Making Sense out of Suffering for J Michael
#11
(06-22-2015, 10:09 AM)Papist Wrote: Melkite, I suggest reading C.S. Lewis' book, The Problem of Pain.  While Kreeft's work is good, I think that Lewis' is much better.

I bought that along with this one, so I'll be starting that in the next day or two :)
Reply
#12
(06-22-2015, 12:36 PM)J Michael Wrote:
(06-22-2015, 10:17 AM)Renatus Frater Wrote: I like David Bentley Hart's book on suffering. He doesn't pretend to explain suffering, as it is not  something strictly rational, being itself fruit of evil which is non-being (though it has no ontological status it can be used economically), he only refutes the deistic picture that says in the end all will be justified and we will see how necessary it was; and the Calvinistic picture that says suffering is positively willed by God. He just repeats the NT answer: evil and suffering was conquered in the Resurrection and will be ultimately conquered (which, I think he points this out in the book, is not the resignation of antiquity, btw). If you like Eastern you might like it.

I read this and found it somewhat too, for lack of a more accurate term, "intellectual" for me.  At the time it just seemed very dense, but not on the scale of most papal encyclicals  :).  Perhaps I'll give it another shot.  I don't remember it being particularly "Eastern" in spite of some "Eastern" references if I recall correctly and in spite of the fact that Hart is Orthodox.

Melkite, though, being of an Eastern bent I think, and being more intellectual than I may find it a very good read.

Though is an absolutely atrocious philosopher - more of a sophist than a philosopher.
Reply
#13
(06-22-2015, 02:50 PM)Papist Wrote:
(06-22-2015, 12:36 PM)J Michael Wrote:
(06-22-2015, 10:17 AM)Renatus Frater Wrote: I like David Bentley Hart's book on suffering. He doesn't pretend to explain suffering, as it is not  something strictly rational, being itself fruit of evil which is non-being (though it has no ontological status it can be used economically), he only refutes the deistic picture that says in the end all will be justified and we will see how necessary it was; and the Calvinistic picture that says suffering is positively willed by God. He just repeats the NT answer: evil and suffering was conquered in the Resurrection and will be ultimately conquered (which, I think he points this out in the book, is not the resignation of antiquity, btw). If you like Eastern you might like it.

I read this and found it somewhat too, for lack of a more accurate term, "intellectual" for me.  At the time it just seemed very dense, but not on the scale of most papal encyclicals  :).  Perhaps I'll give it another shot.  I don't remember it being particularly "Eastern" in spite of some "Eastern" references if I recall correctly and in spite of the fact that Hart is Orthodox.

Melkite, though, being of an Eastern bent I think, and being more intellectual than I may find it a very good read.

Though is an absolutely atrocious philosopher - more of a sophist than a philosopher.

Maybe that explains why I found him difficult to read and follow.  I've read the beginnings of a couple of articles of Hart's but could never finish them.  In addition to probably being a sophist I just don't think he's a very good writer! 
Reply
#14
Well, this is just slander. Even his "enemy" Dr. Feser grants he's a philosopher and praised his most recent book The Experience of God. Not to mention his doctoral thesis is a tour de force. Its still the go to book for me when I want to criticize modernity and post modernity.
He might not be a philosopher in the American sense (but then again, which philosopher can America boast of?), since he doesn't fool around with analytic philosophy and is more of a continental guy.

His style is not for all—though I absolutely love it, in fact, it was his style that first caught my eye.
Reply
#15
I agree with RF. Hart certainly has his weak points, but he is still a thoughtful critic of modern thought and an insightful and sympathetic reader of the Tradition. Many of his "conservative" critics, it seems to me, dismiss him simply for his failure to adhere to a Wolffian rationalism (which they for some reason call "Thomism") in which thought has been reified as an automatic, technical process rather than a serious and responsible engagement with Being. 
Reply
#16
(06-22-2015, 03:28 PM)Crusading Philologist Wrote: I agree with RF. Hart certainly has his weak points, but he is still a thoughtful critic of modern thought and an insightful and sympathetic reader of the Tradition. Many of his "conservative" critics, it seems to me, dismiss him simply for his failure to adhere to a Wolffian rationalism (which they for some reason call "Thomism") in which thought has been reified as an automatic, technical process rather than a serious and responsible engagement with Being.

See the bold, italicized part?  Waayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy over my head, Mr. Philologizer  :grin: ??? ???



Reply
#17
(06-22-2015, 03:04 PM)Renatus Frater Wrote: Well, this is just slander. Even his "enemy" Dr. Feser grants he's a philosopher and praised his most recent book The Experience of God. Not to mention his doctoral thesis is a tour de force. Its still the go to book for me when I want to criticize modernity and post modernity.
He might not be a philosopher in the American sense (but then again, which philosopher can America boast of?), since he doesn't fool around with analytic philosophy and is more of a continental guy.

His style is not for all—though I absolutely love it, in fact, it was his style that first caught my eye.

Why is it slander?  Just because Papist and I don't have a high opinion of him and because I think he's a poor writer....Aren't we entitled to an opinion about him?

Anyway, we digress.  Let's not make this thread about Hart, okay?
Reply
#18
(06-22-2015, 03:04 PM)Renatus Frater Wrote: Well, this is just slander. Even his "enemy" Dr. Feser grants he's a philosopher and praised his most recent book The Experience of God. Not to mention his doctoral thesis is a tour de force. Its still the go to book for me when I want to criticize modernity and post modernity.
He might not be a philosopher in the American sense (but then again, which philosopher can America boast of?), since he doesn't fool around with analytic philosophy and is more of a continental guy.

His style is not for all—though I absolutely love it, in fact, it was his style that first caught my eye.

The guy doesn't even understand what Natural Law is, and he spends quite a bit of time railing against it.
Reply
#19
(06-22-2015, 03:28 PM)Crusading Philologist Wrote: I agree with RF. Hart certainly has his weak points, but he is still a thoughtful critic of modern thought and an insightful and sympathetic reader of the Tradition. Many of his "conservative" critics, it seems to me, dismiss him simply for his failure to adhere to a Wolffian rationalism (which they for some reason call "Thomism") in which thought has been reified as an automatic, technical process rather than a serious and responsible engagement with Being.

Aristotelian-Thomists reject that kind of rationalism outright.
Reply
#20
(06-22-2015, 03:04 PM)Renatus Frater Wrote: Well, this is just slander. Even his "enemy" Dr. Feser grants he's a philosopher and praised his most recent book The Experience of God. Not to mention his doctoral thesis is a tour de force. Its still the go to book for me when I want to criticize modernity and post modernity.
He might not be a philosopher in the American sense (but then again, which philosopher can America boast of?), since he doesn't fool around with analytic philosophy and is more of a continental guy.

His style is not for all—though I absolutely love it, in fact, it was his style that first caught my eye.

What's his doctoral thesis, is it "The Beauty of the Infinite"? I tried starting that once after the "Experience of God" but it was a bit too advanced for me.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)