Quote:
Originally Posted by peter12
...This is the arrogance of the modern position, that there is no way but back. That somehow inevitably we have moved on and that the wisdom and perspective of the past cannot be applied to our own times.
|
In my own field, I see this accusation frequently from biblical inerrentists, who insist that modern biblical scholars and historians are prejudiced by an intellectual hubris: that we are superior to our ancient counterparts by virtue of the fact that we "know more". I agree that it is shortsighted to discount the wisdom of the past, but such wisdom must always be evaluated in relative terms, and in line with how the world which produced such ancient wisdom functioned.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peter12
...I think it's a crutch of the critic, to be honest, that struggles to gain a universalist perspective which doesn't really exist and fails to grasp the empirical kinship that we can feel when we read literature, poetry and philosophy from the past. Do you disregard nature or reason? I don't think so. Clearly, we have similar experiences according to all humanity to a certain extent. That's why we still enjoy and understand "old books."
|
Perhaps it is a crutch! I am not so certain about the "similarity" of human experience. I am 37-years-old, and I have a very limited understanding of patriotism. I've never seen a war, and have no first-hand knowledge of any sort of ideological armed conflict. I don't believe that I would be prepared to die for my country in large part because of this. My experience of life on this particular level is considerably different than that of my grandfather's, who believed this to be a FUNDAMENTAL responsibility. This is a change that has occurred inside of less than a century, and within my own culture: how much change affects our experiences spread across hundreds and thousands of years, and tens of thousands of kilometres?