "massa damnata" as Aug. said.). Descartes simply doesn't bother with the quaint Aristotelian "essencia," or final cause.
You sound almost like a Kirby O -like evangelical at times--hopefully you won't be offering a blessing to Foxnews
i used to read a lot of descartes
i use d to think he had the real deal
but it turns out he doesn't
he opens the way for idiosyncratic beginning points for philosophy but he ignores some very basic agreements worked out over the centuries since parmenides adn heraclitus
i don't recall rene ever alluding to soemthing inherently "evil" in nature in the way plotinus does
augustine believed mankind was fallen but he uses the natural good of the created world a lot in his sermons
the basic coherent theme of gnosticism is the dualism of
evil matter
and
good spirit
on that i know i ain't wrong
descartes in order to acknowledge the ttranscendent qualities inherent in all created being would have had to say
i am therefore i think
he begins with epistemology
whereas aristotle thomas and the rest of the tradition in catholic philosophy start with sensation/perception
with the acknowledgement of being
first soemthing is
then we ask
what is it
existence precedes essence
he begins with epistemology
Yes, but that was mainly in response to British empiricists (--not to say Copernicus, Galilleo, etc), who had by D's time already waged war on the scholastic/Aristotelian dogma. So he doesn't accept "a priori" truths, or "substance", or assume that we definitely perceive a real world (as Aristotle just assumes, really--Aristotle posits his causes-- doesn't really prove them).
DesCartes proceeds towards rationalism in a different way--though he arrives at a position not so different than Augustine, or neo-platonists. He may not, as the early church fathers did, claim the material world-res extensa-- is fallen, but it is different than res cogito. We perceive ourselves before anything....Essence, a thinking subject, precedes existence for Descartes (and really, for the platonic tradition).
Aristotelian tradition really overlooks the entire problem. I suspect the aged Ari. (or his "school") were really more like an early medical school/natural scientists. He doesn't accept the platonic metaphysics, and the "essencia" was arguably a type of early taxonomy (ie species are fixed---yet even early on there was a notion of change (from Heraclitus, perhaps), and thus---probability--))-so, regardless of what church tradition says, Ari. was an early empiricist (unlike the platonists, who were more akin to mathematical realists)--and that was the case for Ari's pragmatic-rightist politics as well. Aristotle's no holy man--more like an ancient Barry Goldwater.
Bertrand Russell such much the same (not too copacetic for churchies, but his reading of the greeks quite interesting. And he respected Augustine the metaphysician to some extent).
whereas aristotle thomas and the rest of the tradition in catholic philosophy start with sensation/perception
with the acknowledgement of being
I agree, at least for Aristotle. He's an empiricist. But the ancients didn't really address the mind/body problem. They just assume our senses represent a real world (which they most likely do). But they don't prove it. The aristotelian catholics often sound like nature mystics--ie G*d directs everything towards a final goal, and He arranges motion, physical/natural laws, continuity, etc.-- The Great Flower Arranger on High. Following that line of argument, He also arranges black plagues, insects, cancer,etc ....And I don't think there's such a difference between the older thomistic code, and well, hinduism, at least in principle. The 1000 names of Vishnu, frater....
El idioma Inglés en sí mismo es el diablo. ¿Entiendes eso?
Los malos poetas como Olsonski son el diablo también.
Hasta
language is the language
artists do what they will
since ezra pound
anything goes
Is Ezra P guilty, like of deceit, trickery, mendacity, disassembling?
Then all poets are guilty
yes
all poets are guilty
ora peccatorum
Poets tend to be mobsters. They use words instead of machine guns, though (though some shoot daffodils, not bullets).
What about the padre who gives La Misa (and orisons) to a known mobster: is he guilty too? Priests blessed Lucky Luciano, Joe Dimaggio, probably even Caponay--and now Schwarzenegger (not to say quite a few nazis).
Doesn't the dispensation of the Mass in a sense pardon---anything?? So in effect the orthodox catholic may not be so different than the Billy Bob baptist who thinks all things are possible with Jeezuss (and his Rev. insists on that, via that great WASP slogan "just shall live by faith"--). It's "solo fide" either way, at least in practice.
scuzi rant
the church allows for anyone to be
genuinely penitent
it seemeth that you prefer the
errors of judgement
over the errors of mercy
god's mercy extends to the depths of hell
in the final analysis
dante or no
poets tend to be
solitaries
I think you mean, New Testament or not. Whether we agree or not, it's pretty evident that JC upholds something like eternal damnation--but it's not for merely eating shellfish, or sloth, but like for corrupt politician or judge, pharisee, as well as the ordinary murderers, thugs, thieves, whores etc. Caiaphas is quite below the thieves (as are Hitler, Stalin, et al)--sort of like where Schwarzenegger, or Antonio Scalia's headed, regardless of how many holy crackers they ingest pre-mort. Zut!
As metaphor, Hell still carries some weight.
christ forgave the criminal
hanging next to him on calvary
redemption can happen in an instance of selfawareness and need
the biggest sin is to doubt the eternal mercy of god
we damn ourselves god
doth not damn
Priests aren't JC, are they.
And the priestly caste is not immune from a certain...spiritual opportunism--one might say Machiavellian aspects. Support La Iglesia, take the Mass, confess, donate boo-coo shekels to the Friar's club, so forth, and you're blessed--indulgences, but of a subtle sort. The MO of Schwarzeneggers, Giulianis, mobsters, Kennedys etc. Most evang. churches operate like that as well, though not quite as...posh (or jewish/muslim temples as well). It has little to do with ethics, per se.
insofar as JC lives
those who believe
beleive they are
baptized into the life of christ
we share in the priesthood that is christ
all believers do
the purpose of the MASS is (for lack of time and thought here) a
"re-enlivenment" of
the last supper
it has everything to do with ethice per se
priests are human
subject to all the flaws of humanity
most of them take seriously the obligation to live beyond the tug of earthly passions of lust and anger and the will to power
some fail
some fail miserably
but most priests do good work
and keep the faith
nobody hears about them and most die in relative obscurity
I agree for most part, sir. Most priests I have met have been decent people (though, alas, not all. One's a few dozen miles away in the CDC for some nasty business).
Even the new cathedral in El Lay impresses me (and what a Maria over Los Puertos). But then...Schwarzenegger and Maria pull up in their Hummer to take La Misa.
Sorry to derail your humble post.
Do you ever read Hegel? I don't think GWFHegel's too beloved by the cat. church, but he at times blessed the greek philosophers, and seems somewhat...clerical. Maybe he made it to Purgatory? Hope so. Maybe with a few more decades of prayers he can be promoted to...Hebbin
many theologians in the late 19th and 20th century many in the catholic church adopted the historical structure mapped out by hegel the thesis antithesis synthesis spiel- you find many writers using the layout provided by the observations of hegel -- his influence extended beyond public universities -- most of what we know about historical criticism of the bible is indeed a result of hegelian historical speculation
his thought is attractive because it seems so logical...yet i determined long ago that it is prone to reductionism and the thought of hegel spawned numerous reductionist movements in the last two centuries most of them hairbrained
i think the most that can be said for him in honest catholic practice these days is that his thinking must always be in the equation of philosphical dialectic
we cannot ignore the 20th century
is there something too easy about hegel to consice too negligent of life the way it is really lived --- i think so
\hans georg gadamer/ comes to mind
the thought of hegel spawned numerous reductionist movements in the last two centuries most of them hairbrained
Yes, Hegelianism--or Hegel misread, and misapplied-- has arguably resulted in bad politics, if not totalitarian politics. That was Popper's view (and Bertrand Russell's, though BR knew more about Hegel's system than Popper ever did), but the Popperian sort of reaction may have been guilty of a "post hoc,ergo propter hoc" fallacy. Many writers at the time of the French Rev. wrote stirring, romantic and philosophical prose. And Hegel did, via the World Spirit, the dialectic, historicism, and so forth glorify german nationalism to some extent (really, euro-nationalism) . Yet he also supported abolition, a constitution, and early forms of feminism.
To pin the nazis, or communists on Hegel thus seems rather absurd. Hegel also favored the jacobins (at first, until the reign of Terror at least). That said, I think there are two Hegels (if not more): the lover of the Roman empire and the german state, history, heroic leaders, Napoleon etc, and the leftist Hegel, who favors the people, somewhat progressive ideas, ending theological/monarchist tyranny, and supports rational institutions, science, the arts etc. His system tends to overwhelm, however, and though I am reluctant to bless Uncle Bertie, BR was correct in so far that Hegel only purported to create a Science of History: his dialectic can't really predict historical movement--it's a posteriori (regardless of what some hegelians claim). And Marx does sort of repeat the error, though is conscious of the ....problems, and as many forget , Marx also blessed British empiricism, and fact-based writing (rather than pure metaphysics). Marx and Engels routinely offer pages of historical and economic data to buttress their points on exploitation, etc
Yet there remains a undeniable power to the Hegelian model which is quite different from the usual dull writing of Darwinist/positivist academics, or the clergy for that matter. Hegel never mistakes reality--or politics-- for some static, given thing. Process is all....
not just political fallout but
the whole spectre of the human sciences and the rereading of history in the 20th century all take their inspiration from the hegelian school - a very interesting british philosopher mary midgely does a good overview of the reductionist thinking that pervaded all academics throught the 20th century
in a positive sense i think hegel allowed more scholars to say things like
"it ain't necessarily so"
and i suppose that is a good thing
wow all this
spawned from a line of poetry
that could probably win
kirby's winter poetery contest
reading this thread
has been quite an education
in philosophy
over my head at times
but close enough
for me to glean something from it
carry on
Post a Comment