[lit-ideas] Re: a philosophical question
- From: "Andy Amago" <aamago@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2006 00:16:46 -0400
Apparently Mr. Hyde was roaming the streets earlier and now Mr. Jekyll is
back in his office. It's nice to see you again, Mr. Jekyll. I would agree
with you, and I said in my original post that the movie was more
psychological than philosophical. I picked up on the philosophical angle,
such as it was, because the kids in the movie were clearly, like most
people, psychologically clueless as to what was driving them but they were
looking at life from something of a philosophical angle. I have to say,
though, that on some level I almost agree with them, but that's a
conversation between Eve Black and myself, since nobody has watched the
movie. Roots for ideas may lie in religious texts, but the religious texts
got their ideas somewhere, assuming one doesn't believe in burning bushes.
That's what I was getting at. Oops, just saw Stan's admonition against
feeding the troll. I assume that's instead of calling me anti-semitic. A
penny saved is a penny earned, Stan. Open a hedge fund, feed a billionaire
instead. Thanks for your efforts, Mr. Jekyll. Maybe we'll meet again.
> [Original Message]
> From: Robert Paul <rpaul@xxxxxxxx>
> To: <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: 7/27/2006 11:44:20 PM
> Subject: [lit-ideas] a philosophical question
>
> > Also, people complain that the
> > discussions are political, yet I asked a philosophical question recently
> > (the underpinnings of the lusting in one's heart as sin), and there
were no
> > takers outside of one poem from Ursula for which I extend my thanks.
>
> Irene, you've been complaining, or explaining, or pointing out that 'you
> asked 'a philosophical question' recently, viz., whether the New
> Testament dictum that one who has lusted after a woman has already
> committed adultery 'in his heart' had any 'philosophical underpinnings,'
> and that nobody has replied to you except Ursula, who sent a poem.
>
> 'But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her
> hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.' [King James
> version; see http://bible.cc/matthew/5-28.htm for other English
> translations]
>
> This is not a philosophical question. It's just a question. Surely the
> answer if there is one could be found by examining ancient texts leading
> up to this Biblical pronouncement or, if by 'underpinnings' you meant
> 'subsequent support,' by examining the writings of evangelists and
> cognitive psychologists, e.g. Even if some philosopher somewhere had
> tried to make a case for the view that one can sin by merely thinking,
> this would not make your question a philosophical one.
>
> Robert Paul
> reed.edu
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
> digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
------------------------------------------------------------------
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:
