This past Friday I went down to the University of California Irvine to hear Slavoj Zizek lecture. It was really great and he was very entertaining. Here are some notes that my buddy Harris Bechtol, M.A. Philosophy from Loyola Marymount, took during the lecture.
1) Zizek's favorite theologian: G.K. Chesterton (he said this verbatim)
2) Christ's death on the cross is not an act of salvation, but the death of the ideology that Someone is in control and pulling all the disparate strings together--the death of the global perspective or heavenly perspective in Job. In other words, it marks the death of the cosmic perspective [sub specie aeterni]. In this regard, the death of Christ was the ultimate giving of freedom to su to take control of our lives.
3) The Holy Spirit is simply the believing community, which means that it is the first candidate/manifestation/model for the communist party
4) His paradigm for examining the volcano eruption in Iceland, the oil spill off of Louisiana shore, healthcare reform in the US:
-Traumatic/horrific experience ("the real")
-3 idiots exchanging their ideas ("the symbolic/comedic")
5) He is playing off of Immanuel Kant's use of the phrase "the public use of reason" in so far as Zizek agrees that this use of reason is a withdrawing from your private community to engage as a single individual with other single individualities. We don't wpeak for our community in this public use of reason. Zizek did admit that we are grounded in our communities, but we can speak as a non-rep of these communities through the public use of reason. We need something similar to this, says Zizek, in striving for a shared universal truth. However, Zizek's use of universal here is not Kantian, which in this regard Zizek departs from Kant, because he is not saying we need an abstract, interestless, and universal (in the Kantian sense of inherently or essential a part of the structural makeup of the human mind) use of reason, but opening the space for the outcasts to share their reason and ideas. [In this regard, universal seems to indicate an openness to many and myriad different voices and ideas.]
-Zizek also calls this "political reason"—it is not Rawlsian or naively universal as Kant sought, but has the outcasts as its limit case. Thus, not a neutral, rational universality.
-Zizek follows Hegel in this use of reason because Hegel regarded the people who are not normally part of the public scene as the standard of universality.
-Thus, that which is not part of the community is the universal standard.
6) Zizek said that the university and the learning going on in universities should not be ivory-tower-like, but should have social use. In light of his understanding of universality, he the university is absolutely crucial for an open space or a venue for the public use of reason. The university is a [the?] site of the public use of reason.
7) Democracy without a public use of reason is meaningless. However, Zizek sees in China [I think] a development in capitalism that does not demand a democracy.
One of my profs at Loyola said that Zizek is not doing philosophy, and I have been wondering why he said this about Zizek. However, I may know one reason: in response to a ridiculous question ("How do you live with yourself?") Zizek said, "I don't believe in the self." He believes he is simply a machine to do theory and everything else is extraneous "bull shit." In so far as he does not see theory and philosophy as connected with a Socratic kind of coming to know the self, then he is not a philosopher in my books. I wonder, though, whether his response to this person's question was meant to be taken tongue-in-cheek. Zizek said two or three times in his response that he is being dead serious, but I kind of wonder if he wasn't. Who knows.
Sunday, June 6, 2010
Saturday, June 5, 2010
Bruce McCormack on God and History
“The history which constitutes the being and existence of the human Jesus belongs to the history of God in the second of God’s modes of being (as ‘Son’). If, in Jesus Christ, God has elected to become human, then the human history of Jesus Christ is constitutive of the being and existence of God in the second of God’s modes to the extent that the being and existence of the Second Person of the Trinity cannot be rightly though of in the absence of this human history."[1]
[1] Bruce L. McCormack, Orthodox and Modern : Studies in the Theology of Karl Barth (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2008), 223
Tuesday, June 1, 2010
An Introduction: Karl Barth, Christology, and History
This is the introduction to a paper I am writing for, the legendary Dr. Colin Brown, on the Christology of Karl Barth.
When pursuing a theological investigation into the Christology of Karl Barth one must be prepared to encounter the developing nature of his theology. The Church Dogmatics, in their voluminous structure showcase the developing thought of one of the greatest theological minds of the twentieth century. Not only was the God of Karl Barth—to borrow a phrase from Eberhard Jüngel—a God in becoming, but Barth himself was a theologian in becoming. This can be seen precisely in the development of his Christology from CD I to CD IV. Barth, as a result of his theological development chose, in CD IV, to start over at the beginning with Christology; the outcome of this being the creation of a “dogmatics within a dogmatics.”[1] According to Bruce McCormack the key motivation for Barth’s Christological development from CD 1/2 to CD IV has immensely to do with the change experienced in his doctrine of election from 1936-1942.[2] The greatest result of this development can be seen in Barth’s shift from an emphasis on the anhypostasis/enhypostasis dialectic of personhood, to one of history. In light of this development, the thesis I will advance is three-fold. First, Barth’s Christology cannot be sufficiently identified within the categories of “from above” or “from below,” rather it transcends this dialectic. Second,
Barth, in lieu of a classical[3] approach to Christology, opts for a historical Christology whose theological locus centers on a two-fold history of Christ. And third, for Barth, the history of Jesus of Nazareth—the history of God with humanity—is synonymous with the history of covenant.
When pursuing a theological investigation into the Christology of Karl Barth one must be prepared to encounter the developing nature of his theology. The Church Dogmatics, in their voluminous structure showcase the developing thought of one of the greatest theological minds of the twentieth century. Not only was the God of Karl Barth—to borrow a phrase from Eberhard Jüngel—a God in becoming, but Barth himself was a theologian in becoming. This can be seen precisely in the development of his Christology from CD I to CD IV. Barth, as a result of his theological development chose, in CD IV, to start over at the beginning with Christology; the outcome of this being the creation of a “dogmatics within a dogmatics.”[1] According to Bruce McCormack the key motivation for Barth’s Christological development from CD 1/2 to CD IV has immensely to do with the change experienced in his doctrine of election from 1936-1942.[2] The greatest result of this development can be seen in Barth’s shift from an emphasis on the anhypostasis/enhypostasis dialectic of personhood, to one of history. In light of this development, the thesis I will advance is three-fold. First, Barth’s Christology cannot be sufficiently identified within the categories of “from above” or “from below,” rather it transcends this dialectic. Second,
Barth, in lieu of a classical[3] approach to Christology, opts for a historical Christology whose theological locus centers on a two-fold history of Christ. And third, for Barth, the history of Jesus of Nazareth—the history of God with humanity—is synonymous with the history of covenant.
[1] Bruce L. McCormack, Orthodox and Modern: Studies in the Theology of Karl Barth (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2008), 219
[2] Bruce L. McCormack, Orthodox and Modern, 213
[3] What I mean by “classical Christology” is the emphasis upon salvation located in God’s history with creation. Barth, however, redirects this emphasis to the history of God, and humanity as it is located in the two natures of Christ. This will be later discussed in the section on “covenant.” For a more in depth discussion see, Robert Jenson, Alpha and Omega: A Study in the Theology of Karl Barth (New York: Thomas Nelson & Sons, 1963)
Monday, May 17, 2010
Some New Books to Look forward to
Barth Reception in Britain by D. Densil Morgan (Aug. 17, 2010)
Kierkegaard and Theology (Philosophy and Theology) by Murray Rae (Aug. 8, 2010)
The Theology of Rowan Williams A Critical Introduction by Benjamin Myers (April 3, 2011)
Karl Barth and the Analogia Entis (T&T Clark Studies in Systematic Theology) by Keith L. Johnson (June 8, 2010)
Remembering the Future: An Eschatological Ontology by John Zizioulas (August 18, 2012)
Tuesday, May 11, 2010
An Unfortunate Reason to Blog About Suffering
This morning at 11am a friend of mine, who I play on a worship team with--named Scott, died from swelling of the brain. About a week ago Scott had a series of four strokes--two minor and two severe; he was admitted to the hospital and given a very slim chance of survival. Thankfully, he passed away peacefully this morning in the presence of his wife and our pastor, and he was fully prepared to rest in the Lord's arms.
In light of this unfortunate situation I feel the need to blog about suffering. I don't want to talk about why bad things happen; I don't want to talk about where God is in our suffering; I want to talk about where "we," i.e., the Church, are in the suffering of others.
First, we share in the suffering of Christ. We, as the Church, share in the greatest act of suffering, Christ' death, and in doing so we also share in the greatest comfort (2 Cor. 1). What does this mean? This means that we share in Christ' suffering communally. Together we share in the suffering of Christ and together we share in the comfort of Christ.
Second, because we share in the comfort and suffering of Christ, we are able to share in the suffering of others and to offer comfort to those in affliction. I truly believe that suffering is a communal event. We are meant to share in the suffering of others as we share in the suffering of Christ. There is something extremely powerful about suffering together as the body of Christ, and in doing so, offering the comfort of Christ to one another. It is my hope that as the body of Christ, we no longer stand by and let those who are afflicted suffer alone, for we cannot truly comfort others unless we suffer with them. So, without suffering we can offer no comfort; it is by our participation in the suffering of Christ that we receive comfort and communicate it to others.
"Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of mercies and God of all comfort, who comforts us in all our affliction, so that we may be able to comfort those who are in any affliction, with the comfort with which we ourselves are comforted by God. For as we share abundantly in Christ’s sufferings, so through Christ we share abundantly in comfort too. If we are afflicted, it is for your comfort and salvation; and if we are comforted, it is for your comfort, which you experience when you patiently endure the same sufferings that we suffer. Our hope for you is unshaken, for we know that as you lshare in our sufferings, you will also share in our comfort." 2 Corinthians 1:1-7
In light of this unfortunate situation I feel the need to blog about suffering. I don't want to talk about why bad things happen; I don't want to talk about where God is in our suffering; I want to talk about where "we," i.e., the Church, are in the suffering of others.
First, we share in the suffering of Christ. We, as the Church, share in the greatest act of suffering, Christ' death, and in doing so we also share in the greatest comfort (2 Cor. 1). What does this mean? This means that we share in Christ' suffering communally. Together we share in the suffering of Christ and together we share in the comfort of Christ.
Second, because we share in the comfort and suffering of Christ, we are able to share in the suffering of others and to offer comfort to those in affliction. I truly believe that suffering is a communal event. We are meant to share in the suffering of others as we share in the suffering of Christ. There is something extremely powerful about suffering together as the body of Christ, and in doing so, offering the comfort of Christ to one another. It is my hope that as the body of Christ, we no longer stand by and let those who are afflicted suffer alone, for we cannot truly comfort others unless we suffer with them. So, without suffering we can offer no comfort; it is by our participation in the suffering of Christ that we receive comfort and communicate it to others.
"Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of mercies and God of all comfort, who comforts us in all our affliction, so that we may be able to comfort those who are in any affliction, with the comfort with which we ourselves are comforted by God. For as we share abundantly in Christ’s sufferings, so through Christ we share abundantly in comfort too. If we are afflicted, it is for your comfort and salvation; and if we are comforted, it is for your comfort, which you experience when you patiently endure the same sufferings that we suffer. Our hope for you is unshaken, for we know that as you lshare in our sufferings, you will also share in our comfort." 2 Corinthians 1:1-7
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)