Debating topics

[Occhidiangela]

Erudition to Perdition, there's nothing makes the plants grow like an essay on philosophy mixed with traces of philology. Add three glasses of absynthe, break the glass, and grind the fragments into your eyes. Chew on the stems. Feel better? Good, let's ride the roller coaster of critiquing Fred "Bad Hair" Nietzsche. (Batting third behind Plato and Hegel today at Farah Field . . .)

Many of the most urgent and contumacious disputes in the history of Christianity have arisen out of the metaphorical nature of this holy text: since metaphors and metaphorical narratives are inherently ambiguous, they need interpretation. And whose interpretations are decisive in any disagreement becomes a vital concern.

Nietzche, per this analysis, appears to overlook and ignore how interpretation and argument advanced the philosophical and doctrinal legacy of the Jews, whose continued argument added depth and richness to their religious and cultural heritage. Self criticism, and peer criticism. Hey, sound remotely like the scientific method. Also looks as though old Fred was a glass half full kind of guy. A whiner. (hey, why didn't I get a full glass of beer??? Hmmmm, OK, at least a decent reason to whine.) Fred appears through this lens to be someone who thought there is ONE RIGHT ANSWER.

Maybe I'm being harsh on the Fredmeister. The process, the journey of interpretation and internal discovery, the path to wisdom, is one of the great attributes of Christian thought, particularlyl its doctrinal disputes. What's a few hundred years of war and looting, pillage and rapine, among friends who wear the same school tie? He wanted a tidy answer, methinks, or an untidy answer, but not another path of inquiry. Oh, a new language might fix the problem, the old one is owned by the Pope, that nefarious rapscallion.

And whoever is the spokesperson for the official interpretation has official power. Thus, from this point of view, one can interpret the religious wars of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries as quarrelsome interpretation run amok.

What bollocks. The wars were political wars, using religion as an excuse and a tool, since its place in society was one of the sources of power and income. Popes were involved in political wars, and used their position as justification that they were right. That dog won't hunt.

Certainly, the conclusion of the religious wars brought with it a demand to clean up language, to be wary of metaphors and especially of writing that was highly metaphorical, and to place our verbal understanding of the world and ourselves on a more rationally clear basis in a language more appropriate to such a requirement.

Here we see it again: there must be ONE right answer! What, you mean life is not a multiple choice test where you get the answer at the end of the lesson and before nap time? "OK, then nothing has real substance and meaning," sulks Fred in high dudgeon, "I shall go existentialist on everyone as my form of protest!" Oops, did I slip some Nihilism in there? Cheeses K. Rice, those philosoper fellas had lousy attitudes. More beering, less navel peering, would have done them good. Shoulda raised the wrist a bit more often, eh Fred?

and a rising demand for a language as empty of ambiguous metaphor as possible.

Tolkein wept. He saw metaphor and richness as a strength of language. Glass half full. Of Real Ale! :D

For Hobbes is deeply suspicious of literary interpretation and has a clear preference for the language of geometry, the argumentative style of Euclid--not necessarily because that language provides a true description of the nature of the world (although many people claimed and still claim that it does) but rather because only that sort of deductive clarity--based on clear definitions and fundamental principles of deductive logic--can win wide agreement, can, that is, promote social harmony essential to political peace and "commodious living."

Another terminal student looking for an answer that ends the question. Now I begin to see the roots of the modern theory of prolonged adolescence as an inalienable right.

It was an alluring vision, because it promised to lead, as Hannah Arendt points out, to the end of traditional political argument. Since we would all have a full and shared understanding of the way a just state really does work, we wouldn't need to argue about it (any more than we argue about the Pythagorean Theorem). Anyone could govern, since governing, traditionally the most challenging task in human affairs, would be simply a matter of applying known and agreed upon rules, something a technician could do. As Lenin observed, governing would be for cooks, because the truths of political life would be expressed in a language coherent to anyone, a language which did not require interpretation of any sort.

Which puts lawyers in the unemployment line. Hmm, maybe we are on to something here . . . nah, sharkbait is a better use.

our central purpose is the construction of new metaphors, the assertion of new values in a language we have made ourselves. Hence, central to Nietzsche's vision of how the best human beings must live their lives is the insistence that individuals must create for themselves a new language, fresh metaphors, original self-descriptions. To escape the illusions of the past, to release the arrow in flight, these activities are linked to the creative ability to construct in one's life and language new metaphors.

Brilliant. The 1996 Corvette is imperfect, let's build a 2004 Corvette. That will fix our driving problem, the ambiguity of travel, that metaphor for lif'e journey on super unleaded gas.

Central Purpose? My central purpose, for the near term, has bloody eff all to do with metaphor, other than having coined a slogan that I am trying to get adopted by the Air Force as their official motto.

"Love From Above."

No one seems to be biting, drat, and furthermore, I am not being taken seriously! Imagine that! :o I hear that there is a cash prize for the winner. Winning this prize would allow me more beer money, which would then allow me to test the assertion that "there's nothing Nietzsche couldn't teach ya 'bout the Raisin' of the Wrist", and get like Socrates, permanently pissed.

The article you provided -- thanks for the ride Chaer -- is very much like what I just posted, and what can be found in piles on the Kansas prairies: a load of BS.

Occhi

PS: I could teach old Freddy a thing or two about drinking, that Poofter! *Crack Two!*

PPS: "God is dead." -- Nietzsche -- "Nietzsche is dead." --God-- Hmmm, who won that round? Round, I'll have another round! *Crack Two!*

-- No actual beer was harmed in the crafting of this post. No caffeine was used, or abused. The opinions of this Rogue are in no way the official position of that hooker over there in the -- hey, wait a minute, this is a nice family place, lady! You can't come in here and advertise like that! Hie thee hence! Get on down the road to battle.net, where you belong! We run a class establishment here. *sound of whining* I said haul buns, sister, before the Leather Boot of Acceleration connects with your thong inhaler! --