Thinking more about your reply post, it doesn’t really matter to me who reads or doesn’ read, what I post, what they think or don’t think of an author I mention, if they do or don’t recognize the author at all. I’ll try to bring some quotes from Elizabeth Zimmermann or Erma Bombeck and definitely Ethridge Knight for balance, if I can find something that fits.
If what I quote is meaningful to someone, that’s wonderful. If it helps them confront their own questions in a useful way, wonderful. If they see me as a name dropper, well, they can remember we are all watching each other.
Regarding Kierkegaard’s Fear and Trembling–it’s what I’m reading now (stream of bibliography). I am a horribly slow reader with things like this, so I’ll have his work on my mind for some time. Actually, most of fhe quotes I have shared recently come from secondary sources, because it’s hard to find a segment from F&T that makes any sense out of context. I will work to learn those authors’ names better.
I’m beginning to suspect my comment was misunderstood. What I meant was would an original thinker like Kierkegaard be recognized without the name recognition.
Oh … as in … would we realize there was “somebody great” among us if their actual interactions were here, but without the name to tell us to ‘pay attention’?
If so, I’m pretty sure they would get the same treatment and reactions (for both better and worse ) as pretty much all other ordinary people get around here. Because for one thing, “greatness” really isn’t easily recognized in its own time and among its own contemporaries. As Jesus noted, a prophet gets honor everywhere but in his own hometown. Some ‘Joe’ may be a great man, but those familiar with him can only remember how they helped change his diapers when he was growing up, and how much of a handful he was as an ornery kid, etc etc. Which tends to distract from one recognizing the later profundities that may actually be spilling from Joe’s grownup mouth. But others (and perhaps during later centuries) more easily see what a genius Joe may have turned out to be.
Who said anything about greatness? If anything, I’d call it originality and was referring to what was said about how unseriously people can be treated because they lack name recognition.
I did! I think any ‘ordinary’ person is a potential wealth of greatness at least some of the time and in certain contexts or with certain people who are able to engage well with them. But most of the time most of us probably won’t recognize such things about each other - especially if we fancy we are already familiar with a person. I bet George MacDonald’s family probably didn’t pore over all his sermons and hang on his every word as much as some of us (I) do here.
And of course - speaking of greatness, I did see your exchange earlier, @heymike3, alerting me that you, @RoyC, are an author - and it looks like an interesting subject too. Unfortunately, I have not read anything of yours yet - and so don’t have much idea of what you may be about apart from the title “The Myth of Religious Neutrality”. But I’m guessing any of us could learn quite a few things from you. I’m glad you’re here too.
Tangentally: Jill Lepore wrote an outstanding biography (The Book of Ages) of Ben Franklin’s favorite sister, Jane, gathered from literal scraps of history. Lepore discusses the brain damage to Jane’s husband and some of their children from TB, which led to strange behaviors, “shiftlessness” and in one outright derangement.
Mike, I think it would be hard to get much of anything out of F&T through a casual read. In fact, I think in the Preface, K (speaking as de silentio) is cluing us into his plan deliberately to make the book a challenge:
He [the writer who has to deal with hated editors and publishers] writes because for him it is a luxury that is all the more pleasant and palpable, the fewer there are who purchase and read what he writes. He easily foresees his fate in an age when people have written off passion in order to serve scientific scholarship, a time when an author who wants to have readers must take care to write in such a way that people can leaf through the pages during an afternoon nap, and he must take care to conduct himself in the manner of that polite gardener’s apprentice in Adresseavisen, who, hat in hand and with references from his most recent place of employment, recommends himself to a highly respected public.
I have the new translation by Kirmmse, for which Kirmmse wrote an excellent introduction. Even if you have a different edition, I recommend borrowing Kirmmse’s for the intro. Also, the Routledge Guide to F&T is excellent and very readable/listenable. I have run across a few very good videos on YT, but the books have been most helpful.
Oh, also Patrick Gardiner’s OUP VSI to SK. His overview of SK’s philosopy and writings is outstanding.
Ah. Thanks for explaining.
I think SK would today, as he was in his own lifetime, be largely rejected as an incomprehensible, obstinate oddball as many fine thinkers often are. In refusing to cooperate with the System, Hegel’s or anyone else’s for that matter, he didn’t exactly make himself popular—or well known.
(89) Knowledge that would be useless
(directly follows on the excerpt (#88) quoted yesterday.)
If it be reasonable for me to cry thus, if I cannot but cry, it is reasonable that God should hear, he cannot but hear. A being that could not hear or would not answer prayer, could not be God.
‘But, I ask, all this admitted–is what you call a necessary truth an existent fact? You say, “It must be so;” I say, “What if there is no God!” Convince me that prayer is heard, and I shall know. Why should the question admit of doubt? Why should it require to be reasoned about? We know that the wind blows: why should we not know that God answers prayer?’
I reply, What if God does not care to have you know it at second hand? What if there would be no good in that? There is some testimony on record, and perhaps there might be much were it not that, having to do with things so immediately personal, and generally so delicate, answers to prayer would naturally not often be talked about; but no testimony concerning the thing can well be conclusive; for, like a reported miracle, there is always some way to daff it; and besides, the conviction to be got that way is of little value; it avails nothing to know the thing by the best of evidence.
Interesting–and something that my Thomas-like heart does not like to rely on. However, by the same token, as he points out, personal testimony is not generally necessarily helpful to argue with others; I appreciate that point, too.
Yes. He does note the limited efficacy of testimony. It’s valuable - yes, Dale, but MacDonald seems to be saying here that it can only deliver a person so-far - and that will not by itself, be far enough. And how much worse if instead of attracting people toward it to taste for themselves, it instead chases them away from taking those faith steps - or even worse yet, becomes an obstacle to others rather than an invitation.
Reader, if you are in any trouble, try whether God will not help you; if you are in no need, why should you ask questions about prayer? True, he knows little of himself who does not know that he is wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked; but until he begins at least to suspect a need, how can he pray? And for one who does not want to pray, I would not lift a straw to defeat such a one in the argument whether God hears or does not hear prayer: for me, let him think what he will! it matters nothing in heaven or in earth: whether in hell I do not know.
) as pretty much all other ordinary people get around here. Because for one thing, “greatness” really isn’t easily recognized in its own time and among its own contemporaries. As Jesus noted, a prophet gets honor everywhere but in his own hometown. Some ‘Joe’ may be a great man, but those familiar with him can only remember how they helped change his diapers when he was growing up, and how much of a handful he was as an ornery kid, etc etc. Which tends to distract from one recognizing the later profundities that may actually be spilling from Joe’s grownup mouth. But others (and perhaps during later centuries) more easily see what a genius Joe may have turned out to be.
