tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-64994630451815577952024-03-17T14:27:13.362-06:00Philosophers' CornerFounded 25 March 2013Alice C. Linsleyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13069827354696169270noreply@blogger.comBlogger209125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6499463045181557795.post-2544999102367003172024-03-15T14:05:00.006-06:002024-03-16T10:05:10.725-06:00Mircea Eliade's Limitations<p> </p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhRUzQyEFbZZgHJuzp2g91iMOru2Ta3xqyAlbAW8lqpagjbYz9zVcftUBAgmedAILcMkL0e6FpomEwgi_Grd8-X0xbC4Mb3aKPvBBkIJVE4ZQgsX8Vxs8gbaokc-LYMtKtLIXkhhD2CdP_m9ktLbq27peDubL6IE1oMgwpzo_xyZnu_XzcBvykLYku-Upo/s404/Eliade's_Chamanisme.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="404" data-original-width="247" height="306" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhRUzQyEFbZZgHJuzp2g91iMOru2Ta3xqyAlbAW8lqpagjbYz9zVcftUBAgmedAILcMkL0e6FpomEwgi_Grd8-X0xbC4Mb3aKPvBBkIJVE4ZQgsX8Vxs8gbaokc-LYMtKtLIXkhhD2CdP_m9ktLbq27peDubL6IE1oMgwpzo_xyZnu_XzcBvykLYku-Upo/w214-h306/Eliade's_Chamanisme.jpg" width="214" /></a></div><p><br /></p><p>This is the fourth in a series on the failures of leading 20th century mythologists and religionists to uncover significant antecedents of the religions they studied. The first considers the work of <a href="https://justgreatthought.blogspot.com/2024/02/joseph-campbells-limitations.html"><span style="color: #990000;">Joseph Campbell</span></a>, the second addresses <a href="https://justgreatthought.blogspot.com/2024/02/raimon-panikkars-limitations.html"><span style="color: #990000;">Raimon Panikkar's Limitations</span></a>, and the third looks at the failure of <a href="https://justgreatthought.blogspot.com/2024/02/carlos-castanedas-limitations.html"><span style="color: #990000;">Carlos Castaneda</span></a> to empirically investigate the roots of shamanism. </p><p><br /></p><p>Dr. Alice C. Linsley</p>The Romanian born Mircea Eliade (1907-1986) is rightly regarded as a preeminent scholar of religions and one of the world’s foremost interpreters of religious symbolism and myth. He was a prolific writer and of the five writers I am considering in this series, I find his research to be the most empirical. <div><br /></div><div>Eliade's writings reveal great insight on how early human populations viewed time as cyclical, how they understood the "world" to be that of their limited experience, and how events outside their worlds were viewed as magical or supernatural intrusions. <br /><div><br /></div><div>Eliade understood myths to be symbolic sacred narratives about mythic events that cannot be identified with historical events. Through enactment of sacred rituals humans enter again and again into the timeless mysteries of their ancestors. According to Eliade, creation myths and origin myths describe "breakthroughs of the sacred (or the 'supernatural') into the World." He called such breakthroughs "hierophanies" rather than "theophanies" because while these narratives do not always involve deities, they all involve the sacred or holy (<i>hiero</i>).</div><div><br /></div><div>In mythic hierophanies, the sacred appears in the actions and commandments of gods, heroes, priests and shamans. By manifesting an ideal such as self-sacrifice, the sacred gives the world value, direction, and purpose. According to Eliade, "The manifestation of the sacred, ontologically founds the world." In this view, all things are to imitate or conform to the sacred models reflected in hierophanies in order to have true reality. All things "acquire their reality, their identity, only to the extent of their participation in a transcendent reality."</div><div><br /></div><div>Christian sacramentalists easily can relate to this. Christ, the Man-God, comes to us in the bread and wine consecrated by a priest of the Church. His self-sacrifice gives infinite value, purpose, and strength to those who receive Him in faith and obedience.</div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><b>Eliade's analysis of secular man</b></div><div><br /></div>Eliade saw a sharp distinction between the sacred and the profane. In this he followed the lead of <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%89mile_Durkheim"><span style="color: #990000;">Émile Durkheim</span></a> who considered the distinction between the sacred and the profane to be a central reality of religion. Both thinkers were reacting to the lack of respect in modern western societies for sacred things that deserve reverence or veneration.<br /></div><div><br /></div><div><div>Eliade criticized those who attempted to reduce religion to psychological, social, economic, historical, or other nonreligious phenomena. According to him, such attempts failed to convey the unique essence of the "sacred" in religious experience.</div><div><br /></div><div>In his book <a href="https://monoskop.org/images/b/b1/Eliade_Mircea_The_Sacred_and_The_profane_1963.pdf"><span style="color: #990000;">The Sacred and the Profane</span></a>, he exposes the lack of self-recognition of secularists. Moses was told to remove his shoes because he stood on sacred or holy ground (Ex.3:5). Religious people regard their places of worship as sacred ground, and while the secular person may belittle that attitude, he too has sacred spaces. For the one who loves to cook, it may be the kitchen. For the one who loves to garden it may be an enclosed refuge.</div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><b>Sacred Time and Space</b></div><div><b><br /></b></div><div>Eliade observed that time for traditional communities is not historical. Rather, it is archetypal or mythical. They observe periodic times of festival, propitious days for weddings, and days of rest. These were determined by lunar cycles, solar cycles, and agricultural cycles.</div><div><br /></div>Eliade recognized that rituals, ceremonies, and even the architecture of ancient societies expressed belief in the connection between earthy sacred space and heavenly sacred space. The Babylonian temple had seven tiers because the number seven represented the number of visible celestial bodies: Sun, Moon, Mars, Mercury, Jupiter, Venus, and Saturn. The architecture was intended to express a celestial reality on earth.</div><div><br /></div><div>Eliade believed that many ceremonies represent humanity's attempt to overcome chaos by renewing the primal estate of innocence or sinlessness. Such ceremonies mark a new beginning, "the mythical moment of the passage from chaos to cosmos" and new year ceremonies are "a resumption of time from the beginning, that is, a repetition of the cosmogony." (<u>The Myth of the Eternal Return</u>, p.54).</div><div><br /></div><div>The early Hebrew had a consciousness of the cyclical nature of time associated with the seasons, agriculture, fertility, etc. However, they believed that time was created by God. Genesis 1 speaks of this. In this view, since God is eternal, that is outside of time, there must have been a "beginning" and that beginning was when God began to create.<div><br /></div>Mircea Eliade noted that the religious person can hold both the mythical cyclical view of time and also commemorate a beginning such as the divine work of creation of the world (<u>The Sacred and the Profane</u>: <u>The Nature of Religion</u>, p. 104).</div><div><br /><div><br /></div><div><b>Eliade on Shamanism</b></div><div><b><br /></b></div>Eliade's book <u>Shamanism:</u> <u>Archaic Techniques of Ecstasy</u> was first published in French by Librarie Payot in 1951. The book was later translated into English by Willard R. Trask and published by Princeton University Press in 1964. This book, along with the writings of Carlos Castaneda, influenced the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoshamanism"><span style="color: #990000;">Neoshamanic</span></a> movement which developed in the western world in the 1960s and 1970s.</div><div><div><br /></div><div>Eliade explains that his intention is to situate world shamanism within the larger <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_religion"><span style="color: #990000;">history of religion</span></a>. Disputing any claims that shamanism is a result of mental illness, he highlights the benefits that further sociological and ethnographic research could provide before explaining the role of a historian of religions. Describing shamanism as "precisely one of the archaic techniques of ecstasy", he proclaims that it is "at once mysticism, magic and "religion" in the broadest sense of the term."</div><div><br /></div><div>His book describes shamanic practices of initiation, methods of obtaining power, and the symbolism of the shaman's clothing, implements, and drum. The second half of the book considers the development of shamanism in Asia, the Americas, Oceania, Tibet, China and Japan. Eliade speculated that shamanism was the earliest religion and that all shamanisms had a common source in the Paleolithic. He was never able to provide empirical evidence to support that view. However, his thought seems to align with a long-accepted principle of cultural anthropology that the more widely distributed a culture trait, the older it is.</div></div><div><br /></div>Many archaeologists assume that shamanism preceded the organized religions of the Axial Age (1000 BC- 200 AD). They believe cave art depicts shamans conducting ceremonies as early as 15,000 years ago, although this is controversial. Eliade believed the roots of shamanic practice are to be found in the paleolithic, but he was unable to produce evidence of this. <div><br /></div><div><br /><div><b>Eliade's Limitations</b></div><div><b><br /></b></div><div><div>On publication, Eliade's book on Shamanism was recognized as an authoritative study. However, as anthropological data increased, elements of the book were questioned. It is evident that that shamanism exists in many regions of the globe, but it has not been proven to be the only archaic religion, nor has it been proven that all shamanistic practices have a common source. </div><div><br /></div><div>Eliade failed to distinguish between <a href="https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/download/article-file/1715302#:~:text=While%20shamanism%20activities%20may%20begin,BC%20in%20the%20Near%20East."><span style="color: #990000;">shamanic religion</span></a> and the ancient henotheistic, non-occult religions such as that of the early Hebrew (4200 BC) and their Nilotic priest ancestors (10,000 BC). </div><div><span face="sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #202122; font-size: 14px;"><br /></span></div><div>Eliade's exploration of shamanism reveals the slippery work of defining the religious office. He described shamanism as a "technique of ecstasy". However, that description also could apply to non-occult religious practices of ancient populations. </div><div><br /></div><div>He explained that shamanism is embedded in a framework of <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmology"><span style="color: #990000;">cosmological beliefs</span></a>. The same could be said for the <a href="https://asa-cwis.blogspot.com/2017/02/priests-of-ancient-world-studied.html"><span style="color: #990000;">priests of the Nile Valley</span></a> who were keeping records of astronomical events as early as 10,000 years ago, according to Plato. By 4245 BC, the priests of the Upper Nile had established a calendar based on the appearance of the star Sirius that becomes visible to the naked eye once every 1,461 years. Apparently, they had been tracking this star and connecting it to seasonal changes and agriculture for thousands of years. The priest historian Manetho reported in 241 BC that Nilotic Africans had been stargazing as early as 40,000 years ago. <br /></div><div><br /></div><div>Shamanism can be viewed as a form of healing. The same can be said for the office of priest. The tradition of <a href="https://biblicalanthropology.blogspot.com/2017/09/ancient-physician-priests.html"><span style="color: #990000;">physician priests</span></a> has deep roots in Africa. Only members of the elite strata of African society learned and practiced medicine. One of the earliest known medical practitioners was Eanach (<a href="http://jandyongenesis.blogspot.com/2015/05/royal-names-in-genesis.html"><span style="color: #990000;">Enoch</span></a>). He served the Pharaoh as his physician priest, or a <i>wab sxmt</i> (wab sekhmet). Eanach lived around 3000 B.C. and is said to have "healed the pharaoh's nostrils." </div><div><br /></div><div>Ancient Egyptian doctors used copper to sterilize water and wounds around 2,400 BC. They also used herbs and minerals medicinally. They mixed the substances with honey, wine, or beer. Some medicines were worked into dough balls to form pills. They used ointments for wounds and treated chest complaints by getting the patient to inhale steam infused with essential oils. Oil was used to prevent infection, treat dry skin, and for anointing the sick with prayers for healing.<br /><br />The idea of sacred pools can be traced to the priest-physicians of the Nile Valley. The sick came to them at the <a href="https://college-ethics.blogspot.com/2024/01/rulers-of-ancient-water-systems.html"><span style="color: #990000;">water shrines</span></a> and temples. Water was used to cleanse wounds, ease strained muscles, and for ritual healing of the inner person.</div><div><br /></div>The wives and daughters of these early Hebrew ruler-priests served at the royal water shrines. One title for royal ladies who served at Bronze Age water shrines was <i>rabitu</i>. The term is related to an Ancient Egypt word <i>bity</i>, and to the earlier Akkadian words for water (<i>raatu</i>) and house/shrine (<i>biitu</i>). The emblem of the <i>rabitu </i>was the spindle. In the Ugaritic story of Elimelek, the queen mother holds the title <i>rabitu</i> and her emblem is the spindle.</div><div><br />Many women had names associated with Neith as she was the patroness of water shrines, rivers, pregnant women, and women in childbirth. It is likely that Neith was a holy woman who lived at one of the early water shrines along the Nile before Egypt emerged as a political entity (c.3200 B.C.). Joseph's wife Aseneth was named for her. Aseneth was the daughter of a priest at Heliopolis, a prestigious shrine city on the Nile River.</div><div><br /></div>It has been argued that the office of shaman is older than the office of priest since the priest is associated with temples and with what Eliade called the "paleo-oriental cultures" of Babylon, Egypt, and Israel. Yet there were priests at Catalhoyuk in 7500 BC. They wore the traditional priestly garb of the leopard skin. Recent excavations have identified a small temple on the eastern side of the sacred settlement. <div><br /><div>Many of the practices associated with shamans are also associated with priests. At what point in human history did the two offices become distinct? Unfortunately, that question was never addressed by Eliade, and this is one of the limitations of his work.</div><div><br /><br />Related reading: <a href="https://justgreatthought.blogspot.com/2024/02/joseph-campbells-limitations.html"><span style="color: #990000;">Joseph Campbell's Limitations</span></a>; <a href="https://justgreatthought.blogspot.com/2024/02/raimon-panikkars-limitations.html"><span style="color: #990000;">Raimon Panikkar's Limitations</span></a>; <a href="https://justgreatthought.blogspot.com/2024/02/carlos-castanedas-limitations.html"><span style="color: #990000;">Carlos Castaneda's Limitations</span></a>; <a href="https://jandyongenesis.blogspot.com/2007/08/shamanic-practice-and-priesthood.html"><span style="color: #990000;">Shamanic Practice and the Priesthood</span></a>; <a href="https://jandyongenesis.blogspot.com/2007/09/males-as-spiritual-leaders-two-patterns.html"><span style="color: #990000;">Males as Spiritual Leaders: Two Patterns</span></a></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div></div></div>Alice C. Linsleyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13069827354696169270noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6499463045181557795.post-52420207483546850172024-02-24T13:47:00.006-07:002024-03-15T14:06:11.852-06:00Carlos Castaneda's Limitations<div><br /></div><div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEgYXd2oCpMu1H9t2wO8RREC5itL0w7fzz9mpi2ubff9Mz9fwnVRINPgGffwRDHhrYVqPkb6o1sHEcKs1uQ7LtCDRMuymBzhrddTcbfJVQVXUnDple2uGcn2Rr3qO7Fu0wHywxCeWCFMSQuDyeZhN79we_7apajGL46YH0WTvWgNbUhxoIOkxPSEhO4tPgw" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="" data-original-height="960" data-original-width="637" height="308" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEgYXd2oCpMu1H9t2wO8RREC5itL0w7fzz9mpi2ubff9Mz9fwnVRINPgGffwRDHhrYVqPkb6o1sHEcKs1uQ7LtCDRMuymBzhrddTcbfJVQVXUnDple2uGcn2Rr3qO7Fu0wHywxCeWCFMSQuDyeZhN79we_7apajGL46YH0WTvWgNbUhxoIOkxPSEhO4tPgw=w230-h308" width="230" /></a></div><br /></div><div>This essay is the third in a series on the failure of leading 20th century mythologists or religionists to uncover significant antecedents of the religions they studied. The first considers the work of <a href="https://justgreatthought.blogspot.com/2024/02/joseph-campbells-limitations.html"><span style="color: #990000;">Joseph Campbell</span></a> and the second addresses <a href="https://justgreatthought.blogspot.com/2024/02/raimon-panikkars-limitations.html"><span style="color: #990000;">Raimon Panikkar's Limitations</span></a>, and the fourth concerns <a href="https://justgreatthought.blogspot.com/2024/03/mircea-eliades-limitations.html"><span style="color: #990000;">Mircea Eliade's Limitations.</span></a></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div>Dr. Alice C. Linsley</div><div><br /></div>Carlos Castaneda (1925-1998) was born in Peru. In 1951 he moved to the United States. He studied sculpture at the School of Fine Arts in Lima and hoped to make a living as an artist. He worked a series of odd jobs and took classes at Los Angeles Community College in philosophy, literature and creative writing. Those who knew him remember him as a consummate storyteller.<div><br /></div>He studied anthropology at the University of California, Los Angeles, earning a Ph.D. in 1973. He, along with <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_Leary"><span style="color: #990000;">Timothy Leary</span></a>, is considered a father of the <a href="https://www.britannica.com/topic/New-Age-movement"><span style="color: #990000;">New Age movement</span></a> which certainly gained momentum through his tales of shamanic mysticism. <div><br /></div>Even before his arrival in the United State Carlos and his then wife Margaret Runyan became fascinated by the occult. He later divorced Margaret and had multiple lovers, some of whom are believed to have taken their own lives upon Castenda's death. (See <a href="https://www.salon.com/2007/04/12/castaneda/"><span style="color: #990000;">The Dark Legacy of Carlos Castaneda</span></a>.)<div><br /></div>Under the tutelage of don Juan Matus, a <a href="https://www.britannica.com/topic/Yaqui"><span style="color: #990000;">Yaqui</span></a> shaman, Castaneda entered what don Juan called "a separate reality." This reality was explored through peyote and exposure to "sacred" ceremonies and surreal Mexican environments. Casteneda claimed that his shaman tutors made his car disappear before his eyes. He also claimed to have a bilingual conversation with a coyote, turn into a crow, and learn how to fly. <div><br /></div><div>Castaneda considered don Juan his "teacher" while another shaman, don Genaro is described as his "benefactor" (Tales of Power, p. 226). Castaneda claims that don Genaro's actions had an extraordinary effect on him. "Every time I had come into contact
with him I had experienced the most outlandish sensory distortion." (<a href="https://logoilibrary.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/Carlos-Castaneda-Tales-of-Power.pdf"><span style="color: #990000;">Tales of Power, p.6</span></a>) </div><div><br /></div><div>Castaneda had a voracious appetite for the occult. At one point, he sought advice from Yogi Chen, a practitioner of esoteric Buddhism on how to produce a “double” of himself. Yogi Chen replied that there were methods for producing up to six emanations of oneself. “But why bother? Then you only have six times as much trouble.”<div><br /><div>From 1971 to 1982, Castaneda's books sold at least 10 million copies. Castaneda's most popular titles, "A Separate Reality," "Journey to Ixtlan" and "<a href="https://www.nytimes.com/1974/10/27/archives/tales-of-power-by-carlos-castaneda-287-pp-new-york-simon-schuster.html#:~:text=%E2%80%9CTales%20of%20Power%2C%E2%80%9D%20Castaneda%27s,the%20knowable%20and%20the%20unknowable."><span style="color: #990000;">Tales of Power</span></a>," sold 10,000 copies in 2006, 8 years after the author's death. None of Castaneda's titles have ever gone out of print -- an impressive achievement for any author. His books became international best-sellers and have been translated into some 17 languages.</div><div><br /></div><div>Castaneda's books stirred widespread interest in shamanism. It hardly mattered that his claims were debunked. His books are listed as nonfiction and don Juan and don Genaro are fictional characters. Nevertheless, having read <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journey_to_Ixtlan"><span style="color: #990000;">Journey to Ixtlan</span></a> and Tales of Power, I understand the appeal of his work. There is a freshness to the dialogue and at times a compelling glimpse of shamanic life, in spite of the fictional character of the works.</div></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi41kgwxIn5QWLtYB9h3wcXd1HqbffcrnWsbAqBF_Qoh6Izx7RLktNxbxzOG-RPNXcrVlFZrRwOWKc8Bhu6DMcnjStMG3ZJ9TCdnLIoY6l1wOC_v4XH5t9MReiQXyxCQggIiHH7ghXMF2TBTJkmuP0C3IDHoNthNahQM8BOSOevEBCB5QQowSNBgY6fWRk/s768/Tungus%20shaman%20with%20hide%20drum.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="768" data-original-width="564" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi41kgwxIn5QWLtYB9h3wcXd1HqbffcrnWsbAqBF_Qoh6Izx7RLktNxbxzOG-RPNXcrVlFZrRwOWKc8Bhu6DMcnjStMG3ZJ9TCdnLIoY6l1wOC_v4XH5t9MReiQXyxCQggIiHH7ghXMF2TBTJkmuP0C3IDHoNthNahQM8BOSOevEBCB5QQowSNBgY6fWRk/s320/Tungus%20shaman%20with%20hide%20drum.jpg" width="235" /></a></div><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">Tungus shaman with drum</div></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><b>Castaneda's Limitations</b></div><div><b><br /></b></div>While Castaneda's works reveal an expansive imagination and fanciful literary style, his anthropological research is undisciplined, lacking in factual substance, and entirely anecdotal. It is as if he read what he could find about shamanism and then invented the perfect shamans to befriend him. His tales include all the classic elements of shamanic practice: drug-induced visions, progressive levels of skill at hunting, mystical bodyless flights, and rituals to gain the help of spirits. However, the tells are there! Castaneda's writings do not reveal understanding of the place of shamanism in the history of religion.</div><div><br /></div><div>I may have more first-hand experience of shamans than Castanedo. I have sat through shamanic cleansing rituals in sweat lodges, and I conducted a year-long correspondence with a Umani Lenape shaman who I invited to speak to my World Religions students. I am not a nay-sayer when it comes to the realness of their occult powers. It is seductive. </div><div><br /></div><div>My intention is to clarify the distinction between the offices of shaman and priest, the oldest known religious offices. Both serve as intermediaries between their communities and the supernatural. They share some common symbols such as the Tree of Life, serpent symbolism, and the Sun as the emblem of the <a href="https://biblicalanthropology.blogspot.com/2022/07/belief-in-high-god.html"><span style="color: #990000;">High God</span></a>. However, they represent different worldviews, different ways of reasoning, and different practices.<div><br /></div>Underlying shamanism is the belief that there are powerful spirits who cause imbalance and disharmony in the world. The shaman’s role is to determine which spirits are at work in a given situation and to find ways to appease the spirits and restore balance or harmony. This often involves use of <span style="color: #990000;"><a href="https://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Entheogen"><span style="color: #990000;">psychoactive substances</span></a> </span>to induce a trance state. Rarely, does the shaman perform blood sacrifice. The hides used to make their drums come from animals that have been hunted for food.<br /><br />Underlying the priesthood is belief in a supreme High God to whom humans must give an accounting, especially for the shedding of blood. The ancient laws and received traditions governing priestly ceremonies, sacrifices, cleansing and healing rituals clarify the role of the priest as one who offers sacrifice for the people according to sacred law.</div><div><br /></div><div>In the priest's understanding, the High God holds the world in balance, and it is human actions that cause disharmony. Offending spirits (demons) contribute to the chaos. Therefore, priests are to discern or test the spirits, recognizing that evil spirits can masquerade as beneficent. In my experiences with shamans, I noted that they also recognize that the spirits sometimes lie. They have their own ways of testing the spirits. (Only one Spirit never lies.)</div><div><br />Shamans can be found among many populations around the world: Africa, Asia, Australia, and the Americas. They tend to serve small tribal communities or nomadic clans, whereas priests historically serve at shrines and temples under the authority of high kings and rulers. Another difference is the gender-transgressive (cross-dressing, transvestite) practice that occurs with shamanism. However, <a href="https://biblicalanthropology.blogspot.com/2023/01/the-bible-on-transvestism.html"><span style="color: #990000;">transvestism</span></a> was prohibited among the Hebrew ruler-priest caste, the <a href="https://biblicalanthropology.blogspot.com/2022/05/the-hebrew-were-caste.html"><span style="color: #990000;">oldest known order of priests</span></a>.</div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div>Related reading: <a href="https://www.iflscience.com/hallucinogenic-drugs-detected-in-3000-year-old-bronze-age-shamanic-hair-samples-68336"><span style="color: #990000;">Hallucinogenic Substances Found in 3000-year Hair of Shaman</span></a>; <a href="https://jandyongenesis.blogspot.com/2007/09/males-as-spiritual-leaders-two-patterns.html"><span style="color: #990000;">Males as Spiritual Leaders: Two Patterns</span></a>; <a href="https://jandyongenesis.blogspot.com/2015/11/female-shamans-not-women-priests.html"><span style="color: #990000;">Female Shamans</span></a>; <a href="https://biblicalanthropology.blogspot.com/2022/07/belief-in-high-god.html"><span style="color: #990000;">Belief in the High God</span></a>; <a href="https://biblicalanthropology.blogspot.com/2022/04/the-oldest-known-religion.html"><span style="color: #990000;">The Oldest Known Religion</span></a><div><br /></div>Alice C. Linsleyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13069827354696169270noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6499463045181557795.post-3268743692737986962024-02-22T15:11:00.012-07:002024-03-16T10:03:10.711-06:00Raimon Panikkar's Limitations<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiskBZ6Q_cK4IvAPfLybYCDKBoKyZ6Bsrq88njuCm4uzk646r9ftfQKVv6N5-S8wz7BXFA-Z73vrAVSWwZj9g7cQAA97BpCP62oBqtuV7GJP36H39alE5GIlp3mqjCIaCPmn5WYtp3xN6vRo7E9BYLOKwNljVaU7n_2KjksJ7yLfV1phlsOC1oQiIqdqZk/s899/626px-Raimon_Panikkar..png" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="899" data-original-width="626" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiskBZ6Q_cK4IvAPfLybYCDKBoKyZ6Bsrq88njuCm4uzk646r9ftfQKVv6N5-S8wz7BXFA-Z73vrAVSWwZj9g7cQAA97BpCP62oBqtuV7GJP36H39alE5GIlp3mqjCIaCPmn5WYtp3xN6vRo7E9BYLOKwNljVaU7n_2KjksJ7yLfV1phlsOC1oQiIqdqZk/s320/626px-Raimon_Panikkar..png" width="223" /></a></div><br /><div style="text-align: center;">Portrait of Raimon Panikkar (pencil on paper), Wikimedia Commons</div><div style="text-align: center;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: center;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: center;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><div>This essay is the second in a series on the failure of leading 20th century mythologists or religionists to uncover significant antecedents of the religions they studied. The first considers the work of <a href="https://justgreatthought.blogspot.com/2024/02/joseph-campbells-limitations.html" style="color: #992211; text-decoration-line: none;"><span style="color: #990000;">Joseph Campbell</span></a>, the third addresses <a href="https://justgreatthought.blogspot.com/2024/02/carlos-castanedas-limitations.html"><span style="color: #990000;">Carlos Castaneda's Limitations</span></a>, and the fourth looks at <a href="https://justgreatthought.blogspot.com/2024/03/mircea-eliades-limitations.html"><span style="color: #990000;">Mircea Eliade's Limitations</span></a>.</div><div><br style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 14.85px;" /></div></div><div style="text-align: center;"><br /></div><div><br /></div><div>Dr. Alice C. Linsley</div><div><br /></div><br />Mr. Raimon Panikkar (1918-2010) was a Roman Catholic priest and a professor of philosophy at the University of Madrid. His first trip to India in 1954 was a turning point in his life and a connection to the spiritual roots of his Hindu father. Panikkar's Spanish mother was Roman Catholic. As a scholar, Panikkar specialized in comparative religion.<br /><br />While studying Indian philosophy at the University of Mysore and Banaras Hindu University, Mr. Panikkar began conversation about Eastern expressions of Christianity with several Western monks. About that experience Panikkar later wrote, “I left Europe as a Christian, I discovered I was a Hindu and returned as a Buddhist without ever having ceased to be Christian.”<br /><br />The rest of his life was dedicated to promoting an expansion of the Judaic and Greco-Roman foundations of Christianity to embrace the insights of non-Western religions.<br /><br />Joseph Prabhu, a professor of philosophy at California State University, Los Angeles, and the editor of <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Intercultural-Challenge-Raimon-Panikkar-Faith/dp/1570750564"><span style="color: #990000;">“The Intercultural Challenge of Raimon Panikkar”</span></a> (1996) concerning Panikkar:<div><br /></div><div><blockquote>“He was one of the pioneers in opening up Christianity to other religions and learning from them,” and “We can see the new waves of Christianity moving toward the non-European world in the 21st century, and he prepared the ground for an authentic dialogue between Christianity and other faiths, and beyond that for the cross-cultural conversation which marks our globalized world.”</blockquote><p> </p><p>Panikkar was a prolific writer.<span face="sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #202122; font-size: 14px;"> </span>He wrote more than 40 books and 900 articles. His complete works are being published in Italian. His 1989 <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gifford_Lectures"><span style="color: #990000;">Gifford Lectures</span></a> were published in English by Orbis in 2009 under the title "The Rhythm of Being." His books include “The Trinity and the Religious Experience of Man” (1973), “The Cosmotheandric Experience: Emerging Religious Consciousness” (1993), “Christophany: The Fullness of Man” (2004) and “The Experience of God: Icons of the Mystery” (2006).</p>He explained, “Writing, to me, is intellectual life and also spiritual experience… it allows me to ponder deeply the mystery of reality.”</div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><b>Panikkar's limited scope</b></div><div><br /></div><div>As with many who study world religions, Panikkar's research and experiences were limited to the religions that emerged in the <a href="https://biblicalanthropology.blogspot.com/2015/11/understanding-axial-age.html"><span style="color: #990000;">Axial Age</span></a> (c. 1000-200 BC). He did not delve into the earlier religions of the ancient world, which would have exposed the <a href="https://biblicalanthropology.blogspot.com/2019/08/elements-of-messianic-faith-in-early.html"><span style="color: #990000;">Messianic elements in Vedic texts</span></a>. </div><div><br /></div><div><div>Hinduism is older than Judaism, but not older than the religion of the early Hebrew (4200 BC) who dispersed out of the Nile Valley into Arabia, Canaan, Mesopotamia, Anatolia, and the Indus Valley. The Rig Veda, the oldest Vedic text dates to between 1900 and 1200 BC, about 1000 years after the time of Abraham the Hebrew. Judaism emerged closer to 600 BC. The term "samhita" refers to the most ancient layer of text in the Vedas. Parts of the Vedic Samhitas constitute the oldest layer of Hindu tradition and include material that resembles early Hebrew concepts.<br /><br />In the Rig Veda, for example, the number seven is sacred, and the Word of God is called Speech and is described as "a loving wife, finely robed." She resembles the Wisdom of Sirach (Ecclesiasticus), personified as a female (Sirach 24:8). In Sirach, Wisdom declares that she “came forth from the mouth of the Most High” as the first-born before all creatures.<br /><br />In Srimad Bhagavatam 10:16 we find a parallel to Genesis 3:15 where we are told that the serpent's head will be crushed under the feet of the Woman's Son. The Hindu text reads: "The Ancient Man danced on the serpent, who still spewed poison from his eyes and hissed loudly in his anger, and he trampled down with his feet whatever head the serpent raised, subduing him calmly..." (Cited in Andrew Wilson, Ed. <u>World Scriptures</u>, p. 449.)<br /><div><br /></div><div>The same idea is found in Psalm 91:12-13 - "They will bear you up in their hands, that you do not strike your foot against a stone. You will tread upon the lion and cobra, the young lion and the serpent you will trample down."<br /><br />However, this expectation was expressed about 1000 years before Psalm 91 in the Pyramid Texts, a collection of mortuary texts. Utterance 388 says, "Horus has shattered (tbb, crushed) the mouth of the serpent with the sole of his foot (tbw)." </div></div><br />Scholars from India acknowledge the Nile-Indus connections. The Indian linguist Ajay Pratap Singh explains, "Comparisons of Akkadian and Sanskrit words yielded at least 400 words in both languages with comparable phonetic and semantic similarities. Thus, Sanskrit has, in fact, descended from Akkadian."<br /></div><div><br /></div><div>The Indian scholar <a href="https://www.tribuneindia.com/2000/20000820/spectrum/main7.htm" style="text-decoration-line: none;"><span style="color: black;">Malati J. Shendge</span></a> has concluded that the language of the Harappans of the Indus Valley was Akkadian, the language of the territory of Nimrod the Kushite Hebrew. </div><div><br /></div><div>Akkadian is the oldest known Semitic language. he Bible scholar, E.A. Speiser, found that names taken to be Indo-European were often labeled "Hurrian" [Horite] only to be identified eventually as Akkadian. The Horite Hebrew were widely dispersed and spoke the languages of the people among whom they lived. Scholars today use terms like Hurro-Akkadian, Hurro-Urartian, and <a href="https://www.academia.edu/229790/Canaano-Akkadian_Some_Methodological_Requisites_for_the_Study_of_the_Amarna_Letters_from_Canaan" style="color: #114f51; text-decoration-line: none;">Canaano-Akkadian</a>.</div><div><br /></div>Further evidence of the connection between the Nile Valley and the Indus Valley is demonstrated by comparing early Egyptian and Indus pottery inscriptions. Note that 17 figures under the headings "Indus Valley" and "Egyptian" are almost identical.<div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgV43IMnkWp_exMAhmuDN7AL8VAnGo7NzR10fOW4StBdRbxqxz8RA8pVQ1471pe-BcZqIHd_TIBHz3nU0_WnoyaYRkg3bmGaTTY3VU8qjjxD6HjZ_L8CWx9leKl0pZU6IY9MxgN4nyoVnGnXxhO10htIVKcXMESiWVK3l5-x6LkQtrb6jOjzc04Abxiey0/s1110/Figure%202%20Indus-Nile%20Inscriptions.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1110" data-original-width="560" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgV43IMnkWp_exMAhmuDN7AL8VAnGo7NzR10fOW4StBdRbxqxz8RA8pVQ1471pe-BcZqIHd_TIBHz3nU0_WnoyaYRkg3bmGaTTY3VU8qjjxD6HjZ_L8CWx9leKl0pZU6IY9MxgN4nyoVnGnXxhO10htIVKcXMESiWVK3l5-x6LkQtrb6jOjzc04Abxiey0/w189-h320/Figure%202%20Indus-Nile%20Inscriptions.jpg" width="189" /></a></div><div><br /></div><div><br /><div>The Indian archaeologist, B. B. Lal contends that the Dravidians came from the Upper Nile (Nubia/Kush). Lal writes:<br /><blockquote class="tr_bq"><i>"At Timos the Indian team dug up several megalithic sites of ancient Nubians which bear an uncanny resemblance to the cemeteries of early Dravidians which are found all over Western India from Kathiawar to Cape Comorin. The intriguing similarity extends from the subterranean structure found near them. Even the earthenware ring-stands used by the Dravidians and Nubians to hold pots were identical."</i></blockquote><p> </p>Some old Hindu fire altars were constructed in the shape of a falcon. The falcon was the totem of Horus (HR), who among the Horite Hebrew was the archetype of the son of the High God. This explains why the Shulba Sutras state that "he who desires heaven is to construct a fire-altar in the form of a falcon."<br /><br /><p><b> Anatomical Evidence</b></p>The German archaeologists Friedrichs and Muller identified some of the skulls of Mohenjo-Daro as "Hamitic." The term "Nilotic" would be more accurate.<br /><br />Paleontologists B.K. Chatterjee and G.D. Kumer reported in "Comparative Study and Racial Analysis of the Skeletal Remains of the Indus Valley Civilization" that the 18 Mohenjo-Daro and Harappa skulls that they examined are "similar to skulls from Nubia during the third to second Millennium B.C." (See Wayne Chandler: "The Jewel in the Lotus: The Ethiopian Presence in the Indus Valley Civilization" in <u>African Presence in Early Asia</u>, Ivan Van Sertima et. a1. eds., 1985 p. 87)</div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><b>Conclusion</b></div><div><b><br /></b></div><div> I propose that the universality of what we might call the "Proto-Gospel" is due to the wide dispersion of the early <a href="https://biblicalanthropology.blogspot.com/2022/05/the-hebrew-were-caste.html"><span style="color: #990000;">Hebrew ruler-priest caste</span></a> that moved out of Africa well before 3000 BC. It appears that the widely dispersed early Hebrew caste spread elements of their belief in God Father and God Son wherever they settled in the service of high kings. They expected a universal ruler to overcome death. The idea of a universal king who is divinely appointed to rule is found in the oldest layers of Hindu thought. The Sanskrit word <a href="https://www.sanskritdictionary.com/cakravartin/77845/1"><span style="color: #990000;">cakravartin</span></a> and the Pali word cakkavattin refer to a righteous king who rules over the entire world. His "messianic" rule is called <i>sar-vabhauma</i>. From Africa to Nepal the words <i>sar </i>and <i>sarki</i> refer to rulers and priests. This is the root of the royal title Sar-gon, which means High King or King of Kings. Nimrod's Akkadian name was Šarru-kīnu, which is usually translated “the true king.”</div><div><br /></div>These words are related to the Akkadian words <i>šarratum</i> - queen, <i>šarri </i>- divine, and <i>šarrum</i> - king.</div><div><br /><div><p>Read more at the <a href="https://www.raimon-panikkar.org/english/home.html"><span style="color: #990000;">Raimon Panikkar official website</span></a>, <a href="https://justgreatthought.blogspot.com/2024/02/joseph-campbells-limitations.html"><span style="color: #990000;">Joseph Campbell's Limitations</span></a>; <a href="https://www.tribuneindia.com/2000/20000820/spectrum/main7.htm"><span style="color: #990000;">Was Akkadian the language of the Indus Valley Civilization?</span></a>; <a href="https://biblicalanthropology.blogspot.com/2022/04/the-oldest-known-religion.html"><span style="color: #990000;">The Oldest Known Religion</span></a>; <a href="https://biblicalanthropology.blogspot.com/2019/08/elements-of-messianic-faith-in-early.html"><span style="color: #990000;">Elements of the Messianic Faith in Early Hinduism</span></a>; <a href="https://justgreatthought.blogspot.com/2024/02/carlos-castanedas-limitations.html"><span style="color: #990000;">Carlos Castaneda's Limitations</span></a></p><p><br /></p></div></div>Alice C. Linsleyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13069827354696169270noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6499463045181557795.post-2337608874833830712024-02-11T16:43:00.008-07:002024-03-15T14:06:42.002-06:00Joseph Campbell's Limitations<p> </p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhsQgCGYnPKk8IRxTIHLzbjbaBq6dbG8EtL8J23IClvavzKUclrWEQOot2e5Ha9V7ryC4cmoIVwDZflsiO1YyPQGvcAYb2D4iDQQ6-zOMAXf0a8KEBDgkSBYRH3tAgwwIZX9Pa4Gs-ucVCzKWJ_atuq6Y8-_BBlwSWkGkO6TVcmFIrB2zXAL_ZhcnEktEM/s470/Joseph_Campbell%20in%20late%201970s.png" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="470" data-original-width="330" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhsQgCGYnPKk8IRxTIHLzbjbaBq6dbG8EtL8J23IClvavzKUclrWEQOot2e5Ha9V7ryC4cmoIVwDZflsiO1YyPQGvcAYb2D4iDQQ6-zOMAXf0a8KEBDgkSBYRH3tAgwwIZX9Pa4Gs-ucVCzKWJ_atuq6Y8-_BBlwSWkGkO6TVcmFIrB2zXAL_ZhcnEktEM/s320/Joseph_Campbell%20in%20late%201970s.png" width="225" /></a></div><p style="text-align: center;">Joseph Campbell in the late 1970s (Wikipedia).</p><p><br /></p><p>This is the first essay in a series on the failure of leading 20th century mythologists to uncover significant antecedents of the religions they studied. The second addresses <a href="https://justgreatthought.blogspot.com/2024/02/raimon-panikkars-limitations.html"><span style="color: #990000;">Raimon Panikkar's Limitations</span></a>, the third concerns the <a href="https://justgreatthought.blogspot.com/2024/02/carlos-castanedas-limitations.html"><span style="color: #990000;">limitations of Carlos Castaneda</span></a>, and the fourth essay considers the strengths and weaknesses of <a href="https://justgreatthought.blogspot.com/2024/03/mircea-eliades-limitations.html"><span style="color: #990000;">Mircea Eliade's work</span></a>. </p><p><br /></p><p>Dr. Alice C. Linsley</p><p>Joseph Campbell (1904-1987) was the most notable mythologist of the twentieth century and a prolific writer. His thought was influenced by the work of Carl Jung, James Joyce, and Heinrich Zimmer on Indian myths and Hindu philosophy.</p><p>I have read most of Joseph Campbell's books including The Masks of God: Occidental Mythology (1964); Myths to Live By (1972); Primitive Mythology (1987); and The Hero's Journey (1990). As an anthropologist with a strong background in philosophy, I appreciate his extensive cultural research and range of thought. The enduring power of myth and symbol is evident in what he has written. He makes significant connections between the religious traditions of the world and provides examples of how mythic themes and motifs are enacted ritually.</p><p>Campbell was attuned to the unification hopes of many intellectuals of his time, and he hoped that his work might contribute to "human mutual understanding" (Introduction of The Hero's Journey). As Robert Ellwood notes in his book <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Politics-Myth-Mircea-Campbell-Religion/dp/079144306X"><span style="color: #990000;">The Politics of Myth</span></a> (1999), Campbell believed that ancient myths are a valuable resource for people "baffled by the ambiguities and superficiality of modern life".</p><p><span face="sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #202122; font-size: 14px;">I</span>n his book <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hero_with_a_Thousand_Faces"><span style="color: #990000;">The Hero with a Thousand Faces</span></a> (1949), Campbell discusses his theory of the journey of the archetypal hero common to most world mythologies. He called this the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monomyth"><span style="color: #990000;">monomyth</span></a>. Campbell does not offer a detailed explanation for how this emerges universally, but he suggests that it is deeply rooted in Mankind's collective unconscious (The Hero's Journey, p. 57). I propose that the universality is due to the wide dispersion of the early <a href="https://biblicalanthropology.blogspot.com/2022/05/the-hebrew-were-caste.html"><span style="color: #990000;">Hebrew ruler-priest caste</span></a> that moved out of Africa well before 3000 BC and spread what might be called the "<a href="https://jandyongenesis.blogspot.com/2011/08/is-it-possible-to-speak-of-proto-gospel.html"><span style="color: #990000;">Proto-Gospel</span></a>" wherever they settled.</p><p>Campbell delves into myths of Native Americans, Hinduism, Judaism, Islam, and animistic religions. He sometimes strays with seeming reluctance into the territory of the Roman Catholic faith in which he was raised, but never to elevate it above the other faiths. He stopped attending Mass as a communicant in his twenties. </p><p>Perhaps Campbell embraced the symbolism of Christ, the Immortal Hero, on his deathbed in a Catholic hospital. In an interview with his widow entitled "Campbell and Catholicism", the Catholic journalist Pythia Peay reports that Campbell "experienced profoundly the depths of the Christian symbol" during the last weeks of his life. She quotes his wife Jean Erdman as saying, "He was thrilled to see that [Christus Victor Cross] because for him this was the mystical meaning of Christ that reflected the state of at-one-ment with the Father. It had been through this image that he had come to a resolution the problem of his Catholic religion. While he didn't say it in so many words, "he was probably preparing himself for eternity." In the hospital, according to his wife, "he experienced emotionally what he had before understood intellectually."</p><p>However, Campbell did not receive the Last Rites and there was no formal religious service at his burial.</p><p><br /></p><p><b>The Limits of Campbell's Exploration</b></p><p>Most of the myths that Campbell explored come from religions that emerged in the <a href="His thought was influenced by the work of Carl Jung, James Joyce, and Heinrich Zimmer on Indian myths and Hindu philosophy."><span style="color: #990000;">Axial Age</span></a> (c. 900-200 BC): Hinduism (the Upanishads), Judaism, Buddhism, Jainism, Daoism (Taoism), the Mediterranean mystery cults, and Zoroastrianism.</p><p>Even his discussions of Nilotic myths involve the late syncretistic expressions of Egyptian imperialism. He does not explore the antecedents of the <a href="https://jandyongenesis.blogspot.com/2015/05/the-re-horus-hathor-narrative.html"><span style="color: #990000;">Ra-Horus-Hathor narrative</span></a> among the early Horite Hebrew at <a href="https://jandyongenesis.blogspot.com/2014/05/why-nekhen-is-anthropologically.html"><span style="color: #990000;">Nekhen</span></a> (4200 BC).</p><p>The core dogmas concerning the life-generating Spirit, God Father and God Son, including the Son's divine conception by overshadowing, his third day resurrection, his descent to the place of the dead to declare good tidings, and his co-substantial and co-equal nature with the Father were already held by the early Hebrew long before Judaism.</p>The Edenic Promise of Genesis 3:15 foretells how the Woman (not Eve) would bring forth a son who would crush the serpent's head and restore paradise. Psalm 91, recognized as a Messianic psalm, says, "You will tread on the lion and the adder; the young lion and the serpent you will trample underfoot." This early Hebrew expectation was expressed about 1000 years before Psalm 91:14 in the Ancient Pyramid Texts. "Horus has shattered (<i>tbb</i>, crushed) the mouth of the serpent with the sole of his foot (<i>tbw</i>)" (Utterance 388).<div><br /></div><div>Horus is the Greek for the Ancient Egyptian HR, meaning "Most High One" or "Hidden One". He is hidden by His own radiance. The terms for ritual purity in Sumerian, Akkadian, biblical Hebrew, Hittite, and Ugaritic are related to the idea of radiance. (See <a href="https://www.academia.edu/7420930/The_Semantics_of_Purity_in_the_Ancient_Near_East_Lexical_Meaning_as_a_Projection_of_Embodied_Experience"><span style="color: #990000;">The Semantics of Purity in the Ancient Near East</span></a>, p. 5). The ancient Nilotes associated purity with the radiance of the sun, the emblem of the High God Re. In Ancient Egyptian, Re means "Father".</div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi1cJ2Q5gRXsF1nwJrvACm9FPUPO3FCc5ahkyZ5Ae5LW6Pq8FQG2_XxnB3oa9dqmjXcADYdGQj7BXTLiNs17pez0LLbRc7ZPFY1n9ip_9FfyybWgG3wiZTm1oFA9BETjcDlytm__Efn-SDQ57gdJX_MFbIgp-4JubrEfBB6MvT6XIMdHLlbwESJv9u0zyg/s300/Hathor%20overshadowed.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="300" data-original-width="200" height="300" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi1cJ2Q5gRXsF1nwJrvACm9FPUPO3FCc5ahkyZ5Ae5LW6Pq8FQG2_XxnB3oa9dqmjXcADYdGQj7BXTLiNs17pez0LLbRc7ZPFY1n9ip_9FfyybWgG3wiZTm1oFA9BETjcDlytm__Efn-SDQ57gdJX_MFbIgp-4JubrEfBB6MvT6XIMdHLlbwESJv9u0zyg/s1600/Hathor%20overshadowed.jpg" width="200" /></a></div><br /><div style="text-align: center;">Hathor overshadowed.</div><div><br /></div><div><br />As the sun was the symbol of <a href="https://biblicalanthropology.blogspot.com/2022/07/belief-in-high-god.html"><span style="color: #990000;">the High God</span></a> and his Son among the early Hebrew, divine appointment was expressed by overshadowing. When the Virgin Mary asked how she was to become the mother of the Messiah, the angel answered, "The Holy Spirit will come on you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. So the holy one to be born will be called the Son of God." (Luke 1:35)<div><br /></div><div>A <a href="https://www.academia.edu/25013844/The_First_Tablet_of_the_Hurritic_Bilingual_Song_of_Release_in_the_Light_of_Hurritic_Mythological_Tradition_UGARIT-FORSCHUNGEN_Internationales_Jahrbuch_f%C3%BCr_die_Altertumskunde_Syrien-Pal%C3%A4stinas_Herausgegeben_von_Band_44_2013_In_memoriam_Pierre_Bordreuil_121-142"><span style="color: #990000;">Horite song found at the royal complex at Ugarit</span></a>, speaks of HR (Horus) who descends to the place of the dead "to announce good tidings." The text reads: <i>Hr ešeni timerri duri</i> - "below in the dark netherworld" and has the Hittite phrase <i>Šanizzin ḫalukan ḫalzi</i> - "to announce good tidings". (See Note 2 on page 2012.) </div><div><br /></div><div>Horus is described as rising on the third day and ascending to the place of the immortal stars. (<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyramid_Texts"><span style="color: #990000;">The Ancient Egyptian Pyramid Texts</span></a>, Utterance 667).</div><div><br /></div><div>In the Pyramid Texts, a priest's prayer on behalf of the King, he says, "Horus is a soul and he recognizes his Father in you." (Utterance 423) </div><div><br /></div>In the Egyptian Book of the Dead, Horus is called the "advocate of his father" (cf. 1 John 2:1). The Son's advocacy is militant as described in Psalm 110:1 - The Lord says to my Lord: "Sit at My right hand until I make Your enemies a footstool for Your feet." This belief is expressed 1000 years earlier in the Coffin Texts (Passage 148). "I am Horus, the great Falcon upon the ramparts of the house of him of the hidden name. My flight has reached the horizon. I have passed by the gods of Nut. I have gone further than the gods of old. Even the most ancient bird could not equal my very first flight. I have removed my place beyond the powers of Set, the foe of my father Osiris. No other god could do what I have done. I have brought the ways of eternity to the twilight of the morning. I am unique in my flight. My wrath will be turned against the enemy of my father Osiris and I will put him beneath my feet in my name of 'Red Cloak'." (<a href="https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0500271127/ref=x_gr_bb_amazon"><span style="color: #990000;">Myth and Symbol in Ancient Egypt</span></a> by R.T. Rundle Clark, p. 216)</div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><b>Conclusion</b></div><div><br /></div><div>Joseph Campbell's work remains a rich source of valuable information for anthropologists, philosophers, and students of world religions. He was writing before some of the information I have provided about the early Hebrew was available. R. O. Faulkner's English translation of the Pyramid Texts had only appeared in 1969. <a href="https://biblicalanthropology.blogspot.com/2023/07/dont-miss-this-book.html"><span style="color: #990000;">My own research</span></a> into the myths of the early Nilotic populations, including the <a href="https://biblicalanthropology.blogspot.com/2019/11/horite-mounds.html"><span style="color: #990000;">Horite and Sethite Hebrew</span></a>, began only 3 years before Campbell died in 1987.<br /><div><br /></div><div><p><b>Related Reading</b>:</p><p><a href="https://www.patheos.com/blogs/standingonmyhead/2018/03/joseph-campbell-left-catholic-church.html">Why Joseph Campbell Left the Catholic Church | Fr. Dwight Longenecker (patheos.com)</a></p><p><a href="https://theimaginativeconservative.org/2022/03/impact-mythologist-joseph-campbell-dwight-longenecker.html">The Impact of Mythologist Joseph Campbell ~ The Imaginative Conservative</a></p><p><a href="https://catholicherald.co.uk/heretic-of-the-week-joseph-campbell/">Heretic of the week: Joseph Campbell - Catholic Herald</a></p><p><a href="https://www.ncronline.org/blogs/earthbeat/eco-catholic/joseph-campbell-earth-heavens">Joseph Campbell: 'Earth is in the heavens' | National Catholic Reporter (ncronline.org)</a></p><p><a href="https://catholicheartandmind.com/2009/05/15/joseph-campbell-was-once-my-hero/">Joseph Campbell was once my hero – Catholic Heart and Mind</a></p><p><a href="https://www.coho-archive.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=364">Campbell and the Deathbed Conversion - Joseph Campbell Foundation (coho-archive.org)</a></p><div><br /></div></div></div>Alice C. Linsleyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13069827354696169270noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6499463045181557795.post-62129623823660954582024-01-14T13:44:00.003-07:002024-01-14T13:44:35.920-07:00Richard Hooker Matters More than Ever!<p> </p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjjBdh1TniWowiBipF0zDFKPrmaho8gqXuMRcsfLrj1vNjibLu2arAx9AKshx8qKAWTgaFV3jLsSCJ4Ph3m6XxtcZLDUmXEHvcmlekq6Pu5Nx8MxWeytynzhNFVUxNWYkMnn-WgPNed-flXjcyY2Qh1M1WgntGsPBgHXSn8EisEwSvwExG0sR2GsjjpRT4/s772/71yHXES46+L._AC_SX679_.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="772" data-original-width="679" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjjBdh1TniWowiBipF0zDFKPrmaho8gqXuMRcsfLrj1vNjibLu2arAx9AKshx8qKAWTgaFV3jLsSCJ4Ph3m6XxtcZLDUmXEHvcmlekq6Pu5Nx8MxWeytynzhNFVUxNWYkMnn-WgPNed-flXjcyY2Qh1M1WgntGsPBgHXSn8EisEwSvwExG0sR2GsjjpRT4/s320/71yHXES46+L._AC_SX679_.jpg" width="281" /></a></div><p><br /></p><p>Richard Hooker wrote, "What Scripture doth plainly deliver, to that the first place both of credit and obedience are due; the next whereunto, is what any man can necessarily conclude by force of Reason; after this, the voice of the church succeedeth." (Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity 5,8,2)</p>Richard Hooker (1554-1600) wrote Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity to stake out a middle course between Calvinism on the one hand and the Roman Catholicism on the other. Hooker was unsparing in his censure of Rome, yet his contemporary, Pope Clement VIII (died 1605), said of Hooker's book: "It has in it such seeds of eternity that it will abide until the last fire shall consume all learning."<div><br /></div><div>Hooker's book set a path for historic Anglicanism. He wrote with the rationality and seasoned reasoning of a lawyer. The Anglican Way relies on the faculty of reason in opposition to sensation and emotion. It is a reasonable faith that finds expression in the works of great thinkers such as Anselm of Canterbury, Richard Hooker, and John Keble. Empiricism flourished in the British Isles among members of the Church of England, and though British Empiricism took an anti-Church turn, it owes much to the Anglican intellectual environment.</div><div><br /></div><div>In our day, many Anglicans, Protestants, and Roman Catholics have become unhitched to the core doctrines of the received tradition that we call "Christianity." Reading Hooker, as challenging as that may be for modern readers, is a grounding experience. <br /><div><br /></div><div>In <a href="https://youtu.be/q2QsB0RswcE"><span style="color: #990000;">this video</span></a>, Dr Andrea Russell (University of Nottingham) explains why Hooker's book is still important today. It is about how we discern God's presence in the world and how Scripture is our authority. <br /><br /></div><div><br /></div><div>Related reading: <a href="https://northamanglican.com/review-orthodox-anglican-identity-by-charles-erlandson/"><span style="color: #990000;">Review of Charles Erlandson's Book "Orthodox Anglican Identity"</span></a>; <a href="http://justus.anglican.org/resources/bio/64.html"><span style="color: #990000;">Richard Hooker, Doctor of the Church</span></a></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div></div>Alice C. Linsleyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13069827354696169270noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6499463045181557795.post-87356348319308204482023-09-19T14:52:00.000-06:002023-09-19T14:52:27.922-06:00Kierkegaard on Abraham, a "Knight of Faith"<p> </p><p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEjsg0k2I7jxyTh190EHhVC2_tY_0dRETg_DSpvuuO8YlRzoVWD1qPoje4o5CWM9YEM7MrblBUaadOsQ8iDDR2Yfdl6iRo69Xkib1TxEFZxskpZ4BhHE5x2uk0YDizoWLU58eqVSKo5kGiiVH8bzFKbOt0xWPkLOZ_oHa_KM9QC3pGZFD9vi4frCQoEDGNQ" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="" data-original-height="138" data-original-width="314" height="141" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEjsg0k2I7jxyTh190EHhVC2_tY_0dRETg_DSpvuuO8YlRzoVWD1qPoje4o5CWM9YEM7MrblBUaadOsQ8iDDR2Yfdl6iRo69Xkib1TxEFZxskpZ4BhHE5x2uk0YDizoWLU58eqVSKo5kGiiVH8bzFKbOt0xWPkLOZ_oHa_KM9QC3pGZFD9vi4frCQoEDGNQ" width="320" /></a></div><br /><br /><p></p><p>Dr. Alice C. Linsley</p><p>Søren Kierkegaard (1813-1855) was a brilliant philosopher who was critical of Romanticism’s emphasis on naturalism and Empiricism’s claim that moral judgment must be based on reason and verifiable data. He believed that the basis for forming moral judgment is always subjective and that it requires surrender to God.<br style="background-color: #f6f6f6; font-family: "Trebuchet MS", Trebuchet, Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;" /><br style="background-color: #f6f6f6; font-family: "Trebuchet MS", Trebuchet, Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;" />Although the term “existentialism” never appears in Kierkegaard’s writings, he is regarded as the founder of Christian Existentialism. Kierkegaard believed that the value of philosophers’ thoughts should be judged by their lives rather than by their intellectual conceptions because ultimately, the individual’s life is the basis upon which he is judged by God. As important as a writer's work is to his existence, it is his life as a whole that ultimately matters to God. This is why Kierkegaard was attracted to the lives of saintly figures, especially biblical Abraham, who he called a “knight of faith.”<br /><br />Kierkegaard and Nietzsche shared the realization that anything decided to be meaningful must come from within the individual. It is the human race itself that attributes meaning. In Kierkegaard’s Fear and Trembling and in Nietzsche’s <a href="https://philosophy.ucsc.edu/news-events/colloquia-conferences/GeneologyofMorals.pdf"><span style="color: #990000;">On the Genealogy of Morals</span></a>, each philosopher sets out to discover the importance of subjective human emotion, and the role of human freedom in the universe.</p><p>While Nietzsche’s immoral Superman is the embodiment of his philosophy, Abraham is the embodiment of Kierkegaard’s existentialist philosophy. For Kierkegaard, true individuality comes through surrendering one’s individuality. Abraham discovers his meaning in the cosmos through losing himself in God, but when one tries to explain this to another person, the explanation seems absurd.</p><div style="background-color: #f6f6f6; font-family: "Trebuchet MS", Trebuchet, Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;"></div>Kierkegaard recognizes an existential duty to a Creator whose moral authority outranks all social norms. He views Abraham's near sacrifice of his son as a consequence of a “teleological suspension of the ethical” rather than as an expression of obedience to social norms (this assumes that child sacrifice was practiced among Abraham’s people). From Kierkegaard's perspective, the distinction between good and evil is dependent exclusively on God. Therefore, it is possible for Abraham to live and act beyond the prescribed norms of his day to fulfill a spiritual destiny that he alone could fulfill.<br /><br />In Kierkegaard's scheme it makes little difference whether the son bound was Isaac (as Jews claim) or Ishmael (as Muslims claim). The story is not about recognition of the firstborn son, but about the surrender of Abraham's very being in an existential sacrifice that by faith overcomes despair.<br /><br />Ethical cases such as Abraham's are problematic since we have no public policy to guide our decision about whether Abraham is obeying God's command or is delusional. For this reason Kierkegaard’s existential philosophy can’t be used to formulate specific ethical guidelines for society. It is simply too personal and too subjective. However, for Christians it is extremely relevant because it points to the necessity of spiritual ascent, divine enlightenment, and a deepening of communion with God.<br /><br />Kierkegaard found inspiration in both Abraham and in the lives of the saints, especially the sixth-century monk, John Climacus, who spent his days in solitude, prayer and fasting at the monastery on Mount Sinai. Climacus wrote “The Ladder of Divine Ascent,” a work arranged into thirty chapters or “steps.” Each step details the vices that the individual must conquer and the virtues that the individual must perfect in order to ascend the spiritual “ladder” to the Kingdom of Heaven. Here are some of his famous sayings:<br /><br />Step 1: A Christian is one who imitated Christ in thought, word and deed. A lover of God is one who lives in communion with all that is natural and sinless.<br /><br />Step 5: Repentance is a contract with God for a second life. A penitent inflicts his own punishment upon himself.<br /><br />Step 9: If you forgive quickly, you, too, will be quickly forgiven.<br /><br />Step 15: Purity is putting on the nature of angels. It is the longed-for house of Christ and the earthly heaven of the heart.<br /><br />Step 17: He who has tasted the things on high easily despises what is below. He who has not, only finds joy in possessions.<br /><br />Step 25: Humility is a divine shelter which prevents us from seeing our achievements.<br /><br />Step 50: There remain three virtues that bind and secure the union of all: Faith, Hope and Love--- and the greatest of these is Love.<br /><br />Kierkegaard published Philosophical Fragments using the name “John Climacus”. In this work, he poses 3 questions:<br /><br />What is the relationship between history (temporal existence) and human consciousness (eternal existence)?<br /><br />Is there any purpose or meaning to events in our temporal existence other than historical interest?<br /><br />Is it possible to base eternal happiness upon historical knowledge?<div><br />Kierkegaard’s solution was to find a link between the historical/temporal and the eternal/non-temporal. He does that by explaining knowledge as miraculous. He agrees with the Socratic-Platonic view that there is no learning, since one can’t learn what one already knows. Drawing on John Climacus’ understanding of spiritual enlightenment, Kierkegaard argues that learning involves a mysterious change that takes place in the learner at a specific moment of his existence - a moment of enlightenment. In this moment, the learner is absolutely certain that he/she has grasped eternal knowledge. Kierkegaard maintains that this is miraculous and supernatural because it can only be initiated by God through a series of historical/temporal events. This learning (or enlightenment) is individual, subjective and unique for every learner.<br /><br />Kierkegaard argues further that individuals are unable to know anything that is certain except through this supernatural intervention in history. In this sense, Kierkegaard is a Skeptic who doubts that humans are able of our own faculties to learn or know anything.<br /><br />So what makes learning or enlightenment possible? Kierkegaard recognizes that human existence involves suffering, anguish, pain, sickness and death. That being our plight, we naturally desire an escape. This desire is very powerful. It is a yearning for the eternal that leads us to “leap into absurdity”.<br /><br />What is the absurdity? For Kierkegaard, it is the supernatural intervention of the divine Person Jesus Christ entering history, making it possible for us to know that God exists. The existence of God cannot be proved by reason, by experimentation, by logic or through observation. Only by faith in this divine intervention can one hope to escape the suffering of this life and move from ignorance to enlightenment. Here we see how Kierkegaard’s “supernaturalism” is clearly the opposite of the naturalism of Nietzsche and the Romantics.<br /><br />Whereas Nietzsche rejected the prevailing morality in favor of his unique brand of “immoralism”, Kierkegaard presents social norms as "the universal" measure of service to the community. Even human sacrifice is justified in terms of how it serves the community, so when Agamemnon sacrifices his daughter Iphigenia he is performing a tragic sacrifice in order that the Greek expedition to Troy may succeed. Were Abraham’s intention in sacrificing Isaac to gain worldly success, he would simply be another tragic hero like Agamemnon. But as Kierkegaard understands the story of <a href="http://jandyongenesis.blogspot.com/2008/01/mount-moriah.html"><span style="color: #990000;">Mount Moriah</span></a>, it is Abraham’s absolute surrender to God that makes possible his receiving back his offering and much more. Kierkegaard explains, “Infinite resignation is the last stage before faith …for only in infinite resignation do I become conscious of my external validity, and only then can one speak of grasping existence by virtue of faith.”</div><div><br /></div><div>Kierkegaard's philosophical approach to the "Binding of Isaac" does not take into account the Horite Hebrew understanding of what happened in the Lamb-to-Ram sequence. The biblical narrative today is best understood through the science of anthropology, not philosophy. <a href="https://jandyongenesis.blogspot.com/2010/05/did-abraham-believe-isaac-to-be-messiah.html"><span style="color: #990000;">What Abraham discovered on Mount Moriah</span></a> concerned the solar symbolism of his religion. </div><div><br /></div>As Abraham and Isaac ascended Mount Moriah, Isaac asked his father, "Where is the lamb for the sacrifice? Abraham replied that God would provide the lamb. However, God provided a ram instead. To understand what this would have meant to Abraham, we must investigate the early Hebrew beliefs concerning the expected <a href="http://biblicalanthropology.blogspot.com/2012/02/righteous-rulers-and-resurrection.html"><span style="color: #990000;">Righteous Ruler</span></a> who would die and overcome death on the third day.<br /><br />For Abraham the Horite Hebrew, the lamb was associated with the east and the rising sun. The <a href="http://biblicalanthropology.blogspot.com/2016/02/ram-symbolism-of-ancient-world.html"><span style="color: #990000;">ram</span></a> was associated with the west and the future. The solar boat that makes its daily journey from east to west was ridden by Horus and his father. The boat of the morning hours was called "Mandjet", and the boat of the evening hours was called "Mesektet". While Horus was on the Mesektet, he was in his ram-headed form. <a href="http://books.google.com/books?id=NPXcxcCLOjYC&pg=PA287&lpg=PA287&dq=was+Horus+called+the+Lamb+or+the+Ram%3F&source=bl&ots=xTQU3tT5lt&sig=hJOMht5EFHmZOdVQsJG4SIM8w8M&hl=en&ei=1hDLTKmGMYa8lQenn7nrCg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBMQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=was%20Horus%20called%20the%20Lamb%20or%20the%20Ram%3F&f=false"><span style="color: #990000;">Horus was the Lamb</span></a> in his weaker (kenotic) existence, and he was the Ram in his glorified resurrection strength. Both are associated with the death and resurrection expectation of Abraham's Horite Hebrew people. <br /><br /><div><br />Related reading: <a href="http://justgreatthought.blogspot.com/2013/08/sren-kierkegaard-1813-1855.html"><span style="color: #990000;">About Søren Kierkegaard</span></a>; <a href="https://ndpr.nd.edu/reviews/kierkegaard-s-fear-and-trembling-a-critical-guide/"><span style="color: #990000;">A Critical Guide to Kierkegaard's Fear and Trembling</span></a>; <a href="https://jandyongenesis.blogspot.com/2020/06/abrahams-faith-lives-in-christianity.html"><span style="color: #990000;">Abraham's Faith Lives in Christianity</span></a></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div>Alice C. Linsleyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13069827354696169270noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6499463045181557795.post-53419794216001992762023-07-30T20:54:00.006-06:002023-08-20T16:46:28.191-06:00The First Lords and Messianic Expectation<p> </p><p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgTepv-Ii5fPKkC-JJVaGga2P_HaHPJ_87fMDZEHqpxPPXFYs-Et8hq88yGqwK5Wbw2szZ7FKuVXwcfGRF5NS4k_jXQKLQ_4OajGMikQavqidgphE-DOaSdS9INtqF21DghNaUb70ooymY21zr6kShV8tmSzYczcTZobFWhq4gIfu_ixYlxLLxqTxeuiV8/s3469/Book%20cover.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="2625" data-original-width="3469" height="299" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgTepv-Ii5fPKkC-JJVaGga2P_HaHPJ_87fMDZEHqpxPPXFYs-Et8hq88yGqwK5Wbw2szZ7FKuVXwcfGRF5NS4k_jXQKLQ_4OajGMikQavqidgphE-DOaSdS9INtqF21DghNaUb70ooymY21zr6kShV8tmSzYczcTZobFWhq4gIfu_ixYlxLLxqTxeuiV8/w400-h299/Book%20cover.jpg" width="400" /></a></div><p></p><p><br /></p><p>Dr. Alice C. Linsley</p><p><br /></p><p>My book, <a href="https://www.amazon.com/dp/1961282968/ref=tmm_hrd_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=1689374818&sr=1-2"><span style="color: #990000;">The First Lords of the Earth: An Anthropological Study</span></a>, is available on Amazon. The book identifies the social structure and religious beliefs of the early <a href="https://biblicalanthropology.blogspot.com/2022/05/the-hebrew-were-caste.html"><span style="color: #990000;">Hebrew ruler-priest caste</span></a> (6200-4000 years ago), their dispersion out of Africa, their territorial expansion, trade routes, and their influence on the populations of the Fertile Crescent and Ancient Near East. </p><p>The book traces the antecedents of the Messianic Faith that we call "Christianity" back to its earliest known adherents, the Horite and Sethite Hebrew. The oldest known site of their worship was at <a href="http://jandyongenesis.blogspot.com/2015/01/the-shrine-city-of-nekhen.html"><span style="color: #990000;">Nekhen on the Nile</span></a>, and it predates the step pyramid of King Djoser (Third Dynasty) who ruled for 75 years. Djoser inaugurated an era of monumental stone buildings that inspired the Great Pyramids. The oldest known tomb at Nekhen, with painted mural on its plaster walls, dates to c.3500–3200 B.C.</p><p>This is <a href="https://asa-cwis.blogspot.com/2023/07/first-lords-is-paradigm-shifting-book.html"><span style="color: #990000;">a paradigm-shifting book</span></a>!</p><p>The research took 40 years, but I was able to make a rather complex subject easy to understand. I hope you will buy the book and discover answers to some perennial questions, such as:</p><p></p><ul><li>Who were the Horite Hebrew and the Sethite Hebrew?</li><li>Where is the oldest known site of Horite Hebrew worship?</li><li>Why did many Hebrew men have two wives?</li><li>What was the difference in status between wives and concubines?</li><li>What types of authority did the biblical Hebrew recognize?</li><li>How did their acute observation of the patterns in Nature inform their reasoning? </li><li>If Judaism is NOT the Faith of the early Hebrew, what did they believe?</li></ul><div><br /></div>Given what is known today about the biblical Hebrew, we must make a distinction between the doctrine that the Godhead is fully revealed in Jesus Christ, and the chronological snobbery of believing that only after his appearing can the Gospel be understood. These are two distinct assertions.<br /><br />The book questions the assumption that the biblical writers did not have a grasp on the significance of what they wrote and that the true meaning is only is apparent in the light of events which happened after they were dead. (This is asserted by many commentators on the Bible, including <a href="https://justgreatthought.blogspot.com/2023/07/cs-lewis-on-pagan-christs.html"><span style="color: #990000;">C.S. Lewis</span></a>.) The evidence set forth in my book indicates that this is not an accurate assessment. The Hebrew writers had a better grasp of the pattern of the Gospel than many Christians do today. They believed in God Father and God Son, and they hoped for bodily resurrection. This pattern of belief implies that the core dogmas of Christianity have very deep roots.<div><br /></div><div>One evidence that the early Hebrew expected the Son of God to come in the flesh was their belief that his victory over death would be proclaimed first to those who rested in anticipation of his appearing. This happened when Christ descended to the place of the dead to proclaim glad tidings. A Horite Hebrew song <a href="https://www.academia.edu/25013844/The_First_Tablet_of_the_Hurritic_Bilingual_Song_of_Release_in_the_Light_of_Hurritic_Mythological_Tradition_UGARIT-FORSCHUNGEN_Internationales_Jahrbuch_f%C3%BCr_die_Altertumskunde_Syrien-Pal%C3%A4stinas_Herausgegeben_von_Band_44_2013_In_memoriam_Pierre_Bordreuil_121-142" style="color: #de7008;"><span style="color: #990000;">found at the royal complex at Ugarit</span></a> speaks of HR descending to the place of the dead "to announce good tidings." HR in ancient Egyptian means "Most High One".<div><br style="background-color: #f6f6f6; font-family: "Trebuchet MS", Trebuchet, Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;" /></div><div><div>Purchase options include Kindle, paperback, or hard cover and all are priced to accommodate the book lover on a tight budget. </div><div><br /></div><div>I hope you will find the book helpful and informative. The sequel "The First First Ladies" will be available in July 2024.</div><div><br /></div><p>Best wishes,</p><p>Alice C. Linsley</p><p><br /></p><p>Related reading: <a href="http://college-ethics.blogspot.com/2023/08/first-lords-and-their-authority.html"><span style="color: #990000;">The First Lords and Their Authority</span></a>; <a href="https://jandyongenesis.blogspot.com/2023/05/jesus-christ-in-hebrew-scriptures.html"><span style="color: #990000;">Jesus Christ in the Hebrew Scriptures</span></a>; <a href="http://college-ethics.blogspot.com/2023/04/binary-reasoning-informs-christian.html"><span style="color: #990000;">Binary Reasoning Informs Christian Morality and Ethics</span></a>; <a href="https://justgreatthought.blogspot.com/2023/07/cs-lewis-on-pagan-christs.html"><span style="color: #990000;">C.S. Lewis on "Pagan Christs"</span></a></p><p><br /><br /></p></div></div>Alice C. Linsleyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13069827354696169270noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6499463045181557795.post-84185361030470807882023-07-14T15:41:00.003-06:002023-07-14T15:41:43.329-06:00The Value of Studying Philosophy<p> </p><p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEjUw8bxielW24nco8rP1TgLZ3G2JwVmK_i02cpmLRJjRMdqN0nE_vZEVZlNn4flTT8Z8K3k3Ysxp5T1mnDjyC8XRKcobZB1Nr7sk0Qrp4VV7L_z7mqs4RNcM51cyl52oxwjPXUoMRhcIp2wnGXwI2gnyBYPaH_4TfFCcJZeeWaZDc4SFwatszKYNnxl6V0" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="" data-original-height="214" data-original-width="320" height="214" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEjUw8bxielW24nco8rP1TgLZ3G2JwVmK_i02cpmLRJjRMdqN0nE_vZEVZlNn4flTT8Z8K3k3Ysxp5T1mnDjyC8XRKcobZB1Nr7sk0Qrp4VV7L_z7mqs4RNcM51cyl52oxwjPXUoMRhcIp2wnGXwI2gnyBYPaH_4TfFCcJZeeWaZDc4SFwatszKYNnxl6V0" width="320" /></a></div><br /><br /><p></p><p>Alice C. Linsley</p><p>I enjoyed reading Shannon Rupp's article <a href="https://www.salon.com/2013/07/01/be_employable_study_philosophy_partner/"><span style="color: #990000;">Be employable, study philosophy</span></a>. He believes that "The discipline teaches you how to think clearly, a gift that can be applied to just about any line of work."</p><p>This is an excerpt from that essay:</p><p><br /></p><blockquote>The philosophy of science was also surprisingly useful. That's where I learned about journalism's misunderstood concept of "objectivity." Journalists borrowed the notion from science in the 19th century, but by the late 20th century many people confused it with being fair or denying personal bias. As newspapers began introducing advertorial copy and advertiser-driven sections, they retrained their staff to talk about "balance" instead of objectivity. As if printing opposing opinions somehow makes up for running half-truths.<br /><br />What objectivity really means is to test for accuracy -- regardless of what you suspect (or hope) might be true. In science they test knowledge by trying to poke holes in each other's research. News reporters were taught a variation summed up by the cliché, "If someone tells you it's raining, look out the window."</blockquote><p> </p><p>I agree that "disciplines that train us to think more clearly in any field never lose their value." I have seen the benefits reaped by former students who learned to think clearly and to articulate their thoughts in a thoughtful way. They are successful in their lines of work. Some work in the Thoroughbred horse industry. Some are secondary school teachers, marketers, recruiters, business owners, investment advisors, and journalists.</p><p>It may be true that students who study philosophy <a href="https://justgreatthought.blogspot.com/2016/03/teaching-kids-philosophy-makes-them.html"><span style="color: #990000;">do better in science and math</span></a>. Or perhaps it is the other way around? Students who excel in science and math are more likely to be attracted to the study of Philosophy.</p><p>I have taught Philosophy to high school students and to university students. Most took my courses as an elective which means that they came into the classroom voluntarily. Most came with a desire to learn. Many were surprised by how much they gained from the courses.</p><p>My classes exposed students to the major thought trajectories of history from 3000 B.C. to the 20th century. For some students an effect of this overview was intellectual humility. All their great ideas had already been played with by greater minds.</p><p>Another effect was a broadening of their worlds. Beyond their circles of family and friends, beyond their gaming and devices, there is an expansive world full of fascinating people and provocative ideas.</p>I am reminded of something that Albert Einstein wrote in 1944. "So many people today—and even professional scientists—seem to me like somebody who has seen thousands of trees but has never seen a forest. A knowledge of the historic and philosophical background gives that kind of independence from prejudices of his generation from which most scientists are suffering."<div><br /><div><br />Related reading: <a href="https://justgreatthought.blogspot.com/2016/03/schools-discovering-value-of-philosophy.html">Schools Discovering the Value of Philosophy</a>; <a href="http://justgreatthought.blogspot.com/2016/01/philosophy-for-primary-school-students.html">Philosophy for Primary Students?</a>; <a href="http://giacomo%20esposito/">Why I Teach Philosophy in Primary School</a> by Giacomo Esposito; <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/primaryeducation/11466547/Teach-philosophy-in-primary-schools-says-academic.html">Teach Philosophy in Primary Schools</a>; <a href="http://justgreatthought.blogspot.com/2015/05/the-benefits-of-philosophical-studies.html">The Benefits of Philosophical Studies</a>; <a href="http://justgreatthought.blogspot.com/2014/12/philosophy-most-impractical-practical.html">Philosophy: The Most Impractical Practical Tool</a>; <a href="http://justgreatthought.blogspot.com/2015/05/philosophy-education-in-france.html">Philosophy Education in France</a>; <a href="http://justgreatthought.blogspot.com/2015/07/popularity-of-philosophy-in-germany.html">Popularity of Philosophy in Germany</a><div style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 14.85px;"><br /></div><div style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 14.85px;"><br /></div><div><br /></div></div></div>Alice C. Linsleyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13069827354696169270noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6499463045181557795.post-82780089255169703942023-07-05T10:48:00.003-06:002023-07-05T14:22:22.360-06:00C.S. Lewis on "Pagan Christs"<p> </p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh2MplRICelnMhVOzjciuECShsYR1W-9xN8H_C3or9O4UHlqomtM4y4hIbx7A5pR1uTmbMlf_yEtJCELf-1wq29HTRZ7bXDZ-zqZFJvsvex5WRZO2WZAz5O3Youei12B07_iTDPFx9j6oZVBU67jGaOf87m7cD2yekoxtHgdouHYDFe2NunFk2090RKOY0/s400/565488.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="400" data-original-width="268" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh2MplRICelnMhVOzjciuECShsYR1W-9xN8H_C3or9O4UHlqomtM4y4hIbx7A5pR1uTmbMlf_yEtJCELf-1wq29HTRZ7bXDZ-zqZFJvsvex5WRZO2WZAz5O3Youei12B07_iTDPFx9j6oZVBU67jGaOf87m7cD2yekoxtHgdouHYDFe2NunFk2090RKOY0/s320/565488.jpg" width="214" /></a></div><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div><p>Dr. Alice C. Linsley</p><p>In his book <u>Reflections on the Psalms</u>, C. S. Lewis explores various themes such a judgement, death, and praising God. In Chapter Ten, titled "<a href="https://www.pas.rochester.edu/~tim/study/CSLewis%20Reflections%20on%20the%20Psalms%20Second%20Meanings.pdf"><span style="color: #990000;">Second Meanings</span></a>", he writes about how Christians have believed the Psalms to "<i>contain a second or hidden meaning, an 'allegorical' sense, concerned with the central truths of Christianity, with the Incarnation, the Passion, the Resurrection, the Ascension, and with the Redemption of Man. All the Old Testament has been treated in the same way. The full significance of what the writers are saying is, on this view, apparent only in the light of events which happened after they were dead</i>."</p><p>This appraisal of how the Psalms have been interpreted in the Church is accurate, especially in regard to the Church Fathers who often allegorize Bible passages when speaking of Jesus Christ. Allegory and typology are also evident in the hermeneutics of Eastern Orthodoxy. Bible scholars of the twentieth century have been critical of this method of interpretation and have urged readers not to read New Testament views back into the Old Testament texts.</p><p>Lewis does not endorse allegorizing or the imposition of Christian beliefs upon the Psalms. He expresses his belief that the Hebrew Psalmists were not aware of the "full significance" of their writings.</p><p>Christianity holds that the Godhead is fully revealed in the person of Jesus Christ, the Son of God. One can affirm that without embracing the assumption that the writers of the Psalms did not grasp the pattern of the Gospel. They certainly did. </p><p>The early Hebrew believed in God Father, God Son, and the living-giving Spirit. They believed that the Father and Son are one. In John 14, Jesus explains to Phillip, "He who has seen Me has seen the Father." The Father-Son relationship is expressed in the son's recognition of his Father in others. Horus was said to recognize his father in the deceased king. "Horus is a soul and he recognizes his Father in you..." (Pyramid Texts, Utterance 423)</p><p>In the Egyptian Book of the Dead, Horus is called the "advocate of his father" (cf. 1 John 2:1). They believed that the Son of God would be born of a woman of their ruler-priest caste and that he would crush the serpent's head (Gen. 3:15). This early Hebrew expectation was expressed in the Pyramid Texts, (Utterance 388) dating to B.C. 2200: "Horus has shattered (tbb, crushed) the mouth of the serpent with the sole of his foot (tbw)." </p><p>They believed that the Woman would conceive by divine overshadowing, as the Angel declared to the Virgin Mary in Luke 1:35: "the power of the Most High will overshadow you. So the holy one to be born will be called the Son of God." </p><p>They hoped for a <a href="http://biblicalanthropology.blogspot.com/2012/02/righteous-rulers-and-resurrection.html"><span style="color: #990000;">Righteous Ruler</span></a> who would overcome death and lead His people to eternal life. Jesus descended to Sheol to announce his victory over death. A Horite song found at the <a href="https://www.academia.edu/25013844/The_First_Tablet_of_the_Hurritic_Bilingual_Song_of_Release_in_the_Light_of_Hurritic_Mythological_Tradition_UGARIT-FORSCHUNGEN_Internationales_Jahrbuch_f%C3%BCr_die_Altertumskunde_Syrien-Pal%C3%A4stinas_Herausgegeben_von_Band_44_2013_In_memoriam_Pierre_Bordreuil_121-142"><span style="color: #990000;">royal complex at Ugarit</span></a> speaks of the descent of Horus, the son of God, to the place of the dead "to announce good tidings." </p><p>Why must we assume that the significance of what the Psalmists wrote is apparent only in the light of events which happened after they were dead? These were Hebrew writers, and the Hebrew writers had a better grasp of the pattern of the Gospel than many Christians do today.</p><p>Many have noted the parallels between the ancient Horus myth and the story of Jesus, yet strangely, Lewis does not refer to the myth of the Horite and Sethite Hebrew. Instead, he speaks of "Pagan Christs" and notes resemblances to narratives of Adonis and Balder. He asks, "What are we to say of those gods in various Pagan mythologies who are killed and rise again and who thereby renew or transform the life of their worshippers or of nature?"</p><p>The late Joseph Campbell, the most notable mythologist of the twentieth century, would explain this "hero's journey" as an aspect of the great "monomyth", a universal narrative archetype. Campbell does not offer a detailed explanation for how this emerges universally, but he suggests that it is deeply rooted in Mankind's collective unconscious (Campbell, <u>The Hero's Journey</u>, p. 57).</p><p>This might explain why the resemblance between Pagan heroes and Jesus Christ are not accidental. However, Lewis explores other explanations. He speaks of anthropologists who might argue that such commonalities come from the experiences and imaginations of primitive and superstitious peoples. </p><p>Not so, say the early Church Fathers. They believed that such Pagan myths are intended to mislead people; that these are counterfeit narratives that parody the truth of the Gospel. </p><p>Lewis, a professor of Classical and Medieval literature, believed that the divine and the diabolical play a part along with the human imagination (p. 123). He does not believe that the resemblances between the Christ event and the overcoming Pagan heroes is accidental. He writes, "The resemblance between these myths and the Christian truth is no more accidental than the resemblance between the sun and the sun's reflection in a pond, or that between a historical fact and the somewhat garbled version of it which lives in popular report..."</p><p>Another explanation is that the Pagan distortions are distilled from the primitive myth of Re, Horus, and Hathor which spread throughout the lands where the early Hebrew had dispersed in the service of the first lords of the earth, the great kingdom builders like Nimrod, the Kushite (Gen. 10).</p><p>In ancient Egyptian, Re means "Father". The Greek "Horus" comes from the ancient Egyptian HR, meaning "Most High One" or "Hidden One". Horus' mother is Hathor who always is shown overshadowed by the Sun in ancient Nilotic iconography.</p><p>Lewis speaks of how the Romans viewed the age or reign of Saturn as something equivalent to the Garden of Eden before the Fall (p. 117). Among the Horite and Sethite Hebrew,<span face=""Trebuchet MS", Trebuchet, Verdana, sans-serif" style="background-color: #f6f6f6; font-size: 13px;"> </span>Saturn was called "Horus, <a href="https://jandyongenesis.blogspot.com/2020/07/the-sky-bull-as-messianic-image.html"><span style="color: #990000;">Bull of the Sky</span></a>." Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn were depicted with the falcon-head of Horus (Krupp 1979). According to the Pyramid Texts (Utterance 205), the Great Bull smites the enemies of his father Re.</p><p>According to the Coffin Texts, Horus is "the great Falcon upon the ramparts of the house of him of the hidden name" and he says: "my wrath will be turned against the enemy of my father" and "I will put him beneath my feet." (Utterance 148) This text is at least 800 years older than the Messianic reference of Psalm 110:1: The Lord says to my Lord: “Sit at My right hand until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet.”<br /><br />The Bull is to be sacrificed so that the deceased king may eat the sacrifice and <a href="https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_Midnight_Sun/L2RcpToCH_UC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=sun+as+the+bull+in+the+sky%3F&pg=PA229"><span style="color: #990000;">become one with the Celestial Bull</span></a>. The king is urged to rise, to "gather his bones together, shake off your dust" and enter into immortality. <br /></p><p>Given what is known today about the biblical Hebrew, a <a href="https://biblicalanthropology.blogspot.com/2022/05/the-hebrew-were-caste.html"><span style="color: #990000;">ruler-priest caste</span></a> whose point of origin was the Nile Valley, we must make a distinction between the belief that the Godhead is fully revealed in Jesus Christ, and the chronological snobbery of believing that only after His appearing can the Gospel be understood. These are two distinct assertions.</p><p><br /></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiULTAX0R4QxvAscKBnOu95EzMJyQsaCr_7YEGQmKG0Oz4oaW1_qG1A4Fy7lYHqZbnGKpvBI8iXIhLGysW9xC5lLLkZQFXBZtV7Yi8NNXfplbSOKVUkvo8ct4JV3B_OP7TKuqxkTc1qvzDiFF1iaBd20qUpk26Aa9ONtv5UZOixMHmKay7s2UDGwcF9iwM/s1500/22737891315.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1500" data-original-width="1213" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiULTAX0R4QxvAscKBnOu95EzMJyQsaCr_7YEGQmKG0Oz4oaW1_qG1A4Fy7lYHqZbnGKpvBI8iXIhLGysW9xC5lLLkZQFXBZtV7Yi8NNXfplbSOKVUkvo8ct4JV3B_OP7TKuqxkTc1qvzDiFF1iaBd20qUpk26Aa9ONtv5UZOixMHmKay7s2UDGwcF9iwM/s320/22737891315.jpg" width="259" /></a></div><p><br /></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both;">C. S. Lewis cannot be accused of chronological snobbery, which he despised. Nor should we find fault in his failure to compare the Gospel and the Hebrew beliefs concerning the Son of God. Lewis' book <u>Reflections on the Psalms</u> was published in 1958, eleven years before the publication of R. O. Faulkner's English translation of The Ancient Pyramid Texts. The Pyramid Texts present many of the prayers that were offered at the royal tombs and are evidence that the Hebrew hope for resurrection was connected to their belief in the Son of God. Their prayers were written on the walls of the tombs and can be studied today.</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><br /></div><p>Related reading: <a href="https://biblicalanthropology.blogspot.com/2021/09/signs-given-that-we-might-believe.html"><span style="color: #990000;">Signs Given That We Might Believe</span></a>; <a href="http://jandyongenesis.blogspot.com/2023/05/jesus-christ-in-hebrew-scriptures.html"><span style="color: #990000;">Jesus Christ in the Hebrew Scriptures</span></a>; <a href="https://jandyongenesis.blogspot.com/2020/06/abrahams-faith-lives-in-christianity.html"><span style="color: #990000;">Abraham's Faith Lives in Christianity</span></a>; <a href="https://biblicalanthropology.blogspot.com/2022/05/the-hebrew-were-caste.html"><span style="color: #990000;">The Hebrew Were a Caste</span></a>; <a href="https://biblicalanthropology.blogspot.com/2020/10/early-resurrection-texts.html"><span style="color: #990000;">Early Resurrection Texts</span></a>, <a href="https://biblicalanthropology.blogspot.com/2019/11/horite-mounds.html"><span style="color: #990000;">Horite and Sethite Mounds</span></a></p>Alice C. Linsleyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13069827354696169270noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6499463045181557795.post-68235938270590147932023-06-04T14:22:00.000-06:002023-06-04T14:22:00.668-06:00ChatGPT Failed Me<p> </p><p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEjjnNz0c5X5MovLfmRyobGRdlEzWBoCTGfWgc1mw-BpwZXeUJ1Nsma_OWTlMOL8VzWXgIn2ly8uLgZaQNjjSBK2I36DAJW6Q0a6noLf1dwqi9QbxCHTh-e-NGqSom2-V5Xi9Gi5SHyEPykBPgr4DDpbjhUEXzvKiPAYrKa7pxIoWUX1q94DyIyZ6Z3A" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="" data-original-height="256" data-original-width="320" height="240" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEjjnNz0c5X5MovLfmRyobGRdlEzWBoCTGfWgc1mw-BpwZXeUJ1Nsma_OWTlMOL8VzWXgIn2ly8uLgZaQNjjSBK2I36DAJW6Q0a6noLf1dwqi9QbxCHTh-e-NGqSom2-V5Xi9Gi5SHyEPykBPgr4DDpbjhUEXzvKiPAYrKa7pxIoWUX1q94DyIyZ6Z3A" width="300" /></a></div><br /><p></p>Dr. Alice C. Linsley<br /><br />AI is a digital tool that is able to save time, but it has limits. It draws on language, but not on the latest information. <div><br /></div><div>I have been pioneering the science of biblical anthropology for forty years and have numerous publications in this emerging branch of anthropology. I decided to use ChatGPT is create content, but it failed. It does not recognize the distinction between theological anthropology which calls itself "biblical anthropology" and the science of biblical anthropology.</div><div><br /></div><div>Theological anthropology considers what the Bible says about human nature, a rather speculative subject.</div><div><br /></div><div>Biblical anthropology investigates the customs, religious beliefs, material culture, and kinship patterns of the many biblical populations. This discipline takes an empirical approach to the biblical texts by identifying anthropologically significant data to gain a clearer understanding of the <a href="https://biblicalanthropology.blogspot.com/2019/05/ethnic-and-cultural-diversity-in-bible.html"><span style="color: #990000;">ethnic and cultural diversity of biblical populations</span></a>.</div><div><br /></div><div>The technology eventually will recognize the distinction between two disparate subjects with the same label, but that may take another 40 years. </div><div><br /><p>Related reading: <a href="https://philosophynews.com/generative-ai-creates-content-just-like-you-do/"><span style="color: #990000;">Generative AI Creates Content Just Like You Do - Philosophy News</span></a>; <a href="https://biblicalanthropology.blogspot.com/2016/05/biblical-anthropology-sciencenot.html"><span style="color: #990000;">Biblical Anthropology, the Science... not speculative theology</span></a>; <a href="https://biblicalanthropology.blogspot.com/2023/04/bronze-age-populations.html"><span style="color: #990000;">Bronze Age Populations</span></a>; <a href="https://teachgoodwriting.blogspot.com/2023/05/dont-fear-ai-generated-content.html"><span style="color: #990000;">Don't Fear AI Generated Content</span></a></p></div>Alice C. Linsleyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13069827354696169270noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6499463045181557795.post-3153478742809166442023-04-30T10:21:00.005-06:002023-05-11T18:13:26.831-06:00The Welcome Demise of American Fundamentalism<p> </p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj0w9h3MdpVsQ6I-wp8VQU_4nHniPT7G3kUSSvGROXCmHUpCW1NEeoi4VHYEMoI5o6gOqF3C6A_9IBv1Q8V11HAygoVHaiy3xn0JcKzeLio0WPXXgTkhR0WEg31s8m1USvB4TvhCwyt4ZOL_s5lfrLTqcyaPindOQ9o63SfTgCV_i-YJiv1YXbx1Wve/s973/flag%20and%20cross.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="973" data-original-width="765" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj0w9h3MdpVsQ6I-wp8VQU_4nHniPT7G3kUSSvGROXCmHUpCW1NEeoi4VHYEMoI5o6gOqF3C6A_9IBv1Q8V11HAygoVHaiy3xn0JcKzeLio0WPXXgTkhR0WEg31s8m1USvB4TvhCwyt4ZOL_s5lfrLTqcyaPindOQ9o63SfTgCV_i-YJiv1YXbx1Wve/s320/flag%20and%20cross.jpg" width="252" /></a></div><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div></div><p></p><p>Dr. Alice C. Linsley</p><p>Yesterday I had a conversation with a young man who told me that he is not religious. When I asked him about that, he said he had been raised by Fundamentalist parents and he had decided that Christianity must be nonsense at best, or at worst a pack of lies. </p><p>I have heard similar stories from other former "Christians", and I wonder if their youthful experiences of religion might serve as an excuse to not examine real Christianity, the <a href="https://biblicalanthropology.blogspot.com/2022/04/the-oldest-known-religion.html"><span style="color: #990000;">oldest known religion</span></a>.</p>Fundamentalism began as a movement in the late 19th century within American Protestant circles to defend the "fundamentals of belief" against the liberal theological speculation that had taken hold of the Mainline Protestant denominations. In particular, the movement opposed higher critical scholarship, the dismissal or minimization of the central truths of the Incarnation, the atoning death of Jesus Christ, and his bodily resurrection.<div><br /></div><div>In reacting to Protestant liberalism, the Fundamentalists failed to resource the Tradition of the Church where they would have discovered their most valuable arguments against the growing apostasy of Protestant Liberalism. Rarely did a Fundamentalist leader consider sources earlier than the 16th century. <br /><div><br /></div><div>Over time American Fundamentalism took on new doctrines such as the Rapture, Progressive Revelation, and Young Earth Creationism. These doctrines are claimed to be "biblical". However, a deep study of Scripture does not lend substance to that claim. The concept of the Rapture is cobbled together from disparate texts. Progressive Revelation ignores that fact that the Messianic Faith we call "Christianity" aligns perfectly with the beliefs of Abraham and his Hebrew ancestors who believed in God Father and God Son. We have evidence of that in the Bible and in extra-biblical sources. The idea that the earth is 6000-10,000 years old is not accepted by Bible-believing Christians in the sciences. <br /></div></div><div><br /></div><div>The literalism of American Fundamentalism has been its undoing. The Fundamentalists insist on six 24-hour days of creation though even the early Church Fathers did not agree on that interpretation. They insist that Noah's flood was universal against the substantial evidence to the contrary in the Bible and in the geological, archaeological, and anthropological record. They perpetuate a false understanding of the early Hebrew, pitting Cain's (evil) line against that of his (righteous) brother Seth. Today we know that both Cain and Seth were early Hebrew rulers whose descendants intermarried (caste endogamy). Endogamy is common trait of castes, and the early <a href="https://biblicalanthropology.blogspot.com/2022/05/the-hebrew-were-caste.html"><span style="color: #990000;">Hebrew were a ruler-priest caste</span></a>. </div><div><br /></div><div>The role of myth in reading <a href="https://jandyongenesis.blogspot.com/2015/03/the-themes-of-genesis-1-3.html"><span style="color: #990000;">Genesis 1-3</span></a> is lost on American Fundamentalist for whom the term "myth" suggests untruth. They lack insight into the lasting nature of myths. Fundamentalists, who favor the ever-approachable C.S. Lewis, overlook the fact that he championed myth as a way for eternal truths to be presented.</div><div><br /></div><div>American Fundamentalism has taken on the characteristics of a cult. There is no opportunity for reasoned debate with this highly defended community. They have patented replies to every query. They claim that <a href="https://jandyongenesis.blogspot.com/2015/05/is-scientific-dating-of-fossils-reliable.html"><span style="color: #990000;">dating methods are flawed</span></a>. They designate all who reject Fundamentalist interpretations as non-believers. They pit their belief system against the evidence of many sciences: anthropology, genetics, linguistics, archaeology, earth science, etc. They claim Scripture as their only authority but fail to read it apart from their preconceptions. </div><div><br /></div><div>Thousands of former Fundamentalists are floundering spiritually because they were indoctrinated in this false religion. They welcome the demise of Fundamentalism. The political alignment of Fundamentalism with Trumpism has further eroded Fundamentalism's clout.</div><div><br /></div><div>Tragically, American Fundamentalism joins the list of false religions exported from the USA. These include Mormonism, Jehovah's Witness, Christian Science, the Prosperity Gospel, Second-blessing Pentecostalism, and Scientology.</div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div>Related reading: <a href="https://jandyongenesis.blogspot.com/2010/11/substance-of-abrahams-faith.html"><span style="color: #990000;">The Substance of Abraham's Faith</span></a>; <a href="https://biblicalanthropology.blogspot.com/2019/09/judaism-is-not-faith-of-abraham.html"><span style="color: #990000;">Judaism is NOT the Faith of Abraham</span></a>; <a href="https://biblicalanthropology.blogspot.com/2021/04/where-judaism-and-christianity-part-ways.html"><span style="color: #990000;">Where Judaism and Christianiy Part Ways</span></a>; <a href="https://biblicalanthropology.blogspot.com/2020/10/early-resurrection-texts.html"><span style="color: #990000;">Early Resurrection Texts</span></a>; <a href="https://biblicalanthropology.blogspot.com/2021/03/promoting-yec-by-undermining-truth.html"><span style="color: #990000;">Promoting Young Earth Creation by Undermining the Truth</span></a>; <a href="http://jandyongenesis.blogspot.com/2023/04/new-to-just-genesis.html"><span style="color: #990000;">New to Just Genesis?</span></a>; <a href="https://jandyongenesis.blogspot.com/2015/05/is-scientific-dating-of-fossils-reliable.html"><span style="color: #990000;">Is Scientific Dating Reliable?</span></a>; <a href="https://asa-cwis.blogspot.com/2022/03/remembering-john-polkinghorne-one-year.html"><span style="color: #990000;">Remembering John Polkinghorne</span></a></div><div><br /></div>Alice C. Linsleyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13069827354696169270noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6499463045181557795.post-18780687263382826762023-02-23T17:38:00.002-07:002023-02-24T07:53:12.615-07:00An Anglican I Remain<p> </p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiF07nCgkSGFlrUvz5K2lZZ4PIy_X2_A4W1Zj1DIX-uskFZ53Wku41C4QVgCGOYYp7bomTX6NGCrv2FOh6HL9-GG9atzuWyqYquhP1c80_jTnIKBjYydchxPLLjiJA3fDpDU-HC6J1e68OoazjlkubKOVImy8U9NhybKiNVLs3CjutKDiVakJ3cklEv/s980/red%20door.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="649" data-original-width="980" height="212" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiF07nCgkSGFlrUvz5K2lZZ4PIy_X2_A4W1Zj1DIX-uskFZ53Wku41C4QVgCGOYYp7bomTX6NGCrv2FOh6HL9-GG9atzuWyqYquhP1c80_jTnIKBjYydchxPLLjiJA3fDpDU-HC6J1e68OoazjlkubKOVImy8U9NhybKiNVLs3CjutKDiVakJ3cklEv/s320/red%20door.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><p><br /></p><p>Dr. Alice C. Linsley</p><p><br /></p><p>I make no apology for being an Anglican Traditionalist. However, I will be an apologist for the Anglican Way of Christianity.</p>Our confession as Anglican Christians is Christ crucified, risen, and coming again. Until His arrival, we make disciples, strengthen one another, and receive Him in the Sacrament of Holy Eucharist. The kerygma and the Nicene Creed express Anglican dogma, and the Bible informs and shapes our doctrine and practice. We require nothing to be believed that is not attested by these our authorities. That is why we reject innovations, be they from Rome, the Episcopal Church, or the Church of England.<div><br /></div><div>Unfortunately, some who call themselves "Anglican" have departed from this confession, aimlessly wandering the trails of modernism, process theology, feminism, and social activism. These give Anglicanism a bad name. They leave a foul smell wherever they go. It is no wonder that some seek to escape the reek. </div><div><br /></div><div>Some Anglicans who have left for greener pastures include G. K. Chesterton, John Henry Newman, and more recently Michael Nazir-Ali, and Gavin Ashenden. Their departure to Rome meant gain for Roman Catholics and loss for Anglicans. However, the Roman pasture has not proven to be much greener.</div><div><br /></div><div>Recently an Eastern Orthodox friend asked me, "Why not just head east, and become Orthodox?" Here is my response:<br /></div><div><br /></div><i><blockquote>Because our history, our ethos, some doctrines are quite distinct. As you know I spent 6 years with the Antiochian Orthodox and value those years because they renewed me after the Anglican "wars". They also connected me with sacred Tradition whereby I can identify dangerous innovations.</blockquote></i><div><i><br /></i>The friend replied that it didn't make sense that people choose to be outside the One True Church, and had I tried the Western Rite, to which I replied:<div><span face=""Segoe UI Historic", "Segoe UI", Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif" style="background-color: #f0f2f5; color: #050505; font-size: 15px;"><br /></span></div><div><i><blockquote>The tendency to triumphalism among some Orthodox is troubling. It is so contrary to the Orthodox emphasis on humility as a primary virtue. Also, the Orthodox exclusive use of the Septuagint for study and as the text behind the Divine Liturgy is a problem since it leans into the Greek perspective of the soul rather than the biblical Hebrew understanding of the Soul-Body unit. Further, a detailed study of the planting of Christianity in the British Isles reveals a patrimony easily as old as that of Jerusalem, Antioch, Rome, and Constantinople. With the Great Schism of 1054, Constantinople became the seat of the Eastern Orthodox Church. The Byzantine liturgy, which I prefer greatly to the Western Rite, developed contemporaneously with other early liturgies of the Church and is not objectively superior to them, only different.</blockquote></i><br />The friend then pointed to brilliant men who left the Anglican Way for Orthodoxy, including Jon Braun, Peter Gilquist, Patrick Henry Reardon, and Stephen Freeman. She asserted that these men were "on a search for the truth. For the TRUE Church."</div><div><br /></div><div>It should be noted that some Orthodox are not orthodox in every aspect of their theology. David Bentley Hart and Alvin Kimel, both former Anglicans, are examples. Kimel has waffled a great deal over the years. He was a priest in the Episcopal Church who left for Rome and then converted to Eastern Orthodoxy. He and Hart have been promoting apocatastasis, a belief that the restoration of creation to a condition of perfection will involve escape from eternal separation from God for those who have willfully rejected God.<br /></div><div><br /></div><div>The departure of great Anglican thinkers for either Roman Catholicism or Eastern Orthodoxy suggests that Anglicanism is a natural pad for launching people in different directions. However, it seems that former Anglicans rarely go to Protestant denominations because what we have found satisfying in Anglican Christianity is lacking among Protestants. We are conscious of divine mystery, the efficacy of the Sacraments, the importance of sacred tradition in the interpretation of Scripture, the beauty of holiness expressed in reverent worship, the wisdom of the Church Fathers, and the necessity of the universal Creeds.</div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div>A Crisis of Authority and the Burden of Central Authority</div><div><br /></div>The confusion within Anglicanism is the result of a crisis of authority. Our collegial polity has been weakened by a club mentality among the bishops. None wish to give offense to their fellow members. When they should have stood in defense of the Faith once delivered, they showed themselves complacent. Complacency leads to decline and decline leads to decadence.</div><div><br /></div><div>Some who were raised by modernist Anglican clergy wandered far from the orthodox faith and led others astray. Alfred North Whitehead and Charles Hartshorne are examples. Both were raised in the Church of England. They put forward a view of God as one affected by temporal processes. In Hartshorne’s process-based conception God always changes. This is not the orthodox view of God as eternal and immutable. </div><div><br /></div>For Anglicans the authority of Scripture and Tradition is central to our identity. While we share a rich heritage of reason and intellectual acumen, we do not disregard these authorities in favor of philosophical speculation about God and humans. That is fatal to our identity.<div><br /></div><div>Some Anglican clergy dabbled with spiritualism. James Pike was raised Roman Catholic and became an agnostic. After WWII, Pike and his second wife, Esther Yanovsky, joined the Episcopal Church and Pike became an Episcopal priest. He was charged with heresy three times, though the charges were dropped. He rejected the central dogmas of the Christian Faith touching on the Incarnation and the Trinity. In October 1966, he was formally censured by his fellow bishops, but he was never deposed. That same year his son James Jr. committed suicide, an event that prompted Pike to try to communicate with his dead son using a medium.</div><div><br /></div><div>The crisis of authority within Anglicanism is also demonstrated in the liturgical revisions of the Episcopal Church in the 1970s. The Episcopal priest and theologian, Urban T. Holmes, understood that ECUSA's liturgical revisions drew more on Process Theology and modern philosophy than on Scripture, Tradition, and the Church Fathers. In reference to the Episcopal Church 1979 Prayer Book, he wrote, "It is evident that Episcopalians as a whole are not clear about what has happened. The renewal movement in the 1970s, apart from the liturgical renewal, often reflects a nostalgia for a classical theology which many theologians know has not been viable for almost 200 years. The 1979 Book of Common Prayer is a product of a corporate, differentiated theological mind, which is not totally congruent with many of the inherited formularies of the last few centuries. This reality must soon ‘come home to roost’ in one way or another."<br /><br />Holmes added, "The church has awakened to the demise of classical theology."<br /><br />If Holmes believed that "classical" or orthodox theology is not viable, he should have left the priesthood.<br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div>Hoping to Escape the Chaos</div><div><br /></div><div>The crisis of authority in Anglicanism has led many to seek refuge with other sacramental bodies. The departees have gone to churches where authority is either centralized, as with the Pope and the Magisterium, or is sustained by synods of Orthodox bishops who resist modernism and innovation. Within those churches, there are rebellious persons who try to impose their will. There are feminists campaigning for women priests. There are reactionaries demanding the Latin Mass as their right. There are theological and liturgical debates, and jurisdictional conflicts among the Orthodox ethnicities. The necessary imposition of ecclesial authority tends to homogenize and invariably some people will resist conforming.</div><div><br />Anglicans excel at resisting homogenization. It comes of our history under Rome, the bloodshed of the 16th century in England, and the iconoclasm of the Puritans. Some regard the Thirty-Nine Articles as their Confession. Others regard the Articles as important to Reformed theology but take the universal Creeds as the only proper reflection of the catholic Faith. Some use the Book of Common Prayer as a resource out of which they pick prayers and rites. Others uphold the liturgies of the 16th century through the mid-20th century as the historic Anglican formularies which are not to be tampered with. </div><div><br /></div><div>Some Anglicans ordain women and believe this practice does not impinge on the Gospel. Others <a href="https://jandyongenesis.blogspot.com/2019/07/the-churchs-consensus-on-women-and.html"><span style="color: #990000;">believe rightly</span></a> that this development stabs at the heart of the Gospel since the priesthood ultimately is about the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, and this innovation breaks with catholic tradition, and is without the consent of the Church worldwide. </div><div><br /></div><div>There also is a huge range of aesthetic expressions in Anglican churches. Some maintain the elegant architecture of the great cathedrals. Some are scrubbed clean of embellishments and resemble Congregational places of worship. Some are warehouses with big screens and platforms for praise bands. These variances express different theological perspectives, yet all claim to be “Anglican”.</div><div><br /></div><div>Let us consider also the great intellects who remained Anglican in the face of this crisis of authority: C.S. Lewis, Dorothy Sayers, Evelyn Underhill, William Temple, Austin Farrer, Matthew Green, and John Stott. Additionally, the Anglican Way of Christianity has many millions of adherents in Africa and Asia where there has been less pressure from their cultures to adopt modernism, feminism, and innovations that break with tradition.</div><div><br /></div><div>I remain an Anglican in good company! An Anglican I remain against the currents.</div><div><br /></div><div><br />Related reading: <a href="https://justgreatthought.blogspot.com/2020/06/one-of-errors-of-process-theology-as.html"><span style="color: #990000;">Anglicans and Process Theology</span></a>; <a href="https://biblicalanthropology.blogspot.com/2015/01/the-priesthood-in-england-part-1.html"><span style="color: #990000;">The Priesthood in England</span></a> (a 4-part series); <a href="https://jandyongenesis.blogspot.com/2017/01/my-talk-at-2015-international-catholic.html"><span style="color: #990000;">Alice C. Linsley's Speech at the International Catholic Congress of Anglicans</span></a>; <a href="https://www.touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=03-01-044-f"><span style="color: #990000;">Patrick Henry Reardon, "Days of Trials"</span></a></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div>Alice C. Linsleyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13069827354696169270noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6499463045181557795.post-66373413520590985822023-01-31T17:17:00.007-07:002023-02-03T07:47:28.746-07:00Derrida's Hostility to Phonocentrism<p> </p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjiKkKgnCCFilxya4_8SjGPVM9TFb1t1m0tnIxrtn5Eke0D7dKbP5P8Td2MfGm_ZTquV9xkG-E2cBUHFXuuk9lqKi9OiqxwipFVtdLigmGvoSVC60sWTlUZtnGA8Y3dvju8_fq8L-ygZNCrZ4GoT9bRGaJ0MEyGQYiCEdQo6xTHjBLgjRFaRZWUk3mp/s384/OUTSIDE.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="384" data-original-width="248" height="281" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjiKkKgnCCFilxya4_8SjGPVM9TFb1t1m0tnIxrtn5Eke0D7dKbP5P8Td2MfGm_ZTquV9xkG-E2cBUHFXuuk9lqKi9OiqxwipFVtdLigmGvoSVC60sWTlUZtnGA8Y3dvju8_fq8L-ygZNCrZ4GoT9bRGaJ0MEyGQYiCEdQo6xTHjBLgjRFaRZWUk3mp/w192-h281/OUTSIDE.jpg" width="192" /></a></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div>Dr. Alice C. Linsley<br /><br />Phonocentrism is the belief that uttered sounds and speech are inherently superior to written language. Phonocentricists maintain that spoken language is the primary and most fundamental method of communication whereas writing is a derived method of capturing speech. <br /><br />Some writers have argued that philosophers such as Plato, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, and <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ferdinand_de_Saussure"><span style="color: #990000;">Ferdinand de Saussure</span></a> have promoted phonocentric views. <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Ong"><span style="color: #990000;">Walter Ong</span></a> (1912-2003) expressed support for the idea of phonocentrism. He drew on the work of <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_A._Havelock"><span style="color: #990000;">Eric A. Havelock</span></a>, who suggested a fundamental shift in the form of thought coinciding with the transition from orality to literacy in Ancient Greece. <div><br /></div><div>Ong viewed writing as a laboriously learned technology which effects the first transformation of human thought from sound to sight. This transition has implications for <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structuralism"><span style="color: #990000;">structuralism</span></a>, <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deconstruction"><span style="color: #990000;">deconstruction</span></a>, religion, and anthropology. Ong argued that the general culture of the United States is particularly non-phonocentric.<div><div><br /></div><div>In 1962, Jacques Derrida, a young French-speaking Algerian of Jewish parentage took interest in this subject, having read a set of lectures by the Oxford philosopher J. L. Austin (1911-1960). Austin's "How to Do Things with Words" contained a theory of the different kinds of speech acts. Beginning in 1946, Austin made a distinction between <a href="https://ed.ted.com/lessons/speech-acts-constative-and-performative-colleen-glenney-boggs"><span style="color: #990000;">constative speech and performative speech</span></a>. Austin was not particularly interested in the distinction between what is spoken and what is written. The philosophical points he made apply to both forms of communication.</div><div><br /></div><div>Derrida, however, found importance in the distinction and felt that in Western culture and Philosophy too much emphasis had been placed on the spoken word.<br /><br />Jacques Derrida used the term "phonocentrism" to criticize what he saw as a disdain for written language. He argued that phonocentrism developed because speech, being more immediate than writing, has been regarded as closer to the presence of subjects. He believed that the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binary_opposition"><span style="color: #990000;">binary opposition</span></a> between speech and writing is a form of <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logocentrism"><span style="color: #990000;">logocentrism</span></a>, in which words and language are taken as a fundamental expression of an external reality. <br /></div></div></div><div><br /></div><div>This was problematic for Derrida whose deconstruction of narratives suggests that the notion of meaning is far more complex. Derrida's opposition to phonocentrism came from his attack on what he called "the metaphysics of presence". Derrida characterizes as the metaphysics of presence the tendency to conceive fundamental philosophical concepts such as truth, reality, and being in terms of ideas such as presence, essence, identity, and origin—and in the process to ignore the crucial role of absence and difference. For Derrida negative space is presence. Here we perhaps see some influence from his Hebrew background. The horned altar of the Hebrew was a negative (apophatic) solar image.<br /><br /></div><div>Anthony Kenny explains, "Derrida 'deconstructs' the opposition between speech and writing and gives the privileged position to the written text, the one furthest from the control of the author, the one most capable of diverse and superseding interpretations. Some have seen Derrida's attacks on the metaphysics of presence as an enterprise, in a very different key, parallel to Wittgenstein's demolition of the notion of private language." (A. Kenny, <u>Philosophy in the Modern World</u>, Vol. 4, p. 92)</div><div><br /></div><div>For Derrida, presence and absence are a binary opposition worth exploring. This applied even to his personal preferences. On his reluctance to be photographed and his insistence that no image of himself would appear on his book covers, Derrida said, "For me, writing means to withdraw myself, even if one appears when one writes because publishing means appearing in a certain way. But I didn’t want my appearance to be framed by the contemporary uses of photography where they show the author writing or in a head shot. So I thought it was very important to exclude all forms of photography and all public images of myself." </div><div><br /></div><div>Peter Salmon notes, "Jewish, French, Algerian, Derrida’s identity was complicated, and he strove to apply this complexity to all he touched. Part of thinking like Derrida involves taking those things we take most for granted – such as our identity, such as our language – and looking for unexplored assumptions, contradictions and absences."</div><br />Derrida’s deconstruction reveals great complexities of meaning in written texts, ideas, myths and human customs. He wanted to know what dominates and blocks what seems not to be present. He ascribes to subordinate objects a more substantial existence than the shadow they cast, or their “trace.” He wrote: "Deconstruction cannot limit itself or proceed immediately to neutralization: it must, by means of a double gesture, a double science, a double writing, practice an overturning of the classical opposition, and a general displacement of the system. It is on that condition alone that deconstruction will provide the means of intervening in the field of oppositions it criticizes" (<u>Metaphysics</u>).<br /><br />Derrida explores the hidden presence. In so doing, deeper and/or unfamiliar meanings emerge. His method involves neutralizing the shouting voice in order to hear resonances of underlying voices. He looks for Plato behind Aristotle, for mystery behind logic, and for the metaphysical behind the physical. His reversals are a strategic intervention to free western philosophy from the constraints of empiricism, materialism, and linear logic. <div><br /></div><div>This project necessarily drives one toward the written word which stands still long enough to be deconstructed.<div><br /><div><br /></div><div>Related: <a href="https://youtu.be/uvF30zFImuo"><span style="color: #990000;">Walter Ong: Oral Cultures and Early Writing</span></a>; <a href="https://justgreatthought.blogspot.com/2022/12/derridas-style-of-writing.html"><span style="color: #990000;">Derrida's Style of Writing</span></a>; <a href="https://jandyongenesis.blogspot.com/2014/10/something-older.html"><span style="color: #990000;">Something Older</span></a>; <a href="https://jandyongenesis.blogspot.com/2022/01/thoughts-on-logos.html"><span style="color: #990000;">Thoughts on the Logos</span></a>; Peter Salmon, <a href="https://justgreatthought.blogspot.com/2022/02/divide-opinion-as-derrida-did.html"><span style="color: #990000;">Divide Opinion as Derrida Did</span></a></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div></div></div>Alice C. Linsleyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13069827354696169270noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6499463045181557795.post-53081100031335039182023-01-19T14:12:00.006-07:002023-01-21T12:45:54.122-07:00Anglicans and Process Theology<div><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjZQ_27lbtr0_Oqm1AUgw_spSZ1UzG84f6yrQR6CyHZI1Fp1sGGy9bLz98Bcw6oojhZnUxigSB2IeBLFzKfFaa-GmGKzmXV7YeAURseK8aAn-xBedfU8MrSzLzfdk-hfKwVzqrdkMBdNOn8cnXE639Rt3mJfAAVxp1wD-7sXPtufytE0UY9xNxuy-lA/s380/Charles_Hartshorne.png" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="380" data-original-width="259" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjZQ_27lbtr0_Oqm1AUgw_spSZ1UzG84f6yrQR6CyHZI1Fp1sGGy9bLz98Bcw6oojhZnUxigSB2IeBLFzKfFaa-GmGKzmXV7YeAURseK8aAn-xBedfU8MrSzLzfdk-hfKwVzqrdkMBdNOn8cnXE639Rt3mJfAAVxp1wD-7sXPtufytE0UY9xNxuy-lA/s320/Charles_Hartshorne.png" width="218" /></a></div><div><br /></div><div style="text-align: center;">Charles Hartshorne (1897-2000)</div><div style="text-align: center;"><br /></div><div>Alice C. Linsley</div><div><br /></div>One of the errors of Process Theology, as expounded by Alfred North Whitehead and <a href="https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/hartshorne/"><span style="color: #990000;">Charles Hartshorne</span></a>, is that God is affected by temporal processes and is "becoming" alongside humanity. In Hartshorne’s process-based conception, humans change for a while, whereas God always changes. This is not the orthodox view of God as immutable. <br /><br />The order of Creation makes it evident that there is a distinction between the Creator and the creation, and the very definition of God implies an eternally existent Being outside of the created order. Logically, God cannot change. <a href="https://biblia.com/bible/esv/Isa%2057.15"><span style="color: #990000;">Isaiah 57:15</span></a> says that God "inhabits eternity." He created time and is therefore outside of time.<br /><br />Hartshorne, like Whitehead, was the son of an Anglican clergyman. Historically, Anglicans have posited unorthodox views of God. <a href="https://justgreatthought.blogspot.com/2013/09/george-berkeley-idealist-and-consistent.html"><span style="color: #990000;">Bishop George Berkeley</span></a> said, "We must all obey the great law of change. It is the most powerful law of nature", and he introduced the concept of panentheism which means that all is in the one God. Hartshorne preferred the term <i>dipolar</i> over <i>panentheism</i>. In Hartshorne’s philosophy, God’s perfection is seen in the evolution and the creativity of living beings, and God is conceived as dualistic—both free and unfree, conscious and unconscious, and eternal and temporal.<div><br />Hartshorne departs from orthodox views in his description of the actuality of God (i.e., how God exists). A God who exists necessarily is not necessary or unchanging in terms of divine responsiveness to creaturely changes. Hints of Pragmatism and Darwinian assumptions are evident in his thought.<br /><br /><div>For William James, Pragmatism was a way to apply Darwin's theories to philosophy. The mid-century Pragmatists believed that humans have survived and evolved because organisms with the ability to reason logically are naturally selected over organisms without reasoning.</div><div><br /><div>However, we have good reason to question Darwinian assumptions about human change. Despite the Darwinian nomenclature employed by paleoanthropologists, the oldest Hominid fossils do not reveal dramatic changes between the oldest of the species (3 million years) and modern humans (300,000 years). And given the <a href="https://jandyongenesis.blogspot.com/2017/10/artifacts-of-great-antiquity.html"><span style="color: #990000;">record of artifacts</span></a>, human inventiveness has existed from the beginning. It is pure speculation to say that human nature has changed through the many millennia of our existence.</div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div>Anglicans and Process Theology<br /><br />For Anglicans the authority of Scripture and Tradition is central to our identity. Further, we share a rich heritage of reasoned observation of the natural world. To disregard our Anglican heritage in favor of philosophical speculation about God, humans, and the order of creation is fatal to our identity. <br /><div><br /></div><div>Process Theology continues to influence many prominent Anglicans. Consider <a href="https://jandyongenesis.blogspot.com/2012/06/rowan-williams-confusion.html"><span style="color: #990000;">this statement</span></a> from Rowan Williams, former Archbishop of Canterbury, who was writing about humans and the environment:</div><div><br /></div>"...the human task is to draw out potential treasures in the powers of nature and so to realise the convergent process of humanity and nature discovering in collaboration what they can become."<div><br /></div><div>In 2009, The Episcopal Church sought funding for a part-time advocate for environmental stewardship of water. <a href="http://gc2009.org/ViewLegislation/view_leg_detail.aspx?id=861&type=Current"><span style="color: #990000;">Resolution A516</span></a> was titled "Sacred Acts for Sacred Waters". Here is the explanation:<br /><br /><blockquote>"Scripture teaches us that God made the waters as part of Creation. Throughout Scripture and in liturgical practice, water has had deeply understood sacramental roles culminating with the water of baptism. Science and everyday experience confirm the description in the Scriptures of water as life-giving for all Creation. Millennium Development Goal #7 seeks to provide adequate supplies of life-giving water for all people.<br /><br />Within Creation water undergoes a cycle. Water flows from sources, is contained, distributed, sometimes purified, used and then collected and distributed for further purification before rejoining the flow. In our reality the water of Creation is the result of <i>complicated combinations of the natural processes set in place by the evolution of Creation </i>and by many human interventions."</blockquote></div><div><br /></div><div>There it is again, Process Theology, with a thin veneer of a sacramental (or shamanic) theology. It is clear that Process Theology interacts with political ideologies to produce what is termed a "Woke" consciousness.</div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div>The Episcopal priest and theologian, Urban T. Holmes, understood that the liturgical revisions of the 1970s drew more on Process Theology and modern philosophy than on Scripture, Tradition, and the Church Fathers. In reference to the Episcopal Church 1979 Prayer Book, he wrote, "It is evident that Episcopalians as a whole are not clear about what has happened. The renewal movement in the 1970s, apart from the liturgical renewal, often reflects a nostalgia for a classical theology which many theologians know has not been viable for almost 200 years. The 1979 Book of Common Prayer is a product of a corporate, differentiated theological mind, which is not totally congruent with many of the inherited formularies of the last few centuries. This reality must soon ‘come home to roost’ in one way or another."</div><div><br />Holmes added, "The church has awakened to the demise of classical theology."<br /></div><div><br /></div><div>Holmes was honest, and if he believed that "classical" or orthodox theology is not viable, he should have left the priesthood.</div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><div>C.S. Lewis addresses the problem in a speech he delivered in 1945 on "<a href="https://justgreatthought.blogspot.com/2013/05/cs-lewis-on-christian-apologetics.html"><span style="color: #990000;">Christian Apologetics</span></a>" to Anglican priests:</div><div><br /></div><blockquote>"It seems to the layman that in the Church of England we often hear from our priests doctrine which is not Anglican Christianity. It may depart from Anglican Christianity in either of two ways: (1) It may be so “broad” or “liberal” or “modern” that it in fact excludes any real supernaturalism and thus ceases to be Christian at all. (2) It may, on the other hand, be Roman. It is not, of course, for me to define to you what Anglican Christianity is--I am your pupil, not your teacher. But I insist that wherever you draw the lines, bounding lines must exist, beyond which your doctrine will cease to be Anglican or to be Christian: and I suggest also that the lines come a great deal sooner than many modern priests think. I think it is your duty to fix the lines clearly in your own minds: and if you wish to go beyond them you must change your profession.<br /><br />This is your duty not specifically as Christians or as priests but as honest men. There is a danger here of the clergy developing a special professional conscience which obscures the very plain moral issue. Men who have passed beyond these boundary lines in either direction are apt to protest that they have come by their unorthodox opinions honestly. In defense of these opinions they are prepared to suffer obloquy and to forfeit professional advancement. They thus come to feel like martyrs. But this simply misses the point which so gravely scandalizes the layman. We never doubted that the unorthodox opinions were honestly held: what we complain of is your continuing your ministry after you have come to hold them. We always knew that a man who makes his living as a paid agent of the Conservative party may honestly change his views and honestly become a Communist. What we deny is that he can honestly continue to be a Conservative agent and to receive money from one party while he supports the policy of another."</blockquote><br /></div></div><div>Related reading: <a href="https://college-ethics.blogspot.com/2015/01/what-may-christians-safely-disbelieve.html"><span style="color: #990000;">What Christians May Safely Disbelieve</span></a>; <a href="https://www.openhorizons.org/process-worldview.html"><span style="color: #990000;">The "Process" Worldview</span></a></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div></div>Alice C. Linsleyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13069827354696169270noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6499463045181557795.post-14042270401303774462023-01-06T17:44:00.002-07:002023-01-06T17:44:46.886-07:00Plato and Christian Theology<p> </p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhP4Zpjkq-O5EA1bZTyy9aRKjYlmyLvpyAx46Au62jDjBBM0Y1HvpLbwlgMAfiAxNQ047_4HLKESNiAUbrLKW0H88dV1FAUO4szfBbifGWK9e_t1Z-cMu--TOQf0C7D72mons7SKhB2o1PKz2YN8WXCYhnn6SJFy-0ro6-ZHA6DGDCQo6E1amEbm55-/s243/Plato.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="243" data-original-width="200" height="243" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhP4Zpjkq-O5EA1bZTyy9aRKjYlmyLvpyAx46Au62jDjBBM0Y1HvpLbwlgMAfiAxNQ047_4HLKESNiAUbrLKW0H88dV1FAUO4szfBbifGWK9e_t1Z-cMu--TOQf0C7D72mons7SKhB2o1PKz2YN8WXCYhnn6SJFy-0ro6-ZHA6DGDCQo6E1amEbm55-/s1600/Plato.jpg" width="200" /></a></div><p><br /></p><p>Andrew Louth, “The Necessity of Platonism for Christian Theology”. </p><p>Delivered remotely to the King’s College Chapel, 17 January 2021.</p><p>Link to full video: <a href="https://youtu.be/PQN1OLRNYtQ"><span style="color: #990000;">2021 Robert Crouse Memorial Lecture</span></a>.</p><p><a href="https://copiousflowers.wordpress.com/2021/01/26/the-necessity-of-platonism-for-christian-theology/"><span style="color: #990000;">Copious Flowers</span></a> provides some pertinent excerpts of the address.</p><p><br /></p><p>Related reading: <a href="https://college-ethics.blogspot.com/2010/01/plato-and-ancient-egypt.html"><span style="color: #990000;">Plato's Debt to Ancient Egypt</span></a></p><p><br /></p>Alice C. Linsleyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13069827354696169270noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6499463045181557795.post-74508258339377150022022-12-21T13:29:00.002-07:002022-12-29T20:58:26.540-07:00Albert Einstein on Bertrand Russell<p> </p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiuv34hze9m2tb5F-cVfIvB1XY7GmcILZmhr7XHqlQ6R5gGqzEadBNWgbjj57E7gFNF7AKehiR1b38VLddRBvwZc4NoNpupcgNWVXIxodhmiapRmRjoTmPx_avsNuFKpIC6ztJXj3zF8v1tv2EdNYKpR-TuUrpinpTOsHGy_IljZ1vlSGKD1e77MvTF/s799/Einstein%20and%20Russell.png" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="683" data-original-width="799" height="317" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiuv34hze9m2tb5F-cVfIvB1XY7GmcILZmhr7XHqlQ6R5gGqzEadBNWgbjj57E7gFNF7AKehiR1b38VLddRBvwZc4NoNpupcgNWVXIxodhmiapRmRjoTmPx_avsNuFKpIC6ztJXj3zF8v1tv2EdNYKpR-TuUrpinpTOsHGy_IljZ1vlSGKD1e77MvTF/w396-h317/Einstein%20and%20Russell.png" width="396" /></a></div><p><br /></p><p><i>Remarks on Bertrand Russell's Theory of Knowledge</i></p><p>By Albert Einstein</p><p><br /></p><p>When the editor asked me to write something about Bertrand Russell, my admiration and respect for that author at once induced me to say yes. I owe innumerable happy hours to the reading of Russell's works, something which I cannot say of any other contemporary scientific writer, with the exception of Thorstein Veblen. Soon, however, I discovered that it is easier to give such a promise than to fulfill it. I had promised to say something about Russell as philosopher and epistemologist. After having in full confidence begun with it, I quickly recognized what a slippery field I had ventured upon, having, due to lack of experience, until now cautiously limited myself to the field of physics. The present difficulties of his science force the physicist to come to grips with philosophical problems to a greater degree than was the case with earlier generations. Although I shall not speak here of those difficulties, it was my concern with them, more than anything else, which led me to the position outlined in this essay. </p><div>In the evolution of philosophic thought through the centuries the following question has played a major role: What knowledge is pure thought able to supply independently of sense perception? Is there any such knowledge? If not, what precisely is the relation between our knowledge and the raw material furnished by sense-impressions? An almost boundless chaos of philosophical opinions corresponds to these questions and to a few others intimately connected with them. Nevertheless there is visible in this process of relatively fruitless but heroic endeavours a systematic trend of development, namely an increasing scepticism concerning every attempt by means of pure thought to learn something about the "objective world,"· about the world of "things" in contrast to the world of mere "concepts and ideas." Be it said parenthetically that, just as on the part of a real philosopher, quotation-marks are used here to introduce an illegitimate concept, which the reader is asked to permit for the moment, although the concept is suspect in the eyes of the philosophical police. </div><div><br /></div><div>During philosophy's childhood it was rather generally believed that it is possible to find everything which can be known by means of mere reflection. It was an illusion which any one can easily understand if, for a moment, he dismisses what he has learned from later philosophy and from natural science; he will not be surprised to find that Plato ascribed a higher reality to "Ideas" than to empirically experienceable things. Even in Spinoza and as late as in Hegel this prejudice was the vitalizing force which seems still to have played the major role. Someone, indeed, might even raise the question whether, without something of this illusion, anything really great can be achieved in the realm of philosophic thought-but we do not wish to ask this question. </div><div><br /></div><div>This more aristocratic illusion concerning the unlimited penetrative power of thought has as its counterpart the more plebeian illusion of na1ve realism, according to which things "are" as they are perceived by us through our senses. This illusion dominates the daily life of men and of animals; it is also the point of departure in all of the sciences, especially of the natural sciences. The effort to overcome these two illusions is not independent the one of the other. The overcoming of na1ve realism has been relatively simple. In his introduction to his volume, <i>An Inquiry Into Meaning and Truth</i>, Russell has characterized this process in a marvellously pregnant fashion:</div><div><br /></div><div><div style="text-align: center;"></div><blockquote><div style="text-align: left;">We all start from "naive realism," i.e., the doctrine that things are what they seem. We think that grass is green, that stones are hard, and
that snow is cold. But physics assures us that the greenness of grass, the
hardness of stones, and the coldness of snow, are not the greenness, hardness, and coldness that we know in our own experience, but something
very different. The observer, when he seems to himself to be observing
a stone, is really, if physics is to be believed, observing the effects of the
stone upon himself. Thus science seems to be at war with itself: when
it most means to be objective, it finds itself plunged into subjectivity
against its will. Naive realism leads to physics, and physics, if true, shows
that naive realism is false. Therefore naive realism, if true, is false;
therefore it is false. </div></blockquote><p><br /></p>Apart from their masterful formulation these lines say something which had never previously occurred to me. For, superficially considered, the mode of thought in Berkeley and Hume seems to stand in contrast to the mode of thought in the natural sciences. However, Russell's just cited remark uncovers a connection: If Berkeley relies upon the fact that we do not directly grasp the "things" of the external world through our senses, but that only events causally connected with the presence of "things" reach our sense-organs, then this is a consideration which gets its persuasive character from our confidence in the physical mode of thought. For, if one doubts the physical mode of thought in even its most general features, there is no necessity to interpolate between the object and the act of vision anything which separates the object from the subject and makes the "existence of the object" problematical. <br /><br /> It was, however, the very same physical mode of thought and its practical successes which have shaken the confidence in the possibility of understanding things and their relations by means of purely speculative thought. Gradually the conviction gained recognition that all knowledge about things is exclusively a working-over of the raw-material furnished by the senses. In this general (and intentionally somewhat vaguely stated) form this sentence is probably today commonly accepted. But this conviction does not rest on the supposition that anyone haactually proved the impossibility of gaining knowledge of
reality by means of pure speculation, but rather upon the fact
that the empirical (in the above mentioned sense) procedure
alone has shown its capacity to be the source of knowledge.
Galileo and Hume first upheld this principle with full clarity
and decisiveness. </div><div><br /></div><div>Hume saw that concepts which we must regard as essential,
such as, for example, causal connection, cannot be gained from
material given to us by the senses. This insight led him to a
sceptical attitude as concerns knowledge of any kind. If one
reads Hume's books, one is amazed that many and sometimes
even highly esteemed philosophers after him have been able
to write so much obscure stuff and even find grateful readers
for it. Hume has permanently influenced the development of
the best of philosophers who came after him. One senses him
in the reading of Russell's philosophical analyses, whose acumen and simplicity of expression have often reminded me of
Hume.<br /><br />Man has an intense desire for assured knowledge. That is why Hume's clear message seemed crushing: The sensory raw material, the only source of our knowledge, through habit may lead us to belief and expectation but not to the knowledge and still less to the understanding of law-abiding relations. Then Kant took the stage with an idea which, though certainly untenable in the form in which he put it, signified a step towards the solution of Hume's dilemma: Whatever in knowledge is of empirical origin is never certain (Hume). If, therefore, we have definitely assured knowledge, it must be grounded in reason itself. This is held to be the case, for example, in the propositions of geometry and in the principle of causality. These and certain other types of knowledge are, so to speak, a part of the. instrumentality of thinking and therefore do not previously have to be gained from sense data (i.e., they are a priori knowledge). Today everyone knows of course that the mentioned concepts contain nothing of the certainty, of the inherent necessity, which Kant had attributed to them. The following, however, appears to me to be correct in Kant's
statement of the problem: in thinking we use, with a certain
"right," concepts to which there is no access from the materials
of sensory experience, if the situation is viewed from the logical
point of view.</div><div><br /></div>As a matter of fact, I am convinced that even much more is to be asserted: the concepts which arise in our thought and in our linguistic expressions are all-when viewed logically-the free creations of thought which cannot inductively be gained from sense-experiences. This is not so easily noticed only because we have the habit of combining certain concepts and conceptual relations (propositions) so definitely with certain sense-experiences that we do not become conscious of the gulf-logically unbridgeable--which separates the world of sensory experiences from the world of concepts and propositions.<br /><br />Thus, for example, the series of integers is obviously an invention of the human mind, a self-created tool which simplifies the ordering of certain sensory experiences. But there is no way in which this concept could be made to grow, as it were, directly out of sense experiences. It is deliberately that I choose here the concept of number, because it belongs to pre-scientific thinking and because, in spite of that fact, its constructive character is still easily recognizable. The more, however, we turn to the most primitive concepts of everyday life, the more difficult it becomes amidst the mass of inveterate habits to recognize the concept as an independent creation of thinking. It was thus that the fateful conception-fateful, that is to say, for an. understanding of the here existing conditions-could arise, according to which the concepts originate from experience by way of "abstraction," i.e., through omission of a part of its content. I want to indicate now why this conception appears to me to be so fateful. As soon as one is at home in Hume's critique one is easily led to believe that all those concepts and propositions which cannot be deduced from the sensory raw-material are, on account of their "metaphysical" character, to be removed from thinking. For all thought acquires material content only through its relationship with that sensory material. This latter proposition I take to be entirely true; but I hold the prescription for thinking which is grounded on this proposition to be false. For this claim-if only carried through consistently absolutely excludes thinking of any kind as "metaphysical."<div><br /></div><div>In order that thinking might not degenerate into "metaphysics,'' or into empty talk, it is only necessary that enough propositions of the conceptual system be firmly enough connected. with sensory experiences and that the conceptual system, in view of its task of ordering and surveying sense-experience, should show as much unity and parsimony as possible. Beyond that, however, the "system" is (as regards logic) a free play with symbols according to (logical) arbitrarily given rules of the game. All this applies as much (and in the same manner) to the thinking in daily life as to the more consciously and systematically constructed thought in the sciences.</div><div><br /></div><div>It will now be clear what is meant if I make the following statement: By his clear critique Hume did not only advance philosophy in a decisive way but also-though through no fault of his-created a danger for philosophy in that, following his critique, a fateful "fear of metaphysics" arose which has come to be a malady of contemporary empiricistic philosophizing; this malady is the counterpart to that earlier philosophizing in the clouds, which thought it could neglect and dispense with what was given by the senses.</div><div><br />No matter how much one may admire the acute analysis which Russell has given us in his latest book on Meaning and Truth, it still seems to me that even there the spectre of the metaphysical fear has caused some damage. For this fear seems to me, for example, to be the cause for conceiving of the "thing" as a "bundle of qualities," such that the "qualities" are to be taken from the sensory raw-material. Now the fact that two things are said to be one and the same thing, if they coincide in all qualities, forces one to consider the geometrical relations between things as belonging to their qualities. (Otherwise one is forced to look upon the Eiffel Tower in Paris and that in New York as "the same thing.") 1 Over against that I see no "metaphysical' danger in taking the thing (the object in the sense of physics) as an independent concept into the system together with the proper spatio-temporal structure.</div><div><br /></div><div>In view of these endeavours I am particularly pleased to note that, in the last chapter of the book, it finally crops out that one can, after all, not get along without "metaphysics." The only thing to which I take exception there is the bad intellectual conscience which shines through between the lines.<br /></div><div><br /></div><div>ALBERT EINSTEIN </div><div>SCHOOL OF MATHEMATICS </div><div>THE INSTITUTE of ADVANCED STUDY</div><div>PRINCETON </div><div><br /></div><div>1 Compare Russell's <i>An Inquiry Into Meaning and Truth</i>, 119-12.01 chapter on "Proper Names."<br /><br /><div><p>From <a href="https://www.holybooks.com/wp-content/uploads/The-Philosophy-Of-Bertrand-Russell.pdf"><span style="color: #990000;"><i>The Philosophy of Bertrand Russell, </i>Vol. V</span></a> <i>of "The Library of Living Philosophers," </i>edited by Paul Arthur Schilpp, 1944. Translated from the original German by Paul Arthur Schilpp. Tudor Publishers.</p><p><br /></p><p>Related reading: <a href="https://college-ethics.blogspot.com/2022/12/what-albert-einstein-thought-of.html"><span style="color: #990000;">What Albert Einstein Thought of Christianity</span></a>; <a href="https://college-ethics.blogspot.com/2013/11/einstein-was-right-about-education.html"><span style="color: #990000;">Einstein Was Right About Education</span></a></p><p><br /></p></div></div>Alice C. Linsleyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13069827354696169270noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6499463045181557795.post-10974445854074665312022-12-20T15:19:00.005-07:002022-12-20T15:19:56.815-07:00Derrida's Style of Writing<blockquote><p> </p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-kPLqOUnq2DM/YJANQcAemOI/AAAAAAAASGQ/m2yt0u8QrbIo7hyS_7ahrUqSfP8IHfsHACNcBGAsYHQ/s640/OUTSIDE.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="640" data-original-width="412" height="384" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-kPLqOUnq2DM/YJANQcAemOI/AAAAAAAASGQ/m2yt0u8QrbIo7hyS_7ahrUqSfP8IHfsHACNcBGAsYHQ/w290-h384/OUTSIDE.jpg" width="290" /></a></div><p><br /></p><br />Paul Austin Murphy looks at Derrida's intentionally obscure writing style. Murphy observes:<br /><br /><blockquote><i>How much does a reader need to know about Derrida’s writing style (as well as his philosophy) in order to recognise his (to use Critchley’s words) “wordplay”, “intertextual references”, “allusions”, “neologisms” and “paleonomy”?<br /><br />Clearly — a hell of a lot.<br /><br />Of course one can easily argue that one needs to be tuned in — at least to some extent - to any philosopher in order to understand what he or she says. Yet added to that fact — again — is Derrida’s use of language to make it say things it hasn’t previously said. That compounds the difficulties for the reader. And, of course, it’s very clear that Derrida was very happy with making things difficult. Indeed one could easily argue that making things difficult for the reader was at least part of Derrida’s (philosophical) point!</i></blockquote></blockquote><p><br /></p><p> Read the whole article <a href="http://paulaustinmurphypam.blogspot.com/2021/04/derridas-obscure-style-of-writing.html">here</a>.</p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p>Alice C. Linsleyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13069827354696169270noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6499463045181557795.post-19063133798978029362022-11-14T16:22:00.005-07:002022-11-14T16:22:51.941-07:00David Bradshaw on Faith and Reason<p> </p><p style="text-align: center;"></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEgmiwjGjc94naPVXKhDaszrM5mYHAMhSMiDrha-fa7KeTtIhOXm-zK7ykvqoQsFEu_a2BNXTCizHgrPjsT2m-TSfxZsBtAHAyqqg6VDzAUxWXZdukW08acpTipO4qSwm7vK5v3p9QIN019F2KT6GIa1FLDIskrkqKxhsNP6tDoBAPTGNZtBMCPsSsmF" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="" data-original-height="218" data-original-width="220" height="240" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEgmiwjGjc94naPVXKhDaszrM5mYHAMhSMiDrha-fa7KeTtIhOXm-zK7ykvqoQsFEu_a2BNXTCizHgrPjsT2m-TSfxZsBtAHAyqqg6VDzAUxWXZdukW08acpTipO4qSwm7vK5v3p9QIN019F2KT6GIa1FLDIskrkqKxhsNP6tDoBAPTGNZtBMCPsSsmF" width="242" /></a></div><div style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://philosophy.as.uky.edu/users/dbradsh"><span style="color: #990000;">Dr. David Bradshaw</span></a></div><p></p><p style="text-align: center;"><br /></p><p>In this <a href="https://www.academia.edu/37660807/_Thy_Law_Is_Truth_The_Living_Space_between_Faith_and_Reason_Touchstone_Magazine_Nov_Dec_2018"><span style="color: #990000;">2018 article</span></a> published in Touchstone Magazine, Dr. David Bradshaw (University of Kentucky) explores the relationship between faith and reason, and the views of various philosophers as to how Truth is perceived.</p><p><br /></p><p>Related reading: <a href="https://justgreatthought.blogspot.com/2015/03/david-bradshaw-on-relationship-between.html"><span style="color: #990000;">David Bradshaw on the Relationship Between Philosophy and Theology</span></a></p><p><br /></p>Alice C. Linsleyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13069827354696169270noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6499463045181557795.post-16802997815269072572022-09-19T14:47:00.008-06:002022-09-19T16:16:53.146-06:00Of His Blood and Eternity<p> </p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiN1vXyhpOC6mSx0O5dWHApKPxpUwhedVE22q0N6jXaPXn8aGuaTZPaZQYEYbPK31d0LHJcmGc2qN_VBLvidEV003gm9mU9irFZndWh1BnQpdgaRSNVv9mK6lQl6rraILXVIwagCuq5HvEYL8vNyoIc4KoQjtNxx4InEBbYt5ctsSekfdCtYfsqmfpr/s275/time.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="183" data-original-width="275" height="205" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiN1vXyhpOC6mSx0O5dWHApKPxpUwhedVE22q0N6jXaPXn8aGuaTZPaZQYEYbPK31d0LHJcmGc2qN_VBLvidEV003gm9mU9irFZndWh1BnQpdgaRSNVv9mK6lQl6rraILXVIwagCuq5HvEYL8vNyoIc4KoQjtNxx4InEBbYt5ctsSekfdCtYfsqmfpr/w275-h205/time.jpg" width="275" /></a></div><p><br /></p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joan_Robinson"><span style="color: #990000;">Joan Violet Robinson</span></a> said, "Time is a device to prevent everything from happening at once." To this, someone quipped, "Space is a device to prevent everything from happening in Cambridge."<div><br /><div><br /></div><div>Dr. Alice C. Linsley<br /><br /><br />Humans today tend to think in terms of linear history. Events of history appear to have a beginning, a middle (climax or denouement), and an end. However, all events have complex etiologies and some of the forces at work are never recognized by historians.<div><br /></div><div>Linear thinkers tend to view the progression of history as either positive and upward or negative and downward. The obsession of some Fundamentalists with the End Times is an example. They speak of moral corruption, crime, famines, earthquakes, pandemics, wars and rumors of wars as absolute proof that we are living in the last days and that Jesus Christ's return is near.</div><div><br /></div><div>The secular positivists speak instead of the progress made through technology, medicine, and the sciences. They grow excited about the possibility that humans could live forever (transhumanism) or that human settlements on other planets could insure an eternity for the species. They embrace the concept of evolutionary progress over time. </div><div><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjwi2HNz87-TzcMLuxusp1CaNyUmFkKtISeqSKwDdAeo0a9CgayH2kIzErsk43MwiO64FiTMxZmt7tYL1JpX06AyzAjoyw4Omnen_bzwcoHlee4yVnIlcjeoHI1w91DJJrBuQk9qADPIL47M0BzVReOoP8vDFHV87lZm0i76GuPPptf5Kfnq8ze381T/s211/Spiral%20of%20time.png" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="111" data-original-width="211" height="111" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjwi2HNz87-TzcMLuxusp1CaNyUmFkKtISeqSKwDdAeo0a9CgayH2kIzErsk43MwiO64FiTMxZmt7tYL1JpX06AyzAjoyw4Omnen_bzwcoHlee4yVnIlcjeoHI1w91DJJrBuQk9qADPIL47M0BzVReOoP8vDFHV87lZm0i76GuPPptf5Kfnq8ze381T/s1600/Spiral%20of%20time.png" width="211" /></a></div><br /><div style="text-align: center;">Spiral found on ancient petroglyphs in what is today Sudan.</div><div style="text-align: center;"><br /></div><div><br /></div><div>In the ancient world it was common to think of time as cyclical and to equate the various cycles to patterns such as the seasons or the location of stars and constellations in the night sky. The cyclical view of time and the Fundamentalist view of time were challenged and eclipsed by the evolutionary mindset of the Twentieth Century.</div><div><br /></div><div>That mindset became a template through which data was interpreted. In the study of religion, it was assumed that primitive humans were superstitious, animistic, and polytheists. This equates primitive to a brutish nature. However, this evolutionary conception of religion simply does not stand up when <a href="https://biblicalanthropology.blogspot.com/2022/04/the-oldest-known-religion.html"><span style="color: #990000;">closely evaluated</span></a>. Rudolf Otto wrote a book about this: The Idea of the Holy (1923). He believed that early humans responded to the "numinous" out of emotion rather than reason. That does not seem to be true when we look at all the data. Early humans were great observers of patterns in Nature, and they drew rational conclusions based on those observations. That is why Paul states that all are without excuse in Romans 1:20.</div><div><br /></div><div>In reality, time is a great mystery. We cannot apply the term "time" to the eternal because the eternal is timeless. "Eternal” means outside of time. Time and space were created for humanity because humble clay needs fixed boundaries or external pressures to keep its shape.</div><div><div><br /></div><div>The Triune God is not bound by time and space. The co-eternal Son is said to fill all things, seen and unseen. This means that the Blood of Jesus Messiah establishes a timeless covering for those who are "in Christ" or who "put on" Christ. Those living before His Incarnation and those living after His Incarnation are covered by the same Blood if they find communion with the Creator who seeks to be the God and Father of all.</div><div><br /></div><div>Paul uses the term "pleroma" in his epistles when speaking of Christ filling all things. For Paul, the pleroma is the manifestation of the benefits of Jesus’ timeless blood. The Apostle Paul refers to the blood of Jesus no less than twelve times in his writings. Because God makes peace with us through the Blood of the Cross, he urges “Take every care to preserve the unity of the Spirit by the peace that binds you together” (Ephesians. 4:3).</div></div><div><br /></div>Paul explains that Jesus Christ is the fullness (“pleroma” in Greek) of all things in heaven and on earth, both invisible and visible. The term “pleroma” was used among the Gnostics to describe the metaphysical unity of all things, but Paul uses the term to speak about how the fullness of the Godhead dwells in Christ in bodily form (Col. 2:9).<div><br style="background-color: #f6f6f6; font-family: "Trebuchet MS", Trebuchet, Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;" />Paul’s use of the term pleroma, as well the appearance of this term in other First Century writings, suggests that the concept was widely circulating in apostolic times. Against the Gnostics, the biblical writers used it to explain that the mystical Body of Christ fills heaven and earth; that He is sovereign over all and in all. For the Gnostics, the pleroma is vague and undifferentiated, but for Paul the pleroma is about the Son of God and the benefits of the blood of Jesus. Paul hoped to prevent the early Christians from wandering from the Blood of Jesus that brings forgiveness and eternal life.</div><div><br /></div>The Cross is central for Paul, but its benefits are not bound by time. Doubtless, the reader will have heard about the cross as an especially excruciating form of execution invented by the Romans. That is true. However, the efficacy of the Blood of Jesus does not rely on the existence of the Roman empire.<div><br /></div><div>Reality is the deposit of the fullness of all things hidden and revealed in Christ. Paul wants his converts to understand that they are “entrusted with the mysteries of God” so that they may faithfully proclaim the Gospel; so that hearers “may know the mystery of God, namely, Christ” (I Cor. 4:1, Eph. 3:9; Col. 2:2). The pleromic Blood of which Paul speaks constitutes a single reality. One is either in Christ or not in Christ; connected to the Life-giving eternal reality or not connected. Abraham was connected. His Faith was not of a different dispensation because Paul reminds the Gentile believers that they are grafted into the faith of Abraham (Rom. 11:17). <br /><br />Paul articulated his understanding of the pleroma as early as his second missionary journey when he preached to the Athenians that, “in Him [Jesus Christ] we live and move and have our being.” (Acts 17:28) However, Paul’s thoughts on this developed further as he continued to reflect on the Hebrew Scriptures, prayed and fasted, and received greater illumination by Christ. We find the fullest expression of the pleroma in his latter writings, especially in Romans and in Ephesians.<br /><br /><i>In Him we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of His grace which He made to abound toward us in all wisdom and prudence, having made known to us the mystery of His will, according to His good pleasure which He purposed in Himself, that in the dispensation of the fullness of the times, He might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven and which are on earth.</i> (Ephesians 1:7-10)<br /><span face=""Trebuchet MS", Trebuchet, Verdana, sans-serif" style="background-color: #f6f6f6; font-size: 13px;"><br /></span></div><div>Paul's confession of the pleromic Blood of Christ informs his understanding of the Body of Christ. He writes: “There is one Body, one Spirit, just as one hope is the goal of your calling by God. There is one Lord, one Faith, one baptism, and one God and Father of all, over all, through all and within all” (Eph. 4:4-5).<br style="background-color: #f6f6f6; font-family: "Trebuchet MS", Trebuchet, Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;" /><br style="background-color: #f6f6f6; font-family: "Trebuchet MS", Trebuchet, Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;" />Lest we presume that the pleromic understanding of the Blood of Jesus is an invention of St. Paul, we should consider also these words from St. John:<br /><br /><i>Who can overcome the world but the one who believes that Jesus is the Son of God? He it is who came by water and blood, Jesus Christ, not with water alone but with water and blood, and it is the Spirit that bears witness, for the Spirit is Truth. So there are three witnesses, the Spirit, water and blood, and the three of them coincide. </i>(I John 5:5-8)</div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div>Related reading: <a href="https://biblicalanthropology.blogspot.com/2014/12/saint-pauls-application-of-greek.html"><span style="color: #990000;">Paul's Application of Greek Philosophy</span></a>; <a href="https://jandyongenesis.blogspot.com/2008/08/pleromic-blood-and-gnosticism.html"><span style="color: #990000;">The Pleromic Blood and Gnosticism</span></a>; <a href="https://justgreatthought.blogspot.com/2013/03/time-and-eternity.html"><span style="color: #990000;">Theories of Time</span></a>; <a href="http://edwardlundwall.blogspot.com/2022/09/meditation-of-holy-cross.html"><span style="color: #990000;">Meditation on the Holy Cross</span></a>; <a href="https://biblicalanthropology.blogspot.com/2022/04/the-oldest-known-religion.html"><span style="color: #990000;">The Oldest Known Religion</span></a>; <a href="https://justgreatthought.blogspot.com/2019/05/on-blood-and-impulse-to-immortality.html"><span style="color: #990000;">On Blood and the Impulse to Immortality</span></a>; <a href="https://www.ncregister.com/blog/3-views-of-time-and-eternity"><span style="color: #990000;">Three Views of Time and Eternity</span></a>; <a href="https://justgreatthought.blogspot.com/2017/09/the-timeless-mystery-of-god.html"><span style="color: #990000;">The Timeless Mystery of God</span></a>; <a href="https://philosophyofreligion.org/?p=525718"><span style="color: #990000;">Adam Green: The Past and Futures of the Philosophy of Religion</span></a></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div></div></div>Alice C. Linsleyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13069827354696169270noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6499463045181557795.post-2313919256065278112022-06-26T13:32:00.001-06:002022-06-26T19:36:44.692-06:00Is "Complementarianism" a Biblical Concept?<p> </p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh2tpE7p-92RCKX3o38rXHswKl-9NZr3IvkRlrkEemjGeDw8PS04wTzanOw0qLLw1yG1zGH7F_ju85_dnC1f6WA8fqXd7sH2s7SL-zuzfDm5w6UsFlCkRqgxjF31nyoGHVKMxDaOES1kezI12YJdO9LWflql9GbKQz6D_-CE5YpzRouet4qKqMnP1RH/s320/Sun%20king%20and%20moon%20queen.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="320" data-original-width="241" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh2tpE7p-92RCKX3o38rXHswKl-9NZr3IvkRlrkEemjGeDw8PS04wTzanOw0qLLw1yG1zGH7F_ju85_dnC1f6WA8fqXd7sH2s7SL-zuzfDm5w6UsFlCkRqgxjF31nyoGHVKMxDaOES1kezI12YJdO9LWflql9GbKQz6D_-CE5YpzRouet4qKqMnP1RH/s1600/Sun%20king%20and%20moon%20queen.jpg" width="241" /></a></div><div style="text-align: center;">The king is shown with Sun-darkened skin. His queen appears with Moon-whitened skin.</div><div style="text-align: center;">This expresses the gender distinctions and binary reasoning of the Nilotic Hebrew.</div><p></p><p style="text-align: center;"><br /></p><p>Dr. Alice C. Linsley</p><p><br />Among Evangelicals the roles of males and females are prescribed by a doctrine called "complementarianism." This belief maintains that God created men and women equal in dignity and personhood, yet different and serving complementary roles in Church, Home, and Society. The male is the head of the home and the lead authority in the Church. </p><p></p><p class="MsoNormal">The book of Genesis states that both male and female are made in the <i>imago Dei. </i>In the egalitarian mindset this is often articulated dualistically. Males and females are equally in the divine image. They are equally qualified for all jobs. Women can do anything men can do. Men can do anything women can do. </p><p class="MsoNormal">Except this is not true. In the order of creation women cannot impregnate with sperm. Men cannot conceive and give birth. When it comes to reproductive processes, there is mutual dependence, but no equivalent function.</p><p class="MsoNormal">To impose egalitarianism on the canonical Scriptures is to distort the biblical view of the order of creation which denies dualism. The yin-yang may be equal and inseparable entities in Asian thought, but in biblical thought one entity of a binary set is always observably superior in some way to its partner. This is expressed in
statements of the obvious. In the binary set of Sun-Moon, the Sun is the
greater light (Gen. 1:16). The light of the Moon is refulgent. The male is
larger and stronger than the female. </p><p class="MsoNormal">Is complementarianism the same as the binary view of Scripture? </p><p class="MsoNormal">It cannot be the same because Evangelicals omit an important feature of the binary worldview: the unique contribution of the Virgin Mary as the mother of Jesus the God-Man. Unless she be venerated (not worshipped) the binary balance of Righteous Manhood and Righteous Womanhood is absent. Why is Mary declared the most blessed among women? Because she did what only a woman could do. She brought forth the God-Man! Mary shines with the refulgent brightness of her son, Jesus Messiah.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;">Archaeological, anthropological, and linguistic research provides
many examples of the binary reasoning of the early Hebrew from whom we received
the Messianic faith we call "Christianity." This reasoning extends to
the metaphysical: Life is greater than death. However, it does not apply to the
Godhead which is uncreated.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;">The God-Man would not be considered a binary set in the biblical
sense because 1. this is unique, 2. in Christ these are of one
being/substance/essence, 3. in Christ the Man has been made God, 4 in Christ
God has been made Man. So the mystery of the Trinity does not meet the
requirement that one entity of the set be superior to the other in an
observable way.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;">Binary reasoning in the Bible pertains to the order of creation
and the God-Man is not created.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;">The bishops, priests, and deacons who came together at the early
ecumenical councils struggled with the created-uncreated distinction, and after
more than one difficult and costly convocation, began to resolve the
Christological and Trinitarian questions.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;">Until the Anglicans recognize the unique nature of the priesthood as a divine ordinance which began with the biblical Hebrew, the question of
women's ordination will not be resolved to anyone's satisfaction. The Evangelical approach is to speak of the priesthood as a generalized "pastoral ministry." This obfuscates the
historic nature of the priesthood as being about the Blood. It comes close to
denying the blood work of the Cross. Among the biblical Hebrew, blood work was
observed as binary: the bloodwork of males and the blood work of females. The
first involved war, hunting, and animal sacrifice. The second involved
reproductive processes. That is why women were never priests. The two bloods
could not be present in the same locale.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"><br /></span></span></p>Related reading: <a href="https://stmaryshollywood.org/athanasian-creed"><span style="color: #990000;">The Athanasian Creed</span></a>; <a href="https://jandyongenesis.blogspot.com/2011/07/binary-worldview-shaped-horite-culture.html"><span style="color: #990000;">The Binary Distinctions of the Horite Hebrew</span></a>; <a href="https://jandyongenesis.blogspot.com/2019/08/binary-is-bad-word-these-days.html"><span style="color: #990000;">Binary is a Bad Word These Days</span></a>; <a href="http://jandyongenesis.blogspot.com/2009/04/why-women-were-never-priests.html"><span style="color: #990000;">Why Women Were Never Priests</span></a>; <a href="https://jandyongenesis.blogspot.com/2008/09/pleromic-blood-and-gender-distinctions.html"><span style="color: #990000;">Blood and Binary Distinctions</span></a>; <a href="https://jandyongenesis.blogspot.com/2015/01/rethinking-gender-equality.html"><span style="color: #990000;">Rethinking Gender Equality</span></a>; <a href="http://college-ethics.blogspot.com/2015/01/what-may-christians-safely-disbelieve.html"><span style="color: #990000;">What Christians May Safely Disbelieve</span></a><p></p><div><br /></div><div><br /></div>Alice C. Linsleyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13069827354696169270noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6499463045181557795.post-73744321275994723882022-05-14T09:32:00.000-06:002022-05-14T09:32:04.286-06:00A Popular Fallacy to Suppress Dissent<p> </p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjrc3AnkrcFDLOdIanQvGw1iZmkPXRHxyLUVwYLtIjtVgiVCbCPkCfzsf3emG_J-MDEnfVI9C75VNnNqx7e_zUxtKkIol6EhYycC6RhRtNk7RoGb_xFIp82dgEZY6zhf8Sqvgr8hqmvm2mLEi2qfa1U3-XfsWwIgT-AKoFpTfhwIpsQw2ibfCP2lMcO/s768/what-is-logical-fallacy-1691259-v5-5b75893bc9e77c005024c1ee.webp" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="512" data-original-width="768" height="261" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjrc3AnkrcFDLOdIanQvGw1iZmkPXRHxyLUVwYLtIjtVgiVCbCPkCfzsf3emG_J-MDEnfVI9C75VNnNqx7e_zUxtKkIol6EhYycC6RhRtNk7RoGb_xFIp82dgEZY6zhf8Sqvgr8hqmvm2mLEi2qfa1U3-XfsWwIgT-AKoFpTfhwIpsQw2ibfCP2lMcO/w381-h261/what-is-logical-fallacy-1691259-v5-5b75893bc9e77c005024c1ee.webp" width="381" /></a></div><p><br /></p><a href="http://aphilosopher.drmcl.com/author/aphilosopher_odhb8u/">Michael LaBossiere</a><div><br /><br />While the Leave It fallacy can be seen as a type of Ad Hominem because it involves rejecting a person’s claim based on an irrelevant attack on the person, it has two distinguishing features.<br /><br />First, the person is attacked because they are being critical of something. This attack often involves asserting the critic is motivated by a secret association or agreement with a disliked group. Second, rather than refuting the criticism, the attacker only tells the target to “leave.” There is, however, the implied conclusion that the person told to leave is thus wrong in their criticism. The fallacy has the following general form:</div><div><br /></div><div><br />Premise 1. Person A makes critical claim X about Y.<br /><br />Premise 2. Person B attacks A (usually for an alleged association/agreement with a disliked group G) and says that if A does not like X about Y, then they should leave Y (usually for G).<br /><br />Conclusion: Therefore, X is false.</div><div><br /><br /> This argument is a fallacy because attacking a person and telling them to leave does not prove their criticism is false. The fallacy draws much of its psychological power from the cognitive bias of groupthink and ingroup bias. Groupthink is the tendency to try to minimize conflict and form a consensus by suppressing dissent and avoiding outside influences. Ingroup bias is the tendency to see one’s own group as superior and outsiders as inferior. Someone who is critical of a group can easily be presented as a threat and people in that group can be motivated to reject that criticism out of anger and dislike. These biases do not, of course, have any logical weight.</div><div><br /></div>Care should be taken to not confuse the Leave It fallacy with the False Dilemma “love it or leave it.” The idea in this False Dilemma is that one has just two options: to love something (typically a country) utterly and never criticize it or leave it. There are obviously many other options. The difference between the two is that the Leave It fallacy involves using an attack on the person to “argue” that their criticism is false while the False Dilemma “love it or leave it” is intended to silence criticism by wrongly asserting that one has only the two choices. It can often be hard to distinguish the two because people often combine them and those attempting these fallacies often do not know what they are doing themselves.<div><br /></div><div>Defense: The defense against this fallacy is to try to reason through any negative feelings one might have and ask if any relevant refutation of the criticism has been offered. If it has not, then the “argument” gives no reason to reject that criticism. This does not mean that the criticism is therefore true—it just means the fallacy does not provide any reason to reject it.</div><div><br /></div><div><br />Example #1<br /><br />“These woke liberals claim that America still has systematic racism. But their brains have been corrupted by the foreign philosophies of the <a href="https://iep.utm.edu/critical-theory-frankfurt-school/">Frankfurt School</a> and Cultural Marxism. If they hate America so much, they should just leave!”<br /><br /> <br /><br />Example #2<br /><br />“These conservatives claim that America has Marxist elements. But their brains have been corrupted by the foreign philosophies of fascism and Nazism. If they hate America so much, they should just leave!”<br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div>Alice C. Linsleyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13069827354696169270noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6499463045181557795.post-84210400610791574402022-04-07T17:34:00.000-06:002022-04-07T17:34:09.110-06:00Yoram Hazony on the Enlightenment<p> </p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiemUyIIJhBNvV51tXpnPl96tG282txdvKnibgLLsVXyJGm-n9XfW7q4vN1W4OZADej1poCBL-zyYnlgJ7PjG79F5AopUF_1GH1PlaTct-BK6_N5n_G1_Wp1Or9Yor74IiAaVB31Qd2PPQSIcEgGzxg0qE4apGY4_n3h8vOm_M8Rtqys_bGZRXIq7o6/s1600/Descartes-Diderot-Hegel-Rousseau-Voltaire.webp" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1215" data-original-width="1600" height="243" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiemUyIIJhBNvV51tXpnPl96tG282txdvKnibgLLsVXyJGm-n9XfW7q4vN1W4OZADej1poCBL-zyYnlgJ7PjG79F5AopUF_1GH1PlaTct-BK6_N5n_G1_Wp1Or9Yor74IiAaVB31Qd2PPQSIcEgGzxg0qE4apGY4_n3h8vOm_M8Rtqys_bGZRXIq7o6/s320/Descartes-Diderot-Hegel-Rousseau-Voltaire.webp" width="320" /></a></div><div style="text-align: center;">(Left to Right)</div><div style="text-align: center;">Diderot, Descartes, Voltaire, Hegel and Rousseau</div><p style="text-align: center;"><br /></p>What Was the Enlightenment?<div><br /></div><div>Yoram Hazony</div><div><br /><br />Modern science, medicine, political freedom, the market economy—all of them, we’re told, are the result of a sort of miracle that took place 250 years ago. That miracle is called the Enlightenment, a moment in history when philosophers suddenly overthrew religious dogma and tradition and replaced it with human reason. Harvard professor Steven Pinker puts it this way: “Progress is a gift of the ideals of the Enlightenment.” <br /><br /> There’s just one problem with this claim. It isn’t really true. </div><div><br /></div><div>Consider the U.S. Constitution, which is frequently said to be a product of Enlightenment thought. But you only need to read about English common law—which Alexander Hamilton and James Madison certainly did—to see that this isn’t so. Already in the 15th-century, the English jurist John Fortescue elaborated the theory of “checks and balances,” due process, and the role of private property in securing individual freedom and economic prosperity. Similarly, the U.S. Bill of Rights has its sources in English common law of the 1600s. </div><div><br /></div><div>Or consider modern science and medicine. Long before the Enlightenment, tradition-bound English kings sponsored path-breaking scientific institutions such as the Royal College of Physicians, founded in 1518, and the Royal Society of London, founded in 1660. </div><div><br /></div><div>The truth is that statesmen and philosophers, especially in England and the Netherlands, articulated the principles of free government centuries before America was founded. </div><div><br /></div><div>So why give the Enlightenment all the credit? Apparently because it doesn’t look good to admit that the best and most important parts of modernity were given to us by individuals who nearly all held conservative religious and political beliefs. </div><div><br /></div><div>The claim that all good things come from the Enlightenment is most closely associated with the late-18th-century German philosopher, Immanuel Kant. For Kant, reason is universal, infallible, and independent of experience. </div><div><br /></div><div>His extraordinarily dogmatic philosophy insisted that there can be only one correct answer to every question in science, morality and politics. And that to reach the one correct answer, mankind had to free itself from the chains of the past—that is, from history, tradition and experience. </div><div><br /></div><div>But this Enlightenment view is not only wrong, it’s dangerous. Human reason, when cut loose from the constraints imposed by history, tradition and experience, produces a lot of crazy notions. </div><div><br /></div><div>Short Videos. Big Ideas. .com The abstract Enlightenment philosophy of Jean Jacques Rousseau is a good example. It quickly pulled down the French state, leading to the French Revolution, the Reign of Terror, and the Napoleonic Wars. Millions died as Napoleon’s armies sought to rebuild every government in Europe in light of the one correct political theory he believed was permitted by Enlightenment philosophy. </div><div><br /></div><div>Today’s cheerleaders for the Enlightenment tend to skip this part of the story. They also pass over the fact that the father of communism, Karl Marx, saw himself as promoting universal reason as well. His new “science” of economics ended up killing tens of millions of people in the 20th century. So did the supposedly scientific race theories of the Nazis. The greatest catastrophes of modernity were engineered by individuals who claimed to be exercising reason. </div><div><br /></div><div>In contrast, most of the progress we’ve made comes from conservative traditions openly skeptical of human reason. The Enlightenment’s critics, including John Selden, David Hume, Adam Smith, and Edmund Burke, emphasized the unreliability of “abstract reasoning” and urged us to stick close to custom, history, and experience in all things. </div><div><br /></div><div>Which brings us to the heart of what’s wrong with today’s idolization of the Enlightenment. Its leading figures were not skeptics open to what history and experience might teach us. Their aim was to create their own system of supposedly infallible truths independent of experience. And in that pursuit, they were as rigid as the most dogmatic medievals. </div><div><br /></div><div>Anglo-Scottish conservatives had a very different goal. They defended national and religious tradition, even as they cultivated what they called a “moderate skepticism”—a combination that became known as “common sense.” </div><div><br /></div><div>I think a lot about common sense these days, as I see American and European elites clamoring for “Enlightenment Now.” They rush to embrace every fashionable new “ism”—socialism, feminism, environmentalism, and so on—declaring them to be universal certainties and the only “politically correct” way of thinking. They display contempt towards those who won’t embrace their dogmas, branding them “unenlightened,” “illiberal,” “deplorable,” and worse. </div><div><br /></div><div>But these new dogmas deserve to be greeted with some of that old Anglo-Scottish skepticism. Enlightenment overconfidence in reason has led us badly astray too many times. </div><div><br /></div><div>I’m Yoram Hazony, author of The Virtue of Nationalism</div><div><br /></div><div>From <a href="https://assets.ctfassets.net/qnesrjodfi80/4EThbc5pGQU6gOTud4twIm/06ce4290a1f12dbbe9cc5e1fb52b6f1b/Hazony-What_Was_the_Enlightenment-Transcript.pdf"><span style="color: #990000;">here</span></a>. </div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div>Related: <a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-dark-side-of-the-enlightenment-1523050206"><span style="color: #990000;">The Dark Side of the Enlightenment</span></a>; <a href="https://justgreatthought.blogspot.com/2014/01/ethical-concerns-of-enlightenment.html"><span style="color: #990000;">Ethical Concerns of the Enlightenment</span></a>; <a href="https://justgreatthought.blogspot.com/2018/10/index-of-topics.html"><span style="color: #990000;">INDEX of Topics at Philosophers' Corner</span></a>; <a href="https://www.britannica.com/story/why-the-enlightenment-was-not-the-age-of-reason"><span style="color: #990000;">Why the Enlightenment Was Not the Age of Reason</span></a></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div>Alice C. Linsleyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13069827354696169270noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6499463045181557795.post-79677915524133327322022-02-20T14:56:00.005-07:002022-02-20T19:33:48.717-07:00Beyond Anglican Identities<p> </p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEjDjBAucCrc0QLKNCOV9Rj7QNhPks41c0CPjWNvzTEX09RWqlT2k3515EqwBvdU86LVTxLEZt5EmY6dFlBNU4lPmTbQMVmxOv_1WLdx4l5n50FqJ8yEprd15yzvqN6xTkpeXP2-D7USjITMYhRlhcqP27gVrjQ6dwbgcXk8KKKqdA8X9_VT0gmf_yaq=s450" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="450" data-original-width="450" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEjDjBAucCrc0QLKNCOV9Rj7QNhPks41c0CPjWNvzTEX09RWqlT2k3515EqwBvdU86LVTxLEZt5EmY6dFlBNU4lPmTbQMVmxOv_1WLdx4l5n50FqJ8yEprd15yzvqN6xTkpeXP2-D7USjITMYhRlhcqP27gVrjQ6dwbgcXk8KKKqdA8X9_VT0gmf_yaq=s320" width="320" /></a></div>Fr. Charles Erlandson is a professor of Church History and Pastoral Theology at Cranmer Theological House. He holds a Ph.D. in Religious Studies from Lancaster University (U.K.)<div><br /></div><br /><br />Alice C. Linsley<br /><br /><br />In his book, <a href="https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B088KTJP16/ref=dbs_a_def_rwt_hsch_vapi_tkin_p1_i0"><span style="color: #990000;"><u>Orthodox Anglican Identity</u>: <u>The Quest for Unity in a Diverse Religious Tradition</u></span></a>, Fr. Charles Erlandson explores orthodox Anglican identity in the context of an ongoing identity crisis within the global Anglican Communion. Erlandson recognizes that Anglicanism is “a microcosm of the entire Christian church,” because its identity reflects its diversity. He notes that religious traditions are not immune to identity crises, and orthodox Anglicans have been struggling to define their identity since the 2003 consecration of V. Gene Robinson, a partnered homosexual. <br /><br />The Anglican Communion is a theological mutt with adherents who identify as Protestant, Reformed, Catholic, Evangelical, Rationalist, Empirical, and Mystical. If you seek an Anglican religious identity, you can find it here. <br /><br />Reformed Catholicism can be experienced in parishes of the Anglican Province of America, The Anglican Catholic Church, The Anglican Church in North America, The Traditional Anglican Church, and The Orthodox Anglican Church. They uphold catholic doctrine and discipline, hold a high view of the sacraments, and have male priests only. <br /><br />Revisionists are comfortable in most Episcopal churches where theology and practice accommodate contemporary culture and resource in Modernism. Though some of the leaders of liberal revisionism have died - <a href="https://forums.anglican.net/threads/louie-crew-changing-the-church-1997.3475/"><span style="color: #990000;">Louie Crew</span></a>, John Spong, and Desmond Tutu - the Episcopal Church, the Church of England, the Anglican Church of Australia, and the Anglican Church of Canada are largely allied in this innovative Anglican identity with its acceptance of women priests and same-sex unions. <br /><br />Evangelical Anglicans in America find a place of comfort in most parishes of the Anglican Church of North America (ACNA). Some of their heroes - John Stott and J. I. Packer – also have passed to their reward, but their legacy remains strong among the Evangelical Anglicans globally. Charles Erlandson is among the rising Evangelical Anglican voices. <br /><br />Some Evangelical Anglicans identity themselves as “Protestant” while others prefer the term “Reformed.” In my thinking, "Protestant" refers to Christian denominations that emerged after the Continental Reformation. These groups are removed from catholicity. They claim Sola Scriptura, ignoring the fact that the Scriptures themselves reflect a very ancient Messianic tradition. While Scripture is said to be their foremost authority, they invent doctrines that do not align with the whole counsel of Scripture: Young Earth Creationism, Antinomianism, Preterism, Pentecostalism, and the Rapture. <br /><br />American Protestants show evidence of being confused about the substance of the Gospel, often posing it as a self-help message, a higher moral code, or an enlighten ethics. I rarely hear Protestants speak about the Trinity and the two natures of Jesus Christ. <br /><br />They ignore the seasons of the Church year and rush to Christmas and Easter celebrations without periods of preparation. Most deny the sacramental nature of Baptism and Holy Communion, and the very ancient office of priest is disdained. <br /><br />The Communion of Saints appears to be a foreign concept to Protestants. That the justified living and the justified at rest are united in Christ and not separated by death is regarded by some as heretical. The iconoclastic Puritans under Cromwell did a great deal of damage and in that same spirit, many Protestant churches do not have a cross in the sanctuary. <br /><br />The Incarnation is barely spoken of, and the veneration of the Blessed Virgin Mary is generally misunderstood and usually misrepresented as idolatry. This reveals how poorly most Protestants understand Genesis 3:15 and other biblical references to the promised “Seed” or Son of God. <br /><br />The attitude of "reformed and always reforming" leads to continual efforts to update worship, preaching styles, and congregational structures to make them relevant. This expresses itself in contemporary praise band music, largely passive audiences, a consumer mindset, and sermons that tickle the ears. <br /><br />A 2019 Pew Research Center survey found that “only half of Millennials (49%) describe themselves as Christians; four-in-ten are religious ‘nones,’ and one-in-ten Millennials identify with non-Christian faiths.” <br /><br />As Gracey Olmstead wrote in a 2014 article that appeared in the American Conservative: “America’s youth are leaving churches in droves. One in four young adults choose ‘unaffiliated’ when asked about their religion, according to a 2012 Public Religion Research Institute poll, and 55 percent of those unaffiliated youth once had a religious identification when they were younger. Yet amidst this exodus, some church leaders have identified another movement as cause for hope: rather than abandoning Christianity, some young people are joining more traditional, liturgical denominations—notably the Roman Catholic, Anglican, and Orthodox branches of the faith. This trend is deeper than denominational waffling: it’s a search for meaning that goes to the heart of our postmodern age.” <br /><br />It appears that the search for meaning has turned some from shallow and enculturated Christianity to the sacred mysteries experienced only through the full sacramental life of the Church. They want to belong to the "one, holy, catholic, and apostolic" Church. <br /><br />At least there is a consensus today among Anglicans that the Bible, the Book of Common Prayer, and the Articles of Religion constitute essential characteristics of Anglicanism. One answer to the question "What is an Anglican" was given in an <a href="https://covenant.livingchurch.org/2019/05/06/anglicanism-defined-three-crises/"><span style="color: #990000;">address at Canterbury House</span></a> in Dallas by George Sumner: "In fact the most concise and compelling answer to the question What is an Anglican? is a prayer book Christian." Most would also agree on the necessity of the priesthood and the importance of Apostolic Succession. In that, we have made progress since the 19th century.<div><br />In his 1866 treatise “Catholic Orthodoxy and Anglo-Catholicism”, the English Churchman Julian J. Overbeck wrote: "First of all, what is the Anglican Church? The definition is more than difficult. For if I say, it is that Christian Denomination, the basis of which is the Bible, the Prayer-book, and the Thirty-nine Articles, at once the Evangelical party will rise and cry: "The Bible, and the Bible only is our foundation. We disapprove a great deal of what the Prayer-book retained from Popery. No Ritualism, no Sacerdotalism! No sham of Apostolical Succession! We all are priests. There is no Hierarchy divino jure, clergymen and laymen are not essentially different, there is only a distinction for order's sake.”<br /><br /> <br /><br />The Limits of Sola Scriptura <br /><br />Having experienced different cultures while living abroad, and after teaching for many years in Protestant institutions, I could not embrace the trappings of Protestant enculturated religion or fully ascribe to the doctrine of Sola Scriptura. <br /><br />The Reformers themselves recognized the limits of Sola Scriptura. The original intent was to assert that the Bible is the final and infallible authority and arbiter, rather than the Pope, the Roman Catholic Magisterium, or ecclesial councils. The doctrine upheld the role of reason in understanding what is clearly stated in Scripture concerning “all things necessary for salvation.” <br /><br />Martin Luther placed the authority of the Bible over the authority of the Roman Catholic Church. He stated that "a simple layman armed with Scripture is greater than the mightiest pope without it". Luther recognized that some biblical texts are difficult to understand, and he attempted to elucidate these in his sermons. <br /><br />The 1646 Westminster Confession of Faith (Chapter 1, Section VII) spoke of "the ordinary means" used to understand Scripture and these include turning to learned pastors and teachers. “All things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all; yet those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed, for salvation, are so clearly propounded and opened in some place of Scripture or other, that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them.” <br /><br />Luther’s intention was to correct abuses that arose in the Medieval Church. He clearly did not deny the role of tradition as he observed many practices such as oracular confession and the veneration of the Virgin Mary. <br /><br />Today we approach the Bible less polemically. We can understand difficult passages because of the work of learned Bible scholars, textual criticism, biblical archaeology, biblical anthropology, and the study of biblical languages and biblical populations. Today the available “ordinary means” are vastly greater and more diverse. <br /><br />Nevertheless, the attitude of many to church authority is indifference, and traditions, especially those regarded as “Christian” are disdained. The cultural context of our day is very different from that of the Reformers. We are heirs to the empiricism of the 20th century, and we can legitimately draw on that heritage when investigating the Scriptures as objectively as possible. As Francis Bacon reminds us, “Prudent questioning is one half of knowledge.” <br /><br />The Anglican Way relies on the faculty of reason in opposition to sensation and emotion. It is a reasonable faith that finds expression in the works of great thinkers such as Anselm of Canterbury, Richard Hooker, and John Keble. Empiricism flourished in the British Isles among members of the Church of England, and though British Empiricism took an anti-Church turn, it owes much to the Anglican intellectual environment. <br /><br />Those Anglicans who hold the Bible as a first authority and those who hold Scripture and Tradition together are obligated to read it thoroughly and regularly. Daily reading of the Bible characterizes The Anglican Way. It is a fundamental spiritual obligation that pertains to all Anglicans regardless of how they self-identify. <br /><br />I am not advocating return to the Bible as the remedy for all conflict within the Anglican Communion. That would be as reductionist as the reductionism I object to in Protestantism. Rather, I believe that the Bible informs the mind and shapes the inner person; that it is a book that profoundly changes people. We will never change the Anglican Communion, but the Holy Spirit changes people who read the Bible, and changed people form a more perfect union. Dostoevsky was converted in a Siberian prison after reading the only book he was allowed: the New Testament. <br /><br /><br />Related reading: <a href="https://northamanglican.com/review-orthodox-anglican-identity-by-charles-erlandson/"><span style="color: #990000;">Review of Erlandson's Book</span></a>; <a href="https://press.princeton.edu/books/hardcover/9780691125183/anglican-communion-in-crisis"><span style="color: #990000;">Anglican Communion in Crisis</span></a>; <a href="https://jandyongenesis.blogspot.com/2019/04/anglicans-divided.html"><span style="color: #990000;">Anglicans Divided</span></a><div><br /></div></div>Alice C. Linsleyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13069827354696169270noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6499463045181557795.post-65707746115963176662022-02-15T08:51:00.000-07:002022-02-15T08:51:14.581-07:00Divide Opinion as Derrida Did<p> </p><div style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEh7ZiJJXWYCGf2lOYz2hIwJ5i21sMcFfQIiNy2WnuZnQdaB1i9dFEfxtY05eeRUftgKuOgcwCViA2JioQ4JWkiZ8PYQ0upNQ3jKmwClpYOFa--QSzG4womW8I4AkasmM62N67rFqOHwAx-E5rmfNW8leIDW5WAFRaEegXifFmibjOvWCB5a6HCpX35p=s900" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="900" data-original-width="900" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEh7ZiJJXWYCGf2lOYz2hIwJ5i21sMcFfQIiNy2WnuZnQdaB1i9dFEfxtY05eeRUftgKuOgcwCViA2JioQ4JWkiZ8PYQ0upNQ3jKmwClpYOFa--QSzG4womW8I4AkasmM62N67rFqOHwAx-E5rmfNW8leIDW5WAFRaEegXifFmibjOvWCB5a6HCpX35p=s320" width="320" /></a></div><br /><br /><div>By Peter Salmon</div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div>There have been few thinkers in the history of philosophy who have divided opinion as completely as Jacques Derrida (1930-2004). For some, he is one of the great philosophers of the 20th century, whose brilliant analyses of the text of philosophy and literature overturned many of the fundamental assumptions of each. To others, he is a charlatan: his honorary doctorate from the University of Cambridge in 1992 was opposed in a letter to The Times that accused him of not meeting accepted standards of clarity and rigour. His work, the signatories argued, consisted in no small part of elaborate jokes and puns, making French philosophy ‘an object of ridicule’.<div><br /><br />Handsome, charismatic, pipe-smoking, Derrida looked like everything a French philosopher should. Pop songs were written about him, films were made in which he played himself, while his aphorisms appeared on T-shirts and coffee mugs: ‘There is nothing outside the text’; ‘To pretend, I actually do the thing: I have therefore only pretended to pretend’; and ‘I always dream of a pen that would be a syringe.’</div><div><br /><br />He was born in Algeria on 15 July 1930, and his real name was, in fact, Jackie – named after Jackie Coogan, star of the film The Kid (1921), by his Charlie Chaplin-loving parents. Jewish, French, Algerian, Derrida’s identity was complicated, and he strove to apply this complexity to all he touched. Part of thinking like Derrida involves taking those things we take most for granted – such as our identity, such as our language – and looking for unexplored assumptions, contradictions and absences. Thinking like Derrida is a form of close reading, not just of texts, such as those of philosophy and literature, but of everything – art, religion, politics, even ourselves.<div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div>Read it all <a href="https://psyche.co/guides/how-to-deconstruct-the-world-by-thinking-like-jacques-derrida"><span style="color: #990000;">here</span></a>.</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div></div><div><br /></div><div>Related reading: <a href="https://justgreatthought.blogspot.com/2013/11/a-thumbnail-sketch-of-jacques-derrida.html">A Thumbnail Sketch of Jacques Derrida</a>; <a href="https://egs.edu/new-leading-thinkers-course-on-derrida/">New Leading Thinkers Course on Derrida</a>; <a href="http://jandyongenesis.blogspot.com/2012/04/levi-strauss-and-derrida-on-binary.html">Levi-Strauss and Derrida on Binary Oppositions</a></div><div><a href="http://jandyongenesis.blogspot.com/2012/04/levi-strauss-and-derrida-on-binary.html"><br /></a></div><div><a href="http://jandyongenesis.blogspot.com/2012/04/levi-strauss-and-derrida-on-binary.html"><br /></a></div><br /></div>Alice C. Linsleyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13069827354696169270noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6499463045181557795.post-56827144590509603602022-02-11T17:23:00.002-07:002022-02-18T16:16:06.406-07:00Four Women Revived Metaphysics<p> </p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEj2cWF7j8i8iF32Zg-VZsfKi7LHkxU2szB0W3C9F5tx5sIF1fdtrWRSrJOxDAHKVyrev_mnZI50sPB7RmDKcSYmtz7FcM96yYfDLUiItDRPHt2LqnmEqpPXDTVywH3fAjmg8GRUMVq6R5xxEZ6Bzp4dyJcIZn8fLWQlPH6DhUJZYi-J_rCdCWmRlJpO=s180" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="180" data-original-width="100" height="203" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEj2cWF7j8i8iF32Zg-VZsfKi7LHkxU2szB0W3C9F5tx5sIF1fdtrWRSrJOxDAHKVyrev_mnZI50sPB7RmDKcSYmtz7FcM96yYfDLUiItDRPHt2LqnmEqpPXDTVywH3fAjmg8GRUMVq6R5xxEZ6Bzp4dyJcIZn8fLWQlPH6DhUJZYi-J_rCdCWmRlJpO=w138-h203" width="138" /></a></div><div style="text-align: center;">A young Elizabeth Anscombe</div><p><br /></p><p><u>Metaphysical Animals: How Four Women Brought Philosophy Back to Life</u> by Clare Mac Cumhaill and Rachael Wiseman looks at Elizabeth Anscombe, Iris Murdoch, Mary Midgley and Philippa Foot, women who studied philosophy at Oxford in the late 1930s and early 1940s.<br /><br />In the late 1930s, British philosophy, at least at Oxford, was dominated by AJ Ayer, whose groundbreaking book Language, Truth and Logic was published in 1936. Ayer was the chief promoter of logical positivism, a school of thought that aimed to clean up philosophy by ruling out large areas of the field as unverifiable and therefore not fit for logical discussion.<br /><br />In a sense, it sought to rid philosophy of metaphysics, those abstract questions of being and knowing that students have traditionally liked to explore late at night after one too many stimulants. It also rendered much of moral philosophy as little more than an expression of emotional preferences.<br /><br />Anscombe, Murdoch, Midgley and Foot were not fans of logical positivism dogmatism or conclusions. Fortunately for them, if not for the world, the second world war intervened in their studies, removing Ayer and his acolytes from Oxford, and bringing a large influx of European émigré philosophers.<br /><br />Suddenly metaphysics was back in fashion, or at least no longer frowned upon. The four women all committed to establishing themselves as philosophers, and sought to refute Ayer and his ilk.</p><p>Read more <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/books/2022/feb/08/metaphysical-animals-how-four-women-brought-philosophy-back-to-life-clare-mac-cumhaill-rachael-wiseman-review-elizabeth-gem-anscombe-iris-murdoch-mary-midgley-philippa-foot"><span style="color: #990000;">here</span></a>.</p><p><br /></p><div class="MsoNormal">The philosophical movement of Logical Positivism can be traced to the <a href="http://www.iep.utm.edu/v/viennaci.htm"><span style="color: #990000;">Vienna Circle</span></a> (1922), a group of philosophers in Austria who held that experience is the only source of knowledge, and logical analysis using symbolic logic is the proper method for solving philosophical problems. This approach was popularized in Great Britain by <a href="http://search.live.com/results.aspx?q=A.+J.+Ayer+&src=IE-SearchBox"><span style="color: #990000;">A. J. Ayer</span></a> and in America by <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rudolf_Carnap"><span style="color: #990000;">Rudolf Carnap</span></a>.<br /><br />Logical Positivism held two key beliefs: (1) absolute confidence in empirical experience as the only source of knowledge; and (2) logical analysis performed with the help of symbolic logic is the single method for solving philosophical problems. This group of philosophers attempted to exclude metaphysics from philosophical investigation in favor of strict logical and mathematical analysis. They also stripped ethics of aspects considered important from the earliest time: conscience, intuition, emotion, etc. The result was a materialist and empirical skepticism about all truth claims. Some Logical Positivists were atheists, though this represents an opinion which cannot be proved by even the strictest logic. Others regarded the existence of God as impossible to verify and would be considered agnostics.<br /><br />Logical Positivists were skeptical about truth claims that were mathematically reducible, yet optimistic about the potential of science to better the human race and life on earth. These shared a commitment to <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unified_Science"><span style="color: #990000;">Unified Science</span></a>, that is, the construction of a system in which every legitimate statement is logically reduced to a direct experience. The Vienna Circle’s Manifesto stated that “The endeavor is to link and harmonize the achievements of individual investigators in their various fields of science.”<br /></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">Related reading: <a href="https://college-ethics.blogspot.com/2008/08/elizabeth-anscombe-on-justice.html"><span style="color: #990000;">Elizabeth Anscombe on Justice</span></a>; <a href="https://justgreatthought.blogspot.com/2013/08/elizabeth-anscombe-1919-2001.html"><span style="color: #990000;">Elizabeth Anscombe</span></a>; <a href="http://college-ethics.blogspot.com/2009/10/princeton-students-form-anscombe.html"><span style="color: #990000;">Princeton Students Form Anscombe Society</span></a>; <a href="https://justgreatthought.blogspot.com/2014/02/thumbnail-sketch-of-phillipa-foot.html"><span style="color: #990000;">Thumbnail Sketch of Phillipa Foot</span></a>; <a href="https://justgreatthought.blogspot.com/2015/08/the-dearth-of-women-in-philosophy.html"><span style="color: #990000;">The Dearth of Women in Philosophy</span></a></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div>Alice C. Linsleyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13069827354696169270noreply@blogger.com0