Thank you, David and Henry. For me this follows perfectly from where you left us on a different Gnostic thread, David, seeking to envision a new Romanticism. There is much to think through and do, but perhaps it’s still early days…. Many thanks.
This was a highly enjoyabled conversation. Thanks to David and Henry! I especially appreciated attempting to follow along with the French dialogue towards the end.
This is unrelated to this post, but I am really curious: do you ultimately think the Orthodox Christian religion is historically sound? I've stumbled across an excerpt from your upcoming book on tradition, and it seems that you see the greater Christian tradition as shaky and unreliable. Obviously this was only an excerpt and I have not read the conclusion to those thoughts yet, but let's say I'm a little antsy due to being in a bit of a doubtful state of mind. I guess another way of wording it is, what keeps you a Christian?
The point is more of an Aristotelian ine: the attempt to defend tradition as an obviously continuous history of development will fail. Rather, one must look at tradition as possessing a final causality, in order to discern whether its changing elements down the centuries were warranted intrinsically or instead caused by extrinsic conditions.
I'm really happy there's a YouTube video for this; it will make it easier for me to listen to.
I am grateful to Henry for representing us, the hapless young generation of christians. A wonderful conversation!
Thank you, David and Henry. For me this follows perfectly from where you left us on a different Gnostic thread, David, seeking to envision a new Romanticism. There is much to think through and do, but perhaps it’s still early days…. Many thanks.
This was a highly enjoyabled conversation. Thanks to David and Henry! I especially appreciated attempting to follow along with the French dialogue towards the end.
This is unrelated to this post, but I am really curious: do you ultimately think the Orthodox Christian religion is historically sound? I've stumbled across an excerpt from your upcoming book on tradition, and it seems that you see the greater Christian tradition as shaky and unreliable. Obviously this was only an excerpt and I have not read the conclusion to those thoughts yet, but let's say I'm a little antsy due to being in a bit of a doubtful state of mind. I guess another way of wording it is, what keeps you a Christian?
The point is more of an Aristotelian ine: the attempt to defend tradition as an obviously continuous history of development will fail. Rather, one must look at tradition as possessing a final causality, in order to discern whether its changing elements down the centuries were warranted intrinsically or instead caused by extrinsic conditions.
Would you hazard a guess that that was Christ’s intuitive approach to tradition?
No.
Do you think an Andrew Yang style UBI could solve all the problems?
All?