Love this: "the absurdity of the postmodern approach is that under the pretense of a tender regard for difference, it in fact converts every particularity into an instance of the same meaninglessness. This is not hospitality to the Other, it is conquest, if of an especially dissembling kind."
My very first philosophy professor would make this argument in a simplified way in the first lecture of every course he taught. He pointed out that to call Islam an expression of "culture" rather than a truth claim, it to infaltalize those who take those beliefs seriously and impose western liberal multiculturalism on those who do not share it.
David Bentley Hart: "Before I say anything else, shame makes me want say, those of you who can see the garish collision of colors that constitutes my attire this morning, take this as a sobering admonitiion against dressing in the dark." 😀
Pilato Theologian Yeah well I like his books, but he is NOT a good speaker. If he was a little better just off the cuff he would come off as very good. Nobody just wants to listen to lectures.
@@emmashalliker6862 This guy is a great writer, I love most of his books, but it is painful listening to his videos, and reading most of the other comments lots of other folks feel the same way, so Emma to insult me or try to insult me because, you like these boring videos is your deal, you seem to be in the minority here, so go get a life, Emma.
He manages to put into words the violence of 'tolerance' in the name of postmodern nihilism. DBH is a great thinker, even if he does have a penchant for idiosyncratic expression.
Errr. What he said. 😁 I especially like the expression "post modern theology is what I would equate with the concept of post atmospheric air" or words to that effect.
David has actually expressed regret that this has been posted on youtube out of the context of the entire session because it can give a stilted view of the dynamics of what he presented, within the context of the larger session. When viewed in relation to the other papers given and the responses, it looks a bit different than pulling it out of context. I would, humbly, that you re-post it with the rest of the session. In saying this I don't mean to be harsh, like much of the "8 year old fightying in the sandbox posts" on youtube. I mean it sincerely and I really, really appreciate your youtube channel! You have posted some of the most helpful videos I have ever seen on youtube. So thank you for your work!
"A transcendental surveillance of all differences under a rule of absolutely indifferent difference can provide only a very particular set of rules of engagement. Dialogue proceeds only when all parties will consent in advance to a surrender of all claim to ultimate truth. Having thus been reduced to tribal artifacts of cultures now surpassed by modern reason and postmodern suspicion alike (which are supposedly innocent of metaphysical ambitions), everyone can get along. This is not very promising (or interesting). Yes, traditions can talk to one another more fruitfully, honestly, and interestingly if they're willing to grant that approach to the truth is incalculable in its variety; but still, they're not going to achieve much if they start from the assumption that the truth as such has nothing to do with what they believe in its essence. In fact, to believe that transcendent truth, as expressed in the finite, possesses an incalculable number of aspects and inflections and forms is to believe also that there's such a thing as transcendent truth -- which, by its very absolution from the conditions of the finite, allows for innumerable mediating forms of participation in its inexhaustible fullness; and it's to believe that the measure of that participation is one of analogical likeness, indifference, and difference in likeness between distinct traditions whose terminus ad quem is one and the same transcendent horizon. To my mind, what we've come to think of as postmodern theology doesn't give us a way of actual understanding across cultures; rather, it offers a way of reducing all cultures to a late modern Western narrative of the immanent rationality of no transcendent truth. There could scarcely be greater impediment to meaningful dialogue between religions. ... The always looming absurdity of the 'post-metaphysical' vantage is that under the pretense of a tender regard for difference it converts every particularity into just another instance of the same meaninglessness. This is not hospitality to the Other, it's conquest (if of an especially dissembling kind)."
This is pretty compelling! Thanks for the transcription, Chris! I was half way through reading along with it when I realize you were the one who posted it! -Michael Au-Mullaney
It seeks meaning in every particularity instead of seeking to subsume every particularity to one metanarrative. The post metaphysical vantage point seeks to dissuade theology from its use of power discourses (portraying God in terms of power, in relation to power and in comparison to power) by subverting or inverting the notion of power by heeding to differance.
@@rohanabraham4903 A God without power is no God at all. And I have never yet encountered anyone who professed to be "subverting or inverting the notion of power by heeding to differance" who was not engaged in a power project of their own.
Modern * Postmodern (2:10) "Let me start from the premise that modernity---understood, at least, as a kind of ideological project, as much as a cultural history---is a particular discourse regarding the historical fatedness of a certain understanding of civil identity, and personal freedom; the story of liberation, the ascent of the individual out of the shadows of hierarchy, and subsidiary identity, into the light of full recognition, dignity, and autonomy. And it’s a powerful narrative, whether we prefer it in its Kantian, or Hegelian, or romantic, or some other acceptation---or just in the tempered form of a late-democratic realism. Presumably, though, any truly postmodern philosophy is one that, having fully absorbed this great narrative, is nevertheless willing to undertake both a critical appropriation, and appropriate critique of it---one that is capable of assuming an ironic distance from any naïve acceptance of that narrative, and so situating it in a larger historical and critical context."
Talking about theology without metaphysics is like talking without heat without the sun he is absolutely right, I'm guessing that is also due to a degraded form of theology starting with scholastic manual theology, for the most part. What he calls "interfaith dialogue" is probably the only use of that usually insidious term that I can agree with. If we are going to talk with those of other faiths we shouldn't give up our fundamental beliefs and doctrines, though its not really something I'm very keen on.
Your understanding of metaphysics needs clarification. Postmodern theology is actually theology proper and seeks to appropriate God but through a radically different means as was done before.
He is a brilliant theologian, but I wish he would use easier language at times, although he is giving an academic lecture, the skill in presenting any information, is breaking it down to its simplist language. I know theology has tonnes of technical language , but I think using such complex language can make you lose the structure and flow of an argument. To my defence that is partly because I'm severely dyslexic, but I have seen theologians use technical language In a simple sentence structures. His arguments are a bit like poetry , but it can just he alot to break down. That said what an intelligent guy, and anyone who can do a 100 page book on suffering which is very good, is a good theologian
@@worldnotworld I've read a few of his books , and some of the terms he uses are obscure. I have picked up some words , but sometimes I think his technical language is pomp and slows down an argument by using 15th century language. (Not theolgical terms just complex English language) Still enjoy his books just find them hard to read,
@@olibob203 To me there is a stark contrast between written language and spoken language in this regard. There is a scholarly sense in which his written arguments can justify using difficult language, but I think it also stands to reason that we process information in a different way while reading than we do while listening. We tend to listen and comprehend at much slower rates than those we achieve while reading. It is perfectly reasonable to write one way, and then by taking these facts into consideration, to speak a different way. Particularly egregious (in my opinion) is to read the more difficult written form of your work *as* your talk. Number one, he wrote the material. He had time in which to do this, that is, to craft it and construct sentences on his lonesome. His listeners don't have the time to process these sentences in the same way he was able to while writing them. Further, all he has to do is simply read aloud what he has written. He already knows the material. His listeners do not have that benefit and instead have to try to mentally process something he isn't cogitating to produce, but is simply reading mechanically. Contrast this with someone who was forced to improvise his speech. You can guarantee that he wouldn't speak nearly this quickly or produce sentences nearly this complex if he were actually *talking*. But he is reading. I think it would be better if he either adapted his writing for the live presentation, or perhaps just spoke conversationally while being guided by his notes (rather than just reading them). I have a pretty high verbal IQ, and I can say without any shame that he is simply - at points - cramming far too many words together to process everything coherently. You can gather the gist of sentence groups in this talk. Some points are perfectly clear, especially those where he pauses somewhat before finishing his point. But there are sequences in this talk that I would wager almost nobody could completely follow, not for the least reason that he piles on post-post-post labels and -isms like a word salad. It's not that any of these points are incapable of being expressed more simply (for the sake of live conversation); almost all of them could be. I agree with your assessment that at least part of the reason for doing things this way is attributable to pomp. There are merits to some criticisms from analytic philosophers that some of these sentences just cannot be parsed. The post-modern tradition in continental philosophy, in general, had a bad tendency for the invention of words and the use of cumbersome sentence structures for the sake of sounding technical, which could really have been expressed much more clearly. *"....presents us with an encomium of lateralizing consolations that in the post-post-metaphysical twilight of violence against the diffuse subject of spatialized mathesis structures, engenders a kind of broad meaning skepticism."* But we also live in a surprising culture today, where it seems that - almost overnight - everyone you know became an under-appreciated intellectual, so for as much pomp as exists in this sphere of the academy, there is an even greater amount of posturing and rhetoric in the lay community surrounding people who will like to say, "I listened to this speech at 2x speed and still thought it was too slow. Sorry about your IQ, pal."
I constantly read scholarly articles on philosophy, theology, and metaphysics, and he has literally surpassed every author in his use of seemingly (and I do say seemingly) flippant use of incredibly precise and univocal words. The man knows more words than there are stars in the heavens.
Yes, for me,, he's difficult to follow. I follow Dr Jordan Peterson who is a walking stream of consciousness. I really want to hear what this man has to say. I wish he would speak to audience and not carry on a monologue with himself. He has so much to share!
I consider him as one of my favourite philosophers, and I am not a native English speaker. This has caused Wordnik and Merriam-Webster becoming my most used websites.
As someone who really does value decollonnial thought, I don't think DBH actually possesses the compassion and openness required to appreciate the philosophy and theology of this thought that he is bashing.
This is meant to be a satire of post-modern hyperinflated verbiage, right? It's hard to tell because an outsider might wonder if post-modern theology is just such a satire of the theology that preceded it. I'd like to see some quality software evaluate and rank distinct disciplines with a ratio of necessary to unjustifiable gatekeeping linguistic complexity. Anyway, I think...I agree with this gentleman. But who the hell could really say? 🤔
"long-winded" became almost "pompous" in the talk he gave in the conference on "Trinitarian Ontologies"; sometimes Hart can become quite tiresome in his parodies and oversimplifications of other thinkers' positions. in that conference, a thinly veiled but hardly substantiated attack on O'Regan (and by extension, Balthasar).
@@anahata3478 Balthasar makes no such claim ("gospel teaches two different eschatologies"); that's a misrepresentation of what he says (that there are two sets of texts in the scriptural record). so, yes, Hart, if that is what he thinks Balthasar is doing, has grossly misrepresented Balthasar on this issue. this has no bearing on whether Hart admires Balthasar or not (he clearly does; after all his book "The Beauty of the Infinite" is, as Hart himself says so, a kind of elaboration of Balthasar's "theological aesthetics"). the problem with Hart is that he seems TO KNOW how all of this ends... Balthasar is the more cautious thinker; he says we have grounds for HOPING that all will end well...
@@anthonydecastro6938 I've read "dare we hope" now a couple of times. Balthasars "hope" is so cautious that it isn't worth the time. Hart is correct when he says that we have no excuse to believe that God can't bring about the most perfect end. Especially since God created the world with full knowledge of everything that happens. If the outcome wouldn't be the complete disappearence of suffering and sin, he would hardly be a loving God.
@@anahata3478 hope cautious? whatever gave you that wild idea? hope is hope, it hopes for all. Hart believes that there will be a "perfect end." BELIEVES. certainly HE DOES NOT KNOW.
I would recommend reading his book "the beauty of the infinite" in this context. I think people get the wrong impression from this. In isolation, this seems more like peterson-esque rambling instead of actual engagement with the topic.
Who is he communication to? All his references necessitates a historical philosophical education to weave an understanding of his views. So limited in effectiveness to the greater pool of humanity. So, is there a translator for the rest of us? Just my “simple man” critique.?
Those who call this gibberish are only revealing to us that they are unwilling or incapable of thinking on their own. Just because the ideas are presented wrapped in jargon does not mean nothing is being said. Do some work. Grab a dictionary and attempt to understand! Don't expect every thinker to hold your hand.
I didn´t understand a word. Why do these folks not try to speak in a way that a normal human being can understand? But at least he is very intellectual ...
He's presenting a paper at an academic seminar. It wasn't written for a popular audience, not that DBH is known for changing his work to make it more easily digestible.
To claim that postmodern theologians reduce all cultures to late modern narratives is to presuppose (as he admits he does) postmodernism’s inauthenticity; to assert, without evidence, that’s it is merely late-stage modernism. His rhetorically clever insertion of the word “western” before “narratives” ( to frame postmodernism for the crimes of the modernism he mistakes it for) strikes me as an obfuscation that calls attention to what his analysis leaves out: postmodernists’ incessant (cultural chauvinists would even say excessive) de-westernizing of the west’s philosophical/theological tradition/s. One reason for the relative scarcity of “eastern” postmodernists might be that eastern philosophy has for centuries included and emphasized those insights that it took the epistemological super-suspicion of post-structuralism to bring to the west in an authentic way (i.e. not merely as intellectual exotica to be admired from afar). In retrospect, that’s what has made the overall postmodern/poststructural project, in all its multidimensionality, world-historically relevant. It did, in fact, bring about a long-overdue epistemological and phenomenological updating of western thought. Derrida, for instance, did not decry the fact that Logos (transcendent truth) has pride of place in Western thought, his aversion to logocentrism is misread monumentally whenever it’s assumed that he’d prefer some other thing (i.e. as opposed to Logos) become central. His criticism of logocentrism is a criticism of the centrism, not the Logos; an interrogation of the tendency to reflexively give a privileged position to presence, as opposed to absence, even though each necessarily presupposes and relies upon the other, is an irrational tendency in western thinking that Daoism, for instance, doesn’t share. There’s clearly a conception of Logos in Daoism-The Dao-but it’s not thought of as ”centric” in the same sense: the margins and circumferences are not so reflexively ignored.
He quotes Deleuze who himself was a postmodern thinker...he was somebody who did not believe in the end of metaphysics...in a way by using Deleuze to criticize postmodern theology dbh has somehow done postmodern theology...
Fun stuff. At times challenging to follow because of his choice of terms. I don't study philosophy and am unfamiliar with most of the philosophers whose names he uses as adjectives to describe various philosphical points of view. As a rule of thumb, I always say be cautious of any presentation which uses an excess of jargon. I don't meam to cast doubt om this fellow, but if a speaker can't use simple language to make profound points it may be that the points s/he is making are not actually profound at all and the complex language is employed to bolster the impression of depth. Just sayin'😊
Point taken Paco Arias. Although I have immense respect for David's erudition and intellect , I believe his very plausible metaphysical perspectives would be more influential if he would avoid obscurity of expression. The very subject matter itself is often obscure, so I would suppose that it's explication is rendered even more difficult by superfluously subtle content. Having said that about DBH though, I still reckon he's one of the very best contemporary theologians.
I used to think that, too, but I came to see that most of these terms stand for very specific ideas that would otherwise take a paragraph to describe. I now think learning theological and philosophical vocabulary is necessary, not that I'm anywhere near there yet.
@@vmorrone477 Taylor was my Religion 101 professor long ago. I recently found my class notes and discovered that I now vehemently disagree with almost everything I wrote down...
Ironically, if you read some of the postmodern theologians, they point you directly to the premodern theologians. The last chapter of God Without Being by Jean-Luc Marion is a reading of Thomas Aquinas, talking about why he’s still particularly relevant.
This would have been better if he had spoken from his learning and feelings instead of reading it all from his paper. I feel that he would be a good speaker, but this is rather dull.
Postmodernism is ultimately rooted in Godlessness, so you know what Postmodern Theology would be at root. The Godlessness is why all Postmodernism is incohent--or more clearly, it's why Postmodernism exists, because Atheism causes the incoherence that finds its end in things like Postmodernism.
It never cease to amaze me that people get paid for this. Overpriced words to puff up an opinion which ultimately enriches nobody's life except for perhaps publishers and others in its industry. I hold a PhD in Religion myself. What do I think about postmodern theology? In truth I do not think about it at all. It, like many philosophical concepts, serve no real purpose and add no tangible value to humanity. They do not reduce human suffering in the slightest. In some ways they do just the opposite like when a student has to shell out for another expensive book and the brain bruising that results from reading it!
This man's scholarship and erudition have enriched my life tremendously, and I know I am not alone. His work revealed to me the intellectual richness of Christian theology. It was a major influence on my becoming a Christian.
DB Hart needs to warm up a little bit. Has the feeling and presence of an atheist scholar, he just needs to throw some emotion in and not have it so monotone. Insanely good content though
Well, he’s not exactly giving an Oscar acceptance speech on broadcast television. He’s lecturing on post-modern theology at, I think, a university. So, concern of the opprobrium from some imagined general populace is not his foremost concern.
I really feel for anyone who might have tried to engage in interfaith dialogue with this guy. Someone should take him aside and give home a tutorial on the use of plain English. #painful #self-important
My OpenMind I think he’s being ironic in mimicking postmodern language. There’s a webpage that will generate a PoMo essay in similar style: www.elsewhere.org/pomo/
How ironic....
was just having almost this very conversation with the waitress at Hooters last nite.
Me too!
Love this: "the absurdity of the postmodern approach is that under the pretense of a tender regard for difference, it in fact converts every particularity into an instance of the same meaninglessness. This is not hospitality to the Other, it is conquest, if of an especially dissembling kind."
My very first philosophy professor would make this argument in a simplified way in the first lecture of every course he taught. He pointed out that to call Islam an expression of "culture" rather than a truth claim, it to infaltalize those who take those beliefs seriously and impose western liberal multiculturalism on those who do not share it.
David Bentley Hart: "Before I say anything else, shame makes me want say, those of you who can see the garish collision of colors that constitutes my attire this morning, take this as a sobering admonitiion against dressing in the dark." 😀
I had the honor of taking a class by DBH. He's actually extremely hilarious!
Pilato Theologian Yeah well I like his books, but he is NOT a good speaker. If he was a little better just off the cuff he would come off as very good. Nobody just wants to listen to lectures.
@@ericday4505 you don't, you don't want to listen to lectures. Stop projecting your own inability onto the world.
@@emmashalliker6862 This guy is a great writer, I love most of his books, but it is painful listening to his videos, and reading most of the other comments lots of other folks feel the same way, so Emma to insult me or try to insult me because, you like these boring videos is your deal, you seem to be in the minority here, so go get a life, Emma.
@@ericday4505 Any academically inclined person would want to listen to DBH's lectures.
@@ben-dr3wf I don't. I only made it 2 minutes into this and had enough. Not a great lecturer.
He manages to put into words the violence of 'tolerance' in the name of postmodern nihilism. DBH is a great thinker, even if he does have a penchant for idiosyncratic expression.
Errr. What he said. 😁
I especially like the expression "post modern theology is what I would equate with the concept of post atmospheric air" or words to that effect.
A sledge hammer to crack a walnut… Hart (as almost always) is magnificent in a sort of world-weary, jaundiced way.
David has actually expressed regret that this has been posted on youtube out of the context of the entire session because it can give a stilted view of the dynamics of what he presented, within the context of the larger session. When viewed in relation to the other papers given and the responses, it looks a bit different than pulling it out of context. I would, humbly, that you re-post it with the rest of the session. In saying this I don't mean to be harsh, like much of the "8 year old fightying in the sandbox posts" on youtube. I mean it sincerely and I really, really appreciate your youtube channel! You have posted some of the most helpful videos I have ever seen on youtube. So thank you for your work!
Hello. Is there a video of the full session anywhere? Thanks.
"A transcendental surveillance of all differences under a rule of absolutely indifferent difference can provide only a very particular set of rules of engagement. Dialogue proceeds only when all parties will consent in advance to a surrender of all claim to ultimate truth. Having thus been reduced to tribal artifacts of cultures now surpassed by modern reason and postmodern suspicion alike (which are supposedly innocent of metaphysical ambitions), everyone can get along. This is not very promising (or interesting). Yes, traditions can talk to one another more fruitfully, honestly, and interestingly if they're willing to grant that approach to the truth is incalculable in its variety; but still, they're not going to achieve much if they start from the assumption that the truth as such has nothing to do with what they believe in its essence. In fact, to believe that transcendent truth, as expressed in the finite, possesses an incalculable number of aspects and inflections and forms is to believe also that there's such a thing as transcendent truth -- which, by its very absolution from the conditions of the finite, allows for innumerable mediating forms of participation in its inexhaustible fullness; and it's to believe that the measure of that participation is one of analogical likeness, indifference, and difference in likeness between distinct traditions whose terminus ad quem is one and the same transcendent horizon. To my mind, what we've come to think of as postmodern theology doesn't give us a way of actual understanding across cultures; rather, it offers a way of reducing all cultures to a late modern Western narrative of the immanent rationality of no transcendent truth. There could scarcely be greater impediment to meaningful dialogue between religions. ... The always looming absurdity of the 'post-metaphysical' vantage is that under the pretense of a tender regard for difference it converts every particularity into just another instance of the same meaninglessness. This is not hospitality to the Other, it's conquest (if of an especially dissembling kind)."
This is pretty compelling! Thanks for the transcription, Chris! I was half way through reading along with it when I realize you were the one who posted it!
-Michael Au-Mullaney
he is being deliberately IRONIC...mimicking the grandiose discourse of so much that passes for postmodern theology...
It seeks meaning in every particularity instead of seeking to subsume every particularity to one metanarrative. The post metaphysical vantage point seeks to dissuade theology from its use of power discourses (portraying God in terms of power, in relation to power and in comparison to power) by subverting or inverting the notion of power by heeding to differance.
Exactly the same thought occurred to me the other day...
@@rohanabraham4903 A God without power is no God at all. And I have never yet encountered anyone who professed to be "subverting or inverting the notion of power by heeding to differance" who was not engaged in a power project of their own.
Prof Hart makes living amongst the bungled and the botched (including myself) bearable.
Modern * Postmodern (2:10)
"Let me start from the premise that modernity---understood, at least, as a kind of ideological project, as much as a cultural history---is a particular discourse regarding the historical fatedness of a certain understanding of civil identity, and personal freedom; the story of liberation, the ascent of the individual out of the shadows of hierarchy, and subsidiary identity, into the light of full recognition, dignity, and autonomy. And it’s a powerful narrative, whether we prefer it in its Kantian, or Hegelian, or romantic, or some other acceptation---or just in the tempered form of a late-democratic realism.
Presumably, though, any truly postmodern philosophy is one that, having fully absorbed this great narrative, is nevertheless willing to undertake both a critical appropriation, and appropriate critique of it---one that is capable of assuming an ironic distance from any naïve acceptance of that narrative, and so situating it in a larger historical and critical context."
Talking about theology without metaphysics is like talking without heat without the sun he is absolutely right, I'm guessing that is also due to a degraded form of theology starting with scholastic manual theology, for the most part. What he calls "interfaith dialogue" is probably the only use of that usually insidious term that I can agree with. If we are going to talk with those of other faiths we shouldn't give up our fundamental beliefs and doctrines, though its not really something I'm very keen on.
Your understanding of metaphysics needs clarification. Postmodern theology is actually theology proper and seeks to appropriate God but through a radically different means as was done before.
You need not apologize for your colours. There are few men who wear a bow tie so well as yourself
David Bentley Hart is a better writer than he is a talker!
I think he even realizes that. I assume that is why he read his own response.
The problem is this writing is meant to be read, not heard. It is bad for lecturing.
He is a brilliant theologian, but I wish he would use easier language at times, although he is giving an academic lecture, the skill in presenting any information, is breaking it down to its simplist language. I know theology has tonnes of technical language , but I think using such complex language can make you lose the structure and flow of an argument. To my defence that is partly because I'm severely dyslexic, but I have seen theologians use technical language In a simple sentence structures. His arguments are a bit like poetry , but it can just he alot to break down.
That said what an intelligent guy, and anyone who can do a 100 page book on suffering which is very good, is a good theologian
You learn the language simply by more exposure to it. DBH is worth struggling through!
@@worldnotworld I've read a few of his books , and some of the terms he uses are obscure. I have picked up some words , but sometimes I think his technical language is pomp and slows down an argument by using 15th century language. (Not theolgical terms just complex English language)
Still enjoy his books just find them hard to read,
@@olibob203 To me there is a stark contrast between written language and spoken language in this regard. There is a scholarly sense in which his written arguments can justify using difficult language, but I think it also stands to reason that we process information in a different way while reading than we do while listening. We tend to listen and comprehend at much slower rates than those we achieve while reading. It is perfectly reasonable to write one way, and then by taking these facts into consideration, to speak a different way. Particularly egregious (in my opinion) is to read the more difficult written form of your work *as* your talk. Number one, he wrote the material. He had time in which to do this, that is, to craft it and construct sentences on his lonesome. His listeners don't have the time to process these sentences in the same way he was able to while writing them. Further, all he has to do is simply read aloud what he has written. He already knows the material. His listeners do not have that benefit and instead have to try to mentally process something he isn't cogitating to produce, but is simply reading mechanically. Contrast this with someone who was forced to improvise his speech.
You can guarantee that he wouldn't speak nearly this quickly or produce sentences nearly this complex if he were actually *talking*. But he is reading. I think it would be better if he either adapted his writing for the live presentation, or perhaps just spoke conversationally while being guided by his notes (rather than just reading them). I have a pretty high verbal IQ, and I can say without any shame that he is simply - at points - cramming far too many words together to process everything coherently. You can gather the gist of sentence groups in this talk. Some points are perfectly clear, especially those where he pauses somewhat before finishing his point. But there are sequences in this talk that I would wager almost nobody could completely follow, not for the least reason that he piles on post-post-post labels and -isms like a word salad. It's not that any of these points are incapable of being expressed more simply (for the sake of live conversation); almost all of them could be.
I agree with your assessment that at least part of the reason for doing things this way is attributable to pomp. There are merits to some criticisms from analytic philosophers that some of these sentences just cannot be parsed. The post-modern tradition in continental philosophy, in general, had a bad tendency for the invention of words and the use of cumbersome sentence structures for the sake of sounding technical, which could really have been expressed much more clearly. *"....presents us with an encomium of lateralizing consolations that in the post-post-metaphysical twilight of violence against the diffuse subject of spatialized mathesis structures, engenders a kind of broad meaning skepticism."* But we also live in a surprising culture today, where it seems that - almost overnight - everyone you know became an under-appreciated intellectual, so for as much pomp as exists in this sphere of the academy, there is an even greater amount of posturing and rhetoric in the lay community surrounding people who will like to say, "I listened to this speech at 2x speed and still thought it was too slow. Sorry about your IQ, pal."
One could say if you can't explain something simply then you don't have very good understanding of it?
He doesn't understand Differance...because he speaks of it as a final destination which it was never claimed to be...
Hi Rohan, do you have a training in philosophy? Would like to know your thought on DBH's diagnosis of postmodernism and postmodern theology.
Any thoughts on Sri Aurobindo, David?
Does he EVER give a lecture without complaining of fatigue? Maybe he needs to see a doctor.
He suffers from a number of chronic health conditions in fact.
Per Vaska's observation, note the health reports DBH offers in *Roland*.
Yes! I love this.
Excellent !
I hear he’s a real blast at parties.
Can anyone suggest a relatively accessible, not overly biased book on the topic of postmodern theology ?
Which talk is this from?
Thomas Cothran, it's taken from this panel discussion:
th-cam.com/video/0rlbxKKHJok/w-d-xo.html
As soon as I started reading DBH, my vocabulary was pushed into a corner and made fun of. Not sure how I feel about it yet.
I constantly read scholarly articles on philosophy, theology, and metaphysics, and he has literally surpassed every author in his use of seemingly (and I do say seemingly) flippant use of incredibly precise and univocal words. The man knows more words than there are stars in the heavens.
Joel Falla Yes he knows a lot of words, and he never lets anyone forget that he knows lots of words and he sometimes loses people with that.
Yes, for me,, he's difficult to follow. I follow Dr Jordan Peterson who is a walking stream of consciousness. I really want to hear what this man has to say. I wish he would speak to audience and not carry on a monologue with himself. He has so much to share!
I consider him as one of my favourite philosophers, and I am not a native English speaker. This has caused Wordnik and Merriam-Webster becoming my most used websites.
As someone who really does value decollonnial thought, I don't think DBH actually possesses the compassion and openness required to appreciate the philosophy and theology of this thought that he is bashing.
This is meant to be a satire of post-modern hyperinflated verbiage, right? It's hard to tell because an outsider might wonder if post-modern theology is just such a satire of the theology that preceded it. I'd like to see some quality software evaluate and rank distinct disciplines with a ratio of necessary to unjustifiable gatekeeping linguistic complexity. Anyway, I think...I agree with this gentleman. But who the hell could really say? 🤔
Why does this sound like satire?
I have no idea of what this man is on about, can someone translate it into english?
Steve B
He's saying that postmodern philosophy is full of it.
"long-winded" became almost "pompous" in the talk he gave in the conference on "Trinitarian Ontologies"; sometimes Hart can become quite tiresome in his parodies and oversimplifications of other thinkers' positions. in that conference, a thinly veiled but hardly substantiated attack on O'Regan (and by extension, Balthasar).
@@anahata3478 Balthasar makes no such claim ("gospel teaches two different eschatologies"); that's a misrepresentation of what he says (that there are two sets of texts in the scriptural record). so, yes, Hart, if that is what he thinks Balthasar is doing, has grossly misrepresented Balthasar on this issue. this has no bearing on whether Hart admires Balthasar or not (he clearly does; after all his book "The Beauty of the Infinite" is, as Hart himself says so, a kind of elaboration of Balthasar's "theological aesthetics"). the problem with Hart is that he seems TO KNOW how all of this ends... Balthasar is the more cautious thinker; he says we have grounds for HOPING that all will end well...
@@anthonydecastro6938 I've read "dare we hope" now a couple of times. Balthasars "hope" is so cautious that it isn't worth the time. Hart is correct when he says that we have no excuse to believe that God can't bring about the most perfect end. Especially since God created the world with full knowledge of everything that happens. If the outcome wouldn't be the complete disappearence of suffering and sin, he would hardly be a loving God.
@@anahata3478 hope cautious? whatever gave you that wild idea? hope is hope, it hopes for all. Hart believes that there will be a "perfect end." BELIEVES. certainly HE DOES NOT KNOW.
This is a great example of SlamPoetry. Hart is at least as good as Vladimir Nabokov in "Strong Opinions".
I would recommend reading his book "the beauty of the infinite" in this context. I think people get the wrong impression from this. In isolation, this seems more like peterson-esque rambling instead of actual engagement with the topic.
Who is he communication to? All his references necessitates a historical philosophical education to weave an understanding of his views. So limited in effectiveness to the greater pool of humanity. So, is there a translator for the rest of us? Just my “simple man” critique.?
Those who call this gibberish are only revealing to us that they are unwilling or incapable of thinking on their own. Just because the ideas are presented wrapped in jargon does not mean nothing is being said. Do some work. Grab a dictionary and attempt to understand! Don't expect every thinker to hold your hand.
Eggs is eggs ~ Francis Bacon
I didn´t understand a word. Why do these folks not try to speak in a way that a normal human being can understand? But at least he is very intellectual ...
He's presenting a paper at an academic seminar. It wasn't written for a popular audience, not that DBH is known for changing his work to make it more easily digestible.
While dazzling, I think he missed an opportunity to reach a broader audience by not using the post-modern vernacular.
To claim that postmodern theologians reduce all cultures to late modern narratives is to presuppose (as he admits he does) postmodernism’s inauthenticity; to assert, without evidence, that’s it is merely late-stage modernism. His rhetorically clever insertion of the word “western” before “narratives” ( to frame postmodernism for the crimes of the modernism he mistakes it for) strikes me as an obfuscation that calls attention to what his analysis leaves out: postmodernists’ incessant (cultural chauvinists would even say excessive) de-westernizing of the west’s philosophical/theological tradition/s. One reason for the relative scarcity of “eastern” postmodernists might be that eastern philosophy has for centuries included and emphasized those insights that it took the epistemological super-suspicion of post-structuralism to bring to the west in an authentic way (i.e. not merely as intellectual exotica to be admired from afar). In retrospect, that’s what has made the overall postmodern/poststructural project, in all its multidimensionality, world-historically relevant. It did, in fact, bring about a long-overdue epistemological and phenomenological updating of western thought. Derrida, for instance, did not decry the fact that Logos (transcendent truth) has pride of place in Western thought, his aversion to logocentrism is misread monumentally whenever it’s assumed that he’d prefer some other thing (i.e. as opposed to Logos) become central. His criticism of logocentrism is a criticism of the centrism, not the Logos; an interrogation of the tendency to reflexively give a privileged position to presence, as opposed to absence, even though each necessarily presupposes and relies upon the other, is an irrational tendency in western thinking that Daoism, for instance, doesn’t share. There’s clearly a conception of Logos in Daoism-The Dao-but it’s not thought of as ”centric” in the same sense: the margins and circumferences are not so reflexively ignored.
He quotes Deleuze who himself was a postmodern thinker...he was somebody who did not believe in the end of metaphysics...in a way by using Deleuze to criticize postmodern theology dbh has somehow done postmodern theology...
what in the world is he saying? I keep trying to follow along but can't :(
Wake me up when this guy is done. Thanks!
Get up
you missed thinking, then.
That’s some serious bs...
Not sure he's fair to Derrida here.
This was complicated
This guy just likes to hear himself talk while acting like it’s no big deal. The pompousness is oozing off of him.
Fun stuff. At times challenging to follow because of his choice of terms. I don't study philosophy and am unfamiliar with most of the philosophers whose names he uses as adjectives to describe various philosphical points of view. As a rule of thumb, I always say be cautious of any presentation which uses an excess of jargon. I don't meam to cast doubt om this fellow, but if a speaker can't use simple language to make profound points it may be that the points s/he is making are not actually profound at all and the complex language is employed to bolster the impression of depth. Just sayin'😊
Point taken Paco Arias. Although I have immense respect for David's erudition and intellect , I believe his very plausible metaphysical perspectives would be more influential if he would avoid obscurity of expression. The very subject matter itself is often obscure, so I would suppose that it's explication is rendered even more difficult by superfluously subtle content. Having said that about DBH though, I still reckon he's one of the very best contemporary theologians.
I used to think that, too, but I came to see that most of these terms stand for very specific ideas that would otherwise take a paragraph to describe. I now think learning theological and philosophical vocabulary is necessary, not that I'm anywhere near there yet.
I can't take him seriously. I am unconvinced that he cares about that which he speaks. I will continue to find wisdom in Jack Caputo.
Agreed. Mark C Taylor, for me
I cant take postmodern theology seriously. I will continue to find wisdom in St. Aquinas and the church fathers.
Well I am glad someone does.
@@vmorrone477 Taylor was my Religion 101 professor long ago. I recently found my class notes and discovered that I now vehemently disagree with almost everything I wrote down...
Ironically, if you read some of the postmodern theologians, they point you directly to the premodern theologians. The last chapter of God Without Being by Jean-Luc Marion is a reading of Thomas Aquinas, talking about why he’s still particularly relevant.
He also left Jean Luc Marion out...one of the most prominent voices in postmodern thinking and theology
Gibberish is a great weapon against gibberish.
This would have been better if he had spoken from his learning and feelings instead of reading it all from his paper. I feel that he would be a good speaker, but this is rather dull.
I mean, it's not a poetry reading. It's a friggin academic conference.
Postmodernism is ultimately rooted in Godlessness, so you know what Postmodern Theology would be at root.
The Godlessness is why all Postmodernism is incohent--or more clearly, it's why Postmodernism exists, because Atheism causes the incoherence that finds its end in things like Postmodernism.
It never cease to amaze me that people get paid for this. Overpriced words to puff up an opinion which ultimately enriches nobody's life except for perhaps publishers and others in its industry.
I hold a PhD in Religion myself. What do I think about postmodern theology? In truth I do not think about it at all. It, like many philosophical concepts, serve no real purpose and add no tangible value to humanity. They do not reduce human suffering in the slightest. In some ways they do just the opposite like when a student has to shell out for another expensive book and the brain bruising that results from reading it!
This man's scholarship and erudition have enriched my life tremendously, and I know I am not alone. His work revealed to me the intellectual richness of Christian theology. It was a major influence on my becoming a Christian.
DB Hart needs to warm up a little bit. Has the feeling and presence of an atheist scholar, he just needs to throw some emotion in and not have it so monotone. Insanely good content though
How to turn ordinary folk off Christianity in one lecture #Part 1
He did say that he was going to be long winded and peevishly complain for twenty minutes.
DBH is the main reason I'm now a Christian.
@@worldnotworld me too!
This guy is talking to less than 1 percent of the population
Thank God there's someone who can and does.
@Vaska exactly !
Phil of Religion (SJC) ikr I can't tell what he was getting at
Well, he’s not exactly giving an Oscar acceptance speech on broadcast television. He’s lecturing on post-modern theology at, I think, a university. So, concern of the opprobrium from some imagined general populace is not his foremost concern.
Did he claim that he was addressing everyone in the population?
What in God's name is he talking about?
This is an advertisement for not reading directly from notes. If you can't say it in conversation, you can't say it.
Can we not receive what gifts he brings and not whine about the package?
I really feel for anyone who might have tried to engage in interfaith dialogue with this guy.
Someone should take him aside and give home a tutorial on the use of plain English.
#painful #self-important
My OpenMind I think he’s being ironic in mimicking postmodern language. There’s a webpage that will generate a PoMo essay in similar style: www.elsewhere.org/pomo/