----- Original Message ----- From: "Richard Baker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, July 11, 2004 11:41 AM Subject: Re: Brin: the new Bush ad : I don't see any morphing...
> No, because references to earlier literature are relevant to Eliot's > work being literature. Are you contending that the various religious > references in American discourse are not peripheral to the debates (as > I had assumed) but are central? In other words, that American politics > is in some sense theological or theocratic? Not really that, but let me repeat an example. When Martin Luther King said "I have seen the Promised Land" he was making a reference to the Exodus. He was also making reference to the wealth of spirituals that make reference to the OT. His speach had a depth because it referred to a common heratige. If one claims that heritage is meaningless, then one will lose that depth. > > What literature and thought do you think Western Civilization is > > founded upon? > > The Roman approach to law and Greek views on government, mostly. > Together with a dash of Middle Eastern religion (although much of > Christian theology seems to derive from Platonic ideas by way of > Plotinus, says he who has a somewhat limited knowledge of theology). OK. Lets take a classic example. Take the Declaration of Independance. How does that follow logically from "The Republic"? As far as Christian theology being derived from Platonic ideas, that is just false. It is true that Greek forms were used in the development of Christian theology, but the ideas came from the origional literature. In particular, we can consider the conversion of Augustine. He was very well versed in Greek philosophy. He tried one school after another, and was dissatisfied. Origionally he read and dismissed Paul. Later, he reread Paul and found depth there that he did not see elsewhere. There is no doubt that Paul was familiar with Greek literature. But, his foundation was clearly in the Jewish scriptures, not Greek thought. Augustine converted because he saw Christianity answering fundamental questions that the Greek schools he tried did not. > Asserting that religious thought is foundational to > modern civilisation because modern ideas have developed from originally > religious roots seems to me to be somewhat akin to asserting that > Wilson-Sommerfeld semiclassical mechanics is foundational to modern > quantum field theory. Cultural development is not science. No one considers 2000 year old "scientific" theory seriously. But, I'd be more than happy to put the ethical teachings of Jesus up against the ethics of Foucault. Also, my uncle is going into hospital for > cancer surgery tomorrow (he has diagnosed this week with bladder > cancer), which means I'll be spending much of my time visiting him and > making sure his kids are coping with it all. I'm sorry that you continue to have this sort of chaos in your life. > I'm, however, more than eager to accept > recommendations of books that might help my education in the history of > western thought (especially of religious thought). As for actual historical reviews, I'm not very good at making recommendations, because I studied it by reading original source work much more than general reviews. But, I can recommend "The Good Book" by Peter Gomes, as a wonderful basis for understanding how the Bible is at the foundation of Western thought, much more than the Greeks or Romans. Dan M. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
