tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714437334790446678.post5701555905195918589..comments2023-10-04T09:50:08.070-05:00Comments on Logismoi: 'The World's Best Culture Refines the Soul'Aaron Taylorhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17775589009145031773noreply@blogger.comBlogger43125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714437334790446678.post-34056335363624948712010-02-03T00:55:32.757-06:002010-02-03T00:55:32.757-06:00I am in agreement with your entire comment, John. ...I am in agreement with your entire comment, John. I guess we're after two different emphasis' on the whole matter that are not mutually exclusive but complement one another.Sophocleshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07923381271179811989noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714437334790446678.post-79724529609214938582010-02-03T00:35:35.950-06:002010-02-03T00:35:35.950-06:00Im not talking about viewing something in the secu...Im not talking about viewing something in the secular world as "normal", its more accepting the fact that this just happens to be the world we live in and knowing that everything in it is affected by the Fall. But it is a personal struggle and each approaches it at different levels. If someone needs to be told what books to read, what music to listen to or what movies to watch, then obviously they are not at a place in their spiritual life to discern what is useful for them or not and thus they submit their tastes, opinions and thoughts to someone else. Which is why it can't be "legislated" in the realms of right and wrong, since the arts are about personal tastes and interpretations even if they essentially are intended to oppose Christianity in some roundabout way. Where one person sees absolutely no value another can see great value. Some people need to be told what to do and how to think and that is their choice. Any path one takes one risks being tainted or just plain wrong, which is why our ultimate purpose as Christians is to abandon everything that ties us to the world, die to it completely, and live for Christ alone. But the path to this goal is approached from different levels and different circumstances and different mindsets.John https://www.blogger.com/profile/07111016099805416329noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714437334790446678.post-47363283095783462622010-02-03T00:15:38.040-06:002010-02-03T00:15:38.040-06:00John,
I'm saying something just a bit differe...John,<br /><br />I'm saying something just a bit different than that.<br /><br />But to briefly address your point, I see where you're coming from and I agree with you about the nature of secularism being the same in all ages and even agree with you that as mature Orthodox we are able to participate in secular life to some extent without losing our Orthodox phronema <i>altogether</i> but I am cautioning that we are not able <i>exactly</i> to understand what toxic effect the culture is exuding upon us. <br /><br />What may seem "normal" to us today may not really be that normal but we have become acclimated to our culture perhaps in the same way that one can get used to being in a room with ugly wallpaper. Walking into the room one may notice how ugly it is but after a time when one lives in it long enough the ugliness becomes part of the accepted scenery. <br /><br />I think we are affected much the same way by our present day culture and alot of the popular music, entertainment and amusements that we have come to regard as "normal", being the wallpaper we are all used to, may be anything <i>but</i> normal.<br /><br />I don't know--can I pump in occultic television shows to my home, listen to Luciferian infused bands, and walk away unscathed?<br /><br />I suppose that is a personal struggle unique to each one participating in the culture but somehow I think that it may not be the case that we're getting off scott free without getting marred to some extent. I also doubt we have the proper barometer within ourselves to make such determinations apart from a true ascetic struggle <i>against</i> our culture in whatever limited fashion we are able to do so. <br /><br />I think, following the Church's teaching on the nature of the Fall that beset the human race and the pride that beguiles us,not to mention that the Enemy of our salvation is not too far removed from each one of us, that we give ourselves far too much credit in the belief that we are that smart.<br /><br />At the very least I am saying that I am not that smart and need all the help I can get to be a part of the Kingdom when He returns.Sophocleshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07923381271179811989noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714437334790446678.post-57001412839391970622010-02-02T22:57:43.590-06:002010-02-02T22:57:43.590-06:00Sophocles, I'm talking about something a bit d...Sophocles, I'm talking about something a bit different. You seem to be talking about a secular spirit invading the Church. I'm talking about a mature and level headed Orthodox Christian participating in secular life in general without being influenced by it in a negative way. I think this can be as easily done today as any time in history in the sense that secularism is indeed the same today as it has always been. The issue I find to be is that the great majority of Orthodox aren't mature and level headed to be able to discern such things, which is why these debates even take place.John https://www.blogger.com/profile/07111016099805416329noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714437334790446678.post-34788229836427937602010-02-02T19:39:06.927-06:002010-02-02T19:39:06.927-06:00Sorry for the typos in my last comment. I was on ...Sorry for the typos in my last comment. I was on the last few minutes of my break and was a bit rushed.<br /><br />John,<br /><br />Without having had the time to yet read that link, I'm not so sure we should jump that far yet. <br /><br />I think the case could be made that at least in St. Photios' day as well as in the days of all the Fathers, to a great extent the line of demarcation as to what was "secular" and what was not was a bit more evident to them. <br /><br />In our own day, we are,I believe, up against something altogether different. I don't have time to really spell it out but a case could be made that here in America,at least, on a country founded on so many different principles and ingredients including but not limited to:Christianity(and even here we could ask <i>what</i>Christianity), and Enlightment principles built from esoteric/occultic roots, and so on, we have not as Orthodox grappled with the real question of "What is America?"<br /><br />In the pre-Constantine days at least the Christians knew that the Empire was pagan and thereby were easier able to differentiate between the sacred and the secular. After Constantine, the entire Empire was baptized into the Christian Faith. Now what this baptism means exactly and how far the Faith permeated into everyday life I think can be debated. But, the fact that the Empire, at least in its disposition towards, pointed to Christ, the citizens of the Empire at least could understand the difference better, I think, as to what exactly constituted the sacred and what the secular and could more easily ascertain what to imbibe and why in their learning.<br /><br />With our nation, I don't know about you, but I have had had to <i>un</i>learn quite a bit since I began taking the Orthodox Faith just a bit seriously. What I mean, briefly, by this, to cite just one example, is the whole set of ideas entailed just in the telling of the story of the Founding Fathers. <br /><br />I believe that there is alot of baggage that needs to be examined thouroughly about our nation from a deeply ascetical Orthodox perspective. I think we need to ask questions that may make us uncomfortable.<br /><br />Uggh. This is rushed and incomplete but I wanted to at least set it down.Sophocleshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07923381271179811989noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714437334790446678.post-10722208781501409472010-02-02T18:49:58.483-06:002010-02-02T18:49:58.483-06:00Nice post Aaron. I personally don't feel the n...Nice post Aaron. I personally don't feel the need to justify my reasons for liking anything the secular world has to offer outside the Orthodox phronema, since I think maturity in Orthodox matters breeds enough of a discernment so as to cast out such fears altogether. Since the feast of St Photios approaches, I would recommend people read his "Bibliotheca" to see how he openly embraced secular culture and feasted on the good and discarded the bad - and it was a natural process for him as it should be for any mature Christian. <br /><br />http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/photius_01toc.htmJohn https://www.blogger.com/profile/07111016099805416329noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714437334790446678.post-75662678254897639132010-02-02T16:59:09.660-06:002010-02-02T16:59:09.660-06:00Owen,
I re-read your comments and I just was just...Owen,<br /><br />I re-read your comments and I just was just floored by them. You touched on so many things that are so true and which I've reflected on. I wish I had the time to further engage this thread because in so many ways, we have all just barely enen begun opening this subject which is extremely broad,subtle, nuanced and a very good oppurtunity to see the complexity of our Faith. <br /><br />If time allows when I return from my time off, I would like to pick this up again, citing this post and expecially your very profound comments, Owen. Again, very well said!Sophocleshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07923381271179811989noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714437334790446678.post-31328009025460828622010-02-02T07:32:53.643-06:002010-02-02T07:32:53.643-06:00Glen> I was pleasantly surprised at your respon...Glen> I was pleasantly surprised at your response to this! To be honest, I took your posting of that passage without comment as a deliberate provocation. A week or two ago, I would have responded to it carefully, with something similar in content, if not eloquence, to Owen’s response. But as one might guess from this post itself and from my response to Protov in an earlier comment in this thread, I have lost all patience for provocation on this topic! So I must apologise to you if my response was a little ‘biting’. I hope you’ll stop by again sometime.<br /><br />I do stand by what I said however about cutting and pasting. If you were looking for a thoughtful discussion about how to reconcile this Letter with the <i>Address</i> I quoted in the post, then I can’t help but think you would have done better to say so rather than simply post the passage without comment. Otherwise you come off as presuming to have ‘settled’ the matter with your ‘show-stopping’ use of the Letter! ;-)<br /><br />In Christ,<br />AaronAaron Taylorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17775589009145031773noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714437334790446678.post-71503911463426107162010-02-02T04:08:06.091-06:002010-02-02T04:08:06.091-06:00aaronandbrighid said..."Yeah, thanks, I'v...<i><b>aaronandbrighid said...</b>"Yeah, thanks, I've read that too. Anyone can cut and paste patristic quotes..."</i><br /><br />ouch...I hadn't come across your blog previously and I also wasn't aware of this whole 'is secular culture good/bad' controversy. Reading your post made me curious to find out more and I soon discovered that this topic has come up in a few other places on the net. Letter 223 seemed to me to best sum up the 'opposing' view and I thought it might be of interest. I didn't realise that it was a well known text...apologies. <br /><br />Given my lack of knowledge with this subject matter I guess I was wanting to fish for feedback from your more learned blog readers on how to best make sense of this seeming counterpoint. I do appreciate Ochlophobist's follow up and it has helped me to put Letter 223 into better perspective.<br /><br />Thanks!glennoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714437334790446678.post-59630352526972361612010-02-02T01:59:16.237-06:002010-02-02T01:59:16.237-06:00All,
Wonderful reflections that got my head worki...All,<br /><br />Wonderful reflections that got my head working but too much with so little time before my monastic excursion in two short days.<br /><br />Andreas,<br /><br />I added your blog as well and did this post:<br /><br />http://molonlabe70.blogspot.com/2010/02/adding-of-new-sites-bunch-of-them.html<br /><br />As well, if you're ever at St. Anthony's again, please feel free to notify me as I don't really need much of an excuse to go there.<br /><br />In Christ,Sophocleshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07923381271179811989noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714437334790446678.post-76630423261860641042010-02-01T18:28:54.833-06:002010-02-01T18:28:54.833-06:00continued:
Gabriel> On Benardette, yes, point ...continued:<br /><br />Gabriel> On Benardette, yes, point well made. But this is the case with any realm of knowledge. Unless we are insane specialists, we are nearly always accepting a relatively superficial, dilettantish version of something. But the alternative to this is sheer ignorance, whether in literature and philosophy, or in anything else. As you admit, that we cannot master something does not mean we shouldn’t learn something about it. The important thing is to maintain a humble awareness of our limits. Also, I think you are right that we may have done ourselves more harm than good if we are reading all of these things ‘through the conceptual/ideological framework that has been manufactured in the last two centuries’. I said something similar in one of my comments to Protov. I believe most of these books are helpful if we can to some extent escape our (post)modern presuppositions. Otherwise—that is, if we read old books merely as food for our overwheening egos—it may well be better to remain ignorant.<br /><br />Owen> Excellent, on all points. I will just make a couple of—mostly supportive—comments.<br /><br /><i> the idea that academic interpretations of the fathers should inform the Church’s interpretation of the fathers is an idea I find repugnant. We have the correct interpretation of the works of the fathers in our hymns and in our living piety.</i><br /><br />I would say this is true on the ‘macro’ level. In other words, the Church tells us what the Fathers <i>mean</i> in general. For instance, we read the Cappadocians through the prism of St Gregory Palamas. But I think we can learn something from academics on the ‘micro’ level. When I pick up a translation, or even an edition, of the Fathers I am already to some extent accepting the opinion of some scholar on this micro level. We are not uncritical about this, but there is a certain among of basic information that we can legitimately acquire.<br /><br /><i> There are things other than literature, music, art, mathematics, and philosophy which can teach the art of attention, say traditional crafts and plenty of manual, quotidian tasks.</i><br /><br />Wonderful! I hadn’t even thought of this, largely because I myself am a complete boor when it comes to traditional crafts and manual, quotidian tasks. I’m not proud of this, but it’s true. During one stay at a monastery, I was first assigned to help work on the roof of a new katholikon. My uselessness was quickly discovered, and I was reassigned to sweep the sidewalks. Having developed gargantuan, painful blisters on my hands, I was sent to the infirmary and reassigned yet again to the printshop. There I stayed for the rest of my pilgrimage.<br /><br />I have a lot of respect for such work. Those who are serious practitioners of it, in my opinion, have little need of books. Although, as you say, we still must not ‘see these disciplines as the actual running of the race’. Which leads to my next comment.<br /><br /><i> Perhaps it better to see them as exercises which prepare us for battle . . .</i><br /><br />Here you are surely alluding to a line from St Basil’s <i>Address</i> that I omitted with one of my ellipses:<br /><br />Thus we imitate those who perform the exercises of military practice, for they acquire skill in gymnastics and in dancing, and then in battle reap the reward of their training. We must needs believe that the greatest of all battles lies before us, in preparation for which we must do and suffer all things to gain power.<br /><br />Finally, fascinating reflections on Aristotle and St John of Damascus. This deserves some serious research and thought.Aaron Taylorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17775589009145031773noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714437334790446678.post-27714517620875758712010-02-01T18:28:39.076-06:002010-02-01T18:28:39.076-06:00Sophocles> Now myself, I happen to believe tha...Sophocles> <i> Now myself, I happen to believe that to some undetermined (from my own point of limited view), degree, the severing of Man from his past is a programme of some sorts that is necessary to subjugate him completely and utterly into materialism and thereby into a Luciferian mode of being and thinking, ripe for picking at the appearance of the Lawless one who must appear in the world at some point.</i><br /><br />You must have read <i>Screwtape Letters</i>! I entirely agree.<br /><br />I too appreciated your anecdote. I have been in quite a number of similar situations, many of them with coworkers at my last job. I once convinced a number of people there to read <i>Beowulf</i>. Ditto <i>Anna Karenina</i>. Almost none of them had college degrees.<br /><br />JCW> Good ideas. Anthologies are indeed good places to start.<br /><br />Steven> I think Orr has offered a good response to this question. Practice. I don’t think any of us could simply pick up an ancient text (or even a later one—Shakespeare is a good example!) and understand all of it perfectly. One must be willing to be a little mystified. Fortunately, however, we have introductions, notes, monographs, and even Cliffs Notes to help us. That’s what they’re for.<br /><br />That said, I generally agree with C.S. Lewis on this matter when he writes, ‘The simplest student will be able to understand, if not all, yet a very great deal of what Plato said; but hardly anyone can understand some modern books on Platonism. It has always therefore been one of my main endeavours as a teacher to persuade the young that firsthand knowledge is not only more worth acquiring than secondhand knowledge, but is usually much easier and more delightful to acquire.’<br /><br />One last thing, I would also add that neither are the Holy Scriptures or the Fathers ‘easy’ to understand. They too, are mystifying and foreign to us. But we must make the effort. It is likewise with secular writings.Aaron Taylorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17775589009145031773noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714437334790446678.post-61477284485126943662010-02-01T17:23:11.922-06:002010-02-01T17:23:11.922-06:00Glen> Yeah, thanks, I've read that too. Any...Glen> Yeah, thanks, I've read that too. Anyone can cut and paste patristic quotes. Perhaps you could now do us all a real favour and explain exactly how <i>you</i> believe this excerpt is to be reconciled with the comments I have posted above.<br /><br />Everyone else> It will take some time to read all of your comments and process them. I'll try to get back with you!Aaron Taylorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17775589009145031773noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714437334790446678.post-82140398127686240842010-02-01T16:49:50.996-06:002010-02-01T16:49:50.996-06:00Sophocles:
Unfortunately, both my visits to St. A...Sophocles:<br /><br />Unfortunately, both my visits to St. Anthony's have been too short. The first was for a few hours; the second was for two days. That said, I very much enjoyed that place, and I believe it is a holy place.<br /><br />Reading the account of your visit brought back some nice memories for me, especially about helping the monks with the meal. I'm actually working on a post that should be up in a day or two that touches on my first visit there.<br /><br />Also, the "fortune cookie" idea with sayings of the Saints - I just was thinking of something like that a couple of weeks ago when my wife and I went out for sushi! What a great idea, and I'm glad you went through with it.<br /><br />I, like Aaron, am now following your blog - thanks for sharing.Andreas Houposhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02279848515954071078noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714437334790446678.post-19128704486109047002010-02-01T16:17:01.298-06:002010-02-01T16:17:01.298-06:00- cont'd -
The danger here is when we see th...- cont'd - <br /><br />The danger here is when we see these disciplines as the actual running of the race, as things which will actually work toward our salvation. Perhaps it better to see them as exercises which prepare us for battle, which prepare us for the race, but certainly not the battle or the race itself. In that sense, those who achieve theosis leave these things behind. At a certain point a saint has no need for such disciplines, for such preparations, because his life has become, as it were, the peace of pure battle, constant race, his attention always being before God, he has no need to prepare his faculty of attention to strive toward God – it is already there.<br /><br />One issue I struggle with is to discern where the precise emphases in education should be for Orthodox. For instance, take Aristotle. Much of what is important to learn in Aristotle has been gathered, condensed, and recast specifically for the education of Orthodox by the Damascene in <i>The Fountain of Knowledge</i>.” I think of this when thinking about the education of my daughters when they reach high school age. Do I teach them Aristotle from Aristotle, or Aristotle from St. John? If I teach them Aristotle from St. John, do I take them back to Aristotle, and show them in the pertinent of Aristotle’s texts those portions St. John left out? In those few places St. John altered the text of Aristotle, do I teach them the current theories regarding which might have been altered to keep in line with the worldly wisdom of St. John’s day and which might have been altered to keep in line with Orthodox faith? Surely here we veer into the dangers of historicism. Nonetheless I do know this, I am determined to teach my children Aristotle, as St. John intended educated Orthodox children to be taught. But then again, did he ever intend for young <i>girls</i> to be taught Aristotle? Hmmm.Ochlophobist https://www.blogger.com/profile/13751003558600087713noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714437334790446678.post-41500872036144122452010-02-01T16:15:52.427-06:002010-02-01T16:15:52.427-06:00I agree with Gabriel with regard to the concern ab...I agree with Gabriel with regard to the concern about historicism. But this is how I see it. There are different readings, or reading/hermeneutic postures one might take. If I am reading ancient works and critical readings of ancient works with the idea that I can then discern how the fathers read those works and thus I can then, on my own, interpret the fathers, I am headed down to the abyss. Only the Church safely and truly interprets the fathers, and the idea that academic interpretations of the fathers should inform the Church’s interpretation of the fathers is an idea I find repugnant. We have the correct interpretation of the works of the fathers in our hymns and in our living piety. But, there are other postures one might have in which one reads the ancients. I recall a passage in Simone Weil where she compares the activity and state of the mind engaged in advanced mathematics to the activity and state of the mind at prayer. I think her observation is a true one, though I also suspect that the fathers would state that the function of the mind in mathematics is only similar to the function of the mind in a quite ‘low’ form of prayer, the function of the mind in higher forms of prayer being substantially different. But this sense of what might prepare us for a ‘low’ or beginning form of prayer suits Aaron’s thesis. The reading of serious, great literature, the keen listening or singing or playing of serious, great music, the observation of serious, great art, these things require discipline, they require the development of the faculty of attention – without that faculty, the beginning work of prayer is nearly impossible. A man or woman has to be able to sit still for a while and concentrate some. There are things other than literature, music, art, mathematics, and philosophy which can teach the art of attention, say traditional crafts and plenty of manual, quotidian tasks. But there is in complex thought (especially as we see in mathematics and music) a more efficient means of teaching the mind to concentrate and to will one thing, as it were. It seems to me that the reading of the ancients can be in this spirit, as an exercise of the mind. While the cultural and paradigmatic differences are as vast as Gabriel suggests, some of these intellectual exercises are simply what they are. Memorization of texts is memorization. Reading the <i>Elements</i>with a good tutor, and then applying Euclidian geometry to various problems, and repeating these Math exercises over and over until one knows Euclidian geometry backwards and forwards is an intellectual effort that retains a certain universality regardless of the culture of the person studying geometry. There may be vast semantic, cultural, existential, and other differences between the intellectual postures of the fathers and our own intellectual postures, but surely when we form our minds through a great deal of memorization of varied complex texts, and the earned competency in universal mathematical truths, we share with the fathers <i>something</i> on some basic level with regard to the <i>disciplines</i> by which our intellects were formed. It is these disciplines which helped many of the fathers to have minds generally more prepared to begin to pray.Ochlophobist https://www.blogger.com/profile/13751003558600087713noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714437334790446678.post-73391766781794349602010-02-01T16:15:02.282-06:002010-02-01T16:15:02.282-06:00Sometimes I think the problem we face in the curre...Sometimes I think the problem we face in the current context of American Orthodoxy is a literalism inherited from, say, Evangelicalism, or something akin to that. There is fideism friends, and then there is fideism. Fideism is my de facto position in comparison to historicism, but not all fideism is the same.<br /><br />Take St. Basil's letter 223 above. We hear of <i>the uselessness of 'the wisdom of the rulers of this world</i> but that very letter was written with rhetorical eloquence, indeed, that very letter makes use of certain tools St. Basil had obtained, directly and indirectly, from those who were skilled in the wisdom of this world.<br /><br />I have long had an anti-academic streak. My first intellectual mentor, aside from my father, was an accomplished anthropologist, and disciple of Thomas Kuhn. He told me that if I wanted to dismiss the academy with any integrity, I needed to get my doctorate first. Only having fully gone the distance with it could I have the full faculties of an appropriate and coherent dismissal. I am not saying this is a truism that applies in all situations regarding an appropriation or determination of right relationship to human knowledge. But I do think it speaks to an existential quality to what we might call a good, clean dismissal. St. Basil can reject as useless the wisdom of this world because he, as fully as a man of his generation could have been able, understood the limits of such wisdom, the boundaries of human knowledge. He is competent to dismiss, if you will. It does not quite work so well when one not competent goes to any lengths in such a dismissal. The humble monk who says simply that he knows nothing of such things is an image of salvation. The arrogant isolationist who loudly dismisses the wisdom of the world as idiocy, and is rather overt with a confidence in his own understanding of the wisdom of the world - that is inane. I have spent time with a good number of isolationist Christians in my life, and you find both humble and the arrogant dismissals of the world’s wisdom (you also find those who don't let their kids go to the movies but make them memorize Virgil and Homer in Latin and Greek). When I meet that person who, say, thinks that the theory of evolution is utter foolishness and goes on and on about the stupidity of the idea that men came from monkeys, etc., while making it very clear that he has never read or engaged the work of a serious evolutionist, well, such a person is one I find a boor, even if on some points I may agree with him. It seems to me that a Christian might isolate himself from debate regarding evolution, but if he is going to ever speak on the matter, he should do so having become familiar, in a fair manner, with the theories, and the theorists, and the texts, and the science involved.Ochlophobist https://www.blogger.com/profile/13751003558600087713noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714437334790446678.post-41181437080190731162010-02-01T15:18:35.111-06:002010-02-01T15:18:35.111-06:00Now, with respect to more recent works like those ...Now, with respect to more recent works like those of Dickens or Dostoevsky, there are barriers which no doubt exist, but I think they are a bit lower. Dostoevsky can certainly—and indeed continues to be—read ideologically Yet Dostoevsky’s books are a response to ideology; they point to a path which leads the reader out of ideology (assume he wants to go there). You can find this as well in the works of such diverse figures as Kierkegaard, Camus, and Solzhenitsyn. If you are going to “acculture” someone, it seems to me that those books present better starting points. Are they all “Orthodox” in a pure sense? No. Certainly Kierkegaard and Camus raise many points which are utterly foreign to Orthodox faith and theology. I suspect, however, that’s not your point. The point is to develop a fuller sense of the world. I think that’s fair, but I’m not sure that engagement with any of these books—classic or modern—can’t lead an unguided man astray. Some raise all sorts of specters that, maybe in the end, a person would have been better off without. I must confess that I am speaking more than a bit on my own behalf. The process of detangling oneself from spiritual and intellectual rot is long and hard; there are more pitfalls on the road than one appreciates when the journey begins.<br /><br />Now, do I believe that someone who converts to Orthodoxy or is thinking of converting should just jump in and read the Fathers 24/7? No, I don’t. I think there are pitfalls there as well—some of them parallel the pitfalls which go with reading, say, Homer or Platus. There has to be some discernment there as well, but much of that is for one’s priest or spiritual father to make. There’s a big difference between reading St. John Chrysostom’s commentaries on Romans or Acts and St. Gregory Nazianzius’s orations. Similarly, there are considerable obstacles to reading a work like St. John Climacus’ <i>Ladder</i> rather than, say, the Triodion. But my thoughts on Orthodox and “Orthodox reading” are mixed and muddied. After spending my initial time in the Church trying to read “all things Orthodox,” I’ve really pulled back to focusing on what’s contained in the Octoechos, Menaion, and the other service books of the Church.G Sanchezhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11797757461858023882noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714437334790446678.post-67235154530244306732010-02-01T15:18:23.369-06:002010-02-01T15:18:23.369-06:00I’ll try to restate my point here, taking into con...I’ll try to restate my point here, taking into consideration what you and Sophocles both said…<br /><br />My expressed skepticism concerning “going back” to antiquity for acculturation is based on the rather simpleminded observation that there are substantial barriers between us and those works—barriers which would have been unknown to the Greek Fathers. I don’t believe it’s impossible for us to get over the barriers, but it’s extremely difficult and the journey is, to say the least, arduous. One illustration which comes to mind is reading Homer of the Greek Tragedians before and after looking at the interpretive efforts of Seth Benardete. Now, whether one ultimately agrees or disagrees with Benardete’s eccentric and contentious readings, the fact is that Benardete had one of the best masteries of Classical Greek of anyone living in the 20th C. (and, according to some, the best mastery the world has seen in over 1,000 years) and took seriously the interpretations and scholia of the Greek medieval period and late classical period. In other words, he saw the benefit of walking through the texts with men who were radically closer to the texts than we can be today. He may not have believed it could bring you “all the way,” but you had to do that before venturing off to understanding the works on your own. Now, Benardete spent his life doing this and left far more questions than answers in his wake. At the very least, his efforts demonstrate in sometimes depressing fashion just how far away we are from these works; their meaning; the questions they raise; and the answers—right or wrong—they point to.<br /><br />Now, it’s quite possible to read works like the <i>Iliad</i> or <i>Antigone</i> without Benardete; there are “surface readings” which are not without value. But there is an undeniable temptation today to read all of those works through the conceptual/ideological framework that has been manufactured in the last two centuries. To me, this seems distortive and I wonder how many come out “better” for the effort at all. I confess it’s a rather cynical way of looking at reading old books. On the other hand, I can see that it may support an argument that we shouldn’t bother with them at all. I don’t want to go that far. What I am unsure of is how we generate a sort of “openness” to such works which humbles us in our inability to have much more than a tentative grasp yet, at the same time, leads us to appreciate what grasp we do have so that we continue to make the effort. (Does any of this make sense? Uh oh…)G Sanchezhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11797757461858023882noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714437334790446678.post-17974882606776011982010-02-01T14:48:49.274-06:002010-02-01T14:48:49.274-06:00"Much time had I spent in vanity, and had was...<i>"Much time had I spent in vanity, and had wasted nearly all my youth in the vain labor which I underwent in acquiring the wisdom made foolish by God. Then once upon a time, like a man roused from deep sleep, I turned my eyes to the marvellous light of the truth of the Gospel, and I perceived the uselessness of 'the wisdom of the rulers of this world, that come to nothing.' I wept many tears over my miserable life and I prayed that guidance might be vouchsafed me to admit me to the doctrines of true religion. First of all was I minded to make some mending of my ways, long perverted as they were by my intimacy with wicked men. Then I read the Gospel, and I saw there that a great means of reaching perfection was the selling of one’s goods, the sharing of them with the poor, the giving up of all care for this life, and the refusal to allow the soul to be turned by any sympathy to things of earth. And I prayed that I might find some one of the brethren who had chosen this way of life, that with him I might cross life’s deep and troubled strait"</i><br /> <br /><b>Letter 223 - St Basil to Eustathius Bishop of Sebastea</b>glennoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714437334790446678.post-40870384831701920062010-02-01T14:40:49.633-06:002010-02-01T14:40:49.633-06:00As a non-scholar, and someone who finds most works...<i>As a non-scholar, and someone who finds most works of literature, music, and art more than a hundred years old mystifying (and even some of the more recent works difficult too), I am wondering what you would recommend doing to remedy this?</i><br /><br />I am perhaps too postmodern to understand what that means - or at least to understand what anything other than postmodern was.<br /><br />I'm also not a scholar or particularly academic, though I enjoy reading such and grasping at a perspective. Most of the time, though, I'm lost.<br /><br />I have had the good fortune to have been exposed to a good deal of classical Western literature via my training on the stage and my love of big books whose very ownership (together with feigned or incomplete readings) impresses most. Still, I would not say I am deeply read in the classics in the way Aaron is with Vergil, et al.<br /><br />My recommendation to myself - and take it for what it is worth - is simply to try and read all sorts of good, old stuff. Some of it you will take to, others will overload the brain or be generally incomprehensible. It takes time for one to be able to accept radically new world views and ideas, one's brain can often only take such change in small doses or from specific hands. That is, reading a little Shakespeare makes reading more Shakespeare, next time, easier. Same with the old Greco-Roman writers. Sometimes all of it is maddening, except for that one writer, that one poet, that one piece, which speaks to you. That's a great beachhead from which to build.<br /><br />I would also say that it is difficult to understand what one lacks without rather broad exposure to all that is out there. So, reading a little Sartre would perhaps highlight what is present in Dickens. Taking any 'highly regarded' piece of art or literature (including films) and comparing it and one's reactions with another 'less well regarded' piece begins the process of discernment. Of course, kids like candy and it's easy to get addicted to junk food, but there is still something that feels quite good about a salad - it's just learning that there's a difference. There is definitely 'good' and 'bad' in such things, but there is also a great deal of subjectivity and room for tasteful disagreement. I'm sure there were pious and faithful Orthodox Christians that found Dostoevsky unpleasant to read and thought Tolstoy simply fabulous, as a writer.<br /><br />The key seems to be in developing some sensitivity in the soul to things more than crass rather than a canon of good and bad art.123https://www.blogger.com/profile/14514075641944568806noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714437334790446678.post-15284717003079102010-02-01T13:31:45.457-06:002010-02-01T13:31:45.457-06:00As a non-scholar, and someone who finds most works...As a non-scholar, and someone who finds most works of literature, music, and art more than a hundred years old mystifying (and even some of the more recent works difficult too), I am wondering what you would recommend doing to remedy this?<br /><br />My parents never had any use for pop culture of any sort, and that has rubbed off on me, but on the flip side I wasn't taught much about higher culture, and so really don't know how to approach it. I find even Dickens beyond me. For now I content myself with haphazardly seeking out the better contemporary writers and musicians, etc..., particularly writers from outside of North America, and hope that as I become better versed in these I will become ready to tackle the older works. But this approach doesn't strike me as being ideal.Stephennoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714437334790446678.post-11876152175313593582010-02-01T12:26:17.452-06:002010-02-01T12:26:17.452-06:00Aaron, thank you for this post; it was excellent. ...Aaron, thank you for this post; it was excellent. Sophocles, I appreciated your anecdote greatly. Thank you for it.<br /><br />I've just finished reading an anthology of Canadian literature (Russell Brown, Donna Bennett, Nathalie Cooke, eds., <i>An Anthology of Canadian Literature in English</i> : Revised and Abridged Edition, [Toronto: Oxford University Press, 1990]) (as I'm Canadian) and it may be that an anthology is one of the better ways to connect with a tradition. I recall learning very little about Canadian literature in secondary-school and onward, but this anthology was a good introduction to the major novelists and poets in Canadian history.<br /><br />Another good way into one's own literary heritage is to visit the public library and examine their "Classics" section: it's not perfect, but it's a good start, I think.<br /><br />Again, Aaron, thanks for the post. Keep well.jcwnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714437334790446678.post-46056754494729071652010-02-01T12:06:31.667-06:002010-02-01T12:06:31.667-06:00Sophocles> I will wait to see what Gabriel has ...Sophocles> I will wait to see what Gabriel has to say before writing more on the main thread here (besides, I've got lots to do today!). But I wanted to let you know that I did add your blog, as I myself certainly want to keep an eye on it!<br /><br />Gabriel> Fair enough! We eagerly anticipate your perhaps more sober remarks!Aaron Taylorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17775589009145031773noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714437334790446678.post-76660203488547074252010-02-01T08:20:15.735-06:002010-02-01T08:20:15.735-06:00I wrote my post filled with scotch, so it's po...I wrote my post filled with scotch, so it's possible I didn't even know what I was saying. Now this thread has taken on a new life. Oh I am lost...<br /><br />I will think about these entries on the train to work and see if I can't say something proper in response.G Sanchezhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11797757461858023882noreply@blogger.com