The Readers Review: Literature from 1714 to 1910 discussion

John wrote: "I thought you might have had some familiarity with Quranic theology."

Oh, no. I was somewhat aware that Islam and Christianity both shared Abraham. I had simply assumed (yes, so often a mistake) that the Old Testament stories they shared would be pretty much the same. I thought that in the Bible version that Hannah and Ishmael were already gone by the time Abraham journeys to the mountain to sacrifice his son. So it never occurred to me that it could be Ishmael.

John wrote: "I thought you might have had some familiarity with Quranic theology."

I would think that the number of people here who have some familiarity with Quaranic theology could dance on the head of a pin.

There is quite a lot of confusion amongst scholars of all three Abrahamic religions as to which son was to be sacrificed but neither is mentioned in the Quran:-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ishmael#...

Oh, pooh, John; I think Kant pulled off a possibly brilliant coup in his work, as did Joyce in "Finnegan's Wake", which I have indeed read in its entirety. I don't mind if others want to spend their lives trying to get at a meaning which may or may not (no, really: there may not be much there) be there, but I don't want to do it. If one's philosophy or one's literary output is so terribly obscure, I just can't see the value of it. Multiple interpretations is one thing, but Kant and Hegel are another. But...chacun a son gout.

I might possibly give you Burke, Locke (though I can't stand him), and definitely Descartes. But I still prefer the more ancient ones. Often in college I had the feeling that most of philosophy which could be construed as making any sense at all had been done and the later Germans had to just stretch ideas to the point of meaninglessness to prove that they were new and innovative philosophers too. Kind of like Wagner and all his sturm und drang in music---some of which I enjoy. I tole ya: I'm a pragmatist.

But this isn't fair to Nemo and others, as we've gone way, way off Kierkgaard, haven't we?

MadgeUK wrote: "John wrote: "I thought you might have had some familiarity with Quranic theology."

I would think that the number of people here who have some familiarity with Quaranic theology could dance on the ..."

Speaking of confusion, perhaps you'd like to drag us through the muddled arguments of Msgr. Harris, Dawkins, and Hitchens.

Kind of like Wagner and all his sturm und drang in music---some of which I enjoy. I tole ya: I'm a pragmatist.

LOL. I like this comparison Gail!

I too have read Finnegans Wake in its entirety, Ulysses too, and find both a darn sight more understandable than much philosophy, particularly German philosophy. Perhaps much of it is lost in translation.

There are times when I think about all the trees cut down to make paper and wonder whether there should be a limit on how many books are written about a particular subject Abraham and Isaac (or Ishmael) are a case in point - interpretations of the story have been done to death for 2000 years by scholars of all three Abrahamic religions. Enough already.

Gail wrote: "Oh, pooh, John; I think Kant pulled off a possibly brilliant coup in his work, as did Joyce in "Finnegan's Wake", which I have indeed read in its entirety. I don't mind if others want to spend thei..."

A brilliant coup in doing what?

You might not see the value of the *time investment*, but there is value in the work itself. You might consider that other things are more worthy of your time, but even if someone were to take up one of the Critiques and never finish, they’re missing out on something – even if you’d rather spend your time reading/working on something else.

There’s nothing in Hegel, or Kant, or any other German philosopher which has been “stretched to the point of meaninglessness.” If you have a question about something, ask me. I’ll make it perfectly clear.

And yes, you can keep saying that you’re a pragmatist. That doesn’t, however, mean that pragmatists don’t engage in skeptical thought. I’m sure you’re familiar with Rorty, Peirce, and Dewey. Pragmatists all – and academic philosophers, every one.

MadgeUK wrote: "Kind of like Wagner and all his sturm und drang in music---some of which I enjoy. I tole ya: I'm a pragmatist.

LOL. I like this comparison Gail!

I too have read Finnegans Wake in its entirety, ..."

Yes, Madge, you should put a limit on the number of books that can be written on a number of subjects. That doesn't smack of the religious oppression that's always on your mind at ALL. :)

John wrote: "There’s nothing in Hegel, or Kant, or any other German philosopher which has been “stretched to the point of meaninglessness.” If you have a question about something, ask me. I’ll make it perfectly clear ..."

Have you read Phenomenology of Spirit? Could you write a book review? If you can summarize Hegel's ideas clearly, then we'll know that you really can clarify the more obscure points. :)

I might tackle Hegel after Kierkegaard, to get the other side of the story. If it took Kierkegaard a lifetime's work to dismantle Hegel's system, the latter must have been no less a genius himself.

A brilliant coup in pulling the wool over people's eyes.

To segue to lit. for a second, I found Joyce's "Ulysses" to be a fine if difficult work. Impenetrability, such as one finds in "Finnegan's Wake", is vastly different from difficulty. Some people find Faulkner or Nabokov or any of Joyce impenetrable. That's okay; it's a big world and life would be duller than dishwater if we all liked vanilla ice cream.

I'm only familiar with Dewey of the three you metnion as pragmatists. I wasn't intrigued by him particularly. As for studying philosophy, be it Plato, Spinoza (now there's another one I liked), Hegel, or Kierkegaard, I think that the study of any subject, be it ornithology or teleology; U.S. history or the evolution of fashion from the Regency era to the end of the Edwardian era, to have value in and of itself. Just because I don't want to pursue the subject of, say, quarks, it doesn't follow that I think no one should study them. If I implied otherwise, I was being imprecise.

Each to his own, as I believe I mentioned before. That's what makes life so endlessly fascinating, complex, and fun.

Edited for clarity (Physician, heal thyself, I guess.)

Nemo wrote: "John wrote: "There’s nothing in Hegel, or Kant, or any other German philosopher which has been “stretched to the point of meaninglessness.” If you have a question about something, ask me. I’ll make..."

Yes, I've read the Phenomenology. And the lectures on aesthetics, and the ones on religion, and the ones on philosophy of history. And, yes, I could write a review of it. Easily.

And I'm not sure I'd say that it took Kierkegaard a whole lifetime, considering that he died at 42 - young for even the mid-nineteenth century.

Gail wrote: "A brilliant coup in pulling the wool over people's eyes.

To segue to lit. for a second, I found Joyce's "Ulysses" to be a fine if difficult work. Impenetrability, such as one finds in "Finnegan..."

Gail, you're much too smart to even be implying that Kant pulled the wool over people's eyes in the Critiques. Just because you didn't understand them doesn't mean that other people haven't.

John wrote: "And, yes, I could write a review of it. Easily."

I'm looking forward to reading your review. BTW, which translation did you read?

And I'm not sure I'd say that it took Kierkegaard a whole lifetime, considering that he died at 42. ..."

A short lifetime, but a lifetime still.

Gail wrote: "I found Joyce's "Ulysses" to be a fine if difficult work. Impenetrability, such as one finds in "Finnegan's Wake", is vastly different from difficulty. ..."

Just to clarify for myself, you're saying that Ulysses is difficult but FW is impenetrable, is that right? Is it a matter of degree or is there something qualitatively different between the two?

I have the Miller translation with the Findlay introduction.

Kate Mc. wrote: "...whereas those who possess faith should take care to set up criteria so that one might distinguish the paradox from a temptation."

It would be interesting to know what criteria would allow an individual (even one of faith) to do this!!"

That's an important point. If we accept the possibility of faith in God, how do we as society judge if someone who committed an "apparent crime" was acting upon genuine faith or deceiving himself and others?

To paraphrase Kierkegaard, Abraham landed on the ethical by the leap of faith. Viewed without faith, Abraham was either a madman or murderer. However, if we incorporate his faith into our evaluation of his behavior, it would meet the socially accepted standards. His motive and intent are of love and the consequence of his action, should his faith be genuine, would be ethical too. After all, Isaac was alive in the end.

The terrorists and people who "hear voices" don't meet the criteria. If we examine their motives closely, we'll find that they act out of hatred not love, and they can't justify their own action without self-contradiction. For example, killing of abortion clinic doctors by people who claim to be "pro life".

You actually have no idea what a person's motivations are when they act when they "suspend the ethical." Viewed from the outside, there's nothing to separate Abraham wanting to sacrifice Isaac to try to prove his faith in God from some random father using the same excuse to try to murder his child out of hatred. (Since, in the latter case, the father could make the same claim to the existence of God, even though an atheist.) And that we shouldn't be able to tell is central to what Kierkegaard is saying - no one can see into the depths of our heart and our intentions. To be able to do so would begin to rationalize our faith.

John wrote: "And that we shouldn't be able to tell is central to what Kierkegaard is saying - no one can see into the depths of our heart and our intentions. To be able to do so would begin to rationalize our faith. ..."

The part that can't be rationalized was Abraham's faith, not his motives. Those are two different things. If we accept the possibility of what Abraham believed, his motives were perfectly ethical.

They weren't ethical at all. Hence the "suspension of the ethical."

John wrote:Speaking of confusion, perhaps you'd like to drag us through the muddled arguments of Msgr. Harris, Dawkins, and Hitchens. ..."

I am not given to banging my head against brick walls (and I've only read bits of Dawkins).

Yes, Madge, you should put a limit on the number of books that can be written on a number of subjects. That doesn't smack of the religious oppression that's always on your mind at ALL. :)

I wasn't thinking of only religious books:) Perhaps philosophy books should all be relegated to Kindle, that would save trees:D.

Yes, I've read the Phenomenology. And the lectures on aesthetics, and the ones on religion, and the ones on philosophy of history. And, yes, I could write a review of it. Easily..........If you have a question about something, ask me. I’ll make it perfectly clear.

Ooh la la! May I touch your coat-tails please?:D.

Please lighten up John.

Very well. In the spirit of humor...

Please don't touch them. I'd hate for them to smell like naphthalene.

No, let's not take it seriously at all. It's obvious that we should turn this into a big laugh-fest. I have a picture of an old lady in a cowboy hat that we could start off with.

John wrote: "They weren't ethical at all. Hence the "suspension of the ethical.""

Again, "teleological suspension of the ethical" refers to his faith, not his motives. His motives are his love for God and his love for his son Isaac, they are all ethical.

LOL. I liked the edit John! Your original post didn't have time to get mothballed:).

http://www.mchumor.com/00images/3195_...

http://www.chrismadden.co.uk/meaning/...

Nemo: I would like to apologise to you for my levity. There is obviously no room for it (or me:)!) here.

We should digitize all books. One shouldn't have to set foot in a library with tall book shelves. Period. :)

MadgeUK wrote: "Nemo: I would like to apologise to you for my levity. There is obviously no room for it (or me:)!) here."

No need to apologize at all. (Where did that come from?)
You know how much I appreciate your presence and contribution here. :)

Madge just needs to take her own advice and lighten up. But one's own advice always seems like the most difficult to take.

Nemo wrote: "John wrote: "They weren't ethical at all. Hence the "suspension of the ethical.""

Again, "teleological suspension of the ethical" refers to his faith, not his motives. His motives are his love fo..."

*sigh*

Thanks Nemo.

Nemo wrote: "The terrorists and people who "hear voices" don't meet the criteria. If we examine their motives closely, we'll find that they act out of hatred not love, ..."

Unfortunately, many of them do it for the 'love of Allah':(:(

I might tackle Hegel after Kierkegaard, to get the other side of the story.

You are a devil for punishment Nemo - I don't suppose we shall see you in a Group Read for a year or two then!:O

To put this whole question of when does fervent faith veer over into madness, I'd suggest that anyone interested read John Krakauer's "Under the Banner of Heaven", which discusses a modern case. Very, very frightening stuff. It's somewhat controversial, but that's what we like here: a little healthy disagreement.

Gail wrote: "To put this whole question of when does fervent faith veer over into madness, I'd suggest that anyone interested read John Krakauer's "Under the Banner of Heaven", which discusses a modern case. Ve..."

That's the one on Mormon fundamentalism? On my to read list, but I haven't gotten to it yet.

Nemo wrote: "John wrote: "They weren't ethical at all. Hence the "suspension of the ethical.""

Again, "teleological suspension of the ethical" refers to his faith, not his motives. His motives are his love fo..."

Nemo, I think John is trying to get you to separate the ethical from the religious. You can argue, if you wish, that Abraham's faith was a higher issue of ethics than the ethics of murder, but that is still rationalizing and trying to use logic to defend what is inherently non-rational. That is the argument of a Tragic Hero and not a Knight of Faith.

Let's take this outside such an overt issue of faith and make it more personal. What if your wife were dying painfully of cancer and was pleading for you to help her commit suicide. You might very well do so as an act of love, but it would still be an act of murder. Thus you suspend the ethical out of love. The ethical issue doesn't disappear. It's still there, but you have placed yourself beyond it.

Great summary Kate - thanks! I had argued something similar above but not as cogently:

Is there really any fundamental 'philosophical' difference between this story and the one in the Bible? The suspension of the ethical is what all murderers and criminals do when they commit a crime which goes against the mores of their society, like murder. They temporarily delude themselves into thinking that what they are doing is justified.

Well, let's see:

It's my opinion that Kant and Hegel and Nietsche (please excuse any spelling error) all took speculative philosophy beyond the bounds of defensibility according to rules of logic. Remember, that's my opinion. It's not the wisdom of the age or a pronouncement of their worth or value to others. It's my opinion, based on what I've read of and about each of them. I had a discussion with someone who finished his doctorate in philosophy with an emphasis on Hegel. Oddly, he agreed with that position. Doesn't mean he's right...again, it's an opinion based on the knowledge he has. All one can do is read and ponder the evidence and come to one's own conclusions.

Ethical concerns are speparate from religious concerns, in my view. Also, I agree 100% with Kate's explanation. You place yourself beyond the ethical in certain situations, but that doesn't mean that the issue has disappered.

Nemo, yes: "Finnegan's Wake" seems to be an impenetrable work while "Ulysses" is, for me at least, not an easy work but something with a coherent plan to it and quite a lot to say to the human condition.

Kate, yes: the book is about Mormon Fundamentalism. A lot of controversy resulted from Krakauer's description of certain historical events involving the development of mainstream LDS, and a misapprehenion on the part of some readers that he was portraying mainstream LDS as a church of, um, less than rational folks. I think the book is worth reading, although I'm not happy with Krakauer's tendency to explore ever-increasing fringe elements.

I think it's great and an amazing testament to the creativity and diversity of human thought that we all have different ideas about some very weighty subjects. It's good to discuss them, I think. But I don't think, in my wildest dreams, that I'm going to make any converts to my opinions based on what I say here. I'm just discussing; no anger, no animosity, just what we used to call, in the dear dead days when I was in school, a bull session.

Kate Mc. wrote: "Nemo, I think John is trying to get you to separate the ethical from the religious. You can argue, if you wish, that Abraham's faith was a higher issue of ethics than the ethics of murder, but that is still rationalizing and trying to use logic to defend what is inherently non-rational. That is the argument of a Tragic Hero and not a Knight of Faith...."

Obviously, I didn't do a good job at explaining my position. So I have to ask you to bear with me and this long post.

What is inherently non-rational is Abraham's faith, that God asked him to offer Isaac to Him as a trial and that God could raise Issac from the dead.

What Abraham did based on his faith is entirely rational, i.e., he made rational decisions based on his faith. His motives, i.e., his love for God and his love for his son, are ethical (by which I mean they meet the socially accepted standards).

Suppose we caught Abraham at the moment when he's about to sacrifice Isaac and before the angel appears. If we don't know about his faith and only judge by appearance, we would no doubt regard him as a madman or murderer. But, if we question him closely, he would tell us that he is dedicating Isaac to God, and God could bring Isaac back to life. Now most likely, people wouldn't believe him because it sounds so absurd. BUT, if we accept that Abraham's faith is genuine, that he truly believes what he says, then his action would become rational to us and understandable.

Next, if the angel appears at this point and stops Abraham, or if Isaac comes back to life after Abraham has sacrificed him, then Abraham would be vindicated, and no longer regarded as a murderer. In fact, we have to admit, if what he believes turns out to be true, the overall results of his actions are ethical (i.e., meeting the socially accepted standards).

This is how Abraham, the Knight of Faith, landed on the ethical by the leap of faith. Viewed without faith, he was a madman or murderer; Viewed with faith, he was rational and ethical, but only through faith.

The Tragic Hero, OTOH, doesn't need faith to be vindicated. For example, if a father kills his son because his son committed atrocious crimes. The father's sense of duty to justice and the society overrides his love for his son. There is no faith in God nor divine intervention involved/required.

How do we apply this to real life situations? What's the difference between Abraham and those who commit crimes "in the name of God"? I would contend that if their faith is genuine, their motives and the overall results of their actions should be consistent and ethical, just as in Abraham's case, his motive and the overall results of his actions were ethical. "You will know them by their fruits. ...A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit."

Note however, the overall results of our actions may not show in our own lifetime, they might take years, centuries and even millennia. We can only act and judge based on what we know and experience here on earth. We might condemn the innocent to death or acquit the guilty because of our limited knowledge and flawed judicial systems. Still we accept the judgement of society's "Court of Appeal". If faith in God is true, those wrongfully condemned can still appeal to God's Supreme Court. Ultimately, it is His jurisdiction, not ours.

Gail wrote: "Well, let's see:

It's my opinion that Kant and Hegel and Nietsche (please excuse any spelling error) all took speculative philosophy beyond the bounds of defensibility according to rules of logi..."

Yes, Gail, all we can do is ponder and come to our own conclusions. But the nice thing about logic is that your rules (of logic) don’t – can’t - differ from mine. Your rules to follow for a biconditional are the same as mine, your logical disjunction is the same as mine, your hypothetical syllogism must reach the same conclusion that I reach, assuming we have the same premises. So, when it comes to logic in the strict sense, it doesn’t stand up to say that their thought is “beyond the bounds of defensibility.” You can agree or disagree with what they’re saying. But the fact remains that for all of them, we have a general idea of what they were all trying to say – which we would be wholly unable to discern if none of their ideas follow the rules of logic. We know, broadly speaking, why Kierkegaard rejects Hegel. We know how Kant tried to synthesize Humean empiricism with continental rationalism. There are a variety of opinions that spring from differing interpretations, but no one who has seriously studied these people would ever say that it’s impossibly to think systematically about what they said. The rules of logic are the same for everyone. If Hegel’s thought wasn’t amenable to the rules of logic, it would be impossible to even write anything intelligible about him, including the dissertation of the person you spoke to. Obviously, I haven’t spoken with the same person, but somehow I sincerely doubt that this person meant exactly what it seems that you’re imputing to him.

What's the difference between Abraham and those who commit crimes "in the name of God"? I would contend that if their faith is genuine, their motives and the overall results of their actions should be consistent and ethical, just as in Abraham's case, his motive and the overall results of his actions were ethical.

But who is to judge if their faith is genuine or whether they are using it as a shield to escape justice? Lawyers often plead 'the balance of his mind is disturbed' but this isn't always true. In our society at the present time (in Stockholm this week!) we have people who are true to their faith blowing themselves and others up. Doesn't your logic here mean that we should excuse their behaviour? Why is Abraham's attempted murder of Isaac different to other peoples' criminal acts of faith?

MadgeUK wrote: "But who is to judge if their faith is genuine or whether they are using it as a shield to escape justice?"

Even if their faith is genuine, they can still be wrong or deluded, i.e., they truly believe something that is not true. If they commit crimes based on their genuine but wrong belief, they should still be punished for their crimes.

Why is Abraham's attempted murder of Isaac different to other peoples' criminal acts of faith?..."

Abraham didn't commit murder, the terrorists did. That's the bottom line. Abraham had no intent nor motive to kill Isaac, so he can't be charged with attempted murder either. The terrorists intended to kill and did kill, that's the difference.

Nemo wrote: "Even if their faith is genuine, they can still be wrong or deluded, i.e., they truly believe something that is not true...."

That is a matter of opinion. Many Muslims believe otherwise, just as many Christians believe Abraham was right. I think both are deluded.

Abraham had no intent nor motive to kill Isaac, so he can't be charged with attempted murder either.

We don't know this and it appears from the evidence that he did intend to murder Isaac. He bound him to the altar etc. Is a roadside bomb which is defused by soldiers any the less a terrorist device intended to kill? Just as we try acts of attempted terrorism, so we would try Abraham.

MadgeUK wrote: "Nemo wrote: "Even if their faith is genuine, they can still be wrong or deluded, i.e., they truly believe something that is not true...."

That is a matter of opinion. Many Muslims believe otherwi..."

Whatever the religion, if their faith in God is true, their God would justify their actions so that they meet the socially accepted standards. Just as Abraham was justified by God in his sacrifice of Isaac. Abraham was not guilty of murder because the Angel stopped him, or it could be that God would bring Isaac back to life as Abraham had believed. Either way, Abraham would be vindicated. The bottom line is Abraham's faith didn't cause him to fall below the socially accepted standards.

Kate Mc. wrote: "What if your wife were dying painfully of cancer and was pleading for you to help her commit suicide. You might very well do so as an act of love, but it would still be an act of murder. ..."

This would be another example of the Tragic Hero, not the Knight of Faith.

I know from our previous discussions that MadgeUK supports euthanasia. At the risk of drifting off topic, I'd like to know what others think of it.

I don't know what the youth in Asia have to do with this.

The bottom line is Abraham's faith didn't cause him to fall below the socially accepted standards.

You seem to be ignoring the fact that Isaac, a child, was bound and tied to an altar and would know that meant he was to be a sacrificed. This constituted attempted murder and child abuse - surely this wasn't part of the socially accepted standards?


Nemo wrote: I know from our previous discussions that MadgeUK supports euthanasia. At the risk of drifting off topic, I'd like to know what others think of it. ..."

Wouldn't the question be best asked in the Cafe Nemo - it might derail Kierkegaard here and that would never do:).

Nemo wrote: "Kate Mc. wrote: "What if your wife were dying painfully of cancer and was pleading for you to help her commit suicide. You might very well do so as an act of love, but it would still be an act of m..."

Your view of Abraham/Isaac and mine don't match anywhere. I see it as a personal ethical choice that Abraham makes: disobey God or sacrifice your child. Both are unethical choices for him. By choosing to obey God, he is willing to murder his son. That he is rescued from this choice is irrelevant. It doesn't redeem it; it doesn't vindicate it. He made the choice. What moves this debate beyond the ethical is Abraham's faith that God would rescue his choice. That is what's irrational and moves his behavior from the ethical to the religious.

As for a discussion of euthanasia, I don't think it belongs here or in the Cafe. It is a topic like abortion that is personal and divisive. It becomes a matter of people arguing their personal beliefs rather than a balanced discussion. As a group we haven't shown great ability to rein ourselves in on issues we feel passionate about. So no.

MadgeUK wrote: "You seem to be ignoring the fact that Isaac, a child, was bound and tied to an altar and would know that meant he was to be a sacrificed...."

If you accept the biblical account that Abraham bound Isaac to the altar, you also have to accept the biblical account that Abraham loved Isaac and that he believed that God could bring Isaac back to life. So there is no attempted murder or child abuse.

If you only consider the moment when Isaac was bound and ignore the rest, you're taking it out of context.

The same sequence of events can mean different things to different people. What I've been trying to do is to present the case from Abraham's perspective.

Kate Mc. wrote: "Your view of Abraham/Isaac and mine don't match anywhere. I see it as a personal ethical choice that Abraham makes: disobey God or sacrifice your child. Both are unethical choices for him. By choosing to obey God, he is willing to murder his son. ..."

Abraham made a choice, yes, but he made the choice based on his faith. You can't separate his faith from his choice. Because of his faith, sacrificing Isaac is not murder from his perspective, as Isaac is not dead. To use an analogy, it is like sending your son to visit your friend, who will bring your son back later. The choice, therefore, is not between murder and disobeying God, since obeying God doesn't lead to murder, but rather, the choice is this, to trust God or not to trust God.

ETA: Because he made the choice to trust God, he proceeded to sacrifice Isaac. He was not rescued from the choice, he had made it already. In other words, he had passed the test, and there was no need to proceed any further, so the Angel stopped him. The latter incidence is irrelevant to his choice, you're right on that. It was done so that Abraham would be vindicated from the society's pov.

(As a side note, this is an important distinction from a Christian perspective. Justification by faith vs. works. Abraham was justified by his faith in God, the faith that God could bring Isaac back to life, not his works, the actual act of sacrifice, which came afterward and didn't materialize.)

P.S. I only brought up euthanasia because you mentioned it first, so I wanted to get your opinion on it. :)

That is too convoluted for my old mind Nemo:). I'll just take your word for it.

I only mentioned euthanasia in passing and you already know that I am in favour of it. I belong to a Swiss organisation which will perform euthanasia on terminally sick people because it isn't legal here. My children are in agreement with this and will assist me if and when needed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dignitas...

http://www.dignitas.ch/media_dignitas...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/200...

It is too controversial a topic to discuss here but this is my long held position.

MadgeUK wrote: "That is too convoluted for my old mind Nemo:). I'll just take your word for it. ..."

Your "old" mind has pushed this "young" mind to the wall. I can't imagine what a formidable opponent you must have been in your prime. :) I pity those "enemies" of yours, if you have any, I'll tell you that. :)

Nemo wrote: Your "old" mind has pushed this "young" mind to the wall. I can't imagine what a formidable op..."

LOL Nemo and thanks! You are not so bad yourself! I don't have any debating enemies:). My father was a well known and formidable debater so I guess a little of it rubbed off. We both belonged to a debating society and just after the war there was a fashion for public debates along the lines of the Oxford Union but between socialists and trade unionists, which is where I gained my spurs. I am very out of practice nowadays though and often get too tired to pursue the point, so walk away. I've got rather tired of Abraham:).

When are you going to post your memoir in this forum? Stop teasing us with bits and pieces, and post it already! If you don't, I'll start a group petition. :)

LOL. Never. I prefer to tease:D.

One more thought on the differences between the Tragic Hero and the Knight of Faith. (To address Kate's point from another angle)

The Tragic Hero has to make a choice between two goods. These two goods are somehow mutually exclusive, and he has to abandon/destroy one good to obtain another, higher good. A father, who chooses to kill his beloved son to execute justice, is a tragic hero. It causes painful internal struggles for him to make that choice, and even afterwards, it is still tragic because his son is forever lost to him, and nothing can make up for that loss.

If Abraham had not believed that God could raise Isaac from the dead, and had chosen to murder Isaac to obey God's command, he would have been a Tragic Hero too, perhaps even worse. He obeyed God, but lost his son, and perhaps his own sense of justice and value too. A terrible situation to be in (what Kate called schizophrenic).

The Knight of Faith, otoh, does not choose between two goods. He chooses all or nothing. According to his faith, all souls are God's and "every good gift and every perfect gift is from above". Either he trusts God, receives his son back and has many descendants through him, or he disobeys God, loses His blessings and withers like a branch cut off from the tree. His sense of justice and value are intact. Nevertheless, he has to make a choice between faith and unbelief, "the leap of faith".