[These comments were extracted from a review I wrote concerning John M. Frame’s“A History of Western Philosophy and Theology.” My review argued that Frame mishandled philosophical terminology, misunderstood or misrepresented the positions of the philosophers and theologians he chose to comment on, and beyond simple inaccuracies, had deliberately constructed a set of typologies, which while using the language of philosophers, perverted that language in the service of his own apologetical purposes and denied his readers any real understanding of the history he purported to chart.]
For Socrates that meant accepting the possibility that knowledge could surprise him and that he might occasionally have to say “Yes” to his apprehension of the previously unknown, or, more concretely, even a student’s argument (though Plato lets us see the latter only rarely). For both the Scholastics and early Humanists, this openness was the discovery that their ancient enemy Islam had preserved knowledge of the Greeks that had long been lost in the West. For later Humanists and their many partners in Reformation theology, it was the rediscovery of the human as subject, bringing a whole new conception of human thought and responsibility out of the grave of Augustine, into the bright, dangerous light of those times. Men and women died in great numbers during that era defending this new notion of intellectual liberty, of the right of a free subject to choose their own course in thought and faith.*
In the Enlightenment this new subjectivity was again propelled forward, almost reluctantly, in the face of controversy and renewed danger, opening the doors to another kind of polis wherein it might be possible to speak not only of belief, but reason. This Enlightenment, thanks to the philosophers and theologians who gave it life, brought revolutions to America and France, and across all Europe in 1848, where it was most ruthlessly suppressed. I could go on, and probably should, but my point is this; Frame doesn’t simply reject the values of the Enlightenment, of philosophy and a goodly portion of theology as well. On the whole, in his rejection he fails to actually account for its content, and reverts to series of typologies that are not those of any science, but more akin to medieval catalogs of sin or compendiums of plants where shape determines relatedness. His schemes of atomism, physicalism, rationalism, materialism, realism, nominalism become mere typologies whose only content is their “failure” to meet the standards of Frame’s version of biblical soundness, doctrinal purity and his understanding of revelation… If I sound resentful, you misread me. I am not resentful, but profoundly saddened by this rising tide of cant that substitutes elaboration for thoughtfulness, apologetics for history, typology for analysis, elision for comprehensiveness, and that step by step seeks reversal of the hard won gains of reason in philosophy, theology and biblical studies.
Another aspect of this “incommensurable difference” I mentioned above is trust. I am an unknown to you. You see my writings on this board, often in conflict with positions you may identify with. You may have gone so far as to check out my Facebook page or my blog. The kinds of opinions that I tend to hold you may well find to be suspect. On the other hand, people that you like and often agree with you recommend this book or think highly of Frame. So, why should you hear my argument? My call to you, is simply to check the facts. Read one of the books that I say he misrepresents. Read with open eyes, and an open mind and the issue will be settled. Read Plato. Perhaps, the Cratylus in a good, clean modern translation (assuming you don’t read Attic Greek). You’ll learn a great deal about Plato’s understanding of what constitutes knowledge, reason and language… If you are reading from the Hamilton translation (which is still pretty much the standard for scholarship) pay attention to the explicatory notes. They’re very helpful.
Savour what you read. The Cratylus, we’re told, is the dialogue that convinced Plato to become the student of Socrates. Socrates speaks of Gods, creation, language, even his theory of forms. Argue with the text, fight with it until you understand as best you can, be a Jacob to the angel of philosophy, holding tightly, until you either name or are named by the text. When, as best your worldview allows, you know what the author means, then decide whether you agree with him or not. His language will be strange to you – even in translation you’re attempting to overcome 2400 years of changing understandings of how we know and what we can know. If his world is not strange to you, then you’re reading yourself, not Socrates. (Or at least that’s what I used to tell students)…
You’ve met a stranger online. He’s presented you with a challenge. It has no downside. I’m not tempting you away from your soul, only toward understanding as best you may, the words of a man who lived nearly 2500 years ago and who was finite, mortal, and like all of us, infinitely capable of error. Is this a temptation or an opportunity? It’s for you to decide.
* Scholars estimate that between 20% and 40% of all German speaking peoples dies during the 30 Years War fought between Catholic and Reformed principalities, It was fought across modern day Germany, Czechoslovakia, northern Italy and portions of Poland. The rampaging armies of local princes were joined by those from Denmark and Sweden, and helped in the spread of typhus, dysentery and bubonic plague.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Comments are welcome, but are moderated. If your comment does not eventually appear, assume the moderators judge your text to be in violation of these rules .1:Civility, 2: Sound argumentation, Rule 3: Topicality.