Do you think that Law, in his discussion of faith defined as a religion, might say something different to what he thinks? And if so, what are those two different ideas? And what is the support that there are two versions of Law's ideas about the value of faith as "a religious system of thought" (p. 114): for what is said and for what is thought by Law?
And, if it is indeed true that Law does not say precisely what he thinks in his discussion of faith type 1, what other interesting questions might follow from this? What would you want to ask and discuss?
__________
Reference
I liked the way your discussion this morning focussed on a close reading of Law's language to support ideas about his assessment of faith type 1.
ReplyDeleteThat language does seem to me to allow us to infer that Law might think something more strongly negative than what he actually says and supports in this section of his essay. In fact, from what comes later, and even more so from what Law has written elsewhere, his real opinion is almost certainly much less favourable than what he in fact says here on the topic of faith understood as a religion, especially toward all of the closely related monotheistic religions that came, one giving birth to the next, out of the traditionally command driven and anti-democratic Near East, in contrast to Greece and then Rome whose ideas are the foundation of Western civilisation. (This response has gone a bit off topic. Perhaps it's time to take a break.)
Also very productive I thought were Katie's questions which led us to consider not just the organization of Law's main discussions, but his reasons for deciding on that organization.
ReplyDeleteAnd as always, feel welcome to make further comments, which can be ideas, questions, or any other response to Law and our discussion of him.