"Wounded by Books" (Spiritual dangers of reading?)

[St_Francis]

Here’s an article about the 16th- and 17th-century responses to increased literacy/increased number of books in England.

…And with good reason! As historian Adrian Johns describes in The Nature of the Book, for one philosopher, a stint of reading extraordinary adventures “accustom’d his Thoughts to such a Habitude of Raving, that he has scarce ever been their quiet Master since.” …

What this made me think of was the deterioration of Catholic life. The connection between the invention of the printing press and the Protestant Revolt is pretty much accepted, bit this article talks about the fears people had of the mental effects of reading (probably) fiction. This could just as well be applied to the spiritual effects. What happens to custody of the mind? What happens to our idea of excessive curiosity? Gee, could the massive surrender of privacy we see online have occurred without the loosening of boundaries which has occurred by our intimate knowledge of the lives of others which we have gained through reading?

I thought this was interesting and I actually think I will start watching for bad spiritual effects in myself.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Hmmm. What you are talking about here sounds more like censorship than being careful about harming ourselves.

The age of censorship is over, and look what we have to show for it.

50 Shades of Gray and Same-Sex Marriage.

Give me back the Age of Decency in which it was legal and possible to say NO!

 

[Tom_Baum]

The age of censorship is over, and look what we have to show for it.

50 Shades of Gray and Same-Sex Marriage.

Give me back the Age of Decency in which it was legal and possible to say NO!

Do you consider God’s Gift of free will for us to make our own decisions or for us to make other people’s decisions or for others to make decisions for us?

Has anyone forced you to buy/read 50 Shades of Gray?

Has anyone forced you into a same-sex marriage?

If anyone has done either of these scenarios to you than it is wrong but free will is for one to make their own decisions, not others to make their decision for them.

Forcing oneself on another is against free will, the same as forcing one’s beliefs on another is against free will.

If one feels that they are being “Wounded by Books” than it should be their decision just what they should do about it concerning themself not making other people’s decision concerning this for them.

 

[schaeffer]

I see this as a parallel to the story of the Garden of Eden.

Humans seek knowledge, and rather than trust what God said, they seek to be godlike and eat the fruit.

We know what happened next.

That story is the story of fear of knowledge “gnosos” getting out.

Pandora’s box.

Secrets and mysteries and magic.

A human fear that goes back as far as man itself.

People believe knowledge is power, but it comes with a price, or at least a HUGE responsibility.

People want it and fear it all at the same time because of that responsibility, and the consequences.

Personally I’ll take the modern age.

All my life I’ve heard people wax eloquent about the good old days, the golden age, when things were simple and people were nice to each other and never was heard a discouraging word. But history tells a rather different story.

Way back before widespread literacy there were still wars, and deception, and all that stuff.

Maybe if you cut people’s tongues out and hands off so they couldn’t communicate at all…

 

[3DOCTORS]

Look at the post as a product of its times - and as a parallel to our times when we have access to so much in cyberspace. “Information overload” can indeed be a little stressful! :hypno: But most of us manage not to swoon or have a case of the vapors most of the time. :coolinoff: As for the moral end of it, well, the writer sounded a bit on the scrupulous side. That doesn’t excuse us from the need to choose our media well - but it never did. Garbage in, garbage out. And what is the motive behind it all - to improve our minds, to escape (can be good or bad). In the case of pornography or near-pornography “I only read for the articles” - no one believes that . . .

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Do you consider God’s Gift of free will for us to make our own decisions or for us to make other people’s decisions or for others to make decisions for us?

This is not an intelligent question.

The intelligent question is:

Has anyone forced children today to be born into a filthier world than their grandparents were born into?

The answer:

YES!

But then, not being a grandparent, you will never understand this.

 

[JimG]

This is not an intelligent question.

The intelligent question is:

Has anyone forced children today to be born into a filthier world than their grandparents were born into?

The answer:

YES!

But then, not being a grandparent, you will never understand this.

Amen to this.

Adults have free will to act in ways that degrade the culture. Children are necessarily the unwilling victims. This is true of so many things: abortion, divorce, sexual license, and the pornographic culture into which they are born.

 

[tabycat]

I see this as a parallel to the story of the Garden of Eden.

Humans seek knowledge, and rather than trust what God said, they seek to be godlike and eat the fruit.

We know what happened next.

That story is the story of fear of knowledge “gnosos” getting out.

Pandora’s box.

Secrets and mysteries and magic.

A human fear that goes back as far as man itself.

People believe knowledge is power, but it comes with a price, or at least a HUGE responsibility.

People want it and fear it all at the same time because of that responsibility, and the consequences.

Personally I’ll take the modern age.

All my life I’ve heard people wax eloquent about the good old days, the golden age, when things were simple and people were nice to each other and never was heard a discouraging word. But history tells a rather different story.

Way back before widespread literacy there were still wars, and deception, and all that stuff.

Maybe if you cut people’s tongues out and hands off so they couldn’t communicate at all…

I agree with you.

 

[tabycat]

This is not an intelligent question.

The intelligent question is:

Has anyone forced children today to be born into a filthier world than their grandparents were born into?

The answer:

YES!

But then, not being a grandparent, you will never understand this.

Are you saying that the 19th century was better then today? Or the first century AD? The people back then faced the same things as we do; it’s just that we hear about it more because they did not have cable news and the internet.

 

[Oreoracle]

Reading and excessive curiosity are dangers that cannot be taken lightly. If only we lived in a society in which any controversial works were systematically eliminated to prevent the public from partaking in forbidden fruit, then all of our problems would disappear. Burning offending books would be a good start!

 

[oldcelt]

Hmmm. What you are talking about here sounds more like censorship than being careful about harming ourselves.
How much curiosity is “excessive”?
We read classics like Of Mice and Men in high school, but it doesn’t mean we are going to break necks, shoot our brothers, and helm a lynch mob.
Learning about the lives of others through reading is important, so that we understand the people and world around us and have a wider experience and point of view.

.

I agree entirely. The production of the printing press widened the base of power by ensuring that more people could read the actual documents that were supposedly guiding them. That got messy and continues to, but it is what the US founders would consider a check (as in checks and balances).

Call me cynical, but I don’t trust anyone absolutely. Everyone has an agenda, and only knowledge can expose that. Books have entirely altered my view of the world. They have shown me that some of the people in my life, either knowingly or through ignorance, had given me false information.

I think that knowledge is priceless.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Are you saying that the 19th century was better then today? Or the first century AD? The people back then faced the same things as we do; it’s just that we hear about it more because they did not have cable news and the internet.

Not having lived in the 19th century, I couldn’t be an authority on that.

But I was born in 1940, and the years of my youth presented no such filth as we see today in the media. The movie, television and publishing industries agreed to monitor themselves (there was no political censorship). Because the responsibility of keeping the culture clean was then keenly felt, children and teenagers were not exposed to filth and out of wedlock pregnancy was relatively rare. Yes, there were pockets of brazen hedonism, but the world was ashamed of them.

Reverse all of the above and you see today’s world. Not only children aborted by the millions, but rape and rampant venereal diseases all over the place, and you hear hardly anybody object or condemn the industries that promote it. This is what comes of invoking the 1st Amendment to create smut. It was not designed for that purpose, but the Supreme Court stupidly decided that is one of the things it was designed to uphold. Just as it stupidly decided it could not decide when life begins. The Supreme Court was partly inspired by the Platonic idea that we should be ruled by philosopher/kings. So what happened?

In every civilized society there has been a tacit agreement that filth is to be shunned, not upheld and justified. Censorship is practiced even today when newspapers refuse to publish letters to the editor that contain foul language. Why is it we are allowed to see on the movie screen or the television screen or in paperback the same gutter language (and probably worse) that is censored in the newspapers?

 

[St_Francis]

I should have been clearer in my OP that I was thinking about the fact that I as a Catholic have never really thought about that, and that what I was thinking about is more of a Catholic individual point of view rather than a call for censorship or anything like that.

 

[Bruised_Reed]

I totally understand. This happens to me all the time.

 

[JimG]

Not having lived in the 19th century, I couldn’t be an authority on that.

But I was born in 1940, and the years of my youth presented no such filth as we see today in the media. The movie, television and publishing industries agreed to monitor themselves (there was no political censorship). Because the responsibility of keeping the culture clean was then keenly felt, children and teenagers were not exposed to filth and out of wedlock pregnancy was relatively rare. Yes, there were pockets of brazen hedonism, but the world was ashamed of them.

Reverse all of the above and you see today’s world. Not only children aborted by the millions, but rape and rampant venereal diseases all over the place, and you hear hardly anybody object or condemn the industries that promote it. This is what comes of invoking the 1st Amendment to create smut. It was not designed for that purpose, but the Supreme Court stupidly decided that is one of the things it was designed to uphold. Just as it stupidly decided it could not decide when life begins. The Supreme Court was partly inspired by the Platonic idea that we should be ruled by philosopher/kings. So what happened?

In every civilized society there has been a tacit agreement that filth is to be shunned, not upheld and justified. Censorship is practiced even today when newspapers refuse to publish letters to the editor that contain foul language. Why is it we are allowed to see on the movie screen or the television screen or in paperback the same gutter language (and probably worse) that is censored in the newspapers?

Yes, what you describe has been my experience as well. Let me give just one example. In the city where I grew up, on a downtown intersection there was a large bookstore / newsstand. It had newspapers from all over the nation, from the NY Times to the Wall Street Journal to the local paper and everything in between, every major and minor magazine, from Atlantic to Scientific American, to Life. It carried all the science fiction magazines that I loved. It had hardback and paperback fiction and non-fiction.

But—back in the corner, it carried a small selection of pornography.

I stopped by the newsstand often. Later, after moving away from home, I didn’t have occasion to go there. But once, while back home, I took my very youngest brother shopping downtown. I wanted to show him the variety of news sources that were available at this bookstore. Upon entering, the first thing I noticed was that the pornography had taken over most of the store. It was spread all over the front of the store. The newspapers were to one side. The other books were in the back.

My brother actually seemed traumatized by the experience. I pointed out some of the newspapers and magazines and we quickly left. A few years later, he confided to me that he had never seen so much porn in one place in his life. He was a little shocked that I had taken him there, and I certainly regretted it. And that, of course, was before the Internet.

Yes, the culture has undoubtedly changed for the worse.

 

[Joy2day]

When I was growing up.in a catholic school we were given The Lord of the Flies & D.H. Lawrence to read, as it was considered literature. I hated The Lord of the Flies cause I thought it was barbaric, & can only remember that DH Lawrence was very immoral. Both books were.considered examples of what not to be, which.was valuable. The Lord of the Flies still haunts me to this day. There are lessons to be learned. Curiosity is valuable; science has benefitted greatly from it. I think if you introduce children to literature, they will be able to determine what is just trash. I have not read Fifty Shades, but apparently there are many who have. ? (shame) I guess if we have knowledge of these things & decide against them, we’ll have our reasons & no one can argue we dont know what we’re talking about. I think books are good, & bad Hitler was the one trying to get rid of them in excessive efforts to control.
However, there are some situations where trash seems to be the order of the day for our kids, & I think giving them literature is important.

 

[Joy2day]

Actually, just another thought. There was a book by Patrick White (athiest) about a parish priest who was rather ‘unfaithful’ with his parishioners. Another nightmare thought, but to.say that the concept didnt have a negative influence, wouldnt be right.

But then, if books are a bad influence, what about the evening news?