New blog. Reasons why at the other blog
The Following links go to the Westminster Theological Seminary Media Center. The speaker for these lectures is Dr. K. Scott Oliphint Is professor of Apologetics and Systematic Theology at Westminst…
Source: Scott Oliphint MP3’s
The movie, mind you, not the book. The following are problems with the movie.
~In the book Roy’s wife is Helen. In the movie, Mary/Moria.
~Completely ignores the uprising of 1715. That’s like writing about 1943 Germany and not mentioning WWII. In fact, there really aren’t any battles in the movie. In fact, there really weren’t any dashing raids.
~Most historians doubt the rape scene. First of all, Cunningham didn’t exist. So if it happened, it would have been by Graehme, yet he and Rob Roy were relatively courteous to one another later on in real life.
~The problem is that it could have been a *really* good movie. The narrative, such as it was, had nothing to do with the book. You have a character who is the archetype of “outlaw” and he doesn’t really do any outlaw stuff. Even Braveheart was better on that score. So you take a land with beautiful scenery, a rich ballad tradition, a dashing outlaw and then do not much with it.
This is one of those great moments where a great student follows his master (Heidegger) yet gives us a new product and not simply a repetition of his master. In short, for Gadamer language is the horizon of being. As Kant was wrong to seek a thing-in-itself, so we also should beware of a “meaning-in-itself.”
Gadamer begins and ends his work on a strange note: the aesthetics and interpretation of art. It’s not that art determines how we interpret text, but art allows Gadamer to illustrate (no pun intended) the tension given that great works of art are considered “timeless,” yet they were produced in historical, finite circumstances. This tension points to the horizon, a key Gadamerian term.
Every experience has implicit horizons of before and after and finally fuses with the continuum of experiences present in the before and after to form a unified flow of experience (246). Df. horizon = not a rigid boundary but something that moves with and invites one to advance further. Everything that is given as existent is given in terms of a world and hence brings the world horizon with it. As a horizon phenomenon “world” is essentially related to subjectivity, and this relation means also that it exists in transciency.”
Hermeneutical circle: possesses an ontological positive significance. We have already fore-projected before we even approach the text. This creates an openness which situates our meaning with other meanings. Understanding is a participation in the event of tradition and not so much a subjective act (302).
Horizons are temporally-conditioned. Time is not a gulf to be crossed by a supportive ground in which the present is rooted. We cannot stand outside of our situation. “All self-knowledge arises from what is historically pre-given, what Hegel calls “substance’” (313). Horizon: every finite present has its limitations. Every situation represents a standpoint that limits the possibility of vision. Horizons move with us. When we understand something, we fuse the horizons between text and interpreter. Fusion of horizons: We regain concepts of a historical past in such a way that it also includes our own comprehension of them (382).
This will go down as one of those truly great books. Ground-breaking works. It’s not super-hard to read simply because it is well-written. However, he does presuppose a good bit of Hegel and Heidegger, so keep that in mind.
As Ukrainian/CIA agents are shelling Donbass again, I thought to capitalize on the news attention. I am going to try to give–rather, explore for myself–what exactly happened in the Donbass war.
I was in a discussion with some Reconstructionists on EO. Granted, I’ve offered my own criticisms of EO, but these were bad. And we didn’t even get into the Nestorianism, which Jay helpfully outlines here.
Lately, I have been re-reading some old reformed Protestant materials I read several years ago. One of these books is by a very respected reformed thinker named Rousas J. Rushdoony. Rushdoony wrote and did some good things, like defending homseschoolers and giving that movement an initial impetus. However, these things don’t magically make him orthodox or erase his denials of the Incarnation. In my many dealings with reformed pastors and theologians, I’ve learned that it generally doesn’t matter what heresies their heroes have, nor does it matter how serious the heresies are. No, reformed thinkers have their demi-gods and none dare challenge them. So it doesn’t matter that Rushdoony also promoted the Jewish food laws, which is condemned by St. Paul. It doesn’t matter that Van Til said the essence of God was a Person. It doesn’t matter that Bahnsen thought one could have pictures of Christ…
View original post 2,355 more words