I agree to some extent - in other words there are all kinds of 'faiths' and 'beliefs' and whether one is 'superior' to another or thought of as the 'truth' is a matter of opinion. Most of us who are readers read to enrich our understanding and to some extent it depends on what you are reading a book for. Many scholars do not have a belief in the subjects they write about yet make a name for themselves in their field. It is possible to be objective in your reading if you put your mind to it and it is especially what we are taught to do when we are studying at university, particularly when we are doing research. In politics, for instance, it is very important to look at the 'opposition' and to try to see 'where they are coming from' otherwise you could never temper your policies to attract more votes - 'know thine enemy' and all that.
And I thought you knew me well enough to know that if I read a Fabian publication I would also be likely to find inconsistencies in it
. I have no 'faith', no 'beliefs' and I find inconsistences in everything, perhaps the more so if I know something about a subject.
And I thought you knew me well enough to know that if I read a Fabian publication I would also be likely to find inconsistencies in it
. I have no 'faith', no 'beliefs' and I find inconsistences in everything, perhaps the more so if I know something about a subject.
Everyman wrote:
Choisya wrote:
Hi KathyS: I have looked at your post again this morning and would like to ask you something: If I said to you that you would understand Socialism better if you joined the Socialist Party of America, studied books by great Socialists because 'the concepts become enlighting and meaningful only when you go into the study of it with faith', would you go along with that idea?
I certainly can't speak for Kathy, but it seems pretty obvious to me that you have a different experience of any book if you read it from the point of view of one who believes in the underlying concepts and reads it to enrich their understanding of the subject than if you read it from the point of view of one who rejects the underlying concept but reads it as an intellectual exercise.
We see that on a regular basis. Environmentalists and industrialists tend to get very different things out of Gore's Inconvenient Truth. Catholics and Muslims get very different things out of reading the Koran. A former member of the RAF and a former Luftwaffe ace and still Nazi believer would get very different things from reading Churchill's The Second World War. An avid fox hunter and a member of PETA will take quite different messages from Sassoon's Memoirs of a Fox Hunting Man. If you and I both read the Spring issue of the Fabian Review we are likely to approach that reading with quite different viewpoints in mind, and get out of it quite different things; you will probably be looking for points of agreement; I will more likely be looking for factual inaccuracies and logical inconsistencies. And so on.
ROFL. It is only 8pm!
I am about to watch Crime & Punishment on TV.
I am about to watch Crime & Punishment on TV.
Everyman wrote:
Choisya wrote:
Thanks for this post Everyman - I agree with every word. I must be feeling ill again
Go to sleep. You'll get over it. I need you healthy and vigorous for our next discussion, whatever it may be on. I find no pleasure in crushing an unworthy opponent.
Actually I think Choisya and Everyman's discussion is fascinating, but I don't think they will come to any agreement or conclusions. Religion is after all, by definition, taken on faith, meaning no one will ever prove religious beliefs. I almost got in, but didn't submit the post. We would have been debating religion for months.
I would like to know, however if either of them has read Joseph Campbell, a thinker very dear to me.
..................................................
Onward: in terms of politics, extremes make people fearful. Nobody ever sold democracy to a people who were starving. In most cases demagogues take advantage of fear and war, and promise people the moon. Think of the Third World countries where one dictator after another takes over, with the pendulum swinging toward democracy rarely. And the horrible starvation and ruin after Word War I that led to Hitler's takeover.
In democratic countries, the swing is not so extreme, and conservatism and liberalism tend to revolve more gently instead. But I wouldn't want the next president to be so extremely left as Bush is to the right.
I would like to know, however if either of them has read Joseph Campbell, a thinker very dear to me.
..................................................
Onward: in terms of politics, extremes make people fearful. Nobody ever sold democracy to a people who were starving. In most cases demagogues take advantage of fear and war, and promise people the moon. Think of the Third World countries where one dictator after another takes over, with the pendulum swinging toward democracy rarely. And the horrible starvation and ruin after Word War I that led to Hitler's takeover.
In democratic countries, the swing is not so extreme, and conservatism and liberalism tend to revolve more gently instead. But I wouldn't want the next president to be so extremely left as Bush is to the right.
IlanaSimons wrote:
Rochelle, Huge Kudos for moving on to a new quotation from Friday's post.
Extremes: I think this one is fascinating and psychologically astute. Why do you think we move like a pendulum?
I did not know that Everyman and I were discussing religion - I thought we were discussing the Great Book programme!
I have not read Joseph Campbell, although I know of him, but I have read a great deal of comparative religion because it was one of my subjects when I took a degree in Politics, Social Science & Economics (PSE) at the London School of Economics and I have been reading it ever since. So did my father and so did my grandfather.
I have not read Joseph Campbell, although I know of him, but I have read a great deal of comparative religion because it was one of my subjects when I took a degree in Politics, Social Science & Economics (PSE) at the London School of Economics and I have been reading it ever since. So did my father and so did my grandfather.
foxycat wrote:
Actually I think Choisya and Everyman's discussion is fascinating, but I don't think they will come to any agreement or conclusions. Religion is after all, by definition, taken on faith, meaning no one will ever prove religious beliefs. I almost got in, but didn't submit the post. We would have been debating religion for months.
I would like to know, however if either of them has read Joseph Campbell, a thinker very dear to me.
...............................................................
Onward: in terms of politics, extremes make people fearful. Nobody ever sold democracy to a people who were starving. In most cases demagogues take advantage of fear and war, and promise people the moon. Think of the Third World countries where one dictator after another takes over, with the pendulum swinging toward democracy rarely. And the horrible starvation and ruin after Word War I that led to Hitler's takeover.
In democratic countries, the swing is not so extreme, and conservatism and liberalism tend to revolve more gently instead. But I wouldn't want the next president to be so extremely left as Bush is to the right.
IlanaSimons wrote:
Rochelle, Huge Kudos for moving on to a new quotation from Friday's post.
Extremes: I think this one is fascinating and psychologically astute. Why do you think we move like a pendulum?
Well, I thought that was the thread that we had been 'moved on' from because neither of us contributed much to the religious discussion here, except to briefly discuss Nietzche's views as we were asked to do. But who knows, there may have been complaints about every post we made to every thread. There ought to be a list of what we can discuss and how many posts we can make so that we do not tread on anyone's toes
.
Message Edited by Choisya on 06-25-2007 04:14 AM
.
foxycat wrote:
A senior moment. That's on another thread, the section on Miranda July. I also spent some time reading that one today.
Choisya wrote:
I did not know that Everyman and I were discussing religion - I thought we were discussing the Great Book programme!
Message Edited by foxycat on 06-25-2007 03:37 AM
Message Edited by Choisya on 06-25-2007 04:14 AM
(My earlier reference to my grandmother was about this foxycat. My grandmother was a Suffragette who had read MW and she forbade me to read such magazines or 'romances' when I was a girl because she disapproved of their influence on women.)
I agree it is as if the Women's Movement never happened and I particularly deplore the return to 'pink for girls', and the 'hooker chic' fashion which has invaded the high street these past few years. Was it you who posted about 'extremes'? This is an example of fashion going from one extreme to another - from 'unisex' to extreme femininity. Even house decor is now all frills and furbelows. When I was bringing up two boys and two girls it was much easier (and cheaper) to be able to mix-and-match clothes and how on earth do working women today find the time to iron all these frills on clothes, curtains etc? Yet another way to keep the woman at the proverbial kitchen sink! What happened to drip-dry?
It is no good saying 'these things do not influence me, I am a rational woman' because they influence society overall and it is difficult to see their sociological effect if you look at it from a personal perspective. But if every book/magazine stall and every TV advert in the Western world is pumping out this frivolous ('trivial') stuff by the 'gazillion' it is bound to have an effect on our culture. (Ditto pumping out war stories, toy guns and combat gear for boys.) IMO it is a 'decadence' we will pay dearly for.
Message Edited by Choisya on 06-25-2007 05:59 AM
I agree it is as if the Women's Movement never happened and I particularly deplore the return to 'pink for girls', and the 'hooker chic' fashion which has invaded the high street these past few years. Was it you who posted about 'extremes'? This is an example of fashion going from one extreme to another - from 'unisex' to extreme femininity. Even house decor is now all frills and furbelows. When I was bringing up two boys and two girls it was much easier (and cheaper) to be able to mix-and-match clothes and how on earth do working women today find the time to iron all these frills on clothes, curtains etc? Yet another way to keep the woman at the proverbial kitchen sink! What happened to drip-dry?
It is no good saying 'these things do not influence me, I am a rational woman' because they influence society overall and it is difficult to see their sociological effect if you look at it from a personal perspective. But if every book/magazine stall and every TV advert in the Western world is pumping out this frivolous ('trivial') stuff by the 'gazillion' it is bound to have an effect on our culture. (Ditto pumping out war stories, toy guns and combat gear for boys.) IMO it is a 'decadence' we will pay dearly for
.
foxycat wrote:
And in spite of the almost 200 years separating us from Wollstonecraft, too many women still think their purpose in life is to attract a man. It's as if the Women's Movement of the '70's never happened. I still see hundreds of frivolous magazines dealing with housekeeping, sexual attraction and dieting, and silly romance novels made a resurgence about 20 years ago, and sell by the gazillions.
Message Edited by foxycat on 06-25-2007 04:44 AM
Message Edited by Choisya on 06-25-2007 05:59 AM
