Two brief notes, about 40 minutes into this wonderful conversation.
Firstly, I am literally in the middle of “The True Helen” right now, as I make my way through a Splendid Wickedness. One of those delightful coincidences that one suspects but could never prove is merely that.
Second, I had recently suffered a fairly severe medical injury (a concussion while mountain biking with my son) on the eve of the 2016 election, from which I suffered from short term and repetitive amnesia. Upon being told, while in a hospital bed the next morning that Trump had actually won, I expressed incredulously, “Donald Trump won the election??” These 10 seconds or so would repeat themselves no less than 100 times over the next couple of hours, as I would dejectedly learn over and over and over again as if for the first time that Trump was now president, thereby proving, contra all your otherwise nearly irresistible arguments, that hell can indeed exist, albeit in blessedly temporary form.
Wow! I didn’t realize that DBH can also grant wishes (although the beard should have been a strong hint). When I asked him 3 months ago (under the article about Kenogaia’s award) if he likes China Miéville’s works, I didn’t expect to see a 2:30h recorded conversation. If my wishlist is not completely exhausted, may I ask for Kazuo Ishiguro next😊?
The discussion was predictably great. I sense that China’s atheism is running on fumes at this point.
Great conversation. It makes me curious: As someone coming out of the Christian socialist tradition, to what extent is Marx/Marxism part of your own thinking? And how much of a role has Marxist thought played in Christian socialism?
What a delightful treat for a Friday! An extraordinary run of fascinating conversations. We're being spoiled. I commented asking this previously but, DBH, have you read M. John Harrisson and if so, what do you make of him?
Honestly... and I'm not trying to gas up David or anything (or am I?) but if you would of debated Hitchens it would of been a supreme rhetorical battle of wits. which in that regard, would of been quite equal and exciting. I just don't feel like he would of had the philosophical insight to match you and I feel like he would of spent his time trying to pivot away from philosophy and simply talk about his moral objections to the existence of God. No disrespect to Hitchens, who like David, i feel was a smart, witty man with a legitimate moral hunger that the rest of his "tribe" lacked
A debate between you and Dennett is a much more promising venture, even if I disagree with everything Dennett says
I am mesmerized by the rich assortment of topics and its fruitful content along with the recurrence of emphases in detoured and different ways of describing and arguing basically the identical core themes. It was a greatly amusing conversation for all and All, I see.
Christian socialism may be diversive today in the US. On a local level, the most practical seems to be the theoretical reduction of the mission into political and social progressivism for a wide appeal. In my observation, democratic people are prone to be convinced with ease most by the materialistic causes and goals describable such as irreducible interest(s) (thank you to CM for the term) notably applicable to everyone as "ought to be", because it is irreducible.
The romantic aspect of early Marx must have been from the peasants' life in the pastoral in the old Russia. Exploitations, cruelties, against which force rising for the political justice brought the revolution, I understand. The origine of Marxism has a beauty of humanism and esthetics of the theory. It just does not work in practice because of the human nature easy to lean toward corruptions when the political system unconditionally secures the ruling power of the governance.
The argument of intentionality vs. causality appears to have a deep root. Those terminologies are in a historical churn. My simple mind associates the argument with that of necessity and contingency. Divine intentionality, thought of, according to me. Postmodern phenomenological terms and logics have been evolving to self-contradict, it seems, which is intellectually very impressive.
Psychological and sociological economy would be able to gain a popularity at large for its structural view of the social functionality, imposed upon democratic sentiments and psychology with persuasive rationalities. My raw and crude opinion, this is, though inspired by the sophistication of your conversation.
At the very beginning, you both spoke of the change of reading habits in an accordance. Writers read books, less and less. That should be true because a writer becomes the exclusive reader of his or her own writings more than any book, inevitably by being drawn into and merging the self within.
I’m curious to learn (even though this is a bit of a non sequitur) if you plan to read Cormac McCarthy’s upcoming novels “The Passenger” and “Stella Maris” this fall??
I hope so! Because I’d also like to discuss literature with you the next time we talk for my channel!
No fair getting fed the lines from Roland!
Two brief notes, about 40 minutes into this wonderful conversation.
Firstly, I am literally in the middle of “The True Helen” right now, as I make my way through a Splendid Wickedness. One of those delightful coincidences that one suspects but could never prove is merely that.
Second, I had recently suffered a fairly severe medical injury (a concussion while mountain biking with my son) on the eve of the 2016 election, from which I suffered from short term and repetitive amnesia. Upon being told, while in a hospital bed the next morning that Trump had actually won, I expressed incredulously, “Donald Trump won the election??” These 10 seconds or so would repeat themselves no less than 100 times over the next couple of hours, as I would dejectedly learn over and over and over again as if for the first time that Trump was now president, thereby proving, contra all your otherwise nearly irresistible arguments, that hell can indeed exist, albeit in blessedly temporary form.
Wow! I didn’t realize that DBH can also grant wishes (although the beard should have been a strong hint). When I asked him 3 months ago (under the article about Kenogaia’s award) if he likes China Miéville’s works, I didn’t expect to see a 2:30h recorded conversation. If my wishlist is not completely exhausted, may I ask for Kazuo Ishiguro next😊?
The discussion was predictably great. I sense that China’s atheism is running on fumes at this point.
Great conversation. It makes me curious: As someone coming out of the Christian socialist tradition, to what extent is Marx/Marxism part of your own thinking? And how much of a role has Marxist thought played in Christian socialism?
What a great conversation, I'm so pleased that there may be another in the future.
What a delightful treat for a Friday! An extraordinary run of fascinating conversations. We're being spoiled. I commented asking this previously but, DBH, have you read M. John Harrisson and if so, what do you make of him?
Honestly... and I'm not trying to gas up David or anything (or am I?) but if you would of debated Hitchens it would of been a supreme rhetorical battle of wits. which in that regard, would of been quite equal and exciting. I just don't feel like he would of had the philosophical insight to match you and I feel like he would of spent his time trying to pivot away from philosophy and simply talk about his moral objections to the existence of God. No disrespect to Hitchens, who like David, i feel was a smart, witty man with a legitimate moral hunger that the rest of his "tribe" lacked
A debate between you and Dennett is a much more promising venture, even if I disagree with everything Dennett says
I am mesmerized by the rich assortment of topics and its fruitful content along with the recurrence of emphases in detoured and different ways of describing and arguing basically the identical core themes. It was a greatly amusing conversation for all and All, I see.
Christian socialism may be diversive today in the US. On a local level, the most practical seems to be the theoretical reduction of the mission into political and social progressivism for a wide appeal. In my observation, democratic people are prone to be convinced with ease most by the materialistic causes and goals describable such as irreducible interest(s) (thank you to CM for the term) notably applicable to everyone as "ought to be", because it is irreducible.
The romantic aspect of early Marx must have been from the peasants' life in the pastoral in the old Russia. Exploitations, cruelties, against which force rising for the political justice brought the revolution, I understand. The origine of Marxism has a beauty of humanism and esthetics of the theory. It just does not work in practice because of the human nature easy to lean toward corruptions when the political system unconditionally secures the ruling power of the governance.
The argument of intentionality vs. causality appears to have a deep root. Those terminologies are in a historical churn. My simple mind associates the argument with that of necessity and contingency. Divine intentionality, thought of, according to me. Postmodern phenomenological terms and logics have been evolving to self-contradict, it seems, which is intellectually very impressive.
Psychological and sociological economy would be able to gain a popularity at large for its structural view of the social functionality, imposed upon democratic sentiments and psychology with persuasive rationalities. My raw and crude opinion, this is, though inspired by the sophistication of your conversation.
At the very beginning, you both spoke of the change of reading habits in an accordance. Writers read books, less and less. That should be true because a writer becomes the exclusive reader of his or her own writings more than any book, inevitably by being drawn into and merging the self within.
I’m curious to learn (even though this is a bit of a non sequitur) if you plan to read Cormac McCarthy’s upcoming novels “The Passenger” and “Stella Maris” this fall??
I hope so! Because I’d also like to discuss literature with you the next time we talk for my channel!