Excellent. This piece reminded me that Wittgenstein wrote that “A serious and good philosophical work could be written consisting entirely of jokes." SK was nothing if not serious about the comic absurdity of life while Hamann seemed to purely revel in the joyous redemption found in the absurd.
I enjoyed this piece and am thoroughly enjoying your newest book of fables. I find it hard to put down, but I still take a break after each story in order to ruminate on it. There is something very special about this collection. I pray your upcoming surgery goes well if it has not happened already, and if it has then I wish you a speedy recovery.
I second the comment on the fables, really extraordinary stuff. No spoilers for those who haven’t read, but the one which the cover art is relevant to is really, truly extraordinary. Prayers for your surgery
“Reason discovers nothing more for us than what Job saw - the misery of our birth - the advantage of the grave - the uselessness and inadequacy of human life.” Hamann, Werke, I, 147
I will have to check out Haman's prose along with Oden's book. I remember Charles Taylor lamenting how there has yet to be a perfect synthesis of aesthetic and moral beauty, and how there is a marked tension between the two among many artists. Among one of my lasting doubts is how the writer of Ephesians advises his audience against from "εὐτραπελία". This is hard to square with the great tradition of Christian humorists. Not that I dont have my own doubts about the art of humor.
I had the privilege of hearing Oden lecture on Kierkegaard's humor in the early 80's so I bought the book. Looking forward to the Hamann biography. Thanks for the heads up.
Hello, Mr. Hart! I can't wait to read your new book next month. Reading a lot of your essays on consciousness, I wanted to know: is it correct that you view the mind-body relationship as the wave-particle aspects of reality, and does that explain why physiological alterations affect the mind? And how would you assume we receive the spiritual bodies of the resurrection; I mean, how would the 'content' that constitutes us become this body, in your view? Thank you! (PS.: would like to hear everyone's thoughts)
I Hope and pray for your recovery David. You bring a lot of insight and wit to the study of theology from our past and present. And I'd be very sad if you left so soon.
A friend of mine asked me some questions about your work "Beauty of the Infinite" and frankly I didn't know how to respond. I was hoping you might be able to answer some of his questions. They are as follows.
1.) He puts the dialectic against rhetoric and argues that the rhetoric is always richer because it allows for context instead of striving for universal truths. Agree? Cf. Juarrero. [page 5, for example, when defining postmodernism.]
2.) He considers the Christian rhetoric peaceful towards difference, whereas the postmodern beliefs are violent towards difference. What exactly does that mean? Is this because they strive towards generalizations? Note the similarity with Taleb’s black swans. [starting at p. 52, for example but mentioned later too]
3.) Notice that allowing for difference makes the Christian rhetoric work for everyone, hence it becomes universal. [my own thought]
What exactly is the relationship between beauty and the sublime in Christianity? How does this differ from the Kantian perspective? [p. 45]
4.) Striving for beauty prioritizes the heart and vision and -as such- fosters an external orientation towards the world. Is this what he calls presence? As opposed to absence (thinking in concepts). Is there a relationship with common sense? [p. 54]
5.) Since the reformation, Christianity has, in this view, taken a wrong turn and let a divide exist between reality out there and people’s perceptions of reality. Correct? [my own thought]
At some point he defines the Christian rhetoric as something that affirms that what is, as opposed to negation. What exactly is negated in postmodern philosophies? [p. 70]
6.) I find the acceptance of what is an appealing proposition. Religious and spiritual schemes seem to be about “letting go” (cf. Daoism), whereas rationalism focuses on control. [my on thought]
Nietzsche attacked Christianity by its own means – through rhetoric. [p. 117]
Apologies if this comment is out of place. Didn't know how else to ask directly.
Very out of place, I’m afraid. My health at the moment precludes any long excursus. Moreover, I have not read that book in over twenty years and really have no notion what I would think of it now. I regard it as a juvenilium that I left behind long ago. Alas, I have no light to shed on these questions. So, other than asking your prayers for my upcoming surgery, I have to leave the matter there.
Hahaha, juvenilium. 99,9999% of the philosophers and theologians cannot write such a book after a lifetime of study. Of course, were you to write it now, it would come out quite differently (probably darker, certainly more accessible), but it will always be remembered as a monumental achievement.
Anyway, I don’t want to bother you with any more posts before the operation. As with everyone else here, I pray for your speedy recovery.
It was the first book that would adress thinkers like Deleuze in way that wwas more substantial than the "fashonable nonsense" accusation that is normally levaraged towards French Theory.
Well, regarding philosophers and humour: It can't be a coinicidence that Germany produced some of the finest philosophers...
Excellent. This piece reminded me that Wittgenstein wrote that “A serious and good philosophical work could be written consisting entirely of jokes." SK was nothing if not serious about the comic absurdity of life while Hamann seemed to purely revel in the joyous redemption found in the absurd.
I enjoyed this piece and am thoroughly enjoying your newest book of fables. I find it hard to put down, but I still take a break after each story in order to ruminate on it. There is something very special about this collection. I pray your upcoming surgery goes well if it has not happened already, and if it has then I wish you a speedy recovery.
Many thanks. Surgery on August 9.
I second the comment on the fables, really extraordinary stuff. No spoilers for those who haven’t read, but the one which the cover art is relevant to is really, truly extraordinary. Prayers for your surgery
I personally considered purity of heart to be a rather sublime pastoral work
I agree. I have read it several times and it reads as what SK aspires to spiritually. I know it is what I aspires to.
Anybody have a good BBQ sauce recipe?
Hamann the existentialist:
“Reason discovers nothing more for us than what Job saw - the misery of our birth - the advantage of the grave - the uselessness and inadequacy of human life.” Hamann, Werke, I, 147
Knowledge = obedient suffering in love
I would dispute that equation.
If human life is so useless, then why does Bach exist, hmm?
You are missing Hamann’s point. He is talking not about human existence but about the limits of rationalism.
Oh, yes, I understand. It was just a misplaced joke (and a slight reference to a quote by Cioran on the same subject)
I will have to check out Haman's prose along with Oden's book. I remember Charles Taylor lamenting how there has yet to be a perfect synthesis of aesthetic and moral beauty, and how there is a marked tension between the two among many artists. Among one of my lasting doubts is how the writer of Ephesians advises his audience against from "εὐτραπελία". This is hard to square with the great tradition of Christian humorists. Not that I dont have my own doubts about the art of humor.
I had the privilege of hearing Oden lecture on Kierkegaard's humor in the early 80's so I bought the book. Looking forward to the Hamann biography. Thanks for the heads up.
Hello, Mr. Hart! I can't wait to read your new book next month. Reading a lot of your essays on consciousness, I wanted to know: is it correct that you view the mind-body relationship as the wave-particle aspects of reality, and does that explain why physiological alterations affect the mind? And how would you assume we receive the spiritual bodies of the resurrection; I mean, how would the 'content' that constitutes us become this body, in your view? Thank you! (PS.: would like to hear everyone's thoughts)
I Hope and pray for your recovery David. You bring a lot of insight and wit to the study of theology from our past and present. And I'd be very sad if you left so soon.
A friend of mine asked me some questions about your work "Beauty of the Infinite" and frankly I didn't know how to respond. I was hoping you might be able to answer some of his questions. They are as follows.
1.) He puts the dialectic against rhetoric and argues that the rhetoric is always richer because it allows for context instead of striving for universal truths. Agree? Cf. Juarrero. [page 5, for example, when defining postmodernism.]
2.) He considers the Christian rhetoric peaceful towards difference, whereas the postmodern beliefs are violent towards difference. What exactly does that mean? Is this because they strive towards generalizations? Note the similarity with Taleb’s black swans. [starting at p. 52, for example but mentioned later too]
3.) Notice that allowing for difference makes the Christian rhetoric work for everyone, hence it becomes universal. [my own thought]
What exactly is the relationship between beauty and the sublime in Christianity? How does this differ from the Kantian perspective? [p. 45]
4.) Striving for beauty prioritizes the heart and vision and -as such- fosters an external orientation towards the world. Is this what he calls presence? As opposed to absence (thinking in concepts). Is there a relationship with common sense? [p. 54]
5.) Since the reformation, Christianity has, in this view, taken a wrong turn and let a divide exist between reality out there and people’s perceptions of reality. Correct? [my own thought]
At some point he defines the Christian rhetoric as something that affirms that what is, as opposed to negation. What exactly is negated in postmodern philosophies? [p. 70]
6.) I find the acceptance of what is an appealing proposition. Religious and spiritual schemes seem to be about “letting go” (cf. Daoism), whereas rationalism focuses on control. [my on thought]
Nietzsche attacked Christianity by its own means – through rhetoric. [p. 117]
Apologies if this comment is out of place. Didn't know how else to ask directly.
Very out of place, I’m afraid. My health at the moment precludes any long excursus. Moreover, I have not read that book in over twenty years and really have no notion what I would think of it now. I regard it as a juvenilium that I left behind long ago. Alas, I have no light to shed on these questions. So, other than asking your prayers for my upcoming surgery, I have to leave the matter there.
Hahaha, juvenilium. 99,9999% of the philosophers and theologians cannot write such a book after a lifetime of study. Of course, were you to write it now, it would come out quite differently (probably darker, certainly more accessible), but it will always be remembered as a monumental achievement.
Anyway, I don’t want to bother you with any more posts before the operation. As with everyone else here, I pray for your speedy recovery.
I completely understand it was a long shot. You’re in my prayers.
It was the first book that would adress thinkers like Deleuze in way that wwas more substantial than the "fashonable nonsense" accusation that is normally levaraged towards French Theory.
My thoughts and wishes for the surgery.