George Grant - Time as History
#1
I happened to stumble upon these recordings of a series of lectures given by the theologian and philosopher George Grant back in 1969: http://www.cbc.ca/ideas/massey-archives/...s-history/

I've only listened to the first one so far, but I figure some here might be interested in what Grant has to say. In the first lecture, he sets out to examine the Western conception of time contained in the concept of history. Here is the description of the lectures given at the link:
Quote:George Grant, philosopher, member of the Department of Religion at McMaster University, gives this year's Massey Lectures on the conception of time as history. He says the purpose of his talks is to talk about the word "history" as it's used about existence in time. He discusses the importance of the idea of history to modern Western civilization, the crises in the modern West about what we are and what we are becoming and the modern Western belief that man is an historical being.

The description given at Amazon, where you can buy the published lectures, is also interesting:
Quote:In Time as History, a collection of his 1969 Massey lectures, George Grant reviews the thought of Nietzsche and concludes that the conception of time as history is not one in which it is possible to live a fully human life. Grant was the first Canadian philosopher to pay serious attention to the thought of Friedrich Nietzsche, and his analysis of the German philosopher forms the central focus of the lectures.

William Christian has restored material from the broadcast version of the lectures. His introduction places Grant's interest in Nietzsche in the perspective of Grant's developing analysis of technology and draws extensively on Grant's unpublished notebooks and lectures.

Reply
#2
Grant is a fascinating character! He's one of my favourites. A solid Red Tory in the old sense of a socially conscious true Conservative. He was also Michael Ignatieff's uncle. Ignatieff has said that his Uncle George refused to speak to him for months after he announced that he was a Liberal! Thanks for this link. I'll be listening to them. :)
Reply
#3
(08-10-2012, 04:33 AM)jovan66102 Wrote: A solid Red Tory in the old sense of a socially conscious true Conservative.

They are no good. These conservatives accomplish nothing. They're just false opposition to liberals.
Reply
#4
(08-12-2012, 08:55 PM)Barbara K. Wrote:
(08-10-2012, 04:33 AM)jovan66102 Wrote: A solid Red Tory in the old sense of a socially conscious true Conservative.

They are no good. These conservatives accomplish nothing. They're just false opposition to liberals.

What makes you say this? From what I know of Grant, he seems to have been pretty insightful in much of his critique of the modern West.
Reply
#5
(08-12-2012, 08:55 PM)Barbara K. Wrote:
(08-10-2012, 04:33 AM)jovan66102 Wrote: A solid Red Tory in the old sense of a socially conscious true Conservative.

They are no good. These conservatives accomplish nothing. They're just false opposition to liberals.

Right. Because libertarians are doing a bang-up job on the vanguard of the conservative movement.
Reply
#6
(08-12-2012, 08:55 PM)Barbara K. Wrote:
(08-10-2012, 04:33 AM)jovan66102 Wrote: A solid Red Tory in the old sense of a socially conscious true Conservative.

They are no good. These conservatives accomplish nothing. They're just false opposition to liberals.
??? ??? ???
Reply
#7
(08-13-2012, 02:13 AM)jovan66102 Wrote:
(08-12-2012, 08:55 PM)Barbara K. Wrote:
(08-10-2012, 04:33 AM)jovan66102 Wrote: A solid Red Tory in the old sense of a socially conscious true Conservative.

They are no good. These conservatives accomplish nothing. They're just false opposition to liberals.
??? ??? ???
(08-12-2012, 11:35 PM)LongfellowDeeds Wrote:
(08-12-2012, 08:55 PM)Barbara K. Wrote:
(08-10-2012, 04:33 AM)jovan66102 Wrote: A solid Red Tory in the old sense of a socially conscious true Conservative.

They are no good. These conservatives accomplish nothing. They're just false opposition to liberals.

Right. Because libertarians are doing a bang-up job on the vanguard of the conservative movement.
(08-12-2012, 09:57 PM)Crusading Philologist Wrote:
(08-12-2012, 08:55 PM)Barbara K. Wrote:
(08-10-2012, 04:33 AM)jovan66102 Wrote: A solid Red Tory in the old sense of a socially conscious true Conservative.

They are no good. These conservatives accomplish nothing. They're just false opposition to liberals.

What makes you say this? From what I know of Grant, he seems to have been pretty insightful in much of his critique of the modern West.

I think we should give Barbara the benefit of doubt in this case. I think she means conservatives in the sense of "neo-cons," not true conservatives in the sense that you all intend in this thread.
Reply
#8
(08-13-2012, 02:13 AM)jovan66102 Wrote:
(08-12-2012, 08:55 PM)Barbara K. Wrote:
(08-10-2012, 04:33 AM)jovan66102 Wrote: A solid Red Tory in the old sense of a socially conscious true Conservative.

They are no good. These conservatives accomplish nothing. They're just false opposition to liberals.
??? ??? ???

***ETA*** Do you even know what a Red Tory or a High Tory is? A pro-family, pro-life, pro-tradition conservative who is also concerned about the the social question in the sense that our Holy Fathers the Popes from Leo XIII on laid it out.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)