Human life is shot through with envy. Envy whispers in our ear about a neighbor who has slightly more than we do –a nicer car, more recognition, a prettier wife, more accomplished children. Envy wants to silence praise for others and grows angry when praise continues (Nietzsche). Enslaved to envy, we rejoice at those who weep, and weep at those who rejoice. We become “insatiable in our outbursts against the happy” (Nietzsche). When we don’t achieve our goals, we think,... Read more
The Cambridge Alumni magazine this month has an interview with Professor Simon Conway Morris hos is proposing what the articles describes as a “radical rewriting” of evolution. His theory is that convergence – “the tendency of very different organisms to evolve similar solutions to biological problems” – is not just a side issue but the “driving force” of evolution. Conway Morris says, “If you go to the octopus, and if you’re not too squeamish, dissect it, you’ll find that it... Read more
Some musings on God’s worldliness at http://www.firstthings.com/ this morning. Read more
The Lover calls his bride his “darling” (Song of Songs 1:9, NASB). The Hebrew is ra’yah , and this is the first use of the word. Of the 10 uses in the Hebrew Bible, nine are in the Song and always the Lover’s term of endearment for his Beloved (1:15; 2:2, 10, 13; 4:1, 7; 5:2; 6:4). Several times it is joined with the phrase “my fair one” ( yapheh ; 1:15, 2:10, 13) and sometimes linked with blemishless beauty... Read more
Solomon’s first wife was an Egyptian princess (1 Kings 3:1). She was Solomon’s mare among the chariots of Egypt (Song of Songs 1:9). We can imagine Pharaoh showing Solomon around the capital, displaying his court and his stables and gathering his army to make an impressive military display. Solomon has eyes only for the princess. She stands out among the chariots of Pharaoh. She only is the object of his desire. Military power and violence hold no interest. It does... Read more
In his first speech of praise to his Beloved, the Lover of the Song compares her to “my mare among Pharaoh’s chariots” (Song of Songs 1:9). Among other things, the comparison evokes the story of the exodus, where Pharaoh’s horses and chariots are overthrown. Griffiths ( Song of Songs (Brazo’s Theological Commentary on the Bible) , p. 29) has this to say: “The verbal resonances are direct and explicit: there, as here, Pharaoh’s chariots . . . are mentioned with... Read more
In his superb commentary on the Vulgate of the Song of Songs ( Song of Songs (Brazo’s Theological Commentary on the Bible) , p. 28), Paul Griffiths asks what Solomon means by talking about grazing among the lilies. He answers: “This, in the Song, is something the lover is said by his beloved to do. Might the Lord do this? Perhaps. If the lily is his beautiful creation, then for him to graze inter lilia . . . and lilia... Read more
Medieval Christian thinkers were sometimes aware of the tensions between Aristotle’s ideal of magnanimity and Christian virtues like humility. According to Tobias Hoffmann’s essay in Virtue Ethics in the Middle Ages: Commentaries on Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics, 1200-1500 (Brill’s Studies in Intellectual History) , however, they didn’t think the divergences were too serious. According to Hoffmann, “In Albert’s understanding, there is no opposition between the Aristotelian view of magnanimity and virtues of biblical inspiration” and he makes an effort to bring... Read more
In his Political Authority and Obligation in Aristotle (Oxford Aristotle Studies) , p. 173, Andres Rosler questions whether gratitude for the benefits of socialization are enough to obligate someone to obey the regime in which he was socialized. Is gratitude sufficient basis for political obligations? Rosler says No, and explains: “considerations of gratitude or based on social debts, together with indications of our social and cultural nature, would not be per se of much help to explain political bonds. This... Read more
In his Habermas and Theology , Nick Adams sums up Habermas’s project as an effort to answer this question: “how can there be moral debate between members of different traditions?” Habermas’s answer, Adamss says, is “simple in conception”: “Habermas argues that one has to identify rules for argumentation that transcend tradition. Without such rules, there can be only the clash of competing views, or a succession of positions that do not engage with each other. The difficulty for Habermas is... Read more
Leithart
Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In