<Theofragen>

Some tend to skip over introductions when reading a text. I myself have often been guilty of this. However, I have come to realize how imporant it is to read philosophers along side good introductions to what they mean.

For example:
Metaphysics, for Hegel, is not about God, religion or the supernatural. Rather, it’s about the absolute, following Spinoza’s notion (absolute=the infinite substance=the universe). It is a naturalistic notion. With Schelling, Hegel contended that the absolute is independent of essence and existence and it’s organic. Contra Schelling, he argued that the absolute is the whole of substance + its modes (unity of infinite and finite). His metaphysics is a “vitalistic materialism.”
“Spirit” = the highest degree of organization and development of the organic powers within nature. God=the absolute=the whole of nature. Kant denies and Hegel affirms that we can know that nature is an organism
• the Truth is the whole for Hegel
• “Science”= fully developed truth
• Begininng of philosophy only makes sense as a place holder, a place to start and then to discard
• “Reason”=the concrete universal [Verunft (reason) is contrasted with Verstand (abstract reason)]
• Geist=the Notion=Concept (Begriff)=Absolute Idea=absolute freedom=goal to which everything tends.
• “Truth, aware of what it is is Spirit.”
• “Spirit, when it is aware of what it is, is Science." (Wissenschaft)
• “Genuineness”=the correspondence of a thing with itself, of its being or objectivity with its notion

So, when reading a philosopher, like Hegel, one cannot simply wade into the turbid waters of his thought and hope to understand. Philosophers, if they are anything, are nuanced thinkers. They play with language (and when the language is in translation this problem is exacerbated) in the attempt to describe the thing in itself (die Sache selbst). So find good introductions and read them carefully if you want to have a hope of understanding someone like Hegel. Peace.

posted by Jake at 4/26/2006 09:40:00 AM

My Master's Degree

For the last few years I've felt like a kid trying to put together a 1000-piece jigsaw puzzle without all the pieces. Needless to say, the task has proven rather daunting. I'm speaking in terms of my intellectual development with specific regard to philosophy. So this is my attempt to do something about this quagmire.

Right now, I feel pretty well versed in "postmodern" philosophy and in philosophical hermeneutics. These topics lay close to my intellectual passions. However, I wish to develop a more well-rounded understanding of where these postmodern philosophers get their ideas (both which they adopt and criticize). At PTS, I got just enough philosophy to be dangerous. So this is my master's degree in philosophy.

I plan to read about these authors and their primary works and write a paper on each. Some of these books I've already read, but I feel that I will understand some of their esoteric language better if I place them within their tradition and understand their predecessors. Feel free to recommend a book or two, if you see any gaps in my outline of study. Peace.

History of Philosophy
Hegel
o The Phenomenology of Spirit
o Hegel: The Essential Writings
o The Philosophy of History
Marx
o Communist Manifesto
o The Marx-Engels Reader
Kierkegaard
o Fear And Trembling
o Concluding Unscientific Postscript
o Either/Or
Nietzsche
o The Portable Nietzsche
o The Anti-Christ
o Beyond Good and Evil
o The Gay Science
Husserl
o Basic Writings in Transcendental Phenomenology
Foucault
o The Essential Foucault
o The Archeology of Knowledge and the Discourse on Language
o Power/Knowledge: Selected Interviews and Other Writings
Derrida
o Of Grammatology
o Speech and Phenomena
o A Derrida Reader
Rorty
o Objectivity, Relativism and Truth
o Contingency, Irony and Solidarity
Buber
o I and Thou
o Martin Buber: The Life of Dialogue
Levinas
o Totality and Infinity
o Otherwise than Being

Hermeneutics
Schleiermacher
o Hermeneutics: The Handwritten Manuscripts
o Cambridge Companion to Friedrich Schleiermacher
Dilthey
o Dilthey: Selected Writings
Heidegger
o Being and Time
o Poetry, Language, Thought
Gadamer
o Truth and Method

Language
Wittgenstein
o On Certainty
o Tractatus Logico Philosophicus
o Philosophical Investigations
De Saussure
o Course in General Linguistics
Â Barthes
o The Pleasure of the Text
o Mythologies
LÃ©vi-Strauss
o Myth and Meaning
o Structural Anthropology
Said
o Culture and Imperialism
o Edward Said Reader
o Power, Politics and Culture

posted by Jake at 4/18/2006 08:41:00 AM

Good Stuff

Typically when I read about evangelical involvement with government these days, I shake my head in disgust. From Pat Robertson to Jerry Falwell, evangelicals are seeming to rally around ignorance with regard to legislation and politics. I was encouraged to read about this group of "evangelicals" who seem to get what the historic Baptist principle of separation of church and state is all about. Hauerwas would be so proud.

posted by Jake at 4/08/2006 11:49:00 AM

Ontology

Either/or, both/and, or neither/nor?

1. "I think, therefore, I am."

2. "I am, therefore, I think."

3. "You are, therefore, I am."

4. "I interpret, therefore, I am."

5. "We are, therefore, we interpret."

6. "We think, therefore, we are."

7. "You are, therefore, I am not."

8. "We are, therefore, I am."

9. "We act, therefore, we exist."

10. "I am, you are, therefore, we are, maybe."

posted by Jake at 4/05/2006 09:11:00 AM

Devilish Hermeneutics

Another Caputo quote:

So the devilishness of the deconstruction of a tradition or a text, of the insistence that we have always to do with the interpretation of signs, is not the devil itself, and is not to be conceived as a way of destroying faith or tradition, but rather of exhibiting their contingency in an effort to preserve them and keep them open ended…Deconstruction does not demolish authority and the “force of law,” but divests the authority of the law of the trappings of absoluteness, thereby making the bearers of the tradition responsible for the forms the tradition assumes and the formulae in which faith is cast. (199)

Compare this with Guder, "Our need for continuing conversion is linked directly with the reductionism of the gospel that has become pervasive in our traditions and churches" (72).

How about Frost and Hirsch: "Hold fast to the core but expreiment like wild with the expression... [A] missional community ... is careful not to abandon the truth of the gospel nor to water down its implications (80-1).

Does this make Ehrman a hero or heritic?

posted by Jake at 4/03/2006 05:37:00 PM

Emergent is for Introverts, Too!

Since an earlier post, I have received some intriguing comments from friends and strangers regarding my contention that seminarians ought to engage the emergent conversation. I was especially excited to receive a comment from my former PTS colleague, Corey.

I would like to briefly clarify something that I feel is fundamental to Emergent, a point that David reiterated, and that I may have failed to express before. "Emergent," in my opinion, is mainly about relationships, community and dialogue. I like to speak/write about the "emergent conversation" because this emphasizes what I believe the relationships are about: dialogue. People are involved in this conversation at different levels. For some, I guess it is about "facial hair" and "saltier language." (I'm assuming that Corey, good-natured as he is, was being comical here. I've had facial hair for eight years now). A woman hailing from a liberal-mainline denomination once told me, "Emergent is for evangelicals who discovered they could drink beer." In a way, she is right. For some the conversation is centered upon external accoutrements and clergy ethics. This is an important part of the conversation, and one that is not only shared by evangelicals, but mainliners as well. Many people need a place where they can be themselves because they find themselves in situations that prevent them from doing so.

A second facet of this conversation regards ecclesiology; especially liturgy. Emergent leaders have been teased incessantly about candles, incense and chanting in worship. This also is an important issue for many because it provides a helpful venue for many who do not have the freedom to experiment with their church's liturgy. Such individuals need a forum by which they may engage in deconstructing some static practices while reconstructing new ones. Some don't like this part of the emergent conversation but I feel it is precious to many and should be affirmed.

A third aspect of this conversation is the theological/philosophical. People engaging in dialogue on this level are asking questions about more than the "Saddlecreek" approaches to doing church. They are rethinking core aspects of the Christian faith in light of our postmodern, post-Christendom world. These are the folks who are engaging postmodern and postliberal books on theology and philosophy. This is what gets a lot of Emergent leaders in trouble amongst evangelicals.

Let me be clear. All three foci around which emergent conversation is generated are valid and important! A friend of mine put this well in a recent email. He noted that Emergent (with a capital E) is less like the Nike swoosh (a brand label) and more like the American flag. It is a broad banner under which many different opinions and beliefs are expressed. I like the breadth of the conversation.

If you are reading this blog with any degree of frequency, guess what... you are a part of the emergent conversation. You don't have to have a blog, go to a cohort, grow a gotee, spurn penal-subsitutionary atonement theory, vote a certain way or quaff beer to be "emergent." As an introvert myself, I tend to process things internally before I am comfortable engaging others in dialogue externally. This also is important. Thank you all for being a part of the emergent conversation! Peace.

Daily Devotions

On Good Introductions

My Master's Degree

Good Stuff

Ontology

Devilish Hermeneutics

Emergent is for Introverts, Too!