P
Plato34
Guest
I’ve been reading Ishmael by Quinn, and I was just wondering what people thought of it. Good? Bad? Stupid? Enlightening? Right? Wrong?
- Status
H
hillsteven
Guest
Years ago when I was in college, the minister of my parents’ church (this was in my pre-Catholic days, though my parents have remained Protestant.) recommended this book to my mother as one I should read. She of course, knowing that I am (and always have been) an avid reader, ran out and purchased it for me and gave it to me for the next gift-giving occasion.
I read it, and I admit sadly that I never took the opportunity to corner their minister, whom I happen to greatly respect, on the reason for his recommendation. Admittedly, it’s been about 15 years since I read it, but my recollection is that I plowed through it desperately waiting for the point where I would see the Christianity in it. I never did reach that point, though I DID finish the book. I recall it to be morally disturbing, even though there were many points that appealed to my sense of the responsibility that we were imparted by God through Adam. I think one of the things that did it for me was the fact that a gorilla (if memory serves me correctly, that’s what Ishmael is in the book) would know more about how things “ought to be” than mankind. I understand that it’s a literary tool, but the way it was presented was, in some intangible way, greatly offensive to me.
Part of the problem for me may have been, even at that point in my life, that no account for the Grace of God, or even the possibility of God, seemed to be part of the author’s equation. At best, I recall this book is a fascinating insight into the world-view of the average atheist intent upon seeking real answers without being burdened by the notion that we really are responsible to a higher authority that is truly “in charge” of the universe in general, and that we are to be called to account to personally. To this end, the author seems to flounder around to the conclusion that we are indeed responsible to something outside of ourselves, but rather than concluding that this means we are responsible to almighty God, he erroneously concludes that we are responsible to planet Earth in a form of quasi-Pantheism.
Again, this is the take of someone who has not read the book in a decade and a half. I’m very curious to read your reaction, however. Some day if I find myself back in sunny South Florida, I may yet look him up and interview him about this book. For such a respected member of the clergy, even if non-Catholic, I am still confused as to why he would recommend the book to anyone.
How did you stumble upon it, if I may be so bold?
~Steven Hill
I read it, and I admit sadly that I never took the opportunity to corner their minister, whom I happen to greatly respect, on the reason for his recommendation. Admittedly, it’s been about 15 years since I read it, but my recollection is that I plowed through it desperately waiting for the point where I would see the Christianity in it. I never did reach that point, though I DID finish the book. I recall it to be morally disturbing, even though there were many points that appealed to my sense of the responsibility that we were imparted by God through Adam. I think one of the things that did it for me was the fact that a gorilla (if memory serves me correctly, that’s what Ishmael is in the book) would know more about how things “ought to be” than mankind. I understand that it’s a literary tool, but the way it was presented was, in some intangible way, greatly offensive to me.
Part of the problem for me may have been, even at that point in my life, that no account for the Grace of God, or even the possibility of God, seemed to be part of the author’s equation. At best, I recall this book is a fascinating insight into the world-view of the average atheist intent upon seeking real answers without being burdened by the notion that we really are responsible to a higher authority that is truly “in charge” of the universe in general, and that we are to be called to account to personally. To this end, the author seems to flounder around to the conclusion that we are indeed responsible to something outside of ourselves, but rather than concluding that this means we are responsible to almighty God, he erroneously concludes that we are responsible to planet Earth in a form of quasi-Pantheism.
Again, this is the take of someone who has not read the book in a decade and a half. I’m very curious to read your reaction, however. Some day if I find myself back in sunny South Florida, I may yet look him up and interview him about this book. For such a respected member of the clergy, even if non-Catholic, I am still confused as to why he would recommend the book to anyone.
How did you stumble upon it, if I may be so bold?
~Steven Hill
H
hillsteven
Guest
Incidentally, I still own the book. If need be, I might be persuaded to force my way back through it to see if my perspective has changed. You might have to do a bit of fast talking to convince me to do that though… 
P
Plato34
Guest
I was recommended the book by a good friend who is an avid agnostic and cynic. He is a good guy and very smart and me and him are constantly in intellectual dialog about the various different ideas we have had recently.
I read the book at a very interesting point in my life intellectually. I had just finished an interdisciplinary course called Paradigm Shifts in Western Thought and also a research paper I had written for this course which applied Carl Rogers Propositions regarding the development of personality and behavior to communal organizations like science and religion (the paradigm I claimed being a parallel to the human personality) when my friend recommended it to me. The book is, it seems to me, mostly a critique of western culture, or what Quinn calls Mother Culture. The dialogue between the gorilla and the narrator struck me as particularly interesting because of the similarities between this dialogue and the dialogues recorded in Rogers book Client-Centered Therapy. It was like the gorilla was a psychologist helping the narrator who was the patient.
The claims made by Quinn seemed to me to be legitimate concerns, especially the diminishing supply of biomass. My friend when we discussed it compared humanity to being like the trusts of the late 19th and early 20th centuries. We are removing competition creating horizontal and vertical monopolies, and like the trusts the economy of biomass that would result would much more fragile compared to one of a greater diversity.
The thing that caught my attention the most was the fact that Quinn was able to isolate a problem with western culture which was perceptual. This is according to Rogers an integral step in helping a psychological patient. The problem generally concerned a perceptual contradiction becoming a threat, and the job of the psychologist was to isolate the problem or contradiction, provide a non threatening atmosphere to reduce the threat, and to aid patient in creating a new self structure which would better accommodate the contradiction and future contradictions.
In my understanding of Ishmael, Quinn concludes that the contradiction western culture faces to its self structure is the perception that we are the end result of evolution, we are exempt from natural laws pertaining to life, and it we are able to discern right from wrong. Or something along those lines; you could go back and find exactly the right words to phrase it but that captures the spirit of Quinn’s sentiments.
Now the reason I posted something about it is several reasons. One I figured that on a Catholic site there would be some dissent about it. Two, I wanted to see how many people had actually read it in the catholic community. Three, I wanted to see how well my own thoughts about this book would hold up to religious argument. Four, I wanted to see if there were any serious criticisms of the book based on good biological or anthropological information, and I thought it would be worth trying for here. Finally, I thought it would be a good place to help me organize my thoughts about it.
I appreciate your response earlier, and I hope you give me more feedback. If you know anyone who could give me a good criticism of the book that would be awesome, especially a good anthropological criticism. There are a lot of things in Ishmael that Quinn says which I just don’t know if they are true. Some of them could have been taken from very discrete sources, and he could have made great leaps from distant sources in his logical processes. I simply don’t know enough about these natural sciences to tell for certain.
Thanks
I read the book at a very interesting point in my life intellectually. I had just finished an interdisciplinary course called Paradigm Shifts in Western Thought and also a research paper I had written for this course which applied Carl Rogers Propositions regarding the development of personality and behavior to communal organizations like science and religion (the paradigm I claimed being a parallel to the human personality) when my friend recommended it to me. The book is, it seems to me, mostly a critique of western culture, or what Quinn calls Mother Culture. The dialogue between the gorilla and the narrator struck me as particularly interesting because of the similarities between this dialogue and the dialogues recorded in Rogers book Client-Centered Therapy. It was like the gorilla was a psychologist helping the narrator who was the patient.
The claims made by Quinn seemed to me to be legitimate concerns, especially the diminishing supply of biomass. My friend when we discussed it compared humanity to being like the trusts of the late 19th and early 20th centuries. We are removing competition creating horizontal and vertical monopolies, and like the trusts the economy of biomass that would result would much more fragile compared to one of a greater diversity.
The thing that caught my attention the most was the fact that Quinn was able to isolate a problem with western culture which was perceptual. This is according to Rogers an integral step in helping a psychological patient. The problem generally concerned a perceptual contradiction becoming a threat, and the job of the psychologist was to isolate the problem or contradiction, provide a non threatening atmosphere to reduce the threat, and to aid patient in creating a new self structure which would better accommodate the contradiction and future contradictions.
In my understanding of Ishmael, Quinn concludes that the contradiction western culture faces to its self structure is the perception that we are the end result of evolution, we are exempt from natural laws pertaining to life, and it we are able to discern right from wrong. Or something along those lines; you could go back and find exactly the right words to phrase it but that captures the spirit of Quinn’s sentiments.
Now the reason I posted something about it is several reasons. One I figured that on a Catholic site there would be some dissent about it. Two, I wanted to see how many people had actually read it in the catholic community. Three, I wanted to see how well my own thoughts about this book would hold up to religious argument. Four, I wanted to see if there were any serious criticisms of the book based on good biological or anthropological information, and I thought it would be worth trying for here. Finally, I thought it would be a good place to help me organize my thoughts about it.
I appreciate your response earlier, and I hope you give me more feedback. If you know anyone who could give me a good criticism of the book that would be awesome, especially a good anthropological criticism. There are a lot of things in Ishmael that Quinn says which I just don’t know if they are true. Some of them could have been taken from very discrete sources, and he could have made great leaps from distant sources in his logical processes. I simply don’t know enough about these natural sciences to tell for certain.
Thanks
J
jen_fla
Guest
like i mentioned in the other post about this book, my memory of ishmael is pretty foggy.
all my books are packed up so i can’t be of much help here, but i am curious about the role of the Catholic priest. or do i have that wrong?.. perhaps he was only a character in the story of b. those two books are almost identical in my mind.
i also liked the parallel you mentioned in your other thread regarding cain and abel. maybe this is best for the book club forum.
peace,
jen
also — ok, well i quickly did a search and the priest was from the story of b. the anti-Christ was brought up too. well thanks a lot plato34, now you made me want to reread, when i have thousands of other books to get through!
all my books are packed up so i can’t be of much help here, but i am curious about the role of the Catholic priest. or do i have that wrong?.. perhaps he was only a character in the story of b.
those two books are almost identical in my mind.i also liked the parallel you mentioned in your other thread regarding cain and abel. maybe this is best for the book club forum.
peace,
jen
also — ok, well i quickly did a search and the priest was from the story of b. the anti-Christ was brought up too. well thanks a lot plato34, now you made me want to reread, when i have thousands of other books to get through!
C
Coco82
Guest
I’ve never read it, but my younger brother did. This was a number of years ago when he was in middle school or early high school, he’s a Senior in h.s now. When he talked about it I wasn’t impressed. I felt it was somewhat offensive and didn’t seem, from his talking about it, anything I was interested in.
B
Benadam
Guest
found this site . Thought it might help The author answers questions
ishmael.org/Interaction/QandA/qanda.cfm
ishmael.org/Interaction/QandA/Detail.CFM?Record=711
found this answer particularly interesting:
ishmael.org/Interaction/QandA/Detail.CFM?Record=668
ishmael.org/Interaction/QandA/qanda.cfm
ishmael.org/Interaction/QandA/Detail.CFM?Record=711
found this answer particularly interesting:
ishmael.org/Interaction/QandA/Detail.CFM?Record=668
P
Plato34
Guest
That was in awesome answer. I’m not super religious, and I live in the bible belt; but I’ve always said that I would never be anything but catholic. Even on Religilous, the catholic priest was the only interviewee that Maher wasn’t able to make seem foolish, in my opinion at least.
You should read some of his essays and speeches if you haven’t. I felt like they were very helpful as well.
P
Plato34
Guest
Haha that’s about how I feel. I still haven’t read Story of B, but I have a strong desire to read Atlas Shrugged and I’m torn between the two. Plus, I have a light fiction series I need to finish. You think doing nothing except read all day would qualify me as a leaver.like i mentioned in the other post about this book, my memory of ishmael is pretty foggy.
all my books are packed up so i can’t be of much help here, but i am curious about the role of the Catholic priest. or do i have that wrong?.. perhaps he was only a character in the story of b.
i also liked the parallel you mentioned in your other thread regarding cain and abel. maybe this is best for the book club forum.
peace,
jen
also — ok, well i quickly did a search and the priest was from the story of b. the anti-Christ was brought up too. well thanks a lot plato34, now you made me want to reread, when i have thousands of other books to get through!
P
Plato34
Guest
O and how do I get to the book club forum. Did you mean just any book club forum? I can’t believe I hadn’t thought of using one of those. Is there one you recommend?like i mentioned in the other post about this book, my memory of ishmael is pretty foggy.
all my books are packed up so i can’t be of much help here, but i am curious about the role of the Catholic priest. or do i have that wrong?.. perhaps he was only a character in the story of b.
i also liked the parallel you mentioned in your other thread regarding cain and abel. maybe this is best for the book club forum.
peace,
jen
also — ok, well i quickly did a search and the priest was from the story of b. the anti-Christ was brought up too. well thanks a lot plato34, now you made me want to reread, when i have thousands of other books to get through!
J
jen_fla
Guest
i would recommend atlas shrugged as the story of b is so similar. i don’t recall either (ishmael or b) as being that profound, but very enjoyable to read.
i forgot at first what the leavers were and visualized you as a shut in for weeks on end reading and that you qualified for lever 2000.
J
jen_fla
Guest
J
jen_fla
Guest
**The Question:
Code:
Why did you single out the Roman Catholic church as B's antagonist in The Story of B?…and the response:
I singled it out because, virtually alone among all other Christian sects, it has refused to curry favor by waffling on fundamental issues on which it has already ruled. Other sects have bent with the prevailing winds of public sentiment to countenance such things as divorce, birth control, abortion, female and gay clergy, and gay sexuality. Only a fundamentalist Roman Catholic religious order, with strong roots planted in the Scholastic tradition, would be able to perceive and articulate to itself what a threat B’s teachings pose. The clergy of a modern liberal sect would merely shrug off B, saying something like, “Well, everyone’s entitled to his own opinion and his own conscience.”
C
Coco82
Guest
I’d be interested in Atlas Shrugged, especially in these times. The only problem I have is finding the time to read it since it’s so long.
- Status