|
Post by rogerbuck on Oct 29, 2020 15:13:41 GMT
Friends, long ago I had a Jungian psychoanalyst, who was also an Anglican minister.
He was also a disciple of Karl Barth, who, in turn, was in many ways steeped in Calvin.
I was still a New Ager back then and I thought my analyst had a very, very dismal view of human nature. He liked to say we were all F. F. F. F. S.'s
The three F's stood for Fallen, Finite, Fallible and the S. stood for Sod.
(I will let you work out for yourself what the other F stood for!)
Yes, I was an upbeat New Ager and I thought him terribly dour.
Today, I see the Christian wisdom he was trying to impart to me (. . . via Jung!)
Now all this is a prelude to something I mean to say soon about the rather great Hibernicus and the deeply important, in my view, Irish conservative thinker, Desmond Fennell.
(I don't think there is another Fennell thread on this forum, but am very happy for our good moderators to merge this one in, if there is!)
|
|
|
Post by Maolsheachlann on Oct 29, 2020 16:36:56 GMT
I seem to remember there was another Fennell thread somewhere but another one is fine. I'm too lazy to go looking!
I think one of the challenges of discussing Fennell is how involved his philosophy seems to be. I've read and browsed a good few of his books and articles but I've never felt I've really got a handle on his theories.
One impression I get, which may be erroneous, is that he may put too much emphasis on the influence of ideas on the world. I think John Waters, who is influenced by him, also tends to do this. Waters could write five thousand words on the cultural significance of Ryan Tubridy's haircut and what it tells us about the Irish psyche in 2020. I do believe we are all influenced by ideas and ideologies but surely it is possible to exaggerate this.
|
|
|
Post by rogerbuck on Oct 29, 2020 16:43:06 GMT
EDITED to say I had not seen your point above Mal when I was slowly drafting this comment! I apologise if I am being unnecessarily coy or cryptic in not getting to the point . . . But I think the last prelude and now this one will help me communicate better when I finally do start discussing Fennell. For in addition to us all being Fallen, Finite, Fallible etc there is something else I want to say about TEMPERAMENT. IMHO, the long, long threads almost relentlessly criticising Fennell elsewhere had something to do with a certain clash of temperaments. I have little time to fully unpack this now. So cryptic, coy or not, I will merely say I like the devout, erudite, very intelligent Hibernicus who clearly has been fighting the good fight for many years, for Ireland, for the faith. And ... there is still something I want to say about different temperaments. I also was saying something of the same in regards a recent review I did defending Peter Kwasnieski's book. I referred to Peter Kwasniewski saying: And I said about this "anguish, indignation, and zeal": Why the heck is this relevant to Fennell? Because the passionate Kwasniewski has great gifts, no matter how Fallen, Finite, Fallible etc he is. Great gifts. And the brilliant Fennell with such a different temperament, I say, has great gifts. To be continued . . . Link to the above: corjesusacratissimum.org/2020/10/unflinching-witness-peter-kwasniewskis-tradition-and-sanity-review/
|
|
|
Post by kj on Oct 29, 2020 17:12:38 GMT
I tend to agree with Maolsheachlann's point. Intellectuals and academics are very often guilty of over-estimating the role of ideas and theories in the world. This may stem from vanity or from too little exposure to the world.
The vast majority of people simply want security and material comfort. Ideas per se do not interest them.
In a sense, this switches the focus to issues of authority. In Ireland prior it was the Church, now it seems to be the mainstream media. This is critical particularly in Ireland, where I really do feel people are far more impressionable than a lot of other countries.
Yet here there may be a paradox: if people want to combat the wave of secularism and materialism swallowing Ireland then they are going to have come up with clear, well-thought out arguments and theories if they are to look like something other than knee-jerk reactionaries.
But we are generally thought of (along with Britain) as an anti-intellectual country, so where are the platforms or venues for spreading such ideas?
|
|
|
Post by rogerbuck on Oct 30, 2020 10:51:13 GMT
One impression I get, which may be erroneous, is that he may put too much emphasis on the influence of ideas on the world. I think John Waters, who is influenced by him, also tends to do this. I tend to agree with Maolsheachlann's point. Intellectuals and academics are very often guilty of over-estimating the role of ideas and theories in the world. This may stem from vanity or from too little exposure to the world. The vast majority of people simply want security and material comfort. Ideas per se do not interest them. In a sense, this switches the focus to issues of authority. In Ireland prior it was the Church, now it seems to be the mainstream media. This is critical particularly in Ireland, where I really do feel people are far more impressionable than a lot of other countries. Yet here there may be a paradox: if people want to combat the wave of secularism and materialism swallowing Ireland then they are going to have come up with clear, well-thought out arguments and theories if they are to look like something other than knee-jerk reactionaries. But we are generally thought of (along with Britain) as an anti-intellectual country, so where are the platforms or venues for spreading such ideas? I can both agree and disagree with both of you here. In terms of agreement, I cite a very intellectual German man I knew when I lived in Cambridge. Extremely powerful mind who had a doctorate and studied philosophy intensely. I couldn’t shake the impression of the "Ivory Tower" syndrome with him. As if he thought what was DIRECTLY running society were the ideas of Kant, Hume, Locke - as if these were going directly into people’s minds. As though he somehow couldn’t see how much the British population was run by things as mundane as THE DAILY EXPRESS, THE SUN and soaps like East Enders. It was like he just couldn’t seem to see this! Couldn't see what you rightly observe, kj, namely: " Ideas per se do not interest them." On the other hand, even “THE DAILY EXPRESS, THE SUN and soaps like East Enders” certainly deeply reflect the Enlightenment philosophy of Kant, Hume, Locke - even if the journalists and scriptwriters have no idea who these men were! INDIRECTLY Enlightment philosophy is through and through the tabloid media and it is certainly very present more upmarket like Fintan O’ Toole and the IRISH TIMES. I need to go back to what Fennell says here. Also John Waters whose books I think are great, loaded with gifts - even though no doubt he is F.F.F. too (I delete the last F ) Truly John Waters WAS IT FOR THIS had a life changing effect on me.
|
|
|
Post by kj on Oct 30, 2020 11:36:35 GMT
Well certainly the de facto position of much popular cultural is at best secular, and at worst outright materialist and atheist.
Now I would say the problem here is presenting an alternative vision. It is very easy to complain endlessly about the present cultural scene - god knows I've done and do plenty of it myself.
When it comes to presenting an alternative vision, then what is the core set of positive ideas one wishes to put forth - Nationalism? Catholicism?
I do think one perhaps very unpalatable question for a lot of "grieving" Catholics to ask is this: if Catholicism has folded so easily in the past 50 years in Ireland then how strong was it to begin with?
Instead of focusing endlessly on the 'outside', liberalism, the media, the sexual revolution et al, why not look at the 'inside'?
Was it just the case that the strong social position of the Church pre-70s led to church-going and the confession as a matter of course, and once the media began to turn this gradually dissipated?
I know this hypothesis may not be particularly welcome to those who believe in the innate Catholic soul of Ireland or some such, but Irish people are mere mortals too and subject to everything others are.
And following on, if that is the case, should not those Catholics whose faith is strong and independent of social tides not almost welcome this, as it means you can be relatively sure that those beside you in the pews are genuine fellow-believers, there from choice and conviction, and not from social conditioning?
|
|