[lit-ideas] Re: Violence and kicking dogs
- From: "Phil Enns" <phil.enns@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2005 09:20:37 -0400
Marlena wrote:
"Okay, this analogy is a bit different than that of our guy who needs to
work on his grammar (which I probably need to do too--maybe that was why
I picked up on it so fast and was able to translate it in my head more
easily than either Phil or Robert."
The problem is not one of grammar but whether the paragraph makes sense.
I noted two problems. First, what is meant by 'faith'? This is crucial
since the word is used in every sentence. As far as I can see, none of
the 'translations' offered so far have mentioned the word and yet it
appears to be central. In the first sentence, we are told that faith
alone keeps us whole but the doubting self (?) gives the appearance (?)
of being an attack on this faith. Apparently this attack is not only in
appearance since in the second sentence we are told that there can
result an 'unfaithful self' (how can there be a self without faith if
only faith allows for there to be a self?) that is projected onto
external objects. The kicker comes in the third sentence. The self,
that is not a self because it is an unfaithful self, moves to protect
itself, see problem with self, against the infidel who is in actuality
one's own faithless self, which can't be a self because it lacks faith.
In short, I can make no sense of how the word 'faith' is used here. I
can't make sense of faith except in the presence of doubt. That is, to
have faith one must also have doubt. Without doubt, one has knowledge,
not faith. I can't make sense of how faith alone keeps a self whole,
since one has faith in something and therefore the self precedes faith,
at least ontologically. I can't make sense of how, assuming that faith
alone keeps a self whole, there can be a faithless self. The word
'faith' is used here nonsensically.
The second problem I raised is related to the first. Allowing for the
purposes of this argument that the idea of projection has some sense,
the move to a 'split off and disavowed faithless self' is an abstraction
that removes from the notion of a self any meaning it might have. How
does one determine that one is or is not dealing with such a self? The
idea of a self is already a nebulous abstraction but with 'split off and
disavowed faithless self' we are talking about an abstraction that is so
great, I don't see how it can be meaningful. As a theoretical
construction it may have some sense, but we are led to believe that
there really can be such a self, and that tragic consequences follow
from such a self, and that can only be nonsense.
All of the 'translations' of this paragraph have been terrible insofar
as they pick and choose what will be translated. What I would like is a
line by line translation that includes a translation, not mere
repetition, of the word 'faith' as well as 'split off and disavowed
faithless self'.
Finally, regarding unconscious motivations, yes I do think this is
nonsense. With Robert Paul I would say that there is a great deal going
on in our thinking and acting of which we are not aware. That one could
produce a taxonomy of what is going on strikes me as being patent
nonsense. If it goes on without our being aware, how does one step
aside or look around in order to see what is going on?
Sincerely,
Phil Enns
Toronto, ON
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
Other related posts:
