Clark’s Comments (group member since Sep 29, 2018)

Clark’s comments from the Knights of Academia group.

To interact with KOA people about books and reading go to the appropriate channels on the KOA Discord server or the KOA guild on Habitica.

Red wrote: "Hi, I'm Red River on both Habitica and Discord. Love books and I'm trying to challenge myself to read more this year"

Hey, Red. This group has become inactive. The main places to interact with KOA folks re books and reading would be #books-and-literature and #book-of-the-month on the KOA server. For reading in languages other than English you might visit the "KOA: International" server.

August 2019 book of the month of Knights of Academia.

Discuss in this topic (thread), or create your own!

Welcome, Wanderson and Shannon!

Thank you for joining the discussion.

Well, in this thread what we say is to be directly based on the text. See the first note in this thread and the separate folder on "shared inquiry." There is a separate topic here for discussion that isn't limited this way. For convenience there are links to the work in English and in French in the resources topic.

So in this text-based thread what one would do would be to note that I said the author used the term "historico-political" to label his third doubt, on p. 10 of my copy of the book. To find out what the author meant by "historico-political" the first step is to read what the author said. So we go there and read:

"A third and final doubt: Did the critical discourse that addresses itself to repression come to act as a roadblock to a power mechanism that had operated unchallenged up to that point, or is it not in fact part of the same historical network as the thing it denounces (and doubtless misrepresents) by calling it 'repression'? Was there really a historical rupture between the age of repression and the critical analysis of repression? This is a historico-political question."

By looking at what the author actually said we can say there is no evidence at all that the study of law is what he was talking about.

I read through Part One and Part Two. I dipped here and there into Part Five (the work's concluding section) and I read through the index.

It seems to me the book is an essay. The title says it is a history of something; but the text consists of high-level observations and claims by the author, with only a very few references (footnotes) and no bibliography. I saw no statistics of any kind. That is, what we have here is an author speaking at length in his own voice with very little interaction with or direct reference to the wider academic or intellectual community.

By saying it's an essay I'm saying that it is not a "treatise" or a "history" in the normal academic sense. It does not attempt to be comprehensive either in time or space -- it covers the 16th century to the present (with a few references to earlier history) and so far as I can tell limits itself exclusively to Western Europe (though the USA may also fall within its scope). Another thing it's not is a "polemic." Nietzsche described his Genealogy of Morality as a polemic, and this text is not like that.

Another thing that it's not is philosophy. It makes claims about what happened in a particular region during a particular time period. If there is "philosophy" here it will be implicit in the modes of reasoning, the kinds of supports offered, etc. The book's claims may be high level and abstract but they are not universal; I deem philosophy to make universal claims.

Well, what kind of an essay is it? The author has a paragraph that starts with "One can raise three serious doubts concerning what I shall call the 'repressive hypothesis.'" (It's on p 10 in the scanned book in my PDF.) He says the first of the doubts is historical, the second is a "historico-theoretical," and the third is "historico-political." I would classify the "historico-theoretical" doubt as being in the realm of sociology and political science. That is, at least the parts of the book about these three doubts will be high-level, conceptual discussions of social science and political material about some past times.

In what I saw the author was claiming to state what is, not what should be. That is, he was making claims about what is true or false and not (for instance) calling for social or political change.

Hence I conclude for now that the work is an essay concerning some recent history of Western Europe, approached at a very abstract level, laying out the author's analysis of some social and intellectual topics.

Hey, text, what kind of thing are you?

That is, based entirely on the text (which includes the title, table of contents, index, etc., but not material written by someone other than the author), what kind of work is this?

The answer of course may be complex -- Lucretius wrote philosophy in poetic form, Plato wrote philosophy in dialogs that included important narrative elements.

More details on shared inquiry are here.

But the basic idea is that within this thread we have to base our claims and arguments on the text itself exclusively.

I found this PDF link. By posting it I do not affirm that it is or is not a legitimate copy of the work. Decide for yourself.

Ditto for this link to the work in French.

Here we list some resources for those who want to read this book. Feel free to post resources!

This is the edition being read by the person who suggested reading this book.

Wanderson wrote: "... I am trying to apply these techniques to myself. It has been 3 days and I am finding real progress [in learning piano] so far! "

Cool! Anything in particular that has worked or has not worked?

Wanderson wrote: "... I will try this on the next skill I try to learn."

What kinds of skills are you considering?

It occurred to me we have a parallel word in English, writ:
writ

1 : something written : WRITING
Sacred Writ

2
a : a formal written document
specifically : a legal instrument in epistolary form issued under seal in the name of the English monarch

b : an order or mandatory process in writing issued in the name of the sovereign or of a court or judicial officer commanding the person to whom it is directed to perform or refrain from performing an act specified therein

writ of detinue
writ of entry
writ of execution

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dicti...

Haven wrote: "Hello! My name is Haven and I love to read and am trying to read every day! ... "

Greetings! Is there any way we can help you read?

You can infect us with your enthusiasm and energy by posting here. :-)

FWIW, the Latin version that Anselm probably used has this: "13 Et vos cum mortui essetis in delictis, et præputio carnis vestræ, convivificavit cum illo, donans vobis omnia delicta: 14 delens quod adversus nos erat chirographum decreti, quod erat contrarium nobis, et ipsum tulit de medio, affigens illud cruci: 15 et expolians principatus, et potestates traduxit confidenter, palam triumphans illos in semetipso."

Biblia Sacra juxta Vulgatam Clementinam. (2005). (Ed. electronica, Col 2:13–15). Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software.

"chirographum" is basically a transliteration of the Greek word into Latin. "decreti" seems to match the Greek "δόγμα."

Here's a link to the free Olive Tree Latin Vulgate: https://www.olivetree.com/store/produ...

Everybody, one way to look up some stuff like this is to get the free Olive Tree app and the free SBL Greek NT from them. https://www.olivetree.com/store/produ...

I'm not currently using the Olive Tree app but I used it for many years and I think very highly of it. I'm glad to answer questions about it or to help people use it.

14 ἐξαλείψας τὸ καθʼ ἡμῶν χειρόγραφον ⸋τοῖς δόγμασιν⸌ ὃ ἦν ὑπεναντίον ἡμῖν,* καὶ αὐτὸ ἦρκεν ἐκ τοῦ μέσου προσηλώσας αὐτὸ τῷ σταυρῷ·*

Aland, K., Aland, B., Karavidopoulos, J., Martini, C. M., & Metzger, B. M. (2012). Novum Testamentum Graece (28th Edition, Col 2:14). Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft.

It appears that the document or whatever it was is in the Greek "χειρόγραφον τοῖς δόγμασιν," the first word of which comes from two roots, "γραφω" to write, and "χειρ" hand. NKJV translated it as "the handwriting of requirements," Somebody else translated it "certificate of indebtedness." Less literal, but it seems the overall idea is that it's some sort of formal statement of the charges against us, or of the debt, or something similar.

We see one of the roots in enchiridion, which is a handbook or manual -- "From Ancient Greek ἐγχειρίδιον (enkheirídion), from ἐν (en, “in”) + χείρ (kheír, “hand”) + a neuter suffix."

"13  And you, being dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He has made alive together with Him, having forgiven you all trespasses, 14 having wiped out the handwriting of requirements that was against us, which was contrary to us. And He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross. 15 Having disarmed principalities and powers, He made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them in it."

The New King James Version. (1982). (Col 2:13–15). Nashville: Thomas Nelson.

I'll look up the Greek text.

Kaufman says step/principle #1 is: "Choose a lovable project." I think what I've done after my retirement is choose lovable project after lovable project, without staying with any of them long enough.

It seems to me that for Anselm redemption of humankind is a relational thing in addition to being an operational thing. That is, from this paragraph I conclude that Anselm says or would say that when X redeems Y that a relationship is formed between them as a necessary part or result of the redemption. So redemption is not like me washing my car, in which I operate externally on the car. It somehow creates a permanent (ontological?) relationship between the redeemer and the redeemed. In this paragraph the term he uses is that the redeemed "becomes the servant of" the redeemer. And this relationship, because it is between God or some entity and humanity defines humanity's place in the cosmic order.

Now, why he used "servant," and why for him redemption is relational in addition to being operational, I will wait and see. Here he presents it as a given, not needing to be explained or defended.

The unbelievers' arguments in Chapter 6 apply logic and common sense to Christian claims in order to prove that the set of claims produces contradictions or implausibilities.

"If you maintain that God, whom you say created all things by His command, was unable solely by His command, to do all the things [you have just mentioned], then you contradict yourselves, because you make Him powerless. On the other hand, if you say that He was able [to do these things solely by His command] but willed [to do them] only in the foregoing manner, then how can you show to be wise Him who you claim willed to suffer so many unbecoming things for no reason at all?"

This all seems very rational in the sense I originally thought Anselm was using. Perhaps I over-reacted to the unbelievers' argument in Chapter 3.