Go | New | Find | Notify | Tools | Reply |
No problem. As the lawyers say, "we will just have to agree to disagree" on the value of philosophy. But, your point is well-taken: Not everyone likes it. I guess that's why I like some of the "heavier" classics more than you do . . . Dickens, Dostoevski, etc. They are often pretty philosophical in tone and content. Hesse and Camus are two more of my favorite writers, for the same reasons. I would love to have you sit in on some of my philosophy classes and see if I could spark some interest in the field for you. However, based on our exchanges, we may ignore the balance of the students and just engage in semi-heated debate until the sun went down! Fun for us, perhaps irrelevant for them. I don't agree that philosophy is fiction, but I'll definitely concede (but concession is not a good word, since it is meant to be somewhat abstract and systematic) that much of it is theoretical. By the way, when you left the Catholic church, your questions about the justice of God or a church that would castigate classes of people were -- like it or not -- philosophical questions. I'm afraid you will never escape the influence of philosophy in your life no matter how much you protest. Nothing I can do about that. Appreciate the reply and look forward to further discussions. Maybe sometime -- just for fun -- we can discuss Bradbury! :-) By the way, if you like Bradbury's passion in his stories, may I recommend you get "Zen in the Art of Writing" and read that. It is a collection of essays and introductions where he talks about writing as a passion. I think you might enjoy it. Most of it is anecdotal and conversational -- nary a philosophical thread in it! Very engaging reading. | ||||
|
Thanks for the reply, Nice to talk and discuss topics with you. And yes we will probably have to agree to disagree, but that's no big problem. On the subject of Bradury (seeing as this is a Bradbury board) I own 2 copies of Zen in the Art of writing. The first version and the extended version, and both are dog-eared, thumbed to death and constantly read. I think I've read every book on the writing of fiction from every Guru there is (hence my Robert McKee example in the last post), but Zen is my favourite and the most useful. I think, so far, he's the only writer who's captured the true spirit of writing, and how to go about this (and as my dream is to be a writer, I can't thank Mr.Bradbury enough for this). Peace Frankanger | ||||
|
I hope frankanger stays on his medication................................... | ||||
|
Zen in the Art of Writing is a fairly recent addition to my library. I hadn't heard of it until several people mentioned it in their postings here (one reason I like this board is people reference stories or books I haven't really been familiar with). The book really inspires me to write, although I don't see myself as much of a writer. It is a book about writing that is actually fun to read. | ||||
|
Mr. Dark vs. frankanger. Dueling Banjoes. Interesting riffs. | ||||
|
Did I just read a parallel being made between Simpson characters and religion???????? "Brave New World" indeed! Philosophies are wonderful, but one's true faith glows eternal! | ||||
|
The Simpsons and religion . . . I don't know about that, but there are three fascinating books put out by a philosophy professor that I recommend to my students. They all take contemporary cultural "events" and gather philosophy professors (and a few literature professors) to pull philosophical issues from them. "The Simpsons and Philosophy: The D'oh! of Homer" (2001) "Seinfeld and Philosophy: A Book about Everything and Nothing" (2000) "The Matrix and Philosophy: Welcome to the Desert of the Real" (2002) They are all edited by William Irwin and put out by the Open Court Press in Chicago. I also strongly recommend "Falling In Love with Wisdom: American Philosophers Talk About Their Calling", edited by David Karnos and Robert Shoemaker. Oxford University Press, NY. 1993. This book is a collection of short personal essays by Philosophy professors talking about how they got interested in philosophy. . . Basically their origin stories. The quality of the writing is good, obviously; but what I find fascinating is the various paths traveled. Some went from church to atheism. Some went from atheism to God. Some went from science to religion/philosophy. Some went from protestantism to Catholicism (and vice versa). Some left Christianity and became Buddhist (and vice versa). Philosophy, in and of itself, neither promoted nor undermined religion. It just provided a more thorough examination of what those "paths" represented and which path seemed more or less in alignment with the beliefs and goals of the individuals. One of the things I find fascinating about Bradbury is that his stories often carry very strong religious/values/ethical connotations, yet he very rarely deals explicitly with religion or philosophy. But they underlie much of his work. I know he opened my mind to the reality of religious claims and philosophical considerations; and I've read several others on various postings who have said the same thing about his writing and its influence on their religious lives. [This message has been edited by Mr. Dark (edited 01-28-2003).] | ||||
|
Frankanger, I don't know if you get "All in the Family" in England, or how similar it was to the British series, "Till Death Do Us Part," on which it was based, but your problem with faith reminds me very much of one faced on an episode of that long-running series. Archie Bunker, a prejudiced, bigoted man who almost never attended church but considered himself religious, was married to Edith, a loving, kind, accepting person who did attend church but whose goodness came from the heart. Archie, a cab driver, saved a passenger's life and was almost sorry when he learned the passenger, Beverly, was not, as he supposed, a woman, but a transvestite man. Beverly was not necessarily gay. As the episode pointed out, most transvestites are not gay, just guys who use looking/dressing/acting differently as a means to express another side of themselves. Edith became best friends with Beverly, but one day near Christmas, Beverly was attacked by people who obviously knew nothing about him but objected to his looks, and unfortunately died as a result of the attack. Edith then decided she didn't believe in God because of what had happened to Beverly, which much concerned Archie. I forget how Edith resolved her problem (so I can't spoil the ending for those who haven't seen it, though I've seen it several times) but my impression was--much as I sympathize with her bad reaction to such a terrible situation, but--GOD didn't kill her friend, or order anyone else to! It seems as if GOD takes a lot of blame for the exercise of human freewill and bad judgement. | ||||
|
Dandelion: The argument has always been....that God "allows" these things to happen. The 'fact' that many forget is...that God also "allowed" his son to be crucified. He currently "allows" the devil and his angels to have run of this Earth until the day when all things are complete.... If you read Peter...it makes a point of saying...that what is happening here, has never taken place before, in all of God's creation. So bewildering and unique is all this...that ...the angels are peering over God's shoulder, not so much as if unable to understand all that is happening, but moreso, awed by seeing something never seen before.... that is, the restoration of a fallen creation... | ||||
|
Hey, Dandelion Interesting comments, and I do know Till Death us Do Part, and for all it's cleverness in showing Alf Garnett (Archie Bunker over there) as a bigoted fool, it also gained a lot of following among those people who treated Alf as a hero. This is just an aside, really, just thought I'd let you know the English side of the Archie equation. As to God, if you read my post I say 'I stopped believing in 'A God' that would allow such people to minister his faith. I did not say I stopped believing in God altogether. It may surprise you to know I do believe in 'A God', but it's not a man, or a woman, or a thing particularly, and definitely not linked to any particular Religion (all of them have their good points, but they also have bad points). If you watched the Bradbury interview (there's a link on the site somewhere) he talks about this, although at this moment I couldn't say exactly what he said. It was something along the lines of taking a little from everything (a gross simplification). That's what I've done, and will continue to do all my life. As it is, I do not see this as having 'a problem' as you pointed out. I feel richer for it, on the whole. And it means if I do pray, I can pray to whoever I like, whether it be Bhudda or the Great Spirit that some of the Native American tribes store their faith in. Eh, if I feel like it, I can pray to the grass in the park nearby. My problem is not with 'a god' but the way human beings manifest their version of a God. It's a similar situation to people who quote the Bible as though it is truth. I'm always left asking the question -- which version of the Bible? How many translations has that particular text undergone since first conception (not to mention Jerome's tampering). I'd rather someone quote Bradbury, or Asimov or Anne Tyler or any author, Hell, you could quote Mickey Spillane and it would mean as much as the bible in my eyes. It's a fiction, a good one, but I believe as much in Mr.Dark or Crumley as I do in Jesus or Moses. peace Frankanger | ||||
|
PLEASE NOTE: I have copied this entry and opened a new entry called, "Bradbury's religious views. . . From/in his words" in the Resources section of the Message Board. The reasons are explained there. Bradbury speaks often of God and Christ, but typically not in very specific terms. In a short poem in "The Chapbook," he seems to say that all religions (at least diestic religions -- Buddhism being somewhat problematic as some derivative Buddhist sects believe in A God or Gods, while others don't) believe in the same God. They just give different names and discover Him in different ways. "The Muslims started counting The Buddhists counted, too. The Baptists summed a total, With just one God in view, But each did name a naming For some Jehovah 'twas, For some Yahweh or Allah, All from one primal Cause. . . We hear His name repeated, One God who is The All." ( From "Eccentrics Must Truly Have Loved God. They Made So Many Of Him") In this, Bradbury seems to imply that the important thing is not the individual manifestations or namings (not that they aren't important to the various followers) but the underlying "thing" that is the source (or object) of all these seekings and namings. In an essay called, "Christ on Improbable Planets," he gives his interpretation of three of his "religious" stories: "The Man," "The Fire Balloons," and "The Messiah." According to his summaries, these stories speak to religion as being more about what is inside the person than what is perceived as the external, trans-personal object of worship/belief. In this essay, he cites GB Shaw and Kazantzakis (in the work, "The Saviors of God") where they turn the question of creation around -- in these words, "God cries out to be saved! We, it seems, must continuously and forever mouth-to-mouth breathe Him into existence. . ." In this essay he cites some lines from another poem in this book ("If Man is Dead, Then God is Slain"), and quotes these lines (among others) from that poem: "We fly much like each other, We walk a common clay. I dreamed man into being, He dreams me now to stay -- Twin mirror selves of seeing, We live Forever's Day. . . If man should die I'd blindly Rebirth that Beast again; I cannot live without him. Man dead? Then God is slain. My universe needs seeing, That's man's eternal task; What is the use of being if God is but a mask?" In this same essay, Bradbury states this: "We all go on the same Search, looking to solve the old Mystery. We will not, of course, ever solve it. We will climb all over it. We will, finally, inhabit the Mystery, even as Nemo inhabited his 'Nautilus' to course the deeps." In a poem called, "They Have Not Seen The Stars," Bradbury identifies the ability to truly see "the stars" as a significant distinguishing characteristic between man and all other life forms on the earth. Man's ability to actually "see" these things is what amounts to his mission. Man is to be the "seeing" creature. (My little editorial slant in that last line.) The most condense gathering of Bradbury's views on religion appear to be gathered (although in an apparently somewhat haphazard way) in "The Chapbook For Burnt-Out Priests, Rabbis and Ministers". As I read through this book, I realize (or assume or interpret) that Bradbury does not seem to see the world in terms of traditional orthodoxies and doctrines; but that, like many Diestic Existentialists, he is able to use the traditional languages, images and metaphors of religion to try and point us toward many of his beliefs. On the other hand, I have yet to see him disparage or belittle anyone's sincere religious beliefs in any way. Hyprocrisy, cruelty, dishonesty . . . these he attacks in interviews and stories, but I don't see attacks on those who adhere to a more traditional or conventional religious view than his. By the way, I make no claims here to having a comprehensive or authoritative understanding as to WHAT Bradbury's religious views are. He has not codified them in any fixed way -- not in anything I've read. This posting, and others, is just my best shot, at this point, as I read through this book and see religious issues continually arise on these postings. I definitely have my own opinions and beliefs, but I wanted to try and pull together a couple things in Bradbury's writings that reflect on some of the discussions on this thread. I have tried to be fair to what is in the book, but I am still trying to figure it out. It is not a long book, but Bradbury writes about religion in ways that make it difficult to pinpoint his views. Frankly, I think this is intentional -- partly because he seems to avoid the traditional orthodoxies, and partly because he wants us to bring some of our own feelings, ideas and interpretations into our readings of his poems and stories. [This message has been edited by Mr. Dark (edited 01-31-2003).] | ||||
|
Mr. Dark::: That first part of your posting.... That's the age -old argument ....that all roads lead to God. No other religion has a Saviour, as Christianity. Other religions have rules and commands, they have people or prophets to look up to and aspire, rituals to learn and repeat, aspirations and dreams to long for...but only Christianity has ...a Saviour, one that takes our shortcomings before God ...is Himself made "sin" on behalf of us.....and impells 'into' the believer...the character of God... yes, I said it: impells. (If you discover another religion any where in the world with a Saviour, please let me know.) As previous postings have mentioned (along with Dandelion's comments).... Ray is a Unitarian... that means, we all really get along. But Christ was clear when he said he will bring a sword, to divide family, brothers from sisters, mothers from daughters... the goats from the sheep, the debris from the valuable... I have only read the first part of your posting because I am short of time, but will read the remainder of it and comment on it later tonight. But that first part, with the poem...sounds so good, has a heart that flows mightily through it....But Ray himself has a poem about such thinking, read long ago, about people aspiring onto some dream, but not rooted in 'reality'...about building flowers upon flowers upon flowers....(if anyone remembers where that is, let me know...) Which means, it all eventually collapses. [This message has been edited by Nard Kordell (edited 01-31-2003).] | ||||
|
Powered by Social Strata | Page 1 2 3 4 |
Please Wait. Your request is being processed... |