don furnaloni

A few days ago, Archbishop Rowan Williams accepted the literary Campion award. You can read about it here. Make sure to listen to his acceptance speech here.

Also, there is an unfavourable article in The Times about his recent call to repentance for Wall Street.

Great Mystics Address the Contemporary World

Saturday, 6 March 2010

Symposium Venue:
Lecture Theatre 2, School of Humanities, 11 Woodland Road, Bristol BS8 1TB

10.00 -10.30 Coffee & Registration

10.30 – 11.30

Keynote Speaker:
Prof. Emeritus Bernard McGinn (University of Chicago):
Great Mystics address the contemporary world

11.30 – 12.15 Prof. Oliver Davies (King’s College, London): ‘Negative Theology’ and the Excess of History

LUNCH (12.15-13.55)

14.00 -1 4.45 Dr Joseph Milne (University of Kent, Canterbury): Mystical Aspects of Christian Cosmology

14.45 – 15.30 Dr. Edward Howells (Heythrop College, London): ‘“O Guiding Night!”: Darkness as the Way to God in John of the Cross’ Mysticism’

TEA/COFFEE (15.30 – 16.00)

16.00 – 16.45 Prof. Tina Beattie (Roehampton): BLOODY WOMEN – Luce and Catherine answer back, but who has the last word?

16.45 – 17.30 Dom Aidan Bellenger (Abbot of Downside): ‘Benedictine Opening up and the Mystical Tradition.’

17.40 – 18.15 Roundtable discussion , including ‘question and answer’ session

The event is followed by dinner – please see registration form for details.

Cost (including lunch and coffee): £25 (when registering before 1 February 2010).
Reduced student rates are available.

To download the registration form, please visit www.bris.ac.uk/arts/birtha/greatmystics

Email: bppa.2010@durham.ac.uk
Web: www.dur.ac.uk/bppa.2010
Date: 16-18 July 2010
Venue: St. John’s College, University of Durham.

About the conference
The British Postgraduate Philosophy Conference, now in its twelfth successful year, is the largest and most prestigious postgraduate philosophy conference in the United Kingdom and regularly attracts delegates from across the world.

We invite papers from postgraduate researchers across all philosophical disciplines and traditions, including but not limited to ethics and moral philosophy, aesthetics, philosophy of science and medicine, metaphysics, epistemology, environmental philosophy, philosophical logic, philosophy of language and linguistics, ancient philosophy, philosophy of mind and psychiatry, and the history of philosophy.

Pursuant to the BPPAs remit, we welcome all submissions in either the Western or Continental traditions which reflect the philosophical standards of rigour and clarity. We can provide bursarial support for speakers whose papers pertain to aesthetics, ethical theory, the history of philosophy, and the philosophy of science, thanks to the kind support of the British Societies for Aesthetics, Ethical Theory, History of Philosophy, and Philosophy of Science.

Submissions and deadlines
Papers of no more than 3000 words should be emailed to bppa.2010@durham.ac.uk by 15 May 2010. All submissions will be peer-reviewed and should be suitable for blind review.

Proceedings will be published. We expect to have sixteen postgraduate speakers, and two keynote addresses, by Professor Wayne Martin (University of Essex) and Professor Jonathan Lowe (Durham University), as well as two professional development workshops, hosted by the Philosophy and Religious Studies Subject Centre of the University of Leeds.

Sponsors
We are grateful for the generous support of the following organisations and departments: the Department of Philosophy (Durham University), British Society for Aesthetics (BSA), British Society for Ethical Theory (BSET), British Society for the History of Philosophy (BSHP), British Society for Philosophy of Science (BSPS), Cambridge University Press, the Analysis Trust, the Mind Association, and the Philosophy and Religious Studies Subject Centre (University of Leeds).

Organising committee
Ian James Kidd (conference chair)
Alex Carruth
Arlette Frederik
Claire Graham
Duncan Proctor

Messages to the list are archived at http://listserv.liv.ac.uk/archives/philos-l.html. Prolonged discussions should be moved to chora: enrol via http://listserv.liv.ac.uk/archives/chora.html. Other philosophical resources on the Web can be found at http://www.liv.ac.uk/pal.

Theology and Ethics Seminars

Department of Theology and Religion, University of Durham

Epiphany Term 2010

Seminars are on Wednesdays 11.30am-1pm, in Seminar Room B, Department of Theology and Religion, Abbey House, Palace Green (unless otherwise stated).

27th January ‘St Paul and Ecumenism: Justification and All That’.

Professor Paul Murray (University of Durham)

10th February ‘Aemilia Lanyer’s Brides of Christ: Rhetorical Strategy, Christian Formation and Sexual Politics’.

Dr Hilary Elder (University of Durham)

24th February ‘In the Society of God: some principles of ecclesiology’

Professor John Webster (University of Aberdeen)

10th March* ‘Creation’s Ends: Teleology, Ethics and the Natural’

Dr Simon Oliver (University of Nottingham)

*To be held in the Dun Cow Cottage Seminar Room.

For further information, please contact Dr Chris Insole (christopher.insole@durham.ac.uk).

If you have the chance, you should go to see The Sacred Made Real exhibition at the National Gallery in London, it is getting loads of praise.

Also, Catholic Studies Professor Tina Beattie just gave a lecture recently at the National Gallery entitled ‘Conceiving Mary: gender theology, and sanctity in Marian art’. She has posted it for you to read on her website.

I’m very pleased to know that Patty Griffin is at it again. This time she’s recorded a gospel album in her home church in Nashville. The new album, Downtown Church, can be heard on NPR until its release on Jan. 26th.

Take it easy today, and let Patty sing to you.

Click here to start your listening pleasure.

Recently in the English speaking world, the writings of the Italian philosopher Giorgio Agamben are starting to become more popular. While Agamben’s works are many and noteworthy, I’d like to draw your attention to a younger Italian philosopher who is not yet as popular as Agamben, but is certainly worth engaging.

Moreno Montanari is called a philosophical counsellor of sorts. He is a philosopher who argues that if philosophy has no bearing on everyday life, then it is dead. He has written several books and his latest one is reviewed in today’s edition of la Repubblica. I’ve scribbled out a rough translation that will hopefully give you a sense of Montanari’s work.

His latest book is called, Hadot e Foucault nello specchio dei greci (Mimesis, 17 euro)

See also Il Tao di Nietzsche (Mimesis, 16 euro) and my personal favourite, La filosofia come cura: percorsi di autenticità (Unicopli, 12 euro)

Philosophy Practised
By Dario Olivero

Perhaps it’s not like they told us. Perhaps we’re wrong and we’ve lost sight of the way home. We’ve taken too lightly the definition that Aristotle talked about: “All the sciences are more useful than philosophy, but none is superior.” Perhaps superior meant infinitely more useful rather than necessary, the point at which all the other sciences would not have reason to exist without it. For years, Moreno Montanari tormented himself with this definition which changed his life, this usually happens to those who dare to come into contact with philosophy. And for years he has sought to bring it home.

Imagine that theoretical philosophy, the kind that you learn from your teachers might altogether be another thing. From the water like the first principle of Thales to the obscure fragments of Heraclitus, to the mathematical mysteries of Pythagoras to the refined Platonic metaphysics and Plotinian mysticism, everything that we have learned may not be merely a logical and critical exercise. Instead, it might be more like a manual of spiritual exercises, a handbook to educate mankind to live better, in order to find happiness in himself, to face his journey on this earth with wisdom. Spiritual exercises are a very practical existential training, a re-education that departs from logic, reason, which animates every fibre of the human being. On the other hand, didn’t Seneca face his destiny thanks to Epicurean philosophy? And didn’t Marcus Aurelius anesthetize himself from power thanks to the Stoic doctrine? And what should be said of how Socrates faced his own murder? The logos was the instrument and care, the logos became flesh and the man faced his life in the only way worthy of a philosopher. Which then doesn’t mean anything other than to find one’s own place in a world which many times is simply absurd.

The two theoretical principles of healthy revisionism for the functions of philosophy are Pierre Hadot and Michel Foucault, as Montanari’s book explains. They are extremely different, but they are equally tormented by the search for an answer which does not take shortcuts. Both of them came from almost opposite ends to the same conclusion: philosophy without its practical value is dead. And it has started to die when religious truth or certain scientific facts have transformed it into a mere logical instrument, category, set of rules. Heidegger called it the age of technology, the medieval scholastics called it ancilla teologiae, it’s called analytic philosophy in today’s overspecialized academic world. Now many are trying to bring philosophy home and give it back its own dignity once again. They call themselves philosophical counsellors; they believe that we can take care of ourselves by rediscovering the philosophy that is already there in every one of us. It is an enormous task. It is opposed and the effort is perhaps less useful. But, it is nonetheless superior. Montanari is one of them.

There’s something about the tv show Mad Men that has me hooked. I didn’t know exactly why I liked it so much, until today. At first, I thought it was because of the excellent writing. Then, I thought it was because of Joan. Well, it might be because of Joan.

But if I had to choose a more dispassionate reason why I like it so much, I’d have to say it’s because as a show is able to show the machinations that go into shaping our desire. Albeit, it is a period piece from the 60’s, the truth of the show still hits home: madison avenue has brought an end to theology. That is, for theologians faith used to seek understanding God, now madison avenue seeks to direct our faith in the placed product. By “end” my statement could be read as ‘termination’, that mad men have usurped the role that the Church once upheld. Or, it could be read as a “goal” that the Church forever chases after the latest insight that marketing executives churn out. If one follows any of the trends in Evangelicalism, or ‘get fed’ from a Christian bookstore, then you might be tempted to agree.

Still doubtful? Take ten minutes out of your day and watch this:

So why do we need theology if madison avenue can deliver the goods? You tell me…

[H/T: MJPTan]

“Open with that scene in the hospital, those good and righteous folk praying at the bedside of their minister. The humility of those people, their faith glowing like light around them, put me in such longing … to share their trustfulness. But then I asked myself: Must faith be blind? Why must it come out of people’s need to believe?

We are all of us so pitiful in our desire to be unburdened, we will embrace Christianity or any other claim of God’s authority for that matter. Look around. God’s authority reduces us all, wherever we are in the world, whatever our tradition, to beggarly submission.

So where is the truth to be found? Ecumenism is politically correct, but what is the case? If faith is valid in all its forms, are we merely making an aesthetic choice when we choose Jesus? And if you say, No, of course not, then we must ask, Who are the elect blessedly walking the true path to salvation … and who are the misguided others? Can we tell? Do we know? We think we know–of course we think we know. But how do we distinguish our truth from another’s falsity, we of the true faith, except by the story we cherish? Our story of God. But, my friends, I ask you: Is God a Story? Can we, each of us examining our faith–I mean its pure center, not its consolations, not its habits, not its ritual sacraments–can we believe anymore in the heart of our faith that God is our story of Him? To presume to contain God in this Christian story of ours, to hold Him, circumscribe Him, the author of everything we can conceive and everything we cannot conceive … in our story of Him? Of Her? OF WHOM? What in the name of Christ do we think we are talking about!”

- taken from E.L. Doctorow’s novel City of God p. 14

One of the books I’ve been reading on the kindle has been On Religion by John D. Caputo. This has been a fun book to read because of the writing style of Caputo verges on pompous sarcasm, but still manages to remain its humour. I’m only to the third chapter of this short book, but Caputo seems to be someone that would be great to have a conversation with over dinner. His pronouncements are crisp and are sometimes too clear. But this has been fun to read nonetheless.

One quote that intrigued me was where he talks about “the unnerving, angry, and resentful” group also known as “Radical Orthodoxy”. Caputo gives his take on them: “Radical Orthodoxy is a good deal more orthodox than radical, has managed to convince itself that God came into the world in order to side with Christian Neoplatonism against post-structrualism, and appears utterly dumbfounded by the fact that medieval metaphysics has lost its grip on contemporary thinkers” (61).

So far, in this short book, Caputo hasn’t really talked about the hard to define category of religion. Instead he’s gone on about ‘the impossible’ and clever quips about how the Enlightenment needs to become more enlightened. While I’m not thoroughly impressed by Caputo, his journalistic style does make him fun to read.

Caputo shines the brightest when he discusses the Augustinian question, “What do I love when I love my God?”:

“What does it mean to “love” something? If a man asks a woman…”do you love me?” and if, after a long and awkward pause and considerable deliberation, she replies with wrinkled brow, “well, up to a certain point, under certain conditions, and to a certain extent,” then we can be sure that whatever it is she feels for this poor fellow it is not love and this relationship is not going to work out. For if love is the measure, the only measure of love is love without measure (Augustine again). One of the ideas behind “love” is that it represents a giving without holding back, an “unconditional”commitment, which marks love with a certain excess…If a woman divorces a man because he turned out to be a failure in his profession and just did not measure up to the salary expectations she had for him when they married, if she complains that he did not live up to his end of the “bargain,” well, that is not the sort of till-death-us-do-part, unconditional commitment that is built into marital love and the marital vow. Love is not a bargain, but unconditional giving; it is not an investment, but a commitment come what may. Lovers are people who exceed their duty, who look around for ways to do more than is required of them. If you love your job, you don’t just do the minimum that is required of you; you do more. If you love your children, what would you not do for them? If a wife asks a husband to do her a favor, and he declines on the grounds that he is really not duty bound by the strict terms of the marriage contract to do it, that marriage is all over except for the paper work. Rather than rigorously defending their rights, lovers readily put themselves in the wrong and take the blame for the sake of preserving their love…A world without love is a world governed by rigid contracts and inexorable duties, a world in which – God forbid! – the lawyers run everything. The mark of really loving someone or something is unconditionality and excess, engagement and commitment, fire and passion. Its opposite is a mediocre fellow, neither hot nor cold, moderate to the point of mediocrity. Not worth saving. No salt” (pp. 4-5).