RE: The Humanities
December 25, 2019 at 12:39 am
(This post was last modified: December 25, 2019 at 1:59 am by Belacqua.)
Sorry, I didn't see this post when I responded to your last one.
The thing to do is to compare literature by Christians in Romance languages that isn't explicitly religious to pre-Christian literature.
If you look at the goals and motivations of Achilles and Odysseus and Aeneas, in comparison to those of Roland/Orlando or the Crusades-related epics, the differences are clear. Though both worlds incorporate a sense of universal justice, what this justice consists of is very different. What makes these characters heroes is very different.
Likewise it's clear that if Aristotle or Lucretius read the Roman de la Rose they would find its values laughable.
Greek tragedy exists because they felt that there are times when no resolution to problems of justice are possible. Christians think there always is an answer with God.
As an obvious example, you remember that Achilles spends the first half of the book pouting in his tent. He refuses to fight for the Argives because on the way to the war when they raped and pillaged a small town Achilles kills a girl's parents, rapes and kidnaps her and takes her into sexual slavery. He feels he's got her fair and square, but Agamemnon likes her too and takes her. Achilles' wounded pride and feeling of sexual rights overcomes his sense of duty to his country. This is presented in the story as understandable. He is finally motivated to fight when Hector kills his male lover Patroclus. A sense of personal outrage incites him to revenge, not on behalf of his country or king. He kills Hector but dies pretty soon himself.
I think everybody would agree that it's hard to imagine a Christian epic with such a hero.
It seems to be true that we respond better to characters than to abstractions. Kids understand The Little Engine that Could more than a general admonition that it's good to keep trying. Just in general we listen to stories of events more than lists of moral laws.
But if you have counter-examples I'd be happy to hear them.
Quote:Belacqua Wrote: Wrote:Romance literature, while not explicitly Christian, would have been impossible in a non-Christian context.
How so ?
The thing to do is to compare literature by Christians in Romance languages that isn't explicitly religious to pre-Christian literature.
If you look at the goals and motivations of Achilles and Odysseus and Aeneas, in comparison to those of Roland/Orlando or the Crusades-related epics, the differences are clear. Though both worlds incorporate a sense of universal justice, what this justice consists of is very different. What makes these characters heroes is very different.
Likewise it's clear that if Aristotle or Lucretius read the Roman de la Rose they would find its values laughable.
Greek tragedy exists because they felt that there are times when no resolution to problems of justice are possible. Christians think there always is an answer with God.
As an obvious example, you remember that Achilles spends the first half of the book pouting in his tent. He refuses to fight for the Argives because on the way to the war when they raped and pillaged a small town Achilles kills a girl's parents, rapes and kidnaps her and takes her into sexual slavery. He feels he's got her fair and square, but Agamemnon likes her too and takes her. Achilles' wounded pride and feeling of sexual rights overcomes his sense of duty to his country. This is presented in the story as understandable. He is finally motivated to fight when Hector kills his male lover Patroclus. A sense of personal outrage incites him to revenge, not on behalf of his country or king. He kills Hector but dies pretty soon himself.
I think everybody would agree that it's hard to imagine a Christian epic with such a hero.
Quote:Quote: Wrote:I hope that such a framework is possible someday. Though individuals today may or may not value those things, the messages we get through the media are often very different. I also suspect that things like "empathy" are too abstract to stick with people. Such things need embodiment in a story or larger framework to have force.
Again, how so ?
It seems to be true that we respond better to characters than to abstractions. Kids understand The Little Engine that Could more than a general admonition that it's good to keep trying. Just in general we listen to stories of events more than lists of moral laws.
But if you have counter-examples I'd be happy to hear them.
