In one of my classes we are discussing Jerry Coyne’s book Why Evolution is True, and during the discussion, I thought I remembered a book that deals with Darwin’s reception in the theological community in the nineteenth century. From what I remember, the author argued that the stereotypical hostile contrast between the two only came about due to the rise of fundamentalism in America. (This is all speaking from an American context, I think).
Anyways, I can’t remember the name of the book or the author, so I figured I’d post an inquiry to see if anybody knows. I know that this isn’t much to go on, but maybe someone who has more knowledge in this area can pick up on my vague recollections. I am fairly sure that this was a published dissertation. I distinctly remember stumbling across it on Amazon and writing it down, but that was a few years ago. I’ve done a little bit of looking, but am unsuccessful so far. Any help would be appreciated, even if it’s not directly related to the identity of the book or author.
Here is a very interesting interview with Max Blumenthal, author of the forthcoming book, Republican Gomorra: Inside the Movement that Shattered the Republican Party.
Blumenthal has a pretty convincing argument that the Republican Party has turned into a one-ring circus that uses personal crisis to manipulate followers. Basically, he explains how we get from Eisenhower to Sarah Palin. Blumenthal seems progressive (and this is Democracy Now! of course), but even for some conservatives/libertarians, he’s probably preaching to the choir.
As someone who was once influenced by this movement and some of the characters like Dobson (in a non-radical way, with the kind of Christian conservatism that many in my generation grew up with and still embrace in some way), I think that Blumenthal’s work is pretty important.
The other day, in an online discussion, I posted a quote from W.H. Auden. According to some completely unverified website, Auden once said or wrote that “a real book is not one that we read, but one that reads us.” My original impression of the quote was that it conveyed the idea that in some way we get out of the book what we bring into it, but this obviously depends on what kind of book we are talking about. A few people objected to this quote immediately, arguing that Auden was saying no more than that there are books that he really likes, and that the same sentence would be as vague and nonsensical if other words were inserted instead of book.
Upon some reflection, I think that the objectors are correct to point out that Auden is just being too vague. I probably read too far into it at the beginning, based on some other stuff I’m reading/thinking about lately, and for this reason it’s always good to have some fresh eyes. However, I think the initial reason that I argued back instead of rethinking Auden’s quote was that I perceived them as trying to assert some kind of logical positivist argument that would render Auden’s statement meaningless. I decided not to go down that road, and instead argued for what I thought was a more charitable reading. And, frankly, I doubt that these objectors were ascribing to that very narrow discourse (although, no doubt, it’s possible that they were influenced by positivism in other ways).
I was reading through Vattimo’s pseudo-intellectual memoir Belief today, and Vattimo struck me as presenting a pretty well-reasoned defense of slightly imprecise language in arguments that is nonetheless rigorous. I think that whether you accept Vattimo’s argument will depend on your position towards metaphysics; clearly Vattimo is arguing the way he is because he attempts at post-metaphysical philosophy. These technical quibbles notwithstanding, I think Vattimo is on to something here, especially in the context of semi-academic blogging.
I am not saying that one should accept any statement no matter how vague and contradictory it may be. I am trying to propose arguments, which, even though they do not claim to be definite descriptions as they really are, seem to be reasonable interpretations of our condition here and now. The rigor of post-metaphysical discourse consists in the effort to cultivate an attitude of persuasion without proclaiming a “universal” viewpoint, which is no viewpoint at all, am attitude that is aware of coming from and addressing someone belonging to the same process, of which it has no neutral vision but risks an interpretation. In this case, a neutral reason is not only impossible, but literally senseless, as if one were to try to pull out one’s eyes in order to see things objectively.
Well, day one of classes for senior year is over, and I’m feeling pretty good about this semester. I am taking a private writing class with my advisor, and I’m interested to see how a somewhat controlled atmosphere of writing privately will effect my blogging, or lack thereof. When I began this blog, I had hoped to blog regularly, which meant multiple times a week.
That has been a failure so far.
Part of that is due to one part busyness combined with numerous parts of laziness, but I think it has also been because I want to blog about interesting, half-finished ideas, ie academese, and so far I’ve been far too tentative to just throw stuff out there. I’m hoping that some new areas of study (mythic literature, church history) will provoke that somewhat, but in the meantime, I will also try to post about random things that I find on them internets and elsewhere.
I think the spirit of these new exploits is captured in KFC’s newest invention, the Double Down.
Readers might be interested in David Horstkoetter’s excellent interview with Cornel West for the Other Journal.
Here’s a portion:
TOJ: On the economy, in front of a congressional inquiry the chairman of the Federal Reserve, Alan Greenspan, said that his model for the world was flawed. It seems that now there is room for theology to be heard—or at least there was for a very brief period—in that theologians always say that humans have a tendency toward self-collapse, especially when greedy. Is there a way for theology to talk and be heard in the discussion of collapse and rebuilding, or is theology entirely put to the side?
CW: There is going to be some theological influence no matter what: the theology of Rick Warren, the theology of Joseph Lowery, the theology of James Cone. All of these theologies are out there, and because of the prevalence of religious ideas, some version of theology is going to be influential. We just hope and pray that it will be a prophetic version. We know that that was not the case during the age of Reagan between 1980 and 2009.
