Sunday, November 29, 2009
An absolute chink in the armor
At first I was fascinated by Eagleton's chapter on truth, virtue, and objectivity (103). Then I was confused by it. He appears to relegate absolute truth to the rather trivial affairs of life such as tainted fish. He does, however, point to such things as tigers in the bathroom and racism as examples were someone just has to be wrong. There is either a tiger in the bathroom or there isn't. There will be consequences if one chooses "wrongly" here. I did appreciate his separation of truth from dogma, even though that is a relatively elementary observation. However, I did see him break form in one place, and I found it disturbing. "Absolute truth does not mean non-historical truth; it does not mean the kind of truth that drops from the sky, or which was vouchedsafe to us by some bogus prophet from Utah"(108-109). Bogus prophet from Utah? Now, granted, no particular prophet was named. There are probably a great many prophets that hale from Utah. By what standard is Eagleton measuring out the term "bogus" and applying it to any one of them? Is that an absolute truth? Since he has already established that the origins of truth are probably not knowable, why couldn't it drop from the sky? Even the skies over Utah? Can the prophet be bogus for him and not for me? And last, but not least in these considerations, just who the hell does Eagleton think he is? Absolutely?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Ah, but Renee, we have to understand, as our kind, wise Eagleton does, that the truth is the class struggle, and materialism. Any "prophet" would be bogus, because they're all "idealistic."
ReplyDeleteHe just feels its easier to pick on a minority (Mormons, a blatant meaning no matter his lack of specification) than attack idealistic sources of truth in general. Apparently he has a potentially Christian audience that he has to try to speak to,(I originally said convince, but he condescends to all believers of any faith in this text) based on his emphasis of Judeo-Christian ideals of selfless service, and charity (re: agape), but he feels safe expressing his disdain for their source of truth by mocking a less popular, less accepted religion.
And yet in the chapter on "Revolution, Foundations, and Fundamentalists" he calls Fundamentalists "[neurotics]" on a "hunt for solid foundations" (204) -
ReplyDeleteIn the end he seems to eschew Christianity as well and speaks of opposing "a bad sense of non-being with a good one" (220-221), which sounds more Eastern than Western to me, but as you pointed out in your post Scott - he is searching for a "center."
And, any attempt to create a center is, inevitably arrogant, short-sided, and to use his own words a way of "riding roughshod over people's pieties and traditional allegiances" (219)
Ah, religion-is it the source of good or evil? I suppose "yes" would be a safe answer.I thought about his quote "the White House believes devoutly in the Almighty and transparently believes in no such thing" (198). This was in reference to the Bush administration. Eagleton certainly thinks we are a very transparent nation on more than one level as we plough through the world with our "can do" attitudes. Does give me another perspective to ponder.
ReplyDeleteI felt like Eagleton was attempting to make sense of everything that has happened in theory and managed to confuse himself even more. I have to admit I enjoyed his common sense approach fused with a sense of humor ... "God was not a structuralist."
ReplyDelete