David Bentley Hart on Animals and Salvation
06/17/2016
A good piece, I think. That is to say, I agree with his view. He's a little rough on the young Thomist he's arguing with, but I can sympathize with his exasperation.
I sympathize with the Thomist insistence on precision, too. We need it. But in some hands it can result in a maddening narrowness. I lost my temper with a Thomistically-inclined fellow once when he insisted that because the word "conservative" can't be defined rigorously it must have no meaning at all. Like a lot of things in life.
"I lost my temper with a Thomistically-inclined fellow once when he insisted that because the word "conservative" can't be defined rigorously it must have no meaning at all."
This struck me as pretty funny. Also, is it really not possible to define "conservative" rigorously? Surely a Thomist could!
Posted by: Louise | 06/20/2016 at 12:11 PM
From the article: "you know, one of those manualist neo-paleo-neo-Thomists of the baroque persuasion..."
My brain is hurting. But I did LOL.
Posted by: Louise | 06/20/2016 at 12:12 PM
"Of course. Foolish of me. Leave it to a two-tier Thomist to devise a definition of love that does not actually involve love.'
This is hilarious!
Posted by: Louise | 06/20/2016 at 12:14 PM
Yes, that one made me laugh, too.
I think you can define "conservative" reasonably well in a general way in terms of temperament. But it gets slippery as a label for specific political views. I've really forgotten the conversation now but I think maybe the other guy wanted something pretty specific and fixed, so that it would imply exactly the same views in any context. Anyway, it was annoying...
Posted by: Mac | 06/20/2016 at 02:39 PM