bookshelves: currently-reading
I've been meaning to read Polanyi for a while, since hearing about him on an audio show (Mars Hill Audio). One of the lesser known "architects" of postmodern thought, and, I think, a fairly accessible and positive example of postmodern thought. Despite the title "Meaning," he and Harry Prosche (his co-author) claim, in the first chapter, that their real topic is "intellectual freedom", which post-Enlightenment thought (or really, thought since the Reformation) has failed to justify according to its logic, despite being founded on the premise of intellectual freedom. This crisis was felt most strongly in Europe, where the advent of Enlightenment philosophy (and its natural conclusions which proved so bloody) was contemporaneous with the dissolution of the church as an effective entity-- whereas this was not as extremely the case in Anglophone countries (or so I gather from P & P's introduction), where there was a sort of "freeze" on logic, so that the natural, nihilistic conclusions of Enlightenment & post-Enlightenment philosophy were not recognized and Anglophone countries (America seems specially singled out) went on providing aid and living according to their values, believing they were logically derived but in fact were traditionally derived. I'm surprised there is not more explicit reference to the dominance of church in America, but maybe that's b/c I was raised in an Evangelical setting and have been told since childhood that things like our intervention in WWII were ethically motivated and part and parcel of our faith in God and Country.
From what I understand, one of Polanyi's signature "moves" is to emphasize the role of "authority" in any sort of knowledge, as a necessary part of what "human knowing" is, against the Enlightenment philosophers, who, for good reason at the time, insisted that knowledge had to be dealt with independent of "Authority." I'm wondering if this book with perhaps look at ethical behavior not in terms of the logical explanations given by the practitioners, but instead looking at ethical behavior as simply something we already "do" and are therefore competent in, deriving an explanation from the implict logic of praxis-- much as Ricoeur claims to do when he looks at "what historians do" when developing an epistemological justification of historical knowledge, rather than creating ideal criteria apart from practice and then imposing them on historical praxis.
I should also note that, while Polanyi has been latched onto in certain Christian intellectual circles (i.e. Mars Hill Audio), his book is not in any way a justification of, say, American Christianity or any religion, as far as I can tell so far-- I imagine that Polanyi's work is as relevant for critiquing christian epistemology and praxis as well as post-Enlightenment epistemology and praxis. I should also note that this book is from 1975, and Polanyi was active earlier (the book is posthumous), so that he really does belong to the very start of Postmodernism, and his criticisms will be of Modern thought-- reading him now may seem a bit out of date, if you take his criticisms personally and have already been through the "postmodern turn".
And finally-- I figure I'll enjoy this book because of the variety of author's cited in the notes whom I find very interesting, yet underrepresented: Merleau Ponty (though he is getting more popular the last decade or two), C.S. Lewis (don't know yet how critically P&P will engage with Lewis, but I find it exciting anyway-- I mostly encounter Lewis' thought in naive and out-of-date Christian evangelical thought), Owen Barfield (the forgotten, yet most philosophically minded Inkling, whose book Poetic Diction has some really interesting linguistic-philosophical speculation going on), and then anthropologists/historians of religion like Levi-Strauss and Mircea Eliade who touch on my own field as a mythologist. Anyway, I'm pretty excited to see someone engage with Lewis and Barfield at the academic level-- I've been wanting to start connecting the dots with them and contemporary scholarly discourse for a while, since the Inklings served as my "archetype" for "scholarly figures" when I was first discovering I wanted to go into academics. I may be "firmly rooted" in postmodernism myself now, but I'm still very interested in their thought.
BRIEF UPDATE-- so far it looks like he is just giving his own version of a Heideggerian or Merleau-Pontian epistemology, though he doesn't cite Heidegger at all, despite using one or two of H's examples very blatantly. I also just saw that Polanyi as ALSO a professor of Chemistry, so I'm enjoying getting a perspective on scientific and other types of knowing from someone with experience in BOTH the sciences and philosophy-- I think people like that are really important, otherwise we end up looking at the other camp and thinking "well, THEY don't know what they're talking about." I think science and continental philosophy go together better than people tend to realize-- for example, Kuhn's idea of scientific revolutions and paradigm shifts was derived from his encounter with Foucault and others, I think when he was an undergrad maybe-- I haven't read his book yet, but from what I've heard it is basically a scientist appropriating continental philosophy-- so maybe a bit naive from the POV of continental phil., but very informed from the perspective of the sciences. I'm not sure, could be wrong. Polanyi, however, is thoroughly informed in both worlds, even if his prime was 1/2 a century ago now. Still very relevant, just as Heidegger and MP are, but again, this perspective is more of a given in the humanities now, rather than groundbreaking. ]]>
bookshelves: currently-reading
Borrowing this from Jane, my cousin in law (I've been blessed with two cousins-in-law on that side of the family with a taste in books which nicely compliments my own). James Wood is not religious himself, from what I understand, but, from what I've seen so far, gives a sensitive and thoughtful look at religion and faith in literature. His introduction includes a nice meditation on the differences and similarities between fiction and religion, both of which call for a certain sort of believing, but with important differences. Will have to review this more when I've read more and have more time-- I'm supposed to be editing a diss. chapter right now. ]]>
bookshelves: currently-reading
A book on the bog-bodies and their reception over the years in art, literature, archeology, etc-- by Karin Sanders, one of my dissertation committee members. Looks pretty accessible so far, if any of you non-academic types would like to read something by a world-class scholar on an interesting topic. ]]>
bookshelves: currently-reading, fantasysci-fi
Finally found a cheap copy of this-- they've started offering it in a smaller size. Looks fun so far, just a collection of pre-Tolkien fantasy which may or may not have influenced him-- with some it is clear he had at least read the authors, with others it's speculation, but in any case it seems very nice as a reader of early fantasy (as in, from the Romantic era with one German tale right up until the first half of the 20th century). Have only read the first so far, Ludwig Tieck's "The Elves" (trans. Thomas Carlyle), and it was as awkward and stilted as you would expect from that era-- which is fine, I'm happy for it to be representative of the time. Anyway, seems like a decent collection for someone who isn't writing their dissertation in this field. ]]>
Carl
read and liked
Jennifer Klenz's
review of Shivering World (Tyers, Kathy):
"I haven't read any SF in a while but this wasn't bad. The world was interesting, the struggles seemed genuine and the characterization was also good. This books fits in an unusual category. I would call it Religious Science Fiction or perhaps Christi...more "
"I haven't read any SF in a while but this wasn't bad. The world was interesting, the struggles seemed genuine and the characterization was also good. This books fits in an unusual category. I would call it Religious Science Fiction or perhaps Christi...more "
Am rereading this now-- will say three stars for the moment, as it is a fine book if not earthshaking. Relatively short, which I like-- I wish people still felt OK writing/publishing shorter novels in sci-fi and fantasy these days, it would allow readers more reading time and thus allow for more a wider field of competition. Anyway, this is an enjoyable pulp sci-fi romance of 80s vintage, better than many things I've read, but not something I'd nominate for an award or write a paper about (the former of which I would do, and the latter of which I did, for Kathy's novel Shivering World, which is easily my favorite of hers. Behind SW, ironically, I would rank her Star Wars novels, though I've only read one. After that, I'm less certain). ]]>
by David Brin
I read this one-- been a while, but it was enjoyable. Though I liked the middle one of these first three uplift books best, the one with the dolphin-run spaceship that finds something that all the others want and has to go on the run. Even if there was no closure... ]]>
bookshelves: currently-reading
I have been reading this book for YEARS! I bought it the first time I lived in Sweden (IN 2001!!!) b/c it was the only Swedish fantasy out back then, besides children's lit (though it was kept in the kids section b/c they had no fantasy section). At the time my swedish wasn't great and I had trouble getting far in it. Now I can read it fine, but am always distracted by other things I "should" be reading. In any case, this is an excellent book so far, better than most american fantasy I read these days, appropriate for both kids and adults. More Swedish fantasy has come out since, particularly a bunch associated with NeoGames (I think that's what it was called), but I haven't had a chance to get to those either. Krog still seems like the strongest out of contemporary Swedish fantasy to me, so I want to finish him first, then move on.
Briefly, the setting is high fantasy (the type that provides a map at the beginning), has magic, empires, and special soldiers who patrol on flying creatures which aren't quite dragons. Everything you could want! ]]>
bookshelves: currently-reading
I decided to try something out by Brandon Sanderson, who will be completing Robert Jordan's immense Wheel of Time epic. Elantris is his first book, and a stand alone, which is nice-- I'm sick of people thinking that fantasy can only be written in series with more than three books (but of course, the publishers want to make more money, and a series is the best way to do that, from what I hear). Anyway, it's interesting so far, but it's also a bit frustrating b/c it's one of those stories where the entire setting is specially contrived to provide the plot-- nothing really wrong with that, but again, it makes the world itself feel contrived, rather than real. Whatever, I'll have to write more when I finish it. Which could be a while, b/c I've started it and three others at about the same time that I realized that I should be reading exclusively Swedish lit to prepare for potential jobs in Scandinavian. ]]>
bookshelves: currently-reading
This book is by a friend of a friend, and was recommended to me multiple times, so I figured I'd better try it out. I have never met said FOAF, but am enjoying it so far in any case. I am a bit put off by what seems to be the current megatrend of guilds and assassins and guilds of assassins (and everything else, including street rats), but I suppose I should instead be intrigued by it-- a particularly urban take on the emphasis in epic fantasy of the last decade on just how dirty and horrible a medievalish setting can actually be.
OK, that past, the plot and prose and characters all seem quite engaging so far. I'm not led to expect anything earth shattering or life changing yet, but not everything I read has to be that way. And deep down, I'm really jealous that this guy is about the same age and already published, while all I've got to show for the last decade is this damn PhD-- which I don't even have yet. Ah well. ]]>