Peter J. Leithart

Barfield thinks it’s disastrous to oppose poetry and science “as two fundamentally opposite modes of experiencing Life.” Among other things, it spoils art: “For it leads straight to that Crocean conception of art as meaningless emotion - as personal emotion symbolized - . . . . Continue Reading »

Barfield responds to critics who charge that his attention to individual words “is a precious and dilettante kind of criticism.” He says “the reverse is the truth” and further argues that “Words whose meanings are relatively fixed and established, words which can be . . . . Continue Reading »

Guy de Maupassant says, “Les mots ont une ame . . . . Il faut trouver cette ame qui apparait au contact d’autres mots” (Words have a soul . . . . It is necessary to find this soul which appears at contact with other words). Owen Barfield, who quotes this passage, comments: . . . . Continue Reading »

Hamann opposed the abstractionism of the Enlightenment partly by emphasizing the centrality of sexuality in language, experience, and thought. He called himself a “spermatologist” in the sense that he was sowing seeds and in the sense that the thought of the relation of revelation and . . . . Continue Reading »

Feuerbach wrote that the Trinity “is the secret of the necessity of the ‘thou’ for an ‘I’; it is the truth that no being - be it man, God, mind or ego - is for itself alone a true, perfect, and absolute being, that truth and perfection are only the connection and unity . . . . Continue Reading »

Nicholas Carr asks in the July/August issue of the Atlantic whether Google is making us stupid. He points out that the web tends to scatter attention and diffuse concentration by bringing information from various sources at us all at once. As the web comes to dominate our access to news and . . . . Continue Reading »

Garrett Green ( Theology, Hermeneutics, and Imagination ) thinks that Feuerbach serves up raw what the masters of suspicion - Marx, Nietzsche, and Freud - cooked and covered with sauces. The fundamental objection to religion in Feuerbach, and in his successors, is the notion that “religion is . . . . Continue Reading »

In his introduction, Ganssle provides a lucid description of McTaggert’s A and B series (or theories) of time: “The B-theory holds that the most important thing about locating events in time is their relation to other events. So something happens before, after or at the same time as . . . . Continue Reading »

I’ve just begun to look at Gregory Ganssle’s God and Time , but the index worries. In a book about time, there are no entries for “calendar” or “clock.” More worrying, there are only four dispersed references to the Trinity. . . . . Continue Reading »

Richard Swinburne describes God’s omnipresence in these terms: “God is supposed to be able to move any part of the universe directly; he does not need to use one part of the universe to make another part move. He can make any part move as a basic action . . . . The claim that God . . . . Continue Reading »