At War with the Word - The Animus of Literary Theory

[@sekritskwirl6106]

This should have a thousand times more views. This would have been lost on my college age self. Sadly it is in my late forties when I realize what the academics have really been up to.

[@claudette4113]

Thank you for including the pre-socratics.

[@richhasnip5374]

Hi Dr Scott, forgive me if you have discussed this elsewhere and I've missed it but I wondered if you had any thoughts regarding George Steiner's idea in 'Real Presences' that God is the ultimate guarantor of language and that modern criticism is living on borrowed time having moved 'beyond' faith?

[@LitProf]

I read it over twenty years ago. I agree with Steiner’s assessment.

[@richhasnip5374]

@@LitProf Thank you! I'm really appreciating your lectures. When I first read literary theorists and particularly deconstruction-ists (if that's the right word) I found it almost spiritually oppressive as an idea, such a desperate nihilistic image of language. And yet what was so puzzling is how the people who championed it seemed to insist on its playful character, they seemed to find a joy in it that eluded me. Anyway - thank you for your work and God bless you.

[@duncanhollands5218]

"Modern science wasn't possible without a conception of the Trinity." Paraphrased. Around 21:00 . That's a strong claim, where would you point to to back it up? With renewed thanks for these lectures.

[@LitProf]

In brief, the Trinity solves the problem of the one and the many that so flummoxed the ancient world. It led them to declare that ultimate reality was either one OR many. Modern science requires us to take the particularity (multiplicity) of the world as real, and at the same time see a real unifying nature to it to make general assertions. The Trinity declares that the equal ultimacy of God as One and Many. One God, three Persons.

[@duncanhollands5218]

@@LitProf Thank you..I agree! This seems like a solid metaphysical foundation for science to me. I was more wondering if you can point to any historical secondary literature for the historical claim you make in the video that Trinitarian ontology is what made the difference between Ancient Greek and modern science?

[@LitProf]

I have read various writers suggest it, but can’t recall where it is most substantively expressed.

[@ItsRaiden]

@@LitProf But you can prove science. You cant prove the existence of God. The trinity doesn't solve any problems unless you assume to believe in the trinity.

[@rangecow]

But why man and woman? That's just what you're accustomed to, an arbitrary outcome.

[@LitProf]

Look down and say that.

[@rangecow]

@@LitProf No. That'd just confirm my preconception, my natural attitude about what's natural. Is the University of Durham a religious institution? You have to be a student to find out, its website says. Anyway, I've enjoyed your contemporary literature lectures. I wonder if you were to see Charlie Rose's interview with Harold Bloom, the one in which Rose asks Bloom about how it is to be so unpopular in the academy, if you'd not see Bloom differently.

[@LitProf]

I have seen the interview with Bloom. He’s an odd character.

[@LitProf]

Durham is not a religious institution.

[@LitProf]

I always admired Bloom for his stance against what he called ‘the school of resentment’. That doesn’t mean his own views aren’t just a form of Gnosticism.