When you say that some truth is simply very consequential, it seems to me that what you arguing is more that truth matters, which I think is different than truth is good. The good effects of something are evidence that that something is good, maybe the effect of its being good, but it is (I think) not the reason. I don’t know how I would talk about that instead. I’m just criticizing with no better ideas of my own, as people do.
The tie-in with Luther is very good. Saved by truth alone, no good required.
It’s true it’s easy to be tempted by Nietzsche. It’s funny how seductive the idea is, when in reality, the picture of a man apart from God is almost always pitiable. Who out there is using his Nietzschean superpowers to become really vital? What of God’s law do you need to throw off to become vital? How come as we stray further from God, we become even more like the bent-over slaves Nietzsche was so dismissive of? I wonder what Nietzsche would think if he were alive today. Godless humanity has worked out to be a lot things but vital is not really one of them.
Foucault always makes me laugh. He and his modern day disciples have this canard you mention about their enemies wanting to “control others’ sexuality” or “control women’s bodies”… hahahahaha. On some level, sure, we all want to control everyone, a little, because we’d like others’ actions to dovetail more nicely with our expectations, and would like for our neighbors’ actions to allow us to still procure nice things. We definitely want to “control” the sexuality of people so that we can have faithful relationships, avoid generations of parentless children, etc., but seriously, if you were someone who just got a rise out of controlling people’s sexuality for NO REASON, you would make something more like Islam, definitely not Christianity where the most powerful figures are all… celibate for life. It makes no natural sense. Men want women to like them WAY more than we want unlimited opportunities for free rape. Duh. But I don’t think Foucault could have been expected to understand that.
Your last paragraph is beautiful. The heart, the heart! Let me be transfixed by Your beauty, Lord!
"I don’t know how I would talk about that instead. I’m just criticizing with no better ideas of my own, as people do." You know how it upsets me when you say things like this. ha. not that much but a little, if you cannot explain it... then i can have my doubts if you understand me or have a coherent critique.
but thanks for the positive feedback.
credit owed to fr gregorius hesse (may he rest in peace) who has a lovely sermon on the final subject of beauty and the heart.
When you say that some truth is simply very consequential, it seems to me that what you arguing is more that truth matters, which I think is different than truth is good. The good effects of something are evidence that that something is good, maybe the effect of its being good, but it is (I think) not the reason. I don’t know how I would talk about that instead. I’m just criticizing with no better ideas of my own, as people do.
The tie-in with Luther is very good. Saved by truth alone, no good required.
It’s true it’s easy to be tempted by Nietzsche. It’s funny how seductive the idea is, when in reality, the picture of a man apart from God is almost always pitiable. Who out there is using his Nietzschean superpowers to become really vital? What of God’s law do you need to throw off to become vital? How come as we stray further from God, we become even more like the bent-over slaves Nietzsche was so dismissive of? I wonder what Nietzsche would think if he were alive today. Godless humanity has worked out to be a lot things but vital is not really one of them.
Foucault always makes me laugh. He and his modern day disciples have this canard you mention about their enemies wanting to “control others’ sexuality” or “control women’s bodies”… hahahahaha. On some level, sure, we all want to control everyone, a little, because we’d like others’ actions to dovetail more nicely with our expectations, and would like for our neighbors’ actions to allow us to still procure nice things. We definitely want to “control” the sexuality of people so that we can have faithful relationships, avoid generations of parentless children, etc., but seriously, if you were someone who just got a rise out of controlling people’s sexuality for NO REASON, you would make something more like Islam, definitely not Christianity where the most powerful figures are all… celibate for life. It makes no natural sense. Men want women to like them WAY more than we want unlimited opportunities for free rape. Duh. But I don’t think Foucault could have been expected to understand that.
Your last paragraph is beautiful. The heart, the heart! Let me be transfixed by Your beauty, Lord!
"I don’t know how I would talk about that instead. I’m just criticizing with no better ideas of my own, as people do." You know how it upsets me when you say things like this. ha. not that much but a little, if you cannot explain it... then i can have my doubts if you understand me or have a coherent critique.
but thanks for the positive feedback.
credit owed to fr gregorius hesse (may he rest in peace) who has a lovely sermon on the final subject of beauty and the heart.