There's been all this blogging and commenting on Cinderella, and Hell, and Evolution, and Theology, and whether Lingamish supposes they all might not be "right." (Nobody even heard Daniel say something about how absurd the right-or-wrong sides must be who say you must be either right or wrong. And what one Chesterton says: "When we are asked why eggs turn to birds or fruits fall in autumn, we must answer exactly as the fairy godmother would answer if Cinderella asked her why mice turned to horses or her clothes fell from her at twelve o’clock. We must answer that it is . . . " What is it really, then?)
And one of "them feminists" says:
The subjective brings us to the objective. It's a different way to get to the same truth.
ps: only the subjective allows Lingamish to be my favorite blogger--he's still working on his theology of the body.
ps2: Aristotle started with the objective and figured out the chicken and the egg question--he also figured that women have fewer teeth than men, a terrible theology of the body that he was convinced he had to be "right" about.
ps3: I hate to be too obvious but the labels for this post are dedicated to Nathan, a fledgling feminist--but can men be feminists? Can God be feminist?
6 comments:
I can only claim to be sympathetic. I tend to agree in principle but not in practice.
Do you believe this statement I once heard from someone wise?
"We practice daily what we believe; all the rest is religious talk."
Get back to work on that dissertation! We want you to finish it so you can devote yourself full time to blogging and hippo worship.
Wow! You don't miss anything in the blog world, do you? How do you do it. "We must answer that it is . . . "
" . . .
that it is magic. It is not a 'law,' for we do not understand its general formula. It is not a necessity, for though we can count on it happening practically, we have no right to say that it must always happen. It is no argument for unalterable law (as Huxley fancied) that we count on the ordinary course of things. We do not count on it; we bet on it. We risk the remote possibility of a miracle as we do that of a poisoned pancake or a world-destroying comet. We leave it out of account, not because it is a miracle, and therefore an impossibility, but because it is a miracle, and therefore an exception. All the terms used in the science books, 'law,' 'necessity,' 'order,' 'tendency,' and so on, are really unintellectual, because they assume an inner synthesis, which we do not possess. The only words that ever satisfied me as describing Nature are the terms used in the fairy books, 'charm,' 'spell,' 'enchantment.' They express the arbitrariness of the fact and its mystery. A tree grows fruit because it is a magic tree. Water runs downhill because it is bewitched. The sun shines because it is bewitched."
[HT Daniel Olson, and G.K. Chesterton]
>David,
Alrighty then! thanks for the push
Post a Comment