soccerDad:
I’m sorry I used the word piqued.
The word piqued is a good word.
soccerDad:
I’ve re-read your post several times. I’ve gone to other posts of yours on other topics for insight. I see alot of point by point opposition, and I don’t understand where you’re coming from.
OK, on this I can help you. In my opinion, point by point opposition – a better phrase would be 'response – is to be expected in a discussion.
While it is true that, in an academic setting, one can expect entire lines of thought developed by each person, rarely does one have such a luxury in day-to-day discussion.
Nevertheless, I have been known to set out developed lines of thinking on this discussion board, some more organized and researched than others. I have also had the ignominious experience of having such developed lines of thinking utterly ignored.
Am I bent out of shape? No. But neither am I deeply invested in setting out developed lines of thinking in the absence of any interest for it.
And this is particularly true for art. Since I have been on the message boards – not just here – I can count on one finger the times when I have felt that my interest in art has been welcome. And I can count on no fingers the times when I have felt that my interest in literature has been welcome.
So, for the most part, I participate in bits and pieces. Sort of like casting a fly out on a pond. When I get a bite, I start seriously settling in for the afternoon. A bite – for me – is when someone’s post is logical, rigorous, genuine, and fascinating.
soccerDad:
For example, your question above “…an apologetic for forgoing scholarship?” To me, this is clearly baiting.
Actually it was not intended as baiting. Here is the statement to which I was responding:
soccerDad:
As far as any scandal during that time, intended or interpreted, it is hubris (the greatest Greek sin) to say that we know anything for sure through the veil of 2500 years.
My concern was not whether or not we can know something for sure: I’ll concede that we can’t. My concern was that, because we can know nothing for sure, is it then ok to not investigate with rigour, question with sincerity, and try to understand history? Because the work is difficult do we give up? Melville said failure is the true test of greatness. How can we fail unless we first try?
I guess I worry too, because so much of Catholicism – for me – is about understanding history and cultivating my connections to those who have gone before me in history. And so much of Catholicism – for me – has been about art. How did people learn before the invention of the Gutenberg press? In many ways really, but certainly the art in churches was a major means.
soccerDad:
So, I ask for God’s grace, and concede all your points.
I’m an art teacher, by the way. I know absolutely nothing about soccer. So if I was to come to you and say something along the lines of: it is hubris (I know the Greek origin of the word) to say that we can know soccer for sure (therefore why put out the effort) how does that make you feel?
Now, my mum taught me to make the effort to know sports. I’m totally not very good at it. But I do make the effort. From time to time I can be in conversations about hockey and about football and other sports. But I can only be in those conversations because I read up, because I listen to those who know a lot, and because I am totally humbled before the genius of great athletes.
But art? OK, let’s go there. Is the VS display art? Or is it craft? Please give reasons for your answer.
Now, I really don’t get your point. You think it’s hypocritical that people don’t react to a naked or scantily clad victim of famine, war and poverty by complaining about their sexualized display of bare skin?