Stories to live by

What can an ethic be justified by? I intimated before that the “justification” is in the results. Life and a lasting prosperity are what demonstrate (or justify) a mature ethic.

If we take Genesis 1 as an isolated text, I don’t see any contradictions. Beyond Genesis 1, my feeling is that if you give proper attention to the text, and don’t take things out of context, then you’ll find a deep consistency, across books and testaments.

Just be careful in any analysis that you don’t take a passage in isolation. It’s okay with Genesis 1 because it’s the beginning. There is no prior context required here but rather Genesis 1 is the context for all that comes (just as Genesis 2-3 is for that matter). I think it is important to be mindful of this.

(We can’t read Genesis 2-3 without Genesis 1 and we can’t read the rest of scripture without Genesis 1-3.)

And many were admittedly Christian long after there were penalties for not being so. (Hegel? Kierkegaard? …)

They certainly had other views for “how things actually are.” But look at Nietzsche for instance. It’s not hard to find evidence of how he wrestled with Scripture. For where else did he find inspiration for his revaluation of values but in Paul’s declaration that the weak will overcome the strong? Nietzsche refers to Paul himself. I also recall one spot where, yes, he ripped what he perceived to be the view of the Gospel writers, just as he was ripping Plato, but where his point was that these texts continue to challenge him, Plato included, and that they challenge him like no other. (I believe this is in Anti-Christ or Twilight of the Idols. Could be wrong though.)

Or his Zarathustra. Do you think the mythical-religious style of this text was an effort to deride religious thinking? Even his “death of God” talk was, in reality, the death of the Aristotilean God as the foundation of beings, such that Heidegger’s later critique of onto-theology is not really a critique of the Judeo-Christian God (if you read Genesis 1 closely you’ll see that God is not the foundation of beings but rather there is a primordial working-with the elements of creation, a cooperative model that is very different from the unmoved mover or more generally the ‘ultimate being in the hierarchy’ kind of thinking).

Sartre I could leave out of the list I gave. I’m not aware of any serious Scriptural reflection in his work. He was certainly influenced, for example his ‘existence precedes essence’ was the conclusion of his denial of a creator God, and that says a lot, but I’m not sure how deeply he engaged Scripture.

So how can you be so certain about the bruteness of biblical authors or the inconsistency of biblical texts? It strikes me as a lack of integrity making conclusions about superficial details (or what appear to be inconsistencies on the surface) unless you know what’s going on and can truly confirm that the pieces don’t fit.

I’ve been reviewing Nietzsche out of my own curiosity. Trying to find where he discusses Paul and the revaluation of values. Found this comment about Eliot though which I thought was germane. I don’t know Eliot so I can’t say anything myself:

That’s in Twilight of the Idols, “SKIRMISHES OF AN UNTIMELY MAN”.

A story I re-told in the year 2000:

This is just an example of what I meant. I would tell the story differently today, but it was the only one I had written down - although I had to translate it from German. The groups that listen to such stories are encouraged to make short comments if they want but to assist the storyline and not to slow it down. Obviously some wait until the end, but some enhanced the whole process by their actively taking part.

Take Care

Apparently you can ask and answer your own questions.

This is strange coming from someone who’s ready to admit human authorship. I’m sure if you took an isolated page from even the most contradictory person, you’d manage to find consistency on it. I have limited access to internet now. If you’re anxious, you can entertain yourself by a google search for contradictions in the bible.

Yes, it is important to be mindful of this when you rip a passage about Eliot out from a commentator and haven’t read her, and then declare your intentions to fish through Nietzsche to find a scattered reference to some biblical figure to prove Nietzsche thought, somehow, about biblical figures.

Terrible examples, especially kierkegaard. As you know, penalties are social and internalized/psychological as well as written and legal.

If that’s all you think is required to “wrestle with Scripture”, then any underdog long before scripture and the bible “wrestled with scripture”.

Do you think the style of his text was anything like the bible? Is that what you’re suggesting?