Politics, Protestantism, Postmodernism, and Agape
Here's Laura Miller reviewing Terry Eagleton's new book, The Meaning of Life. Miller is my favorite book reviewer, edging out Sven Birkerts, and Eagleton is an uncommonly good writer with a sharp wit, so this was a promising combination. Sure enough, it's a really interesting review.
I don't have all that much to say about it that isn't in the review itself (which, if you're wondering, is not very long). I thought it might be of interest here because of where it fetches up -- the ethics of agape -- and because it ties together a set of interesting ideas in a really interesting way.
Also, I thought I'd link to it because Eagleton's book (if Miller's review is accurate) is a good example of how to offer a non-religious argument for public policy that's consistent with one's own religious beliefs.* This is something I've harped on occasionally, here'bouts, as being important in Christian ethics, so I though it might be useful to link to an example.
I'll be interested to hear what the Houseflies think.
* It should be noted, as Miller does, that Eagleton is no longer religious. Nonetheless, he is talking about an idea -- agape -- that is still rooted in his Catholic upbringing, which he still values.
I don't have all that much to say about it that isn't in the review itself (which, if you're wondering, is not very long). I thought it might be of interest here because of where it fetches up -- the ethics of agape -- and because it ties together a set of interesting ideas in a really interesting way.
Also, I thought I'd link to it because Eagleton's book (if Miller's review is accurate) is a good example of how to offer a non-religious argument for public policy that's consistent with one's own religious beliefs.* This is something I've harped on occasionally, here'bouts, as being important in Christian ethics, so I though it might be useful to link to an example.
I'll be interested to hear what the Houseflies think.
* It should be noted, as Miller does, that Eagleton is no longer religious. Nonetheless, he is talking about an idea -- agape -- that is still rooted in his Catholic upbringing, which he still values.
posted by juvenal_urbino | 11:42 AM
9 Comments:
The book sounds interesting. And the reviews by Miller that I've read have been outstanding.
As for agape and governing...I'll ask a dumb question. How would this actually change how decisions are made? It seems something that would help make sense of living everyday life, but I don't necessarily think it would change something on the level of the state.
How decisions are made by whom? Citizens? Voters? Elected officials?
I'm not sure what you're asking.
I guess my question was more about elected officials. Although the other "whoms" are interesting now that you bring 'em up.
So, how would agape change how officials shape public policy?
I'm not sure Eagleton says much on that score. (I'm just going on the review, here. Haven't bought the book.)
It sounds like his agape material is directed more at how we treat each other. His argument about elected officials (the torture stuff) seems to be more about postmodernism.
Speaking of, I thought his connection of pomo with Protestantism was really interesting. It left me with some questions, though. I mean, nominalism was a product of Catholic theology (Scotus and Ockham); I'm curious how he deals with that. And second, the kind of thinking he identifies with Protestantism-at-large is really characteristic of only one of the three strands of Reformation theology: Calvin's. The Radical Reformation had/has a taste of it, but that whole "absolute sovereignty of God" kind of thinking that Eagleton discusses is very much Calvin's.
Now you're officially over my head. I don't know my history of theology very well.
As for agape and public policy -- in the review, I thought the leap to policy was a bit odd. It's a book about how to live a meaningful life and then there was something that seemed directed more at politics than individual lives (not that they are mutually exclusive, but anyway). And so that didn't make as much sense to me.
But the book sounds interesting. I'll likely pick it up sometime soon.
Also. Was the end of the review tongue-in-cheek, or do you think Miller is actually that much in awe of Eagleton's intellect?
It's a book about how to live a meaningful life and then there was something that seemed directed more at politics than individual lives (not that they are mutually exclusive, but anyway).
From what I can tell, I think that's Eagleton's point -- that they aren't mutually exclusive at all. Quite the opposite.
Was the end of the review tongue-in-cheek, or do you think Miller is actually that much in awe of Eagleton's intellect?
Hard to say, now that you mention it. I read it as serious, though.
Al, I figured you would have something to say on this one.
I'm so sorry, Juvenal. I've been a really poor conversation partner recently, and I cannot seem to break out of that funk.
I only took the time to read the review at your prompting, but I'm glad for it. It is interesting, though I'm better suited for the remedial class I think (I had a bit of trouble following the review, so I wonder how I'll do with the book).
My interest was drawn in the same place yours was, however: agape as the essence/nature of human beings, not as religious principle.
My first thought/question is: Is he basing his thought on a quite-modernist exercise of the scientific theory (personal hypothesis, testing by the gathering of philosophical theories, et al)?
Which leads to my second thought/question: If so, how does he come to his conclusion?
I share his theory, though I still pin mine on God/Jesus. Since he refuses to do that (and eschews postmodernism, which would allow him his theory cuz it feels right), can you carve out of the review the basis of his theory?
Do I even make the first lick of sense?
(Thinking about Sandi today... wondering...)
I share his theory, though I still pin mine on God/Jesus. Since he refuses to do that (and eschews postmodernism, which would allow him his theory cuz it feels right), can you carve out of the review the basis of his theory?
I can't. I know he is, broadly speaking, Marxist in his outlook, so I would assume his anthropology has its roots there, but I can't really tell from the review.
In fairness to postmodernism, it probably would disallow his theory because it commits the arch modernist mistake of believing there is a single human nature. (One of those grand meta-narrative thingamabobs. Right up there with getting involved in a land war in Asia.)
Post a Comment
<< Home