We talked in class about what Fingarette was saying about Confucius. He was not trying to deny or push away anything but Fingarette wants us to look closely and understand it. We also talked about the hierarchical system in Confucius; assigning different titles to different people due to their relationships to us and how this had no intention of being hierarchical.
My question then is, in looking at the people in Jesus' time and what they did, can an assumption or at least a claim be made that those people also had no intentions of being a hierarchical society? That it just happened?
Also i have noticed that both Fingarette and Crossan use magic figuratively rather than literally. They some how believe that the word 'magic' meant something else. I want to ask is this what most philosophers believe due to recovered evidence? And if so, could those evidence be wrong or could their(philosophers) interpretations of the evidence be off track?
I think it's hard to interpret the old texts that refer to magic a lot because of the very different ways of thinking between people at the time of Confucius and Jesus and people now. Today we are much more geared towards science and analytical thinking and we tend to think magic does not exist. We will never be able to be 100% sure whether or not it did back then, so instead I think philosophers interpret the magic described in the texts as these new and unusual social interactions, as that makes the most sense to today's thinkers.
ReplyDeleteRecall Crossan's explanation of the terms lepra and leprosy on pg. 88. Perhaps we may find magic in the message and way of life rather than in miracles, or “magic”. Magical deeds may also distract us from the visceral power of a teaching, and we find most times we don't need magic to believe truly in the message.
ReplyDeleteI believe to say that some philosophers are on the wrong track, when interpreting magic, is misinterpreting what some philosopher's intentions are. Some philosophers refer to magic in more of a figurative manner to keep different interpretations of magic more open. If your restrict magic to be only a literal term then you are limiting the way the word can be used. When using magic has a figurative term, you are leaving more room for the word to be used.
ReplyDeleteThere was reference in the chapter that because magic as seen in those days is not the same notion that we pair magic with today, that there may be varied interpretations. There may be a social element of magic as seen with the ideal ruler. But because we are looking through the redactional level, there is no definite understanding.
ReplyDelete